What coat do you where with the blues when its cold out not a service coat.

[Pylon]

"use good judgment in choosing appropriate garments"

Yeah, that will hopefully be clarified in the next CAPM 39-1 to read "use good judgment in choosing appropriate garments from the list of authorized outergarments." or something similar.  The line is suppose to suggest that members shouldn't be wearing the great overcoat or scarves and gloves at the height of summer, and that members shouldn't be outside without enough (authorized) layers or with unauthorized outergarments in the cold.

Safety shouldn't be a factor if the unit leaders haven't derelicted their duties. If a squadron hasn't realized they are located where it gets cold for a portion of the year, then there are some serious issues.  If the unit leadership is indeed conscious of a season called "winter", and cadets have financial hardship in procuring appropriate outergarments, the commander has an obligation to find a method to procure authorized outergarments for their members.  It's written that unit commanders bear the ultimate responsibility to ensure members in their unit are in compliance with the uniform regs.

Our unit does not necessarily have cadets with overwhelming financial resources, like many units.  However, our squadron held a fundraiser and bought dozens of M-65 field jackets on the cheap from eBay.  A senior member "sewing night" got all of the jackets sewn to CAPM 39-1 compliance in a few hours.  Members who do not own their own appropriate cold weather gear are loaned one from squadron stock.  This is not impossible, this is not unreasonable, this is not even difficult.  No more "safety" excuse to violate the regs.

Weather is not an excuse to wear whatever you feel because you and your unit failed to plan appropriately for a season that pretty much comes and goes on schedule.  It's not like you didn't know winter was coming, and it's not like most units aren't at least fairly familiar with the resource levels of their members (or a simple poll in early autumn --"all cadets who own a field jacket or goretex, raise your hand please"-- would also reveal the important info).

[Pumbaa]

The line is suppose to suggest that members shouldn't be wearing the great overcoat or scarves and gloves at the height of summer, and that members shouldn't be outside without enough (authorized) layers or with unauthorized outer garments in the cold.

Seems to be a bit of reading it to it.  Pages 15 and 49 are very clear in what they say.  No interpretation is needed.

"use good judgment in choosing appropriate garments" I see no restriction on wearing civilian winter outer garments.

Now... you mention the M-65 jacket.  Are you saying that is authorized wear with the Blues?  The original post was referring to Blues.

Show me in the 39-1 where the M-65 is authorized for over the blues.

[notaNCO forever]

 I wear my leather jacket with a insulated liner.

[Pylon]

Now... you mention the M-65 jacket.  Are you saying that is authorized wear with the Blues?  The original post was referring to Blues.

Show me in the 39-1 where the M-65 is authorized for over the blues.

I said nothing about being authorized for blues.  If you've got winter conditions, it's pretty cold, sometimes wet and sometimes stuff is falling from the sky, does it sound like a good environment to be wearing service dress blues for a typical weekly meeting if BDUs will work just as well?     If it's winter, you don't need to wear blues all the time; why not wear BDUs with appropriate outerwear for the few months it's dead of winter?  

Of course, my argument also applies just the same for the various service dress outergarments as it does for the M-65 field jacket.  They can also be found via surplus routes and the if the unit commander is going to declare SDBs the UOD, then the same obligation applies to ensure members are in and have appropriate and CAPM 39-1 compliant uniforms.

As for it not saying you can't wear civilian outerwear, CAPM 39-1 is an exclusionary regulation.  It says so right in Section 1.  In other words, CAPM 39-1 has to specifically say you can do it.  If there's no mention of it, you can't.  Outerwear/Outergarments have a covered section in the AF-style uniforms section; therefore, you must use the outergarments specifically authorized for their corresponding uniforms or use no outergarment at all.

You know that, though, because you are aware the M-65 can't be worn with blues; you said that in your post.  So if you know the M-65 can't be worn with blues, why would you think civilian outerwear would be more acceptable?

[rightstuffpilot]

If only approved jackets were cold enough for February (yes, yes, I have experienced a week of temperatures averaging -45).  I'm a big stickler on uniforms, I like having the approved jacket and all, but Gortex, M-65, All Weather, or Lightweight blues just don't cut it.  Our AFROTC detatchment is one of a few authorized in the country authorized to wear something that looks like/or is a Navy "Snorkel" Parka.  Unfortunately, I don't think CAP will be authorizing it any time soon.  So from January-March, I suppose I'll resort to Civilian Alternatives.

