Any comments on the quality, fit, durability, comfort etc. of different brands of CAP distinctive, navy blue flight suits? Tru-Spec is a brand frequently found on line, about $38 for poly/cotton, without zippered pockets on thighs. Aureus sells p/c for $125, with what seems to be all USAF feature details as to pockets, etc. Their NOMEX version is $205. ROTHCO has been panned in this forum pretty hard already.
I've always been happy with Gibson-Barnes, but they're a bit more $$.
My used blue Nomex suit was made by Barrier Wear Inc., and seems to be holding up well. It has a softer feel than my green ones from elsewhere.
Are you not eligible for the AF style, or just the presumed price?
... eBay, new/unissued even- I've never paid more than $30 delivered, when I've gotten them lots of times for folks. There's a crapton of them listed at any one time.
Probably check for the blue/whatever types as well. Search for CWU, then go from there.
I got my blue one on eBay, too. They are less plentiful, so it took me a while to find one in my size and price range. Be patient, and you'll get one.
CWU-27/P is the keyword you need to put in.
Tru-Spec is closer to the style of the current USAF issue flight suit. And available in navy blue cotton for the utility uniform.
Got the 6.5 oz Blue Nomex from Gibson & Barnes. Admit it's a little warm (been in a lot hotter temps in the past :) in the summer and pricey (think I paid $220 in 2008) but it seems like it will last forever and resists wrinkling. Very well made and the pockets do well to carry items of equipment. Get to use sew on cloth rank so that is a plus. I also like that the Navy Blue can't really be mistaken as military. I get to play military enough as it is. ;D
Is the sew-on cloth rank permitted on CAP flight suits throughout CAP now, or by supplemental reg in certain wings or units?
a2CAPT, I'm eligible for the AF style sage green, and have one. But, like blackrain, I'd prefer not to be mistaken for military, and I hear the NOMEX suit can get pretty warm here in the sunny south.
Anyone know about Tru-Spec or Aureus?
Never mind, I found the 25 JAN 08 memo re uniform changes.
Quote from: ArmyCAP on July 09, 2010, 01:38:52 AM
Never mind, I found the 25 JAN 08 memo re uniform changes.
huh?
Memo re changes to 39-1 from National Commander, on e-services web page. Includes permission to wear cloth rank on CAP flight suit.
Quote from: ArmyCAP on July 09, 2010, 01:58:47 AM
Memo re changes to 39-1 from National Commander, on e-services web page. Includes permission to wear cloth rank on CAP flight suit.
To be more clear, yep, but cloth grade insignia is authorized on just the CAP-
distinctive blue flight suit (not the CAP AF-style green flight suit)
Quote from: SarDragon on July 08, 2010, 11:43:29 PM
I got my blue one on eBay, too. They are less plentiful, so it took me a while to find one in my size and price range. Be patient, and you'll get one.
I'm seeing a lot of ones marked as "NASA Blue" but they do not appear to be the right shade
Quote from: Pylon on July 09, 2010, 03:07:18 AM
Quote from: ArmyCAP on July 09, 2010, 01:58:47 AM
Memo re changes to 39-1 from National Commander, on e-services web page. Includes permission to wear cloth rank on CAP flight suit.
To be more clear, yep, but cloth grade insignia is authorized on just the CAP-distinctive blue flight suit (not the CAP AF-style green flight suit)
Yep - is still plastic-encase "metal" on the green suits.
I find just CWU on eBay- yeah, you'll get jackets, etc- too.. but there's not wads of it, and you may find deals where people incorrectly listed them with an insanely cheap BIN, so you just whomp on it, rather than ruling out by searching for that 27/P stuff.
I even got a winter weight one for $35 with shipping once, new never issued.
Quote from: blackrain on July 08, 2010, 11:54:24 PMI also like that the Navy Blue can't really be mistaken as military. I get to play military enough as it is. ;D
Table 4-5 in CAPR 39-1 says "Royal Blue Nomex" for the flight suit, and "Dark Blue flight suit style" for the one piece utility uniform. These are not in fact the same color, are they?
Quote from: Custer on July 25, 2010, 06:57:54 PM
Quote from: blackrain on July 08, 2010, 11:54:24 PMI also like that the Navy Blue can't really be mistaken as military. I get to play military enough as it is. ;D
Table 4-5 in CAPR 39-1 says "Royal Blue Nomex" for the flight suit, and "Dark Blue flight suit style" for the one piece utility uniform. These are not in fact the same color, are they?
They are not the same. The "Royal Blue" has been replaced by "Dark Blue":
Quote from: CAP/CC Letter, Change to CAPM 39-1, 25 Jan 08CAP Distinctive Flight suit. Effective 15 March 2006, a dark blue
NOMEX flight suit was approved for wear by CAP members. This item will be worn with
the same badges and devices as the currently authorized CAP distinctive ultramarine
blue flight suit. The ultramarine blue flight suit will be phased out 1 March 2009.
