Where to find the CAP Regulation for Flight Suits at a SAREX

[Mike W]

I am unable to find where  the CAP Regulation state one as to wear a Flight Suit at a SAREX if you are flight crew. Can someone please show me.

[lordmonar]

What exactly are looking for?

39-1 tells you how to wear it.

[RogueLeader]

I am unable to find where  the CAP Regulation state one as to wear a Flight Suit at a SAREX if you are flight crew. Can someone please show me.

You can, but barring any local requirement, you are not required to do so.  You are allowed to fly in any authorized CAP uniform.  The only restriction is in CAPM 39-1 Section 2-1 para d:

Flight Crew members wearing the green Air Force flight suit may make only essential stops
en route to and from the duty performance site. If a stop is essential, members must meet the proper
standards of neatness, cleanliness, and military image.

[Mike W]

Thank you. I was asked by one of my crew why we have to wear a Flight Suit at the SAREX because he was told it is a CAP regulation and he can't fly as aircrew without one.
I can't find this regulation.
I am very familiar with  39-1, but want to find out where a regulation states that flight suits are mandatory at a SAREX

[jeders]

You may want to check for local (wing/region) supplements to the 60 and 62 series regs.

[RogueLeader]

Now, if said friend is in the Peoples Republic of California,  then yes, by Wing policy, you do have to wear Nomex to fly.  I don't know if ORWG requires a flightsuit or not.  Somebody here can tell you if there is or not.

[lordmonar]

Thank you. I was asked by one of my crew why we have to wear a Flight Suit at the SAREX because he was told it is a CAP regulation and he can't fly as aircrew without one.
I can't find this regulation.
I am very familiar with  39-1, but want to find out where a regulation states that flight suits are mandatory at a SAREX

IIRC PCR had a supp to 60-1 that mandated NOMEX flight suits for all CAP flying....but that is not true any more.  Probably old information.

[Flying Pig]

Ive flown CAP missions in CAWG in jeans and a tshirt many times    May have even worn shorts too, but I may be hallucinating and would never admit to it under oath

[The Infamous Meerkat]

He doesn't HAVE to wear it at a SAREX, he is ALLOWED to on flight ops. You won't find a restriction from national stating he is forced to wear one because he is flight crew. He can be in a couple of other uniforms (such as BDU's and some SM uniforms) if he wishes, but is not restricted to any certain one. If he's on the ground, however, he shouldn't be wearing a flight suit for GT operations, t'would be unseemly in my opinion... 

[lordmonar]

One could argue that you could wear the flight suit on a GT mission.....as the restriction in 39-1 only states "Air Crew Only"......not "Air Crew while performing Flight Operations Only".

Yes this is nit picking.....and yes I agree that Flight Suits (blue or green) or the CAP Utility Uniform (which is not restricted to Flight Crew Only) are inpractical for GT.    Push comes to shove.......getting the mission done is more important than what uniform you wear.....if you "had" to fly you could do it in a Mess Dress....same story for GT....if you "had" to go out on a GT or UDF....or man a mission base position.....you could do it in a flight suit.

We have multiple uniforms (not talking about USAF vs Corporates) so that you can use the best tool for the job........but getting the job done is more important then using the right tool is most cases.

That goes for Flying Pig's comment about not wearing a CAP uniform on a mission........if getting in proper uniform would hinder the mission......then go with it.

[JeffDG]

Flight suits are fantastic for mission base jobs...lots of pockets.

[jeders]

Flight suits are fantastic for mission base jobs...lots of pockets.

Especially the pen pockets.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Then again...

Looking at it from a ground team perspective...

A few weeks I was at a SAREX as a GTM3 trainee. The Ground Team Leader was wearing... a CAP flight suit. The sortie was on a state preserve. He directed all of us ground team members to deploy alongside a trail in the forest. He stayed in the trail. Because as he kept reminding us, he was not dressed for the ground we were to pound. Not even boots... in tick county! Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do..."

