CAP Talk

Does anybody know what the Uniform Team is up to? It would help to have an idea of what's being considered, and what's been ruled out.

I'd vote for no change.  Everything in uniforms is as perfect as a committee is ever likely to be.   

Quote from: Climbnsink on June 02, 2009, 12:41:26 AM
I'd vote for no change.  Everything in uniforms is as perfect as a committee is ever likely to be.   

Far from it - while we don't need any more additional combos, we need a team to iron out the inconsistencies between regulations.

I would volunteer to be in that committee,

I would eliminate uniforms.....well not all of them.....

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on June 02, 2009, 03:54:31 AM
I would volunteer to be in that committee,

I would eliminate uniforms.....well not all of them.....

+1

I would LOVE to volunteer for that committee...

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on June 02, 2009, 03:54:31 AM
I would volunteer to be in that committee,

I would eliminate uniforms.....well not all of them.....

Me, too. We need to cut back on a few.

Col Merle Starr, is the head of the uniform committee. It has concluded its work and has presented its work for approval.

^That's excellent news! When will their work be released (if approved, of course)?

That I could not say, nor what changes they recommended,

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 02, 2009, 10:23:34 PM
That I could not say, nor what changes they recommended,

Do you know their mandate? Just uniform changes or can we expect a complete 39-1 rewrite?

Quote from: davidsinn on June 02, 2009, 10:43:41 PM

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 02, 2009, 10:23:34 PM
That I could not say, nor what changes they recommended,

Do you know their mandate? Just uniform changes or can we expect a complete 39-1 rewrite?

I hope it's a rewrite. The old one has way too much missing.

The Uniform Team hasn't 'concluded' it's work; it's an ongoing process.  Things continue to change, of course, as the committee's role evolves.  Some things are being worked on, including proposed rewrites to CAPM 39-1.

They need to do something to put an end to the Beret/Ranger Tab confusion to bed.

How about some real instruction when the results come out?  If it is all that important an issue, then a mandatory section of all meeting should be instituted with policy enforcement at CAP activities.


If many of the so called "Uniform Nazis" would spend more time on the flightlines "grounding" uniform violators (as per the regulations) than posting on forums, maybe an end to the problem could be the resultant.

(note a degree of sarcasm mixed in with sincerity)

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 03, 2009, 03:36:05 AM..."grounding" uniform violators (as per the regulations)...

Hmmm.

People might start paying attention to details, if they don't get to do the "fun" stuff when they're not right with things.

I can envision a CAP Uniform STAN/EVAL Team being born to do just that, enforce uniform standards at Encampments, NCSA's, etc.

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 03, 2009, 05:03:56 AM
I can envision a CAP Uniform STAN/EVAL Team being born to do just that, enforce uniform standards at Encampments, NCSA's, etc.

haha! NY Encampment already beat you to the gun  :P! We has a full cadet SET team WITH Senior Member supervision to do that! And enforce D&C, sleeping area alignments, C&C, knowledge, etc.

Quote from: Ozzy on June 03, 2009, 05:16:16 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 03, 2009, 05:03:56 AM
I can envision a CAP Uniform STAN/EVAL Team being born to do just that, enforce uniform standards at Encampments, NCSA's, etc.

haha! NY Encampment already beat you to the gun  :P! We has a full cadet SET team WITH Senior Member supervision to do that! And enforce D&C, sleeping area alignments, C&C, knowledge, etc.

Most encampments already have such a thing, I was a member of one several years ago.

I'm talking one purely for Uniforms, and one put together at perhaps a Regional level to enforce uniform standards.

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 02, 2009, 03:09:15 PM
Col Merle Starr, is the head of the uniform committee. It has concluded its work and has presented its work for approval.

If that's the same Merle Starr that I knew back in Georgia Wing in the 80s, he's a good man.  A darned good man.  He'll do a great job heading the uniform committee.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on June 03, 2009, 08:44:32 PM

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 02, 2009, 03:09:15 PM
Col Merle Starr, is the head of the uniform committee. It has concluded its work and has presented its work for approval.

If that's the same Merle Starr that I knew back in Georgia Wing in the 80s, he's a good man.  A darned good man.  He'll do a great job heading the uniform committee.

Jack

Anybody know what happened to Lt. Col. White? PM me if it's not fit for the public.

Edit: question answered

Quote from: ColonelJack on June 03, 2009, 08:44:32 PM

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 02, 2009, 03:09:15 PM
Col Merle Starr, is the head of the uniform committee. It has concluded its work and has presented its work for approval.

If that's the same Merle Starr that I knew back in Georgia Wing in the 80s, he's a good man.  A darned good man.  He'll do a great job heading the uniform committee.

Jack

It's the same man. Since Georgia, he has been the washington Wing Commander, Pacific Region Vice Commander, and the Pacific Region Commander.  If you knew Merle, you might not know that Pat, passed on last November.

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 03, 2009, 05:37:10 AM

Quote from: Ozzy on June 03, 2009, 05:16:16 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 03, 2009, 05:03:56 AM
I can envision a CAP Uniform STAN/EVAL Team being born to do just that, enforce uniform standards at Encampments, NCSA's, etc.

haha! NY Encampment already beat you to the gun  :P! We has a full cadet SET team WITH Senior Member supervision to do that! And enforce D&C, sleeping area alignments, C&C, knowledge, etc.

Most encampments already have such a thing, I was a member of one several years ago.

I'm talking one purely for Uniforms, and one put together at perhaps a Regional level to enforce uniform standards.

Good luck with that, considering encampments are some of the worst violators with funny colored t-shirts, grade on hats, etc., etc.  Some NCSA's are even worse with custom non-uniforms.

An encampment should be the standard by which members can judge their own uniforms, sadly that's not the case.

The Texas Wing Commander is said to ground CAP personnel who are not in uniform.

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 04, 2009, 12:50:13 AM
The Texas Wing Commander is said to ground CAP personnel who are not in uniform.

Kudos to him then. I think more of our Senior Leadership could follow this example. :-)

But I sure didnt see him out on my flightline checking crews prior to launch during the sar eval!

Quote from: dogden on June 04, 2009, 02:49:25 AM
But I sure didnt see him out on my flightline checking crews prior to launch during the sar eval!

No, but the perceived threat of the 'Wing King' cracking down (and I believe he has already done so) is enough to keep the members in line.  ;D

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 03, 2009, 10:28:28 PM

It's the same man. Since Georgia, he has been the washington Wing Commander, Pacific Region Vice Commander, and the Pacific Region Commander.  If you knew Merle, you might not know that Pat, passed on last November.

No, I did not know that.  I am very, very sorry to hear this; I remember Pat as a very nice person!  If you speak to Merle any time soon (and if he somehow remembers me), please pass along my deepest condolences.

Jack

Quote from: dogden on June 04, 2009, 02:49:25 AM
But I sure didnt see him out on my flightline checking crews prior to launch during the sar eval!

From what I've heard, he has been grounding lots of folks for violation of regulations or policy.  I saw him at Stinson at the last DSAR we had a few months ago and he was on top of things.

It's just a crying shame that people who are already active in CAP are being "grounded," and that there are specially appointed people to enforce policy that is elemental to CAP membership. This stuff should be handled early in a member's CAP career, before he/she even gets a chance to wear a uniform.

Blame squadron commanders for not enforcing policy and not standing up for it. Blame deputy commanders for not helping their commanders enforce standards (squadron commanders have so much going on that they can't get to everything in a two-hour meeting). Blame ourselves for not reinforcing standards with each other -- and for allowing a "uniform police" to manifest itself.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on June 04, 2009, 08:23:19 AM
No, but the perceived threat of the 'Wing King' cracking down (and I believe he has already done so) is enough to keep the members in line.  ;D

That's right........tell a volunteer to go home because they do not have the correct patch on and you will soon find yourself short of volunteers.  Lets remember.....Volunteer.  This is not the Air Force.  Enforcing standards in CAP is important......but do it the right way.  Telling the member to correct something is different than telling them to go home.

If I was in the wrong and the Wing King told me to go home over something trivial, that may have been an honest mistake......I would go home, but may not return.  Now if the Wing King told me to "fix it in the future".....I would heed his or her advice.  To turn people away is not a good practice.

Quote from: Spike on June 06, 2009, 08:27:36 PM

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on June 04, 2009, 08:23:19 AM
No, but the perceived threat of the 'Wing King' cracking down (and I believe he has already done so) is enough to keep the members in line.  ;D

That's right........tell a volunteer to go home because they do not have the correct patch on and you will soon find yourself short of volunteers.  Lets remember.....Volunteer.  This is not the Air Force.  Enforcing standards in CAP is important......but do it the right way.  Telling the member to correct something is different than telling them to go home.

If I was in the wrong and the Wing King told me to go home over something trivial, that may have been an honest mistake......I would go home, but may not return.  Now if the Wing King told me to "fix it in the future".....I would heed his or her advice.  To turn people away is not a good practice.

The few times I have seen members sent home were not over something trivial like a patch.  They were over significant violations, like wearing an CA GT uniform in CO. Was Ok at one time, but hasn't been for years. Or wearing an orange flight suit. Or wearing a green flight suit when the member weighed over 300lbs.

It only works, IMO, if you tell people in advance that violators will be sent home.  If you just spring it on them, you'll have nothing but crickets (and a few very skinny CAP officers left).  Be smart and courteous - don't embarrass folks.

The announcements for these specify uniforms must be worn IAW CAPR 39-1.

Does it specify that they'll be sent home?  I'm not disagreeing with it, just don't waste someone's time and effort if uniform violations have been winked at in the past.  If the penalty is known beforehand, then they'll have no argument.

When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere. 

Quote from: Gunner C on June 06, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
Does it specify that they'll be sent home?  I'm not disagreeing with it, just don't waste someone's time and effort if uniform violations have been winked at in the past.  If the penalty is known beforehand, then they'll have no argument.

When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere.

You shouldn't have to tell an ADULT that they will be sent home if they are not in a proper uniform.
A 13 year old Cadet Basic, maybe, but a 40 year old adult, I don't think so...

If you can't do something as simple as wear the proper uniform, then why should we trust you with our very expensive airplane?

It's all about attitudes...

Quote from: Gunner C on June 06, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere.

Because anybody who wants to train to be on an aircrew should have to buy a flightsuit.  ???

Quote from: N Harmon on June 07, 2009, 01:20:10 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 06, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere.

Because anybody who wants to train to be on an aircrew should have to buy a flightsuit.  ???

Good Question.  I guess in Gunners world that is the case!

I think it is all a matter of judgement.

No, we usually do not take drastic action for a trivial violation of 39-1.

But drastic violations call for drastic actions.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 07, 2009, 03:34:38 AM
I think it is all a matter of judgement.

No, we usually do not take drastic action for a trivial violation of 39-1.

But drastic violations call for drastic actions.

I'll second that one. There are too many blind eyes turned on severe violations. The most common ones I see are outdated uniforms (and configurations), uniforms mixed, and the all too common "I'm only a few pounds overweight".

Why is it acceptable for people to discard what they wish, and only follow what they desire? Is our culture so egocentric nowadays that it's acceptable?

I agree that CAP is not the military, but the volunteerism is the same. You make a choice to be part of something. Even with everyone in the same uniform, there is still individualism. Many don't seem to see that. We're all different types of people working together with common goals. Too bad many aren't working with common ethics.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 07, 2009, 03:56:28 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 07, 2009, 03:34:38 AM
I think it is all a matter of judgement.

No, we usually do not take drastic action for a trivial violation of 39-1.

But drastic violations call for drastic actions.

I'll second that one. There are too many blind eyes turned on severe violations. The most common ones I see are outdated uniforms (and configurations), uniforms mixed, and the all too common "I'm only a few pounds overweight".

Why is it acceptable for people to discard what they wish, and only follow what they desire? Is our culture so egocentric nowadays that it's acceptable?

Because people are so wrapped up in the "but they might quit" mindset that it hasn't occurred to them that the people we really want to keep  either (a) wouldn't quit, or (b) wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

It's been my experience that the people who use the "I'm a volunteer, be nice to me or I'll quit" line aren't usually worth the heartburn they generate to keep them around.

Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2009, 04:39:55 AM
It's been my experience that the people who use the "I'm a volunteer, be nice to me or I'll quit" line aren't usually worth the heartburn they generate to keep them around.

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

They volunteer for everything except following the rules.

Quote from: Gunner C on June 07, 2009, 04:50:41 AM

Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2009, 04:39:55 AM
It's been my experience that the people who use the "I'm a volunteer, be nice to me or I'll quit" line aren't usually worth the heartburn they generate to keep them around.

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

They volunteer for everything except following the rules.

"Have a nice day....come back when you are in uniform"

I recently had a cadet show up in an incomplete BDU (no nametape), after the squadron commander noted his uniform, I had to be the bad cop.....(SQ/CC said next week blah, blah, blah)

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on June 07, 2009, 06:23:30 AM
(SQ/CC said next week blah, blah, blah)

My reply would be "next week he can participate" :)

I guess I get kicked out of the Uniform Nazi Party.

1.  Yes, a "few pounds" overweight is a trivial violation.  Considering that for that few pounds the member has to spend $100-$500 in a new set of uniforms, depending upon his level of participation.  If he looks like a big blue garbage bag, THEN it is a serious violation warranting more action than a cautionary word or mild teasing banter.

2.  Cadet without a nametag?  Is the uniform new?  Is the cadet new?  I can forgive this, considering Vanguard's level of logistic support.  I will just call him "Cadet Unknown" until he gets a nametag on.  He will.  Trust me.

3.  Outdated uniform?  OK, that one goes home to change.  Outdated patches?  I probably won't even say anything about that, unless it is still the round flight suit patch from back in the 90's.  There are, the last time I counted, something like 3 versions of the command patch.  I have more important things to worry about than that.

Quote from: Gunner C on June 06, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
Does it specify that they'll be sent home?  I'm not disagreeing with it, just don't waste someone's time and effort if uniform violations have been winked at in the past.  If the penalty is known beforehand, then they'll have no argument.

When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere.

That is nice of you - if they don't wear what you want them to wear, then they can find soneone else to train them.   I need to start picking uniform combos that folks don't wear and make them required so I can reduce the class sizes.   

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on June 07, 2009, 06:23:30 AM[. . .]  I had to be the bad cop.

Interesting choice of words.

In general, I don't support sending a cadet home because of relatively minor uniform violations, like a missing name tape.

The whole point of the cadet program is training - and by sending a troop home you are denying them the very essence of our program.

There are a whole lot more tools in the tool box that are more appropriate to fix this uniform violation.

It's like a cop who stopped you for a relatively minor traffic violation like going 5 over the limit on the freeway or forgetting to use your turn signals when changing lanes decided to tow you car and make you walk home.

That would be a "bad cop" because the punishment / inconvenience inflicted is wildly disproportional to offense and actually is counterproductive to the whole purpose of traffic enforcement (getting from point A to point B safely).

I would also hope the traffic cop didn't bad mouth the Chief about being too soft on traffic offenses while she wrote the ticket . . .  8)


Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, bad job title)

Quote from: Short Field on June 07, 2009, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 06, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
Does it specify that they'll be sent home?  I'm not disagreeing with it, just don't waste someone's time and effort if uniform violations have been winked at in the past.  If the penalty is known beforehand, then they'll have no argument.

When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere.

That is nice of you - if they don't wear what you want them to wear, then they can find soneone else to train them.   I need to start picking uniform combos that folks don't wear and make them required so I can reduce the class sizes.   

When I attended MO training in "PGA" attire, the only comments I heard were from those wearing flight suits. They were thinking that I looked a whole lot more comfortable while sitting in the classroom.

For the record, we all successfully completed training. Apparently, the polyester encasing my torso failed to paralyze my brain cells.

Quote from: Short Field on June 07, 2009, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 06, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
Does it specify that they'll be sent home?  I'm not disagreeing with it, just don't waste someone's time and effort if uniform violations have been winked at in the past.  If the penalty is known beforehand, then they'll have no argument.

When I ran my group's aircrew course, I told everyone that the uniform was flight suits and nothing else would be allowed (no smurf suits).  There were no problems.  The PGA commandos either stayed home or got their training elsewhere.

I need to start picking uniform combos that folks don't wear and make them required so I can reduce the class sizes.   

The class was full every time with a waiting list.  Raise the bar and people will meet it every time.  We were at Pope AFB - part of our job was to sell the program to the AF.  The Pope wing commander noted CAP's professionalism each time the course was run.  These things mean something to the RM.  Since the RM gives us most of our funding, it makes sense to play their game, not yours. 

As for being "sent home," I've tried to carry a "uniform kit" with a few items in case of these issues.  I've even considered ordering a few nametapes/nameplates saying "CADET" or "SENIOR" to be attached with double-sided tape (the type used for mounting posters) for those who's HOCK SHOP or VANGUARD order is untimely.

A few hat badges, a flight CAP or BDU cap.

However, if one is going to drive over two hours to an activity, I think they might be made to consider a quick inspection of the uniform.

Flightsuits are pricy...so is most of the material. Still, if people on CAPTALK are gonna get into "UNIFORM NATONAL SOCIALISM" as so often happens I submit that personnel should be grounded if the uniform is uncorrectable.  However, as with all things, the situation needs to be examined in a fair and objective manner.

I've seen, much like General Washington's troops as Valley Forge, CAP officers piece together a uniform ( a MAJCOM patch from one, a flight CAP or hat device from another and a leather nametag from another) at a Mission so a fellow whose order has been "back ordered" could get in their scanner quals. 


Seems to me as if some of your units are "too cosmpolitian" to understand how it works out here on the frontier. ;)

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Flightsuits are pricy...so is most of the material. Still, if people on CAPTALK are gonna get into "UNIFORM NATONAL SOCIALISM" as so often happens I submit that personnel should be grounded if the uniform is uncorrectable. 

We got a variety of zoom bags from the military disposal yard (correct name for it escapes me right now).  They were in good shape and we were able to supply the entire group with inexpensive (free) bags.

Problem now is the change in regs - fat boys can't wear the flight suit ($40 utility uniform is the best answer).

Quote from: Gunner C on June 07, 2009, 05:40:23 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Flightsuits are pricy...so is most of the material. Still, if people on CAPTALK are gonna get into "UNIFORM NATONAL SOCIALISM" as so often happens I submit that personnel should be grounded if the uniform is uncorrectable. 

We got a variety of zoom bags from the military disposal yard (correct name for it escapes me right now).  They were in good shape and we were able to supply the entire group with inexpensive (free) bags.

Problem now is the change in regs - fat boys can't wear the flight suit ($40 utility uniform is the best answer).

There are always, as we all know, alternatives, in CAP for unifroms.

I think the best way to salvage a discussion like this one is to create aplan for correcting the less than accepted uniform practices. 

Finding blame is only valuable if one is going to use that fact to find a solution. 

Uniform Inspections as policy prior to all deployments?  Those wishing to attend must have their uniform pass an inspection.  That is not unreasonable.

After all, in Texas, for Safety, one must be on a letter that they have all the available safety info.  Why not ask for a Uniform inspection...it can be as informal as just wearing it to the meeting an dfacing the DEVIL's ADVOCATE of the squadron and manybe some could offer assistance or even uniform items...even if just loans.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 07, 2009, 02:00:21 PM1.  Yes, a "few pounds" overweight is a trivial violation.  Considering that for that few pounds the member has to spend $100-$500 in a new set of uniforms, depending upon his level of participation.  If he looks like a big blue garbage bag, THEN it is a serious violation warranting more action than a cautionary word or mild teasing banter.

The quote I made was people trivializing their weight. Usually a statement of "I'm only a few pounds overweight" is an attempt to minimalize it so that a new uniform isn't necessary. I can understand a few pounds (which means up to ten or so in my view), but the several (which can mean mean up to twenty plus) over is what I have a problem with. Twenty, thirty pounds or more is not a "few".

If someone is in that bracket they have a decision to make: get alternate uniforms, or lose the weight. I know losing the weight isn't easy, a few years ago it took me four months to drop 20 pounds. It was low impact  stuff, but it took a while. Making the effort is what shows a desire for uniformity.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 07, 2009, 02:00:21 PM2.  Cadet without a nametag?  Is the uniform new?  Is the cadet new?  I can forgive this, considering Vanguard's level of logistic support.  I will just call him "Cadet Unknown" until he gets a nametag on.  He will.  Trust me.

One cadet I had a problem with didn't have one for almost four months. He was apparently under the impression that it was going to be ordered for him, and that he didn't have to do anything. If he wanted one ordered, all he had to do was tell someone. I spent a few dollars on new cadets getting minor insignia (an amount usually not exceeding $20), and I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But he didn't tell anyone he needed it. I would have thought he'd figure it out after a dozen times of me talking to him about it.

At meetings, I'll tolerate it for awhile. But those members don't need to be attending outside-the-unit activiities until they have an appropriate uniform together, and know how to wear it properly.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 07, 2009, 02:00:21 PM3.  Outdated uniform?  OK, that one goes home to change.  Outdated patches?  I probably won't even say anything about that, unless it is still the round flight suit patch from back in the 90's.  There are, the last time I counted, something like 3 versions of the command patch.  I have more important things to worry about than that.

Agreed on outdated uniforms. I would also apply that to improperly configured ones, such as having "CAP" on one side (BDU's). Many changes have been around for years. If you can't scrape enough change out of your car seats or your couch by then, there's an issue. There are CAP related things that need to be done on personal time, it's not limited to only being done during a meeting.

For flightsuit patches? Simple fix: order a batch of the latest patches, and keep them on hand. Flightsuit has Velcro, that's a no-brainer.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 07, 2009, 06:16:32 PMFor flightsuit patches? Simple fix: order a batch of the latest patches, and keep them on hand. Flightsuit has Velcro, that's a no-brainer.

Ah, but we do have a number of folks out there who do not attach their patches with velcro, they sew them directly to the flight suit.

They're usually the one's who tell you you can't velcro your patches, they must be sewn on.

Haven't had one yet who can show me in the 39-1 where it says you can't use velcro. ::)

Quote from: PHall on June 07, 2009, 07:20:26 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 07, 2009, 06:16:32 PMFor flightsuit patches? Simple fix: order a batch of the latest patches, and keep them on hand. Flightsuit has Velcro, that's a no-brainer.

Ah, but we do have a number of folks out there who do not attach their patches with velcro, they sew them directly to the flight suit.

They're usually the one's who tell you you can't velcro your patches, they must be sewn on.

Haven't had one yet who can show me in the 39-1 where it says you can't use velcro. ::)

I know an old California supplement to 39-1 said that you can't Velcro them, they had to be sewn on, unless there was Velcro already on the suit. Kinda impractical, you can always just say that you got it with Velcro already.

I have three flightsuits, one has things sewn, the others have Velcro. I like the change out between squadron and the safety patch on the Velcro one every now and then, just to see if anyone is paying attention.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 07, 2009, 07:27:53 PMI have three flightsuits, one has things sewn, the others have Velcro. I like the change out between squadron and the safety patch on the Velcro one every now and then, just to see if anyone is paying attention.

FYI:  Squadron patches are not authorized on zoom bags.  have to check on the safety patch, but unit patches are a no-go.

If I was gonna split this thread, where would I start?

Quote from: Gunner C on June 07, 2009, 04:47:16 PM
The class was full every time with a waiting list.  Raise the bar and people will meet it every time.  We were at Pope AFB - part of our job was to sell the program to the AF.  The Pope wing commander noted CAP's professionalism each time the course was run.  These things mean something to the RM.  Since the RM gives us most of our funding, it makes sense to play their game, not yours.

First.....what were you "trying to sell to the AF"??

Second......if an AF Wing Commander bases his opinion on CAP Members Professionalism because of Flight Suits.....he is a terrible Officer, one I would never want to be subordinate to.

Third......requiring flight suits and only flight suits for classroom training (??) is silly.  If that was the case what is the reasoning for that?? 

