Cadets requirements to wear AF-style flight suit

[joshmwilliams]

I have been browsing through CAPM-39-1 trying to find statements on requirements for CAP cadets to wear AF-style flight suits.  On numerous occasions (Page 96 Fig. 7, Table 5-1 Line 11) it is mentioned that cadets are permitted to wear flight suits.  But, I cannot seem to find the requirements to wear such uniform


Thanks for the help,
C/A1C Williams

[lordmonar]

Because they are not "required" to wear the flight suit....no one is.

[joshmwilliams]

Poorly worded on my part, apologies. I would like to wear the AF-style flight suit.  Is there any requirements such as flight crew that I need to meet (I know, and am well within grooming and weight).

[jeders]

Per 39-1, flight suits are for Aircrew Only, which I doubt you, as a C/A1C, are.

That being said, if you really want to wear the flight suit and you feel you have a good justification for it, take it to your leadership and see if they will allow it. Also keep in mind, even if you are eligible to wear the flight suit, your local leadership can say, "no one wears the flight suit."

[joshmwilliams]

Does my squadron command (CoC) have the discretion to make that decision or does it have to go higher (Wing)?

[lordmonar]

Does my squadron command (CoC) have the discretion to make that decision or does it have to go higher (Wing)?

Absolutely!
Your squadron commander sets uniform policy for your unit....with in the confines of 39-1 and any published suplements.

[jeders]

Does my squadron command (CoC) have the discretion to make that decision or does it have to go higher (Wing)?

Absolutely!
Your squadron commander sets uniform policy for your unit....with in the confines of 39-1 and any published suplements.

What he said.

[Eclipse]

+1 with the asterisk that a unit commander can prescribe any uniform for senior members, but may only prescribe the MBU for cadets, or uniform items which are issued to the cadets.

So unless he either issues the flight suits, he can't mandate them for cadets.  Same goes for BDUs.

[jeders]

+1 with the asterisk that a unit commander can prescribe any uniform for senior members, but may only prescribe the MBU for cadets, or uniform items which are issued to the cadets.

So unless he either issues the flight suits or the cadets voluntarily buy them, he can't mandate them for cadets.  Same goes for BDUs.

FTFY. The commander can also say that cadets cannot wear the flight suit so that you don't have one or two cadets sticking out like a sore thumb.

[lordmonar]

+1 with the asterisk that a unit commander can prescribe any uniform for senior members, but may only prescribe the MBU for cadets, or uniform items which are issued to the cadets.

So unless he either issues the flight suits, he can't mandate them for cadets.  Same goes for BDUs.

I know that is in the regulation.....but in practice is just not supported.

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure what you mean? 

In my parts setting the UOD is getting more and more common.

[lordmonar]

I'm not sure what you mean? 

In my parts setting the UOD is getting more and more common.

I mean the part where the commander can't mandate BDUs......unless issued.
I give you just about every encampment required packing list as evidance.

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure what you mean? 

In my parts setting the UOD is getting more and more common.

I mean the part where the commander can't mandate BDUs......unless issued.
I give you just about every encampment required packing list as evidence.

Agreed, but at the bottom of the conversation is the reality that we could not bar a cadet from participation who claimed to
not have BDU's.  The reality is that they can always scrounge something, but if he said "no gots", we'd have to allow him to
participate in his blues all week or some alternate like PT.  In my mind that would not relieve him from losing points in the
inspections, etc., but at least he'd be there.

[Woodsy]

Per 39-1, flight suits are for Aircrew Only, which I doubt you, as a C/A1C, are.

That being said, if you really want to wear the flight suit and you feel you have a good justification for it, take it to your leadership and see if they will allow it. Also keep in mind, even if you are eligible to wear the flight suit, your local leadership can say, "no one wears the flight suit."

The ONLY justification for a cadet wearing a flight suit would be if that cadet is undergoing approved CAP flight training or has an ES aeronautical rating.  And if ac/A1C has a rating, I have a major problem with that to begin with! You can't wear it because you like it or it looks cool, stick to blues or BDU's.

[Woodsy]

I'm not sure what you mean? 

In my parts setting the UOD is getting more and more common.

I mean the part where the commander can't mandate BDUs......unless issued.
I give you just about every encampment required packing list as evidence.

Agreed, but at the bottom of the conversation is the reality that we could not bar a cadet from participation who claimed to
not have BDU's.  The reality is that they can always scrounge something, but if he said "no gots", we'd have to allow him to
participate in his blues all week or some alternate like PT.  In my mind that would not relieve him from losing points in the
inspections, etc., but at least he'd be there.

