Another flightsuit idea....

[isuhawkeye]

wow.  you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force, and turned it into an acusation of ayrian/Nazi intent.

no wonder this orgonization is not capable of anything.

can we get a lock

this post from a treo phone

[Hawk200]

you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force,

OK, that keeps coming up. I invite someone to prove it.

and turned it into an acusation of ayrian/Nazi intent.

If you considered it such an accusation, then you're not reading the intent. It was not an accusation, it was an example of a concept taken too far. There is a difference between drawing a paralell and making an accusation. The paralell may be extreme, but it is valid. How far should uniformity be taken?

I made a suggestion of uniformity, with a very small concession. The intent was to provide the same uniform to everyone, in an attempt to provide some solidarity. Apparently, it's not a welcome idea, as many people are attached to their rank insignia.

[RogueLeader]

you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force,

OK, that keeps coming up. I invite someone to prove it.

He did, a public notice from Col. Hodgkins stating that the AF will not allow the AF Flightsuit to be worn by those not meeting weight and grooming.  Do you want a policy letter stating as such?  I doubt you'll get it.

[Hawk200]

you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force,

OK, that keeps coming up. I invite someone to prove it.

He did, a public notice from Col. Hodgkins stating that the AF will not allow the AF Flightsuit to be worn by those not meeting weight and grooming.  Do you want a policy letter stating as such?  I doubt you'll get it.

That's a little more than "the AF won't allow it". I doubt it was so cut and dried though. As far as the policy letter goes, why isn't one available? It should be. We have far too many problems related to "Well, somebody told me....", and nothing supplied in black and white.

Of course, I've allowed the topic to stray. I posted a simple idea, and it got turned into someone elses agenda as well as accusations of hatred. None of which I was looking for.

Will a moderator lock this based on the request of the original poster?

[isuhawkeye]

before this does get locked.

10 years ago all of CAP could wear any of three colored flight suits.  if a member were out of height weight all you had to do was remove the shoulder insignia. 

the air force came down and eliminated the height weight compromise from both the woodland bdu, and the green flight suit.  This change sparked the birth of the blue alternative uniforms. 

since then general Bowling, General Glasgow, and General pineda have each petitioned the air force for a closer uniform option.  These attempts in sum got us the uniforms we have today. 

in one of these resent discussions an un named air force officer pulled a picture out of his desk of a CAP member on a CI team who was grosley out of standards in an air force style uniform.  the message was loud and clear.  If your inspectors can't respect our standards how will your membres. 

finally at a recent Q&A col hodgkins stated that the sage flight suit was an air force specific uniform.

none of this is in writing, and no memos will be found.

since I can not provide you proof.  please continue, and I apologise for interupting.

[Hawk200]

before this does get locked.

10 years ago all of CAP could wear any of three colored flight suits.  if a member were out of height weight all you had to do was remove the shoulder insignia. 

the air force came down and eliminated the height weight compromise from both the woodland bdu, and the green flight suit.  This change sparked the birth of the blue alternative uniforms. 

since then general Bowling, General Glasgow, and General pineda have each petitioned the air force for a closer uniform option.  These attempts in sum got us the uniforms we have today. 

in one of these resent discussions an un named air force officer pulled a picture out of his desk of a CAP member on a CI team who was grosley out of standards in an air force style uniform.  the message was loud and clear.  If your inspectors can't respect our standards how will your membres. 

finally at a recent Q&A col hodgkins stated that the sage flight suit was an air force specific uniform.

none of this is in writing, and no memos will be found.

since I can not provide you proof.  please continue, and I apologise for interupting.

You haven't provided me proof, but some very compelling evidence on some issues. We have enough volunteers doing what they want, and lack the integrity to follow regs. I guess it really doesn't speak well of us as a "professional" organization.

I remember the three flighsuits. I know the orange was one of the authorized suits, but I've never seen one worn in person. I do remember some of the jokes about wearers looking like DAC pilots. (Before anyone gets up in arms, DAC stands for Douglas Air Craft.) I guess it looked OK.

It still think that there are other closer options to the BDU. Green BDU's would have been far closer. Easy enough, but someone wanted blue. Then again, I didn't get a say, and neither did most of the Civil Air Patrol membership.

I think if we cleaned up ouir act, then the Air Force might reconsider. Their leadership will change, as will ours. Hopefully, the future will bring brighter things.