Sounds to me like you may be the flight suit wearing member who probably doesn't even own any other uniform.  Great you got your group a ton of free flight suits.....but what happens when the free flights suits run out??  Make a member buy one just to get training?  That is bad leadership.

Lets all pretend every member is not wealthy.  We need to plan our events so that it costs the individual member as little as possible.

Just because your class was full does not equate it to being a good training session. 

Finally......The Real Military (RM) does not give us our funding.  It comes through the Air Force, but it is appropriated by the Federal Government from taxes and decided upon by our elected officials.  CAP asks for money through the AF channels all the way up to DOD.  The Defense Department is not the Real Military.....it is a Government Department with Civilians in charge of it. 

I also hate to say it but.... "being in flight suits" means something to the RM?  Give me a break! 

Quote from: Ned on June 07, 2009, 03:48:17 PM

Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on June 07, 2009, 06:23:30 AM[. . .]  I had to be the bad cop.

Interesting choice of words.

In general, I don't support sending a cadet home because of relatively minor uniform violations, like a missing name tape.

The whole point of the cadet program is training - and by sending a troop home you are denying them the very essence of our program.

There are a whole lot more tools in the tool box that are more appropriate to fix this uniform violation.

It's like a cop who stopped you for a relatively minor traffic violation like going 5 over the limit on the freeway or forgetting to use your turn signals when changing lanes decided to tow you car and make you walk home.

That would be a "bad cop" because the punishment / inconvenience inflicted is wildly disproportional to offense and actually is counterproductive to the whole purpose of traffic enforcement (getting from point A to point B safely).

I would also hope the traffic cop didn't bad mouth the Chief about being too soft on traffic offenses while she wrote the ticket . . .  8)


Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, bad job title)

Didn't send the cadet home, but I wasn the one that had to deliver the news to the cadet about being out of uniform, and what it was that he needed.  The next week he was in the corrent uniform.  Problem was that no-one told him of the alternative uniform until he got his squared away. 

My alternative uniform is Squadron shirt, blue jeans until uniforms coma in and are completed.

I also just handed over my cadet stash to the squadron to help out with missing items.

Quote from: MIKE on June 07, 2009, 07:57:05 PMFYI:  Squadron patches are not authorized on zoom bags.  have to check on the safety patch, but unit patches are a no-go.

You'll have to prove that to me with something black and white out of the manual. And I mean a specific reference, not just "the manual says you can't". The only statement in the section on flight suits states the following:

"Optional Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on right sleeve. Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch."

Since other patches are listed as authorized, it stands to reason that it means any legitimately authorized patch (which does not mean "Give a XXXX meter" patches, etc). Any patch in good taste that CAP has should be fine. Disputing it seems like picking fly "stuff" out of pepper.

If it doesn't seem that way to many, then maybe it needs to be clarified. Unit patches on CAP uniforms are normal, disallowing it on anything other than blues would be strange. When I see someone in my wing in a green bag, a wing patch is meaningless to me. I know what wing they're from. Squadron identifiers are more important.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2009, 05:02:19 AM

Quote from: MIKE on June 07, 2009, 07:57:05 PMFYI:  Squadron patches are not authorized on zoom bags.  have to check on the safety patch, but unit patches are a no-go.

You'll have to prove that to me with something black and white out of the manual. And I mean a specific reference, not just "the manual says you can't". The only statement in the section on flight suits states the following:

"Optional Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on right sleeve. Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch."

Since other patches are listed as authorized, it stands to reason that it means any legitimately authorized patch (which does not mean "Give a XXXX meter" patches, etc). Any patch in good taste that CAP has should be fine. Disputing it seems like picking fly "stuff" out of pepper.

If it doesn't seem that way to many, then maybe it needs to be clarified. Unit patches on CAP uniforms are normal, disallowing it on anything other than blues would be strange. When I see someone in my wing in a green bag, a wing patch is meaningless to me. I know what wing they're from. Squadron identifiers are more important.

You just proved MIKE's point. "Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch"

Here are the choices.

• Wing Patch
• Region Patch
• National Patch

Squadron patch is not listed, and thus, not authorized.

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 08, 2009, 05:17:57 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2009, 05:02:19 AM

Quote from: MIKE on June 07, 2009, 07:57:05 PMFYI:  Squadron patches are not authorized on zoom bags.  have to check on the safety patch, but unit patches are a no-go.

You'll have to prove that to me with something black and white out of the manual. And I mean a specific reference, not just "the manual says you can't". The only statement in the section on flight suits states the following:

"Optional Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on right sleeve. Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch."

Since other patches are listed as authorized, it stands to reason that it means any legitimately authorized patch (which does not mean "Give a XXXX meter" patches, etc). Any patch in good taste that CAP has should be fine. Disputing it seems like picking fly "stuff" out of pepper.

If it doesn't seem that way to many, then maybe it needs to be clarified. Unit patches on CAP uniforms are normal, disallowing it on anything other than blues would be strange. When I see someone in my wing in a green bag, a wing patch is meaningless to me. I know what wing they're from. Squadron identifiers are more important.

You just proved MIKE's point. "Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch"

Here are the choices.

• Wing Patch
• Region Patch
• National Patch

Squadron patch is not listed, and thus, not authorized.

No, I didn't. The statement is "may be wing, region or National shoulder patch". It does not say "may only be wing, region, or National shoulder patch.

First Item: show me a National shoulder patch. You can't, there is no such thing currently authorized. There was a National shoulder tab, and it was specified as such in previous manuals. No National shoulder patch has been authorized for at least a few decades.

Second: Look at table 6-4, starting from item 13 on down. On that page alone, there are eleven patches listed as authorized for the right sleeve of the flightsuit.

A squadron patch is not disallowed, nor specifically approved. As long as it's an approved patch, what's the problem.

Since a single page lists that many patches as authorized for the right sleeve of the flightsuit, do you stand by your statement of those being the only choices?

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2009, 05:53:54 AM
No, I didn't. The statement is "may be wing, region or National shoulder patch". It does not say "may only be wing, region, or National shoulder patch.

First Item: show me a National shoulder patch. You can't, there is no such thing currently authorized. There was a National shoulder tab, and it was specified as such in previous manuals. No National shoulder patch has been authorized for at least a few decades.

Second: Look at table 6-4, starting from item 13 on down. On that page alone, there are eleven patches listed as authorized for the right sleeve of the flightsuit.

A squadron patch is not disallowed, nor specifically approved. As long as it's an approved patch, what's the problem.

Since a single page lists that many patches as authorized for the right sleeve of the flightsuit, do you stand by your statement of those being the only choices?

Yep. Table 6-4 lists "Badges, Patches, and Devices on Flight Suits,BDU's, Utility Uniforms, and Field Uniforms.

In fact, 6-4 specifically lists, in item 10, Organizational (Unit) Patch. It even tells me where I can wear it.

Quotecentered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU or field uniform shirt or BDU or dark blue field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket.  (See note 2.)

Nothing about wearing it on the flight suit there.

Questions?

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 08, 2009, 06:03:07 AM
Yep. Table 6-4 lists "Badges, Patches, and Devices on Flight Suits,BDU's, Utility Uniforms, and Field Uniforms.

In fact, 6-4 specifically lists, in item 10, Organizational (Unit) Patch. It even tells me where I can wear it.

Quotecentered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU or field uniform shirt or BDU or dark blue field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket.  (See note 2.)

Nothing about wearing it on the flight suit there.

Questions?

In the table entries on each line dealing with various patches, it states:

"on the right sleeve 1/2 inch below shoulder seam of BDU or field uniform shirt, BDU or dark blue field jacket, utility uniform or flight suit."

The most you will get me to secede is that it would be a gray area, and that the manual contradicts itself with the statement of "optional patch". If you choose not to wear it, that's your choice. It's not mine. Wear of a unit patch on the right sleeve is a standard Air Force practice. Disallowing CAP the wear of unit patches is inconsistent. A unit patch is certainly not an item that's poor taste, and there is no reason to disallow it.

An easy way to deal with it is to eliminate the "Optional patch may be wing, region, or National".  Simply specify that any authorized or approved patch may be worn.

However, you have not addressed the issue of a National shoulder patch, and you stand by your statement of only three authorized patches. A squadron patch is only a partial issue. The manual is inconsistent in itself.

Maybe instead of arguing, we should get it clarified?

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2009, 06:24:05 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 08, 2009, 06:03:07 AM
Yep. Table 6-4 lists "Badges, Patches, and Devices on Flight Suits,BDU's, Utility Uniforms, and Field Uniforms.

In fact, 6-4 specifically lists, in item 10, Organizational (Unit) Patch. It even tells me where I can wear it.

Quotecentered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU or field uniform shirt or BDU or dark blue field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket.  (See note 2.)

Nothing about wearing it on the flight suit there.

Questions?

In the table entries on each line dealing with various patches, it states:

"on the right sleeve 1/2 inch below shoulder seam of BDU or field uniform shirt, BDU or dark blue field jacket, utility uniform or flight suit."

The most you will get me to secede is that it would be a gray area, and that the manual contradicts itself with the statement of "optional patch". If you choose not to wear it, that's your choice. It's not mine. Wear of a unit patch on the right sleeve is a standard Air Force practice. Disallowing CAP the wear of unit patches is inconsistent. A unit patch is certainly not an item that's poor taste, and there is no reason to disallow it.

An easy way to deal with it is to eliminate the "Optional patch may be wing, region, or National".  Simply specify that any authorized or approved patch may be worn.

However, you have not addressed the issue of a National shoulder patch, and you stand by your statement of only three authorized patches. A squadron patch is only a partial issue. The manual is inconsistent in itself.

Maybe instead of arguing, we should get it clarified?

Respectfully, I don't think there's clarification needed. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud about it, but I think it's pretty cut and dry.

All the various patches you referred to (I assume you're looking at line 16), all of those are patches for National Activities, and thus I would assume those are "National Patches"

Just because there is no National Shoulder Patch (like a Wing Patch or Region Rocker) doesn't mean there won't be one, or wasn't once one. Yes, the manual is inconsistent and flawed in several areas, however, I really don't think this is one of them.

The argument that it's standard Air Force practice also doesn't fly. If we were the Air Force, we'd be looking at AFMAN 36-2903. I'm sure there's a lot of other AF Standard Practices we don't go by.

Your choice to believe that. I believe that it's within the spirit of the manual, even though the letter of the manual contradicts itself.

As to Air Force practice, it's their practice to wear rank insignia on shoulders, nametags over pockets, badges on left chest. Why should we depart from their other practices? What is so wrong about mirroring the Air Force? You haven't said it, but I get the impression that's the way you think.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2009, 06:54:15 AM
Your choice to believe that. I believe that it's within the spirit of the manual, even though the letter of the manual contradicts itself.

Quote from: OATH OF MEMBERSHIP
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that:
...I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values,
Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws....
...I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol. ...

As has been stated several times before on CT, we ARE NOT THE AIR FORCE. We do some things the same, we do some things different. Again, we follow (at least some of us) CAPM 39-1, not AFMAN 36-2903.

As I said before, your way of looking at it. You interpret it as forbidden, I don't. You can try the authoriarian post all you want, you haven't given me sufficient reason to change my mind.

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 08, 2009, 05:17:57 AM

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 08, 2009, 05:02:19 AM
You'll have to prove that to me with something black and white out of the manual. And I mean a specific reference, not just "the manual says you can't". The only statement in the section on flight suits states the following:

"Optional Shoulder Patch: Worn centered 1/2 inch below shoulder seam on right sleeve. Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch."

Since other patches are listed as authorized, it stands to reason that it means any legitimately authorized patch (which does not mean "Give a XXXX meter" patches, etc). Any patch in good taste that CAP has should be fine. Disputing it seems like picking fly "stuff" out of pepper.

If it doesn't seem that way to many, then maybe it needs to be clarified. Unit patches on CAP uniforms are normal, disallowing it on anything other than blues would be strange. When I see someone in my wing in a green bag, a wing patch is meaningless to me. I know what wing they're from. Squadron identifiers are more important.

You just proved MIKE's point. "Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch"

Here are the choices.

