Thank You to our National Leaders who are doing some great work, in respect to caring for our aircrews flying in the summer heat. :clap: :clap: :clap:
If things go well at the National Board, we may be authorized to wear a New Summer Flight Uniform.
Blue golf shirt and khaki shorts. White socks and white tennis shoes.
This is great news. It was only last week that I had to accompany my copilot to the ER when he became ill while on a mission in the GA-8 with a temperature dew point of 35 / 33.
Talk to your Wing CC and Region CC and express your request for their support in approving this change at the National Board Meeting and Conference in Florida.
What???? Your C=172 doesn't have air conditioning???
I'm confused. The temperature was 35 deg. Fahrenheit, and the co-pilot got ill? ???
Must be in Celcius.
Where are all the safety/ fire Nazis?? I would think the majority of posts by now would be fire risks, and "retardedness" of this proposed uniform.
NOTE:.....I agree with this move! It is about time. I just hope they word it right, so that Wing and Region Commanders have no say in implementation. It should be crew and PIC decision ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol... you have got to be kidding me.
I thought that since you guys removed your CC you wouldn't have wild uniform changes any more
will shorts now be on the ORM mission check list?
Temperature / dew point spreads are given in Celcius. ICAO standard.
This would be excellent, but I'll believe it when I see it. Hopefully it will truly be a "summer" uniform, and not be only allowed under certain, numerous, onerous, regulated conditions. In other words, I for one, hope 60-1 doesn't increase by anymore than on simple sentence!
I hope it happens, it certainly is about time!
Quote from: BillB on July 25, 2008, 12:58:51 PM
What???? Your C=172 doesn't have air conditioning???
Doesn't matter it was a GA-8 in question
I'd vote for that!!! Just soaked a flight suit yesterday working on touch and go's. That is also similiar to what the aircrews wear at NESA.
Wonder how long the "NOMEX flight suit" purists will keep wearing flight suites if they can wear shorts!
was the person who got taken to the ER properly hydrated?
sorry to be the devils advacate but...
are there any downsides to this "uniform"?
^ nope its perfect
Civilian pilots hop into cockpits with shorts, and flipflops, and tanktops
The reality of the matter is the risk of a cockpit catching on fire, is very low and there are checklists for such a thing.
I would say there is more of a danger in having pilots sipped up in a zoom bag and becoming disoriented than there is with them wearing shorts and polo's.
Sure nomex is fire retardant but so is the firewall
Quote from: IceNine on July 25, 2008, 07:21:57 PM
^ nope its perfect
i guess i was referring mostly to mission aircrew on an actual mission. might they be in any more danger by wearing shorts vs the grey pants or flight suite that can already be worn?
why not just wear the grey pants? Do we pilots(Aircrew) just need to have a uniform that no one else can wear? [visible show of how special we are]
whats with the white socks and white tennis shews... seriously... sounds like this is something someone should be wearing to a golf course.
As long as they require velcro on the shoes I don't see any issue.
At least this way there is no trip hazard
This is so unbelievably awesome. If anyone tries to say this is a bad thing, I personally invite you to come fly with me at 1000' AGL on a 100+ F day out here in the desert Southwest with a flight suit on and see if you have the same opinion of the new uniform afterward.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on July 25, 2008, 02:29:36 PM
lol... you have got to be kidding me.
I thought that since you guys removed your CC you wouldn't have wild uniform changes any more
will shorts now be on the ORM mission check list?
Uhhhhhh...since when are shorts a "wild uniform change?" Not that this would matter since you aren't in CAP (which raises the whole question of why you waste your time on these boards), but you don't own a pair of khaki shorts?
Can we get it as a UDF uniform as well? It's just as hot, if not hotter on the ground in South Florida in summer when there's no breeze....
(NOTE: I said UDF...not Ground Team, you won't catch me in the 'glades w/o boots, long trousers and long sleeves....)
Quote from: jayburns22 on July 25, 2008, 09:01:47 PM
Not that this would matter since you aren't in CAP
Pretty sure isuhawkeye is in CAP...
Oh, great, golf shirts. As if we don't already have the perception of being a flying club.
"Summer" flying uniform means "all year long" in Florida. This isn't helpful, at least not as we try to sell the organization as a group of professionals, and as the Air Force's "uniformed" civilian auxiliary. When people think "uniformed," they don't think of something that looks like it could be found at T.J. Maxx.
Answer: Don't wear a three-piece suit under your Nomex, and you won't get hot.
Quote from: jayburns22 on July 25, 2008, 09:01:47 PM
This is so unbelievably awesome. If anyone tries to say this is a bad thing, I personally invite you to come fly with me at 1000' AGL on a 100+ F day out here in the desert Southwest with a flight suit on and see if you have the same opinion of the new uniform afterward.
I do as a flight nurse in Southern NV & western AZ. It's easier to rehydrate than burn.
(http://thumb3.webshots.net/t/50/750/5/86/1/2167586010061087363NDrBjE_th.jpg) (http://good-times.webshots.com/album/564017039BSTyhh)
http://good-times.webshots.com/slideshow/564017039BSTyhh (http://good-times.webshots.com/slideshow/564017039BSTyhh)
(http://good-times.webshots.com/slideshow/564017039BSTyhh)
We flew the survivor of the burnt out car carrier to the burn center in Vegas. He was an approximately 55 year old African American male wearing a tank top, shorts and boots. He had second degree burns and blistering to his face, upper arms, chest, lower legs to his boot tops. The areas covered by shorts boots and cloth were burn free. His legs and forearms were burnt and blistered white. Even long pants would have reduced his injuries and a teeshirt or work shirt would have reduced them further.
One would think a truck cab would be less of a risk than an airplane.
This is not on my "good idea" list, either. Most professional aircrews wear flightsuits no matter the weather, you won't see USAF or Lifeflight guys in shorts.
The fudge-factor is the worst part - its already started in this thread and the uniform isn't even approved yet.
You'll start with sharp-looking, clean, appropriate uniforms, and by the time you're done, you will have UDF guys in black socks and flip flops.
As per usual, this could be handled as a local supplement where needed. It doesn't need to be a national uniform.
Besides, this is a safety issue, because the white flesh of most of our members will be blinding in the sun. :D
Quote from: Eclipse on July 25, 2008, 10:15:43 PM
Most professional aircrews wear flightsuits no matter the weather, you won't see USAF or Lifeflight guys in shorts.
Does that statement include Airline Pilots and CFIs? I see a lot of white shirts and slacks around the local airfields.
Quote from: Short Field on July 25, 2008, 10:28:46 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 25, 2008, 10:15:43 PM
Most professional aircrews wear flightsuits no matter the weather, you won't see USAF or Lifeflight guys in shorts.
Does that statement include Airline Pilots and CFIs? I see a lot of white shirts and slacks around the local airfields.
Point taken, though I meant SAR/military/etc, crews, aircrews we would equivocate with CAP duty.
Well this is all back to the the actuaries.
No one is disputing that in a fire...long pants, shirts, gloves, face mask....etc, etc, et al...can save you from a nasty burn.
Okay....point taken.
BUT.
In a GA aircraft....what is the actual chance of this type of injury?
From a safety stand point....we have to weight the cost and negitive effects against the potential safety gain.
If we increase the comfort of our air crew.....what are the benifits vice the possible loss....remember that right now the minimum uniform you have to wear right now is a polo shirt, gray pants, and shoes.
Unless you are at NESA attending the Mission Aircrew School. CAP Approved Flight Uniform: Black NESA T-Shirt, Khaki shorts, and white tennis shoes.
;D I get to test it out next week. :clap:
Quote from: lordmonar on July 26, 2008, 12:29:21 AM
Well this is all back to the the actuaries.
No one is disputing that in a fire...long pants, shirts, gloves, face mask....etc, etc, et al...can save you from a nasty burn.
Okay....point taken.
BUT.
In a GA aircraft....what is the actual chance of this type of injury?
From a safety stand point....we have to weight the cost and negative effects against the potential safety gain.
If we increase the comfort of our air crew.....what are the benefits vice the possible loss....remember that right now the minimum uniform you have to wear right now is a polo shirt, gray pants, and shoes.
Statistically, it approaches zero, but other than a reduction of that high-pitched whining noise in front of the firewall, I don't see much point.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 25, 2008, 10:15:43 PM
Most professional aircrews wear flightsuits no matter the weather, you won't see USAF or Lifeflight guys in shorts.
And you won't see The Real AF flying without air conditioning. Even in trainers. Do you know how hot and hostile would be the inside of a T-34C without air? I'd be glad to wear a nomex flight suit in oppressive OAT with air cond.
I can understand the desire for comfort, but here we go with another flying club looking uniform.
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training. If all goes well, I'll be sweating it out in a flight suit in quite a few different environments and I'll be [darn]ed proud to do it.
Hydrate, exercise, and eat well and you shouldn't have a problem. Aside from the obvious, there are a lot of cops in this forum who will attest to standing on 100+ degree asphalt in black uniforms for long periods of time with vests, 20 lbs. worth of gear, etc., and we know how to deal with it. There are thousands of military people in a freakin desert that hump it with even more than that every single day.
I'm losing interest.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 26, 2008, 12:29:21 AM
Well this is all back to the the actuaries.
No one is disputing that in a fire...long pants, shirts, gloves, face mask....etc, etc, et al...can save you from a nasty burn.
Okay....point taken.
BUT.
In a GA aircraft....what is the actual chance of this type of injury?
From a safety stand point....we have to weight the cost and negitive effects against the potential safety gain.
If we increase the comfort of our air crew.....what are the benifits vice the possible loss....remember that right now the minimum uniform you have to wear right now is a polo shirt, gray pants, and shoes.
Looking at the NTSB crash reports with the simple search parameter
fire from 1/6/2008 to 7/19/2008 there are 125 aircraft completely or partially destroyed by fire. In those crashes there are a total of 207 fatalities. Now this doesn't mean all 207 were killed by burns but how many of them were? The autopsy reports are not available.
When a search for
burns is done it comes back to two seriously injured and two definite fatalities (one in the house that burned when struck by the aircraft) from 1/1/2008 to 7/26/2008.
Neither of these is statistically insignificant. Aircraft burn just as often if not more so than autos.
It's seems that the three things we pay for and desire to get cheated on are, education, health care, and safety.
Okay Tom.....now do the search for head injury....and why don't we mandate flight helmets?
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 04:34:37 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training. If all goes well, I'll be sweating it out in a flight suit in quite a few different environments and I'll be [darn]ed proud to do it.
Hydrate, exercise, and eat well and you shouldn't have a problem. Aside from the obvious, there are a lot of cops in this forum who will attest to standing on 100+ degree asphalt in black uniforms for long periods of time with vests, 20 lbs. worth of gear, etc., and we know how to deal with it. There are thousands of military people in a freakin desert that hump it with even more than that every single day.
I'm losing interest.
And the point is? It was already mentioned that military A/C's have AC.. So you can sweat it out if you want, but I'd just flip the AC switch on if I were you.
As for the folks in the desert. I thank them for their service, and also realize that they went through a tough, time tested training process to get to the point where they can stand to do those things.
At what point are the benefits going to outweigh the cost? It does happen that Airplanes crash but at what point do we balance cost/benefit? So we wear a nomex flight suit that may protect you from fire, but if you can't get out will you survive? How many times are their crashes that do not involve other most likely debilitating injuries?
The best chance a down pilot has it to pray that the A/C doesn't catch fire, they can reach their knife to cut themselves out of the straps, and have enough supplies to ride out the time it takes to conduct the search.
If the plane is going to burn, it will most likely explode at some point AVGas being the beast that it is.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 26, 2008, 04:47:17 AM
Okay Tom.....now do the search for head injury....and why don't we mandate flight helmets?
We wear them at work. Most likely the reason is cost. My Gentex sph 5 is well over $800.00. If I added the NVG mount and ANR to it it would be more than my monthly mortgage payment. The Peltor one advertised in this months AOPA Pilot is over $750. At that cost level CAP would be expected to provide them and we know that isn't going to happen.
Quote from: IceNine on July 26, 2008, 04:50:14 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 04:34:37 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training. If all goes well, I'll be sweating it out in a flight suit in quite a few different environments and I'll be [darn]ed proud to do it.
Hydrate, exercise, and eat well and you shouldn't have a problem. Aside from the obvious, there are a lot of cops in this forum who will attest to standing on 100+ degree asphalt in black uniforms for long periods of time with vests, 20 lbs. worth of gear, etc., and we know how to deal with it. There are thousands of military people in a freakin desert that hump it with even more than that every single day.
I'm losing interest.
And the point is? It was already mentioned that military A/C's have AC.. So you can sweat it out if you want, but I'd just flip the AC switch on if I were you.
As for the folks in the desert. I thank them for their service, and also realize that they went through a tough, time tested training process to get to the point where they can stand to do those things.
At what point are the benefits going to outweigh the cost? It does happen that Airplanes crash but at what point do we balance cost/benefit? So we wear a nomex flight suit that may protect you from fire, but if you can't get out will you survive? How many times are their crashes that do not involve other most likely debilitating injuries?
The best chance a down pilot has it to pray that the A/C doesn't catch fire, they can reach their knife to cut themselves out of the straps, and have enough supplies to ride out the time it takes to conduct the search.
If the plane is going to burn, it will most likely explode at some point AVGas being the beast that it is.
No, no... you're good. I'm giving you the go-ahead even. The burn factor isn't even an issue in my book.
