BDU: To wear or not to wear that is the question!

Started by Cap Zapped, July 30, 2009, 10:01:58 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

Quote from: Strick on August 02, 2009, 06:05:46 PM
Some wings require NOMEX but SER allows shorts?
Are you sure?  They don't list any supplement to this effect on their web page. 

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on August 03, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
Quote from: Strick on August 02, 2009, 06:05:46 PM
Some wings require NOMEX but SER allows shorts?
Are you sure?  They don't list any supplement to this effect on their web page.

The Wing-level 60-1 supplements all went ((*poof*)) when the new rev was released, which has led me to wonder how Wings are enforcing things like Nomex when they don't have an enforceable supplement.

"That Others May Zoom"

NC Hokie

Quote from: Eclipse on August 03, 2009, 12:59:52 AM
The Wing-level 60-1 supplements all went ((*poof*)) when the new rev was released, which has led me to wonder how Wings are enforcing things like Nomex when they don't have an enforceable supplement.

This may come across as cynical, but it's really just an acknowledgment of fact...

Expired supplements are enforced the same way expired ICLs are; everyone just ignores the expiration.
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy

RiverAux

I was talking about the SER supplement mentioned earlier.  Besides, why would it have been in a supplement to 60-1 when it is a uniform item?

Hawk200

Quote from: RiverAux on August 03, 2009, 03:09:53 AM
I was talking about the SER supplement mentioned earlier.  Besides, why would it have been in a supplement to 60-1 when it is a uniform item?

Fire resistance isn't a uniform issue, it's a safety issue. Therefore the safety pub references it. It's actually pretty logical.

RiverAux

Hmm, then why are NOMEX uniforms in 39-1?  Wouldn't the logical place to put an approval for a new uniform be in the uniform regulation?  Wouldn't that be where most people would look for such a thing? 

Hawk200

Quote from: RiverAux on August 03, 2009, 03:41:28 AM
Hmm, then why are NOMEX uniforms in 39-1?  Wouldn't the logical place to put an approval for a new uniform be in the uniform regulation?  Wouldn't that be where most people would look for such a thing?

Uniform configurations are regulated in Civil Air Patrol Manual 39-1. The flightsuit is a uniform hence it's configuration is listed in the uniform manual.

The flight suit happens to be made out of NOMEX, a fire resistant material.  Fire resistant materials are being required as a safety issue. Therefore, the safety reg is supplemented to require the uniform that happens have fire resistant properties.

CAPM 39-1 is a manual that deals with appearance. CAPR 60-1 deals with operations. One tells you how to wear something, the other tells you when to wear it. Make sense?

O-Rex

Quote from: Major Carrales on August 03, 2009, 12:18:41 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on August 02, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 02, 2009, 06:13:15 PM
NB hooted down the proposal to allow shorts while flying if I remember correctly.

Yeah. But SER got a National waiver to allow the crews to fly in the polo and khaki shorts during the "hot months". Ugh, i'm glad i'm in GLR now  ;D

Crash in the desert in shorts and your likely be facing issues of cold in the night.  Really, is wearing pants all that "ridiculous?"

b/t/w, Florida Wing chose NOT to adopt the shorts.

Angus

Quote from: Gunner C on July 30, 2009, 11:49:57 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 30, 2009, 10:05:06 PM
You can wear any CAP uniform unless your Wing or Region has actually mandated something specific (most have not).

Mess dress is not recommended.  ;D  A utility type uniform is best - with a flight suit preferred by most.  But yes, you can wear BBDUs.

I did wear my mess dress once, I even jumped out of the plane on the same mission. Only issue the secretary disavowed my participation in that mission.   ;)
Maj. Richard J. Walsh, Jr.
Director Education & Training MAWG 
 Gill Robb Wilson #4030

Gunner C

Quote from: O-Rex on August 03, 2009, 04:33:28 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 03, 2009, 12:18:41 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on August 02, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 02, 2009, 06:13:15 PM
NB hooted down the proposal to allow shorts while flying if I remember correctly.

Yeah. But SER got a National waiver to allow the crews to fly in the polo and khaki shorts during the "hot months". Ugh, i'm glad i'm in GLR now  ;D

Crash in the desert in shorts and your likely be facing issues of cold in the night.  Really, is wearing pants all that "ridiculous?"

b/t/w, Florida Wing chose NOT to adopt the shorts.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Strick

Quote from: O-Rex on August 03, 2009, 04:33:28 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 03, 2009, 12:18:41 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on August 02, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 02, 2009, 06:13:15 PM
NB hooted down the proposal to allow shorts while flying if I remember correctly.

Yeah. But SER got a National waiver to allow the crews to fly in the polo and khaki shorts during the "hot months". Ugh, i'm glad i'm in GLR now  ;D

Crash in the desert in shorts and your likely be facing issues of cold in the night.  Really, is wearing pants all that "ridiculous?"

b/t/w, Florida Wing chose NOT to adopt the shorts.
AMEN
[darn]atio memoriae

RiverAux

Hmm, if the shorts are in an regional supplement to 60-1, then it should be on the NHQ 60-1 supplement web page.  Nothing there. 

MikeD

Quote from: Major Carrales on August 03, 2009, 12:18:41 AM
Quote from: SJFedor on August 02, 2009, 07:33:16 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 02, 2009, 06:13:15 PM
NB hooted down the proposal to allow shorts while flying if I remember correctly.

Yeah. But SER got a National waiver to allow the crews to fly in the polo and khaki shorts during the "hot months". Ugh, i'm glad i'm in GLR now  ;D

Crash in the desert in shorts and your likely be facing issues of cold in the night.  Really, is wearing pants all that "ridiculous?"

I have a couple pairs of these "convertable" pants, the legs unzip and it turns into shorts. 

That said, for CAP and work, I wear Nomex for flying even when it's over 110 (F) out.   :angel:

Eclipse

Quote from: MikeD on August 10, 2009, 02:04:38 AM
That said, for CAP and work, I wear Nomex for flying even when it's over 110 (F) out.

I don't get what all the fuss is about Nomex in the Summer the Nomex flightsuits I've owned were all
paper thin and fine in hot weather.

I have to assume that there are different weights and maybe the more "frugal" of us can't be bothered to shop correctly?

"That Others May Zoom"

Hawk200

Quote from: Eclipse on August 10, 2009, 03:22:40 AMI don't get what all the fuss is about Nomex in the Summer the Nomex flightsuits I've owned were all
paper thin and fine in hot weather.

I have to assume that there are different weights and maybe the more "frugal" of us can't be bothered to shop correctly?

I've noticed in the last couple of years that the material in the latest ones are a bit thicker. They don't breathe as well.

Al Sayre

Ya'll can hate on our shorts all you want, but the reality is that heat stress is a much more likely danger than fire, and we have to do something to help reduce that danger. 

I flew a 4 hour mission last week (in shorts).  It was 91 degrees and 90% humidity when we departed at 0900, and around 100 on the ramp when we stopped for lunch.  I consumed 3 liters of water during the flight(s), and when I got back home and stepped on the scale before I took a shower, found that I weighed 6 lbs less than when I started.  That means I sweated out somewhere near 2 gallons of water during that time. 

There isn't much cooling at 1000 feet over the MS delta, every little bit helps...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787