Flight Jacket without uniform??

[Smoothice]

If someone has a flight jacket with all the CAP "stuff" sewn on it, they are not supposed to be wearing that out in CIVI's right? I noticed a guy wearing his CAP flight jacket at an AOPA meeting...he had the name tag pulled off, but eveything else was there and he was in jeans/t-shirt...this is wrong....yes???

[SarDragon]

That depends on who you talk to. Some will say it's OK; others will say it's not. The CAPM 39-1 is non-specific - doesn't say you can, doesn't say you can't.

YMMV.

[Smoothice]

That depends on who you talk to. Some will say it's OK; others will say it's not. The CAPM 39-1 is non-specific - doesn't say you can, doesn't say you can't.

YMMV.

I love those "grey" areas!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

That's why I have everything attached with Velcro on both my black A-2 and my blue MA-1; if I want to wear them on civvy street all I have to do is take the patches off.

On the A-2 it's barely noticeable.

Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to rig my Captain's bars (plastic encased) on Velcro so they're on there all the time...but to Joe Public it may just be an old MA-1 that an AF Captain used to own with the old Velcro still on it (meaning: no association with CAP or the military).

[AirAux]

I see it as good advertizing.  Like the old A-2's that were worn for over 30 years after WWII, I think it can be considered civilian wear as long as you're not pretending to be an officer or on active CAP duty..  You paid for it, you can wear it.  Blue jeans, t-shirt and flight jacket do not make a military uniform, so go for it.. Precedence has been established by better men than us..

[Hawk200]

If someone has a flight jacket with all the CAP "stuff" sewn on it, they are not supposed to be wearing that out in CIVI's right? I noticed a guy wearing his CAP flight jacket at an AOPA meeting...he had the name tag pulled off, but eveything else was there and he was in jeans/t-shirt...this is wrong....yes???

Yes, it's wrong. It's mixing uniform items with civilian clothes. Yes, it's done, and it's been portrayed in many a movie, but that doesn't make it right.

If someone really wants to wear the jacket, all patches should be removed. Some will have issues with it, but it's far less of an issue than mixing uniform and civilian clothing.

[Pumbaa]

So can I wear my Flight jacket with my "Secret Squirrel" and Zombie hunter patches on it?

[Ned]

I live with some great "fabric arts" people, so I have a wonderful variety of velcro "morale patches" that I wear on my A2, including logos for my favorite sports teams, etc.

I keep the CAP stuff in the pocket, and just wear the other stuff.  It's amazing how often I am asked "where can I get one of those team jackets" or something similar.

[Hawk200]

So can I wear my Flight jacket with my "Secret Squirrel" and Zombie hunter patches on it?

If you're not mixing it with CAP patches, why not? Not really any different than sewing patches onto a jean jacket or something similar.

I live with some great "fabric arts" people, so I have a wonderful variety of velcro "morale patches" that I wear on my A2, including logos for my favorite sports teams, etc.

I keep the CAP stuff in the pocket, and just wear the other stuff.  It's amazing how often I am asked "where can I get one of those team jackets" or something similar.

That's a pretty cool idea. Bare Velcro on any kind of jacket makes some people wonder what it's used for.

[twofivexray]

A few weeks ago, when it was still pretty chilly, I wore my flight jacket over my blue golf shirt to a squadron meeting. On the way home, I stopped off to pick up my wife from a class. She was late or I was early, so I stopped in a local bookstore to browse.

As I was  checking out, the clerk commented on my jacket and we started a conversation. He was not aware that there was a squadron which met just a few blocks away.To make a long story short, he is now a new senior member of our squadron.

So..maybe its not such a bad thing to advertise once in a while.

[vento]

A few weeks ago, when it was still pretty chilly, I wore my flight jacket over my blue golf shirt to a squadron meeting. On the way home, I stopped off to pick up my wife from a class. She was late or I was early, so I stopped in a local bookstore to browse.
.....

With all due respect, the only way to wear the green flight jacket with the polo shirt uniform is to remove all patches and make it a "civilian jacket". You were not out of uniforms, were you? 

[Hawk200]

A few weeks ago, when it was still pretty chilly, I wore my flight jacket over my blue golf shirt to a squadron meeting. On the way home, I stopped off to pick up my wife from a class. She was late or I was early, so I stopped in a local bookstore to browse.

As I was  checking out, the clerk commented on my jacket and we started a conversation. He was not aware that there was a squadron which met just a few blocks away.To make a long story short, he is now a new senior member of our squadron.

So..maybe its not such a bad thing to advertise once in a while.

"The ends justify the means"?

[twofivexray]

the only way to wear the green flight jacket with the polo shirt uniform is to remove all patches and make it a "civilian jacket".

Can someone point out the regulation where this is stated?

[Hawk200]

the only way to wear the green flight jacket with the polo shirt uniform is to remove all patches and make it a "civilian jacket".

Can someone point out the regulation where this is stated?

If the reg doesn't say you can, you can't. A regulation that actually lists everything forbidden would be bigger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Simple KISS application.

A jacket without patches isn't a uniform item. Hence the suggestion that removing all patches makes it "civilian" wear. Roundabout logic. Not gonna find it in a reg.

A flight jacket without patches will draw just as many questions as one with them. "Sanitize" it before wearing with anything other than a flightsuit.

[vento]

the only way to wear the green flight jacket with the polo shirt uniform is to remove all patches and make it a "civilian jacket".

Can someone point out the regulation where this is stated?

The green flight jacket is only authorized with the AF style green bag. It is not authorized anywhere else in 39-1.

Furthermore, page 85 of the 39-1 spells out what is authorized with the polo shirt:

7
Outergarments
Appropriate civilian outerwear is authorized including the light blue windbreaker with the CAP seal on the right breast.
Headgear is not required but the CAP baseball cap may be worn.

and lastly the change letter of 25 January 2008 adds the black leather jacket to the approval list:

3. Changes to CAP Distinctive Uniforms:
a. Black Leather Jacket. Effective 15 March 2006, a black leather jacket with side entry and patch pockets similar in style to the A-2 jacket was approved for wear by CAP senior members with the aviator shirt combinations, utility uniform, CAP flight suit or CAP polo shirt with gray slacks. The CAP Command Patch will be worn on the right breast with the black leather name patch on the left breast pocket. This jacket may not be worn with any of the AF-style uniforms. Effective 29 June 2006, the leather name patch worn on this jacket is changed to a black leather name tag with a brown inset.

