As per the PAWG Wing CC at the this weekend's cadet conference, PAWG members are to start wearing the standard BDU / BBDU cap effectively immediately, in accordance with CAPM 39-1, with the orange cap to be reserved for Wing-specific schools and activities.
Phase-out date for the orange cap is 31 Dec 2014.
This does not effect the HMRS uniform kit.
It's about time. It's called a "uniform" for a reason. 8)
Quote from: dwb on September 15, 2014, 09:31:30 AM
It's about time. It's called a "uniform" for a reason. 8)
When everyone wears it....it is uniform.
CAP wears Blue/BDU.
But I'll bet that, even though Hawk Mountain isn't just a "Wing specific school or activity" but is still located in Pa, the orange will still be worn there! (Just a pet peeve of mine!)
Quote from: capmaj on September 15, 2014, 02:04:16 PM
But I'll bet that, even though Hawk Mountain isn't just a "Wing specific school or activity" but is still located in Pa, the orange will still be worn there! (Just a pet peeve of mine!)
Quote from: Panache on September 15, 2014, 07:12:14 AM
This does not effect the HMRS uniform kit.
:clap:
Whoever stocks BDU caps is going to wonder whats going on..
Quote from: a2capt on September 15, 2014, 05:42:57 PM
Whoever stocks BDU caps is going to wonder whats going on..
So is the guy that that stocks orange trucker hats... His sales forecast just took a serious hit...
:clap:
Outside of PA Wing the Orange Hat Devotees will not be dissuaded
Good, I guess?
No one cares, other then for humorous effect, what members in PAWG wear in PAWG, the
only thing they care about is when PAWG exports their plumage to other wings through HMRS.
39-1 still allows for wing and region CCs to designate an official ball cap, so there was no
violation there, and HMRS is still "special", so...
...
It's a symbolic thing. Orange hats in PAWG are ubiquitous. It's actually a pretty big deal for the Wing CC to change it. It's a big culture shift for the Wing.
When they change their orange T-shirts....which is a clear violation of 39-1 then I will accept that there is a real culture shift.
Of all the HMRS bling and plumage......the orange hat at least has some practical application as an ES uniform.
Quote from: dwb on September 15, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
It's a symbolic thing. Orange hats in PAWG are ubiquitous. It's actually a pretty big deal for the Wing CC to change it. It's a big culture shift for the Wing.
The fact that a hat requires a "culture shift" speaks volumes in and of itself.
I also agree with Lord, the orange hat is the only thing of actual usefulness in the PAWG ensemble.
It's the one thing that would make sense to actually adopt organization-wide (without the numbers).
... would it be part of an approved supplement, that they either didn't feel like dealing with again, or got knocked back to them?
Similarly, wonder about the CAWG GT Uniform, which was a supplement. I didn't see any supplements for 39-1 listed last I checked...
About time!
Now, if they just rein in HMRS on the bling...
Quote from: a2capt on September 16, 2014, 02:16:11 AM
... would it be part of an approved supplement, that they either didn't feel like dealing with again, or got knocked back to them?
Apparently a new supplement is pending (with instructions on the orange hats for "Wing-specific activities and training" as well as HMRS stuff, but re-affirming that for general wear, the orange hats are out.)
Take a look at 39-1 it is a long reg. The reg has no problem with the orange hat, blue berets or BDU covers. All are authorized by the reg.
Quote from: M. Allen Applebaum on September 16, 2014, 08:22:21 AM
Take a look at 39-1 it is a long reg. The reg has no problem with the orange hat, blue berets or BDU covers. All are authorized by the reg.
Blue berets and the orange cap under 39-1 are authorized upon completion of their repsective activities. Commanders still have the discretion to establish uniform policies for their units. If a Sq CC doesn't want the Blue Beret worn or and Orange cap worn in his/her AO they can nix it.
The PA WG CC is exercising their discretion in this matter.
^ Exactly. There is nothing stopping the next CC from changing the policy again. It's been done before, and can be done again. The "R.I.P." statement is a little premature.
BTDT... ::)
Quote from: lordmonar on September 16, 2014, 12:02:56 AM
When they change their orange T-shirts....which is a clear violation of 39-1 then I will accept that there is a real culture shift.
Of all the HMRS bling and plumage......the orange hat at least has some practical application as an ES uniform.
Speaking as a PAWG member, what orange shirts? In regards to ES I'll be sad to see the orange cover go but I am glad that finally we have a single uniform, or at least nearly so, across the program as a whole.
http://capranger.org/index.html. (http://capranger.org/index.html.) You can then look at the BX, senior basic course, staff photos, etc. and will see the notorious orange tshirts that are being referenced.
Quote from: C/2d Lt Collins on September 16, 2014, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 16, 2014, 12:02:56 AM
When they change their orange T-shirts....which is a clear violation of 39-1 then I will accept that there is a real culture shift.
Of all the HMRS bling and plumage......the orange hat at least has some practical application as an ES uniform.
Speaking as a PAWG member, what orange shirts? In regards to ES I'll be sad to see the orange cover go but I am glad that finally we have a single uniform, or at least nearly so, across the program as a whole.
Do you suppose they'll arrest the PA Wing Commander for this decision? After all, for years, nay, DECADES, people in PA WG have been confidently stating that "orange caps are REQUIRED by 'state law'"
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 17, 2014, 06:46:17 AM
Do you suppose they'll arrest the PA Wing Commander for this decision? After all, for years, nay, DECADES, people in PA WG have been confidently stating that "orange caps are REQUIRED by 'state law'"
Well,
I never said that.
Now, if we have CAP members out in state game lands during hunting season, then, yes, the orange caps
are required by law. But then again, that raises the question as to why we have CAP members out in state game lands
during hunting season...
Quote from: Panache on September 17, 2014, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 17, 2014, 06:46:17 AM
Do you suppose they'll arrest the PA Wing Commander for this decision? After all, for years, nay, DECADES, people in PA WG have been confidently stating that "orange caps are REQUIRED by 'state law'"
Well, I never said that.
Now, if we have CAP members out in state game lands during hunting season, then, yes, the orange caps are required by law. But then again, that raises the question as to why we have CAP members out in state game lands during hunting season...
Pheasant season starts October 25 in PA. So maybe six weeks ... 8)
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 17, 2014, 09:30:23 AM
Quote from: Panache on September 17, 2014, 08:15:23 AM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 17, 2014, 06:46:17 AM
Do you suppose they'll arrest the PA Wing Commander for this decision? After all, for years, nay, DECADES, people in PA WG have been confidently stating that "orange caps are REQUIRED by 'state law'"
Well, I never said that.
Now, if we have CAP members out in state game lands during hunting season, then, yes, the orange caps are required by law. But then again, that raises the question as to why we have CAP members out in state game lands during hunting season...