• Wing Patch
• Region Patch
• National Patch

Squadron patch is not listed, and thus, not authorized.

Disregarding the list, and keeping in mind that the manual was written before the flag was worn on the right shoulder, the unit patch was NOT worn on the right shoulder. It was (and is) worn on the right BREAST POCKET. Based on that, the unit patch is not authorized for wear on the flight suit.

What clatification is needed? All the patches that are authorized for the flight suit specifically state that. Those that are not (and that also includes the Safety, Comm, and Model Rocketry patches) do not. Remember, the default for 39-1 is that unless it is specifically authorized, it's not permitted.

Compare the following:
NCSA patches:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, Table 6-4, Line 16
on the right sleeve 1/2 inch below shoulder seam of BDU or field uniform shirt, BDU or dark blue field jacket, utility uniform or flight suit.

Organizational (Unit) patches:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, table 6-4, Line 10
centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU or field uniform shirt or BDU or dark blue field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket. (See note 2.)

Note 2 deals with sending the National Curator a sample.

I really can't see someone mistaking their right shoulder for their right breast pocket.

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 08, 2009, 07:04:40 AMAs has been stated several times before on CT, we ARE NOT THE AIR FORCE. We do some things the same, we do some things different. Again, we follow (at least some of us) CAPM 39-1, not AFMAN 36-2903.

Ahem... it's AFI 36-2903.  I miss the days when it was called AFR 35-10.  ;D

Somehow 36-2903 just doesn't roll off the tongue or lend itself as a synonym to comply with regs like the olden days. For example - "gotta go get a 35-10 haircut before I get jacked-up by the first shirt..."

Our squadron patch is an "authorized" patch made so my the Texas Wing.  We even went so far has to seek all permission, discussed the matter with Region and National level officers (to which I have presented one framed to the Nation, Region and Wing Commanders).

I would agree with Hawk on this one...

Quote"Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch"

Since a Squadron Patch is authorized by the Wing, it fits the model of this regulation.

On a side note, it is funny how there seems to be a sort of CAP "Common Law" and persons that feel empowered to practice it and impose it upon others.  Especially in these "grey" areas.  Curious?

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 08, 2009, 03:33:49 PM
Our squadron patch is an "authorized" patch made so my the Texas Wing.  We even went so far has to seek all permission, discussed the matter with Region and National level officers (to which I have presented one framed to the Nation, Region and Wing Commanders).

I would agree with Hawk on this one...

Quote"Member may choose one of the authorized patches for the right shoulder, may be wing, region or National shoulder patch"

Since a Squadron Patch is authorized by the Wing, it fits the model of this regulation.

Ditto - all my units, and even one special activity are incorporated into the Wing's supplement to 39-3, with specific indication of wearing it / them in the optional patch areas.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Since when is a unit patch a shoulder patch, considering CAPM 39-1 specifies it as a POCKET patch?

Quote from: arajca on June 08, 2009, 04:21:35 PM
Since when is a unit patch a shoulder patch, considering CAPM 39-1 specifies it as a POCKET patch?

When Wing Kings think they can do whatever they want. 

Quote from: arajca on June 08, 2009, 04:21:35 PM
Since when is a unit patch a shoulder patch, considering CAPM 39-1 specifies it as a POCKET patch?

When its worn on the flight suit as an approved optional wing, region, or national patch.

Try to follow the story...

Hmm, I just spoke to a member of the uniform team, and squadron patches are not considered to be an approved "wing" item.  According to the member only those patches listed in the table are approved for wear on the flight suit, nor do the "Wing Kings" have the authority to approve such item as all patches added to the AF Flight suit require AF approval.  The team will address the points brought up here about this being a "gray" area and address them.

MAYBE there will a REAL 39-1 resolution sometime before 2015

WOW Even CAP doesn't know what CAP is doing

Thank God for  flight suits and polos

LET the flamin begin

It is great reading these posts

What is NOT great  .......CAP leadership and its ATTENTION TO DETAIL to unifiorm standards and getting ICL's and everyone on the same sheet of music

Time for NHQ, instead of worrying about DHS missions.... to get everyone in the same

How about that argument for Khakis and polos and flight suits and be done with it ALLLL!!!

TIME for CAP to separate its uniforms from MAMA BLUE...  Time for a 21st Century history change for all the uniform muckraking going around!!!!  1946 is OVER with and trying to align CAP uniforms with AF uniforms is a perpetual headache for all.  Time for NHQ to call it for the khakis and polos and maybe even buy the polos for the members  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D

They'll probably thanks us for it

...white t-shirts and optional patches on a velcro strip...

I'm considered to be the Wing-level stazi and I don't care.

This entire conversation has lowered our collective IQ.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2009, 04:31:14 PM

Quote from: arajca on June 08, 2009, 04:21:35 PM
Since when is a unit patch a shoulder patch, considering CAPM 39-1 specifies it as a POCKET patch?

When its worn on the flight suit as an approved optional wing, region, or national patch.

Try to follow the story...

Try to follow the MANUAL.

Quote from: heliodoc on June 08, 2009, 05:04:13 PMTime for NHQ, instead of worrying about DHS missions.... to get everyone in the same [uniform].

Of course, you are absolutely correct.

The clothing we are wearing is far more important than any actual missions.

Those silly guys at NHQ never seem to get this right.

Thank you for your insight.


Ned Lee
NHQ Apologist

If the uniform team can guarantee that it will solve some 90% of all the ambiguities, I think they will really be getting somewhere.

However, the USAF is going to transition to something new and their work will then likely have to be redone.  Unless the USAF addresses CAP uniform variants in their publications...thereby forever ending this insipid discussion. (save maybe for CAP DISTINCTIVE uniforms)

I would like to see a real 5 year moratorium on uniform changes in CAP.  I mean a real National Board policy that states that CAP uniforms are not to changefor a period of 5 years.  This would insure that CAP looked the same for at least that long.  Changes could be discussed and on the 4th year a Uniform Team could solicit ideas and make corrections, changes and effect a complete rewrite of CAPM 39-1 for the fifth year.

Quote from: Major Carrales on June 08, 2009, 07:03:17 PM
I would like to see a real 5 year moratorium on uniform changes in CAP.  I mean a real National Board policy that states that CAP uniforms are not to changefor a period of 5 years.  This would insure that CAP looked the same for at least that long.  Changes could be discussed and on the 4th year a Uniform Team could solicit ideas and make corrections, changes and effect a complete rewrite of CAPM 39-1 for the fifth year.

It'll never happen. It makes sense. >:D

No problem, Ned

This is my second time around CAP after a 25 year hiatus

21 spent in RM where there was change as well as confusion about unis.  But people were getting paid to pay attention and there was more organization in the MANUALS

CAP, on the other hand, with its smurf suits, desires, cheap flight suits, and probably even cheaper combat boots sold by Vanguard, makes me wonder what ALLL those board meetings are about other than smooozing legislators, etc.  Maybe we ought to be spending our time lobbying the AF a little more and trying not to urinate on them with all our impressive uniform changes that make the membership's head spin wildly around a 39-1

There are more important things to do than just our uniform heraldry.  When people get tired of CAP, no one need wonder why.

I came back for the ES, and hold on..... for the "cheeeeep flying"  RIGHT

For the amount of crud the membership has to endure about "correct uniform wear" make folks wonder what really goes on down there at Maxwell.....

The membership should NOT have to endure the wildly crazy 39-1.  It SHOULD BE ORGANIZED and UNDERSTANDABLE and COHERENT

Not some hodgepodge that is continually running around with ICL's.  Stop the ICL business and make ONE definite reg and stay with it more than 6 months..


It is no wonder there is so much on CAPTALK.... NO straight answers from above...just more ICLs.

I am not correct about anything.  The folks here are the ones talking more about unis.  Love to see a real suggestion board for CAP........Anybody at NHQ really read what the minions say???

Thank you for your response. 

QuoteTIME for CAP to separate its uniforms from MAMA BLUE... 

Negative. We are the AUX, we should look like the AUX.

Quotetrying to align CAP uniforms with AF uniforms is a perpetual headache for all.

Only because of the people that create/promote the alternatives.

Is there any reason that squadron patches should not be authorized for wear on a flight suit?  Why let them be worn on all the other military-style uniforms, but not the flight suit?  Seems like more of an oversight than a deliberate decision.

Found a copy of the 1997 39-1: Table 5-3, Item 11 "Organizational (Unit)
Emblems"

"Centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU shirt or field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket. May also be worn on right sleeve of jumpsuit."

"Jumpsuit" is defined in 6-2:
"The jumpsuit is a bright royal blue color, commercial style and has an elastic gathered waistband with velcro adjustments, front zipper, and a left breast pocket."

So, we have at least two editions of the 39-1 going back over a decade that specifically do not include Flight Suits.

Quote from: RiverAux on June 08, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Is there any reason that squadron patches should not be authorized for wear on a flight suit?  Why let them be worn on all the other military-style uniforms, but not the flight suit?  Seems like more of an oversight than a deliberate decision.

You're probably right. Which means, someone needs to...dare I say it...



submit a CHANGE to authorize unit patches on the flight suit.

Quote from: wacapgh on June 08, 2009, 07:42:59 PM
Found a copy of the 1997 39-1: Table 5-3, Item 11 "Organizational (Unit)
Emblems"

"Centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU shirt or field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket. May also be worn on right sleeve of jumpsuit."

"Jumpsuit" is defined in 6-2:
"The jumpsuit is a bright royal blue color, commercial style and has an elastic gathered waistband with velcro adjustments, front zipper, and a left breast pocket."

So, we have at least two editions of the 39-1 going back over a decade that specifically do not include Flight Suits.

True, but you also have a precedent for Unit patches being worn on the right sleeve.

It is apparent from the dispute that there are a couple interpretations. Those need to be clarified, or else there wouldn't be a dispute.

We need a new release of 39-1. A manual and then several change letters is not a prudent way of doing business. I seem to recall something from when I was active duty that if a publication had more than a couple of supplements, then it was to be rewritten to include the supplemental material, and then released. We should adopt such a policy.

As someone stated before, most of our stuff is electronic. It would be pretty easy to modify anything that needs it. Take a look at the current page 34, and then a proposed one I knocked together in about 20 minutes. I didn't even use anything fancy, just pasted into OpenOffice, and exported as a PDF.

As a warning, the modified page is not a Civil Air Patrol publication, and is not to be utilized in any manner.

Quote from: jeders on June 08, 2009, 08:01:04 PMTrue, but you also have a precedent for Unit patches being worn on the right sleeve.

Not to mention that the branch that permits us to wear their uniform does it that way too.

I would have to agree, that it takes much too long to merge changes into the manual.  I do know that part of the delay is that 1) All changes have to be approved by the entire National Board and 2) If it is an air force uniform, CAP-USAf has to approve the change as well.

An ICL also does not seem to be the appropriate way to implement changes as the reg (CAPR 5-1) states:
                     
     4. Interim Change Letters (ICL). Situations requiring immediate action due to a state of   emergency, an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, or other contingencies that may require prompt action may result in an interim change letter being issued outlining immediate policies. ICLs may be issued by any level of command unless specifically limited or prohibited by the regulation or manual governing that subject matter. Issuance of policies by ICL is a temporary measure.
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.

Quote from: heliodoc on June 08, 2009, 07:13:18 PM
No problem, Ned

This is my second time around CAP after a 25 year hiatus

Thanks for coming back.  CAP allows us to make a difference.

Even us retired military folks.

Quote

21 spent in RM where there was change as well as confusion about unis.  But people were getting paid to pay attention and there was more organization in the MANUALS.

Nobody disagrees that we need a new/revised 39-1.

Indeed, our volunteer leaders are working the issue right now.  As you might imagine, it is a difficult and thankless task given the diversity of our missions and members as well as the complexity of our uniform scheme.

And I thank God I am not on that committee.

But it is working it's way through the problem(s) and at some point we will get a new 39-1.

Quote

For the amount of crud the membership has to endure about "correct uniform wear" make folks wonder what really goes on down there at Maxwell.....