Flyer

[vento]

Ive flown CAP missions in CAWG in jeans and a tshirt many times    May have even worn shorts too, but I may be hallucinating and would never admit to it under oath

Ha! You are really pulling our legs. 
Jeans or shorts are only worn when requested by the "customer" and it is regulation. Supposedly Jeans and shorts make us less visible, but we are flying a red white and blue aircraft after all. 

[Eclipse]

Then again...

Looking at it from a ground team perspective...

A few weeks I was at a SAREX as a GTM3 trainee. The Ground Team Leader was wearing... a CAP flight suit. The sortie was on a state preserve. He directed all of us ground team members to deploy alongside a trail in the forest. He stayed in the trail. Because as he kept reminding us, he was not dressed for the ground we were to pound. Not even boots... in tick county! Another case of "Do as I say, not as I do..."

Flyer

Nothing wrong, really with the flight suit / utils for GT, but the GTL doesn't get to bow out if that's what he chooses to wear.
GBD should have made that clear or it should have been discussed in debrief.

[ol'fido]

I have nothing whatsoever to add to this conversation except to say I still miss the days when we called them SARCAPs and SARDAs.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

It may not be restricted, but Flyers GTL story makes that guy out to look like an idiot. I'll leave it up as my personal opinion that it just makes you look like a gomer who wants to be special. Mission base + Flight suit? Definitely, thats a fantastic idea. Comfort and efficiency are key there.

[Walkman]

I could see an instance where someone who is both air & ground qualified shows up at a SAREX in a flightsuit intending to fly, but is asked to be part of a GT sortie to balance out man power issues (too many airdales & not enough ground pounders). Not the best circumstance, but it could happen.

Same thing with mission staff. MIWG sent several aircrews to the Hurricane Sandy mission, but mission base was understaffed when they arrived, so they ended up being Area Command & ABD among other things. I'm sure they flew in green bags, not sure what other uni's they packed.

I wear the same combat boots in my flight suit that I wear with my BDUs.

Just saying', YMMV, yada, yada, yada...

[jeders]

I don't know about Flyer's situation, but I know that every SAREX I go to, I try to fly at least one or two sorties, and so I wear my flight suit at least one day. While I'm waiting to fly I'm usually doing GBD or PSC, so I'm wearing my flight suit while I do that. Occasionally I'll be asked to go out on a GT sortie as an evaluator, and so I wear my flight suit then as well. I'm not going to hold up the whole mission just to change uniform.

[Luis R. Ramos]

My situation?

I just reported on what I have seen in not only this SAREX but I see it on other SAREX as well. And other posters stated happens on their wings.

On other SAREX I have seen some other personnel on ground teams wearing flight suits, as well as on other duties.

Another SAREX I was on as a ground team member, the driver was wearing the flight suit. When we went to pound the ground, the driver stayed by the van taking care of the radio.

It is not that bad a situation. It is a way to maximise personnel. As another person posted, "too many Airedales, too few other qualifications." And like jeders posts, it is a time waster to change uniforms. "No air sortie at this time? I will change to my BDU to go out as a GTM. I arrived from my GTM sortie now, I will change into my flight suit." Who wants/needs to go that way?

In my case, not enough Ground Team Leaders available necessitated an Airedale who was not flying that very second to perform as GTL on that SAREX so we could get out. In my other SAREX, we had no driver except another Airedale that was not flying that instant. I do not think it would have been good use of our time to sit down to spend all that time staring at each other's faces, right?

Flyer

[jeders]

My situation?

I just reported on what I have seen in not only this SAREX but I see it on other SAREX as well. And other posters stated happens on their wings.

Right, I didn't mean "your situation" but rather the situation which you had posted. Yes, it is much better to have a non-flying "Airedale" (I like that, I'm going to use it more often) wear a flight suit while helping a GT accomplish its mission than sitting around drinking coffee.

[Thrashed]

Don't forget your gloves with the flight suit. 

I don't wear one- ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXHA0RkYKQ#

[Mike W]

Thank you all for your comments, but I did not pose the question in reference to ground pounders. The question I asked was for aircrew at a SAREX, and the regulations(s) involved.