Pheasant season starts October 25 in PA. So maybe six weeks ... 8)
Maybe that's why that directive does not take effect until the end of the year??? :o >:D >:D >:D
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
(BLAM!)
from the pa state game lands regulations:
Quote
"Except on Sundays, to be present on state game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of fluorescent orange material on the head, chest and back combined, or, in lieu therof, a hat of the same colored material. Orange material must be visible 360 degrees. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted."
so there is your "legal" requirement for PA orange hats. If you live in PA, keep one in your gear just in case (I would say having an orange hard hat would otherwise suffice)
I look forward to the updated 39-1 supplement, its always interesting.
MK
No issue - the hat becomes "gear", not a uniform item.
Wear it when conditions mandate, stow it after the mission.
250 square inches. A hat might barely qualify, if you count all the material on both sides.. yes, the side you can't see.. ;-)
Honestly...how bad are these hunters? Do I look like a turkey?
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 17, 2014, 03:55:32 PM
from the pa state game lands regulations:
Quote
"Except on Sundays, to be present on state game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of fluorescent orange material on the head, chest and back combined, or, in lieu therof, a hat of the same colored material. Orange material must be visible 360 degrees. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted."
so there is your "legal" requirement for PA orange hats. If you live in PA, keep one in your gear just in case (I would say having an orange hard hat would otherwise suffice)
I look forward to the updated 39-1 supplement, its always interesting.
MK
This is a non-issue and doesn't require any changes to our existing regs to meet the letter of the law or comply with safety practices.
Per CAPR 62-1, ground team members are required to wear a vest (reg allows orange or lime green). Ensure it's orange and the issue is addressed from all angles.
Next.
Quote from: A.Member on September 17, 2014, 05:33:23 PM
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 17, 2014, 03:55:32 PM
from the pa state game lands regulations:
Quote
"Except on Sundays, to be present on state game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of fluorescent orange material on the head, chest and back combined, or, in lieu therof, a hat of the same colored material. Orange material must be visible 360 degrees. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted."
so there is your "legal" requirement for PA orange hats. If you live in PA, keep one in your gear just in case (I would say having an orange hard hat would otherwise suffice)
I look forward to the updated 39-1 supplement, its always interesting.
MK
This is a non-issue and doesn't require any changes to our existing regs to meet the letter of the law or comply with safety practices.
Per CAPR 62-1, ground team members are required to wear a vest (reg allows orange or lime green). Ensure it's orange and the issue is addressed from all angles.
Next.
I think the hat is more to the intent of the "...must be visable for 360 degrees...". The point wanst a reg needy change; the point was that was the supposed justification of the existence and mandate for all members in PA wing to wear the orange hat and the belief it was "required by state law". (and likely originating before the orange vest requirement) But as Eclipse pointed out at this point it is more "gear" than uniform and not really regulatory required (however this same argument has and will be made for boonie hats)
mk
Duck Season!
Rabbit Season!
That's classic!!!
Rabbit Season, Duck Season trilogy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ocaZb-bGg#)
Quote from: sarmed1 on September 17, 2014, 05:49:18 PM
I think the hat is more to the intent of the "...must be visable for 360 degrees...". The point wanst a reg needy change; the point was that was the supposed justification of the existence and mandate for all members in PA wing to wear the orange hat and the belief it was "required by state law". (and likely originating before the orange vest requirement) But as Eclipse pointed out at this point it is more "gear" than uniform and not really regulatory required (however this same argument has and will be made for boonie hats)
mk
And the AF emphatically said "NO!!!!!!!!!!" End of discussion.Not even throwing the 'safety' card made them budge. Unless you wear the field uniform.
Quote from: arajca on September 17, 2014, 10:07:58 PM
And the AF emphatically said "NO!!!!!!!!!!" End of discussion.Not even throwing the 'safety' card made them budge. Unless you wear the field uniform.
That's because boonies are not worn in the AF unless in theater and then when it's authorized. Outside of maybe some AFSCs here in CONUS it's not worn even in the field.
Quote from: Panache on September 17, 2014, 01:47:59 PM
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
(BLAM!)
We really need a "LIKE" button!
Quote from: Panache on September 17, 2014, 01:47:59 PM
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
Duck season!
Duck season!
Rabbit season!
(BLAM!)
Classic. That is funny anywhere :clap:
Quote from: a2capt on September 17, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
250 square inches. A hat might barely qualify, if you count all the material on both sides.. yes, the side you can't see.. ;-)
No, but I bet that orange vest you're supposed to wear over your BDU's is over 250 square inches...
Quote from: PHall on September 19, 2014, 12:14:05 AM
Quote from: a2capt on September 17, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
250 square inches. A hat might barely qualify, if you count all the material on both sides.. yes, the side you can't see.. ;-)
No, but I bet that orange vest you're supposed to wear over your BDU's is over 250 square inches...
But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 17, 2014, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: arajca on September 17, 2014, 10:07:58 PM
And the AF emphatically said "NO!!!!!!!!!!" End of discussion.Not even throwing the 'safety' card made them budge. Unless you wear the field uniform.
That's because boonies are not worn in the AF unless in theater and then when it's authorized. Outside of maybe some AFSCs here in CONUS it's not worn even in the field.
The AF leadership is very anti-boonie hat. Many times when I was in the sandbox the commander would not allow them to be worn.
Quote from: kwe1009 link=topic=19300.msg355422#msg355422
The AF leadership is very anti-boonie hat. Many times when I was in the sandbox the commander would not allow them to be worn.
Never had that issue. Always wore a boonie for all locations but one.
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 19, 2014, 04:02:09 AM
But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?
Orange vest, or whatever is worn to be seen, is now required to be the outermost garment or
gear worn.
Yes, >over< your plate carrier.
If you're NOT hunting, you only have to wear hunter orange on PA state game lands from Monday-Saturday from Nov 15-Dec 15.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pgc/pa_huntingdigest1415/#/19 (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pgc/pa_huntingdigest1415/#/19)
If you're hunting and there is a requirement for hunter orange during that season, then you wear it.
So, only VERY VERY limited CAP applicability.
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 19, 2014, 04:02:09 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 19, 2014, 12:14:05 AM
Quote from: a2capt on September 17, 2014, 05:08:12 PM
250 square inches. A hat might barely qualify, if you count all the material on both sides.. yes, the side you can't see.. ;-)
No, but I bet that orange vest you're supposed to wear over your BDU's is over 250 square inches...
But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?
