# Air Force Fleece in an Army unit.



## Brick Top (13 Nov 2012)

A CANAIRGEN was published outlining the regulations concerning the newish Air Force specific fleece shirt.  I can't list it here off the top of my head, but please believe me, it's out there.  In a nutshell, it states that the shirt can be work as an inner or outer garment, to and from work; so not just in the field (I know, I know, some of you are gagging at the notion of the terms "field" and "Air Force" used in the same sentence, but nevertheless).  The jacket/shirt has ranks on the shoulders, a velcro strip for a name tape, and a pocket on the left bicep.

Already, some crusty old Sgt Majors are spinning trying to decide what ever to do about this affront to their rigid protocols of uniformity, while others have a life and don't care either way.

But as for the former, they argue that within a land unit, they should be prohibited.  In my humble Sr NCO's opinion, if it's part of an RCAF uniform, then let the troops wear it. If one was to agree with the old crusty moustachioed guy's view, then by that logic an RCAF member shouldn't be wearing his/her blue DEUs, or conversely, be allowed to wear the marksmanship badge, Red Patch, Bde Patch and other accoutrements as worn on an Army uniform.  Or, they should be prohibited from wearing their RCAF specific rain jacket for that matter.  While we're at it, let the RCN wear their NCDs if they want.  Seriously, don't we have more pressing issues to worry about?  

The uniformity argument doesn't fly with me.  If we were honest with ourselves about uniformity, we would go back to the uniforms from the 80s, plus with everyone sporting a sash, lanyards, funny hats with feathers and pom-poms, kilts, etc...

To me, it smells of envy: "I can't wear MINE in garrison, so nobody can! SO THERE!"

Your thoughts?  Has your RSM started panicking yet, between war stories from Lahr?

Sincerely,

A Contrarian


----------



## MikeL (13 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> Already, some crusty old Sgt Majors are spinning trying to decide what ever to do about this affront to their rigid protocols of uniformity, while others have a life and don't care either way.



Going off your post,  it seems like you're the one spinning.   Are you in a Army unit and been told you can't wear the fleece around base?  Or just forecasting things to come?



			
				Brick Top said:
			
		

> If one was to agree with the old crusty moustachioed guy's view, then by that logic an RCAF member shouldn't be wearing his/her blue DEUs, or conversely, be allowed to wear the marksmanship badge, Red Patch, Bde Patch and other accoutrements as worn on an Army uniform.  Or, they should be prohibited from wearing their RCAF specific rain jacket for that matter.  While we're at it, let the RCN wear their NCDs if they want.



Seems a bit much,  if you can't wear a fleece jacket around garrison then everything should be 100% uniform, RCAF members wear Army DEUs when in a Army unit, etc.   IMO not wearing a fleece jacket as a garrison item isn't that big of a deal.




			
				Brick Top said:
			
		

> Your thoughts?  Has your RSM started panicking yet, between war stories from Lahr?



There are many RSMs out there with more recent deployments then Germany.


----------



## Brick Top (13 Nov 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Going off your post,  it seems like you're the one spinning.   Are you in a Army unit and been told you can't wear the fleece around base?  Or just forecasting things to come?
> 
> Seems a bit much,  if you can't wear a fleece jacket around garrison then everything should be 100% uniform, RCAF members wear Army DEUs when in a Army unit, etc.   IMO not wearing a fleece jacket as a garrison item isn't that big of a deal.
> 
> ...



I am indeed forecasting.  As to Army members wearing air force rain jackets and vice versa, that is exactly my point.  Why make a fuss about the fleece, but not about the rain jacket?  I'm simply arguing that it seems some folks want to make up local regulations when it suits them.  And you're right, it does have me somewhat annoyed, because like I said, we should be concerning ourselves with more important issues, or at the very least be consistent.  It's somewhat like when a Cpl gets jacked up for his sideburns, as an officer walks by with lamb-chops and sunglasses on his head.  Speaks to the enforcer's credibility, which bleeds over onto all Sr. NCOs.

And to speak to your point about more recent deployments than Germany, you're right, but stereotypes are a real time-saver!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2012)

The CANAIRGREN (I've read it) states the AF Fleece is authorized as outer wear.  However, and I could be wrong, dress is authorized, in CFP 265, to the discretion of local/unit commanders as well.  So, my 23 years of CF brain tells me (1) you can wear it with no grief as outer wear on any Wing.   (2) If a local dress policy in an non-AF unit/Base states "fleece shall not be permitted as outer wear", and it is an official dress policy sanctioned by that commander, say Comd CTC Gagetown or something well...that direction is IAW the authorized given in CFP 265.

Does the CAS have authority over dress policy everywhere?  Nope.  Same as the Army Dress policy for Petawawa doesn't count 2 beans in North Bay, just down the road.

I don't have the ref handy, but somewhere in CFP Chap 1, there is authority given to local commanders to add to the direction in 265. nd in my understanding, therein lies the authority for things like Base and Unit dress instructions.  

Also, remember DIs are not limited in their purpose for just uniformity.  Safety, as an example, is another reason.

So, globally, the CANAIRGEN allows for the wearing of the fleece as outerwear, but local/unit DIs can exist that deny it.  However, it has to be the Comd that makes/signs the dress policy for his / her command, not MWO Bloggins or WO Pickaname.

 :2c:

Editted to add ref from CFP 265.  It may not be the only ref in 265/all inclusive, but I didn't feel like searching 360ish pages:

CFP 265 (may not be most up to date ver) (link fixed, sorry for brainfart).

Chap 1, Art 8:  

8. Control is exercised by local commanders
who may standardize the dress of subordinates on
any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements
and alternative or optional items, subject to overall
command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1,
paragraph 44.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2012)

WRT to the "Air Force/Army" rain gear.  AF bought the 2-in-1 suit first, army didn't pay or play so got none.  Then, IIRC, the army wanted/needed some, AF has surplus so they 'sold/transferred' some to them.

Army then took the AF 2-in-1 raingear/dissapative suit, and wanted to make some changes.  AF was interested too, and together they came up with it now called the CCR, Converged CADPAT raingear.

So, in reality, there is no more "AF" or "army" raingear.

Thats my UFI story for today.


