The Army switched to OCPs a few years ago and the Air Force is in the process.
There is a ton of ACU (very similar to ABU) patterned gear out there for the taking.
I've bought both a Medium and Large rucksack via eBay for between $50 and $75 each. These generally went for $200+ and compare to $300+ for an OCP patterned ruck.
ACU Medium Ruck on eBay (https://www.ebay.com/itm/113377078184?ul_noapp=true)
(http://usarmygear.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/015.jpg)
ACU Large Ruck on eBay (https://www.ebay.com/itm/143132229096?ul_noapp=true)
(http://usarmygear.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/27.jpg)
Additionally, the Air Force (specifically Security Forces) will be getting rid of their Defensor Fortis Load Carrying System (DFLCS - pronounced "Dee-Flicks") nationwide. This stuff is PERFECT for ground teams and blends in perfectly with ABUs.
We've got a local Security Forces Squadron signing over some DFLCS to us along with some of their ABU pattern Multi-Mission Packs.
DFLCS example:
(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DF-LCS-Gen-III-with-pouches.jpg)
I was bummed when we went to ABUs because I've been carrying a Large ALICE rucksack for three decades, along with old school LBE.
This stuff is a perfect replacement with the change from BDUs to ABUs. Best of all, it maintains uniformity, something I'm a fan of.
I totally second this. I keep my 24 hour supplies in DFLCS gear: I wear the vest plus six 200round SAW pouches and a hydration carrier. You could probably get that down to four SAW pouches if you pack lighter; two of mine are filled with medical supplies.
A large MOLLE ruck plus the two sustainment pouches holds my 72 hour gear including tent and an additional six liters of water.
The great thing about this combination is that I can shed the pack when it's time for a drive, but keep the DFLCS gear on while I'm seated. Then, I'm ready to hop out of the van and start searching or whatever immediately.
I'll post pics of my DFLCS setup when I get a chance.
Also, I'd like to shout out the ebay shop I bought my ruck from. Long story short, I gave them a bit of a run around, and they gave me great, responsive service through the process. The pack I received was like new (the sustainment pouches were brand new) and pre-assembled. https://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odkw=&_ssn=margoo851&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2046732.m570.l1313.TR10.TRC0.A0.H0.Xmolle+ruck.TRS0&_nkw=molle+ruck&_sacat=0
I think I put together a ruck off eBay for about fifty.
But, it was three color desert.
If you don't care about the camo patterns, you can kit up cheap.
Frankenstein it, and it could be cheaper.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hawk200 on December 28, 2019, 04:47:59 PM
I think I put together a ruck off eBay for about fifty.
But, it was three color desert.
If you don't care about the camo patterns, you can kit up cheap.
Frankenstein it, and it could be cheaper.
I've got a duffle bag full of ABU patterned gear waiting for the taking. Just can't seem to get cadets excited about ground team stuff these days.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 28, 2019, 06:12:10 PM
I've got a duffle bag full of ABU patterned gear waiting for the taking. Just can't seem to get cadets excited about ground team stuff these days.
That's kind of sad. Some people aren't interested in getting dirty anymore.
I remember as a kid (even as a teenager,) I loved being in the woods. Lot of time, it was just walking, occasionally climbing a tree just to do it.
Still wish I had joined as a cadet when I was younger. I would have had a lot more fun, a lot earlier.
The world, CAP, and kids are all much different.
Ground SAR in CAP requiring much more then a cell phone is literally not a thing.
Certainly national schools and local units do bivouacs all the time, but no one is camping in the
field under austere, self reliant conditions while looking for an airplane or a person, assuming they ever did.
That hasn't been a thing in CAP for 20 years.
Even in natural disasters we don't have people camping - austere is porta-potties and 2-star hotels or cots
in a hangar or warehouse.
Ground SAR in CAP is totally dependent on what state you live in. Each state has their own laws and a MOU that states what CAP can do in that state/territory.
The terrain and weather makes a big difference too.
So CAP trying to have a nationwide Ground SAR program is just a waste of time and resources. There are too many variables.
Part of the problem with trying to use cadets in Ground SAR is that we build up their hopes while training them and then dash their hopes by not using them.
Some of this is because of state laws that specify a minimum age to participate in ES and DR activities and much of it is because the other SAR "professionals" don't want to deal with CAP's "kids".
Quote from: PHall on December 28, 2019, 06:50:13 PM
Ground SAR in CAP is totally dependent on what state you live in. Each state has their own laws and a MOU that states what CAP can do in that state/territory.
The terrain and weather makes a big difference too.