If you're wearing gear over your vest, then the gear/pack have to be ANSI II compliant or you need to wrap the gear with another vest or similar material that meets the ANSI II requirements. Otherwise, the intent of CAPR 62-1 is not being met.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 19, 2014, 03:49:16 PM
If you're NOT hunting, you only have to wear hunter orange on PA state game lands from Monday-Saturday from Nov 15-Dec 15.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pgc/pa_huntingdigest1415/#/19 (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pgc/pa_huntingdigest1415/#/19)
If you're hunting and there is a requirement for hunter orange during that season, then you wear it.
So, only VERY VERY limited CAP applicability.
Not to mention that any SAR in an active hunting area raises the ORM significantly and needs to be accounted for
by the IC and GBD as to whether we should be in there at all.
Being shot by a hunter is considerably less likely than being in an accident on the way to the scene.
I would do it in a heartbeat for an actual mission and for a SAREX I would probably still do it, but ask the managers if we could post some temp signs at parking areas in the area we're going to use to let people know we'd be in the area on whatever date.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 19, 2014, 04:02:09 AM
But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?
Orange vest, or whatever is worn to be seen, is now required to be the outermost garment or
gear worn.
Yes, >over< your plate carrier.
Devils advocate: I believe the Reg just says outermost garment (you added the rest).
Quoteb. Safety vests are approved for wear over the outermost garment of AF-style uniform or corporate uniform and must be ANSI compliant as defined in paragraph 7d below.
Gear is generally not considered a "garment" its equipment.
This was a much better way to word it I think:
QuoteOtherwise, the intent of CAPR 62-1 is not being met.
The point is generally though that the ANSI approved material be visable when required by the indicated activites.
MK
OK devil.
Yes, whatever you wear as the outermost garment must be ANSI compliant
as per the regs.
So if your ANSI-wear is your vest, that goes over the plate carrier.
If your tac vest is ANSI-II it can be the the outergarment.
Agree. An ANSI II vest serves no purpose if it's covered by a plate carrier, MOLLE vest, or other gear.
Again.... a plate carrier, lbv, back pack etc isn't a garment...ie if I held up a coat and a plate carrier and asked 100 people which is a garment.....likely all 100 would pick the coat.
Outermost garment of the af or corporate uniform. When I looked at 39-1 under chapter 6 "outergarments...." there were no pictures of vests, plate carriers etc
Its semantics but if you give someone crap about it you are not really backed up by the letter of the reg.....or it could be a pretty legit argument anyway.
MK
It's not even open for discussion. The purpose of the ANSI II vest is safety. As an IC, OSC, GBD and GTL, I require my ground teams to wear their vests over the outer garment/gear in low light or low visibility conditions.
The regulation says the vest is approved over the uniform, which means it can be worn. It doesn't say only over the outermost garment. When it comes to safety, common sense should prevail.
Common sense is not always so common.....otherwise we wouldnt need redundant safety messages to enforce safety issues...
Quotehttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y84vk2_HwPU/UJpb_T7DzYI/AAAAAAAAFjc/Vs7rww3G8jU/s1600/hair-dryer-warning-label.png
mk
I'm not even sure the point trying to be made here.
If you're wearing your safety vest, jacket, whatever, >under< your non-ansi plate carrier or anything else,
you're doing it wrong. The reg was written to insure that whatever you're wearing (it does not have to be a "vest", pre se),
it has to on top of everything else.
The problem was members who would have their vest crammed under their tacticool gear and you could not see it.
That or the functional equivalent of a bright orange sock on their arm, which has never been compliant.
The problem is stupid regs.
It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.
Whether it TAKICOOL or just your school back pack.
The amount of safety added by the vest is not worth the heart ache we have here on CAPTALK arguing about how it should be worn.
I don't wear a vest.....yep you hear me say it...I don't wear a vest.
I got one.....but when I'm carrying my gear in the woods....I have a part of a vest Velcroed to my pack....but I'm not wearing a vest.
I carry a vest in my pack....for when I take off my pack and "need" it....but I don't wear my vest.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2014, 11:06:50 PM
The problem is stupid regs.
It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.
So by "next to impossible" you meant "pretty easy if you buy gear appropriate for SAR and not Airsoft??"
Quote from: Eclipse on September 19, 2014, 11:23:00 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2014, 11:06:50 PM
The problem is stupid regs.
It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.
So by "next to impossible" you meant "pretty easy if you buy gear appropriate for SAR and not Airsoft??"
No I....I meant what I said.
If you want to berate SAR members over their choice of gear.......or lack of choice as the case may be....please don't use my words to do it.
It's not close to "next to impossible", in fact, if CAP was smart it would be mandated.
It's one thing if you're a new cadet and someone hands you an LBV from the unit supply
closet and says "enjoy", it's another when experienced members crank their credit
cards at Blackhawk and then never use the gear outside ramp checks and the occasional
camping trip "bivouac".
It's a third thing entirely when experienced commanders and staff don't educate their
members on "need vs. nice" and that NHQ doesn't understand the detrimental
effect on CAP's image that going on an ELT search dressed like a "Call of Duty" NPC has.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 01:57:50 AM
It's not close to "next to impossible", in fact, if CAP was smart it would be mandated.
It's one thing if you're a new cadet and someone hands you an LBV from the unit supply
closet and says "enjoy", it's another when experienced members crank their credit
cards at Blackhawk and then never use the gear outside ramp checks and the occasional
camping trip "bivouac".
It's a third thing entirely when experienced commanders and staff don't educate their
members on "need vs. nice" and that NHQ doesn't understand the detrimental
effect on CAP's image that going on an ELT search dressed like a "Call of Duty" NPC has.
Okay....you have proposed "the detrimental effect on CAP's image"........so........wait for it.......CITE PLEASE!
Establish for the reader....what the determent is, how you measured said determent, and how you plan to evaluate your proposed solution.
I can cite the recent conversation we had here regarding the members from PVAWG
in their full regalia including articles of clothing best suited for the desert as well
as somewhat..."extensive"...rigs.
That was just >here<, not to mention the somewhat "pointed comments on Facebook
and the news website(s) where their photos were featured.
Next, spend some time interacting with your local EMA, trying to get CAP
"invested in the SAR community" and here some of the comments made about
the way our members show up and dress. It's especially "enlightening" if you
attend meetings as a civilian and casually mention CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 02:39:13 AM
I can cite the recent conversation we had here regarding the members from PAWG
in their full regalia including articles of clothing best suited for the desert as well
as somewhat..."extensive"...rigs.
That was just >here<, not to mention the somewhat "pointed comments on Facebook
and the news website(s) where their photos were featured.
Next, spend some time interacting with your local EMA, trying to get CAP
"invested in the SAR community" and here some of the comments made about
the way our members show up and dress. It's especially "enlightening" if you
attend meetings as a civilian and casually mention CAP.
