Another flightsuit idea....

[Hawk200]

Uniform comittee thread got locked, so thought I'd throw this idea out on a new one. Just a proposal.

Flightsuits: Propose eliminating the blue flightsuit (they're expensive).

In turn, eliminate rank insignia on the sage green flightsuit, for all members.  Rank would be on the nameplate as it is now. Headgear would remain the standard flightcap.

Sage flightsuits are available pretty inexpensively, if one shops around. I have gotten a few, new in the bag, for $50 or less.

It would be cheaper, more uniform, one less insignia item to worry about. No concerns about matching insignia, or even creating them for some of our current ranks that it doesn't exist for (Flight Officer ranks specifically).

Thoughts?

[isuhawkeye]

the air force considers the sage flight suit their unifor, and as such they have dictated those policies.  height weigh, groming apply.

the blue was an attempt to have nomex for all.

[notaNCO forever]

Air Force wouldn't allow it and it would not be fair to those who bought the blue ones.

[Hawk200]

There was a time when those not meeting those standards were permitted to wear it, but without rank insignia.

I know the Air Force considers it theirs, but it's worn by more than just the Air Force. That includes LE, medevac, CBP, USFS, and many others that don't come to mind at the moment. They may be possesive, but that "possesion" is rather artificial.

If we attempted to configure it differently than the Air Force standard, maybe we could treat it like our uniform, instead of theirs. Maybe eliminate some of the accoutrements that make it more "Air Force", configure it to our needs.

It's a Catch 22, in a way. The Air Force considers anything sage as theirs, but any other color they don't care about. Anything other than the green is spendy. Which doesn't show all that much concern for our self funding members. "Nomex for all" doesn't hold a lot of water when it comes with a higher cost.

However, hypothetically, if the Air Force didn't mind, what about the concept? Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flighsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

[sparks]

Instead of flight suits just have two field uniforms, one for those within the weight/appearance guidelines and one for those who aren't. That cuts down on flight suit costs and issues.

[notaNCO forever]

Instead of flight suits just have two field uniforms, one for those within the weight/appearance guidelines and one for those who aren't. That cuts down on flight suit costs and issues.

Field uniforms are not NOMEX

[sparks]

The golf shirt and gray slacks aren't NOMEX either.  I don't think most people who wear flight suits consider the NOMEX feature when they choose that uniform.

[DrJbdm]

Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flightsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

  I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the lowest common denominator.

   Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

[mikeylikey]

^ Try telling that to some of the current Wing Commanders and see how far that flies.  Lets see.....1/3 of them hugely overweight.....ya, won't go far at all.  Nice try though!

[SarDragon]

I got my blue flight suit on eBay for about $80, and it was in excellent condition. They are less common than the sage or OD ones, but you just need to be patient. It took me three auctions to get one within my price range, but I got one.

[SarDragon]

Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flightsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

  I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the lowest common denominator.

   Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

I meet AF weight standards, but wear a blue flight suit. Let's quit harping on the heavy folks. Just because they are heavy doesn't mean they are stupid.

I agree that getting a three member crew up is sometimes difficult, but that can frequently be acommodated with the fuel load.

[JayT]

Anyone really attached to their rank insignia on flightsuits all that much? Would anyone mind giving it up if it meant everyone could have the same uniform?

  I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the
lowest common denominator.
   Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

That's exactly right. If I'm a few pounds over the limit, and have the intergrity to wear the proper uniform, I shouldn't be on air crew with you fine, ultra fit gentlemen. After all, I'm a few pounds over the limit, so I must be the  lowest common denominator.



You're Civil Air Patrol rank insignia is of extreme importance to everyone!

[Eeyore]

Flightsuits: Propose eliminating the blue flightsuit (they're expensive).

In turn, eliminate rank insignia on the sage green flightsuit, for all members.  Rank would be on the nameplate as it is now. Headgear would remain the standard flightcap.

I think it's a good idea; goes along with the one uniform, one CAP idea.

I got my blue flight suit on eBay for about $80, and it was in excellent condition. They are less common than the sage or OD ones, but you just need to be patient. It took me three auctions to get one within my price range, but I got one.

Problem is, if we all go to blue you aren't going to find many cheap ones on eBay. If it took you three tries to get one cheap with very little demand; a high demand product is going to be far more costly.

I meet AF weight standards, but wear a blue flight suit. Let's quit harping on the heavy folks. Just because they are heavy doesn't mean they are stupid.

I don't think anyone was really calling anyone stupid. I believe he was just saying that he doesn't feel that he should have to wear a blue flightsuit just because others can't. I agree, lets just put everyone in the sage flightsuit and get rid of the plastic rank, it's a pain to find anyway.

I personally do not care if "everyone" can have the same uniform. I like the rank insignia on my sage green USAF flight suit.  I'm tired of having to conform to the lowest common denominator.
   
Actually we should really start being more restrictive on weight issues for aircrew. our airplanes do have a weight limit and we do need to be mindful of that if we really expect to have a crew of three.  If you are so big that you have to wear to the blue flight suit my thought is maybe you shouldn't be on a flight crew. I think it's a safety of flight issue.

I really don't think the rank insignia on the shoulders is all that important. If it says your rank somewhere on your uniform, who cares? I know we all love our bling, but that is what the service uniform is for. When you are on the aircraft rank doesn't matter. You listen to the MP, no matter what his or your rank may be.

Is the weight of the aircrew a mission prohibitive issue. How many times has a plane been forced to an emergency landing because they couldn't carry enough fuel because of the weight of the aircrew? I doubt that it has ever really been an issue. I think most of the planes tend to carry more fuel than is necessary for the mission they are flying anyway.

