Another flightsuit idea....

[Hawk200]

Uniform comittee thread got locked, so thought I'd throw this idea out on a new one. Just a proposal.

Flightsuits: Propose eliminating the blue flightsuit (they're expensive).

In turn, eliminate rank insignia on the sage green flightsuit, for all members.  Rank would be on the nameplate as it is now. Headgear would remain the standard flightcap.

Sage flightsuits are available pretty inexpensively, if one shops around. I have gotten a few, new in the bag, for $50 or less.

It would be cheaper, more uniform, one less insignia item to worry about. No concerns about matching insignia, or even creating them for some of our current ranks that it doesn't exist for (Flight Officer ranks specifically).

Thoughts?

[isuhawkeye]

the air force considers the sage flight suit their unifor, and as such they have dictated those policies.  height weigh, groming apply.

the blue was an attempt to have nomex for all.

[notaNCO forever]

Air Force wouldn't allow it and it would not be fair to those who bought the blue ones.

[Hawk200]

There was a time when those not meeting those standards were permitted to wear it, but without rank insignia.

I know the Air Force considers it theirs, but it's worn by more than just the Air Force. That includes LE, medevac, CBP, USFS, and many others that don't come to mind at the moment. They may be possesive, but that "possesion" is rather artificial.

If we attempted to configure it differently than the Air Force standard, maybe we could treat it like our uniform, instead of theirs. Maybe eliminate some of the accoutrements that make it more "Air Force", configure it to our needs.

It's a Catch 22, in a way. The Air Force considers anything sage as theirs, but any other color they don't care about. Anything other than the green is spendy. Which doesn't show all that much concern for our self funding members. "Nomex for all" doesn't hold a lot of water when it comes with a higher cost.

However, hypothetically, if the Air Force didn't mind, what about the concept? Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flighsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

[sparks]

Instead of flight suits just have two field uniforms, one for those within the weight/appearance guidelines and one for those who aren't. That cuts down on flight suit costs and issues.

[notaNCO forever]

Instead of flight suits just have two field uniforms, one for those within the weight/appearance guidelines and one for those who aren't. That cuts down on flight suit costs and issues.

Field uniforms are not NOMEX

[sparks]

The golf shirt and gray slacks aren't NOMEX either.  I don't think most people who wear flight suits consider the NOMEX feature when they choose that uniform.

[DrJbdm]

Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flightsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

  I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the lowest common denominator.

   Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

[mikeylikey]

^ Try telling that to some of the current Wing Commanders and see how far that flies.  Lets see.....1/3 of them hugely overweight.....ya, won't go far at all.  Nice try though!

[SarDragon]

I got my blue flight suit on eBay for about $80, and it was in excellent condition. They are less common than the sage or OD ones, but you just need to be patient. It took me three auctions to get one within my price range, but I got one.

[SarDragon]

Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flightsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

  I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the lowest common denominator.

   Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

I meet AF weight standards, but wear a blue flight suit. Let's quit harping on the heavy folks. Just because they are heavy doesn't mean they are stupid.

I agree that getting a three member crew up is sometimes difficult, but that can frequently be acommodated with the fuel load.

[JayT]

Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flightsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

  I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the
lowest common denominator.
   Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

That's exactly right. If I'm a few pounds over the limit, and have the intergrity to wear the proper uniform, I shouldn't be on air crew with you fine, ultra fit gentlemen. After all, I'm a few pounds over the limit, so I must be the  lowest common denominator.



You're Civil Air Patrol rank insignia is of extreme importance to everyone!

[Eeyore]

Flightsuits: Propose eliminating the blue flightsuit (they're expensive).

In turn, eliminate rank insignia on the sage green flightsuit, for all members.  Rank would be on the nameplate as it is now. Headgear would remain the standard flightcap.

I think it's a good idea; goes along with the one uniform, one CAP idea.

I got my blue flight suit on eBay for about $80, and it was in excellent condition. They are less common than the sage or OD ones, but you just need to be patient. It took me three auctions to get one within my price range, but I got one.

Problem is, if we all go to blue you aren't going to find many cheap ones on eBay. If it took you three tries to get one cheap with very little demand; a high demand product is going to be far more costly.

I meet AF weight standards, but wear a blue flight suit. Let's quit harping on the heavy folks. Just because they are heavy doesn't mean they are stupid.

I don't think anyone was really calling anyone stupid. I believe he was just saying that he doesn't feel that he should have to wear a blue flightsuit just because others can't. I agree, lets just put everyone in the sage flightsuit and get rid of the plastic rank, it's a pain to find anyway.

I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the lowest common denominator.
   
Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

I really don't think the rank insignia on the shoulders is all that important. If it says your rank somewhere on your uniform, who cares? I know we all love our bling, but that is what the service uniform is for. When you are on the aircraft rank doesn't matter. You listen to the MP, no matter what his or your rank may be.

Is the weight of the aircrew a mission prohibitive issue. How many times has a plane been forced to an emergency landing because they couldn't carry enough fuel because of the weight of the aircrew? I doubt that it has ever really been an issue. I think most of the planes tend to carry more fuel than is necessary for the mission they are flying anyway.

[BlueLakes1]

I think some of you are missing the point of Lt. Meiner's comments regarding restrictions on aircrew weight in general. Let me throw some numbers out and try to make a little sense.

The new C-182T aircraft being purchased by CAP have a lower useful load than the old C-182 and most C-172 aircraft. A C-182T with a full fuel load (88 gallons, or 528 pounds) has a remaining useful load of about 530 pounds. That's a ballpark number, as each airframe has its own specific numbers. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 530 pounds isn't a lot; you'd be hard pressed to take three officers from any given squadron who don't tally a total weight over that. Also remember that we haven't included any flight gear, SDIS equipment, required aircraft equipment, etc. into this equation.

So, the simple answer is go for a lower fuel load. No big deal, fueling "to the tabs" leaves you with 60 gallons, or 360 pounds, thereby increasing your available load by 168 pounds to 688 pounds, roughly. Most units with C-182T aircraft that I've been around "mission load" their fuel to 60 gallons total, but YMMV. You do decrease your endurance somewhat, to around 4.5 hours, but you'd probably want to land by the time you went bingo fuel anyway. 688 pounds, obviously, is a more reasonable number to work with, although you'll probably end up close to fully loaded. Figure three crewmembers at 200 lbs. apiece isn't unreasonable, and if each has a 20 pound flight bag...and SDIS...and the survival kit...well, you see where I'm going.

...but wait, there's more...

Assume we've got everything tweaked out, and we can take off right at the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) for this airplane, 3,100 pounds. We can take off legally at that weight, but we can't legally land the airplane for two hours, as it has a published maximum landing weight (MLW) of 2,950 pounds and you'll need to burn off enough fuel to drop below MLW (13 GPH x 6 PPG x 2 hours = 156 lbs used).

So, the lighter the total weight of the aircrew, the better off we are. I don't think that Lt. Meiners was trying to be hateful to larger aircrew folks, but the fact is that lighter is better.

Disclaimer: These numbers are ballpark, and nowhere near precise. Do not use for actual flight planning, as they came from the potentially rusty memory of a guy who just finished working a 24 hour shift!

[RiverAux]

While these numbers look about right, it isn't exactly a case where 3 AF-standard meeting CAP members would automatically be light enough to avoid weight issues with the airplane.  I can easily come up with scenarios where 3 people who all can legally wear the AF uniform would still overload the plane. 

That being said, you are right that ligher members are better. 

[DrJbdm]

Those numbers by Major Creed look about right to me too, and the point he made is the point I was making.  Would limiting the weight of an aircrew member be unpopular? Sure it would. The heavy folks get upset anytime they are limited from something because of their weight. They consider it discriminatory.  Now, I'm not trying to be mean or callous to the members who have a weight issue, I feel for them....no one really wants to be fat.  I'm just pointing out some things that can be a real safety concern. Operating an aircraft can be risky enough, we do not need to add to the risk by needlessly allowing larger people to fly.
 
   The other issue is cabin room, it's a tight fit in the cockpit even with two 180 pound pilots in front, it's down right uncomfortable with a 250 pound person up front,  that persons bulk could get in the way of being able to safely operate the flight controls.  It's not that much more comfortable for a big guy to be in the back seat,  in fact it's a tight fit to climb in back there.

   My issue isn't with fat people, it's with being able to safely and comfortably carry out our flight mission. If we truly want our larger members to fly, then perhaps CAP needs larger airframes, the C-182T isn't designed for it.

[mikeylikey]

^ If we are discussing safety.....perhaps we should also throw in the fact that pilots over  age 60 have a greater chance of heart attack and stroke while mid-flight.  Perhaps when we exclude fat people we should exclude those members over a certain age.  FAIR Is FAIR....right?!?!

Seriously, I question the ability of some members who are 70+ to fly.  I think we should have age restrictions on flying.  Once I had a pilot ask me if I would be able to land the plane if something happened to him while we were in flight.  I laughed it off, but thought later, "man that guy was old, he could have died while we were up there".

Also, to balance out the FAT guy, perhaps we should get an underweight pilot.  So we allow the 250 pound member in the back, then we look for a 140 pound guy to sit up front.  Problem solved!

[jeders]

Seriously, I question the ability of some members who are 70+ to fly.  I think we should have age restrictions on flying.  Once I had a pilot ask me if I would be able to land the plane if something happened to him while we were in flight.  I laughed it off, but thought later, "man that guy was old, he could have died while we were up there".

My old squadron wouldn't allow some of the older folks to go up in the plane because there was a signifacnt probability of something happening mid air.