So you got nothing....but hearsay and conjecture. :)
Don't forget FSM loves you, too!
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 02:39:13 AM
I can cite the recent conversation we had here regarding the members from PAWG
in their full regalia including articles of clothing best suited for the desert as well
as somewhat..."extensive"...rigs.
Point of order. That wasn't PAWG. That was VAWG.
For example, this would be a much better choice as prescribed outerwear for the Blue Field Uniform:
(http://www.511tactical.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/48073/693/48073_693_01.jpg)
And solves the entire conversation in once garment. It's functional, professional, and fits both the need and the aesthetics.
It has pockets for a radio, a place for a name tape of other identification, and the zip-out fleece liner could be worn as
the recently approved fleece.
This isn't cheap, but you get what you pay for. Better this then an Airsoft rig or plate carrier, and it could be worn
when not on CAP duty as well. In quantity purchases, or say using VG as a distributor, CAP would be able to get the price down.
I'm not wearing that in Nevada in the summer. I would die!
I would also point out...that as soon as you put on a back pack....90% of your ANSI protection is lost....which was may point about the vest idea is just stupid.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 05:39:18 PM
I'm not wearing that in Nevada in the summer. I would die!
Onviously - in those cases you wouldn't be wearing outerwear at all.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 05:39:18 PM
I would also point out...that as soon as you put on a back pack....90% of your ANSI protection is lost....which was may point about the vest idea is just stupid.
90%? Arguable, but that's why your backpack or vest is also ANSI.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 05:39:18 PM
I'm not wearing that in Nevada in the summer. I would die!
I would also point out...that as soon as you put on a back pack....90% of your ANSI protection is lost....which was may point about the vest idea is just stupid.
A reflective belt or two wrapped around that pack will do wonders for your visability.
Quote from: PHall on September 20, 2014, 08:53:48 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on September 20, 2014, 05:39:18 PM
I'm not wearing that in Nevada in the summer. I would die!
I would also point out...that as soon as you put on a back pack....90% of your ANSI protection is lost....which was may point about the vest idea is just stupid.
A reflective belt or two wrapped around that pack will do wonders for your visability.
I would accept that....if the requirement was to "wear devices that make you visible during low light conditions"......but it is not.
And for the record....that is in fact what I do. I got a vest draped over my pack. But I was grousing that the intent of the reg and the application were not well thought out.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 19, 2014, 11:06:50 PM
The problem is stupid regs.
It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.
Whether it TAKICOOL or just your school back pack.
The amount of safety added by the vest is not worth the heart ache we have here on CAPTALK arguing about how it should be worn.
I don't wear a vest.....yep you hear me say it...I don't wear a vest.
I got one.....but when I'm carrying my gear in the woods....I have a part of a vest Velcroed to my pack....but I'm not wearing a vest.
I carry a vest in my pack....for when I take off my pack and "need" it....but I don't wear my vest.
(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt26/avlack/Orange%20MOLLE%20vest/ace6f43bad2677c37ce4acb7d5171526_zpsfb991848.jpg)
TA DA!Your argument is invalid.
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 21, 2014, 02:43:01 AM
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.
Agreed - doesn't need to be $200, and anyone who spent money at Blackhawk cannot make that argument.
$50-60ish all day long on eBay. Plenty of other sources if you look.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/121300773720?lpid=82 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/121300773720?lpid=82)
(http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mU2wrotDvV5haLRXdhngBwA.jpg)
Peel off the "security" tabs and put CAP in their place.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Niton-Tactical-4-Pocket-Utility-Vest-In-Hi-Vis-Yellow-Black-and-Orange-/130901478402 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Niton-Tactical-4-Pocket-Utility-Vest-In-Hi-Vis-Yellow-Black-and-Orange-/130901478402)
UK sources have a lot more selection because their FDs and LEAs wear them, too.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 21, 2014, 02:43:01 AM
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.
So, basically, you're coming from the "There's a problem for every solution" school of thought.
Honestly, if it's important to you, you'll find a way to set the money aside for a reasonable solution. If it's not important enough to scrape the pennies together, perhaps it's not important enough to gripe about the current SOP.
Incidentally, I could have very easily have equipped that vest with MOLLE pouches that I have lying around and that WG has in supply. Even tan or OD Green pouches would be fine on that vest and placed in such a way so that the ANSI II rating isn't compromised. But I chose to buy and attach orange pouches because of the coolness factor behind them.
There are always solutions if you let yourself think outside of the box on occasion.
And people wanted to know why I was not interested in getting back into ground team. This entire thread
Because of a hat?
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 23, 2014, 05:01:11 PM
Because of a hat?
This entire thread. 4 pages of arguing about square inches of orange.
Whatever.
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 21, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 21, 2014, 02:43:01 AM
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.
So, basically, you're coming from the "There's a problem for every solution" school of thought.
Really? How so? My comment is very valid. There are many things in CAP that cost money and not everyone can afford them. Are we now restricting membership in CAP or participation in Emergency Services based on income?
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 21, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
Honestly, if it's important to you, you'll find a way to set the money aside for a reasonable solution. If it's not important enough to scrape the pennies together, perhaps it's not important enough to gripe about the current SOP.
I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest. I've spent a lot more on the rest of my ground team and aircrew gear, plus my IC kit. But not every CAP member can afford this type of gear or equipment. That's why
it's [some of it is] not required.
Frankly, questioning whether a member thinks this is important or not, or even their commitment to CAP or ES based on what they can afford is uncalled for. All our members are important to the organization whether they can afford fancy gear or not.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 23, 2014, 08:40:37 PM
I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest.
What >you< spent is not relevent to what equipment should be required or what things actually cost. If you use an iPad for
your flight bag, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that's what it costs for everyone else.
The Aero-vest is a nice product, but it's not the only tactical ANSI game in town, and is about 4-5 times what anyone would
need to spend.
Past $50, you're making a choice.
This conversation also has to be had in the context that we hae members all over the place already spending more then the above
on inappropriate gear like plate carriers anyway.
To be a rated GTM does not require you to actually >own< anything, however if members are going to spend money,
CC's and staff should be advising them to spend it properly, and the regs should encourage that.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 23, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 23, 2014, 08:40:37 PM
I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest.
What >you< spent is not relevent to what equipment should be required or what things actually cost. If you use an iPad for
your flight bag, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that's what it costs for everyone else.
Eclipse, you are out of line with your comment. If you read the whole thread you'll see that I'm responding to another comment, not complaining about what I paid or suggesting that others should buy or spend the same. Please read the whole thing, not just one sentence out of context.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 23, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
The Aero-vest is a nice product, but it's not the only tactical ANSI game in town, and is about 4-5 times what anyone would need to spend.
