I have been hearing this for a while in Washington Wing and was curious if anyone has a reference for this permission (I couldn't find it in 39-1 and cadets heard it from SM) ; to clarify what was claimed was "Upon being called out on a mission (real or attending a practice) cadets must show up in proper BDU's but once there may change into whatever they see as fit for the task." Generally these outfits are supplemented with a safety- orange Beret. I found this odd because I would think the 39-1 stipulation of "participating or conducting in the cadet program" would apply to this as well. So basically what I'm asking is, where can I find this regulation if indeed it is real?
No.
The regulations are specific and approved at the national level. The only relief or changes to them available requires an approved supplement to 39-1 or other regulation before the members can start wearing anything which is not allowed per the standard.
Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved ??? . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 06:07:07 PM
Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved ??? . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.
It sounds more like this made up rule was put in to place to justify an orange beret. If one was to truly claim an interest of safety, the beret would be one of the worst possible candidates.
This is a violation of regulations, pass it up your chain of command and see what happens.
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 06:07:07 PM
...one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington...
Somehow the rest of the CAP universe is able to mitigate the situation with an orange vest, so that statement above holds zero weight.
With that said, it would all depend on your position and experience as to whether you decide to address your concerns directly, but one thing you can
do is simply obey the regulations yourself, and let your example be your quiet statement.
The orange beret is a throw back to the Challenger program that was either an ORWG or WAWG, I can't remember, program from 30 yrs ago. This "reg" might be one of the reasons WAWG isn't often allowed to play much in WAWG in the WA ES/EMA sandbox.
Quote from: tsrup on April 23, 2012, 06:12:16 PM
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 06:07:07 PM
Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved ??? . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.
It sounds more like this made up rule was put in to place to justify an orange beret. If one was to truly claim an interest of safety, the beret would be one of the worst possible candidates.
This is a violation of regulations, pass it up your chain of command and see what happens.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that it does seem that the orange beret is useless and is probably arbitrary ( the reason I mentioned it is I thought perhaps it had some sort of regs to justify it); however I do know more than I let on about the case including the possible original offenders. The main SM driving this comes from an ES background professionally and I have reason to believe that while it is stated that cadets may wear whatever, the SM does personally check these "uniforms" to make sure the cadet will be prepared for adverse weather. The SM strongly advocates wearing layered clothing, in particular wool and I agree with the claim that a BDU uniform is not adequate for certain weather conditions ex: a SAREX conducted in the wet snow while it is raining; but it does not justify disregard for proper uniform wear and regulations. However I'm not going to bring out the gossip about all this, every wing and every squadron seems to have its own politics and spreading them across the internet will not do any good. I'm going to do some soul-searching to see if this is really worth bringing up the chain of command and if once brought up if it would accomplish anything. The SM really has some good intentions, probably even the orange beret is (some attempt at uniformity?) and it seems SM has the acquiescence of some Wing event organizers so I thought there was some regs but could not find them. Thank-you for your time and advice.
Wear whatever.
Put a black/brown T-shirt over it.
Put BDUs on.
Profit.
Problem solved?
Problem solved for me but as PA Guy noted
Quote from: PA Guy on April 23, 2012, 06:31:40 PM
The orange beret is a throw back to the Challenger program that was a eithr an ORWG or WAWG, I can't remember, program from 30 yrs ago. This "reg" might be one of the reasons WAWG isn't often allowed to play much in WAWG in the WA ES/EMA sandbox.
It is probably one of the many crippling reasons our ES will not get called on ES missions.
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 07:12:44 PMIt is probably one of the many crippling reasons our ES will not get called on ES missions.
I have to disagree - it's a point of contention internally, but the uniform is the uniform, and shouldn't have anything to do
with whether or not you are involved in your state's response plans.
It was discussed in the AFRCC class recently that Washington State is one of the few that do their own DF and air SAR, and therefore do not involve them
except in very rare circumstances.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2012, 07:19:11 PM
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 07:12:44 PMIt is probably one of the many crippling reasons our ES will not get called on ES missions.
I have to disagree - it's a point of contention internally, but the uniform is the uniform, and shouldn't have anything to do
with whether or not you are involved in your state's response plans.
It was discussed in the AFRCC class recently that Washington State is one of the few that do their own DF and air SAR, and therefore do not involve them
except in very rare circumstances.
I see, as I'm new to ES I've heard we don't get called out much on account of state policy; however I knew that the Puyallup sheriffs department sponsored a program for Middle to High School students that allows them to participate actively in SAR missions and apparently mistakenly assumed that it was partly due to our unprofessional appearance. Thank-you for correcting me. I'm guessing since the sheriffs dept. is already integrated into the state SAR, it's easier for them to get missions?
Unless CAP has a MOU with the state, all you will get is AFRCC missions.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 23, 2012, 07:42:35 PM
Unless CAP has a MOU with the state, all you will get is AFRCC missions.
Not true. ILWG hasn't had an MOU with the state since the early 90's and we still get called by IEMA and local EMAs/ESDAs/OEMs.
MOUs don't mean much in a CAP context anyways as most agencies responsible can call the NOC for assistance.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 23, 2012, 07:45:40 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 23, 2012, 07:42:35 PM
Unless CAP has a MOU with the state, all you will get is AFRCC missions.
Not true. ILWG hasn't had an MOU with the state since the early 90's and we still get called by IEMA and local EMAs/ESDAs/OEMs.
Correct - an MOU helps grease the wheels, and may even add a level of "will" vs. "should" to being called, but they aren't required.
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 07:03:27 PM
Quote from: tsrup on April 23, 2012, 06:12:16 PM
Quote from: Deorad on April 23, 2012, 06:07:07 PM
Thank-you for your impressively quick reply! :clap: Now I've gotta figure who I should let know so that this can be addressed or indeed whether I should even get involved ??? . Since one of the explanations I received was that the BDU uniform is detrimental to cadet safety in the almost constant deluge that is Western Washington I'm not so sure it would be wise to open this inevitable can of worms.
It sounds more like this made up rule was put in to place to justify an orange beret. If one was to truly claim an interest of safety, the beret would be one of the worst possible candidates.
This is a violation of regulations, pass it up your chain of command and see what happens.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that it does seem that the orange beret is useless and is probably arbitrary ( the reason I mentioned it is I thought perhaps it had some sort of regs to justify it); however I do know more than I let on about the case including the possible original offenders. The main SM driving this comes from an ES background professionally and I have reason to believe that while it is stated that cadets may wear whatever, the SM does personally check these "uniforms" to make sure the cadet will be prepared for adverse weather. The SM strongly advocates wearing layered clothing, in particular wool and I agree with the claim that a BDU uniform is not adequate for certain weather conditions ex: a SAREX conducted in the wet snow while it is raining; but it does not justify disregard for proper uniform wear and regulations. However I'm not going to bring out the gossip about all this, every wing and every squadron seems to have its own politics and spreading them across the internet will not do any good. I'm going to do some soul-searching to see if this is really worth bringing up the chain of command and if once brought up if it would accomplish anything. The SM really has some good intentions, probably even the orange beret is (some attempt at uniformity?) and it seems SM has the acquiescence of some Wing event organizers so I thought there was some regs but could not find them. Thank-you for your time and advice.
As far as BDU's being some sort of safety hazard in the climate of Western WA i must call BS. BDU's were no hazard to me or anyone else i knew in that climate while i spent 2 years there by Uncle Sams request...
There are plenty of options within the regulations.
Ground Teams are required to wear the orange high-visability reflective vest while participating in GT operations.