Quote from: DG on July 26, 2008, 02:28:34 AM
And you won't see The Real AF flying without air conditioning. Even in trainers. Do you know how hot and hostile would be the inside of a T-34C without air? I'd be glad to wear a nomex flight suit in oppressive OAT with air cond.
A) The Real AF doesn't fly T-34Cs.
B) You think an HH-60 has air conditioning?
CAP needs to decide if it wants to be a flying club or the USAF Auxiliary, then uniform itself accordingly. Until that happens, the organization just comes off as schizophrenic and unprofessional.
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2008, 05:25:04 AM
Quote from: DG on July 26, 2008, 02:28:34 AM
And you won't see The Real AF flying without air conditioning. Even in trainers. Do you know how hot and hostile would be the inside of a T-34C without air? I'd be glad to wear a nomex flight suit in oppressive OAT with air cond.
A) The Real AF doesn't fly T-34Cs.
B) You think an HH-60 has air conditioning?
CAP needs to decide if it wants to be a flying club or the USAF Auxiliary, then uniform itself accordingly. Until that happens, the organization just comes off as schizophrenic and unprofessional.
Exactly. Gain some military bearing at some point and the organization should be ok. Otherwise, yes, it's a flying club.
Sidenote: Cadet activities are still awesome and a great benefit.
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:26:45 AM
Exactly. Gain some military bearing at some point and the organization should be ok. Otherwise, yes, it's a flying club.
Sidenote: Cadet activities are still awesome and a great benefit.
The worse examples of the "flying club" are the ones who always wear their flight suits, reguardless of the function, and you normally only see them if attendance is required in order for them to fly. Most around here are not even Mission Pilots, just CAP Pilots with a current Fm 5 who like the reduced rates for flying corporate aircraft. But they sure look good..... That is who your "flying club" people are, not the ones that need to "
gain some military bearing".
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training.
Why wait until you are done with your AF training - or are you just using CAP to pad your resume?
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training.
Quote
Why wait until you are done with your AF training - or are you just using CAP to pad your resume?
Venting mainly, but I certainly did use my CAP experience from when I was a cadet.
My decision to finally join the RM was based on the past few years of coming back as a SM along with some other factors. I don't want to paint CAP in a negative light because the cadet program kicks ass for those who use it later in life. I just have some issues with the other programs and I've made my decisions based on that. It's not negative, I just think some things need improvement.
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 06:40:36 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training.
Quote
Why wait until you are done with your AF training - or are you just using CAP to pad your resume?
Venting mainly, but I certainly did use my CAP experience from when I was a cadet.
My decision to finally join the RM was based on the past few years of coming back as a SM along with some other factors. I don't want to paint CAP in a negative light because the cadet program kicks ass for those who use it later in life. I just have some issues with the other programs and I've made my decisions based on that. It's not negative, I just think some things need improvement.
So you've decided to improve CAP by leaving?
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2008, 05:25:04 AM
A) The Real AF doesn't fly T-34Cs.
My apologies.
I was thinking of all the T-34C's I saw while on DR in Florida for hurricanes.
They were NAVY. Those guys prefer air cond. in their a/c when it is available. And given the option, if air cond. were not available, how many of those same pilots would say I prefer NOT to wear a cooler uniform, because I prefer to look professional in a full nomex flight suit, even if it is so very hot.
Quote from: Short Field on July 25, 2008, 05:46:03 PM
I'd vote for that!!! Just soaked a flight suit yesterday working on touch and go's. That is also similiar to what the aircrews wear at NESA.
Wonder how long the "NOMEX flight suit" purists will keep wearing flight suites if they can wear shorts!
Great thought, Short Field!
A big part of our mission training and real mission execution involves how to complete the mission most effectively, including using effective methods and using effective crew members.
I hope this uniform authorization goes through, so that we can watch for who wears shorts for temperature relief, and who wears a full nomex flight suit, to look "professional." Then we should be fair minded, without prejudging, and evaluate whether and how it makes a difference.
See you next week at NESA MAS.
Quote from: flyerthom on July 26, 2008, 04:41:00 AM
When a search for burns is done it comes back to two seriously injured and two definite fatalities (one in the house that burned when struck by the aircraft) from 1/1/2008 to 7/26/2008.
Neither of these is statistically insignificant. Aircraft burn just as often if not more so than autos.
Sorry , then you don't understand the term "statistically insignificant", because if in the history of CAP, the only indication
you can find is two, and only one being aircrew, that is statistically >zero<, and the insurance industry and others interested in this sort of this wouldn't even recognize the event.
Obviously they are significant events in the lives of those killed, their friends, family, and CAP as a community, but they have no
statistical significance.
Quote from: Short Field on July 25, 2008, 05:46:03 PM
I'd vote for that!!! Just soaked a flight suit yesterday working on touch and go's. That is also similiar to what the aircrews wear at NESA.
Wonder how long the "NOMEX flight suit" purists will keep wearing flight suites if they can wear shorts!
Sadly, many of our people >are< wearing flight "suites". ;D
Just the thought of looking at all those skinny old man legs gives me the shudders.
FYI, the CG and CG Aux do have an option for a uniform with shorts (basically a cut off version of the fatigue pants).
I don't think anyone believes that anything "optional" will be restricted to just certain locations. Pretty much the entire US can make an argument for having weather hot enough to justify shorts. So, we will be throwing this uniform in with every other option we've got and adding yet more diversity to any meeting of CAP personnel.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 26, 2008, 04:03:17 PM
Quote from: Short Field on July 25, 2008, 05:46:03 PM
I'd vote for that!!! Just soaked a flight suit yesterday working on touch and go's. That is also similiar to what the aircrews wear at NESA.
Wonder how long the "NOMEX flight suit" purists will keep wearing flight suites if they can wear shorts!
Sadly, many of our people >are< wearing flight "suites". ;D
That happens when you have 120 words per minute fingers and a 100 word word per minute brain. Besides, it is all the USAF's fault - they didn't let me take my XO with me when I retired.
Quote from: DG on July 25, 2008, 12:45:22 PM
Thank You to our National Leaders who are doing some great work, in respect to caring for our aircrews flying in the summer heat. :clap: :clap: :clap:
If things go well at the National Board, we may be authorized to wear a New Summer Flight Uniform.
Blue golf shirt and khaki shorts. White socks and white tennis shoes.
This is great news. It was only last week that I had to accompany my copilot to the ER when he became ill while on a mission in the GA-8 with a temperature dew point of 35 / 33.
Talk to your Wing CC and Region CC and express your request for their support in approving this change at the National Board Meeting and Conference in Florida.
The info I have on this is that this is for GLIDERS ONLY!. People in powered aircraft will continue to wear what you wear now.
This item addesses a conflict between the 60-1 and 39-1.
If it truly is for gliders than that is even better. It will present a uniform appearance of those that decide to fly without a brain engine. Too often we see Cadets and Seniors (who are towing) wearing shorts and t-shirt. Now they will all look the same! I do suggest they get the material blends in the new polo right this time, and make it a moisture wicking fabric?? We are in 2008!!
I'm going to go with Hall on this, and ask the Gods to let common sense prevail on an administrative correction, not a new uniform for regular, powered flying.
Quote from: CAPR 60-1, Page 33
5-7. CAP Member Soaring Uniform.
Soaring activity, to include the tow pilot, demands that comfortable, loose-fitting, nonrestrictive clothing be worn. A T-shirt, such as a CAP designed wing T-shirt with a pair of shorts/long pants and tennis shoes is sufficient. However, the final uniform decision rests with the region/wing commander. Due to space restrictions in most glider rudder pedal areas, the wearing of boots, including military style boots, is prohibited.
This uniform does not appear in CAPM 39-1, so technically it is not approved for wear, since 60-1 defines operations, not uniform wear.
This already allows for the tow pilot
(though it doesn't allow for the rest of the tow aircrew, if any).Tags - MIKE
Don't really see the point of this new uniform, but I won't address that.
What I would like to know is whether or not the polo is the existing one, or if it is going to be yet another new item to make Vanguard money. Because we all know that there are people that have to have all the uniforms that are available to CAP.
We've got a senior like that in our unit. I think I've only ever seen him wear one uniform twice, and that's the BBDU. Not sure how he affords it, considering he's retired.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 26, 2008, 07:23:51 PM
Don't really see the point of this new uniform, but I won't address that.
What I would like to know is whether or not the polo is the existing one, or if it is going to be yet another new item to make Vanguard money. Because we all know that there are people that have to have all the uniforms that are available to CAP.
Um, so?
I'm a commander and I think it is important for my people to see me wearing a variety of uniforms correctly so that, they don't feel CAP has a bias towards the military or corporate aspect, and just to see them configured correctly.
I have three+ sets of BDU's, a blue field uniform, light blue flight suit, Service Dress w/ jacket and wheel cap, Aviator whites (plus the parts to make them CSU's), gold shirt and a blazer.
Assuming he's wearing them correctly and appropriately, how is this a problem?
Some people "waste" their money on cable tv, movies, drinking, and smoking, others on uniforms and ES gear, so what?
And I'm no fan of VG, but not >every< decision NHQ makes is designed to stick it to the membership through more money to VG.
Quote from: PHall on July 26, 2008, 06:06:56 PM
The info I have on this is that this is for GLIDERS ONLY!. People in powered aircraft will continue to wear what you wear now.
This item addesses a conflict between the 60-1 and 39-1.
True enough that glider activities already are authorized to wear shorts and tennis shoes.
CAPR 60-1 5-7. CAP Member Soaring Uniform. Soaring activity, to include the tow pilot, demands that comfortable, loose-fitting, nonrestrictive clothing be worn. A T-shirt, such as a CAP designed wing T-shirt with a pair of shorts/long pants and tennis shoes is sufficient. However, the final uniform decision rests with the region/wing commander. Due to space restrictions in most glider rudder pedal areas, the wearing of boots, including military style boots, is prohibited.
And I believe it is so that CAPR 39-1 does not mention the soaring uniform.
Neverthless, some of our National Leaders are addressing the need for an optional summer uniform for powered flight activities. Of course, any agenda item can be changed at any time and must be approved by the Board. And the reg itself will authorize an
optional summer flight uniform, limited to
flight activities and which requires
Wing CC approval. But see for yourself, and tune into the live streamimg video from the National Board, and see how it goes.
^ Why the heck can't we have one regulation (say 39-1) contain uniforms ONLY, instead of multiple regulations conflicting with each other??
Come on.......this is one more jacked up thing that should have been corrected 10 years ago!!
As far as all this goes, I change my mind. How many people actually are part of the glider program?? I would bet not as many as there are Flight Officers. Why can't we get uniforms straightened out for our members first, then work on activity specific uniforms second??
This stuff is starting to blow!
Quote from: Eclipse on July 26, 2008, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: flyerthom on July 26, 2008, 04:41:00 AM
When a search for burns is done it comes back to two seriously injured and two definite fatalities (one in the house that burned when struck by the aircraft) from 1/1/2008 to 7/26/2008.
Neither of these is statistically insignificant. Aircraft burn just as often if not more so than autos.
Sorry , then you don't understand the term "statistically insignificant", because if in the history of CAP, the only indication
you can find is two, and only one being aircrew, that is statistically >zero<, and the insurance industry and others interested in this sort of this wouldn't even recognize the event.
Obviously they are significant events in the lives of those killed, their friends, family, and CAP as a community, but they have no statistical significance.
The time frame of the search was 1/1/08 to 7/26/08. So in 7 months that's a bit different.
^ Not that it matters.......gliders don't carry fuel, do they?!?!
If you crash your glider, don't worry about fire, be more concerned about the glider itself crumpling up into a ball about the size of a small dishwasher.
I don't particularly care for CAP having a gliding program to begin with. Heck we won't allow Cadets (or Adults) drive ATV's or Golf carts but we will let them fly hundred thousand dollar vehicles, with the very distinct possibility that they will CRASH and DIE, or worse, take out houses and kill others.
WAKE up........priorities are a mess at NHQ, and the entire leadership needs a wakeup call in way of being replaced. Too many people have served on National Staff for too long.
Quote from: flyerthom on July 26, 2008, 07:55:57 PM
The time frame of the search was 1/1/08 to 7/26/08. So in 7 months that's a bit different.
Sorry, its not.
In order to have it mean anything statistically, you have to look at all CAP flight activities which resulted in a crash and fire over a longer period of time, and compare the injuries sustained in other crashes that did not include fire retardant clothing.
You'd also need to know how long the clothing was exposed to fire, and whether the crash was survivable (as if its not, the fire issue is somewhat irrelevant).
Odds are that was the only CAP crash with fire the whole year, if not for a decade.
Quote from: mikeylikey on July 26, 2008, 08:00:51 PM
^ Not that it matters.......gliders don't carry fuel, do they?!?!
Depends what they served for lunch at the NFA! ;D
Gliders have a severe "glass house" effect and heat injuries can occur if you don't take precautions.
T-Shirts, shorts and tennis shoes is what is reccomended by the Soaring Society of America, and CAP has seen fit to follow their recommendations.
Quote from: Short Field on July 26, 2008, 06:21:02 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:26:45 AM
Exactly. Gain some military bearing at some point and the organization should be ok. Otherwise, yes, it's a flying club.
Sidenote: Cadet activities are still awesome and a great benefit.
