New Summer Flight Uniform

[Eclipse]

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".

[Pumbaa]

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.

[mikeylikey]

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. 

 

[isuhawkeye]

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

Ill leave you all to it now

[Ned]

The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us. 

Data source, please.

Ned Lee

[Eclipse]

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

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.

[DNall]

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?

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.

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.

You 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.

As 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.

[Nomex Maximus]

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?

[Frenchie]

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?

[Ned]

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.)

[Frenchie]

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. 

[DNall]

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.

[mikeylikey]

Like he said!

[Frenchie]

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.

[mikeylikey]

^ 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.

 

[cap801]

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.

[CadetProgramGuy]

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.

[IceNine]

^ 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.

[IceNine]

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

[CadetProgramGuy]

^ 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.