I'm lucky to be able to get to Maxwell several times a year to visit NHQ, and every time I go into the building I see our dedicated Corporate Team working their tails off for the membership.

Remember, it is the volunteer leadership - not the professional staff at NHQ - that makes the calls about our uniforms.  And the volunteer leaders are aware of the issues with the current 39-1 and ICLs and working on the upgrade.

QuoteRemember, it is the volunteer leadership - not the professional staff at NHQ - that makes the calls about our uniforms.  And the volunteer leaders are aware of the issues with the current 39-1 and ICLs and working on the upgrade.

But doesn't the paid staff generally do the nuts and bolts of re-doing the regulations? 

Whether it is the paid staff or volunteers, there really is no excuse the the state of 39-1.  I've said it before, but once the proper authorities have approved a change a revised regulations should be ready to go out in draft form within a few days (unless it is a total re-write).  Theres nothing in any of the numerous ICLs to 39-1 that couldn't have been incorporated into the regulation within a reasonable period of time. 

39-1 has lots of inconsistencies.  My thinking would be to do one of two things:

1.  Nuke it, and start from scratch.

2.  Nuke it, and admit to Big Mother Blue that we are too stupid to create a comprehensive policy on uniforms, and request them to write in a chapter of THEIR uniform regulations, "Special Insignia Items and Regulations for the Civil Air Patrol."  That way, whenever the USAF updated their uniforms, ours would automatically follow suit.  (which is how most of the USAF officers already think we operate).

But... We need to make sure that the next revision of 39-1 authorizes brown shirts for Uniform Nazis.  Especially in California. 

Oops, my bad.  California already wears brown shirts!  >:D

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:51:14 AM
39-1 has lots of inconsistencies.  My thinking would be to do one of two things:

1.  Nuke it, and start from scratch.

2.  Nuke it, and admit to Big Mother Blue that we are too stupid to create a comprehensive policy on uniforms, and request them to write in a chapter of THEIR uniform regulations, "Special Insignia Items and Regulations for the Civil Air Patrol."  That way, whenever the USAF updated their uniforms, ours would automatically follow suit.  (which is how most of the USAF officers already think we operate).

But... We need to make sure that the next revision of 39-1 authorizes brown shirts for Uniform Nazis.  Especially in California. 

Oops, my bad.  California already wears brown shirts!  >:D

They're wearing brown in the picture...

EDIT (I assumed you're meaning for BDU's)

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 09, 2009, 02:55:32 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:51:14 AM
39-1 has lots of inconsistencies.  My thinking would be to do one of two things:

1.  Nuke it, and start from scratch.

2.  Nuke it, and admit to Big Mother Blue that we are too stupid to create a comprehensive policy on uniforms, and request them to write in a chapter of THEIR uniform regulations, "Special Insignia Items and Regulations for the Civil Air Patrol."  That way, whenever the USAF updated their uniforms, ours would automatically follow suit.  (which is how most of the USAF officers already think we operate).

But... We need to make sure that the next revision of 39-1 authorizes brown shirts for Uniform Nazis.  Especially in California. 

Oops, my bad.  California already wears brown shirts!  >:D

They're wearing brown in the picture...

EDIT (I assumed you're meaning for BDU's)

No, I was referring to the deputy sheriff uniforms that CA Wing wears now.  They wear them on SAR missions, and while breaking out the windows of people who wear unit patches on their flight suits.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:59:24 AMNo, I was referring to the deputy sheriff uniforms that CA Wing wears now.  They wear them on SAR missions, and while breaking out the windows of people who wear unit patches on their flight suits.

??? ??? ???
I missed the bus on this one somewhere, lol.

Might be easier to just say, "Wear whatever you want.  After all, you're volunteers, right? So you just do whatever you like best."

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:59:24 AM
No, I was referring to the deputy sheriff uniforms that CA Wing wears now.  They wear them on SAR missions, and while breaking out the windows of people who wear unit patches on their flight suits.

Whaaaaa?

Pictures??

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:59:24 AM
No, I was referring to the deputy sheriff uniforms that CA Wing wears now.  They wear them on SAR missions, and while breaking out the windows of people who wear unit patches on their flight suits.

I thought thought that combo was rescinded and had not been reinstated.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:59:24 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 09, 2009, 02:55:32 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:51:14 AM
39-1 has lots of inconsistencies.  My thinking would be to do one of two things:

1.  Nuke it, and start from scratch.

2.  Nuke it, and admit to Big Mother Blue that we are too stupid to create a comprehensive policy on uniforms, and request them to write in a chapter of THEIR uniform regulations, "Special Insignia Items and Regulations for the Civil Air Patrol."  That way, whenever the USAF updated their uniforms, ours would automatically follow suit.  (which is how most of the USAF officers already think we operate).

But... We need to make sure that the next revision of 39-1 authorizes brown shirts for Uniform Nazis.  Especially in California. 

Oops, my bad.  California already wears brown shirts!  >:D

They're wearing brown in the picture...

EDIT (I assumed you're meaning for BDU's)

No, I was referring to the deputy sheriff uniforms that CA Wing wears now.  They wear them on SAR missions, and while breaking out the windows of people who wear unit patches on their flight suits.

You better get your color vision checked, they wear ORANGE shirts.

As I recall there are very few photos floating around, but wasn't / isn't it an orange BDU shirt over blue BDU pants?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:59:24 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 09, 2009, 02:55:32 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 09, 2009, 02:51:14 AM
39-1 has lots of inconsistencies.  My thinking would be to do one of two things:

1.  Nuke it, and start from scratch.

2.  Nuke it, and admit to Big Mother Blue that we are too stupid to create a comprehensive policy on uniforms, and request them to write in a chapter of THEIR uniform regulations, "Special Insignia Items and Regulations for the Civil Air Patrol."  That way, whenever the USAF updated their uniforms, ours would automatically follow suit.  (which is how most of the USAF officers already think we operate).

But... We need to make sure that the next revision of 39-1 authorizes brown shirts for Uniform Nazis.  Especially in California. 

Oops, my bad.  California already wears brown shirts!  >:D

They're wearing brown in the picture...

EDIT (I assumed you're meaning for BDU's)

No, I was referring to the deputy sheriff uniforms that CA Wing wears now.  They wear them on SAR missions, and while breaking out the windows of people who wear unit patches on their flight suits.

I thought they were orange? 

Brown would blend better with the black helicopters flown by the CAP Uniform SWAT Division.   >:D

Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2009, 03:37:38 AM
As I recall there are very few photos floating around, but wasn't / isn't it an orange BDU shirt over blue BDU pants?

They're orange "CalTrans" (California Department of Transportation) shirts. Cut the same way as BDU but don't have the bottom set of pockets.

Do I even dare ask how these came into CAP?

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 09, 2009, 04:31:46 AM
Do I even dare ask how these came into CAP?

The comments were that it was a California mandate for any SAR team.

Best pic I could find:
(http://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/news_events/awareness_week/images/wz_memorial08-1.gif)

Quote from: Spike on June 07, 2009, 08:11:45 PM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 07, 2009, 04:47:16 PM
The class was full every time with a waiting list.  Raise the bar and people will meet it every time.  We were at Pope AFB - part of our job was to sell the program to the AF.  The Pope wing commander noted CAP's professionalism each time the course was run.  These things mean something to the RM.  Since the RM gives us most of our funding, it makes sense to play their game, not yours.

QuoteFirst.....what were you "trying to sell to the AF"??

The wing commander controlls the facilities on the base (through his base commander).  We were trying to garner better, more permanent facilities on base.  You don't do that by looking like one of the rag brothers (Rag, Duffle, and [censored]).  We needed to look and act like members of the AF team.

QuoteSecond......if an AF Wing Commander bases his opinion on CAP Members Professionalism because of Flight Suits.....he is a terrible Officer, one I would never want to be subordinate to.

The uniform issue was only one part of it.  Part of it was keeping the facilities we had in top notch condition.  Also, we made sure that we were as flawless as possible in our customs and courtesies.  We also responded to no less than 6 ELT missions on Pope in one weekend.  We were also able to repond to an AF request to overfly Pope after that rash of missions (by request of the wing CC through AFRCC) to ensure that they were all shut off (it aparently saved their bacon).  This was all part of a campaign to show the AF that we were an integral part of the base.  It worked.  We got more support than we could shake a stick at.  I'm thinking that the new national cadet activity at Pope is just another spin-off of the ground work we laid years ago.

QuoteThird......requiring flight suits and only flight suits for classroom training (??) is silly.  If that was the case what is the reasoning for that??

The first day was 100% classroom.  The next three days were air days.  Instead of having multiple uniforms, we had them wear the same uniform for the entire course. 

QuoteSounds to me like you may be the flight suit wearing member who probably doesn't even own any other uniform.  Great you got your group a ton of free flight suits.....but what happens when the free flights suits run out??  Make a member buy one just to get training?  That is bad leadership.

No, I have a flight suit, a utility uniform, two BBDUs, three BDUs, one service uniform with long and short sleeve shirts, an overcoat, and a mess dress. 

Not only were we able to get flight suits for our entire group, but we were able to supply them to another group plus BDUs for the entire wing.  If you've worked with DRMO, the stuff doesn't run out - it's always being replenished.

QuoteLets all pretend every member is not wealthy.  We need to plan our events so that it costs the individual member as little as possible.

See above.

QuoteJust because your class was full does not equate it to being a good training session. 

That's true, but it was the best training you could get outside of NESA (according to one of their former instructors).

QuoteFinally......The Real Military (RM) does not give us our funding.  It comes through the Air Force, but it is appropriated by the Federal Government from taxes and decided upon by our elected officials.  CAP asks for money through the AF channels all the way up to DOD.  The Defense Department is not the Real Military.....it is a Government Department with Civilians in charge of it. 

Right, but on the way up, it gets filtered by the RM.  If you piss them off, you'll get less.  Do a lousey job, you'll get less.  Look like a bunch of idiots, you'll get less.  Remember, one "OH CRAP" erases 10,000 "attaboys."

QuoteI also hate to say it but.... "being in flight suits" means something to the RM?  Give me a break!

No, but being in the same, correct, mission appropriate uniform does.

As a new member, first time to jump in on a topic. I'm 30 years police, most in uniform. Our department has its regs, but also things have changed over the years. We just got mandated to buy a new hat (NYPD style), and I only have 2 years until retirement, but still must buy new hat. I have to admit, one thing that attracted me to CAP is the uniforms. Plan to lose 20 lbs. so I can legally wear the AF blue. I personally would be disappointed to abolish the military stryle uniforms. Just my two cents worth as a newbie. Glad to be here though.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 09, 2009, 06:18:02 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 09, 2009, 04:31:46 AM
Do I even dare ask how these came into CAP?

The comments were that it was a California mandate for any SAR team.

Best pic I could find:
(http://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/news_events/awareness_week/images/wz_memorial08-1.gif)

Looks like the uniforms the local prison road crews wear to dig ditches and clean up highways.

Wow, hadn't thought about that.  It really does.  That uniform is about as far from CAP traditions as you can get.

Quote from: Gunner C on June 10, 2009, 01:43:40 AM
Wow, hadn't thought about that.  It really does.  That uniform is about as far from CAP traditions as you can get.

CAP Traditions has nothing to do with it. California OES (now CalEMA) told us, "you want to do Ground Team ops in our state, you'll follow our rules".

Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2009, 02:13:44 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 10, 2009, 01:43:40 AM
Wow, hadn't thought about that.  It really does.  That uniform is about as far from CAP traditions as you can get.

CAP Traditions has nothing to do with it. California OES (now CalEMA) told us, "you want to do Ground Team ops in our state, you'll follow our rules".

Silly Cah-Lee-Four-Nee-Yah. Is that still the case?

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 10, 2009, 02:22:04 AM

Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2009, 02:13:44 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 10, 2009, 01:43:40 AM
Wow, hadn't thought about that.  It really does.  That uniform is about as far from CAP traditions as you can get.

CAP Traditions has nothing to do with it. California OES (now CalEMA) told us, "you want to do Ground Team ops in our state, you'll follow our rules".

Silly Cah-Lee-Four-Nee-Yah. Is that still the case?