Ground Teams are free to choose their gear (aka: LBVs, Packs, H-Harnasses, etc.) in any color or reflective material they so choose. They could wear blaze orange day packs with reflective panels sewn to them for all anyone cares. With the exception of the color of hydration packs, National does not regulate the color of field gear that you wear over your approved, compliant uniform.
Organizational baseball-caps can be approved at levels below National per CAPM 39-1 in a color designated by the approving commander. PAWG does this and chooses blaze orange ball caps for wear with the BDU. While grade insignia or devices cannot be worn on unit ball caps, it would solve your colleagues' desires for high-visability headgear and it actually complies with regulation. Other headgear (berets, boonies, etc.) are not authorized to be made up at the local level.
But the bottom line is, per CAPM 39-1 Section 1-1, if the regulation does not explicitly authorize something for uniform wear then it cannot be worn. In other words, just because CAPM 39-1 doesn't outright say you can't wear pink tutus with the BDU coat doesn't mean you can assume it's okay to wear.
Tactfully bringing this up to your chain of command, however, is a whole 'nother challenge. Good luck with fighting the good fight.
The bottom line is that ground teams can wear whatever the CoC doesn't enforce.
There is a standard, but it's up to local leaders to enforce it. If they do or if they don't, they are setting the standard. Some will be strictly by the book, by the line, word and letter. Others may allow certain exceptions if it helps people work.
In the end it's a local call. If you're upset because it "not military", remember it has always been the authority of an on-scene military commander to deviate from rules and plans to accomplish the mission. If the idea makes your blood boil, ask why it matters to you.
Quote from: bflynn on April 23, 2012, 11:49:57 PM
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.
All of the posts insisting that no echelon of CAP below NHQ may alter the uniform are entirely correct.
That being said, there is no requirement to wear any specific CAP uniform on GSAR missions, nor is there a requirement to wear ANY uniform on missions. The only required item is the vest. The requirement to wear a uniform while participating in or leading the cadet program does not apply, ES is not the cadet program, regardless of the status of the personnel involved.
If a ground team chose to wear the polo uniform (or a similar outfit comprised of civilian clothes) they could then wear an orange beret as civilian headgear.
That being said, orange berets are dumb.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 01:23:15 AM
That being said, there is no requirement to wear any specific CAP uniform on GSAR missions, nor is there a requirement to wear ANY uniform on missions. The only required item is the vest. The requirement to wear a uniform while participating in or leading the cadet program does not apply, ES is not the cadet program, regardless of the status of the personnel involved.
Except for the requirement that a uniform be worn while conducting CAP activities and the GT task guide which requires you to be in a BDU uniform. Unless you're saying that you only need to wear a BDU uniform when you complete that single task and that CAP never intended it to be worn any other time....
Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 01:38:11 AM
]Except for the requirement that a uniform be worn while conducting CAP activities.
Nope, check the regs, there is no "must wear a uniform during all activities" line in any reg.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 01:38:11 AM
GT task guide which requires you to be in a BDU uniform.
That is what I'm saying. You have to have a uniform for that task, other than that it's not binding. The only thing mandating the uniform after you're signed off is the discretion of the Incident supervision (GTL, GBD, IC, etc).
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 01:23:15 AMnor is there a requirement to wear ANY uniform on missions.
Uniforms are
required anytime a member flys a CAP aircraft, therefore they are required on any aircrew mission or training
(unless the customer requires plain clothes as in some CN missions), though I agree that no specific combination is prescribed,
it must be a proper CAP uniform.
Ground Team Members are specifically
required to wear the BDU uniform per task O-0001
2. The gear list below is the minimum required equipment. Items required of trainees are marked with a "T."
You may carry additional equipment subject to team leader approval and your ability to secure and carry it --
remember, you may have to walk a long way carrying it all.
a. 24 hour pack
1) On your person:
a) Complete BDU uniform with BDU cap. The BDU cap may be replaced by a hard hat
or bright colored cap based on mission needs.(T)Urban Direction Finders are specifically
required to wear a uniform per task O-0010, though no
specification is given.
2. The gear list below is the minimum required equipment. Items required of trainees are marked with a "T."
You may carry additional equipment if you would be added on to a full ground team at a later time but
remember, you may have to walk a long way carrying it all.
a. On your person:
1) Complete uniform appropriate to the environment in which you will be working.I myself have made the same argument, recently, having forgotten this first part of the first task for GTMs & UDF trainees.
A member may not be released on a mission sortie without the required equipment. The required equipment is
defined by the task guides, so clearly a uniform is required for the majority of CAP missions, at least for those in field and air operations.
^ A good point, Eclipse, but if your GTL decides no uniform is appropriate (e.g., doing a line search in February in Fairbanks at -40 F), then that's the decision.
And that hold true to the furthest end of that line of reasoning, it's up to your mission CoC. As responsible CAP officers, I am sure they will make the BDU the uniform of the day 90%+ of the time, but they don't have to.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 01:41:13 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 01:38:11 AM
Except for the requirement that a uniform be worn while conducting CAP activities.
Nope, check the regs, there is no "must wear a uniform during all activities" line in any reg.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1[W]hen engaged in normal duties as a CAP member
I would think that that line should cover GT members on a mission.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2012, 07:19:11 PM
It was discussed in the AFRCC class recently that Washington State is one of the few that do their own DF and air SAR, and therefore do not involve them
except in very rare circumstances.
+1
The state of Washington gives zero ($0) to WAWG and CAP so it is obvious they do not need help. Plus WA Sheriffs want to maintain their SAR budget. BTW the state of PA gives 1/2 million dollars ($500,000) annually to their PAWG. Just FYI ... 8)
Apparently some folks haven't read the almost 10-year old 39-1 which arranges the requirement for wearing a CAP uniform "when engaged in normal CAP duties..." exactly the same way it does the requirement for wearing them when engaging in the cadet program or when flying in CAP aircraft (which were the old requirements).
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 01:46:06 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 01:41:13 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 01:38:11 AM
Except for the requirement that a uniform be worn while conducting CAP activities.
Nope, check the regs, there is no "must wear a uniform during all activities" line in any reg.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1[W]hen engaged in normal duties as a CAP member
I would think that that line should cover GT members on a mission.
Read Note 1. Line 6 clearly does not refer to missions, whereas Line 2 clearly refers to flying missions.
That would be a "catch-all" if it didn't go on to talk about meetings and conferences.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 01:51:33 AM
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 01:46:06 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 01:41:13 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 01:38:11 AM
Except for the requirement that a uniform be worn while conducting CAP activities.
Nope, check the regs, there is no "must wear a uniform during all activities" line in any reg.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1[W]hen engaged in normal duties as a CAP member
I would think that that line should cover GT members on a mission.
Read Note 1. Line 6 clearly does not refer to missions, whereas Line 2 clearly refers to flying missions.
That would be a "catch-all" if it didn't go on to talk about meetings and conferences.
How does commanders being allowed to specify a specific uniform type mean that no uniform is required. Note one is a non issue here.
As for the full text of what I quoted
Quotewhen engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).
The word 'or' is of importance here. It means that when you're doing any of that stuff, be it normal duties or attending meetings/conferences, you wear a uniform. It doesn't mean only when attending meetings/conferences. And yes, I consider a GT mission to be a normal duty for someone who is GT qualified.
Since when is a mission not a "normal" CAP activity? It is one of the primary reasons the organization was formed in the first place.
Frankly, anyone that claims that uniforms are not required on missions in general or at any time can't be trusted to interpret some of the CAP regulations that are actually complex and difficult to understand or are just saying so to cause controversy here.
Because your squadron, group, and wing commanders don't dictate how missions are carried out. This rule is for meetings, cadet field trips, conferences, professional development seminars, etc.
