CAP Talk

The current uniform manual is vague about several aspects of wear of the AF-style green flight suit. 

In some places it does not restrict wear to anybody in particular.    On the figures showing its wear, it specifies "(Flight Crews Only)" but does not define who qualifies as a flight crew member and who does not. 

It restricts wear to the "duty performance site" and essential stops en route but does not define what is a duty performance site or who determines what it is.

If you were to make a recommendation for change or clarification of the wear guidelines for the AF-style green flight suit what would they be?    Some ideas include:
wear by CAP members with any aeronautical ratings at any time, so long as its an acceptable uniform for that activity to the commander; 
wear by any CAP member, regardless of rating or lack thereof, while flying in CAP aircraft or perhaps while participating in an activity related to flying CAP aircraft; 
wear only by pilots, observers and scanners only while on missions and training;
wear by any CAP member, regardless of ratings or lack thereof, at any activity where it is acceptable wear to the commander...

What do you all think?  It needs to be clarified in the next CAPM 39-1 revisions.

How's 'dis?  ;D

Here's the blurb I put in my CAP Flight Dress Uniform Guide (it's here on CAPTalk, just search):

QuoteWHO MAY WEAR THE FLIGHT SUIT AND/OR UTILITY UNIFORM

The USAF-style green and CAP blue corporate flight suit is to be worn only by aircrew members
(pilots, observers, scanners) when engaged in or training for flight duty. Flight duty includes
preparation, flight, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flightline duties associated with aircraft
operations. The CAP blue utility uniform may be worn by all personnel regardless of flight status.

GENERAL WEAR INSTRUCTIONS (adapted from AFI 36-2903)

Note: while these instructions have not yet been adapted by CAP, it is HIGHLY recommended
that one follow them, especially within an Air Force installation.

All aircrew members will have sleeves rolled down to the wrist at all times. All pockets will be
zipped and all pocket items will remain concealed. (Exception: Pens and pencils may show when
carried in the left sleeve or right leg pen holders. The flight cap (USAF and CAP style flight suit
only) may be stored in either lower leg pocket without that pocket being fully zipped. A small
portion of the flight cap may be exposed while in the pocket. However, when the cap is removed,
the pocket must be fully zipped.

The pen flap over the left sleeve pocket may be removed. Resist the temptation of placing a
'morale patch' on the small piece of pile Velcro that remains. While CAP regulations are silent in
this regard, it is prohibited by Air Force regulations.

The flight suit and/or utility uniform may be worn off base under the same guidelines as the Battle
Dress Uniform (BDU) or CAP Distinctive Field Uniform (DFU). Aircrew members wearing the
green Air Force-style, CAP blue flight suit or utility uniform 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. Commanders may prescribe further limits
on the wear of flight suits and utility uniforms based on mission requirements and in the interest of
morale, health, and welfare of their personnel.

Essential stop: stop at the gas station or convenience store on/off base, or if you have to run a quick errand.

Think that'll work for a 39-1 revision?

Do cadets that want to go on o-rides in Pac Region have to wear flight suits? 

My Choice:

Wear only by pilots, observers and scanners only while on missions and training.

Wear by cadets only if they meet the above.

Wear should be restricted to missions or training where the member reasonably expects to be >IN< an aircraft during that activity.

Wear should be prohibited from wear for regular unit meetings, and for base staff not flying.

Quote
All aircrew members will have sleeves rolled down to the wrist at all times.

Resist the temptation of placing a 'morale patch' on the small piece of pile Velcro that remains. While CAP regulations are silent in this regard, it is prohibited by Air Force regulations.

YES PLEASE!

I personally don't see any need to restrict it's use beyond no ground team use and no wear when a service or formal uniform is required.

In the AF and many joint postings, you can wear it in the office.  I see no reason to require a person to purchase another uniform just to wear to meetings.

Frankly, if non aircrew want to wear them to meetings, go ahead.  Since "leather nametag w/o wings = potential poser" in my book, I'd rather have them out in the open where I can watch them.

Cadets should have a "meeting UOD," and unless you have an all aircrew Cadet sqdn, I'm not seeing a Cadet wearing flightsuits except on missions.

I'm with ddelaney on this one.


The USAF aircrews wear them whenever its acceptable to the commander or installation policy.  I don't see the big deal of a CAP pilot wearing one of our uniforms to the monthly senior safety briefing or a meeting.  The commander still has the ability and authority to set a uniform for each activity and meeting so why the big deal?  If the flight suit is inappropriate to wear there the uniform of the activity would reflect that anyways.

Especially given that the blue flight suit is fair game to wear wherever, and it uses the leather namepatch and same configuration as the green flight suit - and that the USAF allows regular wear of the same green flight suit -- i don't see why we would be so different on our wear policy?

My vote is to change it to wear it as another authorized CAP uniform and let the commanders set uniform wear policy for their activities, as they currently can do with all of the other uniforms.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:09:29 AM
My Choice:

Wear should be prohibited from wear for regular unit meetings, and for base staff not flying.

I agree... though some in the zipper-suited-sun-god-mafia would have kittens if they can't wear their bag. Not a big problem in my squadron - most of our pilots wear the polo shirt combo to meetings and leave the bag wearing to an ES meeting night.

However, the current blue utility uniform is set up identical to the blue corporate flight suit. This can be worn by any member of CAP, cadink or senior member. I prefer wearing it to blue BDUs. Personally, I think the utility uniform insignia needs to be tweaked a little so it's not confused with the blue flight suit.

Quote from: M.S. on January 02, 2008, 04:24:35 AM
Especially given that the blue flight suit is fair game to wear wherever, and it uses the leather namepatch and same configuration as the green flight suit - and that the USAF allows regular wear of the same green flight suit -- i don't see why we would be so different on our wear policy?

Wear of the blue and green flightsuits is the same today, and should remain so - flight duty only.

In the USAF the flight suit is considered a duty uniform for >aircrew< only.

First, most USAF/AFRES, etc., people know how to wear it correctly, in regs and wash them once in a while.

Second, and with deference to >their< (USAF) program, they are a work uniform, our RAPs routinely wear them to squadron functions where the rest of the members are in service dress, and wreck photos of awards, etc. 

The fact that they >do< wear it most times, gives our guys an excuse, to which the answer is always "we're not the USAF".  Specific clarification would end this discussion.

(Note: I've never met a RAP who would not wear blues or civies to a meeting if asked in advance, however for many their participation is so random because of their "real" lives, that these connections are not made - this is not a knock on our great RAPS, just the realities of two simliar but different programs)

What I've always wondered is, is it actually restricted from wearing the bag to almost everything in USAF, but something everyone does.

So, why the animus towards flyers who choose to wear the flight suit?

Bob, you're absolutely wrong about flight suits being aircrew only, and had you spent any time on a base, you'd know that. Non-rated aerospace physiology folks wear them, for one, and for anyone who is rated aircrew, it's a standard duty uniform, whether flying that day or not. It's even seen in the halls of the Pentagon on appropriately rated people, and it's still appropriate for rated folks who aren't even on flight status anymore, such as our CAPRAP people.

If we're in such a tizzy to ban the bags for anything other than flying, then should we also ban the BDUs for anything other than ES activity?

Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 02, 2008, 04:18:25 AM
Frankly, if non aircrew want to wear them to meetings, go ahead.  Since "leather nametag w/o wings = potential poser" in my book, I'd rather have them out in the open where I can watch them.

Ouch!  When I began scanner and observer years ago, I was pressured to wear a flight suit during training even though I had no aeronautical rating at the time.  I do have my private now, and have not been in a CAP plane in 2.5 years.  It hangs in my closet.  When I was attached to an AF unit almost 5 years ago, I wore a flight suit, even though I had no aeronautical rating and that was the "real" military.   

The whole thing about flight suits and who is allowed to wear them is ridiculous.  In CAP since there is no Brown leather jacket the Pilot types seem to make the flight suit their "brown jacket". 

Why can't any CAP member wear them?  They are comfortable.  Who cares really?

Perhaps something like "CAP members are permitted to wear the AF style flight suit when the immediate commander deems it appropriate"    

...........That then allows the Unit Commander, the Group Commander and the Wing and Region Commander to dictate policy.

CAP is said to be an aviation oriented organization, perhaps we should be seen more in flight suits, less in polo shirts.

OK, for clarity and 100% correctness, there are all kinds of USAF people who wear flightsuits.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 05:02:35 AM
OK, for clarity and 100% correctness, there are all kinds of USAF people who wear flightsuits.

OK, so now that we've settled that, what's the problem with wearing a correctly accoutered flight suit as a duty uniform?

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 04:57:40 AMCAP is said to be an aviation oriented organization, perhaps we should be seen more in flight suits, less in polo shirts.

Amen...

I think in a volunteer organization, where we have to purchase our own uniforms, we should permit wear of a flightsuit in appropriate settings. If it's a night for utility uniforms, then no reason why a flightsuit shouldn't be worn. If someone spends a $100 on that uniform, they should be able to wear it.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 02, 2008, 05:28:29 AM
I think in a volunteer organization, where we have to purchase our own uniforms, we should permit wear of a flightsuit in appropriate settings. If it's a night for utility uniforms, then no reason why a flightsuit shouldn't be worn. If someone spends a $100 on that uniform, they should be able to wear it.

Something that does kinda conflict this is when cadets start wearing them.  Now I'm a big supporter or wearing the bag more often, but in a cadet program, you have to look at what kind of image it does set.  The image is what's important to remember among cadets. 

IMHO

I say, restrict wear to Pilots, Observers and Scanners (SM)
And cadets who have Pilots Ratings (NOT SOLO WINGS)

Wear during missions, AE activities (when appropriate) and during times when BDU is the UOD.