Hmm...  I'm not too familiar with CP or the regs that govern it...  but is this in writing anywhere???  I see events all the time that require cadets to wear a certain uniform, and if you don't own it, don't come...

[Eclipse]

Hmm...  I'm not too familiar with CP or the regs that govern it...  but is this in writing anywhere???  I see events all the time that require cadets to wear a certain uniform, and if you don't own it, don't come...

Yes - 39-1 page 5:

1-5. Uniform Combinations.  Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow
for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip
himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication.  Members
will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets
and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below.  Members may obtain and wear
the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis.  Uniform clothing may
be altered to improve fit.  However, alterations must not change the intended appearance of garment as
designed.  It is the member's personal responsibility to equip himself/herself with a proper uniform. 
Commanders may assist if they have the capability, through use of unit funds and/or donations or by
acquiring surplus uniforms.  Cadets are required to have the minimum basic uniform. A commander
may require cadets to wear other  optional uniform items only if the  purchase is voluntary or if the
uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. The omission of a specific item or appearance standard
does not automatically permit its wear.

Ergo - a commander is free to prescribe the UOD, but unless CAP has issued that uniform to the cadet(s), it can't be mandated.

This does not apply to seniors.

[Woodsy]

OK, I see an easy way out-  Activities are optional.  Cadet doesn't have to come.

[Eclipse]

OK, I see an easy way out-  Activities are optional.  Cadet doesn't have to come.

Yes, though it depends on which side of the argument you're on.  You can't use that argument to bar participation.

GT isn't as clear, since the uniform is considered part of required equipment, and the task guides call out the BDU, specifically.
UDF makes no prescription beyond "appropriate".

[Garibaldi]

OK, I see an easy way out-  Activities are optional.  Cadet doesn't have to come.

Yes, though it depends on which side of the argument you're on.  You can't use that argument to bar participation.

GT isn't as clear, since the uniform is considered part of required equipment, and the task guides call out the BDU, specifically.
UDF makes no prescription beyond "appropriate".

Aha...and therein lies the rub. IF you use a POV to do your UDF work, then "appropriate" can mean anything from loincloths to tuxedos. However, for GT work, the BDU is required by the task guide BECAUSE if you happen to get in a MVA in a CAP VAN, you're covered under insurance. Same with aircrew. As long as you're in the required uniform while performing tasks under a USAF mission number, you're covered IN THAT ASPECT.

Getting back on topic, barring participation for not having the proper uniform is a sticky subject. While I am a uniform nutzi, I don't think that I can bar someone from participating because they don't have a proper uniform. I can always find something for them to do that doesn't require them to be in public view as far as GT duties go.

Meetings are a little more flexible. When I was DCC I was adamant that Tango Flight wore black and whites. If they got a whole uniform while in Tango I made sure that they wore it properly BEFORE they got promoted out.

The UOD has always been set by my CC prior to the next meeting. He always gives us an option to wear BDUs or the Golf Shirt combo, or blues/grey and whites. I am probably the only senior who prefers to wear BDUs, aside from those working with the cadets. Flight suits are only worn by the AFROTC guys that come help out, mainly because those guys are in the flight program in college and are authorized to wear them.

IMO, flight suits should be authorized for cadets over 18 who are training to be MS or MO. And, I was always taught that if you don't have all the parts to your uniform, you don't wear the uniform.

Just my $.02

[Eclipse]

Aha...and therein lies the rub. IF you use a POV to do your UDF work, then "appropriate" can mean anything from loincloths to tuxedos. However, for GT work, the BDU is required by the task guide BECAUSE if you happen to get in a MVA in a CAP VAN, you're covered under insurance. Same with aircrew. As long as you're in the required uniform while performing tasks under a USAF mission number, you're covered IN THAT ASPECT.

The BDU is required by the task guide because someone felt a field uniform was most appropriate.  It has nothing to do with maybe riding in a van,
and the rules are no different for UDF - you can't do a UDF mission in a POV in civilian clothes, there's just no specification on which CAP uniform to wear,
with the subtext being the golf shirt or a dress uniform is "OK" since you're not allowed to go anywhere but urban areas on hard surface.

Getting back on topic, barring participation for not having the proper uniform is a sticky subject. While I am a uniform nutzi, I don't think that I can bar someone from participating because they don't have a proper uniform. I can always find something for them to do that doesn't require them to be in public view as far as GT duties go.

