What is the story on the grey pants for polo shirt?

[Blues Brother]

what is the story on the grey pants criteria?   I have a blue CAP polo from VG for meetings and need some grey pants.   There is really no clearly defined rule as to what type of pants are approved for uniform.   dress pants? pleats? no pleats? work pants?  cargo pants? BDUs? tactical pants?    whats the scoop on this?   what is generally accepted?  or does anything go as long as its grey and pants?

[Eclipse]

The only official, published prescription is what is found in 39-1, as long as your pant meet that description, you're good.

Word is that NHQ will be clarifying the definition, but nothing has come out through any official channel.

[RickRutledge]

Check the knowledge base. There is a color shade chart they will provide as clarification.

http://capnhq.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/946/kw/Grey%20Pant%20Shade/session/L3RpbWUvMTM1MDg0OTA0Mi9zaWQvWEJ4NWppOWw%3D

[coudano]

I generally aim to get somewhere in the neighborhood of the shade of the epaulets and name plate, hedging toward darker.

[capmaj]

RUUUNNNNNN!!!!!!

[lordmonar]

what is the story on the grey pants criteria?   I have a blue CAP polo from VG for meetings and need some grey pants.   There is really no clearly defined rule as to what type of pants are approved for uniform.   dress pants? pleats? no pleats? work pants?  cargo pants? BDUs? tactical pants?    whats the scoop on this?   what is generally accepted?  or does anything go as long as its grey and pants?

Gray.
Pants.

Beyond that is is a judgement call that MUST be routed through your chain of command because our opinions don't matter and don't count.

[cadettim]

Last month I found that walmart had a very reasonable deal on these "gray uniform pants."

Now, whether they were a "medium gray," "light gray," or "charcoal," I don't know/care. They do the job and they were less than $25

[Blues Brother]

RUUUNNNNNN!!!!!!

Run?  from what?   

[Blues Brother]

what is the story on the grey pants criteria?   I have a blue CAP polo from VG for meetings and need some grey pants.   There is really no clearly defined rule as to what type of pants are approved for uniform.   dress pants? pleats? no pleats? work pants?  cargo pants? BDUs? tactical pants?    whats the scoop on this?   what is generally accepted?  or does anything go as long as its grey and pants?

Gray.
Pants.

Beyond that is is a judgement call that MUST be routed through your chain of command because our opinions don't matter and don't count.

well thats pretty general description.  I would like to wear Grey BDU's simply because they are comfortable and durable.   I wear them for flying outside of CAP and if I was to fly after a meeting, I wouldnt need to change into a flight suit.  I could just fly in the grey BDUs.   I like having the pockets too.     Does anyone wear Grey BDU's with their CAP polo/golf style shirt? 

[VNY]

Does anyone wear Grey BDU's with their CAP polo/golf style shirt?

I do for field use.  Some state in the midwest actually standardized those.

If you look at the description for polo shirt pants in 39-1 and then go to the Dickies site and look at the description for 874 pants in charcoal grey - its identical.  Cut, color, and even fabric. Like they wanted to say "grey dickies" in the reg but could not as it was a brand name.

[Cool Mace]

Word is that NHQ will be clarifying the definition, but nothing has come out through any official channel.

This just means VG will be getting more of our money.

[lordmonar]

Word is that NHQ will be clarifying the definition, but nothing has come out through any official channel.

This just means VG will be getting more of our money.

What exactly is wrong with that?

[Eclipse]

Word is that NHQ will be clarifying the definition, but nothing has come out through any official channel.

This just means VG will be getting more of our money.

What exactly is wrong with that?

I guess I'd have to agree with the above sentiment, but further, there's been no indication that the clarification will
result in any requirement that the be purchased from any specific source.

[bflynn]

This just means VG will be getting more of our money.

What exactly is wrong with that?

It's less money that I have.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really feeling pinched these days.  The last thing I want to do is go pay $65 for a $25 pair of pants.

Note - the above isn't meant to be political, it's just what is.  My household budget is 125% of what it was 6 years ago, our new car payment is going to be 160% of what it was 5 years ago, our electric bill is over 200% higher and there is less discretionary spending.

I don't want to be spending anythign extra for a pair of trousers I wear twice a month.

[Cool Mace]

What's wrong with that? What bflynn said.

I can go to wally-world and par $20, or spend $50 from VG.

What's the difference? Cost. Granted, it would then be uniform. But HQ could easily put out what shade it needs to be, and we can buy it from where ever it's available. 

