Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2018, 12:12:18 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Cadet Flight Duty Uniform
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All Print
Author Topic: Cadet Flight Duty Uniform  (Read 3126 times)
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #60 on: September 20, 2018, 02:10:03 PM »

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

I was always politely informed that the reason for the fire bag is so that you can be properly identified after the crash, not to protect you from dying during a crash and the subsequent fire. lol.

But the May Authorize is in regards to those without qualifications.... for those who have them, there are no restrictions.

That said, and as I stated above... don't be that toolbag.

From what I understand I think the dog tags will be all that's identifiable at that point, but it's a good possibility!  8)

I concede that it can be looked at from both perspectives - what we can determine from the verbiage and what could be seen as the intent. The common thread though is always... don't be that toolbag.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,249

« Reply #61 on: September 20, 2018, 08:52:13 PM »

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

I was always politely informed that the reason for the fire bag is so that you can be properly identified after the crash, not to protect you from dying during a crash and the subsequent fire. lol.

But the May Authorize is in regards to those without qualifications.... for those who have them, there are no restrictions.

That said, and as I stated above... don't be that toolbag.

From what I understand I think the dog tags will be all that's identifiable at that point, but it's a good possibility!  8)

I concede that it can be looked at from both perspectives - what we can determine from the verbiage and what could be seen as the intent. The common thread though is always... don't be that toolbag.

That's why many of us "old time" flyers wore a dog tag attached to or boot laces, the boot usually survives.

Of course DNA makes ID an almost sure thing.
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 822
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2018, 01:07:15 AM »

Good Lord!   :-\

Stop taking it and understanding it piecemeal!  :-\ :-\

Read it in its entirety!  :-\ :-\ :-\

Interpret it in its entirety!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

The answer has been given by Eclipse!!!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

An OPINION has been given by Eclipse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,420
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2018, 03:00:54 AM »

And my opinion (we all know about opinions, don't we?) is that we are done here. Time for the fork.

Y'all really need to lighten up.

Really.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Cadet Flight Duty Uniform
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.092 seconds with 25 queries.