So CAP trying to have a nationwide Ground SAR program is just a waste of time and resources. There are too many variables.
Part of the problem with trying to use cadets in Ground SAR is that we build up their hopes while training them and then dash their hopes by not using them.
Some of this is because of state laws that specify a minimum age to participate in ES and DR activities and much of it is because the other SAR "professionals" don't want to deal with CAP's "kids".
And CAP members that don't advocate for their cadets to be used, even if just as RADO/runner/paperwork filers.
Quote from: Holding Pattern on December 28, 2019, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: PHall on December 28, 2019, 06:50:13 PM
Ground SAR in CAP is totally dependent on what state you live in. Each state has their own laws and a MOU that states what CAP can do in that state/territory.
The terrain and weather makes a big difference too.
So CAP trying to have a nationwide Ground SAR program is just a waste of time and resources. There are too many variables.
Part of the problem with trying to use cadets in Ground SAR is that we build up their hopes while training them and then dash their hopes by not using them.
Some of this is because of state laws that specify a minimum age to participate in ES and DR activities and much of it is because the other SAR "professionals" don't want to deal with CAP's "kids".
And CAP members that don't advocate for their cadets to be used, even if just as RADO/runner/paperwork filers.
Sure, as long as they have the qualifications on their 101 card to do that.
Quote from: Holding Pattern on December 28, 2019, 07:20:01 PM
Quote from: PHall on December 28, 2019, 06:50:13 PM
Ground SAR in CAP is totally dependent on what state you live in. Each state has their own laws and a MOU that states what CAP can do in that state/territory.
The terrain and weather makes a big difference too.
So CAP trying to have a nationwide Ground SAR program is just a waste of time and resources. There are too many variables.
Part of the problem with trying to use cadets in Ground SAR is that we build up their hopes while training them and then dash their hopes by not using them.
Some of this is because of state laws that specify a minimum age to participate in ES and DR activities and much of it is because the other SAR "professionals" don't want to deal with CAP's "kids".
And CAP members that don't advocate for their cadets to be used, even if just as RADO/runner/paperwork filers.
Few cadets who have gone through the expense and effort of becoming GTs are going to be interested in being runners.
Not to mention the need for "runners" is reduced each year as more and more is done online.
The idea that cadets should be used as "whatever grunt work" is somewhat antiquated as well.
Train them, rate them, and use them, or leave them at home, same as seniors.
Well. This is just fascinating. A Captalk first: a uniform and gear thread which has mutated into a "roles and missions" thread, rather than the reverse!
Interestingly, as I've just morphed from being a Wing Vice Commander down to a happy nobody in my local unit, I'm having local discussions with th ESO about the lack of a team gear kit (whats that?), lack of a DF unit (we have personal air band handhelds), and lack of quals above UDF. So, I've suspended asking any further questions pending a roles and missions discussion at the local level.
At a Group/Wing level, Georgia has going on 30 years of a major ground ops exercise every February on the Appalachian Trail. One serious question I have been asking in recent years has been: from an ORM perspective are we posing more risk to our members in doing this event (risk of cold weather related injuries/accidents) than we gain in readiness for any hypothetical major winter SAR/DR mobilization, given that we haven't had a major call out in a decade?
I've asked to have that roles and missions discussion before advocating any significant force structure/posture/equipment decisions made. Its just not fair to "sell" a ground ops concept to members (adult or not) without a well grounded CONOPS and a discussion based on data.
"Save that Christmas/Hannukah money, kids... don't blow it all on field gear yet"
V/r
Spam
Quote from: Spam on December 28, 2019, 10:20:14 PM
At a Group/Wing level, Georgia has going on 30 years of a major ground ops exercise every February on the Appalachian Trail. One serious question I have been asking in recent years has been: from an ORM perspective are we posing more risk to our members in doing this event (risk of cold weather related injuries/accidents) than we gain in readiness for any hypothetical major winter SAR/DR mobilization, given that we haven't had a major call out in a decade?
That's a valid question. We have a similar one each year and the need is also the same - zero in 2 decades.
The lack of DF gear at each unit, and CAP's lack of even a viable vendor for them any more is an issue as well.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2019, 10:26:49 PM
..... zero in 2 decades.
The Hawaii find that was primarily radar team, but apparently did have a ground team involved(?) has many folks on social media all excited and trying to pump up the ground team aspect.
Maybe in the mountainous areas of Hawaii, that Wing's ground teams are active. IDK. But it seems most Wings are like mine, and never see any action, which as others mention, makes it a hard sell to members.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2019, 10:26:49 PMThe lack of DF gear at each unit, and CAP's lack of even a viable vendor for them any more is an issue as well.