Please leave your California bashing at the door. I don't make fun of your state, don't make fun of mine. >:(

And yes, OES still requires Ground Teams, in the field to wear the orange shirts.
Not required for UDF missions since they're like, urban!

Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2009, 04:27:03 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on June 10, 2009, 02:22:04 AM

Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2009, 02:13:44 AM

Quote from: Gunner C on June 10, 2009, 01:43:40 AM
Wow, hadn't thought about that.  It really does.  That uniform is about as far from CAP traditions as you can get.

CAP Traditions has nothing to do with it. California OES (now CalEMA) told us, "you want to do Ground Team ops in our state, you'll follow our rules".

Silly Cah-Lee-Four-Nee-Yah. Is that still the case?

Please leave your California bashing at the door. I don't make fun of your state, don't make fun of mine. >:(

And yes, OES still requires Ground Teams, in the field to wear the orange shirts.
Not required for UDF missions since they're like, urban!

I have all the love in the world for Cali, no hate intended  :)

Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2009, 04:27:03 AM
And yes, OES still requires Ground Teams, in the field to wear the orange shirts.

Honestly, that's one of the things I like about California. Orange vests are ok, but orange shirts won't get confused for military personnel, police, or hunters. There are some people who aren't helpful at all (and sometimes get nasty) if they think you are one of the groups of people I listed. Don't get me wrong, it's fugly looking, but I like being seen and seen as help. YMMV

Edit: I try to wear the BBDU here. It is closely associated with EMTs and is seen as help to almost everyone.

CAP traditions or NOT!!  That's what is amazing... CAP "traditions" not seeing what others in the REAL world are doing

An orange shirt is just as good as some orange vest..

CAP is not the only ones in the SAR biz

If CAL OES and CAL FIRE call it, who are we to argue with the paid professionals on the West Coast who probably do SAR as much or MORE than CAP

I can support, as a CAP member, what CAL OES has in mind for practicality sake

Not meaning to bash, but...

Only California (and the CAP National Legal Officer, maybe) would consider the wearing of the uniform of our country to be somehow "Wrong."

49 other states have no problem with the Air Force Auxiliary wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force.

I am all for wearing the CAP uniform and the Air Force uniform in accordance with regulations, however except for the requirement that Aircrews be in a CAP uniform, and that Seniors need to be in uniform when working with cadets, I challenge you to find a regulation that defines a SAR uniform.  You can't, in fact, last time I checked you cannot even find a reference in capr 60-3 to a uniform being required for an operational mission.

Before I get flammed, I do believe in professionalism and believe that a properly outfitted and worn uniform helps create that image to others. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 10, 2009, 01:24:14 PM
Not meaning to bash, but...

Only California (and the CAP National Legal Officer, maybe) would consider the wearing of the uniform of our country to be somehow "Wrong."

49 other states have no problem with the Air Force Auxiliary wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force.

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

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 10, 2009, 01:42:01 PM
I am all for wearing the CAP uniform and the Air Force uniform in accordance with regulations, however except for the requirement that Aircrews be in a CAP uniform, and that Seniors need to be in uniform when working with cadets, I challenge you to find a regulation that defines a SAR uniform.  You can't, in fact, last time I checked you cannot even find a reference in capr 60-3 to a uniform being required for an operational mission.

Before I get flammed, I do believe in professionalism and believe that a properly outfitted and worn uniform helps create that image to others.

OK

Wear whatever uniform you want.

Here in Florida, we are proud to wear the uniform of our country.

California apparently has a problem with it.

Where I am from you can wear whatever color uniform you want, but I seriously doubt if anyone will see you through the trees.

Point in case.....UDF is somehow different?  Would think you would want to be seen in urban environments as well.....right??  Silly California! 

Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2009, 04:27:03 AM
And yes, OES still requires Ground Teams, in the field to wear the orange shirts.
Not required for UDF missions since they're like, urban!

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 10, 2009, 01:42:01 PM
I am all for wearing the CAP uniform and the Air Force uniform in accordance with regulations, however except for the requirement that Aircrews be in a CAP uniform, and that Seniors need to be in uniform when working with cadets, I challenge you to find a regulation that defines a SAR uniform.  You can't, in fact, last time I checked you cannot even find a reference in capr 60-3 to a uniform being required for an operational mission.

True, a specific "SAR uniform" is not defined but that does not mean CAP uniform wear is optional - - it's not.  A uniform is always required. 

39-1, Table 1-1, specifically the 6th item down, states that a CAP uniform will be worn "when engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions". 

Furthermore, 1-5 states "Members will equip themselves with the basic uniform."  The  approved CAP uniforms are defined in 39-1 and cannot be superseded.

While Table 1-1 may not spell out which specific CAP uniforms are to be worn in a given situation, 39-1 does indicate in no uncertain terms that a CAP uniform is required for participation in any CAP activity, "operational mission" or otherwise.

That said, I would hope that common sense tells a person that wearing short-sleeved blues uniforms and low quarter dress shoes while tromping through the forest is not a very bright idea.  In that case, I'd argue that it's not unreasonable to deny their participation in that duty based on safety concerns.

Quote from: heliodoc on June 10, 2009, 12:36:47 PM
An orange shirt is just as good as some orange vest.

And an orange vest may be just as good as some orange shirt.   The argument goes both ways.  Perhaps there is some shame on the state of CA for not being able to recognize this simple fact.  Seems to me that if this is truly the issue (which I suspect there must be more to this) then CA Wing and that Region need to spend a lot more time working that relationship.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 10, 2009, 02:23:59 PM

Quote from: Who_knows? on June 10, 2009, 01:42:01 PM
I am all for wearing the CAP uniform and the Air Force uniform in accordance with regulations, however except for the requirement that Aircrews be in a CAP uniform, and that Seniors need to be in uniform when working with cadets, I challenge you to find a regulation that defines a SAR uniform.  You can't, in fact, last time I checked you cannot even find a reference in capr 60-3 to a uniform being required for an operational mission.

Before I get flammed, I do believe in professionalism and believe that a properly outfitted and worn uniform helps create that image to others.

OK

Wear whatever uniform you want.

Here in Florida, we are proud to wear the uniform of our country.

California apparently has a problem with it.

Never said that I or the Californians were not proud to wear the uniform.  But if it takes having a uniform that meets state requirements or not participating and the wing gets that uniform okayed by national, then what is the harm?  At least if you particpate you are in a sommon uniform.

I do not know where CAPers get the idea that the orange shirt is somehow Anti American, Anti AF, or Anti CAP

If the State of California REQUIRES it for their SAR folks be it Sheriff, LE, and others then CAP may need to learn to live with it.

State of CA OES has been in the "bizness" of ICS and wildland fire for better than thirty years...surely not as long as CAP BUT their environment is as dangerous or more so than CAP missions ans occuring MORE OFTEN

Let's get off this Anti American and shame on CA for this.

AGAIN their operational environment requires it and for CAP to "bash" it smacks of we are better than them because we wear a set of BDU's or blues.  Also we as CAPers know what uniforms to wear on our missions...BUT I will defend that there is NO mention in 60-3 about it. 

Different missions, different uniforms....and yet same.....CAP "don't" like it???  TOUGH

Commenting on CA's decisions...well,  how about Ca OES commenting on US??? Would you CAPers like that ??  I know what goes around, come around.  I would get ready for a bunch of Californians to start talking trash about CAP..  If the read this thread,  be expecting it.  I know I would.  If it happens, I hope the trashing is equally good and hard hitting...even if it is CAP jokers joking around!!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D

Quote from: heliodoc on June 10, 2009, 03:11:41 PM
I do not know where CAPers get the idea that the orange shirt is somehow Anti American, Anti AF, or Anti CAP

If the State of California REQUIRES it for their SAR folks be it Sheriff, LE, and others then CAP may need to learn to live with it.

State of CA OES has been in the "bizness" of ICS and wildland fire for better than thirty years...surely not as long as CAP BUT their environment is as dangerous or more so than CAP missions ans occuring MORE OFTEN

Let's get off this Anti American and shame on CA for this.

AGAIN their operational environment requires it and for CAP to "bash" it smacks of we are better than them because we wear a set of BDU's or blues.  Also we as CAPers know what uniforms to wear on our missions...BUT I will defend that there is NO mention in 60-3 about it. 

Different missions, different uniforms....and yet same.....CAP "don't" like it???  TOUGH

Commenting on CA's decisions...well,  how about Ca OES commenting on US??? Would you CAPers like that ??  I know what goes around, come around.  I would get ready for a bunch of Californians to start talking trash about CAP..  If the read this thread,  be expecting it.  I know I would.  If it happens, I hope the trashing is equally good and hard hitting...even if it is CAP jokers joking around!!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D

Do you specifically know what coversations have taken place between CA Wing and the controlling CA agencies?  I mean really know?  How developed are those relationships?  Specifically, what missions are you being excluded from?  I admit that I have no idea.  My point is that heresay does not equate to fact.  My guess is that most (if not all) the comments here are pure speculation.

That said, I don't really have a dog in this fight and don't care much either way so long as it's understood that what is occuring is an exception to the rule for a specific situation only.  It does not replace or in any other way supersede the wear of uniforms in any other situation.

Used to be out in California, and never really thought an orange shirt was a bad idea. It's pretty visible, and a shirt without lower pockets would be a little easier when you're wearing load bearing equipment. If it's that BDU pattern two pocket top, it even functions well with the rest of what we wear.

My biggest question has always been, why design a whole uniform when a shirt is really all that is needed? Your legs aren't the part that's visible. 

Some folks have mentioned cost before. How is a whole new uniform cheaper than a shirt?

^^^^

No I am not privy to all their conversations

BUT I have operated in the CA environment plenty of times in wildland fire to KNOW that a selection of a piece of clothing for the operating environment.

I have a feeling PLENTY here is mere spec, too

BUT I will reiterate........ the operating environment is no way unAmerican or Anti AF for a new requirement and IF the State of CA says to CA Wing ...WEAR IT.   Then maybe its time for CAP NHQ and 1AF to see it the way CA does in their world

That is all I am saying  BTDT in that operating environment, Then it may be incumbent for CAP to sign a shirt out from CA OES and be held accountable for the shirt, huh?

We will see how it goes......

What was this thread about again??

Quote from: Spike on June 10, 2009, 03:57:52 PM
What was this thread about again??

Evidently about illustrating the thankless job the uniform team has in front of them.   ;) :) 

Seriously, my hat goes off to them.  No matter what they end up producing, it will not make everyone happy...nor should that be their objective.  From what I hear, they're putting in a lot of hard work and I respect them for that. 

With regard to the CA orange shirt:

• The uniform pictured earlier in this thread with the orange shirt, white helmet, and flowers in the foreground is not a CAP uniform.  That is a CALTRANS outfit, evidenced by the white and blue logo displayed.
• If OES says thou shalt wear orange, you wear orange.  BUT, I know of a few county SAR teams in CA that wear khaki shirts.  Maybe that's because they get their missions from the sheriff instead of OES.  Curious though.
• Orange isn't unpatriotic.  It is a common, but not universal, standard for SAR.  If the choice is to wear orange if you want state missions, then you wear orange.  Or take your toys and go home.

CA SAR ground folks not wearing orange shirts:
http://www.lasd.org/stations/for1/scv/search_rescue.html
http://montrosesar.org/  Looks like they wear orange jackets though
http://www.lasdreserve.org/SearchAndRescue.htm

CA OES probably made that rule with no thought as to how it might impact CAP.  They probably deal with hundreds of organizations and CAP is barely a pimple on a gnats behind in their big picture.  I wouldn't read too much into it. 

Heck, the CA ground teams are probably proud of their orange shirts and blend better with other ground team organizations.  Colorado used to do the same so it's not just some "Kalifornia" thing.  That practice stopped when Wyoming Wing complained about our folks wearing their orange shirts in WY.  (When Uniforms Attack...tonight on Fox.)

Hmm, is the California National Guard forced to wear this uniform while on SAR duties?  If they don't have to, we shouldn't have to. 

^^^^


CAP and Guard on an equal footing this week??