----------



## Brick Top (13 Nov 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The CANAIRGREN (I've read it) states the AF Fleece is authorized as outer wear.  However, and I could be wrong, dress is authorized, in CFP 265, to the discretion of local/unit commanders as well.  So, my 23 years of CF brain tells me (1) you can wear it with no grief as outer wear on any Wing.   (2) If a local dress policy in an non-AF unit/Base states "fleece shall not be permitted as outer wear", and it is an official dress policy sanctioned by that commander, say Comd CTC Gagetown or something well...that direction is IAW the authorized given in CFP 265.
> 
> Does the CAS have authority over dress policy everywhere?  Nope.  Same as the Army Dress policy for Petawawa doesn't count 2 beans in North Bay, just down the road.
> 
> ...



You are absolutely correct in every point you bring up, and I thank you for what you have brought to the table.  Indeed, it IS up the the commander's discretion to authorise these sorts of items.  That said, the impetus behind my original post is the hypocrisy of certain leaders when they decide to arbitrarily prohibit such a garment in the name of uniformity, when the very concept of uniformity is only ever enforced based on aforementioned person's personal opinions.  Furthermore, in my experience, it is only army bases which ever impose such restrictions.  In my 15 years of service, I have never heard of a Wing Commander prohibit an Army soldier from proudly sporting his/her element specific uniform or regalia.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> You are absolutely correct in every point you bring up, and I thank you for what you have brought to the table.  Indeed, it IS up the the commander's discretion to authorise these sorts of items.  That said, the impetus behind my original post is the hypocrisy of certain leaders when they decide to arbitrarily prohibit such a garment in the name of uniformity, when the very concept of uniformity is only ever enforced based on aforementioned person's personal opinions.   Furthermore, in my experience, it is only army bases which ever impose such restrictions.  In my 15 years of service, I have never heard of a Wing Commander prohibit an Army soldier from proudly sporting his/her element specific uniform or regalia.



You state you're a Snr NCO. Certainly this concept isn't new or a suprise to you. If you're on a Land base or with a Land unit, prudence would say to do what the natives do. However, you're free to die on whatever hill you wish.

Personally, I'd pick something more important.


----------



## GnyHwy (13 Nov 2012)

This reminds me of a story of when we first got fleece around 95ish.  It was part of a big kit issue, first rain coat that worked, gortex boots, bivie bags, fleece pants and shirts etc.  It was just like Christmas, especially for those who hadn't had new kit in a while.  There wasn't much direction on how it should be used or worn, and there was an exercise the very next day, so we all just did what we thought was right. 

Well, one of the troops figured that the fleece was an outer garment and that the bivie bag was meant to be used as a duffle bag.  If you can imagine a grown man wearing fleece top and bottoms, arctic mitts, mukluks, and a bivie bag full of kit slung over his shoulder getting ready to deploy for exercise.  It was quite the sight.

Maybe you should try this dress.  Fleece toque, fleece top over your flight suit, with CADPAT leather gloves, and brown cbt boots.  That'll turn some heads.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2012)

Add some Oakleys and SWATs, with threads growing off every patch and slip-on...chewing gum and some Elvis sideburns.... >

(although IIRC correctly the blue fleece CANEX toque is restrictly.  We can only wear the toque, wedge or beret with the 1 or 2 piece flight suit, and choice of flying jacket, CADPAT raincoat, CADPAT cmbt jacket, and now the fleece.)

Its a frickin' wardrobe!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Nov 2012)

......and patches. Lots and lots of AF centric velcro patches, bought online, with funny sayings and pictures on them. :nod:


----------



## Brick Top (13 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You state you're a Snr NCO. Certainly this concept isn't new or a suprise to you. If you're on a Land base or with a Land unit, prudence would say to do what the natives do. However, you're free to die on whatever hill you wish.
> 
> Personally, I'd pick something more important.



Exactly right.  It's isn't a new concept to me.  That's not to say it isn't an idiotic concept.  And perhaps you're right; I should concern myself with something more important.  But one of my original points was that some folks who actually make these decisions should themselves worry about more pressing issues.  Some might tell me, as I've heard stated to so many folks over the years to members with an axe to grind over this sort of stuff, that if I don't like it I can just get out.   To that argument I say bravo.  Rather than recognising that there is a double-standard, that something might be wrong with the way we do business, let's just bury our heads in the sand and push out anyone who disagrees with us.  

So as to me picking something more important, I first have to consider this:  is the sort of policy being discussed not indicative of a larger problem?  That perhaps the CF often lag behind the rest of society, the same we are purported to reflect, because of a refusal to change?  Tradition is the greatest obstacle to progress.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> Exactly right.  It's isn't a new concept to me.  That's not to say it isn't an idiotic concept.  And perhaps you're right; I should concern myself with something more important.  But one of my original points was that some folks who actually make these decisions should themselves worry about more pressing issues.  Some might tell me, as I've heard stated to so many folks over the years to members with an axe to grind over this sort of stuff, that if I don't like it I can just get out.   To that argument I say bravo.  Rather than recognising that there is a double-standard, that something might be wrong with the way we do business, let's just bury our heads in the sand and push out anyone who disagrees with us.
> 
> So as to me picking something more important, I first have to consider this:  is the sort of policy being discussed not indicative of a larger problem?  That perhaps the CF often lag behind the rest of society, the same we are purported to reflect, because of a refusal to change?  Tradition is the greatest obstacle to progress.



What you're forgetting is that it is part of the duties of these people that you're ranting about to do exactly that. Make decisions on dress.

Your duty is to follow and enforce them, no matter what you think about it.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Nov 2012)

Seriously? Its fleece. If you're cold wear a jacket.

As someone pointed out, this is your hill to die on?


----------



## Brick Top (13 Nov 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What you're forgetting is that it is part of the duties of these people that you're ranting about to do exactly that. Make decisions on dress.
> 
> Your duty is to follow and enforce them, no matter what you think about it.



