BDUs as a hindrance

[NM SAR]

I'm in New Mexico Wing, one of those few funny places where CAP doesn't run SAR. SAR here is under the State Police, and is predominantly performed by other volunteer SAR organizations; in fact, CAP is something of a black sheep in the NM SAR organization.

One of the interesting things we're running into is that the SAR community is taking issue with the BDUs. they have two complaints; cotton and camouflage. Cotton is a terrible material for mountain rescue, but they're willing to deal with since the uniform isn't entirely cotton. the thing they take the most issue with is that we're in camouflage, and everybody from NASAR down to the smallest SAR team realizes that blending in on SAR is bad. in addition, 8" jungle boots fairly well suck for mountaineering, for a variety of reasons.

I'm working on getting people to switch over to BBDUs, since this would at least solve the camo issue, but I'm meeting a surprising amount of resistance. I guess there's a GI joe mentality that says camo is cool, so no one wants to give it up, even though blue makes more sense from a SAR perspective. the other possibility is that the BBDU has unfortunately been associated with the fluffy sorts who don't meet weight standards, so no one who does meet weight standards is willing to wear it. any thoughts on changing some minds?

[Nilsog]

I find it interesting that other organizations care so much about what we wear. If you need people, you need people, regardless of the colored threads they wear. We're mandated to wear vests over the uniform anyway, so what does it matter?

And as far as getting others into the field uniform- Its obviously going to be a personal choice. I wore them for my first year and a half and switched to BDUs because I got into cadet programs and I wanted to look like I was on the same team. If wearing the field uniform were to become a mandate to take part in ES operations then you would probably see a large part of your ES centered people lose interest or even leave. I don't know if its sad to say or not, but uniforms seem to be a huge part of most of what we do. I think I'm correct when I say that most members have no desire to give up or switch away from USAF uniforms. Just the way it is.

On the flip side, other agencies should not be mandating or demanding or even criticising what we wear. We are the USAF Auxiliary, and we wear what is authorized. If someone doesn't like it because "its not what the other SAR people wear", then go play with the other SAR people.

[NM SAR]

while I agree with you in principle, the problem is that we're not getting SAR callouts because we're too different from the SAR community, and our organization has historically had a "I'll take my ball and go home" attitude about things like this, which has alienated much of the SAR community.

[a2capt]

If it's really the uniform they have a problem with and you think that will just magically go away if it's changed ....

...I would suspect it's really not the uniform, but a great bluff to call that does have a good chance of not being changed so that the argument never has to be debated on the real terms.

IE, the uniform is pretty petty when put up against what we can offer as an organization.

[Spaceman3750]

Get your senior leadership to sit down with the state police and figure out what the real issue is. My money says someone didn't play nice with them at some point and there's still some resentment over that. They don't have issues with other volunteer orgs so you need to figure out what the real issue with CAP is.

[NM SAR]

there ARE other issues, and we're working on them from other angles. this is only one of them, but it's the one that seems to be brought up most often.

[Eclipse]

there ARE other issues, and we're working on them from other angles. this is only one of them, but it's the one that seems to be brought up most often.

Likely because it is visible and inconsequential. 

Undersell and overproduce and the uniform comments will likely dry up. 

[UWONGO2]

I'm working on getting people to switch over to BBDUs, since this would at least solve the camo issue, but I'm meeting a surprising amount of resistance. I guess there's a GI joe mentality that says camo is cool, so no one wants to give it up, even though blue makes more sense from a SAR perspective. the other possibility is that the BBDU has unfortunately been associated with the fluffy sorts who don't meet weight standards, so no one who does meet weight standards is willing to wear it. any thoughts on changing some minds?

My wing has unofficially made it a requirement to have BBDUs to be on the ground team. Nothing is in writing, but if you don't play ball and follow the 'rules' then you don't get the call when missions come up.

I believe the rationale is to "fit in" with the other SAR teams in the state.

[a2capt]

Great! More folks to help out with Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education .. when the ES folks run 'em off with unofficial rules or complicated niche uniform requirements.

The reflective vest thing should take care of that issue system wide, and seems like a far more sensible, practical solution to me.

[BillB]

From what I've observed, to many ground teams go out to a SAR without the required vests. This could be a big aprt of the uniform problem.

[peter rabbit]

Get your senior leadership to sit down with the state police and figure out what the real issue is. My money says someone didn't play nice with them at some point and there's still some resentment over that. They don't have issues with other volunteer orgs so you need to figure out what the real issue with CAP is.

And, if it turns out the uniform really is a big part of the problem and the BBDU won't solve it, do like CAWG and get permission to wear what you need to meet the customer's requirements. Then, do as others have suggested - undersell and overproduce.

[RiverAux]

Seeing as how the BDU has the same "issues" in every state I think it quite unlikely that it is even in the top 10 reasons why CAP evidently is a minor SAR player in your state. 

Have they also told the National Guard that they can't participate in SAR wearing their official uniforms?

[Larry Mangum]

SAR organizations in Washington State have pulled the same reasoning for not using CAP.  In fairness, while it is not the main reason, it is a valid reason, in wet and cold climates.  The Guard when the deploy, have all of the appropriate layers including gortex and the state assumes all of the risk. When CAP seniors and cadets go into the field with just BDU's and the environment is wet or cold, we can easily become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

[davidsinn]

When CAP seniors and cadets go into the field with just BDU's and the environment is wet or cold, we can easily become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Then you need smarter members. We have the ability to wear gortex. We are supposed to have ponchos. If someone goes out in the woods without proper gear they should not have the GT rating.

[Larry Mangum]

When CAP seniors and cadets go into the field with just BDU's and the environment is wet or cold, we can easily become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Then you need smarter members. We have the ability to wear gortex. We are supposed to have ponchos. If someone goes out in the woods without proper gear they should not have the GT rating.

It is not just a matter of needing smarter members. When the various SAR councils around the state have adopted a standard , that calls for wool pants for example, and the sheriff departments decides to adopt that standard as their own, then if CAP wants to play, it must comply. It is that simple and not that hard to do, all it takes is for the wing to supplement CAPM 39-1 and have it approved all the way up the chain.

