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

[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.