BDUs as a hindrance

[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.