So does anyone know what the regulation is as far as the boonie cap? I saw that it was approved. Or is there nothing specific saying how and where yet? Or are we currently awaiting AF approval?
ehhh.....
Wait for the Change Letter. I am sure AF also still has yet to approve.
I predict the Boonie will take the place in most SQD's as the preferred form of headgear within 1 year of it's approval. Unless the Boonie is mandated by AF to be bright pink, I seriously doubt Commanders will restrict it just to outdoor activities in the sun.
Do you need some SPF 45, cause that stuff works just as well as a Boonie!
I asked our Wing Commander about that, he stated that it was only for wear for long periods in the sun, like flightline, gliders etc... Not for everyday wear.
^ Hats are allowed on the flightline? Where my CAP planes are based, the Army Airfield guys said we can not wear anything to include cadet's rank insignia. So basically, everything has to be stripped off the uniform.
If I see one person wear that thing on my flight line I will toss them off for the rest of the mission. I will not have FOD on my line.
There is a way you can wear covers on the flight line if a higher authority hasn't banned them. If you have some way to secure it to you or your uniform. I know a Flight Line Supervisor who has hooks that can be used when on the Flight Line. And with the Boonie Cap if you have the chin strap hold the hat down on your head.
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on March 26, 2008, 04:24:06 PM
There is a way you can wear covers on the flight line if a higher authority hasn't banned them.
I'm that higher authority ;-)(FLS) I only allow stocking caps in the winter. I encourage orange ones(so much more visible) but black over BDU and black or navy over BBDU is acceptable. In the summer you wear sunglasses and sunscreen.
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 04:03:16 PM
Do you need some SPF 45, cause that stuff works just as well as a Boonie!
I keep seeing this argument and it's not without merit. But even better than either the boonie cap or the sunscreen is both used together. ;D
Quote from: davedove on March 26, 2008, 05:08:10 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 04:03:16 PM
Do you need some SPF 45, cause that stuff works just as well as a Boonie!
I keep seeing this argument and it's not without merit. But even better than either the boonie cap or the sunscreen is both used together. ;D
Agreed. From a health point, I'm always for doubling up on protection when feasible and safe (e.g. not on a flight line). I'd also like to point out that sunscreen doesn't help a whole lot when it comes to keeping rain out of your eyes. Yes, you can get sunburns even when it's extremely cloudy. Yes, even in the winter.
Maybe we should just wear balaclavas all year, with sunglasses. Keep you warm in the winter and keep the sun off your entire head... >:D
It would make us stand-out on a multiagency exercise. :P
Quote from: chiles on March 26, 2008, 05:22:17 PM
Agreed. From a health point, I'm always for doubling up on protection when feasible and safe (e.g. not on a flight line). I'd also like to point out that sunscreen doesn't help a whole lot when it comes to keeping rain out of your eyes. Yes, you can get sunburns even when it's extremely cloudy. Yes, even in the winter.
And as someone who has had melanomas as well as another form of cancer, I'm all for anything that can be done in terms of additional protection from the sun and cancer...it's especially needed here in S. Florida.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 26, 2008, 05:47:31 PM
Maybe we should just wear balaclavas all year, with sunglasses. Keep you warm in the winter and keep the sun off your entire head... >:D
Yeah, but they should be blaze orange for safety reasons. ;D
Quote from: davidsinn on March 26, 2008, 04:36:43 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on March 26, 2008, 04:24:06 PM
There is a way you can wear covers on the flight line if a higher authority hasn't banned them.
I'm that higher authority ;-)(FLS) I only allow stocking caps in the winter. I encourage orange ones(so much more visible) but black over BDU and black or navy over BBDU is acceptable. In the summer you wear sunglasses and sunscreen.
Nothing like reading your training material. In the FLM training it says to wear a hat....even suggests a boonie hat.
Speaking from experience working 3.5 years as a lineman for Signature Flight Support, we pretty much always wore hats on the flightline. Sunscreen doesn't cut it when you're out there all day and a hat helps protect your from any sand, gravel and exhaust blown around. Making sure the hat fits is vitally important. The uniform hat I was issued was very shallow and blew off my head one time. After that I got a hat that fit and never had a problem again. If it's too windy you take it off but otherwise wearing a correctly fitting hat is very useful. I never saw a case where a hat became FOD (I heard of one case involving a Southwest 737's APU intake and an employee being stupid but not anything on GA side). The propellers on GA aircraft don't have enough sucking power to pull your hat off your head, trust me, I've been close enough to some props to be an authority on the subject. The same goes for jet engines on GA aircraft again I know this for the same reason. The main threat to a hat is wind as as I said before you just need to be smart about that and pull the hat off when it gets too windy.
I remember, WIWAC, that I thought Bonnies and even berets were so cool. Now though, I don't like it. I concur with wearing them in the field for keeping sun off faces and ears, but not at other times. Especially around military installations. I believe it is unprofessional and only the softcap or a well designed baseball cap should be worn. Professional appearances are very important and I think we would not appear too professional in the eyes of the military if they saw our cadets running around in boonies like they were Rambo or something. Honestly, I wish they would not have approved them. Also- no to wearing them on the flight line. Wear sunscreen.
Any idea when we'll see something in writing about this?
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 04:03:16 PM
I predict the Boonie will take the place in most SQD's as the preferred form of headgear within 1 year of it's approval....I seriously doubt Commanders will restrict it just to outdoor activities in the sun.
I can tell you for sure that many unit CC's will be restricting it to ES field operations or prohibiting it altogether.
In fact I'll be lobbying my Wing CC to do just that on a wing level.
It has absolute no place in quarters, formation, or any place else but summer field work, (any more than a beret belongs in the field).
Quote from: lordmonar on March 26, 2008, 08:00:32 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on March 26, 2008, 04:36:43 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on March 26, 2008, 04:24:06 PM
There is a way you can wear covers on the flight line if a higher authority hasn't banned them.
I'm that higher authority ;-)(FLS) I only allow stocking caps in the winter. I encourage orange ones(so much more visible) but black over BDU and black or navy over BBDU is acceptable. In the summer you wear sunglasses and sunscreen.
Nothing like reading your training material. In the FLM training it says to wear a hat....even suggests a boonie hat.
And in another part of the same manual it says only if clipped to the collar.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2008, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 04:03:16 PM
I predict the Boonie will take the place in most SQD's as the preferred form of headgear within 1 year of it's approval....I seriously doubt Commanders will restrict it just to outdoor activities in the sun.
I can tell you for sure that many unit CC's will be restricting it to ES field operations or prohibiting it altogether.
In fact I'll be lobbying my Wing CC to do just that on a wing level.
It has absolute no place in quarters, formation, or any place else but summer field work, (any more than a beret belongs in the field).
Sounds like a great plan. But how long until everyone is required to bring a Boonie to ENC? How long before it becomes the standard headgear for flight opps in sunny locals.
It seems we all got along with it just fine for so long, it is just one more item to make people feel better about themselves.
If we do get one, I pray it is bright orange! Maybe that will curb the "I want to look like GI JOE mentality".
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 10:07:49 PM
If we do get one, I pray it is bright orange! Maybe that will curb the "I want to look like GI JOE mentality".
No it won't... it will just make all the wannabe, arrogant "CAP Rangers" in Pennsylvania use the bright orange boonie cap as an excuse for wearing all the other orange stuff that isin't authorized, including their "ranger tabs" that aren't even like the ones the military wears.
Does anyone know why Hawk Mountain is an NCSA, anyway? ???
Think about it: the kind of training a Hawk Mountain "ranger" (aka GROUND TEAM MEMBER) receives in the wooded mountains of Pennsylvania will be very different from what a GTM receives in the deserts of Nevada or the bayous of Louisiana.
I am a firm believer that if you want to get GT training that is helpful in all environments, go to NESA; don't waste your time with Hawk Mountain, unless you're from around that area or an area that has similar topography.
what does hawk and NESA have to do with the boonie?
also
the coast guard auxiliary has worn a Tilley hat for some time
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 10:07:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2008, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 26, 2008, 04:03:16 PM
I predict the Boonie will take the place in most SQD's as the preferred form of headgear within 1 year of it's approval....I seriously doubt Commanders will restrict it just to outdoor activities in the sun.
I can tell you for sure that many unit CC's will be restricting it to ES field operations or prohibiting it altogether.
In fact I'll be lobbying my Wing CC to do just that on a wing level.
It has absolute no place in quarters, formation, or any place else but summer field work, (any more than a beret belongs in the field).
Sounds like a great plan. But how long until everyone is required to bring a Boonie to ENC? How long before it becomes the standard headgear for flight opps in sunny locals.