[DNall]

The AF doesn't provide policy statements on uniform decisions to CAP members. Discussions are had, CAP uniform boards make requests, AF appvl auth makes a decision & informs CAP-USAF to direct CAP accordingly. The AU or AETC/CC will not be talking to anyone here about their decisions, and certainly not having a discussion of the hows/whys.

[RiverAux]

The assumption that because the AF rejected an idea or made us change something in the past is the final word is just plain wrong.  Keep in mind that AF officers come and go much more rapidly than CAP members.  What one AF officer decides at one point isn't like a Supreme Court decision which is almost impossible to overturn. 

Now, if your idea is incredibly whacky and outright idiotic no level-headed AF officer is ever likely to approve it.  But, if your idea is fairly reasonable, wait a few years and new AF officers will come along who may be more open to it. 

[DNall]

true, but no officer is going to change policy w/o first reviewing the previous policy & why it is what it is. If the justification is sound & he/she isn't really committed to the change then it's hard to believe they'd just reverse a position. Things aren't done on a whim. They have to be for good reasons that trump the previous good reasons.

[Dragoon]

Uniformity comes in degrees.  Perfect uniformity is everyone in the same suit, with the same haircut, wearing the same badges. 

Perfect uniformity as you described is dictatorial, eliminating the individuality for the sake of a single appearance. It's about no one being different. Would you have them all blue eyed and blond hair, too? Because that's the next step.

You misread me.  You "poo-poo'd" getting everyone in the same color as not enhancing uniformity. I was pointing out that uniformity is a sliding scale.  And that perfect uniformity can never be achieved.  But we could make great improvements simply by standardizing color.

You don't consider a flightsuit comfortable? Honestly? You'd be the first I ever knew that thought so.

A lot of mission pilots I know complain about heat in the cockpit in summer.  It's not a bit deal to me, but I HAVE been known to tie off the flight suit around my waist in August.

I've seen the concepts of uniformity that you're ascribing to. Including one unit commander that forbid the members of his unit to wear badges on their uniforms. To him, it wasn't "uniform" to do so. He didn't last very long. The concept of uniformity can be taken way too far. It's never done in huge leaps, only in small steps, sometimes even inches at a time.

Methinks you didn't read my post very clearly.  You think I'm advocating something I'm against.

I'm in favor of giving people choices that blend - like blue nomex, utility or golfshirt.   I was railing AGAINST the idea of mandating nomex, which would be a hell of alot more dictatorial.  Which is why it would never fly. (note - on a personal level, I'd be actually fine with mandating nomex.  But I've got money.  Not everyone does.)

And if you don't mandate nomex, then you won't achieve much more uniformity, which was your original goal..  All you will accomplish is to put a few of our  overweight and/or bearded members in a flightsuit.  You'll still have half the aircrew wearing something else.  That isn't really fixing anything.

[DNall]

I agree with the sliding scale of uniformity understanding, but I disagree that being in the same color achieves anything.

Now, I'm telling you flat out that flt suits are going to become mandatory for at least mission flight if not all flights within the next two years tops, based on FEMA reqs. Deal with that, and find a solution that works. I think the current blue & grn system is just fine for the time being.

[Dragoon]

I agree with the sliding scale of uniformity understanding, but I disagree that being in the same color achieves anything.

That's a bit irrational. It most certainly achieves something. It makes everyone look the same from 100 feet away.

If you have a formation, everyone blends.  If you're a reported looking at folks scurrying around a mission base or a flight line, everone blends.  In other words, you've increased uniformity.

Now, it's just fine to say "it achieves something, but not very much."  Because that's a matter of opinion.

Now, I'm telling you flat out that flt suits are going to become mandatory for at least mission flight if not all flights within the next two years tops, based on FEMA reqs. Deal with that, and find a solution that works. I think the current blue & grn system is just fine for the time being.

I've heard the "FEMA's coming - the sky is falling" argument for a while now.  Just like the whole mandatory ID card thing, I'm still in the "we'll see" category. 

We'll see if these requirements stand up to all the inevitable protests.

We'll see if the requirements are actually enforced.

We'll see if an agency ever turns down our air support because of what the pilot is wearing.


Not sayin' it won't happen - just not ready to put any bucks on the table.  I've seen too many of these unfunded "requirements" come and go to get too excited.

[DNall]

I agree with the sliding scale of uniformity understanding, but I disagree that being in the same color achieves anything.

