ES/Ground Team can wear whatever in the field?

[jeders]

I understand your point, and the safety concern is hardly irrelevant but that's not the main issue.
If you have a ground team assembled to assist in DR, perhaps in a CERT capacity, the CoC should not be turning away personnel because they don't have black combat boots.
The logical conclusion of this argument is that CAP personnel can participate on missions without a uniform in the rare event that it becomes a necessity. Shouldn't ever happen, but it can if we need it to.
Why on Earth would they regulation spell out flying in CAP aircraft otherwise?

I want to focus on the bolded part for the moment, because it is a red herring. Any person that doesn't have black combat boots is welcome to wear the polo uniform or even aviator uniform in certain capacities. But what I think you meant to say is that a CAP members should not be turned away from a mission because they do not own a complete uniform. However, our regs require us to turn away members who have not completed at least GES. GES requires that seniors have completed Level 1 and that cadets have completed the Curry Achievement. Both of these requirements further require that the member have a complete uniform before the level/achievement can be completed. Therefore, any member who does not have a complete uniform can not have completed the requirements for GES and is not eligible to be on a mission anyway. QED

So as I said before, you are celebrating an alleged flexibility which I contend does not exist and which we have no need for.

[Ed Bos]

The Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks manual only requires BDUs for trainees.

[jeders]

The Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks manual only requires BDUs for trainees.

By that logic, fully trained GT members are not required to have ANY equipment, which would make them less than useless on a mission.

[Ed Bos]

I want to focus on the bolded part for the moment, because it is a red herring. Any person that doesn't have black combat boots is welcome to wear the polo uniform or even aviator uniform in certain capacities. But what I think you meant to say is that a CAP members should not be turned away from a mission because they do not own a complete uniform. However, our regs require us to turn away members who have not completed at least GES. GES requires that seniors have completed Level 1 and that cadets have completed the Curry Achievement. Both of these requirements further require that the member have a complete uniform before the level/achievement can be completed. Therefore, any member who does not have a complete uniform can not have completed the requirements for GES and is not eligible to be on a mission anyway. QED

So as I said before, you are celebrating an alleged flexibility which I contend does not exist and which we have no need for.

A red herring, you say? The citation provided (which doesn't apply) specifies a complete BDU uniform, of which black combat boots are a part.

And according to the 50-17 (q.v.) completion of Level 1 in no way requires the member to own a uniform.

[Ed Bos]

The Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks manual only requires BDUs for trainees.

By that logic, fully trained GT members are not required to have ANY equipment, which would make them less than useless on a mission.

Which is up to the Ground Team Leader's discretion, which is ultimately overseen by the IC, who is legally responsible for the personnel on the mission.

[Eclipse]

The Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks manual only requires BDUs for trainees.

Come on, you know better than that.

The (T) distinction doesn't mean it's not required to those qualified, it means you have to have those pieces to even start.

[Eclipse]

The Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks manual only requires BDUs for trainees.

By that logic, fully trained GT members are not required to have ANY equipment, which would make them less than useless on a mission.

Which is up to the Ground Team Leader's discretion, which is ultimately overseen by the IC, who is legally responsible for the personnel on the mission.

Please cite anything, anywhere that says that.  24 hour gear is required for a GT sortie, period.

[Ed Bos]

You're telling me that if you only have 3 moist towelettes that you're in violation of a requirement and must not be allowed to participate on a mission? Again, the task guide is for training and reference, it does not dictate what we must do on missions per se.

All personnel should have compelling reasons for deviating from the task guide in a meaningful way, but if they have them, they are allowed to.

[Ed Bos]

This is an illuminating thread, but I have to go catch my flight now. I'll check later and see what else may come of this discussion.

[Eclipse]

You're telling me that if you only have 3 moist towelettes that you're in violation of a requirement and must not be allowed to participate on a mission?

Yes.  That's exactly what I am telling you.
GT's are required and expected to be self-sufficient in the filed for 24 hours for both their personal and team safety, as well as mission efficiency.

[jeders]

I want to focus on the bolded part for the moment, because it is a red herring. Any person that doesn't have black combat boots is welcome to wear the polo uniform or even aviator uniform in certain capacities. But what I think you meant to say is that a CAP members should not be turned away from a mission because they do not own a complete uniform. However, our regs require us to turn away members who have not completed at least GES. GES requires that seniors have completed Level 1 and that cadets have completed the Curry Achievement. Both of these requirements further require that the member have a complete uniform before the level/achievement can be completed. Therefore, any member who does not have a complete uniform can not have completed the requirements for GES and is not eligible to be on a mission anyway. QED

So as I said before, you are celebrating an alleged flexibility which I contend does not exist and which we have no need for.