It seems we all got along with it just fine for so long, it is just one more item to make people feel better about themselves.
If we do get one, I pray it is bright orange! Maybe that will curb the "I want to look like GI JOE mentality".
Actually, 'we' have not gotten along without it just fine. Many of us have been calling for the hat to be authorized due to our prolonged exposure to the sun on many of our operations.
Another person mentioned having melanoma. In the military, they would send them packing on a medical discharge-no problem.
We cannot do that, so we need to do everything we can to avoid these types of injuries, and to avoid increasing cadet's risk of developing longer term problems.
Exactly. A doctor once told me that a tan was a precancerous skin condition. I think it's important to note the difference between getting along fine and getting along. There are a lot of things that could change in the name of safety and health or improved planning and integration (don't get me started on CAP using SLG 101, or even the new CPG 101... or PM if you want to, it's kind of funny), but we don't. I never accept "we've always done it that way" as a reason to continue. Boonie hats are a great way to prevent exposure while maintaining a uniform look.
^ I was under the impression that the radiation travels through certain clothing materials anyway. You don't get burned, but you get just about the same amount of rays as you would if you were not wearing anything. (Mikey, is by no means in the health industry, I am only saying what I think I remember reading or hearing).
I have also got to point out that the KEVLAR soldiers wear on their heads does nothing to protect the face, or neck from sun exposure. In fact, it is standing policy in theatre to be wearing a helmet when patrolling. The only time I see Boonie hats being worn are by the AF types stationed on the airbases. One way around this whole situation is to wear sunscreen. That needs to be beat into peoples minds more!
As far as sunburn being a pre-cancerous condition, I am totally not sure about that. There are pre-cancerous conditions that arise as a direct result of sunburn, but the burn itself is not related to cancer. Also, skin cancer can develop in people who never set one foot into the daylight.
WE are trying to lump Bonnie hats with preventing cancer, when we should be relating the hats to the real reason they are wanted. I don't know that reason, but am sure there are many.
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 27, 2008, 03:32:39 AM
^ I was under the impression that the radiation travels through certain clothing materials anyway. You don't get burned, but you get just about the same amount of rays as you would if you were not wearing anything. (Mikey, is by no means in the health industry, I am only saying what I think I remember reading or hearing).
Infrared will go through some clothing. Ultraviolet generally does not. The latter is responsible for sunburn.
Back to flight line for a minute. One more reason I will not allow a boonie cap on my line is because it retains heat in your body. When the air temp 6 feet above the ground is 120 degrees because of the black top you do not want to retain body heat.
So anyway... no hats (boonies incl) should be allowed on flight line, that's crazy, results in kid chasing hat into big spiny things & damaging one or the other. Clearly flight lines are hot, sun burn & dehydration are major issues. The answer is people need a cool water/rest point off the line & replacements need to be rotated in on a regular basis. That includes FLS too. It's a bigger safety concern for me to have folks out there all day than it is to have no one out there. In other words, this is not an excuse for boonie hats.
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 27, 2008, 03:32:39 AM
I have also got to point out that the KEVLAR soldiers wear on their heads does nothing to protect the face, or neck from sun exposure. In fact, it is standing policy in theatre to be wearing a helmet when patrolling.
That really has nothing to do with our discussion. In the case of the helmets in a combat zone, it's a case of immediate concerns outweighing later concerns. It doesn't matter if you develop skin cancer years down the road when the bullet could kill you today.
It's been a long time since CAP had to deal with combat operations.
Quote from: davedove on March 27, 2008, 11:28:05 AM
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 27, 2008, 03:32:39 AM
I have also got to point out that the KEVLAR soldiers wear on their heads does nothing to protect the face, or neck from sun exposure. In fact, it is standing policy in theatre to be wearing a helmet when patrolling.
That really has nothing to do with our discussion. In the case of the helmets in a combat zone, it's a case of immediate concerns outweighing later concerns. It doesn't matter if you develop skin cancer years down the road when the bullet could kill you today.
It's been a long time since CAP had to deal with combat operations.
Exactly my point. Also, to Mikey, repetitive sun exposure for extended amounts of time, either in a salon or just walking around outdoors, does cause skin cancers. I can back it up with a wealth of studies, but I wouldn't make my worst enemy read through that! I agree that we should be pushing for those people out in the field to wear both sunscreen, a hat, and, if at all possible, bug repellent. I've not worked flight lines since I was a cadet but to me the wearing of a hat could cause a safety issue much more costly than that of a sunburn, much in the same way Dave explained the risk of getting shot in the head outweighs that of getting a sunburn.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I wanted the Boonie hat approved specifically for the purpose of adding another level of safety to our operations. Recommending such changes is just part of the job of the CAP HSOs. Just because we can't practice routine care, we can certainly practice routine prevention. So, I say right on to Boonie hats! I think they have a tendency to look dumb but their effectiveness is well documented.
As a person in their 40's who has developed skin cancer twice...a hat with a brim and sun-block SPF 45 work wonderfully in tandem, but less effectively a part. I personally think the boonie looks kind of goofy. Might I suggest a smart and spiffy Pith Helmet that you saw and loved in Gunga Din and every Tarzan movie you've ever seen!!!! :D
As a physician in real life and CAP, let me make a few comments about boonie caps and skin cancer.
For those watching the recent National Board meeting proceedings in Washington, DC, you'll know the following that was discussed and approved concerning the boonie caps:
1. Approved for safety reasons, i.e. better protection to the back of the neck and tops of the ears.
2. Blue boonie cap approved immediately for wear with the Blue BDU uniform (BBDU).
3. Woodland camo boonie cap has been approved by CAP for wear with the woodland camo BDU, but awaits Air Force approval
4. The wear of boonie caps is authorized only by the activity director and is not for every day wear.
No other colors are authorized.
The approval of boonie caps during CAP activities has been pursued by the CAP National Health Services Program for many years. Bravo to them for finally getting it approved.
Sun exposure is directly related to one's risk for developing skin cancer. Yes, "sunburns" are all precancerous conditions. In fact, the number of bad sunburns you've had in your lifetime is a direct and important risk factor for developing skin cancer.
Skin cancer kills. Period. Yet, it's completely preventable.
Yes, skin cancer does sometimes develop in those who never get out in the sun. But, here's a news flash -- everyone dies. Period. Even those people who run 5 miles a day -- they die too, just hopefully much later than us couch potatoes. So if you reduce your risk for developing skin cancer, you can increase your longevity.
Boonie caps will do that in reducing the risk of developing skin cancer in areas not well protected by a BDU cap or baseball cap -- i.e. the back and sides of the neck, the tops of the ears, etc.
Dr. Dave
"... Might I suggest a smart and spiffy Pith Helmet that you saw and loved in Gunga Din and every Tarzan movie you've ever seen!!!! ..."
WIWAC, the uniform manual included pith helmet as authorized headgear w/505's and I think the Bush Jacket I don't recall if it was an option w/1505's. I didn't know anybody who had one ...
First, thanks to our health professional-brother-volunteers for getting this on the agenda. CC's in the field will now have to decide (balance) the safety and uniformity issues, hopefully wisely.
Currently, I have my (limited and tweed colored) (Tweed is not a 101 card or DMV color option) :( hair buzzed to 1/8 inch weekly. At a combable length, my hair's R and SPF ratings were both insufficient to be functional, so it's stocking cap in winter (for the R's) and sunscreen for the SPF's. It is SO much easier to apply sunscreen now.
Quote from: tribalelder on March 27, 2008, 03:56:17 PM
WIWAC, the uniform manual included pith helmet as authorized headgear w/505's and I think the Bush Jacket I don't recall if it was an option w/1505's. I didn't know anybody who had one ...
The bush jacket was never available with 1505's. Very few of them were seen after about 1962. Not sure about pith helmets though there were a few worn by AF members when I served in Panama in 1964. Mods - hope it isn't off topic; just wanted to answer the concern about 1505's.
Quote from: DrDave on March 27, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
Sun exposure is directly related to one's risk for developing skin cancer. Yes, "sunburns" are all precancerous conditions. In fact, the number of bad sunburns you've had in your lifetime is a direct and important risk factor for developing skin cancer.
Sorry Doctor, the consensus is that Sunburns do increase the chances of developing Cancer, but it is not a pre-cancerous condition. The National Institute of Health along with Cancer.gov makes note of that as well. They say your chances of developing melanomas are greater if you develop sunburn, but it is by no means a predictor of what develops. I have no problem preventing Cancer, but I think the Boonie is just going to turn into what the Blue Beret did. (Mikey once again states he is not a Doctor, but is very involved with Cancer, and has done extensive research on the subject)
Quote from: DrDave on March 27, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
1. Approved for safety reasons, i.e. better protection to the back of the neck and tops of the ears.
...then the ability to operate "sleeves up" or "shirt off" should also be prohibited.
