Flying in shorts with golf shirt

[Persona non grata]

Cant find the answer in the KB, are shorts authorized with the polo while flying?

Thanks, its starting to get hot up there

[Eclipse]

Not for the general CAP population.

A few schools have waivers, NESA & Johnson come to mind, and I think there was talk that in FLA they have a supplement, but
for the rest of us, no.

[Persona non grata]

Thanks, Would have been nice.........I will get the polo and find some very thin Grey pants.  I wish I could get the 5.11 polo with the pen pocket ob the sleeve in a CAP version.  Plus they dont fade and they have them in wicking material.


thanks for the quick answer

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

What about light grey rip-stop summer weight BDU/Police Tactical pants?

[coudano]

I think the gulf coastal patrols have autho to do that as well...

[Persona non grata]

I have looked at some 5.11 pants, enough pockets and durable.  Th eones I wore for duty purposes were great.  Very light and durable.  Both .11 shirt and pants would make a nice flight uniform,

[NC Hokie]

I will get the polo and find some very thin Grey pants.  I wish I could get the 5.11 polo with the pen pocket ob the sleeve in a CAP version.  Plus they dont fade and they have them in wicking material.

I remember reading that someone took their own polos into Vanguard in Norfolk, VA and had them embroider the CAP seal on it while they waited.  It might be worth a call to them to see if they could do the same for a mail-in, or see if someone local to Norfolk or Carlsbad, CA (the other Vanguard site) can help you with this.

[SarDragon]

San Carlsbad? Nope. Just Carlsbad. San Diego is to the south.

[NC Hokie]

San Carlsbad? Nope. Just Carlsbad. San Diego is to the south.

Right, Carlsbad...  That's what I said (the second time). 

[vento]

San Carlsbad? Nope. Just Carlsbad. San Diego is to the south.

Right, Carlsbad...  That's what I said (the second time). 

Vanguard West in Carlsbad is located near the Carlsbad PD and they don't carry anything CAP related. Absolutely nil. Everything comes from Vanguard East.

[SarDragon]

BTDT. They said I had to get the t-shirt from Virginia.

[vento]

Cant find the answer in the KB, are shorts authorized with the polo while flying?

Thanks, its starting to get hot up there

Yes, you can if you are in CAWG and flying a sailplane.

1-5.d Added. Special Uniform for Sailplane Operations. Members may wear a CAP
distinctive shirt (Squadron shirt, activity shirt, or any approved knit golf shirt) with dark blue or
khaki shorts (hemmed) or BDU pants and tennis shoes while participating in sailplane
operations.

[peter rabbit]

I have looked at some 5.11 pants, enough pockets and durable.  Th eones I wore for duty purposes were great.  Very light and durable.  Both .11 shirt and pants would make a nice flight uniform,

Agreed, but not approved by NHQ.

[DC]

I have looked at some 5.11 pants, enough pockets and durable.  Th eones I wore for duty purposes were great.  Very light and durable.  Both .11 shirt and pants would make a nice flight uniform,

Agreed, but not approved by NHQ.

Says who? There is no specified brand or style of pants with the polo uniform, just the vague 'medium gray' requirement.

[RiverAux]

I really wish the KB would post the answer that they gave me (no six pocket pants) when I asked them.  I guess they figured that it was so obvious that there was no need to post it there. 

[EMT-83]

Maybe it's not there because someone's personal opinion isn't supported by regulation or ICL?

[peter rabbit]

From Susie Parker when asked specifically about using the tactical pants while flying:

The gray trousers worn with the golf shirt do not have to be dress slacks and can be cotton/twill trousers but not cargo style with the extra pockets.

From CAPM 39-1 table 4-4:

Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans). 

My personal opinion is that the definition does not prohibit cargos or tacticals, but I won't go against Ms Parker's interpretation/advice unless/until someone with more authority tells me otherwise. I have had a problem finding any durable medium gray pants suitable for flying other than cargo/tactical. I do have one pair of decent gray pants I can use but they are lighter than I would like. However, they are darker than other grays so they can't be excluded from the medium range. I just about ruined one pair of medium gray dress slacks before I found those.

[Eclipse]

My personal opinion is that the definition does not prohibit cargos or tacticals, but I won't go against Ms Parker's interpretation/advice unless/until someone with more authority tells me otherwise.

The regs are the higher authority and do not provide a definition.  Ms. Parker does not have the authority to tighten the definition based on
her say so, alone, especially in light of the fact that A number of Wing CC have authorized there wear of these types of pants.

This is the problem with asking the KB or an NHQ staffer directly when the response is anything but a direct quote of the reg.  Since the only way to amend, change, or tighten a regulation or definition is via an approved supplement, ICL, or full reg update, an email like this holds no weight.

You've answered your own question with a quote which is the authority (the fact the 39-1 is no longer the sole authority on uniforms not withstanding).

[peter rabbit]

Eclipse:

Is your approach to this:

1. ignore what NHQ staff offer as advice
2. open a dialog with the staff and attempt to reach a consensus or at least both sides understanding the other
3. since CAPM 39-1 table 1-3 does not authorize Wing CCs to permit use of tacticals/cargos, except possibly for special purposes, require all wings to standardize uniforms except in those special circumstances
4. submit requests for changes/clarifications to CAPM 39-1 in the hopes everything will be 'crystal clear' before we die
5. other?

[Eclipse]

1: Read reg.

2: Look at pants.

3: Pants fit definition.

4: End.

No "clarification", "authorization", or other interrogatories, queries, or questions are or were necessary because the program ends at Line 3.
Only people with logic errors, buffer overflows, or serious processor flaws (perhaps a Pentium Floating Point error?) could break out of a program
like the one above...

...unless...

...they intentionally hit "CTRL-BRK" because they have a personal agenda or issue with the program and cannot allow it to run.
In which case they will load up on Mountain Dew and Cheetos and run their orange-stained, caffeine-fueled fingers to nubs trying to
find a problem with the code.

Except they can't because it is airtight, so the only way to produce an error is by injecting something external that doesn't actually
fit the codebase but will confuse the processor enough to slow things down.

The only solution is for the developer to recompile the executable with explicit instructions, which is not likely to happen anytime soon,
especially since it is not necessary, and the error is only reproduced on a small number of obsolete systems.  Current-generation
machines, including those which have been recently upgraded, run the application lightning fast and move on to the next task.