The worse examples of the "flying club" are the ones who always wear their flight suits, reguardless of the function, and you normally only see them if attendance is required in order for them to fly. Most around here are not even Mission Pilots, just CAP Pilots with a current Fm 5 who like the reduced rates for flying corporate aircraft. But they sure look good..... That is who your "flying club" people are, not the ones that need to "gain some military bearing".
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training.
Why wait until you are done with your AF training - or are you just using CAP to pad your resume?
I disagree with the perception that a flight suit automatically sets certain CAP members apart, whether as a "flying club" or as an "elite." That's just bull. You want to see self-appointed "elites," go look at the Hawk Mountain or Glades Rangers.
Pilots who only show up for meetings when they need them to fly, I have some problem with. They should not be so detached from the program. But if unit meetings are the useless snorefest they can be sometimes, I can see why they'd stay away. As for my unit, all our aircrew members are going through training right now, every Thursday night at our UTAs. They're preparing to be of service. Are your pilots doing that?
The flight suit isn't the "flying club" uniform. The golf shirt and civilian CAP combinations are. And they are a bad idea, if you ask me, especially since there's 200 different "uniforms" out there that CAP has authorized, depending on which ICL or regulation you read.
The only reason you don't see more flight suits at my unit (Clearwater, Fla.) is some dictum from our wing (that I can't find in writing anywhere) that limits flight suit wear only to when you're actually in an airplane -- and that's logic I disagree with almost wholeheartedly. (Logical conclusion: Can we wear the BDU anywhere but in the woods?)
Cadets who see flight suits on their leaders feel attachment to a military aviation organization. Seniors who see it feel motivation. Outsiders who see it percieve us as an organized, professional, military organization...
...rather than a bunch of old and/or overweight people with silver oak leaves (depending on the uniform they wear) sucking down coffee for two or three hours a week. That's an environment tailor-made for golf shirts and shorts, and Velcro shoes.
As long as the flight suit, like any other CAP uniform, isn't worn outside of a CAP activity for personal gain (like picking up chicks or swapping patches and saying "I'm in the Air Force" -- those guys should be drummed out).
So let 'em wear the flight suits, but ensure the wearers are engaged in CAP activities and that they know how to wear them, and when it's good to wear them (doesn't have to be in a pure flying setting). Proper uniform wear is a command responsibility, but one that EVERYONE shares.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 26, 2008, 10:55:21 PM
Cadets who see flight suits on their leaders feel attachment to a military aviation organization. Seniors who see it feel motivation. Outsiders who see it perceive us as an organized, professional, military organization...
...rather than a bunch of old and/or overweight people with silver oak leaves (depending on the uniform they wear) sucking down coffee for two or three hours a week. That's an environment tailor-made for golf shirts and shorts, and Velcro shoes.
I am one of your "old and overweigh person with silver oak leaves" and I do suck down coffee for two or three hours a
week day. You seem to equate professionalism with flight suits and not with performance, bearing, attitude, and conduct. I was in a military aviation organization and it wasn't CAP. We only wore our flight suits when we were flying or playing crazy games in the casual bar. The standards still exist, but enforcement is so lax as to be nonexistent.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 26, 2008, 07:31:44 PM
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 26, 2008, 07:23:51 PM
Don't really see the point of this new uniform, but I won't address that.
What I would like to know is whether or not the polo is the existing one, or if it is going to be yet another new item to make Vanguard money. Because we all know that there are people that have to have all the uniforms that are available to CAP.
Um, so?
I'm a commander and I think it is important for my people to see me wearing a variety of uniforms correctly so that, they don't feel CAP has a bias towards the military or corporate aspect, and just to see them configured correctly.
I have three+ sets of BDU's, a blue field uniform, light blue flight suit, Service Dress w/ jacket and wheel cap, Aviator whites (plus the parts to make them CSU's), gold shirt and a blazer.
Assuming he's wearing them correctly and appropriately, how is this a problem?
Some people "waste" their money on cable tv, movies, drinking, and smoking, others on uniforms and ES gear, so what?
And I'm no fan of VG, but not >every< decision NHQ makes is designed to stick it to the membership through more money to VG.
If that's how you want to justify having a myriad of uniforms, that's your call. I don't buy it, but it doesn't matter. One person doesn't
need to be the
the uniform model for a unit. As a commander, you could have saved yourself a lot of money by going with a primary set of uniforms, and ensuring that your other senior members are wearing them correctly. You chose otherwise. Your money, your call.
If it uses existing components, then there's less money for your "gotta have it because it's new" adopters. You think it's OK for people to get everything new on the market, fine. I don't see the point, and I don't have any real reason yet to feel otherwise.
When it comes to what people want to wear, I'm pretty flexible. If they have appropriate uniforms, and ask "Do I need such and such uniform?", I'll tell them "No, you don't
need it. If you want it, up to you.". If they ask if something is OK for them to buy, I'll tell them: "Your money, buy whatever you feel like. Not my money or decision." The only point I'm
inflexible on is proper wear. You buy it, know how you're supposed to wear it
before you put it on. Noone can really fault me on that.
Frankly, what I could or could not do is NOYB.
Why do you care enough about us clothes horses to even think about it?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2008, 12:44:30 AM
Frankly, what I could or could not do is NOYB.
True. So what's the problem? I certainly didn't tell you what you could or couldn't do. I didn't tell anyone what to do, only whether or not they would
need something when they ask.
If someone has a full set of blues, and asks me if they
need a CSU, I'd tell them that I didn't consider it necessary, but if they want it, it's up to them. Same with any other appropriate uniforms.
The only thing I wanted to know is whether or not this was gonna be something entirely new, or if it would use existing uniform items in different configuration. Don't see the issue with such an inquiry.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2008, 12:44:30 AMWhy do you care enough about us clothes horses to even think about it?
I wouldn't want people running out to buy the latest and greatest just because it's out there. It's a simple personal concern for others, things are getting pricey these days. If people have something that will do the job they need, no reason to go buy something new fancy. Some people have a problem with that kind of self discipline, and it can be an issue when they really can't afford it.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 27, 2008, 02:12:04 AM
I wouldn't want people running out to buy the latest and greatest just because it's out there. It's a simple personal concern for others, things are getting pricey these days. If people have something that will do the job they need, no reason to go buy something new fancy.
Based on the above, you don't want to even guess what I've spent for nametapes alone this year. Unbeknown to me, I was very foolish, because I already had some that were perfectly fine.The above is great for you, but if you are telling others they are "foolish" for buying a uniform item that is approved and appropriate, I would suggest you're trolling for things to be worried about which don't deserve the mental energy.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2008, 03:40:47 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 27, 2008, 02:12:04 AM
I wouldn't want people running out to buy the latest and greatest just because it's out there. It's a simple personal concern for others, things are getting pricey these days. If people have something that will do the job they need, no reason to go buy something new fancy.
Based on the above, you don't want to even guess what I've spent for nametapes alone this year. Unbeknown to me, I was very foolish, because I already had some that were perfectly fine.
The above is great for you, but if you are telling others they are "foolish" for buying a uniform item that is approved and appropriate, I would suggest you're trolling for things to be worried about which don't deserve the mental energy.
I don't know where you got the statement concerning someone feeling foolish about buying nametapes, I didn't post anything like that in this thread.
Second, I don't tell anyone that they are foolish for buying anything. I just said that I don't see the point of buying another equivalent uniform when they already have one that is appreopriate, and I will tell someone that
if they ask me about it.
I think you've gotten someone else confused with me as far as this thread goes, or else you have a misimpression of what I've said.
Well then let's just leave it on the table and move on...
:clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2008, 04:02:43 AM
Well then let's just leave it on the table and move on...
Don't know what there is to leave, but OK.
I'm curious as to whether or not this new summer flight uniform was going to be something entirely new, or if it will use something we already have.
Does anyone know, or is that entry in the agenda unclear as to what the new uniform will actually be?
Maybe a simpler way to ask: What's this thing gonna look like?
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 27, 2008, 04:16:48 AM
Maybe a simpler way to ask: What's this thing gonna look like?
CRAP........as usual!
Quote from: Short Field on July 27, 2008, 12:01:43 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 26, 2008, 10:55:21 PM
Cadets who see flight suits on their leaders feel attachment to a military aviation organization. Seniors who see it feel motivation. Outsiders who see it perceive us as an organized, professional, military organization...
...rather than a bunch of old and/or overweight people with silver oak leaves (depending on the uniform they wear) sucking down coffee for two or three hours a week. That's an environment tailor-made for golf shirts and shorts, and Velcro shoes.
I am one of your "old and overweigh person with silver oak leaves" and I do suck down coffee for two or three hours a week day. You seem to equate professionalism with flight suits and not with performance, bearing, attitude, and conduct. I was in a military aviation organization and it wasn't CAP. We only wore our flight suits when we were flying or playing crazy games in the casual bar. The standards still exist, but enforcement is so lax as to be nonexistent.
Nope. Please re-read what I said. We have an uphill PR battle, inside and outside the organization, and the myriad of uniforms doesn't help, never mind the lax enforcement (how can you enforce something that changes every time you turn around, or keep up with so many different uniforms?).
I believe the flying club perception comes from the CAP civilian "uniforms," if it comes from clothing. The flight suit is a military uniform, and should be treated as such. It's a symbol of professionalism, and I see no problem with a wear policy that provides a little more latitude -- as well as a little more common sense and command responsibility.
Shorts and golf shirts as a "uniform" is about as silly as soccer shorts and a CAP T-shirt would be. We've gone past military (or pseudomilitary) professionalism and safety, and delved into whatever makes someone feel better. It's time to rein in all these CAP combinations for the sanity (and wallets) of the membership and the good of the organization.
As for the pilots who only show up when they absolutely have to? As I said before, that flight suit isn't the reason. It's that you need to look at what your unit is doing on a meeting night -- if it's not helpful to a pilot, why should he have to be there? If it's not beneficial for cadets, why should they attend? Keep your members active and engaged, and you won't have these concerns.
Not to add onto the "flying club" bit...
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4519.msg87903#msg87903
1946, CAP was chartering flying clubs as part of their normal squadrons, advocated and listed as a goal by RM personnel.
1948 we became the USAF Aux.
Flying club longer than Air Force Aux.
(Laughing at jimmydeanno) Dude, don't encourage it!
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:26:45 AMThe worse examples of the "flying club" are the ones who always wear their flight suits, reguardless of the function, and you normally only see them if attendance is required in order for them to fly. Most around here are not even Mission Pilots, just CAP Pilots with a current Fm 5 who like the reduced rates for flying corporate aircraft. But they sure look good..... That is who your "flying club" people are, not the ones that need to "gain some military bearing".
What do you think USAF aircrew wear on days when they're not flying? BDUs? Blues?
Quote from: Mustang on July 28, 2008, 04:50:29 AM
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 05:26:45 AMThe worse examples of the "flying club" are the ones who always wear their flight suits, reguardless of the function, and you normally only see them if attendance is required in order for them to fly. Most around here are not even Mission Pilots, just CAP Pilots with a current Fm 5 who like the reduced rates for flying corporate aircraft. But they sure look good..... That is who your "flying club" people are, not the ones that need to "gain some military bearing".
What do you think USAF aircrew wear on days when they're not flying? BDUs? Blues?
All the ones I've seen wore them. The few times they did wear anything else, I didn't even recognize them.
I've known members of flying senior units that only possessed flightsuits. Since their mission is primarily flight, it makes sense. A few of the personnel that actually attend wing functions & commander's calls may obtain blues or equivalent. But for the most part, that's all they wear. I don't see any practical reason why they should have to obtain any kind of BDU's.
Why should I wear BDU's (Let alone purchase them) if I do not do ground activities? All I do is fly.
Look it's been hot in NY, temps when taxi'n the plane exceed 100 degrees. We try to keep the windows open for takeoff and landing... Our other option is the polo-shirt and grey slacks. I for one do not have a problem with that, I am quite comfortable that way too.
But I can imagine some schmo that wear white knee socks with his cute tennis sneakers.
I am not sure on this one.... Can't see how shorts would make it that more comfortable in flight. Perhaps my lack of being down south is part of this.
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 04:34:37 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training. If all goes well, I'll be sweating it out in a flight suit in quite a few different environments and I'll be [darn]ed proud to do it.
Hydrate, exercise, and eat well and you shouldn't have a problem. Aside from the obvious, there are a lot of cops in this forum who will attest to standing on 100+ degree asphalt in black uniforms for long periods of time with vests, 20 lbs. worth of gear, etc., and we know how to deal with it. There are thousands of military people in a freakin desert that hump it with even more than that every single day.
I'm losing interest.
Amen brother! As someone who has worn that uniform on the hot asphalt directing traffic...it does get hot and sweaty.
[darn] people....what is it with so many NOT wanting to be in a uniform, something that does not make you look like you are on a golf course? It seems as if some of you are so desirous of just doing away with anything that even smacks of a miltiary-style uniform.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on July 28, 2008, 02:03:01 PM
[darn] people....what is it with so many NOT wanting to be in a uniform, something that does not make you look like you are on a golf course? It seems as if some of you are so desirous of just doing away with anything that even smacks of a military-style uniform.
I have noticed that trend as well. The whole Corporate-AUX battle of uniforms and personal desires will most likely get more intense in the next few years!
Quote from: DG on July 25, 2008, 12:45:22 PM
If things go well at the National Board, we may be authorized to wear a New Summer Flight Uniform.
Blue golf shirt and khaki shorts. White socks and white tennis shoes.
There seems to be some confusion and a concern about the cost of an additional uniform.