Never suggested that everyone should get this or similar products. Again, you read and responded to a sentence out of context.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 23, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
Past $50, you're making a choice.
Agree 100%.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 23, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
This conversation also has to be had in the context that we hae members all over the place already spending more then the above
on inappropriate gear like plate carriers anyway.
No disagreement here either. If you're going to spend the money, buy something that's compliant and practical.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 23, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
To be a rated GTM does not require you to actually >own< anything, however if members are going to spend money,
CC's and staff should be advising them to spend it properly, and the regs should encourage that.
Again, we're in agreement. That's exactly what I tell all the GTMs I train.
Eclipse, we both agree on this. 100%. That's why I don't understand why you would single out part of my response to another post that implied that members needed to spend lots of $$$ to be in compliance. They don't. And if someone chooses to do so, he/she should buy the right equipment/gear and not just something that looks "cool".
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 04:38:26 PM
For example, this would be a much better choice as prescribed outerwear for the Blue Field Uniform:
(http://www.511tactical.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/48073/693/48073_693_01.jpg)
And solves the entire conversation in once garment. It's functional, professional, and fits both the need and the aesthetics.
It has pockets for a radio, a place for a name tape of other identification, and the zip-out fleece liner could be worn as
the recently approved fleece.
This isn't cheap, but you get what you pay for. Better this then an Airsoft rig or plate carrier, and it could be worn
when not on CAP duty as well. In quantity purchases, or say using VG as a distributor, CAP would be able to get the price down.
Is it available in a "digital" pattern? 8)
Quote from: NIN on September 23, 2014, 05:10:14 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 23, 2014, 05:01:11 PM
Because of a hat?
This entire thread. 4 pages of arguing about square inches of orange.
Whatever.
I am with NIN he is spot on! 8)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 24, 2014, 12:45:59 AMEclipse, we both agree on this. 100%. That's why I don't understand why you would single out part of my response to another post that implied that members needed to spend lots of $$$ to be in compliance. They don't. And if someone chooses to do so, he/she should buy the right equipment/gear and not just something that looks "cool".
Because that's not what you actually said or wrote.
Your comment was that not everyone has the cash for the cool ANSI vest, which is fine, but not relevent when discussing what the standard
should be (and actually the standard should be irrespective of cost and focused on mission).
So if nothing else, your response
looked like just throwing a road block.
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 24, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 04:38:26 PM
For example, this would be a much better choice as prescribed outerwear for the Blue Field Uniform:
(http://www.511tactical.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/48073/693/48073_693_01.jpg)
And solves the entire conversation in once garment. It's functional, professional, and fits both the need and the aesthetics.
It has pockets for a radio, a place for a name tape of other identification, and the zip-out fleece liner could be worn as
the recently approved fleece.
This isn't cheap, but you get what you pay for. Better this then an Airsoft rig or plate carrier, and it could be worn
when not on CAP duty as well. In quantity purchases, or say using VG as a distributor, CAP would be able to get the price down.
Is it available in a "digital" pattern? 8)
Heh - that would be awesome - digit-pat camo hi-viz They would probably sell very well.
Quote from: NIN on September 23, 2014, 05:10:14 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 23, 2014, 05:01:11 PM
Because of a hat?
This entire thread. 4 pages of arguing about square inches of orange.
Whatever.
Ridiculous? Yes.
But that's what you get when NHQ establishes expectations but refuses to set a standard, and
then expects the members to pay for the equipment.
Another place where one sentence or paragraph ends the conversation.
If NHQ had spent 1/3rd of the time on ending these conversations as they did on
reformattingtext, Cap Talk would be a lot quieter. Everyone's pet non-standard thing was left in, as was plenty
of ambiguity, and then the end result was touted as a "win".
If you tell a member they must wear "x", "y", and "z", they will. some will grumble, but they will.
If you give them a choice, and then throw in CC latitude on top of it, not to mention people
who can't be bothered to read the regs or do their job in enforcing things, this is what you get.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 24, 2014, 02:04:05 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 24, 2014, 12:45:59 AMEclipse, we both agree on this. 100%. That's why I don't understand why you would single out part of my response to another post that implied that members needed to spend lots of $$$ to be in compliance. They don't. And if someone chooses to do so, he/she should buy the right equipment/gear and not just something that looks "cool".
Because that's not what you actually said or wrote.
Your comment was that not everyone has the cash for the cool ANSI vest, which is fine, but not relevent when discussing what the standard
should be (and actually the standard should be irrespective of cost and focused on mission).
So if nothing else, your response looked like just throwing a road block.
That's certainly >your< opinion. But if you read all the posts that lead to my response (and not just a selected few) and read my response within context you'll see that that's not what I really said or meant.
Have a good day, Eclipse. ;)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 23, 2014, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 21, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 21, 2014, 02:43:01 AM
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.
So, basically, you're coming from the "There's a problem for every solution" school of thought.
Really? How so? My comment is very valid. There are many things in CAP that cost money and not everyone can afford them. Are we now restricting membership in CAP or participation in Emergency Services based on income?
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 21, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
Honestly, if it's important to you, you'll find a way to set the money aside for a reasonable solution. If it's not important enough to scrape the pennies together, perhaps it's not important enough to gripe about the current SOP.
I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest. I've spent a lot more on the rest of my ground team and aircrew gear, plus my IC kit. But not every CAP member can afford this type of gear or equipment. That's why it's [some of it is] not required.
Frankly, questioning whether a member thinks this is important or not, or even their commitment to CAP or ES based on what they can afford is uncalled for. All our members are important to the organization whether they can afford fancy gear or not.
Okay, I'll play.
I present photographic evidence of a solution to the gripe of how you need to put an orange vest over all your equipment. At no time did I say it was the only solution. Just invalidating a point that the only way to be in compliance with regulations is to put a vest over all your clothes and equipment. Your comment to that was coming up with another roadblock. So, you presented another problem to a solution. Where on earth did you get out of my comment that I was discriminating against members based on income? Please point out in ANY of my comments ANYWHERE that I was saying that if a member doesn't have that equipment, they can't play?
My 'important to you' comment is still valid. There's a solution out there, and if that solution is important enough to sink that kind of money into it, you'll find a way to do it. It doesn't imply anything other than that. You alone added that implication that I'm saying that if you don't dump hundreds into your gear then you're not important. You're out of line there.
Incidentally, I think everyone who goes out into the field should at least be wearing an orange cover. I personally believe that anyone who refutes that should spend some time in an airplane at 1000' feet at 90 knots trying to spot people in camoflauge in the woods.
Last spring we held a training exercise where we looked for a downed airplane (simulated by an ELT transmitter that was activated on the training frequency). The place where the "airplane" came down was in the middle of a wooded, large, park. We had two ground teams trying to triangulate on the ELT, and an air crew flying above. I was in the airplane as a Mission Observer and we did find the "remains" of the airplane which were simulated with some colorful panels.