The problem, is that CAP comes in and states, we are a "Federal Asset" and we don't have to comply with your requirements and then wonders why the local authorities don't want to use them. That attitude more then any other is the reason CAP does not get invited to play.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Get yourself seen. Many of the uniform and these other guys didn't play well problems go away when they see what you can really do. Invite the PD people that make those type of decisions in your area to watch you run a full extent exercise. If they still say no, then the problem is most likely because they didn't like what they saw in your tactics or some aspect of the way you operate. When they know you work well, they will most likely not care if you are out in cut off jean shorts and tank tops. Train hard for a few months and then invite the important people out including the governing body of your area to watch you work. Even if the PD doesn't like your uniform, if the Governing body likes what they see they can tell the PD to suck it up and use this valuable asset.

[majdomke]

And, if it turns out the uniform really is a big part of the problem and the BBDU won't solve it, do like CAWG and get permission to wear what you need to meet the customer's requirements. Then, do as others have suggested - undersell and overproduce.

This is where I take issue with wearing what meets the "customer's requirements". This past weekend CAWG had an Operations Evaluation. I had a ground team of fully qualified ground team members ready to participate. On Friday I was called to see if we all had the newly mandated CAWG Ground Team Uniform and none of us had it. Thus, we were changed over to a UDF team and never used. What gets me is that the new uniform was implemented to meet CAL EMA's "suggestion". This Ops Eval was done by the USAF so why would they care if I was wearing a CAL EMA uniform or not? And then the PIO simulated news releases come out saying how we have 1200 ES personnel standing by. How many of those have the CAL EMA uniform? In an emergency it shouldn't matter what you wear as long as you get the job done. When performing missions for CAL EMA I can understand wearing what makes them happy. However, when all you're doing is training or participating in USAF evaluations, you should be able to wear the uniform specified in 39-1 and standard across the country for CAP ES.

[Spaceman3750]

And, if it turns out the uniform really is a big part of the problem and the BBDU won't solve it, do like CAWG and get permission to wear what you need to meet the customer's requirements. Then, do as others have suggested - undersell and overproduce.

This is where I take issue with wearing what meets the "customer's requirements". This past weekend CAWG had an Operations Evaluation. I had a ground team of fully qualified ground team members ready to participate. On Friday I was called to see if we all had the newly mandated CAWG Ground Team Uniform and none of us had it. Thus, we were changed over to a UDF team and never used. What gets me is that the new uniform was implemented to meet CAL EMA's "suggestion". This Ops Eval was done by the USAF so why would they care if I was wearing a CAL EMA uniform or not? And then the PIO simulated news releases come out saying how we have 1200 ES personnel standing by. How many of those have the CAL EMA uniform? In an emergency it shouldn't matter what you wear as long as you get the job done. When performing missions for CAL EMA I can understand wearing what makes them happy. However, when all you're doing is training or participating in USAF evaluations, you should be able to wear the uniform specified in 39-1 and standard across the country for CAP ES.

Play nice or go home... The CAWG GT uniform sucks - but it's the cost of playing nice with the agencies with legal responsibility for SAR.

[RVT]

Play nice or go home... The CAWG GT uniform sucks - but it's the cost of playing nice with the agencies with legal responsibility for SAR.

Personally I don't think the uniform sucks - the rules regarding how you are supposed to change into and out of it every time your status changes is what made me pass on it.

CAWG needs to authorise the CAP polo shirt with BBDU pants - then we won't have that problem anymore.

[Spaceman3750]

Play nice or go home... The CAWG GT uniform sucks - but it's the cost of playing nice with the agencies with legal responsibility for SAR.

Personally I don't think the uniform sucks - the rules regarding how you are supposed to change into and out of it every time your status changes is what made me pass on it.

CAWG needs to authorise the CAP polo shirt with BBDU pants - then we won't have that problem anymore.

Polo with gray tac pants is already kosher and distinctive.

[majdomke]

Just not very field friendly or useful for GT

[RVT]

Polo with gray tac pants is already kosher and distinctive.

Yes!  And I love it!  Problem is its GREY tac pants, not blue.

My solution to the requirement to change the uniform is to wear a squadron T-shirt under the orange shirt and when in an "out of service status" I just take the orange shirt off and I am in no uniform at all.  I'm out of service anyway so it doesn't matter.

The "suggested" solution is to put the BBDU top on when you take the orange shirt off - however if you do this you will soon discover the historical reason behind why the pants and coat to the US Army Blue uniform don't match unless you are a general.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

When CAP seniors and cadets go into the field with just BDU's and the environment is wet or cold, we can easily become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Then you need smarter members. We have the ability to wear gortex. We are supposed to have ponchos. If someone goes out in the woods without proper gear they should not have the GT rating.

+27  :clap:

[peter rabbit]

Polo with gray tac pants is already kosher and distinctive.

I like grey 511 tacticals, but they aren't authorized per NHQ. Reg says gray trousers or slacks. I asked and was told by NHQ that tactical and cargo pants don't meet that definition.

[SarDragon]

Polo with gray tac pants is already kosher and distinctive.

Yes!  And I love it!  Problem is its GREY tac pants, not blue.

My solution to the requirement to change the uniform is to wear a squadron T-shirt under the orange shirt and when in an "out of service status" I just take the orange shirt off and I am in no uniform at all.  I'm out of service anyway so it doesn't matter.

The "suggested" solution is to put the BBDU top on when you take the orange shirt off - however if you do this you will soon discover the historical reason behind why the pants and coat to the US Army Blue uniform don't match unless you are a general.

They will always match if you always launder both pieces at the same time. Sure, it might add a little extra wear to the shirt, but they will fade evenly.

[bosshawk]

With all of this ranting about CAL EMA, may I point out that CAWG does not do searches that are not requested and approved by CAL EMA.   SO-----------you wear the uniform that EMA "suggests" and that the Wing King(?) has directed.  Seems to me that the rest is just sour grapes.

In addition, when was the last time that CAWG did a ground search that wasn't a UDF mission?  There are so few GTs in CAWG that it is a meaningless exercise.

