So, I used the search function and couldn't find my answer.
Is it me, the Percocet, the extreme pain affecting my site, or my lack of patience that tells me Vanguard doesn't sell the grey pants for wear with the Blue Polo shirt?
Where's the best place to gett'em from?
Topic title - MIKE
That's because they're "commercial" pants.
I'd imagine gray straight cut men's pants are fairly easy to find....no? Dockers sells gray khakis on their website.
I've seen people wearing what seem to be a "standard" grey pant. Just figured since you get the blue polo from Vanguard, the grey pants would be there too. There I go thinking again.
Walmart.......$12.50 Sizes from very small to XXL....i.e. waist size 24 to 58!
Quote from: mikeylikey on November 03, 2007, 10:42:56 PM
....i.e. waist size 24 to 58!
They don't have 60"? Guess I'm outta luck.
I honestly didn't know there were so many shades and styles of gray pants until I joined CAP and you're seeing a standard one? If you see a standard womans pant, ask where they got it, because I sure can't find any.
The Bookstore used to have a "standard" grey trouser they would sell for wear with the Blazer uniform.
It was the "standard" only because it was the only one they sold.
I guess Vanguard has screwed up and missed this little profit opportunity.
Don't feel too bad, they also couldn't replace my kids' service coats or service jackets after last week's fire. The lady actually told me to get it on Ebay.
Stonewall,
Your best bet would just be to go to a place that sells suits and pick up a pair of darker grey slacks - they look the best with the polo. Please don't get the grey cargo pocketed/blouseable rayon pants with the zip off legs...
Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 04, 2007, 01:34:26 AM
Please don't get the grey cargo pocketed/blouseable rayon pants with the zip off legs...
Guess I've gotta head back to REI. Hope I saved that receipt.
I guess it's better than spandex >:D
UK, when you go to buy them: Say no to pleats! :o
I'm not a pleat guy anyway. It's a uniform, not a suit.
There's a rule in mens fashion anyway.
Pleats = cuffs
No pleats = no cuffs
I wore suits for the 5 years in my last life, I learned a few things at Brooks Brothers and Joseph A. Banks.
Hey I'm with you there. Only two pair of pants I own have pleats (the pants that go with my most formal suit, and my tuxedo). The rest of my 5 or so other suits, plus assorted dress pants all sport no pleats. I just prefer the clean, smooth lines. Also helps give a slender, modern appearance.
Nothing makes me cringe more than some guy with billowy pleats in his Dockers and the polo all crammed into the waist line. ;D
Through work I have become a huge fan of these pants, and they make them in a grey color.
Thoughts?
(http://www.usmilitarysurplus.com/surpluscatalog/images/511tacticalpant.jpg)
Quote from: Pylon on November 05, 2007, 03:21:49 AM
UK, when you go to buy them: Say no to pleats! :o
Does *anyone* wear pleats anymore?
Quote from: star1151 on November 05, 2007, 02:46:03 PM
Does *anyone* wear pleats anymore?
For casual wear, sadly yes. But in the dress world they do have their place (though I prefer to not wear them at all... ever) - especially the single pleat, which is becoming in vogue with some of the high end designers very recently.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on November 05, 2007, 01:44:52 PM
Through work I have become a huge fan of these pants, and they make them in a grey color.
Thoughts?
It depends on if the 511 tactical pants meet the CAPM 39-1 Table 4-4, Item 1. guidelines for pants:
Quote from: CAPM 39-1Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).
Have to agree with Pylon. CAPM 39-1 is very specific re: grey trousers, they must be "dress trousers" and "no jeans or casual trousers made of cotton or twill".
Quote from: PA Guy on November 05, 2007, 03:00:47 PM
...no jeans or casual trousers made of cotton or twill.
"Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized "
I found a pair of old uniform pants a security company used and those are great for use with the polo.
Quote from: PA Guy on November 05, 2007, 03:00:47 PM
Have to agree with Pylon. CAPM 39-1 is very specific re: grey trousers, they must be "dress trousers" and "no jeans or casual trousers made of cotton or twill".
That's for the aviator shirt uniform. Cotton or twill is authorized with the golf shirt.
Quote from: star1151 on November 05, 2007, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on November 05, 2007, 03:00:47 PM
Have to agree with Pylon. CAPM 39-1 is very specific re: grey trousers, they must be "dress trousers" and "no jeans or casual trousers made of cotton or twill".
That's for the aviator shirt uniform. Cotton or twill is authorized with the golf shirt.
Right. See Table 4-4 for the golf shirt. The quote is different (see my previous post for the golf-shirt-specific clause/extract). Of course, if you wear both the aviator shirt uniform and the golf shirt, it'd be wise to get a pair which meets both specifications so as to be interchangeable. But nonetheless, the requirements
are different.