How this relates to the conversation we are having was that the two squadrons that participated in this exercise were from Pennsylvania and we were able to identify them and their locations in the park because of the orange cover. Having five to eight man ground teams, all wearing orange covers, made them visible from the air even though one of the teams was waiting in a parking lot which had a lot of other people in it and many white vans (just like the CAP van they rode in on).
Based on that experience, I am a firm believer that something like the orange cover should be used when working with an air crew.
^ +1
TESTIFY, BRUTHA!
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 24, 2014, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 23, 2014, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 21, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on September 21, 2014, 02:43:01 AM
Unfortunately, not everyone can afford $200 on an ANSI II MOLLE vest with pouches.
So, basically, you're coming from the "There's a problem for every solution" school of thought.
Really? How so? My comment is very valid. There are many things in CAP that cost money and not everyone can afford them. Are we now restricting membership in CAP or participation in Emergency Services based on income?
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 21, 2014, 05:18:48 AM
Honestly, if it's important to you, you'll find a way to set the money aside for a reasonable solution. If it's not important enough to scrape the pennies together, perhaps it's not important enough to gripe about the current SOP.
I spent over $250 on my hi-viz orange True North Aero-Vest with matching hi-viz accessories and always wear an ANSI II safety vest. I've spent a lot more on the rest of my ground team and aircrew gear, plus my IC kit. But not every CAP member can afford this type of gear or equipment. That's why it's [some of it is] not required.
Frankly, questioning whether a member thinks this is important or not, or even their commitment to CAP or ES based on what they can afford is uncalled for. All our members are important to the organization whether they can afford fancy gear or not.
Okay, I'll play.
I present photographic evidence of a solution to the gripe of how you need to put an orange vest over all your equipment. At no time did I say it was the only solution. Just invalidating a point that the only way to be in compliance with regulations is to put a vest over all your clothes and equipment. Your comment to that was coming up with another roadblock. So, you presented another problem to a solution. Where on earth did you get out of my comment that I was discriminating against members based on income? Please point out in ANY of my comments ANYWHERE that I was saying that if a member doesn't have that equipment, they can't play?
My 'important to you' comment is still valid. There's a solution out there, and if that solution is important enough to sink that kind of money into it, you'll find a way to do it. It doesn't imply anything other than that. You alone added that implication that I'm saying that if you don't dump hundreds into your gear then you're not important. You're out of line there.
Incidentally, I think everyone who goes out into the field should at least be wearing an orange cover. I personally believe that anyone who refutes that should spend some time in an airplane at 1000' feet at 90 knots trying to spot people in camoflauge in the woods.
Maybe we both made valid points. Maybe we both weren't completely clear with our posts. Heck, maybe we just read too much into each other's comments. Either way, I think, for the most part, we're in agreement. Good day!
Fair enough. Ciao!
Quote from: MacGruff on September 24, 2014, 04:48:47 PM
Last spring we held a training exercise where we looked for a downed airplane (simulated by an ELT transmitter that was activated on the training frequency). The place where the "airplane" came down was in the middle of a wooded, large, park. We had two ground teams trying to triangulate on the ELT, and an air crew flying above. I was in the airplane as a Mission Observer and we did find the "remains" of the airplane which were simulated with some colorful panels.
How this relates to the conversation we are having was that the two squadrons that participated in this exercise were from Pennsylvania and we were able to identify them and their locations in the park because of the orange cover. Having five to eight man ground teams, all wearing orange covers, made them visible from the air even though one of the teams was waiting in a parking lot which had a lot of other people in it and many white vans (just like the CAP van they rode in on).
Based on that experience, I am a firm believer that something like the orange cover should be used when working with an air crew.
So...you saw orange hats but not the much larger orange vests?
Believe it or not, from the air, the hats ARE easier to spot. The vests are a larger target when viewed horizontally at ground level, but not looked at vertically or vertical angle. This is especially the case with issues brought up in this thread like putting green gear on over the top of the vests. The orange hats make for a clean visual target from the air. If nothing else, they add that exclamation point to "Here I am!"
Vest is supposed to be the outermost layer.
I stayed out of this until now because it was entertaining to watch. So what about the orange safety helmets we are suppose to wear in conjunction with the orange vest? That should take care of the visibility issue and increase the safety of a ground team.
I was at the Wing Commander's Call and it was her words that PA will be following the rest of CAP with the BDU style hat to follow the idea of 1 Air Force. Everyone else in the organization wears it and so will we. It took all I had to not jump up and down and run around the isles of the conference area whooping and hollering like my won the Super/World Series/ Bowl.
I am returning to my corner now to watch the rest of the show
Quote from: RMW14 on September 24, 2014, 09:25:53 PM
I stayed out of this until now because it was entertaining to watch. So what about the orange safety helmets we are suppose to wear in conjunction with the orange vest?...
Are you making stuff up or just trying to stir the pot? There is no such requirement in re: safety helmets.
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 24, 2014, 07:35:49 PM
Believe it or not, from the air, the hats ARE easier to spot. The vests are a larger target when viewed horizontally at ground level, but not looked at vertically or vertical angle. This is especially the case with issues brought up in this thread like putting green gear on over the top of the vests. The orange hats make for a clean visual target from the air. If nothing else, they add that exclamation point to "Here I am!"
Put me in the "or not" camp. If you can't see a vest from the air, you've got other issues...
Quote from: A.Member on September 24, 2014, 09:59:25 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 24, 2014, 07:35:49 PM
Believe it or not, from the air, the hats ARE easier to spot. The vests are a larger target when viewed horizontally at ground level, but not looked at vertically or vertical angle. This is especially the case with issues brought up in this thread like putting green gear on over the top of the vests. The orange hats make for a clean visual target from the air. If nothing else, they add that exclamation point to "Here I am!"
Put me in the "or not" camp. If you can't see a vest from the air, you've got other issues...
(http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt26/avlack/1c71f6bf82bfbf7e04e4f0bab2ef30b0_zpsc99e5a8d.jpg)
That's at 500 feet, out in the open, and a full shirt. Now put yourself up at 1000 feet, and put that in the woods. I'm just saying everything you can do to make my job easier up in the air is requested and appreciated.
Now before you come back at me and ask how an orange hat can make a difference, it adds to what you're already wearing. The vest is SUPPOSED to be the outer layer, but we all now that is often not the case. You don't wear anything OVER the hat. Before you come back and say it wouldn't make a difference if you can't see into the woods anyway, we don't all live around triple canopy rain forest. I dare say very few of us actually do.
