Cadets requirements to wear AF-style flight suit

[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.