I don't understand, because it will be the same golf shirt that so many of us already have.
And khaki shorts that many of us already have in our wardrobe anyway.
When some of the comments refer to "polo" shirt, do they mean golf shirt?
What follows is direct quote excerpted from CAPR 39-1
NOTES: There are three knit shirts authorized for wear for men and women. They are:
1. Dark blue knit shirt with embroidered CAP seal on the right breast and embroidered name and
aeronautical rating or specialty badge on the left breast.
2. Dark blue knit shirt with embroidered seal on the right breast, without the name or rating on left
breast.
3. Dark blue knit shirt with the CAP seal screen-printed in white lettering on left breast.
4. CAP knit shirts are worn with gray trousers or slacks (see Table 4-4).
Figure 4-3. Men's and Women's Knit (Golf) Shirts
Table 4-4. Men's and Women's Golf Shirt/Summer Uniform
Wear Instructions/Materials
1 Slacks/Trousers Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging,
with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are
authorized (no jeans).
2 Shirt There are three golf shirts approved for wear. A dark blue knit shirt with
embroidered CAP seal on the right breast and embroidered name and
aeronautical rating or specialty badge on the left breast; a dark blue knit shirt
with embroidered seal on the right breast, without the name or rating on left
breast; and a dark blue knit shirt with the CAP seal screen printed in white
lettering on left breast. Shirt must be worn tucked in by men unless heat
conditions on the flight line require additional air circulation. Women may
wear the shirt out of slacks but shirt length must not fall below mid-hips.
We are the Air Force's auxiliary. It is the one thing that separates us from any other organization.
But there's people out there who want to dilute that, whether through uniforms or other means.
There will come a time, as the slippery slope progresses, that we might not be much more than a Congressionally chartered version of whatever that "ranger corps" thing is.
Lose the uniforms, lose your identity. People identify with symbols, and that's why the symbols are as important to some people as they are.
If you don't want to be in a semi-military organization, underwritten by and chartered through the U.S. Air Force, CAP is not for you. The uniform is part of CAP's heritage and history; it is a working identifier of a battle-honed organization that still stands proud and ready. We should be proud of who we are, and we should not walk away from our heritage for the sake of someone's convenience.
Keep the Air Force uniforms. Rein in the CAP corporate uniforms, so they're simplified and -- dare I say it? -- uniform. There are far too many "combinations" to be consistent. When I go to some squadron meetings, I really don't know if I'm in CAP or at a fashion show for some Army-Navy store. Or who to call "sir" and who not to. Or....
Our Air Force brethren wear the flight suit in warm temperatures, and they don't complain. Why should we chafe at the thought of wearing our nation's uniform?
New Summer Flight Uniform..yikes!!! There goes the neighborhood!!!
A while back, when we were discussing golf shirts and the ratty conditions of trousers (even denim jeans) being worn with them. I pointed out that it would not be long before shorts would be authorized.
Now, shorts can be done. Mandate the wear of a short sleeve aviator shirt with nametag and CAP epaulets and CAP squadron baseball cap. That actually looks like a uniform. (there is in my mind no difference between wearing a button up shirt and a pull over).
I suppose flip-flops are next!!!
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 28, 2008, 03:44:47 PMWhy should we chafe at the thought of wearing our nation's uniform?
All the extra BS that goes with it. People volunteer to join CAP to help our Nation, State and City....sure they want to look professional....but along comes the Uniform Nazis with their rulers and arguments about which patch goes where. Add to that the greif that people get if they suggest even a simple change.
I have done 22 years in the military, getting told every day what I will wear, how I should groom my hair. Some people don't like that. They want to help the USAF and our local community....but they want to be comfortable doing it.
Sandles or Flip Flips with white socks... Yummy.... :clap:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:0dOyUf0KdK7rJM:http://www.man-sandals.com/sandals-images/flip-flops-pictures/mens_birkenstocks_socks_1.jpg)
Quote from: lordmonar on July 28, 2008, 05:39:11 PM
I have done 22 years in the military, getting told every day what I will wear, how I should groom my hair. Some people don't like that. They want to help the USAF and our local community....but they want to be comfortable doing it.
Can't say I fully agree with that. When one joins an organization, they have to conform to the standards. Standards have to shoe a degree of professionalism. I can't fathom a world where CAP Officers, aviators at that, are wearing a combination that looks less professional that UPS, MAIL CARRIERS and EMS. I cite these not to "down play" the improtance of these people (I can see where someone migth fain an insulting imagined tone from that...that is furtherst thing from my mind), but to insure that CAP aviators have a professional look. Your not flying for yourself up there, your flying for CAP. Filthy golf shirt and cruddy shorts (which you know will happen within six month of this uniform...you know, from wadding it up in the trunk of a car or some other reasons someone will give why they just "couldn't look professional")
Many of you know my agendistic rant on "corporate" shirts/shorts and the basic "dressing down/causual friday is every day" issue, however, I will rise above my agendism and offer...
...a compromise!!! Again, white aviator shirt (short sleeve) with rank shoulder marks/nametag, uniform shorts and reasonable footwear looks both professional and should be comfortable. That is what UPS, MAIL CARRIERS and EMS tend to wear...why can't we just have that?
There are a few members of this thread who are old enough to remember when the US Army had an optional summer duty uniform that consisted of a khaki, short-sleeved shirt and khaki shorts, worn with khaki knee socks and black low-quarter shoes, with the standard web belt. Very comfortable at warm weather posts and not bad looking.
Don't quite understand all this wailing and gnashing of teeth about shorts. I don't happen to like the idea of flying CAP aircraft on search missions in shorts, but that is my bias. Wearing shorts at other times is no big deal. I also understand the group that wouldn't be caught dead in the privacy of their bedroom in shorts of any type.
BTW: where in the National Board agenda did the originator of this thread find the reference to this proposed uniform? I read the agenda from start to finish and did not see it.
CAP was forced to adopt NIMS as the industry standard to stay as a player in the field of emergency services.
Among the major players in Aviation SAR, what is the industry standard for duty uniform?
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 28, 2008, 06:20:48 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 28, 2008, 05:39:11 PM
I have done 22 years in the military, getting told every day what I will wear, how I should groom my hair. Some people don't like that. They want to help the USAF and our local community....but they want to be comfortable doing it.
Can't say I fully agree with that. When one joins an organization, they have to conform to the standards.
Granted...but we are ranting about changing those standards.....let's keep that clearly in mind. OUR MEMBERS would like a more comfortable uniform. We are making a lot of noise about loss of professionalism and flying club mentality...when what we really have is a group of professionals who are using the system as designed to make their life in CAP easier. No one is suggesting that we just wear what we want. The question was why does anyone have a problem wearing the uniform of our country....the answer is simply they don't want to. And I can live with that.
For the record.....I am against this option...simply because it adds another uniform to the mix. I agree with the thinking behind it but it goes against my first principle of reducing the number of uniforms that can be encountered at a mission base.
Standards have to shoe a degree of professionalism. I can't fathom a world where CAP Officers, aviators at that, are wearing a combination that looks less professional that UPS, MAIL CARRIERS and EMS. I cite these not to "down play" the improtance of these people (I can see where someone migth fain an insulting imagined tone from that...that is furtherst thing from my mind), but to insure that CAP aviators have a professional look. Your not flying for yourself up there, your flying for CAP. Filthy golf shirt and cruddy shorts (which you know will happen within six month of this uniform...you know, from wadding it up in the trunk of a car or some other reasons someone will give why they just "couldn't look professional")
Many of you know my agendistic rant on "corporate" shirts/shorts and the basic "dressing down/causual friday is every day" issue, however, I will rise above my agendism and offer...
...a compromise!!! Again, white aviator shirt (short sleeve) with rank shoulder marks/nametag, uniform shorts and reasonable footwear looks both professional and should be comfortable. That is what UPS, MAIL CARRIERS and EMS tend to wear...why can't we just have that?
[/quote]
^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt. OR 1 flightsuit. I don't think there is any real "industry standard"
Hey.....I don't mind a polo and khaki pants, but shorts is more for the "casual sport flyer", or the guy taking his kids an a weekend flight to the beach.
We need to present a more Professional image. If you have problems wearing pants while flying for upward of 3 or 4 hours.......maybe something else in CAP (not flying related) may be more suited for you.
I remember learning to fly and the school had a strict policy on what was allowed to be worn. I never had any problem wearing pants and a polo in 100 degree weather. Sure you might be just a little uncomfortable, but if you hydrate, there should be NO problem.
Anyway.....I look through AOPA magazines and see pics of people flying and rarely see any of them wearing shorts. That is one of the countries premier flight mags. (Not that it has any bearing on CAP or this discussion, but thought I would throw it in).
Quote from: bosshawk on July 28, 2008, 07:23:07 PM
There are a few members of this thread who are old enough to remember when the US Army had an optional summer duty uniform that consisted of a khaki, short-sleeved shirt and khaki shorts, worn with khaki knee socks and black low-quarter shoes, with the standard web belt. Very comfortable at warm weather posts and not bad looking.
The USAF had one of those too up until the 60's IIRC...my dad who went through the Aviation Cadet Program in 1960 used to tell me about the unifrom of the day on some October Morining being Tropical Uniform with Pith Helmet.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 28, 2008, 11:06:07 PM
The USAF had one of those too up until the 60's IIRC...my dad who went through the Aviation Cadet Program in 1960 used to tell me about the unifrom of the day on some October Morining being Tropical Uniform with Pith Helmet.
HERE you go folks.............
(http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0691splendor1.jpg)
I would imagine if the NIMS standard were applied like other aircrews USCG, CBP, etc they would address the standard Nomex unless DHS is like CAP, always worrying about what next fashion to wear in the cockpit.
Remember those sillly CAP ultramarine shortsleeved jumpsuits??? Wanna go back to them??
Quote from: heliodoc on July 28, 2008, 11:20:31 PM
Remember those sillly CAP ultramarine shortsleeved jumpsuits??? Wanna go back to them??
It was those jumpsuits (the smurf suit), a while back, where FBO employees made the comment to me that all CAP Officers wore "filthy blueberry jumpsuits."
Our appearance is key to how we are perceived. If you want to look like
luftsport people out for a Sunday flight...go ahead. That is likely what we will be perceived as. If you want to look like a SAR organization or Airforce Auxiliary...then something that looks like a uniform for that purpose might be better.
Quote from: flyerthom on July 28, 2008, 10:14:40 PMAmong the major players in Aviation SAR, what is the industry standard for duty uniform?
CAP members perform 90 percent of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the AFRCC and were credited by AFRCC with saving 103 lives in 2007.
^ I suppose that is a valid point. Except that as you said we do 90 of the inland sar tasked by the AF. This does not include the missing persons searches, and after disaster searches, and rescue missions that the various state police, ema and the like do.
I know that state police, and even EMS folks in aircraft operations wear flight suits, but short sleeves are the order of the day during the summer months.
I would have to think that the amount of on the ground time that our aircrews spend on >95% of our missions is so minimal as to be a non-issue.
Quote from: IceNine on July 29, 2008, 12:05:37 AM
^ I suppose that is a valid point. Except that as you said we do 90 of the inland sar tasked by the AF. This does not include the missing persons searches, and after disaster searches, and rescue missions that the various state police, ema and the like do.
I know that state police, and even EMS folks in aircraft operations wear flight suits, but short sleeves are the order of the day during the summer months.
I would have to think that the amount of on the ground time that our aircrews spend on >95% of our missions is so minimal as to be a non-issue.
The search for missing aircraft is very small percentage of SAR missions. If we want to increase our market share we need to get called for others.
QuoteAgain, white aviator shirt (short sleeve) with rank shoulder marks/nametag, uniform shorts and reasonable footwear looks both professional and should be comfortable. That is what UPS, MAIL CARRIERS and EMS tend to wear...why can't we just have that?
The Commission on Accreditation of Air Medical Transport Services (CAMTS) requires Nomex for Air EMS units doing any sort of response involving scene or SAR. It is not required for ground EMS response by NFPA unless the unit is involved in rescue operations such as vehicle rescue. Then fire turnout gear and helmets are required. Several states require that helmets and Nomex gear be available on all ambulances along with minimal extrication gear. Every ground unit I worked on from about 1986 carried Nomex fire coats. If you got in a wrecked car you were protected or you didn't go in.
It is also the standard for aerial fire fighting. CAP air ops have far more in common with Air EMS than the ground EMS.
The standard is set from NFPA, ASTM committee F 32, CAMTS and others.
Just to remind everybody, this uniform change is for GLIDERS ONLY!
The change is to fix a conflict between the 60-1 and 39-1.
Okay, carry on. ;D
^ do you have documentation of that? Cause as of yet we are all under the impression that this is for Aircrew's
But then again the question has been raised where is the documentation for this in the first place.
Quote from: PHall on July 29, 2008, 02:25:30 AM
Just to remind everybody, this uniform change is for GLIDERS ONLY!
The change is to fix a conflict between the 60-1 and 39-1.
Okay, carry on. ;D
I'm good with that for gliders since that's our coolness specific to us, but for powered flight crews it would just look goofy.
For gliders, fine. But for Heaven's sake, let's limit it to that!
(Didn't see the glider-only stipulation. Did I miss it?)
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on July 29, 2008, 05:16:13 PM
For gliders, fine. But for Heaven's sake, let's limit it to that!
(Didn't see the glider-only stipulation. Did I miss it?)