[jeders]

Thank you all for your comments, but I did not pose the question in reference to ground pounders. The question I asked was for aircrew at a SAREX, and the regulations(s) involved.

Welcome to CAPTalk.

Summary: There is no national reg which requires a flight suit to be worn when flying, merely an approved CAP uniform. There may exist a region or wing supplement which does require the wear of a flight suit when flying, or the member who told you to wear a flight suit has bad information.

[Mike W]

Thank you very much. I see the Squadron Commander has discretionary powers anyway.

[PHall]

Don't forget your gloves with the flight suit. 

I don't wear one- ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXHA0RkYKQ#

Of course rolling your gloves down like that totally negates any benefit you gain by wearing them.


But you knew that already.

If you're going to the trouble of wearing nomex flight gear, then wear it properly.
Wrist bands cinched down, gloves on all the way, flight suit zipper zipped all the way up and put the collar up too.

If you can see skin, the fire will too.

[Walkman]

Welcome to CAPTalk...

...where the discussion can (and frequently will) go in another grid completely.  Especially when uniforms are concerned.

[Mike W]

I understand completely, and often submerge myself into the fray, but time is critical for an answer, that is why I pushed the point!

Carry on.........

[Garibaldi]

Welcome to CAPTalk...

...where the discussion can (and frequently will) go in another grid completely.  Especially when uniforms are concerned.

So when can we has teh ABU?

[Abby.L]

Welcome to CAPTalk...

...where the discussion can (and frequently will) go in another grid completely.  Especially when uniforms are concerned.

So when can we has teh ABU?

Ya know, I haven't actually seen an ABU thread in a long while. This is a friggin' miracle.

[Walkman]

So when can we has teh ABU?

So my cousin's girlfriend's father's uncle is a USAF 2-Star and he said we're getting approved for the ABU in June. I heard the CAWG already has a blaze orange version underway for their GTs. And we get blaze berets.

[Mike W]

Maybe I can wear my South African Special Forces Beret and Paratrooper wings then with the new ABU!

[Luis R. Ramos]

So we are distinctly different from Air Force personnel all previous white on ultramarine blue insignia will be white on pink on this uniform.

Flyer

[Devil Doc]

Don't forget your gloves with the flight suit. 

I don't wear one- ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXHA0RkYKQ#

Of course rolling your gloves down like that totally negates any benefit you gain by wearing them.


But you knew that already.

If you're going to the trouble of wearing nomex flight gear, then wear it properly.
Wrist bands cinched down, gloves on all the way, flight suit zipper zipped all the way up and put the collar up too.

If you can see skin, the fire will too.

Is it sad i used to wear my Nomex Gloves that Way while in the Dessert?

[PHall]

Don't forget your gloves with the flight suit. 

I don't wear one- ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXHA0RkYKQ#

Of course rolling your gloves down like that totally negates any benefit you gain by wearing them.


But you knew that already.

If you're going to the trouble of wearing nomex flight gear, then wear it properly.
Wrist bands cinched down, gloves on all the way, flight suit zipper zipped all the way up and put the collar up too.

If you can see skin, the fire will too.

Is it sad i used to wear my Nomex Gloves that Way while in the Dessert?

Were in an aircraft or were you wearing them for the reason most ground pounders wear them.
They protect you hands when you pick up something hot, like just about anything that's been out in the sun.

[FlyTiger77]

Of course rolling your gloves down like that totally negates any benefit you gain by wearing them.


But you knew that already.

If you're going to the trouble of wearing nomex flight gear, then wear it properly.
Wrist bands cinched down, gloves on all the way, flight suit zipper zipped all the way up and put the collar up too.

If you can see skin, the fire will too.

When I went through flight school, there was an instructor who had been in an aircraft fire with his sleeves rolled up and and gloves rolled down. Flaming JP4 was not good to him. I don't think I ever flew without as much protection as I could muster.

