CAP Talk

If you don't yet have an aeronautical rating like Observer, are you prohibited from wearing the flight suit? 

On a web order form, I saw that you could order flight suit badges with emblems other than observer & pilot wings.  There were options for Christian, Jewish or Muslim Chaplains and a bunch of other emblems to go above the name and rank info. 

You are not prohibited, however, you are really only supposed to wear a flight suit when you are engaged in flying activities.  It's not meant for general wear in place of the other types of uniform.  For flying activities, you can wear it before you get a rating.  You can just put your name and grade on the leather patch, or you can put "Mission Scanner" or something similar.

Anyone on flying duty can wear flightsuits, and you should if flying, it's required in many wings, and should be nationally. You shouldn't wear it for ground team or just any other time, but I really don't have a problem with it at mtgs from time to time for active crew members.

You should have chaplain insignia over the wings, especially if you're a mission type chaplain &/or involved w/ CISM. It's normal in the mil to have jump wings under (they are an aeronautical rating also), but not other badges, which would include ground team or the new IC badge when it gets approved. The reg doesn't really say it's limited to one or what's allowed, but I'd stick pretty strictly to the culture on this one.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Figure 2-19. Men's and Women's Green Flight Suit and Green Flight Jacket (Flight Crews Only)2. Leather Name Patch: Will include name, grade, and aeronautical rating. Patch will be centered on
left breast above pocket. Cloth name patch is not authorized. If no aeronautical rating, a title such
as "Mission Scanner" may be used.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Figure 4-4. Men's and Women's CAP Blue Flight Suit and Blue Flight Jacket (Flight Crews Only)2. Leather Name Patch: Will include name, grade, and aeronautical rating. Patch will be centered on
left breast above pocket. Cloth name patch is not authorized.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Figure 4-5. Men's and Women's CAP Blue Utility Uniform (Senior Members and Cadets)2. Leather Name Patch: Patch will be centered on left breast above pocket. Will include name, grade,
and aeronautical rating. Cloth name patch is not authorized.

It's all in the wording.

The last version of an AF reg I read on the subject says the same thing, yet the practice is as I described. This is another case where I don't think they thought it all the way thru & culture exceeds the reg. In other words, I don't think those sections (especially not it being singular or plural) are determinative.

Quote from: DNall on November 16, 2006, 09:18:42 PM
The last version of an AF reg I read on the subject says the same thing, yet the practice is as I described. This is another case where I don't think they thought it all the way thru & culture exceeds the reg. In other words, I don't think those sections (especially not it being singular or plural) are determinative.

CAPM 39-1 says it is determinative.  One set of wings = "aeronautical rating."  That's it.  Nothing else is officially authorized on the leather flight badge.  "Aeronautical ratings" and other duty or qualification badges are not mentioned there.  We know CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary in nature, so if doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

If people want NHQ to consider alowing Chaplain's devices, and Ground team badges, and authorizing multiple devices at once, send a proposal up the chain of command for consideration instead of just skirting the rules.

However, since a duty title is allowed in text, one without a rating could have "Chaplain" or "Mission Chaplain" or "Mission Staff Assistant" put onto the leather flight badge in text.  That is allowed and would allow anybody to show their qualifications in a regulation-approved manner.

Quote from: Pylon on November 17, 2006, 04:43:41 PM

Quote from: DNall on November 16, 2006, 09:18:42 PM
The last version of an AF reg I read on the subject says the same thing, yet the practice is as I described. This is another case where I don't think they thought it all the way thru & culture exceeds the reg. In other words, I don't think those sections (especially not it being singular or plural) are determinative.

CAPM 39-1 says it is determinative.  One set of wings = "aeronautical rating."  That's it.  Nothing else is officially authorized on the leather flight badge.  "Aeronautical ratings" and other duty or qualification badges are not mentioned there.  We know CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary in nature, so if doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

If people want NHQ to consider alowing Chaplain's devices, and Ground team badges, and authorizing multiple devices at once, send a proposal up the chain of command for consideration instead of just skirting the rules.

However, since a duty title is allowed in text, one without a rating could have "Chaplain" or "Mission Chaplain" or "Mission Staff Assistant" put onto the leather flight badge in text.  That is allowed and would allow anybody to show their qualifications in a regulation-approved manner.

I think that putting "Chaplain" (or any wording) when a badge exists would simply further the derision that some of the military has for us. Why should we set ourselves up to look like fools? It wouldn't take a lot of imagination to figure out what the "bigger boys on the playground" would say.

You're right, we should send up such suggestions. But who do you think has the clout? Apparently, you had to be pretty high up and make a lot of noise to get them to approve something from the field.

Although, the same suggestion from multiple sources might bear fruit......

As a chaplain, I wear my chaplain's badge beside (that's the way the USAF does it ... the USAF Chief of Chaplains is a rated aviator) --to the inside-- of my aero rating badge.

As a chaplain, in uniform, I must wear my chaplain's insignia ... the aero rating is secondary.

The USAF has a procedure for it. It is --unlike the other CAP insignia and devices the USAF Chaplain's Badge --- NOT a CAP creation. The USAF has a procedure for wearing THEIR badge and I'm following it.

CAPM 39-1 has missed at least one other chaplain insignia issue as well ...

It has not added the embroidered chaplain's badge to the soft BDU cover, however, per the verbal instruction of the CAP Chief of Chaplains we are supposed to wear it there nevertheless.

Sadly, those people who feel compelled to hold CAPM 39-1 as absolutely authoritative in all circumstances will find --to their frustration- that it is neither absolute nor fully authoritaive --and rarely even current.

Regardless, chaplains --in the military and in CAP-- are different (just check the Genevea Conventions). In fact, they are the only CAP officers who stand available to the SECDEF's discretion to be called to active service. See: Chapter 909, Title 10, USC § 9446, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under the conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

CAPR 265-1 (E), §A, 2b adds, "In anticipation of this requirement the CAP Chaplain Service will ... provide appropriate training to prepare [CAP chaplains] for domestic, non-combat ministries."

With the added complication of an increasing plurality of MLO's  permeating CAP(MLO's who are often confused for chaplains, at times with VERY negative repercussions) -- chaplains need to be CLEARLY and unambiguously identified in all operational settings.

Chaplains are chaplains FIRST and mission staff or crew (etc.) as a distant second. Their uniforms --even the overpriced green bag-- need to clearly identify that fact.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 17, 2006, 10:07:02 PM
As a chaplain, I wear my chaplain's badge beside (that's the way the USAF does it ... the USAF Chief of Chaplains is a rated aviator) --to the inside-- of my aero rating badge.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 17, 2006, 10:07:02 PM
The USAF has a procedure for it. It is --unlike the other CAP insignia and devices the USAF Chaplain's Badge --- NOT a CAP creation. The USAF has a procedure for wearing THEIR badge and I'm following it.

You might find further guidance in how the regulations say military badges may be worn.  I don't know, I've never paid particular attention to it before because it didn't effect me.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 17, 2006, 10:07:02 PM
Sadly, those people who feel compelled to hold CAPM 39-1 as absolutely authoritative in all circumstances will find --to their frustration- that it is neither absolute nor fully authoritative --and rarely even current.

I would respectfully disagree with you on this point.  A regulation is as close to absolute as you can get unless there is a policy letter or other form of written guidance to the contrary.  Especially where uniform wear is concerned.  Otherwise it wouldn't make the uniform a uniform.

You may feel like it is not the absolute authority in all cases, but then you would technically be out of uniform and should be prepaired to have someone point it out to you.

ELT Hunter

Although having a regulatory function 39-1 is a MANUAL and NOT a CAP REGULATION.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 17, 2006, 10:41:34 PM
ELT Hunter

Although having a regulatory function 39-1 is a MANUAL and NOT a CAP REGULATION.

It doesn't matter what it's classification is.  Read Paragraph 1-1:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1COMPLIANCE WITH
THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized.
Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

I'm not necessarily a uniform Nazi, and I understand your need as a Chaplain to be identified.  I certainly don't disagree with you on that important need.  However, your National Chaplain staff ought to be putting in requests to the National Board for the appropriate changes to be made into a Policy Letter for chaplains.  Started at the National level, that could be taken care of at the next NEC meeting in March!

Have you expressed these needs for uniform changes to your National chaplaincy staff?  If it truly is an important need to have these insignia uses authorized, they would probably have little issue getting the appropriate approvals in line quickly.

We should do things by the book because it's the right thing to do, in most circumstances.  Even when we know NHQ overlooked a bunch of stuff in the manual.

OK, I'll give you a for instance.  CAPM 39-1 states that the blue golf shirt is to be worn with " gray trousers or slacks".  The dictionary defines "trousers" as "pants".  Yet when our Wing LG asked NHQ if gray BDU's/cargo/six pocket pants were OK to wear with it, she was told no.  That seems to be a pretty definite answer on a point that seemed fairly open to interpretation.  What exactly to you feel is open to your interpretation about the document?

Not to be argumentative, but I'll stand by my earlier comment.  If you don't follow CAPM 39-1, be prepaired to have a fellow member point it out to you.

There may certainly be discrepancies in the manual (I've pointed out at least one) but it is by definition "current" unless modified in accordance with other CAP regulations.  There is no such thing as "verbal authority" of anyone to modify it. 

I very rarely say anything about someone else's uniform but I personally try very hard to keep myself in accordance with the regulations.  If it isn't in the regulation its just rumor or someone is either intentionally or unintentionally getting it wrong by telling you to do something different. 

I appreciate all of your admonishments to the contrary. Thanks!

However, I stand unconvinced and wholly and happily unrepentant.

As to my "be[ing] prepaired to have a fellow member point it out to [me], I am most polite. I say, "Thank you, for being so diligent. However I have been directed explicitly by the Chief of Chaplains to wear my BDU cover this way (or if it's my chaplain's badge worn upon the leather green bag patch that's at issue, "I cannot definitively discern from CAPM 39-1 another way to comply with the regulation that I wear my chaplain's badge when in uniform while wearing the flight suit --and wear my aeronautical rating badge as mandated-- and this is how the rated USAF chaplain's do it").

In truth one cannot absolutely determine that a chaplain is not to wear a chaplain's badge upon the patch ... it simply isn't explicitly authorized.

I think some modicum of the now increasingly UN-common virtue of "common sense" should apply in all things a person does in their life ... CAP uniform wear NOT excepted.

In this matter, chaplains are put in an unavoidable corner. Maybe CAP wishes chaplains wouldn't/couldn't fly ... who knows?

Why don't you all "point out" to me exactly how I am to wear the chaplain's badge while wearing the flight suit. And "point it out" using actual statements of INCLUSION and not the absence of reference to prove your point. 39-1 says one set of wings ... and I am only wearing one set. It say nothing explicitly PROHIBITIVE of wearing an additional badge. Perhaps it should.

In my case, until CAPM 39-1 explicitly prohibits wearing the chaplain's badge on the BDU cover or upon the FS leather patch concurrently with an aero rating badge, I consider it IMPLICITLY permitted.

Just another way of looking at things ... and "yes" looking at uniform wear this way does potentially "open a Pandora's box" but that's where common sense should prevail.

Quote from: ELThunter on November 17, 2006, 11:06:36 PM
Not to be argumentative, but I'll stand by my earlier comment.  If you don't follow CAPM 39-1, be prepaired to have a fellow member point it out to you.

Even when you follow it you may have a fellow member point it out to you!

I was wearing short sleeve blues last meeting with all my authorized CAP ribbons and I had some old officer tell me that they were not authorized on the blues shirt.

There is a LOT of things not written in 39-1....there is a lot of simple ignorance and willfully ignoring of the manual and a lot of missing guidance from national about how and what you should wear.