[Eclipse]

Are we talking about a discussion that encompasses the regs, or are we discussing the allowances some unit CC's make for cadets who cannot afford the proper outerwear?

First there is no allowance for "wear whatever you need for the weather" - the prescribed outerwear is specific, and if we're talking about service dress, as noted above, the only thing authorized is the waist jacket and the trench coat.  Period.

I tell my members to choose another combination if they can't wear it properly because of the weather - another reason to have the golf shirt combo.

Cadets do not have any special rules either, however as I noted many CC's make allowances because of cash-flow issues.  This is counter regs, but for cadets I can understand, as long as the cadets understand they are being provided an exception.

I make no such exceptions for seniors because we have a much broader choice of uniforms, including any number which allow for civilian overcoats.

[Pylon]

I think the "safety" card can be legitimately pulled; but I don't think that it's legitimate every time someone wants to do something out of regs by using the "safety" card.  If you could have easily prevented the situation with a little planning, but lean back on the "safety card" instead that's not legit in my book.  Say for example everyone is at a field activity where there was no forecast for rain.  The skies open up on your unit; everybody grabs and wears what they can to stay dry, warm and safe.  That's legit; that's where safety is important and the "safety card" seems like a pretty legit argument at the time.

Units don't exactly miss the forecast on winter coming.  The unit would have had plenty of time to plan for cold weather and to prepare assistance for members who do not have the resources to buy a $15 field jacket or a surplus overcoat. 

The unit commander's responsibility to ensure members are uniformed appropriately isn't absolved because "Well, we tried for about 10 seconds, but Cadet Smith didn't have $15 in his pocket right now, therefore we'll pull the safety card for the next 5 months straight when he wears his NFL puffy coat for every CAP activity.  We just had no other alternative."

This responsibility is substantial enough that it's the second paragraph in the uniform manual, right on page 1.

1-2. Command Responsibility.  All commanders will ensure that all members, individually and collectively, present a professional, well-groomed appearance, which will reflect credit upon CAP as the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. They will ensure all members are uniformed in accordance with the provisions of this manual, uniform violations are promptly corrected, and that members are continually informed as to the proper wear of the uniform.

To me, that responsibility doesn't just apply to the typical violations like chevrons 1/2" off or wearing the wrong color socks.  To ensure members are uniformed IAW with the provisions includes ensuring they have appropriate outerwear.

Like I've said in dozens of posts, this isn't a big deal.  This isn't like asking every squadron to build their own squadron building from scratch or buy every cadet a flight sim laptop.  It took me a few nights surfing eBay, one night of sewing to outfit my entire squadron with winter outerwear that was fully compliant.  I even have extra ones on hand so when Cadet Snuffy shows up and "forgot" his field jacket, it takes 90 seconds to sign-out another one from supply.

I'm not in a big squadron with unlimited resources; I'm a squadron in a rural area with limited resources and members with limited resources.  But because I put some effort into it, not only is this whole debate made moot but my squadron looks that much more professional with everyone wearing the same outergarment.

[Major Carrales]

Pylon,

Someday you will command a squadron, at that time you will learn that "theories" on regulations give way to "realities" of circumstance.

If some person is wrapped up in a civilian coat designed to "keep warm," it is not apparent that they are in a "uniform."  So they wear a CAP uniform under these clothes...dude, they are trying to stay warm.  Its not unreasonable.  I suspect we could go into "winter quarters" and do nothing until the sun comes out.  Not exactally mission centered.

Now...behold this...





Hummmm...strange looking headwear for CAP.  Not quite cricket according to CAPM 39-1.  And in BDUs.  Ooops, didn't someone just throw away the "safety card?"

[Pylon]

Pylon,

Someday you will command a squadron, at that time you will learn that "theories" on regulations give way to "realities" of circumstance.