NHQ is intentionally not installing DF equipment in new airplane purchases, it would seem NHQ thinks DF gear is no longer critical.
Quote from: Fubar on December 29, 2019, 04:37:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2019, 10:26:49 PMThe lack of DF gear at each unit, and CAP's lack of even a viable vendor for them any more is an issue as well.
NHQ is intentionally not installing DF equipment in new airplane purchases, it would seem NHQ thinks DF gear is no longer critical.
Does anybody even make DF gear anymore? L-Tronics is gone.
Quote from: PHall on December 29, 2019, 06:14:14 AM
Quote from: Fubar on December 29, 2019, 04:37:37 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 28, 2019, 10:26:49 PMThe lack of DF gear at each unit, and CAP's lack of even a viable vendor for them any more is an issue as well.
NHQ is intentionally not installing DF equipment in new airplane purchases, it would seem NHQ thinks DF gear is no longer critical.
Does anybody even make DF gear anymore? L-Tronics is gone.
RTL-SDR does. Some assembly required.
A few weeks ago, We had a malfunctioning 406 going off at a large airport. The signal was extremely week. The L-tronics equipment was useless, We used the RTL-SDR setup with the Arrow Antenna made for 121.5/406. It took a few hours after that equipment arrived, but we found it.
Our squadron trains regularly with the RTL-SDR equipment. It is inexpensive by RDF Equipment standards and it works. The only minor issue is it will not work with Apple IPhones or tablets. It requires Android or PC to work.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=22838.msg413267#msg413267
Quote from: Spam on December 28, 2019, 10:20:14 PM
Well. This is just fascinating. A Captalk first: a uniform and gear thread which has mutated into a "roles and missions" thread, rather than the reverse!
Right? Maybe not a first, but certainly in a very tiny minority.
QuoteInterestingly, as I've just morphed from being a Wing Vice Commander down to a happy nobody in my local unit, I'm having local discussions with th ESO about the lack of a team gear kit (whats that?), lack of a DF unit (we have personal air band handhelds), and lack of quals above UDF. So, I've suspended asking any further questions pending a roles and missions discussion at the local level.
At a Group/Wing level, Georgia has going on 30 years of a major ground ops exercise every February on the Appalachian Trail. One serious question I have been asking in recent years has been: from an ORM perspective are we posing more risk to our members in doing this event (risk of cold weather related injuries/accidents) than we gain in readiness for any hypothetical major winter SAR/DR mobilization, given that we haven't had a major call out in a decade?
I've asked to have that roles and missions discussion before advocating any significant force structure/posture/equipment decisions made. Its just not fair to "sell" a ground ops concept to members (adult or not) without a well grounded CONOPS and a discussion based on data.
This is one of those "shifting paradigms without a clutch" kinds of things that CAP is experiencing nationwide in some areas, and the resultant grinding sound (and metal shavings in the transmission) is causing lots of heartburn.
The recent Hawaii helicopter find illustrates some of this: A lot of folks commenting on the Facebook post about their SAR experiences/training "back in the day," where "the day" was 45+ years ago in some instances. That era of "search" (and the two that followed it, at least) is so long gone its not even funny. Yet a lot of people cling to that CONOPS like a touchstone or a talisman. Continuing to look rearward with nostalgia and desire instead of forward with planning, training, flexibility and an open mind is what will make CAP emergency ops irrelevant.
I moved to New England from a flat midwestern state (I joke that the total terrain variation across that state is less than that from the airport to the top of the nearby hill here) as an experienced ground team leader. I had a ton of finds, lots of sorties, etc. All in that 1980s/1990s model: deploy with your unit's "team" in a self-contained unit, conduct ops including ground interrogation and what is now "UDF," line searches, etc. Be prepared to operate in an austere situation for 24+ hrs (not necessarily "staying out in the field," but able to roll into a mission base as a self-contained capability with little external support except a flat patch of ground to pitch tents and maybe a place to setup a cookstove) and be good at it.