As you can see, we can wear any appropriate civilian outerwear, or the other specifically approved jackets. The only way to make the green flight jacket to comply with the regulation is to remove the patches and make it a civilian jacket.

[Short Field]

And where does it state that "sanitizing" a CWU 45 flight jacket makes it "civilian outerwear"?  Just because a lot of people like to wear military uniform items as civilian attire does not make them civilian attire.

[Hawk200]

And where does it state that "sanitizing" a CWU 45 flight jacket makes it "civilian outerwear"?  Just because a lot of people like to wear military uniform items as civilian attire does not make them civilian attire.

So a CWU 45 is always a uniform item? Even when there is no insignia? Does the same apply to an A-2, G-1, CWU 35 or MA-1?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So a CWU 45 is always a uniform item? Even when there is no insignia? Does the same apply to an A-2, G-1, CWU 35 or MA-1?

If it has insignia on it defining it as a military/quasi-military/law enforcement clothing item, it's a uniform.

Without, it's an outergarment.

If it's always a uniform no matter what, then a heck of a lot of people are guilty of unauthorised uniform wear:

• Private pilots wearing MA-1 knockoffs bought at pilot shops and/or Evilbay
• Tom Cruise wannabes wearing G-1's
• Hunters wearing Army/Navy surplus BDU's
• Wannabe militia types wearing Army/Navy surplus BDU's
• Nutcase skinhead types wearing black MA-1's with stupid slogan patches on them
• Vets wearing ones custom-made for them (http://www.usmedals.com/JacketsBridge.aspx)
• Little kids wearing little-kid sized BDU's, flight jackets, etc.
• My misspent youth wearing my brother-in-law's old green Army M-65 until it wore out

Without the CAP shield and leather nameplate, my black A-2 is quite stylish for civilian occasions (you have to be up close to notice the Velcro).

[Hawk200]

If it has insignia on it defining it as a military/quasi-military/law enforcement clothing item, it's a uniform.

Without, it's an outergarment.

I agree. I've run into many people that consider those jackets "always a uniform, insignia doesn't matter". Seems to be CAP people. Never really ran into that much in the military.

You find a lot of teens, young adults around this area that like to wear BDU tops and bottoms together. Are they wearing a uniform as far as I'm concerned? No. Do I think they look stupid? Yup.

[SarDragon]

I see it slightly differently.

You're right about '... many people that consider those jackets "always a uniform, insignia doesn't matter". Seems to be CAP people.' That's because we're members of an organization with a specific "dress code". The pretenders/wannabes do not have that rule structure in place.

WIWOAD in the Navy, I experienced that inequity on a regular basis. Civilians could mix and match uniform items with impunity, while folks on AD could be disciplined for similar behaviour. The organizational membership made all the difference.

YMMV.

[Pumbaa]

Well I switch out my CAP patches and have this on my CWU 45.

Hope CapTalkers don't mind.  Either that or I put my Zombie hunter patch on if the mood strikes my fancy

[Short Field]

WIWOAD, it was explained that I could wear a uniform properly or improperly.  Just wearing parts of the uniform was wearing it improperly.  I had a SMSgt counsel me once on wearing a light blue shirt and dark blue pants simply because they looked too much like a uniform even through they were JC Penny specials.  The A2 without insignia is specifically authorized as "civilian outerwear".  Is the BDU jacket or CWU 45 authorized as "civilian outerwear"?  If you are wearing uniform parts, then you are either wearing a uniform properly or improperly.   A lot of people don't care since the cool factor exceeds any thoughts of propriety.

[PHall]

I see it slightly differently.

You're right about '... many people that consider those jackets "always a uniform, insignia doesn't matter". Seems to be CAP people.' That's because we're members of an organization with a specific "dress code". The pretenders/wannabes do not have that rule structure in place.

WIWOAD in the Navy, I experienced that inequity on a regular basis. Civilians could mix and match uniform items with impunity, while folks on AD could be disciplined for similar behaviour. The organizational membership made all the difference.

YMMV.

That and the UCMJ...

[C-150]

At one time I had 2 flight jackets for that reason. One had no markings at all. This is the one worn with jeans and such. They are comfortable jackets and I did not want any uniform association when wearing it with jeans. I don't wear one much at all anymore except with the uniform. Flight jackets have become popular among some gangs and such, although they wear them 5 sizes too big. I don't wish to be associated with the faddish nonsense.

[Hawk200]

I had a SMSgt counsel me once on wearing a light blue shirt and dark blue pants simply because they looked too much like a uniform even through they were JC Penny specials.

That strikes me as a SMSgt with a little too much time on his hands, and just had to show his tail. If I look at you, and I can tell they aren't uniform pieces, I wouldn't have even given a second look.

Strangely, I've seen stuff in movies (usually bad ones) where there's the light blue shirt, and dark blue pants portrayed as an Air Force uniform. The shirt is usually one of those dress shirts with the open left pocket, and the pants are obviously not uniform pants. I find it hilarious when the "black shoes" are black wingtips. About the only actual uniform item is the flight cap (of which there aren't many common civilian variations).

The A2 without insignia is specifically authorized as "civilian outerwear".

I think that was intentionally clarified because a lot of civilian pilots own them. I've been asked the question a number of times. If the jacket doesn't have Velcro patches on it, and especially if it has those handwarmer pockets (most legitimate military issue leather jackets don't  have them), then I tell those people it's fine with the polo or corporate (grey/white) uniform.

Is the BDU jacket or CWU 45 authorized as "civilian outerwear"?

39-1 doesn't give many instances where it defines "civilian outerwear". There are a few, but to go through a list of what is would probably require a reference list the size of a town library.

If you are wearing uniform parts, then you are either wearing a uniform properly or improperly.

A uniform part must be defined as a uniform part. But let's look at it in a different light: Can I wear a CWU-35/45, or an MA-1 with a flightsuit that does not have patches on it? Consider it.

A lot of people don't care since the cool factor exceeds any thoughts of propriety.

I never wore a flight jacket for "cool factor", it was a matter of practicality. Got one as a Christmas gift at a time when I was one of those "poor airmen". It was my civilian outergarment. I used either that, the windbreaker, or my all weather coat as outergarments for years. Nobody ever asked me if I was a pilot or aircrew at the times I wore that flight jacket.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

A former co-worker of mine wore his AF blue waist-length jacket (the same one we wear) without insignia as an everyday jacket.