-- This was the criteria for wear at my old AFROTC unit.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 02, 2008, 06:10:58 AM
IMHO

I say, restrict wear to Pilots, Observers and Scanners (SM)
And cadets who have Pilots Ratings (NOT SOLO WINGS)

Wear during missions, AE activities (when appropriate) and during times when BDU is the UOD.

-- This was the criteria for wear at my old AFROTC unit.

Why do rated members get a flight suit to wear when not flying and and everyone else is in BDU's?  So basically, your better than everyone else if your a pilot, and you have a need to differentiate yourself from those around you?  (not you personally.)  What is an AE activity?  Would that be an Aerospace lesson to cadets?  So, the cadets are all in Blues or BDU's and you roll in wearing your bag.  Doesn't make sense.

As far as flight suits go, EVERYONE should be allowed to wear them.  Especially when I have seen hundreds of them sitting in DRMO's. 

AS far as ROTC goes, not the same situation.  If I am not mistaken those Cadets that wear them there are slotted for Air Battle Managers, Pilots,  Navigators etc when commissioned??  They are not "rated" in the sense of aviation ability.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 02, 2008, 05:28:29 AM
I think in a volunteer organization, where we have to purchase our own uniforms, we should permit wear of a flightsuit in appropriate settings. If it's a night for utility uniforms, then no reason why a flightsuit shouldn't be worn. If someone spends a $100 on that uniform, they should be able to wear it.

And here's the fallacy, or issue, or what have you with the above arguments for wearing it "whenever" - "its expensive, so I should get to wear it because I am a volunteer".

By that reasoning everyone in with a service jacket should be able to wear >that< all the time / whenever they want to.

How much it cost is immaterial.

Wear of the flightsuit has a specific implication and reason.

And yes, I believe it should be restricted to AC & trainees.

If asked, and to be consistent,  I would also extend the same rules to BDU's.

I am rated for numerous ES specialties, including aircrew.  I arrive at a mission in my flight suit, assuming I will fly.  Upon arrival the IC tells me they have plenty of aircrews, but I am needed as a Mission Information Officer.  Do you want me to go home and change?

I arrive at a mission in BDU, since I was told on the telephone that I would be the Ground Branch Director.  Several hours into the mission, one of the aircrewmen gets an emergency notification that he has to go home.  I am tapped to fly as Mission Observer in his place.  Do I go home and change again?

We need to work this in the easiest way:  Flight Suit and BDU are equal uniforms.  If you are aircrew rated, you can wear the flight suit anytime you would wear the BDU.  The flight suit does not work well as a field uniform, but works well enough for short trips out on UDF missions.

The USAF has asked us to wear flight suits on base augmentation  missions if we are aircrew rated, since that is their uniform of the day.  

I vote to leave the policy as is.

Let the dude in charge (commander, IC, etc.) dictate the UOD, and be done with it.

That reasonable minds can disagree in this thread as to what constitutes appropriate wear criteria, in my opinion, suggests that hard-coding one set of criteria would needlessly snub the others.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 02, 2008, 03:29:06 PM
I am rated for numerous ES specialties, including aircrew.  I arrive at a mission in my flight suit, assuming I will fly.  Upon arrival the IC tells me they have plenty of aircrews, but I am needed as a Mission Information Officer.  Do you want me to go home and change?

I arrive at a mission in BDU, since I was told on the telephone that I would be the Ground Branch Director.  Several hours into the mission, one of the aircrewmen gets an emergency notification that he has to go home.  I am tapped to fly as Mission Observer in his place.  Do I go home and change again?

We need to work this in the easiest way:  Flight Suit and BDU are equal uniforms.  If you are aircrew rated, you can wear the flight suit anytime you would wear the BDU.  The flight suit does not work well as a field uniform, but works well enough for short trips out on UDF missions.

The USAF has asked us to wear flight suits on base augmentation  missions if we are aircrew rated, since that is their uniform of the day. 

Why should you have to go home?  If you're dual-qual'ed and have a reasonable expectation of participation in both / either, bring the "other" on a hanger and change if appropriate.

I'm assuming that you would do just that if you showed up to be an MP and found you were needed as a GTL.

I'm also not so "stamp my feet" strong on this that there isn't some room for reasonable flexibility.

I'm just tired of the "lowest common denominator" / "I'm a hotel-sierra aircrew guy" attitude that comes with wearing the flight bag to unit meetings, and then propagates itself to the overall attitude.

(yes, yes, fix the member, not the rules.  We've tried that for about 30 years)

Wherever this falls, we'd all be better served if 39-1 pushed more specificity on the when / where of uniforms so that we could achieve more national consistency.

The people who repeatedly use the USAF/AG as an example forget that for >MOST< of them, they received the same or similar basic training, and (even if it hasn't been out of the dry cleaner bag in 5 years), know how to wear other combinations if/when necessary.

Not so for many CAP people who seem proud of the fact that all they own is a flightsuit.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:13:58 PM
Why should you have to go home?  If you're dual-qual'ed and have a reasonable expectation of participation in both / either, bring the "other" on a hanger and change if appropriate.

I'm assuming that you would do just that if you showed up to be an MP and found you were needed as a GTL.

If I was a MP and a GT person, I might buy that. I'm not, and a flightsuit will work just fine for anything on a mission that's not ground team related.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:13:58 PMI'm also not so "stamp my feet" strong on this that there isn't some room for reasonable flexibility.

You've been stamping your feet against the wear of flightsuits for anything but flying for quite a while now, and you've argued against CC discretion in allowing them, both in this forum and others.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:13:58 PMI'm just tired of the "lowest common denominator" / "I'm a hotel-sierra aircrew guy" attitude that comes with wearing the flight bag to unit meetings, and then propagates itself to the overall attitude.

(yes, yes, fix the member, not the rules.  We've tried that for about 30 years)

Did it ever occur to you that if you immediately assume that anyone in a flightuit is a FPOC, and you act towards them as such, that you'll probably get a negative reaction back from them?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:13:58 PMWherever this falls, we'd all be better served if 39-1 pushed more specificity on the when / where of uniforms so that we could achieve more national consistency.

If I go into any unit meeting on any given night, I'll see a hodgepodge of uniforms. Regardless of what the UOD is, and even if everyone abides by the UOD, some folks will be in a USAF style combo and some folks will be in a corporate combo. With so many different uniform options, consistency is simply imposible. If the UOD is a utility uniform, then what is wrong with the wear of the flightsuit (either blue or green), as it is the flyer's utility uniform. Why should you expect people who only participate in aircrew activites to buy a BDU/BBDU combo, just so that the non-flyers don't get upset?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:13:58 PMThe people who repeatedly use the USAF/AG as an example forget that for >MOST< of them, they received the same or similar basic training, and (even if it hasn't been out of the dry cleaner bag in 5 years), know how to wear other combinations if/when necessary.

Not so for many CAP people who seem proud of the fact that all they own is a flightsuit.

You make this statement, but did you know that morale tabs and friday patches are officially verboten for the USAF folks too? Bet that you've seen someone wearing them at some time or another, and even if you haven't, you know that they're a big part of the Air Force culture. The difference is that they focus on important things (like accomplishment of their mission), instead of sitting here (she-dogging) about a tiny piece of cloth all day.

Quote from: Redfire11 on January 02, 2008, 04:41:36 PM
If I go into any unit meeting on any given night, I'll see a hodgepodge of uniforms.

THANK YOU!

I appreciate the fact that you agree with the problem...

It helps when we're all on the same page.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:50:05 PM

Quote from: Redfire11 on January 02, 2008, 04:41:36 PM
If I go into any unit meeting on any given night, I'll see a hodgepodge of uniforms.

THANK YOU!

I appreciate the fact that you agree with the problem...

It helps when we're all on the same page.

...But I don't necessarily agree that it's a problem. If I go on a base, I see people in a number of uniforms as well. If I go to a meeting, I may see people in blues, BDUs or bags, depending on what they do in their regular jobs. If I go on the flightline, the flyers wear bags, the maintainers are in BDUs. If I go to the DFAC, I see people in white food service utilities. If I go to the med clinic, I'll see people in BDUs, or flight surgeons/nurses in flightsuits. If I go in the squadrons, again, the flyers are in flightsuits, while the clerks, life support techs, etc. are all in BDUs.

I don't see a problem at all with members wearing uniforms that are germain to the job that they do; neither does the RealMilitary. Why should we be any different?

Quote from: Redfire11 on January 02, 2008, 05:01:55 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 02, 2008, 04:50:05 PM

Quote from: Redfire11 on January 02, 2008, 04:41:36 PM
If I go into any unit meeting on any given night, I'll see a hodgepodge of uniforms.

THANK YOU!

I appreciate the fact that you agree with the problem...

It helps when we're all on the same page.

...But I don't necessarily agree that it's a problem. If I go on a base, I see people in a number of uniforms as well. If I go to a meeting, I may see people in blues, BDUs or bags, depending on what they do in their regular jobs. If I go on the flightline, the flyers wear bags, the maintainers are in BDUs. If I go to the DFAC, I see people in white food service utilities. If I go to the med clinic, I'll see people in BDUs, or flight surgeons/nurses in flightsuits. If I go in the squadrons, again, the flyers are in flightsuits, while the clerks, life support techs, etc. are all in BDUs.

I don't see a problem at all with members wearing uniforms that are germain to the job that they do; neither does the RealMilitary. Why should we be any different?

I think the difference is that during the course of a normal duty day, your flyers will fly (or at least be on standby or QRC) and your maintainers maintain.

CAP doesn't have a typical duty day: so it really doesn't apply.  If you are in a Cadet/Composite Squadron, you usually wear what the Cadets are wearing.  Senior squadrons are more often than not "come as you are affairs," with golf-shirts predominant. 

If I am visiting subordinate units, I usually ask them what their uniform-of-the-day is, and dress appropriately.  If I'm in a time-crunch coming from work, I will go to work with gray pants, and do a quick-change with golf-shirt on the way.