Again, I agree with you in part.   Please note that I'm not forgetting  the duties of these individuals. But, it's something that also bothers me... we use a lot of public monies (while state coffers are in the pooper) to pay 80k+ salaries to people so that (amongst other things), they can tell grown men and women, often parents, what type of toque is authorised, and to take their hands out of their pockets.  Now, I don't want to paint them with a broad brush.  Some of them don't really concern themselves with this stuff so much, because they know it's not that important.   The CF will not spiral into a state of anarchy if things change a little.  It's the ones who pay too much credence to these issues I'm concerned about.  They strike me as a little too indoctrinated, a little to impressionable.  More and more we're seeing the results of people who never question, no matter how asinine a policy might be.  I just came back off a month of EX, and in the first 6 days, I had 12 O-Groups related to dress policy, and two pertaining to actually conducting the EX in the hope of getting some war-fighting skills out of it.  On ROTO 3-10, there was an alarming number of MWOs and CWOs deployed to KAF - to the tune of 100+ judging from the global address list.  As the old cliché goes: "An inspection ready unit never passes combat, and a combat ready unit seldom passes inspection."

On another occasion about 7 years ago, I witnessed an AF CWO call a parade to jack up an entire squadron over the state of their DEUs.  The man showed up on parade in his DEU -1a with a beret on.  Nice work.  Then I spotted an RCAF MWO last year in the same getup.  WTF?

Again, it speaks to credibility.  Rarely do I see them approach an officer with as much gumption, and that in turn is witnessed by junior personnel.  When they see that, as when I was in the junior ranks, it had a collateral effect on the respect for ALL senior ranks in the eyes of their subordinates.  I'm not trying to say that leadership should be a popularity contest by any means, but it is better to have people follow you because they want to, rather than because they have to for fear of administrative consequences, no?

So I guess my original post has evolved into a wider discussion... which is the beautiful thing about these forums.  As to my duty to follow and enforce, check fire, because that sort of argument smells of the Nuremberg defence.  Everything is good sir, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on.


----------



## Loachman (13 Nov 2012)

There is no such thing as as an "RCAF member" in an Army unit.

There is no such thing as an "RCAF uniform".

Regardless of the colour of the dress uniform issued, everyone posted to an Army unit is a member of the Canadian Army. That is because there is still only one Service, the Canadian Armed Forces, and those organizations now bearing the names of the pre-1968 Services are nothing more than the three environmental commands. As soon as one is posted out of the Organization Formerly Known as Air Command, one ceases to be "RCAF". There was never any such thing as a "Land Force Command uniform", nor is there currently a "CJOC uniform" either.

Now, imagine the whining that would take place if some people in a unit were allowed to wear fleece and others were not, simply because of the colour of their dress uniform. Is that any more fair?

As for your Nuremburg reference, feel free to use a claim that dress regulations equate to mass murder or are not lawful commands in your defence.


----------



## dangerboy (13 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> As to my duty to follow and enforce, check fire, because that sort of argument smells of the Nuremberg defence.  Everything is good sir, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on.



So what are you suggesting that we blindly ignore people that are not following dress regulations?


----------



## Brick Top (13 Nov 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as as an "RCAF member" in an Army unit.
> 
> There is no such thing as an "RCAF uniform".
> 
> ...



Yet, dress regs prohibit certain qualification and formation badges and accoutrements from being worn on a blue (but not a real RCAF) uniform.  This suggests that there IS a difference, no?  And no, I'm not suggesting that we should blatantly ignore certain infractions, even though that sort of thing is already rampant, as in cases previously mentioned, which most anyone you ask has witnessed, I'm sure.  

I am merely trying to get people's thoughts on where they stand on how do best address issues which are, to many, in dire need of being addressed.  Rather than picking only those individual points because you disagree, can you state whether or not you think we pay too much attention to certain matters and speak to the larger question?  I made points about double-standards, about hypocrisy, about tastes which are quickly falling out of synch with Canadian society.  I think these facts are irrefutable.  Those are the real cause of whining, more than one individual being permitted a to wear a garment over another, or allowed to wear a beard, or all other manner of environment-specific policy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2012)

Few quotes from 265.

In accordance with these instructions the
Commanders of Commands are delegated authority
to establish rules for the design and wear of their
respective operational orders of dress. See
Chapter 5, Annex D, paragraph 2.

Commanders at all levels shall ensure  that
personnel under their command, whether
environmentally or extra-environmentally employed,
are dressed in accordance with these instructions.

High standards of dress, deportment, and
grooming are universally recognized as marks of a
well-trained, disciplined and professional force.
Commanders shall maintain the standards at all
times to reinforce these characteristics for peace or
war. Modified or idiosyncratic dress demonstrates
inefficient and undisciplined training and a failure of
those in command to focus on the purpose of a
uniformed armed force. See also Chapter 2,
Section 1, paragraphs 2. to 4.

A military force’s uniform is an outward
symbol of its commitment, identity and ethos.
Coupled with overall appearance, the uniform is the
most powerful visual expression of pride by the
individual service member, and is the primary means
by which the public image of the CF is fashioned.

I'd read this stuff before of course, but the first time I realized just how true this "uniformity" in uniforms can impress the public was the first time I went to the Nova Scotia International Tattoo.  Civies were impressed with how "they all looked the same" when commenting on a band, or drill team, or trampoline act.  Listening to them all around me, well I realized that even civies get certain impressions from a 'professional' looking group in uniform.  


And, for me, what makes it REALLY easy for to not go off chasing the wild bologna...

QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 5, Art 5.01, specifically Art 5.01(a)(iv) and Art 5.01(c).

It's too easy, someone already figured out what my job is in general terms as a NCM, I just gotta follow it.  Someone also writes up Dress Regs, and again....the QR & O ref tells me what my job is WRT to them.

I've always tried to keep it that simple.   :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> I think these facts are irrefutable.  Those are the real cause of whining, more than one individual being permitted a to wear a garment over another, or allowed to wear a beard, or all other manner of environment-specific policy.



That is simply your opinion, which doesn`t seem to be shared by many here.

It`s your hill.


----------



## Tollis (13 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> On another occasion about 7 years ago, I witnessed an AF CWO call a parade to jack up an entire squadron over the state of their DEUs.  The man showed up on parade in his DEU -1a with a beret on.  Nice work.  Then I spotted an RCAF MWO last year in the same getup.  WTF?