He was a retired Captain (a mustang who'd gone to MSgt and then earned a commission) who had been in the AF almost 25 years and stationed everywhere from Korat RTAFB to the Pentagon to Andersen and got more commendations than Jimmy Carter has peanuts.

If there were a problem, I think someone like that would have identified it.

[Hawk200]

A former co-worker of mine wore his AF blue waist-length jacket (the same one we wear) without insignia as an everyday jacket.

He was a retired Captain (a mustang who'd gone to MSgt and then earned a commission) who had been in the AF almost 25 years and stationed everywhere from Korat RTAFB to the Pentagon to Andersen and got more commendations than Jimmy Carter has peanuts.

If there were a problem, I think someone like that would have identified it.

Anyone that tried to identify it as a problem wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The AF uniform pubs say it can be worn sans insignia with civilian clothes.

But it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried. I've had people tell me all kinds of things weren't authorized that were. I would usually tell them to find a reference and get back to me, and even went so far as to provide my assignment info, office, and phone number. Nobody ever did. I would always look something up before I did it if I wasn't sure, and a lot of times I would look stuff up when someone told me something was authorized that sounded strange.

[Short Field]

That strikes me as a SMSgt with a little too much time on his hands, and just had to show his tail. If I look at you, and I can tell they aren't uniform pieces, I wouldn't have even given a second look.

Do you use the 3' rule, the 8' rule, or the 25' rule?

The A2 without insignia is specifically authorized as "civilian outerwear".

I think that was intentionally clarified because a lot of civilian pilots own them.

It was authorized in the original announcement for the A2.  Same for the Black A2 that CAP uses.

Is the BDU jacket or CWU 45 authorized as "civilian outerwear"?

39-1 doesn't give many instances where it defines "civilian outerwear". There are a few, but to go through a list of what is would probably require a reference list the size of a town library.

So they bother to define it for the few, but allow it but do not define it for all the rest???

[PHall]

A former co-worker of mine wore his AF blue waist-length jacket (the same one we wear) without insignia as an everyday jacket.

Probably because it says right in the AF Uniform reg that it can be worn with civilian clothing if the insignia is removed.

(Ref: AFI 36-2903, Fig 2.11, Note 2)

[Pumbaa]

God I love uniform type threads!

[PHall]

God I love uniform type threads!

So don't read them. See, problem solved.

[Rotorhead]

God I love uniform type threads!

Couldn't you tell what it was about by the title? If so, then why open it just to make the comment?

[Flying Pig]

I have a green nomex flight jacket that I wear my CAP black leather name patch on with no other CAP patches.  Looks good.  And people ask me what the wings are from.  I then begin explaining CAP to them.  You can all burn me at the steak at the next Wing Conference.  I could wear my Sheriff wings, but our wings are the gold badge with wings coming out of them.  A kid has to have something to wear instead of a blank piece of velcro.

[Dracosbane]

Or, buy a leather name badge (or one of the cloth ones not authorized for uniform wear) with whatever you want on it, and wear whatever patches you want on the velcro, and swap them out for CAP ones as necessary.

[vento]

I have a green nomex flight jacket that I wear my CAP black leather name patch on with no other CAP patches.  Looks good.  And people ask me what the wings are from.  I then begin explaining CAP to them.  You can all burn me at the steak at the next Wing Conference.  I could wear my Sheriff wings, but our wings are the gold badge with wings coming out of them.  A kid has to have something to wear instead of a blank piece of velcro.

A commander leading by example with a partial uniform only because it looks good?
Sir, you are joking, right? Too often I fail to catch the sarcasm here at CT...

[Pumbaa]

..You can all burn me at the steak at the next Wing Conference. 

Well to be the grammar nazi...

I can burn you WITH the steak

or I can

Burn you AT the STAKE....

Dealers choice...

[Short Field]

I was taught if they can't trust you with the little stuff, how could they trust you with the important stuff?

[Major Carrales]

I was taught if they can't trust you with the little stuff, how could they trust you with the important stuff?

Well, I hear General U.S. Grant had a slight problem with wiskey...seems to have been there to win the Civil War.  General MacArthur was not in proper U.S. Army uniform wearing what I assume was a Phillipino Field Marshall's Uniform for the duration of WWII...yet "he did return."  I would imagine that a person who forgot a little thing...like putting the proper creamer in their coffee by mistake...might just be trusted enough to fly a mission in a B-52s later that day.

The moral of this above rant...wearing a jacket with civian clothes has more to do with how cold it might be outside as than to how trustworthy a pilot, ground team, commander or the like might be.  Your phrase above makes a logical fallacy.

[PHall]

I was taught if they can't trust you with the little stuff, how could they trust you with the important stuff?

So you're volunteering to be his replacement?

[Eclipse]

...like putting the proper creamer in their coffee by mistake...

There is a line...SIR...that should not be crossed by man nor beast.

Say what you want about uniform wear, but coffee is sacrosanct.

[Major Carrales]

...like putting the proper creamer in their coffee by mistake...

There is a line...SIR...that should not be crossed by man nor beast.

Say what you want about uniform wear, but coffee is sacrosanct.

I regret that I have but one Latte a day to give for my school district and that it is a far, far, better thing I brew than I have ever brewed before.  (Ironcially, we have a 2d Lt Bru in our unit who brews one heck of a camp coffee at our monthly county airport camp outs.)

P.S. in my initial reading of your post I somehow imagined the portion read "There is a line...SIR...that should not be crossed by man nor beast." being spoken by Dr. Bones McCoy from Star Trek.

Maybe I've just been editing Memory Alpha a little too much this weekend.

[Eclipse]

[darn] it Jim!  I'm a Doctor not a Barrista!

[heliodoc]

Well well well

CAPTalk worrying about flight jackets.  Yep I remember the days of Active Army and RM about flight jackets and civilian clothes.

There were some reminders and some "UCMJ actions."  But now CAPtalkers are worrying about if we can trust the guys with the important stuff while ignoring the small stuff.

WOW

I bought my CWU45/P and my old MA-1's and I never decorated with the CAP decorations.  Wore 'em both in and out of CAP and the military with civilian clothes and sometimes on a military reservation.  Never got a whole lot of hard times from anyone on AD..'cuz there were plenty of flight jacket wearin fools in the RM.  Never saw a reason to clutter up a perfectly good 350 dollar CWU45/P with CAP banana republic show and tell patches.  Got my show me stuff on eServices to make those folks in CAP that are interested in what I KNOW and not what I wear for advertisement to show other CAPers how good and competent I am.