For my money....if a chaplain want his cross (or other authorized symbol) on his aircrew name patch.....go for it!  It is at least in the spirit of the regulation if not the letter.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 18, 2006, 12:06:34 AM
In my case, until CAPM 39-1 explicitly prohibits wearing the chaplain's badge on the BDU cover or upon the FS leather patch concurrently with an aero rating badge, I consider it IMPLICITLY permitted.

CAPM 39-1 expressly prohibits anything not authorized in it.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, para 1-1Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

You know there is a simple solution to this controversy.  Spend an extra $7.00 and get a spare name tag that says whatever you want it to and carry it in your pocket.  One for aircrew, one for chaplain or other function, wear the one appropriate for the task you are performing, change as needed...

Quote2. Leather Name Patch: Will include name, grade, and aeronautical rating. Patch will be centered on left breast above pocket. Cloth name patch is not authorized. If no aeronautical rating, a title such as "Mission Scanner" may be used.

I see no provision for putting a Chaplain badge on the leather name patch or anywhere else on the flight suit, but the regulation above would clearly let you put "Chaplain" there.  It does not limit what titles could be put there it just uses Mission Scanner as an example.    

QuoteAs a chaplain, in uniform, I must wear my chaplain's insignia ... the aero rating is secondary.

If 39-1 doesn't say that you are required to wear the chaplain insignia, then it isn't a requirement.  If another CAP regulation says you must wear it, then that is a contradiction between 2 different regulations that needs to be cleared up at the National level and in that case I would take verbal direction from a superior on what to do.  

QuoteRegardless, chaplains --in the military and in CAP-- are different (just check the Genevea Conventions). In fact, they are the only CAP officers who stand available to the SECDEF's discretion to be called to active service. See: Chapter 909, Title 10, USC § 9446, "The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and under the conditions that the Secretary deems appropriate."

This is factually incorrect.  Any CAP member can be used for any noncombat mission of the AF.  This entire passage is redundant as the use of Chaplains, as is the use of other CAP members, is already authorized by other federal codes.  

39-1 only allows putting aeronautical ratings on the name badge.  It doesn't need to specificaly prohibit putting the Chaplain insignia there any more than it does to explicitly prohibit putting the New York Yankee insignia on it.  

I'm actually fine with making any changes to the manual to get CAP Chaplains identified on their uniforms in the same way that AF Chaplains are.  But, until that is made OR unless there is a clear contradiction between two CAP manuals you shouldn't wear the insignia on the name badge or on your hat.  

Is this a big deal?  Not really, but you dared to bring it up in the Uniform forum....

I should probably point out here that I have been known a time or two to willfully deviate from the uniform manual.  Specifically with regards to outerwear (a black fleece top similar to what the army uses, and on occasion, my blue Cabala's Gore-Tex parka).  So, in case anyone reads these posts that knows me personally, yes, I know I was out of uniform.  On these occasions, I have usually been either in the field or not wearing anything visably identifying myself as CAP.

Then there was the time or two that I violated the sacred prohibition on wearing my brown A-2 to a squadron meeting with my Class B's.

So, I am guilty, but also prepaired to be admonished.

In the Chaplains case, I might also wear my insignia in whatever way the USAF does and see what happens.

OK purists, start casting stones :)

Quote from: ELThunter on November 18, 2006, 03:18:59 AM
OK purists, start casting stones :)

We don't wear Class B's in CAP.  :)

"We don't wear Class B's in CAP. "

Hmmm ...

I think Shakespeare said it best in "Romeo and Juliet" when he wrote, "what's in a name? ... a rose by any other name smells as sweet."

Besides, since when is uniform wearing a plural actvity ... maybe when two people are needed to prance about in the costume of a pantomime horse ... otherwise "WE" don't wear uniforms (I for one am certain I'd remember two --or more-- officers of cadets wearing the same uniform regardless of "class") ... each individual "I" does ... not the collective "we."

Like the song says Mr. Mike ... "you say tomato and I say ta-mah-tow ... let's call the whole thing off ..."

I for one vote for a class-less and caste-less CAP ... uniforms too (besides Roman togas look better anyway).

Putting on my A-Classless Jammies for bed.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 18, 2006, 04:04:39 AM
"We don't wear Class B's in CAP. "

Hmmm ...

I think Shakespeare said it best in "Romeo and Juliet" when he wrote, "what's in a name? ... a rose by any other name smells as sweet."

Besides, since when is uniform wearing a plural actvity ... maybe when two people are needed to prance about in the costume of a pantomime horse ... otherwise "WE" don't wear uniforms (I for one am certain I'd remember two --or more-- officers of cadets wearing the same uniform regardless of "class") ... each individual "I" does ... not the collective "we."

Like the song says Mr. Mike ... "you say tomato and I say ta-mah-tow ... let's call the whole thing off ..."

I for one vote for a class-less and caste-less CAP ... uniforms too (besides Roman togas look better anyway).

Putting on my A-Classless Jammies for bed.

Well said, Padre!  ;D

..... ::).....

Regarding Class A's, B's, etc, these have not been valid designations for CAP uniform combinations since at least 1968. Continued usage of these terms just confuses the new members.

Quote from: SarDragon on November 18, 2006, 08:04:24 AM
Regarding Class A's, B's, etc, these have not been valid designations for CAP uniform combinations since at least 1968. Continued usage of these terms just confuses the new members.

Dave, that's crazy talk!  In fact, I'm wearing my Class-Q's to the meeting tomorrow. ;)

Quote from: shorning on November 18, 2006, 08:15:12 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on November 18, 2006, 08:04:24 AM
Regarding Class A's, B's, etc, these have not been valid designations for CAP uniform combinations since at least 1968. Continued usage of these terms just confuses the new members.

Dave, that's crazy talk!  In fact, I'm wearing my Class-Q's to the meeting tomorrow. ;)

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/slap.gif)

[on your bandwidth, too!]

Quote from: SarDragon on November 18, 2006, 08:21:33 AM

Quote from: shorning on November 18, 2006, 08:15:12 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on November 18, 2006, 08:04:24 AM
Regarding Class A's, B's, etc, these have not been valid designations for CAP uniform combinations since at least 1968. Continued usage of these terms just confuses the new members.

Dave, that's crazy talk!  In fact, I'm wearing my Class-Q's to the meeting tomorrow. ;)

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/slap.gif)

[on your bandwidth, too!]

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/fencing.gif)

Quote from: MIKE on November 18, 2006, 03:44:37 AM

Quote from: ELThunter on November 18, 2006, 03:18:59 AM
OK purists, start casting stones :)

We don't wear Class B's in CAP.  :)

Can you tell me what Class B's are , mike?

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 18, 2006, 04:04:39 AM
"We don't wear Class B's in CAP. "

I thought you said the manual wasn't the final authority.  If you can wear a badge on your flight suit that isn't provided for in 39-1, I guess I can call the blue shirt and pants Class B's ;)

Quote from: ELThunter on November 18, 2006, 04:59:31 PM.... I guess I can call the blue shirt and pants Class B's ;)

Well, there goes my chance at proving a point...... ::)

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 18, 2006, 04:48:18 PM
Can you tell me what Class B's are , mike?

Quote from: AR 670-11–6. Classification of service and utility or field uniforms
a. The male class A service uniform consists of the Army green (AG) coat and trousers, a short- or long-sleeved AG
shade 415 shirt with a black four-in-hand tie, and other authorized accessories.
b. The male class B service uniform is the same as class A, except the service coat is not worn. The black four-inhand
tie is required with the long-sleeved AG shade 415 shirt when the long-sleeved shirt is worn without the class A
coat, as an outer garment; the tie is optional with the short-sleeved shirt.
c. The female class A service uniform consists of the Army green coat and skirt or slacks, a short- or long-sleeved
AG shade 415 shirt with a black neck tab, and other authorized accessories. The Army green maternity uniform (slacks or skirt) is also classified as a class A service uniform when the tunic is worn. When the tunic is worn, females will
wear the neck tab with both the short- and long-sleeved maternity shirts.
d. The female class B service uniform is the same as the class A, except that neither the service coat nor the
maternity tunic are worn. The black neck tab is required only when wearing the long-sleeved AG shade 415 shirt or the
long-sleeved maternity shirt without the class A coat or tunic; the neck tab is optional with the short-sleeved version of
both shirts.
e. Class C uniforms are the utility, field, hospital duty, food service, and other organizational uniforms.
f. See the table of prescribed dress in appendix B.

Sorry Hawk.

Quote from: ELThunter on November 18, 2006, 04:59:31 PM

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 18, 2006, 04:04:39 AM
"We don't wear Class B's in CAP. "

I thought you said the manual wasn't the final authority.  If you can wear a badge on your flight suit that isn't provided for in 39-1, I guess I can call the blue shirt and pants Class B's ;)

You quoted the wrong guy.  Chaplaindon was quoting Mike.  Chaplaindon was saying "class B" was the same as "short sleeve blues with out tie".  Mike was the one saying we don't wear class B's.

Quote from: MIKE on November 18, 2006, 05:16:12 PM

Quote from: AR 670-11–6. Classification of service and utility or field uniforms
a. The male class A service uniform consists of the Army green (AG) coat and trousers, a short- or long-sleeved AG
shade 415 shirt with a black four-in-hand tie, and other authorized accessories.
b. The male class B service uniform is the same as class A, except the service coat is not worn. The black four-inhand
tie is required with the long-sleeved AG shade 415 shirt when the long-sleeved shirt is worn without the class A
coat, as an outer garment; the tie is optional with the short-sleeved shirt.
c. The female class A service uniform consists of the Army green coat and skirt or slacks, a short- or long-sleeved
AG shade 415 shirt with a black neck tab, and other authorized accessories. The Army green maternity uniform (slacks or skirt) is also classified as a class A service uniform when the tunic is worn. When the tunic is worn, females will
wear the neck tab with both the short- and long-sleeved maternity shirts.
d. The female class B service uniform is the same as the class A, except that neither the service coat nor the
maternity tunic are worn. The black neck tab is required only when wearing the long-sleeved AG shade 415 shirt or the
long-sleeved maternity shirt without the class A coat or tunic; the neck tab is optional with the short-sleeved version of
both shirts.
e. Class C uniforms are the utility, field, hospital duty, food service, and other organizational uniforms.
f. See the table of prescribed dress in appendix B.

You have proven the point - CAP does not wear class b uniforms. By the definition you provided, the class b uniform is green, not blue. Since CAP wears blue uniforms, CAP cannot wear class b uniforms.

Holy crap! Class A/B was once the short hand for how to state the UOD in an oplan. That got cut, big deal. Class A means service coat, TPU, Blazer combo; Class B means blues, white aviator (SS no tie in warm months, LS w/ tie in cold months). Anything else is a special duty circumstance, like a recruiter wearing a tie w/ SS for instance. The AF did away with the A/B codes cause they can just say SS/LS/BDU/utility. It's a little more complicated for us. People using A/B will die out over time, don't worry about it.

Now then, 39-1 is authoritative to the extent it clearly states the information, and as we all know it is badly written & leaves far too much open to interpretation, which in that case the best policy is to look at how the AF does it & copy that. The use of sigular or plural in that particular line is not authoritative, especially when gramatical & spelling errors are so rampant, and especially when they have a tendancy for not thinking things thru & then expecting us to fix it out in the field. The AF way would be that the GT badge is NOT authorized, but chaplain should be worn, and you could get away with mini jump wings if you really want to.

If in doubt....ask your commander.  At least then you have someone to CYA if someone jumps down your throat.

