Grey Pants

[SSgt Rudin]

slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants. 
Sounds like a question for the CAP knowledgebase!

Depends what business you are in...

[arajca]

Would you blouse your boots with the grey cargo pants?

Do you class cargo pants as casual trousers? or tactical clothing? or work wear?

Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?

Can you cite one where it is permitted? Remember CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary.

As well, the polo is absolutely not the CAP equivilant to the AF blues. The CAP corporate blue uniform fills that category, and prior to that, the aviatior uniform w/ white epaulet shirt and grey pants. The polo is that wierd "not formal but not tactical" uniform that falls between the blues and the BDUs.

Wrong. Refer to CAPM 39-1, Table 4-8. line 5, which says the CAP Knit Shirts (golf shirts) are equivalent to the AF-style light blue shirt.

So, would you wear blue cargo pants with the AF-style light blue shirt?

Since CAPM 39-1 classes the golf shirt as a service uniform, and cargo pants are not authorized with service uniforms, wearing cargo pants with the golf is not authorized.

[jeders]

If you care to read the uniform matrix in chapter 4 of CAPM 39-1, you will see that the "knit shirt" which is the golf/polo/whatever shirt is an equivalent to the AF blues shirt. This means that the uniform combo involving the golf shirt is an alternative to the AF blues uniform.

[SSgt Rudin]

Would you blouse your boots with the grey cargo pants?

Do you class cargo pants as casual trousers? or tactical clothing? or work wear?

1. No

2. Yes. I wear cargo shorts pretty much 5 days a week, so I would consider the pant version casual as well. But they are tactical and work wear too. Now I wouldn't wear the one's I wear for work in a casual setting, nor my tactical version for work.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Reasonable folks reading the same regulation coming to different conclusions?  How can THAT happen!?

[airdale]

Wow!   Where to start?

Jeders, it is fine to say "Cargo pants aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt and shouldn't be worn with it." but both parts of that statement are opinions.  I was asking what the rules are.

RiverAux, to say "slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants" is also fine, but it is simply arguing your opinion by offering another opinion.  Merriam-Webster, both in my print copy and on-line, considers slacks, trousers, and pants to be equivalent.  You are also overlooking the fact that "casual" is not prohibited in Table 4-4, where it is in Table 4-3.  IMHO differences like this are not accidental.

arajca,  ref [Quote from: SJFedor Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?] you ask "Can you cite one where it is permitted? Remember CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary."

I don't think you really want to go down that road.  39-1 also says nothing about pockets.  Do you also argue that pockets are not permitted?

There is a pretty interesting thread here (at least to me) called "In defense of wannabes."  I think a couple of quotes are germane:

My definition of a wannabe, especially where CAP is concerned is the individual who either couldn't get into the military, or wants to relive his glory days, and tries to mold a unit into his version of what a military unit should be like.  This individual accepts only the input that coincides with his "vision" and anyone else just doesn't understand "how it ought to be."

and

Does it matter?  If someone is getting the job done without being a jerk (which can be a result of many things), then what do we care what their motivation is?  Its the results that counts in my book.  If a guy's sole reason to be in CAP is to get to wear an AF-style uniform while flying a plane, thats just fine by me so long as he answers the phone when I'm looking for a crew.

So, let me ask another question:  Are there areas of the country or wings where gray cargo pants are often seen with the golf shirt?  In other words, what is the real world?

[jeders]

Reasonable folks reading the same regulation coming to different conclusions?  How can THAT happen!?

Because we're also reasonably intelligent people and we can come together to debate a point and hopefully learn something in the end, that is the point of CAPTalk.

Wow!   Where to start?

Jeders, it is fine to say "Cargo pants aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt and shouldn't be worn with it." but both parts of that statement are opinions.  I was asking what the rules are.

RiverAux, to say "slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants" is also fine, but it is simply arguing your opinion by offering another opinion.  Merriam-Webster, both in my print copy and on-line, considers slacks, trousers, and pants to be equivalent.  You are also overlooking the fact that "casual" is not prohibited in Table 4-4, where it is in Table 4-3.  IMHO differences like this are not accidental.

arajca,  ref [Quote from: SJFedor Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?] you ask "Can you cite one where it is permitted? Remember CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary."

I don't think you really want to go down that road.  39-1 also says nothing about pockets.  Do you also argue that pockets are not permitted?