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 01:57:05 AM
Quotewhen engaged in normal duties as a CAP member or attending local, wing/region, or national CAP functions (see note 1).
The word 'or' is of importance here. It means that when you're doing any of that stuff, be it normal duties or attending meetings/conferences, you wear a uniform. It doesn't mean only when attending meetings/conferences. And yes, I consider a GT mission to be a normal duty for someone who is GT qualified.
No, "OR" means that what follows is entirely separate from what preceded the "or".
But, in any case it still means that uniforms are required since missions are most definitely either a local, wing, region, or national CAP function depending on the mission.
And please someone show up at a mission base during a SAREVAL and see how far they get before the AF evaluators laugh them out the door and back to their house to change.
I understand your interpretation. But the Note refers to the entire line, not just the second part. Your interpretation is ignoring that specificity.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 02:02:35 AM
And please someone show up at a mission base during a SAREVAL and see how far they get before the AF evaluators laugh them out the door and back to their house to change.
I urge everyone to do that for next year's evaluation cycle, rather I urge every IC to have their GSAR units do that.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:03:19 AM
I understand your interpretation. But the Note refers to the entire line, not just the second part. Your interpretation is ignoring that specificity.
Yes it does, and I'm not ignoring it. Let's look at what Note 1 actually says.
QuoteThe National Commander and other commanders may specify the wear of a particular uniform type
for the purpose of achieving a uniform appearance at squadron, group, wing, region, and national
functions. However, all commanders must be mindful of the objective of attaining a neatly
uniformed appearance at a minimum of personal expense to the individual member and will
consequently refrain from imposing unreasonable uniform requirements.
So, commanders may designate a specific uniform for the purposes of uniformity. It does not say that line 6 only applies to conferences and the like that you mentioned. It also does not say that commanders can specify no uniform. So as I said before, in this discussion it is a non-issue, moving on.
^ It's because there won't be a cycle next year from what I understand. ;)
One important note... All Incident Commanders ought to be ensuring their personnel are wearing complete and correct CAP uniforms whenever practical. That's just sensible.
But the point I was trying to make is that it is a point for Incident Staff discretion.
And we should be celebrating the flexibility that allows our Emergency Services program, rather than occupy ourselves pursuing the defense of needless regulatory control with the minutiae of things like the word or.
Jeders,
Feel free to move on, but this is referring to administrative control over events. This is different than operational control. Other lines refer specifically to operational (mission) controls. That's why this doesn't apply.
I think it's an important distinction, and I urge others to think critically about what the potential costs and benefits are for having the ability to dictate which uniform, or none, your ground personnel are wearing.
Respectfully,
Ed,
I can honestly think of no time in the past 12 years where not wearing a uniform on a mission would have done anything but hamper mission efforts. Not once would the lack of a uniform have made things any easier. And before you or anyone raises the safety card about cold weather, if you need to wear a non-uniform jacket to stay warm and dry, then wear it like any other piece of safety gear. But that doesn't mean that wearing jeans and a t-shirt under that civilian jacket are going to make the mission easier to complete.
Also, 39-1 applies to every member of CAP at all times. So line 6 does not lose authority just because the CoC changes from the usual everyday chain to the ICS/operational chain. It still applies just the same.
I am thinking critically about this, but you are celebrating a degree of flexibility in uniform choice that we a) don't have and b) don't need.
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?
Ed, there's no relief to "when practical", and there's no distinction between "missions" and "other CAP activities, certainly none you can point to as anything other than personal interpretation.
To your response to me - the task guide(s) don't say "unless you have a better idea" - they say the word "required".
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:28:04 AM
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.
The Ground & Urban Direction Finding Team Tasks manual only requires BDUs for trainees.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:34:06 AM
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.
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 02:32:51 AM
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.
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 02:35:14 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:34:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:34:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:41:07 AM
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 02:35:14 AM
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:34:06 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:46:49 AM
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.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:40:19 AM
Quote from: jeders on April 24, 2012, 02:32:51 AM
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.
Quote from: Ed Bos on April 24, 2012, 02:48:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2012, 12:35:20 AM
Quote from: bflynn on April 23, 2012, 11:49:57 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2012, 06:00:55 AM
]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.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2012, 06:00:55 AMThis 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.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2012, 01:31:02 PMWhatever they don't prohibit is allowed. That's just the way it is.
That's exactly opposite from "the way it is".
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2012, 01:33:32 PM
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.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2012, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2012, 01:33:32 PM
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.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2012, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2012, 01:33:32 PM
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.
^ 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.
Quote from: bflynn on April 24, 2012, 02:56:19 PMAre 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 1943The 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..."
I do find it interesting that the BDU (and BDU only) is called out in the G&UDF Training guide.
There is no provision for wear of the BBDU.
One could argue that they are interchangeable in the text but I have to wonder;
If mandatory wear is implied why would you require that I pack a uniform that doesn't fit me?
If it isn't specifically allowed then it is forbidden, right?
I'm in the BDU camp.... I'll wear mine to everything I can.
Just found that interesting.
I did find in the ES regs that ground team and UDF team members must be compliant with CAPR 77-1 as potential passengers in CAP CoV's during operations..... but then there is no requirement to wear a uniform as a passenger in a CoV (unless you're a passenger as part of participation in the cadet program.)
More places where the regulations are out of sync.
The blue field uniform was introduced in 2002, and the last rev of the GT guide was 2004, but they did not update the test to reflect the
new option. Technically the BBDU isn't even a "BDU" at all, at least not within our parlance.
As I recall, the sundown of wearing camo with no grade for those out of weight or grooming was 2003 or 2004, so during that may be part of the reason
it wasn't updated, but considering that all happened 10 years ago, things should have been fixed by now. I'd agree it should just say "proper CAP uniform", etc., though I don't think many would argue that the intention is to require a field uniform in the field.
Stepping in here as I have intimate knowledge of this and I am involved in resolving the issue. The source of this is a "very valued" member of WAWG. And is highly experienced as a professional in EMS. The points brought up for not wearing BDUs for safety have some validity. We are working the issue to come to a resolution that both meets with regulations and the concerns expressed by the source of the uniform changes. Wing is aware and working on a resolution. And no one is facing any sort of punishment action as a result.
Regarding the claims of WAWG not participating in WA SAR activities, nothing could be further from the truth.
Per WA Law, RCW 47.68.380
Aerial search and rescue — Liability — Definition.
(1) The aviation division of the department is responsible for the conduct and management of all aerial search and rescue within the state. This includes search and rescue efforts involving aircraft and airships. The division is also responsible for search and rescue activities involving electronic emergency signaling devices such as emergency locater transmitters (ELT's) and emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRB's).
So in the state of WA, all SAR activities are run by the state as they are in many states. CAP reports to the state as a state managed asset on SAR activities (darn that whole states rights thing). In point of fact, CAP provides most of the air assets used for SAR, the State Aviation Emergency Coordinator is a member of CAP and reports directly to the Wing commander when appropriate. When appropriate the Wing commander reports to the State Aviation Emergency Coordinator. No egos involved, just everyone doing what is appropriate to perform the tasks required.
The WSDOT Aviation division spends a considerable amount of money training CAP resources to perform to standard. We have training sponsored by the state every single weekend over the next three months. The only requirement (per WA law) is that all members are fully qualified WSDOT Aviation Emergency Services Volunteers, which requires some specific training above and beyond the normal CAP qualifications. I still report to missions in my CAP uniform and fly CAP aircraft when appropriate.