[Eclipse]

Who said you can't?

[Cool Mace]

Who said you can't?

Right now, no one.

But I would imagine they would go to VG as a supplier Yes, I know this may not happen. And probably just getting ahead of myself like so many of us do.

[Blues Brother]

This just means VG will be getting more of our money.

What exactly is wrong with that?

I don't want to be spending anythign extra for a pair of trousers I wear twice a month.

I hear ya.  thats my thing feelings,  thats why I would like to wear the grey BDU's I already have.  I just like the practicality of wearing them.  they are comfy and durable, and priced decently.  plus light and cool in the summer when you cant wear shorts because you need to be in uniform.

[lordmonar]

Here is the funny thing.

IF......IF........CAP mandates that we all go to the same gray slacks.....and IF vanguard becomes the sole supplier.

a) It is an optional uniform....you don't have to buy it.
b) It will have a phase in date from hell!
c) You automatically assume it will be a god aweful price.
d) It is a little late to be complaining about the costs of CAP!  If $60 pair of pants that should last you 5-6 years is going to kill you....how are you affording the $70/year CAP dues now!?

I'm sorry....I am just getting a little tired of all the Vanguard bashing.

[a2capt]

Even if the Big V does stock something. It's not like it's going to be them as the only source for it. You can buy every clothing item that they sell, from other sources.  Just buy the same thing for your favorite venue.

[Private Investigator]

It's less money that I have.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really feeling pinched these days.  The last thing I want to do is go pay $65 for a $25 pair of pants.

Note - the above isn't meant to be political, it's just what is.  My household budget is 125% of what it was 6 years ago, our new car payment is going to be 160% of what it was 5 years ago, our electric bill is over 200% higher and there is less discretionary spending.

I don't want to be spending anythign extra for a pair of trousers I wear twice a month.

+100%

I feel bad that good members have to let their memberships go because of the economy.   

[VNY]

But HQ could easily put out what shade it needs to be, and we can buy it from where ever it's available.

They have.  Its commonly referred to as "Charcoal Grey".  Dickies come in that color, and the grey BDU pants from Propper or BDU.com are that color as well.  If you wanted to pick a shade thats relatively easy to find and match - thats it.

[Grumpy]

what is the story on the grey pants criteria?   I have a blue CAP polo from VG for meetings and need some grey pants.   There is really no clearly defined rule as to what type of pants are approved for uniform.   dress pants? pleats? no pleats? work pants?  cargo pants? BDUs? tactical pants?    whats the scoop on this?   what is generally accepted?  or does anything go as long as its grey and pants?

Reference:  CAPM 39-1, page 80, Table 4-1

Commercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or
similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats,
with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill
fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching
at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.

What is not clear?  Another solution would be for everybody to purchase the trousers from the same vender.

[VNY]

Reference:  CAPM 39-1, page 80, Table 4-1

Commercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or
similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats,
with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill
fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching
at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.

What is not clear?  Another solution would be for everybody to purchase the trousers from the same vender.

There are actually TWO sets of standards for the grey pants: the standards above are for the aviator uniform and blazer.  For the polo shirt the fabric choices increase and cotton twill IS authorized (hence my refrence to Dickies).  The style and cut are the same though.

Pants with additional pockets, cargo, tac pants or whatever are not OK.  Such are commonly worn - but by the letter of the regulation are not authorized.

[Blues Brother]

Reference:  CAPM 39-1, page 80, Table 4-1

Commercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or
similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats,
with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill
fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching
at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.

What is not clear?  Another solution would be for everybody to purchase the trousers from the same vender.

There are actually TWO sets of standards for the grey pants: the standards above are for the aviator uniform and blazer.  For the polo shirt the fabric choices increase and cotton twill IS authorized (hence my refrence to Dickies).  The style and cut are the same though.

Pants with additional pockets, cargo, tac pants or whatever are not OK.  Such are commonly worn - but by the letter of the regulation are not authorized.

I hear ya,  I have been on some XC flights (before joining CAP) and seeing variations on the polo & grey pants combo at different airports I saw CAP members.   I have seen everything from dockers,  dickies, cargo pants, BDUs, depending on what airport I was at.   just seems to be alot of variation on it.   they all looked nice and neat, just different pants.  I didnt see a big problem with it.   I think some people get too wound up over the grey pants thing.   I can understand the more formal uniforms being specific, but I think people need to keep practicality in mind too.