Someday when I command, I will learn, huh?  I guess I've just been stuck in a theoretical world.  Thank God there's a commander around who's BTDT to set me straight with his "reality" experience and 1000 yard stare.   :clap:

If some person is wrapped up in a civilian coat designed to "keep warm," it is not likely that they are in a "uniform."  So they wear a CAP uniform under these clothes...dude, they are trying to stay warm.  Its not unreasonable.  I suspect we could go into "winter quarters"

So Cadet Snuffy wears his G-Unit puffy vest (dude... he's trying to stay warm!) and his boonie hat (dude... the brim keeps the sun/snow off his face!) and his Brown suede Carhart boots (dude... it keeps his feet warm and dry, and insulated boots just cost too much!) and his purple snowpants (dude... it keeps his legs dry out in the field!).  All of those would be justified under the exact same "safety card" logic as civvie coats.  Unless you stop allowing the safety card to be leaned back on when prior planning could have prevented the situation.

Now...behold this...

<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42567000/jpg/_42567985_kieloch_416.jpg" width="80">

Hummmm...strange looking headwear for CAP.  No quite criket according to CAPM 39-1.  And in BDUs.

You're right.  This was an actual "safety card" situation.  Remember the distinction I made between prevention by prior planning and actually running into a situation despite reasonable preparation? 

You'll notice that picture you linked to was on the BBC.  We had 12 feet of snow in 48 hours, state of emergency, and were operating 8-12 hour duty days, outdoors in snow banks more than 8 feet high while the snow was still falling; some of us even slept at the duty site for the second day, so not much access to laundry facilities and fresh stuff.  After a certain amount of time, much of what we started with (many of our BDU caps, field jackets and blouses, etc.) were soaked with sweat and snow.  At some point, we started using whatever was dry and available to outfit our members (who arrived to the duty site and started duty in appropriate uniforms). So yeah, I'd call that a legitimate safety card despite reasonable prior planning.

I'm not saying in my argument that the situation won't arise where you'll need to fall back on civilian or other outerwear to augment.  It always will.  I am taking into account your "realities of circumstances" argument.  CAP does have a limited uniform closet and we're not completely issued 8 sets of every possible uniform item.  So yeah, there will be legit situations.  I just don't buy the routine meeting is one of them.

What I'm saying is that I fail to believe that the "safety card" is a legitimate argument when you're talking about routing squadron meetings where the squadron and members have had months to plan for one outergarment per member.

[Major Carrales]

Pylon,

Someday you will command a squadron, at that time you will learn that "theories" on regulations give way to "realities" of circumstance.

Someday when I command, I will learn, huh?  I guess I've just been stuck in a theoretical world.  Thank God there's a commander around who's BTDT to set me straight with his "reality" experience and 1000 yard stare.   :clap:

If some person is wrapped up in a civilian coat designed to "keep warm," it is not likely that they are in a "uniform."  So they wear a CAP uniform under these clothes...dude, they are trying to stay warm.  Its not unreasonable.  I suspect we could go into "winter quarters"

So Cadet Snuffy wears his G-Unit puffy vest (dude... he's trying to stay warm!) and his boonie hat (dude... the brim keeps the sun/snow off his face!) and his Brown suede Carhart boots (dude... it keeps his feet warm and dry, and insulated boots just cost too much!) and his purple snowpants (dude... it keeps his legs dry out in the field!).  All of those would be justified under the exact same "safety card" logic as civvie coats.  Unless you stop allowing the safety card to be leaned back on when prior planning could have prevented the situation.

Now...behold this...

<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42567000/jpg/_42567985_kieloch_416.jpg" width="80">

Hummmm...strange looking headwear for CAP.  No quite criket according to CAPM 39-1.  And in BDUs.

You're right.  This was an actual "safety card" situation.  Remember the distinction I made between prevention by prior planning and actually running into a situation despite reasonable preparation? 

You'll notice that picture you linked to was on the BBC.  We had 12 feet of snow in 48 hours, state of emergency, and were operating 8-12 hour duty days, outdoors in snow banks more than 8 feet high while the snow was still falling; some of us even slept at the duty site for the second day, so not much access to laundry facilities and fresh stuff.  After a certain amount of time, much of what we started with (many of our BDU caps, field jackets and blouses, etc.) were soaked with sweat and snow -- so yeah -- I'd call that a legitimate safety card despite reasonable prior planning.