I'd like to point out that what I said was a doctor once told me a tan was a precancerous condition. What he meant was that the continuous exposure to the UV rays required to cause a tan can increase the likelihood of a skin cancer developing. Further, it causes damage:
"A suntan is not an indicator of good health. Some physicians consider the skin's tanning a response to injury because it appears after the sun's UV rays have killed some cells and damaged others." (CDC Source here: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/chooseyourcover/qanda.htm#4). I am a medical professional and my grandfather, a former Army (and later Air Force) pilot, had multiple legions directly attributable to exposure to UV rays while in service. Granted, the atmosphere was much more thin at the altitudes he was flying, but the principle is the same.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2008, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: DrDave on March 27, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
1. Approved for safety reasons, i.e. better protection to the back of the neck and tops of the ears.
...then the ability to operate "sleeves up" or "shirt off" should also be prohibited.
Totally agree. Summer weight BDU's are designed for hot temperatures. If it's so hot that working in the field will require reduction of clothing, then exposure should be limited per the Army's recommendations found here: http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/doem/pgm34/HIPP/WorkRestTable.pdf
The serious argument for the boonie cap is one of safety - to protect against sunburn? Seriously?! Give me a break...
Anyone ever hear of sunscreen? Limit exposure time.
The boonie cap idea is a silly one. As mentioned it's simply the result of "want to look cool" mentality. Nontheless, it is approved and wear should be extremely limited.
If there is so much concern over the well-being of our members that we're worrying about the long term potential threat of skin cancer, then perhaps we should take a significantly more urgent approach to the physical condition of our members, particularly our senior members. Based on my first hand observations, many are unfit are almost certainly high risk for heart attack, stroke, etc. as a result of their poor physical condition. The potential impact of such a condition is much more immediate. Yet, no PT program exists or is encouraged for senior members and, what's more, we continue to serve donuts (aka fat pills) at virtually every SAR/SAREX. To me this certainly is a greater concern than sunburn - which is completely preventable even without wearing a boonie cap. Just sayin...
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2008, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: DrDave on March 27, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
1. Approved for safety reasons, i.e. better protection to the back of the neck and tops of the ears.
...then the ability to operate "sleeves up" or "shirt off" should also be prohibited.
And it is....if you are the safety guy for that operation....make the call. Just like hats on the flight line. If the danger of FOD or running after a stray hat is greater than the danger from the sun....make the call.
Allowing boonie hats when the conditions call for them is a good thing. Just all allowing for suitable rain gear, feild gear and cold weather gear.
I think this is just a dust up over something silly. If your only argument about the hat is because it looks "unprofessional"...I think we need to go over your ORM training.
Granted I too think that boonies for everday wear is a no go....but here in Nevada we could really use the boonie hat...I got a bad sunburn last time I was out in the field and I DID use SPF 50 sunblock several times before, during and after I went out.
Quote from: A.Member on March 27, 2008, 05:23:23 PM
The serious argument for the boonie cap is one of safety - to protect against sunburn? Seriously?! Give me a break...
Anyone ever hear of sunscreen? Limit exposure time.
The boonie cap idea is a silly one. As mentioned it's simply the result of "want to look cool" mentality. Nontheless, it is approved and wear should be extremely limited.
If there is so much concern over the well-being of our members that we're worrying about the long term potential threat of skin cancer, then perhaps we should take a significantly more urgent approach to the physical condition of our members, particularly our senior members. Based on my first hand observations, many are unfit are almost certainly high risk for heart attack, stroke, etc. as a result of their poor physical condition. Yet, no PT program exists or is encouraged for senior members and, what's more, we continue to serve donuts (aka fat pills) at virtually every SAR/SAREX. To me this certainly is a greater concern than sunburn - with is completely preventable without wearing a boonie cap. Just sayin...
I'm all about a senior member PT program (and have written on and awaiting Wing Commander review and, hopefully, forwarding to the Board). There is a difference between someone walking through the door with a condition and putting them in place to develop one. Senior members being overweight and out of shape didn't happen because of the donuts and coffee they consumed on missions over the years. Granted, we could provide better choices but in reality, if they turn down the donut, it's not going to effect the mission. We put people out in the woods and fields and swamps as a required part of the operation. If we withhold a simple countermeasure, medical studies show it's only a matter of time before someone has a skin related issue. If we force people to wear hats in the field that leave the ears exposed when an alternative is available, then we are, in some part, to blame for that issue. Granted, it's likely that someone got much more exposure when they weren't searching while on vacation in Florida, but the point is that it's a simple change that can do a lot of good.
I do see the point of it becoming a fad. And there is no reason why anyone would need to wear it to a mostly in door meeting. I think prudence on the part of squadron and wing commanders will help mitigate this issue. Perhaps even guidance from National that it's a piece of field gear, much in the same way as a ruck sack or whistle.
My issue with Boonies is the Trojan Horse problem.
I accept the fact that brimmed headgear is helpful in preventing sunburn in certain situations, and that preventing sunburn is an important health and safety concern that should be part of the ORM for every CAP activity.
But my concern is that a lot of folks who are urging the adoption of the boonie for "safety" reasons really, really just want to look cool in their BDUs and BBDUs.
While estimates will vary, I suspect that bona-fide "sunburn prevention" situations will occur during a very, very small percentage of a members time in uniform. My WAG is that even considering a member that does a lot of flightline time for SAR or airshows would be in the single digits -- less than 10% of their time in uniform when you consider unit meetings, schools, etc.
And yet, I'll bet a fair amount of adult beverages that boonies will quickly grab the lion's share of uniform headtime regardless of the position of the sun.
The best example of the phenomena I can point to is the California Medical Marijuana initiative. The proponents of the measure correctly pointed out that some folks with serious illnesses benefit from the "compassionate" use of marijuana to reduce pain and/or the effects of chemotherapy.
The voters of California adopted the law, and soon medical marijuana "clinics" sprang up all over the state, dispensing "medical marijuana" to "sick" people on a cash and carry basis. Some folks have noted that there are apparently a whole lot more "sick" people than we thought. You can literally go to the Student Health Services of any major university in the Bay Area and get a Medical Marijuana card based on a diagnosis of "anxiety."
Very helpful around finals time. ::)
The bottom line is that "the exception ate the rule" in California. While "non-medical" possession and use of marijuana is still prohibited by law in California, for all practical purposes there is little if any enforcement.
Similarly, I'm concerned that allowing the appropriate use of brimmed headgear like a boonie in situations involving harsh sun will quickly morph into having to allow it anytime the sun is somewhere in the neighborhood, thus making the boonie the de facto standard for BDU/BBDU wear.
The challenge is creating appropriate regulations and command climate to limit the use to those situations that truly require their use for legitimate ORM purposes.
But I fear that will soon be a lost cause.
Quote from: Ned on March 27, 2008, 05:37:17 PM
But my concern is that a lot of folks who are urging the adoption of the boonie for "safety" reasons really, really just want to look cool in their BDUs and Buds.
And yet, I'll bet a fair amount of adult beverages that boonies will quickly grab the lion's share of uniform headtime regardless of the position of the sun.
I can't agree with you more!
QuoteThe best example of the phenomena I can point to is the California Medical Marijuana initiative. The proponents of the measure correctly pointed out that some folks with serious illnesses benefit from the "compassionate" use of marijuana to reduce pain and/or the effects of chemotherapy.
I never understood how that passed. Everyone else going through Chemo in the US seem to get along fine without marijuana, just by taking anti-nausea and pain pills. I hate to say it but California is SO much different than the rest of the US.
You don't make something adopted for safety reasons "optional".
The safety discussion is the false-premise argument used to sneak gardening hats into the mix so our cadets can look "kewl like those dudes in Vietnam..."
The logic went like this - buy boonie, told you can't wear it, yell "safety!".
As a piece of tactical gear, I might even buy one myself, but the reg should be written clearly that they are not allowed for anything but field use, as dictated by the activity or unit commander, and are prohibited for unit meetings, formations, and other inappropriate wear.
We've got enough problems with those black pancakes, we don't need this added to the mix as well.