Of course you can.

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.  That is no different then
not having 24 hour gear.  In this context, the BDU is considered equipment, not a "uniform".

[coudano]

OK, I see an easy way out-  Activities are optional.  Cadet doesn't have to come.

Except that they DO have to come,
'participates actively in unit activities' is an item in the cadet oath,
and mandatory requirement for promotion and sustained membership

[coudano]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

Horse crap.
CAP's insurance doesn't have jack squat to do with what clothes you are wearing.
You are either a member with GES qual (and covered) or you aren't.

fwiw I have done GT and UDFT several times in the blue golf shirt combo.

[Eclipse]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

Horse crap.
CAP's insurance doesn't have jack squat to do with what clothes you are wearing.

Read the task guide.  The BDU is called out as required equipment.   You think that's not the first thing that will be asked
if you're in a court room?

[Woodsy]

OK, I see an easy way out-  Activities are optional.  Cadet doesn't have to come.

Except that they DO have to come,
'participates actively in unit activities' is an item in the cadet oath,
and mandatory requirement for promotion and sustained membership

I was talking more about those every-now-and-then special activities.  I agree the MBU is perfectly acceptable for about 95% of CAP activities and just about everything at the squadron level.

[coudano]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

Horse crap.
CAP's insurance doesn't have jack squat to do with what clothes you are wearing.

Read the task guide.  The BDU is called out as required equipment.   You think that's not the first thing that will be asked
if you're in a court room?

Maybe if the lawyer is an idiot...

Or you can demonstrably show that the uniform being worn was the /DIRECT CAUSE/ of some grievous injury to person or property...  You have to get pretty ridiculous to cook up a story that meets that criteria...

[Woodsy]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

fwiw I have done GT and UDFT several times in the blue golf shirt combo.

Heck I've never done a UDF mission in anything other than the golf shirt combo!  Why on earth would you need anything more for a UDF mission?  (excluding weather.)

[AngelWings]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

Horse crap.
CAP's insurance doesn't have jack squat to do with what clothes you are wearing.

Read the task guide.  The BDU is called out as required equipment.   You think that's not the first thing that will be asked
if you're in a court room?

Maybe if the lawyer is an idiot...

Or you can demonstrably show that the uniform being worn was the /DIRECT CAUSE/ of some grievous injury to person or property...  You have to get pretty ridiculous to cook up a story that meets that criteria...

I think he was being sarcastic, or atleast that is how I read it.

Let's just use common sense here. I've not met a CAP member who was injured by their uniforms (well, maybe a blood pin or two, but that doesn't count  ), and if someone were happened to be, it'd probably be their fault. It takes a lot of effort to get injured by your own uniform. The only real problems I know the BDU's pose is if they're NyCo, PolyCo, or any other non cotton material because when heated they melt, and can melt and fuse to the skin. That was a problem for one of my buds who was in an IED blast. Getting back onto point, the only cause would be the material not providing proper protection from something and becoming a hazard to the wearer. That could be fire, blood, chemicals, etc. Anything that causes the uniform to become a danger to the wearer.

With that said, we're all off topic. Cadets can wear the flightsuit, but why would you outside of looking like a pilot or aircrew? If you're rated as aircrew, than wear it when you fly. Otherwise, wear your BDU's. Outside of making amazing PJ's, they're not all they're cracked up to be.

[ProdigalJim]

"I want to buy. The Tiger Stripe. Flight Suit..." 

[AngelWings]

"I want to buy. The Tiger Stripe. Flight Suit..." 

You're an evil man!

[Eclipse]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

Horse crap.
CAP's insurance doesn't have jack squat to do with what clothes you are wearing.

Read the task guide.  The BDU is called out as required equipment.   You think that's not the first thing that will be asked
if you're in a court room?

Maybe if the lawyer is an idiot...

Or you can demonstrably show that the uniform being worn was the /DIRECT CAUSE/ of some grievous injury to person or property...  You have to get pretty ridiculous to cook up a story that meets that criteria...

One of the things I love about these conversations is the utter lack of acceptance of several things...

1) In most cases the rules are clear, and interpretation is only employed because people don't like what is written - not to mention the whole
"M" vs. "R" vs. "P" regulatory argument.  Members jump through hoops because "x doesn't make sense" when in most cases it makes perfect sense,
it just doesn't accommodate their particular desire or opinion.