[Eclipse]

^ Any agency getting professionalized, insurance-protected, federally funded manpower and services such as CAP provides, for free, should limit their comments to "thank you", and "can we donate?", and MTOB about uniforms...

...however, as this is California, where "common sense" is a 4-letter word...

...if CAP has agreed to this, for whatever reason, then CAWG needs to SUAC if they want to play, until such time as someone
disavows the agreement, or the ROI on our involvement is such that we don't need to beg to play.

If my Wing CC told me that all we had to do was buy orange shirts to sit at the table as equal partners with our state's EMA, then my response would be, "...where do I click to order mine?"  But if the reality was that an orange shirt wasn't going to change the relationship and it would be just
one more thing hanging with the price tags never removed in the closet, then I would simply disengage anywhere the shirt was required.

There does seem to be some difference of opinion regarding the ground ops tempo in CAWG, at least as remarked on this forum.

[RiverAux]

I am anxious to see how CA Wing handles the flood of missions they're now getting. 

[RVT]

Polo with gray tac pants is already kosher and distinctive.

I like grey 511 tacticals, but they aren't authorized per NHQ. Reg says gray trousers or slacks. I asked and was told by NHQ that tactical and cargo pants don't meet that definition.

They are unacceptable for the aviator shirt, for the Polo they are OK.  There is even an entire wing (Kentucky I think) that standardized Propper grey BDU pants for the whole wing.

[FARRIER]

Member New Mexico Wing 1997 - 1999. We had nothing but the BDU's then. At that time it was all political. The State Police controlled search and rescue on the ground and were honestly, pain in the arses about it. I remember a SAREX where we used ground teams, but it was all on BLM land, in support of BLM. I don't live in New Mexico now, but since the State was a _______ then, "my own thought" that this is still another excuse to keep the old political feelings going. I would make the controlling agency put it in writing that you don't get called because your teams are wearing BDU's. Then I think you would have an easier time persuading. Another question I would have is the New Mexico State Guard is training for SAR (http://nmsg-mil.org/THE_NMSG_IN_ACTION.php) and they are in BDU's. Are they treated the same.

Respectfully,

I'm in New Mexico Wing, one of those few funny places where CAP doesn't run SAR. SAR here is under the State Police, and is predominantly performed by other volunteer SAR organizations; in fact, CAP is something of a black sheep in the NM SAR organization.

One of the interesting things we're running into is that the SAR community is taking issue with the BDUs. they have two complaints; cotton and camouflage. Cotton is a terrible material for mountain rescue, but they're willing to deal with since the uniform isn't entirely cotton. the thing they take the most issue with is that we're in camouflage, and everybody from NASAR down to the smallest SAR team realizes that blending in on SAR is bad. in addition, 8" jungle boots fairly well suck for mountaineering, for a variety of reasons.

I'm working on getting people to switch over to BBDUs, since this would at least solve the camo issue, but I'm meeting a surprising amount of resistance. I guess there's a GI joe mentality that says camo is cool, so no one wants to give it up, even though blue makes more sense from a SAR perspective. the other possibility is that the BBDU has unfortunately been associated with the fluffy sorts who don't meet weight standards, so no one who does meet weight standards is willing to wear it. any thoughts on changing some minds?

[peter rabbit]

Polo with gray tac pants is already kosher and distinctive.

I like grey 511 tacticals, but they aren't authorized per NHQ. Reg says gray trousers or slacks. I asked and was told by NHQ that tactical and cargo pants don't meet that definition.

They are unacceptable for the aviator shirt, for the Polo they are OK.  There is even an entire wing (Kentucky I think) that standardized Propper grey BDU pants for the whole wing.

Please cite for using the tacticals with the polo, as that is exactly what I asked NHQ about. I'd really like to use them.

[Larry Mangum]

Member New Mexico Wing 1997 - 1999. We had nothing but the BDU's then. At that time it was all political. The State Police controlled search and rescue on the ground and were honestly, pain in the arses about it. I remember a SAREX where we used ground teams, but it was all on BLM land, in support of BLM. I don't live in New Mexico now, but since the State was a _______ then, "my own thought" that this is still another excuse to keep the old political feelings going. I would make the controlling agency put it in writing that you don't get called because your teams are wearing BDU's. Then I think you would have an easier time persuading. Another question I would have is the New Mexico State Guard is training for SAR (http://nmsg-mil.org/THE_NMSG_IN_ACTION.php) and they are in BDU's. Are they treated the same.

Respectfully,

I'm in New Mexico Wing, one of those few funny places where CAP doesn't run SAR. SAR here is under the State Police, and is predominantly performed by other volunteer SAR organizations; in fact, CAP is something of a black sheep in the NM SAR organization.

One of the interesting things we're running into is that the SAR community is taking issue with the BDUs. they have two complaints; cotton and camouflage. Cotton is a terrible material for mountain rescue, but they're willing to deal with since the uniform isn't entirely cotton. the thing they take the most issue with is that we're in camouflage, and everybody from NASAR down to the smallest SAR team realizes that blending in on SAR is bad. in addition, 8" jungle boots fairly well suck for mountaineering, for a variety of reasons.

I'm working on getting people to switch over to BBDUs, since this would at least solve the camo issue, but I'm meeting a surprising amount of resistance. I guess there's a GI joe mentality that says camo is cool, so no one wants to give it up, even though blue makes more sense from a SAR perspective. the other possibility is that the BBDU has unfortunately been associated with the fluffy sorts who don't meet weight standards, so no one who does meet weight standards is willing to wear it. any thoughts on changing some minds?

The point is that in many western states, land SAR is controlled by the local Sherieff and if you want to play, then you must comply with the rules they have established.  If they say all SAR teams within their jurisdiction will not wear cotton but wool, then we need to comply with that requirement or realize that we will not be utilized by them.

As to the earlier comment that we need to use smarter members, I suspect you have never really operated in a mountain or really wet environment.  One fo the first thing taught in mountaineering is that cotton is a really bad thing to wear in wet environments as it is uncomfortable when wet and can lead to rapidly to hypothermia.  And a poncho, is not sufficient in those environments. 