Actually it would make sense to put restrictions on aircrew for weight and age in some instances. Maybe not allow aircrew members over 250 fly in high altitude mountainous environments. Also not allowing people over a certain age to fly on actual search missions might be a good idea. Let these people fly other missions in low stress/risk environments.

Back to the actual topic, as much as I absolutely love the rank on my flight suit, I don't really have a problem with losing it if it gets everyone into the sage green flight suit.

[Smokey]

The Air Force said flat out...no fat/fuzzies in green flight suits. Whether we agree or disagree...it's their ballpark. That's why the blue flightsuit came into being for CAP a few years ago.

BTW...if we get the AF approval (it's already been approved by the NB) for cloth name tags, then the rank would not appear if we were to follow the standard AF design. So rank on the shoulder would be the only place the rank would appear.

[mikeylikey]

^ Do we really need rank on the flight suit?  My guess is no. 

[Hawk200]

The Air Force said flat out...no fat/fuzzies in green flight suits. Whether we agree or disagree...it's their ballpark. That's why the blue flightsuit came into being for CAP a few years ago.

I keep seeing this mentioned, but so far, noone has been able to show me their refusal.

BTW...if we get the AF approval (it's already been approved by the NB) for cloth name tags, then the rank would not appear if we were to follow the standard AF design. So rank on the shoulder would be the only place the rank would appear.

You state that as if it couldn't be changed. It would be pretty simple, just do a one line nametag with Rank then Name (as in First M. Last). It would have to change when people promote, but it's a small price that everyone would have to pay. There would no longer be some people getting a suit for $50 (or less), and others spending $125 (or more). Seems like a very small price to pay for actually getting everyone in the same uniform. It would be fair cost to everyone. One less thing to sew, as well.

As far as the only place that rank appears, that's not completely accurate. Where do you think enlisted wear theirs? Those enlisted personnel in the military have for more aircrew training in their jobs than those in CAP will ever get. They seem to be able to do their jobs just fine without having their rank insignia prominently displayed.

[mikeylikey]

I keep seeing this mentioned, but so far, no one has been able to show me their refusal.

There is a lot of "the AF said this, the AF said that", and you are correct, very few occasions can we find written documentation.  It makes more sense that CAP NHQ told the AF no FAT/FUZZIES, and they agreed.  Perhaps someone at NHQ decided to screw over that group of the membership.  That is more plausible than the AF after 50 years saying "get out of our uniforms", when we have Cadets that can't even find a uniform that will fit them because they are so HUGE. 

[DNall]

The AF hasn't had ht/wt standards for 50 years. That's a more modern invention. When it came along, AF told CAP to comply. At the time, they meant CAP to comply as a membership standard, just as AF was doing, but didn't have the authority from congress to enforce the order. What they have authority to take away from us w/o endangering critical operations is uniforms. That's what they did. CAP was ingenious enough to create alternatives, which were at the time civilian cloths that everyone already had with the addition of an ID/nametag of some sort. Those weren't uniforms & not a lot AF could or wanted to do about it. It's just within the last decade that any "corporate-style" alternatives appear anything remotely like a uniform of any kind, much less an AF affiliated one.

[Dragoon]

My thoughts are all over the place.

The concept of everyone in green nomex without grade is a great one - we don't need stuff on our shoulders - the grade is still displayed on the chest, and operationally it's about 101 quals, not grade anyway.  Plus it could put us all in USAF clothes.

But nomex is expensive.  Methinks many folks would continue to choose lower cost alternatives like golf shirts and blue utilities as long as those are legal for flight wear.  Not much gain in uniformity.

At least with blue nomex, blue utilities, and golf shirts, everyone's the same color.  Perhaps we'd be better off going this route and eliminating green nomex.

Of course if your goal is not uniformity, but rather a way to let a subset of  overweight and/or bearded folks wear a USAF suit, then it's a fine idea.  It cetainly doesn't make us any LESS uniform.



As an aside, we put an entire squadron of seniors in blue uniforms - a handful splurged on blue nomex, everyone else went for blue utilities and/or field uniforms.  No golf shirts allowed.   Everyone blended together extremely well, and it helped create that sense of unit cohesion I think we all wish for.



 

[Hawk200]

The concept of everyone in green nomex without grade is a great one - we don't need stuff on our shoulders - the grade is still displayed on the chest, and operationally it's about 101 quals, not grade anyway.  Plus it could put us all in USAF clothes.

Something I was thinking about when I suggested it.

But nomex is expensive. 

Green nomex isn't. I've gotten six green fliightsuits for what it would cost to buy one blue one. I was considering cost too.

At least with blue nomex, blue utilities, and golf shirts, everyone's the same color.  Perhaps we'd be better off going this route and eliminating green nomex.

But it's back to being expensive again.

Of course if your goal is not uniformity, but rather a way to let a subset of  overweight and/or bearded folks wear a USAF suit, then it's a fine idea.  It cetainly doesn't make us any LESS uniform.

Actually, the goal is uniformity. Everyone would be in the same green suit, and I'm not super attached to my shoulder rank anyway. One less thing to sew on. I'd sacrifice it now, but there wouldn't be any reason to it. For uniformity purposes, it's a sacrifice I don't have any problem making, and one that would have legitimate purpose.

[A.Member]

Uniform comittee thread got locked, so thought I'd throw this idea out on a new one. Just a proposal.

Flightsuits: Propose eliminating the blue flightsuit (they're expensive).

In turn, eliminate rank insignia on the sage green flightsuit, for all members.  Rank would be on the nameplate as it is now. Headgear would remain the standard flightcap.

Sage flightsuits are available pretty inexpensively, if one shops around. I have gotten a few, new in the bag, for $50 or less.

It would be cheaper, more uniform, one less insignia item to worry about. No concerns about matching insignia, or even creating them for some of our current ranks that it doesn't exist for (Flight Officer ranks specifically).

Thoughts?

Honestly, horrible idea.  Yet another solution in search of a problem.   

[Hawk200]

Honestly, horrible idea.  Yet another solution in search of a problem.   

OK, so in your opinion, it's a horrible idea. Why?

[Dragoon]

Green nomex isn't. I've gotten six green fliightsuits for what it would cost to buy one blue one. I was considering cost too. 

The fat guy's not gonna be able to buy used USAF suit or get one handed to him from Wing Supply -  because he's big, he's going to have to order it brand new - and perhaps even special order it to get that XXL size.  Which costs $$$$.  Sooo...he's likely to stay in some other uniform.  Not much uniformity gain.

At least with blue nomex, blue utilities, and golf shirts, everyone's the same color.  Perhaps we'd be better off going this route and eliminating green nomex.

But it's back to being expensive again.

[/quote] 

Not really.  Blue utilities (non-nomex) are cheap.  And they blend perfectly with nomex.  And even BBDUs blend better with blue flightsuits than they do with green flightsuits.  My guess is that getting all aircrew in something blue would be the cheapest way to increase uniformity.

[DNall]

Again, FEMA has guidelines coming out for all emergency services. CAP will have to meet those in order to do any missions for the fed govt or any state/local that gets any federal funds. That's a much bigger deal for GT than aircrew, but one of the required items for aircrew is PPE flight suit. In other words, flight suits are going to be mandatory for all ES flight in 18mos - 2yrs.

As far as the expense of an XXL flt suit when we already have to offload fuel for a standard crew/gear, and especially when we're adding more tech items all the time... kind of a moot point don't you think?

[Hawk200]

Green nomex isn't. I've gotten six green fliightsuits for what it would cost to buy one blue one. I was considering cost too. 

The fat guy's not gonna be able to buy used USAF suit or get one handed to him from Wing Supply -  because he's big, he's going to have to order it brand new - and perhaps even special order it to get that XXL size.  Which costs $$$$.  Sooo...he's likely to stay in some other uniform.  Not much uniformity gain.

At least with blue nomex, blue utilities, and golf shirts, everyone's the same color.  Perhaps we'd be better off going this route and eliminating green nomex.

But it's back to being expensive again.

Not really.  Blue utilities (non-nomex) are cheap.  And they blend perfectly with nomex.  And even BBDUs blend better with blue flightsuits than they do with green flightsuits.  My guess is that getting all aircrew in something blue would be the cheapest way to increase uniformity.

Problem is that not everyone that ever shows up to a mission base is going to be wearing just blue uniforms. There is always going to be  a mix.

As for blue BDU's blending with blue flightsuits, why is that so important? Search missions aren't made or failed by a fashion show.

Green flighsuits are obtainable up to a 52 extra long. And they would still be cheaper than a blue one. We've got more than a few "extra large" guys in my Army unit that have them. They're not unobtainable.

[isuhawkeye]

none of our opinions matter.  Col Hodgkins has publicly stated (in my presence) that the Air Force considers the green nomex suit to be an Air Force uniform, and as such CAP WILL be held to height weight standards for its use. 

we have brought this issue up 3 different times durring my career, and it has been rejected each time.

do we ever learn our lessons?
this note posted from a TREO phone

[sparks]

DNall,  where did you find the FEMA intention to require flight suits in a few years for all Aircrew members? You also describe them as PPE (personal protection equipment) which to me means NOMEX. Is that correct?

[Dragoon]

Again, FEMA has guidelines coming out for all emergency services. CAP will have to meet those in order to do any missions for the fed govt or any state/local that gets any federal funds. That's a much bigger deal for GT than aircrew, but one of the required items for aircrew is PPE flight suit. In other words, flight suits are going to be mandatory for all ES flight in 18mos - 2yrs.