Agreed, but at least this thing has a use. I don't really care if it's one of those small umbrella hats. My point is that it's valid. I haven't worked in the field for a few years and unless I get back out there, I won't be purchasing one. I have one from my Katrina response with MD-TF2. It's say on top of a bookshelf since I got back. It's up to National to provide a clear regulation but it's up to the local commander to enforce it. But safety is a valid reason and my support for its implementation (fully recognizing that my support is worth less than nothing in this case) has always been because of its protective value to our people in the field.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2008, 06:04:05 PM
You don't make something adopted for safety reasons "optional".
I got to call the BS Flag on this one.
You allow options to be used at the best judgment of the onscene leader.
There are a lot of people who say we need this for safety reasons...but we can't because it is not authorised. So it is not even an option to make it manditory if we want to.
Once it is authorised...then our GTLs and FLS can start mandating it as part of their team's gear. We leave it optional so that if someone does not have one....they can still participate based on the safety needs at the time.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2008, 06:04:05 PMThe safety discussion is the false-premise argument used to sneak gardening hats into the mix so our cadets can look "kewl like those dudes in Vietnam..."
If you don't like them....don't allow them....you may not need them in Illinois...but other places have other needs...and it is just as bad to say no to a possible safety tool because some people may think they are "kewl" to wear.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2008, 06:04:05 PM
As a piece of tactical gear, I might even buy one myself, but the reg should be written clearly that they are not allowed for anything but field use, as dictated by the activity or unit commander, and are prohibited for unit meetings, formations, and other inappropriate wear.
If you have been following the NB report...that is exactly how the regulation is being written.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2008, 06:04:05 PM
We've got enough problems with those black pancakes, we don't need this added to the mix as well.
What problem is that? As a unit commander you can still dictate what head gear
YOUR squadron members can wear. If you don't like your NBB cadet wearing his beret.....make him take it off. The change in the regulation did not change that authorty at all.
You may pefer on set of tools..because the work for you...but don't take tools out of my bag because you don't like what some people think of the tool.
It's simple:
If you are in a "field environment" you wear boonies, with the CC's blessing.
If you are at your Squadron meeting in Downtown Podunk, and it's 'BDU-Day,' you wear the BDU cap.
No?
Quote from: O-Rex on March 27, 2008, 09:12:02 PM
It's simple:
If you are in a "field environment" you wear boonies, with the CC's blessing.
If you are at your Squadron meeting in Downtown Podunk, and it's 'BDU-Day,' you wear the BDU cap.
No?
My thoughts exactly!
There are concerns that wont be enforcd. I think it's crap. It is an insult to unit leaders to say a hat shouldn't be approved for ES use because you don't think they have a good enough handle on their unit to ensure it is only worn when appropriate.
What I think will in some areas is some members will 'forget' their bdu cap, but remember their boonie cap is in their field gear in their car. They will then use that to justify wearing the boonie at the meetings.
Quote from: arajca on March 27, 2008, 10:01:00 PM
What I think will in some areas is some members will 'forget' their bdu cap, but remember their boonie cap is in their field gear in their car. They will then use that to justify wearing the boonie at the meetings.
I don't know about you guys, but if my cadets rolled in with that excuse, there would be certain consequences and restrictions of privileges. Making sure you have all your gear is a part of attention to detail. I'd have serious concerns if a cadet (or senior) continuously forgot a piece of their uniform. Makes me wonder what they might forget when they're packing for a mission in a hurry...
A Boonie hat on a flightline while marshalling? Nope. Neither they nor the standard CAP BDU patrol cap ever fit well enough to stay securly on your head in windy conditions.
I wear a standard baseball-type cap on CG Auxiliary boat patrols where it is plenty windy and have never lost one. Why, because you can adjust them to fit your head. These are what most of the guys at the FBO wear, and I wouldn't have a problem with CAP finding some appropriate version for us to wear (the current woodland camo baseball cap does look horrible though).
But, back to boonies in field situations. Most of the CAP ground team work I've been involved in has been in fairly well-forested situations where you aren't in direct sunlight all that much. I probably wouldn't authorize boonie caps for those activities.
Now, if we had some sort of activity where they were going to be out in direct sunlight a lot, such as working public affairs at a big airshow on the ramp, and where we weren't involved in aircraft marshalling, then I could go for that.
Quote from: arajca on March 27, 2008, 10:01:00 PM
What I think will in some areas is some members will 'forget' their bdu cap, but remember their boonie cap is in their field gear in their car. They will then use that to justify wearing the boonie at the meetings.
So...tell them to take it off...and remember their proper hat next time.
Again....if the problem is dealing with people who don't follow the rules....nothing we do to ban things is going to help....look at the ranger stuff in PAWG for example.
^ So true!
Quote from: DC on March 27, 2008, 09:55:09 PM
There are concerns that wont be enforcd. I think it's crap. It is an insult to unit leaders to say a hat shouldn't be approved for ES use because you don't think they have a good enough handle on their unit to ensure it is only worn when appropriate.
Perhaps it's in an insult to some but more likely it's just an accurate assessment of the situation. I'd agree with you 100% if our track record as an organization showed better accountability and stonger commitment to following regulations. However, that is not the case. Rules seem to vary from unit to unit. Until we do a better job of consistently meeting standards, training our members, setting expectations, and holding people accountable the concern about enforcement is more than valid. Far too many people take the position that because CAP is a volunteer organization regulations/rules are, at best, suggestions that don't really need to be followed.
Say however you want, it is still punishing all for the actions of a few.
Quote from: DC on March 28, 2008, 03:10:06 AM
Say however you want, it is still punishing all for the actions of a few.
Hmmmm, only a few huh? You'd have to show me some real quantitative evidence to support that claim. I'm admittedly only a small sample but that's not reflective of my experience.
I have seen my fair share of uniform discrepancies, but nothing that is a direct contradiction of a regulation in the sense of wearing something when it is obviosly not authorized (we'll leave PAWG out of this).
It would be impossible to determine how strictly uniforms are enforced throughout CAP, so that is not valid.
I think it is rediculous to try to prevent something that will enhance the safety and comfort of personnel because you are afraid that they might wear it to a meeting. It's like not authorizing gloves for wear in cold weather because there is a possibility someone might wear them in the summer.
Quote from: DC on March 28, 2008, 03:23:34 AM
It would be impossible to determine how strictly uniforms are enforced throughout CAP, so that is not valid.
Actually, it wouldn't. Uniform wear and enforcement for cadets is rather consistent. However, to do so for senior members is just not a priority.
Either way, the cap is coming so it's a moot point. We'll see how it plays out soon enough besides my passion isn't really in arguing uniform items.
It is an enforcement issue. Note the following pics.
(http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v55/185/108/97400735/n97400735_30068137_104.jpg)
(http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v55/185/108/97400735/n97400735_30068159_2166.jpg)
Picture #1 is me in 2004 at Camp Atturbury. I put the thing on long enough to take the picture then stuffed it in my thigh pocket. Picture #2 is me at home in 2003. I used windows paint to make the flash and put the GT badge on it. Both are cool pictures and both are unauthorized headgear. The point is that I only did them for fun and nobody ever saw me while I had them on. Every other time I was in uniform I was squared away perfectly to the regs. If the boonies are going to be used I would suggest that it be an ES related item only. If a cadet wears it to regular unit meeting they should be reprimanded the same way they would for any other uniform infraction.
Quote from: nesagsar on March 28, 2008, 03:43:07 AM
The point is that I only did them for fun and nobody ever saw me while I had them on.
And now the photos are on the internet for all to see. You may have only had them on for a little while but remember the internet is forever and your uniform infraction is now forever.
Here is some more unauthorized headgear.
(http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v55/185/108/97400735/n97400735_30068135_9471.jpg)
(http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v55/185/108/97400735/n97400735_30068134_9188.jpg)
Some headgear makes sense at certain activities. NESA makes sense at NESA, boonie makes sense for GT, berets....well they dont make sense anywhere but I just wanted to make the flash. I thought I did a pretty good job on it.
Quote from: A.Member on March 28, 2008, 03:11:23 AM
Quote from: DC on March 28, 2008, 03:10:06 AM
Say however you want, it is still punishing all for the actions of a few.
Hmmmm, only a few huh? You'd have to show me some real quantitative evidence to support that claim. I'm admittedly only a small sample but that's not reflective of my experience.
Well the shoe is on the other foot too. Some will say that willful violations are the rule while others (me for instance) think that most units know and follow the rules.
I can demand from you to prove your statement.
Quote from: nesagsar on March 28, 2008, 04:37:19 AM
Here is some more unauthorized headgear.
Some headgear makes sense at certain activities. NESA makes sense at NESA, boonie makes sense for GT, berets....well they dont make sense anywhere but I just wanted to make the flash. I thought I did a pretty good job on it.