What always gets me about threads along this vein is how BDU's aren't visible enough for safety standards in the field, we need to switch to bright orange, this is why CAWG has the bright orange Wing supplement, etc. etc.
How about just wear a safety vest, same as marshallers do?! Simple, effective, and no supplement is needed because CAP safety regs trump 39-1 and you can argue safety on the grounds of a ground team member wandering off and not being visible without the vest. It also makes the GT easier for the search victim to find.
Quote from: Brad on May 04, 2012, 07:49:39 AM
What always gets me about threads along this vein is how BDU's aren't visible enough for safety standards in the field, we need to switch to bright orange, this is why CAWG has the bright orange Wing supplement, etc. etc.
How about just wear a safety vest, same as marshallers do?! Simple, effective, and no supplement is needed because CAP safety regs trump 39-1 and you can argue safety on the grounds of a ground team member wandering off and not being visible without the vest. It also makes the GT easier for the search victim to find.
Brad,
I wish it were that simple. As has been pointed out, some states( most notably CA) do not feel that wearing a safety vest is adequate or they have a state mandated requirement for teams and individuals participating in ground SAR that usually includes specific clothing such as blaze orange shirts(CA).
CAP is in many places finding its way into the state"s EMA structures. In other states, CAP has managed to successfully intergrate with the state on ES responses and what we wear is acceptable to them. It is finding the balance between what is acceptable to the state(usually the ones in charge) and what fits within CAP's regulations and manuals that is problematic.
You know....I keep hearing that California "requires" the orange ES shirt for SAR teams......but I have yet to see anyone cite a law, regulation or memorandum from the state that so states.
I did a quick search for California Search and Rescue clothing and I can't seem to find any common uniform in any of the SAR teams.
If someone from CAWG could point me in the right direction.....I would appriciate it.
Quote from: lordmonar on May 04, 2012, 02:10:54 PM
You know....I keep hearing that California "requires" the orange ES shirt for SAR teams......but I have yet to see anyone cite a law, regulation or memorandum from the state that so states.
I did a quick search for California Search and Rescue clothing and I can't seem to find any common uniform in any of the SAR teams.
If someone from CAWG could point me in the right direction.....I would appriciate it.
CalEMA is the agency in question. Good hunting. ;)
I'll save you guys the headache. It is not required by the state for SAR but is a best practices recommendation. SAR in CA is the responsibilty of the county and the sheriff dictates the uniform. It was explained that if the state required it then the state would have to fund it. There are counties throughout the state that do not use the orange shirt. All of my digging and calls made indicate this is a Civil Air Patrol CA Wg requirement but not a state EMA requirement.
Quote from: abdsp51 on May 04, 2012, 07:33:19 PM
I'll save you guys the headache. It is not required by the state for SAR but is a best practices recommendation. SAR in CA is the responsibilty of the county and the sheriff dictates the uniform. It was explained that if the state required it then the state would have to fund it. There are counties throughout the state that do not use the orange shirt. All of my digging and calls made indicate this is a Civil Air Patrol CA Wg requirement but not a state EMA requirement.
California Wing decided to make this a requirement to placate both CalEMA and the Sheriff Departments of a few counties.
It was made into a statewide requirement so there wouldn't a bunch of questions about do we wear it or not?
It seems to have worked so far...
Not arguing that point just saying it is not a CALEMA requirement nor state mandated. The question was where to find it in writing that it was a state requirement and answer it's not.
To put this in some sort of perspective, recall that at the time that this uniform was dictated, both the Wing CC and the DO were active cops. That may have led to the uniform dictation.
Sir, I wasn't a member when it was implemented. A member asked for info on it and I did some homework, and basically the result the orange shirt is not a California state requirement for SAR teams. SAR is a mission of the sheriff's department and the sheriff is the determining party for uniforms etc. To say that this is a state requirement and state law is inaccurate. If this is a county requirement and a Wg that's another. I think it's just some miscommunication about it is all.
So every other organization who assist the Sheriffs change their uniforms on that whim?
You're going to need to clarify that a little bit.
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
Quote from: bdolnick on May 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
That supplement is just assinine!
CAWG ground teams must bring two uniforms to the mission base! They have to change just before departing and just after returing from a mission!
I would accept the rule if they required aircrew to change just before their flight! >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on May 05, 2012, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: bdolnick on May 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
That supplement is just assinine!
CAWG ground teams must bring two uniforms to the mission base! They have to change just before departing and just after returing from a mission!
I would accept the rule if they required aircrew to change just before their flight! >:D
Uh Pat, why do you even care? Aren't you in Nevada Wing? Or are you just being a PITA because you can?
Quote from: PHall on May 05, 2012, 05:33:27 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 05, 2012, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: bdolnick on May 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
That supplement is just assinine!
CAWG ground teams must bring two uniforms to the mission base! They have to change just before departing and just after returing from a mission!
I would accept the rule if they required aircrew to change just before their flight! >:D
Uh Pat, why do you even care? Aren't you in Nevada Wing? Or are you just being a PITA because you can?
Well this is the internet! ;D
Back to the original point: the only path to logic I see here is that cotton (which most of the BDU uniforms ot there are 50-100 percent) is the worst material out there as far as inuslation ability once it becomes wet. So I can see thie "proffessionals" point there. But ".....wear what ever you want...." is not realy a suitable alternative. Come on the military has been wearing cotton based uniforms for the past what 50-70 years. As everyone here usually agrees outerwear need not be "military specific" to meet appropriate safety needs during incliment weather.... if if its 30 degrees out and all you have is a civilian coat you cant wear it...BDU only....silly, and layering can still occur while remaining "military" in apperance.
Outer wear: Woodland pattern gortex is readily available (a simple e-bay search showed about 2 pages of results jackets and pants)
Layering: underarmor, wool long underwear are all readily available. (39-1 even says white thermals can be worn visable under BDU's. I have always been a fan of the 5 button wool military sweater. In my younger army days we used to wear the field jacket liner under a BDU top in lieu of the field jacket too.
Boots: ok always a hard one with CAP members ( cadets buy cheap and more to meet spit an polich guideline rather functional "field" guidelelnes) But they make gortex socks....bam instant water proofing for you. If it really is true deep snow winter type ops wear your civilain snow boots, the world wont end...But that is a situational specific instance, not just everyday because it might be cold and wet today if we get a mission....
mk
Quote from: lordmonar on May 05, 2012, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: bdolnick on May 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
That supplement is just assinine!
CAWG ground teams must bring two uniforms to the mission base! They have to change just before departing and just after returing from a mission!
I would accept the rule if they required aircrew to change just before their flight! >:D
I have no problem with the orange shirts. In fact, I like them for ground teams. But the rule requiring ground teams to bring two uniforms is ridiculous. If they plan to spend their day at mission base then another uniform is indicated, but leave them alone if they are merely passing through for brief/debrief. Granted, the absence of an absolute rule leaves a little room for folks to push the limits. That's not a big problem if there is good leadership.
I care because I used to be in CAWG and might return someday. Plus the same practice could spread to my current wing some day!
Quote from: bdolnick on May 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
Wow and people wonder how California gets the reputation it has.
I would like to point out that no one is arguing whether or not the CA Wg GT uniform is authorized. The question was if it was a STATE requirement and it is not. As I have mentioned it is up to the Sheriff for the county to determine the uniform, and to answer the question there are MAA between counties. Simply because a few counties require Orange for a uniform shirt does not mean all do. The supplement posted by Bdolnick is the CAP CA Wg GT uniform authorized per the CA Wg supp to 39-1, however there is NO STATE MANDATE, REG, STATUTE or fill in the blank, etc saying that an orange shirt is required. I think confusion occurred because the message was not broadcast clearly or something.
