So why do we have height and weight standards?

[Fubar]

Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.

CAP doesn't get called unless the local folks call the AFRCC. So it would seem keeping the locals happy should be your number 1 concern if you want participate.

I am saying your assertion that members increasingly don't want to wear the USAF-style combos because of the hassle or a dislike for C&C is based on nothing but your personal anecdotal observation and I say it is nonsense.

I can't speak to the why, but put me down for another anecdotal observation of being adrift in a sea of blue polo shirts. This includes meetings, in the aircraft, and at mission base.

[jeders]

Now that we've driven this sufficiently off topic, I find these debates interesting. In TXWG I've been to many SAREXs with people from all over the state. Between any two SAREXs (speaking of air side only at the moment) with more or less the same people, there's a small group who's always in flight suits, and there's a small group who's always in polos, and everyone else (80%) just sort of goes between the two.

The same goes for seminars like SLS/CLC. It always seems like it's half polos and half AF-style/corp. military style, but which half is which will change from one day to the next.

[SARDOC]

Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.

No.  Your "customer" on a SAR mission is the missing subject and his or her family.  When SAR people forget that simple fact, things start to go higgledy-piggledy in a hurry.

The USAF is a stakeholder in the who, what, and how of product delivery. 

--Senty

Well if your customer is the missing subject and their family.  I don't think they give a crap what uniform you're wearing.  I've worked as a professional rescuer wearing nothing but a blue tee shirt and a pair of shorts...believe people don't care what you're wearing if you are helping to find a loved one.

That being said, if you want to work as a team with other state level agencies your appearance becomes very important if you want to be taken seriously.  I wish the USAF would be a stronger proponent of supporting CAP in Emergency Services missions other than only AFAM's.  I could think the USAF could do more to help CAP build state/local level relationships but it appears that the AF couldn't care less if we support our local governments.  I think with more Air Force support we could become an even bigger federal asset by supporting FEMA USAR, DMAT, MMRS among other NGO's making us the Premier ES/SAR agency.

[Eclipse]

River - I don't agree that civilian uniform variants are dominating CAP, so I am not sure where you are getting that from me.

Kach - the USAF only foots the bill on AFAM's, not always even then - corporate missions, whatever the scope, have the customer or other agencies paying the expenses, who bought the planes, etc., notwithstanding.

[Bluelakes 13]

Why wait for USAF?  I know in my Wing there is a group of folks that go around to local EMAs to market our abilities.  The last couple missions I was on were initiated by the county folks calling a unit/group ESO for assistance.  The CAP member called it in, got the mission number, and away we went.  Those relationships are local.  No way can USAF nor NHQ get those going.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Besides... your "Customer" on a SAR mission is the USAF... AFRCC at Tyndall is paying the bills.

No.  Your "customer" on a SAR mission is the missing subject and his or her family.  When SAR people forget that simple fact, things start to go higgledy-piggledy in a hurry.

The USAF is a stakeholder in the who, what, and how of product delivery. 

--Senty

Non-concur.

The customer is who pays the bill.  Business Administration 101

[Eclipse]

Why wait for USAF?  I know in my Wing there is a group of folks that go around to local EMAs to market our abilities.  The last couple missions I was on were initiated by the county folks calling a unit/group ESO for assistance.  The CAP member called it in, got the mission number, and away we went.  Those relationships are local.  No way can USAF nor NHQ get those going.

I think there is little question that this is where the future of CAP ES lies...

[tdepp]

Why wait for USAF?  I know in my Wing there is a group of folks that go around to local EMAs to market our abilities.  The last couple missions I was on were initiated by the county folks calling a unit/group ESO for assistance.  The CAP member called it in, got the mission number, and away we went.  Those relationships are local.  No way can USAF nor NHQ get those going.

I think there is little question that this is where the future of CAP ES lies...

Indeed. 