[Eclipse]

Pants with additional pockets, cargo, tac pants or whatever are not OK.  Such are commonly worn - but by the letter of the regulation are not authorized.

Really?

Hm...39-1 disagrees.

"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)." 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I've never seen legitimate slacks/trousers with cargo pockets...

[Eclipse]

I've never seen legitimate slacks/trousers with cargo pockets...

trousers  
Origin
trou·sers   [trou-zerz]  Show IPA
noun ( used with a plural verb )
1.
Sometimes, trouser. Also called pants. a usually loose-fitting outer garment for the lower part of the body, having individual leg portions that reach typically to the ankle but sometimes to any of various other points from the upper leg down. Compare Bermuda shorts, breeches, knickers ( def. 1 ) , short ( def. 29a ) , slacks.

That's all it means, any other interpretation is because of a bias.

[SarDragon]

Here are all three 39-1 entries for men's CAP distinctive uniform trousers:

Blazer:
Commercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.

Aviator shirt:
Commercial dress slacks/trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. (No jeans or casual slacks.) No bunching at waist or bagging at seat.

Golf shirt:
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).

[Eclipse]

No bunching at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.

Wow.

[RiverAux]

Information is floating about in our wing that national made some change to the gray pants authorization but no specifics have been put out.  I speculate this has to to do with cargo pockets, but could be wrong. 

[a2capt]

^^ ..and then we have members of the NUC saying that no such thing was done.

Maybe a region commander made a modified uniform for one event and it spilled over, like what happened one year with the PCR conference and an alternate color pants being specified for the golf shirt, and that was just for the conference. All of a sudden it was spotted at several CAWG events, "well, they approve this".. 

Oh yeah? "cite please".

[Private Investigator]

But HQ could easily put out what shade it needs to be, and we can buy it from where ever it's available.

They have.  Its commonly referred to as "Charcoal Grey".  Dickies come in that color, and the grey BDU pants from Propper or BDU.com are that color as well.  If you wanted to pick a shade thats relatively easy to find and match - thats it.

I got grey BDU pants from Propper. I have seen members wear them and they would be good for work details.

[Blues Brother]

But HQ could easily put out what shade it needs to be, and we can buy it from where ever it's available.

They have.  Its commonly referred to as "Charcoal Grey".  Dickies come in that color, and the grey BDU pants from Propper or BDU.com are that color as well.  If you wanted to pick a shade thats relatively easy to find and match - thats it.

I got grey BDU pants from Propper. I have seen members wear them and they would be good for work details.

thats what I was thinking.   They just work.  they make sense to me.   Especially when they already wear Blue or Camo BDUs...... it makes perfect sense to allow grey BDUs with the polo.   

[Blues Brother]

Here are all three 39-1 entries for men's CAP distinctive uniform trousers:
Golf shirt:
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).

If we get technical, this really does not exclude cargo pants or BDUs.  they are not jeans.  thats they only thing it specifies are not authorized.  it does not exclude side pockets. it its quite vague.

[RiverAux]

^^ ..and then we have members of the NUC saying that no such thing was done.

Maybe a region commander made a modified uniform for one event and it spilled over, like what happened one year with the PCR conference and an alternate color pants being specified for the golf shirt, and that was just for the conference. All of a sudden it was spotted at several CAWG events, "well, they approve this".. 

Oh yeah? "cite please".

What can I say other than it was put out in an official email by the guy who puts out official emails on such changes.  No ICL or Wing supplement was mentioned.  This is the item they mentioned https://www.epropper.com/products/131/productgroup/2/PROPPER%99_Men_s_Tactical_Pant_-_Lightweight.htm

[EMT-83]

What can I say other than it was put out in an official email by the guy who puts out official emails on such changes.  No ICL or Wing supplement was mentioned.  This is the item they mentioned https://www.epropper.com/products/131/productgroup/2/PROPPER%99_Men_s_Tactical_Pant_-_Lightweight.htm

Hmm, isn't that how changes are made?

Even I have an "official" .gov email account that I can use to send out "official" emails.

[Eclipse]

Here are all three 39-1 entries for men's CAP distinctive uniform trousers:
Golf shirt:
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).

If we get technical, this really does not exclude cargo pants or BDUs.  they are not jeans.  thats they only thing it specifies are not authorized.  it does not exclude side pockets. it its quite vague.