Quote from: av8tr1 on May 05, 2012, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: bdolnick on May 05, 2012, 04:59:52 AM
CAWG requires an Orange shirt with Blue BDU pants for Ground Team members while in the field. It is not authorized for wear at base. Here is a link - http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm (http://cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/supps.htm) - See the CAWG 39-1, a Supplement approved by NHQ.
Wow and people wonder how California gets the reputation it has.
CA ain't all bad. It's saddled with goofy laws and regulations just like most states are. Finding your happy place is often a matter of which location has laws you can live with, and other people find stupid. For instance, you can get a concealed pistol permit in Washington, but don't dare carry at an outdoor music festival. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.108.150 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.108.150) Go figure.
I still prefer Colorado to California. 8)
Although sheriffs are responsible for SAR within their counties, CalEMA gets involved the instant mutual aid is a factor. Playing nice with CalEMA is important since CAP is a statewide organization.
My guess is there is a CalEMA memo, best practices document, or something similar that defines orange shirts as preferred for volunteer SAR folks. Just like the Air Force wants CAP to be "distinctive," law enforcement usually wants the same for their volunteers.
Having transferred to CAWG a year ago and being involved in their GT business. I think it is great. Everything can improve but the orange shirt for actual searches is fine. It makes sense, its easier to locate your team and can be removed right after active es ops.
Has anyone ever actually tried to see the difference between someone wearing a orange t-shirt and the orange vests we are assigned to wear? It isn't much of a difference in the air or ground.
am-big-u-ous(/am'bigyooes/ adj.
1. Open to more than one interpretation, having more than one meaning.
2. Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
3. See Civil Air Patrol regulations and manuals esp. regarding uniforms.
::)
.......And we (Californians) can smoke marijuana while wearing our CALTRANS uniform, as long as we have a serious medical condition, like........foot fungus or something really bad. Naturally, we can take off our Uniforms entirely on a mission to practice our Gaea worship. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the leadership and much of the membership in CAWG are burned out Woodstock-era Hippies who would sell our Country out for a handful of peyote or to bring about their utopian goals of socialism, and free puppies for everyone, bless their little hearts.....CAPNHQ does not get that CAWG is special ,and can adapt the er, "regular", regs to themselves, changing uniforms and any other policy that just seems like a swell idea!
Major Lord
Quote from: av8tr1 on May 05, 2012, 08:02:20 PM
Has anyone ever actually tried to see the difference between someone wearing a orange t-shirt and the orange vests we are assigned to wear? It isn't much of a difference in the air or ground.
Yep!
I have seen orange shirts versus orange vests from the air. The shirts are much easier to see, especially if they are long sleeves, which the vests lack. Further, I've seen teams wear puny vests, vests scrunched up under pack straps or web gear, vests turned into "belts." or vests worn on the back pack instead of on the person (useless when they turn to look at the plane). Caveat, I'm talking about people wearing BDU's. BBDU's might be easier to see from 1,000 ft AGL.
Most of those problems can be resolved with effective leadership. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. Still, head to head, I'll take the orange shirt over the vests. Bottom line, the more square inches of orange, or other high-viz color, the better.
A big orange panel always rides in my GTM pack. Great as the initial attention getter. But a real PITA if the plane is circling and directing us to a target.
I've been trying to arrange an aerial photo shoot to show our uniforms, standing next to members of a local SAR team. They wear orange shirts...t-shirts, or button up long and short sleeve shirts.
Hmm, how about a simple orange vest, with appropriate reflective material and the words "Civil Air Patrol", worn with appropriate protective clothing (even civilian) for the type of weather one is encountering??? I think it readily shows who we are and with appropriate protective clothing the mission can be completed
WAY too much money & time being spent on CAP military "look a like" uniforms for ES field operations. We are the Civil Air Patrol, official civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
RM
^No more than looking corporate. We got it.
Quote from: av8tr1 on May 05, 2012, 08:02:20 PM
Has anyone ever actually tried to see the difference between someone wearing a orange t-shirt and the orange vests we are assigned to wear? It isn't much of a difference in the air or ground.
Somewhere there are pictures floating around of aerial photos shot for HMRS-Same positions of the team, same realative position of the aircraft. Pic A-is PC with orange vest only, Pic B-is PAWG orange baseball hat..... guess which picture has the team more visable...... the PAWG sickly orange hat.
just sayin'
mk
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 06, 2012, 10:11:05 PM
Somewhere there are pictures floating around of aerial photos shot for HMRS-Same positions of the team, same realative position of the aircraft. Pic A-is PC with orange vest only, Pic B-is PAWG orange baseball hat..... guess which picture has the team more visable...... the PAWG sickly orange hat.
just sayin'
mk
Just saying what?
That an Aircraft can see a hat that is on TOP of the head better than the aircraft can see a vest that faces front and back of a person. Shocking....
Quote from: sarmed1 on May 06, 2012, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: av8tr1 on May 05, 2012, 08:02:20 PM
Has anyone ever actually tried to see the difference between someone wearing a orange t-shirt and the orange vests we are assigned to wear? It isn't much of a difference in the air or ground.
Somewhere there are pictures floating around of aerial photos shot for HMRS-Same positions of the team, same realative position of the aircraft. Pic A-is PC with orange vest only, Pic B-is PAWG orange baseball hat..... guess which picture has the team more visable...... the PAWG sickly orange hat.
just sayin'
mk
That's because the hat has more upward visibility. A shirt doesn't have any more upward visibility than the big ANSI vest I wear now.
May I propose this as the official Ground Team High-Speed Low-Drag Headgear?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31yVlBF6kbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
High visibility in all conditions and angles, features sun protection for neck/ears that traditional BDU caps and baseball caps ignore, and provides hot-weather ventilation via mesh panels around the reflective band.
(remind me to get a tongue-in-cheek smiley)
Sir, you need to get a tongue-in-check smiley >:D >:D >:D
What is a tongue-in-Check smiley anyway? ???
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 07, 2012, 06:56:54 AM
Sir, you need to get a tongue-in-check smiley
What is tongue-in-Check anyway?
stupid auto-correct...
Quote from: whatevah on May 07, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
May I propose this as the official Ground Team High-Speed Low-Drag Headgear?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31yVlBF6kbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
High visibility in all conditions and angles, features sun protection for neck/ears that traditional BDU caps and baseball caps ignore, and provides hot-weather ventilation via mesh panels around the reflective band.
(remind me to get a tongue-in-cheek smiley)
I got no problem with that hat at all!
100% makes pefect sense.
I have one in my flight survival kit!
I believe that this hat should only be authorized if it has fishing lures attached. Maybe a dryfly for 2nd Lt's, going up to a silver spinner for Lt Col's.
Major Lord
Quote from: Major Lord on May 07, 2012, 02:50:44 PM
I believe that this hat should only be authorized if it has fishing lures attached. Maybe a dryfly for 2nd Lt's, going up to a silver spinner for Lt Col's.
Major Lord
(http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/14700000/Lt-Col-Henry-Blake-m-a-s-h-14710430-320-240.jpg)
Quote from: lordmonar on May 07, 2012, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: whatevah on May 07, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
May I propose this as the official Ground Team High-Speed Low-Drag Headgear?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31yVlBF6kbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
High visibility in all conditions and angles, features sun protection for neck/ears that traditional BDU caps and baseball caps ignore, and provides hot-weather ventilation via mesh panels around the reflective band.
(remind me to get a tongue-in-cheek smiley)
I got no problem with that hat at all!
100% makes pefect sense.
I have one in my flight survival kit!
It makes sense to me too - where can I get one?