As far as the expense of an XXL flt suit when we already have to offload fuel for a standard crew/gear, and especially when we're adding more tech items all the time... kind of a moot point don't you think?

Not from a cost perspective.  The senior will still have to pay for the suit.

It will be a cold day in hell when CAP precludes someone from being aircrew because they're big.    They'll just pair 'em up with the little guys.

[Dragoon]

Green nomex isn't. I've gotten six green fliightsuits for what it would cost to buy one blue one. I was considering cost too. 

The fat guy's not gonna be able to buy used USAF suit or get one handed to him from Wing Supply -  because he's big, he's going to have to order it brand new - and perhaps even special order it to get that XXL size.  Which costs $$$$.  Sooo...he's likely to stay in some other uniform.  Not much uniformity gain.

At least with blue nomex, blue utilities, and golf shirts, everyone's the same color.  Perhaps we'd be better off going this route and eliminating green nomex.

But it's back to being expensive again.

Not really.  Blue utilities (non-nomex) are cheap.  And they blend perfectly with nomex.  And even BBDUs blend better with blue flightsuits than they do with green flightsuits.  My guess is that getting all aircrew in something blue would be the cheapest way to increase uniformity.

Problem is that not everyone that ever shows up to a mission base is going to be wearing just blue uniforms. There is always going to be  a mix.

As for blue BDU's blending with blue flightsuits, why is that so important? Search missions aren't made or failed by a fashion show.

Green flighsuits are obtainable up to a 52 extra long. And they would still be cheaper than a blue one. We've got more than a few "extra large" guys in my Army unit that have them. They're not unobtainable.

My point was that if we eliminated green nomex, then we could put people in blue cheaper.  Not blue NOMEX - but blue.  And everyone in blue is more uniform than some in blue and some in green.

But if you aren't interested in blending uniform together (i.e. increasing uniformity) - then there is no reason to change the current set as well. So what if some guys wear green and some guys wear blue?   

But I thought uniformity was one of your arguments.

Green Nomex may be cheaper than blue Nomex, but it ain't cheaper than blue poly/cotton utilities.

If you wanna talk safety (i.e. we HAVE to wear NOMEX) then it's a different ball of wax.   but if the goal is uniformity, methinks blue flight suits would be the cheaper way to get there.

[Hawk200]

My point was that if we eliminated green nomex, then we could put people in blue cheaper.  Not blue NOMEX - but blue.  And everyone in blue is more uniform than some in blue and some in green.

I see you're talking about broad uniformity: everyone in the same uniform regardless of their duties on a mission. It's not a technique that will work. It's also a case of taking uniformity too far. Different tasks require different equipment. Uniforms are essentially equipment, a tool for a job.

But if you aren't interested in blending uniform together (i.e. increasing uniformity) - then there is no reason to change the current set as well. So what if some guys wear green and some guys wear blue?   

But I thought uniformity was one of your arguments.

Green Nomex may be cheaper than blue Nomex, but it ain't cheaper than blue poly/cotton utilities.

If you wanna talk safety (i.e. we HAVE to wear NOMEX) then it's a different ball of wax.   but if the goal is uniformity, methinks blue flight suits would be the cheaper way to get there.

The idea of green nomex for everyone included the safety factor, but at less expense. Green nomex flightsuits are available for much less than blue ones. Everyone, regardless of height/weight/grooming, would have access to the same protective equipment at the same cost. A blue jumpsuit doesn't cover the safety factor.

There's really not an issue of having groundpounders in different colors than aircrew, although some people make it one. The equipment is a different color, that's all.

[Dragoon]

My point was that if we eliminated green nomex, then we could put people in blue cheaper.  Not blue NOMEX - but blue.  And everyone in blue is more uniform than some in blue and some in green.

I see you're talking about broad uniformity: everyone in the same uniform regardless of their duties on a mission. It's not a technique that will work. It's also a case of taking uniformity too far. Different tasks require different equipment. Uniforms are essentially equipment, a tool for a job.

Umm...no.  Like you, I'm interested in getting all AIRCREW in the same uniform.  And failing that, at least in the same color.  Even if an aircrew had 1 guy in blue nomex, 1 guy in blue utilities, and 1 guy in BBDUs, they'd still be more uniform than they are today.  A small step in the right direction.

The idea of green nomex for everyone included the safety factor, but at less expense. Green nomex flightsuits are available for much less than blue ones. Everyone, regardless of height/weight/grooming, would have access to the same protective equipment at the same cost. A blue jumpsuit doesn't cover the safety factor.

You're right - allowing everyone to wear green nomex would allow folks to buy some fireproofing cheaper.  But that wouldn't affect uniformity much at all - because golf shirts are still cheaper than nomex.  And if you look around in PAO photos, that's what half our aircrew wear.

You'd only increase uniformity if you MANDATED nomex.  And that's a much bigger pill to swallow.

This has been brought to the NB before, and shot down.  Because, frankly, we don't burn enough folks to be worth the expense.  Impact kills many, many more than fire, and we don't require helmets!  It doesn't seem to be a factor to CAP's insurance company - GA pilots don't get discounts for nomex.   And our members want to wear cheap stuff like golf shirts.  Folks in hot places claim that Nomex in an non-airconditioned plane constitutes a bigger safety hazard than wearing something cooler.

I'm not sayin' I agree with any of this, but I've seen the debates before.  I don't think you can win.

Sooo...if you can't win on mandating Nomex for aircrews, the cheapest way to increase uniformity is....go blue!  :-)

But good luck trying.

[Hawk200]

My point was that if we eliminated green nomex, then we could put people in blue cheaper.  Not blue NOMEX - but blue.  And everyone in blue is more uniform than some in blue and some in green.

I see you're talking about broad uniformity: everyone in the same uniform regardless of their duties on a mission. It's not a technique that will work. It's also a case of taking uniformity too far. Different tasks require different equipment. Uniforms are essentially equipment, a tool for a job.

Umm...no.  Like you, I'm interested in getting all AIRCREW in the same uniform.  And failing that, at least in the same color.  Even if an aircrew had 1 guy in blue nomex, 1 guy in blue utilities, and 1 guy in BBDUs, they'd still be more uniform than they are today.  A small step in the right direction.

Yes, you are talking about broad uniformity: Everyone in the same color. I'm talking a specific uniform, everyone in a flightsuit wearing green.

Saying a BBDU and a blue flightsuit are uniform is comparing apples and pears. Even if they're wearing the same color, the uniforms are configured differently. They aren't uniform, as the uniforms have different configurations. A single color doesn't establish uniformity. If that were true, then any police at the mission site would also be thought of as part of our organization.

The idea of green nomex for everyone included the safety factor, but at less expense. Green nomex flightsuits are available for much less than blue ones. Everyone, regardless of height/weight/grooming, would have access to the same protective equipment at the same cost. A blue jumpsuit doesn't cover the safety factor.

You're right - allowing everyone to wear green nomex would allow folks to buy some fireproofing cheaper.  But that wouldn't affect uniformity much at all - because golf shirts are still cheaper than nomex.  And if you look around in PAO photos, that's what half our aircrew wear.

You'd only increase uniformity if you MANDATED nomex.  And that's a much bigger pill to swallow.

This has been brought to the NB before, and shot down.  Because, frankly, we don't burn enough folks to be worth the expense.  Impact kills many, many more than fire, and we don't require helmets!  It doesn't seem to be a factor to CAP's insurance company - GA pilots don't get discounts for nomex.   And our members want to wear cheap stuff like golf shirts.  Folks in hot places claim that Nomex in an non-airconditioned plane constitutes a bigger safety hazard than wearing something cooler.

I'm not sayin' I agree with any of this, but I've seen the debates before.  I don't think you can win.

Sooo...if you can't win on mandating Nomex for aircrews, the cheapest way to increase uniformity is....go blue!  :-)

But good luck trying.

As for Nomex, from what I've read on here there are regions that mandate it. So there is premise to having a single color flightsuit. Everybody would get the same gear at about the same price.

Overall, it's an idea I threw out there. I can pretty much guarantee that it would never be considered anyway. It was just a thought for discussion, and not one to get heated about.

[Dragoon]

Yes, you are talking about broad uniformity: Everyone in the same color. I'm talking a specific uniform, everyone in a flightsuit wearing green.

Saying a BBDU and a blue flightsuit are uniform is comparing apples and pears. Even if they're wearing the same color, the uniforms are configured differently. They aren't uniform, as the uniforms have different configurations. A single color doesn't establish uniformity. If that were true, then any police at the mission site would also be thought of as part of our organization.

Uniformity is about looking the same.  "Apples and Pears" do not look the same.  Try "Oranges and Tangerines."  Sure, when you get close you can tell the differences, but at a distance they are much more uniform.  Same with putting everyone in the same color.

Uniformity comes in degrees.  Perfect uniformity is everyone in the same suit, with the same haircut, wearing the same badges.    We all know that ain't gonna happen.  So we've already agreed on less than perfect uniformity. And in that world, everyone in blue is much more uniform than some in blue and some in green.  Which is the best I think you're gonna get.

I really really don't think you can make green nomex mandatory for aircrews.  The NB simply won't support.

The idea of green nomex for everyone included the safety factor, but at less expense. Green nomex flightsuits are available for much less than blue ones. Everyone, regardless of height/weight/grooming, would have access to the same protective equipment at the same cost. A blue jumpsuit doesn't cover the safety factor.

