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

[DNall]

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.  

What percentage of military aircrews you figure are running thru fires? It's a dangerous job & things happen. So is CAP flying. Fact is if a fire breaks out on board you can't exactly pull over & jump out, you have ot ride it in, and when you get there it will be with quite a lot of gas that will tend to get spread ll over the place when the wings seperate. You may or may not at that point be in any position to move quickly away from a fire that does occur in many cases.

We fly CAP planes near their density altitude weight limits at slow speeds & low altitudes making lots of turns, a lot of times in thin air over rough terrain, maybe with weather, all knids of crap. It's amazing we have as good a safety record as we do. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to have our crews wearing nomex, especially when we've had people killed expressly for not doing so.

Is it likely to happen to you? No of course not, but they don't put seat belts & airbags in cars based on teh number of drives you do w/o an accident.

[MidwaySix]

I've been wearing UA for the last couple of years...

I submit to you that something that keeps you a little cooler, and a little more comfortable, under all that fire resistant nomex of the zoom bag adds more to safety than the potential risk of the material in a possible fire.

It seems logical that something that helps fend off heat stress in a sun baked non-air conditioned cockpit helps keep said zipper-suited-sun-god that much sharper, and better able to avoid the big-ball-of-flame scenario in the first place.

UA will be authorized in my unit until CAP aircraft are regularly targeted by MANPADs and the taxiways are seeded with IADs.

[DNall]

It'll melt to your skin underneath the nomex even though the nomex isn't burned & shows almost signs of damage. The military has mandated they not be worn by aircrews, but their platforms do a better job with temp control than we get.

Heat related stress is a valid point, and a prime concern for us here. As with everthing a fair degree of balance has to be applied in figuring out what's the right thing to do. In the end, you are your own safety officer. I personally lean toward not wearing it & bringing more cold water, but you have to make your own call.

[CFI_Ed]

Heat related stress is a valid point, and a prime concern for us here. As with everthing a fair degree of balance has to be applied in figuring out what's the right thing to do. In the end, you are your own safety officer. I personally lean toward not wearing it & bringing more cold water, but you have to make your own call.

+1

Ed

[A.Member]

What percentage of military aircrews you figure are running thru fires?

Don't know but I'd guess it's significantly higher than CAP aircrews.

It's a dangerous job & things happen. So is CAP flying. Fact is if a fire breaks out on board you can't exactly pull over & jump out, you have ot ride it in, and when you get there it will be with quite a lot of gas that will tend to get spread ll over the place when the wings seperate. You may or may not at that point be in any position to move quickly away from a fire that does occur in many cases.

Life is dangerous.  Care to cite the number of in-flight/in-cabin fires that have happened to CAP aircraft in it's history.  How about the number of GA aircraft with in cabin fires?   It's virtually non-existant.  According NTSB records, historically fires makes up less than 1% of all aviation accidents that result in fatalities (and most of those can be attributed to a major airliner type crash).   From 1996 to 2001 (most recent report on the NTSB site), there were ~3 (three) GA fatalities that were the primary result of a fire. 

Could it happen?  Sure, it could but the real fact of the matter is that the likelihood is so incredibly small that the risk really is not a factor.  And trust me, if you're in a crash that involves the wings coming off, chances are you have a lot bigger worries - assuming you survived the impact in the first place.  And our flying is not as risky as you make it sound.  There are many other factors that pose significantly higher risks, such as simple go/no-go decision making or driving to the airport, yet we never talk about installing full roll cages and 4 or 5 point harness in our cars - certainly they would provide an increased level of safety as well. 

The point is, this concern seems to be grossly overstated here - especially when we're simply talking ground teams wearing Under Armour under their BDUs. 

[DNall]

No one has stated they have a problem with GTs wearing underarmor products as long as they meet the reg, which is pretty lose when you're talking about the part that's covered with the blouse. I could care less honestly.

Far as aircrews, on the underarmor, like I said that's going to be your own call. The military has made a ruling based on their experience, which is not any more dangerous than ours per flying hour & has nothing to do with combat versus not. The difference there being a lot (but not all) of them have air conditioning & we don't.

Our flying is more dangerous by far than standard GA flights. I couldn't recall who, but someone on here from out west told a story about two friends of his as I recall that went down several years back, one with gloves & one w/o & the one w/ came out great while the other one was screwed for life. That's jsut gloves & I don't wear those ever. I knew a CAP officer, a very close friend, who had an onboard fire & was killed in the crash (by impact, but the impact was kind of determined by the cabin being filled with smoke & fire.

The likelihood of an in-cabin electrical fire or something is pretty low all things considered, but the liklihood of a fire on crash is quite probable. The liklihood of crashing is pretty low overall, but you don't wear safety gear for 99.9% of the situations & sure don't wear it for comfort & convenience or to make your job easier.

Some wings have chosen to require nomex, and I support that. Will it save anyone's life? I don't know. Will it make the heat more of a factor at times? That's not been my experience & I've flown in all kinds of uniforms. YMMV, but I don't see what the big deal is.