That's a bit irrational. It most certainly achieves something. It makes everyone look the same from 100 feet away.

If you have a formation, everyone blends.  If you're a reported looking at folks scurrying around a mission base or a flight line, everone blends.  In other words, you've increased uniformity.

Now, it's just fine to say "it achieves something, but not very much."  Because that's a matter of opinion.

okay, achieves nothing meaningful. An AF unit would have people in flt suits, BDUs, & blues all in the same unit on the same work day. It's a matrix of uniforms appropriate to the work they're doing. I got no issue narrowing our currently out of control matrix, but it's still going to be a matrix, which doesn't relate to each part of the matrix being the same color.

If you want an example, I'd have gone with OD green BDUs rather than the BBDU. I think that's more uniform with the BDU that we have to work with. As far as flt suits, we're going to keep using the green, and the AF is not going to allow some people to wear it, so we have to come up with an alternative. Orange is a little out of control so blue is fine, dark blue is better than royal or baby blue, so it's fine. The current blue/white combo is a good parallel to blues, though I'd like to see the epaulets standardized between the two (to CAP eps of course).

Now, I'm telling you flat out that flt suits are going to become mandatory for at least mission flight if not all flights within the next two years tops, based on FEMA reqs. Deal with that, and find a solution that works. I think the current blue & grn system is just fine for the time being.

I've heard the "FEMA's coming - the sky is falling" argument for a while now.  Just like the whole mandatory ID card thing, I'm still in the "we'll see" category. 

We'll see if these requirements stand up to all the inevitable protests.

We'll see if the requirements are actually enforced.

We'll see if an agency ever turns down our air support because of what the pilot is wearing.

Not sayin' it won't happen - just not ready to put any bucks on the table.  I've seen too many of these unfunded "requirements" come and go to get too excited.

All this is happening now. It's federal law that civilian agencies will comply or get no fed assistance or allowed to participate in any mission where federal funds are used or work for any other agency who gets any federal fund. That's pretty absolute. Now AF has decided to comply, even though the law says they don't have to. CAP has no other alternative & NB is voting on compliance shortly.

The FEMA process is moving down a defined path. You can debate the timeline, but what's going to happen is fairly certain. There are standards, they've been out for some time now, everyone is using that time to get up to speed before it becomes mandatory. The way that it'll be enforced is the credentialing system, which is already ordered by congress.

As far as turning down our help, yeah they will for two reasons. First is the money I mentioned before. Second is we won't be in the system as a resource they can even call. If you aren't credentialed & resource typed under that system then you aren't allowed in the game, period. You can believe it won't happen, but it will. I know that change is painful in the emergency response community, which is why DHS/FEMA have already taken over 5 years in the transition & still looks like 18-24 more mos before we're there. You can't say they're not giving enough time or money. CAP has so far made the choice to stay out of the fray, and that's a mistake NB is about to correct.

[Dragoon]

All this is happening now. It's federal law that civilian agencies will comply or get no fed assistance or allowed to participate in any mission where federal funds are used or work for any other agency who gets any federal fund. That's pretty absolute. Now AF has decided to comply, even though the law says they don't have to. CAP has no other alternative & NB is voting on compliance shortly.

The FEMA process is moving down a defined path. You can debate the timeline, but what's going to happen is fairly certain. There are standards, they've been out for some time now, everyone is using that time to get up to speed before it becomes mandatory. The way that it'll be enforced is the credentialing system, which is already ordered by congress.

As far as turning down our help, yeah they will for two reasons. First is the money I mentioned before. Second is we won't be in the system as a resource they can even call. If you aren't credentialed & resource typed under that system then you aren't allowed in the game, period. You can believe it won't happen, but it will. I know that change is painful in the emergency response community, which is why DHS/FEMA have already taken over 5 years in the transition & still looks like 18-24 more mos before we're there. You can't say they're not giving enough time or money. CAP has so far made the choice to stay out of the fray, and that's a mistake NB is about to correct.

Nothing is "fairly certain" when you've got the federal government pushing against local governments and volunteer groups.  There will be lots of protests.  The term "unfunded mandate" will get bandied about.  Congressmen will weigh in to support their local state's concerns.  Individual standards will be questioned - and probably revised.  Waivers will be granted.

And....the priorities may change the longer we go without a major screw-up that can be blamed on lack of full NIMS compliance.