You're right - allowing everyone to wear green nomex would allow folks to buy some fireproofing cheaper.  But that wouldn't affect uniformity much at all - because golf shirts are still cheaper than nomex.  And if you look around in PAO photos, that's what half our aircrew wear.

You'd only increase uniformity if you MANDATED nomex.  And that's a much bigger pill to swallow.

This has been brought to the NB before, and shot down.  Because, frankly, we don't burn enough folks to be worth the expense.  Impact kills many, many more than fire, and we don't require helmets!  It doesn't seem to be a factor to CAP's insurance company - GA pilots don't get discounts for nomex.   And our members want to wear cheap stuff like golf shirts.  Folks in hot places claim that Nomex in an non-airconditioned plane constitutes a bigger safety hazard than wearing something cooler.

I'm not sayin' I agree with any of this, but I've seen the debates before.  I don't think you can win.

Sooo...if you can't win on mandating Nomex for aircrews, the cheapest way to increase uniformity is....go blue!  :-)

But good luck trying.

As for Nomex, from what I've read on here there are regions that mandate it. So there is premise to having a single color flightsuit. Everybody would get the same gear at about the same price.

Overall, it's an idea I threw out there. I can pretty much guarantee that it would never be considered anyway. It was just a thought for discussion, and not one to get heated about.
[/quote]

No heat here - I get what you're trying to do, and as a thin guy with money I'd support it.  But as a realist, I agree it's not achievable.  And neither is eliminating green nomex - because too many folks either have free ones, or just looooove pretending to be top gun.

So we'll continue with a mishmash of uniforms in the cockpit.

[Dragoon]

Yes, you are talking about broad uniformity: Everyone in the same color. I'm talking a specific uniform, everyone in a flightsuit wearing green.

Saying a BBDU and a blue flightsuit are uniform is comparing apples and pears. Even if they're wearing the same color, the uniforms are configured differently. They aren't uniform, as the uniforms have different configurations. A single color doesn't establish uniformity. If that were true, then any police at the mission site would also be thought of as part of our organization.

Uniformity is about looking the same.  "Apples and Pears" do not look the same.  Try "Oranges and Tangerines."  :-)  Sure, when you get close you can tell the differences, but at a distance they are much more uniform.  Same with putting everyone in the same color.

Uniformity comes in degrees.  Perfect uniformity is everyone in the same suit, with the same haircut, wearing the same badges.    We all know that ain't gonna happen.  So we've already agreed on less than perfect uniformity. And in that world, everyone in blue is much more uniform than some in blue and some in green.  Which is the best I think you're gonna get.

I really really don't think you can make green nomex mandatory for aircrews.  The NB simply won't support.

As for Nomex, from what I've read on here there are regions that mandate it. So there is premise to having a single color flightsuit. Everybody would get the same gear at about the same price.

Overall, it's an idea I threw out there. I can pretty much guarantee that it would never be considered anyway. It was just a thought for discussion, and not one to get heated about.

No heat here - I get what you're trying to do, and as a thin guy with money who doesn't buy the "comfort = safety" argument,  I'd support it.  But as a realist, I agree it's not achievable.  And neither is eliminating green nomex - because too many folks either have free ones, or just looooove pretending to be top gun.

So we'll continue with a mishmash of uniforms in the cockpit.
[/quote]

[Hawk200]

Uniformity comes in degrees.  Perfect uniformity is everyone in the same suit, with the same haircut, wearing the same badges. 

Perfect uniformity as you described is dictatorial, eliminating the individuality for the sake of a single appearance. It's about no one being different. Would you have them all blue eyed and blond hair, too? Because that's the next step.

No heat here - I get what you're trying to do, and as a thin guy with money who doesn't buy the "comfort = safety" argument,  I'd support it.  But as a realist, I agree it's not achievable.  And neither is eliminating green nomex - because too many folks either have free ones, or just looooove pretending to be top gun.

You don't consider a flightsuit comfortable? Honestly? You'd be the first I ever knew that thought so.

Anyway, like I said, it will never be considered. The thread wasn't about putting everyone in the same mold, it was about allowing everyone to wear the same thing at the same expense, with the same insignia configuration (which most people would consider rather uniform).

I've seen the concepts of uniformity that you're ascribing to. Including one unit commander that forbid the members of his unit to wear badges on their uniforms. To him, it wasn't "uniform" to do so. He didn't last very long. The concept of uniformity can be taken way too far. It's never done in huge leaps, only in small steps, sometimes even inches at a time.

[isuhawkeye]

wow.  you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force, and turned it into an acusation of ayrian/Nazi intent.

no wonder this orgonization is not capable of anything.

can we get a lock

this post from a treo phone

[Hawk200]

you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force,

OK, that keeps coming up. I invite someone to prove it.

and turned it into an acusation of ayrian/Nazi intent.

If you considered it such an accusation, then you're not reading the intent. It was not an accusation, it was an example of a concept taken too far. There is a difference between drawing a paralell and making an accusation. The paralell may be extreme, but it is valid. How far should uniformity be taken?

I made a suggestion of uniformity, with a very small concession. The intent was to provide the same uniform to everyone, in an attempt to provide some solidarity. Apparently, it's not a welcome idea, as many people are attached to their rank insignia.

[RogueLeader]

you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force,

OK, that keeps coming up. I invite someone to prove it.

He did, a public notice from Col. Hodgkins stating that the AF will not allow the AF Flightsuit to be worn by those not meeting weight and grooming.  Do you want a policy letter stating as such?  I doubt you'll get it.

[Hawk200]

you people have taken a uniform thread, on a topic that has been repeatedly rejected by the air force,

OK, that keeps coming up. I invite someone to prove it.

He did, a public notice from Col. Hodgkins stating that the AF will not allow the AF Flightsuit to be worn by those not meeting weight and grooming.  Do you want a policy letter stating as such?  I doubt you'll get it.

That's a little more than "the AF won't allow it". I doubt it was so cut and dried though. As far as the policy letter goes, why isn't one available? It should be. We have far too many problems related to "Well, somebody told me....", and nothing supplied in black and white.

Of course, I've allowed the topic to stray. I posted a simple idea, and it got turned into someone elses agenda as well as accusations of hatred. None of which I was looking for.

Will a moderator lock this based on the request of the original poster?

[isuhawkeye]

before this does get locked.

10 years ago all of CAP could wear any of three colored flight suits.  if a member were out of height weight all you had to do was remove the shoulder insignia. 

the air force came down and eliminated the height weight compromise from both the woodland bdu, and the green flight suit.  This change sparked the birth of the blue alternative uniforms. 

since then general Bowling, General Glasgow, and General pineda have each petitioned the air force for a closer uniform option.  These attempts in sum got us the uniforms we have today. 

in one of these resent discussions an un named air force officer pulled a picture out of his desk of a CAP member on a CI team who was grosley out of standards in an air force style uniform.  the message was loud and clear.  If your inspectors can't respect our standards how will your membres. 

finally at a recent Q&A col hodgkins stated that the sage flight suit was an air force specific uniform.

none of this is in writing, and no memos will be found.

since I can not provide you proof.  please continue, and I apologise for interupting.

[Hawk200]

before this does get locked.

10 years ago all of CAP could wear any of three colored flight suits.  if a member were out of height weight all you had to do was remove the shoulder insignia. 

the air force came down and eliminated the height weight compromise from both the woodland bdu, and the green flight suit.  This change sparked the birth of the blue alternative uniforms. 

since then general Bowling, General Glasgow, and General pineda have each petitioned the air force for a closer uniform option.  These attempts in sum got us the uniforms we have today. 

in one of these resent discussions an un named air force officer pulled a picture out of his desk of a CAP member on a CI team who was grosley out of standards in an air force style uniform.  the message was loud and clear.  If your inspectors can't respect our standards how will your membres. 

finally at a recent Q&A col hodgkins stated that the sage flight suit was an air force specific uniform.

none of this is in writing, and no memos will be found.

since I can not provide you proof.  please continue, and I apologise for interupting.

You haven't provided me proof, but some very compelling evidence on some issues. We have enough volunteers doing what they want, and lack the integrity to follow regs. I guess it really doesn't speak well of us as a "professional" organization.

I remember the three flighsuits. I know the orange was one of the authorized suits, but I've never seen one worn in person. I do remember some of the jokes about wearers looking like DAC pilots. (Before anyone gets up in arms, DAC stands for Douglas Air Craft.) I guess it looked OK.

It still think that there are other closer options to the BDU. Green BDU's would have been far closer. Easy enough, but someone wanted blue. Then again, I didn't get a say, and neither did most of the Civil Air Patrol membership.

I think if we cleaned up ouir act, then the Air Force might reconsider. Their leadership will change, as will ours. Hopefully, the future will bring brighter things.

[DNall]

The AF doesn't provide policy statements on uniform decisions to CAP members. Discussions are had, CAP uniform boards make requests, AF appvl auth makes a decision & informs CAP-USAF to direct CAP accordingly. The AU or AETC/CC will not be talking to anyone here about their decisions, and certainly not having a discussion of the hows/whys.

[RiverAux]

The assumption that because the AF rejected an idea or made us change something in the past is the final word is just plain wrong.  Keep in mind that AF officers come and go much more rapidly than CAP members.  What one AF officer decides at one point isn't like a Supreme Court decision which is almost impossible to overturn. 

Now, if your idea is incredibly whacky and outright idiotic no level-headed AF officer is ever likely to approve it.  But, if your idea is fairly reasonable, wait a few years and new AF officers will come along who may be more open to it. 