2) That a defense lawyer won't try to find every tiny crack in a case just to get something dismissed or reduced. If by "idiot" you mean
"doing his job to defend his client", then I guess you're right.  An attorney's job is to get things tossed, and if he can do it on a technicality
like "no uniform", "no id card", "forgot to renew his qual", whatever, he's going to try.  All it takes is a sympathetic judge or jury and you're cooked.
This idea that "rationality", "common sense" or "personal responsibility" mean something in a civil court is naive at best, and dangerous in the extreme.

3) Pointing our what the regs are, or how they tie together to force a particular course of action, doesn't mean the person doing the pointing
agrees with it, or even that they are a good idea - only that this is what they say, and this is what that means.  Our regs are a mess of self-contradiction, multiple documents asserting single authority over the same situation, and unclear verbiage.  Stipulated.

That doesn't change what they say, or what they force as action.

[Garibaldi]

"I want to buy. The Tiger Stripe. Flight Suit..." 

You're an evil man!

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but can I have ABUs maybe?

[coudano]

One of the things I love about these conversations is the utter lack of acceptance of several things...

One of my favorite things about conversations like these is the microscopic focus on the inane, and irrelevant internal mechanics of our beloved organization, in spite of things that actually matter in the real world (which doesn't CARE about CAP regs, manuals, and pamphlets).

2) That a defense lawyer won't try to find every tiny crack in a case just to get something dismissed or reduced.

He can "try" whatever he wants.  He can stand up there and assassinate your character, body oder, and fashion choices, if he wants to.  But at the end of the day that's irrelevant to whether or not you are covered.



Ok so "what if"
you're out on a GT mission,
and you are basing camp out of tents at a staging area
and you are in your BDU's all day long,
but at night, in your tent, you switch out to civvies, to sleep

a stretch, i know...

And you get hurt.  Let's say a pallet of MRE's falls over on your tent and crushes your leg while you sleep.

Are you covered by CAP insurance?
Of course.

But...  but..   but...  you are on a 'ground team' and you are 'in the field' and you are 'not in BDU's'   zomg apocalypse!!!  no insurance for you (!)

I can come up with some more similar "silly"(er) situations that would arise from an application of your point of view here... but i'll leave them off in the interest of brevity.




At the end of the day, insurance liability doesn't give a flying crap what you are wearing, or any one of another bazillion minute intricacies of CAP rules and regulations.  Those aren't the concern of the court.
It cares whether you are 'covered' or not, and that coverage is based upon CAP membership, and on an AFAM, upon general ES qualification, unless you can show in the insurance policy otherwise.

[Eclipse]

At the end of the day, insurance liability doesn't give a flying crap what you are wearing, or any one of another bazillion minute intricacies of CAP rules and regulations.  Those aren't the concern of the court.
It cares whether you are 'covered' or not, and that coverage is based upon CAP membership, and on an AFAM, upon general ES qualification, unless you can show in the insurance policy otherwise.

Your example is an Ad hominem and you know it. The situation given was an "off-duty" area not requiring uniforms, and you weren't on a sortie.
Fly a plane or go on a GT mission in those civvies, without some pre-approval from a corporate officer, and you're cooked (not to mention probably not a member any more).

The hallmark of "being covered" is complying with the regulations and rules that define participation.  In your examples, I could jump in a CAP plane, with no license but a CAP ID card, lawn dart it, and expect to be covered.

Sorry, that's not how it works, and there are highly-paid people employed by insurance companies whose only job is to pay the least possible in any given situation, in fact, that's a fiduciary responsibility of the corporate board - to limit liability and increase profits.  Anyone who has ever had to deal with something as simple as a minor auto-insurance claim or health insurance situation knows that.

You really think that if you leave a door wide open on a large insurance claim, whether for a personal injury or an external liability an adjuster isn't going  to use that against you?  Guess again.  And BTW - last I checked, CAP was self-insured, so "regs" and the "real world" are the same thing in this context.

All CAP, Inc. has to do (or the FECA admins, etc.) is prove you had no business being where you were and they can disavow coverage.
Doing that is literally someone's job.  That's the real world.

[AngelWings]

How does any of this arguing have anything to do with a cadet being able to wear the flightsuit or not?

[Eclipse]

How does any of this arguing have anything to do with a cadet being able to wear the flightsuit or not?

We answered that 3 weeks ago - YES.

[Garibaldi]

How does any of this arguing have anything to do with a cadet being able to wear the flightsuit or not?

We went off-topic waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy back. Interesting how way leads on to way. We meander. And digress.

Anyway, blah blah blah ad nauseum et cetera et al and so on and so forth...