I wouldn't say NCSA hats are unauthorized. Almost all NCSAs have a baseball cap, it's accepted. Just like a lot of encampments authorize baseball caps for their staff. Totally unrelated to boonies and berets.
No, they're not "totally unrelated to boonies and berets."
These alternate headgear are APPROVED "locally" by the activity director. I.e. baseball caps for encampment as authorized by the encampment commander, baseball caps at squadron meetings as approved by the squadron commander, Ranger orange stuff as approved by ... whomever is supposed to approve them, etc.
Wear of the boonie caps will be APPROVED by the activity director in the same fashion.
It's exactly the same situation as what you noted.
Dr. Dave
Look, here's what's gonna happen...
Since it isn't a required item of GTM gear in the manual, some will have it, some won't.
Even if a team mandates boonies for all its members, they'll get three GTMs attached to them from another squadron, who don't have them.
Uniformity will take yet another hit.
When a boonie is warranted for safety purposes, half the folks presetnt won't have them. And yet, they'll be allowed to participate in spite of being "unsafe."
When a boonie isn't warranted, folks will still wear them, because it's the only hat they happen to have with them.
The boonie will sneak into squadron meetings here and there. A couple of cadets will show up at encampment or NCSA with nothing but a boonie.
It will just become another item you can wear if you want to. And we, as an organization, will not become measurably "safer."
(And oh yeah, those wearing them will look more like Gilligan than Rambo. I will giggle. )
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
(And oh yeah, those wearing them will look more like Gilligan than Rambo. I will giggle. )
Making them very appropriate for those three hour missions. ;D
Quote from: DrDave on March 28, 2008, 01:55:38 PM
No, they're not "totally unrelated to boonies and berets."
These alternate headgear are APPROVED "locally" by the activity director. I.e. baseball caps for encampment as authorized by the encampment commander, baseball caps at squadron meetings as approved by the squadron commander, Ranger orange stuff as approved by ... whomever is supposed to approve them, etc.
Wear of the boonie caps will be APPROVED by the activity director in the same fashion.
It's exactly the same situation as what you noted.
Dr. Dave
I was referring to when they were not approved. And, camo boonies are still waiting USAF approval. With the baseball caps, as you mentioned, they were appropriately authorized.
Another thing that I also worry about is GTMs challenging the IC on the decision. I can see arguments of how IC1 let them where it before, but IC2 is not. Now IC2 is the bad guys and the GTMs call a safety hazard and wear them anyway. IC2 gets angry, GTL1 tells IC2 it was a safety issue. Now we go back and forth. Yes, now it is up to the MSO to step in there, but all the same, it still makes IC2 look bad because he/she did not approve the "cool" new headgear. I think ICs have a lot more to do than argue with GTs about when they can and cannot wear specific headgear. I believe we need MSO guidelines put in place so the IC can fall back on the regs vs my thing of I just don't like them. Otherwise we will hit the safety challenge each time and we might as well have just said- go for it. Wear them whenever you are in the field.
Am I wrong, but aren't hardhats supposed to be worn when performing ES operations to begin with? Isn't there something about them being orange hardhats? So taking that drift, shouldn't the Boonie hats be orange if even allowed at all??
I also am in agreement with the person above that said sleeves should be worn down. If we are sighting safety to get the boonies, then we need to "safety up" everything else that is not safe. Heaven forbid a person gets sunburn on their arms because they wore their sleeves up. That is a practice that should go AWAY!
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 28, 2008, 03:48:00 PM
I also am in agreement with the person above that said sleeves should be worn down. If we are sighting safety to get the boonies, then we need to "safety up" everything else that is not safe. Heaven forbid a person gets sunburn on their arms because they wore their sleeves up. That is a practice that should go AWAY!
I agree in part and disagree in part about the sleeves. I can see the agrument for keeping them rolled down and not because of sunburns though. Ticks, and their fellows would have less to bite and cling to if we less exposed skin.
But that being said in some heat instances even with the summer weights it is much better to roll the sleeves because yes while there is the chance for sun burn, with more skin exposed we can release more heat instead of trapping it in.
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on March 28, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 28, 2008, 03:48:00 PM
I also am in agreement with the person above that said sleeves should be worn down. If we are sighting safety to get the boonies, then we need to "safety up" everything else that is not safe. Heaven forbid a person gets sunburn on their arms because they wore their sleeves up. That is a practice that should go AWAY!
I agree in part and disagree in part about the sleeves. I can see the agrument for keeping them rolled down and not because of sunburns though. Ticks, and their fellows would have less to bite and cling to if we less exposed skin.
But that being said in some heat instances even with the summer weights it is much better to roll the sleeves because yes while there is the chance for sun burn, with more skin exposed we can release more heat instead of trapping it in.
Following that logic, since more heat get lost through the head, why not remove the hat when it's hot enough to mandate rolling up sleeves?
Quote from: arajca on March 28, 2008, 04:21:53 PM
Quote from: NERMA002 Safety on March 28, 2008, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 28, 2008, 03:48:00 PM
I also am in agreement with the person above that said sleeves should be worn down. If we are sighting safety to get the boonies, then we need to "safety up" everything else that is not safe. Heaven forbid a person gets sunburn on their arms because they wore their sleeves up. That is a practice that should go AWAY!
I agree in part and disagree in part about the sleeves. I can see the agrument for keeping them rolled down and not because of sunburns though. Ticks, and their fellows would have less to bite and cling to if we less exposed skin.
But that being said in some heat instances even with the summer weights it is much better to roll the sleeves because yes while there is the chance for sun burn, with more skin exposed we can release more heat instead of trapping it in.
Following that logic, since more heat get lost through the head, why not remove the hat when it's hot enough to mandate rolling up sleeves?
This is true, that's why I personally wear the BBDU's and don't often wear a hat under those circumstances.
Actually, keeping sleeves rolled down with buttons open would be more effective than rolling the sleeves as rolled sleeves will trap the heat and limit circulation. Sleeves down will allow for air movement up and down the arms allowing for faster heat dissipation. I would also point out that a summer weight BDU cap with no flaps would be preferred as it breaths more and allows heat to escape. If a baseball cap is worn, mesh backing would also be preferred for the same reason.
Some BDU caps are vented too, as are boonies.
My squadron openly prohibited ventilated BDU caps.
Quote from: LtCol Hooligan on March 28, 2008, 04:51:25 PM
Actually, keeping sleeves rolled down with buttons open would be more effective than rolling the sleeves as rolled sleeves will trap the heat and limit circulation. Sleeves down will allow for air movement up and down the arms allowing for faster heat dissipation. I would also point out that a summer weight BDU cap with no flaps would be preferred as it breaths more and allows heat to escape. If a baseball cap is worn, mesh backing would also be preferred for the same reason.
Right on Sir, rolling sleeves up actually makes you hotter. It is a "cool factor" that everyone wants to look like the AF guy down the street. Whenever I hear a Cadet or Senior Member cite rolling sleeves up to keep them cooler I laugh inside and write them off as not doing their research.
As far as Boonies go, the first summer these are allowed, they will be found at Encampments all over the country (that I am sure of), and I would bet, worn just by the Cadet Staff and those few Senior Members (who are the "cool" Senior Members).
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 28, 2008, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: LtCol Hooligan on March 28, 2008, 04:51:25 PM
Actually, keeping sleeves rolled down with buttons open would be more effective than rolling the sleeves as rolled sleeves will trap the heat and limit circulation. Sleeves down will allow for air movement up and down the arms allowing for faster heat dissipation. I would also point out that a summer weight BDU cap with no flaps would be preferred as it breaths more and allows heat to escape. If a baseball cap is worn, mesh backing would also be preferred for the same reason.
Right on Sir, rolling sleeves up actually makes you hotter. It is a "cool factor" that everyone wants to look like the AF guy down the street. Whenever I hear a Cadet or Senior Member cite rolling sleeves up to keep them cooler I laugh inside and write them off as not doing their research.
I don't know, maybe it's mental or maybe it's the high humidity we have around here, but I know my arms sweat considerably more and make me feel that much hotter with the sleeves down.
Again, it's probably a humidity thing, because I know that in arid environments the people always keep covered in loose clothing.
Of course, in the woods the sleeves give you better protection from the brush.
Quote from: davedove on March 28, 2008, 05:33:53 PM
I don't know, maybe it's mental or maybe it's the high humidity we have around here, but I know my arms sweat considerably more and make me feel that much hotter with the sleeves down.
Again, it's probably a humidity thing, because I know that in arid environments the people always keep covered in loose clothing.
Of course, in the woods the sleeves give you better protection from the brush.