I often keep a "go-bag" with flightsuit, boots and headset in the trunk of my car: it's come in very handy.

Wear the uniform that's right for the activity, and you can't go wrong.



 

Quote from: O-Rex on January 02, 2008, 07:52:43 PM
I think the difference is that during the course of a normal duty day, your flyers will fly (or at least be on standby or QRC) and your maintainers maintain.

Not so. Since the Air Force got away from "Warrior Friday" and started wearing utilities all the time, you see people who aren't on flight status at all in flight suits as their regular duty uniform. I personally saw the AMC/DO on a base in a flight suit; I saw a recent picture of Col. Hodgkins in a meeting, I believe it was the last NEC meeting, in a bag. One only need to look at the news releases on af.mil to see rated officers in non-flying slots wearing flight suits as a UOD, and I'll re-hash that some people, such as Aerospace Physiology folks, wear flight suits for their UOD and they don't fly to begin with. Finally, almost all rated CAPRAPers wear bags, and they're not on active flight status either.

I'd also submit that if the CAP unit whose meeting you're attending has an aircraft assigned, you're on standby. I've had several squadron meetings turn into SAR flights; why not be prepared for it happening?

Does it matter who wears a bag?  As long as it is worn properly, whats the big deal??

Lets get away from "I wear the flight suit because I fly and you don't, so I am better" mentality.

Frankly, I don't care what the Air Force does.  If we went on that basis, then we need to RIF 30 new members immediately. 

Face it, people are wearing the bag because it is comfortable.  I would rather drive to base in the FS than BDU's anyday. 

A simple one sentence should suffice.  Something like;  "Any active CAP member wishing to wear the Flight Suit may do so as long as they have their immediate superiors permission"

It seems there's a lot of guard house lawyering going on here.

You wear the flight suit if your rated air crew (MP, MO, and MS) and if you're flying. The rest of the time, you wear the UOD.

Is it really that hard to iron a pair of BDU's/service dress for a weekly meeting? Or a polo shirt with gray pants?

Quote from: JThemann on January 02, 2008, 10:10:54 PM
You wear the flight suit if your rated air crew (MP, MO, and MS) and if you're flying.

Reg cite please. (Boldface mine)

Quote from: JThemann on January 02, 2008, 10:10:54 PMThe rest of the time, you wear the UOD.

I'm the unit commander. I say the flight suit is an acceptable UOD for qualified members. Commanders are allowed to determine the UOD for meetings or activities.

While it's not regulatory in nature, how about the Knowledgebase?

Quote from: CAP KnowedgebaseWearing the AF style flight suit to weekly unit meetings

  Question
  Can the Air Force-style flight suit be worn by CAP pilots to the weekly unit meeting?

  Answer
  There are some restrictions in the CAP Uniform Manual on wearing the AF style flight suit. Basically, the AF flight suit may be worn during
travel to and from activities provided it is not by commercial means and only essential stops are made enroute to and from the duty performance site.
Wear of the AF flight suit while shopping or other nonessential activities would be prohibited. Within these restrictions, allowing members to wear the AF flight suit
to unit meetings would be up to the unit commander.

See Paragraph 2-1d from CAPM 39-1 CAP Uniform Manual and knowledgebase answer(s) below for additional details.

Also see Answer 990: Wearing the flight suit to a CAP activity Click Here

Answer 1133:  CAPM 39-1 CAP Uniform Manual Click Here

That's answer ID #1551. Find a regulation to contradict it.

Quote from: JThemann on January 02, 2008, 10:10:54 PMIs it really that hard to iron a pair of BDU's/service dress for a weekly meeting? Or a polo shirt with gray pants?

I fly. I don't own BDUs because I don't tromp in the mud. I don't wear the polo shirt because I don't want to look like I'm going bowling. The service dress isn't appropriate for every occasion. Again, the flight suit is the utility uniform for aircrew members. Why should I buy BDUs or BBDUs just to come to meetings?

How's this for a regulation cite:
CAPR 39-1 Chap 2 2-1-d
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.

Duty performance would not be a flight operation meeting the "duty performance" requirement.

Quote from: BillB on January 02, 2008, 10:50:22 PM
How's this for a regulation cite:
CAPR 39-1 Chap 2 2-1-d
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.

Duty performance would not be a flight operation meeting the "duty performance" requirement.

I think that what you're saying is that this paragraph would forbid the wearing of the flight suit to meetings; if I'm incorrect, please clarify.

If that is your position, I disagree. If the intent was to limit the flight suit to flying only, than it would say "airport" or "flight activity" or "flight activity site", or something to that effect. It doesn't, it says "duty performance site". I have a card from the FAA that says I'm a pilot, and I'm a pilot all the time. I've got 101 card qualifications for every aircrew specialty, save Archer Operator. I'm a qualified aircrew member, all the time, even if my duty for a given meeting is to give a briefing. Just because I'm not scheduled to step to the plane that evening doesn't mean that I'm not a "Flight Crew Member", nor does it mean that AFRCC might not call during the meeting and force me to use those flight crew qualifications on short notice. I'd rather be ready, just in case.

Personaly, I would prefer by great leaps and bounds that members wore the flight suit to a meeting compared to the golf shirt, if the squadron is a flying unit.  If you don't have a plane within 100 miles then I think it would be a little silly to be wearing one.  

In real CAP life I don't think I've ever seen someone who doesn't have an aircrew rating wearing a flight suit and I doubt anyone would, so restricting its wear doesn't seem to be worth doing.  

If A/C's wear nomex for safety, passengers should have the option to be as safe. 

Passengers could be GT's being airlifted, highbird operators, whether they are A/C, IC, GBD, CUL, or o-ride participants.

If the flightsuit is not about safety, then I guess it's an A/C 'club' thing.

I started a CAP squadron on a naval air station.  At the meetings with the station CO, he stated that wanted the CAP squadron to be "treated like a normal flying squadron".  This included pilots wear of flight suits on the station.  This improved the professional image of our squadron and we still fit in. 

We fit in so well that on Sept. 11th I received a 0910 hrs local phone call inquiring on assets that CAP could bring to the table in the next 2 hrs.

Ok....so if we limit the Bag to flight crew members, simple fix.  We start training everyone to be a crew member.  Break out the books, start studying, and participate in training activities.  PROBLEM SOLVED!  Everyone is now a rated crew member. 

If we did that, and everyone walked around in flight suits, I think some would be pissed as hell that their distinctive "trademarked" badge of "BETTERNESS" was now a common uniform.   :o  That is the impression I get from reading some replies above. 

Wearing a flight suit is letting the world know "I am more than an ordinary CAP member, I am a pilot and better than everyone else".   

Am I wrong?  Maybe, but I know some look at it that way.   :'(

Some might say the same about BDUs since (for seniors) they are almost exclusively worn by ground team members. 

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 01:49:08 AM
Some might say the same about BDUs since (for seniors) they are almost exclusively worn by ground team members. 

Gonna have to explain that one to me. Most of the members in my unit wear BDUs, and only a few are GT qualified. Most of the members in my wing are in the same status. What does being GT qualified have to do with wearing BDU's?

In my wing I've only once or twice seen a senior member wearing BDUs or BBDUs who was not involved in the ground team program just as I've never seen someone in a flightsuit who wasn't an aircrew member.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 03:54:19 AM
In my wing I've only once or twice seen a senior member wearing BDUs or BBDUs who was not involved in the ground team program just as I've never seen someone in a flightsuit who wasn't an aircrew member.

That's not normal......

There's more to CAP then ES you know.

Am I being somehow ES-centric by stating a fact about senior member uniform choices in my wing?  Maybe its your squadron that is unusual. 

In any case, the point relevant to this discussion is that there is no more reason to ban flight suits from unit meetings than any other CAP uniform, providing it is in line with the unit's Uniform of the Day (if they actually have a policy on that). 

In cadet squadrons and composite squadrons...those working with the cadets should be wearing the same uniform (or corporate equivalent) that the cadets are wearing.  This sets a good example.

Other then that....ANY CAP uniform is okay IMHO.

As someone said earlier, more CAP members in flight suits would be much better, PR wise, than golf shirts.  To the public, flight suits = USAF, golf shirts = tiger woods.

I'd say it's a utility uniform not for wilderness wear.  If utilities are allowed, and you're not going in the woods, go for it.

USAF is wearing them all over the place.  Time to follow suit.

What exactly is the downside of wearing flight suits vice BDUs?

If the goal is uniformity, we've lost that battle already.  :-)  But seriously, a commander can always specify a UOD if they wish.  For cadets I'd definitely do that - no reason for one flight suit in the formation.  But for seniors, since it's normally "wear what you got," why exactly does a flight suit screw things up?

Quote from: Dragoon on January 03, 2008, 04:09:28 PM
I'd say it's a utility uniform not for wilderness wear.  If utilities are allowed, and you're not going in the woods, go for it.

USAF is wearing them all over the place.  Time to follow suit.

Agreed. Then again, if someone wants to wear a flightsuit, maybe they have an interest in aircrew. Try to see if they'll be interested in at least being a mission scanner.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 03, 2008, 04:09:28 PMWhat exactly is the downside of wearing flight suits vice BDUs?

If the goal is uniformity, we've lost that battle already.  :-)  But seriously, a commander can always specify a UOD if they wish.  For cadets I'd definitely do that - no reason for one flight suit in the formation.  But for seniors, since it's normally "wear what you got," why exactly does a flight suit screw things up?

I don't see how a flightsuit screws anything up, personally. Practical, and comfortable. It's good advertising too.

Flight suits are also like total chick magnets, too. 

At least till they find out we don't get paid!

>:D

It's a fine chick magnet if you're in shape.  Otherwise, it draws way too much attention to the big 'ol belly.

I remember a former big guy with an orange flight suit.  We called him "the Great Pumpkin."