Doubtful for Guard

Realistically, doubtful for CAP, also

If someone says to CAP and CAP CC's agree  then CAOP "Gonna" complain??

Guard will have different issues

BUT ARNG and Marine troops on wildland fire HAVE TO WEAR NOMEX (yellow and green) when they are assigned wildland fire duties ... SOOOOOO  if the Governator says so... Guard will wear if it is pushed.

CAP get ready ready to don your range shirts ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Firefighting uniforms are a safety issue.  Wearing a BDU/ABU is a hazard to that individual member's life.  This is not the case for SAR work. 

RiverAux

Thanks for telling about the safety issue as I have been in THIS business 9wildland fire) for 22 yrs now

SAR will and does demand a "safety issue" and do not be surprised if that card gets drawn

IIRC, the NB passed a provision to allow specific uniform combinations in wings for state-mandated and environmental reasons. Under that provision, the CA GTU could be applied for and most likely approved - if it hasn't already been.

I'm sure it has.  My problem isn't with CA Wing, its with the state.  We need to assert a little bit of our "federalness" here and if the NG can safely and efficiently participate in SAR in their normal uniforms, our members can as well. 

People will cry "safety" at anything.  That doesn't mean its legitimate.  Our SAR teams regularly walk along river and lake shores.  They better wear PFDs just in case.  They better wear snake chaps just in case. 

The only uniform parts I want them to allow is the ECWCS trousers and fleece shirt.  I don't care about anything else but these. Although when it is 5 below and there is 3 1/2 feet of snow on the ground in the middle of the boonies, I will admit that I wear the trousers.

Quote from: RiverAux on June 10, 2009, 09:56:34 PM
People will cry "safety" at anything.  That doesn't mean its legitimate.

Awe man!  So that means my orange beer helmet isn't legit? But it is highly visible, protects my head from injury, prevents sunburn, and has TWO cupholders (with water and electrolyte supplements ofcourse) to keep me hydrated!!!!!  You guys have to go and ruin a good thing don't you?

Quote from: RiverAux on June 10, 2009, 08:42:25 PM
Hmm, is the California National Guard forced to wear this uniform while on SAR duties?  If they don't have to, we shouldn't have to.

The only SAR the CA Natl  Guard provides is  aviation support.  They don't do ground SAR.  When on the fire line NG troops wear the wildland fire fighting ensmble from boots to hard hat.

Quote from: RiverAux on June 10, 2009, 09:56:34 PM
I'm sure it has.  My problem isn't with CA Wing, its with the state.  We need to assert a little bit of our "federalness" here and if the NG can safely and efficiently participate in SAR in their normal uniforms, our members can as well. 

People will cry "safety" at anything.  That doesn't mean its legitimate.  Our SAR teams regularly walk along river and lake shores.  They better wear PFDs just in case.  They better wear snake chaps just in case.

Asserting your "federalness" in CA will not get you far.  The county sheriffs have primary responsibility for SAR.  There have been instances where county sheriffs have banned CAP from their counties SAR efforts, particularly ground SAR for a mult of sins including for asseting their "federalness".  You can argue all of the couldas, shouldas you want but that is the way it is.  After many yrs. the relationship now is fairly good and asserting our "federalness" would only bring harm to the relationship.  The bottom line is many of the  sheriffs don't really need CAP ground SAR since their own teams far surpass anything CAP can put in the field and some have a limited need CAP aircraft.

http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/volunteer/volunteer.asp

http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/aviation/aviation.asp

Quote from: PA Guy on June 11, 2009, 06:23:40 AM
The bottom line is many of the  sheriffs don't really need CAP ground SAR since their own teams far surpass anything CAP can put in the field and some have a limited need CAP aircraft.

I can't speak as to what occurs in CA or why and, as I mentioned previously, I suspect many of the comments on the issue are heresay or speculative at best. 

But let's assume the quote above is true - they don't need CAP.  At what cost?  Seems like many people forget the value proposition of CAP.  We provide skilled resources at a mere fraction of the cost.  That is the selling point and it shouldn't be an overly difficult sell.  We are a force multiplier - they don't need that assistance?  Many LE agencies work closely with CAP around the country on a regular basis.  I've never been to a live SAR in which it's been said, "We just don't want or need any more skilled help".  I suspect those instances would be extremely rare at best. 

I agree that "asserting our federalness" is neither a wise nor productive approach.  However, if the value of CAP is not understood in CA, then perhaps the reason for that breakdown needs to be evaluated and a new approach pursued.  Given the extremely sad fiscal condition of CA, I can't believe taxpayers would be happy to know that LE is turning away skilled, professional volunteer support at a time when budgets and resources are severely strained but, then again, perhaps that explains why CA is in the position that it is.   

I can understand why some SD's, especially in Cali, would be rather hesitant to use us.

1) We train to our CAP National Standards, which may or may not be in tune with how they train. Moreso, they probably don't know HOW it is we train, and may be hesitant to use people when they have no say/oversight as to how we're taught to do things, nor any knowledge of how we're trained.

2) We CAN do it at a fraction of the cost. I know if I was a Sheriff or Department Director, and knew that there was someone out there who could do it cheaper, I too might be hesitant to use them. Mainly for the fact that if we use the people that are cheaper then my existing paid resources, I may have just put an entire division out of a job, and might get by budget reduced.



"Asserting our federalness" is going to be met with a "take your volunteer [butts] elsewhere" response.

Quote from: SJFedor on June 11, 2009, 08:12:17 AM

2) We CAN do it at a fraction of the cost. I know if I was a Sheriff or Department Director, and knew that there was someone out there who could do it cheaper, I too might be hesitant to use them. Mainly for the fact that if we use the people that are cheaper then my existing paid resources, I may have just put an entire division out of a job, and might get by budget reduced.

Which is exactly why California and several other states are in the shape they're in.  Instead of looking out for their bosses (read: taxpayer) they're looking out for their own shining castles and kingdoms.  The bosses who pay the bills should be demanding more affordable ways of doing business.

Quote from: Gunner C on June 11, 2009, 08:21:09 AM

Quote from: SJFedor on June 11, 2009, 08:12:17 AM

2) We CAN do it at a fraction of the cost. I know if I was a Sheriff or Department Director, and knew that there was someone out there who could do it cheaper, I too might be hesitant to use them. Mainly for the fact that if we use the people that are cheaper then my existing paid resources, I may have just put an entire division out of a job, and might get by budget reduced.

Which is exactly why California and several other states are in the shape they're in.  Instead of looking out for their bosses (read: taxpayer) they're looking out for their own shining castles and kingdoms.  The bosses who pay the bills should be demanding more affordable ways of doing business.

Oh, I fully concur. They wanna continue to call the shots in their sandbox.

A few thoughts on those agencies in CA that don't see a big need for CAP:

• Yes, absolutely some sheriff's are building little kingdoms.  Then they go to conferences with other sheriff's and brag about their air units, comm centers, SWAT teams, and super cool patrol car markings.  When I worked for a dept in So Cal my sheriff just about wet himself when we started the first computer forensics unit in that part of the state, AND bought a big crime scene and mobile computer forensics lab with a state grant.  However, that doesn't mean they don't always have a need for the toys they buy. 
• Once they buy those toys, they DO want to use them.  CAP does it too, use your plane or lose it.
• If a dept already has an air unit, and becomes accustomed to using those resources on a moments notice, calling CAP for certain missions simply isn't at the top of their list.  Don't forget CAP cannot fulfill many missions for LE.
• At least in CA, most Sheriff's SAR teams are volunteers.  CAP isn't any more cost effective than they are.
• Some sheriff's departments have had volunteer aero-squadrons.  Not sure if that's still the case.  You can bet a local sheriff will call his/her OWN volunteer flyers before CAP.  http://www.kernsheriff.com/Volunteer/SearchRescue/Pages/default.aspx
  

So, there are political realities CAP must face when dealing with local sheriff's departments.  We will NOT win if we spit in their eye or decide their rules don't apply to CAP.  IIRC, in CA, the sheriff is GOD when it comes to SAR.  I've heard the same about some other states.  Result, wear orange once in a while or don't bother playing.

Mods,

Can we split this thread? It got a little OT but it's still a good discussion...

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 11, 2009, 11:59:43 AM

• If a dept already has an air unit, and becomes accustomed to using those resources on a moments notice, calling CAP for certain missions simply isn't at the top of their list.  Don't forget CAP cannot fulfill many missions for LE.

Of course not, we're only talking SAR here (or at least I am  ;) ).  In those cases, while we understandably may not be the first on the list, we certainly should be near the top.  If we're not, why is that?  I suspect that in most cases, the department doesn't really know anything about CAP because no one has taken the time to effectively present the organization to them (this is done at a squadron - or perhaps group level - with support from the Wing).  This, of course, further emphasizes the importance of relationship building and the consistant portrayal of a professional image.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 11, 2009, 11:59:43 AM

• At least in CA, most Sheriff's SAR teams are volunteers.  CAP isn't any more cost effective than they are.
• Some sheriff's departments have had volunteer aero-squadrons.  Not sure if that's still the case.  You can bet a local sheriff will call his/her OWN volunteer flyers before CAP.  http://www.kernsheriff.com/Volunteer/SearchRescue/Pages/default.aspx
  

In your experience have those departments ever not needed more skilled assistance, especially when, say for example, trying to locate a missing person?  Every real-life SAR I've been involved with included resources from multiple agencies/organizations - paid and volunteer.  We are still a skilled force multiplier.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 11, 2009, 11:59:43 AMSo, there are political realities CAP must face when dealing with local sheriff's departments.

As is there with any agency.  It doesn't mean they're insurmountable by any means.  It just means that someone has to put in a little effort to understand and build the relationship.  As an example, our unit has built a very good report with one of the local sheriff's departments.  We are invited to participate in their training exercises and they call us out on real SARs.  As a matter of fact, in the last 5 years or so, we're directly responsible for 2 real finds (missing persons) in that county.  We have proven our value to them.  In turn, they have talked us up among other agencies in which they interact.  So, it can be done.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 11, 2009, 11:59:43 AMResult, wear orange once in a while or don't bother playing.

We wear orange as well...orange vests.  Serves the same exact purpose.

Agree with A. Member

Realities of past members actions of CAP in regards with SO and Depts need to be assessed and cleaned up.  Gives them the facts and do not go promising the world.

Sheriff can be their own Johhny Rambos  we had best not EVEN attempt that.  Some Sheriff folks can see right thru and some have been RM by their own right.  So all our slick 24 and 72 hour gear may not impress them nor does the BDU uniform.  How we act and accept assignment is the key deal, not how good we look!!

Be active with the SO with some of their operations or at least the ones CAP is invited to.
All the HOOORAH stuff such as ARCHER and G1000 stuff may or may not impress them.  They have their capabilities and GEEEWHIZ equipment that may surpass CAP's.

We could be near the top of the first call list, if CAP was more visible in a WORKING environment.  Selling our wares is not as important as actions and simply accepting that we are assisting them in THEIR operation and not in charge.  We may be in charge of something.....our own people and the task we are handed by the SO

To bring this back to uniforms, the county sheriff isn't going to care that a CAP unit is wearing its normal uniform + orange vest or whatever silliness the state of CA wants them to wear.  He wants a well-trained team, which I'm confident that CA Wing can provide. 

I'm betting the local sheriffs had nothing to do with the state requirement and would probably be thrilled if it was dropped so that they could put their SAR teams in the uniform they thought was most effective for them. 

Quote from: RiverAux on June 11, 2009, 05:02:44 PMI'm betting the local sheriffs had nothing to do with the state requirement and would probably be thrilled if it was dropped so that they could put their SAR teams in the uniform they thought was most effective for them.

They probably didn't have anything to do with the adoption at all, and I think it's most likely a case of them not caring, they simply enforce as required. A county answers to the state, and is responsible for enforcing laws, regulations, directives, statutes, etc.

They probably do want the best team they can get, but to avoid any liability, they have things they have to follow.

On another note, National Guard soldiers have no "Federalness" whatsoever while in a state status, which is what most wildfire incidents are probably considered. The requirement of the Nomex field uniforms is well within the authority of the governor.