The USAF has many other higher priority things to do than promote our services to our own state and local organizations.  That's up to us at the wing, group, and squadron level.  My squadron and wing are very active in talking to various groups, organizations, and our own state about our capabilities, how we could assist them, and how they have to request our services.  It has snagged us a number of interesting missions that our customers have appreciated.

God and Gen. Curry help those who help themselves. 

[Senty7]

Not to split hairs; unfortunately, that is precisely what we are doing...a difference in operational definitions.  It appears that whoever "pays the bills" is the "customer."  I submit that perception contains several flaws.

Who is the recipient of your service? 

Let's envision a scenario...

Kach states that AFRCC at Tyndell pays the bills; therefore, they are our "customer."  So, the CAP gets called out.  CAP responds, with everyone looking like square-jawed ship captains... lean, athletic, so professional in their crisply pressed poopy-suits.  This makes our customer happy.  Reports are filed when requested, on time, before deadline, on the proper forms and in the proper format.  This makes our customer happy.  Our garrison, periodically inspected, passes with flying colors, which makes our customer happy.  We work as a team amongst ourselves, which fosters morale and espirit du corps.  This makes our customer happy.  Our aircraft are all decaled with proper markings, well-maintained, dressed right when parked on the flight line, shown on the news.  Our customer is happy.  Come budget time, they will continue to support us, for they are happy.

So then, is it okay...

+++That we close-hold vital mission information from other agencies within Unified Command, citing "OPSEC?"

+++That we fly patterns that are less effective than they could be or should be because we employ flawed methods to plan or execute them?

+++That we use scientifically invalid methods to quantify our sortie results, thereby causing subsequent sorties to focus on some sectors too much, others not enough? 

+++That, since GPS is not on the individual or team gear list (set by our "customer") that we believe we don't need to rise to this industry standard?  (See recent thread.) 

+++That the CAP is not respected as a viable SAR resource by many jurisdictions across the country?

+++That we play the "we're just volunteers" card or the "you just don't understand" card to defend these condtions?

Now, you may discount the above (hypothetical?) scenario as irrelevant hyperbole.  But we serve many customers, not just the one who pays the bills. 

+++If the subject is later found in a sector you claimed 95 percent PoD in by using flawed methods, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased the family's suffering, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP.  The "customer" who "pays your bills" will have no knowledge of this.

+++If you don't truly embrace Unified Command in the sharing of ideas and information, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased your sister SAR agencies' frustration, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP. 

+++If you all show up in perfect uniform, believing this conveys "the very best" and the epitome of professionalism, but later, it is shown that you aren't on top of the game (or the industry) in terms of performance, you have not satisfied your customer.  Agencies having jurisdiction will call you out less, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP. 

It may be Business Ad 101, but it may also be flat-arse wrong.  We all have bosses we answer to, but if you forget the subject and his or her family, you are dreadfully wrong, and your sister agencies may decide they cannot use you.  My sheriff pays my bills, but he's not my only customer.

Sidebar re AirAux's comments:  Missions should never be called off based on PoD, much less numbers determined by CAP charts   , but that's too much drift for this already trans-ocean thread.  Maybe a topic for another day. 

Best regards,

--Senty

[jeders]

So then, is it okay...

+++That we close-hold vital mission information from other agencies within Unified Command, citing "OPSEC?"

If you're talking about radio frequencies which are controlled by the Air Force, then yes.

+++That we fly patterns that are less effective than they could be or should be because we employ flawed methods to plan or execute them?

Do you have better search patterns? If you do, we'd love to see them and use them.

+++That we use scientifically invalid methods to quantify our sortie results, thereby causing subsequent sorties to focus on some sectors too much, others not enough? 

If you're referring to the POD tables, that's simple arithmetic, and is most certainly valid. These tables are used by more than just CAP and have been developed over many many years.  Again, if you have something better, please share.

+++That, since GPS is not on the individual or team gear list (set by our "customer") that we believe we don't need to rise to this industry standard?  (See recent thread.) 