Quote from: Dragoon on January 03, 2008, 08:21:35 PM
It's a fine chick magnet if you're in shape.  Otherwise, it draws way too much attention to the big 'ol belly.

I remember a former big guy with an orange flight suit.  We called him "the Great Pumpkin."

;D ;D ;D

Quote from: T34 Flyer on January 02, 2008, 11:32:46 PM
I started a CAP squadron on a naval air station.  At the meetings with the station CO, he stated that wanted the CAP squadron to be "treated like a normal flying squadron".  This included pilots wear of flight suits on the station.  This improved the professional image of our squadron and we still fit in. 

We fit in so well that on Sept. 11th I received a 0910 hrs local phone call inquiring on assets that CAP could bring to the table in the next 2 hrs.

Bring to the table in terms of what? Where is your unit located?

We are located in Lemoore California.

At the time of the first call I listed all the usual ES missions.  Within two hours we where asked to provide base perimeter patrol and "taxi service" from an undisclosed air field to the base for Squadron CO's and XO's.  This was due to the gate wait of up to 3 hrs that day.

As usual in our wing, this was shot down in the usual "no mission at any cost" posture we have here.

Quote from: T34 Flyer on January 04, 2008, 03:36:36 PM
We are located in Lemoore California.

At the time of the first call I listed all the usual ES missions.  Within two hours we where asked to provide base perimeter patrol and "taxi service" from an undisclosed air field to the base for Squadron CO's and XO's.  This was due to the gate wait of up to 3 hrs that day.

As usual in our wing, this was shot down in the usual "no mission at any cost" posture we have here.

You mean your Wing denied the mission due to a finance issue? -- my apologies, I havent had much sleep lately so Im a bit dim witted today.

No.

They stated that it was outside the mission of CAP.

The perimeter patrol I can understand.  Taxi service, while not glamorous, could certainly fall under our "To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions." mission.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 04, 2008, 10:51:06 PM

Quote from: T34 Flyer on January 04, 2008, 03:36:36 PM
We are located in Lemoore California.

"no mission at any cost" [/b]

You mean your Wing denied the mission due to a finance issue? -- my apologies, I havent had much sleep lately so Im a bit dim witted today.

I'm sorry.  It means that we have a hard time looking for new missions in California.

Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2008, 01:23:32 AM
The perimeter patrol I can understand.  Taxi service, while not glamorous, could certainly fall under our "To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions." mission.

The perimeter patrol (using a c-172) was initially OK'ed then denied up the chain.  Taxi service was denied due to a statement in the regs about no military personnel in out A/C.

On september 11 we felt we should be more lenient

Quote from: T34 Flyer on January 05, 2008, 01:32:24 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 05, 2008, 01:23:32 AM
The perimeter patrol I can understand.  Taxi service, while not glamorous, could certainly fall under our "To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions." mission.

The perimeter patrol (using a c-172) was initially OK'ed then denied up the chain.  Taxi service was denied due to a statement in the regs about no military personnel in out A/C.

On september 11 we felt we should be more lenient

Please direct me to that reg.  I am sure it exists, I would like to read it. 

Someone needs to read 60-1, not only are military personnel ALLOWED in our aircraft, transport and similar service to military commanders in support of their duties is a specifically authorized mission within the document.

-1 hit point to the people who denied it, and -2 for the people who asked not being familiar enough with the 60-'s to support their request.

Quote from: CAPR 60-1, 2-6. Authorized Passengers.
i. U.S. government employees to include military personnel (active, Reserve, National Guard, and civil service), Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Forest Service, Federal Aviation Administration (including FAA designated pilot examiners when conducting flight checks), United States Customs Service, United States Coast Guard, and other federal agencies, are authorized to fly on CAP aircraft while performing official duties in conjunction with the CAP. Missions authorized by this paragraph will return with all passengers back at the point of origin without intermediate stops. This paragraph is not authorization to conduct transportation missions. Missions with a sole purpose of providing transportation from point A to point B must be conducted in accordance with CAP's FAA exemption. See paragraph 2-13 and attachment 2 for additional details.

j. State, county, and local government officials are authorized to fly aboard CAP aircraft when specifically approved in advance by the CAP National Operations Center (NOC). Missions authorized by this paragraph will return with all passengers back at the point of origin without intermediate stops. This paragraph is not authorization to conduct transportation missions. Missions with a sole purpose of providing transportation from point A to point B must be conducted in accordance with CAP's FAA exemption. See paragraph 2-13 and attachment 2 for additional details.

You have to then go to the attachments for the rules on transportation, which are primarily related to FAA rules on reimbursements.  I literally just called my SD to ask where the verbiage was because we have been discussing this capability with our base commander.

There's further verbiage which is even more specific in one of the operation regs that defines mission types, I'll post it as soon as I find it. 

Okay, I was thinking ground perimeter patrol -- obviously a no-go.  Back in 2001 I wouldn't have been surprised if aerial patrol was nixed.  However, since then we have done all sorts of "security" patrols like that (Olympics, Space shuttle, etc.) so it might not be a hard sell now. 

Just to play devil's advocate.....it may have been shot down at National because the Air Force did not issue a mission number.

NYWG has been flying ANG personnel in support of JTAC/TACP training out of Syracuse, NY and there were no issues with getting USAF mission numbers or ANG personnel on board our 172s. As I recall, we flew JTACs over training terrain to simulate what they would see from above if they had launched a Raven UAV which gives JTACs a bird's eye view of their battlefield and allows them to control CAS strikes with more accuracy.

Training grounds photos were taken by our crew members as well and immediately sent down to the Cadre/C&C vehicle via CAP radio and operator stationed with them.

The op was called CASCAP.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 05, 2008, 08:27:01 AM
NYWG has been flying ANG personnel in support of JTAC/TACP training out of Syracuse, NY and there were no issues with getting USAF mission numbers or ANG personnel on board our 172s. As I recall, we flew JTACs over training terrain to simulate what they would see from above if they had launched a Raven UAV which gives JTACs a bird's eye view of their battlefield and allows them to control CAS strikes with more accuracy.

Training grounds photos were taken by our crew members as well and immediately sent down to the Cadre/C&C vehicle via CAP radio and operator stationed with them.

The op was called CASCAP.

IIRC, HIWG is/was doing something very similar in support of TACP training.

It is just amazing to me though about how a lot of the things we talk about here come down to:

1) Money
2) Liability

What a sad, sad state of affairs we are in today. :(

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 05, 2008, 03:23:11 PM
It is just amazing to me though about how a lot of the things we talk about here come down to:

1) Money
2) Liability

What a sad, sad state of affairs we are in today. :(

Planes don't fly for free and if we get sued....what program are you going to cut to pay for the damages?

It is not a sad state of affairs but good management of our program.

How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

Quote from: edmo1 on January 05, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

Well, I said it before, just becasue we haven't gotten sued yet doesn't mean it can't/won't happen.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would serve 'at my own risk.'

Quote from: edmo1 on January 05, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

We get sued all the time!

We also avoid a lot of suits because our legal guys and insurance company make sure that we stay withing the bounds of what they want to cover.

As far as signing away your rights.....those papers are not worth the paper they are written on.  Little Johnny's parents sign a waiver and he goes rappelling (assuming we were allowed to do so) and the rope breaks......guess who pays?

Quote from: JThemann on January 05, 2008, 08:27:15 PM
I don't know about you, but I don't think I would serve 'at my own risk.'

Not to mention that, legally, we may not even be allowed to.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 05, 2008, 08:30:45 PM
 Little Johnny's parents sign a waiver and he goes rappelling (assuming we were allowed to do so) and the rope breaks......guess who pays?

Umm........Little Johnny's Parents will pay?  Little Johnny surely did pay!  But his parents will most likely not get a dime, unless it can be proved that malice or intentional foul-play was involved.  Don't you watch Court TV?

CAP Carries liability insurance for lawsuits.  They pay huge amounts so that if they are sued it won't come from the Corporate Books.  However, everytime the Corp is sued, it's insurance rates go up, which is one reason we see dues go up.  Also, When CAP is on an AFAM, it can't be sued, as it is considered a part of the Fed Govt.  Didn't you learn in civics class that the Federal Government can't be sued by a citizen?

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 05, 2008, 11:18:03 PM
Also, When CAP is on an AFAM, it can't be sued, as it is considered a part of the Fed Govt.  Didn't you learn in civics class that the Federal Government can't be sued by a citizen?

I thought we can still be sued on AFAMs. It's just that, as an instrumentality of the US Government, we're subject to their protection, and they'll shell out the $$ if we're found at fault (instead of our corporate policy), assuming we've been acting within our scope of practice. The whole FECA/FTCA stuff.

It's just a matter of where the money comes from.

Corporate missions....we have to pay (or our insurance) AFAM it is the federal governments who pays.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 05, 2008, 01:57:17 AM
Someone needs to read 60-1, not only are military personnel ALLOWED in our aircraft, transport and similar service to military commanders in support of their duties is a specifically authorized mission within the document.

-1 hit point to the people who denied it, and -2 for the people who asked not being familiar enough with the 60-'s to support their request.

Quote from: CAPR 60-1, 2-6. Authorized Passengers.
i. U.S. government employees to include military personnel (active, Reserve, National Guard, and civil service), Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Forest Service, Federal Aviation Administration (including FAA designated pilot examiners when conducting flight checks), United States Customs Service, United States Coast Guard, and other federal agencies, are authorized to fly on CAP aircraft while performing official duties in conjunction with the CAP. Missions authorized by this paragraph will return with all passengers back at the point of origin without intermediate stops. This paragraph is not authorization to conduct transportation missions. Missions with a sole purpose of providing transportation from point A to point B must be conducted in accordance with CAP's FAA exemption. See paragraph 2-13 and attachment 2 for additional details.

j. State, county, and local government officials are authorized to fly aboard CAP aircraft when specifically approved in advance by the CAP National Operations Center (NOC). Missions authorized by this paragraph will return with all passengers back at the point of origin without intermediate stops. This paragraph is not authorization to conduct transportation missions. Missions with a sole purpose of providing transportation from point A to point B must be conducted in accordance with CAP's FAA exemption. See paragraph 2-13 and attachment 2 for additional details.