Suggested reading:

http://www.rei.com/expertadvice/articles/dress+layers.html
http://phc.amedd.army.mil/topics/discond/cip/Pages/ColdCasualtiesInjuries.aspx
http://stealthsurvival.blogspot.com/2010/01/wet-and-cold-vs-dry-and-cold.html

[majdomke]

^ Any agency getting professionalized, insurance-protected, federally funded manpower and services such as CAP provides, for free, should limit their comments to "thank you", and "can we donate?", and MTOB about uniforms...

...however, as this is California, where "common sense" is a 4-letter word...

...if CAP has agreed to this, for whatever reason, then CAWG needs to SUAC if they want to play, until such time as someone
disavows the agreement, or the ROI on our involvement is such that we don't need to beg to play.

If my Wing CC told me that all we had to do was buy orange shirts to sit at the table as equal partners with our state's EMA, then my response would be, "...where do I click to order mine?"  But if the reality was that an orange shirt wasn't going to change the relationship and it would be just
one more thing hanging with the price tags never removed in the closet, then I would simply disengage anywhere the shirt was required.

There does seem to be some difference of opinion regarding the ground ops tempo in CAWG, at least as remarked on this forum.

:clap:

[RVT]

Please cite for using the tactical with the polo, as that is exactly what I asked NHQ about. I'd really like to use them.

Theres only one person at National who answers uniform questions, we both had to be talking to the same Susie Parker. 

Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).

There is no reference to pockets or patterns.  The only pants prohibited are jeans.  Personally I would extend that to sweatpants which are probably not OK either.  I have both tac pants and grey BDU and thats all I wear with the polo.  I was on staff at Wing HQ all day this past Sunday with the AF watching and all I got asked was about the blue flight jacket I had on when I first walked in.

[jimmydeanno]

Personally I would extend that to sweatpants which are probably not OK either. 

Sweatpants are not slacks nor trousers. 

[Larry Mangum]

I would also argue that tactical pants are not trousers nor slacks as well.

[davidsinn]

I would also argue that tactical pants are not trousers nor slacks as well.

They count if you follow the ambiguous definition in 39-1

Dictionary.com

trou·sers   [trou-zerz]   –noun (used with a plural verb) 1.Sometimes, trouser. Also called pants. a usually loose-fitting outer garment for the lower part of the body, having individual leg portions that reach typically to the ankle but sometimes to any of various other points from the upper leg down. Compare Bermuda shorts, breeches, knickers (def. 1), short (def. 29a), slacks.

[RiverAux]

Please cite for using the tactical with the polo, as that is exactly what I asked NHQ about. I'd really like to use them.

Theres only one person at National who answers uniform questions, we both had to be talking to the same Susie Parker. 

Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).

There is no reference to pockets or patterns.  The only pants prohibited are jeans.  Personally I would extend that to sweatpants which are probably not OK either.  I have both tac pants and grey BDU and thats all I wear with the polo.  I was on staff at Wing HQ all day this past Sunday with the AF watching and all I got asked was about the blue flight jacket I had on when I first walked in.

FYI, I submitted this very question to the knowledgebase once and received an answer from Ms. Parker that "tactical" 6-pocket pants were not acceptable.   

[PHall]

I am anxious to see how CA Wing handles the flood of missions they're now getting.

Flood of missions??? You know something that I don't?

[RiverAux]

I am anxious to see how CA Wing handles the flood of missions they're now getting.

Flood of missions??? You know something that I don't?

I was being sarcastic by implying that changing their uniform was going to make any big difference in how many missions they're doing. 

[PHall]

I am anxious to see how CA Wing handles the flood of missions they're now getting.

Flood of missions??? You know something that I don't?

I was being sarcastic by implying that changing their uniform was going to make any big difference in how many missions they're doing.

Hey, make fun of us all you want, but we do have to live with the laws that we have.
And in California the Sheriff of each county is the person responsible for all search and rescue activities in their county.
We operate in their county at their pleasure.
The Governors Office has designated CalEMA as the sole POC for all SAR activities in the state. This is to ensure proper coordination takes place.
So, if we want to do any SAR activities in the state then we have to play by their rules.
The only other alternative is to not do any ES at all...

[davidsinn]

Hey, make fun of us all you want, but we do have to live with the laws that we have.

No you don't. Get in the good graces of the governor and/or the legislature and get them to bring pressure on to CalEMA. Or make a public stink about how the government is wasting money by turning away qualified volunteers and you can get the laws changed. The last way might not be the best way to do it.

[PHall]

Hey, make fun of us all you want, but we do have to live with the laws that we have.

No you don't. Get in the good graces of the governor and/or the legislature and get them to bring pressure on to CalEMA. Or make a public stink about how the government is wasting money by turning away qualified volunteers and you can get the laws changed. The last way might not be the best way to do it.

The governor and the legislature have a few more pressing issues on their plate right now. It's called "The Budget", or the lack of...
And most of the counties have Sheriff Volunteer Search and Rescue Teams that are much more well trained and equipped then we are.
So the "public stink" angle might not be the one to play...

[davidsinn]

Hey, make fun of us all you want, but we do have to live with the laws that we have.

No you don't. Get in the good graces of the governor and/or the legislature and get them to bring pressure on to CalEMA. Or make a public stink about how the government is wasting money by turning away qualified volunteers and you can get the laws changed. The last way might not be the best way to do it.

The governor and the legislature have a few more pressing issues on their plate right now. It's called "The Budget", or the lack of...
And most of the counties have Sheriff Volunteer Search and Rescue Teams that are much more well trained and equipped then we are.
So the "public stink" angle might not be the one to play...

This falls under the budget argument. Cheap volunteers are being turned away for a fashion issue.

[RRLE]

Cheap volunteers are being turned away for a fashion issue.

There are two  ways to look at that - your way - and the volunteers are too cheap to buy a uniform that is mandatory for everyone else in the program. Such an attitude generally does not go very far with those in authority, the other voluneers who laid out the cash and the general public.