[NCRblues]

How does any of this arguing have anything to do with a cadet being able to wear the flightsuit or not?

Its captalk...roll with it

[AngelWings]

How does any of this arguing have anything to do with a cadet being able to wear the flightsuit or not?

Its captalk...roll with it

You're right. I guess I should know better, seeing how I've been an active member for almost 2 years, but it is annoying to watch sometimes, especially since it is a pissing match that is going to lead nowhere.

[AngelWings]

How does any of this arguing have anything to do with a cadet being able to wear the flightsuit or not?

We answered that 3 weeks ago - YES.

Than let's leave the arguing at that. We're a knowledge base, and I know for a fact some of my cadets and seniors view this page for answers. None of us win an award or help anyone if we go off topic and miss the point. It also messes up the search because many people do not want to read pages of dead end fights to find a simple answer. I'm just saying this because if it is answered, than we're done here, and we can avoid any public quartering, dismembering, beheading, or anything like that because two people are going at it.

[Eclipse]

We're a knowledge base...

No, this is a Knowledgebase:  http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/list

CAPTalk is a discussion forum, and while it can be frustrating for everyone to have to keep walking the same road,
it's also clear that the same 10-15 issues keep popping up in the minds of new members.

...many people do not want to read...

...is how they get here to start with.
For every discussion of how a new eServices feature works, or a current board agenda, there's 10 which are answered in 15 seconds from a simple Google search or via the KB.

[SJFedor]

The verbiage is very clear - GT = BDU.  If you sign in as a GT, and get hurt in blues, your coverage could well be at risk.

Horse crap.
CAP's insurance doesn't have jack squat to do with what clothes you are wearing.

Read the task guide.  The BDU is called out as required equipment.   You think that's not the first thing that will be asked
if you're in a court room?

Task guide is not a regulation, it's how training for a specialty is performed. CAPR 60-3 governs ES operations, and I don't see anything saying "Ground Team = BDU's". And for that matter, even if the task guide says "GT = BDU's", then you've just dropped all the seniors/cadets who wear the BBDU, because it's not specifically spelled out and authorized in the "task guide". BDU ≠ BBDU, so GT ≠ BBDU. 

And there's not a single mention of the word "uniform" or "BDU" in 60-3.

Bottom line, the IC or their designee determines the appropriate uniform for the activity. If they feel that a "GT" can safely accomplish their task in the polo, mess dress, or whatever else, then that's their call.

To the OP, I had a zoombag when I was a cadet (think I got it as a C/SrA) but I was only authorized to wear it on flying activities (O-flights, C-9 ridealongs (before consolidated Mx), etc) until I got a rating or began flight training.

[Eclipse]

The task guides call out the training and equipment requirements for all the specialties.  You cannot get approved on any qualification
without them, nor without having all the required equipment.

In this case a BDU uniform is required equipment.  That isn't even remotely grey. 

2. The gear list below is the minimum required equipment.  Items required of trainees are marked with a "T." 
You may carry additional equipment subject to team leader approval and your ability to secure and carry it --
remember, you may have to walk a long way carrying it all.   
a.  24 hour pack
  1)  On your person:
      a)  Complete BDU uniform with BDU cap.  The BDU cap may be replaced by a hard hat
or bright colored cap based on mission needs.(T)

[lordmonar]

The task guides and supporting documents also call our for boonie hats....specifily forbidden by regs...and gortex....back when they were not allowed.....so NO the task guides don't help or hurt anyone's cases for "you aren't covered because you were out of uniform".

Next argument.

[Eclipse]

Neither of those things is spelled out as required.

Next try.

[lordmonar]

Neither of those things is spelled out as required.

Next try.

So the fat and fuzzies can't get GT qualified? 

[Eclipse]

Neither of those things is spelled out as required.

Next try.

So the fat and fuzzies can't get GT qualified? 

No, they wear the BDU under the blue field uniform.

[SarDragon]

I presume that was meant in jest, but come on out here to CAWG and do that. I'll hold a pool on how long it takes you  to enter a "distressed" condition. You get 75% of the proceeds. Right now is a good time to "come on down".

[Eclipse]

Bring it on...

[davidsinn]

I presume that was meant in jest, but come on out here to CAWG and do that. I'll hold a pool on how long it takes you  to enter a "distressed" condition. You get 75% of the proceeds. Right now is a good time to "come on down".

You realize that the midwest just came out of a heatwave that had airtemps above 104° right? With humidity that gave indices above 110°? Speaking as a guy that works outside everyday...You got nothin.