Underarmer is it safe and allowed to wear?

[desert rat]

I heard the brand under armer thermal under wear is not safe and can melt to your skin if burned.   Is this an approved cap under garmet?

[Al Sayre]

Yes it's true that it can melt to your skin in a fire. 

Authorized, maybe, depends who is reading the regulation.  See CAPM 39-1 pg 63.

[shorning]

I heard the brand under armer thermal under wear is not safe and can melt to your skin if burned.   Is this an approved cap under garmet?

What does the reg say?

[MIKE]

12 Undergarments(Undershirts)Brown or black. Either V-neck, U-neck, crew neck or athletic style
without pockets. Black or brown turtlenecks, dickeys, or thermal
undershirts without pockets may also be worn. EXCEPTION:
members may wear white thermal undershirts even if exposed at neck.
Unit commanders may prescribe color, unit designation, and cloth or
silk screen emblem, to be worn on left side of chest not to exceed 5
inches in diameter.

Emphasis added.

The presence of the UA logo subdued or otherwise could be considered unauthorized, depending on interpretation.

[swya]

in my squadron we aren't supposed to wear it because it is considered a safety hazard according to some military uniform handbook that a kid found at the bx, also it is considered an acceptable pt clothing article
ok so i just found this so i am modifying my post but this, even though it is on the marine might clear somethings up,
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93820,00.html
since we dont work in iraq and are not the marines we can wear under armor

[Al Sayre]

Pretty big pronouncement there Cadet.  There are several valid reasons why you can't wear it; starting with the Unit Commander has to authorize it.

[swya]

ok sure but im just saying there is no obvious reg just a few kids in my sqquadron doing as the marines do but anyways you're probly right, also to what mike said, the under armor logo on most under armor garments is unnoticible

[DNall]

It's not safe & should not be worn by aircrews!!! Otherwise it is fine by my interpretation. The logo thing, that's splitting hairs. The interpreation generally accepted in my wing is any CAP or AF related shirt that you can't see the printing with the blouse on & is not an embarassment if de-bloused. People wear ROTC shirts, unit shirts, activity shirts, just about anything within reason. I got no problem w/ underarmor, for PT or in the field. I'd personally prefer they not wear it at meetings just for uniformity sake, but I hadn't noticed that yet.

[swya]

thats right aiecrews might not be the best idea we probably shouldn't wear it for unifimitie's sake at all

[Eclipse]

If the colors match 39-1, I couldn't care less what the shirt is made of, though it should not have logos in plain view.

I have found these shirts to be very effective at doing exactly what they are designed to do, provide support and wick sweat in high-temp environments.

A legit point regarding it being flammable, but frankly probably is such a small issue as to not be worth the argument.

Yes, many of our aircrew people wear nomex, but a large number also wear nylon jackets, socks, gloves (or no gloves, etc). 

[Chris Jacobs]

If it is so unsafe then why is the army making it the standard wear under their new ACU.  It might not be the exact same stuff that we buy off of the sporting good store shelf, but i think it is almost identical to under armor.  and an army infantry guy is more likely to run into fires than a cap cadet or CAP aircrewmen is.

But i would agree that it comes down to the unit comanders decision.

[MIKE]

If it is so unsafe then why is the army making it the standard wear under their new ACU.

Read Me

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that the reg just applies to t-shirts and long underwear, not regular underwear....at least no one has ever checked to see if my underwear was brown or black....

I've been wearing underarmor underwear at the gym and when hot weather rolls around will be wearing it under by BDUs when I'm going to be in the field. 

[brasda91]

Yes, it is safe, for gt's.  Probably not the best choice if you're doing "O" flights.  If it meets the regulation color, nobody should say anything.  The logo will not come into play, unless you take your bdu top off.

[DNall]

If it is so unsafe then why is the army making it the standard wear under their new ACU.

Read Me

AF is still in wear test & comments on a flame retardant undershirt for aircrews. supposedly some moisture wicking weave of nomex & some other crap that feels & looks just like cotton, machine washable, and does the job.

[swya]

that sounds cool, but how did you know that

[DNall]

ahh, cause it was posted on AFLink. You can go search, the article is still there.

[A.Member]

I don't understand the obsession here with fire/flame retardant material?  Ex. some members won't fly without Nomex - this is a requirement in some Wings, this post, etc.   Perhaps I'm imaging it but this regularly seems to come up in discussions here.  Are we regularly running through fires and I'm just not aware of it? 

Someone help out here.

My biggest gripe about Under Armour is it's cost.  IMO, there are other equal/better products on the market at a better price.  

[Eclipse]

The logos only seem to be an issue with brand-named articles where the whole cost of the shirt is in the silk-screened or embroidered 1/2-inch of white on the collar.

You can go to Wal-Mart any day of the week, pay 1/2-1/3 of the cost for the same garment and it won't have any logos on it at all.

Subtlety is also, apparently, a lost art. If the shirt is black, and the blouse is on, no one will care.

If the shirt is black, the blouse is off and it doesn't say "Timmy and the Lords of Darkness" on the back with a huge winged dragon, no one will care.

[swya]

yeah that's true but what if they're wearing a marines shirt
also i love that episode of south park