Just as a side not I believe beret is authorized in RCAF 1A under certain circumstances I believe there was a topic on it ill try to locate.  The photo of the new base commander here in Borden has her wearing her beret in 1A


----------



## GnyHwy (13 Nov 2012)

I find it ironic and comical that some think that it is not necessary to have uniformity in our uniforms.  ;D

I use to be a badass rebel too, but now I am assimilated! 

Like other have said, this is not a battle worth fighting, or that you can have any influence, or possibly win.  Your best bet is to obey orders right now, get promoted to CWO, and then you can let the troops run around like raped apes all you want.  I bet you won't though, because it will be your *** that will have to answer when the troops screw up.

You are right that there is a bigger issue than just dress regs.  It is impossible to have a clear standard when you have so many different people with differnet personalities.

It would be a lot better if they were all uniform.   ;D


----------



## Shamrock (14 Nov 2012)

I think it's been hinted at above - the CANAIRGEN would only apply to those who fall under the RCAF.  Those whose elements are air but are under the Canadian Army would be subject to LFCOs.

My element is, obviously, army.  But I am presently posted out of the Canadian Army.  I adhere to the instructions of my present command.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to prep my jeans for Casual Wednesday.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2012)

Tollis said:
			
		

> Just as a side not I believe beret is authorized in RCAF 1A under certain circumstances I believe there was a topic on it ill try to locate.  The photo of the new base commander here in Borden has her wearing her beret in 1A



I think I saw a CANFORGEN last week that changed that. I recall that the wedge is the only auth head dress for 1A dress. I don't have access now, but I'm sure someone will can look it up.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> The uniformity argument doesn't fly with me.  If we were honest with ourselves about uniformity, we would go back to the uniforms from the 80s, plus with everyone sporting a sash, lanyards, funny hats with feathers and pom-poms, kilts, etc...
> 
> To me, it smells of envy: "I can't wear MINE in garrison, so nobody can! SO THERE!"
> 
> ...



Really.

Your only posts so far have been about allowances, and being told what to do.....in the MILITARY (shock and horror).

You sure you are a Sr NCO in my beloved CF?  

Or just another entitled Gen Xer with a chip on your shoulder....

15 years service indeed.


----------



## Brick Top (14 Nov 2012)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I find it ironic and comical that some think that it is not necessary to have uniformity in our uniforms.  ;D
> 
> I use to be a badass rebel too, but now I am assimilated!
> 
> ...



Ahhh thank you.  Someone who actually addresses the original question with a thought, rather than by simply regurgitating policy.  This said, it is not a battle I am fighting; just a question I asked on a forum.  At work, I do what I am told.  But I'm not at work, so I can ask questions.  I apologise for offending for daring to question, or even suggesting that there might be a problem with our priorities.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Nov 2012)

I don't, personally, see it as not having the right priorities.  If you read thru Chap 1 of 265, it becomes obvious it is part of the duty of Commanders and the other indicatad players, such as the mbrs of the NDCC, to set dress policy.

Them failing to do so is a failure of their command responsibilities, isn't it?


----------



## Brick Top (14 Nov 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Really.
> 
> Your only posts so far have been about allowances, and being told what to do.....in the MILITARY (shock and horror).
> 
> ...



Wow.  Really?  Calling me a liar because what?  I don't blindly accept that everything makes sense and that my "beloved CF" is perfect and flawless?  "Entitled Gen Xer".  Bravo.  Just what we need.  More inter-generational rivalry.

For a start, never did I talk about allowances, or mentioned being told what to do.  As indicated in my original post, I am only seeing people start spinning about it, but no orders have been issued.  Once they are, I'll follow and enforce them.  The point of my post was to assess what other peoples' positions were on the subject of trivial regulations that are often based on someone's personal tastes, and not operational needs or anything tangible whatsoever.

Another point being developed in this thread, is "are we as a organisation made up of individuals, focusing too much on small stuff when we have bigger problems?".  Problems like, say, the generation gap.  Boomers constantly looking down on anyone under the age of 40, and Xers just praying for the lot of them to retire.

But to you, questioning anything, under any circumstances, is an affront to the sanctity of the CF in your eyes, correct?


----------



## Brick Top (14 Nov 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't, personally, see it as not having the right priorities.  If you read thru Chap 1 of 265, it becomes obvious it is part of the duty of Commanders and the other indicatad players, such as the mbrs of the NDCC, to set dress policy.
> 
> Them failing to do so is a failure of their command responsibilities, isn't it?



True, it is within the scope of their duties/responsibilities.  But in this case, it's not a regulation YET.  They're just mulling it over.  Which means they are spending time and energy to come up with a rule based on their OWN personal taste, under the auspices of uniformity/combating individuality (which it isn't in the first place, just a different uniform, but a uniform nonetheless).  That's what I mean by misaligned priorities.


----------



## PViddy (14 Nov 2012)

> I think I saw a CANFORGEN last week that changed that. I recall that the wedge is the only auth head dress for 1A dress. I don't have access now, but I'm sure someone will can look it up.



You're correct.

CANAIRGEN 19/12 AIR FORCE 30/12: RCAF HEADDRESS POLICY//COIFFURE DE L ARC

"...REFS: A. CANAIRGEN 15/11 REINSTATEMENT OF ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE
B. A-DH-265-000/AG-001, DATED: JUN 11

1. AS INDICATED IN REF A, THE RCAF NAME WOULD BE REINTRODUCED IN A PHASED APPROACH. PART OF THAT PROCESS INCLUDES THE SAFEGUARD OF THE TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF THE RCAF. THIS IMAGE INCLUDES THE WEARING OF THE WEDGE CAP AS THE OFFICIAL RCAF HEADDRESS. AS SUCH THE WEARING OF THE RCAF BLUE WEDGE CAP WITH NO COLOURED INSERT WILL BE MANDATORY FOR ALL MEMBERS WEARING THE RCAF ORDER OF DRESS 1 AND 1A.  THE WEAR OF OTHER HEADDRESS WITH OPERATIONAL AND SERVICE DRESS WILL BE IN  ACCORDANCE WITH REF B"

Well we're sort of on the topic of outerwear, i did a survey that popped up last year on logistik-unicorps about a winter outerwear jacket.  It seemed like they were looking to create something other than the gaberdine or current authorized operational gortex parka worn with DEU.  Would this fleece be it ?