[BlueLakes1]

I think some of you are missing the point of Lt. Meiner's comments regarding restrictions on aircrew weight in general. Let me throw some numbers out and try to make a little sense.

The new C-182T aircraft being purchased by CAP have a lower useful load than the old C-182 and most C-172 aircraft. A C-182T with a full fuel load (88 gallons, or 528 pounds) has a remaining useful load of about 530 pounds. That's a ballpark number, as each airframe has its own specific numbers. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 530 pounds isn't a lot; you'd be hard pressed to take three officers from any given squadron who don't tally a total weight over that. Also remember that we haven't included any flight gear, SDIS equipment, required aircraft equipment, etc. into this equation.

So, the simple answer is go for a lower fuel load. No big deal, fueling "to the tabs" leaves you with 60 gallons, or 360 pounds, thereby increasing your available load by 168 pounds to 688 pounds, roughly. Most units with C-182T aircraft that I've been around "mission load" their fuel to 60 gallons total, but YMMV. You do decrease your endurance somewhat, to around 4.5 hours, but you'd probably want to land by the time you went bingo fuel anyway. 688 pounds, obviously, is a more reasonable number to work with, although you'll probably end up close to fully loaded. Figure three crewmembers at 200 lbs. apiece isn't unreasonable, and if each has a 20 pound flight bag...and SDIS...and the survival kit...well, you see where I'm going.

...but wait, there's more...

Assume we've got everything tweaked out, and we can take off right at the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) for this airplane, 3,100 pounds. We can take off legally at that weight, but we can't legally land the airplane for two hours, as it has a published maximum landing weight (MLW) of 2,950 pounds and you'll need to burn off enough fuel to drop below MLW (13 GPH x 6 PPG x 2 hours = 156 lbs used).

So, the lighter the total weight of the aircrew, the better off we are. I don't think that Lt. Meiners was trying to be hateful to larger aircrew folks, but the fact is that lighter is better.

Disclaimer: These numbers are ballpark, and nowhere near precise. Do not use for actual flight planning, as they came from the potentially rusty memory of a guy who just finished working a 24 hour shift!

[RiverAux]

While these numbers look about right, it isn't exactly a case where 3 AF-standard meeting CAP members would automatically be light enough to avoid weight issues with the airplane.  I can easily come up with scenarios where 3 people who all can legally wear the AF uniform would still overload the plane. 

That being said, you are right that ligher members are better. 

[DrJbdm]

Those numbers by Major Creed look about right to me too, and the point he made is the point I was making.  Would limiting the weight of an aircrew member be unpopular? Sure it would. The heavy folks get upset anytime they are limited from something because of their weight. They consider it discriminatory.  Now, I'm not trying to be mean or callous to the members who have a weight issue, I feel for them....no one really wants to be fat.  I'm just pointing out some things that can be a real safety concern. Operating an aircraft can be risky enough, we do not need to add to the risk by needlessly allowing larger people to fly.
 
   The other issue is cabin room, it's a tight fit in the cockpit even with two 180 pound pilots in front, it's down right uncomfortable with a 250 pound person up front,  that persons bulk could get in the way of being able to safely operate the flight controls.  It's not that much more comfortable for a big guy to be in the back seat,  in fact it's a tight fit to climb in back there.

   My issue isn't with fat people, it's with being able to safely and comfortably carry out our flight mission. If we truly want our larger members to fly, then perhaps CAP needs larger airframes, the C-182T isn't designed for it.

[mikeylikey]

^ If we are discussing safety.....perhaps we should also throw in the fact that pilots over  age 60 have a greater chance of heart attack and stroke while mid-flight.  Perhaps when we exclude fat people we should exclude those members over a certain age.  FAIR Is FAIR....right?!?!

Seriously, I question the ability of some members who are 70+ to fly.  I think we should have age restrictions on flying.  Once I had a pilot ask me if I would be able to land the plane if something happened to him while we were in flight.  I laughed it off, but thought later, "man that guy was old, he could have died while we were up there".

Also, to balance out the FAT guy, perhaps we should get an underweight pilot.  So we allow the 250 pound member in the back, then we look for a 140 pound guy to sit up front.  Problem solved!

[jeders]

Seriously, I question the ability of some members who are 70+ to fly.  I think we should have age restrictions on flying.  Once I had a pilot ask me if I would be able to land the plane if something happened to him while we were in flight.  I laughed it off, but thought later, "man that guy was old, he could have died while we were up there".

My old squadron wouldn't allow some of the older folks to go up in the plane because there was a signifacnt probability of something happening mid air.

Actually it would make sense to put restrictions on aircrew for weight and age in some instances. Maybe not allow aircrew members over 250 fly in high altitude mountainous environments. Also not allowing people over a certain age to fly on actual search missions might be a good idea. Let these people fly other missions in low stress/risk environments.

Back to the actual topic, as much as I absolutely love the rank on my flight suit, I don't really have a problem with losing it if it gets everyone into the sage green flight suit.

[Smokey]

The Air Force said flat out...no fat/fuzzies in green flight suits. Whether we agree or disagree...it's their ballpark. That's why the blue flightsuit came into being for CAP a few years ago.

BTW...if we get the AF approval (it's already been approved by the NB) for cloth name tags, then the rank would not appear if we were to follow the standard AF design. So rank on the shoulder would be the only place the rank would appear.

[mikeylikey]

^ Do we really need rank on the flight suit?  My guess is no.