Quote from: Pylon on November 05, 2007, 06:40:15 PM
Of course, if you wear both the aviator shirt uniform and the golf shirt, it'd be wise to get a pair which meets both specifications so as to be interchangeable.
So my question then becomes....where do you find "dress slacks/trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend"?
Quote from: star1151 on November 05, 2007, 06:52:47 PM
Quote from: Pylon on November 05, 2007, 06:40:15 PM
Of course, if you wear both the aviator shirt uniform and the golf shirt, it'd be wise to get a pair which meets both specifications so as to be interchangeable.
So my question then becomes....where do you find "dress slacks/trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend"?
Dillards, Macy's, JC Penny, Jos A Bank, Brooks Brothers, Kohls, Walmart. Pick your place.
To expand on Ricecake's post, Sears Flex Slax are great. I have several pair in different colors that I wear for semi-dressy stuff. I have two pair of medium grey that I use specifically for CAP.
Here are all the quotes on grey pants, all in one post:
Table 4-1. Men's CAP Blazer Uniform
Commercial dress trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. (No jeans or causal trousers made of cotton or twill fabric.) Front of trouser legs rests on the front of shoe or boot. No bunching at waist or sagging at seat. Trousers must be worn at natural waist.
Table 4-3. Men's and Women's Aviator Shirt with Epaulets Uniform
Commercial dress slacks/trousers of medium gray flannel, tropical worsted, or similar commercial blend, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. (No jeans or casual slacks.) No bunching at waist or bagging at seat.
Table 4-4. Men's and Women's Golf Shirt/Summer Uniform
Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).
Quote from: ricecakecm on November 05, 2007, 11:15:30 PM
Dillards, Macy's, JC Penny, Jos A Bank, Brooks Brothers, Kohls, Walmart. Pick your place.
Haven't found gray flannel pants as of yet. It's hard enough to find cotton/twill gray pants that are straight cut....they just don't make them. I had to actually have boot cut pants altered for the polo shirt uniform. I'd say it would be easier to order them from Vanguard, but...you know...
Quote from: star1151 on November 05, 2007, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on November 05, 2007, 03:00:47 PM
Have to agree with Pylon. CAPM 39-1 is very specific re: grey trousers, they must be "dress trousers" and "no jeans or casual trousers made of cotton or twill".
That's for the aviator shirt uniform. Cotton or twill is authorized with the golf shirt.
Thanks for the correction. I got my last pair of gray trousers from Brooks Brothers. Ordered them online and got them within a week.
Quote from: star1151 on November 06, 2007, 12:03:08 AM
Quote from: ricecakecm on November 05, 2007, 11:15:30 PM
Dillards, Macy's, JC Penny, Jos A Bank, Brooks Brothers, Kohls, Walmart. Pick your place.
Haven't found gray flannel pants as of yet. It's hard enough to find cotton/twill gray pants that are straight cut....they just don't make them. I had to actually have boot cut pants altered for the polo shirt uniform. I'd say it would be easier to order them from Vanguard, but...you know...
Walmart has a
cheap medium grey flat front dress pant. The only other I have found is Haggar's "Cool 18" line. "Taupe" is medium grey. Also a dress pant. No luck at all finding anything like Dockers in medium grey.
http://www.qmuniforms.com
LawPro® Pre-hemmed Fine-Line Twill Uniform Trousers
Great price and they look nice!
Our Fine-Line Twill trousers are now available pre-hemmed for your convenience!
Our top-of-the-line 100% polyester gabardine 4-pocket uniform trousers are made exclusively by Quartermaster
• Bartack reinforcements at all stress points for durable, every day wear.
• Soil and stain resistant finish for superior appearance.
• 2 deep back pockets with left pocket button closure.
• Snug-Tex® waistband to keep your uniform shirt tucked in your trousers.
• Imported.
Heather Grey, $19.99
Haband is another one; they pretty much specialize in Geek-wear, but they have the gray slacks and blue pants that are almost dead-on 1625.
www.haband.com
I have 3 pairs of Puritan slacks in different colors from Wallyworld with a hidden elastic piece on each side. They last a long time and give that extra room, like after Thanksgiving. That's what I use with aviator shirt or golf shirt combos.
Dickies makes a medium/dark grey pant that can be found at Wallyworld or other locations, but I don't know the fabric content.
Quote from: Carl C on November 15, 2007, 04:45:09 AM
Walmart has a cheap medium grey flat front dress pant. The only other I have found is Haggar's "Cool 18" line. "Taupe" is medium grey. Also a dress pant. No luck at all finding anything like Dockers in medium grey.