Quote from: bflynn on May 07, 2012, 03:05:36 PMIt makes sense to me too - where can I get one?
It'll be available soon when the CAPTalk HSLD online stores goes "live" sometime next month. Currently only our "donut club" members have access to the store.
Looks like something you would see highway workers wearing. Try the stores that sell safety equipment to highway/construction workers.
Probably can find a pretty good selection of safety vests there too!
You can find these hats at any of the haberdashery's in San Francisco's Castro District.
Major Lord
Reminds me of some of the headgear I saw when speaking at Berkeley back in the day. (God, was I glad to return to the East Coast! :angel:)
Quote from: bflynn on May 07, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 07, 2012, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: whatevah on May 07, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
May I propose this as the official Ground Team High-Speed Low-Drag Headgear?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31yVlBF6kbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
High visibility in all conditions and angles, features sun protection for neck/ears that traditional BDU caps and baseball caps ignore, and provides hot-weather ventilation via mesh panels around the reflective band.
(remind me to get a tongue-in-cheek smiley)
I got no problem with that hat at all!
100% makes pefect sense.
I have one in my flight survival kit!
It makes sense to me too - where can I get one?
Ebay, around five bucks..
Quote from: whatevah on May 07, 2012, 06:49:32 AM
May I propose this as the official Ground Team High-Speed Low-Drag Headgear?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31yVlBF6kbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
High visibility in all conditions and angles, features sun protection for neck/ears that traditional BDU caps and baseball caps ignore, and provides hot-weather ventilation via mesh panels around the reflective band.
(remind me to get a tongue-in-cheek smiley)
Posting to an old thread, but since this is a continuation of the same topic, I thought this was the best place to put it.
I've been looking at the headgear that was suggested here, but not really liking the price. Last night we went to dinner at Lunker's in Edwardsburg, MI and it suddenly occurred to me (duh!) that a lot of hunting gear is perfect for emergency survival kits. I picked up two blaze orange watch caps for $3 each. There's no sun brim, but I'll take the warmth over the sun protection right now.
Thought for the day - if you're looking for emergency gear clothing, hunting supplies are a good choice. This might be obvious to some, but I never thought of it.
A regular military style boonie cap in hunter orange is also fairly cheap....I picked one up at my local surplus store for abour $10 IIRC.
It does not have the reflective tape or the fancy mesh.....but it works.....I keep it in my flight surivival kit.
What I remember of "optional" uniforms/accoutrements/hats is this:
The Wing commander may designate a special hat for use in ES missions.
The Blue Beret, earned at the EAA mission at Oskosh, can only be worn at the EAA activity. This may have changed.
BDUs are a CAP uniform and as such, if a CAP member participating in an ES mission gets hurt during the mission and is NOT wearing a uniform, the Air Force is not bound to cover said member under CAP/USAF insurance.
As far as your local unit training goes, I would guess it's up to the ES officer to make that call. I'd for sure wear BDUs on an actual mission or Wing training exercise, that way your hiney is covered if you get hurt. Besides, some Wing Dings get a little antsy in the pantsy if you show up wearing whatever you scrounged off the floor to a misison.
The blue beret situation has changed.
ES Officers have no command authority to make these kinds of decisions.
http://www.prosafetysupplies.com/product/ERBS230O/ERB-S230-Class-3-Hi-Viz-Orange-Boonie-Hat.html (http://www.prosafetysupplies.com/product/ERBS230O/ERB-S230-Class-3-Hi-Viz-Orange-Boonie-Hat.html)
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 04:26:01 AM
The blue beret situation has changed.
ES Officers have no command authority to make these kinds of decisions.
No, but it is the responsibility for the ES officer to ensure that everyone is covered under regs when participating in missions or training exercises. Uniform deviations for ES are covered by regs at either the wing or national level. I'd heard that the NBB beret issue has been changed at some point. I firmly believe that it's the duty of every member to set an example to the public at large and that's what I teach my GT trainees, and if you have a rag-tag bunch of kids and adults running around claiming to be CAP members, it kinda puts a bad taste in everyone's mouth. However, having said that, I also believe that if you're out someplace in the woods and it's 30 degrees and all you have is your uniform and a bright pink warm coat, I'd put on the coat if I were cold. Safety trumps uniformity where personal health is concerned.
It is the responsibility of local supervisors such as Ground Team leaders and Mission Pilots to insure compliance with regulations.
Staff Officers are program managers, nothing more, nothing less, they have no authority to enforce anything.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 02:46:23 PM
It is the responsibility of local supervisors such as Ground Team leaders and Mission Pilots to insure compliance with regulations.
Staff Officers are program managers, nothing more, nothing less, they have no authority to enforce anything.
Yes, the GTL and MP is/are responsible for that, but who trains them? Who sets policy for the ES mission at the unit level, while we're on the subject?
Quote from: klestes on July 07, 2012, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 02:46:23 PM
It is the responsibility of local supervisors such as Ground Team leaders and Mission Pilots to insure compliance with regulations.
Staff Officers are program managers, nothing more, nothing less, they have no authority to enforce anything.
Yes, the GTL and MP is/are responsible for that, but who trains them?
Whomever is qualified to impart the knowledge. The DOS is responsible for coordinating the plans, but is certainly not expected to
be the hands-on trainer. He may well not even be qualified in a given area.
Quote from: klestes on July 07, 2012, 03:19:26 PM
Who sets policy for the ES mission at the unit level, while we're on the subject?
Only Commanders can set policy, regardless of echelon.
Quote from: klestes on July 07, 2012, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 02:46:23 PM
It is the responsibility of local supervisors such as Ground Team leaders and Mission Pilots to insure compliance with regulations.
Staff Officers are program managers, nothing more, nothing less, they have no authority to enforce anything.
Yes, the GTL and MP is/are responsible for that, but who trains them? Who sets policy for the ES mission at the unit level, while we're on the subject?
1. Qualified trainers. Who may or may not be unit ESOs. Many are not.
2. Not the ESO. Commanders set unit policy. Staff officer give input and make recommendations, which the commander may or may not accept, but staff officers do not make policy.
I think anything we wear in the field should clearly identify our organization "Civil Air Patrol". Right now we do have to change to the news ANSI 2 standard reflective vests.
Check out Vanguard's (I hate to give them a plug :angel:) website for this safety vest:
[ http://www.vanguardmil.com/civil-air-patrol-orange-reflective-vest-ansi-class-ii-approved-p-7457.html (http://www.vanguardmil.com/civil-air-patrol-orange-reflective-vest-ansi-class-ii-approved-p-7457.html) [/url]
$20.00 and it clearly shows Civil Air Patrol on it.
I think that in the field a "field uniform" needs to be worn, HOWEVER, the reality of CAP volunteers is that everyone doesn't necessarily have the military looking boots or jackets for every potential weather condition. So one might have to wear full rain gear (including pants), or even some sort of severe cold weather pants/jacket as well as even a different type of headgear. Just seems to me that the orange vest above could be our primary ID during ground field type operations regardless of what is worn underneath that vest :-\
The AF (as well as IC's) is more concerned with CAP performing the assigned mission effectively, efficiently, safely, and successfully. The uniform aspect is not their primary concern, that seems to be more of a CAP concern.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 07, 2012, 05:14:59 PMThe AF (as well as IC's) is more concerned with CAP performing the assigned mission effectively, efficiently, safely, and successfully. The uniform aspect is not their primary concern, that seems to be more of a CAP concern.
Cite please.
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
I would support that ES teams should be as uniform as possible....and if that means mandateing "this vest" over all others....whether it has CAP on it or not.........I would support that.