Just because it's not on the required list, doesn't mean we don't use them. Also, that's set by us, not the customer.

+++That the CAP is not respected as a viable SAR resource by many jurisdictions across the country?

Many does not equal all, most, or even a significant number. I know of many jurisdictions that value CAP's service. Usually, it has been my experience that jurisdictions that don't respect CAP, the problem is either a personal conflict or a misunderstanding of what CAP is and does.

+++That we play the "we're just volunteers" card or the "you just don't understand" card to defend these condtions?

I've never done this personally, but there is some validity to it. Unlike paid ES personnel, we have to pay to work for our customer. There are a lot of paid ES personnel who would not do what they do if they weren't paid. Personally I think the "just volunteers" card is weak sauce, but every organization has it's share.

Now, you may discount the above (hypothetical?) scenario as irrelevant hyperbole.  But we serve many customers, not just the one who pays the bills. 

Irrelevant, no, hyperbole, yeah kinda. But again, the ones paying the bills, be they AFRCC, FEMA, state EMAs, etc., are the customers. They are the ones receiving services and if they don't want us, we go away, regardless of what the target wants.

+++If the subject is later found in a sector you claimed 95 percent PoD in by using flawed methods, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased the family's suffering, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP.  The "customer" who "pays your bills" will have no knowledge of this.

First, 95% is not 100%, and you will never have 100% POD. Second, I've never heard that after searching an area several times, because you've gotta search an area multiple times to get 95%, with several crews, that we've increased a family's suffering. Finally, the customer (the ones paying for us to be there searching) know that there's a suffering family. Why do you think that searches continue well past the likely survival period?

+++If you don't truly embrace Unified Command in the sharing of ideas and information, you have not satisfied your customer: You have increased your sister SAR agencies' frustration, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP. 

Couldn't agree more. We ALL need to learn to work together, and that includes the jurisdictions that have little to no respect for CAP. But lets not confuse working together and sharing ideas and intel with sharing information which the Air Force does not want us sharing.

+++If you all show up in perfect uniform, believing this conveys "the very best" and the epitome of professionalism, but later, it is shown than you aren't on top of the game (or the industry) in terms of performance, you have not satisfied your customer.  Agencies having jurisdiction will call you out less, and you have ultimately hurt the CAP. 

Again, couldn't agree more. There are a few people in CAP who believe that looks=professionalism. There are even more in academia that think looks=professionalism. But most of the people in CAP who really do ES care more about getting the mission done, finding the target, and satisfying the customer (again not the target/targets' family) than they do about what they're wearing while they do it.

It may be Business Ad 101, but it may also be flat-arse wrong.  We all have bosses we answer to, but if you forget the subject and his or her family, you are dreadfully wrong, and your sister agencies may decide they cannot use you.  My sheriff pays my bills, but he's not my only customer.

No, it's not wrong. And all of those sister agencies know that the guy holding the purse strings is the customer. Because if it weren't for that person, they wouldn't be called out to search for the target.

Sidebar re AirAux's comments:  Missions should never be called off based on PoD, much less numbers determined by CAP charts   , but that's too much drift for this already trans-ocean thread.  Maybe a topic for another day. 

Happens all the time. Sheriffs, Coast Guard, NASAR teams, they all use POD tables and when they can't find the target the mission eventually gets shut down.

[AirAux]

Senty, Touche', you are so right...  but there is the rub.  We know it but it appears to be what it is; impossible for us with the ultimate dream or goal to change.  I know the others above, John, Eclipse, etc., truly understand what you say and feel the same way, and have felt that way for at least the last 3 decades, but it appears to be more business as usual and cross the t's and dot the i's and slowly slide away from the truth for perceived professionalism.  In the old days, we searched until we found them or someone did or had worn out everyone and everything.  We used our own AC because we could get a lot into the air and cover a lot of ground, but then progress and let's all use the 4 CAP AC and only use their allocated radios and etc.. until we are ever so organized and driven by tasks, and SQTRS, and PODs and you name it, until we require an act of Congress to do what 20 guys in a local squadron used to do and do fairly well.  It's changed so much, less ELT work, which we had gotten so good at and now we are tasked to look for pot plants, etc.  Good, bad, or indifferent, we aren't what we used to be and I, for one miss the good ol' days.  Hell, I even liked the blue smurf suit.  It was comfortable for flying sundown in Florida.  but, I digress.

