Hydra-SAR vs. Aero-Vest

[Storm Chaser]

I know there are a few threads about SAR vests and gear. I've even read some praising both Search Gear's Hydra-SAR vest and True North Aero-Vest. After a lot of research, I'm down to these two options for use as a UDF and GT 24-pack. The Hydra-SAR is much cheaper than the Aero-Vest, but the Aero-Vest is modular and configurable. I would buy the orange one, which also have some reflective tape. That being said, a concern I have with buying either one of these is the new requirement in CAPR 62-1 that states that vests MUST be ANSI Class II or III compliant. Neither of these vests are. The Hydra-SAR would cover the entire safety vest (if one is worn underneath). The Aero-Vest would cover most, but some parts may still be visible depending on the vest worn. I really don't want to wear a safety vest on top of my gear vest.

Which one is the better option: Hydra-SAR or Aero-Vest? Are there other better options?


Hydra-SAR


True North Aero-Vest

[Майор Хаткевич]

Put safety vest on top of either you choose and your good to go.

[johnnyb47]

I don't know about either of those vests so I'm little help with a choice between the two, but I've been liking this:


http://www.thevestguy.com/product/10367

I like the number and placement of pockets and it claims to be ANSI II but It's a tad pricey.

[Storm Chaser]

Thanks for your post. I think this may be a great alternative to the Hydra-SAR vest. The Hydra-SAR is less expensive and comes with a hydration system and back pack, but's not ANSI II compliant. I like the fact that TheVestGuy.com will customize the vest to your specifications. But looking at some of the options, it certainly makes the vest much more expensive.

I still like the Aero-Vest a lot. If I was to buy one, I would get the hydration system, belt and back pack options with it. That would also make the vest very expensive, even more so than the one above. Decisions... decisions... It's a tough call, but I think I'm going to give TheVestGuy.com a call and see what are my options. This may be the only acceptable alternative in order to avoid wearing an ANSI safety vest on top of my gear vest.

I forgot to post the links to the vest on the OP. Here they are:

http://searchgear.com/hydra-sarandx2122.aspx

http://www.truenorthgear.com/product_detail.php?path=0_11&p_id=212

[Shotgun]

I bought the Hydra-Sar several years ago and absolutely love it.  I carry everything required for the 24 hour pack as well as a couple of other personal additions.

It has help up very well. It' s been through many SAREX's, 3 actual ground team missions, and two weeks of NBB without a single failure or problem.

[johnnyb47]

I bought the Hydra-Sar several years ago and absolutely love it.  I carry everything required for the 24 hour pack as well as a couple of other personal additions.

It has help up very well. It' s been through many SAREX's, 3 actual ground team missions, and two weeks of NBB without a single failure or problem.

To the original question though, do you just wear your reflective vest over top of it? or underneath it?

[Storm Chaser]

The Hydra-SAR was originally my first choice. The problem is the ANSI requirement in CAPR 62-1. It seems that the only 'out-of-the-box' solution would be a vest from TheVestGuy.com (the ANSI II Photography Vest would be my choice). I'm still not convinced though. For that price, I expect a bit more.

I'm seriously considering buying the True North Aero-Vest and wearing an ANSI compliant vest underneath. The trick is finding one with enough reflective material exposed through the Aero-Vest to meet the requirement. I've even toyed with the idea of adding reflective tape to the Aero-Vest itself, but don't know how feasible and costly that would be.

Whatever option I pick, I'm definitely not planning on wearing a safety vest over my gear, but under it.

[Eclipse]

The ANSI vest or jacket has to be the outermost garment.

[RogueLeader]

Whatever option I pick, I'm definitely not planning on wearing a safety vest over my gear, but under it.

CAPR 62-1 Section 7:
b. Safety vests are approved for wear over the outermost garment of AF-style uniform or corporate uniform and must be ANSI compliant as defined in paragraph 7d below.

While I agree with you, sorry it is a NO GO.

[Storm Chaser]

Actually, CAPR 62-1's exact wording is "Safety vests are approved over the outermost garment of the AF-style uniform or corporate uniform." (emphasis mine) It doesn't specifically states that it must be worn over gear. That being said, common sense would suggest that since the purpose of the ANSI Class 2 or 3 compliance is safety, that the vest, especially the reflective parts, should be visible.

[RogueLeader]

Actually, CAPR 62-1's exact wording is "Safety vests are approved over the outermost garment of the AF-style uniform or corporate uniform." It doesn't specifically states that it must be worn over gear. That being said, common sense would suggest that since the purpose of the ANSI Class 2 or 3 compliance is safety, that the vest, especially the reflective parts, should be visible.

True, however, the wording in the letter mandating the change specifically stated it had to be worn over gear.  Now that I go look for it, I can't find the letter.

[johnnyb47]

Actually, CAPR 62-1's exact wording is "Safety vests are approved over the outermost garment of the AF-style uniform or corporate uniform." It doesn't specifically states that it must be worn over gear. That being said, common sense would suggest that since the purpose of the ANSI Class 2 or 3 compliance is safety, that the vest, especially the reflective parts, should be visible.