[PHall]

Of course rolling your gloves down like that totally negates any benefit you gain by wearing them.


But you knew that already.

If you're going to the trouble of wearing nomex flight gear, then wear it properly.
Wrist bands cinched down, gloves on all the way, flight suit zipper zipped all the way up and put the collar up too.

If you can see skin, the fire will too.

When I went through flight school, there was an instructor who had been in an aircraft fire with his sleeves rolled up and and gloves rolled down. Flaming JP4 was not good to him. I don't think I ever flew without as much protection as I could muster.

Doesn't even have to be flaming JP4. A flash fire like you get in many aircraft accidents will burn any bare skin it can find.
And flash fires are what nomex flight suits and gloves are designed to protect you from.

[Eclipse]

Thank you very much. I see the Squadron Commander has discretionary powers anyway.

Only in as much as their AOR, which in most wings does not extend to mission operations unless
the Unit CC is coincidentally an IC or other related mission staff.

A unit CC is free to mandate whatever he wants for meetings, training exercises, etc., that he runs,
but his rules are not enforceable outside his unit, and during a mission, if the IC or AOBD indicated
a flight suit was not required, no way he could enforce his rules in that context.

[Woodsy]

One could argue that you could wear the flight suit on a GT mission.....as the restriction in 39-1 only states "Air Crew Only"......not "Air Crew while performing Flight Operations Only".

Yes this is nit picking.....and yes I agree that Flight Suits (blue or green) or the CAP Utility Uniform (which is not restricted to Flight Crew Only) are inpractical for GT.    Push comes to shove.......getting the mission done is more important than what uniform you wear.....if you "had" to fly you could do it in a Mess Dress....same story for GT....if you "had" to go out on a GT or UDF....or man a mission base position.....you could do it in a flight suit.

We have multiple uniforms (not talking about USAF vs Corporates) so that you can use the best tool for the job........but getting the job done is more important then using the right tool is most cases.

That goes for Flying Pig's comment about not wearing a CAP uniform on a mission........if getting in proper uniform would hinder the mission......then go with it.

Ha...  I've heard stories of a UDF tasking during a wing banquet... 

[IAV8]

I spend my time on the ground working communications or in the plane as an air crew. If needed I might fly high bird with a repeater on board.  That said knowing I could be doing both tasks I would dress in BDU's. 

[SarDragon]

Is it sad i used to wear my Nomex Gloves that Way while in the Dessert?

Was your dessert tiramisu, or maybe pumpkin pie? 

[SarDragon]

One could argue that you could wear the flight suit on a GT mission.....as the restriction in 39-1 only states "Air Crew Only"......not "Air Crew while performing Flight Operations Only".

Yes this is nit picking.....and yes I agree that Flight Suits (blue or green) or the CAP Utility Uniform (which is not restricted to Flight Crew Only) are inpractical for GT.    Push comes to shove.......getting the mission done is more important than what uniform you wear.....if you "had" to fly you could do it in a Mess Dress....same story for GT....if you "had" to go out on a GT or UDF....or man a mission base position.....you could do it in a flight suit.

We have multiple uniforms (not talking about USAF vs Corporates) so that you can use the best tool for the job........but getting the job done is more important then using the right tool is most cases.

That goes for Flying Pig's comment about not wearing a CAP uniform on a mission........if getting in proper uniform would hinder the mission......then go with it.

Ha...  I've heard stories of a UDF tasking during a wing banquet...

I watched it happen one night. We had half the wing's A/C assets sitting right outside the hotel, and an aircrew went out and flew a mission.

[SarDragon]

Don't forget your gloves with the flight suit. 

I don't wear one- ever.

[video redacted]

That's a CAWG 182T out of Group 1.

[ßτε]

Don't forget your gloves with the flight suit. 

I don't wear one- ever.

[video redacted]

That's a CAWG 182T out of Group 1.

Yes, but until recently, it was a CAWG 182T out of Group 3.

[SarDragon]

Fair enough. I was using the latest WMIRS data. We've been involved in the airframe shuffle, too.