It's vague on purpose, just like most of the rest of the corporate variants, to allow people to shop their closets.  The problem is we have too many
people who can't even do that with common sense.

We don't need this to be defined any tighter, in either direction.

[RiverAux]

What can I say other than it was put out in an official email by the guy who puts out official emails on such changes.  No ICL or Wing supplement was mentioned.  This is the item they mentioned https://www.epropper.com/products/131/productgroup/2/PROPPER%99_Men_s_Tactical_Pant_-_Lightweight.htm

Hmm, isn't that how changes are made?

Even I have an "official" .gov email account that I can use to send out "official" emails.

Yes, that is how changes are made which is why I'm still dubious about this one.   However, this isn't the case of some random guy passing along the info.  It was done through official channels....

[vento]

What can I say other than it was put out in an official email by the guy who puts out official emails on such changes.  No ICL or Wing supplement was mentioned.  This is the item they mentioned https://www.epropper.com/products/131/productgroup/2/PROPPER%99_Men_s_Tactical_Pant_-_Lightweight.htm

I actually own a pair of that exact tactical pants from Propper. It is "light" grey at best and quite different than the grey that the majority of our members wear. It doesn't come anywhere close to the color of our epaulets either.

[VNY]

What can I say other than it was put out in an official email by the guy who puts out official emails on such changes.  No ICL or Wing supplement was mentioned.  This is the item they mentioned https://www.epropper.com/products/131/productgroup/2/PROPPER%99_Men_s_Tactical_Pant_-_Lightweight.htm

And it is offered in two different shades of grey.  Uh oh....

[VNY]

I actually own a pair of that exact tactical pants from Propper. It is "light" grey at best and quite different than the grey that the majority of our members wear. It doesn't come anywhere close to the color of our epaulets either.

Me too - and I stopped wearing them because the color seemed so far off.  The "charcoal" version of the same thing seems closer to what it should be that their "grey" version, which is what is usually called "slate" - and a color very difficult to find in a normal pair of pants.

[RiverAux]

What can I say other than it was put out in an official email by the guy who puts out official emails on such changes.  No ICL or Wing supplement was mentioned.  This is the item they mentioned https://www.epropper.com/products/131/productgroup/2/PROPPER%99_Men_s_Tactical_Pant_-_Lightweight.htm

And it is offered in two different shades of grey.  Uh oh....

Actually charcoal gray color code 19 was specified.
Lets me clear, I'm in no way vouching that this supposed change was accurate and that there wasn't some sort of miscommunication along the way, but just stating what has been said is the official word in our wing.

[VNY]

Actually charcoal gray color code 19 was specified. Lets me clear, I'm in no way vouching that this supposed change was accurate and that there wasn't some sort of miscommunication along the way, but just stating what has been said is the official word in our wing.[/quote]

Only problem I see now is that they come from a single source - that isn't Vanguard.  Unless VG buys them from Propper, embroiders a CAP logo on them somewhere and then resells them for twice as much.

[Eeyore]

Only problem I see now is that they come from a single source - that isn't Vanguard.  Unless VG buys them from Propper, embroiders a CAP logo on them somewhere and then resells them for twice as much.

Don't give them any ideas!

[Blues Brother]

Don't give them any ideas!

LOL!!!!     

[Blues Brother]

this will be interesting to see if they approve those TAC pants from propper.   

[a2capt]

What I still find interesting that is that purportedly one wing, maybe more, as published something, that the NUC committee says didn't happen.

Of course, the NUC did a presentation on changes that were made 2 years ago, or something like that, recently, too. With many on here saying that it was news to them.

Something Is Not Right.

[Blues Brother]

Something Is Not Right.

With communications?

[Dracosbane]

I was actually surprised that this hadn't been mentioned here.  I received a packet of information from my commander that he recieved from our WG CC at a recent commander's call. 

This information was from National Board in Aug 2011.  It looks to me like this was a series of proposals making changes to the 39-1.  It doesn't mean this is the final draft that will go into the 39-1, but the changes made were practical and looked to be a lot less confusing.

According to this packet, the wear of "tactical" pants and combat boots with the polo is going to be authorized, not contingent on each other.

The reason I say that this is something that we will probably be seeing in the new manual is because of the wording at the top stating "New Standard as approved by the 2011 Summer National Board."  There is a second column that states "Notable Changes from Prior Standard." 

