Growbags on ground-tours?
 

Just to guage your opinions please- should aircrew wear flying suits when on ground-tours as STC/ SFSO/ Stn OpsO/ etc? Some like to get into blues for a change- others must wear wings at all times (including civies, as I've seen!!!!).

Not fussed either way with the flying suit... they are comfy. The wings thing is something else. I worked bl00dy hard to get them and am immensley proud to wear them. I should be able to have them on all uniform. The Regt Flt and Police Flt have shoulder flashes, the Padre has his "thing" what ever it is... why can I not have wings on a shirt. Many other airforces do.

I know that won't be a popular view by the groundies but I don't care :)

Tonks

As a 'Groundie' I do not care if aircrew (of whatever 'wing') wish to wear their 'Trade' badges on whatever bit of uniform they choose. I just cannot fathom out why they wear growbags when they are filling a desk job and have no (or virtually no) chance of flying during the shift.

We cannot all wear our hard earned trade badges all the time, but surely 'Flying Clothing' is just that, clothing for flying.

'Groundies' are not allowed to wear coveralls when wandering around the station (or Tesco's for that matter) so why should aircrew be treated different.

I appreciate that some of the Pie Eating variety of growbag wearers cannot afford the operation to remove their growbags.

I worked as hard as I could at skool, but contrary to the belief of the one winged wonders, not everybody who joins the RAF wants to fly.

I have to fully agree with Tonks on this one, on the wearing of the flying coverall though some are a bit more presentable than others and may well be suited to the H&S free world while airborne due to the high MRSA levels in the armpits.
No2 dress should definitely have some insignia applied to show that the wearer is a fully fledged member of the master race, aircrew are after all what the Air Force is all about:ok: :ok:


ALWAYS assume NEVER check

To be pedantic there is a difference, coveralls are not a order of uniform - flying suits are - no14 dress if my very trivial memory serves me correctly.

That said, I don't really care. As long as we can do our function - the projection of air power - the rest is trivia. Does this issue effect the product?

I thought flying suits were not classed as uniform. I know the rules at ISK dictate you can wear blues off station but not flying suits. I heard the reason for this was that growbags are not considered to be uniform??

Further to the comments already made about this quote, unlike groundcrew coveralls, flying suits are NOT meant to be worn over the top of No.2 working dress to protect it. If a groundie is dressed correctly he can simply take his coverall off and walk around in his No. 2's. If an aircrew guys simply takes his 'coverall' off he will be walking around in long-johns and green roll-neck! And before any groundie says it, I know many don't wear their No. 2's under their coveralls, but that is through choice rather than applying correct dress code.

MadMark!!! :mad:

No flying suits unless in a flying job.

Enamel 'brooch-style' flying badges for shirts, etc.

santiago15

Flying kit is definitely Uniform No14 dress - AP1358 Chap 6 refers. (and yes I am that sad to have checked)

However, juts because it is an order of dress it does not mean that Commanders cannot restrict its use. After all, you are not allowed to fly fighters wearing No1 Uniform anymore (even if you do undo the top button).

As an aside, if flying kit was not uniform: then when our brave aviators jumped out of their burning steeds over enemy lines they would not be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. Geneva Conventions require nations to distinguise between combatants and non-combatants - this is partly achieved through the medium of uniform!

Before the Blunties set off ........

.......made a point of wearing a flying suit whilst on the Ground because I joined the Royal AIR Force, not the Royal GROUND Force.

Just like to remind people that we were a fighting force some some vehicle to collect as many IIP, H&S, Toilet Management blah blaf certificates.

Sorry to intrude, but when I last looked there was only one flying suit. It had trousers and a jacket. All the one piece growbags are called 'flying coveralls'. The difference between air and ground growbags is probably just in the fire retardant properties. {I am not talking cut, style, fabric etc just the name}

At ISL once two of us, in flying suits, the rest in the bar in coveralls, weer told to take our jackets off. We did.

We were resplendent in green shirts, green pully and braces on top - no rank badges as the pully does not have sliders.

Put your jackets back on we were told. no ranh badges was too casual. :}

Climebear

I note you fail to quote the rest of the regulations on No 14 dress

"0602. Occasions for wear. No 14 Dress is worn by all ranks, when actively employed on flying duties unless otherwise ordered. It is not to be worn routinely in off base areas (See Chap 1, Para 0110 regarding travel to and from work). It is not to be worn in public areas of Officers' or Sergeants' Messes after 1900 hrs daily. When employed on ground administrative duties or when a standard dress is ordered, aircrew personnel
should wear the standard RAF No 2 Dress."