[a2capt]

Yeah, I'm surprised that  CAPF 498 got moved from it's long time prior base, right after they spent a ton of loot on it.

[PHall]

Yeah, I'm surprised that  CAPF 498 got moved from it's long time prior base, right after they spent a ton of loot on it.

The squadron spent nothing. National Headquarters spent a chunk for the new interior and panel.
It just took 19 months...

[a2capt]

I didn't say the Squadron spent anything.

[Private Investigator]

I spend my time on the ground working communications or in the plane as an air crew. If needed I might fly high bird with a repeater on board.  That said knowing I could be doing both tasks I would dress in BDU's.

A CAP plane went down in 1994 (?) and the Scanner survive in the backseat and had to kick out the back window to escape. Anything not covered on him in NOMEX had serious burns. The MP and MO were killed on impact.

[Private Investigator]

One could argue that you could wear the flight suit on a GT mission.....as the restriction in 39-1 only states "Air Crew Only"......not "Air Crew while performing Flight Operations Only".

Yes this is nit picking.....and yes I agree that Flight Suits (blue or green) or the CAP Utility Uniform (which is not restricted to Flight Crew Only) are inpractical for GT.    Push comes to shove.......getting the mission done is more important than what uniform you wear.....if you "had" to fly you could do it in a Mess Dress....same story for GT....if you "had" to go out on a GT or UDF....or man a mission base position.....you could do it in a flight suit.

We have multiple uniforms (not talking about USAF vs Corporates) so that you can use the best tool for the job........but getting the job done is more important then using the right tool is most cases.

That goes for Flying Pig's comment about not wearing a CAP uniform on a mission........if getting in proper uniform would hinder the mission......then go with it.

Ha...  I've heard stories of a UDF tasking during a wing banquet...

I watched it happen one night. We had half the wing's A/C assets sitting right outside the hotel, and an aircrew went out and flew a mission.

They should have their NOMEX handy.

[lordmonar]

I spend my time on the ground working communications or in the plane as an air crew. If needed I might fly high bird with a repeater on board.  That said knowing I could be doing both tasks I would dress in BDU's.

A CAP plane went down in 1994 (?) and the Scanner survive in the backseat and had to kick out the back window to escape. Anything not covered on him in NOMEX had serious burns. The MP and MO were killed on impact.

Ah......the old NOMEX is a safety item.

Yes NOMEX will protect you in a fire.....so will cotton, leather, etc, et al.......back in the day when PCR required NOMEX we used to go round and round on this subject.......If CAP was really serious about "saving lives in the event of a crash" they would require flight helmets before they required NOMEX as most deaths and injuries in a survival crash are caused by impact trama to the head....not fire.

[Mustang]

Only in as much as their AOR, which in most wings does not extend to mission operations unless
the Unit CC is coincidentally an IC or other related mission staff.

A unit CC is free to mandate whatever he wants for meetings, training exercises, etc., that he runs,
but his rules are not enforceable outside his unit, and during a mission, if the IC or AOBD indicated
a flight suit was not required, no way he could enforce his rules in that context.

Wrong. Unit commanders absolutely retain command of their personnel when those personnel are signed into a mission. They are under the OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the IC, but are still under the command of their home unit.

Back during the Fossett search, I was tasked with landing on a dirt strip--a violation of CAPR 60-1 RMR Supp 1--to retrieve the crew of another aircraft that had made an emergency landing following an alternator failure.  The RMR/CC could have absolutely made hay over this violation (had he known about it, heh) despite my being under the operational control of an IC from (and within) another region with no similar policy.

[lordmonar]

Yes and no.....As you said  OPERATIONAL Authority.   RMR's supplement to 60-1 only applies to RMR.......no to RMR personnel operating outside RMR.

So No the RMR commander could not make hay to you following the legal orders of those appointed over you.....the IC.

Same deal with uniforms.....Wing X allows Pink Tutu with the field uniforms.....anyone deploying to Wing Y is supposed to follow wing Y's directives.

