Already checked 39-1. No results for what I am looking for. Is there any problem with putting inconspicuous velcro on the BDU pocket to attach different patches?
Quote from: blackbrandt on May 20, 2014, 07:54:33 PM
Already checked 39-1. No results for what I am looking for. Is there any problem with putting inconspicuous velcro on the BDU pocket to attach different patches?
The only thing 39-1 is specific on is the alteration of the uniform that would detract from its utility. I personally have replaced the top pocket buttons with velcro (stupid stiff fat fingers) and have inconspicuously sewn down the flaps to the bottom ones and cargo pockets, removing the buttons on those as well since I don't use them. Eclipse might argue with me about it, but aesthetically it can't be seen as different.
To answer your question: At one time I believe it was in there, but so many parents have lost the art of sewing that hot gluing patches on has taken hold. It ruins the fabric. I have to tell cadets EXACTLY how to attach the patches and things because I see so many deviations from the "rule". Sew the velcro on. It's hard but can be done. Don't rely on the adhesive kind. Use the non-sticky. If someone has an issue with it, smile and nod and go home and sew it on. Really, now that I think of it, there is no reason to velcro patches on at all.
Here's a semi-related thread regarding uniform mods including Velcro patches. While I don't think there's specific guidance on the subject, take a look at this form, and you should find that the consensus says 'no.'
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17007.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17007.0)
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 20, 2014, 07:59:23 PMEclipse might argue with me about it, but aesthetically it can't be seen as different.
In this case I could care less - as you say, anything not visible or which does not detract from the appearance
is between you and your tailor. Depending how it's done, however, you might be sorry on the velco -
it will actually sit up higher then the buttons, and tends to collect a lot of floral, especially Cockleburs.
Personally, I've removed the buttons from the top pockets of my field uniforms, and sewed the pockets down.
I then used the dosimeter pockets from inside the left pocket to create pen slots on the lower left sleeve.
I also have my trousers perma-bloused by using the ribbon to pull blousing bands in through the slot,
crimping the hooks and letting them fall into the slot.
So far Armageddon has been deferred.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 20, 2014, 07:59:23 PMEclipse might argue with me about it, but aesthetically it can't be seen as different.
In this case I could care less - as you say, anything not visible or which does not detract from the appearance
is between you and your tailor. Depending how it's done, however, you might be sorry on the velco -
it will actually sit up higher then the buttons, and tends to collect a lot of floral, especially Cockleburs.
Personally, I've removed the buttons from the top pockets of my field uniforms, and sewed the pockets down.
I then used the dosimeter pockets from inside the left pocket to create pen slots on the lower left sleeve.
I also have my trousers perma-bloused by using the ribbon to pull blousing bands in through the slot,
crimping the hooks and letting them fall into the slot.
So far Armageddon has been deferred.
I had a pair of BDU pants that I painstakingly sewed blousing straps in as well. Talk about an exercise! Never considered using the inside pocket for a pen pocket. I will have to try that.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 20, 2014, 08:18:31 PMI had a pair of BDU pants that I painstakingly sewed blousing straps in as well. Talk about an exercise! Never considered using the inside pocket for a pen pocket. I will have to try that.
Once you've carefully snipped the factory threads holding the ribbon in, it's mostly just a pull-through, until
you have to crimp then. I've used #14 wire as a fish tape a couple times when I lost the ribbon.
Quote from: Garibaldi on May 20, 2014, 08:18:31 PMI had a pair of BDU pants that I painstakingly sewed blousing straps in as well. Talk about an exercise! Never considered using the inside pocket for a pen pocket. I will have to try that.
The pocket worked out nice, though it's a bear to sew because the seams run parallel to the sleeve - made me seriously consider one
of those sewing machine with the rotating needle heads and longer-throw, though the nice lady on the corner could have probably
knocked it out in 5 minutes for $5 as well.
Cut a kevlar helmet band in half, stitch that in each leg instead of the twisty blousers. Little wider (better for circulation) and more secure. All 3 sets of ACUs are done that way. Very Gucci.
Did you leave the little reflecty thingies on there so people can see you leave at night?
Quote from: NIN on May 20, 2014, 10:08:27 PMAll 3 sets of ACUs are done that way.
Must be for some other organization..
Quote from: a2capt on May 20, 2014, 10:40:20 PM
Quote from: NIN on May 20, 2014, 10:08:27 PMAll 3 sets of ACUs are done that way.
Must be for some other organization..
Shhhh....NIN is in the Super Secret Ninja Squirell test squadron. No one knows about it. Totally different than Area 51 Composite.
What? About what? Who? What day is it?
The draft of CAPM 39-1, which is not official yet, replaced the word "worn" on the current CAPM 39-1 with the word "sewn" with regards to patches. Some wings, such as Florida Wing, specifically prohibit Velcro on BDUs. Personally, I think affixing patches with Velcro on BDUs doesn't look good. And there's no practical purpose other than switching patches to "show off". In my opinion, if you want to look professional, sew the patches to the uniform. If you want to display more than one, get multiple BDU shirts.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 20, 2014, 10:48:06 PMSome wings, such as Florida Wing, specifically prohibit Velcro on BDUs.