[majdomke]

Like I said before, I can understand meeting the customers requirements but that should only affect actual missions. For training we should be allowed to still wear what the 39-1 states until we can acquire the rest.

[PA Guy]

turning away qualified volunteers (emphasis mine)

Therein lies the crux of the matter.  Except in the area of electronic search CAP Ground Ops in CA brings little to the table.  When CAP rolls up in a 2WD white van loaded with minors the first thing out of the deputies mouth is get the kids out of here.  We are not even a close match when it comes to training, equipment and resources.  CAP Ground Ops is in  no position to bargain or demand.   This is a sample of the local competition:

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/17911234?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><p>The Search for Michelle Yu from SBSAR on Vimeo.</p>

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/20777878?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><p>MRA Recert March 2011 from SBSAR on Vimeo.</p>

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/14771088?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><p>Rescue Below Sugarloaf Peak Near Mt. Baldy from SBSAR on Vimeo.</p>

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/3012867?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="302" frameborder="0"></iframe><p>BMC Field Weekend #1 from SBSAR on Vimeo.</p>

http://www.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/aviation/Aircraft_Operated.asp

http://www.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/aviation/Air_Medic.asp

[RiverAux]

Hey, make fun of us all you want, but we do have to live with the laws that we have.
And in California the Sheriff of each county is the person responsible for all search and rescue activities in their county.
We operate in their county at their pleasure.
The Governors Office has designated CalEMA as the sole POC for all SAR activities in the state. This is to ensure proper coordination takes place.
So, if we want to do any SAR activities in the state then we have to play by their rules.
The only other alternative is to not do any ES at all...

What you describe is the situation in every state in the Union -- CAP works at the behest of the state and in most cases with local sheriffs in charge of SAR in particular.  Despite the fact that the legal environment is pretty much the same in CA as everyplace else all we here on CAPTalk is that somehow this situation is special to CA Wing and that it explains why CA Wing doesn't get to participate in SAR activities to any great extent. 

Now, every Wing has probably had some sort of experience with a local sheriff or other official that for a time has caused significant problems and kept CAP out of the ballgame in that county.  But, for it to be happening consistently on a statewide basis implies a more significant problem, most likely within that CAP Wing. 

So, its good to hear that CA Wing is making some efforts to resolve what has obviously been a major relationship problem with their state and local officials but I just don't buy that what we wear was ever any significant part of the reason CAP wasn't being asked to help.  Could the minor issue of uniforms been resolved another way?  Most likely, but what is done is done (for now). 

[PA Guy]

Remember we are only talking about CAP Ground Ops.  Although there have been some bumps in the road the flying side is welcomed.  The Ground Ops side of CAP simply has little or nothing to offer so they are seen as a hindrance. 

[Eclipse]

Remember we are only talking about CAP Ground Ops.  Although there have been some bumps in the road the flying side is welcomed.  The Ground Ops side of CAP simply has little or nothing to offer so they are seen as a hindrance.

You are, of course, speaking only for your wing, thank you.

[RADIOMAN015]

Remember we are only talking about CAP Ground Ops.  Although there have been some bumps in the road the flying side is welcomed.  The Ground Ops side of CAP simply has little or nothing to offer so they are seen as a hindrance.

You are, of course, speaking only for your wing, thank you.

Most ground teams spend most of their time shinning their boots and trying to see how much of a crease they can put in their hats, and attending training that most will never get to use (BUT surely can be used to fill sand bags, hand out water bottles, hand out food, delivery door to door information to residents, welfare check of residents, assist with parking vehicles, etc).  Honestly with BDU's we look like an invading army of wanna bees.  In our wing many years ago the State Police also stated to the wing Ground ES Officer that they would prefer to see us in Blue BDU's (primarily I think because at that time they were using BDU's for their tactical response teams and didn't want any confusion).

Bottom line is if any agency is uncomfortable with us assisting them because of uniforms, personnel, etc, unless we resolve that issue we just won't be part of the "team"
RM   

[AngelWings]

BDU's aren't a hindrance in our case. Those blue tapes, vibrant flag patch, and what ever color the wing, squadron, and speciality patch sure does distinguish us from any known tactical unit and military unit    . That isn't necessarily a bad thing, either, and actually does help us stand out when we walk next any other cadet organization and basically all other organizations. Anyone who says they prefer to see us wearing BlueDU's because the camouflage makes us look like their tactical unit is being pretty picky. Also, I guess that the reflective vest doesn't make us stick our in their minds. I think the issue stems out to something different than a uniform problem...

[Skydude61]

Our only problem with BDU hinderances is the locals wishing to thank us....
I think that that is Ok

[PA Guy]

You are, of course, speaking only for your wing, thank you.

Since the last page or so of posts were dealing with the foibles of CAWG I thought that was obvious.  I guess not.

[Eclipse]

Most ground teams spend most of their time shinning their boots and trying to see how much of a crease they can put in their hats, and attending training that most will never get to use (BUT surely can be used to fill sand bags, hand out water bottles, hand out food, delivery door to door information to residents, welfare check of residents, assist with parking vehicles, etc).  Honestly with BDU's we look like an invading army of wanna bees.  In our wing many years ago the State Police also stated to the wing Ground ES Officer that they would prefer to see us in Blue BDU's (primarily I think because at that time they were using BDU's for their tactical response teams and didn't want any confusion).

Bottom line is if any agency is uncomfortable with us assisting them because of uniforms, personnel, etc, unless we resolve that issue we just won't be part of the "team"

Again, please speak for your wing and from your experience, without inferring this is the case in all areas, which it is not.

Further, you may now permanently knock off the insulting wannabee comments.  We get it, you would prefer to spend your time with RACES, ARES, and Trainspotters.

Feel free...

[Slim]

Further, you may now permanently knock off the insulting wannabee comments.  We get it, you would prefer to spend your time with RACES, ARES, and Trainspotters.

Feel free...

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Abdomina]

If woodland BDUS are such a problem (becuase they are green based), then how about we make 3-color desert ''DCUs'' an acceptable uniform. DCUs were and still are a uniform of the USAF but just used in low numbers as i believe (correct me if im wrong).