After reading this thread I looked through all of the flight AND uniform regs - and nowhere do I see any actual requirement to use a flight suit for anything. Its clear you have to be in a uniform but it does not specify which.
All of the activity uniforms I hear about are T-shirts and usually shorts. Then theres the SE region uniform.
Is there any activity where flight suits are actually required? Considering the restrictions on where you go and what you do wearing one when you are not actually flying I'd rather just avoid wearing a "zoom bag" if I can.
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 26, 2010, 01:07:19 AM
After reading this thread I looked through all of the flight AND uniform regs - and nowhere do I see any actual requirement to use a flight suit for anything. Its clear you have to be in a uniform but it does not specify which.
All of the activity uniforms I hear about are T-shirts and usually shorts. Then theres the SE region uniform.
Is there any activity where flight suits are actually required? Considering the restrictions on where you go and what you do wearing one when you are not actually flying I'd rather just avoid wearing a "zoom bag" if I can.
In your wing nomex flight suits are required to fly.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 26, 2010, 01:07:19 AM
After reading this thread I looked through all of the flight AND uniform regs - and nowhere do I see any actual requirement to use a flight suit for anything. Its clear you have to be in a uniform but it does not specify which.
All of the activity uniforms I hear about are T-shirts and usually shorts. Then theres the SE region uniform.
Is there any activity where flight suits are actually required? Considering the restrictions on where you go and what you do wearing one when you are not actually flying I'd rather just avoid wearing a "zoom bag" if I can.
In your wing region, nomex flight suits are required to fly on missions.
Fixed.
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2010, 02:25:42 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 26, 2010, 01:07:19 AM
After reading this thread I looked through all of the flight AND uniform regs - and nowhere do I see any actual requirement to use a flight suit for anything. Its clear you have to be in a uniform but it does not specify which.
All of the activity uniforms I hear about are T-shirts and usually shorts. Then theres the SE region uniform.
Is there any activity where flight suits are actually required? Considering the restrictions on where you go and what you do wearing one when you are not actually flying I'd rather just avoid wearing a "zoom bag" if I can.
In your wing region, nomex flight suits are required to fly on missions.
Fixed.
That's worse yet. I don't see the point personally. Leading cause of death in an air crash is trauma not burns...
Cites please?
I was going to respond earlier, but didn't, because the latest CAWG 39-1 supplement (http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/CAWG39-1.PDF) no longer requires the Nomex bag.
Also, the PCR 60-1 supplement was rescinded two years ago, so that's non-starter, too.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 26, 2010, 02:34:40 AM
Cites please?
I was going to respond earlier, but didn't, because the latest CAWG 39-1 supplement (http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/CAWG39-1.PDF) no longer requires the Nomex bag.
Also, the PCR 60-1 supplement was rescinded two years ago, so that's non-starter, too.
I am unfortunately guilty of: I was told. :'( I'm going off what I've read on here.
Quote from: SarDragon on July 26, 2010, 02:34:40 AM
I was going to respond earlier, but didn't, because the latest CAWG 39-1 supplement (http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/CAWG39-1.PDF) no longer requires the Nomex bag.
Also, the PCR 60-1 supplement was rescinded two years ago, so that's non-starter, too.
You are correct that there is nothing written requiring it in CA (yet), but it is a policy that is in effect, and all ICs are following it. I wasn't happy that it was an unwritten rule, so I drafted an OI about 10 months ago to make it clear but it hasn't gotten approved yet. I confirmed this past weekend (at our MP school) that the policy is still very much in effect.
Quote from: dbaran on July 28, 2010, 03:48:12 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on July 26, 2010, 02:34:40 AM
I was going to respond earlier, but didn't, because the latest CAWG 39-1 supplement (http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Supplements/CAWG39-1.PDF) no longer requires the Nomex bag.
Also, the PCR 60-1 supplement was rescinded two years ago, so that's non-starter, too.
You are correct that there is nothing written requiring it in CA (yet), but it is a policy that is in effect, and all ICs are following it. I wasn't happy that it was an unwritten rule, so I drafted an OI about 10 months ago to make it clear but it hasn't gotten approved yet. I confirmed this past weekend (at our MP school) that the policy is still very much in effect.
If there's nothing in writing, then it's not a policy. It's one person saying "I think that...."
Quote from: SJFedor on July 28, 2010, 03:54:24 AMIf there's nothing in writing, then it's not a policy. It's one person saying "I think that...."
Or in other cases, like a person saying "I wish ...."
Or a person saying----"Because I told you so------- or that same person says---"I am directing you to"-----. Bravo Sierra.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2010, 02:28:26 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2010, 02:25:42 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 26, 2010, 01:07:19 AM
After reading this thread I looked through all of the flight AND uniform regs - and nowhere do I see any actual requirement to use a flight suit for anything. Its clear you have to be in a uniform but it does not specify which.
