Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2018, 07:30:50 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: ORANGE TRIANGLES
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Print
Author Topic: ORANGE TRIANGLES  (Read 4478 times)
mikeylikey
Banned

Posts: 3,756

« on: September 15, 2006, 12:10:48 PM »

Look at the new policy letter on Orange Triangles and our corporate vehicles!
http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2006_09_Vehicle_Roof_Marking_Instructions.pdf

AND they expect us to pay for the paint!  I doubt the Wing or Region will provide the paint or lights!!
Logged
What's up monkeys?
Matt
Seasoned Member

Posts: 469
Unit: NCR-001

North Central Region
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2006, 01:28:07 PM »

Sounds like the "Thinker" has been at it again... Wasn't there, once upon a time a similar policy to have, "Permanently affixed, removable decals" on the corp. vehicles...
Logged
Matthew Kopp, Maj, CAP
Director of Information Technology
North Central Region
captrncap
Forum Regular

Posts: 181

« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2006, 02:40:01 PM »

The "Thinker" needs to do better things with his time and not worry about uniforms changes every 2 weeks and triangles. Maybe we should be more worried about funds for our primary missions. I have many cadets that never received the "free" uniform. Where is the funding for that?

What about retention initiatives? Isn't that more important to spend time on than whether or not we get metal rank back.
Logged
smj58501
Seasoned Member

Posts: 222

« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2006, 02:58:26 PM »

Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?
Logged
Sean M. Johnson
Lt Col, CAP
Chief of Staff
ND Wing CAP
whatevah
Administrator

Posts: 1,046

my personal website, yo!
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2006, 03:31:13 PM »

*sigh*   if that doesn't look stupid, I dunno what does.

"Vehicle markings and lighting accessories, including strobes, must conform to all federal, state, and local laws. Any conflicts between this policy and federal, state, or local laws shall be brought to the attention of NHQ/LGT for resolution."

why did they throw in the comment about lights?  the letter was about paint, not lights.   Gotta love the burst of common sense, though.
Logged
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin
captrncap
Forum Regular

Posts: 181

« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2006, 03:35:15 PM »

Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?

Per the Aug 06 Boards "Since over ten percent of the vehicles
now on the road have white roofs, it can now be very challenging and time consuming to correctly identify which white roofed vehicle is the CAP vehicle when flying at 1,000 feet and at 90 knots."
Logged
Pylon
Administrator

Posts: 5,165
Unit: NER-NH-038

Michael Kieloch, Marketing Communications & PR Leadership
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2006, 03:35:35 PM »

why did they throw in the comment about lights?  the letter was about paint, not lights.   Gotta love the burst of common sense, though.

I have no idea why they'd include that.  That issue is already addressed in the CAPR 77-1 clearly.  There was no change to it.  I guess they figured they needed to pad out the letter a bit to make it look more important.  ;)


As for the markings, I don't care one way or the other.  Most people won't be able to see them anyways.  So long as the squadrons and groups don't end up paying for it, I don't care.  Frankly, if National is going to implement policies that obligates funds from subordinate units (yes, yes, I know, all money belongs to the corporation), I think NHQ ought to provide specific funding for it... otherwise don't do it.
Logged
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP
Concord Composite Squadron, NH       
Becks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 331

« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2006, 05:12:35 PM »

Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?

Per the Aug 06 Boards "Since over ten percent of the vehicles
now on the road have white roofs, it can now be very challenging and time consuming to correctly identify which white roofed vehicle is the CAP vehicle when flying at 1,000 feet and at 90 knots."

Our van already has large black block numbers on the top...one would assume that would be enough of an indicator.
Logged

BBATW
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,398
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2006, 07:46:02 PM »

Did "something" happen "out there" that generated a need for our aircrews to need a triangle to find our vehicles? Or is this a "neat idea"?

Per the Aug 06 Boards "Since over ten percent of the vehicles
now on the road have white roofs, it can now be very challenging and time consuming to correctly identify which white roofed vehicle is the CAP vehicle when flying at 1,000 feet and at 90 knots."

Our van already has large black block numbers on the top...one would assume that would be enough of an indicator.

According to my competent source, the numbers on most vehicle roofs are barely readable at 500 ft, much less at 1000 ft. An orange shape is much more visible and provides much better contrast than black numbers. A friend in my unit has a white 'Burb with a black rectangular antenna platform that is marginally distinguishable at 1000 feet, but if you know what you're looking for, it is an aid to location.

BTW, my competent source is my optometrist. He knows a thing or two about the subject.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Johnny Yuma
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 612

« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2006, 04:49:08 PM »

KSWG has their triangles on, we're numbering vehicles as we speak.

Our tests from the aircraft are that the triangles can be seen clearly atop the vehicles from an aircraft flying at 2000' from up to 1.5 miles away. This was a white vehicle top with plane and vehicel traveling West into the sun.

We believe on our older blue vehicles we may be able to see the triangles further due to the higher contrast between blue and orange. That's for another SAREX, however.


Johnny Yuma
Logged
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"
 
" Skip a bit, brother."
 
