Boonie Cap

[lordmonar]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[chiles]

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.

[nesagsar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[DC]

My squadron openly prohibited ventilated BDU caps.

Why on earth would you do that?

[LtCol Hooligan]

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.

[Dragoon]

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.

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).

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.

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.

[Dragoon]

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.

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[lordmonar]

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.

[DC]

^Well said!

[Senior]

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.

[nesagsar]

On the subject of Air Force/CAP relations I can only offer this.

What exactly does the average air force officer think of us?

[lordmonar]

In my experince....the average Air Force officer does not even know CAP exists....or only vaguely.

[Hawk200]

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.

[mikeylikey]

^ 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.

[Hawk200]

^ 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.

CAP is not part of the Total Force concept, ....

Doens't seem to be.

.....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.

[Eclipse]

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!")

[Hawk200]

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!")

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.