The only thing I've done in the past few years is open up the sleeve buttons. It's always worked for me. I hate rolling sleeves up anyway, to make it look right, I've always had to take the shirt off.
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
Look, here's what's gonna happen...
Since it isn't a required item of GTM gear in the manual, some will have it, some won't.
Even if a team mandates boonies for all its members, they'll get three GTMs attached to them from another squadron, who don't have them.
Uniformity will take yet another hit.
And that is different when you team is made from three different squadrons each with their own squadron ball cap?
Not to mention you got 2 guys in BDUs and three in BBDU's.
If uniformity is the issue....we got to go a lot further back than just whether boonies are authorised or not.
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
When a boonie is warranted for safety purposes, half the folks presetnt won't have them. And yet, they'll be allowed to participate in spite of being "unsafe."
All I can say is NOMEX. We say NOMEX is a "safety" thing and not a cool thing...but we still let people fly in polos and grays.
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
When a boonie isn't warranted, folks will still wear them, because it's the only hat they happen to have with them.
The boonie will sneak into squadron meetings here and there. A couple of cadets will show up at encampment or NCSA with nothing but a boonie.
It will just become another item you can wear if you want to. And we, as an organization, will not become measurably "safer."
(And oh yeah, those wearing them will look more like Gilligan than Rambo. I will giggle. )
And again....local enforcement is a local issue. A cadet shows up to encampment with out the right head gear...send him home. If someone shows up at a squadron meeting he gets to go through the meeting with no hat on....and it better not happen again. ;D
Again how much is this just hat envy? YOU have control over what your people do. You can always report other squadrons to the wing CC who are obviously breaking the intent and letter of the regulation. We can handle the infractions case by case.
This whole issue came up...because people out there want the boonie but they FOLLOW THE RULES. Saying you can't have them because someone else may not follow the rules...is like saying no one can have a car because someone may speed or run red lights.
Quote from: LtCol Hooligan on March 28, 2008, 03:31:13 PM
Another thing that I also worry about is GTMs challenging the IC on the decision. I can see arguments of how IC1 let them where it before, but IC2 is not. Now IC2 is the bad guys and the GTMs call a safety hazard and wear them anyway. IC2 gets angry, GTL1 tells IC2 it was a safety issue. Now we go back and forth. Yes, now it is up to the MSO to step in there, but all the same, it still makes IC2 look bad because he/she did not approve the "cool" new headgear. I think ICs have a lot more to do than argue with GTs about when they can and cannot wear specific headgear. I believe we need MSO guidelines put in place so the IC can fall back on the regs vs my thing of I just don't like them. Otherwise we will hit the safety challenge each time and we might as well have just said- go for it. Wear them whenever you are in the field.
Local enforcement is local enforcement.
If your IC can't control a ground team....maybe he should not be an IC.
The safety challenge is not an automatic.....you can call a safety stop....but once a decision is made....you either comply or you go home. Its that simple. The other side of that coin...once it is approved....why would an IC not allow them?
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 28, 2008, 03:48:00 PM
Am I wrong, but aren't hardhats supposed to be worn when performing ES operations to begin with? Isn't there something about them being orange hardhats? So taking that drift, shouldn't the Boonie hats be orange if even allowed at all??
Wing commanders can authorise helmets...but they must be white for ES work.
As for the orange boonie hat....I got one and I do think that should be the one they authorise, but if they only authorise BDU and BBDU boonies...those will be the one I will tell my teams to wear.
From a heat stand point, the boonie should be is bright as possible (white is best).
To squash a bit of a myth, sweating only means so much. When humidity hits around 92-93%, sweating no longer has nearly as much affect. The closer you get to 100%, the less effective it becomes and at 100, it hits 0. Sweating doesn't work if the ambient air is so saturated that it cannot take any more water. The sweat has no place to evaporate to.
As I said before, I don't care if it's a boonie hat or parasol. The point is that if it's bright, and it covers more skin, it's safer. I expect squadron commanders to command. It's their job. Those who do not probably aren't enforcing other rules and thus we get the violations that plague our organization. Adding boonie hats won't change it.
Edit: The whole thing about summer weight BDU or any other clothing having its sleeves down is a trade off between heat encapsulation and the safety of direct sun exposure. Granted, it'd be more effective to have a uniform that's incredibly thin and completely white. I'm not advocating it, but bright colors reflect light, light weight material allows air to circulate giving the best of both worlds. If it's considered too hot to have your sleeves down then it should be considered likely that the risk of heat exposure outweighs that of sunburn, insects, etc, and the BDU top should simply be removed. If that occurs, there should be plenty of sun screen to go around and it should be applied at regular intervals (at most, every 3 hours) as sweating causes it to wear off. This heat lecture bought to you by Villa Julie College's Nursing Program, and the Baltimore City Health Department's Field Health Services.
I work with IMERT, a state level emergency services unit that is comprised of approx 15% medical doctors, 35% registered nurses, and 40% EMT's. The rest are dentists, mental health, USAR, and support personel.
When it gets hot out we roll up the sleeves and if it gets worse we take the BDU shirts off. Only USAR and communications wears boonie hats, the rest go uncovered or in regular BDU caps.
Here is my uniform just before I put on the nametapes, I was making sure that everything fit and the equipment all worked.
(http://photos-g.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v55/185/108/97400735/n97400735_30068142_4629.jpg)
Quote from: LtCol Hooligan on March 28, 2008, 04:51:25 PM
Actually, keeping sleeves rolled down with buttons open would be more effective than rolling the sleeves as rolled sleeves will trap the heat and limit circulation. Sleeves down will allow for air movement up and down the arms allowing for faster heat dissipation. I would also point out that a summer weight BDU cap with no flaps would be preferred as it breaths more and allows heat to escape. If a baseball cap is worn, mesh backing would also be preferred for the same reason.
100% correct based on my personal experience.
Quote from: nesagsar on March 28, 2008, 05:22:54 PM
My squadron openly prohibited ventilated BDU caps.
Why on earth would you do that?
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 05:41:26 PM
Quote from: LtCol Hooligan on March 28, 2008, 03:31:13 PM
Another thing that I also worry about is GTMs challenging the IC on the decision. I can see arguments of how IC1 let them where it before, but IC2 is not. Now IC2 is the bad guys and the GTMs call a safety hazard and wear them anyway. IC2 gets angry, GTL1 tells IC2 it was a safety issue. Now we go back and forth. Yes, now it is up to the MSO to step in there, but all the same, it still makes IC2 look bad because he/she did not approve the "cool" new headgear. I think ICs have a lot more to do than argue with GTs about when they can and cannot wear specific headgear. I believe we need MSO guidelines put in place so the IC can fall back on the regs vs my thing of I just don't like them. Otherwise we will hit the safety challenge each time and we might as well have just said- go for it. Wear them whenever you are in the field.
Local enforcement is local enforcement.
If your IC can't control a ground team....maybe he should not be an IC.
The safety challenge is not an automatic.....you can call a safety stop....but once a decision is made....you either comply or you go home. Its that simple. The other side of that coin...once it is approved....why would an IC not allow them?
I would look at the mission the Ground Team is partaking prior to approving wear. Perhaps the mission is going to be an interview mission to gather data from witnesses- imo- not approved. Perhaps the media will be tagging along- once again not approved- just so the team looks more respectable in the media. If the mission is going to entail less in the field hiking activities and more drive and check, drive and check, not approved.
As you can tell, my perception is that the boonies are not as professional as the soft cap and we should not wear them. But, the IC before me might have been the kind that is more of an aircrew guy and did not really care and said go for it. Wear them if you gottem. So now I am the bad guy and honestly, team members are challenging authority more and more these days. I guarantee people would pull the safety card and challenge the decision. Although it may be necessary, it is tough to pull the comply or go home card with volunteers. Yes, flame away, or say I am not a strong enough leader, but this sure seems like one of those battles that could be avoided if we had regs to back us up- vs the commander's discreation.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 05:37:46 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
Look, here's what's gonna happen...
Since it isn't a required item of GTM gear in the manual, some will have it, some won't.
Even if a team mandates boonies for all its members, they'll get three GTMs attached to them from another squadron, who don't have them.
Uniformity will take yet another hit.
And that is different when you team is made from three different squadrons each with their own squadron ball cap?
Not to mention you got 2 guys in BDUs and three in BBDU's.
If uniformity is the issue....we got to go a lot further back than just whether boonies are authorised or not.
That's why I said "Uniformity will take
yet another hit. Instead of trying to make things better, we'll just continue to make things worse.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 05:37:46 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
When a boonie is warranted for safety purposes, half the folks presetnt won't have them. And yet, they'll be allowed to participate in spite of being "unsafe."