Those are men's pants.
Ladies - I've had good luck with Chadwick's.
http://www.chadwicks.com/womens-Pants.aspx?DeptId=15763
If you have a Goody's near you, they almost always have flattering flat-front grey slacks as well.
Quote from: star1151 on November 23, 2007, 04:47:49 PM
Quote from: Carl C on November 15, 2007, 04:45:09 AM
Walmart has a cheap medium grey flat front dress pant. The only other I have found is Haggar's "Cool 18" line. "Taupe" is medium grey. Also a dress pant. No luck at all finding anything like Dockers in medium grey.
Those are men's pants.
Was at Wal*Mart today and saw medium gray women's dress slacks that would easily meet the criteria.
DISCLAIMER: I don't normally hang out in the women's clothing section, my wife was looking for something...
So, grey 5.11 pants are a no-go? I'm guessing so, although they meet the requirement for the material, they do have cargo pockets.
(http://patricksuniforms.com/images/511_MP_SPEC_PANT.png)
They make other more "class A" type pants out of the same material, but so far I haven't found grey.
Like these "covert khakis", but they don't make friggin grey...
(http://www.511tactical.com/511Images/WebImages/Products/2006Update/large/74269_birch_lg.jpg)
Just sent 5.11 a message on their site, wonder if it'll help...
Quote
As a volunteer member of the Civil Air Patrol, US Air Force Auxiliary, we have the option of wearing an organizational polo shirt with grey trousers. Unfortunately, our regulations do not allow cargo-style pants like the original 5.11s. I noticed recently, the new "covert khakis". Is it possible to get these in grey or a similar type pant made in grey. Class A pants look suitable, but again, I haven't seen any in grey.
Thanks for your quality product, I've been wearing them for years on protection details, as an instructor and now federal law enforcement officer.
Cheers.
Kirt Bowden
Who / where does it say we can't have cargo pockets?
Oh come on, I don't quote regs. But doesn't it say something like "dress pants"?
Quote from: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 06:25:56 AM
Oh come on, I don't quote regs. But doesn't it say something like "dress pants"?
As indicated a few posts up:
Table 4-4. Men's and Women's Golf Shirt/Summer Uniform
Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).
Dress slacks for the whites, but not the golf shirt.
Ok, grey cargo 5.11s it is then.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 06, 2007, 06:34:43 AM
Ok, grey cargo 5.11s it is then.
Unless they change the regs to Khakis and Gulf Shirt. ;)
my 5.11s look more dressy, and more professional than the vast majority of CAP grey slacks
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 06:32:08 AM
Table 4-4. Men's and Women's Golf Shirt/Summer Uniform
Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).
"Slacks/trousers" would seem to imply no cargo pockets....
Quote from: star1151 on December 06, 2007, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 06:32:08 AM
Table 4-4. Men's and Women's Golf Shirt/Summer Uniform
Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).
"Slacks/trousers" would seem to imply no cargo pockets....
Except for places that sell trousers with cargo pockets...
Quote from: star1151 on December 06, 2007, 06:17:59 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 06:32:08 AM
Table 4-4. Men's and Women's Golf Shirt/Summer Uniform
Commercial slacks/trousers in medium gray color, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill weave trousers are authorized (no jeans).
"Slacks/trousers" would seem to imply no cargo pockets....
I agree with you there. Personally, I've never seen anyone with anything but "slacks/trousers"; never any cargo/tactical type pants. Not saying that I don't want them, but I try not to assume I can do something just because it doesn't say I can't.
I went to Kohl's and bought a pair of medium grey Dockers without pleats or cuffs. Look pretty casual and not too dressy. Still considering buying a set of grey 5.11s, but the level of participation I'm at in CAP right now, not sure it's worth it either way.
See, I'm a huge proponent of wearing the UOD, but that would require me to get a haircut every two weeks vs every 3 to 4. And it's just not worth it to me. Plus, with a kid in the house, it's that much harder to iron my uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 06, 2007, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: star1151 on December 06, 2007, 06:17:59 PM
"Slacks/trousers" would seem to imply no cargo pockets....
Except for places that sell trousers with cargo pockets...