All of the activity uniforms I hear about are T-shirts and usually shorts. Then theres the SE region uniform.
Is there any activity where flight suits are actually required? Considering the restrictions on where you go and what you do wearing one when you are not actually flying I'd rather just avoid wearing a "zoom bag" if I can.
In your wing region, nomex flight suits are required to fly on missions.
Fixed.
That's worse yet. I don't see the point personally. Leading cause of death in an air crash is trauma not burns...
Yes, and a cockpit fire is a good way to cause crash induced trauma.. ;)
Quote from: tsrup on July 28, 2010, 09:29:26 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2010, 02:28:26 AM
Quote from: Mustang on July 26, 2010, 02:25:42 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 26, 2010, 02:17:58 AM
Quote from: Dwight J. Dutton on July 26, 2010, 01:07:19 AM
After reading this thread I looked through all of the flight AND uniform regs - and nowhere do I see any actual requirement to use a flight suit for anything. Its clear you have to be in a uniform but it does not specify which.
All of the activity uniforms I hear about are T-shirts and usually shorts. Then theres the SE region uniform.
Is there any activity where flight suits are actually required? Considering the restrictions on where you go and what you do wearing one when you are not actually flying I'd rather just avoid wearing a "zoom bag" if I can.
In your wing region, nomex flight suits are required to fly on missions.
Fixed.
That's worse yet. I don't see the point personally. Leading cause of death in an air crash is trauma not burns...
Yes, and a cockpit fire is a good way to cause crash induced trauma.. ;)
Everything I've read about Nomex says that an avgas fire is not hot enough to get the fibers to seal up.
So we have a region that is adding an additional $200.00 to the price of admission into flight operations. Even after National has stated it is OK to fly in non-NOMEX. There is no valid safety reason to require flying in NOMEX in the aircraft that CAP Flies. I wonder how many pilots and aircrew they are not getting in the air as a result. If on board fire was that big of an issue in single-engine normally aspirated aircraft, then the FAA would have everyone in GA aircraft wearing NOMEX. Yes small aircraft do have cabin fires on very rare occasions, but the usual result is "cabin fills up with smoke, aircrew can't see or breath, aircraft impacts ground at high rate of speed". Then we go to work.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 10:11:30 AM
Everything I've read about Nomex says that an avgas fire is not hot enough to get the fibers to seal up.
Quote from: TCMajor on July 28, 2010, 12:47:18 PMThere is no valid safety reason to require flying in NOMEX in the aircraft that CAP Flies.
Might want to ask Joe Lawrence about that, he was the sole survivor of a CAWG plane crash back in the late '90s and was badly burned
everywhere he wasn't covered by Nomex while trying to extricate his fellow crewmembers from the burning wreckage.
Joe isn't in CAP anymore, but I knew the dude personally, both before and after the crash, and saw all the crap he had to go through during his recovery. His face, neck and side of his head will be a scarred mess for the rest of his life. He darn near lost his hand to postoperative infection for lack of a pair of $30 Nomex gloves. His experience sold me on the value of Nomex.
Considering that my flight bag carries nearly two grand worth of gear (ANR headset, GPS receiver, handheld aircraft band radio, pulse oximeter, etc.), the cost issue is a non-starter in my book. Even if the odds are 1 in 1000 that you'll be burned in an aircraft accident, how much is your skin worth to you? Mine's easily worth a few hundred bucks.
Mustang,
I am one of the ones on the other side of that affordability quotient. I am lucky to afford $150 for a headset. I am sure I am not alone. While a agree with your statement, the simple fact is that if statistics bore out the threat, then the FAA would require the gear in all aircraft. The other question is. If you don't follow a rule that does not exist, how do they discipline you?
Before the Titanic, lifeboats weren't required for all passengers. Especially not for the Titanic- it couldn't be sunk, remember?
They also didn't believe that more lifeboats would matter because, in an emergency, what are the chances you can deploy them all?
Same logic? Just a thought.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 28, 2010, 10:11:30 AM
Everything I've read about Nomex says that an avgas fire is not hot enough to get the fibers to seal up.
Seal up? I don't think so.
The primary advantage of Nomex is that it neither melts nor ignites in normal levels of oxygen. Get it hot enough, and it will start to char, but it does not support combustion.
Quote from: DakRadz on July 28, 2010, 09:15:32 PM
Before the Titanic, lifeboats weren't required for all passengers. Especially not for the Titanic- it couldn't be sunk, remember?
OT - actually, they were required, just not in sufficient quantities.
More here (http://www.titanichistoricalsociety.org/articles/titanicmyths.asp), and here (http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_myths.shtml), and here (http://www.titanicberg.com/Titanic_Myths_and_Rumors.html).
Now back to flight suits.
