ES/Ground Team can wear whatever in the field?

[Deorad]

I have been hearing this for a while in Washington Wing and was curious if anyone has a reference for this permission (I couldn't find it in 39-1 and cadets heard it from SM) ; to clarify what was claimed was "Upon being called out on a mission (real or attending a practice) cadets must show up in proper BDU's but once there may change into whatever they see as fit for the task." Generally these outfits are supplemented with a safety- orange Beret. I found this odd because I would think the 39-1 stipulation of "participating or conducting in the cadet program" would apply to this as well. So basically what I'm asking is, where can I find this regulation if indeed it is real?

[Eclipse]

No.

The regulations are specific and approved at the national level.  The only relief or changes to them available requires an approved supplement to 39-1 or other regulation before the members can start wearing anything which is not allowed per the standard.

[Deorad]

Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved  . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.

[tsrup]

Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved  . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.

It sounds more like this made up rule was put in to place to justify an orange beret.  If one was to truly claim an interest of safety, the beret would be one of the worst possible candidates. 

This is a violation of regulations, pass it up your chain of command and see what happens. 

[Eclipse]

...one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington...

Somehow the rest of the CAP universe is able to mitigate the situation with an orange vest, so that statement above holds zero weight.

With that said, it would all depend on your position and experience as to whether you decide to address your concerns directly, but one thing you can
do is simply obey the regulations yourself, and let your example be your quiet statement.

[PA Guy]

The orange beret is a throw back to the Challenger program that was either an ORWG or WAWG, I can't remember, program from 30 yrs ago.  This "reg" might be one of the reasons WAWG isn't often allowed to play much in WAWG in the WA ES/EMA sandbox.

[Deorad]

Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved  . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.

It sounds more like this made up rule was put in to place to justify an orange beret.  If one was to truly claim an interest of safety, the beret would be one of the worst possible candidates. 

This is a violation of regulations, pass it up your chain of command and see what happens. 

   I wholeheartedly agree with you that it does seem that the orange beret is useless and is probably arbitrary ( the reason I mentioned it is I thought perhaps it had some sort of regs to justify it); however I do know more than I let on about the case including the possible original offenders. The main SM driving this comes from an ES background professionally and I have reason to believe that while it is stated that cadets may wear whatever, the SM does personally check these "uniforms" to make sure the cadet will be prepared for adverse weather. The SM strongly advocates wearing layered clothing, in particular wool and I agree with the claim that a BDU uniform is not adequate for certain weather conditions ex: a SAREX conducted in the wet snow while it is raining; but it does not justify disregard for proper uniform wear and regulations. However I'm not going to bring out the gossip about all this, every wing and every squadron seems to have its own politics and spreading them across the internet will not do any good. I'm going to do some soul-searching to see if this is really worth bringing up the chain of command and if once brought up if it would accomplish anything. The SM really has some good intentions, probably even the orange beret is (some attempt at uniformity?) and it seems SM has the acquiescence of some Wing event organizers so I thought there was some regs but could not find them. Thank-you for your time and advice.

[Extremepredjudice]

Wear whatever.
Put a black/brown T-shirt over it.
Put BDUs on.
Profit.

Problem solved?

[Deorad]

Problem solved for me but as PA Guy noted

The orange beret is a throw back to the Challenger program that was a eithr an ORWG or WAWG, I can't remember, program from 30 yrs ago.  This "reg" might be one of the reasons WAWG isn't often allowed to play much in WAWG in the WA ES/EMA sandbox.

It is probably one of the many crippling reasons our ES will not get called on ES missions.

[Eclipse]

It is probably one of the many crippling reasons our ES will not get called on ES missions.

I have to disagree - it's a point of contention internally, but the uniform is the uniform, and shouldn't have anything to do
with whether or not you are involved in your state's response plans.

It was discussed in the AFRCC class recently that Washington State is one of the few that do their own DF and air SAR, and therefore do not involve them
except in very rare circumstances.

[Deorad]

It is probably one of the many crippling reasons our ES will not get called on ES missions.

I have to disagree - it's a point of contention internally, but the uniform is the uniform, and shouldn't have anything to do
with whether or not you are involved in your state's response plans.

It was discussed in the AFRCC class recently that Washington State is one of the few that do their own DF and air SAR, and therefore do not involve them
except in very rare circumstances.

I see, as I'm new to ES I've heard we don't get called out much on account of state policy; however I knew that the Puyallup sheriffs department sponsored a program for Middle to High School students that allows them to participate actively in SAR missions and apparently mistakenly assumed that it was partly due to our unprofessional appearance. Thank-you for correcting me. I'm guessing since the sheriffs dept. is already integrated into the state SAR, it's easier for them to get missions?

[Extremepredjudice]

Unless CAP has a MOU with the state, all you will get is AFRCC missions.

[Spaceman3750]

Unless CAP has a MOU with the state, all you will get is AFRCC missions.

Not true. ILWG hasn't had an MOU with the state since the early 90's and we still get called by IEMA and local EMAs/ESDAs/OEMs.

MOUs don't mean much in a CAP context anyways as most agencies responsible can call the NOC for assistance.