I refer you to Para 5-7, CAPR 60-1.
I'm a bit confused here...
A CAP Polo shirt and Khaki shorts would be a UNIFORM. It's the uniform at NESA every year!
Would we rather have personnel (aircrews) in airplanes fighting dehydration during the summer, or would we rather have our aircrews be more comfortable in a postion to better perform the mission??
Quote from: WT on July 29, 2008, 06:37:07 PM
I'm a bit confused here...
A CAP Polo shirt and Khaki shorts would be a UNIFORM. It's the uniform at NESA every year!
Would we rather have personnel (aircrews) in airplanes fighting dehydration during the summer, or would we rather have our aircrews be more comfortable in a postion to better perform the mission??
No Shorts For Powered Aircrew. At some point you have to draw the line.
If you can't fight dehydration in a flight suit or grey slacks then you need to get off the couch. Take the stairs. Do something.
It's not always dehydration that you have to fight off. Try flying a 4 hour low level tower search on a military training route in the summer in the desert. That, in and of itself, is manageable in a flight suit and lots of water (though I imagine some of our older pilots wouldn't make it 4 hours). But when you add in that the airplane is being bounced around all over creation, you have a good recipe for regurgitation. This has happened on multiple occasions just in my squadron (not to me, fortunately.) Is anyone going to argue that a flight crew that's throwing up is going to be as capable of performing their mission as one that is comfortable, or at least held on to its breakfast? The only solution we have is to take off at 5:15 a.m. just before the sun rises, because by 9:30 it's just going to be miserable. And that only works if we don't have to do any stopovers. Keep in mind that this is a mission that we have complete control over when it is performed. In actual REDCAPS we don't have that option.
I don't think you have to be out of shape to be hot in a flightsuit. I'm 6' and 140 pounds. I don't claim to be the most physically fit person I know, but I think it would be hard to argue that I need to lose weight. And yesterday, as we droned along at 1000' agl in 100 degree weather getting the tar beat out of us, I think I would have rather been in shorts and a polo than a full flightsuit.
Yes, there are a lot of different uniforms to wear in CAP. But is that not true of every military branch? I think that there are much bigger problems with this organization that need fixing than having one more uniform that simply serves to make those of us in the more heated climates a bit more comfortable, or at that very least a bit less likely to toss our cookies.
Quote from: jaybird512 on July 26, 2008, 04:34:37 AM
You guys do what you want. That just about seals the deal for me not staying in CAP when I'm done with my AF training. If all goes well, I'll be sweating it out in a flight suit in quite a few different environments and I'll be [darn]ed proud to do it.
Hydrate, exercise, and eat well and you shouldn't have a problem. Aside from the obvious, there are a lot of cops in this forum who will attest to standing on 100+ degree asphalt in black uniforms for long periods of time with vests, 20 lbs. worth of gear, etc., and we know how to deal with it. There are thousands of military people in a freakin desert that hump it with even more than that every single day.
I feel your pain my friend.
Quote from: flyerthom on July 26, 2008, 04:41:00 AM
Looking at the NTSB crash reports with the simple search parameter fire from 1/6/2008 to 7/19/2008 there are 125 aircraft completely or partially destroyed by fire. In those crashes there are a total of 207 fatalities. Now this doesn't mean all 207 were killed by burns but how many of them were? The autopsy reports are not available.
When a search for burns is done it comes back to two seriously injured and two definite fatalities (one in the house that burned when struck by the aircraft) from 1/1/2008 to 7/26/2008.
Neither of these is statistically insignificant. Aircraft burn just as often if not more so than autos.
It's seems that the three things we pay for and desire to get cheated on are, education, health care, and safety.
The issue is really not how often one might catch fire in flight. You fly thousands of hours w/o crashing. The statistical chances of going in are quite small. Yet, you still wear a seat belt. The point is you can't pull over or slam it in the guard rail & get out the driver seat. You have to pilot the thing down while YOU are burning or you die for sure. Nomex buys you some time to get that done, and that's what it's meant for.
I don't care what it's like in the desert. I wear it here in south Texas where the humidity is a whole ton higher. I don't care about your comfort. I don't care what you want to do. I do care about doing things the right way, even if that means the harder way. You might be flying a GA plane on a GA license, but low & slow in a heavy bird doing high rate turns in wind and thin air for hours on end is not something FAA GA statistics are going to provide realistic data on.
That & you pull into a CP wearing that crap & trying to tell my guys you're some kind of highly skilled, experienced, trained, and equipped air SAR force - they're going to call the cops to throw you the hell out, or at least ask you where your uniform is, and CAP won't get called again. So be comfortable, do what you want. I'm sure that's the most important thing.
I'm sympathetic to heat casualty arguments. I've lost a soldier to that. You're sitting in a padded seat though, not humping 60-80lbs over terrain w/o a break. Hydrate & monitor each other. If you need a break you climb for a bit & cool off.
Quote from: mikeylikey on July 28, 2008, 11:03:34 PM
^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt. OR 1 flightsuit. I don't think there is any real "industry standard"
Most FEMA refs for SaR aircrew state "appropriate PPE." Some specifically state protective flight suit.
Quote from: DNall on July 31, 2008, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on July 28, 2008, 11:03:34 PM
^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt. OR 1 flightsuit. I don't think there is any real "industry standard"
Most FEMA refs for SaR aircrew state "appropriate PPE." Some specifically state protective flight suit.
That again goes back to the the fact that NIMS standards are nor very directive in nature.....so unless we someday fall under someone else's juridiction we get to set our own standard.
If no one has brought up the ever popular "this will cause skin cancer" drift.......I WILL! >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on July 31, 2008, 11:14:53 PM
Quote from: DNall on July 31, 2008, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on July 28, 2008, 11:03:34 PM
^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt. OR 1 flightsuit. I don't think there is any real "industry standard"
Most FEMA refs for SaR aircrew state "appropriate PPE." Some specifically state protective flight suit.
That again goes back to the the fact that NIMS standards are nor very directive in nature.....so unless we someday fall under someone else's juridiction we get to set our own standard.
You're right about that. This is just like the cadets in ES issue. We are free to set whatever policy we want, but when it comes time to really go to work, it'll be the policy of others (in this case FEMA standards) that restrict how we do business. I'm personally of the opinion that it's better to operate under those conditions all the time rather than adjust when it comes down to the wire & find we can't meet the standard.
No you missed my point...FEMA does not have any standards....they assume that the tasked agencies will have the set the appropriate standard for the resources tasked.
If FEMA had standards...then this would be a no brainer....but they do not have any...they left it up the "agency with jurisdiction". So we are good unless some state agency forces us to follow their rules...and I just don't see that happening.
I'm agreeing that FEMA has not stated any mandatory policy that aircrews wear nomex or anything else. They provide guidance, which says "appropriate PPE." It is then, as you said, the responsibility of the agency sponsoring the mission or from whom the overall IC comes to set the SOP for items like that.
Hence, it is exactly like the cadets in ES issue. We can have CAP policy that says they can do all kinds of stuff. BUT, when a mission roles up, like Katrina for instance, the agencies with mission to give will do one of two things... either they will set policy for PPE, or they will only request help from orgs that already have appropriate policies in place. As I said, I'm of the opinion that we should have that policy in place on our own without having to be told when the real work needs to be the focus & we want to get in the mix. We have enough questions of our being up to the same standards as professional emergency responders. I don't think we need to raise more when it's completely avoidable.
Okay I understand your point.
How ever......I don't think the Cadets on ES is the same level of issue as pilots with out nomex.
It is easy to say...no cadets....CAP does not depend on cadets to do its missions. (yes they are valuable and do a lot of good work...I said we do not depend on cadets). So FEMA, DHS, DoD or the state can easilly say....only 18 year olds and above because of liability and insurance issues....but if they said "everyone must be in fire retardant clothing and flight helments" (I used this because that is the LV Metro guys where).....then the agency requesting may be in a big jam...because we depend on our pilots if they could not participate we could not do the mission....and by extention the requesting agency could not get their mission done.
No one has ever in the past ever said..."we need your planes....but only if your pilots are in Nomex" and I don't think they ever would. If that ever happened...then we would all just say...you got to be in nomex to be an air crew member and press on. Until that time we can spend a lot of time bending over backwards trying to meet supposed requirments and standards.
I have to agree with the above. I think anyone trying to argue that if we don't wear Nomex on every mission that there's going to be a rash of people burning to death is out of touch with reality. In addition, we can wear the CAP flight suits that don't have Nomex that you buy from Vanguard, or the polo and gray slacks. So that whole argument is pretty ridiculous. We (occasionally) wear Nomex because it's what the Air Force wears and we somehow try to be similar to our parent organization. The Air Force probably wears Nomex because their aircraft are more likely to be shot at and catch on fire than most GA airplanes. But that's just a guess.
If we are trying to say we need to wear Nomex because the air ambulance guys do, then we need to wear crash helmets as well. Funny though, we're not flying helicopters (or Cessna 400 series or turbines) and we don't get paid to this. Those are some pretty significant differences in my opinion.
Of course all of these points we're all making are completely moot because this will only apply to gliders if it goes through. However, if this was ever proposed for powered flight, I wouldn't object. The main arguments at this point seem to be that people who want to be cooler in flight are pansies and need to tough it out or that by wearing shorts (instead of gray pants, with the exact same shirt), we'd somehow be affirming that CAP is a flying club. Well, CAP is definitely not a flying club (airplanes are too cheap :P), but we're really not the Air Force either. We're volunteers. And when I volunteer, I would rather be comfortable than not. I honestly don't see how that makes me disrespectful to armed servicemen and women, and I don't think many other people see it that way either.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 01, 2008, 10:55:32 PM
Okay I understand your point.
How ever......I don't think the Cadets on ES is the same level of issue as pilots with out nomex.
It is easy to say...no cadets....CAP does not depend on cadets to do its missions. (yes they are valuable and do a lot of good work...I said we do not depend on cadets). So FEMA, DHS, DoD or the state can easilly say....only 18 year olds and above because of liability and insurance issues....but if they said "everyone must be in fire retardant clothing and flight helments" (I used this because that is the LV Metro guys where).....then the agency requesting may be in a big jam...because we depend on our pilots if they could not participate we could not do the mission....and by extention the requesting agency could not get their mission done.
No one has ever in the past ever said..."we need your planes....but only if your pilots are in Nomex" and I don't think they ever would. If that ever happened...then we would all just say...you got to be in nomex to be an air crew member and press on. Until that time we can spend a lot of time bending over backwards trying to meet supposed requirments and standards.
We absolutely do depend on cadets around here. I've very literally tried to field all adult GTs, including on REDCAP right near high populated areas (within 200miles of 2500 CAP members) to search on the LKP, and been unable to do it.
Far as air though. You're assuming CAP is the only option out there or the mission won't get done. I'm assuming CAP faces tons of competition from other agencies that can do a better job per hour for still pretty reasonable dollar amounts. I'm concerned on one hand with staying competitive in that environment.
As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.
Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for
mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying. It's more along the lines of aerobatic flying or emergency services flying in terms of risk. I don't tend to think helmets are a reasonable expense - because they don't tend to fit in the space avail, and the excessive expense. If I were Wg/CC, that's what I'd mandate. It's reasonable risk mgmt, not your comfort, and that's the standard other agencies will apply as well.
Quote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
I'm assuming CAP faces tons of competition from other agencies that can do a better job per hour for still pretty reasonable dollar amounts. I'm concerned on one hand with staying competitive in that environment.
What agencies would those be? The only other agencies in my state that have aircraft are the State Police and the National Guard. The State Police have one Agusta A Power 109 helo and I think a Cessna Conquest. The National Guard has helos. Both can do a way better job in just about everything than anything CAP can do, but not for anywhere near the same cost. However, this is just in New Mexico, and if there are a lot of other agencies in different states that can mobilize ten piston, fixed wing aircraft within a few hours to go search for something at $60-$100 per hour per aircraft, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.
Quote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.
Maybe. But speaking of paycheck, I think the fact that a lot of us just can't up and leave our jobs (or school) at a moment's notice and go look for things makes us different from people who go look for things as their job. And I hope things are better in your state, but if I told any professional responders here that CAP is on equal footing with them, I think they would take it as an insult. But our wing is in a pretty sad state right now, so that may have something to do with it.
Quote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying. It's more along the lines of aerobatic flying or emergency services flying in terms of risk. I don't tend to think helmets are a reasonable expense - because they don't tend to fit in the space avail, and the excessive expense. If I were Wg/CC, that's what I'd mandate. It's reasonable risk mgmt, not your comfort, and that's the standard other agencies will apply as well.
Flying an aircraft on a mission doesn't make that aircraft more inclined to set itself on fire. The airplane doesn't know the difference. If it can handle buzzing around the pattern at 70-80 knots and one notch of flaps, then it can handle buzzing around a search area at 70-80 knots with one notch of flaps). And if we had accurate accident statistics for CAP then we would know exactly how much more or less risky it is to fly on a CAP mission than on a typical GA flight. I'm inclined to say that given the safety precautions CAP has set up (three person crew, flight releases, etc.), flying on a CAP mission should be less risky. It may also depend on your geographic location, as I would think that CFIT accidents are more likely to occur in mountainous areas. Yes, flying a CAP mission is often more complex than flying a typical $100 hamburger flight, but you should have three people to spread it over. The pilot is supposed to do nothing but fly the airplane, which I think is pretty safe. Who knows how often this actually happens, given that if your observer is not a pilot they may or may not be able to handle all the radio communications or know which checklist to read off and what else. And all of this risk management about flying with Nomex so we don't get burned doesn't get past the fact that you can already fly missions without Nomex in a CAP uniform. All mention of "uniform" in 60-1 just yields that you must wear an "appropriate CAP uniform" in CAP flying activities (save CD missions, where you might not wear a uniform), not an "appropriate CAP uniform with Nomex". So if flying a mission without Nomex is too risky, we need to change 60-1 right now to reflect that. As it is, you can fly every mission without Nomex.