I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions about Nomex:
1. Nomex is not magic, but it is very good at protecting human bodies from fire damage when fashioned into garments.
2. Nomex DOES swell and thicken as part of its reaction to applied heat, particularly above ~300 degrees Fahrenheit. This is NOT its primary method of protection, but it certainly contributes to its overall effectiveness at insulating the body within, both by absorbing some heat into the fibers themselves, by the overall weave thickening increasing the distance between the outside heat source (fire) and the body within, and by reducing the transpiration of air through the fabric.
3. Nomex also begins to Char around ~700-800 degrees Fahrenheit. This char reaction breaks down the fibers and absorbs additional heat energy in the process, as well as forming an even better air barrier. Once Nomex has been exposed to these temperatures, it is degraded and should be replaced. Nomex doesn't Melt or Drip at any temperature and it self-extinguishes in normal air immediately once a source of ignition has been removed from it.
4. AvGas fires are DEFINITELY hot enough to activate both active heat reactions of Nomex, as well as causing its passive insulation capabilities to be needed. Open air burn temperatures for AvGas can range anywere from ~800 degrees F to over 1200 degrees F.
I mean, come on, you think that AvGas burns substantially cooler than MoGas? And don't race drivers, surrounded by MoGas wear Nomex? Aren't they routinely thankful for it?
That said, I'm more likely to want a Nomex suit on in my CAR than in a light plane. The odds of a fuel fire injury are greater in the place where you are more often exposed. This excepts the statistics for inflight fire injuries that would have, Nomex or not, resulted in fatal crashes. Sometimes you just lose.
All that said, we should not be in the business of enforcing regulations that do not exist. Period.
If the Nomex is that good an idea, write it up and have a new Supplement approved and Published. Easy.
ETA: Sorry for the edit, but I remembered I forgot to include one thing:
5. The single layer Nomex used in flight suits is maybe (maybe!) one half to one quarter as effective as the multilayer Nomex used in automotive racing suits. When you see guys get out of a burning race car after 30 seconds with no major injuries, that isn't the way a flight suit would work for them. Just something to keep in mind.
Thom
Thom,
Great information, and well said. Thank you.
Quote from: SJFedor on July 28, 2010, 03:54:24 AM
If there's nothing in writing, then it's not a policy. It's one person saying "I think that...."
The person who said it is the Wing Director of Operations, and speaks for the Wing Commander on this topic. From my recollection of a previous article in our Wing newsletter...the State Director is on the exact same page.
They all remember Joe Lawrence's situation.
I don't like unwritten rules (which is why I tried to get it written down), but the situation is a "Salute and Execute" at this point.
Quote from: dbaran on July 29, 2010, 02:45:17 AM
The person who said it is the Wing Director of Operations, and speaks for the Wing Commander on this topic. From my recollection of a previous article in our Wing newsletter...the State Director is on the exact same page. They all remember Joe Lawrence's situation.
I don't like unwritten rules (which is why I tried to get it written down), but the situation is a "Salute and Execute" at this point.
I see so many people get Nomex flight suits and then put a nylon MA-1 on top of it. Won't that leave you with a big blob of melted burning nylon stuck to your nice fireproof suit?
Indeed. That's why I never wear the flight jacket in the A/C. I rely on what's under the flight suit (cotton stuff), and the environmental control features of the A/C to keep warm, or most often, cool.
Everything that Mustang says about Joe Lawrence is correct. I was the Deputy Commander of the Sq whose airplane was the one involved and I was close friends with the two members who were killed. Yes, NOMEX is hot and expensive and all of the other points made against it, but it works. The two guys who were killed were burned badly and killed by a combination of trauma and fire: they crashed into trees in the Sierra that were about 50-75 ft tall. BTW: I wear NOMEX suit and gloves and jacket(if necessary). Yes, it certainly would be cooler and more comfortable to wear T-shirt and shorts and shower clogs in hot weather. My wife happens to prefer me wearing NOMEX.
Quote from: bosshawk on July 29, 2010, 05:27:21 AMMy wife happens to prefer me wearing NOMEX.
The good Col knows to "Salute and Execute" in this situation. ;D Sometimes you just don't argue with a General.
Quote from: DakRadz on July 29, 2010, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on July 29, 2010, 05:27:21 AMMy wife happens to prefer me wearing NOMEX.
The good Col knows to "Salute and Execute" in this situation. ;D Sometimes you just don't argue with a General.
Are you sure you're not a SM posing as a cadet? You are way too wise to be a teenager ;)
The wife was a Captain in the US Army Nurse Corps, but she has figured out a way to rule the roost of a retired Colonel. Salute and Execute is the operative phrase. At least some of the time.
My sweetie acquired the title ComNavHomePac the day we got married, even though I was an E-6 senior to her. I retired as an E-6, but a couple of years later, she made Chief. This had absolutely no effect on the previously established title, other than my "Yes, Chief" response every so often.
She's even nice enough to launder my flight suit when it needs it.