On the other hand.....within reason...what does it really matter?  I mean a guy wears both of his authorised badge on his aircrew name tape or wears his chaplains cross on it.....the world is not going to end, no one in the USAF will care (because a DNall said it is following USAF practice) and it serves a legitamate purpose.

Quote from: DNall on November 18, 2006, 06:47:38 PM
People using A/B will die out over time, don't worry about it.

Not as long as they keep teaching it to new members. It's going to take a long time for the 14 yo cadets using it today to die off.

This thread makes me want to gouge out my eyes.(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/crazy.gif)

Br. Steve,

Please keep your fingers away from your eyes ... and/or mine ... BUT, just to "muddy the waters" a bit, please allow me to ask the thread three questions about CAPM 39-1 and the beloved "green bag."

1.   IAW CAPM 39-1, can CAP members wear any other outerwear over the USAF flight suit besides the sage green USAF flight jacket?

2.   Since the current issue USAF flight jacket(s) --there are several permutations based upon weight and warmth-- is/are made of Nomex aramid cloth and thus costs somewhere around $150-200 new (depending upon source) ---according to "The Gospel According to St. Uniform" (CAPM 39-1) can a member legally wear the identical appearing MILSPEC nylon version of the jacket (which is MUCH less costly)?

3.   According to the explicit provisions of the same "Gospel" may a CAP member --legally-- wear anything on her/his head --besides the USAF flight cap or, maybe, a baseball cap (if approved by WG or RG CC) while wearing the green bag?

Please answer both because I am curious and as it will likely be a test of how we read the CAPM.

Shalom ...

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 12:56:20 PM
1.   IAW CAPM 39-1, can CAP members wear any other outerwear over the USAF flight suit besides the sage green USAF flight jacket?

MA-1, CWU-45/P or CWU-36/P.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 12:56:20 PM
2.   Since the current issue USAF flight jacket(s) --there are several permutations based upon weight and warmth-- is/are made of Nomex aramid cloth and thus costs somewhere around $150-200 new (depending upon source) ---according to "The Gospel According to St. Uniform" (CAPM 39-1) can a member legally wear the identical appearing MILSPEC nylon version of the jacket (which is MUCH less costly)?

The MA-1 pictured in CAPM 39-1 is nylon.  Nylon knockoff versions of the CWU-45/P are also out there.  I don't think MA-1's are issue anymore either, yet they have been authorized with the USAF style bag.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 12:56:20 PM
3.   According to the explicit provisions of the same "Gospel" may a CAP member --legally-- wear anything on her/his head --besides the USAF flight cap or, maybe, a baseball cap (if approved by WG or RG CC) while wearing the green bag?

Per Table 2-4. Flight cap or CAP baseball cap.

Yeah mike's got that one. If & when 39-1 is explicit & not contradictory, then it is the law. If it is vague &/or contradictory or open to reasonable interpretation, then the AF standard should be looked to for guidance. HOWEVER, this should NOT be abused to put more crap on your uniform so you can look cool. Keep it in the lines & try to look as good as your reasonably can in a uniform that represents CAP & the AF, that's all I ask.

Quote from: MIKE on November 19, 2006, 03:43:19 PM

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 12:56:20 PM
1.   IAW CAPM 39-1, can CAP members wear any other outerwear over the USAF flight suit besides the sage green USAF flight jacket?

MA-1, CWU-45/P or CWU-36/P.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 12:56:20 PM
2.   Since the current issue USAF flight jacket(s) --there are several permutations based upon weight and warmth-- is/are made of Nomex aramid cloth and thus costs somewhere around $150-200 new (depending upon source) ---according to "The Gospel According to St. Uniform" (CAPM 39-1) can a member legally wear the identical appearing MILSPEC nylon version of the jacket (which is MUCH less costly)?

The MA-1 pictured in CAPM 39-1 is nylon.  Nylon knockoff versions of the CWU-45/P are also out there.  I don't think MA-1's are issue anymore either, yet they have been authorized with the USAF style bag.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 12:56:20 PM
3.   According to the explicit provisions of the same "Gospel" may a CAP member --legally-- wear anything on her/his head --besides the USAF flight cap or, maybe, a baseball cap (if approved by WG or RG CC) while wearing the green bag?

Per Table 2-4. Flight cap or CAP baseball cap.

Thanks, Mike for the clarification --as quoted-- now I ask about (a) an additional outer garment --"outerwear"-- and (b) an article of headgear.

Following that legalistic logic, per CAPM 39-1 --regardless of potential usefulness or safety considerations a CAP member wearing the USAF green Nomex flight suit is thus forbidden to wear (a) the USAF or another flight crew survival vest (b) a flotation vest --both are garments and neither is provided for in CAPM 39-1-- or (c) a noise suppressive communications headset or flight helmet.

Similarly, I am most certain that there is no relief or provision in CAPM 39-1 to allow wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) IAW blood-borne pathogens training with any of our CAP distinctive or USAF uniforms.

Let's see what NHQ (or the USAF) would think of the sort of nonsensical nitpicking uniform enforcement as would --by the LETTER of the manual forbid the wearing of safety apparel. But if you live by "the letter of the law" IAW the explicit provisions of CAPM 39-1 you can come to no other conclusions. Safety isn't allowed for in uniform.

That is absolute nonsense ---LITERALLY.

If you would ban a chaplain's badge on the flight suit name patch concurrent with their "wings" because CAPM 39-1 does not specifically allow them in writing, you must likewise agree to ban flight helmets, flotation and survival vests. To such lunacy, I say, "get your prop spinner out of your baggage door!"

If we can allow for safety considerations --outside of CAPM 39-1-- (IF we can ???) then 39-1 isn't absolutely authoritative as to what members can wear in uniform. Some variations must be tolerated unless gloves, masks, goggles and Mae West vests are also forbidden.

I say to everyone, quit playing "gotcha" with trivial uniform infractions (or variations in nomenclature) --it may seem like fun or good sport for 14 y/o cadets but it is childish and Quixotic beyond that age-- and focus on using common sense as it will foster teamwork, mission accomplishment and safety. This isn't a game.

In short, grow up.

Ooooo...barracks lawyering!

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 08:03:34 PM
Following that legalistic logic, per CAPM 39-1 --regardless of potential usefulness or safety considerations a CAP member wearing the USAF green Nomex flight suit is thus forbidden to wear (a) the USAF or another flight crew survival vest (b) a flotation vest --both are garments and neither is provided for in CAPM 39-1-- or (c) a noise suppressive communications headset or flight helmet.

The survival vest, flotation vest, and headsets/helmets are not garments.  They are equipment.  There is a difference.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 19, 2006, 08:03:34 PM
In short, grow up.

Nice lecture, but what you're doing is known as quibbling...

The other stuff could easily be covered by the 60-series.  It wasn't until the last revision of AFI 36-2903 that the Flight Duty Uniform was in the USAF uniform instructions... because it was being worn as a "uniform" instead of as PPE... In the USAF and other services you will find the life support equipment and PPE in other directives, and not in uniform regs.

Also.. Don't be a jerk Chaplaindon... I'd expect better from a chaplain.  >:(  Points to Global Moderator beneath username. >:D

Chaplain, you brought up the issue of chaplain insignia so deal with the fact that people addressed your concerns.  If you don't want to hear people's opinions then don't visit a talk board. 

I can actually see some points as far as Chaplaindon's post goes.

A lot of folks are so hot on nitpicking uniform items that the mission falls by the wayside. There seems to be more questioning the character of people that wear something different in a minor manner.

Does this mean that I'll let the guy that shows up in tan boots with his BDU's get away with it? No it does not. But if he shows up with a Gore Tex, what's the harm? Black fleece? I wore mine in an aircraft (privately owned, not CAP) last weekend. Took it off when we got out of the plane.

Another point of contention: There is far too much of "We're not the Air Force so we don't accept any of the guidance in their regs!" in this little corporatized auxiliary of the Air Force. I think that's wrong. Maybe if we started looking at their guidance, they might consider babysitting us less. Might let us go out places without chaperones.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 19, 2006, 09:09:20 PM
A lot of folks are so hot on nitpicking uniform items that the mission falls by the wayside. There seems to be more questioning the character of people that wear something different in a minor manner.

Don't confuse what happens here in the sterile world of an internet forum with what occurs in the real world.  Here we have the time to discuss and nitpick the details of an issue.  That doesn't mean the mission is going to fall by the wayside.  It's not like we're taking time out of a mission to post on the forum.  I'm guessing most people are posting in their free time.

And yes, I will question the character of some one I don't know if they tell me they "aren't following the rules" or "doing what they want" (I'm not implying that is what Chaplaindon is doing.  It's just a point of discussion).  The image one presents here is the only way most of us know them.  How many people on this forum have you ever met in person.  IIRC, there is only one that I've met.  And I've know him years before there were CAP forums.

Quote from: shorning on November 19, 2006, 09:20:53 PM
Don't confuse what happens here in the sterile world of an internet forum with what occurs in the real world.

I am talking about the real world here. I'm talking about the time when a wing weenie made a big stink about an OLC being upside down, and talking sh** about it to others. Was I wrong? Yes. Does it give people justice to engage in character assassination? You tell me.

I'm talking about another character that actually pulled out a ruler to measure my specialty badge on my BDU's. He was disappointed to find that it was exactly one-half inch.

I'm not confusing the two at all. The reality is far more annoying than the "internet forum".

No doubt. For sure people should not be going off on theri own & making up what they want. The fact is the reg is written for crap & it's literally impossible to understand what the standard is in some cases. The record of the org that backs that up is one of not thinking anything thru & in turn causing problems on the ground that frustrate & drive off members who see the issues as an example of CAP not having its crap together - that does effect mission performance. Those issues also at times make us look bad in front of and as reps of the AF, which also hurts mission taskings, funding, & resource support.

Is arguing about minor uniform issues that don't change anything eitehr way about stupid, yeah of course, but if you just got time on your hands & nothing else to discuss, then it really doesn't hurt anyone either & is very typical of what you'll see from active troops of every service in their own uniform discussion areas. If you don't want to see time wasted on uniform discussions, just choose not to read the threads.

On the other hand, some of the uniform discussions that occur also have an undertone that deals with programs & organization that result in a uniform item. Those are much more valid, and you have to be careful not to cut that discussion short just cause it deals with uniforms.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 19, 2006, 09:41:28 PM
I'm not confusing the two at all. The reality is far more annoying than the "internet forum".

I'm not sure why you have "internet forum" in quotes like that, but that's what CAP Talk is:  an internet forum.

You're taking a handful of incidents and making it sound like a rampant problem.  I've never seen the problem to the degree you describe as a matter of routine.  I've been in 6 wings, 5 regions, 9 squadrons and a handful of other assignments.  In the "short" time I've been in CAP, the only time I had anyone pull a ruler on me was as a cadet.  To me, it sounds like the exception rather than the rule. 

YMMV...

A verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

Quote from: flyguy06 on November 20, 2006, 02:43:14 AM
A verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

The Chief of Chaplains wouldn't be in the chain-of-command...

Quote from: shorning on November 20, 2006, 02:51:04 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on November 20, 2006, 02:43:14 AM
A verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

The Chief of Chaplains wouldn't be in the chain-of-command...

Would be in the chaplains chain of command.  Chaplains are like lawers....they have a convoluted chain of command that does not follow the normal squadron, group, wing, region logic other squadrons follow.

Kind of like working for AIA....Their chain of command is more like a "net" of command!

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 03:18:31 AM

Quote from: shorning on November 20, 2006, 02:51:04 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on November 20, 2006, 02:43:14 AM
A verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

The Chief of Chaplains wouldn't be in the chain-of-command...