You have to then go to the attachments for the rules on transportation, which are primarily related to FAA rules on reimbursements.  I literally just called my SD to ask where the verbiage was because we have been discussing this capability with our base commander.

There's further verbiage which is even more specific in one of the operation regs that defines mission types, I'll post it as soon as I find it. 

I do think that if I knew the regs I may have defended better.  It does seam that we look for ways to not do missions in California and through out CAP. 

As an example; The Navy Flying Club I was president of was asked to provide O rides to Sea Cadets.  Knowing the CAP stance on needing to be a Commercial Pilot, I decided to bring it up with the base JAG.  He cleared all pilots to fly Sea Cadets on O rides and laughed at the CAP stance and said that thing haven't changed much since he was a cadet.

But things have changed.  You don't have to be a Commericial Pilot in order to fly COFs.  You don't even need it for AFROTC O-Flights anymore. 

Drift.

Quote from: CASH172 on January 06, 2008, 12:45:11 AM
But things have changed.  You don't have to be a Commercial Pilot in order to fly COFs.  You don't even need it for AFROTC O-Flights anymore. 

I know bet at the time it was the law of the land (CAP land) make the aviation/military attorneys I  know laugh and shake there heads.  "Compensated flights HA HA."

As far as purchase... what is considered the average range for a new or used suit? Whats too good to be true and whats a ripoff?
Any  websites better then others? (Other then Ebay)

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 06, 2008, 06:40:39 AM
As far as purchase... what is considered the average range for a new or used suit? Whats too good to be true and whats a ripoff?
Any  websites better then others? (Other then Ebay)

New green bags range anywhere from $125-$200; if you're paying more than $200, you're getting ripped off.
Used green bags can range anywhere from $40-$100. Condition varies; some are in pretty decent shape and there are others that are only fit to be used as garage coveralls.

Looks like I got to this one a little late...

Is not wearing a flight suit in any CAP aircraft a safety hazard from any perspective?

Quote from: MikeTA on January 14, 2008, 11:16:13 PM
Looks like I got to this one a little late...

Is not wearing a flight suit in any CAP aircraft a safety hazard from any perspective?

Rather than derail yet another thread about the safety of flight suits, see this thread. (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4022.0)

Quote from: edmo1 on January 05, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

You cannot legally sign away your rights.  For example, you cannot sign a contract with your employer that says you waive your right to file a non-discrimination claim, or a workers comp claim, or right to overtime.  Guess what?  Can't sign those rights away.   That's part of th ereason why liability waivers or signs that say "Not responsible for damage" or whatever never hold up legally.

In addition, CAP gets sued all the time.  They don't post it in the Public Affairs news feed, but there are current pending lawsuits as well as plenty of past ones.

Quote from: Pylon on January 15, 2008, 02:25:49 PM

Quote from: edmo1 on January 05, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

You cannot legally sign away your rights.  For example, you cannot sign a contract with your employer that says you waive your right to file a non-discrimination claim, or a workers comp claim, or right to overtime.  Guess what?  Can't sign those rights away.   That's part of th ereason why liability waivers or signs that say "Not responsible for damage" or whatever never hold up legally.

In addition, CAP gets sued all the time.  They don't post it in the Public Affairs news feed, but there are current pending lawsuits as well as plenty of past ones.

Which I never understood. They are MY rights correct? MINE? So why can I not sign them away if *I* choose?

Sometimes I think we have the worst legal system in the world, not the supposed best.

Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 15, 2008, 02:39:42 PM

Quote from: Pylon on January 15, 2008, 02:25:49 PM

Quote from: edmo1 on January 05, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

You cannot legally sign away your rights.  For example, you cannot sign a contract with your employer that says you waive your right to file a non-discrimination claim, or a workers comp claim, or right to overtime.  Guess what?  Can't sign those rights away.   That's part of th ereason why liability waivers or signs that say "Not responsible for damage" or whatever never hold up legally.

In addition, CAP gets sued all the time.  They don't post it in the Public Affairs news feed, but there are current pending lawsuits as well as plenty of past ones.

Which I never understood. They are MY rights correct? MINE? So why can I not sign them away if *I* choose?

Sometimes I think we have the worst legal system in the world, not the supposed best.

Because unscrupulous bosses would make people who had no financial choice sign away a bunch of rights as a condition of employment. 

We've been trying to get away from this since 1865 or so.  "Inalienable rights," you know.

A little off topic, but you CAN sign away some of your rights even in an employment situation.  For instance, you can agree to binding arbitration instead of a traditional lawsuit to settle disputes under an employment contract.

But, there are a number of rights that we won't let you sign away some important rights in an employment setting for "public policy reasons."  Rights like worker's comp, discharge because of race, etc.


In a non-employment situation (e.g. a volunteer with a non-profit like CAP), you can sign away even more rights.  Like the right to sue for simple negligence.  IF the agreement is a genuine arms-length "I get something and you get something" kind of thing.  Just see the releases on the various CAP activity application forms.


Now back to your topic . . .


Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 06:35:15 AM

Why do rated members get a flight suit to wear when not flying and and everyone else is in BDU's?  So basically, your better than everyone else if your a pilot, and you have a need to differentiate yourself from those around you?  (not you personally.)  What is an AE activity?  Would that be an Aerospace lesson to cadets?  So, the cadets are all in Blues or BDU's and you roll in wearing your bag.  Doesn't make sense.

As far as flight suits go, EVERYONE should be allowed to wear them.  Especially when I have seen hundreds of them sitting in DRMO's. 

"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Quote from: MikeTA on January 14, 2008, 11:16:13 PM
Looks like I got to this one a little late...

Is not wearing a flight suit in any CAP aircraft a safety hazard from any perspective?

NO.

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 03, 2008, 01:24:34 AM
Ok....so if we limit the Bag to flight crew members, simple fix.  We start training everyone to be a crew member.  Break out the books, start studying, and participate in training activities.  PROBLEM SOLVED!  Everyone is now a rated crew member. 

If we did that, and everyone walked around in flight suits, I think some would be pissed as hell that their distinctive "trademarked" badge of "BETTERNESS" was now a common uniform.   :o  That is the impression I get from reading some replies above. 

Wearing a flight suit is letting the world know "I am more than an ordinary CAP member, I am a pilot and better than everyone else".   

Am I wrong?  Maybe, but I know some look at it that way.   :'(

Geezzz!  The only one harping on "betterness" is you.   Get over it already.

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 03, 2008, 02:47:26 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 01:49:08 AM
Some might say the same about BDUs since (for seniors) they are almost exclusively worn by ground team members. 

Gonna have to explain that one to me. Most of the members in my unit wear BDUs, and only a few are GT qualified. Most of the members in my wing are in the same status. What does being GT qualified have to do with wearing BDU's?

No need to wear a "field" uniform if one is not "field" qualified. 

Quote from: JThemann on January 03, 2008, 03:56:33 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on January 03, 2008, 03:54:19 AM
In my wing I've only once or twice seen a senior member wearing BDUs or BBDUs who was not involved in the ground team program just as I've never seen someone in a flightsuit who wasn't an aircrew member.

That's not normal......

There's more to CAP then ES you know.

But the rest of it is just something for the kids to do until they get old enough for ES...    ;D

Carl C, you don't have to repost and criticize every single thing.  Your opinions are appreciated, but can you please limit the amount of posts. 

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM
"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Yikes.  There are "non-rated" aircrew members in both the military and civilian world that wear a flightsuit.  I do believe the AF has MANY non-rated guys and girls wearing flightsuits everday.  

Not to burst anyones ego bubble, but learning to fly is not that difficult.  At least I didn't think so.  One thing to consider, some people just do NOT have extra cash to drop on learning to fly.  Even today, the Community College's offering flight training programs are getting to be rather expensive.  

So in your world, if a person wants to wear the flight suit, they must PAY for the right.  OK.  I am wondering if you paid for your school, or did (perhaps, should I say) Mom and Dad??  

If someone is flying a CAP aircraft to get from point A to point B (and paying for it him/herself) what do you suggest they wear?

What do people wear when they're flying as passengers (CAP members)?

What do people wear when they're scanner trainees?

I understand that flightsuits exist for safety, not style, so then why restrict it for anyone or anything?

Just say "for flight activity only" and be done with it.

Quote from: edmo1 on January 05, 2008, 08:24:27 PM
How often are we actually sued?

I would think we would hear about a large lawsuit against CAP. It seems that we do so much to prevent being sued, why not just sign away the right to sue for anything except for negligence on CAP's part. Make it a serve at your own risk deal.

Wait... how often are we sued or how often is it that we find out about us being sued? The two might yield different numbers.

Also, don't forget how many cases might be settled out of court.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 28, 2008, 03:25:56 AM
If someone is flying a CAP aircraft to get from point A to point B (and paying for it him/herself) what do you suggest they wear?

A CAP uniform. 

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 28, 2008, 03:25:56 AM
What do people wear when they're flying as passengers (CAP members)?

A CAP uniform.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 28, 2008, 03:25:56 AM
What do people wear when they're scanner trainees?

A CAP uniform.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 28, 2008, 03:25:56 AM
I understand that flightsuits exist for safety, not style, so then why restrict it for anyone or anything?

Just say "for flight activity only" and be done with it.

That's basically what it says today.

Quote from: CASH172 on January 28, 2008, 02:51:04 AM
Carl C, you don't have to repost and criticize every single thing.  Your opinions are appreciated, but can you please limit the amount of posts. 

You have 116 to my 13, cadet....   Hardly reposting and criticizing "every single thing."