Also, the military does little in the SAR community. Their duties lie primarily in CSAR, which is a different animal, and has nothing to do with state missions. Some principles may carry over, but  not all. Equating CSAR with SAR is comparing apples and oranges.

Quote from: Hawk200 on June 11, 2009, 05:35:52 PMOn another note, National Guard soldiers have no "Federalness" whatsoever while in a state status, which is what most wildfire incidents are probably considered. The requirement of the Nomex field uniforms is well within the authority of the governor.

It probably doesn't add much to the discussion, but as a California Guard guy, I worked along side purely Federal troops (7th ID) during wildfire operations.  The Federal soldiers wore the yellow nomex wildland fire shirts just like everyone else.

Sometimes safety and common sense do triumph over uniform traditionalists.

Ned Lee
Retired Guard Guy

QuoteOn another note, National Guard soldiers have no "Federalness" whatsoever while in a state status, which is what most wildfire incidents are probably considered. The requirement of the Nomex field uniforms is well within the authority of the governor.

Very true, but you can bet that if asked to do ground SAR they're going to do it in their regular uniforms becuase they are totally appropriate for ground SAR.  If they can do ground SAR in their normal uniforms because they're special enough to fall outside the requirements for normal SAR teams, I think we should be able to follow that same logic for us.   

I'm not sure why firefighting keeps getting interjected into this issue.  NOMEX keeps you from getting burned.  Fighting fires in BDUs would be insane.  No one is going to convince me that the uniform CA evidently wants worn for SAR is absolulutely necessary for the life safety of those doing the searching.  Our standard blaze orange vests are perfectly appropriate attire for this purpose.   

Quote from: RiverAux on June 11, 2009, 06:28:25 PM

QuoteOn another note, National Guard soldiers have no "Federalness" whatsoever while in a state status, which is what most wildfire incidents are probably considered. The requirement of the Nomex field uniforms is well within the authority of the governor.

Very true, but you can bet that if asked to do ground SAR they're going to do it in their regular uniforms becuase they are totally appropriate for ground SAR.  If they can do ground SAR in their normal uniforms because they're special enough to fall outside the requirements for normal SAR teams, I think we should be able to follow that same logic for us.     

Since this issue seems to revolve around CA.  As I said in a prev. post the CA Natl Guard doesn't do ground SAR.  So what their wardrobe would consist of is conjecture.  As an aside, ground SAR in CA is a very different animal than ground SAR in many other states due to the altitudes, terrain and weather.  The skill sets required to preform effective ground SAR in CA often exceed the training level of CAP and the NG.

Question:

Since CA sheriffs have their own volunteer airplanes, their own volunteer SAR teams on the deck, and don't want CAP to participate unless they leave the uniform of the USAF at home and wear the state uniform, and even if CAP does ditch the uniform, they aren't needed anyway because the Sheriff teams can do it better...

Then why doen't CA Wing get out of the SAR business in CA?  We can use those planes here in FL where we have hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and other disasters all the time and FL is grateful for CAP's ability to rapidly scout damaged areas at low cost.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 11, 2009, 08:50:42 PM
Question:

Since CA sheriffs have their own volunteer airplanes, their own volunteer SAR teams on the deck, and don't want CAP to participate unless they leave the uniform of the USAF at home and wear the state uniform, and even if CAP does ditch the uniform, they aren't needed anyway because the Sheriff teams can do it better...

Then why doen't CA Wing get out of the SAR business in CA?  We can use those planes here in FL where we have hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and other disasters all the time and FL is grateful for CAP's ability to rapidly scout damaged areas at low cost.

Aerial Recon, HLS Missions, Organ Transplant support, Cadet Orientation Flights, AFROTC and AFJROTC O Flights, Pilot Training

...still seems like lots of reasons to fly to me

Quote from: PA Guy on June 11, 2009, 08:31:10 PM
As an aside, ground SAR in CA is a very different animal than ground SAR in many other states due to the altitudes, terrain and weather.  The skill sets required to preform effective ground SAR in CA often exceed the training level of CAP and the NG.

You mean states such as Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico?  Sorry, I don't buy that.  Every Wing has attributes/considerations that are unique to it's locale. 

Again, my question is exactly how many of these missions are there?  I would venture to guess that a busy year for most counties might involve one - maybe two - missing persons SARs per year at best.   Certainly doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an entire new uniform, especially when it's only needed for a portion of the resources assigned to that mission.  Which is also probably a contributing factor as to why the proposal to wear orange shirts failed miserably at the 2007 NB. 

Quote from: A.Member on June 11, 2009, 09:23:30 PM

Quote from: PA Guy on June 11, 2009, 08:31:10 PM
As an aside, ground SAR in CA is a very different animal than ground SAR in many other states due to the altitudes, terrain and weather.  The skill sets required to preform effective ground SAR in CA often exceed the training level of CAP and the NG.

You mean states such as Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico?  Sorry, I don't buy that.  Every Wing has attributes/considerations that are unique to it's locale. 

Again, my question is exactly how many of these missions are there?  I would venture to guess that a busy year for most counties might involve one - maybe two - missing persons SARs per year at best.   Certainly doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an entire new uniform, especially when it's only needed for a portion of the resources assigned to that mission.

No, I mean states like KS, NB, DE, NJ, CT, AL etc.  Check out http://www.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/Documentation/annual2007.pdf and scroll down to pages 8 and 9.  Approx. 200 missions/yr.  Of course that is only one county but that county covers an area of appox. 20,000 sq. miles, a sizeable chunk of SoCal.  Also check out http://www.rmru.org/about.htm Riverside Mtn Rescue covers another approx. 7,200 sq. miles adjoining the southern border of San Bdno County with 35 grnd SAR missions in 2008.  The thing that CAP grnd ops brings to this is their expertise in electronic search.  In that area they win hands down over the sheriff's teams and  most of the sheriff's teams recognize this and utilize CAP grnd teams in that capacity.

Quote from: A.Member on June 11, 2009, 09:23:30 PMAgain, my question is exactly how many of these missions are there?  I would venture to guess that a busy year for most counties might involve one - maybe two - missing persons SARs per year at best.   Certainly doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an entire new uniform, especially when it's only needed for a portion of the resources assigned to that mission.

Sometimes it is easy to forget just how big and diverse California can be.  It is the home of the largest county in the United States - San Bernadino County - which has over two million people in just over 20,000 square miles.  That's just one county with more real estate than nine states.  You could put the entire states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Delaware combined into SB co and have room left over. 

Now throw in some minor counties like Los Angeles (10 million folks in a mere 4,700 square miles) or Inyo (17,000 folks in 10,100 square miles) and you get some idea if the sizes involved.

And I know you know that California itself is the third largest state with its 36 million people crammed into 163,000 square miles.

So, yeah, they probably have a few of those folks go missing in each one of the 58 counties every year.

But feel free to do the research and let us know how many missions you find.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 11, 2009, 08:50:42 PM
Question:

Since CA sheriffs have their own volunteer airplanes, their own volunteer SAR teams on the deck, and don't want CAP to participate unless they leave the uniform of the USAF at home and wear the state uniform, and even if CAP does ditch the uniform, they aren't needed anyway because the Sheriff teams can do it better...

Then why doen't CA Wing get out of the SAR business in CA?  We can use those planes here in FL where we have hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and other disasters all the time and FL is grateful for CAP's ability to rapidly scout damaged areas at low cost.

Answer:

• Public Relations Nightmare:  "CAP Stops Helping People Due to Uniform Rules."
• CAP can contribute and provide valuable services.
• The orange shirt deal affects a small percentage of CA CAP members.  Aircrews, mission base staff, and maybe even UDF teams aren't affected.

Our uniform menagerie is a PITA, but at least the state mandate provides a reason (however unreasonable) for the CA orange shirt.  We might not like it, but that's more reason than we can claim for some of our other outfits.

Quote from: Ned on June 11, 2009, 10:15:03 PM

Quote from: A.Member on June 11, 2009, 09:23:30 PMAgain, my question is exactly how many of these missions are there?  I would venture to guess that a busy year for most counties might involve one - maybe two - missing persons SARs per year at best.   Certainly doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an entire new uniform, especially when it's only needed for a portion of the resources assigned to that mission.

Sometimes it is easy to forget just how big and diverse California can be.  It is the home of the largest county in the United States - San Bernadino County - which has over two million people in just over 20,000 square miles.  That's just one county with more real estate than nine states.  You could put the entire states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Delaware combined into SB co and have room left over. 

Now throw in some minor counties like Los Angeles (10 million folks in a mere 4,700 square miles) or Inyo (17,000 folks in 10,100 square miles) and you get some idea if the sizes involved.

And I know you know that California itself is the third largest state with its 36 million people crammed into 163,000 square miles.

So, yeah, they probably have a few of those folks go missing in each one of the 58 counties every year.

But feel free to do the research and let us know how many missions you find.

Again, I would suggest those are the exceptions, not the rule.   As you stated, CA has 58 counties.   You mention 3.   How about the other 55?   That's why I said "most counties".   A quick Google search here (http://ag.ca.gov/missing/content/pdf/08cnty_ch.pdf) shows missing persons by county for 2008.  However, it's impossible to determine from this information how many of those resulted in actual SAR missions in which we could participate.  However, we might assume they would be drawn at least as a primary subset from the "Lost" and "Catastrophe" columns which had a combined total of ~300, with three counties accounting for a little over 1/3rd of that total.

Quote from: A.Member on June 11, 2009, 11:09:45 PMA quick check here (http://ag.ca.gov/missing/content/pdf/08cnty_ch.pdf) shows missing persons by county for 2008.

Ahh, no.

That is the number of missing children reported by county, not missing persons.  Obviously the number of missing persons will be much larger.

But even using the child numbers, it shows 274 "lost" children in 39 different counties out of the total of over 114,000 missing California children reported in 2008 alone.

What was your point?

Quote from: Ned on June 11, 2009, 11:17:27 PM
That is the number of missing children reported by county, not missing persons.  Obviously the number of missing persons will be much larger.

Ah, good catch.  Here (http://ag.ca.gov/missing/content/pdf/08_Reports_Adults.pdf) are the adults as well.  Much larger number?  I don't know about that - tough to say.  The is only one additional catergory that I suspect could drive a significant number of missions is the "Dependant Adult" category, which is significant.  Regardless, certainly not all of those cases would result in SAR missions.  Not sure of an easy why to find that information (ie. percentage of missing persons reports resulting in a SAR mission).

Quote from: NedWhat was your point?

Very simple...to start quantifying the discussion rather than continuing to throw out more speculation.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on June 11, 2009, 10:38:14 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 11, 2009, 08:50:42 PM
Question:

Since CA sheriffs have their own volunteer airplanes, their own volunteer SAR teams on the deck, and don't want CAP to participate unless they leave the uniform of the USAF at home and wear the state uniform, and even if CAP does ditch the uniform, they aren't needed anyway because the Sheriff teams can do it better...

Then why doen't CA Wing get out of the SAR business in CA?  We can use those planes here in FL where we have hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and other disasters all the time and FL is grateful for CAP's ability to rapidly scout damaged areas at low cost.

Answer:

• Public Relations Nightmare:  "CAP Stops Helping People Due to Uniform Rules."
• CAP can contribute and provide valuable services.
• The orange shirt deal affects a small percentage of CA CAP members.  Aircrews, mission base staff, and maybe even UDF teams aren't affected.

Our uniform menagerie is a PITA, but at least the state mandate provides a reason (however unreasonable) for the CA orange shirt.  We might not like it, but that's more reason than we can claim for some of our other outfits.

Their PR problem, not ours:

"California, stubborn over control of uniforms, refuses volunteer help from AF and its Auxiliary."

Or:

"Air Force Auxiliary can help, but NOT in military uniforms, says CA officials."

Quote from: billford1 on June 02, 2009, 12:05:36 AM
Does anybody know what the Uniform Team is up to? It would help to have an idea of what's being considered, and what's been ruled out.

I heard they are waiting for this thread to get back on track.........

They may perhaps even drop in to inform us all of what is officially going on