On the ground here, the CONOPS was entirely different: practice missions were one day affairs, lots of beacon finding, air-to-ground coordination, mission base stuff, and almost no "in the field" sort of thing was trained. I learned quickly that we were "not the primary agency" for any SAR, and if we did get called, it was going to be an air-only show. The state agency controlling SAR had specialized teams that were trained and able to execute in the mountains in any sort of weather, etc. CAP, on the ground, just didn't have the kind of training (both in terms of capability or time), equipment, clothing, stamina or frankly long-term capability that these teams did to prosecute a mountainous search. We were relegated to relatively flat-ground type searches (a missing hunter here, an Alzheimer facility walk-away there, etc) and UDF. (Our Specialized SAR Team page details a bunch of stuff about the expected training for teams here, including avalanche terrain navigation, high-angle technical rope rescue, winter Alpine mountaineering, etc. https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/law-enforcement/sar.html)
Suffice to say, this flat-lander was not equipped for mountain work (yikes, no), and after 4+ years of keeping up my GTL quals, spending lots of time and effort to keep up a ground team capability in my unit that did nothing but go to frequent training missions to find practice beacons under parachutes, people got disappointed and drifted away. Kind of like that kid on the baseball team who goes to every practice but rides the pine at every game.
So one of our challenges, at least here, is to pivot our capabilities and capacities in a way such as to be a legitimate supporting organization to our state agencies, including the primary SAR agency, within the scope of our
actual capabilities and training, versus continuing to expect a call-out for a mission thats never going to come our way. Sharpen the spear, so to speak, for the tasks and capabilities that we
can execute and
will get called to execute, and concentrate our limited training time on those things. Get really good at those things. Things like alerting, incident management staffing, communications, disaster assessment, ramp checks/ground UDF, and at a higher level, learning how to slot-in to an existing multi-agency incident like an actual team player, bringing our capabilities to the table and being able to be a known quantity that can be relied on to deliver results.
We're in the process of looking at realigning our METL to our expected employment based on our agreements with the state's emergency operations plan (see here, its public: https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/hsem/StateEmergencyOperationsPlan.html). We slot in to ESFs 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and 15 as a supporting agency.
So our goal is to use the this SEOP to train against the tasks the state expects to assign us for. Things like:
- airborne traffic flow assessments (like was done for Hurricane Florence and others when evac routes are declared and need to be monitored and issues communicated to agencies like the State Police);
- communications capabilities (and especially resilient interoperable comms capabilities);
- being a participant in the emergency management process (speaking of, we have a 1200 today EOC teleconference for the storm response that the EM folks are standing up. While we're not expecting any taskings, in this situation, its doesn't hurt to be checked in to the telecon to show that our organization is actively engaged in the process);
- flying resources around when needed (need to practice getting the authorization from the NOC for non-CAP folks, etc);
- search and rescue (again, alerting, getting aircraft and crews spun up and on-station in short order without 75 phone calls between the state and us to get things rolling, UDF to eliminate bogus signals, interagency comms interoperability, etc);
- having trained, professional public information folks available who can be part of the overall team to brief on situations, including those that we're actually participating in, etc.
(note, this is just an "of the top of my head" list of things, there's a much more detailed analysis that our ES & ops folks will need to put in to the SEOP to pluck out our METL and turn that into part of our annual training plan...)
In any event, being able to pivot into different areas of employment within our capabilities (or, if the capability doesn't exist, can we build the capability within our existing framework, or do we need more work?) and be a steady team player to our state & federal partners is something we should be doing everywhere. Not just here.
/rant
A couple thoughts.
I agree with and have experienced similar situations to just about everything here.
What you are discussing is what we all know has already happened, that what SAR work CAP still gets
is going to be focused on airborne capabilities (until drones take that) and EOC incident management.
Sadly, while the pivot has already happened, I don't view either as a growth sector as CAP has no unique capabilities
in either sector (i.e. agencies have their own drones and EOC folks who will always be better paid, equipped and more proficient then volunteers).
Many agencies talk a good game about wanting CAP help, but when you dive deeper what you find is that they want
either "an occasional plane" or CAP's member contact list to recruit into their own organization, because while they
may need people, they don't want the uniforms, or lack of direct control that the uniform brings.
AP sorties and EOC management do not stir cadet souls. I would imagine that, at best, DR could be that "field mission",
but frankly DA's are no place for most adolescents, and even then most of the time it's local response from home,
or a hotel or hangar, not the M*A*S*H unit most cadets picture (and think the want).
Whatever NIN's post and the above means for CAP's literal existence in 10 years, it won't get there if it doesn't start
overtly discussing these issues internally, and stop playing pretend as if the majority of its successes now mean anything to
the average member, or are even available to most areas.
The biggest issue I see on the use of CAP is communication and dialog with the State SAR Agencies. Communication needs to be set up where we get give our capabilities to the main SAR agency and then find out where they need us. Is there an opportunity that we are missing? Do we need to train in areas that we normally do not? In certain areas we might have a unique opportunity to show what we can do.
In our state, recently we added a Photography aspect to our ground teams for Flood assessment. Determining highest water level and adding that to our Damage Assessment play book. Trying to find high watermarks is not as easy as most people would think. Try on something that does not absorb water 3 days after the flood has subsided.
