With the March, 2009 phaseout of the smurf (ultramarine) flight suit coming up, has anyone found a good source for the new dark blue one?
My experience with the smurf suit from Vanguard was that the material resembled a Kleenex for thickness, and spending another $250 for one from them would not be a first choice. Flightsuits.com has a 6.5 oz Nomex one for about the same price.
And has there been any discussion of a volume purchase for them ... given the number of beards in my Group alone, you'd think that there are going to be a lot of them purchased in the near future.
Any recommendations?
I can't help you with an alternate source for the blue flight suit, but I can tell you that the quality of the one from Vanguard is pretty high. I have seen about a half dozen and they all looked pretty good. I have a very good friend with one and he is happy as a clam.
Quote from: dbaran on December 07, 2008, 01:07:22 AM
My experience with the smurf suit from Vanguard was that the material resembled a Kleenex for thickness, and spending another $250 for one from them would not be a first choice.
That's the same thickness as the one's I was issued in the military. Nothing wrong with it.
Don't get one confused with the other - there is a (nearly) identical dark blue utility uniform that's cotton and not Nomex that sells for about $40.00 at Vanguard. It looks like a cheap knockoff of the flight suit. The blue Nomex flight suit sold at Vanguard is the real deal.
Quote from: dbaran on December 07, 2008, 01:07:22 AM
With the March, 2009 phaseout of the smurf (ultramarine) flight suit coming up, has anyone found a good source for the new dark blue one?
My experience with the smurf suit from Vanguard was that the material resembled a Kleenex for thickness, and spending another $250 for one from them would not be a first choice. Flightsuits.com has a 6.5 oz Nomex one for about the same price.
Just the sake of clarification
(and to avoid anyone pulling out a Smurf suit and trying to wear it again until next year).
The light blue Nomex flight suit has never been referred to as the "Smurf Suit".
The "Smuf Suit" was a short-sleeved utility jumper:
(http://wiki.cadetstuff.org/images/4/4f/68_1.jpg)
Vanguard has never carried either the Utility Jumper or the light blue Nomex.
There are any number of retail and online sources besides Vanguard for a flight suit, but Nomex is expensive - you're likely not going to see it cheaper than $150 for "normal" sizes (more for tall, etc.), and dark blue is harder to find.
The dark blue utility uniform in pretty thin, but I personally like it, and it was cheap - makes great uniform for a go kit.
What is the new url for what was flightsuits.com? They should have it.
Unless you actually need Nomex, try the cotton flight suits at U.S. Cavalry Store. Look and feel like the Nomex ones. Approx. $40 ea.
I meet height and weight standards but I went ahead and bought the 6.5 oz Nomex Navy Blue suit from Gibson and Barnes (formerly Flightsuits Ltd). It definitely wasn't cheap. I've flown a couple of times with it and I'm happy with it. The heavier material resists wrinkles and the heavy duty zippered pockets do well holding my smaller items while flying. Definitely warmer but well made. I can see nomex of some sort to become required equipment at some point so I decided to go first class. :)
I tend to think (no matter what the color), there is a difference between the suits for a reason. I know there's "flight suits" out there for about $40 or so, but you're not going to find "Nomex" for that price. Once again (for you regulation guys), There's nothing stating you have to wear Nomex, it just states the color flight suit and what to wear with it as far as rank, patches, where they go and such. Nomex has a certain advantages (especialy if your dealing with fire), that others don't have.
So, I would tend to think it all matters to the individual. You do a lot of flying and are concerned about safety, you spend the money and get the "Nomex" blues and prey they don't change the colors again for a bit, or you buy the cheaper ones and take the risk.
Quote from: Rob Sherlin on December 08, 2008, 02:53:46 AMOnce again (for you regulation guys), There's nothing stating you have to wear Nomex,
CAWG requires Nomex for aircrews.
I guess I stand corrected...Thank You.
I would consider the other ones (even if they match and are sold as flight suits..."utility uniforms")
Is the USCG blue nomex flightsuit acceptable?
yes
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 08, 2008, 05:14:49 AM
Is the USCG blue nomex flightsuit acceptable?
NO!!!The USCG flightsuit is
royal blue, the CAP flightsuit is
navy blueAureus International sells blue nomex flightsuits for $195: the quality is fantastic-I daresay it's made better even better than green bags. Watch sizing, they run a bit small.
With the March, 2009 phaseout of the smurf (ultramarine) flight suit coming up, has anyone found a good source for the new dark blue one?
I believe the flight suit being phased out in Mar 2009 is the Royal Blue flight suit, not the Smurf suit. The Smurf was phased out several years ago. The Royal Blue was a Nomex suit (I have one).
The flightsuit being phased on in Mar 2009 is the one on the right below...