[DNall]

true, but no officer is going to change policy w/o first reviewing the previous policy & why it is what it is. If the justification is sound & he/she isn't really committed to the change then it's hard to believe they'd just reverse a position. Things aren't done on a whim. They have to be for good reasons that trump the previous good reasons.

[Dragoon]

Uniformity comes in degrees.  Perfect uniformity is everyone in the same suit, with the same haircut, wearing the same badges. 

Perfect uniformity as you described is dictatorial, eliminating the individuality for the sake of a single appearance. It's about no one being different. Would you have them all blue eyed and blond hair, too? Because that's the next step.

You misread me.  You "poo-poo'd" getting everyone in the same color as not enhancing uniformity. I was pointing out that uniformity is a sliding scale.  And that perfect uniformity can never be achieved.  But we could make great improvements simply by standardizing color.

You don't consider a flightsuit comfortable? Honestly? You'd be the first I ever knew that thought so.

A lot of mission pilots I know complain about heat in the cockpit in summer.  It's not a bit deal to me, but I HAVE been known to tie off the flight suit around my waist in August.

I've seen the concepts of uniformity that you're ascribing to. Including one unit commander that forbid the members of his unit to wear badges on their uniforms. To him, it wasn't "uniform" to do so. He didn't last very long. The concept of uniformity can be taken way too far. It's never done in huge leaps, only in small steps, sometimes even inches at a time.

Methinks you didn't read my post very clearly.  You think I'm advocating something I'm against.

I'm in favor of giving people choices that blend - like blue nomex, utility or golfshirt.   I was railing AGAINST the idea of mandating nomex, which would be a hell of alot more dictatorial.  Which is why it would never fly. (note - on a personal level, I'd be actually fine with mandating nomex.  But I've got money.  Not everyone does.)

And if you don't mandate nomex, then you won't achieve much more uniformity, which was your original goal..  All you will accomplish is to put a few of our  overweight and/or bearded members in a flightsuit.  You'll still have half the aircrew wearing something else.  That isn't really fixing anything.

[DNall]

I agree with the sliding scale of uniformity understanding, but I disagree that being in the same color achieves anything.

Now, I'm telling you flat out that flt suits are going to become mandatory for at least mission flight if not all flights within the next two years tops, based on FEMA reqs. Deal with that, and find a solution that works. I think the current blue & grn system is just fine for the time being.

[Dragoon]

I agree with the sliding scale of uniformity understanding, but I disagree that being in the same color achieves anything.

That's a bit irrational. It most certainly achieves something. It makes everyone look the same from 100 feet away.

If you have a formation, everyone blends.  If you're a reported looking at folks scurrying around a mission base or a flight line, everone blends.  In other words, you've increased uniformity.

Now, it's just fine to say "it achieves something, but not very much."  Because that's a matter of opinion.

Now, I'm telling you flat out that flt suits are going to become mandatory for at least mission flight if not all flights within the next two years tops, based on FEMA reqs. Deal with that, and find a solution that works. I think the current blue & grn system is just fine for the time being.

I've heard the "FEMA's coming - the sky is falling" argument for a while now.  Just like the whole mandatory ID card thing, I'm still in the "we'll see" category. 

We'll see if these requirements stand up to all the inevitable protests.

We'll see if the requirements are actually enforced.

We'll see if an agency ever turns down our air support because of what the pilot is wearing.


Not sayin' it won't happen - just not ready to put any bucks on the table.  I've seen too many of these unfunded "requirements" come and go to get too excited.

[DNall]

I agree with the sliding scale of uniformity understanding, but I disagree that being in the same color achieves anything.

That's a bit irrational. It most certainly achieves something. It makes everyone look the same from 100 feet away.

If you have a formation, everyone blends.  If you're a reported looking at folks scurrying around a mission base or a flight line, everone blends.  In other words, you've increased uniformity.

Now, it's just fine to say "it achieves something, but not very much."  Because that's a matter of opinion.

okay, achieves nothing meaningful. An AF unit would have people in flt suits, BDUs, & blues all in the same unit on the same work day. It's a matrix of uniforms appropriate to the work they're doing. I got no issue narrowing our currently out of control matrix, but it's still going to be a matrix, which doesn't relate to each part of the matrix being the same color.

If you want an example, I'd have gone with OD green BDUs rather than the BBDU. I think that's more uniform with the BDU that we have to work with. As far as flt suits, we're going to keep using the green, and the AF is not going to allow some people to wear it, so we have to come up with an alternative. Orange is a little out of control so blue is fine, dark blue is better than royal or baby blue, so it's fine. The current blue/white combo is a good parallel to blues, though I'd like to see the epaulets standardized between the two (to CAP eps of course).

Now, I'm telling you flat out that flt suits are going to become mandatory for at least mission flight if not all flights within the next two years tops, based on FEMA reqs. Deal with that, and find a solution that works. I think the current blue & grn system is just fine for the time being.

I've heard the "FEMA's coming - the sky is falling" argument for a while now.  Just like the whole mandatory ID card thing, I'm still in the "we'll see" category. 

We'll see if these requirements stand up to all the inevitable protests.

We'll see if the requirements are actually enforced.

We'll see if an agency ever turns down our air support because of what the pilot is wearing.

Not sayin' it won't happen - just not ready to put any bucks on the table.  I've seen too many of these unfunded "requirements" come and go to get too excited.

All this is happening now. It's federal law that civilian agencies will comply or get no fed assistance or allowed to participate in any mission where federal funds are used or work for any other agency who gets any federal fund. That's pretty absolute. Now AF has decided to comply, even though the law says they don't have to. CAP has no other alternative & NB is voting on compliance shortly.

The FEMA process is moving down a defined path. You can debate the timeline, but what's going to happen is fairly certain. There are standards, they've been out for some time now, everyone is using that time to get up to speed before it becomes mandatory. The way that it'll be enforced is the credentialing system, which is already ordered by congress.

As far as turning down our help, yeah they will for two reasons. First is the money I mentioned before. Second is we won't be in the system as a resource they can even call. If you aren't credentialed & resource typed under that system then you aren't allowed in the game, period. You can believe it won't happen, but it will. I know that change is painful in the emergency response community, which is why DHS/FEMA have already taken over 5 years in the transition & still looks like 18-24 more mos before we're there. You can't say they're not giving enough time or money. CAP has so far made the choice to stay out of the fray, and that's a mistake NB is about to correct.

[Dragoon]

All this is happening now. It's federal law that civilian agencies will comply or get no fed assistance or allowed to participate in any mission where federal funds are used or work for any other agency who gets any federal fund. That's pretty absolute. Now AF has decided to comply, even though the law says they don't have to. CAP has no other alternative & NB is voting on compliance shortly.

The FEMA process is moving down a defined path. You can debate the timeline, but what's going to happen is fairly certain. There are standards, they've been out for some time now, everyone is using that time to get up to speed before it becomes mandatory. The way that it'll be enforced is the credentialing system, which is already ordered by congress.

As far as turning down our help, yeah they will for two reasons. First is the money I mentioned before. Second is we won't be in the system as a resource they can even call. If you aren't credentialed & resource typed under that system then you aren't allowed in the game, period. You can believe it won't happen, but it will. I know that change is painful in the emergency response community, which is why DHS/FEMA have already taken over 5 years in the transition & still looks like 18-24 more mos before we're there. You can't say they're not giving enough time or money. CAP has so far made the choice to stay out of the fray, and that's a mistake NB is about to correct.

Nothing is "fairly certain" when you've got the federal government pushing against local governments and volunteer groups.  There will be lots of protests.  The term "unfunded mandate" will get bandied about.  Congressmen will weigh in to support their local state's concerns.  Individual standards will be questioned - and probably revised.  Waivers will be granted.

And....the priorities may change the longer we go without a major screw-up that can be blamed on lack of full NIMS compliance.

Will some standardization occur?  Sure.  Might it be rather watered down from what FEMA is proposing today?  Almost definitely. 

I really, really doubt that within 24 months we'll be required to put aircrew in Nomex.

[DNall]

Nothing is "fairly certain" when you've got the federal government pushing against local governments and volunteer groups.  There will be lots of protests.  The term "unfunded mandate" will get bandied about.  Congressmen will weigh in to support their local state's concerns.  Individual standards will be questioned - and probably revised.  Waivers will be granted.

It has not been unfunded. They have pushed hundreds of billions of dollars to the states on the condition that they were tracking toward set standards. Specific to these standards, they came out in 2003, they were created by industry working groups (CAP was invited to participate but refused on the basis it was for civilian responders & we work for the AF so will not be complying), then open to a long comment period that almost anyone could participate in. Then finally they were locked down just back over Christmas for the SaR standards. All that argument your talking about has already happened & is over with. They've taken soooo long to make this mandatory, and thrown sooo much money at it, that everyone else is pretty much there.

As far as volunteers, you have to define what that means, cause the definition has changed significantly under this system. If you mean local rescue teams or volunteer firefighters, they are supposed to be trained up & compliant, and are looked at on equal footing with any other resource regardless of pay. If you mean civilians off the street with no or limited trng (CERT) then those are volunteers & have a VERY limited usefulness. The credentialing system is meant to keep the well meaning but unqual'd people from mascaraing as qual'd folks when an IC staff doesn't have time to check you out.

And....the priorities may change the longer we go without a major screw-up that can be blamed on lack of full NIMS compliance.

Will some standardization occur?  Sure.  Might it be rather watered down from what FEMA is proposing today?  Almost definitely. 