All I can say is NOMEX. We say NOMEX is a "safety" thing and not a cool thing...but we still let people fly in polos and grays.
Exactly. The same untruthful argument made for the same real reason (looks cool).
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 05:37:46 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on March 28, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
When a boonie isn't warranted, folks will still wear them, because it's the only hat they happen to have with them.
The boonie will sneak into squadron meetings here and there. A couple of cadets will show up at encampment or NCSA with nothing but a boonie.
It will just become another item you can wear if you want to. And we, as an organization, will not become measurably "safer."
(And oh yeah, those wearing them will look more like Gilligan than Rambo. I will giggle. )
And again....local enforcement is a local issue. A cadet shows up to encampment with out the right head gear...send him home. If someone shows up at a squadron meeting he gets to go through the meeting with no hat on....and it better not happen again. ;D
Again how much is this just hat envy? YOU have control over what your people do. You can always report other squadrons to the wing CC who are obviously breaking the intent and letter of the regulation. We can handle the infractions case by case.
Sigh...if only life was so simple. If only it was so easy to send a cadet home after you discover the problem and his ride is hours away. If only the GTM could refuse to take members from other squadrons along for the mission if he doesn't like their headgear. If only Wing CCs thought fighting over uniform compliance was worth their time.
But we all know it's never this simple, especially in CAP.
Quote from: chiles on March 28, 2008, 06:16:08 PMAs I said before, I don't care if it's a boonie hat or parasol. The point is that if it's bright, and it covers more skin, it's safer. I expect squadron commanders to command. It's their job. Those who do not probably aren't enforcing other rules and thus we get the violations that plague our organization. Adding boonie hats won't change it.
Oh, it will change it, alright. It will bring one more item to the mix that commanders won't enforce.
Today, you only have few silly hats, because durned near everyone knows boonies weren't allowed. But now you've added the confusing element that boonies are allowed SOME of the time. Which means more folks embolded to wear them even when they shouldn't (they'll quibble over what SOME of the time means).
Overall effect? Less uniformity. If you care about that sort of thing. (it seems many don't).
I guar-un-tee you will see more boonies worn in violation of the regs in FY2009 than you did in FY 2008. And that is a change - for the worse.
If it's safety, we should MANDATE it, the same way we mandate Form 5 checkrides and 100 hour inspections. If it's about safety, we should require boonies when it's sunny and not allow anyone to participate if they don't wear one.
To do otherwise is to show that CAP really doesn't care if it's people are safe.
Dragoon is hitting it right on the head. Assuming the AF approves them (which I don't think they will actually do), they will start showing up all over the place due to the random chaos that is life in the CAP and most of the time it will probably be ignored because those members who care about this stuff don't feel they have the authority to tell somebody they're doing something wrong and those with authority don't know the rules or don't really care about them in regards to uniform wear.
I can understand that there are a lot of reasons why you would not wear a boonie hat...when I do interviews...I take off all my gear, including my orange vest (oh my!), my sun glasses and often my patrol cap.
As for when the press is present...I don't know about that.
The thing that is getting me here...is we are talking about form vs function.
We have this argument all the time about rank not meaning anything...and how we need to change that.
Now we are really talking about a functional piece of equipment that by regulations would only be worn on missions....but we are still hung up on the fact that we may not like the form that it comes in.
Will there be abuses? Sure there will be....there are always people who don't know or choose not to know the regulations....even a few that willfully violate them.
But to not allow a functional head gear to be used because it may....I SAY AGAIN....may...make our job harder on a leadership perspective...seems lazy to me.
IF we were all in one unifrom in the first place....I would maybe buy the "uniformity" argument...but as things stand now...until that problem is corrected, it seems like you are making excuses.
Sure there is the Kuwl Factor.....but is there anything really wrong with that? So the cadets and others at a mission base get to think they are Rambo (who wore a bandan not a boone cap BTW). So what. Is that so bad?
If someone show up with out the right head gear...deal with it. Send them home, let them go hat less, get them a replacement, or let them wear the wrong one...it happens....you deal with it.
If at a mision base it turns into a "I'm going to do it anyway" issue with a GTL or GTM.....it's called a 2b....use it.
But if the only reason for not allowing them is because of the Kuwl Factor or that it does not look as professional as a soft cap/ball cap.....we have to look at all of our unifroms and think those issues.
I think that the flight suit (which I wear too) does not look as professional as the BDU's...but we allow our flight crews to wear it....and there is no real reason why we can't make them wear BDU's....except the supposed "safety" value of Nomex.
If it a safety thing....let's mandate it....make the boonie hat the only head gear authorized for GTms and FLMs...just like we do with orange vests.
^Well said!
Boonie hats are hot in the summer. When in the field (trees, streams, corn
fields, uncivilized areas) put on your boonie hat. When you get back in
the GT vehicle to return to base take it off. If you are searching ramps don't
put it on. When in the field away from the public eye wear your boonie hat
if you want. When I was in the Army, in the field, you did all kinds of stuff
you didn't wear or do in garrison. Tell the knucklehead cadets that you don't wear the boonie hat to the meeting. >:( It is that simple. ;)
On the subject of Air Force/CAP relations I can only offer this.
What exactly does the average air force officer think of us?
(http://photos-735.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v182/185/108/97400735/n97400735_30159936_9896.jpg)
In my experince....the average Air Force officer does not even know CAP exists....or only vaguely.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 30, 2008, 04:10:10 AM
In my experince....the average Air Force officer does not even know CAP exists....or only vaguely.
Most officers of any branch I've ever known had a
vague idea of what CAP was. However, it was only because they knew someone in their Academy/military college/OTS/OCS class that was a member (or a former one), not as a result of their military comissioning education. Most of them ask me how long I've been a pilot. I usually have to explain that not everyone in CAP is a pilot anymore than everyone in the Air Force is.
I don't think AF officers have any type of formalized education in those programs about CAP. It would surprise me if they actually did.
^ Figuring all AF Officers go their basic course at Maxwell.....which is run by AETC and Air University, you would think there may be a five second "hey everyone, did you know we have an Auxiliary, and they are Headquartered here on Base".
CAP is not part of the Total Force concept, the AF seems to keep us as far from everyone as they can.
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 30, 2008, 06:06:11 PM
^ Figuring all AF Officers go their basic course at Maxwell.....which is run by AETC and Air University, you would think there may be a five second "hey everyone, did you know we have an Auxiliary, and they are Headquartered here on Base".
Yeah, you'd think so, but apparently not.
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 30, 2008, 06:06:11 PMCAP is not part of the Total Force concept, ....
Doens't seem to be.
Quote from: mikeylikey on March 30, 2008, 06:06:11 PM.....the AF seems to keep us as far from everyone as they can.
Sure seems like it, doesn't it? Funny thing is that CAP would probably be easier for the Air Force to actually control if they didn't treat us like the proverbial red-headed step child.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 30, 2008, 06:26:19 PM
Sure seems like it, doesn't it? Funny thing is that CAP would probably be easier for the Air Force to actually control if they didn't treat us like the proverbial red-headed step child.
This street runs both ways.
We need to stop treating the USAF as a step-parent. (
"...you can't tell me what to do, you're not my dad!")
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2008, 07:07:13 PMThis street runs both ways.
We need to stop treating the USAF as a step-parent. ("...you can't tell me what to do, you're not my dad!")
True. Many of our problems are our own fault as well.
Seems like both organizations make a point of leaving bruises on each other. If we quit fighting with Dad, maybe he'll stop smacking us. ;D
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 10:09:26 PM
I can understand that there are a lot of reasons why you would not wear a boonie hat...when I do interviews...I take off all my gear, including my orange vest (oh my!), my sun glasses and often my patrol cap.
As for when the press is present...I don't know about that.
The thing that is getting me here...is we are talking about form vs function.
We have this argument all the time about rank not meaning anything...and how we need to change that.
Now we are really talking about a functional piece of equipment that by regulations would only be worn on missions....but we are still hung up on the fact that we may not like the form that it comes in.
Actually, I'd say there's still a fair amount of debate as to whether the hat is even "functional" enough to be worth the "form."
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 10:09:26 PM
Will there be abuses? Sure there will be....there are always people who don't know or choose not to know the regulations....even a few that willfully violate them.
The point is that now there will be MORE abuses than yesterday. And that, to some, is a bad thing. I'm not sure I buy the "things are already bad, who cares if we make them worse" argument.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 10:09:26 PM
IF we were all in one unifrom in the first place....I would maybe buy the "uniformity" argument...but as things stand now...until that problem is corrected, it seems like you are making excuses.