This is pretty foolish for CAP to tread and start putting the lecture on about flight jacket wear.  Next thing you know CAPers are going to pop off at some civilian helo operator with a Bambi Bucket and start making snide remarks about uniform wear. Some of those folks work in an environment that need a jacket to move around freely in.  So how about CAP rewrite a little blurb in 39-1 when it come for a rewrite and with the AF approval to wear it with the polo uniform?  Think CAP could show with a few facts that we could wear a flght jacket without all the CAP trinkets attached?  Maybe if we could live with that and the AF said...go ahead CAP flight jackets OK.......patches (ALLLLLL) a no go.

Maybe the 3 X 5 leather patch could be the ONLY symbol symbolizing CAP, many here probably would agree with me,  Be saving plenty of those pesky plastic encased thing a ma bobs that were so 1950's and 1960's.  Some thing that AF and other military service saw fit to get rid of

Think CAPTalkers could be happy with that?  If CAP could worry about flight jackets less and more about training  ...WOW what an organization this could be.

But then again my Father and my wife say......"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a wonderful life this would be."

CAPTalkers  keep on keepin on to something so folks really have no control over until a big stick coomes from somewhere..... CAP NHQ? 

Don't think so....can't even get a new 39-1 updated let alone setting a "REAL" standard of no flight suits with civilian clothes, let alone one with CAP bling on it

[Major Carrales]

Heliodoc...

If it gets chilly (as it does after a Northern)  and all there was in the car was a a CAP jacket, guess what I'm gonna put on.

I remember a few years back when a photo of me drapped over with a trench coat someone let me use to avoid getting soaked to get to my car to get some article of necessary paper work during a South Texas downpour made incredulous noises on these forums echo.  I was accused of everything...because I put a trenchcoat over my person to go to the car I had to be disregarding CAPR 60-1, 60-3 and a whole host of other regulations.

[heliodoc]

I agree with you, Sir

Disregarding 60-1 and 60-3?  Regulations?

I see now...there are some CAPers and CAPtalkers who really need alife rather than spouting off some knowledge about regs

That IS why I luuuuuuv to come on this forum, as CAP member, just to get 'em going.

Some folks in CAP must think putting the uniform must provide some special powers or something that can JUST RAMBLE on

Ramble on about uniforms......WOW .... there really is more to CAP life than the threads we wear...oh so 1970's

[vento]

Actually it has a lot to do about how we as a group act professionally. In a survival situation, nobody will have a problem with a member using whatever cover he or she can find. The problem that I see in this thread is that members interpret regulations the way they want, and if a member can't even be disciplined enough to follow some basic regulations, how can we expect he or she to follow other regulations where a fellow member's life can be at stake?

Accident happens when a series of minor rules are ignored or bent. I am sure a flight jacket won't crash a plane, but the attitude for the occasional disregard of the rules will. We are civilian volunteers, but that doesn't give us any excuse to act any less professionally. IMHO, uniform wear is part of the image we project to the rest of the world, it would be really easy if the only required uniform item was a baseball cap or something...   

[Eclipse]

Actually it has a lot to do about how we as a group act professionally. In a survival situation, nobody will have a problem with a member using whatever cover he or she can find. The problem that I see in this thread is that members interpret regulations the way they want, and if a member can't even be disciplined enough to follow some basic regulations, how can we expect he or she to follow other regulations where a fellow member's life can be at stake?

Yep - there are people who don't know the difference between "field expedience" and "daily wear" - its the latter that usually causes us the issues, mostly because people "know better".

How many people were constantly in "discussions" before the Gore-Tex jackets were approved because they felt it was a "safety issue" to wear a jacket that wasn't included in our basic kit.

[Dracosbane]

I was trying earlier to put up a post that would give my opinion without sounding like I was picking a fight, or harshing on others about the whole deal. 

FWIW, and my opinion and all that, if I decide to wear a flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and rank with my civilian clothes, well, so be it.  It's my choice, not CAPs.  For the argument leveled already that if the regs don't say you can then you can't, well, my civilian life isn't in the regs.  A piece of uniform does not a uniform make.  We have regulations as members that dictate what we do as members, while being members (i.e. on CAP time).  The 39-1 is silent on the issue.  I'm not about to go putting words in it's mouth (pages?) that don't exist.  There is no way for us as members to "read between the lines" of the regulations.  They're written specifically to dictate exactly what they mean.  Yes, I know they sometimes are wishy-washy and contradictory even unto themselves.  Yes, I know that some things should be re-written to make things more clear.  But as they are now, there's no way you can tell me to follow the regs as they're written if there's nothing written in the regs on the topic at all.  I can't (and won't) follow something that's not there, no matter how many people want it to be there.

Common sense dictates that my flight jacket with a CAP patch, etc., is not my uniform just as any article of clothing (hats, t-shirts, doodads) that has CAP on it is not a uniform.  Any or all of these articles can be worn outside of CAP, and should be worn with pride hopefully promoting CAP giving you a chance to engage the masses and enlighten them to the organization.  Even the patches are available for purchase or trade amongst non-members.  And if a non member decided to wear a patch on a jacket or bag, does that make it a uniform?  Or them a member?  Are they impersonating a member?  An officer?  Should they do something stupid while wearing a CAP patch, does that make CAP liable, or involved?  No, no more than CAP can say "we don't know who they are or why they're displaying our patch".   

Should I do something stupid while wearing something that says CAP, CAP Inc. has the right and the ability to cut all ties, label me a rogue, kick me out and keep their distance from me.  But it's the integrity that I have as a human and a member that would keep me from doing that.

As far as wearing the flight jacket (blue or green, not black leather) with the aviators/polos and grays, the 39-1 does say that the CAP sealed windbreaker or civilian outergarments are authorized only, with the ICL allowing the leather jacket.  Could they be worn with this uniform combination (especially the blue one as it's "distinctive")?  Yes.  These uniforms are allowed while flying just like the green and blue zipper bags.  Wearing the flight jackets with them could be no different than with the bags, even (or especially) if authorized at times other than just flight ops.  Are they allowed?  No.  Should they be allowed?  Probably, especially the blue one.  Why? They're a uniform jacket being worn over a uniform.  What's the difference?  Especially between a flight jacket and a windbreaker with the CAP seal?  I'm not in or out of uniform with those any more than I am with a civilian jacket.