Likewise I would support mandating a "universal head gear".......a hunter orange boonie cap.....for all ground operations....in liue of a ANSI vests.....as the whole vest concept gets pretty stupid when you put on your back pack/LBV/Cammel back over the stupid vest. Also I find that even open weave vests make it very hot and get in the way of using and getting to your equipment.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
Only required when working on or near a Federal Highway today, required by Oct 2012 for all.
Though considering that the below asserts a sundown on a uniform item and will require
some expenditure by all affected members, NHQ hasn't really made much about it. Perhaps it
was assumed back in June 2010 / March 2011 that we'd have a consolidated, current uniform
reg by Oct 2012 (maybe we will).
CAPR 62-1 March 2011
d. ANSI and non-ANSI compliance standards are as follows:
is approved for wear as the outermost garment over the corporate
uniform only and must meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 standards as noted on the ANSI classification tag
which must be affixed to the garment. Examples of safety apparel are coats, jackets, rainwear,
and may include orange or lime green reflective pants in conjunction with upper-body wear.
(1) ANSI compliant – Safety Vests or Safety Apparel must meet the American
National Standards Institute, Inc (ANSI) Class 2 or Class 3 requirements. This category is
required anytime a member's duties may place them within the right-of-way of Federal-aid
highways; such as directing traffic, investigating crashes, handling lane closures, obstructed
roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.
(2) Non-ANSI compliant – Safety Vests only, require reflectivity front and back.
This category is allowed anytime a member's duties do not require ANSI compliant vests in
accordance with the definition of ANSI compliant requirements above. By October 1, 2012, all
safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and
reflectivity standards.
e. Members working in an official capacity are authorized to wear ANSI Class 2 or 3
safety vests or safety apparel with the mission position duty title logoed on their safety vests or
safety apparel to ensure position identity during CAP sponsored events. Additionally, during
non-mission related activities the Safety officers working in an official safety capacity are
authorized to wear ANSI Class 2 or 3 safety vests or safety apparel with the words "safety" or
"safety officer" logoed on their safety vests or safety apparel to ensure identity during CAP
sponsored events.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
I would support that ES teams should be as uniform as possible....and if that means mandateing "this vest" over all others....whether it has CAP on it or not.........I would support that.
Likewise I would support mandating a "universal head gear".......a hunter orange boonie cap.....for all ground operations....in liue of a ANSI vests.....as the whole vest concept gets pretty stupid when you put on your back pack/LBV/Cammel back over the stupid vest. Also I find that even open weave vests make it very hot and get in the way of using and getting to your equipment.
Actually it's likely a safety violation IF the equipment covers the vest from being seen on someone's back. The purpose of the vest is to ensure high visibility, primary on highways, but during hunting season one would also need this to be visible in order to ensure individual safety. Maybe someone could come up with a simple orange cloth/plastic material with reflective material that could be easily placed on the back/camel pack, perhaps with velcro type fastener ???
I also like the idea of the orange boonie hat (and orange watch cap for winter) BUT I would add the requirement for the CAP Emergency Services patch (e.g. the Dog one) also be placed on the front of the hat) to ensure identification of Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services.
BTW it appears that Vanguard might be out of stock on the Orange vest with the CAP on it.
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 07, 2012, 06:28:00 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
I would support that ES teams should be as uniform as possible....and if that means mandateing "this vest" over all others....whether it has CAP on it or not.........I would support that.
Likewise I would support mandating a "universal head gear".......a hunter orange boonie cap.....for all ground operations....in liue of a ANSI vests.....as the whole vest concept gets pretty stupid when you put on your back pack/LBV/Cammel back over the stupid vest. Also I find that even open weave vests make it very hot and get in the way of using and getting to your equipment.
Actually it's likely a safety violation IF the equipment covers the vest from being seen on someone's back. The purpose of the vest is to ensure high visibility, primary on highways, but during hunting season one would also need this to be visible in order to ensure individual safety. Maybe someone could come up with a simple orange cloth/plastic material with reflective material that could be easily placed on the back/camel pack, perhaps with velcro type fastener ???
I also like the idea of the orange boonie hat (and orange watch cap for winter) BUT I would add the requirement for the CAP Emergency Services patch (e.g. the Dog one) also be placed on the front of the hat) to ensure identification of Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services.
BTW it appears that Vanguard might be out of stock on the Orange vest with the CAP on it.
RM
A PT belt wrapped around some part of the bag does the trick and even makes some of the people who want to keep a military appearence happy because it is something done in the military sometimes (which I've seen personally on multiple bases).
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 05:45:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
Only required when working on or near a Federal Highway today, required by Oct 2012 for all.
Though considering that the below asserts a sundown on a uniform item and will require
some expenditure by all affected members, NHQ hasn't really made much about it. Perhaps it
was assumed back in June 2010 / March 2011 that we'd have a consolidated, current uniform
reg by Oct 2012 (maybe we will).
CAPR 62-1 March 2011
d. ANSI and non-ANSI compliance standards are as follows:
is approved for wear as the outermost garment over the corporate
uniform only and must meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 standards as noted on the ANSI classification tag
which must be affixed to the garment. Examples of safety apparel are coats, jackets, rainwear,
and may include orange or lime green reflective pants in conjunction with upper-body wear.
(1) ANSI compliant – Safety Vests or Safety Apparel must meet the American
National Standards Institute, Inc (ANSI) Class 2 or Class 3 requirements. This category is
required anytime a member's duties may place them within the right-of-way of Federal-aid
highways; such as directing traffic, investigating crashes, handling lane closures, obstructed
roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.
(2) Non-ANSI compliant – Safety Vests only, require reflectivity front and back.
This category is allowed anytime a member's duties do not require ANSI compliant vests in
accordance with the definition of ANSI compliant requirements above. By October 1, 2012, all
safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and
reflectivity standards.
e. Members working in an official capacity are authorized to wear ANSI Class 2 or 3
safety vests or safety apparel with the mission position duty title logoed on their safety vests or
safety apparel to ensure position identity during CAP sponsored events. Additionally, during
non-mission related activities the Safety officers working in an official safety capacity are
authorized to wear ANSI Class 2 or 3 safety vests or safety apparel with the words "safety" or
"safety officer" logoed on their safety vests or safety apparel to ensure identity during CAP
sponsored events.
Do you know that that is the dumbest written regulation I have read in a long while.
Problems:
a) It does NOT mandate ANSI 2 safey vests and/or apperal....only orange or lime safety gear.
b) It allows VESTS only for USAF style uniforms but Vests and/or Apperal for corporates....nice standadisation.
c) Someone needs to show NHQ how to properly outline a paragraph! That [darn] thing jumps back and forth something awful.
d) Everyone needs to have a safey vest......if you do anything outside at night.
[/rant]
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:48:18 PM
Do you know that that is the dumbest written regulation I have read in a long while.
Problems:
a) It does NOT mandate ANSI 2 safey vests and/or apperal....only orange or lime safety gear.
b) It allows VESTS only for USAF style uniforms but Vests and/or Apperal for corporates....nice standadisation.
c) Someone needs to show NHQ how to properly outline a paragraph! That [darn] thing jumps back and forth something awful.
d) Everyone needs to have a safey vest......if you do anything outside at night.
[/rant]
You should really re-read that. It's pretty clear that ANSI II is the mandate. The colors are
examples, not prescriptions.
And there's no standardization today, so why would there be going forward. The corporate
relaxation of the standard is to allow people with better gear to wear it - say a dark blue rain jacket
reversible to yellow, etc. Silly to wear an absorbent vest if you have a waterproof jacket, or a
vest over a bright yellow jacket.
