wear of the flight suit

[lordmonar]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Ned]

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

[Bluelakes 13]

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".

[Bluelakes 13]

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. 

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

although 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:

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!)

[Bluelakes 13]

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)"

[lordmonar]

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.

[davedove]

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.

[MIKE]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[davedove]

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.

[DNall]

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

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?

[JohnKachenmeister]

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:

[Psicorp]

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.

[SarDragon]

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!

[lordmonar]

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".

[SarDragon]

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.