I really, really doubt that within 24 months we'll be required to put aircrew in Nomex.

These standards do evolve over time, they have made an effort to ensure input for the field level controls what makes the list. A high degree of standardization already has occurred. Most of that already existed or was a matter of some small changes for most agencies. That all happened years ago with resource typing.

Then they went into defining the standards for each resource type. That's what I'm pointing you to here. Those are minimum trng for each resource type, you're still expected to have additional local trng for the kinds of situations/enviros you work with. Those have been done for a long time now. The consideration & discussion period ios just over by a few months, this right now is the slow transition period for agencies to get up to speed. Which again, for 95% of agencies they already meet or exceed these standards or it's a matter of a small change here or there. For CAP it's dramatic, but more so because we've refused for so long to comply.

The next step is coming with credentialing, when they gain a way to enforce those standards by typing at an individual level & guarantee background checks, all so they can keep the well meaning undertrained civilians from getting in their way.

[Dragoon]

Nothing is "fairly certain" when you've got the federal government pushing against local governments and volunteer groups.  There will be lots of protests.  The term "unfunded mandate" will get bandied about.  Congressmen will weigh in to support their local state's concerns.  Individual standards will be questioned - and probably revised.  Waivers will be granted.

It has not been unfunded. They have pushed hundreds of billions of dollars to the states on the condition that they were tracking toward set standards. Specific to these standards, they came out in 2003, they were created by industry working groups (CAP was invited to participate but refused on the basis it was for civilian responders & we work for the AF so will not be complying), then open to a long comment period that almost anyone could participate in. Then finally they were locked down just back over Christmas for the SaR standards. All that argument your talking about has already happened & is over with. They've taken soooo long to make this mandatory, and thrown sooo much money at it, that everyone else is pretty much there.

Where exactly did FEMA provide funds for flight suits?  If not, it's an unfunded requirement.  After all, exactly how could FEMA have previously funded requirements that are still in draft format?  (answer - they haven't).  And I'll bet that there are THOUSANDS of similar unfunded requirements buried in the details that will only come to light over the next few years.


And no, the arguments aren't over.  Because here's how it really works (and I've seen this a lot)

Agency sets up policy - opens it up for comment.

Some comment, some ignore.

Agency makes a decision.

Everyone's eyes get real wide, and finally read the fine print.

The complaints begin.

Agency sticks to its guns - "you had your chance, now deal with it."

Complainers contact their Congressmen and submit bills on what it will cost to comply.

Agency faces attacks on two fronts - Congressmen protecting local boys, and the fact that without the "non complying" locals, the Agency can't get its job done.

Agency realizes is doesn't QUITE have the power it thought it had.

The REAL negotiations begin.  Waivers, rewrites and schedule slips abound.

In the end something does get done - but not the pure and wholesome solution the Agency wanted.
There's always a chance that this particular initiative will not follow this pretty standard model.  But somehow I doubt it.  The only way to demand compliance is to provide all the necessary funds to become compliant.   And that certainly isn't the case here.  Things are bound to get more realistic as time goes on.

[DNall]

First, it's not draft any longer. It was in the fall, it's final now.

They didn't provide funds for any specific item. They provided hundreds of billions to the states, who were free to decide for themselves how to spend it, but with the caveat that they would have to comply with the standards.

CAP has tried to make a case for taking a chunk of that funding, both nationally & on the state levels. The biggest limiting factor there has been the state of our audits & financial mgmt. That's a big motivator behind the wing banker program. We're working to address that, but do understand that CAP is about the only one of consequence left out in the cold. Everyone else is already on board with this & either already or rapidly becoming compliant.

Finally, I understand your cynical position on how policy gets executed. I've worked in congress & dealt with these kinds of things. I'll tell you four things about this:

1) They developed all the standards at the operational level. Anyone could add suggestions as it moved toward draft, not just agency reps, then anyone could comment as it moved toward final. It was never a big bad agency ordering things from on high. And, the standards we're talking about are to the emergency response community a really low bar. They got no issue complying with these, cause they're already there.

2) This is the back end of a decade long effort. They've provided an exceptionally long period for people to slowly change toward compliance. CAP has dragged our feet, and now is about to be in catch up mode or out of this business.

3) They've provided & continue to provide enough money thru states to create a whole new compliant emergency response community from scratch. It may not all go where it should, but you can't say they aren't putting the funds out there. When states make the wrong decisions with that stuff, then it's their responsibility to make up the difference.

4) Everyone else is compliant. The military didn't have to be, but is doing so voluntarily. They are behind on that process, particularly in the guard. The only real exception to this conversion process is communications. CAP is pretty well on the ball with that thanks to the AF, but P25 is going to take longer than expected for a lot of agencies. These standards though, they're really not going to change & are certainly not a surprise to anyone in the business.

[Dragoon]

First, it's not draft any longer. It was in the fall, it's final now.

They didn't provide funds for any specific item. They provided hundreds of billions to the states, who were free to decide for themselves how to spend it, but with the caveat that they would have to comply with the standards.

That money was provided prior to the standards being established.  How the heck could people have known to buy flight suits before it was known flight suits (or anything else) was required?

That just doesn't hold water.  I'm sure that will be FEMA's position, but it will be challenged.  Forcefully.

4) Everyone else is compliant.

Hold it.

You're saying that every ES responder, from the local Sheriff's dept, to every VFD to every volunteer search dog team, is fully compliant with all standards except CAP?

Not even close.

Almost no one is "in compliance."  Everyone is scrambling to BE in compliance.  Around these parts every First Responder organization is frantically schedulling ICS classes just to get THAT part in compliance.  People aren't even close to the more technical training or equipment standards.  It ain't just CAP, by a long shot.

The battle occur - and it will be fun to watch.

Plus, we need to see if this thing survives into the new Presidential administration - every President has his/her own agenda and priorities, after all.  No doubt there's a lot of goodness here.  But I've seen other really good programs die a slow death due to lack of interest from the guys at the top.

Bottom line - there is great danger in getting "out in front" of this.  It's likely to change.  And that means you might make people jump through hoops and spend money unneccesarily.  Very bad when you're dealing with volunteers.

[RiverAux]

While I tend to agree with Dragoon on his view of how things may shape up, I am 100% positive that no one in this country is going to go to the wall about a requirement that CAP aircrews wear NOMEX.  We don't have anywhere near that amount of pull, and what pull we do have goes towards keeping the AF from chopping our funding every year. 

The local volunteer fire departments may get their senators in an uproar about something and get a few things changed, but CAP ain't going to be able to do that.  We all know the pro/con argument about whether NOMEX is helpful, but I just don't see CAP trying to get a Senator behind getting such a thing droppped. 

[isuhawkeye]

can someone please site the nomex reference? Of the three major aircrew resource types that apply to CAP only two reference flight suits.  In  the nims resource type they listed PPE, and reference flight suits.  could non-nylon clothing be acceptable?

  referencing back to the definitions of ppe they site NFPA standards.  I see no corilations to flight suits. 

[Dragoon]

While I tend to agree with Dragoon on his view of how things may shape up, I am 100% positive that no one in this country is going to go to the wall about a requirement that CAP aircrews wear NOMEX.  We don't have anywhere near that amount of pull, and what pull we do have goes towards keeping the AF from chopping our funding every year. 

The local volunteer fire departments may get their senators in an uproar about something and get a few things changed, but CAP ain't going to be able to do that.  We all know the pro/con argument about whether NOMEX is helpful, but I just don't see CAP trying to get a Senator behind getting such a thing droppped. 

We probably won't, not on that one issue.  But that won't be the only issue.  There will be lots.  And LOTS of folks will complain.  CAP probably won't even have to get involved until others have raised the heat level so high that the standards are reopened for comment and correction.  Then we'll start pushing for the changes.

For example, there's a really good case to be made that NOMEX is overkill for light aircraft.  All you have to do is look at the accident statistics in General Aviation, and you'll find few cases where Nomex would have made a difference.  You'll find many more cases where helmets would have helped.

[DNall]

That money was provided prior to the standards being established....

I understand. The money is still flowing every year. Most agencies already use appropriate PPE (flightsuits in this case). It should be a small matter for those other agencies, somewhat more of a problem for CAP.

4) Everyone else is compliant.

You're saying that every ES responder, from the local Sheriff's dept, to every VFD to every volunteer search dog team, is fully compliant with all standards except CAP?

Almost no one is "in compliance."  Everyone is scrambling to BE in compliance....

Ok, I said that wrong. What I meant was, virtually every responder agency in the country has been working for several years to become compliant, and are now, as you say, scrambling to meet the deadlines for the current stuff. As that's mostly completed, the next round of compliance standards (the ones I'm talking about) will become mandatory with a couple years to get it done, along with the credentialing system. This next round is a lot easier for most agencies cause almost all first-line responders already meet these min quals.

Meanwhile, many of CAPs ES standards are far below these. Aircrew is in pretty good shape, but GT is not, & a lot of mission staff need extra trng. It's not that we haven't been given adequate time, we have, but we've been in denial & procrastinated. The transition could have been made in a smoother more prudent way, but now it's going to be a really mad scramble, and will in some respects be expensive among other problems.

Plus, we need to see if this thing survives into the new Presidential administration - every President has his/her own agenda and priorities, after all.  No doubt there's a lot of goodness here.  But I've seen other really good programs die a slow death due to lack of interest from the guys at the top.