Will some standardization occur?  Sure.  Might it be rather watered down from what FEMA is proposing today?  Almost definitely. 

I really, really doubt that within 24 months we'll be required to put aircrew in Nomex.

[DNall]

Nothing is "fairly certain" when you've got the federal government pushing against local governments and volunteer groups.  There will be lots of protests.  The term "unfunded mandate" will get bandied about.  Congressmen will weigh in to support their local state's concerns.  Individual standards will be questioned - and probably revised.  Waivers will be granted.

It has not been unfunded. They have pushed hundreds of billions of dollars to the states on the condition that they were tracking toward set standards. Specific to these standards, they came out in 2003, they were created by industry working groups (CAP was invited to participate but refused on the basis it was for civilian responders & we work for the AF so will not be complying), then open to a long comment period that almost anyone could participate in. Then finally they were locked down just back over Christmas for the SaR standards. All that argument your talking about has already happened & is over with. They've taken soooo long to make this mandatory, and thrown sooo much money at it, that everyone else is pretty much there.

As far as volunteers, you have to define what that means, cause the definition has changed significantly under this system. If you mean local rescue teams or volunteer firefighters, they are supposed to be trained up & compliant, and are looked at on equal footing with any other resource regardless of pay. If you mean civilians off the street with no or limited trng (CERT) then those are volunteers & have a VERY limited usefulness. The credentialing system is meant to keep the well meaning but unqual'd people from mascaraing as qual'd folks when an IC staff doesn't have time to check you out.

And....the priorities may change the longer we go without a major screw-up that can be blamed on lack of full NIMS compliance.

Will some standardization occur?  Sure.  Might it be rather watered down from what FEMA is proposing today?  Almost definitely. 

I really, really doubt that within 24 months we'll be required to put aircrew in Nomex.

These standards do evolve over time, they have made an effort to ensure input for the field level controls what makes the list. A high degree of standardization already has occurred. Most of that already existed or was a matter of some small changes for most agencies. That all happened years ago with resource typing.

Then they went into defining the standards for each resource type. That's what I'm pointing you to here. Those are minimum trng for each resource type, you're still expected to have additional local trng for the kinds of situations/enviros you work with. Those have been done for a long time now. The consideration & discussion period ios just over by a few months, this right now is the slow transition period for agencies to get up to speed. Which again, for 95% of agencies they already meet or exceed these standards or it's a matter of a small change here or there. For CAP it's dramatic, but more so because we've refused for so long to comply.

The next step is coming with credentialing, when they gain a way to enforce those standards by typing at an individual level & guarantee background checks, all so they can keep the well meaning undertrained civilians from getting in their way.

[Dragoon]

Nothing is "fairly certain" when you've got the federal government pushing against local governments and volunteer groups.  There will be lots of protests.  The term "unfunded mandate" will get bandied about.  Congressmen will weigh in to support their local state's concerns.  Individual standards will be questioned - and probably revised.  Waivers will be granted.

It has not been unfunded. They have pushed hundreds of billions of dollars to the states on the condition that they were tracking toward set standards. Specific to these standards, they came out in 2003, they were created by industry working groups (CAP was invited to participate but refused on the basis it was for civilian responders & we work for the AF so will not be complying), then open to a long comment period that almost anyone could participate in. Then finally they were locked down just back over Christmas for the SaR standards. All that argument your talking about has already happened & is over with. They've taken soooo long to make this mandatory, and thrown sooo much money at it, that everyone else is pretty much there.

Where exactly did FEMA provide funds for flight suits?  If not, it's an unfunded requirement.  After all, exactly how could FEMA have previously funded requirements that are still in draft format?  (answer - they haven't).  And I'll bet that there are THOUSANDS of similar unfunded requirements buried in the details that will only come to light over the next few years.


And no, the arguments aren't over.  Because here's how it really works (and I've seen this a lot)

Agency sets up policy - opens it up for comment.

Some comment, some ignore.

Agency makes a decision.

Everyone's eyes get real wide, and finally read the fine print.

The complaints begin.

Agency sticks to its guns - "you had your chance, now deal with it."

Complainers contact their Congressmen and submit bills on what it will cost to comply.

Agency faces attacks on two fronts - Congressmen protecting local boys, and the fact that without the "non complying" locals, the Agency can't get its job done.

Agency realizes is doesn't QUITE have the power it thought it had.