A red herring, you say? The citation provided (which doesn't apply) specifies a complete BDU uniform, of which black combat boots are a part.

And according to the 50-17 (q.v.) completion of Level 1 in no way requires the member to own a uniform.

I will concede that senior members are not specifically required to posses the basic uniform for completion of Level 1. However, 39-1 does require every senior member to have the minimum basic uniform. And 50-17 says that, among other things, members must know how to wear the uniform and its accoutrements properly. Everything is directed towards uniform wear being expected, not optional just because something isn't spelled out.

And yes, your whole argument is a red herring. You say that we should think critically. You argue that because no regulation specifically spells out that uniforms are required for GT personnel on missions, then no uniform is an option. However, I believe it is you that is failing to think critically and take what the various regs say and come to the conclusion that they want you wearing a uniform.

I do truly believe that you are making this argument more as a critical thinking exercise rather than actually believing it. But if you do actually believe that GT members don't have to wear a uniform on missions, then I'm going to have to seriously reevaluate my opinion of NESA staff.

[jeders]

This is an illuminating thread, but I have to go catch my flight now. I'll check later and see what else may come of this discussion.

Yes it is, and as a thinking exercise I quite enjoy it. Have a safe flight.

[lordmonar]

The bottom line is that ground teams can wear whatever the CoC doesn't enforce.

No, the bottom line is that CAP members are only allowed to wear what is explicitly approved by regulation. 

Thee is no "local authority" in this regard as any variances outside the regulations must also be approved by NHQ.

It matters because people who believe they can be "creative with something simple like a uniform regulation, will also
be inclined to make other poor choices.

I think you missed the point......if the CoC does not enforce the rules......it becomes defacto regulatory.

I point out that this has been the case for many many years in CAP.......I give you PAWG HMRS and the CAWG ES uniform.  Both of these have were eventually approved....but many many many years after the fact.

This is not about whether they have the authoirty to do so....but since no one is standing up and making it stick....they have the power to do so.

[Spaceman3750]

The only place I would consider not wearing a CAP uniform on a GT/UDF sortie is when the electronic search takes us to areas where it would put us in additional danger to wear our uniform (I'm thinking in the cities where military personnel are being advised not to wear a uniform, like East St. Louis). Then again, if the area is -that- dangerous, I'm going to have a sherrif's deputy with me anyways or simply say that the ORM is too high.

[bflynn]

]I think you missed the point......if the CoC does not enforce the rules......it becomes defacto regulatory.

I point out that this has been the case for many many years in CAP.......I give you PAWG HMRS and the CAWG ES uniform.  Both of these have were eventually approved....but many many many years after the fact.

This is not about whether they have the authoirty to do so....but since no one is standing up and making it stick....they have the power to do so.

Yes, exactly. 

At the risk of raising the discussion again (please don't), boonie caps are an example.  Some people think they're completely wrong, some people appreciate the practicality of them, especially for those who really need to keep the sun off their skin (ie, as a cancer risk).  Whether or not they are permitted to be worn is entirely at the discretion of the person enforcing the rules.  Whatever they don't prohibit is allowed.  That's just the way it is.

At times a little tolerence of is a good thing.  At times it is not.

[Eclipse]

This is not about whether they have the authoirty to do so....but since no one is standing up and making it stick....they have the power to do so.

People abuse authority, make up their own rules, and treat CAP in the "I have the keys, therefore I have the kingdom" way all the time, it's human nature.  That doesn't mean their actions are justified, they have any actual authority, or that there won't be consequences when an informed member, upstream commander or staffer, or sadly even a lawyer finally finds out.

Lack of local enforcement, incorrect interpretations, or simply "doing what I want", doesn't change the regs, or the potential negative results.

Whatever they don't prohibit is allowed.  That's just the way it is.

That's exactly opposite from "the way it is".

[bflynn]

consequences when an informed member, upstream commander or staffer, or sadly even a lawyer finally finds out.

An upstream commander such as yourself?

Are you suggesting that a GTL that allows someone to go into the field with a boonie cap is not maintaining standards and  therefore is unfit for command and needs to be removed from CAP activities?  How about if they allow boots that are scuffed and not blackened?  Or maybe if they allow someone wearing a non-white tee shirt (or a tee shirt that used to be white) under their utility uniform?