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

If woodland BDUS are such a problem (becuase they are green based), then how about we make 3-color desert ''DCUs'' an acceptable uniform. DCUs were and still are a uniform of the USAF but just used in low numbers as i believe (correct me if im wrong).

Then we would be in non-black boot territory. Serious $$$ there.

[NCRblues]

If woodland BDUS are such a problem (becuase they are green based), then how about we make 3-color desert ''DCUs'' an acceptable uniform. DCUs were and still are a uniform of the USAF but just used in low numbers as i believe (correct me if im wrong).

DCU's went bye-bye with the advent of ABU's. You cant even wear the DCU "yellow" suede with the ABU's anymore (at first you could).

We are going to have to go one of two ways....

#1. ABU's

or

#2. BBDU's for everyone

[RiverAux]

Note that neither of these will solve the purported "issue" at hand in this thread. 

[AngelWings]

If woodland BDUS are such a problem (becuase they are green based), then how about we make 3-color desert ''DCUs'' an acceptable uniform. DCUs were and still are a uniform of the USAF but just used in low numbers as i believe (correct me if im wrong).

Then we would be in non-black boot territory. Serious $$$ there.

Not exactly. A set of desert boots that aren't made with extra special features aren't too bad, and from USCAV a set of Altima boots, using the discount code given is actually pretty good. A set of diggies ain't too bad, typically the same, or an up to $10 (saying you go to an over priced surplus store!) increase, has a set of BDU's.

Link for a typical set of boots:
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=20948&tabid=548&catid=373

However, a change like this would be impractical because, espically if we did the spring/summer uniform change thing, it would look lke we are following a current marine tradition (IIRC), this change would have to be in the manual, the USAF probably doesn't want people running arond in theater wear, it'd be hard to phase in, and [WARNING: OPINION] full color patches look awful on digges (I remember seeing a picture of somebody in a airsoft team with full color patches and it was extremely clashing).

I say we make a change into flightsuits.

[peter rabbit]

I say we make a change into flightsuits.

I don't guess you've flown low-level missions in the South during the summer? I hate to think what a GT member would feel like in one on the ground during that time of the year.

Sorry this isn't on topic, but I couldn't let that comment pass.

[Eclipse]

I say we make a change into flightsuits.

I don't guess you've flown low-level missions in the South during the summer? I hate to think what a GT member would feel like in one on the ground during that time of the year.

A lot cooler then being in BDUs.  Flightsuits are like wearing tissue paper.

[SarDragon]

I say we make a change into flightsuits.

I don't guess you've flown low-level missions in the South during the summer? I hate to think what a GT member would feel like in one on the ground during that time of the year.

A lot cooler then being in BDUs.  Flightsuits are like wearing tissue paper.

Oh, I disagree. I use an olde Nomex flight suit as coveralls, and they are only comfortable if I'm wearing something underneath to soak up the sweat. They let any breeze through fairly well, but they also tend to snag on vegetation more quickly than other, more suitable materials. I wouldn't ever recommend using Nomex flight suits for GTs. Actually, I'll extend that to any one piece garment, for fairly obvious reasons.

[coolkites]

My 2 cents. I think black BDUs would be fine. The argument that they would make us look like special forces or something of the sort is non-unique as almost any uniform we could choose to wear is already being worn by somebody. Somebody already wears woodland, black, green, etc...

I think that woodland camo for SAR is simply foolish. I understand that we must wear vests but that seems like a reg designed to counteract the problems of another reg (uniform). We are required to wear camo and then required to wear reflective vest over it. That does not make much sense to me.

Google Search and rescue teams and see what 95% of them are wearing. They wear some random usually dark color pants and an orange, yellow, or red top. That makes sense to me. In my opinion CAP's solution of wearing a vest over camo creates one more layer to snag and get stuck (forgotten etc..). When I look at images of CAP members in the field wearing camo and orange vest, I must honestly say that it looks silly to me. This is just my opinion though.

EDIT: I'm from Oregon wing in which we get virtually zero GT calls because the state wants local law enforcement agencies to do the SAR. We occasionally go out for an ELT but that is very rare. I see no problems with BDUs because they hold up well and quite simply work for what we need them to.

[AngelWings]

Reason why I suggest a flight suit is that is a very practical uniform. Alot of pockets, waist size adjustment, zipper, it exsist within regulations, one color, and it is alot lighter. Also, a simple fix to sweat is under armor t-shirts, which are extremely popular from what I've heard. Lastly, it isn't in in a camouflage pattern, and could stop people from trying to purchase extremely expensive camouflage matching items.
Black BDU's wouldn't be much of a change because we'd still have to add it into regulations, still would have to wear a reflective vest, and black isn't a good night color, either.

[Abdomina]

If woodland BDUS are such a problem (becuase they are green based), then how about we make 3-color desert ''DCUs'' an acceptable uniform. DCUs were and still are a uniform of the USAF but just used in low numbers as i believe (correct me if im wrong).

Then we would be in non-black boot territory. Serious $$$ there.

Not exactly. A set of desert boots that aren't made with extra special features aren't too bad, and from USCAV a set of Altima boots, using the discount code given is actually pretty good. A set of diggies ain't too bad, typically the same, or an up to $10 (saying you go to an over priced surplus store!) increase, has a set of BDU's.

Link for a typical set of boots:
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=20948&tabid=548&catid=373

However, a change like this would be impractical because, espically if we did the spring/summer uniform change thing, it would look lke we are following a current marine tradition (IIRC), this change would have to be in the manual, the USAF probably doesn't want people running arond in theater wear, it'd be hard to phase in, and [WARNING: OPINION] full color patches look awful on digges (I remember seeing a picture of somebody in a airsoft team with full color patches and it was extremely clashing).

I say we make a change into flightsuits.

im not talking about digis
im talking about--- http://tinyurl.com/3ramc9j

[AngelWings]

If woodland BDUS are such a problem (becuase they are green based), then how about we make 3-color desert ''DCUs'' an acceptable uniform. DCUs were and still are a uniform of the USAF but just used in low numbers as i believe (correct me if im wrong).