I live to entertain.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 24, 2014, 06:15:58 PM
So...you saw orange hats but not the much larger orange vests?
Yes. We clearly saw the group of orange hats and they stuck out. We flew almost directly over the first group, and maybe a 100 feet off of the second group and we clearly could see the orange hats in the parking lot and on the wooded trail. For the group that was in the parking lot, they were standing next to their white van. Since there were probably another twenty white vans in that park that morning, none of them really registered, but those orange vests did.
As noted above, it's all about angle of view.
A person, viewed from above, presents a much smaller viewable area than he presents at ground level. The viewable footprint of a hat is actually greater when looking down on it.
I dont know where the picture is (I'll have to search at home) but a few years back when PA was first pushing for "Ranger" stuff in the 39-1, there was a picture evidencing the "benefit" of the orange hats. Taken from an aircraft of two different teams in the same target location, 1 wearing the standard orange hat, the other BDU with Orange vests. Much higher visable from the air was the orange hat group. (I honestly dont rememeber if there was gear over the vest or not) but if you imagine the overhead veiw, even sans gear the only part (except in the portly folk) of vest visable will be the shoulders....so what 2 2" x 4" patches?
mk
Quote from: Eclipse on September 24, 2014, 02:04:55 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 24, 2014, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 20, 2014, 04:38:26 PM
For example, this would be a much better choice as prescribed outerwear for the Blue Field Uniform:
(http://www.511tactical.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/48073/693/48073_693_01.jpg)
And solves the entire conversation in once garment. It's functional, professional, and fits both the need and the aesthetics.
It has pockets for a radio, a place for a name tape of other identification, and the zip-out fleece liner could be worn as
the recently approved fleece.
This isn't cheap, but you get what you pay for. Better this then an Airsoft rig or plate carrier, and it could be worn
when not on CAP duty as well. In quantity purchases, or say using VG as a distributor, CAP would be able to get the price down.
Is it available in a "digital" pattern? 8)
Heh - that would be awesome - digit-pat camo hi-viz They would probably sell very well.
I am thinking music video with Kanye West featuring the Seattle Seahawks cheerleading squad 8)
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 25, 2014, 12:09:27 AM
That's at 500 feet, out in the open, and a full shirt. Now put yourself up at 1000 feet, and put that in the woods. I'm just saying everything you can do to make my job easier up in the air is requested and appreciated.
Not getting into the whole whatever debate going on, but I cannot stand when people (not just your picture) post pictures like these. The picture may have been taken at 500' AGL, but just because it is does not mean that is what the eye sees. There are too many variables that need to be accounted for in those pictures. So unless the person taking the photo has a truly intimate knowledge of photography, the picture is usually worthless for the purpose. By intimate knowledge, I do not mean they know how the aperture and shutter work to produce an image. It requires a much deeper understanding. Unfortunately, that image, as far as I can tell, does not include any of the camera data. So it is worthless for a comparison to a human eye. Granted it does help to provide a basic concept of what something looks from above, but not for a comparison to a human eye.
For example, what and how you view the picture matters:
Viewing the image on a smartphone compared to an ultra resolution monitor to a digital projector matters.
Did the person making the presentation have any cropping or resizing of the image?
Is the screen color, contrast, brightness, etc correct for that particular monitor?
More importantly, how the image was taken:
What was the lens focal length when the image was taken?
Is the photographer using angle of view when determining the picture or proper magnification? A lens can have a 180 degree view but usually lacks proper magnification. Proper magnification usually lacks the proper field of view. Our eyes are a beautiful example of evolution in that we have magnification and a wide field of view.
What kind of sensor does the camera have? A full 35 mm sensors, an ASP-C crop sensor, or other? If not full 35 mm what is the crop factor?
What was the ISO taken?
What was the white balance? Cameras are terrible at setting this so do not use "auto".
What was the aperture and shutter speed?
Was the image in proper focus?
Was the image taken using jpg or RAW? Yes this does matter as jpg compresses the image while RAW does not
What is the dynamic range of the camera? This is truly important. The human eye has a tremendous dynamic range and is far beyond any camera made today. When you take an image of the sun, the foreground is black. Well when we look at the sun, we can still see the color and details in the foreground. That is because we have a very high dynamic range.
Interestingly also dynamic range is the answer to the "moon landing" conspiracy theories that claim there is no stars in the sky. Well the camera is set to take a bright foreground image and there is not enough light to produce the stars.
Even if everything is set correctly, the individual differences in the human eye makes a difference. I have 20/10 vision, while the person next to me has say 20/40 or 20/20.
On a lot of these images, I see people just simply snap a photo, post it to a presentation, and then go look it is at X' AGL. When I dive deeper in how the picture was taken, it is usually taken at the default "zoom" of the camera, which does not match our eyes. That is, the image was taken with a "18 mm or 20 mm" lens length. Well yes, using that focal length will mean it is small. Even among professional photographers, there is still quite a bit of debate about what focal length matches a human eye. In the past, most people claimed it was 50 mm, which is why 50 mm lenses were so common. Well that is not true (or at least is not true today). I think the generally accepted number now is 43 mm on a 35 mm sensor.
True, a person being an "airborne photographer" or a mission scanner does not need to know all of these details. Frankly, most people do not. No one should be expected to know these unless you are into photography. But they come into play when a person makes a claim that this is what a particular site looks like at 500' AGL.
(http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/5/58001/2060593-851ac22e_d61912a9_cant-tell-if-serious.jpeg)
Quote from: LSThiker on September 25, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 25, 2014, 12:09:27 AM
That's at 500 feet, out in the open, and a full shirt. Now put yourself up at 1000 feet, and put that in the woods. I'm just saying everything you can do to make my job easier up in the air is requested and appreciated.
Not getting into the whole whatever debate going on, but I cannot stand when people (not just your picture) post pictures like these. The picture may have been taken at 500' AGL, but just because it is does not mean that is what the eye sees. There are too many variables that need to be accounted for in those pictures. So unless the person taking the photo has a truly intimate knowledge of photography, the picture is usually worthless for the purpose. By intimate knowledge, I do not mean they know how the aperture and shutter work to produce an image. It requires a much deeper understanding. Unfortunately, that image, as far as I can tell, does not include any of the camera data. So it is worthless for a comparison to a human eye. Granted it does help to provide a basic concept of what something looks from above, but not for a comparison to a human eye.
For example, what and how you view the picture matters:
Viewing the image on a smartphone compared to an ultra resolution monitor to a digital projector matters.
Did the person making the presentation have any cropping or resizing of the image?
Is the screen color, contrast, brightness, etc correct for that particular monitor?
More importantly, how the image was taken:
What was the lens focal length when the image was taken?