I've never seen trousers with cargo pockets....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers)
Just for giggles
Quote from: isuhawkeye on December 07, 2007, 04:12:06 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers)
Just for giggles
and another! http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/vocab/etym/history/pants.htm (http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/vocab/etym/history/pants.htm)
Wouldnt be interesting if it were mandated that the grey trousers were either the 5.11 tacticals or the new Propper "knock offs" which look exactly like the 5.11 but for about half the price. Or at least specify the shade to worn....as something like "HRT grey" which seems to be what alot of companies are calling their grey tact pants lately. I think the original 5.11 tacticals or the newer Proppers would look excellent. I wear them for the medical response team Im on when the occasion doesnt call for full BDUs. I still wear them with boots and the t-shirt of turtleneck, I just actually press them and leave my boot blousers in the drawer. I suppose that alot of the simplicity with the IMERT uniforms is that we dont have "fat and fuzzy" and "lean and clean" versions. All members are considered of equal worth rather than discrimination of any kind and as such are allowed to proudly wear the same uniform as the rest of us...reverse flag and all. Speaking of which, there has never been any internal conflict on this team about the purpose, intent or unhappiness with the reverse flag.
See how nice and simple.
You know, after wearing the blue polo (with Master GTM) and grey pants, I took more notice of the fellas wearing the same combo. They're old! Seriously, OLD! At least 25 years older than me. I can't see them wearing 5.11s or some sort of [nice looking] tactical pants.
But that doesn't change my thoughts of having two types of grey (or khaki) pants with this shirt. The shirt truly isn't bad looking. In fact, my wife said it looked good on me.
But, based on the UOD for the squadron, or what type of activity you're attending, we could have "dressier" grey pants for blues nights, and "field type" grey pants for BDU nights.
If I were working mission base, I could wear my polo with 5.11s. If I were attending SLS, I could wear more appropriate trousers.
Just sayin. That could be my complete collection of CAP uniforms in my currrent status as a sort of show up type guy.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 07, 2007, 03:06:56 PM
You know, after wearing the blue polo (with Master GTM) and grey pants, I took more notice of the fellas wearing the same combo. They're old! Seriously, OLD! At least 25 years older than me. I can't see them wearing 5.11s or some sort of [nice looking] tactical pants.
I just asked my coworkers what they thought of me wearing tactical pants. I haven't gotten an answer yet, because they're still laughing.
Of course, my squadron is fairly young, and I see a lot of polo shirt/gray pants, so it's not just old guys!
If you dont tuck the shirt pocket in to the belt line you look a whole lot younger... :D :D >:D
Newbie here. I joined CAP a couple of years ago because it was an opportunity to fly with some purpose beyond $100 hamburgers. Commercial/Instrument rated, I have been an MP for about a year. Maybe 1/4 of my flying is CAP, including CAP training. Zero interest in ribbons, rank, or the fine points of uniformology.
I need another pair of "golf shirt pants." Reading the regs and this thread, it seems to me that gray cotton cargo pants are legal. Right? 5.11 Tactical or something like Cabelas Trailhiker 90-0037?
Quote from: Dad2-4 on November 23, 2007, 02:56:22 PM
Dickie's makes a medium/dark grey pant that can be found at Wallyworld or other locations, but I don't know the fabric content.
65% Polyester, 35% Cotton.
Quote from: airdale on December 28, 2007, 02:41:15 PM
Newbie here. I joined CAP a couple of years ago because it was an opportunity to fly with some purpose beyond $100 hamburgers. Commercial/Instrument rated, I have been an MP for about a year. Maybe 1/4 of my flying is CAP, including CAP training. Zero interest in ribbons, rank, or the fine points of uniformology.
I need another pair of "golf shirt pants." Reading the regs and this thread, it seems to me that gray cotton cargo pants are legal. Right? 5.11 Tactical or something like Cabelas Trailhiker 90-0037?
As much as many folks would like it, cargo pants are not authorized.
Quote... cargo pants are not authorized.
With all due respect, can you provide documentation of that? Is there something supplemental to 39-1?
It would seem that 39-1 requires gray, permits cotton, and permits casual. Gray cotton cargo pants are within those categories.
Pockets are not mentioned, of course. But certainly this would not cause one to conclude that pockets are prohibited. That would be kind of inconvenient. So how would one conclude that only a particular
kind of pocket is prohibited?
Quote from: airdale on January 16, 2008, 11:33:41 PM
Quote... cargo pants are not authorized.
With all due respect, can you provide documentation of that? Is there something supplemental to 39-1?
It would seem that 39-1 requires gray, permits cotton, and permits casual. Gray cotton cargo pants are within those categories.
Pockets are not mentioned, of course. But certainly this would not cause one to conclude that pockets are prohibited. That would be kind of inconvenient. So how would one conclude that only a particular kind of pocket is prohibited?
It's one of those things where if it doesn't say you can, then don't. Rationalizing that's it's permitted because it's not expressly forbidden is a bad idea and an attempt to climb a rather slippery slope.
Besides, the manual says "slacks/trousers", not "cargo pants". As far as the manual is concerned, cargo pants don't fit the description.