Even on active duty......local base rules apply.

Having said that......on active duty.....no one really cared that much.   Such things are handled at the lowest levels (usually).

[Eclipse]

Unit commanders absolutely retain command of their personnel when those personnel are signed into a mission. They are under the OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the IC, but are still under the command of their home unit.

Nope.

A given CC's authority ends at the border, bother figuratively and literally.

[lordmonar]

Unit commanders absolutely retain command of their personnel when those personnel are signed into a mission. They are under the OPERATIONAL CONTROL of the IC, but are still under the command of their home unit.

Nope.

A given CC's authority ends at the border, bother figuratively and literally.

No.....ADCON....or administrative control continues no matter where the member is.     
That is......you can't cross the border for a SAREX or Mission and expect the local wing commander to promote you.
So.......a deployed member is ADCON under his home squadron.....but is OPCON to the deployed wing.

[Eclipse]

(We're not talking about ADCON.)

It would be an interesting situation if an IC in another wing put together a tasking that violated another wing or regions's supplement, though.
Another reason these things should not be allowed.  If, for example, dirt road landings are a bad idea in RMR, they are probably a bad idea
everywhere, otherwise, there's no reason for the supp.

I'm not sure this has ever come up in conversation in my parts, either philosophically or practically.  Might be an interesting wrinkle to add
to an eval.  (Like when they had us land at a grass field, but no one checked whether it was usable from an exercise perspective. 
Exercise-wise it was a mud-bog and we wound up losing the plane for the rest of the day.)

[Mike W]

I was just writing a reply as saw you beat me to it!

[lordmonar]

I was making the point that there is ADCON and OPCON and that we should be careful about blanket statements "a commander's authority ends at the border" is not a true statement.

There are times when it does extend across the border and times when it does not......depends on the situation.

As for 60-1 supps being different........60-1 states that the wing CC must list all dirt/grass airports where CAP aircraft are allowed to land at.......so this is going to happen.  If there is no supp then you can't land there.

Having said that......on the subject of regulations and when and how you can deviate from the written instructions........in the case of being ordered to land there contrary to a regional supplement.....the onus would not be on the pilot who followed the order but the IC who ordered it to happen.

Especially in a "one time special situation".....i.e. picking up an aircrew who was stranded at a remote field.

As far as an EVAL point goes.......I don't like "gotcha" type scenarios.   If the scenario is driving you to work/land at an airfield that is not on the list.....who is to blame?  Planning for sending you there.  Air Ops for not double checking?  Ops?  Safety?  The PIC?

[Eclipse]

As for 60-1 supps being different........60-1 states that the wing CC must list all dirt/grass airports where CAP aircraft are allowed to land at.......so this is going to happen.  If there is no supp then you can't land there.

Not quite.

That only applies to unlisted airfields.  All FAA-listed airfields are approved as a matter of course.
In my wing, there are soft-field FAA strips all over the place, in fact we run an annual flight bivouac at one.
No special approval is needed for these.

CAPR 60-3
b. Only civilian airports in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory and military
airfields (if approved by the military organization supported during a supervised mission or by
CAP-USAF LR for all other flights) are authorized for CAP aircraft. Unlisted civilian airfields
may be approved by a wing or higher commander with written permission from the airfield
owner/operator. For CAP-USAF LR approvals, advance notice of 5 days (corporate aircraft) or
45 days (member owned or furnished aircraft) is required to obtain a military airfield approval in
the CAP-USAF LR where that airfield is located.

But that's different from having a supp that prohibits dirt road strip landings.

And in this case, RMR does >not< actually prohibit landing on a dirt road, per se:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/RMR_Supplement_to_CAPR_601__9_Nov_1_D841E52993D9A.pdf
2-2b. CAP Aircraft can only operate on paved runways. Exceptions for operation on dirt, gravel
or turf runways must have the RMR/CC approval prior to operating on unpaved runways.
Waivers will expire annually and will need to be re-submitted for approval to the RMR/CC.
Waivers will be posted on the RMR Web site, http://rmrcap.org .

