New Summer Flight Uniform

[DNall]

^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt.  OR 1 flightsuit.  I don't think there is any real "industry standard"

Most FEMA refs for SaR aircrew state "appropriate PPE." Some specifically state protective flight suit.

[lordmonar]

^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt.  OR 1 flightsuit.  I don't think there is any real "industry standard"

Most FEMA refs for SaR aircrew state "appropriate PPE." Some specifically state protective flight suit.

That again goes back to the the fact that NIMS standards are nor very directive in nature.....so unless we someday fall under someone else's juridiction we get to set our own standard.

[mikeylikey]

If no one has brought up the ever popular "this will cause skin cancer" drift.......I WILL! 

[DNall]

^ 1 pair of pants, and a shirt.  OR 1 flightsuit.  I don't think there is any real "industry standard"

Most FEMA refs for SaR aircrew state "appropriate PPE." Some specifically state protective flight suit.

That again goes back to the the fact that NIMS standards are nor very directive in nature.....so unless we someday fall under someone else's juridiction we get to set our own standard.

You're right about that. This is just like the cadets in ES issue. We are free to set whatever policy we want, but when it comes time to really go to work, it'll be the policy of others (in this case FEMA standards) that restrict how we do business. I'm personally of the opinion that it's better to operate under those conditions all the time rather than adjust when it comes down to the wire & find we can't meet the standard.

[lordmonar]

No you missed my point...FEMA does not have any standards....they assume that the tasked agencies will have the set the appropriate standard for the resources tasked.

If FEMA had standards...then this would be a no brainer....but they do not have any...they left it up the "agency with jurisdiction".  So we are good unless some state agency forces us to follow their rules...and I just don't see that happening.

[DNall]

I'm agreeing that FEMA has not stated any mandatory policy that aircrews wear nomex or anything else. They provide guidance, which says "appropriate PPE." It is then, as you said, the responsibility of the agency sponsoring the mission or from whom the overall IC comes to set the SOP for items like that.

Hence, it is exactly like the cadets in ES issue. We can have CAP policy that says they can do all kinds of stuff. BUT, when a mission roles up, like Katrina for instance, the agencies with mission to give will do one of two things... either they will set policy for PPE, or they will only request help from orgs that already have appropriate policies in place. As I said, I'm of the opinion that we should have that policy in place on our own without having to be told when the real work needs to be the focus & we want to get in the mix. We have enough questions of our being up to the same standards as professional emergency responders. I don't think we need to raise more when it's completely avoidable.

[lordmonar]

Okay I understand your point.

How ever......I don't think the Cadets on ES is the same level of issue as pilots with out nomex.

It is easy to say...no cadets....CAP does not depend on cadets to do its missions.  (yes they are valuable and do a lot of good work...I said we do not depend on cadets).  So FEMA, DHS, DoD or the state can easilly say....only 18 year olds and above because of liability and insurance issues....but if they said "everyone must be in fire retardant clothing and flight helments" (I used this because that is the LV Metro guys where).....then the agency requesting may be in a big jam...because we depend on our pilots if they could not participate we could not do the mission....and by extention the requesting agency could not get their mission done.

No one has ever in the past ever said..."we need your planes....but only if your pilots are in Nomex" and I don't think they ever would.  If that ever happened...then we would all just say...you got to be in nomex to be an air crew member and press on.  Until that time we can spend a lot of time bending over backwards trying to meet supposed requirments and standards.

[cap801]

I have to agree with the above.  I think anyone trying to argue that if we don't wear Nomex on every mission that there's going to be a rash of people burning to death is out of touch with reality.  In addition, we can wear the CAP flight suits that don't have Nomex that you buy from Vanguard, or the polo and gray slacks.  So that whole argument is pretty ridiculous.  We (occasionally) wear Nomex because it's what the Air Force wears and we somehow try to be similar to our parent organization.  The Air Force probably wears Nomex because their aircraft are more likely to be shot at and catch on fire than most GA airplanes.  But that's just a guess.

If we are trying to say we need to wear Nomex because the air ambulance guys do, then we need to wear crash helmets as well.  Funny though, we're not flying helicopters (or Cessna 400 series or turbines) and we don't get paid to this.  Those are some pretty significant differences in my opinion.