Additionally, how many sets of "slacks" have you seen with cargo pockets?
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2008, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: airdale on January 16, 2008, 11:33:41 PM
Quote... cargo pants are not authorized.
With all due respect, can you provide documentation of that? Is there something supplemental to 39-1?
It would seem that 39-1 requires gray, permits cotton, and permits casual. Gray cotton cargo pants are within those categories.
Pockets are not mentioned, of course. But certainly this would not cause one to conclude that pockets are prohibited. That would be kind of inconvenient. So how would one conclude that only a particular kind of pocket is prohibited?
It's one of those things where if it doesn't say you can, then don't. Rationalizing that's it's permitted because it's not expressly forbidden is a bad idea and an attempt to climb a rather slippery slope.
Besides, the manual says "slacks/trousers", not "cargo pants". As far as the manual is concerned, cargo pants don't fit the description.
Additionally, how many sets of "slacks" have you seen with cargo pockets?
I'd have to non-concur with you, Hawk.
The regulation is silent on the style of casual pants worn with the golf shirt, and for a while, cargo pockets on both trousers and shorts were stylish. Also, the utility of a heavier, tactical pant with the golf shirt makes the uniform very popular here in Florida. It is a uniform that can be put on quickly, is very low maintenance, and we use it a lot on UDF missions.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2008, 03:37:59 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2008, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: airdale on January 16, 2008, 11:33:41 PM
Quote... cargo pants are not authorized.
With all due respect, can you provide documentation of that? Is there something supplemental to 39-1?
It would seem that 39-1 requires gray, permits cotton, and permits casual. Gray cotton cargo pants are within those categories.
Pockets are not mentioned, of course. But certainly this would not cause one to conclude that pockets are prohibited. That would be kind of inconvenient. So how would one conclude that only a particular kind of pocket is prohibited?
It's one of those things where if it doesn't say you can, then don't. Rationalizing that's it's permitted because it's not expressly forbidden is a bad idea and an attempt to climb a rather slippery slope.
Besides, the manual says "slacks/trousers", not "cargo pants". As far as the manual is concerned, cargo pants don't fit the description.
Additionally, how many sets of "slacks" have you seen with cargo pockets?
I'd have to non-concur with you, Hawk.
The regulation is silent on the style of casual pants worn with the golf shirt, and for a while, cargo pockets on both trousers and shorts were stylish. Also, the utility of a heavier, tactical pant with the golf shirt makes the uniform very popular here in Florida. It is a uniform that can be put on quickly, is very low maintenance, and we use it a lot on UDF missions.
I'm gonna have to chime in here that cargo pants aren't allowed and aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt. The golf shirt is supposed to be a CAP equivalent to the AF blues short sleeve shirt, would you wear cargo pants with the AF blues shirt if you found them in the correct color and material? Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?
Cargo pants aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt and shouldn't be worn with it.
slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants.
Sounds like a question for the CAP knowledgebase!
Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2008, 03:55:03 AM
I'm gonna have to chime in here that cargo pants aren't allowed and aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt. The golf shirt is supposed to be a CAP equivalent to the AF blues short sleeve shirt, would you wear cargo pants with the AF blues shirt if you found them in the correct color and material? Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?
I'd have to disagree with you on multiple points. Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?
As well, the polo is absolutely not the CAP equivilant to the AF blues. The CAP corporate blue uniform fills that category, and prior to that, the aviatior uniform w/ white epaulet shirt and grey pants. The polo is that wierd "not formal but not tactical" uniform that falls between the blues and the BDUs.
In a business environment, no, the cargo pants probably wouldn't be the best idea. But on the flip side, would dress grey slacks be the best call for an environment such as working a UDF mission, or even more popular, worn while operating an CAP aircraft? I'd hate to jack up some expensive dress grey pants by getting oil on them during a pre-flight.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2008, 11:48:08 PM
Besides, the manual says "slacks/trousers", not "cargo pants". As far as the manual is concerned, cargo pants don't fit the description.
"The manual" also identifies the pants we wear with BDUs as "trousers" and not "cargo pants", so I would consider that argument null and void.
Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2008, 03:55:03 AM
Cargo pants aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt and shouldn't be worn with it.
And with all due respect, that quote above is your opinion, and should really be notated as such. You're speaking as if your opinion is regulation and law, which I'm sorry, but it isn't.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 17, 2008, 04:25:26 AM
slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants.
Sounds like a question for the CAP knowledgebase!
Depends what business you are in...
Would you blouse your boots with the grey cargo pants?
Do you class cargo pants as casual trousers? or tactical clothing? or work wear?
Quote from: SJFedor
Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?
