Non Aircrew in Leather Jackets
0201 ... No 1A SD Uniform (Ceremonial Day). No 1A SD is identical to No 1 SD, except that ceremonial sash and shoulder boards are worn by entitled officers. It is worn when No 1A Dress is appropriate formally on parade or in a formal representative role. The No 1A SD Uniform is restricted to:
(1) AVM rank and above.
(2) Officers assigned to the 1 Star posts of Comdt RAFC Cranwell, Air Officer Wales and Air Officer Scotland/NI. DNS (RAF), by nature of appointment, wears the AO sash but not ceremonial boards.
0202. Hat. Only the service issue No 1 SD hat may be worn
(1) AVM rank and above.
(2) Officers assigned to the 1 Star posts of Comdt RAFC Cranwell, Air Officer Wales and Air Officer Scotland/NI. DNS (RAF), by nature of appointment, wears the AO sash but not ceremonial boards.
0202. Hat. Only the service issue No 1 SD hat may be worn
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Naaaaarrfick
Age: 58
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, with the new dress regs, I can confirm that the latest "total douche" outfit is as follows:
1. Chip bag hat -
Wouldn't be seen dead in one !!!!!
2. Blues -
Have to wear 'em, not aircrew - better fitting than a growbag (JUST!!!!)
3. Trousers that have been specially tailored to accommodate the stable belt -
See #1
4. Stable belt (helping to disguise a paunch) -
See #1 (besides they probably don't make 'em my size !!!!!!)
5. Leather jacket - preferably very new and stiff looking -
See #1 (stiff looking - the jacket or the wearer???)
6. Parade shoes with metal toe and heel inserts (worn for everyday use because the wearer likes the importance it adds to their stride) -
See #1, besides these beggers are a fire hazard where I work
7. ID card worn on a lanyard around the neck -
Useful for the proximity pass, it stops you sticking your hand in your pocket every time you go in or out the door
However, returning to the original thread, these things are really only for aircrew and COMPLETE THROBBERS. Looking forward to seeing all the storemen and adminers wearing them at a secret Norfolk Bomber Base very soon !!!
Not me ref, scrum-half did it and scarpered !!!!!!
1. Chip bag hat -
Wouldn't be seen dead in one !!!!!
2. Blues -
Have to wear 'em, not aircrew - better fitting than a growbag (JUST!!!!)
3. Trousers that have been specially tailored to accommodate the stable belt -
See #1
4. Stable belt (helping to disguise a paunch) -
See #1 (besides they probably don't make 'em my size !!!!!!)
5. Leather jacket - preferably very new and stiff looking -
See #1 (stiff looking - the jacket or the wearer???)
6. Parade shoes with metal toe and heel inserts (worn for everyday use because the wearer likes the importance it adds to their stride) -
See #1, besides these beggers are a fire hazard where I work
7. ID card worn on a lanyard around the neck -
Useful for the proximity pass, it stops you sticking your hand in your pocket every time you go in or out the door
However, returning to the original thread, these things are really only for aircrew and COMPLETE THROBBERS. Looking forward to seeing all the storemen and adminers wearing them at a secret Norfolk Bomber Base very soon !!!
Not me ref, scrum-half did it and scarpered !!!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so you chippy chaps know - new pattern RAF belt will be general issue and trousers will be changed to reflect the wider belt.
A couple less things for you to have on your list of hated dress - everyone will have them.
A couple less things for you to have on your list of hated dress - everyone will have them.
C Hinecap, Hurrah! 
By the way...
...do they make trainers in your size? Or are you anorexic???
...and...
From "Cadet Direct"...
From 28" to 60" waist!
Hmmmm...
By the way...
4. Stable belt (helping to disguise a paunch) -
See #1 (besides they probably don't make 'em my size !!!!!!)
See #1 (besides they probably don't make 'em my size !!!!!!)
Latest pattern unisex RAF stable belt featuring chrome locket and nickel slide. Sizes: Standard width 6.5 cm; small 79-86 cm (to fit waist up to 28"), medium 89-94 cm (to fit waist up to 34"), large 102-107 cm (to fit waist up to 40")and x-large 104-112 cm (to fit waist up to 44"). Also available in following outsizes: xx-large (to fit waist up to 48"), xxx-large (to fit waist up to 54") and xxxx-large (to fit waist up to 60").
Genuine RAF male and female stable belts featuring leather strap, nylon buckle and nickel slide. Male sizes: Standard width 7.5 cm; small 79-86 cm (to fit waist up to 28"), medium 89-94 cm (to fit waist 34"), large 102-107 cm (to fit waist 40") and extra-large 104-112 cm (to fit waist 44"). Female sizes: Standard width 6.5 cm; small 79-86 cm (to fit waist up to 28"), medium 89-94 cm (to fit waist 34"), large 102-107 cm (to fit waist 40") and extra-large 104-112 cm (to fit waist 44").
From 28" to 60" waist!
Hmmmm...
.............new pattern RAF belt will be general issue and trousers will be changed to reflect the wider belt.
Chip bags, tw@t hats, c**t caps, call them what you will, but they are utter $hite.
Only marginally less awful than the beret - which no self-respecting officer should ever wear!
Why?
We are as skint as a skint thing that's skint. So why are we issuing belts to people that didn't want them, and getting the vast majority of trousers in current circulation altered to accommodate the new pattern RAF belt - all of which must come with a not inconsiderable associated cost?
