Back in June I attended an AUXCOMM class.  Although it focused on amateur radio communicator assistance to government organizations, some of the lessons were universal.  One of the topics was an increasing mindset among the agencies that they want volunteers to plug into their structure, rather than coming in with their own like CAP often does.  Among other things they can tell their volunteers how to dress.  A specific comment I recall was do NOT show up looking like a general or some other authority figure unless prior arrangements permit it.  It is entirely possible expectations of CAP may change a bit if we want to help.  Otherwise CERT's or other homegrown volunteers may push us aside.  We can march around in circles with our BDU's and grade insignia, wishing we could do more.

We can discuss different groups plugging into ICS all we want, but if the folks in charge don't like the uniforms we wear to the party they won't call us.  This may vary by location but public safety can be very distrustful of outsiders, and sometimes feels they have turf to protect.  (Police, fire, EMS, and Nat Guard are usually the insiders.  Anyone else in uniform is fighting an uphill battle.)  If you want to help in our uniforms, work these things out in advance with MOU's.  Be as flexible as our regulations permit.  Or stay home.  Sometimes that sucks, but is the reality we face.

Now, this is NOT a Radioman moment, but I wonder if CG Aux has a good idea removing their grade insignia when they augment active duty Coast Guard units.  Maybe CAP could do the same.  Wear shiny metal grade within CAP, remove it upon request.  Wear it if permitted.  We keep saying grade is meaningless outside of CAP anyway.  Removable grade could assuage some delicate feelings outside of CAP.  I know, I know, sew on grade is easier (except when we get promoted).  Camo uniforms are a whole other potential concern.

Bottom line, other groups can't change our uniforms but they don't have to let us into their "circle of trust" either.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 31, 2012, 12:15:30 PM
Now, this is NOT a Radioman moment, but I wonder if CG Aux has a good idea removing their grade insignia when they augment active duty Coast Guard units.  Maybe CAP could do the same.  Wear shiny metal grade within CAP, remove it upon request.  Wear it if permitted. 

FYI, it seems to be fairly common that local CG units often waive (at their instigation) this requirement.  They know who is an Auxie and who isn't. 

Quote from: RiverAux on October 31, 2012, 12:18:10 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 31, 2012, 12:15:30 PM
Now, this is NOT a Radioman moment, but I wonder if CG Aux has a good idea removing their grade insignia when they augment active duty Coast Guard units.  Maybe CAP could do the same.  Wear shiny metal grade within CAP, remove it upon request.  Wear it if permitted. 

FYI, it seems to be fairly common that local CG units often waive (at their instigation) this requirement.  They know who is an Auxie and who isn't.

That's cool, the benefits of relationship building.  But when we hope to step into new situations flexibility may be more important than many of us realized.

Quote from: a2capt on October 31, 2012, 07:17:57 AM
..and that CAWG derivative of the uniform has been on and off  a couple times in the past 8 years or so.

The other agencies that "require" it? Well, a similar orange shirt is their uniform.  It's not like we have -not- worked with these same agencies before, in some capacity.

Basically, the orange shirt can only be worn while on the sortie, not while sitting around the mission base, or by base staff at all, or enroute to / from the mission. So you report, get assigned, change the top, go - do the deal - come back, change it again. Or go out again. For UDF and Ground Team only. No one else can use it, and those two assignments require it. Cadets can use the orange vest, seniors can't. That's what the supplement regulation says.

Big hassle. The orange vest does the same job in a simpler manner, and if you have a thin hydration pack on, it can even go *over* that.

The BBDU isn't any more visible in the terrain, woods, etc. than the woodland pattern. It's dark material, and the search areas tend to be low light conditions, otherwise we're not exactly hiding anyway.

Well that seems like superfluous organizational rules that don't seem to support the mission at all.  Again, I'm not from California so I can't speak to the reasoning behind those decisions but they seem counter intuitive to efficient operations.

My issue with the Camo isn't really with the visibility of it in the woods.  The BBDU would still necessitate the use of the reflective vest.  The issue I have is with the Organizational Identity of those organizations that wear Camo vs. those who wear other things.  As well as the fact that all the members of our organization should be able to report to an operation wearing the same uniform.

Quote from: SARDOC on October 31, 2012, 05:58:48 PMAgain, I'm not from California so I can't speak to the reasoning behind those decisions but they seem counter intuitive to efficient operations.

Yet you seem compelled to keep commenting on it.

The short story, in California the Sheriff of each county is responsible for ALL search and rescue in their county. This is per state law.
In short, we operate at the sheriff's pleasure.

CalEMA acts as a statewide coordination agency. They are very ICS centric. CalEMA has strongly suggested that if CAP wants to play they need to play by the same rules as everyone else. One of their "suggested" practices is the wear of the orange shirt by ground teams to facilitate visibility from the air.

So California Wing decided to comply with their wishes to keep everyone happy.

Yes, we could have said "no, we won't do it". And they could have said "then you won't work in the State of California".

It's not really a battle worth falling on our sword for.

Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2012, 06:54:40 PMYes, we could have said "no, we won't do it". And they could have said "then you won't work in the State of California".

I'd say that should have been considered as an option, including the planes, but we're so desperate to be in the game that we'll pretty much accept whatever people put in front of us, and then pay them to play on top of that.

You don't see cops, firemen, or the military wearing a different uniform in California just for the privilege of working for free.

Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2012, 06:54:40 PM
CalEMA has strongly suggested that if CAP wants to play they need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

I'm not questioning the wisdom of hi-viz clothing in the field, as aircrew I know I'd love for ground teams to wear more orange than they do now.  I'm curious though, where are these rules or suggested practices published?  After a previous conversation on this very topic I searched and searched but didn't find anything.  My Google Fu isn't invincible, but it's usually pretty good. 

The irony of the CAWG orange shirt is that members probably still have to wear an ANSI vest when reflector material is required.  An orange vest over an orange shirt starts getting a little silly.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 31, 2012, 08:35:46 PM
The irony of the CAWG orange shirt is that members probably still have to wear an ANSI vest when reflector material is required.  An orange vest over an orange shirt starts getting a little silly.

Actually, no they don't. 

Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2012, 09:00:03 PM

Quote from: wuzafuzz on October 31, 2012, 08:35:46 PM
The irony of the CAWG orange shirt is that members probably still have to wear an ANSI vest when reflector material is required.  An orange vest over an orange shirt starts getting a little silly.

Actually, no they don't.

A vest is required by the national curriculum, something which cannot be reduced by a lower-level supplement.

In one flavor or another, it is required by both the GT/UDF curriculm and the Safety regs.   The CALTrans uniform is not ANSI II compliant.

I believe to get the uniform they did national was involved.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 31, 2012, 09:32:25 PM
I believe to get the uniform they did national was involved.

Yes, they would need to have a nationally approved supplement - those supplements can strengthen existing regulations,
but they can't relax them, nor reduce what is required equipment for a given qualification.

In this case, the Safety regs require that the vest be ANSI compliant (as of 29 days ago).

Even when our members are not required to wear ANSI vests, they are still required to wear safety vests in all the situations requiring the wear of the CAWG orange shirt.  That shirt just became pointless unless it integrates reflective material, probably to the ANSI 2 level.   I personally like the shirt, althought not in combination with blue pants.  Regardless, it's not good for much in light of the new rules.  Well, adding orange sleeves to a vest does help a little.  Granted, I've never seen a county SAR team with ANSI shirts, most of them are wearing orange tee-shirts in good weather.  CAP went overboard with the requirement for reflectivity in ALL ground activities.

From 62-1:
7. Personal Protective Equipment
a. Every CAP member will wear appropriate safety vests or safety apparel as outlined below when participating in CAP ground functions during all times, day or night. Safety vests or safety apparel may be orange or lime green and may be worn with or without the CAP logo. Examples of applicable ground functions are, but not limited to:
(1) All outdoor ground functions of emergency services.


d. ANSI and non-ANSI compliance standards are as follows:
(1) ANSI compliant – Safety Vests or Safety Apparel must meet the American National Standards Institute, Inc (ANSI) Class 2 or Class 3 requirements. This category is required anytime a member's duties may place them within the right-of-way of Federal-aid highways; such as directing traffic, investigating crashes, handling lane closures, obstructed roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.
(2) Non-ANSI compliant – Safety Vests only, require reflectivity front and back. This category is allowed anytime a member's duties do not require ANSI compliant vests in accordance with the definition of ANSI compliant requirements above. By October 1, 2012, all safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and reflectivity standards.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2012, 09:35:53 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 31, 2012, 09:32:25 PM
I believe to get the uniform they did national was involved.

Yes, they would need to have a nationally approved supplement - those supplements can strengthen existing regulations,
but they can't relax them, nor reduce what is required equipment for a given qualification.

In this case, the Safety regs require that the vest be ANSI compliant (as of 29 days ago).

The CAWG SUP to CAPM 39-1 was approved by the PACR/CC. No requirement for it to go to National.

Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2012, 10:57:20 PMThe CAWG SUP to CAPM 39-1 was approved by the PACR/CC. No requirement for it to go to National.

The regulations disagree.

[redacted - double post]

Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2012, 10:58:49 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2012, 10:57:20 PMThe CAWG SUP to CAPM 39-1 was approved by the PACR/CC. No requirement for it to go to National.

The regulations disagree.

CAPM 39-1 says that Region Commanders, in coordination with National Headquarters, must approve Wing Supplements.
That was done. As a matter of fact, the issue of the CAWG Ground Team uniform was an agenda item at a National Board meeting,
where it was approved.

The Region CC may be submitting it, but it ultimately has to be approved by NHQ.

Previous approvals aside, the orange shirt has to be covered by a safety or ANSI 2 compliant vest in most of the circumstances where the orange shirt is permitted for wear.  Failure to do so runs afoul of the current safety regs.  The shirt is now a legal undergarment for a vest.

Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2012, 08:21:12 PM

Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2012, 06:54:40 PMYes, we could have said "no, we won't do it". And they could have said "then you won't work in the State of California".

I'd say that should have been considered as an option, including the planes, but we're so desperate to be in the game that we'll pretty much accept whatever people put in front of us, and then pay them to play on top of that.

For most of the big county Sheriff Depts in CA CAP isn't even a blip on the radar. One county, San Bernardino consisting of 20,000 sq mi, has a fleet of:
6 Astar B-3 Eurocopters
1 MD 500E
2UH-1H Super Hueys (MedEvac/MICU equipped)
1 Sikorssky H-3 (May have been withdrawn from service)
1 Aero Commander
1 C-182
This is in addition to the Reserve Aero Sqdn aircraft that are member owned.  The Sheriff also has ground teams that are equipped and specialize in mtn., desert, mine, swift water and mounted SAR with the infrastructure to support them.

So yeah, CAWG does want to stay in their good graces. CAP needs them more than they need CAP. As far as knowing what the wardrobe is for CA law enforcement, fire and NG I think your knowledge is limited. You need to get out of ILWG more.