Of course all of these points we're all making are completely moot because this will only apply to gliders if it goes through.  However, if this was ever proposed for powered flight, I wouldn't object.  The main arguments at this point seem to be that people who want to be cooler in flight are pansies and need to tough it out or that by wearing shorts (instead of gray pants, with the exact same shirt), we'd somehow be affirming that CAP is a flying club.  Well, CAP is definitely not a flying club (airplanes are too cheap  ), but we're really not the Air Force either.  We're volunteers.  And when I volunteer, I would rather be comfortable than not.  I honestly don't see how that makes me disrespectful to armed servicemen and women, and I don't think many other people see it that way either.

[DNall]

Okay I understand your point.

How ever......I don't think the Cadets on ES is the same level of issue as pilots with out nomex.

It is easy to say...no cadets....CAP does not depend on cadets to do its missions.  (yes they are valuable and do a lot of good work...I said we do not depend on cadets).  So FEMA, DHS, DoD or the state can easilly say....only 18 year olds and above because of liability and insurance issues....but if they said "everyone must be in fire retardant clothing and flight helments" (I used this because that is the LV Metro guys where).....then the agency requesting may be in a big jam...because we depend on our pilots if they could not participate we could not do the mission....and by extention the requesting agency could not get their mission done.

No one has ever in the past ever said..."we need your planes....but only if your pilots are in Nomex" and I don't think they ever would.  If that ever happened...then we would all just say...you got to be in nomex to be an air crew member and press on.  Until that time we can spend a lot of time bending over backwards trying to meet supposed requirments and standards.

We absolutely do depend on cadets around here. I've very literally tried to field all adult GTs, including on REDCAP right near high populated areas (within 200miles of 2500 CAP members) to search on the LKP, and been unable to do it.

Far as air though. You're assuming CAP is the only option out there or the mission won't get done. I'm assuming CAP faces tons of competition from other agencies that can do a better job per hour for still pretty reasonable dollar amounts. I'm concerned on one hand with staying competitive in that environment.

As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.

Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying. It's more along the lines of aerobatic flying or emergency services flying in terms of risk. I don't tend to think helmets are a reasonable expense - because they don't tend to fit in the space avail, and the excessive expense. If I were Wg/CC, that's what I'd mandate. It's reasonable risk mgmt, not your comfort, and that's the standard other agencies will apply as well.

[cap801]

I'm assuming CAP faces tons of competition from other agencies that can do a better job per hour for still pretty reasonable dollar amounts. I'm concerned on one hand with staying competitive in that environment. 

What agencies would those be?  The only other agencies in my state that have aircraft are the State Police and the National Guard.  The State Police have one Agusta A Power 109 helo and I think a Cessna Conquest.  The National Guard has helos.  Both can do a way better job in just about everything than anything CAP can do, but not for anywhere near the same cost.  However, this is just in New Mexico, and if there are a lot of other agencies in different states that can mobilize ten piston, fixed wing aircraft within a few hours to go search for something at $60-$100 per hour per aircraft, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.

As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.

Maybe.  But speaking of paycheck, I think the fact that a lot of us just can't up and leave our jobs (or school) at a moment's notice and go look for things makes us different from people who go look for things as their job.  And I hope things are better in your state, but if I told any professional responders here that CAP is on equal footing with them, I think they would take it as an insult.  But our wing is in a pretty sad state right now, so that may have something to do with it.

Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying. It's more along the lines of aerobatic flying or emergency services flying in terms of risk. I don't tend to think helmets are a reasonable expense - because they don't tend to fit in the space avail, and the excessive expense. If I were Wg/CC, that's what I'd mandate. It's reasonable risk mgmt, not your comfort, and that's the standard other agencies will apply as well.