Then we would be in non-black boot territory. Serious $$$ there.

Not exactly. A set of desert boots that aren't made with extra special features aren't too bad, and from USCAV a set of Altima boots, using the discount code given is actually pretty good. A set of diggies ain't too bad, typically the same, or an up to $10 (saying you go to an over priced surplus store!) increase, has a set of BDU's.

Link for a typical set of boots:
http://www.uscav.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=20948&tabid=548&catid=373

However, a change like this would be impractical because, espically if we did the spring/summer uniform change thing, it would look lke we are following a current marine tradition (IIRC), this change would have to be in the manual, the USAF probably doesn't want people running arond in theater wear, it'd be hard to phase in, and [WARNING: OPINION] full color patches look awful on digges (I remember seeing a picture of somebody in a airsoft team with full color patches and it was extremely clashing).

I say we make a change into flightsuits.

im not talking about digis
im talking about--- http://tinyurl.com/3ramc9j

Diggies is a military nickname for the tri color pattern you show (DCU). I'm not talking about the brand. Or are you saying Digis has in digital patterns?

[Abdomina]

I am saying digies as in the digital pattern, the marines call desert MARPAT digies sometimes.

[AngelWings]

I am saying digies as in the digital pattern, the marines call desert MARPAT digies sometimes.

Diggies is a basically Marine language for when wide spread use of digital patterns in the U.S didn't exsist for the tri color. That spread a bit into all services. It is still used today. The BDU's are known has cammies, and the marine corps still uses the term for their MARPAT woodland. The Navy actually uses it alot, mainly because the ship paint/ you can't find me when I fall overboard digital pattern known has the NWU isn't used in theater, but rather the tri color.

[SarDragon]

Reason why I suggest a flight suit is that is a very practical uniform. Alot of pockets, waist size adjustment, zipper, it exsist within regulations, one color, and it is alot lighter. Also, a simple fix to sweat is under armor t-shirts, which are extremely popular from what I've heard. Lastly, it isn't in in a camouflage pattern, and could stop people from trying to purchase extremely expensive camouflage matching items.
Black BDU's wouldn't be much of a change because we'd still have to add it into regulations, still would have to wear a reflective vest, and black isn't a good night color, either.

[Grammar Cop] First of all, it's "a lot", two words. [/Grammar Cop]

Actually flight  suits are NOT as practical as you think. Lighter does not necessarily mean better. In many cases, its lightness is a handicap. Real Nomex flight suits are expensive, and there is no need for that fire resistant feature in GT work. Availability can be an issue. Also, the fabric is more fragile than you think it is. As stated above, it snags easily, and sewing Nomex isn't the most fun stuff around.

Since you didn't catch my hint about one-piece garments, I'll be direct. Bathroom breaks are inconvenient and annoying at best, in any environment, and in the field present even greater challenges.

All of the down sides, IMHO, greatly outweigh any potential advantages.

[AngelWings]

Reason why I suggest a flight suit is that is a very practical uniform. Alot of pockets, waist size adjustment, zipper, it exsist within regulations, one color, and it is alot lighter. Also, a simple fix to sweat is under armor t-shirts, which are extremely popular from what I've heard. Lastly, it isn't in in a camouflage pattern, and could stop people from trying to purchase extremely expensive camouflage matching items.
Black BDU's wouldn't be much of a change because we'd still have to add it into regulations, still would have to wear a reflective vest, and black isn't a good night color, either.

[Grammar Cop] First of all, it's "a lot", two words. [/Grammar Cop]

Actually flight  suits are NOT as practical as you think. Lighter does not necessarily mean better. In many cases, its lightness is a handicap. Real Nomex flight suits are expensive, and there is no need for that fire resistant feature in GT work. Availability can be an issue. Also, the fabric is more fragile than you think it is. As stated above, it snags easily, and sewing Nomex isn't the most fun stuff around.

Since you didn't catch my hint about one-piece garments, I'll be direct. Bathroom breaks are inconvenient and annoying at best, in any environment, and in the field present even greater challenges.

All of the down sides, IMHO, greatly outweigh any potential advantages.

Now that you say that, espically the bathroom thing, it may not be has good has I thought. I mean, unless you wore it backwards . Just joking.
In all seriousness, what you said, now that I think of it, yeah, it could be very impractical.

[ol'fido]

How about instead of endlessly debating what uniform would be most appropriate, comfortable, affordable, etc., we just go with what we have(Sorry, Left Coast, your stuck with the CA GTU) and go and get to know these other SAR teams before we show up cold at a mission base saying, "Hi. I'm from Civil Air Patrol and we're here to help." We in CAP sometimes seem to be as parochial as we accuse these other agencies of being. Sitting down for coffee or a lunch somewhere can solve a lot of these "turf battles". If you can get them familiar with your capabilities, your professionalism, and your congeniality, they really won't care what you wear as long as it isn't totally inappropriate for the terrain/climate and they may understand why we are wearing what we do.

[mclarke]

How about instead of endlessly debating what uniform would be most appropriate, comfortable, affordable, etc., we just go with what we have(Sorry, Left Coast, your stuck with the CA GTU) and go and get to know these other SAR teams before we show up cold at a mission base saying, "Hi. I'm from Civil Air Patrol and we're here to help." We in CAP sometimes seem to be as parochial as we accuse these other agencies of being. Sitting down for coffee or a lunch somewhere can solve a lot of these "turf battles". If you can get them familiar with your capabilities, your professionalism, and your congeniality, they really won't care what you wear as long as it isn't totally inappropriate for the terrain/climate and they may understand why we are wearing what we do.

I have to agree with you completely. I mean yes, no matter the situation, we are not here to take over. We are just another asset for them (like a non-profit org for Canine SAR, or the red cross). I wonder if maybe that is there confusion???

[a2capt]

^ and ^^, Exactly. Thats why I'm convinced the BDU is being used as a scapegoat bluff call. There are other issues, not withstanding "they're free and we cost", (job security), but if they pick something not likely to change and keep 'us' dwelling on it, thats more for 'them'.