Quote from: Carl C on February 01, 2008, 05:20:58 AM

Quote from: CASH172 on January 28, 2008, 02:51:04 AM
Carl C, you don't have to repost and criticize every single thing.  Your opinions are appreciated, but can you please limit the amount of posts. 

You have 116 to my 13, cadet....   Hardly reposting and criticizing "every single thing."

That cadet has also been a member for about 5 months longer than you and is active in many threads.

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 28, 2008, 02:59:21 AM

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM
"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Yikes.  There are "non-rated" aircrew members in both the military and civilian world that wear a flightsuit.  I do believe the AF has MANY non-rated guys and girls wearing flightsuits everday.  

Not to burst anyones ego bubble, but learning to fly is not that difficult.  At least I didn't think so.  One thing to consider, some people just do NOT have extra cash to drop on learning to fly.  Even today, the Community College's offering flight training programs are getting to be rather expensive.  

So in your world, if a person wants to wear the flight suit, they must PAY for the right.  OK.  I am wondering if you paid for your school, or did (perhaps, should I say) Mom and Dad??  

Absolutely correct.   Non-rated folks do indeed wear flightsuits.   They earn the right by learning an aviation related skill and being assigned to a flying organization.

No one said learning to fly was difficult but it does take a certain degree of motivation, dedication and effort.    You don't get a certificate just for showing up.  Besides, one doesn't need to be a pilot to be aircrew.   It doesn't take a lot of money to be a scanner or observer, now does it.

Correct again.  In my world one must pay for certain priviledge.   Doesn't need to be money...   One can pay in effort,  motivation and achievement.   If you want to wear a flightsuit...make the effort to be aircrew.   There are several non-certificated aircrew in my squadron.

By the way, I have paid my way for the last 40some years...including flight training and should I decide to invest in a flight suit, I'll pay for that as well.   A blue one.

Quote from: Carl C on February 01, 2008, 05:20:58 AM
...Hardly reposting and criticizing "every single thing."

When I said "every single thing," I meant about how you used 5 posts to comment.  You are more than encouraged to comment and sometimes criticize opinions, at least by me.

Enough.

Quote from: Carl C on February 01, 2008, 06:02:28 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 28, 2008, 02:59:21 AM

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM
"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Yikes.  There are "non-rated" aircrew members in both the military and civilian world that wear a flightsuit.  I do believe the AF has MANY non-rated guys and girls wearing flightsuits everday. 

Not to burst anyones ego bubble, but learning to fly is not that difficult.  At least I didn't think so.  One thing to consider, some people just do NOT have extra cash to drop on learning to fly.  Even today, the Community College's offering flight training programs are getting to be rather expensive. 

So in your world, if a person wants to wear the flight suit, they must PAY for the right.  OK.  I am wondering if you paid for your school, or did (perhaps, should I say) Mom and Dad?? 

Absolutely correct.   Non-rated folks do indeed wear flightsuits.   They earn the right by learning an aviation related skill and being assigned to a flying organization.

No one said learning to fly was difficult but it does take a certain degree of motivation, dedication and effort.    You don't get a certificate just for showing up.  Besides, one doesn't need to be a pilot to be aircrew.   It doesn't take a lot of money to be a scanner or observer, now does it.

Correct again.  In my world one must pay for certain priviledge.   Doesn't need to be money...   One can pay in effort,  motivation and achievement.   If you want to wear a flightsuit...make the effort to be aircrew.   There are several non-certificated aircrew in my squadron.

By the way, I have paid my way for the last 40some years...including flight training and should I decide to invest in a flight suit, I'll pay for that as well.   A blue one.

Carl, a flightsuit isn't a reward, it is a safety device and a uniform. Those who work so hard to become pilots get rewarded with the opportunity to control aircraft while in flight. In CAP they also get to wear wings devices.

Quote from: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 07:09:09 AM

Quote from: Carl C on February 01, 2008, 06:02:28 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 28, 2008, 02:59:21 AM

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM
"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Yikes.  There are "non-rated" aircrew members in both the military and civilian world that wear a flightsuit.  I do believe the AF has MANY non-rated guys and girls wearing flightsuits everday. 

Not to burst anyones ego bubble, but learning to fly is not that difficult.  At least I didn't think so.  One thing to consider, some people just do NOT have extra cash to drop on learning to fly.  Even today, the Community College's offering flight training programs are getting to be rather expensive. 

So in your world, if a person wants to wear the flight suit, they must PAY for the right.  OK.  I am wondering if you paid for your school, or did (perhaps, should I say) Mom and Dad?? 

Absolutely correct.   Non-rated folks do indeed wear flightsuits.   They earn the right by learning an aviation related skill and being assigned to a flying organization.

No one said learning to fly was difficult but it does take a certain degree of motivation, dedication and effort.    You don't get a certificate just for showing up.  Besides, one doesn't need to be a pilot to be aircrew.   It doesn't take a lot of money to be a scanner or observer, now does it.

Correct again.  In my world one must pay for certain priviledge.   Doesn't need to be money...   One can pay in effort,  motivation and achievement.   If you want to wear a flightsuit...make the effort to be aircrew.   There are several non-certificated aircrew in my squadron.

By the way, I have paid my way for the last 40some years...including flight training and should I decide to invest in a flight suit, I'll pay for that as well.   A blue one.

Carl, a flightsuit isn't a reward, it is a safety device and a uniform. Those who work so hard to become pilots get rewarded with the opportunity to control aircraft while in flight. In CAP they also get to wear wings devices.

If you followed the string you would understand my response was in regard to one who takes issue with aircrew wearing flightsuits.   He seems to believe it is an undue status symbol and certain aircrew consider themselves "better" than the rank and file.   The poster even suggests flightsuits for eveyone. 
As far as I am concerned CAP can do away with flightsuits, BDU et al and all other special dress.   Plain old coveralls would work fine for all field activities.   "Golf" shirts and grey pants suffice for everything else.   CAP and I do not consider flightsuits to be a significant safety item or else they would be required...they are not.   What's left?
Flightsuits and BDU type uniforms are a draw.   They attract members.   They are, in fact, a reward of sorts.
In my opinion, field uniforms should be reserved for field qualified members.  BDU for ground teams and flightsuits for aircrew.   They should be authorized for all activities except formal or dress occasions.  I also don't care to argue the point.    :)
As for flightsuits, they are purpose built for a close cockpit working environment.   That is the only real advantage over BDUs - which are also purpose built.   Not all aircrew wear wings or are pilots and get the "reward" of controlling an aircraft.  Besides, most of us (pilots) do the majority of our flying outside of CAP.
Question:   In most organizations having both ground and flight operations, what do the respective teams or crews wear?   Question:   In most organizations primarily organized around flight activities, what do non-flying employees wear?   What do flying employees wear?   As a rule, aircrew wear flightsuits if they wear a uniform at all.   Everyone else wears something else.   Why is that?

Quote from: Carl C on February 03, 2008, 05:14:10 AMIf you followed the string you would understand my response was in regard to one who takes issue with aircrew wearing flightsuits.   He seems to believe it is an undue status symbol and certain aircrew consider themselves "better" than the rank and file.   The poster even suggests flightsuits for eveyone. 
As far as I am concerned CAP can do away with flightsuits, BDU et al and all other special dress.   Plain old coveralls would work fine for all field activities.   "Golf" shirts and grey pants suffice for everything else.   CAP and I do not consider flightsuits to be a significant safety item or else they would be required...they are not.   What's left?
Flightsuits and BDU type uniforms are a draw.   They attract members.   They are, in fact, a reward of sorts.
In my opinion, field uniforms should be reserved for field qualified members.  BDU for ground teams and flightsuits for aircrew.    They should be authorized for all activities except formal or dress occasions.  I also don't care to argue the point.    :)
As for flightsuits, they are purpose built for a close cockpit working environment.   That is the only real advantage over BDUs - which are also purpose built.   Not all aircrew wear wings or are pilots and get the "reward" of controlling an aircraft.  Besides, most of us (pilots) do the majority of our flying outside of CAP.
Question:   In most organizations having both ground and flight operations, what do the respective teams or crews wear?   Question:   In most organizations primarily organized around flight activities, what do non-flying employees wear?   What do flying employees wear?   As a rule, aircrew wear flightsuits if they wear a uniform at all.   Everyone else wears something else.   Why is that?

To address the first highlighted area - what would you have the cadets wear when doing "dirty" activities?

To address the second - Nomex flight suits are expensive, and are not suited for many of the "dirty" activities that "everyone else" does. It is not a sturdy piece of clothing, is uncomfortable as often as not, and lacks the functionality that other clothing has (like BDUs).

Quote from: afgeo4 on February 02, 2008, 07:09:09 AM
...a flightsuit isn't a reward, it is a safety device and a uniform. Those who work so hard to become pilots get rewarded with the opportunity to control aircraft while in flight. In CAP they also get to wear wings devices.

So THAT's why they call it Civil AIR Patrol. Here I was beginning to think, after reading all this (at least as much as I could before I thought it was inane), that this was the Civil Ground Patrol or maybe the Civil Chair Patrol, judging by the amount of hand-wringing going on around here.

But seriously... seems to me it's more like this...
Groundpounders = BDU
Aircrews = Flight suits

Here in Florida, there's a kibash on wearing flight suits unless you're actually tethered to an airplane. Rumor is that it's thanks to a couple of yahoos wearing flight suits to impress chicks or something like that -- WHICH IS AGAINST REGULATION ANYWAY.

The flight suit is a great PR machine for us, as long as it's used correctly and worn correctly. Unfortunately, thanks to misuse, the privilege was revoked, so it's either the BDU (like pilots wear that) or the dorky golf shirts, which make us look like a really tight-knit flying club.

The flight suit is a special duty uniform that augments the wardrobe we all should have, which includes both blues and the BDU. If you fly (and I do), you wear the flight suit.