It will never get corrected if we keep adding optional items. Yup, we're screwed up. This will make us MORE screwed up. It's hard to applaud that.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 10:09:26 PM
But if the only reason for not allowing them is because of the Kuwl Factor or that it does not look as professional as a soft cap/ball cap.....we have to look at all of our unifroms and think those issues.
Agreed.
Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2008, 10:09:26 PM
If it a safety thing....let's mandate it....make the boonie hat the only head gear authorized for GTms and FLMs...just like we do with orange vests.
Absolutely agree. It may look silly, but if everyone wears it then at least we'll have increased uniformity a little, and made everyone "safer." But this is CAP - we won't do that. We'll just add it as one more item of personal choice. Another chance to express your individuality.
Ya know, we tend to put GT's in places with overhead cover where they don't NEED a boonie. After all, if it's wide open, we can search it from the air....
I have participated in multiple NBB's as a Tactical Officer which means at least 4+ hours on the flight line every day. Uniform of the day has always been patrol cap and I have never seen or heard of an incident.
On the other side, I spent 8 years on an AD Air Force flight line and never wore a cover past the gate to the hanger. So I could go either way on this.
But as for boonie hats? I would say no because I don't think it's practical. And you know not everyone will bring/have one. So I would stress that it be all or nothing.
I've decided to put my money where my mouth is. Last night I ordered a blue boonie that I intend to test at our flightline/aircrew school(I'm running the Flightline side of the school) in a few weeks. I also intend to test it for our Group I SAREX this summer. I'll let you know how it went.
Here's a good question - since National didn't specify, what exactly is a "boonie?" Looking around the web...
I've seen hats called "boonies" that have a piece of webbing around the crown, and others that don't.
I found one navy blue boonie for sale with black webbing around the crown.
I've seen boonies that are rounded on top, like a baseball cap, and others that are squared off like a BDU cap.
I've seen all different sized of brims.
I realize that the intent was "you know, the same style as the one USAF guys wear on occasion." But that's not what the letter says.
I wonder how many different cool hats we'll end up seeing. Personally, I'm going for a Tilley!
The ICL on the NHQ site has a picture of the boonie.
How the heck do you enforce any kind of uniformity based on "Yours doesn't look like the picture?"
Quote from: DrDave on March 27, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
As a physician in real life and CAP, let me make a few comments about boonie caps and skin cancer.
For those watching the recent National Board meeting proceedings in Washington, DC, you'll know the following that was discussed and approved concerning the boonie caps:
1. Approved for safety reasons, i.e. better protection to the back of the neck and tops of the ears.
2. Blue boonie cap approved immediately for wear with the Blue BDU uniform (BBDU).
3. Woodland camo boonie cap has been approved by CAP for wear with the woodland camo BDU, but awaits Air Force approval
4. The wear of boonie caps is authorized only by the activity director and is not for every day wear.
No other colors are authorized.
The approval of boonie caps during CAP activities has been pursued by the CAP National Health Services Program for many years. Bravo to them for finally getting it approved.
Sun exposure is directly related to one's risk for developing skin cancer. Yes, "sunburns" are all precancerous conditions. In fact, the number of bad sunburns you've had in your lifetime is a direct and important risk factor for developing skin cancer.
Skin cancer kills. Period. Yet, it's completely preventable.
Yes, skin cancer does sometimes develop in those who never get out in the sun. But, here's a news flash -- everyone dies. Period. Even those people who run 5 miles a day -- they die too, just hopefully much later than us couch potatoes. So if you reduce your risk for developing skin cancer, you can increase your longevity.
Boonie caps will do that in reducing the risk of developing skin cancer in areas not well protected by a BDU cap or baseball cap -- i.e. the back and sides of the neck, the tops of the ears, etc.
Dr. Dave
While I hate to disagree with physicians (actually I love it, but they dont) skin cancer is not COMPLETELY preventable. Just as a non-smoker may get lung cancer, someone who has never spent more than 5 minutes in the sun can still get skin cancer from other risk factors like genetics and environmental exposure to things other than direct sunlight or any kind of light at all. Unknown exposure to certain kinds of chemicals in an industrial or other setting can cause melanoma. No cancer or other disease process is completely preventable from genetic anomalies to environmental risk factors unknown to the patient. If its going to get you its going to get you. I have a friend who has skin like skim milk and red hair who has never had more than about 30 seconds exposure to the sun in her whole life (she avoids it like the plague because of her genetics) and she is currently dealing with multiple melanomas on parts of her body that have NEVER seen the sun, and no, these lesions are not the other kind. Again, in as much as nothing is completely preventable, no disease process is completely preventable, and as sure as we are sitting here, there will be boonie-wearin', SPF 6000 smearin' monkey's uncles out there who get skin cancer on that patch of their neck that neither covered. I thought they taught doctors to avoid the use of terms like NEVER, ALWAYS, COMPLETELY, TOTALLY. Heck as an EMT, and MPH student, we are told to avoid these terms. That being said, Bravo Zulu to CAP for figuring out what the thinking world has known for 50 years.
Quote from: SARMedTech on April 03, 2008, 05:13:11 PM
Quote from: DrDave on March 27, 2008, 03:15:38 PM
As a physician in real life and CAP, let me make a few comments about boonie caps and skin cancer.
For those watching the recent National Board meeting proceedings in Washington, DC, you'll know the following that was discussed and approved concerning the boonie caps:
1. Approved for safety reasons, i.e. better protection to the back of the neck and tops of the ears.
2. Blue boonie cap approved immediately for wear with the Blue BDU uniform (BBDU).
3. Woodland camo boonie cap has been approved by CAP for wear with the woodland camo BDU, but awaits Air Force approval
4. The wear of boonie caps is authorized only by the activity director and is not for every day wear.
No other colors are authorized.
The approval of boonie caps during CAP activities has been pursued by the CAP National Health Services Program for many years. Bravo to them for finally getting it approved.
Sun exposure is directly related to one's risk for developing skin cancer. Yes, "sunburns" are all precancerous conditions. In fact, the number of bad sunburns you've had in your lifetime is a direct and important risk factor for developing skin cancer.
Skin cancer kills. Period. Yet, it's completely preventable.
Yes, skin cancer does sometimes develop in those who never get out in the sun. But, here's a news flash -- everyone dies. Period. Even those people who run 5 miles a day -- they die too, just hopefully much later than us couch potatoes. So if you reduce your risk for developing skin cancer, you can increase your longevity.
Boonie caps will do that in reducing the risk of developing skin cancer in areas not well protected by a BDU cap or baseball cap -- i.e. the back and sides of the neck, the tops of the ears, etc.
Dr. Dave
While I hate to disagree with physicians (actually I love it, but they dont) skin cancer is not COMPLETELY preventable. Just as a non-smoker may get lung cancer, someone who has never spent more than 5 minutes in the sun can still get skin cancer from other risk factors like genetics and environmental exposure to things other than direct sunlight or any kind of light at all. Unknown exposure to certain kinds of chemicals in an industrial or other setting can cause melanoma. No cancer or other disease process is completely preventable from genetic anomalies to environmental risk factors unknown to the patient. If its going to get you its going to get you. I have a friend who has skin like skim milk and red hair who has never had more than about 30 seconds exposure to the sun in her whole life (she avoids it like the plague because of her genetics) and she is currently dealing with multiple melanomas on parts of her body that have NEVER seen the sun, and no, these lesions are not the other kind. Again, in as much as nothing is completely preventable, no disease process is completely preventable, and as sure as we are sitting here, there will be boonie-wearin', SPF 6000 smearin' monkey's uncles out there who get skin cancer on that patch of their neck that neither covered. I thought they taught doctors to avoid the use of terms like NEVER, ALWAYS, COMPLETELY, TOTALLY. Heck as an EMT, and MPH student, we are told to avoid these terms. That being said, Bravo Zulu to CAP for figuring out what the thinking world has known for 50 years.
Yes scan cancer isn't 100% preventable. But sun exposure is a factor and if this helps to lessen one factor then so be it. And that's talking as someone who had a near miss with skin cancer.
Quote from: mikeylikey on April 03, 2008, 02:50:47 PM
The ICL on the NHQ site has a picture of the boonie.
That'll help a lot. Too bad they couldn't go the extra mile and specifically state "it's gotta look like this or it isn't authorized."
It took CAP over a decade to realize that just saying "BDU Cap" without a description didn't automatically negate the wear of the USMC/USN railroad engineer-style BDU cap. They're kinda slow on the details.
That's why they need to send the draft to a bunch of A-retentive members (kinda like many here) to refine and clarify such issues.