Would be in the chaplains chain of command.  Chaplains are like lawers....they have a convoluted chain of command that does not follow the normal squadron, group, wing, region logic other squadrons follow.

Kind of like working for AIA....Their chain of command is more like a "net" of command!

Yes, but it wouldn't include something like uniform wear.  It's more ADCON versus OPCON.

You know I never would have questioned this issue if I saw it. I think it's appropriate to wear for mission/CISM chaplains, and if there is an issue with that then please add it to the list of things to be clarified in the next update. In the meantime I can't see the reg as concrete enough to flat out restrict it.

Far as chain of command, are CAP chaplains ever under the AF chief of chaplains? Even when filling in on base (where flight suit would not be the most appropriate uniform) wouldn't they be under the base commander or something? I mean hell if I know, just guessing here. Anyway, such a verbal order would apply only to the times when under that person's command & only if that uniform were necessary.

Quote from: DNall on November 20, 2006, 03:37:54 AM
Far as chain of command, are CAP chaplains ever under the AF chief of chaplains?

Um...CAP has it's own Chief of Chaplains.  However, "Chief of Chaplains" was brought up twice.  First, talking about how to wear the badge.  Second, when talking about wearing the device on the hat.

Put like lordmonar said, it's different structure.  While assigned to the base, Air Force chaplains also answer to the Chaplains Service.  CAP chaplains on base would be more like "visiting clergy".

QuoteA verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

By this logic a verbal order from MG Pineda to fly CAP airplanes at 100' MSL despite what CAPR 60-1 says would be perfectly ok?  Nope.  No verbal order can override a CAP regulation unless the regulation itself gives someone in the chain of command some discretion on the issue. 

Quote from: shorning on November 19, 2006, 10:09:27 PMI'm not sure why you have "internet forum" in quotes like that, but that's what CAP Talk is:  an internet forum.

You're taking a handful of incidents and making it sound like a rampant problem.  I've never seen the problem to the degree you describe as a matter of routine.  I've been in 6 wings, 5 regions, 9 squadrons and a handful of other assignments.  In the "short" time I've been in CAP, the only time I had anyone pull a ruler on me was as a cadet.  To me, it sounds like the exception rather than the rule. 

Now that I look at it, I don't know why I quoted either. A matter of perception of the concept of "forum", perhaps. In the past, a forum has always been a physical entity, not a virtual one. But, times change. It wasn't  intended as insulting or degrading.

To be fair, there are many things I've never seen, but I know those things to happen. I find it hard to believe that you've only dealt with one uniform fanatic. I envy your good fortune. Wish I had the same luck.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2006, 04:22:59 AM

QuoteA verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

By this logic a verbal order from MG Pineda to fly CAP airplanes at 100' MSL despite what CAPR 60-1 says would be perfectly ok?  Nope.  No verbal order can override a CAP regulation unless the regulation itself gives someone in the chain of command some discretion on the issue. 

Actually...yes...all regulations are written orders form the commanding general....ergo...if MG Pineda says to do it....CAPR 60-1 is superseded.   I have argued this many time.  The top dog does not answer to us nor to the regulations.  If you regional commander or wing commander tried to issue the same order...that would be a different story.  But the National Commander is the issuing authority for all regulations/manuals/pamphlets and therefore he has the power to contermand those orders.

I'm not sure that is true - we are a corporation, therefore CAPFLT001 does not have authority without their consent.

Uniform directives have to be approved by the BOG and the USAF (if its their  combo).

For those of us who've decided (for whatever reason) to wear the blue flightsuit...

"Black Leather Jacket (atch 2.) A black leather jacket with side entry and patch pockets similar in style to the A-2 jacket was approved for wear by CAP senior members with the aviator shirt combinations, utility uniform, CAP flight suit or CAP polo shirt with gray slacks. The CAP command patch will be worn on the right breast with the black leather name patch on the left breast. This jacket may not be worn with any AF-style uniforms.
See Changes to CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual"

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 04:04:50 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on November 20, 2006, 04:22:59 AM

QuoteA verbal order outweighs a written order. SO, even if the Regs say one thing, if the Chief of Chaplains told him to do something else, that verbal order overrides regulations.

By this logic a verbal order from MG Pineda to fly CAP airplanes at 100' MSL despite what CAPR 60-1 says would be perfectly ok?  Nope.  No verbal order can override a CAP regulation unless the regulation itself gives someone in the chain of command some discretion on the issue. 

Actually...yes...all regulations are written orders form the commanding general....ergo...if MG Pineda says to do it....CAPR 60-1 is superseded.   I have argued this many time.  The top dog does not answer to us nor to the regulations.  If you regional commander or wing commander tried to issue the same order...that would be a different story.  But the National Commander is the issuing authority for all regulations/manuals/pamphlets and therefore he has the power to contermand those orders.

On another issue perhaps, but flight at 100' MSL ? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

One, for the simple reason that it would be physically impossible in a large part of the continental United States.

Two, there are other organizations that trump our general. Such as the FAA. Fly at 100' MSL (where you can) and you had better hope that nobody catches your tail number. If they do, it will be about a week or two before you find your ticket punched. Willing to chance it on a generals order?

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 04:04:50 PMThe top dog does not answer to us nor to the regulations.  If you regional commander or wing commander tried to issue the same order...that would be a different story.  But the National Commander is the issuing authority for all regulations/manuals/pamphlets and therefore he has the power to contermand those orders.

Looking at this from another angle: Commanding General does not answer to the organizations' regulations? While it may be true, in practice it would show a serious lack of integrity on that generals part. Especially if he or she had ratified the reg that they decided to countermand.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 20, 2006, 04:34:31 PM

On another issue perhaps, but flight at 100' MSL ? Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

One, for the simple reason that it would be physically impossible in a large part of the continental United States.

Two, there are other organizations that trump our general. Such as the FAA. Fly at 100' MSL (where you can) and you had better hope that nobody catches your tail number. If they do, it will be about a week or two before you find your ticket punched. Willing to chance it on a generals order?

I'm sure that was meant facetiously.

I would think the obligation to dissobey an illegal order would apply there.  I'd be very careful about following an order that is specifically prohibited by regulations, even our own unless it were a life, death, or property risk situation. I can't see where having the order in writing would save you if in following the order you crossed legal lines.

Quote from: Psicorp on November 20, 2006, 04:19:08 PM
For those of us who've decided (for whatever reason) to wear the blue flightsuit...

"Black Leather Jacket (atch 2.) A black leather jacket with side entry and patch pockets similar in style to the A-2 jacket was approved for wear by CAP senior members with the aviator shirt combinations, utility uniform, CAP flight suit or CAP polo shirt with gray slacks. The CAP command patch will be worn on the right breast with the black leather name patch on the left breast. This jacket may not be worn with any AF-style uniforms.
See Changes to CAPM 39-1, CAP Uniform Manual"

You are aware, of course, that the leather name patch is a new one: not the one normally worn on the flight suit?  Vanguard now has them: $9.35 each, as I remember.

What the heck, I'll throw my $.02 in...

If you're not a member of an aircrew (MP, MO, or MS), then why would you wear a flight suit?   

If you're a chaplain (or simply don't have a rating), the simple solution is to just wear the BDUs and live worry free. 

A Member,

There are quite a few rated CAP chaplains ... there are also chaplains who are IC's, GTL's, CUL's, EMT and/or paramedics and so forth.

CAPR 265-1 (29 NOV 05) Section B (5) only prohibits chaplains from serving as unit commanders, deputy commanders, and testing officers. Beyond that, per the regs chaplains can do quite a lot of different roles. If a chaplain is serving as a flight crew member --I knew of a chaplain who served concurrently as a unit operations officer (and I know several who are CFI's)-- the wear of the flight suit WITH a chaplain's badge concurrent with their "wings" shouldn't be an issue.

My point is (a) since chaplains CAN and DO serve as flight crew members and (b) can wear the CAP or USAF  flight suit and (c) the USAF "rated" chaplains** can and do wear BOTH an aero rating badge AND a chaplain's badge on their flight suit name badge THEN CAP chaplains should likewise be permitted to do likewise.

Beyond that, frankly, I'd have no issue with permitting 1 additional operational qualification badge (e.g. EMT/Paramedic, GTM, IC --if/when it's approved, etc.) to be worn by qualified members upon their leather patch similar to the way the USAF does it.

**And as I mentioned before Ch, Maj Gen Charles C. Baldwin, USAF (the current USAF Chief of Chaplains) is a rated USAF officer -- a Vietnam era fighter pilot. I have seen him wearing such a patch with BOTH badges.

Ultimately, regardless of the consensus of CAP Talk or CAP NHQ, I know that I have no intention to alter my practice of imitating the USAF model and wearing both my wings and chaplain's badge.

If I am challenged personally, I will politely disregard any well-meaning attempt at correction. If the IC or OSC, AOBD, GOBD,  etc. STRONGLY objects on a mission, they can continue the mission without my skills or contributions (save for my prayers). I'll leave quietly BUT I won't remove my chaplain's badge from my BDU cover or my flight suit patch.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 20, 2006, 04:39:27 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 04:04:50 PMThe top dog does not answer to us nor to the regulations.  If you regional commander or wing commander tried to issue the same order...that would be a different story.  But the National Commander is the issuing authority for all regulations/manuals/pamphlets and therefore he has the power to contermand those orders.

Looking at this from another angle: Commanding General does not answer to the organizations' regulations? While it may be true, in practice it would show a serious lack of integrity on that generals part. Especially if he or she had ratified the reg that they decided to countermand.

That is the responsibility of command.  Not a lack of integrity.

Assuming that there was a legitimate reason for the order...why would there be a integrity?   If it was a "I want to do this...but you can't" that would be something different.  The point was...a verbal order outweights written regulations....and the answer is.....sometimes that is true...depending on who wrote the original order (or regulations).

If I am a squadron commander and I write a policy letter saying we will wear blues ever first Monaday...then later say..."next Monday (a blues day) we will wear BDUs".  I am not lacking integrity...I am changing policy.  Like wise....If CAPR 60-1 says....no flying below 500' (or what ever it says...I have not looked) and then MG Pineda says....you need to fly at 100'....it is perfectly legal for him to do so (in relation to CAP regs...not FAA of course).

The same applies to uniform issues.  If the 39-1 says no "civilian medals" and then the National Commander tells some recipient of a Award to wear them...he is perfectly within his rights and authority to do so.  And again...it is not an integrity issue.

If he received a medal and wore it and then did not let anyone else to wear it.....that would be an integrity issue....but that is not what has happened in this case.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 20, 2006, 05:57:16 PM
A Member,

There are quite a few rated CAP chaplains ... there are also chaplains who are IC's, GTL's, CUL's, EMT and/or paramedics and so forth.

CAPR 265-1 (29 NOV 05) Section B (5) only prohibits chaplains from serving as unit commanders, deputy commanders, and testing officers. Beyond that, per the regs chaplains can do quite a lot of different roles. If a chaplain is serving as a flight crew member --I knew of a chaplain who served concurrently as a unit operations officer (and I know several who are CFI's)-- the wear of the flight suit WITH a chaplain's badge concurrent with their "wings" shouldn't be an issue.

My point is (a) since chaplains CAN and DO serve as flight crew members and (b) can wear the CAP or USAF  flight suit and (c) the USAF "rated" chaplains** can and do wear BOTH an aero rating badge AND a chaplain's badge on their flight suit name badge THEN CAP chaplains should likewise be permitted to do likewise.

Beyond that, frankly, I'd have no issue with permitting 1 additional operational qualification badge (e.g. EMT/Paramedic, GTM, IC --if/when it's approved, etc.) to be worn by qualified members upon their leather patch similar to the way the USAF does it.