Is the photographer using angle of view when determining the picture or proper magnification? A lens can have a 180 degree view but usually lacks proper magnification. Proper magnification usually lacks the proper field of view. Our eyes are a beautiful example of evolution in that we have magnification and a wide field of view.
What kind of sensor does the camera have? A full 35 mm sensors, an ASP-C crop sensor, or other? If not full 35 mm what is the crop factor?
What was the ISO taken?
What was the white balance? Cameras are terrible at setting this so do not use "auto".
What was the aperture and shutter speed?
Was the image in proper focus?
Was the image taken using jpg or RAW? Yes this does matter as jpg compresses the image while RAW does not
What is the dynamic range of the camera? This is truly important. The human eye has a tremendous dynamic range and is far beyond any camera made today. When you take an image of the sun, the foreground is black. Well when we look at the sun, we can still see the color and details in the foreground. That is because we have a very high dynamic range.
Interestingly also dynamic range is the answer to the "moon landing" conspiracy theories that claim there is no stars in the sky. Well the camera is set to take a bright foreground image and there is not enough light to produce the stars.
Even if everything is set correctly, the individual differences in the human eye makes a difference. I have 20/10 vision, while the person next to me has say 20/40 or 20/20.
On a lot of these images, I see people just simply snap a photo, post it to a presentation, and then go look it is at X' AGL. When I dive deeper in how the picture was taken, it is usually taken at the default "zoom" of the camera, which does not match our eyes. That is, the image was taken with a "18 mm or 20 mm" lens length. Well yes, using that focal length will mean it is small. Even among professional photographers, there is still quite a bit of debate about what focal length matches a human eye. In the past, most people claimed it was 50 mm, which is why 50 mm lenses were so common. Well that is not true (or at least is not true today). I think the generally accepted number now is 43 mm on a 35 mm sensor.
True, a person being an "airborne photographer" or a mission scanner does not need to know all of these details. Frankly, most people do not. No one should be expected to know these unless you are into photography. But they come into play when a person makes a claim that this is what a particular site looks like at 500' AGL.
Concur with the general point above; what appears in a photo is not representative of what the eye may see (for the record, I could see the shirt in the photo fair enough...is someone seriously going to try and argue that wearing an orange hat would've made even more of a difference?).
The discussion has kind of turned from silly to absurd.
It's like the old saying, it took one idiot to say something stupid, and then a whole bunch more idiots, including myself, made a conversation out of it.
But really, my whole point is...if it makes you that much more visible, why would you NOT wear it?
Quote from: Panzerbjorn on September 25, 2014, 06:31:33 PM
It's like the old saying, it took one idiot to say something stupid, and then a whole bunch more idiots, including myself, made a conversation out of it.
But really, my whole point is...if it makes you that much more visible, why would you NOT wear it?
Diminishing results?
The most amusing thing about the whole situation is, as I said earlier, the orange hat is the only thing
of all the PAWG silliness that actually enhances mission effectiveness, and it's the only thing no one
from any other wing cared about.
So of course that would be the thing they get rid of.
Make you a deal, trade you the HMRS nonsense for the orange hats.
I see the valid points that that an orange patrol cap makes you more visible from the air and the safety factor of not getting shot by hunters in the woods and such, and I don't think anyone will argue that wearing an orange patrol cap as part of your equipment kit while conducting "in the feild" missions was/is a bad thing.
I think the arguement is it is silly (for lack of a better word) to wear an orange patrol cap when conducting non- "in the feild" missions while in a garrison environments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the PAWG SOP until recently?
yes...very cultural. They also self deployed to Katrina...also very cultural :-)
Quote from: Garp on September 26, 2014, 01:50:08 PM
yes...very cultural. They also self deployed to Katrina...also very cultural
Not entirely true, not relevent to this particular discussion, and seriously, that was nearly 10 years ago...
Quote from: Eclipse on September 26, 2014, 01:54:00 PM
Quote from: Garp on September 26, 2014, 01:50:08 PM
yes...very cultural. They also self deployed to Katrina...also very cultural
Not entirely true, not relevent to this particular discussion, and seriously, that was nearly 10 years ago...
Bob, they did self-deploy. (They were on standby.) But once they got there it was decided to make them "official" since they needed the bodies.
And yes, we know you were there too. But you guys did it right and waited until you were "requested".
^ True enough.
My point being that even as someone who had to deal with the situation personally,
even I'm tired of picking on people, many of whom probably aren't even in CAP any more, and especially
in light of the fact that as an organization CAP learned very little from the many mistakes made,
and further lauded and decorated those people who broke a lot of its most basic rules and policies.
Besides, there's plenty of current OPS to make fun of, no need to dig into history. >:D
Quote from: shuman14 on September 26, 2014, 12:51:51 PM
.....
I think the arguement is it is silly (for lack of a better word) to wear an orange patrol cap when conducting non- "in the feild" missions while in a garrison environments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the PAWG SOP until recently?
But not really without precedence: AFI-36-2903
Quote6.2.10. Organizational Cap. Will only be worn with the Airman battle uniform and battle dress uniforms by the following personnel/units. For placement of appropriate rank insignia, see figure 6.11
6.2.10.1. Red Horse Squadrons may wear a red baseball cap with the RED HORSE emblem/symbol centered on the cap front. The unit numerical designation will be printed on the dozer blade in black print. ...
caps will not be worn with the all-weather coat.
6.2.10.2. Combat Arms personnel are authorized to wear a red baseball type cap with the words COMBAT ARMS embossed with 1-inch black letters while performing duties on the range complex. It is only to be worn while performing duties on the range complex
and will not be worn outside the range complex.
a little bit of oranges and apples....but I think appropriate to the looks silly idea.....
MK
I personally think that.....and I'm not kidding about this......is that we need to right in to the ES training that the Orange Boonie CAP is the REQUIRED gear for Ground Teams and Flight Line personnel.
The NUC has stated that anything listed as "GEAR" in our ES training material is okay to wear while conducting those types of tasks....so no need to re-write 39-1.
The boonie cap is a very functional piece of safety gear in most Ground and Flight Line ES situations.
Making it ORANGE kills some of the TACTIKOOL element while also satisfies local hunting laws, and providing a high visibility aspect to our ES teams.
Rewriting the Ground Team manual to change the wording about the reflective vest from "worn" to "worn when practical or attached to the outside of backpack or load bearing gear to facilitate visibility".
Quote from: lordmonar on September 27, 2014, 12:21:32 AM
Making it ORANGE kills some of the TACTIKOOL element while also satisfies local hunting laws, and providing a high visibility aspect to our ES teams.
You're not going to meet hunter orange requirements with just the hat. The vest we're already wearing will do that just fine (in the few places that require non-hunters to wear it -- and only in certain locations).