Enough of this "two Civil Air Patrols" garbage -- aviators have their own fraternity, but they're no different (and they don't see themselves differently) than those who think they're on the outside looking in and believe the insiders think they're "better than you." We all joined CAP, and stay in CAP, for the same reasons and for the same missions, and if you didn't, you're a one-dimensional member to begin with, so get with it.

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 06:35:15 AM

Why do rated members get a flight suit to wear when not flying and and everyone else is in BDU's?  So basically, your better than everyone else if your a pilot, and you have a need to differentiate yourself from those around you?  (not you personally.)  What is an AE activity?  Would that be an Aerospace lesson to cadets?  So, the cadets are all in Blues or BDU's and you roll in wearing your bag.  Doesn't make sense.

As far as flight suits go, EVERYONE should be allowed to wear them.  Especially when I have seen hundreds of them sitting in DRMO's. 

"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

WHAT are you talking about?

Flightsuits are worn for protection and utility while flying. They were designed for aviators to protect them from fire and the pockets were placed in such a way that would allow for ease of access in the sitting position. There is NO uniform that denotes that anyone is "better" or worse for ANY reason.

Field uniforms are worn for protection from the elements, camouflage, and durability in the field. Their pockets were placed specifically to assist in field conditions.

All military uniforms were created for specific uses and none were created to denote "status". That's what rank insignia is for.

Now I suggest you apologize to all the ground pounders before your aircraft suffers a "forced landing" and you become dependent on their inexpensive training.

If I could find a smiley or avatar for "Pissing Into the Wind", I'd be posting it right now.

Seriously, this post is asinine to an almost hilarious level. What measureable outcome can come from this argument? The division of our aircrews and ground teams by uniform?

My personal opinion? Regulations excluded, if someone wants to wear a flightsuit, let them, if it's appropriate for the situation. Doing office work and the flightsuit is more comfortable and convienant then blues? Go for it.

Frackin ridiculous....

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM
"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Speak for yourself there, cowboy. I absolutely do not consider myself better then the officer dedicated to running the cadet program, the non-flying IC, or any other contributing member of CAP, flying or not.

Your pompous attitude and general disdain for anyone except those in your "percieved" flying club is disgusting.

And this is coming from a rated CAP Pilot, Mission Pilot, and Mission Check Pilot.

Okay...I'm willing to earn the wrath of those wearing the flight suit.  I understand safety, but after that, I don't understand the appeal?  It reminds me of the overalls that the exterminator wears when spraying for bugs at my house!! >:D >:D

Why do I suddenly hear Cessna's circling above???  Oh, I see them...when did they start letting Cessna's carry ordinance???  Oooops

Quote from: DogCollar on February 12, 2008, 01:22:46 PM
Okay...I'm willing to earn the wrath of those wearing the flight suit.  I understand safety, but after that, I don't understand the appeal?  It reminds me of the overalls that the exterminator wears when spraying for bugs at my house!! >:D >:D

Why do I suddenly hear Cessna's circling above???  Oh, I see them...when did they start letting Cessna's carry ordinance???  Oooops

Well, but bug killers don't get cool patches Padre!

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM
"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

Quote from: Carl C on February 01, 2008, 05:20:58 AM
You have 116 to my 13, cadet....   Hardly reposting and criticizing "every single thing."

Yikes.  You seem to have a problem with respect.  Telling non-aircrew members that they're a lower class of member and using the term "cadet" as an indicator of a lower status of member as well won't be tolerated here.

I'll take 1 hard working, motivated mission radio operator or flight line marshaller over 10 arrogant pilots any day.
-CFI / CAP Pilot / IC

Quote from: SJFedor on February 12, 2008, 04:44:59 AM
If I could find a smiley or avatar for "Pissing Into the Wind", I'd be posting it right now.

Seriously, this post is asinine to an almost hilarious level. What measureable outcome can come from this argument? The division of our aircrews and ground teams by uniform?

My personal opinion? Regulations excluded, if someone wants to wear a flightsuit, let them, if it's appropriate for the situation. Doing office work and the flightsuit is more comfortable and convienant then blues? Go for it.

Frackin ridiculous....

I like your viewpoint. The flightsuit is comfortable in the plane (or a helicopter), and it's just as comfortable sitting in an office chair after the flight doing paperwork.

Most of the naysayers seem to be stuck on it as a status symbol. There is a lot of irony in that, because I have only been on one flight in the last couple of years where I wasn't the only one on the aircrew wearing a flightsuit. Everyone else was in a golf shirt. The only other person wearing one was a mission pilot who was flying as the observer that day.

On the Nellis AFB website today is a story about AF Chief of Staff Gen Michael Mosley meeting with a Saudi Prince.....care to notice what uniform he is wearing for this important meeting......

Also this picture was taken on a Friday (8 Feb) ...and it appears the General is wearing his "Friday" name patch using his callsign "Buzz." Also note the color of his boots.

The pic attached is a bit small, but if you go to the Nellis website (www.nellis.af.mil ) and open the story you can get to a bigger pic)

I am not going to argue points here, I will only say that so long as a member is in uniform, wearing it properly, and presenting a professional image why does it matter so long as the uniform is appropriate for the occasion.

Oh and BTW, If you look at various pics of the AF Chief of Staff at different times, many of those times you will notice a patch on the left sleeve where the pen pouch cover was, it is an F-15 silhouette patch. Also, if you reference his bio you will see that this is one of his rated airframes. I do not think that people should wear them (they are referred to as morale patches) but it is hard to tell people not to do something that their leader does.

Quote from: kilnerd on February 12, 2008, 07:50:37 PM
I do not think that people should wear them (they are referred to as morale patches) but it is hard to tell people not to do something that their leader does.

Generals are typically allowed some latitude with their uniform items. Things like jackets with names embroidered, belt buckles, some even wear fancy pistol belts with BDU's.

As for the morale patches, if the general wears it and doesn't discourage it, there's probably no real issues. But if they're telling people not to wear it, and they do, there's a problem.

Flightsuits are particularly troublesome on that issue, because it's easy to place or remove unauthorized patch. I don't know if it's an issue in the active Army, but I've been seeing some unauthorized patches on ACU's in the last couple months on the Guard side of the house. I think the "Regular Guy" tab has been the most prominent.

Quote from: Smokey on February 12, 2008, 06:11:43 PM
On the Nellis AFB website today is a story about AF Chief of Staff Gen Michael Mosley meeting with a Saudi Prince.....care to notice what uniform he is wearing for this important meeting......

Also this picture was taken on a Friday (8 Feb) ...and it appears the General is wearing his "Friday" name patch using his callsign "Buzz." Also note the color of his boots.

The pic attached is a bit small, but if you go to the Nellis website (www.nellis.af.mil ) and open the story you can get to a bigger pic)

He is an aviator and flew to Saudi Arabia which allows him to wear the proper duty uniform for flying, the flightsuit. Friday patches are authorized by commanders and funny thing is... he's the commander. Boots are 100% appropriate color for his uniform. They're sage green. His t-shirt is sand in color. He, like all other generals has been wearing the ABU for a while.

How does this relate to our topic?

Well, George, it may not exactly relate to the topic, but I think you ought to read the caption, quoted below, before further commenting on the picture. [emphasis mine]

Quote2/11/2008 - NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev.—U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley, welcomes His Royal Highness Prince Khalid bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud here Feb. 8. The prince, who is the Assistant Minister of Defense and Aviation for Military Affairs, arrived at Nellis to observe the Royal Saudi air force's participation during the ongoing Red Flag exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Larry E. Reid Jr.)

Here are a few other press releases with the good general in a flightsuit and not flying.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080123-F-5190P-001.jpg

The caption to this photo reads:

QuoteArmy, Air Force leaders discuss interoperability
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. (left), and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley sign a memorandum of agreement during the "Warfighter Talks" held Jan. 23 at Bolling Air Force Base, D.C. The two generals met to discuss interdependency and interoperability between the Army and Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo/Michael Pausic)

To save you potential embarassment, Bolling doesn't have runways; the General couldn't have flown there.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/051213-F-3050V-079.jpg

QuoteMedia round table
WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley (left) -- with Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne at his side -- answers a reporter's question during a media round table discussion at the Pentagon Dec. 13. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Jim Varhegyi)

I KNOW he didn't fly there!

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/051014-F-0000L-001.jpg

QuoteGeneral McNabb takes command of AMC 
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. -- Gen. T. Michael Moseley, far left, Air Force Chief of Staff, transfers command of Air Mobility Command to Gen. Duncan McNabb. The assumption of command took place here Oct. 14.

Like it, don't like it, IT'S A DUTY UNIFORM, worn daily whether flying or not!

Kind of interesting on the General's patches.  In the first one the patch on his right sleeve is from the 65th Aggressor Squadron (Red Flag adversary folks) at Nellis and the left sleeve is from the Weapons School at Nellis.

In the second photos he has the patch from the 66th Rescue Squadron at Nellis (they fly the HH-60) and the other sleeve the Weapons School.

His "Morale" patch on the pen pocket is the F-15 in both photos.

In the third picture he has the Heritage Flight patch worn by the demo team.

I don't think the General is rated in the HH-60 and don't think he served with the 66th RQS (at least according to his bio on the AF site).  He is a graduate of the Weapons School and was the commander there once.

Quote from: Redfire11 on February 13, 2008, 11:35:46 AM
Here are a few other press releases with the good general in a flightsuit and not flying.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080123-F-5190P-001.jpg

The caption to this photo reads:

QuoteArmy, Air Force leaders discuss interoperability
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. (left), and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley sign a memorandum of agreement during the "Warfighter Talks" held Jan. 23 at Bolling Air Force Base, D.C. The two generals met to discuss interdependency and interoperability between the Army and Air Force. (U.S. Air Force photo/Michael Pausic)

To save you potential embarassment, Bolling doesn't have runways; the General couldn't have flown there.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/051213-F-3050V-079.jpg

QuoteMedia round table
WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley (left) -- with Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne at his side -- answers a reporter's question during a media round table discussion at the Pentagon Dec. 13. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Jim Varhegyi)

I KNOW he didn't fly there!