**And as I mentioned before Ch, Maj Gen Charles C. Baldwin, USAF (the current USAF Chief of Chaplains) is a rated USAF officer -- a Vietnam era fighter pilot. I have seen him wearing such a patch with BOTH badges.

Ultimately, regardless of the consensus of CAP Talk or CAP NHQ, I know that I have no intention to alter my practice of imitating the USAF model and wearing both my wings and chaplain's badge.

If I am challenged personally, I will politely disregard any well-meaning attempt at correction. If the IC or OSC, AOBD, GOBD,  etc. STRONGLY objects on a mission, they can continue the mission without my skills or contributions (save for my prayers). I'll leave quietly BUT I won't remove my chaplain's badge from my BDU cover or my flight suit patch.

Recently...our squadron chaplain served as the IC for a SAREX....when he was being the IC, he removed his chaplains badge...because a chaplain cannot be commander....including an incident commander.  So for the duration of the SAREX he was NOT a chaplain and removed his badge. 

Now....I don't know if that was legally kosher (I don't know if you can just turn of being a chaplain like that)...and I don't think anyone would have a problem with him wearing his badge while an IC...but it is an example of both trying to follow the letter and spirit of the rules in a very gray area.

Again...if a chaplain wanted to wear a flight suit, I see no reason why he should not wear his badge on the name patch.  And again...I am going by the spirit of the regulation and not the letter.  YMMV

There's absolutely NO prohibition on a chaplain serving as an Incident Commander or as pilot in "Command" ... etc. Just what's in CAPR 265-1.

Unless your chaplain is "reading into" the reg, there's no explicit prohibition whatsoever. As an IC myself, I regularly wear my chaplain's badge while IC-ing.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 20, 2006, 05:57:16 PM
A Member,

There are quite a few rated CAP chaplains ... there are also chaplains who are IC's, GTL's, CUL's, EMT and/or paramedics and so forth.

CAPR 265-1 (29 NOV 05) Section B (5) only prohibits chaplains from serving as unit commanders, deputy commanders, and testing officers. Beyond that, per the regs chaplains can do quite a lot of different roles. If a chaplain is serving as a flight crew member --I knew of a chaplain who served concurrently as a unit operations officer (and I know several who are CFI's)-- the wear of the flight suit WITH a chaplain's badge concurrent with their "wings" shouldn't be an issue.

My point is (a) since chaplains CAN and DO serve as flight crew members and (b) can wear the CAP or USAF  flight suit and (c) the USAF "rated" chaplains** can and do wear BOTH an aero rating badge AND a chaplain's badge on their flight suit name badge THEN CAP chaplains should likewise be permitted to do likewise.

Beyond that, frankly, I'd have no issue with permitting 1 additional operational qualification badge (e.g. EMT/Paramedic, GTM, IC --if/when it's approved, etc.) to be worn by qualified members upon their leather patch similar to the way the USAF does it.

**And as I mentioned before Ch, Maj Gen Charles C. Baldwin, USAF (the current USAF Chief of Chaplains) is a rated USAF officer -- a Vietnam era fighter pilot. I have seen him wearing such a patch with BOTH badges.

Ultimately, regardless of the consensus of CAP Talk or CAP NHQ, I know that I have no intention to alter my practice of imitating the USAF model and wearing both my wings and chaplain's badge.

If I am challenged personally, I will politely disregard any well-meaning attempt at correction. If the IC or OSC, AOBD, GOBD,  etc. STRONGLY objects on a mission, they can continue the mission without my skills or contributions (save for my prayers). I'll leave quietly BUT I won't remove my chaplain's badge from my BDU cover or my flight suit patch.

I hear ya but the original poster indicated he didn't have a rating.  But even if he did have a rating, there is no requirement that says an aircrew member must wear a flight suit (chaplain or not).  That was my point.

If someone is that concerned over the issue, just wear the BDUs and be done with it.  I have no heart-burn either way.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 20, 2006, 06:18:35 PM
There's absolutely NO prohibition on a chaplain serving as an Incident Commander or as pilot in "Command" ... etc. Just what's in CAPR 265-1.

Unless your chaplain is "reading into" the reg, there's no explicit prohibition whatsoever. As an IC myself, I regularly wear my chaplain's badge while IC-ing.

Like you said...it depends on how you interpret 265-1.  I personally have no problem with it at all.  But as I said....here was a gray area....and one chaplain's attempt to satisfy the regulations.

Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2006, 06:20:18 PM
I hear ya but the original poster indicated he didn't have a rating.  But even if he did have a rating, there is no requirement that says an aircrew member must wear a flight suit (chaplain or not).  That was my point.

If someone is that concerned over the issue, just wear the BDUs and be done with it.  I have no heart-burn either way.

Unless you live in one of the those wings that "require" nomex to fly.

Why does everyone want to beat up on the chaplain???????

The regs sometimes are in conflict.  Let's try some common sense and not be sooooooo nit picky. While I understand the regs and the reasons for them, common sense must enter in.   Example......you are flying a mission as flight crew wearing a green flight suit. Due to rainy weather, you land,  it is pouring rain like a hurricane.  In your survival kit you have a clear plastic rain poncho.  Do you put it on in violation of regulations (39-1 doesn't authorize it) to tie down your aircraft and get into shelter?   Or do you follow regs and get drenched to the skin?  

Let's get real folks.  Besides, those of you beating up on the chaplain , may just need him someday!!!!   Don't push your luck....he has friends in higher places than you can fly.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 06:02:45 PM

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 20, 2006, 04:39:27 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 04:04:50 PMThe top dog does not answer to us nor to the regulations.  If you regional commander or wing commander tried to issue the same order...that would be a different story.  But the National Commander is the issuing authority for all regulations/manuals/pamphlets and therefore he has the power to contermand those orders.

Looking at this from another angle: Commanding General does not answer to the organizations' regulations? While it may be true, in practice it would show a serious lack of integrity on that generals part. Especially if he or she had ratified the reg that they decided to countermand.

That is the responsibility of command.  Not a lack of integrity.

Assuming that there was a legitimate reason for the order...why would there be a integrity?   If it was a "I want to do this...but you can't" that would be something different.  The point was...a verbal order outweights written regulations....and the answer is.....sometimes that is true...depending on who wrote the original order (or regulations).

If I am a squadron commander and I write a policy letter saying we will wear blues ever first Monaday...then later say..."next Monday (a blues day) we will wear BDUs".  I am not lacking integrity...I am changing policy.  Like wise....If CAPR 60-1 says....no flying below 500' (or what ever it says...I have not looked) and then MG Pineda says....you need to fly at 100'....it is perfectly legal for him to do so (in relation to CAP regs...not FAA of course).

The same applies to uniform issues.  If the 39-1 says no "civilian medals" and then the National Commander tells some recipient of a Award to wear them...he is perfectly within his rights and authority to do so.  And again...it is not an integrity issue.

If he received a medal and wore it and then did not let anyone else to wear it.....that would be an integrity issue....but that is not what has happened in this case.

I think you totally missed the point. If a general says "I've signed off on this regulation. It will be followed", and down the road decides "That doesn't work for me right now, I'm not going to follow it.", that is a serious lack of integrity.

Now, if for instance, the general says "It's not according to reg right now, but go ahead and wear (or do) it . We'll will supplement or amend the reg in the near future.", then there wouldn't be any issues. That's adapting.

If a general changes his mind on a reg, he needs to follow up and change the reg, or be able to justify it. Arbitrarily deciding that he can ignore the reg when he feels like it is wrong. That's not changing policy, that is breakdown in the chain of command concept.

Plain and simple, general ignores regs, members will follow his example. Leadership is as it does.

Pacific Region requires nomex flight suit, leather boots and gloves , preferably nomex to fly missions.  

Besides...nomex is the "smart" item to wear.  Just because a region or wing may not require it, why not wear it for safety reasons?????

BTW ...a side note.......about the wear of a flight suit.

I am the CAP rep for an ongoing militay activity at an AF Base.  When I attend meetings I usually wear the flight suit.  The reason.....uniform of the day at the base is flight suit for flight rated personnel.  (Note: I am pilot/obs/scanner rated) I wear the flight suit so as to "fit in" and not stand out like a sore thumb in in blues.  I feel it's better to blend in that have everyone wondering why the CAP guy showed up in blues when even the general is in a flight suit.

Quote from: Smokey on November 20, 2006, 06:45:19 PM
BTW ...a side note.......about the wear of a flight suit.

I am the CAP rep for an ongoing militay activity at an AF Base.  When I attend meetings I usually wear the flight suit.  The reason.....uniform of the day at the base is flight suit for flight rated personnel.  (Note: I am pilot/obs/scanner rated) I wear the flight suit so as to "fit in" and not stand out like a sore thumb in in blues.  I feel it's better to blend in that have everyone wondering why the CAP guy showed up in blues when even the general is in a flight suit.

I'd buy that. I think fitting in when working with the military is not only practical, it's polite. Showing up in something different may have them wondering why you think you're so hot that you can draw attention to yourself.

Quote from: Hawk200 on November 20, 2006, 07:01:53 PM

I'd buy that. I think fitting in when working with the military is not only practical, it's polite. Showing up in something different may have them wondering why you think you're so hot that you can draw attention to yourself.

Not to mention the unwritten rule of never outdressing the General. :)

On the issue of the National Commander having the authority to issue or verbally change regulations . . .

It is worth remembering that the National Commander is not the supreme authority in CAP.  That authority is vested in the BoG by law.

And while the CAP constitution gives the National Commander the authority to "adopt and maintain regulations," it also requires that all regulations be ratified by the National Board.  IOW, unless and until a regulation is ratified by the NB, it has no force or effect.  (There is an exception for emergency regulations to preserve life or property which does not require NB approval, although the NB may subsequently revoke even an emergency regulation promogulated by the National Commander.)

And of course the BoG has the authority to require the National Commander to issue, revoke, or rescind regulations.  Such actions do not require NB approval.

So, the bottom line is that the National Commander is bound by the same regulations as you and me, and absent an emergency is not authorized to change them or issue new ones on his own.

Ned

Quote from: Ned on November 20, 2006, 07:55:18 PM
On the issue of the National Commander having the authority to issue or verbally change regulations . . .

It is worth remembering that the National Commander is not the supreme authority in CAP.  That authority is vested in the BoG by law.

And while the CAP constitution gives the National Commander the authority to "adopt and maintain regulations," it also requires that all regulations be ratified by the National Board.  IOW, unless and until a regulation is ratified by the NB, it has no force or effect.  (There is an exception for emergency regulations to preserve life or property which does not require NB approval, although the NB may subsequently revoke even an emergency regulation promulgated by the National Commander.)

And of course the BoG has the authority to require the National Commander to issue, revoke, or rescind regulations.  Such actions do not require NB approval.

So, the bottom line is that the National Commander is bound by the same regulations as you and me, and absent an emergency is not authorized to change them or issue new ones on his own.

So in your post you said he both has and does not have the authority to issue changes.  I understand what your are trying to say....yes the National Commander is bound by regulations and the constition and by-laws of CAP.  However, he does have the authority to change those regulations at will and only has to answer to the BoG.  Ergo...if the National Commander says wear the medals...it is a legal and binding order until it is countermanded by the BoG.

Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2006, 05:30:04 PM
If you're not a member of an aircrew (MP, MO, or MS), then why would you wear a flight suit?

because you can.  Flight suits are NOT for flight crew only and are NOT restricted to just flying operations.  The only time I could find where you could not wear them is when flying as a passanger on USAF aircraft.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  The problem arises because our constitution uses the word "issue" when describing the National Commander's authority over regulations, but then qualifies that term by requiring the National Board to ratify the regulation.