[Chris Jacobs]

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

Read Me

Thank you for pointing this out.  That is good information.

[Eclipse]

For the record, its "Under Armour®"

http://www.underarmour.com

And a quick check of their website will  show that they have plenty of tactical style clothing with subdued insignia that no one with any common sense whoudl have an issue with (or likely even notice).

Also, there are no guarantees that you will look like the blokes pictured...

[Fifinella]

I don't know the official AF position on Under Armour, but I do know it is sold at the local AF base's uniform store.  FWIW

[DNall]

Official position is not on aircrew or riding around Iraq where there are IEDs.

[Dragoon]

The USMC is trying get rid of underarmour because in a fire it melts to you (but then again, so do most synthetics.)

The Army, last I read, is taking a different approach.  They are allowing underarmour and other synthetic T shirts, but issuing a special non-flammable shirt to those who need it the most. (air crews, patrols and the like).

As long as CAP lets pilots fly in polyster blue flight suits.....they should have no problems with underarmour!

[Major_Chuck]

Just some rambling thoughts....

1.  I like under armor but it is a little on the pricey side for my budget.

2.  I own a few pieces but none of the colors meet CAP or Army regs, so I don't wear them with any uniform.

3.  I own a lot of wicking underwear with my Army Guard ACU's that are authorized and have found them
much more comfortable and hold their shape better than plain cotton.

[Major_Chuck]

For the record, its "Under Armour®"

http://www.underarmour.com

And a quick check of their website will  show that they have plenty of tactical style clothing with subdued insignia that no one with any common sense whoudl have an issue with (or likely even notice).

Also, there are no guarantees that you will look like the blokes pictured...

I won't look like them?  Darn it!  I was begining to have a flickering of hope.

With all due respect to the bvd's, I am more concerned about what uniform the person is wearing on the outside rather  than what color and brand of skivies they have on at that moment.

[lordmonar]

You know the whole "underarmor" is unsafe because is melts is a crock argument.

It may be their offical justification but let's face it....for years we all work are 50% Cotton-50% Nylon uniform that melts when it burns and no one was up in arms about that!

My guess....and it is just a guess....is the USMC just did not like the looks of the UA T-shirts (probably from a standardisation stand point) and so looked for a good excuse to get all their guys into the same T-shirt.

[CAP428]

You know the whole "underarmor" is unsafe because is melts is a crock argument.

Agreed.  I don't wear underarmor with my uniform but I do wear it outside of CAP.  If anybody doesn't think it's authorized, that's fine, but be realistic:  "Is it safe?"  It's a piece of cloth for goodness sake.  Lots of things melt and could be hazardous but we can't all live in bubbles.

And as far as the underarmor logo causing it not to be authorized, you could always find something on nearly all clothing that would disqualify it for use in CAP.  I mean, my black crew nect T that I wear under my BDUs has a "Hane's" logo on the neck.  39-1 doesn't say anything about that....I guess it "isn't authorized."

[lordmonar]

You know the whole "underarmor" is unsafe because is melts is a crock argument.

Agreed.  I don't wear underarmor with my uniform but I do wear it outside of CAP.  If anybody doesn't think it's authorized, that's fine, but be realistic:  "Is it safe?"  It's a piece of cloth for goodness sake.  Lots of things melt and could be hazardous but we can't all live in bubbles.

And as far as the underarmor logo causing it not to be authorized, you could always find something on nearly all clothing that would disqualify it for use in CAP.  I mean, my black crew nect T that I wear under my BDUs has a "Hane's" logo on the neck.  39-1 doesn't say anything about that....I guess it "isn't authorized."

Well now you went somewhere else.....I agree you should not be wearing any undershirt where it has a visible logo.  If it said UA on the chest and you kept your BDU top on I would care less...but once you take it off.....off comes the UA T-shirt.

If you are wearing a T-shirt with a Hanes, Fruit of the Loom, or any other logo that is visible....you will take it off as well.

We are only looking at the "safe" to wear issue.

[CAP428]

You're mistaken.  The Hane's logo is on the inside of the neck, where all other shirt tags are.  I was simply exaggerating to make a sarcastic point.

[DNall]

I don't really even care about the logo when the blouse is off. Only if you have something stupid or embarassing on the shirt. We were at a color guard competition this past weekend, not doing so hot, and I almost bought my guys matching shirts at the PX that said "I've lost focus" in blurry letters. It was funny but they didn't have the sizes I needed for them. I wouldn't have a problem if someone debloused & had something funny like that on. Just so it isn't in the public eye.

Far as unsafe. UA was & still is all over the place in the military, at the PX, etc. It was only when we went into Iraq & IEDs had people rolling into hospitals where they had to pick the pieces of melted shirt out of your destroyed skin so it didn't get infected & kill you. That was the point at which it was not allowed anymore for ground combat or at any time for aircrews. And also the point at which the Army & AF went out & tried to make wicking undershirts that are safe-er.