Cheers,

PV


----------



## Brick Top (14 Nov 2012)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Your correct.
> 
> CANAIRGEN 19/12 AIR FORCE 30/12: RCAF HEADDRESS POLICY//COIFFURE DE L ARC
> 
> ...



Actually, the dress manual never allowed a beret with 1 or 1a. The directive indicated above was issued, as was explained to me, because of the very thing I mentioned earlier; folks running around with berets on.  That CANAIRGEN came out to clarify what most already knew.

As for wearing the fleece with DEU, the order directly addresses that.  It is forbidden.  I believe the item Logistic is looking at is something similar to the Canex jacket, which is good, given that the blue Goretex jacket has been out of the system for some time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> True, it is within the scope of their duties/responsibilities.  But in this case, it's not a regulation YET.  They're just mulling it over.  Which means they are spending time and energy to come up with a rule based on their OWN personal taste, under the auspices of uniformity/combating individuality (which it isn't in the first place, just a different uniform, but a uniform nonetheless).  That's what I mean by misaligned priorities.



Would not that be part of the decision making process ???  

Seriously, take a moment to read 265 Chap 1.  Each command has its on Dress Committee, etc...their job and function is to mull these things over, make recommendations to the Commander for decision, when decisions are made they get signed off and dress regs amended.  I don't think the RCAF CWO, for example, is making recommendations based on his own sense of AF fashion appeal.  I don't see a conspiracy theory here, just people doing their jobs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Nov 2012)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Well we're sort of on the topic of outerwear, i did a survey that popped up last year on logistik-unicorps about a winter outerwear jacket.  It seemed like they were looking to create something other than the gaberdine or current authorized operational gortex parka worn with DEU.  Would this fleece be it ?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...



No, the CANAIRGEN (Para 4) specifically states the AF fleece is not auth for wear with DEU.


UNCLAS 

CANAIRGEN 011/12

REF: A-DH-265-00/AG-001 CF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS 

SUBJECT: ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) FLEECE JACKET 

1. THE CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT MILLENNIUM STANDARD (CEMS) PROJECT ANNOUNCES THE FIELDING OF THE NEW RCAF FLEECE JACKET

2. THE RCAF FLEECE JACKET IS EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE THROUGH CLOTHING STORES IN FALL 2012 FOR ALL RCAF PERSONNEL IAW SCALE D01-341AA

3. ENTITLEMENT WILL BE QTY 1 EACH FOR ALL RCAF PERSONNEL AND SUPPORTING PERSONNEL FROM LAND OR NAVAL ENVIRONMENTS WHILE EMPLOYED WITH THE RCAF

4. THE RCAF FLEECE JACKET IS TO BE WORN WITH APPROPRIATE RANK SLIP-ONS AND NAME TAPES AND IS AUTHORIZED AS AN OUTER GARMENT FOR WEAR OVER OPERATIONAL DRESS, BOTH IN THE WORK AREA AND TO/FROM WORK, BUT NOT AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR WITH DEU.

5. NOTE THAT THE RCAF FLEECE JACKET IS ANTISTATIC BUT NOT FIRE RETARDANT. THE RCAF FLEECE JACKET IS SUITABLE FOR FLIGHT LINE WEAR BUT NOT AUTHORIZED FOR AIRCREW IN-FLIGHT WEAR

6. REF A, CF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS, WILL BE AMENDED SHORTLY BY THE OFFICE OF THE RCAF CWO TO REFLECT THE ADDITION OF THE FLEECE JACKET. DIVISION COMMANDERS ARE TO UPDATE THEIR DRESS ORDERS ACCORDINGLY


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Nov 2012)

Well the ARMY now has:

DSSPM2 is introducing a new Army winter parka to be worn with DEU.

The new parka will be available to all ARMY members as an optional item on Clothing Online with no additional points allotted. Expected delivery times will be between 12-16 weeks. Distribution in limited quantities is expected to begin in January 2013. with initial priority to Tier 1 personnel.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> The point of my post was to assess what other peoples' positions were ......


Well then, I guess you're in luck; other peoples' positions on your post seem pretty obvious.


----------



## GnyHwy (14 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> True, it is within the scope of their duties/responsibilities.  But in this case, it's not a regulation YET.  They're just mulling it over.  Which means they are spending time and energy to come up with a rule  based on their OWN personal taste, under the auspices of uniformity/combating individuality (which it isn't in the first place, just a different uniform, but a uniform nonetheless).  That's what I mean by misaligned priorities.



Believe it or not, they probably haven't spent that much time at all thinking about.  It was probably a very easy and quick decision.  

What will take time is if they have to explain their reasoning to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, which they shouldn't have to, and are not obligated to do.  An even worse time killer is to have to continuously correct and remind people of the rules that were set out previously.


----------



## 392 (14 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> ..... That's what I mean by misaligned priorities.



Discipline (including self discipline to follow direction) is the most basic foundation of everything the CF does - even if you cannot see that following dress instructions falls into that. What's next - going to decide / debate / post online for comments whether C team following the order to take the trench is an aligned priority?

A lot of the traditional "worries" Warrant Officers have about beans, bullets and discipline originally stemmed from those specific items having a very visible place in maintaining a credible, lethal fighting force. These days, with the advancement of technology, sometimes those specifics aren't as visible (if at all), but they are still the basic building blocks of a successful field force (and by field force, I also include our RCAF and RCN brethren). In my job, I have the ability to make judgement calls on things like dress that fall within the arcs I have been given, but just like when I am told to take the trench, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant - part of my job as a WO is to support the Chain of Command's decisions and orders as long as they are lawful.

I have no issues with a SNCO trying to figure out the "whys" behind the "whats" to be a more informed leader (and I make every attempt possible to explain to my SNCOs the reasoning behind why we're doing what we're doing), but I do have problems with defaulting to what appears to be complaining in the absence of an answer deemed worthy of your time and effort. The answer has already been laid out clearly in quotes from the 265 (I am paraphrasing): Local Comds can make their own specific dress instructions based off the dress manual in their own locations. If your CoC decides you have to wear / not wear a specific item in uniform, then that is what they are fully authorized to do, and have the NDA behind them to support it. Full stop.