I don't wear one right now, but I'll probably look into getting one.  And I'll wear it with my aviator/polo and grays, and put non CAP patches on it so it'll be civilian, until the regs authorize me wearing CAP patches instead.  My morale patches are cooler than most of the CAP patches anyway.

[Hawk200]

That strikes me as a SMSgt with a little too much time on his hands, and just had to show his tail. If I look at you, and I can tell they aren't uniform pieces, I wouldn't have even given a second look.

Do you use the 3' rule, the 8' rule, or the 25' rule?

You're kidding, right? "Oh, it looks like a uniform from 25 feet away, so you can't wear it." Is that what you truly believe?

Is the BDU jacket or CWU 45 authorized as "civilian outerwear"?

39-1 doesn't give many instances where it defines "civilian outerwear". There are a few, but to go through a list of what is would probably require a reference list the size of a town library.

So they bother to define it for the few, but allow it but do not define it for all the rest???

Once again, I have to ask: You're kidding right? You honestly want every single piece of existing clothing defined as either uniform or not? Really?

[MikeD]

I live with some great "fabric arts" people, so I have a wonderful variety of velcro "morale patches" that I wear on my A2, including logos for my favorite sports teams, etc.

I keep the CAP stuff in the pocket, and just wear the other stuff.  It's amazing how often I am asked "where can I get one of those team jackets" or something similar.

Can they make some Steelers patches, and are they available to help out on some work patches?

[Hawk200]

FWIW, and my opinion and all that, if I decide to wear a flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and rank with my civilian clothes, well, so be it.  It's my choice, not CAPs.

It's CAP's choice what you're allowed to do with their uniforms. Wearing it whenever you want may be your personal choice, but it's wrong.

For the argument leveled already that if the regs don't say you can then you can't, well, my civilian life isn't in the regs.

True, but you make a point of this later.

A piece of uniform does not a uniform make.

There are differences in opinion on what constitutes a uniform piece. But wearing a properly configured piece of uniform in an inappropriate manner is disrespectful to the uniform. You may not agree, but agreement or disagreement doesn't alter the facts.

We have regulations as members that dictate what we do as members, while being members (i.e. on CAP time).  The 39-1 is silent on the issue.

It's not silent at all on it. You're choosing to call it silent so you can do whatever you feel like. 39-1 says if you're conducting CAP you will wear a uniform that is established in that manual. It shouldn't have to say "If you're not conducting CAP business, you don't wear a uniform".

Children use this kind of logic all the time: "You only said I couldn't do this!, you didn't say I couldn't do that".

I'm not about to go putting words in it's mouth (pages?) that don't exist.

You're focusing on what doesn't exist, and taking it as allowed since it's not specifically forbidden.

There is no way for us as members to "read between the lines" of the regulations.  They're written specifically to dictate exactly what they mean.

Yes, they are. So following it as written is the best policy. If there is something contradictory, then you request clarification. Pubs are written at a much higher level than the individual, it's not up to an individual to just discard what they don't feel like following.

I can't (and won't) follow something that's not there, no matter how many people want it to be there.

It's not a case of following something that's "not there". It's a case of you deciding to do whatever you wish when something isn't specifically mentioned.

Many people believe that "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission". Problem is that people think they're entitled to the forgiveness. You won't always get it.

Common sense dictates that my flight jacket with a CAP patch, etc., is not my uniform just as any article of clothing (hats, t-shirts, doodads) that has CAP on it is not a uniform.  Any or all of these articles can be worn outside of CAP, and should be worn with pride hopefully promoting CAP giving you a chance to engage the masses and enlighten them to the organization. Even the patches are available for purchase or trade amongst non-members.  And if a non member decided to wear a patch on a jacket or bag, does that make it a uniform?  Or them a member?  Are they impersonating a member?  An officer?  Should they do something stupid while wearing a CAP patch, does that make CAP liable, or involved?  No, no more than CAP can say "we don't know who they are or why they're displaying our patch".

Patches and insignia aren't "booster club" items to be done with as someone wishes. Any insignia designated as part of a uniform is to be worn properly by current members. It's not meant to be worn as "conversation pieces", or "recruiting material".

As to anyone just wearing them, there are directives out there concerning inappropriate wear. And anyone's action that creates problems while wearing insignia that indicates a membership claim (whether they intend it or not) is actually legally actionable.

Should I do something stupid while wearing something that says CAP, CAP Inc. has the right and the ability to cut all ties, label me a rogue, kick me out and keep their distance from me.  But it's the integrity that I have as a human and a member that would keep me from doing that.

Some might question that, since you choose to do as you wish.

I don't wear one right now, but I'll probably look into getting one.  And I'll wear it with my aviator/polo and grays, and put non CAP patches on it so it'll be civilian, until the regs authorize me wearing CAP patches instead.  My morale patches are cooler than most of the CAP patches anyway.

If your morale patches are so much cooler, why bother keeping the CAP ones? CAP is not going to authorize uniform items with civvies. Do you really not have the thirty seconds it takes to just change them out with your "so much cooler" patches?

If you're so concerned about the "I paid for it" aspect, then take it off your taxes and only wear the items in a proper manner.

If you want attention, find a better way to get it. Just because things are shown in the movies, it doesn't make you "cool" because you do the same thing. There's a word for that.

[Flying Pig]

I have a green nomex flight jacket that I wear my CAP black leather name patch on with no other CAP patches.  Looks good.  And people ask me what the wings are from.  I then begin explaining CAP to them.  You can all burn me at the steak at the next Wing Conference.  I could wear my Sheriff wings, but our wings are the gold badge with wings coming out of them.  A kid has to have something to wear instead of a blank piece of velcro.

A commander leading by example with a partial uniform only because it looks good?
Sir, you are joking, right? Too often I fail to catch the sarcasm here at CT...

Nope, not joking.  I guess Im a failure as a leader. 

[Short Field]

You're kidding, right? "Oh, it looks like a uniform from 25 feet away, so you can't wear it." Is that what you truly believe?

That is the whole crux of the USAF-Style uniform issues:  How close do you have to be to tell if a person is a USAF Officer or a CAP Officer.