So we can all look "uniform"? To uplift morale? "We can't pay the chaps any more, or even keep most of them in a job, or send them on any jollies, but we can give them all a new belt!!!"
We are as skint as a skint thing that's skint. So why are we issuing belts to people that didn't want them, and getting the vast majority of trousers in current circulation altered to accommodate the new pattern RAF belt - all of which must come with a not inconsiderable associated cost?
So we can all look "uniform"? To uplift morale? "We can't pay the chaps any more, or even keep most of them in a job, or send them on any jollies, but we can give them all a new belt!!!"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus - at what point between 1918 and now do you think we got the uniform right? Was it the hairy mary? Perhaps the Thunderbird jacket of yore? Things change.
For the old and bold slagging the chip bag - it was always the aircrew who extolled the virtues of the forage cap to me.
For the old and bold slagging the chip bag - it was always the aircrew who extolled the virtues of the forage cap to me.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake District
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So in the upcoming SDR I think they will very possibly take the aircraft I fly on away from me (E3) but at least as I sit there pondering my next move I can do it in the knowledge that we expended 'X' (C Hinecap you appear genn'ed up on these matters...How much is the new belt and trousers costing?) amount of pounds on something that is neither here nor there when we are in times of pay freezes, cuts to services and argueing the toss over whether I had the rice for receipting purposes...The old belt held my trousers up OK...and everyone elses to from what I saw...In these current times this sort of expenditure comes across as sheer lunacy...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr C said
I remember that cheeky rascal. That was an embarrassment.
I know that there is a strong prejudice against it - but it is a part of the heritage and even now has something of the summer of 1940 about it - and it fitted conveniently in a flight suit pocket in exactly the same way that a No1 cap doesn't.
They don't look as cock as a slashed peak
Perhaps the Thunderbird jacket of yore?
For the old and bold slagging the chip bag - it was always the aircrew who extolled the virtues of the forage cap to me.
They don't look as cock as a slashed peak
Mr C H,
Yes, things change. However, it should always be the case, but more especially so when you are short of money, that the things that change should be those that need to for a valid reason, better performance, safety, cost effectiveness, etc. Not cosmetic changes for which there is no apparent need or appetite. Apparent change for change sake sends all the wrong messages, and gives the impression that someone higher up the command chain is fiddling while Rome burns.
However, given the approach you normally adopt on pprune threads I don't expect you to agree with this point of view.....
Yes, things change. However, it should always be the case, but more especially so when you are short of money, that the things that change should be those that need to for a valid reason, better performance, safety, cost effectiveness, etc. Not cosmetic changes for which there is no apparent need or appetite. Apparent change for change sake sends all the wrong messages, and gives the impression that someone higher up the command chain is fiddling while Rome burns.
However, given the approach you normally adopt on pprune threads I don't expect you to agree with this point of view.....
So in the upcoming SDR I think they will very possibly take the aircraft I fly on away from me (E3) but at least as I sit there pondering my next move I can do it in the knowledge that we expended 'X' (C Hinecap you appear genn'ed up on these matters...How much is the new belt and trousers costing?) amount of pounds on something that is neither here nor there when we are in times of pay freezes, cuts to services and argueing the toss over whether I had the rice for receipting purposes...The old belt held my trousers up OK...and everyone elses to from what I saw...In these current times this sort of expenditure comes across as sheer lunacy...
In the 90s (When we were rapidly closing RAF Hospitals) I was in a job that had me in regular contact with the RAF Ceremonial Dept. Nobody could ever tell me why we wasted thousands giving everybody in the ranks a new No1 uniform and an SD Cap badge that no-one knew how to properly sew to a hat which was made to have the metal badge attached. The cynical folks suspected some retired ex RAF was doing very well in a civilian directorship!
In the 90s (When we were rapidly closing RAF Hospitals) I was in a job that had me in regular contact with the RAF Ceremonial Dept. Nobody could ever tell me why we wasted thousands giving everybody in the ranks a new No1 uniform and an SD Cap badge that no-one knew how to properly sew to a hat which was made to have the metal badge attached. The cynical folks suspected some retired ex RAF was doing very well in a civilian directorship!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up where we belong
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the wheel comes full circle (again)
In around 1990/1 the AMP Liason Team proudly briefed that a stable belt was being introduced as a free issue as a Quality of Life improvement. In 1992/3 the next AMPLT presentation I went to briefed that the free issue was to be cancelled as nobody then on the team could work out how anyone's QoL could possibly be improved by being given a stable belt!
A rare application of common sense that the RAF DPC seems to have temporarily mislaid
A rare application of common sense that the RAF DPC seems to have temporarily mislaid
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparent change for change sake sends all the wrong messages, and gives the impression that someone higher up the command chain is fiddling while Rome burns.
"OC MSF - I want you to come up with a plan and instigate it to reduce the carbon emissions of RAF Tattershall. Reduce our MT fleet use."
"Sir - what are the carbon emissions of a RB199 engine? Can we have a 'no fly hour' and hit targets for 10 years in one hit?"
"Foxtrot Oscar and reduce MT use."
I don't know the cost - but I do know RAF Tattershall FOD incidents cost £14m on engine repair alone in 2002. Messing around with uniform cost so little, compared to the real numbers, that none of the 'but we're skint' arguements hold water. Get rid of an a/c type - that saves real money.