Can you cite one where it is permitted? Remember CAPM 39-1 is
exclusionary.
Quote from: SJFedor
As well, the polo is absolutely not the CAP equivilant to the AF blues. The CAP corporate blue uniform fills that category, and prior to that, the aviatior uniform w/ white epaulet shirt and grey pants. The polo is that wierd "not formal but not tactical" uniform that falls between the blues and the BDUs.
Wrong. Refer to CAPM 39-1, Table 4-8. line 5, which says the CAP Knit Shirts (golf shirts) are equivalent to the AF-style light blue shirt.
So, would you wear blue cargo pants with the AF-style light blue shirt?
Since CAPM 39-1 classes the golf shirt as a service uniform, and cargo pants are not authorized with service uniforms, wearing cargo pants with the golf is not authorized.
If you care to read the uniform matrix in chapter 4 of CAPM 39-1, you will see that the "knit shirt" which is the golf/polo/whatever shirt is an equivalent to the AF blues shirt. This means that the uniform combo involving the golf shirt is an alternative to the AF blues uniform.
Quote from: arajca on January 17, 2008, 04:55:45 AM
Would you blouse your boots with the grey cargo pants?
Do you class cargo pants as casual trousers? or tactical clothing? or work wear?
1. No
2. Yes. I wear cargo shorts pretty much 5 days a week, so I would consider the pant version casual as well. But they are tactical and work wear too. Now I wouldn't wear the one's I wear for work in a casual setting, nor my tactical version for work.
Reasonable folks reading the same regulation coming to different conclusions? How can THAT happen!?
Wow! :) Where to start?
Jeders, it is fine to say "Cargo pants aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt and shouldn't be worn with it." but both parts of that statement are opinions. I was asking what the rules are.
RiverAux, to say "slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants" is also fine, but it is simply arguing your opinion by offering another opinion. Merriam-Webster, both in my print copy and on-line, considers slacks, trousers, and pants to be equivalent. You are also overlooking the fact that "casual" is not prohibited in Table 4-4, where it is in Table 4-3. IMHO differences like this are not accidental.
arajca, ref [Quote from: SJFedor Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?] you ask "Can you cite one where it is permitted? Remember CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary."
I don't think you really want to go down that road. 39-1 also says nothing about pockets. Do you also argue that pockets are not permitted?
There is a pretty interesting thread here (at least to me) called "In defense of wannabes." I think a couple of quotes are germane:
QuoteMy definition of a wannabe, especially where CAP is concerned is the individual who either couldn't get into the military, or wants to relive his glory days, and tries to mold a unit into his version of what a military unit should be like. This individual accepts only the input that coincides with his "vision" and anyone else just doesn't understand "how it ought to be."
and
QuoteDoes it matter? If someone is getting the job done without being a jerk (which can be a result of many things), then what do we care what their motivation is? Its the results that counts in my book. If a guy's sole reason to be in CAP is to get to wear an AF-style uniform while flying a plane, thats just fine by me so long as he answers the phone when I'm looking for a crew.
So, let me ask another question: Are there areas of the country or wings where gray cargo pants are often seen with the golf shirt? In other words, what is the real world?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 17, 2008, 02:45:04 PM
Reasonable folks reading the same regulation coming to different conclusions? How can THAT happen!?
Because we're also reasonably intelligent people and we can come together to debate a point and hopefully learn something in the end, that is the point of CAPTalk.
Quote from: airdale on January 17, 2008, 03:49:48 PM
Wow! :) Where to start?
Jeders, it is fine to say "Cargo pants aren't intended to be worn with the golf shirt and shouldn't be worn with it." but both parts of that statement are opinions. I was asking what the rules are.
RiverAux, to say "slacks=business to me and business does not equal cargo pants" is also fine, but it is simply arguing your opinion by offering another opinion. Merriam-Webster, both in my print copy and on-line, considers slacks, trousers, and pants to be equivalent. You are also overlooking the fact that "casual" is not prohibited in Table 4-4, where it is in Table 4-3. IMHO differences like this are not accidental.
arajca, ref [Quote from: SJFedor Can you cite a regulation that shows that cargo pants are prohibited?] you ask "Can you cite one where it is permitted? Remember CAPM 39-1 is exclusionary."
I don't think you really want to go down that road. 39-1 also says nothing about pockets. Do you also argue that pockets are not permitted?