Quote from: bosshawk on July 29, 2010, 05:53:46 PM
The wife was a Captain in the US Army Nurse Corps, but she has figured out a way to rule the roost of a retired Colonel. Salute and Execute is the operative phrase. At least some of the time.
She Who Will Be Obeyed... ;D
"She who MUST be obeyed" - Rumpole, by John Mortimer
Or, "CINCHOUSE"
You guys really seem to have the idea down pat: glad that I am not by myself.
Can't we turn this back into a uniform thread? She Who Will Be Obeyed does not launder my flight suits: I do. Besides being a former Army Nurse, she also happens to have a Pilots License.
Good idea, Paul. Here's a related question: How many flight hours per year would a mission pilot or observer in CAP expect to acquire, so that the investment in a nomex flight suit makes sense, or at least the expensive blue, CAP distinctive suit? But, just one fire will justify the investment; that's how safety is. The story of your friends and colleagues proves that. So, I'm wondering if a poly/cotton flight suit is little more than vanity, frankly. Without Nomex, maybe we should just fly in a CAP golf shirt and grey pants?
Quote from: ArmyCAP on July 30, 2010, 06:29:10 PMWithout Nomex, maybe we should just fly in a CAP golf shirt and grey pants?
I wouldn't do it, not enough pockets.
But check this out: Gibson & Barnes sells pants called "Sentinel Pants" which have all the pockets of the lower half of a flight suit. Cool? You can even get them in Nomex, to protect only your lower half! ;D
Quote from: ArmyCAP on July 30, 2010, 06:29:10 PMSo, I'm wondering if a poly/cotton flight suit is little more than vanity, frankly. Without Nomex, maybe we should just fly in a CAP golf shirt and grey pants?
There is little justification for us not flying in golf shirt and gray pants - its what the pilots would be wearing in their own plane.
While we may fly more hours as a whole, and with more purpose than a hamburger run, we're in the same patterns, altitudes, and airframes as everyone else.
For every shuttle mission there's a thousand sorties that are nothing more than straight-line transport rides, with significantly less risk both statistically and actually than the drive in the ground vehicle to get to the airport.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 08:55:53 PM
There is little justification for us not flying in golf shirt and gray pants - its what the pilots would be wearing in their own plane.
While we may fly more hours as a whole, and with more purpose than a hamburger run, we're in the same patterns, altitudes, and airframes as everyone else.
For every shuttle mission there's a thousand sorties that are nothing more than straight-line transport rides, with significantly less risk both statistically and actually than the drive in the ground vehicle to get to the airport.
I beg to differ Sir. In a search grid, we fly at 1000 ft AGL, which is next to nothing when something goes wrong and we need to trade altitude for airspeed before a crash landing. Survivability is higher and chances are better when flying at higher altitudes, but we can't effectively search at higher altitides with our MK1 eyeballs.
I am not saying that NOMEX should be mandatory, but I wouldn't mind spending some money for that little extra safety margin.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 08:55:53 PM
its what the pilots would be wearing in their own plane.
Which so happens to be the plane we are looking for while flying at 1000 ft AGL...
I agree with most above, there is only a small chance of a cockpit fire. But all it takes is that 1 in a 1,000,000 to happen to you.
I'd trade 2 hours of flight time out of my logbook to buy a flight suit, even if I never have to use my Nomex for what it was designed for.
I have no issue with Nomex as a concept, but 1 in a million is not how you set policy, in fact it would be the actuarial justification to
never discuss it again.
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 10:40:15 PMI'd trade 2 hours of flight time out of my logbook to buy a flight suit, even if I never have to use my Nomex for what it was designed for.
That's fine for you. What about the underpaid guy riding in the back seat that can't even afford his own headset?
Fred: in answer to your question, I would guess that the average MP flies less than 20 hours a year in search: depends on how many Peter Pilots drop their favorite flying machines into the trees, mts or lakes. That is impossible to predict: CAWG hasn't had a search worthy of the name in about 16 months and we have the largest GA population in the nation. Oh, yes, there have been a number of one or two airplane searches in that period of time, but they didn't involve many people.
I have flight suits that I have owned for 10 years or more: they wear like iron when only worn occasionally.
Flying in golf shirt and gray slacks: that is fine for admin and transport flights, when you aren't turning and twisting in the mts at 1000 ft, at 10,000 ft altitude. In fact, I have taken most of my Form 5s in shirt and trousers: at or near sea level and with no big rocks anywhere around. I do my form 91 in a flight suit and require the people that I examine to wear them as well. Why, because in my neck of the woods, we fly 91s in the mts and our mts go to 14k ft.
You guys do what you want: I will do what I want and I don't expect you to all agree with me. I have a bunch of very white hair and I attribute some of that to my habits while flying: I have survived long enough for it to turn white. I also happen to be cautious when flying.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 30, 2010, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 10:40:15 PM
I'd trade 2 hours of flight time out of my logbook to buy a flight suit, even if I never have to use my Nomex for what it was designed for.