Once again, I have to ask: You're kidding right? You honestly want every single piece of existing clothing defined as either uniform or not? Really?

No, but you seem to want every piece of existing clothing defined as either unifrom or not.  CAP has defined uniform items for wear with civilian clothing.  You want to believe that it is simply a oversight that the uniform item YOU want to wear as civilian clothing is not authorized.

[heliodoc]

Failure as leader, Rob?

No way!  CAP could use a few more helo types

[Short Field]

General U.S. Grant had a slight problem with wiskey...seems to have been there to win the Civil War. 

So he won battles because he was an alcoholic - or despite being an alcoholic?  Sorry, I don't think that would justify our ICs, GTLs, and MPs drinking on a mission.

General MacArthur was not in proper U.S. Army uniform wearing what I assume was a Phillipino Field Marshall's Uniform for the duration of WWII...yet "he did return." 

Take a look at the military regs on how far 3 & 4 stars can go to "personalize" their uniforms.  They had even more leeway prior to the Korean War. 

I would imagine that a person who forgot a little thing...like putting the proper creamer in their coffee by mistake...might just be trusted enough to fly a mission in a B-52s later that day.

We are not talking a mistake, we are talking a deliberate disregard of regulations simply for a personal preference.

The moral of this above rant...wearing a jacket with civian clothes has more to do with how cold it might be outside as than to how trustworthy a pilot, ground team, commander or the like might be. 

Wearing a military jacket with civilian clothes due to cold when you forgot your civilian jacket doesn't show how trustworthy you are - wearing it all the time because you like how it looks does reflect on your values.   Please tell me which regulations you have told your squadron members  they can ignore and which ones they have to follow.  I missed that class and would like to know.

[Major Carrales]

Please tell me which regulations you have told your squadron members  they can ignore and which ones they have to follow.  I missed that class and would like to know.

Your insult is beneath you.  The way you seem to have paintakenly replied to a "throw away" posting like the one I made shows that you have taken this to some personal level.  Heliodoc is correct, some people here do take it (uniform discussions) way beyond the point of reason on into the realm of the ridiculous.

It is plainly stupid to assume that because someone wore something, for what ever reason, they will not follow regulations simply based on that. 

Incredulous postings when none, few or only an incomplete smattering of the facts are known are the most sincere from of stupidity....as in everyone here should know better than to do it.

You would have to...
1) prove someone constantally wore some uniform item in direct violation of regulations showing a pattern of misuse,  isolated photographs taken out of context wouldn't count...

2) Present actual evidence that other CAP Regulations have been violated...

3) Develop a link between the two based on psycological tendencies...proving clinically that a person had a pathological disregard for following rules and regulations.

Unless you can do this making the statement you did is more of slander and libel (or down right opinion) rather than any form of fact.

As for MacArthur, I have studied the man and his papers. He was customizing his uniforms going back to his days at VMI, WEST POINT, WWII and on into WWII.  Even taking out the gromet in his service cap inventing the "crush cap."

So called "morale patches," improperly worn flight caps, boonie caps and a host of other things are worn system wide in CAP by persons doing the lion's share of work around here and you would dishonor their "by the book service" because they may or may not have worn a flight jacket with civilian clothes.   Poor...very poor indeed.

[Hawk200]

You're kidding, right? "Oh, it looks like a uniform from 25 feet away, so you can't wear it." Is that what you truly believe?

That is the whole crux of the USAF-Style uniform issues:  How close do you have to be to tell if a person is a USAF Officer or a CAP Officer.

The amount of distance to tell whether someone is an officer or not is a lot less than the distance needed to tell if they're in an actual uniform, and not an outfit that just has similar colors. That's a fail.

Once again, I have to ask: You're kidding right? You honestly want every single piece of existing clothing defined as either uniform or not? Really?

No, but you seem to want every piece of existing clothing defined as either unifrom or not.  CAP has defined uniform items for wear with civilian clothing.  You want to believe that it is simply a oversight that the uniform item YOU want to wear as civilian clothing is not authorized.

Completely wrong. Uniform items are designated in the manual. You're the one pushing that any flight jacket is a uniform item, and everything must be designated as either "uniform" or "civilian clothing" in the manual.

To be a uniform item, a flight jacket must have the designated insignia (leather nameplate, CAP seal, rank insignia, flag). It's not a uniform item if it doesn't have any of those items. It's a pretty simple concept. If you're not wearing all the required insignia, then it's an incomplete uniform item, but still a uniform item.

When it comes to utility uniforms, if there are no insignia on it whatsoever, it's not a uniform, uniform item, or even a piece of one.

[SarDragon]

WIWOAD, if it was a clothing item that we wore as a uniform part, then its wear off-duty with civilian clothes was restricted or forbidden. Certain outerwear items had no restriction, like the raincoat and the lightweight jacket, both sans insignia. Organizational items, including, and specifically, flight jackets, were in the forbidden category.

[Dracosbane]

And again, I have to point out that we are not active duty military.  We are not subject to the UCMJ nor big brother blue's manuals, we are subject to the CAP manuals as they are written.  The 39-1 does not state that articles of clothing with CAP seals, insignia, patches, or other identifying marks are in fact a uniform, except as part of a whole uniform as described within and in the ICLs.

I have an old encampment shirt with the CAP seal and the word CADRE on the back.  I could (or used to when it fit) wear it either under my BDUs as part of my uniform, making it a uniform piece, or with a pair of jeans as a civvie shirt.  It, in and of itself, is not a uniform, however, it does show something decidedly CAP.  Same with my old encampment hat from my first encampment that I still have and still wear, both in and out of uniform.  It is an authorized uniform piece, and yet is still not a uniform.  I am in no way violating the 39-1 by wearing these items. 

The flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and insignia is not a uniform.  It is no more than a piece of a uniform than my hat or shirt.  I am not out of uniform by wearing it with civilian clothes, because I'm not wearing a uniform.  I would be out of uniform if I wore a USAF flight suit with flight jacket without proper patches, badges, insignia, rank, etc.  I would be out of uniform if I wore a flight jacket with the aviator/polo and grays, unless it were either stripped clean or with civilian or morale patches attached.