I'm not saying in my argument that the situation won't arise where you'll need to fall back on civilian or other outerwear to augment.  It always will.  We have a limited uniform closet and we're not completely issued 8 sets of every possible uniform item. 

What I'm saying is that I fail to believe that the "safety card" is a legitimate argument when you're talking about routing squadron meetings where the squadron and members have had months to plan for one outergarment per member.

Weak

[A.Member]

That's a N3B USAF issue parka.   In real cold weather states and it is authorized.    See 39-1, Table 2-1, #9:

Outergarments:  Worn outdoors and removed in an office environment. Use good judgment in choosing appropriate garments for wear based on weather conditions and duties.

[Pylon]

Weak

Great response, Joe. 

It must be tough to consider my "theoretical" argument with all those "realities of command" you've got floating around over there.

[Major Carrales]

Weak

Great response, Joe. 

It must be tough to consider my "theoretical" argument with all those "realities of command" you've got floating around over there.

WEAKER

[Pylon]

Oh yeah, speaking of weak:



Must have been justified by safety.  All those "realities" that come with being a squadron commander demand a brown leather A-2 to deflect it all.  Or was it that rough weather in Texas?

In any case, I'll go ahead and take that leg you were standing on.  You won't need that anymore...

[A.Member]

Geez you guys.   

[Major Carrales]

Oh yeah, speaking of weak:



Must have been justified by safety.  All those "realities" that come with being a squadron commander demand a brown leather A-2 to deflect it all.  Or was it that rough weather in Texas?

In any case, I'll go ahead and take that leg you were standing on.  You won't need that anymore...

WEAKEST

[addo1]

Oh yeah, speaking of weak:



Must have been justified by safety.  All those "realities" that come with being a squadron commander demand a brown leather A-2 to deflect it all.  Or was it that rough weather in Texas?

In any case, I'll go ahead and take that leg you were standing on.  You won't need that anymore...

Maybe time for a little maturity on everyone's part. That bickering is not a good reflection on CAP.

[Eclipse]

That's a N3B USAF issue parka.   In real cold weather states and it is authorized.    See 39-1, Table 2-1, #9:

Outergarments:  Worn outdoors and removed in an office environment. Use good judgment in choosing appropriate garments for wear based on weather conditions and duties.

Sorry, spin again.  USAF parkas are certinaly not approved for wear by CAP members.

The above quote says that within what is approved, members should make good choices - it is not a Carte Blanche to wear whatever we want to, anymore than we could wear Gor-Tex before it was approved, better or not.

Pylon has it right - the safety card is when you find yourself in a situation you did not anticipate and you make the best choice for the situation, which then ends with the emergency.

The "safety card" is not valid for routine uniform wear or situations where a member has had months to plan, regardless of who is paying for the gear.

[Pylon]

WEAKEST

Well at least you agree with me there.

Maybe time for a little maturity on everyone's part. That bickering is not a good reflection on CAP.

People abusing the uniform, wearing a Celtics Starter jacket over their blues isn't a good reflection on CAP either. 

CAPM 39-1 is a train wreck; there will be times when we just can't be in 100% compliance.  That freak rain storm, or when you've been out in the field for a day or two and you're covered in mud, or when prior planning won't make that M-65 any warmer.  But I was hoping people would see that a little prior planning for the routine, weekly meetings and other routine cases, 100% compliance is pretty obtainable.

[Major Carrales]

That's a N3B USAF issue parka.   In real cold weather states and it is authorized.    See 39-1, Table 2-1, #9:

Outergarments:  Worn outdoors and removed in an office environment. Use good judgment in choosing appropriate garments for wear based on weather conditions and duties.

Sorry, spin again.  USAF parkas are certinaly not approved for wear by CAP members.

The above quote says that within what is approved, members should make good choices - it is not a Carte Blanche to wear whatever we want to, anymore than we could wear Gor-Tex before it was approved, better or not.

Pylon has it right - the safety card is when you find yourself in a situation you did not anticipate and you make the best choice for the situation, which then ends with the emergency.

The "safety card" is not valid for routine uniform wear or situations where a member has had months to plan, regardless of who is paying for the gear.

That is not necessarily the case in Texas.  It can be 80 degrees F at 1500 and 30 degrees F at 1800.  It can be raining now and dry and clear 20 minutes later.