I also want to note that there is a lot more information that I'm not going to sit here and type.  The information in this packet is only discussing the CAP distinctive uniforms.

I do not feel that bringing this information here is bringing anything to light that shouldn't be, as this was dissemenated down the chain.  I do not have scans of this paperwork to share, but I do have the papers sitting right here next to me.

I'll also say that they are changing the names of the CAP distinctive uniforms.  Nothing drastic, just "Aviator Shirt Combination" instead of "Aviator Shirt with Epaulets Uniform" and the like.  They're increasing the number of badges authorized on the aviator shirt to four.  And they've said that the polo is a working uniform, but is not authorized for field wear where the field uniform is appropriate; it may be worn while flying but is only appropriate when the AF service uniform or aviator shirt should be worn.

[VNY]

According to this packet, the wear of "tactical" pants and combat boots with the polo is going to be authorized, not contingent on each other.

And they've said that the polo is a working uniform, but is not authorized for field wear where the field uniform is appropriate; it may be worn while flying but is only appropriate when the AF service uniform or aviator shirt should be worn.

So... why the tactical pants?

[Dracosbane]

I do not have an explanation.  My guess is because people were asking for this, and they thought it would be acceptable. They also authorized "Chinos" style.

Here's the whole paragraph:

"Trousers/Slacks:  Medium Gray (solid color).  Woll, polyester/wool blend or polyester/cotton trousers.  Either slim, straight leg or loose fit, with or without pleat or cuffs is allowed.  Tactical or "Chinos" style medium gray slacks with or without cuffs are optional.  Shorts are not authorized."

The "notable changes" notes:

"Clarifies the type of fabric authorized for the trousers."
"Authorized "tactical" and "chino" medium gray slacks."

They do not require any specific vendor.

At the bottom of the section, after explaining that we should wear undergarments (no going commando), they make this note:

"Note:  This uniform combination is not authorized as a substitute for the Field Uniform Combination when in the field, but may be worn by flight crews."

[Blues Brother]

This sounds excellent to me.   BDUs are way better than dress slacks IMO if your gonna fly after or before a meeting.    I am looking forward to seeing these changes announced .  Any idea when they will take effect??  so do the tactical pants have to be bloused with combat boots? or just worn regular over the boot like a shoe?

[Garibaldi]

This sounds excellent to me.   BDUs are way better than dress slacks IMO if your gonna fly after or before a meeting.    I am looking forward to seeing these changes announced .  Any idea when they will take effect??  so do the tactical pants have to be bloused with combat boots? or just worn regular over the boot like a shoe?

From what I heard from my wing cc, either or. They look better bloused, IMO.

[Eclipse]

This sounds excellent to me.   BDUs are way better than dress slacks IMO if your gonna fly after or before a meeting.    I am looking forward to seeing these changes announced .  Any idea when they will take effect??  so do the tactical pants have to be bloused with combat boots? or just worn regular over the boot like a shoe?

From what I heard from my wing cc, either or. They look better bloused, IMO.

So then you'll have to also require boots, which aren't even required with the Blue Field Uniform. The bar is creeping high on an issue that didn't even need clarification to start with.

FWIW they do not look better bloused, since they are essentially an office-cut trouser.

[RogueLeader]

This sounds excellent to me.   BDUs are way better than dress slacks IMO if your gonna fly after or before a meeting.    I am looking forward to seeing these changes announced .  Any idea when they will take effect??  so do the tactical pants have to be bloused with combat boots? or just worn regular over the boot like a shoe?

From what I heard from my wing cc, either or. They look better bloused, IMO.

So then you'll have to also require boots, which aren't even required with the Blue Field Uniform. The bar is creeping high on an issue that didn't even need clarification to start with.

FWIW they do not look better bloused, since they are essentially an office-cut trouser.

That's just your NSHO, as he states his is.

[Eclipse]

That's just your NSHO, as he states his is.

Bloused pants with a golf shirt looks ridiculous, and negates the general intention of the uniform which is low-impact dress primarily for
base staff and UDF.

[wuzafuzz]

I'm all for grey BDU or tac pants with the polo shirt.  But blousing pants with the polo shirt would be horrendous...IMHO  IMO.  If this alleged new set of rules bans the polo uniform from field use then the practice of blousing would be completely unnecessary.  Take the grey ones, hem them like slacks, and call it good.

[Dracosbane]

There is not a requirement stated about blousing the tac pants with the boots, because there's not a requirement to wear combat boots with the tac pants.  There's no requirement to blouse with the field uniform currently, or in the new packet.