(http://www.whatthewhonow.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/24/p8120220.jpg)
Quote[The flightsuit being phased on in Mar 2009 is the one on the right below...
Correct.
^^^ Please tell me someone didn't spend money for a leather nametag that says "Mission Scanner" on it... I know the leather tape is required but dang......
Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 13, 2008, 06:35:25 AM
^^^ Please tell me someone didn't spend money for a leather nametag that says "Mission Scanner" on it... I know the leather tape is required but dang......
Yes, that someone would be me - your aeronautical rating is supposed to be on there, and since at the time they did not make the GBD badges, and there is no insignia for Scanner, that's the correct way to do it.
Not saying its not tore up, but its correct.
My tag no longer looks like that.
It wasn't anything personal. I just hate to see people have to throw money away. I guess if you just wanted to stop at Scanner, there isn't much of an issue but most people I know try to move out of Scanner to MP or MO. I do like that light blue though...
Quote from: Sqn72DO on December 13, 2008, 06:45:35 AM
It wasn't anything personal. I just hate to see people have to throw money away. I guess if you just wanted to stop at Scanner, there isn't much of an issue but most people I know try to move out of Scanner to MP or MO. I do like that light blue though...
"just stop at scanner..."?
There are those of us doing mondo photo work that have no particular interest in MO, and aren't pilots.
I'm honestly not taking it personally, however the "just a scanner attitude" is what continues to cause us problems on mission where actually work is done in the cockpit - all too often the MP and MO forget that the GIB is the reason they are flying.
For the record, I've done enough right-seat work that most AOBD's assume I am an Observer, in fact I probably have the time and missions as an MO-T to get my wings today, I'm just holding off until I can go to NESA - I thought it was going to be this year, but looks like it'll be RSC instead.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 13, 2008, 06:11:21 AM
The flightsuit being phased on in Mar 2009 is the one on the right below...
(http://www.whatthewhonow.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/24/p8120220.jpg)
While that one is being phased in, it's too bad that the other two "flight suits" aren't being phased out.
Gunner
Why, exactly?
Quote from: Gunner C on December 13, 2008, 08:13:19 AM
While that one is being phased in, it's too bad that the other two "flight suits" aren't being phased out.
Only one flight suit is being sundowned, the one above. The Smurfsuit has been verboten for about 4 or 5 years.
As someone who dropped the coin, I'm not excited about having a fireproof work suit to use when cleaning my gutters this Spring, however I don't think anyone would argue that the dark blue one looks a like sharper.
Quote from: Gunner C on December 14, 2008, 02:33:41 AM
Quote from: JThemann on December 13, 2008, 01:20:00 PM
Why, exactly?
Because we ain't the PGA Patrol.
We don't have that problem in CAWG (we have many, many others). You have to wear NOMEX when you fly in CAWG unless you're in a sailplane.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 13, 2008, 06:53:50 AM
There are those of us doing mondo photo work that have no particular interest in MO, and aren't pilots.
For the record, I've done enough right-seat work that most AOBD's assume I am an Observer, in fact I probably have the time and missions as an MO-T to get my wings today, I'm just holding off until I can go to NESA - I thought it was going to be this year, but looks like it'll be RSC instead.
OK I am new here so I have no problem asking questions that I am certain have easy answers.... What exactly do you mean by "Photo Work"?
and also oone more question - What does the acronym AOBD stand for??
AOBD = Air Operations Branch Director - the base staffer responsible for launching and tracking air sorties during a mission.
As to "photo work", in my wing we have done a lot of real-world missions for outside clients - NOAA, LOCAL EMA's, CPD, etc.,
and photo recon work is considered a critical mission, including how the customer receives the product, etc., including a structured curriculum for training what we refere to as Photo Recon Officers.
In my AOR, humility aside, I am sought out when the photos are critical or for an outside agency, so I have plenty of GIB time
which to me is more important.
Eclipse you and I are in the same boat. I too am sought out for my aerial photography. I am also being asked to train others. In particular with CD.
I wish there really was an "MP" designation and wings for it as it is a mission critical position in most CAP sorties..
Quote from: Pumbaa on December 14, 2008, 10:23:23 AM
Eclipse you and I are in the same boat. I too am sought out for my aerial photography. I am also being asked to train others. In particular with CD.
I wish there really was an "MP" designation and wings for it as it is a mission critical position in most CAP sorties..
Its amazed me for a number for years that in an organization that requires 4-8+ hours of training to speak on a radio, that there is absolutely no NHQ-approved curriculum for taking aerial photos, yet this is a real-world mission that we actively sell as one of our important capabilities.
For some people, taking a still photo on a sunny day can be a challenge, yet many of our mission scanners are handed a camera they have never seen before on they way out to the ramp, and then we give them grief when the product is less than stellar.
Another issue we've already beaten up here and elsewhere.