Flying an aircraft on a mission doesn't make that aircraft more inclined to set itself on fire.  The airplane doesn't know the difference.  If it can handle buzzing around the pattern at 70-80 knots and one notch of flaps, then it can handle buzzing around a search area at 70-80 knots with one notch of flaps). And if we had accurate accident statistics for CAP then we would know exactly how much more or less risky it is to fly on a CAP mission than on a typical GA flight.  I'm inclined to say that given the safety precautions CAP has set up (three person crew, flight releases, etc.), flying on a CAP mission should be less risky.  It may also depend on your geographic location, as I would think that CFIT accidents are more likely to occur in mountainous areas.  Yes, flying a CAP mission is often more complex than flying a typical $100 hamburger flight, but you should have three people to spread it over.  The pilot is supposed to do nothing but fly the airplane, which I think is pretty safe.  Who knows how often this actually happens, given that if your observer is not a pilot they may or may not be able to handle all the radio communications or know which checklist to read off and what else.  And all of this risk management about flying with Nomex so we don't get burned doesn't get past the fact that you can already fly missions without Nomex in a CAP uniform.  All mention of "uniform" in 60-1 just yields that you must wear an "appropriate CAP uniform" in CAP flying activities (save CD missions, where you might not wear a uniform), not an "appropriate CAP uniform with Nomex".  So if flying a mission without Nomex is too risky, we need to change 60-1 right now to reflect that.  As it is, you can fly every mission without Nomex.

So I think this discussion really boils down to the fact that some people think shorts look ridiculous and some don't.  Risk is a moot point as established above.  However, I will concede that this particular discussion is moot given that this uniform change apparently applies to soaring.  So while this can go back and forth forever, I concede given these circumstances.

Speaking of 60-1, in my search, I found this:

5-7. CAP Member Soaring Uniform. Soaring activity, to include the tow pilot, demands that comfortable, loose-fitting, nonrestrictive clothing be worn. A T-shirt, such as a CAP designed wing T-shirt with a pair of shorts/long pants and tennis shoes is sufficient.

This is the February 2008 version.  It already allows shorts for glider activity (including the tow pilot, which raises the interesting question of why perhaps our most risky flying activity, towing gliders, does not even require a CAP uniform, let alone Nomex), so what exactly does this change introduce?

[DG]

so what exactly does this change introduce?

It is for powered.

Ask your Wing CC or Region CC or anyone on the National Board.

They have had the Agenda for some time now, and are no doubt at the meeting in Florida now.

[flyerthom]

What agencies would those be?  The only other agencies in my state that have aircraft are the State Police and the National Guard.  The State Police have one Agusta A Power 109 helo and I think a Cessna Conquest.  The National Guard has helos.  Both can do a way better job in just about everything than anything CAP can do, but not for anywhere near the same cost.  However, this is just in New Mexico, and if there are a lot of other agencies in different states that can mobilize ten piston, fixed wing aircraft within a few hours to go search for something at $60-$100 per hour per aircraft, I'd be very interested in hearing about them.

Air Ems will often launch a helicopter for the tax write off. One agency with bases in AZ, CO and NM has flown at least three this summer.  My base flew one of them in an A Star 350B. The others were in Augusta 119 Koalas.  Cost to taxpayers - free.

As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.

Maybe.  But speaking of paycheck, I think the fact that a lot of us just can't up and leave our jobs (or school) at a moment's notice and go look for things makes us different from people who go look for things as their job.  And I hope things are better in your state, but if I told any professional responders here that CAP is on equal footing with them, I think they would take it as an insult.  But our wing is in a pretty sad state right now, so that may have something to do with it.

When I did volunteer EMS we were held to the same uniform and safety standards as the paid units. CAP should not let itself be lax that way. If want to be called by other agencies we should make every effort to meet their standards. It is the mark of a top notch service.

Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying. It's more along the lines of aerobatic flying or emergency services flying in terms of risk. I don't tend to think helmets are a reasonable expense - because they don't tend to fit in the space avail, and the excessive expense. If I were Wg/CC, that's what I'd mandate. It's reasonable risk mgmt, not your comfort, and that's the standard other agencies will apply as well.

Flying an aircraft on a mission doesn't make that aircraft more inclined to set itself on fire.  The airplane doesn't know the difference.  If it can handle buzzing around the pattern at 70-80 knots and one notch of flaps, then it can handle buzzing around a search area at 70-80 knots with one notch of flaps).

That doesn't take into account that it is a mission and human factors play a big roll. It is not now play it is real. The mission takes place in often unfamiliar territory, in a stress situation and not necessarily optimum conditions. 70 knots on final is different than 70 knots over a swamp or a mountain on a cold or hot day. The desire to make a find can lead to risk taking behaviors.  Any small edge can make a critical difference.