At some point, you may be exposed to "the institution", and then a lot of the misaligned priorities you speak of will suddenly become clearer. As has already been mentioned a couple of times now, when you become a CWO, and your job is now to lead and advise the institution, initiate those changes.


In the meantime, the energy you have expended trying to come up with reasons not to follow lawful commands or to find workarounds could have been put to much better actually supporting your CoC as is your job as a SNCO. There are ways to get "the system" changed, and complaining on an internet forum ain't it  :2c:


----------



## Ciskman (14 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> Actually, the dress manual never allowed a beret with 1 or 1a. The directive indicated above was issued, as was explained to me, because of the very thing I mentioned earlier; folks running around with berets on.  That CANAIRGEN came out to clarify what most already knew.



Not entirely true. Sar Techs and MP's were authorized to wear beret's in 1a...I am not sure about the "blue" beret issue. I am not sure how the MPs feel about this, but the Sar Tech trade feels like it got kicked in the face in the name of uniformity. To us, this policy is the same as asking army members to remove their capbadges and replace with the Cornflake... or ditch the maroon berets and put on a dirty leg ;D beret so every one matches etc. (In 1a's of course) I'd love to see how those would go over in a combat unit.

So Brick Top I somewhat agree with you, as  I am currently a little bent out of shape myself when it comes to "uniformity", however, in the end, it is the policy of those who "matter" and I have a shiny new blue wallet in my tunic pocket. 

It's not the end of the world (close though!   ) and neither will be wearing a jacket instead of a fleece...in the end we still get paid twice a month.


----------



## PViddy (15 Nov 2012)

> No, the CANAIRGEN (Para 4) specifically states the AF fleece is not auth for wear with DEU.



Seen.  Thank you also for the Ref.  Based on that Logistik Army Jacket, i'm gonna guess that ours is going to similiar, just in a nicer colour  ;D

cheers,

PV


----------



## CombatDoc (15 Nov 2012)

Brick Top said:
			
		

> On ROTO 3-10, there was an alarming number of MWOs and CWOs deployed to KAF - to the tune of 100+ judging from the global address list.  As the old cliché goes: "An inspection ready unit never passes combat, and a combat ready unit seldom passes inspection."


Really, Brick Top?  Where you on Roto 3-10?  I ask because I was, and your assertion that there were 100+ MWO/CWO deployed to KAF seems a mite high to me.  In terms of CWO, I figure that there were around 12ish maybe, one per unit RSM plus the TF RSM.  The units in KAF also would have had MWOs - I had two but most would have had around one per company as CSM, so figure 2-3 per unit.  For the combat arms units, these folks were OTW much of the time.  Your inference that there was an excessive number of CWO/MWOs in KAF jacking up the troops for chicken$%^& does not jive with my observations.


----------



## Precept (7 Feb 2013)

I got a call from supply a couple of months ago that a Fleece Sweater came in for me. Thinking it was a black one, I went over to pick it up. Turns out the Wing Commander authorized Army folks to wear the "AF Fleece" while on the Wing. I haven't taken it out of the bag and will probably never wear it. It's quite common around the wing though. Mostly from office workers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2013)

The CANAIRGEN states that the AF Fleece is on the scale of issue for AF ppl and Army/Navy DEU members employed in the air environment.  Same kinda thing if an AF DEU clerk gets posted from a Wing to a Bn, they are then entitled to the CTS stuff/scale of issue.

Personally, I really like them.


----------



## GnyHwy (7 Feb 2013)

These type topics always kill me.  Heard of a fellow the other day that had the Air Force fleece on.  Not a big deal I thought at first, except when I found out that the jackass had it over top of his CADPAT shirt.   :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Feb 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> These type topics always kill me.  Heard of a fellow the other day that had the Air Force fleece on.  Not a big deal I thought at first, except when I found out that the jackass had it over top of his CADPAT shirt.   :facepalm:



Which is an authorized form of RCAF dress. At least it is on 17 Wing.


----------



## GnyHwy (8 Feb 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Which is an authorized form of RCAF dress. At least it is on 17 Wing.



Yes, understood that COs retain the authority for dress.  I still think wearing a fleece over a CADAPT shirt is a  :facepalm: .  Especially considering it is winter, and there was no jacket involved.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Feb 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Yes, understood that COs retain the authority for dress.  I still think wearing a fleece over a CADAPT shirt is a  :facepalm: .  Especially considering it is winter, and there was no jacket involved.



I fully concur, however exceptions may be made. For instance, if the Armories is too cold to just wear a shirt, I have authorized, with Niner's blessing, day staff may wear their issue fleece over their shirts.


----------



## Jungle (8 Feb 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I fully concur, however exceptions may be made. For instance, if the Armories is too cold to just wear a shirt, I have authorized, with Niner's blessing, day staff may wear their issue fleece over their shirts.



Which is legal, according to a CANLANDGEN that was issued about 10 years ago; it stated the the fleece could be worn under the shirt, with collar in or out, over the shirt, or on it's own.

I had to print it at the time, as my CSM in CFLRS was "old school" and was convinced the fleece was replacing the old wool shirt, which was not to be seen outside the trg area.

Good on you Jim, but be careful; making sense is not always well received !!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> These type topics always kill me.  Heard of a fellow the other day that had the Air Force fleece on.  Not a big deal I thought at first, except when I found out that the jackass had it over top of his CADPAT shirt.   :facepalm:



Whats the  :facepalm: for?



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> UNCLAS
> 
> CANAIRGEN 011/12
> 
> ...





			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Especially considering it is winter, and there was no jacket involved.



It is quite different from the Army fleece and is an actual jacket.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Feb 2013)

I'm sure there's a quote somewhere about "the bigger the fight, the more petty the issue."*

Military fashion squabbles have to be right up near the top of the list.  :not-again:




* If not, you heard it here first.  Milnet.ca is well worth the subscription price!


----------



## GnyHwy (8 Feb 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Whats the  :facepalm: for?
> 
> It is quite different from the Army fleece and is an actual jacket.



The  :facepalm: is because I think it is silly.  Simply my opinion.  I am not too worried about it, as dress is so far down my list that it is not really on it.  The troops can show up in flip flops and beach shorts as long as I get my bullets on time and on target.  Just passing on something I heard recently.  Also, the way it was expressed to me made no indication that it was considered to be a jacket (fleece doesn't repel the elements very well) 

Besides, I can disagree with any order that I wish... as long as I obey and enforce it.  