There is a pretty interesting thread here (at least to me) called "In defense of wannabes." I think a couple of quotes are germane:
QuoteMy definition of a wannabe, especially where CAP is concerned is the individual who either couldn't get into the military, or wants to relive his glory days, and tries to mold a unit into his version of what a military unit should be like. This individual accepts only the input that coincides with his "vision" and anyone else just doesn't understand "how it ought to be."
and
QuoteDoes it matter? If someone is getting the job done without being a jerk (which can be a result of many things), then what do we care what their motivation is? Its the results that counts in my book. If a guy's sole reason to be in CAP is to get to wear an AF-style uniform while flying a plane, thats just fine by me so long as he answers the phone when I'm looking for a crew.
So, let me ask another question: Are there areas of the country or wings where gray cargo pants are often seen with the golf shirt? In other words, what is the real world?
So are you saying that all of us who don't think that cargo pockets on the gray pants are acceptable are wannabes? Let me tell ya, you know how to win friends and influence people like no one else.
The wannabe thread was about people doing things just for the bling and extras without regard to the actual mission. This is about everyone looking at least somewhat similar in order to provide a more professional image. It's bad enough that we have at least 3 different forms of the golf shirt, what's worse is that people wear multiple forms of gray pants.
Also, this thread is entitled "Grey Pants", not "Grey Pants for the Golf Shirt". It makes more sense to wear the same gray pants with the golf shirt that you do with the aviator shirt. As you pointed out earlier, the table regarding the aviator shirt prohibits casual slacks, which definitely include cargo pants.
As far as differences in CAPM 39-1 not being accidental, have you been in CAP for more than 2 seconds? Have you read 39-1? That thing has accidental holes big enough for me to fly the space shuttle through.
Quote from: SJFedor on January 17, 2008, 04:31:06 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 16, 2008, 11:48:08 PM
Besides, the manual says "slacks/trousers", not "cargo pants". As far as the manual is concerned, cargo pants don't fit the description.
"The manual" also identifies the pants we wear with BDUs as "trousers" and not "cargo pants", so I would consider that argument null and void.
It's interesting how you refer to the manual. Almost as a suggestion, rather than a publication that you're supposed to be complying with.
The golf shirt combo is supposed to be business casual clothing. Cargo pants are not a business casual clothing item. Slacks are dressier clothing. Cargo pants don't have any kind of business associated status. Consider it "null and void" all you want, but they are not in the spirit of the manual.
Do I think that a cargo type pant should be allowed? Yes, I do. They would be handy. But the manual does not
expressly permit them. Which is why they're not authorized.
Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):
Quote
Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?
Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not. If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice: 877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax: 334-953-4262
Quote from: ArkAux on January 17, 2008, 10:42:05 PM
Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):
Quote
Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?
Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not. If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice: 877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax: 334-953-4262
Sounds fairly definitive to me, no cargo pants.
Quote from: jeders on January 17, 2008, 10:54:49 PM
Quote from: ArkAux on January 17, 2008, 10:42:05 PM
Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):
Quote
Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?
Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not. If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice: 877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax: 334-953-4262
Sounds fairly definitive to me, no cargo pants.
As much as I don't like the answer, I have to concur - No Cargo Pants. Now lets lock this thread up and press on with the next earth shattering question. :-\
Quote
Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?
I would and I do. I wear so called "cargo pants" with a polo shirt or a long sleeve button down with my organizations logo on it regularly to meetings and have even been known to throw on a blazer with it when the situation warranted. In the Emergency Services arena (non-cap) the cargo pant in various colors has become the Docker/chino in terms of a corporate uniform.
Quote
In the Emergency Services arena (non-cap) the cargo pant in various colors has become the Docker/chino in terms of a corporate uniform.
I concur with your sentiment, I would prefer to wear and have worn cargo pants. But until we receive another opinion or different guidance from NHQ (to include a written change to the regulation) Cargo Pants are not authorized.
Quote
Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?
I do all the time as well. I have what would be considered a "white collar" job as well, and the "cargo slacks" with polo is my daily uniform, also been know to wear nice jeans. As this argument relates to our work with CAP, if you want to wear gray cargo slacks with a polo for flying or UDF work, go for it, I think it's functional and maintaining with the reg. But for meetings/inspections, I really think you should wear what would be considered a dress slack, as it undoubted looks nicer and inline with the "spirit of the reg". YMMV
Quote from: ArkAux on January 17, 2008, 10:42:05 PM
Answer to a question submitted to the knowledgebase and received by personal email to me (not yet on KB):
Quote
Question: Can the gray pants worn with the knit (golf) shirt have side cargo pockets on them?
Answer: The gray slacks worn with the golf shirt are to be commercial gray slacks, full cut, straight hanging, with or without pleats, with or without cuffs. Cotton/twill trousers are authorized but cargo pants are not. If I can answer any other questions for you please let me know.