.  And all of this risk management about flying with Nomex so we don't get burned doesn't get past the fact that you can already fly missions without Nomex in a CAP uniform.  All mention of "uniform" in 60-1 just yields that you must wear an "appropriate CAP uniform" in CAP flying activities

That may be so but why take an unnecessary  risk?

So I think this discussion really boils down to the fact that some people think shorts look ridiculous and some don't.

Who cares about the look. At work we wear red Nomex III. It fades out to something really ugly. It still protects.

Risk is a moot point as established above. 

No, it's ever present. It's only moot if convenience is more of a factor than safety. As I said before, I fly in AZ in nomex for a living. I'd rather wear it. 


As an anecdote - we had to abort a flight last PM at work. The aircraft battery overheated and set off a whole slew of bells and whistles. Aircraft batteries can and do explode. CAP aircraft don't have that monitoring capability.   

[cap801]

That may be so but why take an unnecessary  risk?

You're right.  We should just quit flying altogether.  If we're going to say that flying without Nomex is an unnecessary risk, I would venture to say that flying is an unnecessary risk.  Police units could buy Toyota Camry's since they have a better safety rating than a Crown Vic, but they don't, because the risks don't outweigh the advantages. I ask any private pilot here who flies in his or her own airplane in a Nomex flightsuit to please speak up.

[mikeylikey]

Shorts just don't convey what our organization represents.  Sorry!

[flyerthom]

That may be so but why take an unnecessary  risk?

You're right.  We should just quit flying altogether.  If we're going to say that flying without Nomex is an unnecessary risk, I would venture to say that flying is an unnecessary risk.  Police units could buy Toyota Camry's since they have a better safety rating than a Crown Vic, but they don't, because the risks don't outweigh the advantages. I ask any private pilot here who flies in his or her own airplane in a Nomex flightsuit to please speak up.

We should meet the professional standards that all rescue organizations meet. This isn't a game and if we want to be there we need to hold ourselves to that higher standard. Operational flying is not the same as nor can it be compared to recreational flying. In the missions arena we need to step up or we won't be invited to step out. That means assessing and reducing all risks. 

[Frenchie]

We should meet the professional standards that all rescue organizations meet. This isn't a game and if we want to be there we need to hold ourselves to that higher standard. Operational flying is not the same as nor can it be compared to recreational flying. In the missions arena we need to step up or we won't be invited to step out. That means assessing and reducing all risks. 

The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.  The requirement for it was silly to begin with.  As far as appearances go, there are commercially available lightweight cotton flight suits which look fine.  If we were genuinely concerned about appearances, there wouldn't be a half a dozen different uniforms aircrews can wear.  There would only be one CAP aircrew uniform.  I've seen three crewmembers jump out of a CAP plane wearing three completely different uniforms.  So we are already well beyond any appearance argument with the status quo.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

That may be so but why take an unnecessary  risk?

You're right.  We should just quit flying altogether.  If we're going to say that flying without Nomex is an unnecessary risk, I would venture to say that flying is an unnecessary risk.  Police units could buy Toyota Camry's since they have a better safety rating than a Crown Vic, but they don't, because the risks don't outweigh the advantages. I ask any private pilot here who flies in his or her own airplane in a Nomex flightsuit to please speak up.

1. The Toyota is a unibody, which crumples when needed by police as a battering ram. The Ford's full-frame. Plus it's an American car, which means you're supporting the American economy (bluntly: those of us who bought foreign makes are to blame for the decline of American manufacturing might).
2. The Toyota isn't as roomy. Plus it's front-wheel-drive, which means it's more costly to maintain and service, and it doesn't perform as well. Show me a front-driver that can do a 55 mph backward J-turn without losing parts. You don't have to replace CV joints on a Crown Vic, nor do you have to break welds and pull an engine to replace a transmission.
3. I'd rather be in a big, body-on-frame American car, when it comes to safety, than a Toyota that might not protect me. Don't know where you get that "Camry's safer" stuff.