Back to the Rucksack discussion:
I never understood why everyone is looking to go CAMO on their ground team gear. You still have to wear the Safety vest on top of it. Yes, I can understand doing it to keep the cost down.
All of my ground team gear,( i.e. backpack, Load carrying vest {24 hour kit}...) is Blaze Orange with Reflective strips on it. It meets the ANSI II requirements and then I do not have to have an additional vest on top of it.
Quote from: Fubar on December 29, 2019, 04:37:37 AM
NHQ is intentionally not installing DF equipment in new airplane purchases, it would seem NHQ thinks DF gear is no longer critical.
Our 2015 C-172 has a Becker unit. We just used it a month ago for a non-distress find. I guess at this point as long as you have a couple planes in each Wing that is capable of finding that ELT in a hangar, its enough. IDK
(Ours last month was actually in a boat on dry land. LOL)
Quote from: etodd on December 29, 2019, 08:43:19 PM
Quote from: Fubar on December 29, 2019, 04:37:37 AM
NHQ is intentionally not installing DF equipment in new airplane purchases, it would seem NHQ thinks DF gear is no longer critical.
Our 2015 C-172 has a Becker unit. We just used it a month ago for a non-distress find. I guess at this point as long as you have a couple planes in each Wing that is capable of finding that ELT in a hangar, its enough. IDK
(Ours last month was actually in a boat on dry land. LOL)
My unit's 2018 182 has a Becker installed. Not sure if NHQ is handling brand-new 172s and 182s differently or we got the upgraded trim level (pun intended) but DF gear is still alive in my unit anyway.
Quote from: GZCP31 on December 29, 2019, 08:25:01 PM
All of my ground team gear,( i.e. backpack, Load carrying vest {24 hour kit}...) is Blaze Orange with Reflective strips on it. It meets the ANSI II requirements and then I do not have to have an additional vest on top of it.
I believe the relevant standard is ANSI/ISEA 107. From everything I've read, the standard simply doesn't apply to backpacks, so a back pack can't possibly meet the standard.
If I'm wrong about that, the back pack should have a label from the manufacturer certifying the back pack meets the requirements contained in the standard.
Here is a good description of the ANSI standard. (http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/646966O/ansi-made-easy.pdf)
To summarize - there are specific requirements for front and back visibility, including area of reflective material, contrast areas, and body coverage. A back pack would not meet the frontal visibility requirement.
ANSI standards - hmmm... formerly run by Ollie Smoot?
Y'all should be very careful in taking the word of any man who measures things in Smoots. Smoots, forsooth!
;D
Quote from: SarDragon on December 30, 2019, 04:40:17 AM
Here is a good description of the ANSI standard. (http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/646966O/ansi-made-easy.pdf)
To summarize - there are specific requirements for front and back visibility, including area of reflective material, contrast areas, and body coverage. A back pack would not meet the frontal visibility requirement.
This is why the 24 Hour kit is in a Blaze Orange Load carrying VEST.
Quote from: GZCP31 on July 02, 1970, 02:21:51 PM
You still have to wear the Safety vest on top of it. Yes, I can understand doing it to keep the cost down.
Per regulation, the safety vest must be the outermost
GARMET. There is no requirement that it be worn over carried equipment.
Quote from: Gunsotsu on December 30, 2019, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: GZCP31 on July 02, 1970, 02:21:51 PM
You still have to wear the Safety vest on top of it. Yes, I can understand doing it to keep the cost down.
Per regulation, the safety vest must be the outermost GARMET. There is no requirement that it be worn over carried equipment.
Uh oh.. careful, we're straying potentially into a uniform thread.... this was going so well, too...
Quote from: Gunsotsu on December 30, 2019, 05:11:52 PM
Quote from: GZCP31 on July 02, 1970, 02:21:51 PM
You still have to wear the Safety vest on top of it. Yes, I can understand doing it to keep the cost down.
Per regulation, the safety vest must be the outermost GARMET. There is no requirement that it be worn over carried equipment.
Assertions that it's OK to wear a safety vest under packs and gear are ridiculous.
This cadet is basically invisible from behind, and it would be worse if this was a camo pack,
or he was wearing a plate carrier.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdMqD3Nc/vest.jpg)
Clearly the
intent, and also common sense, is that the safety gear be over everything else, or the gear itself be
orange or yellow.
Why anyone would want to encourage people to be less visible is beyond me.
We're our own worst enemy. This discussion turned embarrassing.
I can't even engage with this crew anymore.