IOW, the regulation isn't really a regulation unless and until the NB says it is by way of "ratification." 

The bottom line is that the National Commander does not have the authority to unilaterally change or issue regulations under normal circumstances.

The National Commander is hired by the NB and may be fired by the NB, so I'd say that the National Commander "has to answer" NB.

Finally, the concept of a "legal and binding order" is more that a little fuzzy in the CAP context, in the absence of some sort of CAP UCMJ.  I'm not sure anyone could be terminated for insubordination for disobeying a "legal and binding order" by a CAP commander that directly contravenes a written regulation.

But like I said, it's a little fuzzy from the legal perspective.

Removed empty quote tags - MIKE

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 09:27:51 PM

Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2006, 05:30:04 PM
If you're not a member of an aircrew (MP, MO, or MS), then why would you wear a flight suit?

because you can.  Flight suits are NOT for flight crew only and are NOT restricted to just flying operations.  The only time I could find where you could not wear them is when flying as a passanger on USAF aircraft.

That's not the way I read it.  For both the USAF-style and CAP flight suits, 39-1 specifically says "For flight Crews only".

Quote from: jkalemis on November 21, 2006, 03:04:30 PM
That's not the way I read it.  For both the USAF-style and CAP flight suits, 39-1 specifically says "For flight Crews only".

Hmmm, after some more research:

Knowledgebase #1551 says " Within these restrictions, allowing members to wear the AF flight suit to unit meetings would be up to the unit commander. " Restrictions are about travel or non-cap activities.

So, as usual, 39-1 (and CAP's interpretation in the Knowledgebase) is... ambiguous. 

Quote from: jkalemis on November 21, 2006, 03:04:30 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 20, 2006, 09:27:51 PM

Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2006, 05:30:04 PM
If you're not a member of an aircrew (MP, MO, or MS), then why would you wear a flight suit?

because you can.  Flight suits are NOT for flight crew only and are NOT restricted to just flying operations.  The only time I could find where you could not wear them is when flying as a passanger on USAF aircraft.

That's not the way I read it.  For both the USAF-style and CAP flight suits, 39-1 specifically says "For flight Crews only".

here is all I could find about the flight suits.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Para 4-2.d.d. Utility Uniform: The CAP utility uniform is an optional uniform that may be worn by both cadetsand senior members for flying activities or any time the field uniform would be worn.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 1-1although any CAP uniform may be worn, aviator shirt, blazer combination, or appropriate civilian attire is encouraged to be worn on military aircraft (except orientation flights or IACE).
EXCEPTION: BDUs and flight suits will not be worn. This will enable members to arrive for activity participation with the proper uniform ready to wear.

No where does it say that flight suits or utility uniforms are for flying only. 

Unless you read into:

Quote from: CAPM 39-1 para 2-1.d.d. Flight Crew members wearing the green Air Force flight suit may make only essential stops en route to and from the duty performance site. If a stop is essential, members must meet the proper standards of neatness, cleanliness, and military image.

In the old 39-1 the flight suit and utility uniform were in a section for flying activities....that is where the "understanding" that flight suits were only for flying grew from.  And again...following USAF practices, those authorised to fly wear their flight suits as a duty uniform...even if their duties do not include flying (that day...week...month...year!)

You overlooked the title of the page.  Page 34 for the USAF-style suit (and similarly page 77 for the CAP one)

"Figure 2-19. Men's and Women's Green Flight Suit and Green Flight Jacket
(Flight Crews Only)"

Quote from: jkalemis on November 21, 2006, 04:15:52 PM
You overlooked the title of the page.  Page 34 for the USAF-style suit (and similarly page 77 for the CAP one)

"Figure 2-19. Men's and Women's Green Flight Suit and Green Flight Jacket
(Flight Crews Only)"

Well...then...once again we find that CAPM 39-1 contradicts itself.

In one paragraph it says you can wear the utility uniform "for flying activities or any time the field uniform would be worn" and another place (the title to the figure on page 77) saying it is for flight crews only.

So...we now have to figure out what National REALLY meant.  So in that case...we go to knowledge base or our chain of command for guidance.

Thanks for pointing that out to me though.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 21, 2006, 04:54:05 PM

In one paragraph it says you can wear the utility uniform "for flying activities or any time the field uniform would be worn" and another place (the title to the figure on page 77) saying it is for flight crews only.

Be careful there, you're talking about two different combinations.  The uniform that is restricted is the AF style flight suit.  The utility uniform is the blue CAP-distinctive uniform that can be worn as a flight suit or in place of the field uniform.

Nomex flight suits are for flight crews only, the Utility Uniform may be worn in lieu of the BDU/Field Uniform... And may also be worn for flying activities.

Quote from: MIKE on November 21, 2006, 05:14:54 PM
Nomex flight suits are for flight crews only, the Utility Uniform may be worn in lieu of the BDU/Field Uniform... And may also be worn for flying activities.

So we interpret...maybe....the problem is that the blue flight suit on page 77 is not mentioned in chapter 4 about the CAP distinctive uniforms.   And except for the material the blue flight suit and utility uniform are identical...so why make a distinction that Nomex is ONLY for flight crews?

It makes us wonder what the real intentions of national were.

I see what you're talking about now.  It is indeed a blue flight suit pictured on pg 77.  The utility uniform is pictured on pg. 78.

The confusion lies in that the flight suit is not listed in section 4-2, only the utility uniform.

So, the utility uniform may be worn in place of the field uniform.  But the blue flight suit may only be worn by flight crews, the picture caption.

That is pretty strange, considering they appear to be identical except for the material.

I believe the deal is that flight suits are only intended to be worn by folks w/ flight ratings or while flying to earn one, but may be worn by those people in lieu of BDUs to meetings or activities at the discression of the commander (that latitude being there in case you are flying into the event).

Personally I don't have a problem with members wearing flight suits in lieu of BDUs at meetings even if they aren't going to be flying, just so they are on active flight status (MP/MO rating is current & they actually do it). Of course they need to be in BDUs when that's appropriate to the activity though.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 18, 2006, 08:03:11 PM
If in doubt....ask your commander.  At least then you have someone to CYA if someone jumps down your throat.

On the other hand.....within reason...what does it really matter?  I mean a guy wears both of his authorised badge on his aircrew name tape or wears his chaplains cross on it.....the world is not going to end, no one in the USAF will care (because a DNall said it is following USAF practice) and it serves a legitamate purpose.

"It is easier to apologize afterward than to ask permission before."

-- The Golden Rule of any CAP operation

Has anybody noticed about 39-1: 

You have to wear the Nomex flight suit when flying, but when flying in USAF aircraft, you can't wear the Nomex flight suit. 

Does the USAF use a fuel that is less likely to burn?

39-1 says one wears an aeronautical badge on the leather nametag on the flight suit.

If a chaplain's insignia is not an "Aeronautical Badge," why do we call them "Sky Pilots?" :angel:

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 22, 2006, 03:39:37 AM
Has anybody noticed about 39-1: 

You have to wear the Nomex flight suit when flying, but when flying in USAF aircraft, you can't wear the Nomex flight suit. 

Does the USAF use a fuel that is less likely to burn?

Technically, yes...but that probably isn't the reason.  I'll guess that it has something to do with distinguishing active aircrew from passengers, especially us non-Active Duty passengers.

Quote from: Psicorp on November 22, 2006, 03:54:38 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 22, 2006, 03:39:37 AM
Has anybody noticed about 39-1: 

You have to wear the Nomex flight suit when flying, but when flying in USAF aircraft, you can't wear the Nomex flight suit. 

Does the USAF use a fuel that is less likely to burn?

Technically, yes...but that probably isn't the reason.  I'll guess that it has something to do with distinguishing active aircrew from passengers, especially us non-Active Duty passengers.

That is EXACTLY the reason!

Quote from: Psicorp on November 22, 2006, 03:54:38 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 22, 2006, 03:39:37 AM
Has anybody noticed about 39-1: 

You have to wear the Nomex flight suit when flying, but when flying in USAF aircraft, you can't wear the Nomex flight suit. 

Does the USAF use a fuel that is less likely to burn?

Technically, yes...but that probably isn't the reason.  I'll guess that it has something to do with distinguishing active aircrew from passengers, especially us non-Active Duty passengers.

It's got to do with the USAF pilot community protecting their status symbol...that is the only reason for it.  Active duty pilots fly as passangers all the time in their flight suits...so it has nothing to do with "we need to ibe able to dentify the aircrew quickly".

Quote from: lordmonar on November 22, 2006, 07:50:54 AM

Quote from: Psicorp on November 22, 2006, 03:54:38 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 22, 2006, 03:39:37 AM
Has anybody noticed about 39-1: 

You have to wear the Nomex flight suit when flying, but when flying in USAF aircraft, you can't wear the Nomex flight suit. 

Does the USAF use a fuel that is less likely to burn?

Technically, yes...but that probably isn't the reason.  I'll guess that it has something to do with distinguishing active aircrew from passengers, especially us non-Active Duty passengers.

It's got to do with the USAF pilot community protecting their status symbol...that is the only reason for it.  Active duty pilots fly as passangers all the time in their flight suits...so it has nothing to do with "we need to ibe able to dentify the aircrew quickly".

An AD pilot or aircrew flying as a passenger has the training to assist the active aircrew in case of an emergency. This has been explained to me by several independant sources. The Navy has had a similar policy if effect in the past; not sure about now.

YMMV.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 22, 2006, 07:50:54 AMIt's got to do with the USAF pilot community protecting their status symbol...that is the only reason for it. 

Not so much. 

Quote from: SarDragon on November 22, 2006, 05:57:36 PMAn AD pilot or aircrew flying as a passenger has the training to assist the active aircrew in case of an emergency.

That's more the case.  All aircrew have certian training WRT crew duties.  Even if you're not crew on that particular airframe, you know who the crew is and how to follow their instructions.  Meanwhile, true pax are only looking for the schmuck in a bag.

The why is there also a restriction on wearing BDU's?  Most of the "True Pax" in a C-130 wear BDU's and don't even know where to go to the toilet.  I know.  I was one.  In C-130's and C-141's. 

There were a lot of us in BDU who were being transported as cargo.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 23, 2006, 12:32:33 AM
The why is there also a restriction on wearing BDU's?  Most of the "True Pax" in a C-130 wear BDU's and don't even know where to go to the toilet.  I know.  I was one.  In C-130's and C-141's. 

There were a lot of us in BDU who were being transported as cargo.

What?  Are you saying that the Air Force has a restriction on wearing BDUs when flying?  Don't think so, BTDT.  DCUs too.  Don't know where to whizz?   Ask a crew member.

.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 23, 2006, 12:32:33 AM
The why is there also a restriction on wearing BDU's?  Most of the "True Pax" in a C-130 wear BDU's and don't even know where to go to the toilet.  I know.  I was one.  In C-130's and C-141's. 

There were a lot of us in BDU who were being transported as cargo.

To restate -

Quote from: CAPM 39-1EXCEPTION: BDUs and flight suits will not be worn. This will enable members to arrive for activity participation with the proper uniform ready to wear.

They made a rule, and they justified it (whether you agree or not).

YMMV.

My point was that the rule has nothing to do with the justification.

What if BDU's and Flight Suits WERE appropriate for activity participation?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on November 23, 2006, 04:16:06 PM
My point was that the rule has nothing to do with the justification.

What if BDU's and Flight Suits WERE appropriate for activity participation?