The REAL negotiations begin.  Waivers, rewrites and schedule slips abound.

In the end something does get done - but not the pure and wholesome solution the Agency wanted.
There's always a chance that this particular initiative will not follow this pretty standard model.  But somehow I doubt it.  The only way to demand compliance is to provide all the necessary funds to become compliant.   And that certainly isn't the case here.  Things are bound to get more realistic as time goes on.

[DNall]

First, it's not draft any longer. It was in the fall, it's final now.

They didn't provide funds for any specific item. They provided hundreds of billions to the states, who were free to decide for themselves how to spend it, but with the caveat that they would have to comply with the standards.

CAP has tried to make a case for taking a chunk of that funding, both nationally & on the state levels. The biggest limiting factor there has been the state of our audits & financial mgmt. That's a big motivator behind the wing banker program. We're working to address that, but do understand that CAP is about the only one of consequence left out in the cold. Everyone else is already on board with this & either already or rapidly becoming compliant.

Finally, I understand your cynical position on how policy gets executed. I've worked in congress & dealt with these kinds of things. I'll tell you four things about this:

1) They developed all the standards at the operational level. Anyone could add suggestions as it moved toward draft, not just agency reps, then anyone could comment as it moved toward final. It was never a big bad agency ordering things from on high. And, the standards we're talking about are to the emergency response community a really low bar. They got no issue complying with these, cause they're already there.

2) This is the back end of a decade long effort. They've provided an exceptionally long period for people to slowly change toward compliance. CAP has dragged our feet, and now is about to be in catch up mode or out of this business.

3) They've provided & continue to provide enough money thru states to create a whole new compliant emergency response community from scratch. It may not all go where it should, but you can't say they aren't putting the funds out there. When states make the wrong decisions with that stuff, then it's their responsibility to make up the difference.

4) Everyone else is compliant. The military didn't have to be, but is doing so voluntarily. They are behind on that process, particularly in the guard. The only real exception to this conversion process is communications. CAP is pretty well on the ball with that thanks to the AF, but P25 is going to take longer than expected for a lot of agencies. These standards though, they're really not going to change & are certainly not a surprise to anyone in the business.

[Dragoon]

First, it's not draft any longer. It was in the fall, it's final now.

They didn't provide funds for any specific item. They provided hundreds of billions to the states, who were free to decide for themselves how to spend it, but with the caveat that they would have to comply with the standards.

That money was provided prior to the standards being established.  How the heck could people have known to buy flight suits before it was known flight suits (or anything else) was required?

That just doesn't hold water.  I'm sure that will be FEMA's position, but it will be challenged.  Forcefully.

4) Everyone else is compliant.

Hold it.

You're saying that every ES responder, from the local Sheriff's dept, to every VFD to every volunteer search dog team, is fully compliant with all standards except CAP?

Not even close.

Almost no one is "in compliance."  Everyone is scrambling to BE in compliance.  Around these parts every First Responder organization is frantically schedulling ICS classes just to get THAT part in compliance.  People aren't even close to the more technical training or equipment standards.  It ain't just CAP, by a long shot.

The battle occur - and it will be fun to watch.

Plus, we need to see if this thing survives into the new Presidential administration - every President has his/her own agenda and priorities, after all.  No doubt there's a lot of goodness here.  But I've seen other really good programs die a slow death due to lack of interest from the guys at the top.

Bottom line - there is great danger in getting "out in front" of this.  It's likely to change.  And that means you might make people jump through hoops and spend money unneccesarily.  Very bad when you're dealing with volunteers.

[RiverAux]

While I tend to agree with Dragoon on his view of how things may shape up, I am 100% positive that no one in this country is going to go to the wall about a requirement that CAP aircrews wear NOMEX.  We don't have anywhere near that amount of pull, and what pull we do have goes towards keeping the AF from chopping our funding every year. 

The local volunteer fire departments may get their senators in an uproar about something and get a few things changed, but CAP ain't going to be able to do that.  We all know the pro/con argument about whether NOMEX is helpful, but I just don't see CAP trying to get a Senator behind getting such a thing droppped. 

[isuhawkeye]

can someone please site the nomex reference? Of the three major aircrew resource types that apply to CAP only two reference flight suits.  In  the nims resource type they listed PPE, and reference flight suits.  could non-nylon clothing be acceptable?

  referencing back to the definitions of ppe they site NFPA standards.  I see no corilations to flight suits.