McCain strongly supported all this stuff, and it was a major democratic issue to bash the president over not implementing this stuff fast enough - flowing from 9/11 commission. It's also congressionally driven. The Republican party has focused more on protecting the country thru military power abroad, while dems have favored a more isolationist approach with strong response capabilities... In other words, I can't see how it would change other than to become a higher priority.

Bottom line - there is great danger in getting "out in front" of this.  It's likely to change.  And that means you might make people jump through hoops and spend money unneccesarily.  Very bad when you're dealing with volunteers.

This is subjective, but I don't think it is at all likely to change. It may be a little give or take here & there on exact details, but the big picture is undoubtedly coming.

Meanwhile, you have CAP... we got left behind in the AF relationship as they professionalized the service away from seat of the pants, and we didn't keep up. Today you have the emergency response community going through a similar professionalisation phase, and CAP again is failing to keep up. I understand our members are volunteers. I understand this isn't their career, and I understand the govt isn't going to provide teh kind of funds they would to train up a professional responder. What that means is it's going to take time & effort for CAP to stay in the business. We aren't going to be given that kind of time by the govt, cause other agencies don't need nearly as much as we do. So, I do believe we need to get moving on a lot of this stuff. Only by being out front a bit do we have a chance of getting to the goal. That doesn't mean we can't be adaptable, but procrastinating to see how things finally turn out isn't going to be helpful.

[Hawk200]

Amazing. Never meant this thing to go off on this kind of tangent. Some of the posts are an example of the stupidity that's causing CAP's problems with the Air Force in the first place.

Air Force says "CAP, you need to this." The responses? "I don't want to!", "I'm calling my Congressman!", "I don't care if it is for safety, I'm a volunteer!" and so forth. I guess it is a perfect example that you can't actually save people from themselves.

Are some people so stuck in the past that they can't even accept safety as a legitimate reason for change? I'm really starting to think so. It's amazing how deep some people are willing to bury their heads.

[mikeylikey]

^ When you take a dive at 150 miles and your little Cessna is turned into something that can fit in a shoebox, your nomex won't be saving your life.  I doubt many people were saved by their nomex bags (because flashfires do not really happen all that often in what CAP flies. 

The silliness of saying "for safety sake" is well......silly.  Can anyone here say that they know people whose clothing saved them from an aircraft fire.  Better yet, lets have statistics to back up all this throwing around of stats.  I would imagine very few if any people survive the kind of fires that will take place when their A/C is in flames. 

Face it........a lot of this is just about what will make a person look cooler.  I could care less.

[afgeo4]

What's the policy on the flightsuit in the CG Auxiliary? Do they have to meet weight standards? Are they all allowed to wear the same bag as active Coasties and with almost identical cloth patches? Gosh! How do the Coasties not confuse those Auxies? Life must be hard for them with all that confusion going on.

<<end sarcasm>>

[isuhawkeye]

http://www.auxodept.org/airoperations.htm

[MIKE]

Few things wrong with those bags.

[DNall]

^ When you take a dive at 150 miles and your little Cessna is turned into something that can fit in a shoebox, your nomex won't be saving your life.  I doubt many people were saved by their nomex bags (because flashfires do not really happen all that often in what CAP flies. 

The silliness of saying "for safety sake" is well......silly.  Can anyone here say that they know people whose clothing saved them from an aircraft fire.  Better yet, lets have statistics to back up all this throwing around of stats.  I would imagine very few if any people survive the kind of fires that will take place when their A/C is in flames. 

Face it........a lot of this is just about what will make a person look cooler.  I could care less.

You notice how your argument is real similar to the one people use for not wearing a seatbelt?

FYI- I do know CAP members killed because they didn't have one. There's more examples than you'd think.

And, how's your statement dif from mil aviation, taking a dive at how fast? The flight we do in CAP is quite a bit more dangerous than GA. There is no ejection seat, obviously. The point of a flt suit is to give you a few extra seconds to minute to get out on crash or to force landing in the case of an onboard fire (avionics or engine). That's it. FEMA recognizes that & states reasonable standards for doing the job.

[Dragoon]

It's not that Nomex won't help on that rare (and I do mean RARE) occasion when you're trapped in a perfectly sound cockpit that happens to be on fire.  I'm aware of a single incident in California Wing, about 10 years back.

It's a cost/benefit analysis.  It just doesn't happen often enough to be worth the money.  Impact is the killer.

We'd save more lives with Helmets.  Or retrofitting those seatbelt air bags.  Or replacing all our aircraft with ones that have parachutes.  Heck, we might even save a few lives by requiring all aircrew to WEAR parachutes.

Again, cost/benefit.  We don't have infinite money.

Nomex is a knee jerk thing.  I'm with mikeylikey on this one - I've yet to arrive at a plane wreck where the impact didn't matter but the fire did. 

It's the crumpling aluminum that does you in.

[Dragoon]

What's the policy on the flightsuit in the CG Auxiliary? Do they have to meet weight standards? Are they all allowed to wear the same bag as active Coasties and with almost identical cloth patches? Gosh! How do the Coasties not confuse those Auxies? Life must be hard for them with all that confusion going on.

<<end sarcasm>>

From USCG Auxiliary Aviation Training Manual

Auxiliary flight crew aboard a facility should wear identical uniforms. The following uniforms are approved while under orders in accordance with the Auxiliary Operations Policy Manual, COMDTINST M16798.3 (series):
• An Auxiliary flight suit, fire-retardant, with appropriate insignia
• Anti-exposure coveralls, as approved by a unit commander for flight use
• Any authorized Auxiliary uniform

In other words "we'd really like you to wear Nomex and dress alike, but in the end where whatever you want."

Not that much different than CAP.  Except at least they encourage an aircrew to dress alike.

[DNall]

I agree that impact is a much bigger deal than fire. I can't do anything about impact though. It'd cost a whole crap ton of money to do the stuff you mentioned, and we ain't got it, nor will it be a priority. On the other hand, flight suits are acquired by members, not thru our budget, and are relatively inexpensive. Yes, I know some are expensive. I also know if you look around a bit you can get them easily for $40-100 in green or blue. This to pilots who spend many times that flying.

FEMA isn't looking at CAP when they say this stuff. They don't care about CAP, and why should it ever enter their thinking. We don't make the rules here. We accept the rules that are written for funded paid professional agencies & we adapt to them (primarily over the backs of our members, unfortunately). That's what CAP is & has always been.

If it's ultimately a decision to either be part of this system that gives us meaningful missions in emergency situations or to not comply with their rules because we don't want it to be expensive for our members, what do you think is going to happen, and what is the best decision for the long-term interests of CAP?

[Dragoon]

I agree that impact is a much bigger deal than fire. I can't do anything about impact though. It'd cost a whole crap ton of money to do the stuff you mentioned, and we ain't got it, nor will it be a priority. On the other hand, flight suits are acquired by members, not thru our budget, and are relatively inexpensive. Yes, I know some are expensive. I also know if you look around a bit you can get them easily for $40-100 in green or blue. This to pilots who spend many times that flying.

FEMA isn't looking at CAP when they say this stuff. They don't care about CAP, and why should it ever enter their thinking. We don't make the rules here. We accept the rules that are written for funded paid professional agencies & we adapt to them (primarily over the backs of our members, unfortunately). That's what CAP is & has always been.

If it's ultimately a decision to either be part of this system that gives us meaningful missions in emergency situations or to not comply with their rules because we don't want it to be expensive for our members, what do you think is going to happen, and what is the best decision for the long-term interests of CAP?

As I've pointed out previously, you may wish to paint it as "comply or die" but it's normally more complicated than that. 

The guys making the rules may try at first to proclaim their rules are perfect, and that they can happily do without everyone who doesn't comply, but neither assertion is true.

The rules are most likely full of issues that will only now come to light because there's a compliance issue.  This will cause lots of arguing, political pressure and changes.  Changes will occur.

They cannot do witout everyone who doesn't comply.  When the rubber meets the road, they will take what they can get.  And where unpaid volunteers are concerned (which is a heck of a lot folks than just CAP), they're gonna have to make allowances.  And they will.  Those without bucks will challenge the neccessity of any expenditure that doesn't yield enough results.  Nomex is one example of that - the costs can run into the several hundreds (especially for big guys) and don't actually provide much benefit to a GA pilot.

I'm sure there will be other, more serious cost/benefit issues that will emerge.  I've seen these kind of things before - and the result is always the same.  And while the FEMA staffer who assembled the rules will try to defend them to the death, his bosses' boss will take a less narrow view, and understand that the world is a messy place.  And that if you want volunteers to help out, you have to make allowances.  Otherwise they'll give up and volunteer elsewhere.

In the meantime, I'll save this thread and see if CAP aircrew are required to wear Nomex within 24 months.  It certainly could happen -but I doubt it.

[mikeylikey]

^ We are still only looking at the Senior Member side of the issue.  What about the cadets.  Can they all afford to purchase a nomex bag? 

I say wear what you are comfortable flying in.  If you wear shorts and a t-shirt but fly better because of it, so be it. 

I wear a polo and khaki pants when I take a plane out.  I have been flying for 9 years now, (whenever I get the chance)  and to be honest, being comfortable adds to my flying ability by percentage points.

Intersting note, I have no desire to fly for CAP.  I have not figured that out yet.  Maybe it is the club mentality of the pilots in my Wing.  I have had conversations that went.... "what would you know Mike, you aren't a pilot, you do ES and Cadet programs".  My response......"actually I am a pilot but don't fly for CAP because of people like you Sir".  Weird, right?!?!