I don't know...part of the restriction may come from the fact that years ago (late 80's) you were not allowed to fly on military aircraft in BDU's.  You had to be in uniform and you had to be in blues unless you were going TDY to the sand box.  That was how you could tell the "duty pax" from the "Space A'ers".

I wonder how often we actually follow this rule.  I mean I have seen any number of photos of CAP members flying on military aircraft in BDU's.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 23, 2006, 07:13:05 PM
I wonder how often we actually follow this rule.  I mean I have seen any number of photos of CAP members flying on military aircraft in BDU's.

So you and your cadets are going on a Military O-flight... but you shouldn't wear BDUs or flight suits.  Should SMs, erm "officers" wear polo shirts and the cadets wear blues or some such nonesense?    ::)

Way to show our USAF counterparts we do all we can to look special and stand out like a sore thumb from the rest of the family.   :P

Also, at various times in a cadet's "Career" BDU's may be his only uniform.  They outgrow the blues, and BDU's are easier to replace out of surplus.

They also wear better as hand-me-downs.

Sorry, but I commanded a unit in the "Inner City" for a while.  We did so much with so little for so long, we eventually were able to do anything with nothing.

"This has been a message from your Civil Air Patrol... C.A.P.; That part of the Air Force that DOES have to have bake sales."

Every time I've seen a flight it was clearly stated that UOD was blues & people not in the right uniform would not get to go, but the flight crew doesn't know anything about that & people do fly in other uniforms. As I understand, it is indeed about having only qualified military flight crew in flight suits. My only guess about BDUs would be the same reason they didn't want grade on BDU hats for so long - if there's an emergency situation, they don't want any confusion about who has legal command of whom. Recall that was the logic for so long behind no thaving grade on BDU covers - cause you could deblouse & suddenly NCOs think you have legal command of them in an emergency, that's not good. Anyway who cares. If the AF designates what uniform you are to wear if you want to participate in some flight with them, either do what you're told or don't fly.

WIWAC I did a KC-135 and C-130 O-rides and we wore BDUs.  Not the cleanest aircraft. 

Quote from: DNall on November 23, 2006, 09:29:49 PM
Every time I've seen a flight it was clearly stated that UOD was blues & people not in the right uniform would not get to go, but the flight crew doesn't know anything about that & people do fly in other uniforms. As I understand, it is indeed about having only qualified military flight crew in flight suits. My only guess about BDUs would be the same reason they didn't want grade on BDU hats for so long - if there's an emergency situation, they don't want any confusion about who has legal command of whom. Recall that was the logic for so long behind no thaving grade on BDU covers - cause you could deblouse & suddenly NCOs think you have legal command of them in an emergency, that's not good. Anyway who cares. If the AF designates what uniform you are to wear if you want to participate in some flight with them, either do what you're told or don't fly.

"Legal authority to command in an emergency?"

CAP Officer:  "Get out, Sergeant, the airplane is on fire!"

AF Sergeant:  "Hey... you're only a CAP guy... You can't tell me what to do!"

CAP Officer:  "OK, Suit yourself."

AF Sergeant:  "AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

Not a very likely scenario.

 ;D :P

Quote from: jacklumanog on November 16, 2006, 07:12:38 PM
If you don't yet have an aeronautical rating like Observer, are you prohibited from wearing the flight suit? 

On a web order form, I saw that you could order flight suit badges with emblems other than observer & pilot wings.  There were options for Christian, Jewish or Muslim Chaplains and a bunch of other emblems to go above the name and rank info. 

Sir, would you mind telling me the web sit that you were using/looking at?  I need new nameplates for my FDU.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 17, 2006, 10:07:02 PM
As a chaplain, I wear my chaplain's badge beside (that's the way the USAF does it ... the USAF Chief of Chaplains is a rated aviator) --to the inside-- of my aero rating badge.

Who is the new USAF Chief of Chaplains?

Quote from: Hammer on December 08, 2006, 10:42:44 PM
Who is the new USAF Chief of Chaplains?

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/google.gif)...linky... (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-18,GGGL:en&q=USAF+Chief+of+Chaplains)

Quote from: shorning on December 08, 2006, 10:45:15 PM

Quote from: Hammer on December 08, 2006, 10:42:44 PM
Who is the new USAF Chief of Chaplains?

(http://home.hawaii.rr.com/shorning/google.gif)...linky... (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-18,GGGL:en&q=USAF+Chief+of+Chaplains)

Thanks, sir!

Pretty interesting, he graduated from the USAFA in 1969, got out in 1974, and came back in 1979, AND gor promoted to Captain in 1979...I didn't know you could do that,.  In theory, would the same work for a Lawyer or a Doctor?

haha he's also the only rated General that I've ever seen with Basic wings, and he's also a Paratrooper...pretty neat.  BTW, are you supposed to wear Jump Wings below the ribbons?

Quote from: Hammer on December 08, 2006, 11:34:54 PMhe's also the only rated General that I've ever seen with Basic wings, and he's also a Paratrooper...pretty neat.  BTW, are you supposed to wear Jump Wings below the ribbons?

Probably not even a paratrooper. Probably got the wings at the Air Force academy. The have a class, Airmanship 490 think it is, that gets you the jump wings. It's not even an Airborne school, you'd learn the same thing in any skydiving course.

Below the ribbons is a grey area. Technically, the AFI says it's for duty and miscelleneous badges, but the illustration in the previous rendition of 36-2903 showed  an individual with an occupational badge in that position. I guess it took off from there.

Hes a General, and thus more then mere mortal. As a Chaplain General hes answerable only to God  :angel:
Point being- Try to tell a General something about his uniform.   ;D

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 26, 2007, 03:08:47 AM
Hes a General, and thus more then mere mortal. As a Chaplain General hes answerable only to God  :angel:
Point being- Try to tell a General something about his uniform.   ;D

In days of old, general officers designed their own uniforms. It's since morphed into a gray area where generals will wear unique variations of the uniform, such as the blue MA-1 style flight jacket with name and rank embroidered.

Army generals are issued a general officer-specific pistol belt and pistol. About 20 years ago AFR 35-10 allowed a special belt buckle for the blues for AF general officers.

Thread revival. Anyone know anything about the Flight suits that have the regular side pockets like you'd find on a pair of pants ? Just acquired a bag that has zippers on the sides that are pockets, last one didn't have this. Authorized ? Thanks.

Quote from: VETTE277 on December 17, 2009, 01:42:23 AM
Thread revival. Anyone know anything about the Flight suits that have the regular side pockets like you'd find on a pair of pants ? Just acquired a bag that has zippers on the sides that are pockets, last one didn't have this. Authorized ? Thanks.

There are some versions that have a pas through on them, but not actual pockets. They're fine to wear. All the ones I saw with the side zippers also had epaulets. Had a few of them before.

Quote from: VETTE277 on December 17, 2009, 01:42:23 AM
Thread revival. Anyone know anything about the Flight suits that have the regular side pockets like you'd find on a pair of pants ? Just acquired a bag that has zippers on the sides that are pockets, last one didn't have this. Authorized ? Thanks.

That's the short-lived McPeak-style flight suit with 'happy pockets' and lower penlight pocket (but no thigh pockets).

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 17, 2009, 04:45:46 AM

Quote from: VETTE277 on December 17, 2009, 01:42:23 AM
Thread revival. Anyone know anything about the Flight suits that have the regular side pockets like you'd find on a pair of pants ? Just acquired a bag that has zippers on the sides that are pockets, last one didn't have this. Authorized ? Thanks.

That's the short-lived McPeak-style flight suit with 'happy pockets' and lower penlight pocket (but no thigh pockets).

I have one with epaulets hanging in my closet, but I don't know if it's still allowed for wear.

Quote from: CyBorg on December 17, 2009, 04:54:03 AMI have one with epaulets hanging in my closet, but I don't know if it's still allowed for wear.

As long as it's serviceable, and properly configured (meaning you've got the current command patch of the week), you can wear it.

I used to like them, until I started getting spread. The original/new-again design seems to be far more comfortable for the same tagged size.

Quote from: MIKE on November 18, 2006, 03:44:37 AM

Quote from: ELThunter on November 18, 2006, 03:18:59 AM
OK purists, start casting stones :)

We don't wear Class B's in CAP.  :)

Excuse me, but Class B is a dress uniform worn without the jacket and with or without a tie if wearing a short sleved shirt....at least that's what I was taught since basic training. Class A is the full uniform, with ribbons, badges, and the blouse or jacket. At lest that was what I was taught in basic training 30 years ago. I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed.

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 11:59:05 AMExcuse me, but Class B is a dress uniform worn without the jacket and with or without a tie if wearing a short sleved shirt....at least that's what I was taught since basic training. Class A is the full uniform, with ribbons, badges, and the blouse or jacket. At lest that was what I was taught in basic training 30 years ago. I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed.

And there are some 'uniform purists' that will jump up and down, turn red in the face and have steam come outta their ears at the mere mention of Army terminology on Air Force uniforms! The Air Farce today (and by extension, CAP) simply calls 'Class A' 'service dress' and 'Class B' the 'service uniform'. No big deal for me, but expect someone on this board to holler 'Sacrilege!'  ;D

Quote from: arajca on November 18, 2006, 12:25:36 AM

Quote from: Chaplaindon on November 18, 2006, 12:06:34 AM
In my case, until CAPM 39-1 explicitly prohibits wearing the chaplain's badge on the BDU cover or upon the FS leather patch concurrently with an aero rating badge, I consider it IMPLICITLY permitted.

CAPM 39-1 expressly prohibits anything not authorized in it.

Quote from: CAPM 39-1, para 1-1Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear.

So the CSU was illegal from the get-go, that being the case, since it wasn't (and will never be) in CAPM 39-1. And so are a bunch of the badges supposedly authorized for the uniform (like the IC badge and a bunch of those ugly shields). And we could go on and on....

Face it, CAPM 39-1 is so long in the tooth as to be nearly irrelevant. And that's a shame, because we're supposed to be an organization governed by regulations.

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on December 17, 2009, 01:45:20 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 11:59:05 AM
And there are some 'uniform purists' that will jump up and down, turn red in the face and have steam come outta their ears at the mere mention of Army terminology on Air Force uniforms! The Air Farce today (and by extension, CAP) simply calls 'Class A' 'service dress' and 'Class B' the 'service uniform'. No big deal for me, but expect someone on this board to holler 'Sacrilege!'  ;D

I wonder what my TI would say to that? Of course, I have to catch myself all the time referring to BDUs as fatigues? As for not wearing BDUs and flight suits on military orientation flights? You've got to be kidding. Have we thrown safety out the window for the sake of dress uniforms? As for me, the last time I was on a C-130, I wore a flight suit, complete with gloves, as is the current AF policy, even though as an CAP aircrew member I wasn' part of the flight crew. Horrors, I violated a reg for the sake of safety.

So, this brings to mind another question that I'll throw out there. My leather flight suit patch contains my senior observer wings and two Air Force badges IWA Air Force standards. Nobody has ever challenged me. I've never worn the CAP speciality badges because it's just too much bling. Is it a problem on the flight suit?

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 04:35:21 PM
So, this brings to mind another question that I'll throw out there. My leather flight suit patch contains my senior observer wings and two Air Force badges IWA Air Force standards. Nobody has ever challenged me. I've never worn the CAP speciality badges because it's just too much bling. Is it a problem on the flight suit?

Are you saying that you have three badges on your leather nametag? If so, that is not, and never really has been, Air Force standard. The standard had been two, with wings or highest badge (either current or higher level badge) on top. The current 2903 just says "badges", but doesn't state a number(it also says nametags are "cloth"). The nametag for the A-2 is specified as wings, with an allowance for a Commander's badge.