All that said, if the metaphor is that the American car is like a Nomex flight suit, I think we can agree that we'd rather have the protection and the amenities of the suit. Pockets for convenience, especially in a cramped cockpit. Emergency equipment already on your person, not in a bag thrown in the back where you might not be able to reach it in a pinch.

There are CAP pilots who wear our flying-club uniform (golf shirt and gray pants), and there are those who wear other CAP uniforms. That's their choice, as given by the Powers That Be. I'll wear my Nomex, down here in sunny south Florida, because it's protective and professional:
-- Protective because if there is a mishap, I have all my necessary equipment close by, and the Nomex will protect if there's a fuel leak and we start burning. If we have to ditch, I'm better covered and a little less likely to be shark bait.
-- I have to set an example for cadets, and I need to project professionalism to outsiders who I may work with or see. We're not a coffee club one night a week, folks. We're the Air Force's auxiliary.

Besides, WHO WANTS TO SEE OLD PEOPLE IN SHORTS? White Velcro shoes, black knee-high socks, yeah, I want that old, pale fogey looking for my stranded ass out in the Everglades... (laughing).

The risk from heat related injury is far greater than any advantage nomex gives us.

One word: Hydrate. We do.

The requirement for it was silly to begin with.  As far as appearances go, there are commercially available lightweight cotton flight suits which look fine.  If we were genuinely concerned about appearances, there wouldn't be a half a dozen different uniforms aircrews can wear.  There would only be one CAP aircrew uniform.  I've seen three crewmembers jump out of a CAP plane wearing three completely different uniforms.  So we are already well beyond any appearance argument with the status quo.

That's because CAP has afforded its members too many "uniforms" to be uniform anymore. We can't even keep 'em straight. No one's reining in the choices. I'm not sure CAP has an active uniform board anymore, since most of the uniform changes have come from a previous national commander's fiat. And that's too bad. One guy on a power trip sure can make a mess, whether it's uniforms or larger issues.

(Incidentally, we're still stuck with his meaningless wing patch revision down here in Florida, folks. At least the gator said "Florida.")

[Hawk200]

In a way, there's a great deal of humor to this thread. So many people want the "Sky God" badge of a flightsuit, but when a "more comfortable" option is presented, they would prefer it. It's hilarious.

There are ways to deal with the dehydration and heat casualty issues. Use them. Drink your water, have a Gatorade (or equivalent) on ocassion, pay attention to work/rest cycles (they work), get sufficient rest, eat healthy (believe me, those greasy burgers and fries aren't going to help when you're bouncin' around), maintain even a mild excercise program. So many people don't want to do that, and then demand an accomodation when they can't hack it.

Shorts aren't going to put forth a professional image as far as an organization that wishes to play with the big boys. Even most of the GA flyers that I know wouldn't wear shorts on any kind of flight. The ones that do aren't well thought of, for different reasons, but it seems that the ones labeled as idiots practice this. What if you do have to land a small plane somewhere? That polo shirt and those shorts aren't going to protect you from the brush or the critters in them.

On glider flights, I can buy that, there's very little risk of fire (Not saying there is none, because if I did, I'm sure someone would pop up with some oddball incident that is the rarest exception in the universe). Our glider program isn't commonly in the public eye either. It will work for that.

[Pumbaa]

Hydrate, that's easy.  I have a Camelback Flash flow.  That's the small fanny pack type Camelback.  I put it on the floor and run the hose and clip to my shoulder harness.  I sip every few minutes.  This is the same technique I would use on 100 mile bicycle trips. I also keep gum, a couple granola bars and Drami's in the side zipper.

Would I like to wear shorts while flying?  Heck yeah, cause I got a set of sexy legs!

Will I avail myself to the new (potentially) option of shorts?  Nope, Not when on a mission.  Just as I won't wear anything less than business casual at work, even on dress down Friday... I won't wear less than a flightsuit on a mission.

In our squadron (New) we are working on getting all Officers to standardize on uniforms.  ie. Gray/ Aviator, And Blue BDU. Blue Flight Suit.  This way we are truly uniform.  one uniform for formal, One for Ground, One for Aircrew.

[DNall]

I'm assuming CAP faces tons of competition from other agencies that can do a better job per hour for still pretty reasonable dollar amounts. I'm concerned on one hand with staying competitive in that environment. 