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/051014-F-0000L-001.jpg

QuoteGeneral McNabb takes command of AMC 
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. -- Gen. T. Michael Moseley, far left, Air Force Chief of Staff, transfers command of Air Mobility Command to Gen. Duncan McNabb. The assumption of command took place here Oct. 14.

Like it, don't like it, IT'S A DUTY UNIFORM, worn daily whether flying or not!

Amen!

I went to a SAR Exercise over the weekend with my Wing Commander to observe the event and possibly put out some fires.  I called the wing king the day before "Hey boss, what are you going to wear?"  His reply:  "My bag.".  So I wore my bag too.  Did we fly?  Nope (he's not Form 5 current and I don't do much CAP flying anyways).  It's just the uniform he chose to wear, so I wore my bag to present a uniform appearance.

I don't see a difference between wearing a bag while performing office duties and wearing BDUs while performing the same duties.  Heck, I don't even have a set of BDUs with the most current set up on them.  Visit any Air Force Base, tons of guys walking around in bags.  My guess is that probably 85% or better are not going to be flying that day (for those that are rated).

So, like Matt said, it's a duty uniform.  Get over it.

I wasn't going to bother but the number of out-of-context asinine comments and personal attacks is utterly amazing.

I took exception to one who seems to think aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) wearing a flightsuit indicated said crew held the opinion of being "better" (a quote) than other members.     I also suggest that flightsuit wear was indeed a form of reward for making the effort of obtaining aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) rating.   I did mention that becoming a pilot also entailed considerable expense but the gist of my comments refer to AIRCREW (aircrew - not pilots) as in Observer and Scanner as well as pilots.   I suggest the wear of BDU type is (or at least should be) along the same line a sort of reward for earning ground team rating.   I used the word "better" in reference to those who make the effort to achieve more than the general run-of-the-mill member.  I even specified that DID NOT imply personally "better."   etc, etc, etc....
Let's see...   oh yes.   "Cadet" is an entirely proper form of address.   For a cadet to presume to direct, limit, order and/or instruct an adult and senior member is, in my humble opinion - rather rude.
Take your shots...have a good time.   There's nothing of value here.     Mr. dcpacemaker, CAPTalk Moderator
Dark S'Member Lord (whatever that is), feel free to delete any and all trace of my posted opinion as well as my login information.   What a waste of time...

Quote from: Carl C on February 15, 2008, 01:23:10 AM
I wasn't going to bother but the number of out-of-context asinine comments and personal attacks is utterly amazing.

I took exception to one who seems to think aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) wearing a flightsuit indicated said crew held the opinion of being "better" (a quote) than other members.     I also suggest that flightsuit wear was indeed a form of reward for making the effort of obtaining aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) rating.   I did mention that becoming a pilot also entailed considerable expense but the gist of my comments refer to AIRCREW (aircrew - not pilots) as in Observer and Scanner as well as pilots.   I suggest the wear of BDU type is (or at least should be) along the same line a sort of reward for earning ground team rating.   I used the word "better" in reference to those who make the effort to achieve more than the general run-of-the-mill member.  I even specified that DID NOT imply personally "better."   etc, etc, etc....
Let's see...   oh yes.   "Cadet" is an entirely proper form of address.   For a cadet to presume to direct, limit, order and/or instruct an adult and senior member is, in my humble opinion - rather rude.
Take your shots...have a good time.   There's nothing of value here.     Mr. dcpacemaker, CAPTalk Moderator
Dark S'Member Lord (whatever that is), feel free to delete any and all trace of my posted opinion as well as my login information.   What a waste of time...

It all smacks of elitism. That's a problem. Everyone works on the team.

If a person doesn't fly at all, and never, there is probably no real reason for them to have a bag. If they want to wear it they should check with their CC. BDU's are far different. Try telling someone in the Air Force that they don't deserve to wear a utility unless they go in the woods, and they're likely to introduce their differing opinion to you in a painful manner. Allowing BDU wear as a "reward" is simple elitism, an attitude of "Look what I got!".

I guess you might not read this. If you do, hopefully you'll consider it enough of a waste of time to move on.

Quote from: Smokey on February 13, 2008, 05:45:44 PM
Kind of interesting on the General's patches.

Gen. Moseley, like most senior officers, can opt to wear the patches of the unit he's visiting and/or flying with. This is not uncommon -- even if you're on an Air Force wing staff, and you're flying with one of your squadrons, you'll slap on their patches to fly with them.

I've seen the CSAF wear his HAF (that's Headquarters Air Force for you up in West Virginia) MAJCOM patch, as he typically would, on his flight suit.

You'll notice with the Saudi, he's wearing the ACC MAJCOM patch. He's not with ACC, needless to say, but NAFB is an ACC base.

Make sense?

Quote from: Carl C on February 15, 2008, 01:23:10 AM
I wasn't going to bother but the number of out-of-context asinine comments and personal attacks is utterly amazing.

I took exception to one who seems to think aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) wearing a flightsuit indicated said crew held the opinion of being "better" (a quote) than other members.     I also suggest that flightsuit wear was indeed a form of reward for making the effort of obtaining aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) rating.   I did mention that becoming a pilot also entailed considerable expense but the gist of my comments refer to AIRCREW (aircrew - not pilots) as in Observer and Scanner as well as pilots.   I suggest the wear of BDU type is (or at least should be) along the same line a sort of reward for earning ground team rating.   I used the word "better" in reference to those who make the effort to achieve more than the general run-of-the-mill member.  I even specified that DID NOT imply personally "better."   etc, etc, etc....
Let's see...   oh yes.   "Cadet" is an entirely proper form of address.   For a cadet to presume to direct, limit, order and/or instruct an adult and senior member is, in my humble opinion - rather rude.
Take your shots...have a good time.   There's nothing of value here.     Mr. dcpacemaker, CAPTalk Moderator
Dark S'Member Lord (whatever that is), feel free to delete any and all trace of my posted opinion as well as my login information.   What a waste of time...

Have fun with the little green men there Mister.

This thread died about twelve posts up.  Perhaps a LOCK would be appropriate.  Until then let me get the last words in.

It does not matter who can or can not, who is allowed and not allowed, who should or should not.  All that matters is to remember to wear something.  On those cold days when you get the call to go fly, just imagine how terrible it would be if you went up in the Aircraft NAKED.  So from me to you, put something (anything) on and quit complaining that what you put on is not as great as what the guy down the block put on.  (Readers Digest Version of my Rant......don't go flying naked, wear something)

LOCK?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

 ;D :D ;D

Quote from: Carl C on February 15, 2008, 01:23:10 AM
I wasn't going to bother but the number of out-of-context asinine comments and personal attacks is utterly amazing.

I took exception to one who seems to think aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) wearing a flightsuit indicated said crew held the opinion of being "better" (a quote) than other members.     I also suggest that flightsuit wear was indeed a form of reward for making the effort of obtaining aircrew (aircrew - not pilot) rating.   I did mention that becoming a pilot also entailed considerable expense but the gist of my comments refer to AIRCREW (aircrew - not pilots) as in Observer and Scanner as well as pilots.   I suggest the wear of BDU type is (or at least should be) along the same line a sort of reward for earning ground team rating.   I used the word "better" in reference to those who make the effort to achieve more than the general run-of-the-mill member.  I even specified that DID NOT imply personally "better."   etc, etc, etc....
Let's see...   oh yes.   "Cadet" is an entirely proper form of address.   For a cadet to presume to direct, limit, order and/or instruct an adult and senior member is, in my humble opinion - rather rude.
Take your shots...have a good time.   There's nothing of value here.     Mr. dcpacemaker, CAPTalk Moderator
Dark S'Member Lord (whatever that is), feel free to delete any and all trace of my posted opinion as well as my login information.   What a waste of time...

No, Sir.  I took nothing out of context, and I have no intention of deleting anything or locking this thread (at this point). Just to be fair, here's your post I quoted with the post you quoted/responded to (with emphasis to specific portions of your post):

Quote from: Carl C on January 28, 2008, 02:24:59 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on January 02, 2008, 06:35:15 AM

Why do rated members get a flight suit to wear when not flying and and everyone else is in BDU's?  So basically, your better than everyone else if your a pilot, and you have a need to differentiate yourself from those around you?  (not you personally.)  What is an AE activity?  Would that be an Aerospace lesson to cadets?  So, the cadets are all in Blues or BDU's and you roll in wearing your bag.  Doesn't make sense.

As far as flight suits go, EVERYONE should be allowed to wear them.  Especially when I have seen hundreds of them sitting in DRMO's. 

"Rated" members get to wear flightsuits because they are rated...just like other aircrew, civil and military.
Why?  Because we are better.   Not in the personal sense but because we have spent the bucks (pilots) and did the work to achieve the rating.   Simple as that.   Want to wear the flightsuit?   Earn it.   Otherwise, BDU for you.
Which is exactly why some want to restrict us from wearing it...

It doesn't matter exactly how you meant you and other aircrew are better.  It matters only that your intent is that those who have "earned" the "right" to wear the flight suit are better than the "general run-of-the-mill member".  That screams of elitism.  I stand by my previous statement.

As for C/2d Lt Kim's comment, while it could have been written a little more direct in stating that your posts could have been done in a single post, as far as I can tell there was no definite way for C/2d Lt Kim to know that you are the ranking officer (or that you are even a current member of CAP) since you have no identifying information in your post.  Besides, the advice was sound, regardless of who gives it.  Your response with its demeaning connotation of this member's status as a cadet instead of the statement at face value is not necessary or (in my humble opinion) appropriate.