So I think this discussion really boils down to the fact that some people think shorts look ridiculous and some don't. Risk is a moot point as established above. However, I will concede that this particular discussion is moot given that this uniform change apparently applies to soaring. So while this can go back and forth forever, I concede given these circumstances.
Speaking of 60-1, in my search, I found this:
Quote
5-7. CAP Member Soaring Uniform. Soaring activity, to include the tow pilot, demands that comfortable, loose-fitting, nonrestrictive clothing be worn. A T-shirt, such as a CAP designed wing T-shirt with a pair of shorts/long pants and tennis shoes is sufficient.
This is the February 2008 version. It already allows shorts for glider activity (including the tow pilot, which raises the interesting question of why perhaps our most risky flying activity, towing gliders, does not even require a CAP uniform, let alone Nomex), so what exactly does this change introduce?
Quote from: jayburns22 on August 02, 2008, 08:52:53 PMso what exactly does this change introduce?
It is for powered.
Ask your Wing CC or Region CC or anyone on the National Board.
They have had the Agenda for some time now, and are no doubt at the meeting in Florida now.
Quote from: jayburns22 on August 02, 2008, 08:52:53 PM
What agencies would those be? The only other agencies in my state that have aircraft are the State Police and the National Guard. The State Police have one Agusta A Power 109 helo and I think a Cessna Conquest. The National Guard has helos. Both can do a way better job in just about everything than anything CAP can do, but not for anywhere near the same cost. However, this is just in New Mexico, and if there are a lot of other agencies in different states that can mobilize ten piston, fixed wing aircraft within a few hours to go search for something at $60-$100 per hour per aircraft, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.
Air Ems will often launch a helicopter for the tax write off. One agency with bases in AZ, CO and NM has flown at least three this summer. My base flew one of them in an A Star 350B. The others were in Augusta 119 Koalas. Cost to taxpayers - free.
Quote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.
QuoteMaybe. But speaking of paycheck, I think the fact that a lot of us just can't up and leave our jobs (or school) at a moment's notice and go look for things makes us different from people who go look for things as their job. And I hope things are better in your state, but if I told any professional responders here that CAP is on equal footing with them, I think they would take it as an insult. But our wing is in a pretty sad state right now, so that may have something to do with it.
When I did volunteer EMS we were held to the same uniform and safety standards as the paid units. CAP should not let itself be lax that way. If want to be called by other agencies we should make every effort to meet their standards. It is the mark of a top notch service.
Quote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying. It's more along the lines of aerobatic flying or emergency services flying in terms of risk. I don't tend to think helmets are a reasonable expense - because they don't tend to fit in the space avail, and the excessive expense. If I were Wg/CC, that's what I'd mandate. It's reasonable risk mgmt, not your comfort, and that's the standard other agencies will apply as well.
QuoteFlying an aircraft on a mission doesn't make that aircraft more inclined to set itself on fire. The airplane doesn't know the difference. If it can handle buzzing around the pattern at 70-80 knots and one notch of flaps, then it can handle buzzing around a search area at 70-80 knots with one notch of flaps).
That doesn't take into account that it is a mission and human factors play a big roll. It is not now play it is real. The mission takes place in often unfamiliar territory, in a stress situation and not necessarily optimum conditions. 70 knots on final is different than 70 knots over a swamp or a mountain on a cold or hot day. The desire to make a find can lead to risk taking behaviors. Any small edge can make a critical difference.
Quote. And all of this risk management about flying with Nomex so we don't get burned doesn't get past the fact that you can already fly missions without Nomex in a CAP uniform. All mention of "uniform" in 60-1 just yields that you must wear an "appropriate CAP uniform" in CAP flying activities
That may be so but why take an unnecessary risk?
QuoteSo I think this discussion really boils down to the fact that some people think shorts look ridiculous and some don't.
Who cares about the look. At work we wear red Nomex III. It fades out to something really ugly. It still protects.
QuoteRisk is a moot point as established above.
No, it's ever present. It's only moot if convenience is more of a factor than safety. As I said before, I fly in AZ in nomex for a living. I'd rather wear it.
As an anecdote - we had to abort a flight last PM at work. The aircraft battery overheated and set off a whole slew of bells and whistles. Aircraft batteries can and do explode. CAP aircraft don't have that monitoring capability.
Quote from: flyerthom on August 03, 2008, 02:43:19 AM
That may be so but why take an unnecessary risk?
You're right. We should just quit flying altogether. If we're going to say that flying without Nomex is an unnecessary risk, I would venture to say that flying is an unnecessary risk. Police units could buy Toyota Camry's since they have a better safety rating than a Crown Vic, but they don't, because the risks don't outweigh the advantages. I ask any private pilot here who flies in his or her own airplane in a Nomex flightsuit to please speak up.
Shorts just don't convey what our organization represents. Sorry!
Quote from: jayburns22 on August 03, 2008, 04:58:27 AM
Quote from: flyerthom on August 03, 2008, 02:43:19 AM
That may be so but why take an unnecessary risk?
You're right. We should just quit flying altogether. If we're going to say that flying without Nomex is an unnecessary risk, I would venture to say that flying is an unnecessary risk. Police units could buy Toyota Camry's since they have a better safety rating than a Crown Vic, but they don't, because the risks don't outweigh the advantages. I ask any private pilot here who flies in his or her own airplane in a Nomex flightsuit to please speak up.
We should meet the professional standards that all rescue organizations meet. This isn't a game and if we want to be there we need to hold ourselves to that higher standard. Operational flying
is not the same as nor can it be compared to recreational flying. In the missions arena we need to step up or we won't be invited to step out. That means assessing and reducing all risks.
Quote from: flyerthom on August 03, 2008, 04:09:11 PM
We should meet the professional standards that all rescue organizations meet. This isn't a game and if we want to be there we need to hold ourselves to that higher standard. Operational flying is not the same as nor can it be compared to recreational flying. In the missions arena we need to step up or we won't be invited to step out. That means assessing and reducing all risks.
The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us. The requirement for it was silly to begin with. As far as appearances go, there are commercially available lightweight cotton flight suits which look fine. If we were genuinely concerned about appearances, there wouldn't be a half a dozen different uniforms aircrews can wear. There would only be one CAP aircrew uniform. I've seen three crewmembers jump out of a CAP plane wearing three completely different uniforms. So we are already well beyond any appearance argument with the status quo.
Quote from: jayburns22 on August 03, 2008, 04:58:27 AM
Quote from: flyerthom on August 03, 2008, 02:43:19 AM
That may be so but why take an unnecessary risk?
You're right. We should just quit flying altogether. If we're going to say that flying without Nomex is an unnecessary risk, I would venture to say that flying is an unnecessary risk. Police units could buy Toyota Camry's since they have a better safety rating than a Crown Vic, but they don't, because the risks don't outweigh the advantages. I ask any private pilot here who flies in his or her own airplane in a Nomex flightsuit to please speak up.
1. The Toyota is a unibody, which crumples when needed by police as a battering ram. The Ford's full-frame. Plus it's an American car, which means you're supporting the American economy (bluntly: those of us who bought foreign makes are to blame for the decline of American manufacturing might).
2. The Toyota isn't as roomy. Plus it's front-wheel-drive, which means it's more costly to maintain and service, and it doesn't perform as well. Show me a front-driver that can do a 55 mph backward J-turn without losing parts. You don't have to replace CV joints on a Crown Vic, nor do you have to break welds and pull an engine to replace a transmission.
3. I'd rather be in a big, body-on-frame American car, when it comes to safety, than a Toyota that might not protect me. Don't know where you get that "Camry's safer" stuff.
All that said, if the metaphor is that the American car is like a Nomex flight suit, I think we can agree that we'd rather have the protection and the amenities of the suit. Pockets for convenience, especially in a cramped cockpit. Emergency equipment already on your person, not in a bag thrown in the back where you might not be able to reach it in a pinch.
There are CAP pilots who wear our flying-club uniform (golf shirt and gray pants), and there are those who wear other CAP uniforms. That's their choice, as given by the Powers That Be. I'll wear my Nomex, down here in sunny south Florida, because it's protective and professional:
-- Protective because if there is a mishap, I have all my necessary equipment close by, and the Nomex will protect if there's a fuel leak and we start burning. If we have to ditch, I'm better covered and a little less likely to be shark bait.
-- I have to set an example for cadets, and I need to project professionalism to outsiders who I may work with or see. We're not a coffee club one night a week, folks. We're the Air Force's auxiliary.
Besides, WHO WANTS TO SEE OLD PEOPLE IN SHORTS? White Velcro shoes, black knee-high socks, yeah, I want that old, pale fogey looking for my stranded ass out in the Everglades... (laughing).
Quote from: Frenchie on August 03, 2008, 04:19:33 PM
The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.
One word: Hydrate. We do.
Quote from: Frenchie on August 03, 2008, 04:19:33 PMThe requirement for it was silly to begin with. As far as appearances go, there are commercially available lightweight cotton flight suits which look fine. If we were genuinely concerned about appearances, there wouldn't be a half a dozen different uniforms aircrews can wear. There would only be one CAP aircrew uniform. I've seen three crewmembers jump out of a CAP plane wearing three completely different uniforms. So we are already well beyond any appearance argument with the status quo.
That's because CAP has afforded its members too many "uniforms" to be uniform anymore. We can't even keep 'em straight. No one's reining in the choices. I'm not sure CAP has an active uniform board anymore, since most of the uniform changes have come from a previous national commander's fiat. And that's too bad. One guy on a power trip sure can make a mess, whether it's uniforms or larger issues.
(Incidentally, we're still stuck with his meaningless wing patch revision down here in Florida, folks. At least the gator said "Florida.")
In a way, there's a great deal of humor to this thread. So many people want the "Sky God" badge of a flightsuit, but when a "more comfortable" option is presented, they would prefer it. It's hilarious.
There are ways to deal with the dehydration and heat casualty issues. Use them. Drink your water, have a Gatorade (or equivalent) on ocassion, pay attention to work/rest cycles (they work), get sufficient rest, eat healthy (believe me, those greasy burgers and fries aren't going to help when you're bouncin' around), maintain even a mild excercise program. So many people don't want to do that, and then demand an accomodation when they can't hack it.
Shorts aren't going to put forth a professional image as far as an organization that wishes to play with the big boys. Even most of the GA flyers that I know wouldn't wear shorts on any kind of flight. The ones that do aren't well thought of, for different reasons, but it seems that the ones labeled as idiots practice this. What if you do have to land a small plane somewhere? That polo shirt and those shorts aren't going to protect you from the brush or the critters in them.
On glider flights, I can buy that, there's very little risk of fire (Not saying there is none, because if I did, I'm sure someone would pop up with some oddball incident that is the rarest exception in the universe). Our glider program isn't commonly in the public eye either. It will work for that.
Hydrate, that's easy. I have a Camelback Flash flow. That's the small fanny pack type Camelback. I put it on the floor and run the hose and clip to my shoulder harness. I sip every few minutes. This is the same technique I would use on 100 mile bicycle trips. I also keep gum, a couple granola bars and Drami's in the side zipper.
Would I like to wear shorts while flying? Heck yeah, cause I got a set of sexy legs!
Will I avail myself to the new (potentially) option of shorts? Nope, Not when on a mission. Just as I won't wear anything less than business casual at work, even on dress down Friday... I won't wear less than a flightsuit on a mission.
In our squadron (New) we are working on getting all Officers to standardize on uniforms. ie. Gray/ Aviator, And Blue BDU. Blue Flight Suit. This way we are truly uniform. one uniform for formal, One for Ground, One for Aircrew.
Quote from: jayburns22 on August 02, 2008, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
I'm assuming CAP faces tons of competition from other agencies that can do a better job per hour for still pretty reasonable dollar amounts. I'm concerned on one hand with staying competitive in that environment.
What agencies would those be?....
Three quick answers on that:
1) local/state mission:
a) State civilian air: The Texas state aviation board controls state aircraft. They have a bunch - a range of fixed wing from cessna to twins to jets to helos. State police have both cessnas & helos. State forestry service has cessnas also. Of course major metros also have police helos.
b) National Guard: We have a full aviation brigade (47s, 64As, 58s, 60 slicks, medivac, & air assualt rigs, and the new non-deployable 72s that are configured exclusively for SaR & counter drug). Plus, we have predators coming on line now. A bunch of new predator Sqs are being stood up in the ANG all around the country right now, and part of the defined mission is the state SaR & counter drug work. We have many several smaller UAVs already in service. You may not know it, but most states, between the guard & civilian side, have very active counter drug programs that use lots of air assets. The south dakota program has more people in just the guard (excluding civilian employees) that do that on a full-time basis then there are CAP members in that wing.
c) federal assets: We have Coast Guard (including Aux Air), Customs (CBP), & ICE that all have active air components, both fixed wing & rotary.
2) national disaster level mission: Take this out of the local box & you get agencies/resources from all over the country ready & willing to help. Obviously this compounds the competition.