Side by side isn't a standard at all, it's just been done like that by manufacturers so that they don't need dies for smaller badges. And yes, I know, Vanguard does it. But Vanguard has a history of trying to tell CAP members (and probably service members, too) what their uniforms are.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 17, 2009, 03:22:26 PM...(like the IC badge and a bunch of those ugly shields).

IC Badge, I understand, but what shields?

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 17, 2009, 03:22:26 PMFace it, CAPM 39-1 is so long in the tooth as to be nearly irrelevant. And that's a shame, because we're supposed to be an organization governed by regulations.

Agreed.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 17, 2009, 04:59:43 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 17, 2009, 03:22:26 PM...(like the IC badge and a bunch of those ugly shields).

IC Badge, I understand, but what shields?

The specialty shields worn on the wearer's left pocket, and now allowed in myriad other places (no word if they're authorized on the wearer's pants fly yet, but give it time).

Originally it was just the communications badge, but then ES and safety were added, and then in the last few years, the floodgates opened with all sorts of goofy ones. (One is in my signature image below, but it's not one of the really ridiculous ones — the ones with three propellers on top and a gray background are the overly superfluous, clip-arty, "me-too" badges.)

Flight suits with front pockets:

http://www.flightsuits.com/index.php?id=18&cat_id=21&prod_id=113

http://www.aureusinternational.com/

They offer made-to-order flight suits with custom options.....at a premium ($!)

On the issue with the sheilds and the CP, AE, crests.....IMHO they should all be changed to USAF style specailty badges and worn in the same manner.  i.e. you get to choose two (or one with any wings) over the ribbons and no where else.

Current regulatons allow for two sheild specialty badges to be worn.  One below the left pocket welt and one above the name tag.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 17, 2009, 06:25:14 PMThe specialty shields worn on the wearer's left pocket, and now allowed in myriad other places ...

Most of those are actually listed and depicted in 39-1, sixteen specialty tracks are currently covered.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 07:14:43 PMCurrent regulatons allow for two sheild specialty badges to be worn.  One below the left pocket welt and one above the name tag.

On male shirts, it's one on each pocket. For female blouses, it's one above ribbons, one above nametag. Different places for different uniform items, which can be confusing.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 07:14:43 PM
On the issue with the sheilds and the CP, AE, crests.....IMHO they should all be changed to USAF style specailty badges and worn in the same manner.  i.e. you get to choose two (or one with any wings) over the ribbons and no where else.

I'm a little divided on this one. Part of me thinks that it might be OK if the design was right, but I imagine they would follow the concept of the Ground Team badges (with the leafy looking unbalanced wreath on it), and I never really liked that one. On the upside, cloth versions for BDU's would be a lot cheaper having less materials to make it.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to think that that we really don't need them. I try to read 39-1 every couple of months so that I remember them, but most of them use some kind of quill or lightning bolt, while others don't seem to make any applicable sense at all. Not much point to a badge if no one remembers what it is.

I'm going to start another thread to address those silly badges...

I have some two-badge nametags (Sr Obs & GT) going forward I'll stick to just one set of wings.

Quote from: Hawk200 on December 17, 2009, 04:55:22 PM

Are you saying that you have three badges on your leather nametag? If so, that is not, and never really has been, Air Force standard.[/quote]

Hawk, I just read the AFI again, too. All I read was mandatory aviation wings. The two badge requirement is for two cloth badges above the name tape on BDUs and ABUs. You are actually allowed a third badge below the name tape. In my Air Force mission essential aircrew days with the ARRS, many of the PJs wore three badges on their leather flight wings. Of course those badges included aircrew wings, jump wings and in some cases scuba badges, etc.  It wasn't an issue then, either.

No, the uniform company isn't Vanguard; it's actually the same one used from active duty through the BX.

Did you look at the back of the Instruction? Now I know why there was so much hearburn over the CSU. The Air Force actually has a double-breasted uniform worn by flight attendants on special duty aircrews like AF One.

Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

The basic guidelines are in the the AFI but what is worn, where and how is goverened by local rules.

One of the recent cool toys the flyer types are wearing now is different color T-shirts and T-shirts with logos right in the center of the chest near the neck line so is shows when the flight suit is zipped down 2-3 inches.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

Not anymore. The latest -2903 goes very much in depth on wear of the flight suit.

Quote from: McLarty on December 17, 2009, 11:39:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

Not anymore. The latest -2903 goes very much in depth on wear of the flight suit.

And is still supplemented by the various MAJCOM's for wear of Flight Suits. (i.e. AMC wears the flag on the left shoulder, ACC doesn't.)

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 11:13:05 PMHawk, I just read the AFI again, too. All I read was mandatory aviation wings. The two badge requirement is for two cloth badges above the name tape on BDUs and ABUs. You are actually allowed a third badge below the name tape.

A duty badge is permitted on the pocket, not a third badge in the manner that PJ's would wear it. That's not the general Air Force standard. As to the reasons, you've already given the explanation:

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 11:13:05 PMIn my Air Force mission essential aircrew days with the ARRS, many of the PJs wore three badges on their leather flight wings. Of course those badges included aircrew wings, jump wings and in some cases scuba badges, etc.  It wasn't an issue then, either.

If you've been doing PJ/CCT support, that's a different world. There was an SF support company in CO, and the differences between Spec Ops types and regular Army was night and day. When it comes to snake-eaters(and I'd say PJ's/CCTs qualify), they have always done and will do it their own way. And that way doesn't always include fancy regulation perfect uniforms.

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 11:13:05 PMDid you look at the back of the Instruction? Now I know why there was so much hearburn over the CSU. The Air Force actually has a double-breasted uniform worn by flight attendants on special duty aircrews like AF One.

I just read that, "double or single-breasted". I knew it existed, but I never equated CSU with AF FA uniform. Since you've pointed it out, I have to admit it's [darn] funny.

Quote from: PHall on December 18, 2009, 04:25:50 AM

Quote from: McLarty on December 17, 2009, 11:39:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

Not anymore. The latest -2903 goes very much in depth on wear of the flight suit.

And is still supplemented by the various MAJCOM's for wear of Flight Suits. (i.e. AMC wears the flag on the left shoulder, ACC doesn't.)

That is true. But you said an AFI doesn't govern flight suits... which just ain't true anymore. :)

Quote from: McLarty on December 18, 2009, 05:23:35 AM

Quote from: PHall on December 18, 2009, 04:25:50 AM

Quote from: McLarty on December 17, 2009, 11:39:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

Not anymore. The latest -2903 goes very much in depth on wear of the flight suit.

And is still supplemented by the various MAJCOM's for wear of Flight Suits. (i.e. AMC wears the flag on the left shoulder, ACC doesn't.)

That is true. But you said an AFI doesn't govern flight suits... which just ain't true anymore. :)

I didn't say it, Lordmonar said it.

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 17, 2009, 11:13:05 PM
Now I know why there was so much hearburn over the CSU. The Air Force actually has a double-breasted uniform worn by flight attendants on special duty aircrews like AF One.

Crikey.  Who woulda thunk?  I've never seen that one...though I've never been around Andrews or places like that, where those would be likely to be worn.

Quote from: McLarty on December 17, 2009, 11:39:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

Not anymore. The latest -2903 goes very much in depth on wear of the flight suit.

I was just reading it....every other sentance was "MAJCOM this...and MAJCOM that".  The last rewrite was a step in the right direction...before that flight suits were not even mentioned.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 18, 2009, 07:13:42 AM

Quote from: McLarty on December 17, 2009, 11:39:39 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2009, 11:30:46 PM
Also remember that AD USAF flight suits are goverened by MAJCOM and LOCAL supplements and not the AFI.

Not anymore. The latest -2903 goes very much in depth on wear of the flight suit.

I was just reading it....every other sentance was "MAJCOM this...and MAJCOM that".  The last rewrite was a step in the right direction...before that flight suits were not even mentioned.

Flight Suits were considered "organizational clothing" and were covered by the MAJCOM Supplements.

I think one of the biggest motivators in bringing it into the AFI was so that there was a HAF directive to say "if you're not on flight status, don't wear your flight suit" instead of leaving it to the MAJCOMs.  I noticed that in the last couple years, I haven't seen my wing commander in a flight suit once.

My local policy (CAP Squadron) is if you are flight crew/pilot or training to be on crew, you can wear your bag to the meeting when BDU's are on the schedule.  I also like to have at least one Cadet and a Senior in a Flight Suit when we go recruiting.  It is a tool that grabs members. 

Any one know what the current is on what type of rank is allowed on the AF style green flight suit, if we still can only wear the plastic encased or if we can wear the sewn on ranks yet?

Quote from: gordo07 on December 14, 2010, 08:02:35 PM
Any one know what the current is on what type of rank is allowed on the AF style green flight suit, if we still can only wear the plastic encased or if we can wear the sewn on ranks yet?

ICL 25 Jan 2008   3. B.

4)  Embroidered grade insignia on flight suits.  Effective 15 March
2006, embroidered grade insignia, as well as the currently authorized plastic encased
insignia, is authorized on the CAP distinctive flight suits.  If embroidered grade is worn,
ultramarine blue grade insignia will be worn on the ultramarine blue NOMEX flight suit
and dark blue grade insignia will be worn on the dark blue utility uniform and new
NOMEX flight suit.

Quote from: SARDOC on December 14, 2010, 08:22:00 PM

Quote from: gordo07 on December 14, 2010, 08:02:35 PM
Any one know what the current is on what type of rank is allowed on the AF style green flight suit, if we still can only wear the plastic encased or if we can wear the sewn on ranks yet?

ICL 25 Jan 2008   3. B.

4)  Embroidered grade insignia on flight suits.  Effective 15 March
2006, embroidered grade insignia, as well as the currently authorized plastic encased
insignia, is authorized on the CAP distinctive flight suits.  If embroidered grade is worn,
ultramarine blue grade insignia will be worn on the ultramarine blue NOMEX flight suit
and dark blue grade insignia will be worn on the dark blue utility uniform and new
NOMEX flight suit.

Might want to read again.

Quote from: gordo07 on December 14, 2010, 08:02:35 PM
Any one know what the current is on what type of rank is allowed on the AF style green flight suit, if we still can only wear the plastic encased or if we can wear the sewn on ranks yet?

Emphasis mine. Still only the plastic encased insignia. If I remember correctly, the NB was considering sewn on for the green bag as an emergency item a while back, but then Vanguard found a supplier and the idea got dropped.

Yup...my bad...in my haste to post an answer to this guys question.  I posted the ICL for the BLUE Flight Suit.  The Green Flight suit still requires the plastic encased insignia.

Searched 39-1 and interim letters as well as this and other flight suit threads, but I'm still confused. Without arguing the pros and cons of Nomex, does a green or blue flight suit have to be made of Nomex, and does it have to be of one exact pattern? And does the blue utility uniform (pseudo-flightsuit) have to be of a particular make? Or can I use an aftermarket copy?

CAPM 39-1, Table 2-4:

L I N E	Item	Wear Instruction/Materials
1	Flight Suit	Green NOMEX. Flight crew members electing to wear this flight suit must meet the weight and grooming standards. Worn with the badges and devices described in Figure 2-19.

It loos pretty explicit to me. The description for the blue flight suit is worded a little differently, but still implies Nomex.

As for pattern, they can vary, depending on who made them and when they were made.

Quote from: Dad2-4 on December 15, 2010, 06:56:04 AM
And does the blue utility uniform (pseudo-flightsuit) have to be of a particular make? Or can I use an aftermarket copy?

The utility suits from Vangaurd don't come in my size. I'm waiting to hear back from them if they can special order. If not, I will have to go to aftermarket.