"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:
SARChick
Recruit

Posts: 14

« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2006, 06:17:50 AM »

this was just brought to my attention. its interesting. our old van had an orange triangle on the roof. the new van doesnt though. and we get to pay for it....great.... ::)
Logged
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear."
-Ambrose Redmoon

9.11.2001 Never Forget
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2006, 08:27:34 AM »

I remember this debate from back in my wing LG days.  You can argue the pros and cons of the triangle and block vehicle ID numbers all day.  I'm kind of sitting on the fence about it.  I think it looks tacky and don't believe it will be as effective as the proponents want us to believe.

The other bad decision from National HQ was to force wings to pay for the change.  This should come out of their O&M budget, not the wings.

"Sorry Cadet Jones, we couldn't get your O-Ride in because we had to pay to put orange triangles on the roofs of our vans."

The other problem I see is when you have missions that cross state boundaries or region activities when Delaware Van #01 is working along side Maryland Van #01.

Just another "Flavor of the Month Decision" by NHQ.

Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
Psicorp
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 606

« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2006, 09:27:18 AM »

In September, I became Scanner qualified.  During my second training mission, we had to guide several CAP vehicles to a target that was placed in a folliage area about a hundred feet from a road.

It's one of those strange things, never realizing how many white vans out there until you either own one or you're looking down at the ground for a particular one.

We were guiding three white vans to the target, one van would stop and a cadet would get out to use the D.F..   Another van would be heading in the right direction, then stop and turn around. The third van took what he thought to be short cut which we tried to explain was a dead-end, only to confuse the other two. 

Putting markings on the tops of the vans is long over-due if my experience is any indication of the confusion others have faced.   As for looking tacky, I think the ability to identify and communicate with a vehicle from the air trumps fashion.

Logged
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257
SARChick
Recruit

Posts: 14

« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2006, 09:51:18 AM »

i think having the squadrons pay for it is a bad idea. (but my opinion doesnt matter so oh well)
i dont have a problem with it going on the top. just that we have to provide the funds for it. i see how the air crews can find it useful. its just like the GT wear the orange vests instead of Safety green, so we can be seen from the air!! but i go back to..the squadrons have to pay..
Logged
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear."
-Ambrose Redmoon

9.11.2001 Never Forget
Pylon
Administrator

Posts: 5,165
Unit: NER-NH-038

Michael Kieloch, Marketing Communications & PR Leadership
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2006, 10:06:25 AM »

i think having the squadrons pay for it is a bad idea. (but my opinion doesnt matter so oh well)

The squadron's aren't paying, the Wing's are (supposed to).

But I agree that if National is going to make a change like this, funds should be set aside from a National-level and disbursed accordingly as Wing's make the "upgrade."


Has anybody else's Wing already adopted this?  I haven't seen any in New York Wing yet.
Logged
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP
Concord Composite Squadron, NH       
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2006, 12:02:41 PM »

We haven't done it yet here in Virginia.  I can understand and appreciate an aircrew members perspective on "White Roof Syndrome"...hense my reason for being on the fence about the markings.

The sad and unfortunate part of this whole decision is that some program already trying to justify its spending is going to have to fight to keep their funds from being diverted to these triangles. 

National should pick up the tab or reimburse the Wings.
Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
mawr
Member

Posts: 93

« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2006, 01:10:47 PM »

Has anybody else's Wing already adopted this?  I haven't seen any in New York Wing yet.

Alabama Wing has started the process of getting quotes for the expenses.  We're looking into having it done professionally.
Logged
Rick Hasha, Lt Col CAP
Pylon
Administrator

Posts: 5,165
Unit: NER-NH-038

Michael Kieloch, Marketing Communications & PR Leadership
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2006, 01:53:31 PM »

We're looking into having it done professionally.

That's probably the best idea, rather than "winging it" (pun intended) ourselves. 
Logged
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP
Concord Composite Squadron, NH       
Psicorp
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 606

« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2006, 02:55:46 PM »

We haven't done it yet here in Virginia.  I can understand and appreciate an aircrew members perspective on "White Roof Syndrome"...hense my reason for being on the fence about the markings.

The sad and unfortunate part of this whole decision is that some program already trying to justify its spending is going to have to fight to keep their funds from being diverted to these triangles. 

National should pick up the tab or reimburse the Wings.


Absolutely, sir.   National directives should come equiped with National funding.   One would think that this would be prepared ahead of time (cost analysis, etc) so that the funds are there and available when the directive is issued.    I'd like to think that due to our size difference, we'd be able to do things in a more efficient manner than Congress.

Logged
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,398
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2006, 05:44:32 PM »

I addressed this on another thread somewhere, but can't find it. Might have been on the Portal.

How expensive do you think this is going to be? I'm guessing it can be done for less than $50, and that, IMHO, is a very generous estimate. Some cleaner, some abrasive paper, a can of orange paint, and a can of clear, and you're all set.

If someone wanted to get really adventuresome, they might approach a body shop, 'splain the situation, and get it done as a donation.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: [1] 2  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: ORANGE TRIANGLES
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.297 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me