What agencies would those be?....

Three quick answers on that:
1) local/state mission:
a) State civilian air: The Texas state aviation board controls state aircraft. They have a bunch - a range of fixed wing from cessna to twins to jets to helos. State police have both cessnas & helos. State forestry service has cessnas also. Of course major metros also have police helos.

b) National Guard: We have a full aviation brigade (47s, 64As, 58s, 60 slicks, medivac, & air assualt rigs, and the new non-deployable 72s that are configured exclusively for SaR & counter drug). Plus, we have predators coming on line now. A bunch of new predator Sqs are being stood up in the ANG all around the country right now, and part of the defined mission is the state SaR & counter drug work. We have many several smaller UAVs already in service. You may not know it, but most states, between the guard & civilian side, have very active counter drug programs that use lots of air assets. The south dakota program has more people in just the guard (excluding civilian employees) that do that on a full-time basis then there are CAP members in that wing.

c) federal assets: We have Coast Guard (including Aux Air), Customs (CBP), & ICE that all have active air components, both fixed wing & rotary.

2) national disaster level mission: Take this out of the local box & you get agencies/resources from all over the country ready & willing to help. Obviously this compounds the competition.

3) Best tool for the job: You're telling me you can put one eyeball sorties over a target with a 1-2hr response time to launch, travel time, etc, and it's going to cost me $100/hr. I'm telling you I gotta put five of those sorties over the same terrain in different light/weather conditions over a period of days to achieve a POD. Versus, I can put one sortie over that terrain with sensors & achieve a similar POD in hours with a higher level of confidence. What's the cost difference there? NOTE: that has nothing to do with the cost of operating the platform & everything to do with the sensor.

As far as being a volunteer, I'm really sick of hearing that. You're a volunteer only in the sense that you don't get paid. No one cares the pay difference between different paid responders from different agencies. You are a professional responder on equal footing with them, and you need to strive to meet that standard, paycheck or not.

Maybe.  But speaking of paycheck, I think the fact that a lot of us just can't up and leave our jobs (or school) at a moment's notice and go look for things makes us different from people who go look for things as their job.  And I hope things are better in your state, but if I told any professional responders here that CAP is on equal footing with them, I think they would take it as an insult.  But our wing is in a pretty sad state right now, so that may have something to do with it.

I do understand that. I'd also mention that 95% of paid emergency responders don't do SaR as their primary job. It is something they try to train for on the side as one of many many other contingencies. We're not doing rescue, medical, extrication, or collapsed structure. What's left is actually not that hard. It's the upper mgmt levels that are a bigger challenge. And all of it is just a challenge, and one that can be overcome with hard work & dedicated people. I think that's what we got for the most part, and if they aren't then I don't want them around anyway. What we're missing is task & purpose (vision), and motivation. I think that's a leadership issue from the top of the organization down.

Far as nomex in particular. I personally believe that should be the standard for mission flying, with the currently auth alternatives avail for non-mission flights (o-flts, etc). I think the idea of shorts is just ridiculous. Mission flying isn't the same thing as GA flying....

Flying an aircraft on a mission doesn't make that aircraft more inclined to set itself on fire.  ... And all of this risk management about flying with Nomex so we don't get burned doesn't get past the fact that you can already fly missions without Nomex in a CAP uniform.  All mention of "uniform" in 60-1 just yields that you must wear an "appropriate CAP uniform" in CAP flying activities (save CD missions, where you might not wear a uniform), not an "appropriate CAP uniform with Nomex".  So if flying a mission without Nomex is too risky, we need to change 60-1 right now to reflect that.  As it is, you can fly every mission without Nomex.

I said My personal opinion is nomex should be required for mission flights & other alternatives acceptable for the more routine flying we do, and that if I were wg CC I'd make that the policy, as I believe it is in California already.

So I think this discussion really boils down to the fact that some people think shorts look ridiculous and some don't. 

I said that too as a secondary point. It looks ridiculous to me, the general public, and every other agency we could hope to work for. It is in no way whatever professional. That perceived lack of professionalism will extend in people's minds to how we do our business in the air and on the ground. The cost of that problem is not worth anyone's comfort.