Show up, under estimate and over-deliver.  Make 'em go "wow, these people know what they are doing", put the egg back on their face.

[DG]

Three years ago, a big, big effort was made in a proposal to the National Board to authorize and permit a shorts and t-shirt uniform for hot summer flying.

Similar to glider ops and NESA MAS.

The proposal was SHOUTED DOWN by many, and that included the NMWG Wing Commander.

They said they had no trouble with the heat, and it was more important to look military.

When the proposal was voted and did not carry, they applauded.

[DG]

DG
Seasoned Member

Posts: 492

    New Summer Flight Uniform
« on: July 25, 2008, 07:45:22 AM » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank You to our National Leaders who are doing some great work, in respect to caring for our aircrews flying in the summer heat.       

If things go well at the National Board, we may be authorized to wear a New Summer Flight Uniform.

Blue golf shirt and khaki shorts.  White socks and white tennis shoes.

This is great news.  It was only last week that I had to accompany my copilot to the ER when he became ill while on a mission in the GA-8 with a temperature dew point of 35 / 33.

Talk to your Wing CC and Region CC and express your request for their support in approving this change at the National Board Meeting and Conference in Florida.   

[DG]

Go to and check out this thread, over 6 pages:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5613.0

[Abdomina]

My phone says this one has 16.....

[SarDragon]

My phone says this one has 16.....

The number of pages you see in the counter depends on your browser and forum settings.

If you go to Profile | Look and Layout , you'll see settings for Topics to display per page, and Messages to display per page. I don't recall the default settings, but I have mine set for 50 and 25, respectively.

[JC004]

...
there is no need for that fire resistant feature in GT work
...

Obviously you haven't seen some of the cadets that I've seen.   

Heck, I remember when I was a brand new cadet and we had a fire.  The cadets were throwing lighters into the fire, watching them explode and fly several feet into the air, off into the woods somewhere.

[Spaceman3750]

...
there is no need for that fire resistant feature in GT work
...

Obviously you haven't seen some of the cadets that I've seen.   

Heck, I remember when I was a brand new cadet and we had a fire.  The cadets were throwing lighters into the fire, watching them explode and fly several feet into the air, off into the woods somewhere.

Must have been before NHQ started sending squadrons a roll of bubblewrap for each new cadet...

[JC004]

...
there is no need for that fire resistant feature in GT work
...

Obviously you haven't seen some of the cadets that I've seen.   

Heck, I remember when I was a brand new cadet and we had a fire.  The cadets were throwing lighters into the fire, watching them explode and fly several feet into the air, off into the woods somewhere.

Must have been before NHQ started sending squadrons a roll of bubblewrap for each new cadet...

WIWAC, we only had a corporate seal and the emblem - no other logos.  We used a .mil website URL and the flight suit patch hadn't changed majorly in decades (as opposed to several times in a few short years). 

[SHARKMAN]

If I may reply to the original question, as a former NM wing member. The New Mexico State Police, and their attitude toward CAP is based on several instances of CAP misrepresenting their capabilities. The NMSP would request for instance that CAP supply a 182 and a ground team to cover an area, based on their (NMSP) Policy and Procedure. Which is to have numbered teams, as in Team 1 has this many aircraft/ground resources, and covers this area. Team 2 has these aircraft and ground resources and so on. So the NMSP goes up with their Cessna Skymasters equipped with FLIR, and is flying around all night. While CAP says we have to pull our resources from the Search because CAP Regs say we can't fly if there is a cloud in the sky...Okay an over exaggeration but as put to us by a representative from said Law Enforcement Agency, CAP has regulated itself to the point of impotency. This is as of about 2001, when representatives of the State Police got to see cadets rappel with a stokes litter containing a CPR dummy at the ParaRescue school at Kirtland AFB. So the NMSP comes away thinking WOW these CAP guys are training with the PJ's! Then we can't provide the manpower/aircraft expeditiously (12 hours on their clock) when called upon by them. So they kinda stop calling.  Hope this sheds some light on it.

2. I do agree with you about the Boot issue, the BDU is fine, you've got the vest. 3M makes reflective tape you can put on your field gear, reflective belts, and a VS17 panel atop your ruck are good ideas for visibility. But there needs to definitely be an addendum to 39-1 for "in the field" A specialized hiking/SAR boot, built for the mission would be less risky(ORM) than people running around rugged terrain in Jungle boots. Although once out of the environment all attempts should be made to present that professional appearance. But if there is a high profile SAR covered by media in the area, and the locals are seeing increased official vehicle traffic, air traffic and the like. I'm sure no one is going to approach you and tell you you're a disgrace under those circumstances. Sometimes some common sense when interpreting regulations can go a long way.

[SarDragon]

Darn it, now you've mentioned 'common sense'. Now you're in trouble.   

[RiverAux]

If I may reply to the original question, as a former NM wing member. The New Mexico State Police, and their attitude toward CAP is based on several instances of CAP misrepresenting their capabilities. The NMSP would request for instance that CAP supply a 182 and a ground team to cover an area, based on their (NMSP) Policy and Procedure. Which is to have numbered teams, as in Team 1 has this many aircraft/ground resources, and covers this area. Team 2 has these aircraft and ground resources and so on. So the NMSP goes up with their Cessna Skymasters equipped with FLIR, and is flying around all night. While CAP says we have to pull our resources from the Search because CAP Regs say we can't fly if there is a cloud in the sky...Okay an over exaggeration but as put to us by a representative from said Law Enforcement Agency, CAP has regulated itself to the point of impotency. This is as of about 2001, when representatives of the State Police got to see cadets rappel with a stokes litter containing a CPR dummy at the ParaRescue school at Kirtland AFB. So the NMSP comes away thinking WOW these CAP guys are training with the PJ's! Then we can't provide the manpower/aircraft expeditiously (12 hours on their clock) when called upon by them. So they kinda stop calling.  Hope this sheds some light on it.

It is up to the Wing to make sure their primary partners have a full understanding of what our capabilities and limitations are.  We can't do everything and they should understand that.  This is one of the reason that NHQ developed the CAPabilities guide which does a decent job of what we can do.