SteveStephens

I didn't quote it because I was simply addressing the question as to whether it was uniform. As my original post states, I don't care (I am not aircrew so the decision doesn't matter to me at all). The restrictions on wearing the order of dress for specific duties are not unique to No14 dress.

EESDL

Before you take a swipe at Blunties - you don't need a flying suit to be reminded that you are in a fighting force. Last time I looked down the barrel of an AK, wondering if the drunk militia man was going to pull the trigger, I was fairly convinced of my vocation. I didn't even need an electronic warning that a lump of lead moving quite quickly would possibly impact with my skull if he did.

As my first post stated, the key issue is the prosecution of air power whether that be kinetic or non-kinetic, manned or un-manned, fixed-wing or rotary, etc. However, it takes more than the operator of the weapons system to deliver effect from the air.

Oh, and since you raised the issue of blunties remember that decisions on orders of uniforms are made by their airships who are (correctly), predominantly aviators.

Moving slightly away from the thread subject but from experience if I was to rock up on a day I was'nt down on the program to fly, wearing my freshly laundered and pressed no.2's, 80% of the time I would be driving back home within the hour to get into flying kit to fill in for the short fall of people at this cold, well to the North airbase.

As most of us had a house (for this base was in an area where you could still afford houses etc) rather than residing in the mess or quarters it could be a substantial drive so for most of the time I was in flying gear and nobody seemed too bothered.

Now I'm in a ground tour well south of this location where I generally wear blues..Don't have a problem with this except I had to take them all to a proper tailor in town so they actually fitted. The extra expence was worth it to not let everyone see my socks all day!

On the wing subject I also worked hard for mine and did hear of the little metal pin-on version that maybe coming our way...I'm proud of what I've acheived and would wear it..Anyone know what happened to the idea??

i like to wear my flying suit for a few reasons really. Firstly, i am proud to be a pilot in the RAF and the flying suit and wings make you stand out as a pilot.

I think they are more comfy than blues and to be honest, i hate blues. The one or two occasions i have to wear them in the year, i struggle to find the cupboard they are thrown into from the last time.

But also, does it really matter as long as it is clean and smart!!

There is, I believe, an issue here that relates to expense borne by the public purse. Flying suits are expensive items and the cost of replacement falls on the public purse. Unless officers uniform allowance has changed, replacement falls on the individual. So why do aircrew not on flying duties get clothed for free by the taxpayer?

Having said that, I was privvy to a remark by an American widow to her late husband's commanding officer as she left the memorial service following his demise in a flying accident: " My husband's flying suit was good enough for him to die in but not to wear in your goddam o-club!"

An emotive subject indeed.

i'll remember the cost of wearing my flying suit this week, when watching the g8 summit.

All those politicians, flown first class around the world, with all their followers, on max allowances, being driven everywhere, posh dinners and of course 5 star hotels.......

or maybe when Gordon Brown writes off another lot of debt, so that the african leaders can abuse a whole lot more money on flash cars etc etc

cost is always on my mind these days...

Yes they are, but a couple of mine are 10 years old and still going strong;)

Tonks:)

Soddim

Why not? Those officers who work in RAF No3 Combat dress ( ie greens or CS95) don't have to pay for their working dress either - that includes most of the Army. Should we charge them for replacing those items or only for wear an tear incurred during normal work and not for wear and tear on the same clothes incurred during exercises/operations. - This is not an invitation to reopen the shouldn't wear CS95 when not on ex/ops debate.

This thread is getting silly now.

Perhaps if the old-style barathea battle dress (not the awful mid-70s Thunderbird smock) was still worn (particularly the aircrew-only version as once was issued to V-bomber crews) instead of that stupid pullover, people might want to wear it?

It was smart, showed wings and medals and was very comfy. The aircrew-only version had flying suit style zip pockets instead of buttoned patch pockets and the epaulettes were sewn down. It looked very cool; all the comfort of a growbag with the style of a proper uniform.

I hadn't worn a v-necked pullover with a tie as my working uniform since leaving prep school in 1963 until some blunt fool came up with that useless NATO pullover. Hardly surprising that aircrew don't want to wear the b£oody thing.

Aircrew leather jacket, wedgewood shirt and lightweight No2 trousers was comfortable, practical and really pi$$ed off such oxygen thieves as SWOs and other bell ends! Particularly when worn with flying boots...