True, however, the wording in the letter mandating the change specifically stated it had to be worn over gear.  Now that I go look for it, I can't find the letter.

Well there was this one found in eservices by clicking the news feed:
Safety Awareness Bulletin: 13-01 (121210)
(sorry, couldn't copy and paste due to the whole thing basically being images)
It doesn't say anything about being the outermost layer.
I agree though, I seem to recall seeing a letter with that directive as well.

[Eclipse]

Only vests are approved for wear with USAF-Style uniforms, any ANSI-compliant outerwear such as a jacket or raincoat
may be work over the corporate uniforms.

The intent is pretty clear that it is to be worn as the outermost garment.  The days of hiding a $5 orange vest under a $300 tac vest or
thinking that a 1" armband meet the mandate are over.

[BGNightfall]

I don't know about either of those vests so I'm little help with a choice between the two, but I've been liking this:


http://www.thevestguy.com/product/10367

I like the number and placement of pockets and it claims to be ANSI II but It's a tad pricey.

Did you also view the Incident Commander vest on the same site?  It seemed a bit less pricey, but still plenty of pockets

[johnnyb47]

http://www.thevestguy.com/product/500019
http://www.thevestguy.com/product/10279

Both lower cost options. Both look pretty good to me.

[Storm Chaser]

The intent is pretty clear that it is to be worn as the outermost garment.  The days of hiding a $5 orange vest under a $300 tac vest or
thinking that a 1" armband meet the mandate are over.

I've seen this over and over. The National Board (or whatever new body approves these now a days) debates an issue, proposals are submitted, then amendments, finally a decision is made, follow by a report, and often, but not always, by an ICL. Then at some later time, the regulation is finally revised... only to leave much of the intent of the original proposal out. The problem is that the only authoritative source is the regulation, unless there's an ICL, Supplement, or other official source augmenting or clarifying the policy.

While I understand the intent, which is maintaining visibility during certain ground operations for safety reasons, the current regulation does NOT address gear. And while it's also obvious that a tactical vest could cover an ANSI vest defeating the purpose of wearing one, what do we do with other type of gear such as backpacks? What if the backpack is too big to wear a safety vest on top. The regulation does not address that.

Since the regulation does not prohibit carrying bags and other gear and does not require wearing a vest on top of it, which would be very difficult (sometimes impossible) with certain types of bags, let's go back to the intent, which is maintaining visibility and safety. ANSI Class 2 standard requires that the garment fabric must have 201 in.² of reflective trim, 23.25 in.² of reflective material in the shoulder area (for garment without sleeves), 775 in.² of fluorescent (i.g. orange or lime green) background material and provide 360^o visibility, with horizontal gaps of 50 mm or less.

While I admit that accomplishing this with a tac or other gear vest could prove challenging, I would argue that if you can accomplish it while wearing your gear, then you're in compliance. Of course, this is just my own analysis and in no way is meant as an authoritative statement. But contrary to the statement quoted above, the regulation is NOT clear on this issue. I'm sure (or better yet, hope) that more guidance will come soon, if not from National, then from Regions and/or Wings.

[Spaceman3750]

I wear an Aero Vest and love it. If someone makes a big deal about ANSI I can and have dropped it into leg pouches and break out the orange vest. I use a Camelbak underneath when I do this.

[Storm Chaser]

I wear an Aero Vest and love it. If someone makes a big deal about ANSI I can and have dropped it into leg pouches and break out the orange vest. I use a Camelbak underneath when I do this.

I think I'm going to buy the Aero-Vest; I really like what I've seen so far. If ANSI becomes an issue, I may just do that or wear a vest on top. We'll see. Which version do you have: Wildland or Urban? I was going to buy the Wildland at first, but after talking to the manufacturer, True North, I think I'm going to get the Urban. The main difference, as it was explained, is that the Urban version has zipper pockets and the Wildland has velcro/snap-on ones. Any thoughts on this?

[Eclipse]

I'd probably go with the zippers, especially if you're keeping the little stuff in there.

No one with sense is going to give you grief if you're wearing a bright orange or lime green vest with reflective striping.

The reg is aimed at correcting the people who for years were buying / wearing either camo or black hardkewl tac vests, plate carriers
and the like, and then wearing their "required" vest underneath it.  That or forgoing a vest altogether and wearing a 2-inch am band and/or reflective belt and thinking that met the mandate, which it doesn't and never did.

[Spaceman3750]

I wear an Aero Vest and love it. If someone makes a big deal about ANSI I can and have dropped it into leg pouches and break out the orange vest. I use a Camelbak underneath when I do this.

I think I'm going to buy the Aero-Vest; I really like what I've seen so far. If ANSI becomes an issue, I may just do that or wear a vest on top. We'll see. Which version do you have: Wildland or Urban? I was going to buy the Wildland at first, but after talking to the manufacturer, True North, I think I'm going to get the Urban. The main difference, as it was explained, is that the Urban version has zipper pockets and the Wildland has velcro/snap-on ones. Any thoughts on this?

I have the wildland, the snaps make it easier to load and you can stuff more stuff in if needed. The wild land also has a waterproof docs pouch.