You have to make your own decision. What you think is appropriate for varrious roles in CAP. If your commander makes that decision for you then that's fine too.

[Major_Chuck]

From a CAP perspective though, I've read comments about the shirt melting to ones skin.  Fine.  Many things we wear will melt to our skin.

How many of us though actually participate as an aircrew member.  Nomex flight suits mean nothing to me since I don't own one or want to wear one.

As a ground team member what are my chances of being involved in a situation where my clothes may melt to my skin.  Almost nil outside of a burning car accident.  If that is the case then shouldn't all of our uniforms be of the Nomex brand?

UA for general wear in my book is okay.  Like I said, I am more concerned with what is visiable then what skivies someone is wearing.

[Hammer]

I don't really even care about the logo when the blouse is off. Only if you have something stupid or embarassing on the shirt. We were at a color guard competition this past weekend, not doing so hot, and I almost bought my guys matching shirts at the PX that said "I've lost focus" in blurry letters. It was funny but they didn't have the sizes I needed for them. I wouldn't have a problem if someone debloused & had something funny like that on. Just so it isn't in the public eye.

Does that mean that I can't wear my Hooters t-shirt?  It IS black after all...

[DNall]

From a CAP perspective though, I've read comments about the shirt melting to ones skin.  Fine.  Many things we wear will melt to our skin.

How many of us though actually participate as an aircrew member.  Nomex flight suits mean nothing to me since I don't own one or want to wear one.

As a ground team member what are my chances of being involved in a situation where my clothes may melt to my skin.  Almost nil outside of a burning car accident.  If that is the case then shouldn't all of our uniforms be of the Nomex brand?

UA for general wear in my book is okay.  Like I said, I am more concerned with what is visiable then what skivies someone is wearing.

Again NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT GROUND TEAM!! The safety issue is limited to a personal decision by aircrew members only! If a unit goes so far as to restrict it, which I don't believe has occured, then that would be limited to aircrews as well. The only issue with any other uniform combination or duty has ZERO to do with safety & ONLY concerns itself w/ 39-1. Specifically the model w/ the logo on coloar can't be worn, and if you press it to the letter of the reg (which is not done & I do nt support doing) then a logo other then a <5in Sq or CAP related logo over the left pocket area would not be authorized. No one has a real problem with it being worn with BDUs as long as any logo is covered.

[MIKE]

DNall, Chillax.

[DNall]

 

I'm fine, just about the 10th time someone has mentioned the safety aspect with regard to something other than aircrew, and that's already been stipulated repeatedly in the thread.

[Major_Chuck]

DNall, Chillax.

I have to agree.  You're popping a fuse there when you don't need to.  My comment is merely that there's a lot of comments about fire and melting when that hazard doesn't apply to ground crews.  The comments made didn't specify 'flight crew vs ground team'.

[AlphaSigOU]

I'm fine, just about the 10th time someone has mentioned the safety aspect with regard to something other than aircrew, and that's already been stipulated repeatedly in the thread.

Don't blame you one bit, Dennis... and now it's Miller time! 

[DNall]

I'm popping no fuses, not worked up in the least, just emphasizing to punctuate the statement. I didn't mean that to be directed at you personally so much as everyone. That ground was covered & closed right from the start. It's frustrating when people don't read & then repeat the same things over & over again. I can understand if it's a massive beast of a thread, but this isn't.

There are NO comments about fire danger to ground crews.There is no danger to anyone but aircrews & no one has implied that there is. There are two seperate issues. One, danger to aircrews and aircrews only, be aware of the issues & use your own best judgement; and two, potential conflict w/ uniform manual on some items due to logos, & how nitpicky anyone cares to be about that. That's it, period.

That said...

I'm fine, just about the 10th time someone has mentioned the safety aspect with regard to something other than aircrew, and that's already been stipulated repeatedly in the thread.

Don't blame you one bit, Dennis... and now it's Miller time! 

That sounds like an outstanding idea. 

[Major_Chuck]

Well, I did read the entire thread and what I took out of it was there was a lot of comments being made about UA burning and melting to ones skin.  If I missed the statement that seperated flight crew and ground team I apologize.

Anyways.  Moot point. Let me buy you one of those Millers and we'll sweep this one under the rug.

[DNall]

Okay, but I got the next round.

[desert rat]

I just looked it up and here is what Air orce regulations talk about undergarments while wearing a flight suite:    "Undergarments are required.  During flight operations they must be cotton or fire retardent material due to added protection.  Udergarments made of 100% nylon or polyester are not uthorized during flight.   AFI 36-2903  2 Aug 06     3.2.6

[shorning]

I just looked it up and here is what Air orce regulations talk about undergarments while wearing a flight suite:    "Undergarments are required.  During flight operations they must be cotton or fire retardent material due to added protection.  Udergarments made of 100% nylon or polyester are not uthorized during flight.   AFI 36-2903  2 Aug 06     3.2.6

And?  Aircrew get specific training on what they "can", "should", and "may" wear while conducting flight operations.  AFI 36-2903 only recently spelled it out.