3) Best tool for the job: You're telling me you can put one eyeball sorties over a target with a 1-2hr response time to launch, travel time, etc, and it's going to cost me $100/hr. I'm telling you I gotta put five of those sorties over the same terrain in different light/weather conditions over a period of days to achieve a POD. Versus, I can put one sortie over that terrain with sensors & achieve a similar POD in hours with a higher level of confidence. What's the cost difference there? NOTE: that has nothing to do with the cost of operating the platform & everything to do with the sensor.
QuoteQuote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.
Maybe. But speaking of paycheck, I think the fact that a lot of us just can't up and leave our jobs (or school) at a moment's notice and go look for things makes us different from people who go look for things as their job. And I hope things are better in your state, but if I told any professional responders here that CAP is on equal footing with them, I think they would take it as an insult. But our wing is in a pretty sad state right now, so that may have something to do with it.
I do understand that. I'd also mention that 95% of paid emergency responders don't do SaR as their primary job. It is something they try to train for on the side as one of many many other contingencies. We're not doing rescue, medical, extrication, or collapsed structure. What's left is actually not that hard. It's the upper mgmt levels that are a bigger challenge. And all of it is just a challenge, and one that can be overcome with hard work & dedicated people. I think that's what we got for the most part, and if they aren't then I don't want them around anyway. What we're missing is task & purpose (vision), and motivation. I think that's a leadership issue from the top of the organization down.
QuoteQuote from: DNall on August 02, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying....
Flying an aircraft on a mission doesn't make that aircraft more inclined to set itself on fire. ... And all of this risk management about flying with Nomex so we don't get burned doesn't get past the fact that you can already fly missions without Nomex in a CAP uniform. All mention of "uniform" in 60-1 just yields that you must wear an "appropriate CAP uniform" in CAP flying activities (save CD missions, where you might not wear a uniform), not an "appropriate CAP uniform with Nomex". So if flying a mission without Nomex is too risky, we need to change 60-1 right now to reflect that. As it is, you can fly every mission without Nomex.
I said My
personal opinion is nomex should be required for mission flights & other alternatives acceptable for the more routine flying we do, and that if I were wg CC I'd make that the policy, as I believe it is in California already.
QuoteSo I think this discussion really boils down to the fact that some people think shorts look ridiculous and some don't.
I said that too as a
secondary point. It looks ridiculous to me, the general public, and every other agency we could hope to work for. It is in no way whatever professional. That perceived lack of professionalism will extend in people's minds to how we do our business in the air and on the ground. The cost of that problem is not worth anyone's comfort.
DNall, you can keep saying it as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it true.
No one can touch CAP for cost of an aircraft, no one.
Large-scale operations will likely have state or regional SAR assets as well as military involved and that's a whole different playing field. You put us against most local agencies in smaller incidents and events, and we're the only game in town, including our incident management abilities, which, while imperfect to say the least, generally out shine the local sheriff who is used to single incident / single resource response.
Most towns, counties, and EMAs don't even HAVE air assets, and when you tell them we'll come for free if they pay for gas they can't write your phone number down fast enough.
You can't really even compare Texas, which is a very large border state, with other interior states. You guys have hurricanes, illegal entry issues, huge desert areas, and a host of other problems and challenges which also focus a lot more assets and attention your way than the average interior state with lots of dark at night and no high-visibility issues.
Sure, if I have a card deck with a choice of Helos and 130's vs. 172's and 182's, I'm going to pull the rotor cards first. In most areas of the country, for most operations, this is not a conversation. The POD ROI discussions don't come into play when you have one option.
As to your assertion that "95% of responders are not full time", I'd like to know where you are getting your data, because other than the ARC and Salvation Army, everyone else I see at missions is getting paid on one level or another. Whether they are full-time EMA's, or fireman doing double duty is not really relevant to the conversation.
In response to the actual thread topic, yes, shorts on our seniors, especially the older ones, will look ridiculous, however if we perform the missions as requested, no one will care. If anyone gives me a vote, I'll vote "no".
When I am a passenger of commercial airlines, I will always at least wear a tie, and usually a suit coat. Yes, it is hot at times and a bit uncomfortable. But you want to know something funny? I get treated so much better from the staff. I get noticed faster, and I am responded to faster. I've been bumped a class, I've been given alternate flights when my flight was canceled, when I watched a bunch of people going the same way as me be told there was nothing that could be done... Just the way the counter people and the stewardesses respond to me is much different than the times I used to fly in jeans and a t-shirt. I've watched how they treated other business men (women) that were dressed up.
Fat and Fuzzy's axiom of Life #1 - Perception *IS* reality
Has any thought been given to the professional treatment one receives when they dress professionally? Excluding, the safety of Nomex as it has been said it is a low probability item on the list. Professional appearance whether you like it or not, does give you an edge on how people perceive and treat you. How they receive data from you is also dependent upon your appearance whether you agree or not.
When you walk to, or away from your planes, and you look professional, you will be treated as a professional. If you then say something, it WILL be treated with authority and respect.
Imagine trying to explain grids, search patterns, etc while your bony knees are showing, with your cute tennis sneaks and knee socks. Or having a PAO call you over to have a photograph taken by the press. "This is our search Team".
How you dress DOES make the man (or woman).
In short as a volunteer organization we *DO* need to dress for success.
Quote from: 1st Lt FAT and FUZZY on August 03, 2008, 08:20:00 PM
Fat and Fuzzy's axiom of Life #1 - Perception *IS* reality
So true!!!
Anyway.....I would rather CAP mandate the application of sunscreen to members flying in gliders than worrying about shorts. If the canopy has no UV protection baked in (most do not) the glass actually amplifies the damaging UV and radiation hitting the occupant. An SPF of 50 or higher should be minimum.
I'm hesitant to jump into this thread again after the scolding I recieved at its beginning, but here is a reference in response to eclipse'd comparison from the analysis of our friend from texas.
http://www.dps.state.ia.us/ISP/specialty/airwing.shtml (http://www.dps.state.ia.us/ISP/specialty/airwing.shtml)
Ill leave you all to it now
Quote from: Frenchie on August 03, 2008, 04:19:33 PM
The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.
Data source, please.
Ned Lee
Quote from: isuhawkeye on August 03, 2008, 10:04:34 PM
I'm hesitant to jump into this thread again after the scolding I received at its beginning, but here is a reference in response to eclipse'd comparison from the analysis of our friend from Texas.
http://www.dps.state.ia.us/ISP/specialty/airwing.shtml (http://www.dps.state.ia.us/ISP/specialty/airwing.shtml)
I'm not sure what your point is, here. My state has aircraft, too, probably more, but I guarantee you that you can't "buy" a state bird for under $100 an hour, and any POD factors with a state plane are going to be the same as CAP's, maybe less depending on the aircrews in each.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 03, 2008, 06:44:13 PM
DNall, you can keep saying it as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it true.
No one can touch CAP for cost of an aircraft, no one.
That's a two-fold thing.
First, Predator including crew pay is actually cheaper per hour to operate than a 182. It burns a lot less gas & the maint is lower.
Second, the per hour cost is absolutely meaningless. It's the return per dollar that's meaningful. If it takes CAP five sorties over two days at $500, versus one sortie in 2hrs by anything else with the right sensors at the same cost... which of those is the sound investment? Which of those do you launch when lives are at stake?
Again, I'm not arguing that CAP is currently obsolete, or that the world is bleak. It's not. I'm arguing that technology is already coming on very strong in this area, and that over the next 5-10-15 years we may very probably be in a situation where the same eyeball out the window search we've been doing for 67 years isn't going to be the best solution anymore. We can wait around & try to figure out to do after that day comes, or we can be out front of it. Which of those is the better idea?
QuoteLarge-scale operations will likely have state or regional SAR assets as well as military involved and that's a whole different playing field. You put us against most local agencies in smaller incidents and events, and we're the only game in town, including our incident management abilities, which, while imperfect to say the least, generally out shine the local sheriff who is used to single incident / single resource response.
Most towns, counties, and EMAs don't even HAVE air assets, and when you tell them we'll come for free if they pay for gas they can't write your phone number down fast enough.
Granted... now, I've done literally hundreds & hundreds of missions in my CAP career, big to small to everything in between. I've never done one for a local county. Actually, I take that back. When I very first came in the Sq had just finished up air flood monitoring with cameras (1993), but that too was on a state EMA number.
If you guys are actually working for your local counties... well, yeah I can see where that would look a little different. I'm thinking on a state/regional/national scale. In that arena we certainly do face significant competition. I would very much like to make/keep CAP as the best avail resource for those situations, in fact improve our standing as much as possible.
QuoteYou can't really even compare Texas, which is a very large border state, with other interior states...
I mentioned South Dakota national guard full-time counter drug folks being more than CAP has in the whole wing. That's probably typical of most interior/smaller wings. I mentioned that to point out there are a lot more aviation resources (fixed & rotary) actively involved in counter drug & dual tasked to SaR than most people may know.
QuoteAs to your assertion that "95% of responders are not full time", I'd like to know where you are getting your data,
Don't take it out of context. I said 95% of paid responders who do SaR are not full-time in SAR. Your typical LE based rescue team is made up of people who have a primary job of being LE officers out on the streets, not conducting SaR activities. They may get together a weekend a month or something to train for SaR, or they may get to go off for some schools here & there, but they are really not spending a lot more time on the specialty than CAP members are. The same is true of guard personnel.
I'm just pointing out that these standards ARE achievable by CAP personnel, and being a volunteer/limited time are not really a valid excuse. It does take hard work, dedication, and sacrifice - all of which I think CAP members are already versed in.
Quote from: Short Field on July 25, 2008, 05:46:03 PM
I'd vote for that!!! Just soaked a flight suit yesterday working on touch and go's. That is also similiar to what the aircrews wear at NESA.
Wonder how long the "NOMEX flight suit" purists will keep wearing flight suites if they can wear shorts!
Wait a minute... shorts? On some of our guys? Varicose veins? Cellulite? Knee replacement surgical scars? Are you sure that these things are something you want to be able to see?
Quote from: Ned on August 03, 2008, 10:21:30 PM
Quote from: Frenchie on August 03, 2008, 04:19:33 PM
The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.
Data source, please.
Ned Lee
Have you ever worn a nomex flight suit?
Quote from: Frenchie on August 04, 2008, 01:16:19 AM
Quote from: Ned on August 03, 2008, 10:21:30 PM
Quote from: Frenchie on August 03, 2008, 04:19:33 PM
The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.
Data source, please.
Ned Lee
Have you ever worn a nomex flight suit?
Yes.
Data source, please.
(Unless this was just a personal opinion. If so, please so state.)
Quote from: Ned on August 04, 2008, 01:40:48 AM
Quote from: Frenchie on August 04, 2008, 01:16:19 AM
Quote from: Ned on August 03, 2008, 10:21:30 PM
Quote from: Frenchie on August 03, 2008, 04:19:33 PM
The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.
Data source, please.
Ned Lee
Have you ever worn a nomex flight suit?
Yes.
Data source, please.
(Unless this was just a personal opinion. If so, please so state.)
That much should be obvious to anyone with any degree of common sense.
The same goes for anyone who has compared a nomex flight suit to a lightweight cotton flight suit.
I don't know of any specific empirical studies that says a heavy coat is warmer than a light jacket either, but common sense tells me it is. Asking for a data source for something so obvious is a bit childish, but that's just my personal opinion. ;D
I think he means... if you're going to say the risk of life threatening heat injury is so much greater as to outweigh the use of fire retardant clothing, then you should back it up with quantifiable numbers for each so others can see the math.
I don't do risk assessments that way, I use a common sense approach, like you. Like... I'd say the risk of crashing in general is pretty dang low compared to the number of flight hours, but we still wear seat belts even though they're annoying & get in the way. Likewise, the risk of in flight fire is pretty low, but nomex is not an unreasonable mitigation. And, heat injury is a very valid concern, regardless of clothing. It's been researched thoroughly and can be mitigated with hydration & breaks (climb out to cool off for a few as needed). While nomex doe snot breath well, it is not going to cause a heat casualty that was not already happening due to not following heat injury prevention standards.
Like he said!
Quote from: DNall on August 04, 2008, 03:14:26 AM
I think he means... if you're going to say the risk of life threatening heat injury is so much greater as to outweigh the use of fire retardant clothing, then you should back it up with quantifiable numbers for each so others can see the math.
I don't do risk assessments that way, I use a common sense approach, like you. Like... I'd say the risk of crashing in general is pretty dang low compared to the number of flight hours, but we still wear seat belts even though they're annoying & get in the way. Likewise, the risk of in flight fire is pretty low, but nomex is not an unreasonable mitigation. And, heat injury is a very valid concern, regardless of clothing. It's been researched thoroughly and can be mitigated with hydration & breaks (climb out to cool off for a few as needed). While nomex doe snot breath well, it is not going to cause a heat casualty that was not already happening due to not following heat injury prevention standards.
If nomex was such a great idea for CAP crewmembers, where's the quantifiable numbers to support that in the first place? I highly doubt any such thing ever existed or they would have mandated a nomex flight suit as the only flight uniform. The military wears nomex because they have a good reason. Requiring something for CAP crewmembers for no good reason
without empirical evidence, and then asking for empirical evidence to get rid of it is a bit silly.
^ ummm a quick 2 second search for "Nomex Experiment" will result in hundreds of research papers, experiment thesis and results by various people, agencies and countries.
