Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2018, 10:04:05 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

 21 
 on: Today at 02:16:06 PM 
Started by jb512 - Last post by jb512
No, I think it's best to leave the quals and badges to the respective issuing authority and not try to cross them over. I did get my answer and it makes sense.

Looking at the national commander he has AF command pilot wings and basic CAP pilot wings so if he's not utilizing the reg then there's our example.

 22 
 on: Today at 02:10:03 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by jb512
I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

I was always politely informed that the reason for the fire bag is so that you can be properly identified after the crash, not to protect you from dying during a crash and the subsequent fire. lol.

But the May Authorize is in regards to those without qualifications.... for those who have them, there are no restrictions.

That said, and as I stated above... don't be that toolbag.

From what I understand I think the dog tags will be all that's identifiable at that point, but it's a good possibility!  8)

I concede that it can be looked at from both perspectives - what we can determine from the verbiage and what could be seen as the intent. The common thread though is always... don't be that toolbag.

 23 
 on: Today at 02:08:20 PM 
Started by jb512 - Last post by lordmonar
Well......you got your answer.

Yes.   Some USAF aircrew positions might qualify for a CAP service waiver for the observer wings.

Write up the request.  Send it up the chain to NHQ for approval/disapproval.

 24 
 on: Today at 02:04:53 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by jb512
I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

What would you say to members who showed up every week wearing full GT battle rattle?

Equipment is a different story. I would not expect 24/72 hour packs to be worn into a normal squadron meeting any more than I would expect a headset, gloves, or pockets full of charts.

 25 
 on: Today at 02:01:09 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by DocJekyll
I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

I was always politely informed that the reason for the fire bag is so that you can be properly identified after the crash, not to protect you from dying during a crash and the subsequent fire. lol.

But the May Authorize is in regards to those without qualifications.... for those who have them, there are no restrictions.

That said, and as I stated above... don't be that toolbag.

 26 
 on: Today at 01:53:31 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by Eclipse
I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

What would you say to members who showed up every week wearing full GT battle rattle?

 27 
 on: Today at 01:47:15 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by jb512
I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

 28 
 on: Today at 01:28:20 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by Eclipse
I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

 29 
 on: Today at 01:26:06 PM 
Started by GaryVC - Last post by Blanding
What version of Foreflight is "best" for a scanner/observer who is not a pilot?

The $99/yr version should be perfectly fine for your needs. The only feature that I'd guess would be beneficial in the pro plus version would be terrain / obstacle profile view to assist with mission planning for altitude, but otherwise you'll have a great feature set in the basic plus tier.


 30 
 on: Today at 01:20:28 PM 
Started by stratocaster29 - Last post by jb512
I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

The problem with this assertion is it negates the need for 1/2 the verbiege - why assert only aero ratings and then
later say assert "anyone" regardless of rating?

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

This.

It doesn't give blanket authorization though, it says "may be authorized", so that means they still need approval from someone higher up. I wouldn't say that negates any of the verbage above it.

May indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment (nondirective).

CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7

Read it again. "May be authorized" May (indicating a non-directive) be Authorized (having official permission or approval)

This indicates a higher authority can give them permission to wear it, but they don't have to. Don't get caught on one word, look at the whole thing. This ain't rocket science.

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 15 queries.