I'm not arguing either way, just stating what I heard.  

Have good one.


----------



## Ludoc (8 Feb 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> The troops can show up in flip flops and beach shorts as long as I get my bullets on time and on target.


You don't happen to need a Sig, do you?


----------



## GnyHwy (8 Feb 2013)

Ludoc said:
			
		

> You don't happen to need a Sig, do you?



Nope.  Arty guys do our own VP, but without the Signals Corps I couldn't do my job.  So thanks!

If I happened to have Sigs subordinate to me, they could wear flip flops also, as long as I have comms.  Maybe I'll look you up in a few years.


----------



## Occam (12 Mar 2013)

I know everyone's been waiting on this with bated breath.   



R 082013Z MAR 13
FM NDHQ C AIR FORCE OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 045/13 C AIR FORCE 003/13
SIC WAC
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) FLEECE JACKET DIRECTIVE ON WEAR
REF A. CANAIRGEN 011/12 C AIR FORCE 015/12 1015362 APR 12
B. A-DH-265-00/AG-001 CF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS
1. IAW REF A, THE RCAF PERS SCALE OF ISSUE NOW INCLUDES THE RCAF FLEECE JACKET. SINCE ITS ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN CONFUSION ON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO WEAR THE GARMET AND HOW THE GARMENT IS TO BE WORN.  THIS MESSAGE IS THE CLARIFICATION AND DIRECTIVE TO ALL PERS WHO WEAR RCAF BLUE DEU AS WELL AS TO OTHERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO WEAR SUBJ GARMENT
2. IAW REF A, THIS JACKET IS AUTHORIZED AS AN OUTER GARMENT, WITH THE PROPER RCAF SLIP ON AND NAME TAPE, FOR WEAR OVER OPERATIONAL DRESS, BOTH IN THE WORK AREA AS WELL AS TO/FROM WORK. IT IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR WITH DEU
3. THE FOLLOWING PERS ARE AUTHORIZED ISSUE AND WEAR OF SUBJ GARMENT
A. ALL RCAF BLUE DEU PERS
B. ALL PERS FROM THE RCN OR CA WHO ARE EMPLOYED WITHIN A RCAF UNIT
4. THE GARMENT IS AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR IN THE MANNER IDENTIFIED IN PARA 2, BY ALL RCAF PERS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING UNITS
A. AN RCAF UNIT
B. RCAF UNITS THAT ARE NOT LODGED ON RCAF WINGS (I.E. 430 SQN LOCATED IN CFB VALCARTIER)
C. RCAF PERS EMPLOYED WITHIN OTHER SERVICE UNITS WILL WEAR THE GARMENT WITH PROPER RCAF SLIP ON AND NAME TAPE IAW THAT UNITS DRESS POLICY (I.E. A RCAF RMS CLERK WORKING IN 2 SERVICE BATTALION OR 3RD BATTALION, R22R)
5. REF A, CF DRESS INSTRUCTIONS, WILL BE AMENDED SHORTLY BY THE OFFICE OF THE RCAF CWO TO REFLECT THE CHANGES.  DIVISION COMMANDERS ARE TO UPDATE THEIR DRESS ORDERS ACCORDINGLY


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Mar 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> C. RCAF PERS EMPLOYED WITHIN OTHER SERVICE UNITS WILL WEAR THE GARMENT WITH PROPER RCAF SLIP ON AND NAME TAPE IAW THAT UNITS DRESS POLICY (I.E. A RCAF RMS CLERK WORKING IN 2 SERVICE BATTALION OR 3RD BATTALION, R22R)



Which will be under the CADPAT shirt.   :nod:


----------



## Occam (12 Mar 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Which will be under the CADPAT shirt.   :nod:



Now bear in mind that I've never had one of these AF fleece jackets, so I'm drawing on what other people are saying - but I _think_ EITS mentioned that it's an actual jacket, not like the Army fleece.  It sounds to me like the AF fleece jacket was never meant to be a next-to-skin item...which would mean you probably won't see anyone wearing it under a CADPAT shirt, they'll just wear the blue t-shirt and stuff the AF fleece jacket in a drawer until they get posted back to civilization an AF wing.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2013)

I was on 17 Wing this afternoon. All RCAF pers I observed outdoors was wearing fleece as an outer garment, some with their shirt tails hanging out from underneath. The RSM in me was , shall we say, less than impressed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2013)

That would be my guess as well.  I've had the army fleece before OTing, and the AF fleece isn't the same deal with with a nametape velcro added.  IMO the AF fleece is quit a bit stiffer material as well.  But yes it is a jacket.

Thought I'd add a pic.  Not the best one, but it was the best 'angle' I could get to show the left sleeve pocket and reinforced areas.

You can see, standard nametag/rank (on shoulders).  Most of the jacket is this stiffer fleece they used, has cuffs, mandarin collar.  Pockets and elbows have been reinforced with the same material used on the cbt jacket, parka, etc.

Left upper arm has the pocket, on the outer part of the pocket is double 'pen holder' with a flap over it secured with velcro.

IMO, not a bad piece of kit.  I wore it alot this winter.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Mar 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> which would mean you probably won't see anyone wearing it under a CADPAT shirt, they'll just wear the blue t-shirt and stuff the AF fleece jacket in a drawer until they get posted back to civilization an AF wing.



Yep, you're probably right.


----------



## Loachman (12 Mar 2013)

Occam said:
			
		

> (I.E. A RCAF RMS CLERK WORKING IN 2 SERVICE BATTALION OR 3RD BATTALION, R22R)



If those people are _*posted to*_ (not "working in") 2 Svc Bn or 3 R22R, then they are members of the CA (the Organization Formerly Known as Land Force Command) and not the RCAF (the Organization Formerly Known as Air Command), regardless of the colour of their dress uniform. We still have only one Service, which is the Canadian Armed Forces. The three re-named Environmental Commands are not separate services.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2013)

The RCAF only does these kinds of things because they know the CA will freak out and blow a gasket.

They like to see that throbbing vein on the forehead of guys in green.