CAPR 39-1, especially Table 1-1, does not have any statement about what items are or are not authorized for wear with civilian clothes.  It does define several instances where the wear of a uniform (i.e. a complete 100% by the book uniform, not parts) is and is not allowed.  Specifically that one should not wear a uniform under any circumstance that would bring discredit or reproach upon the uniform.  You would be very hard pressed to define just wearing a flight jacket while wearing civvies as bringing discredit or reproach.  Committing a crime, or attempting to pass yourself off as something you're not, that might do it, but wearing it to the store or taking a walk or being a normal, upstanding, honorable human being who represents the core values of CAP won't.

As far as the 39-1 being silent on the issue, there cannot be an implied prohibition, simply by omission.  As there is no statement to either the positive or the negative as to the wear of uniform items outside of CAP, there cannot be a regulation to follow or ignore.  To believe that there is a violation of a non-existent regulation means you are putting a regulation in place where there is none. 

Again, a piece of a uniform is not a complete uniform, nor can it be considered a uniform.  It is only a part of a whole.

And why wouldn't anything connected with CAP be a possible point of recruiting or conversation starter?  How do you recruit when you're out of uniform and not on CAP time? 

Oh, and Hawk, thank you for taking those last two pieces you quoted and completely ignoring what I said, making your own context, adding something that wasn't there and attempting to insult me, twice.  I will continue to do as I wish outside of CAP and it's regulations while not acting as a member of CAP.  That's the lovely part of not being active duty military and being a volunteer.  I am not a hostage, nor am I subject to CAP regulations 24/7/365.  Especially when no regulation exists, meaning no regulation can be violated.  In those last section of quotes you used, not only did you not see that I said where I would be following the exact letter of the regulation if I were to buy a flight jacket, you accuse me of something that I in no way, shape or form implied, inferred or outright said was the reason for my opinion anywhere in my previous posting.

[Hawk200]

And again, I have to point out that we are not active duty military.  We are not subject to the UCMJ nor big brother blue's manuals, we are subject to the CAP manuals as they are written.  The 39-1 does not state that articles of clothing with CAP seals, insignia, patches, or other identifying marks are in fact a uniform, except as part of a whole uniform as described within and in the ICLs.

Therein lies your problem. "I'm not in the military, I'll do as I please". Up to you, but don't whine when there are consequences to you actions.

I have an old encampment shirt with the CAP seal and the word CADRE on the back.  I could (or used to when it fit) wear it either under my BDUs as part of my uniform, making it a uniform piece, or with a pair of jeans as a civvie shirt.  It, in and of itself, is not a uniform, however, it does show something decidedly CAP.  Same with my old encampment hat from my first encampment that I still have and still wear, both in and out of uniform.  It is an authorized uniform piece, and yet is still not a uniform.  I am in no way violating the 39-1 by wearing these items. 

Agreed.

The flight jacket with CAP patches, name badge and insignia is not a uniform.  It is no more than a piece of a uniform than my hat or shirt.  I am not out of uniform by wearing it with civilian clothes, because I'm not wearing a uniform.  I would be out of uniform if I wore a USAF flight suit with flight jacket without proper patches, badges, insignia, rank, etc.

Strange logic: If it isn't worn properly as an ensemble it's not a proper uniform, but pieces with proper insignia can be worn with whatever you like.

I would be out of uniform if I wore a flight jacket with the aviator/polo and grays, unless it were either stripped clean or with civilian or morale patches attached.

I would agree.

CAPR 39-1, especially Table 1-1, does not have any statement about what items are or are not authorized for wear with civilian clothes.  It does define several instances where the wear of a uniform (i.e. a complete 100% by the book uniform, not parts) is and is not allowed.  Specifically that one should not wear a uniform under any circumstance that would bring discredit or reproach upon the uniform.  You would be very hard pressed to define just wearing a flight jacket while wearing civvies as bringing discredit or reproach.  Committing a crime, or attempting to pass yourself off as something you're not, that might do it, but wearing it to the store or taking a walk or being a normal, upstanding, honorable human being who represents the core values of CAP won't.

As far as the 39-1 being silent on the issue, there cannot be an implied prohibition, simply by omission.  As there is no statement to either the positive or the negative as to the wear of uniform items outside of CAP, there cannot be a regulation to follow or ignore.  To believe that there is a violation of a non-existent regulation means you are putting a regulation in place where there is none.

I've stated this before, if the reg does not say you can, then it is not authorized. It's not that there isn't an implied prohibition, it's that there is not an expressed allowance. That's the difference. You're demanding a specific prohibition, but it doesn't work that way.

From 39-1, para 1-1. Policy: "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY. Any variation from this publication is not authorized. Items not listed in this publication are not authorized for wear."

There may not be a specific prohibition that says "You can't wear this with that', but you are violating the above policy.

Again, a piece of a uniform is not a complete uniform, nor can it be considered a uniform.  It is only a part of a whole.

It's wearing pieces of a uniform in a manner not specified in the manual. See above.

And why wouldn't anything connected with CAP be a possible point of recruiting or conversation starter?

Calling it recruiting or a conversation starter does not justify it. A uniform associates you with a group or organization, it's not a billboard. 

How do you recruit when you're out of uniform and not on CAP time?

I've been doing it for years. When someone mentions an interest that coincides with CAP programs, you talk them about it, invite them. Not everyone is going to join CAP, or even be interested in it. Simply pushing it on everyone you meet isn't going to work. I've recruited a few dozen people over the years, and wasn't in a CAP uniform the first few, or even first several times, that I initially talked to them about it.

Oh, and Hawk, thank you for taking those last two pieces you quoted and completely ignoring what I said, making your own context, adding something that wasn't there and attempting to insult me, twice.  I will continue to do as I wish outside of CAP and it's regulations while not acting as a member of CAP.  That's the lovely part of not being active duty military and being a volunteer.  I am not a hostage, nor am I subject to CAP regulations 24/7/365.  Especially when no regulation exists, meaning no regulation can be violated.  In those last section of quotes you used, not only did you not see that I said where I would be following the exact letter of the regulation if I were to buy a flight jacket, you accuse me of something that I in no way, shape or form implied, inferred or outright said was the reason for my opinion anywhere in my previous posting.

I addressed specific points, and in this above paragraph, you again indicate that you will do as you please. Regs apply all the time when it comes to CAP business. You are rationalizing your willful non-compliance with "I'm not military, so I don't have to follow rules all the time".

You may somehow think that I'm somehow not allowed to make a judgement on your actions or your thoughts. In that you're wrong, I will consider your actions a violation of integrity, and of non-compliance.