[Eclipse]

Unless CAP has a MOU with the state, all you will get is AFRCC missions.

Not true. ILWG hasn't had an MOU with the state since the early 90's and we still get called by IEMA and local EMAs/ESDAs/OEMs.

Correct - an MOU helps grease the wheels, and may even add a level of "will" vs. "should" to being called, but they aren't required.

[Sapper168]

Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved  . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.

It sounds more like this made up rule was put in to place to justify an orange beret.  If one was to truly claim an interest of safety, the beret would be one of the worst possible candidates. 

This is a violation of regulations, pass it up your chain of command and see what happens. 

   I wholeheartedly agree with you that it does seem that the orange beret is useless and is probably arbitrary ( the reason I mentioned it is I thought perhaps it had some sort of regs to justify it); however I do know more than I let on about the case including the possible original offenders. The main SM driving this comes from an ES background professionally and I have reason to believe that while it is stated that cadets may wear whatever, the SM does personally check these "uniforms" to make sure the cadet will be prepared for adverse weather. The SM strongly advocates wearing layered clothing, in particular wool and I agree with the claim that a BDU uniform is not adequate for certain weather conditions ex: a SAREX conducted in the wet snow while it is raining; but it does not justify disregard for proper uniform wear and regulations. However I'm not going to bring out the gossip about all this, every wing and every squadron seems to have its own politics and spreading them across the internet will not do any good. I'm going to do some soul-searching to see if this is really worth bringing up the chain of command and if once brought up if it would accomplish anything. The SM really has some good intentions, probably even the orange beret is (some attempt at uniformity?) and it seems SM has the acquiescence of some Wing event organizers so I thought there was some regs but could not find them. Thank-you for your time and advice.

As far as BDU's being some sort of safety hazard in the climate of Western WA i must call BS.  BDU's were no hazard to me or anyone else i knew in that climate while i spent 2 years there by Uncle Sams request...

[Pylon]

There are plenty of options within the regulations.


Ground Teams are required to wear the orange high-visability reflective vest while participating in GT operations.


Ground Teams are free to choose their gear (aka: LBVs, Packs, H-Harnasses, etc.) in any color or reflective material they so choose. They could wear blaze orange day packs with reflective panels sewn to them for all anyone cares.  With the exception of the color of hydration packs, National does not regulate the color of field gear that you wear over your approved, compliant uniform.


Organizational baseball-caps can be approved at levels below National per CAPM 39-1 in a color designated by the approving commander.  PAWG does this and chooses blaze orange ball caps for wear with the BDU.  While grade insignia or devices cannot be worn on unit ball caps, it would solve your colleagues' desires for high-visability headgear and it actually complies with regulation. Other headgear (berets, boonies, etc.) are not authorized to be made up at the local level.


But the bottom line is, per CAPM 39-1 Section 1-1, if the regulation does not explicitly authorize something for uniform wear then it cannot be worn. In other words, just because CAPM 39-1 doesn't outright say you can't wear pink tutus with the BDU coat doesn't mean you can assume it's okay to wear.


Tactfully bringing this up to your chain of command, however, is a whole 'nother challenge.  Good luck with fighting the good fight.

[bflynn]

The bottom line is that ground teams can wear whatever the CoC doesn't enforce.

There is a standard, but it's up to local leaders to enforce it.  If they do or if they don't, they are setting the standard.  Some will be strictly by the book, by the line, word and letter.  Others may allow certain exceptions if it helps people work. 

In the end it's a local call.  If you're upset because it "not military", remember it has always been the authority of an on-scene military commander to deviate from rules and plans to accomplish the mission.  If the idea makes your blood boil, ask why it matters to you.

[Eclipse]

The bottom line is that ground teams can wear whatever the CoC doesn't enforce.

No, the bottom line is that CAP members are only allowed to wear what is explicitly approved by regulation. 

Thee is no "local authority" in this regard as any variances outside the regulations must also be approved by NHQ.

It matters because people who believe they can be "creative with something simple like a uniform regulation, will also
be inclined to make other poor choices.

[Ed Bos]

All of the posts insisting that no echelon of CAP below NHQ may alter the uniform are entirely correct.

That being said, there is no requirement to wear any specific CAP uniform on GSAR missions, nor is there a requirement to wear ANY uniform on missions. The only required item is the vest. The requirement to wear a uniform while participating in or leading the cadet program does not apply, ES is not the cadet program, regardless of the status of the personnel involved.

If a ground team chose to wear the polo uniform (or a similar outfit comprised of civilian clothes) they could then wear an orange beret as civilian headgear.

That being said, orange berets are dumb.

[RiverAux]

That being said, there is no requirement to wear any specific CAP uniform on GSAR missions, nor is there a requirement to wear ANY uniform on missions. The only required item is the vest. The requirement to wear a uniform while participating in or leading the cadet program does not apply, ES is not the cadet program, regardless of the status of the personnel involved.

Except for the requirement that a uniform be worn while conducting CAP activities and the GT task guide which requires you to be in a BDU uniform.  Unless you're saying that you only need to wear a BDU uniform when you complete that single task and that CAP never intended it to be worn any other time....