[Senty7]

(Still trying to master the multiple-quote machine.)

+++On the OPSEC bullet:  Readers may refer to an old thread started by CT member Flying Pig.  Goes deeper than radio freqs. 

+++By less-than-effective search patterns, I was referring to cases where Plans calculates the pattern to maximize PoS, only to have the pilot do something else.  Seen it.

+++On the GPS bullet....oooooh, never mind.  That horse is dead and converted to jerky. 

+++"PoD tables," by design, are scientifically flawed, unless there is some huge matrix somewhere in the CAP that I haven't seen that displays all the possible permutations of altitude, speed, time-on-station, atmospheric visibility, terrain, vegetation, number of observers on board, target description, and search sector size.  Valid PoD is sortie-specific, and cannot be obtained from a "table," using simple arithmetic or not.  I know it "happens all the time," and that's sad.  Valid methods are taught, among other venues, in the National SAR School's Inland Planning Course.  Are readers who believe otherwise thinking of "Effective Sweep Width" tables?

+++On the "95 percent" bullet:   Pilot A or Plans Guy K uses flawed methods to over-estimate (nearly always) or underestimate (almost never) the PoD for a sector.  Or, said individuals apply the concept of PoD to make strategic decisions (when in fact, PoS and PSR should be used) to decide where to search, or whether to continue to search.  An incorrect decision is made.  Search efforts focus on the wrong place, focus on the same place when they should focus elsewhere, or are suspended prematurely.   Family suffering is increased.  And heaven help you if the subject dies while the search is in progress, as in Andy Warburton. 

+++If we're going to puff out our tail feathers and claim credit for "saving lives" and easing hardship by making the search shorter through our efforts, then we should be prepared to accept that we increased suffering if, by our ignorance or ineptitude, we caused the search to go longer. 

+++NASAR is infected with a monumental search theory error, which they are just beginning to treat through revisions to their curricula.  Compare NASAR's advanced text to the National School's "Blue Book."  It may be ill-advised to defend a tactic on the basis of "NASAR teams" doing it.   

+++Regarding CAP being respected, if the "many" agencies (my words) that don't respect CAP may not be a significant number, as you suggest, then might the "many" that you say DO respect CAP also not be significant?     Sorry, eh?  Just pointing out the two implied operational definitions of "many" in the same sentence. 

We can explain it, excuse it, rationalize it, or try to defend it eight ways to Sunday.  But when we fail to find the subject, we have failed our customer.  If we find the subject in five days, when we could have found him in two, we have failed our customer.  And if we forget that the subject and his family are one of our prime customers, we've failed before we start.  And that makes us wrong.

As Thrash so eloquently stated a few threads back, I don't have a dog in this fight.  If you're comfortable that the USAF is comfortable, and that's good enough, then please carry on with my compliments. 

Best regards to all,

--Senty 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

^ I constantly wonder what organization these people thought they were joining.

Oh to be a fly on the wall during the recruiting conversations...

Without having heard said recruiting conversations, my experience in my unit was that a lot of these gentlemen (and it was almost exclusively men) already knew each other outside of CAP, either through pilots' clubs or through hanging around the joe-pot at the local FBO.

My guess is that they pitched CAP as an organisation where you could fly, fly, fly, keep your hours up and the Air Force would foot the bill.  That's just a guess based on conversations heard.