That's fine for you. What about the underpaid guy riding in the back seat that can't even afford his own headset?
There's always ebay and surplus stores. I was fortunate enough to find one my size in my squadrons supply when I started my flight training as a cadet. Still fits, still is serviceable.
I don't see the issue though. Ground team members are required to have a full 24 and 72 hour gear (Task O-0001) which most of it is purchased by the member. I think I spent more on my GT gear then most members have spent on nomex.
You want to do missions? Fine, have adequate equipment.
I empathize with the underpaid. Im a full time student who works part time. My wallet is less than bulging. But I still found ways to make sure I'm outfitted properly for whatever mission pops up.
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 11:14:43 PMThere's always ebay and surplus stores.
Not for people built like big boys - 37" length arms will not be on eBay or surplus
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 11:14:43 PM
I don't see the issue though. Ground team members are required to have a full 24 and 72 hour gear (Task O-0001) which most of it is purchased by the member. I think I spent more on my GT gear then most members have spent on nomex.
Members are not required to own their own gear - many units have shared packs that go out with the member. $50 will get you all the gear you need to start, vs. the $150-250 for a Nomex flight suit.
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 11:14:43 PM
You want to do missions? Fine, have adequate equipment.
And both the golf shirt and BDU's falls into that category. Mountain flying aside, it says something about the coherence of our program when CAP's national school is training aircrew in shorts, but certain areas feel they "know better".
Quote from: bosshawk on July 30, 2010, 11:00:20 PM
You guys do what you want: I will do what I want and I don't expect you to all agree with me.
Which is how it should be, except that you have said here that you are making up a rule of your own in mandating Nomex, which exceeds your authority as a check pilot.
The attitude that any of us can "do what we want", instead of adhering to a single standard, is literally the core of CAP's issues today.
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 11:14:43 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 30, 2010, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 10:40:15 PM
I'd trade 2 hours of flight time out of my logbook to buy a flight suit, even if I never have to use my Nomex for what it was designed for.
That's fine for you. What about the underpaid guy riding in the back seat that can't even afford his own headset?
There's always ebay and surplus stores. I was fortunate enough to find one my size in my squadrons supply when I started my flight training as a cadet. Still fits, still is serviceable.
Ever seen a blue flightsuit on ebay? I haven't. I heard they exist but it'll be impossible to find my size.
Quote
I don't see the issue though. Ground team members are required to have a full 24 and 72 hour gear (Task O-0001) which most of it is purchased by the member. I think I spent more on my GT gear then most members have spent on nomex.
I get mine at walmart and dollar stores. Real cheap but gets the job done.
QuoteYou want to do missions? Fine, have adequate equipment.
I empathize with the underpaid. Im a full time student who works part time. My wallet is less than bulging. But I still found ways to make sure I'm outfitted properly for whatever mission pops up.
Shouldn't headsets be part of the airplane? They're not around here. I need to get one of those long before I get a flightsuit that is no more useful than the BBDU I already wear.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 31, 2010, 03:20:09 AM
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 11:14:43 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on July 30, 2010, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 10:40:15 PM
I'd trade 2 hours of flight time out of my logbook to buy a flight suit, even if I never have to use my Nomex for what it was designed for.
That's fine for you. What about the underpaid guy riding in the back seat that can't even afford his own headset?
There's always ebay and surplus stores. I was fortunate enough to find one my size in my squadrons supply when I started my flight training as a cadet. Still fits, still is serviceable.
Ever seen a blue flightsuit on ebay? I haven't. I heard they exist but it'll be impossible to find my size.
Quote
I don't see the issue though. Ground team members are required to have a full 24 and 72 hour gear (Task O-0001) which most of it is purchased by the member. I think I spent more on my GT gear then most members have spent on nomex.
I get mine at walmart and dollar stores. Real cheap but gets the job done.
Quote
You want to do missions? Fine, have adequate equipment.
I empathize with the underpaid. Im a full time student who works part time. My wallet is less than bulging. But I still found ways to make sure I'm outfitted properly for whatever mission pops up.
Shouldn't headsets be part of the airplane? They're not around here. I need to get one of those long before I get a flightsuit that is no more useful than the BBDU I already wear.
Agreed. I have yet to be in a plane that had extra headsets. The first thing I bought when I started aircrew training was a headset. I plan to get a Nomex suit eventually (about 15 lbs. to go), but I had to have a headset first.
I have no heartburn with those who choose to wear Nomex. However, requiring it for the one in a million chance of needing it seems a stretch. If this is truly a significant safety issue then why aren't we wearing flight helmets? Is head trauma in a crash any less likely than a fire?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 30, 2010, 11:35:19 PM
Quote from: tsrup on July 30, 2010, 11:14:43 PMThere's always ebay and surplus stores.