It's only a diversion for them ;D


----------



## Jungle (12 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The RCAF only does these kinds of things because they know the CA will freak out and blow a gasket.
> 
> They like to see that throbbing vein on the forehead of guys in green.
> 
> It's only a diversion for them ;D



Ha !! I've been on an Air Force base for some time now, and dress is not anywhere near the top of things bothering me...

Some of my concerns have to do with senses:

Sense of entitlement (a big one)
Sense of urgency (the lack of it)
Common sense (still looking for it...)

...


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Ha !! I've been on an Air Force base for some time now, and dress is not anywhere near the top of things bothering me...
> 
> Some of my concerns have to do with senses:
> 
> ...



Now that is worth remembering.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Ha !! I've been on an Air Force base for some time now, and dress is not anywhere near the top of things bothering me...
> 
> Some of my concerns have to do with senses:
> 
> ...



Try to add some levity :nod:

Along comes the CA guy to poke you in the eye with reality ;D


----------



## Jungle (12 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Try to add some levity :nod:
> 
> Along comes the CA guy to poke you in the eye with reality ;D



Oh, I do that... nearly everyday !!  ;D


----------



## navymich (12 Mar 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I was on 17 Wing this afternoon. All RCAF pers I observed outdoors was wearing fleece as an outer garment, some with their shirt tails hanging out from underneath. The RSM in me was , shall we say, less than impressed.



When the new fleece was first issued, it was given as the same size as our current Cadpat shirt.  However, the fleece are styled more as a bomber-style jacket that does not have the length of the shirt.

When I went in to get mine, many sizes were not available and I was able to get one that was a size longer then my shirt.  That made it the same length as my shirt but at least the shirt doesn't hang out. 

I agree that it doesn't look good at all and the length made (or at least issued) should have been taken into consideration.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Mar 2013)

Well, as far as the CADPAT shirts being longer than the fleece, I'm guessing there were no girls from Quebec there.  

Hopefully no offense to anyone, but none of the French courses I saw at CFMSS (or whatever they call themselves now) seemed to realize that the shirt is supposed to be long.....   :


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Mar 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Ha !! I've been on an Air Force base for some time now, and dress is not anywhere near the top of things bothering me...
> 
> Some of my concerns have to do with senses:
> 
> ...



The lack of urgency drives me insane, I find it very noticeable on 14 Wing.  Getting anything done on the Admin side of the base always feels like a fight.

As for common sense?  I feel this whole thread is lacking common sense.   RCAF members get a Fleece JACKET, and there are people here who just can't seem to wrap their head around that, it is a jacket, it has slip ons, a place for your name tag, clearly this is to be worn as an outer garment.   So now we have RCAF members who should be permitted to wear it, and we have people lacking common sense, that are denying that, for no real reason, other than stubbornness or they don't like the look of it.   The tone of the posts seems like the CA folks take great pride in making life difficult for the RCAF folks.    

I have the Army fleece, only wore it on SERE, as an outer garment, I have never seen anyone wear fleece as an undergarment.  Go into any store, it is not with the undergarments, it is with the jackets and sweaters.  So if anyone is lacking common sense it is those who lose their mind when they see fleece being worn as a jacket.  

The CA folks better get used to seeing the fleece, once the Chinooks are in full swing they will be seeing more of it.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Mar 2013)

Slow down there Chuckles - I don't go out of my way to disrespect the RCAF. 

I may not like the fleece thing, but it ain't my place to tell the RCAF how to dress.


----------



## Jungle (13 Mar 2013)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So if anyone is lacking common sense it is those who lose their mind when they see fleece being worn as a jacket.



I agree... and I have seen Army Sgts-Maj lose their minds over the fleece. What a lot of people forget is that the combat uniform is operational clothing, not a fashion statement. How it looks is nowhere near as important as how it performs.

DEU is another matter.


----------



## trigger324 (19 Mar 2013)

airmich said:
			
		

> When the new fleece was first issued, it was given as the same size as our current Cadpat shirt.  However, the fleece are styled more as a bomber-style jacket that does not have the length of the shirt.
> 
> When I went in to get mine, many sizes were not available and I was able to get one that was a size longer then my shirt.  That made it the same length as my shirt but at least the shirt doesn't hang out.
> 
> I agree that it doesn't look good at all and the length made (or at least issued) should have been taken into consideration.



i had that on my mind when i first got my fleece. then i started pulling the bottom of the cadpat shirt up underneath the fleece(nowhere does it say you can't) and i havent' had one issue with the sqn chief here walking around like that.


----------



## PViddy (25 Mar 2013)

Anybody (maybe the supply types) have a stock code for the new fleece jacket ? trying to translate the latest set of clothing scales.  Mainly if the CIC types who wear blue are included in the "all RCAF pers" mention in the CANFOR (AIR?)GEN posted in this thread.

Any info pretaining to this would be helpful.

cheers,

PV


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Mar 2013)

According to the CEMS site:

SIGC 8415-20-005-7561

No idea on entitlement for CIC folks, sorry.


----------



## PViddy (25 Mar 2013)

Nope, that's perfect.  Didn't think to check CEMS for NSN.  Thanks for that.

It seems that we are indeed included in the blanket issue.

Cheers,

PV


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Mar 2013)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Nope, that's perfect.  Didn't think to check CEMS for NSN.  Thanks for that.
> 
> It seems that we are indeed included in the blanket issue.
> 
> ...



You guys got blankets too?  I want one!

Wait...I can imagine what all the green machine types will think about a RCAF blanket!   :blotto:   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You guys got blankets too?  I want one!
> 
> Wait...I can imagine what all the green machine types will think about a RCAF 'Linus security' blanket!   :blotto:   ;D



TFTFY


----------



## Gramps (25 Mar 2013)

I wish we got Linus Blankets, the only ones I ever got were Sheraton, Hilton or Crowne Plaza blankets.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Mar 2013)

The sacrificies you've made, no one will ever know.   ;D


----------



## PViddy (25 Mar 2013)

> Nope, that's perfect.  Didn't think to check CEMS for NSN.  Thanks for that.
> 
> It seems that we are indeed included in the blanket issue.
> 
> ...




PV<----  Well deserved 

Well played! lol 

cheers,

PV


----------