To be sure, there were pilots who considered joining who changed their minds when they heard about Form 5's and things like that...after all, the uniform issue was "negotiable" but check rides, quals, etc. are not.

BUT...

To hopefully get things back on track...and bring the much-ballyhooed "uniform simplification" to the fore...

The Air Force is not going to bend on the H/W issue, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to try and make them do so.

If there's any hope of retaining the CSU with General Courter's modifications, we should push for that to eventually supplant the grey/whites/blazer.  As has been pointed out, the grey/whites are far from "uniform" with members wearing everything from dress slacks to sweats to grey BDU-type pants.

I would also phase out the polo shirts...they are an optional uniform and not required in the way that the AF-type/corporate/CSU are for a member to have.

I would standardise on the blue NOMEX flight suit/jacket for those who want/need NOMEX.  The Air Force wore blue flight clothing years ago (watch Strategic Air Command sometime), but they don't now.  Bin the plastic-encased rank in favour of the navy-blue now allowed for the utility jumpsuit.

Keep the BBDU's with navy-blue background to grade insignia and nametapes.  Keep the blue utility jumpsuit as is.

Cascade the woodland BDU's down to cadets as freebies wherever possible.  As has been stated, we do not need camouflage.

Again, boars and sows may levitate.

[SARDOC]

The Air Force is not going to bend on the H/W issue, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to try and make them do so.

If there's any hope of retaining the CSU with General Courter's modifications, we should push for that to eventually supplant the grey/whites/blazer.  As has been pointed out, the grey/whites are far from "uniform" with members wearing everything from dress slacks to sweats to grey BDU-type pants.

I would also phase out the polo shirts...they are an optional uniform and not required in the way that the AF-type/corporate/CSU are for a member to have.

I agree the AF is not going to bend on the H/W issue and we shouldn't ask them to or expect it.  We are indeed a different organization and technically only the AF auxiliary when performing AFAM's.  So I agree our uniforms should be different with the exception of the cadets...as long as the AF provides the uniforms the cadet should wear them.

I am proud of our Air Force Heritage and would like to have a uniform that reveals some sort of semblance to reflect our history.  The CSU would be ideal but I think that ship has sailed.

As far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used.  As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all.  I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft.  Which not every CAP member does.   

[Cool Mace]

Not sure why this topic is still going? Nothing is going to change. Some want it to, some don't. Everyone can't have it their way, this isn't Burger King.

Why not just be happy with what we have?
IMHO

[jeders]

Taken to PM

[Eclipse]

As far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used.  As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft.  Which not every CAP member does.

See page 8 of 39-1.

All seniors are required to have either blues or whites.

[SARDOC]

As far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used.  As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft.  Which not every CAP member does.

See page 8 of 39-1.

All seniors are required to have either blues or whites.

Thanks for that...so now I have to get a uniform just to hang it my closet since I'm not required to wear it anywhere.   

[Eclipse]

As far as getting rid of the polo shirt that would depend on where it's used.  As far as it being an "OPTIONAL" uniform...uh...aren't they all. I don't see anywhere that requires every member to have identified uniforms with the exception of Cadet Programs and flying in an aircraft.  Which not every CAP member does.

See page 8 of 39-1.

All seniors are required to have either blues or whites.

Thanks for that...so now I have to get a uniform just to hang it my closet since I'm not required to wear it anywhere.   

You're required to wear it when conducting the cadet program.
Riding in a CAP aircraft.
Riding in a CAP ground vehicle.
Participating in ES operations.

That is by reg, and of course CC's can dictate more.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Why can't the uniforms be left where they are, with the exception of the CSU? By exception of the CSU I mean keep it, I think it is an awesome alternative. If you can and want to wear the USAF style uniforms then do, if not then don't. Don't try to strip them from those of us who do like them. In my squadron we don't have any SMs that don't want to wear the USAF style or corporate white uniforms. The only time any SMs wear the polo variant is on PT nights. Just leave the uniforms as they are and let us wear what we have.