There is a pretty interesting thread here (at least to me) called "In defense of wannabes."  I think a couple of quotes are germane:

My definition of a wannabe, especially where CAP is concerned is the individual who either couldn't get into the military, or wants to relive his glory days, and tries to mold a unit into his version of what a military unit should be like.  This individual accepts only the input that coincides with his "vision" and anyone else just doesn't understand "how it ought to be."

and

Does it matter?  If someone is getting the job done without being a jerk (which can be a result of many things), then what do we care what their motivation is?  Its the results that counts in my book.  If a guy's sole reason to be in CAP is to get to wear an AF-style uniform while flying a plane, thats just fine by me so long as he answers the phone when I'm looking for a crew.

So, let me ask another question:  Are there areas of the country or wings where gray cargo pants are often seen with the golf shirt?  In other words, what is the real world?

So are you saying that all of us who don't think that cargo pockets on the gray pants are acceptable are wannabes? Let me tell ya, you know how to win friends and influence people like no one else.

The wannabe thread was about people doing things just for the bling and extras without regard to the actual mission. This is about everyone looking at least somewhat similar in order to provide a more professional image. It's bad enough that we have at least 3 different forms of the golf shirt, what's worse is that people wear multiple forms of gray pants.

Also, this thread is entitled "Grey Pants", not "Grey Pants for the Golf Shirt". It makes more sense to wear the same gray pants with the golf shirt that you do with the aviator shirt. As you pointed out earlier, the table regarding the aviator shirt prohibits casual slacks, which definitely include cargo pants.

As far as differences in CAPM 39-1 not being accidental, have you been in CAP for more than 2 seconds? Have you read 39-1? That thing has accidental holes big enough for me to fly the space shuttle through.

[Hawk200]

Besides, the manual says "slacks/trousers", not "cargo pants". As far as the manual is concerned, cargo pants don't fit the description.

"The manual" also identifies the pants we wear with BDUs as "trousers" and not "cargo pants", so I would consider that argument null and void.

It's interesting how you refer to the manual. Almost as a suggestion, rather than a publication that you're supposed to be complying with.

The golf shirt combo is supposed to be business casual clothing. Cargo pants are not a business casual clothing item. Slacks are dressier clothing. Cargo pants don't have any kind of business associated status. Consider it "null and void" all you want, but they are not in the spirit of the manual.

Do I think that a cargo type pant should be allowed? Yes, I do. They would be handy. But the manual does not expressly permit them. Which is why they're not authorized.

[ArkAux]

Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):

Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?

Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs.  Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not.  If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.

SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice:  877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax:  334-953-4262

[jeders]

Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):

Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?

Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs.  Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not.  If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.

SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice:  877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax:  334-953-4262

Sounds fairly definitive to me, no cargo pants.

[CFI_Ed]

Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):

Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?

Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs.  Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not.  If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.

SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice:  877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax:  334-953-4262

Sounds fairly definitive to me, no cargo pants.

As much as I don't like the answer, I have to concur - No Cargo Pants.  Now lets lock this thread up and press on with the next earth shattering question.

[SARMedTech]

Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?

I would and I do. I wear so called "cargo pants" with a polo shirt or a long sleeve button down with my organizations logo on it regularly to meetings and have even been known to throw on a blazer with it when the situation warranted.  In the Emergency Services arena (non-cap) the cargo pant in various colors has become the Docker/chino in terms of a corporate uniform.

[CFI_Ed]

In the Emergency Services arena (non-cap) the cargo pant in various colors has become the Docker/chino in terms of a corporate uniform.

I concur with your sentiment, I would prefer to wear and have worn cargo pants.  But until we receive another opinion or different guidance from NHQ (to include a written change to the regulation) Cargo Pants are not authorized.

[BigMojo]

Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?

I do all the time as well. I have what would be considered a "white collar" job as well, and the "cargo slacks" with polo is my daily uniform, also been know to wear nice jeans. As this argument relates to our work with CAP, if you want to wear gray cargo slacks with a polo for flying or UDF work, go for it, I think it's functional and maintaining with the reg. But for meetings/inspections, I really think you should wear what would be considered a dress slack, as it undoubted looks nicer and inline with the "spirit of the reg". YMMV

[Eclipse]

Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):

Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?

Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs.  Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not.  If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.

SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice:  877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax:  334-953-4262

With respect for Ms. Parker and all she does for CAP, I would say that this is one time she is incorrect and points to the reason that people have an issue with the KB not being regulatory. 

I also have worn professionally-cut cargo-style pants just about every day for 10 years in everything from manufacturing office environments to full-on corporate situations.  The EMS-style LA PD blue (black) pants with flap-over side pockets and permanent creases look far more professional than what a lot of people wear these days, especially in the world of "business casual".

They also allow for people to take off their "utility belts" and not look like complete goobers with all the stuff hanging off their belts.

[LittleIronPilot]

Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?

I do all the time as well. I have what would be considered a "white collar" job as well, and the "cargo slacks" with polo is my daily uniform, also been know to wear nice jeans. As this argument relates to our work with CAP, if you want to wear gray cargo slacks with a polo for flying or UDF work, go for it, I think it's functional and maintaining with the reg. But for meetings/inspections, I really think you should wear what would be considered a dress slack, as it undoubted looks nicer and inline with the "spirit of the reg". YMMV

I just cannot agree. This is the main problem with CAP that I see, we follow the rules only when they benefit us, otherwise people do what they want, or interpret things to how they best see them. You do not wear "what is functional" while on a mission but go by the book for a meeting. You are in uniform or your are out of uniform, there is no middle ground. I have seen people asked to go home and change on SAREX's because they were not in the proper uniform, as they should be.

I am sorry, but I AM an executive and work in the business world. In "normal" white-collar businesses cargo pants are NOT business casual. Slacks are NOT cargo pants...people need to quit trying to play "lawyer games" with word smithing. Everyone knows what the heck the regulation was intended to mean. People can even see, in the picture of the uniform, the style they were intending.

Now, with all of that said, would I wear gray cargo pants if allowed? Yup I sure would. Though if that change were allowed I would hope they would mandate they are pressed and not look all rumpled like most people I see wearing most types of cargo/BDU style pant.

[RiverAux]

With respect for Ms. Parker and all she does for CAP, I would say that this is one time she is incorrect and points to the reason that people have an issue with the KB not being regulatory. 

Obviously National Headquarters should not be involved in resolving questions about our regulations.  That would just be outlandish. 

[Eclipse]

With respect for Ms. Parker and all she does for CAP, I would say that this is one time she is incorrect and points to the reason that people have an issue with the KB not being regulatory. 

Obviously National Headquarters should not be involved in resolving questions about our regulations.  That would just be outlandish. 

The last thing I would ever do is speak negatively about Ms. Parker, she has helped me on numerous occasions and is the glue which holds a lot of CAP together.

However she is not in the chain or command.
In most cases the KB provides answers which are references to regulations, or are provided by members with the authority to actually make a respective decision. (i.e. if John Desmaris provides an answer with respect to ES, that is coming from someone on the NHQ staff who likely will be making the decision (for approval by HEADCAP), or advising a committee on same.)

As we all know, the issue of our uniforms is regularly contentious because in some cases the regs are ambiguous on purpose, contain typos or omissions, or simply because "someone never asked that before".

As I have been reminded here all too often, those times of ambiguity or silence are when commanders have to step up and interpret (I can learn, too).  So before I would ever require a member to incur personal cost (i.e. having to buy different pants), I would want to see a reg or ICL properly presented and approved. Until then its subjective to the local unit or activity commander.  Put 5 Level V Colonels in a room with a uniform item that is not 100% spelled out and you will likely get at least three different answers, all potentially correct.

With the above said, I will advise my membership that the allowance for tactical pants with the golf shirt is currently based on regulation interpretation, and there's a possibility that they may be disallowed in the future.

Up until recently, the majority of members in my purview (myself included) assumed you had to wear the same dress pants with the golf shirt as with the whites.  We now know that is not true, and those who take it a step further with tactical pants do so at the risk of having a pair of pants they can't wear if NHQ decides to clarify the issue.

My personal money is that if and when they do, it will be the allowance of tacticals, not the prohibition.

[RiverAux]

Seems to me that NHQ has clarified the issue.  If you don't like the clarification, take it up your chain of command. 

[Eclipse]

Seems to me that NHQ has clarified the issue.  If you don't like the clarification, take it up your chain of command. 

No one in my chain has had any comment on this.