Quote from: Pumbaa on December 14, 2008, 10:23:23 AM
Eclipse you and I are in the same boat. I too am sought out for my aerial photography. I am also being asked to train others. In particular with CD.
I wish there really was an "MP" designation and wings for it as it is a mission critical position in most CAP sorties..
The photographer's for Combat Camera in the Air Force wear the same wings as every other enlisted flyer, no need for different wings, it's just a different job.
---------------------------------------------------------
But yeah, you are right about the need for a separate "Aerial Photographer" designation.
Because it's a whole new skill set you have to learn to be able to produce usable work.
Using the Mission Scanner qualification as a base, the Aerial Photographer qualification would add the skills needed to take usable still and maybe video images.
Does this sound reasonable? Doable?
Quote from: PHall on December 14, 2008, 05:23:54 PM
But yeah, you are right about the need for a separate "Aerial Photographer" designation.
Because it's a whole new skill set you have to learn to be able to produce usable work.
Using the Mission Scanner qualification as a base, the Aerial Photographer qualification would add the skills needed to take usable still and maybe video images.
Does this sound reasonable? Doable?
Yes and yes.
A drum I have been beating for about 5 years to mostly deaf ears up the chain.
I have seen a few half-hearted attempts at training which were more focused on the camera(s) and easing technophobia of older members than the specifics of taking aerial photos (I mean come on - SDIS is basically emailing a photo to mission base, and the "quick start" guide is 6+pages of dense text that basically assumes the user has never seen a PC before).
I would agree that the pre-req would be Scanner, then go from there. I have some ideas about being able to train without airplanes using cars and scale models, and a photo rating system using standardized target grids for alignment and example photos as the barometer (i.e. go take a pic of that bridge, come back, compare it to an A-List photo of the same bridge and see how close you got).
The discussion about aerial photography is spot on, but really should be moved to its own location. It has nothing to do with Blue Flight Suits.
That said, I made mention some time ago, in another post, that CAWG has a training course for taking aerial photos. It was put together a couple of years ago by a guy in the LA area(I could dredge up his email), but the ES Officer, in his infinite wisdom, hasn't seen fit to push it as a training issue.
As for your idea about a rating scale, there exists such a thing at the National level of the Intelligence world. It is called the National Imagery Interpretation Rating Scale(NIIRS) and it does just what you are proposing. It probably has been in existence for 30 years, maybe longer, and has been refined to a fine degree. I would imagine that anyone in the AF could lay hands on the manual.
FYI.....I noticed US CAVALRY lists a Navy Blue Nomex flight suit for $185. I don't know the weight of the material.
Quote from: blackrain on January 03, 2009, 04:37:40 PM
FYI.....I noticed US CAVALRY lists a Navy Blue Nomex flight suit for $185. I don't know the weight of the material.
Probably the same as mil-spec sage green or desert tan Nomex.
^ it says navy blue nomex. I do't know the quality, but that's what it says.
FYI- the coast guard USED to wear royal blue flight suits. They do have dark blue also. Though everyone working at the air station right next to my unit seams to wear sage green.
Quote from: PHall on December 14, 2008, 05:23:54 PM
Quote from: Pumbaa on December 14, 2008, 10:23:23 AM
Eclipse you and I are in the same boat. I too am sought out for my aerial photography. I am also being asked to train others. In particular with CD.
I wish there really was an "MP" designation and wings for it as it is a mission critical position in most CAP sorties..
The photographer's for Combat Camera in the Air Force wear the same wings as every other enlisted flyer, no need for different wings, it's just a different job.
---------------------------------------------------------
But yeah, you are right about the need for a separate "Aerial Photographer" designation.
Because it's a whole new skill set you have to learn to be able to produce usable work.
Using the Mission Scanner qualification as a base, the Aerial Photographer qualification would add the skills needed to take usable still and maybe video images.
Does this sound reasonable? Doable?
I once proposed:
1. New pilot wings for ALL CAP pilots. One set for powered/glider/balloon.
2. The OLD pilot wing to be used for the current "Observers" to be designated "Observer/Navigator."
3. The Current set of Observer wings would designate "Technical Observers" which would include photo guys, archer guys, and anybody else who brings a special skill set into the cockpit.
Too logical for NHQ, apparently
^ did you send that to circularfile@CAP.GOV because it changed to circularfile@capnhq.gov ;D
I am not a big proponent of more bling, but I certainly believe that the bling that we have should be better utilized.
We don't need any more "new" insignia. >:D
But the skills needed to produce usable pictures are not currently taught as part of the current Observer/Scanner courses. Hence the Aerial Photographer speciality.
Aerial Photography is becoming a big part of our ES and DR missions and we need to make sure our people are properly trained so that we can deliver a quality product to our customers.
Another one bites the dust.