I mentioned the child logic before that I see, and you aren't the first I've seen it, you won't be the last. In that case, you're nothing unique, just one example of a continuing problem.

You'll do as you see fit. Just don't whine about it when you suffer for your actions.

[Eclipse]

Everything we wear as a uniform - from golf shirt to mess dress, is just "cloth", and most of it, especially the stuff closer to the center (BDU's, flight jackets, etc.) is worn by millions everyday in a civilian setting with no consequence or ramifications because those people are neither military nor affiliated with an organization that utilizes these articles of clothing as a "uniform".

But the minute you sign up for an organization that views said articles as part of their organizational identity, the rules change, and while you can stamp your feet about the "law", that won't change whether said organization can impart internal ramifications upon you if you act like a goober or don't respect the rules (whatever they are).

Everything CAP defines as a uniform, is just that, a uniform, and as long as you're carrying a CAP ID card, and care about your CAP career, every piece needs to be worn (or not) as prescribed.  Whether or not the sky will fall because of a given minor transgression is irrelevant to the conversation.  I have a closet full of clothes that I purchased at my personal option which are uniforms in the CAP sense, and that I would not consider wearing outside a CAP context. Period.

People will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify behavior which may be convenient or "not a big deal" or "who cares?" when they know that ultimately they should not be doing it.

Generally, if you're questioning whether it should be done, it shouldn't.

[Hawk200]

Well said.

[vmstan]

Indeed.

If you want others to respect you in your uniform, you have to start by respecting the uniform itself and rules regulating its use.

[Dracosbane]

Again, I am going to reiterate the most important sentence from my previous two postings.  I will follow the regulations as they are written if and when I do buy a flight jacket, or with any piece of uniform items in my possession.  Neither my integrity nor my character are in question, nor do they need undue or unnecessary assassination, ridicule, or petty insults.  You have done thus now twice, without provocation due to a disagreement in opinion.  I have not made this personal, and neither should you.

Because everything else is my opinion, it's not "child logic" nor is it "mental gymnastics" in order to bend everything to my will.  I know what the manual reads and does not read.  My opinion is exactly that.  An opinion.  It is not law, regulation, decree, nor demand.  I was not, nor am I now, stating that my opinion should be enacted as the regulations because I want them to be. 

And yes, I do, as does everyone else who is a member, have the right to do as I please outside of CAP, ID card in my wallet or not.  CAP does not regulate my life unless and until I put on that uniform and/or I am acting on behalf of CAP.  If I saw you on the street in an everyday setting, neither one of us would be able to pick out which of us is a CAP member by sight alone, barring some identifying mark (or by giving the secret squirrel handshake   ).  Therefore, I am not bound by CAP regulations.  I can carry a weapon (verboten in CAP, and just one example).  I can and should separate CAP and Real Life.

*the previous words and postings like it are my opinion and my opinion alone, and should not be construed as the opinion of any regulation or any other member of CAP, Inc., nor are they any more than one man's thoughts on any given subject.  YMMV*

[LeoBurke]

I was taught if they can't trust you with the little stuff, how could they trust you with the important stuff?

Interesting thought.  I was taught that "Her majesty made you a Major not because you know how to obey orders, but because you know when not to obey orders."

By extension, I believe that intelligent people can still decide which orders/regulations are the "really important ones".  Like wearing a warm enough jacket for the weather conditions vs say freezing.   

The Gen McArthur example was spot on.  The guy made up lots of his own rules and ignored some others, because he was working on the important stuff.

[Short Field]

By extension, I believe that intelligent people can still decide which orders/regulations are the "really important ones".  Like wearing a warm enough jacket for the weather conditions vs say freezing. 

As much as some people want to make this about being smart enough to wear a warm jacket instead of freezing - it is about following the rules that CAP sets out.  As mentioned earlier, field expediency is different than routine wear.   I have not been talking about field expediency. 

The Gen McArthur example was spot on.  The guy made up lots of his own rules and ignored some others, because he was working on the important stuff.

So Truman finally fired him.  And do we really want our members to be making up their own rules and ignoring others because they are working on more important stuff?

[Short Field]

Please tell me which regulations you have told your squadron members  they can ignore and which ones they have to follow.  I missed that class and would like to know.

Your insult is beneath you.  The way you seem to have paintakenly replied to a "throw away" posting like the one I made shows that you have taken this to some personal level. 

Sorry, I missed whatever it was that showed it was a "throw away" posting.

It is plainly stupid to assume that because someone wore something, for what ever reason, they will not follow regulations simply based on that. 

So I should assume that because they are demonstrating they don't want to follow some regulations, that they would follow other ones? 

[Hawk200]

The Gen McArthur example was spot on.  The guy made up lots of his own rules and ignored some others, because he was working on the important stuff.

It is amazing how society puts people like this on a pedestal as the example of great leadership; but always fail to consider is the fact that if everyone did the same thing, the chaos would be unimaginable.

They also seem to think that because McArthur and others did it, that they too will be a gift or supreme example to the world in how to do things.

McArthur was a great man, I won't dispute that. I'll also point out that many people in prison today have the same type of drive and ego. It is arrogance to justify willful non-compliance with McArthur's career when you have more in common with a common criminal.

[Major Carrales]

So I should assume that because they are demonstrating they don't want to follow some regulations, that they would follow other ones?

No, you should judge their "flying" activities as per CAPR 60-1 and their "emergency service" activities based on CAPR 60-3 and you should judge their "uniform issues" based on CAPM 39-1.

You compare APPLES to APPLES and ORANGES to ORANGES, hold people to the standard based on the REG or MANUAL you are dealing with and don't hold "the barber" responsible for the cutting of "the fabric" in the store across the way.

If you really have issues with people wearing "flight jackets" because they are "uniforms" and that they must be "criminals" and flagrant reg breakers because of it, then you need to issue as CAPF 2b to those individuals or report them to the IG.  Let National sort out your issue and you will find that the absolutes you are attempting to deal in are not in the realm of reality.

Logic is an interesting exercise...

A Goat has a beard
Plato has a beard
Plato is a goat.

Obviously Plato was not a goat.

By the same tolken...

Man wears a flight jacket with golf shirt,
Wearing a Flight jacket with a golf shirt is against the rules,
Stealing an CAP aircraft is against the rules,
Man MUST be stealing an aircraft.

Sorry, your assertion is bogus...

[Pumbaa]

Sparky YOU stole an aircraft?