I agree it should just say "wear x", but in our existing labyrinth of uniforms, not to mention
military specs, that's near impossible.
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:48:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 05:45:06 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
Only required when working on or near a Federal Highway today, required by Oct 2012 for all.
Though considering that the below asserts a sundown on a uniform item and will require
some expenditure by all affected members, NHQ hasn't really made much about it. Perhaps it
was assumed back in June 2010 / March 2011 that we'd have a consolidated, current uniform
reg by Oct 2012 (maybe we will).
CAPR 62-1 March 2011
....snip..snip..snp
(2) Non-ANSI compliant – Safety Vests only, require reflectivity front and back.
This category is allowed anytime a member's duties do not require ANSI compliant vests in
accordance with the definition of ANSI compliant requirements above. By October 1, 2012, all
safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and
reflectivity standards.
[/i]
Do you know that that is the dumbest written regulation I have read in a long while.
Problems:
a) It does NOT mandate ANSI 2 safey vests and/or apperal....only orange or lime safety gear.
b) It allows VESTS only for USAF style uniforms but Vests and/or Apperal for corporates....nice standadisation.
c) Someone needs to show NHQ how to properly outline a paragraph! That [darn] thing jumps back and forth something awful.
d) Everyone needs to have a safey vest......if you do anything outside at night.
[/rant]
Actually my wing safety officer sent all of us an email this week from the region safety officer that state 10/1/2012 all vests must be ANSI 2 standards compliant.
RM
I do NOT want either es patch on any part of my uniform or equipment. I can not stand how goofy (no pun intended) it looks. A cap tape will go a whole lot farther in identifying us than a es patch.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 07, 2012, 06:54:51 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 06:48:18 PM
Do you know that that is the dumbest written regulation I have read in a long while.
Problems:
a) It does NOT mandate ANSI 2 safey vests and/or apperal....only orange or lime safety gear.
b) It allows VESTS only for USAF style uniforms but Vests and/or Apperal for corporates....nice standadisation.
c) Someone needs to show NHQ how to properly outline a paragraph! That [darn] thing jumps back and forth something awful.
d) Everyone needs to have a safey vest......if you do anything outside at night.
[/rant]
You should really re-read that. It's pretty clear that ANSI II is the mandate. The colors are
examples, not prescriptions.
And there's no standardization today, so why would there be going forward. The corporate
relaxation of the standard is to allow people with better gear to wear it - say a dark blue rain jacket
reversible to yellow, etc. Silly to wear an absorbent vest if you have a waterproof jacket, or a
vest over a bright yellow jacket.
I agree it should just say "wear x", but in our existing labyrinth of uniforms, not to mention
military specs, that's near impossible.
Quote7. Personal Protective Equipment
a. Every CAP member will wear appropriate safety vests or safety apparel as outlined below when participating in CAP ground functions during all times, day or night. Safety vests or safety apparel may be orange or lime green and may be worn with or without the CAP logo. Examples of applicable ground functions are, but not limited to:
(1) All outdoor ground functions of emergency services.
(2) This guidance applies to formations only to the degree determined necessary to maintain formation visibility to traffic. Road guards or safety spotters should be utilized to safely warn traffic of formation movements.
(3) All individuals performing volunteer activities who are exposed to traffic hazards, including flight line support. The exception to this is for flight crews in transit between operations/flight planning and the aircraft, and while performing duties within the shadow of their aircraft (i.e., performing pre-flight or post-flight tasks).
(4) At all times during night in unlighted areas of operation when outside of vehicles or facilities while participating in any ground activity.
(5) Outdoor field activities where exposure to hunting or recreational use of weapons could be encountered.
b. Safety vests
c. Safety are approved for wear over the outermost garment of AF-style uniform or corporate uniform and may or may not be ANSI compliant as defined in paragraph 7d below. apparel
d. ANSI and non-ANSI compliance standards are as follows: is approved for wear as the outermost garment over the corporate uniform only and must meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 standards as noted on the ANSI classification tag which must be affixed to the garment. Examples of safety apparel are coats, jackets, rainwear, and may include orange or lime green reflective pants in conjunction with upper-body wear.
(1) ANSI compliant – Safety Vests or Safety Apparel must meet the American National Standards Institute, Inc (ANSI) Class 2 or Class 3 requirements. This category is required anytime a member's duties may place them within the right-of-way of Federal-aid highways; such as directing traffic, investigating crashes, handling lane closures, obstructed roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.
(2) Non-ANSI compliant – Safety Vests only, require reflectivity front and back. This category is allowed anytime a member's duties do not require ANSI compliant vests in accordance with the definition of ANSI compliant requirements above. By October 1, 2012, all safety vests and safety apparel will be required to meet ANSI Class 2 or 3 visibility and reflectivity standards.
e. Members working in an official capacity are authorized to wear ANSI Class 2 or 3 safety vests or safety apparel with the mission position duty title logoed on their safety vests or safety apparel to ensure position identity during CAP sponsored events. Additionally, during non-mission related activities the Safety officers working in an official safety capacity are authorized to wear ANSI Class 2 or 3 safety vests or safety apparel with the words "safety" or "safety officer" logoed on their safety vests or safety apparel to ensure identity during CAP sponsored events.
f. Members of CAP may be exposed to environments with elevated sound levels both in duration and/or decibel intensity (for example, 85 dB at 10 minutes duration). CAP members should wear appropriate hearing protection to reduce exposure. See tables 2 – 5, for examples.
Okay.....like I said......this is one of the worse written regulations I have ever read!
I'm a pretty smart guy......if you have to hunt for the information...that is what we call a bad thing! Why the hell is a major chain to at least three bloody paragraphs stuck to to the end of the definition of what a NON-ANSI vest is! FSM! I hate CAP safety!
[/rant]
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 08:05:22 PM
Okay.....like I said......this is one of the worse written regulations I have ever read!
I'm a pretty smart guy......if you have to hunt for the information...that is what we call a bad thing! Why the hell is a major chain to at least three bloody paragraphs stuck to to the end of the definition of what a NON-ANSI vest is! FSM! I hate CAP safety!
[/rant]
I won't disagree, but I had posted the exact thing the first time around, it's also the first thing that comes up if you enter the
word ANSI in the KB.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 07, 2012, 06:28:00 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on July 07, 2012, 05:26:15 PM
I have still yet to see something from NHQ that we do in fact have to have ANSI 2 vests.
I would support that ES teams should be as uniform as possible....and if that means mandateing "this vest" over all others....whether it has CAP on it or not.........I would support that.
Likewise I would support mandating a "universal head gear".......a hunter orange boonie cap.....for all ground operations....in liue of a ANSI vests.....as the whole vest concept gets pretty stupid when you put on your back pack/LBV/Cammel back over the stupid vest. Also I find that even open weave vests make it very hot and get in the way of using and getting to your equipment.
Actually it's likely a safety violation IF the equipment covers the vest from being seen on someone's back. The purpose of the vest is to ensure high visibility, primary on highways, but during hunting season one would also need this to be visible in order to ensure individual safety. Maybe someone could come up with a simple orange cloth/plastic material with reflective material that could be easily placed on the back/camel pack, perhaps with Velcro type fastener ???
I also like the idea of the orange boonie hat (and orange watch cap for winter) BUT I would add the requirement for the CAP Emergency Services patch (e.g. the Dog one) also be placed on the front of the hat) to ensure identification of Civil Air Patrol Emergency Services.
BTW it appears that Vanguard might be out of stock on the Orange vest with the CAP on it.
RM
Easy. Buy a cheapie vest, chop it up, and attach as appropriate.