Yes, we all agree that these are outside the standard.  If conditions permit, you'll correct them.  But if I get someone show up for a live mission with one of these faults, you'd better bet that I'm not going to deny their participation if it compromises the mission.  Especially not if there is potentially a life at stake.  I'd even go so far as to argue that a leader who places adherence to a trivial rule over human life is unfit to be in CAP.

Knowing when to enforce rules and when not to is an art.  There can be balance, either way in one direction or the other is unhealthy.  I suspect this is why I hear such a negative image of CAP in the pilot community.

[Spaceman3750]

consequences when an informed member, upstream commander or staffer, or sadly even a lawyer finally finds out.

An upstream commander such as yourself?

Are you suggesting that a GTL that allows someone to go into the field with a boonie cap is not maintaining standards and  therefore is unfit for command and needs to be removed from CAP activities?  How about if they allow boots that are scuffed and not blackened?  Or maybe if they allow someone wearing a non-white tee shirt (or a tee shirt that used to be white) under their utility uniform?

Yes, we all agree that these are outside the standard.  If conditions permit, you'll correct them.  But if I get someone show up for a live mission with one of these faults, you'd better bet that I'm not going to deny their participation if it compromises the mission.  Especially not if there is potentially a life at stake.  I'd even go so far as to argue that a leader who places adherence to a trivial rule over human life is unfit to be in CAP.

Knowing when to enforce rules and when not to is an art.  There can be balance, either way in one direction or the other is unhealthy.  I suspect this is why I hear such a negative image of CAP in the pilot community.

Boonies are authorized for BBDUs.

I will admit to letting a couple of my members be a little lax with their boots during cold months (they had hunting boots with Thinsulate vs. combat boots with nothing), but if I found out that a GTL in my group had "authorized" shorts and t-shirts for their ground team there would be a conference call happening between the group CC, squadron CC, myself, and the GTL.

[tsrup]

consequences when an informed member, upstream commander or staffer, or sadly even a lawyer finally finds out.

Are you suggesting that a GTL that allows someone to go into the field with a boonie cap is not maintaining standards and  therefore is unfit for command and needs to be removed from CAP activities?  How about if they allow boots that are scuffed and not blackened?  Or maybe if they allow someone wearing a non-white tee shirt (or a tee shirt that used to be white) under their utility uniform?

These are symptoms of a bigger problem, not the problem itself.

Do you trust a person on a ground team that can't follow simple explicit guidance? 

Do you trust the trainer of these people that just let things slide?


Lets remember this isn't Mr. "I'm new and make simple little mistakes while I'm learning" showing up to missions.
This should be your A-Team.  People who are already trained.

And people who are properly trained know the regulations, and follow them. 



It really is that simple folks.
Following instructions and attention to detail are huge in ES, and if someone can't pick the right color t-shirt (hat, uniform, boots, etc..) when the instruction/regulation is specific, then I'd think twice about taking them along.

[Eclipse]

^ Yep.

Anyone who shows up in a boonie hat over camos, ignored the uniform manual, his trainers, mentors, SET, and anyone else who saw
him show up that way over the course of 6 months to a year+ and 2-8 missions it takes to get fully GTM1 / GTL qualified.

He clearly knows "better".  Would I send him home?  Maybe, or maybe I'd scrounge a compliant hat and tell him to wear it if he wants to play.
Afterwards there would be a conversation with his commander about his attitude.

Are you suggesting that a GTL that allows someone to go into the field with a boonie cap is not maintaining standards and  therefore is unfit for command and needs to be removed from CAP activities?

Yes.

"It is absurd to believe that soldiers who cannot be made to wear the proper uniform can be induced to move forward in battle. Officers who fail to perform their duty by correcting small violations and in enforcing proper conduct are incapable of leading."
- General George S. Patton Jr., April 1943

The point being not that the CAP has anything to do with the military, but that members who can't be bothered on the small stuff, are inclined to be lax on the bigger stuff, and leaders who won't correct the small stuff, will absolutely be inclined to edge the line on safety, operational ROE, and other more critical factors.

It's also incredibly disrespectful to show up purposefully out of uniform, because that either says "I don't think you know the rules, so I'm going to
try and slide this past you..." or "I don't think you have the leadership confidence to challenge me on this, so I'm just going to do whatever I want..."