Requiring Nomex is based on a good reason. We take data from the military which says "nomex saves lives" and pass that on to members. I strongly believe Nomex and only Nomex flight suits should be the CAP flight crew uniform. For Cadets on O-Flights as well.
Quote from: DNall on August 03, 2008, 10:30:21 PM
First, Predator including crew pay is actually cheaper per hour to operate than a 182. It burns a lot less gas & the maint is lower.
Second, the per hour cost is absolutely meaningless. It's the return per dollar that's meaningful. If it takes CAP five sorties over two days at $500, versus one sortie in 2hrs by anything else with the right sensors at the same cost... which of those is the sound investment? Which of those do you launch when lives are at stake?
Again, I'm not arguing that CAP is currently obsolete, or that the world is bleak. It's not. I'm arguing that technology is already coming on very strong in this area, and that over the next 5-10-15 years we may very probably be in a situation where the same eyeball out the window search we've been doing for 67 years isn't going to be the best solution anymore. We can wait around & try to figure out to do after that day comes, or we can be out front of it. Which of those is the better idea?
You fail to factor in that the buy-in cost of a Predator is over $3 mil (for just one unit and its support gear), and that they can't fly AT ALL in the national airspace system without either ground-based observers or chase aircraft, which when using either in a large SAR area, is going to quickly exceed $100 per hour. So unless the thing you're looking for manages to magically crash in Class D, C, or B airspace (or in a restricted airspace area, in which case you can be guaranteed that CAP will not be welcome in searching for it), you will be SOL with UAV's. And after the crash of the one in trials for the Border Patrol down on the border, it's looking like it may be a while before the FAA considers integrating them with the current ATC system.
And while I certainly cannot foresee what sort of imaging devices will be available in 15 years, I can most certainly tell you now that there's nothing that beats the Mark I eyeball right now. The IR sensor on a Predator only spots things with a temperature difference from the ambient temperature, and it's in black and white. CAP quickly learned after "crowdsourcing" the Steve Fossett search that doing SAR with satellite imaging doesn't work either.
And I would still like to see data that indicates other SAR assets can find things in two hours where it would take CAP five sorties and two days. I have some evidence that points to the contrary. Back when we had F-16's at my local AFB (Cannon, KCVS), one such aircraft accidentally dropped a fuel tank out in the surrounding ranch land. After two weeks of having airmen search on foot and with what aircraft they had available to them (I am unclear of what types as this was before I even in junior high), our CAP squadron found said fuel tank in less than an hour. It was the last find we've had in New Mexico Wing of CAP.
In reference to those saying we need to wear Nomex on the same line of logic that we need to wear seatbelts: Where does it end? Upon this line of logic, we need to wear parachutes in case the wings fall off (which incidentally has happened to some aircraft). We wear seatbelts because the chance of encountering turbulence in flight is relatively high (especially in my hot, dry region, where I would like to be wearing shorts), and the chance of encountering turbulence that would cause you to hit your head on the ceiling is also relatively high in comparison to the airplane catching on fire (or the wings falling off). The same goes for making a hard landing where you might hit your head on something. Seatbelts are useful for more things than just crashing.
I have been reading this thread with great hesitation and finally talked my self into answering.
Sorry to say it, but here's how I look at it, and I look at it from a professional pilot and professional SAR manager. (Maybe not yet, but I will be some day)
The minute we fly in shorts, will be the minute I quit asking or tasking air sorties on behalf of the state if I ever man the SEOC again.
I will not have any flying club do the bidding of the state resources of we cannot dress or act the part.
^ you will when you see that those guys flying in shorts produce the same or better result, and cost a 1/10 as much as the other guys.
Quote from: 1st Lt FAT and FUZZY on August 03, 2008, 08:20:00 PM
When I am a passenger of commercial airlines, I will always at least wear a tie, and usually a suit coat. Yes, it is hot at times and a bit uncomfortable. But you want to know something funny? I get treated so much better from the staff. I get noticed faster, and I am responded to faster. I've been bumped a class, I've been given alternate flights when my flight was canceled, when I watched a bunch of people going the same way as me be told there was nothing that could be done... Just the way the counter people and the stewardesses respond to me is much different than the times I used to fly in jeans and a t-shirt. I've watched how they treated other business men (women) that were dressed up.
Fat and Fuzzy's axiom of Life #1 - Perception *IS* reality
Has any thought been given to the professional treatment one receives when they dress professionally? Excluding, the safety of Nomex as it has been said it is a low probability item on the list. Professional appearance whether you like it or not, does give you an edge on how people perceive and treat you. How they receive data from you is also dependent upon your appearance whether you agree or not.
When you walk to, or away from your planes, and you look professional, you will be treated as a professional. If you then say something, it WILL be treated with authority and respect.
Imagine trying to explain grids, search patterns, etc while your bony knees are showing, with your cute tennis sneaks and knee socks. Or having a PAO call you over to have a photograph taken by the press. "This is our search Team".
How you dress DOES make the man (or woman).
In short as a volunteer organization we *DO* need to dress for success.
Its really quite interesting to me that you equate a suit and tie to a green zip up bag. Especially when you look at the parties that wear
zoom bagscoveralls.
CAP pilots, RM pilots, mechanics, small children in the snow, painters, CDC Dr.s
Quote from: IceNine on August 04, 2008, 04:56:19 AM
^ you will when you see that those guys flying in shorts produce the same or better result, and cost a 1/10 as much as the other guys.
No I won't.
Let me give you an example of what CAP is creating. ??WG is tasked to fly the governor of the state.
How much egg on the face will you have is you show up in shorts? Does it give the appearance of a rinky dink flying club is fancy painted aircraft?
It don't matter what the walking the walk or talking the talk does for us, if the appearance doesn't hold water, and today folks, Appearance is everything.
Lets ask the Govenor what he thinks shall we?
"Hey Governator Schwarzenegger I know you have a budget and making that work out is always a good thing. We have these awesome helicopters over here that cost $1100 per hour flown by guys in flight suits, or we have these nicely maintained, aircraft flown by highly trained pilots, and they cost less that $100 an hour. Which would you like us to use today? Remember sir that we could need these assets for several days, and we have a fixed budget for this search"
In the recession that we are in/heading to any governor or state official that makes poor choices like blowing 10 times more money that is necessary, will be taking care of their next election potential all by themselves. Especially if this kind of thing leaked from a loose lipped PAO ;)
If I'm not mistaken, the buy-in for reapers is closer to 40mil. At least that's what CBP paid, and then asked for after they oversped their bird & lost sat lock on the spin.
It doesn't matter though. You're not factoring the cost of CAP birds cause they're provided by the govt for their own purposes & the cost is not passed on to the customer. Likewise, the predators are being purchased for their combat application, and placed with the guard to use domestically, so they are equally free to the customer.
You also mentioned 100/hr again. I've said half a dozen times that the per hour cost is in every way meaningless. They aren't buying your flight time!! They are buying a POD per dollar and how long it takes to reach that level. If I can reach 90% POD in one sortie, then your visual-only search is going to cost more & take many times longer.
Now I can keep arguing about UAVs, but that's not the point. They really can do the job cheaper & the govt is proceeding in that direction with the assumption the flight restrictions will go away, and will operate in the interm as I said with a combination of TFRs & escort. Even with escort they believe they can do the mission cheaper & more effectively. I don't know if they really got us beat, but I think it's pretty close to a dead heat.
That isn't the point though. I can just as well fly that mission with manned birds that don't have the restriction problems. CBP is flying 182s & 206s right now with FLIR installed at the Cessna factory by their special operations division (got a pic around here I'll try to find for ya later).
As technology continues to advance & get cheaper, how long can visual-only search remain an acceptable standard? Do we wait till we become obsolete & then try to figure out what to do & claw our way back? Or, do we embrace change & expand our missions into the future?
I've honestly never had anyone argue with me that we should remain less capable just cause we don't want to change, or cause our members can't handle anything hard. I don't accept that at all.
Those are all really well put together thoughts, to bad we aren't talking about UAV's here.
I was simply arguing the fact that at the end of the day if it comes down to hiring a group of knee high wearing trained pilots vs a zipper suited sun god flying a chopper we are going to win. The economy will help us out on that.
You can argue UAV or whatever you want in a thread that has to do with UAV vs manned searches but you're gonna have to create it.
Now if we are bringing things closer to home and comparing to other organizations that fly similar aircraft in size and operating cost, but then add advances technology we won't win.
My point put more bluntly CAP wearing shorts and white shoes is not going to lose business. Our lack of technology will, no argument there
^ okay, I apologize...
Quote from: IceNine on August 04, 2008, 06:05:20 AM
Now if we are bringing things closer to home and comparing to other organizations that fly similar aircraft in size and operating cost, but then add advances technology we won't win.
This is my point... well, with the caveat that you can do it with airframes that cost even twice or three times as much & the sensors make up the difference by getting it done on fewer sorties. Details got us sucked in a little deep.
QuoteMy point put more bluntly CAP wearing shorts and white shoes is not going to lose business. Our lack of technology will, no argument there
My point before that was... we got enough problems already. Our per hour cost is not what customers buy. It's the POD per dollar... etc, just explained that. In other words, we're already not nearly as good a buy as we think/say we are, and a lot of customers already know it. That situation doesn't get better as more tech comes along & it continues to get cheaper. In other words, there is no reason we absolutely have to wear shorts/present that image. What it costs us in credibility is not worth any potential gain. The economics are not so great as to let us act like fools. I think the numbers are actually tight enough that people need to see them in the rear view & get their butts in gear, not think they can slack further off.
And that is a ship that I am fully aboard.
I would love it if we stopped trying to be elite (ARCHER) and focused more time on just keeping up, and equiping ourselves with useful technology
Quote from: mikeylikey on August 04, 2008, 04:16:03 AM
^ ummm a quick 2 second search for "Nomex Experiment" will result in hundreds of research papers, experiment thesis and results by various people, agencies and countries.
Requiring Nomex is based on a good reason. We take data from the military which says "nomex saves lives" and pass that on to members. I strongly believe Nomex and only Nomex flight suits should be the CAP flight crew uniform. For Cadets on O-Flights as well.
What CAP does and what the military does are two different things. Taking what the military does and blindly applying it to CAP makes as much sense as saying all drivers need nomex suits and helmets because race car drivers have them. As someone else said, the military uses helmets also. They have a good reason for doing so. That doesn't mean CAP needs to also.
Quote from: DNall on August 04, 2008, 06:24:50 AM
My point before that was... we got enough problems already. Our per hour cost is not what customers buy. It's the POD per dollar... etc, just explained that. In other words, we're already not nearly as good a buy as we think/say we are, and a lot of customers already know it. That situation doesn't get better as more tech comes along & it continues to get cheaper. In other words, there is no reason we absolutely have to wear shorts/present that image. What it costs us in credibility is not worth any potential gain. The economics are not so great as to let us act like fools. I think the numbers are actually tight enough that people need to see them in the rear view & get their butts in gear, not think they can slack further off.
DNALL, Thanks for saying what I didn't.
I fully agree with this statement. Its all about credibility, nothing else
Why would the uniform worn affect your tasking.
We already have members fly in all kinds of "uniforms". Your post is a little extreme, and reactionary
Quote from: isuhawkeye on August 04, 2008, 11:55:02 AM
Why would the uniform worn affect your tasking.
We already have members fly in all kinds of "uniforms". Your post is a little extreme, and reactionary
I wouldn't think so. A polo shirt and slacks is a uniform. A casual one, but at least an attempt at some type of business like appearance.
Aviator combo.....should be pretty obvious. The appearance is more airline corporate, but it works.
Blues? Sure, why not. Not would I would choose to fly in, because I'm extremely picky about my appearance in blues. I'm not going to be the one checking the tanks if I'm wearing them.
BDU's? They would work. A lot of the pilots I know actually wear either a BDU type pant, or something with the same configuration (the same covered thigh pockets, looser hip pockets, sometimes a calf pocket on them too).
Flightsuits are pretty much the ultimate utility uniform. Pockets in the right places, loose, and comfortable. When worn properly (meaning not looked like you were stuffed into it), they present an appearance that pretty much tells the onlooker that it's a well organized outfit.
Heat injury in a flightsuit while flying? Let's see how many times I've had to deal with that: Hmmm, carry the two....yep, still adds up to
zero. And I'm not wearing just the suit, I've got on gloves, collar up, survival vest, and a helmet. The only part you see that's me is the lower part of my face, and that won't be visible before long.
The "heat injury" argument is rather baseless. If it's such a problem, how about showing some statistics on how many heat injuries our aircrews have had wearing
just the suit itself. Some numbers that are only about how the Nomex is the sole factor. I doubt many people can provide such numbers. If heat is such an issue, then someone should be able to back it up.
Now, show up wearing shorts to a mission. Probably be the last time that we get called. There is a major disagreement among our members here on whether or not it's professional. Does any one think the public at large is clueless? That they won't form any opinions based on our appearance?
This change isn't about safety. Safety directives are about erring on the side of caution. Shorts are not an example of this. It is about
comfort and accomodating some that don't choose to take think things through, not safety. People can argue the "heat problem" all they want, but it doesn't hold a lot of water.
And we shall begin rounding the circle again for the twelfth time. Bring your own dead horses to beat!
This was probably over at the beginning of page 7 :clap:
This thread is hamburger, and DNall going off on his UAV tangents doesn't help matters.