PAWG should just be renamed the "Philadelphia Pilots Club".  I digress, sorry!

[JayT]

^ We are still only looking at the Senior Member side of the issue.  What about the cadets.  Can they all afford to purchase a nomex bag? 

I say wear what you are comfortable flying in.  If you wear shorts and a t-shirt but fly better because of it, so be it. 

I wear a polo and khaki pants when I take a plane out.  I have been flying for 9 years now, (whenever I get the chance)  and to be honest, being comfortable adds to my flying ability by percentage points.

Intersting note, I have no desire to fly for CAP.  I have not figured that out yet.  Maybe it is the club mentality of the pilots in my Wing.  I have had conversations that went.... "what would you know Mike, you aren't a pilot, you do ES and Cadet programs".  My response......"actually I am a pilot but don't fly for CAP because of people like you Sir".  Weird, right?!?!

PAWG should just be renamed the "Philadelphia Pilots Club".  I digress, sorry!

If we're required nomex for O-Flights *rolls eyes* lets just have each wing have a few sets of coveralls around.

[jimmydeanno]

But unless the cadet had a proper name tag they would be considered out of uniform and wouldn't be covered by insurance! [/sarcasm]

[JayT]

But unless the cadet had a proper name tag they would be considered out of uniform and wouldn't be covered by insurance! [/sarcasm]

I believe that's what ROTC does.

[Dragoon]

True story - we had two pilots deploy to Katrina to fly GA-8s.  Due to a lack of laundry facilities, they ended up flying in about every single CAP uniform combo there is ('cept mess dress, of course).  Their nomex was too stinky for wear after the first couple of days.

Real USAF guys get issued multiple sets.  Not us.

[DNall]

I appreciate what you're saying. I do know how govt policy tends to go into action. It's unfortunate that's the case, and generally defeats the whole purpose, but it is reality. I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that process has already occurred. It's history & we're beyond it now to the standards the community is willing to accept. I don't dispute that some deadline extensions may occur when it comes down to the wire, and that there is still some argument about what counts as equiv to what else, but for the most part this is solid.

This is not new to anyone except CAP. That's because CAP made a conscious decision to ignore this, thinking they could keep doing business as usual under a mil exemption, and that our resource is so valuable (and inexpensive to operate) that no one would oppose us. DHS didn't blink, we're a speck on the wall to them, and AF decided they'd comply, so we're stuck & now any chance to negotiate or ask for help from congress like you're talking about is over with.

We are still only looking at the Senior Member side of the issue.  What about the cadets.  Can they all afford to purchase a nomex bag? 

This is talking about FEMA standards for mission flying. At most it'd be similar to the no under-18 cadets rule we saw recently. So, nomex req on disaster missions for any customer. It's reasonable though to believe CAP would apply that to all mission flying, being it's the same (more dangerous) flight profile. O-flts are not really dangerous. They are the same as GA, which doesn't really justify nomex as part of the PPE.

[sardak]

It was asked earlier in this thread, and I'll ask again.  Where in the FEMA documentation does it say aircrews must wear Nomex flightsuits?  I can't find it.

There are seven FEMA typed resources which involve fixed wing aircraft.  None of them have a requirement for Nomex flightsuits. Three make no reference to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at all.  The others state for "Equipment," the metric is "Flightsuit" and the requirement is "Appropriate level of PPE." 

PPE is not defined in the typing documents, so one must turn to the default FEMA glossary. In it, the definition of PPE is "Equipment and clothing required to shield or isolate personnel from the chemical, physical, thermal, and biological hazards that may be encountered at a hazardous materials (HazMat) incident." FEMA took the definition from NFPA 472, which is "Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents."  A Nomex flightsuit doesn't meet this definition.  FEMA screw-up? Most likely.

The only FEMA typing document that references Nomex flightsuits is the Law Enforcement Helicopter - Patrol and Surveillance. This also requires flight crew members to wear a helmet, gloves and full leather boots. It specifically references the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (IHOG). This is a federal land management agency document.

The IHOG requires Nomex flightsuit OR Nomex long-sleeved shirt and pants.  However, it explains that Nomex is a brand name and other types of flame retardant clothing are acceptable.  Wildland fire clothing is the most common option, but there are other choices. 

The US Department of the Interior Aviation and Life Support Equipment Manual, from which the IHOG requirement is taken, states: "The preferred material is commonly known as "Nomex." The actual material may be Nomex, polyamide, aramide, polybenzimidazole, Kevlar, or blends thereof.  Cotton materials, chemically altered and marketed as fire resistant, are acceptable." (The most common brand name for these cotton materials is Indura.)

The manual also states: "Materials with low temperature melting characteristics, such as synthetics (nylon, Dacron, polyester, and so on) and synthetic blends, are not approved for wear" under or over the flame retardant clothing. Outerwear and undergarments made from "natural fibers, such as leather, cotton, wool, or wool/cotton blends are acceptable."

The federal land management agencies require full fire retardant PPE, helmets, gloves and boots for all helicopter operations.  However, PPE is NOT required for fixed wing operations that remain above 500 feet AGL (except for landing and takeoff).

And since I've figured out the real interest on CAP Talk is, here is the Army Combat Shirt made of flame retardant material.

Mike

[mikeylikey]

And since I've figured out the real interest on CAP Talk is, here is the Army Combat Shirt made of flame retardant material.

As a person who has seen that shirt walking around Army Posts, I am a true hater of it.  It borders on what the guy doing purchase orders in the basement of some startup IT firm would wear on casual Friday.  I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.  I pray when it finally hits (knowing it will because it is the Army), that local Commanders can decide its wear.  That way I will make sure none of my Soldiers are caught dead in it. 

Did I mention how much I hate that.  The wreaks of everything not military about a uniform.  Sure, if they want to design a new undershirt, that will not be seen under the ACU top, fine, but I would never allow that to be worn in any unit I command.  I am one of the hard-ass don't even take your ACU shirt off, even if you are sweating guys.  I am such a Patton when it comes to uniforms.  My first Command I had a standing order that soldiers on fatigue (racking the gravel parking lot, or digging holes) would not remove their BDU shirt, no matter the amount they perspired.  In my mind it just looks bad. 

Wow.....I almost forgot all about that shirt, thanks for bringing that back into the light.  I do believe Army times said within a year (if the Chief of Staff gets his act together soon) we will have many uniform changes in the Army, far more than what we could have in CAP. 

[ddelaney103]

And since I've figured out the real interest on CAP Talk is, here is the Army Combat Shirt made of flame retardant material.

As a person who has seen that shirt walking around Army Posts, I am a true hater of it.  It borders on what the guy doing purchase orders in the basement of some startup IT firm would wear on casual Friday.  I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.  I pray when it finally hits (knowing it will because it is the Army), that local Commanders can decide its wear.  That way I will make sure none of my Soldiers are caught dead in it. 

Did I mention how much I hate that.  The wreaks of everything not military about a uniform.  Sure, if they want to design a new undershirt, that will not be seen under the ACU top, fine, but I would never allow that to be worn in any unit I command.  I am one of the hard-ass don't even take your ACU shirt off, even if you are sweating guys.  I am such a Patton when it comes to uniforms.  My first Command I had a standing order that soldiers on fatigue (racking the gravel parking lot, or digging holes) would not remove their BDU shirt, no matter the amount they perspired.  In my mind it just looks bad. 

Wow.....I almost forgot all about that shirt, thanks for bringing that back into the light.  I do believe Army times said within a year (if the Chief of Staff gets his act together soon) we will have many uniform changes in the Army, far more than what we could have in CAP. 

Wow, so much ignorance and arrogance in one post - I hardly know where to begin.

Let's start with the Army Combat Shirt.  The ACS is for wear under armor - that's why it doesn't have any bulky things like pockets on the torso.  It's not meant to be worn by itself or under an ACU shirt.

Second, I'm sorry the 21st Century military isn't adhering to your outdated sense of martial asthetics.  I know you long for the days of leather neck stocks and shakos, but you have to make do with starched BDU's and dog dished covers instead.

Try getting over yourself for once.  The uniform is just another tool in the business of waging war.  War changes, and the tools change - hopefully, before it costs us too much blood or treasure because of having the wrong tool.

Finally, putting your troops under increased fatique because it troubles your sense of what a soldier should look like is a symptom of the close mindedness that got us such winners as Agincourt, WWI and the invasion of Iraq.  Maybe you should find a job where being so hidebound devotion to outdated practices won't cost us young men and women.

[Gunner C]

And since I've figured out the real interest on CAP Talk is, here is the Army Combat Shirt made of flame retardant material.

That way I will make sure none of my Soldiers are caught dead in it. 

Wow, so much ignorance and arrogance in one post - I hardly know where to begin.

[mikeylikey]

Wow, so much ignorance and arrogance in one post - I hardly know where to begin.

Second, I'm sorry the 21st Century military isn't adhering to your outdated sense of martial aesthetics. 

Try getting over yourself for once. 

Maybe you should find a job where being so hidebound devotion to outdated practices won't cost us young men and women.

Yikes.  It is obvious you hate me.  SO if you want to take future bashings like this to PM, that would be super cool on your part.  Just remember I don't hate you, and have never disrespected you out in public like you did to me.  Just so it is clear, I take my job very seriously, and have never gotten anyone injured or killed.  How dare you lump me in with people and events that I am sure you can not even begin to comprehend youself. 

So it is known, I will no longer read anything you have written, and you have lost all my respect here (not that it means much to a person like you).