Not for people built like big boys - 37" length arms will not be on eBay or surplus
I found a brand new navy blue nomex flight suit in size 50XL on eBay, so you just never know.
In fact, I just might entertain offers to purchase said flightsuit, it's in new condition, never even had insignia set up for wear. Money's tight, and so's that flightsuit on me. :-\
Quote from: wuzafuzz on July 31, 2010, 01:57:24 PM
I have no heartburn with those who choose to wear Nomex. However, requiring it for the one in a million chance of needing it seems a stretch. If this is truly a significant safety issue then why aren't we wearing flight helmets? Is head trauma in a crash any less likely than a fire?
Ever priced a flight helmet? And you thought flightsuits were expensive!
Quote from: Mustang on July 31, 2010, 03:16:08 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on July 31, 2010, 01:57:24 PM
I have no heartburn with those who choose to wear Nomex. However, requiring it for the one in a million chance of needing it seems a stretch. If this is truly a significant safety issue then why aren't we wearing flight helmets? Is head trauma in a crash any less likely than a fire?
Ever priced a flight helmet? And you thought flightsuits were expensive!
Agreed. New helmets are crazy expensive. Yet some of the risk and safety arguments supporting a Nomex requirement could be interpreted to require helmets. We should take care to avoid unintended consequences of the rules we make.
We wear flight suits because the USAF does, and someone liked that idea - since at least some pilots wear them as a matter of course, are ex-military, and/or are able to get them through the secondary market (cause they are little fellers), the overall financial impact isn't
enough to cause a wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Sadly, many pilots are proud of the fact that a flight suit is the only uniform they own.
Ever seen the visceral reaction you get to telling a pilot he has to by a service uniform of some kind (whites, blues, whatever)?
Want a real revolt? Suggest helmets and that the only jackets allowed are nomex - "safety" will go out the window.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 31, 2010, 04:57:52 PMSadly, many pilots are proud of the fact that a flight suit is the only uniform they own.
Actually I think most of them have the polo shirt too, they just don't bother to follow the grey pants rule. But they do wear long pants and enclosed shoes at least (as opposed to sandals)
A nomex flight suit worn without a helmet or gloves, and covered with a nylon flight jacket, isn't really doing you a lot of good anyway, its just a fashion statement.
So would the consensus be that a poly/cotton flight suit is also merely a fashion statement, as good or as poor as NOMEX if the NOMEX is unaccompanied by gloves (forget helmets), or just more comfortable to fly in that shirt and trousers? I notice that airline and corporate pilots fly in shirt and trousers, (Do we still call them trousers, Gentlemen?) and the CAP distinctive white uniform shirt is a pilot's shirt... The USAF requires NOMEX, but they issue it to their folks! A less expensive ebay USAF suit might be ideal, so long as we could just sew on cloth rank and give up the plastic stuff. The color could be distinctive to avoid confusion with USAF. Someone do a memo! ;)
?? Most members are wearing green USAF flight suits, which is what is approved and prescribed.
Quote from: ArmyCAP on August 01, 2010, 02:53:12 AM...or just more comfortable to fly in that shirt and trousers?
I think they are, but it's personal opinion.
Quote from: ArmyCAP on August 01, 2010, 02:53:12 AMA less expensive ebay USAF suit might be ideal, so long as we could just sew on cloth rank and give up the plastic stuff.
I would agree. Washing the flightsuit has detrimental effects on the plastic. Cloth is an easy option, but since Vanguard "found a supplier", we won't be going away from plastic anytime soon. Personally, I wish we had cloth rank and cloth
nametags. I'd sew it all on, and be done. But, unfortunately, that's not the case at present.
Quote from: ArmyCAP on August 01, 2010, 02:53:12 AMThe color could be distinctive to avoid confusion with USAF.
Any distinctive color will also have it's distinctive price(read that as: expensive). And although our allocation for the green flight suit is through the Air Force, and as such it's configuration is up to them; a green flight suit isn't used exclusively by them. That's why it's the least expensive color to obtain.
QuoteBut check this out: Gibson & Barnes sells pants called "Sentinel Pants" which have all the pockets of the lower half of a flight suit. Cool? You can even get them in Nomex, to protect only your lower half!
I've looked at pants like these, but NHQ has told me specifically that they aren't approved for wear. Go figure - they would look good and be much more functional.
Quote from: peter rabbit on August 04, 2010, 04:56:10 PM
QuoteBut check this out: Gibson & Barnes sells pants called "Sentinel Pants" which have all the pockets of the lower half of a flight suit. Cool? You can even get them in Nomex, to protect only your lower half!
I've looked at pants like these, but NHQ has told me specifically that they aren't approved for wear. Go figure - they would look good and be much more functional.
Well they do come in Dark Grey. But $184 pair of Nomex pants worn with a polyester polo shirt seems sort of pointless...
If a cadet is training to be a pilot are we also ble to wear flight suits?