So for some reason RMR requires explicit approval for soft-field airfields, but NHQ does not.

And neither applies in this case as a "dirt road" isn't an airfield to start with.  Honestly,
I'd say that something like that has a pretty high ORM, and I don't know that it should be authorized
at all, and probably should be a Regional or National call. In the case of Fossett, those people
were probably all in the room or on the phone.

As far as an EVAL point goes.......I don't like "gotcha" type scenarios.   If the scenario is driving you to work/land at an airfield that is not on the list.....who is to blame?  Planning for sending you there.  Air Ops for not double checking?  Ops?  Safety?  The PIC?

Probably a little of everyone, and certainly shows a lack of ORM.  The eval was around a scenario that involved major flooding in the area, so it's not only reasonable,
but expected.  Likely in a real-world, the pilots would have seen the issue from the air, or the person waiting to be picked up would have

[lordmonar]

When did we start talking about dirt roads?

[Eclipse]

When did we start talking about dirt roads?

Don't know where I got that from.    The rest still applies. Corrected the above.

[Mike W]

That is why we have to wear flight suits - my original question.... 

[Storm Chaser]

I started reading this thread from the beginning and came accross this post:

One could argue that you could wear the flight suit on a GT mission.....as the restriction in 39-1 only states "Air Crew Only"......not "Air Crew while performing Flight Operations Only".

That statement may be true of CAPM 39-1, but it contradicts the Ground and UDF Team Task Guide, which requires a complete set of BDUs on your person. Unless you have big pockets, I believe that means you're supposed to wear it.

Edited for spelling

[Luis R. Ramos]

Oh no!



Now we are going to read more arguments stating these guides "are not regulatory, so 39-1 trumps" and others finding other regulations that support these guides as being the true-all, mandatory ruler on BDU vs other uniforms...



As a side note, the same can be said about the Blue BDU. As far as I can remember, the guide does not mention the BBDU. If so, I cannot wear a BBDU if I cannot wear a flight suit as Ground Teams.

 

Flyer

[Eclipse]

You're right on regulatory grounds, but it doesn't really address the practical reality.  The golf shirt may not be a good choice all the time for GT work,
but the utilities might actually be a better choice, depending on the terrain, and especially if it isn't the paper-thin Rothco one.

A lot of our regs were written with an assumption everyone is on the same page and has a consistent level of equipment and understanding.
I don't know if that was ever true in CAP, but it certainly isn't these days.

The regs need to explicitly say what they mean to say, disallowing for local filtering.

To flyer's point, the current GT guide predates the existence of the BBDU, and yes, technically does not allow for its use.

It's too bad there wasn't some quick, simple way to update documents and distribute to the field...but what am I thinking?   This is the Jetsons or
Star Trek or something?  Crazy me!

[lordmonar]

That is why we have to wear flight suits - my original question.... 

Answered already.   

Now on to the show!   

[lordmonar]

I started reading this thread from the beginning and came accross this post:

One could argue that you could wear the flight suit on a GT mission.....as the restriction in 39-1 only states "Air Crew Only"......not "Air Crew while performing Flight Operations Only".

That statement may be true of CAPM 39-1, but it contradicts the Ground and UDF Team Task Guide, which requires a complete set of BDUs on your person. Unless you have big pockets, I believe that means you're supposed to wear it.

Edited for spelling

To argue the point.  a) Tasks guides are NON regulatory.  b) The task guides have contradicted 39-1 in the past (Gortex was authorized and boonie hats suggest long before Gortex was incorporated into 39-1).  c) Lawyering......BDU's are what are called for in the task guide.....ergo BBDU's are not allowed..

Yes.....I agree that the intent is for ground teams to be in a uniform suitable for the operations.....BDU/BDU......but 39-1....the uniform reg......says otherwise.   And As I said before one could argue.....it might not be practical.....but like I said if you are going to pick nits.....you have to do it both sides of the head.