SUSAN P. PARKER
National Headquarters, Civil Air Patrol
105 S. Hansell Street
Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6332
Voice: 877-227-9142, extension 212
Fax: 334-953-4262
With respect for Ms. Parker and all she does for CAP, I would say that this is one time she is incorrect and points to the reason that people have an issue with the KB not being regulatory.
I also have worn professionally-cut cargo-style pants just about every day for 10 years in everything from manufacturing office environments to full-on corporate situations. The EMS-style LA PD blue (black) pants with flap-over side pockets and permanent creases look far more professional than what a lot of people wear these days, especially in the world of "business casual".
They also allow for people to take off their "utility belts" and not look like complete goobers with all the stuff hanging off their belts.
Quote from: BigMojo on February 03, 2008, 02:02:30 PM
Quote
Likewise, would you wear cargo pants with that type of shirt in a business environment?
I do all the time as well. I have what would be considered a "white collar" job as well, and the "cargo slacks" with polo is my daily uniform, also been know to wear nice jeans. As this argument relates to our work with CAP, if you want to wear gray cargo slacks with a polo for flying or UDF work, go for it, I think it's functional and maintaining with the reg. But for meetings/inspections, I really think you should wear what would be considered a dress slack, as it undoubted looks nicer and inline with the "spirit of the reg". YMMV
I just cannot agree. This is the main problem with CAP that I see, we follow the rules only when they benefit us, otherwise people do what they want, or interpret things to how they best see them. You do not wear "what is functional" while on a mission but go by the book for a meeting. You are in uniform or your are out of uniform, there is no middle ground. I have seen people asked to go home and change on SAREX's because they were not in the proper uniform, as they should be.
I am sorry, but I AM an executive and work in the business world. In "normal" white-collar businesses cargo pants are NOT business casual. Slacks are NOT cargo pants...people need to quit trying to play "lawyer games" with word smithing. Everyone knows what the heck the regulation was intended to mean. People can even see, in the picture of the uniform, the style they were intending.
Now, with all of that said, would I wear gray cargo pants if allowed? Yup I sure would. Though if that change were allowed I would hope they would mandate they are pressed and not look all rumpled like most people I see wearing most types of cargo/BDU style pant.
QuoteWith respect for Ms. Parker and all she does for CAP, I would say that this is one time she is incorrect and points to the reason that people have an issue with the KB not being regulatory.
Obviously National Headquarters should not be involved in resolving questions about our regulations. That would just be outlandish.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 03, 2008, 04:29:01 PM
QuoteWith respect for Ms. Parker and all she does for CAP, I would say that this is one time she is incorrect and points to the reason that people have an issue with the KB not being regulatory.
Obviously National Headquarters should not be involved in resolving questions about our regulations. That would just be outlandish.
The last thing I would ever do is speak negatively about Ms. Parker, she has helped me on numerous occasions and is the glue which holds a lot of CAP together.
However she is not in the chain or command.
In most cases the KB provides answers which are references to regulations, or are provided by members with the authority to actually make a respective decision. (i.e. if John Desmaris provides an answer with respect to ES, that is coming from someone on the NHQ staff who likely will be making the decision (for approval by HEADCAP), or advising a committee on same.)
As we all know, the issue of our uniforms is regularly contentious because in some cases the regs are ambiguous on purpose, contain typos or omissions, or simply because "someone never asked that before".
As I have been reminded here all too often, those times of ambiguity or silence are when commanders have to step up and interpret (I can learn, too). So before I would ever require a member to incur personal cost (i.e. having to buy different pants), I would want to see a reg or ICL properly presented and approved. Until then its subjective to the local unit or activity commander. Put 5 Level V Colonels in a room with a uniform item that is not 100% spelled out and you will likely get at least three different answers, all potentially correct.
With the above said, I will advise my membership that the allowance for tactical pants with the golf shirt is currently based on regulation interpretation, and there's a possibility that they may be disallowed in the future.
Up until recently, the majority of members in my purview (myself included) assumed you had to wear the same dress pants with the golf shirt as with the whites. We now know that is not true, and those who take it a step further with tactical pants do so at the risk of having a pair of pants they can't wear if NHQ decides to clarify the issue.
My personal money is that if and when they do, it will be the allowance of tacticals, not the prohibition.
Seems to me that NHQ has clarified the issue. If you don't like the clarification, take it up your chain of command.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 03, 2008, 05:49:43 PM
Seems to me that NHQ has clarified the issue. If you don't like the clarification, take it up your chain of command.
No one in my chain has had any comment on this.
Oh, I see. It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission, even when you have strong evidence that you're doing it the wrong way.
Actually, the theory in this case might better be phrased as "It is better to ask forgiveness even when I know permission would be denied."