Quote from: Cms.sloane on August 05, 2010, 02:42:29 AM
If a cadet is training to be a pilot are we also ble to wear flight suits?
yes.
If they can wear the flight suit, do cadets wear grade insignia?
No.
39-1 quotes forthcoming.
Page 98, Table 6-1
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Table 6-1
Cadets do not
wear grade on
flight suits
Page 34, USAF-style uniforms section, Flight Suit Bullet 1
Quote from: Flight Suit ChartCadets do not wear insignia or cutouts.
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 05, 2010, 02:45:40 PM
If they can wear the flight suit, do cadets wear grade insignia?
No. Flight suit nametag for cadets only carries the designation 'CADET', regardless of grade.
Not on the flight suit or jacket itself. Cadet officers would still have metal grade on the flight cap. CAPM 39-1 used to specify "CADET" on the ASNP... Vanguard will put "CDT" on them now apparently. Putting individual cadet grades on them is a waste of money anyway.
That makes sense...
Quote from: tsrup on August 05, 2010, 03:35:29 PM
I didn't see any reference to this in 39-1..
CAPM 39-1 states flight suits are for air crew members only. Doesn't that mean unless the cadet is at least a mission scanner there's no flightsuit option?
As to your point about wearing the fligtsuit only while flying, the knowledgebase says it's up to the squadron commander to OK flightsuits for meetings or activities.
Quote from: UWONGO2 on August 05, 2010, 03:43:06 PMCAPM 39-1 states flight suits are for air crew members only. Doesn't that mean unless the cadet is at least a mission scanner there's no flightsuit option?
As to your point about wearing the fligtsuit only while flying, the knowledgebase says it's up to the squadron commander to OK flightsuits for meetings or activities.
The "Flight crews only" reference has been a point of contention among members. Some people read it that it is only allowed during flight operations, others read it as only authorized for people with a flight crew rating.
That KB statement indicates that it's not restricted to flight operations only.
Wearing a flight suit when not flying, or when not at mission base, or when not at an airport is silly at best. When we see one we simply call him (haven't seen a her yet) Capt "Barbie". >:D
I saw one at Camp Pendleton during the CAWG Encampment. What a sight! :angel:
Edited:for bad grammar.
Quote from: vento on August 06, 2010, 01:11:27 AM
Wearing a flight suit when not flying, or at mission base, or at an airport is silly at best. When we see one we simply call him (haven't seen a her yet) Capt "Barbie". >:D
Why? No reason to change coming back after a flight, someone at a mission base may be waiting for a sortie, and a flightsuit at an airport is a lot more normal than a flightsuit in the supermarket.
They bought it, no reason they shouldn't wear it if something more formal is not called for.
My bad, wrong punctuation. I mean when not flying, when not at airports, when not at mission base...
The common sense approach would be wearing a flight suit when en route to, actively participating in, and returning from, flight operations.
The pilot who is scheduled to fly an O-flight prior to a meeting? Of course he should keep his flight suit on for the meeting; it would be silly to change.
As an MO, should I wear a flight suit to meetings just because it's kwel? I don't think so.
Quote from: EMT-83 on August 06, 2010, 01:39:51 AMAs an MO, should I wear a flight suit to meetings just because it's kwel? I don't think so.
What about wearing a flight suit to a meeting because it's an authorized uniform?
Seriously, there so much anxiety about what to wear on this board its amazing. If you have a uniform and its appropriate for that meeting (i.e. flight suits/bdus/bbdus vs blues/greys) then wear it.
Wear what you want as long as its in line with NHQ and your wing/squadrons regulations. Just wear it properly.
Wether or not I wear a flight suit at a meeting depends on my cadets activities that day. Are they wearing blues? Then Im in blues also. Are they primarily doing Color Guard/ES/Drill/GLP stuff? Then I am in BDU's. Am I teaching an Aerospace class or not anything of the above? Then you can bet yourself I am in a flight suit.
Everyone has their opinion on when to wear a flight suit, but until a regulation is established that specifically bars the wearing of it unless during flight ops, then it is up to the squadron commander.
With everything above said, I think I would still ridicule someone who wore their flight suit at encampment mercilessly... >:D
Quote from: cap235629 on August 05, 2010, 03:20:16 AM
Quote from: tsrup on August 05, 2010, 02:51:38 AM
Quote from: Cms.sloane on August 05, 2010, 02:42:29 AM
If a cadet is training to be a pilot are we also ble to wear flight suits?
yes.
when flying only
Quoted for reinforcement. Don't think you can show up to your squadron meeting wearing a flight suit because you're taking flying lessons. In fact, if you're not training in a corporate aircraft, I can't think of an instance where you'd be correct in wearing one.
Quote from: vento on August 06, 2010, 01:11:27 AMI saw one at Camp Pendleton during the CAWG Encampment. What a sight! :angel:
Edited:for bad grammar.
If that was the same person I saw, it was the CAP-USAF PCR/LO