Why on Gaia's Terra would anyone at a wing level give this enough attention to actually formally prohibit it?
What a waste of time.
Seriously.
I went thru the time to do the whole Velcro on my pocket flaps once. Literally took the pocket flaps off to do it very completely.
Almost never opened my pockets so it didn't justify the effort.
I just pull the buttons and sew them down now.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 10:53:59 PMWhy on Gaia's Terra would anyone at a wing level give this enough attention to actually formally prohibit it?
It's Florida. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 10:53:59 PMWhat a waste of time.
Because they're in a position that they can. Posturing.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 10:53:59 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 20, 2014, 10:48:06 PMSome wings, such as Florida Wing, specifically prohibit Velcro on BDUs.
Why on Gaia's Terra would anyone at a wing level give this enough attention to actually formally prohibit it?
What a waste of time.
Seriously.
I could very well think that ILWG (or any wing for that matter) makes decisions that doesn't make sense, but I've never been a part of that wing so I won't pretend to know what rationale is used there or anywhere else to make decisions. As for the reason FLWG had, I can only imagined it was becoming a problem at one time (I've only heard stories). Either way, that's a commander's prerogative and I'm not going to "waste time" questioning the reason. Seriously.
Quote from: raivo on May 20, 2014, 11:00:35 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 10:53:59 PMWhy on Gaia's Terra would anyone at a wing level give this enough attention to actually formally prohibit it?
It's Florida. 'Nuff said.
I'm not sure I want to "waste time" addressing this comment since it adds no value to the discussion.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 20, 2014, 11:14:14 PM
I could very well think that ILWG (or any wing for that matter) makes decisions that doesn't make sense, but I've never been a part of that wing so I won't pretend to know what rationale is used there or anywhere else to make decisions. As for the reason FLWG had, I can only imagined it was becoming a problem at one time (I've only heard stories). Either way, that's a commander's prerogative and I'm not going to "waste time" questioning the reason. Seriously.
Cite please. I'm sure we have, but we don't waste time on silly supplements and have been trying to get rid of the ones we don't need.
I would seriously love to hear a story about how velcro became a "problem". I've sen a couple of people who could not
sew it on right with help from Martha Stewart, but not a "problem".
No need to. It's not my policy, so I don't need to waste my time explaining or justifying it.
"We"? I didn't know you were a wing commander. And why do you need to "try"? Do or do not.
Expressing an opinion on a supplement you haven't read because of an issue you're not aware of, well, that seems like a waste of time too. I guess some will always have to voice their opinions whether they have first hand knowledge and understanding or not. ;)
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2014, 08:21:58 PM
"We"? I didn't know you were a wing commander. And why do you need to "try"?
Because as you say, I am not a Wing CC, and the way this works is that the staff "shops" things in the various
departments, and then recommends the changes to the Wing CC who either approves them or doesn't. (i.e. "we").
The mantra of the wing departments actually considering the question was "lost the sups and do things by the regs".
Why?
A: Supps are a hassle to maintain, especially when they are about silly things.
B: It simply eliminates all the conversations about "this or that supplement, addendum, or double-secret policy
waiting approval, which wastes more time and initiative.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 21, 2014, 08:21:58 PM
Expressing an opinion on a supplement you haven't read because of an issue you're not aware of, well, that seems like a waste of time too. I guess some will always have to voice their opinions whether they have first hand knowledge and understanding or not.
If you don't want an opinion or comment on a given issue, don't publish it here, that's what this is, a "discussion group".
I stand by my statement and will go further to say that any Wing CC, or other staff officer who is devoting
their limited time and energy to considering, drafting, approving, and then subsequently maintaining
a Wing supplement on something silly like this, or other ancillary, unnecessary issues, "double-statements" of
existing regulations, etc., etc., is not focused on where they should be and it is to the detriment of their people.
In this specific case, the FLWG supp to 39-1 is almost a textbook case of the issue - there are two things
on it which are "necessary" - the definition of the additional FLWG shoulder cords, and the FLWG PT uniform.
Everything else is either a reiteration of other regulations, or and this is the the best, about 1/2 the supplement
is devoted to how to properly wear a bluetooth earpiece. (seriously).
Certainly there are situations unique to given areas of the country (mountain flying, desert ops, etc.) and those should be
addressed either via OIs or the dreaded supplement, but something like this smacks of someone with a
personal issue with one or a small group of people, and then subsequent to that no one has the initiative to
care enough to remove it. Cadet Bago is sitting in a CAC meeting going "schrich, schrich" with his BDU pocket and
the next thing you know it's verboten in the whole wing.
We have a national program, with national standards, but time and apathy have allowed CAP to devolve into
52 subgroups, all "empowered" and not to the advantage of the organization. It's one of the primary reasons
the previous governance model broke down and was (finally) eliminated.
This is along the lines of Wing Supps that reiterate things already required, as if putting add "really really"
to a supp is going to encourage behavior the reg can't compel.
Wasted.
Time.
"Choice has always been a problem for you... what you need is someone strong to guide you."