Flight Suit Wear

[RiverAux]

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). 

[lordmonar]

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.

[Dragoon]

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?

[Hawk200]

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.

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?

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

Flight suits are also like total chick magnets, too. 

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

[Dragoon]

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."

[Gunner C]

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."

[SAR-EMT1]

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?

[T34 Flyer]

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.

[SAR-EMT1]

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.

[T34 Flyer]

No.

They stated that it was outside the mission of CAP.

[RiverAux]

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.

[T34 Flyer]

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.

[T34 Flyer]

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

[mikeylikey]

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. 

[Eclipse]

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.

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. 

[RiverAux]

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. 

[lordmonar]

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

[afgeo4]

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.

[fyrfitrmedic]

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.