"Footwear:  Men:  Low quarters:  Black oxford, lace-up style shoes with a plain rounded toe or a plain rounded capped toe, without perforation or design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and the heel will not exceed 1 inch in height (measured from the inside front of the heel), may have low wedge heel, smooth or scotch grained leather or man-made material, high gloss or patent finish.  May not be worn in a flight environment.  Dress Boots:  Black with rounded plain or rounded capped toe, zipper or elastic inserts optional; no design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and shoe heels will not exceed 1 inch in height (measured from the inside front of the heel).  Combat boots:  Black, with or without safety toe, must have a plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without perforated seam, sipper or elastic inserts are optional.  Highly polished, high gloss, or patent leather.  No ornamentation such as buckles or straps allowed."

Notable changes:

"Authorizes the wear of combat boots with this combination."

On another note, there's also authorization for wearing a black woven nylon tac belt with hard plastic buckle. 

There is no statement in this packet about the timetable for adoption of these, or the new manual.   

[Eclipse]

"Authorizes the wear of combat boots with this combination."

They are authorized now.

[Eclipse]

"Footwear:  Men:  Low quarters:  Black oxford, lace-up style shoes with a plain rounded toe or a plain rounded capped toe, without perforation or design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and the heel will not exceed 1 inch in height (measured from the inside front of the heel), may have low wedge heel, smooth or scotch grained leather or man-made material, high gloss or patent finish.  May not be worn in a flight environment.  Dress Boots:  Black with rounded plain or rounded capped toe, zipper or elastic inserts optional; no design; sole will not exceed 1/2 inch in thickness and shoe heels will not exceed 1 inch in height (measured from the inside front of the heel).  Combat boots:  Black, with or without safety toe, must have a plain rounded toe or rounded capped toe with or without perforated seam, sipper or elastic inserts are optional.  Highly polished, high gloss, or patent leather.  No ornamentation such as buckles or straps allowed."

This is the suggested new footwear prescription for the golf shirt with TAC pants?

[Dracosbane]

"Authorizes the wear of combat boots with this combination."

They are authorized now.

Table 4-4 

Footwear:   Men: Black shoes or dress boots (plain, black, commercial design without ornamentation such as buckles or straps) with black or dark blue socks. Women: Either black tailored pumps, plain black oxfords or black leather loafers with off-black hose, neutral nylon hose, dark blue or black socks, as appropriate. Dress boots (plain, black, commercial design without ornamentation such as buckles, bows, or straps) with heels of a height suitable to the individual but not higher than 2 1/2 inches (measured from inside sole of the boot to the end of heel lift).


Yes and no.  What is a dress boot or black shoe?  Do combat boots fit this description?

This is the suggested new footwear prescription for the golf shirt with TAC pants?

My guess is they're wanting something a bit sturdier for flight ops.  Specifically some type of boot since they're only saying the low quarter shoes aren't to be worn in flight ops.  Safety concern perhaps?  Again, they don't say you have to wear boots with the tac pants, or can't wear boots with the Dockers "trousers."

[Eclipse]

There's no requirement now for boots in the airplanes - guys wear dress shows with their flight suits all the time.

[Dracosbane]

"Blue Flight Suit Combination"

"New Standard..."


"Footwear:  Black, plain lace-up oxford style shoes with a plain rounded toe or a plain rounded capped toe or black, plain lace-up boot may be worn.  No western style or mesh style boots are authorized.  Ropers and Wellingtons are acceptable."

"Notable Changes..."

"Clarifies authorized footwear."

I'm not sure why the dress shoe wouldn't be ok with the polo for flight ops.

[Eclipse]

Hopefully if anything is ever published someone will review it for consistency with existing regs.

[Dracosbane]

Or with itself, since that's a huge problem with the current reg too.

[Blues Brother]

If I am going to a meeting and then flying after, TAC pants and combat boots with the polo would be great.  but I can see dress pants and dress shoes with the polo if you are attending a bit more of a formal situation.   I try to be cautious with clothing, but end up being kinda harsh on it.  I mean with flying,  TAC pants and combat boots are better for me personally because with preflighting the plane, etc.... I am bound to screw up a good pair of dress pants and dress shoes.  where TAC pants & boots would be more durable and more comfortable for flight ops.   just my opinion.  I think this is good because it gives us more options to fit what activities we are doing.