ES Taskbooks -- do they govern operations or just training?

[Dragoon]

Here's an example.   If a GTL and a couple of GTMs  (who are not UDF qualfieid) are called out for an ELT hunt (a mission for which a UDF team could have been called) there is nothing requiring those individuals to bring all their gear and wear BDUs.

If they hop in a car with an L Per and wearing golf shirts, they are within CAP regs.  This may or may not be the smartest thing to do, but I see nothing in the regs to preclude it.

If three members go hunting for an ELT then, by regs, they are NOT a Ground Team.  Their scope of perfromance should be limited to urban settings only, regardless of what gear they brought or what other qualifications they hold.

Show me the reg that states that a GTL and his team are not a ground team when hunting ELTs, please.

It's the fact that there are only three members.  The regs require 4 members on a ground team.  Only 2 are required for UDF.

From 60-3:

3) Composition of the ground or urban DF team will vary depending upon the assignment. Ground teams will not be dispatched with fewer than four individuals, and urban DF teams with less than two.

You obviously mistook my casual reference as "a couple" to mean "2", rather than "an small number more than one."  :-)

I'll restate. A GTL with THREE OR MORE  GTMs, no one UDF qualified, can go hunt ELTS in Golf Shirts and not be breaking any regs.

[Dragoon]

In so much as finishing all the tasks gets you certified and eligible to wear something such as a GTM insignia or Observer wings or whatnot, and as those items are in themselves regulated I would assume that the Tasks and therefor the task books are govern'd / Regulated as to operations.

Look at it this way: If the directions in the task guides (TRAINING GUIDES)
isnt to be followed in the Operations/Real World Arena ...
Then WHAT may I ask is the point of that training material in the first place?

A good point.  And probably the correct answer.  Just not the one backed up in the regs.  Unless 60-3 is changed to state "ALL ES operations must be conducted in accordance with the standards in the ES Task Guides," there is no requirement to do so.

This doesn't preclude any given IC from stating that he/she requires those standards for a given mission or sortie.  But in absence of that order, or a Wing Supplement, you don't have to.

[RiverAux]

My point exactly Dragoon.   Actually I would prefer that such language be in place, but it isn't. 

[SarDragon]

And that is fine. The solution is, and this is an issue to be addressed at the Wing and IC level is that a GTM3 does not deploy on a UDF team without at least being UDF-T qualified. 

On a personal note, IMHO, the Golf Shirt and Grey pants combination or any other non-work type uniform even if it is approved for Flying, and is appropriate for Mission Staff assignments, is not appropriate for any ground based field activity, UDFT or otherwise.  The Blue Utility Uniform should be the minimum for UDF teams.

I disagree. Most of the UDF work I've done has been in a golf shirt, and there have never been any issues about its appropriateness for the tasks at hand. I also get fewer hassles from the folks on military bases (there are 5 in my area) when I'm wearing my golf shirt.

[Dragoon]

Interesting trivia - as worded today, males may wear the golf shirt with dockers and black sneakers, making it a fine light duty utility suit.

Females have to wear pumps or loafers - not quite as useful for utility work.

(by the way, I'm for canning the whole thing.  In my book no rank = not a uniform)

[Eclipse]

Interesting trivia - as worded today, males may wear the golf shirt with dockers and black sneakers, making it a fine light duty utility suit.

Females have to wear pumps or loafers - not quite as useful for utility work.

(by the way, I'm for canning the whole thing.  In my book no rank = not a uniform)

Cite, please.  Despite the fact that many people wear them, Dockers, or any cotton / twill type casual pants are not authorized, nor are "black sneakers".

Slacks / Trousers
Commercial dress slacks/trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or
similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats,
with or without cuffs. (No jeans or casual slacks.) No bunching at waist or
bagging at seat. (emphasis mine)

Footwear
Men: Black shoes or dress boots (plain, black, commercial design without
ornamentation such as buckles or straps) with black or dark blue socks.

[Eclipse]

Correction!    (You learn something new everyday.)  Cotton twill >is< authorized with the golf shirt!  !@#$%

Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).

I still disagree on the sneakers, though, as the verbiage is the same.

[Eclipse]

BTW - does any thread here >not< degrade into a legalistic argument about uniforms or courtesies?

[Dragoon]

Correction!    (You learn something new everyday.)  Cotton twill >is< authorized with the golf shirt!  !@#$%

Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).

I still disagree on the sneakers, though, as the verbiage is the same.

Table 4-4

Footwear

Men: Black shoes or dress boots (plain, black, commercial design without
ornamentation such as buckles or straps) with black or dark blue socks.
Women: Either black tailored pumps, plain black oxfords or black leather
loafers with off-black hose, neutral nylon hose, dark blue or black socks, as
appropriate. Dress boots (plain, black, commercial design without
ornamentation such as buckles, bows, or straps) with heels of a height suitable
to the individual but not higher than 2 1/2 inches (measured from inside sole
of the boot to the end of heel lift).

Man and women can wear dress boots.

Men can also wear black shoes.  Sneakers are shoes.  Note it doesn't say "dress shoes"

Women on the other had are limited to pumps, oxfords or loafters.  Sneakers are none of the above.



My guess this isn't what they meant to say, but that's how it got written.