Typical sounds like the average storeman mindeset … stores are for storing not supply.
It’s a pity really.
If they’d issued them all previously they might be able to justify producing new ones with the current logo; which might look a bit more professional than the bloody blue/yellow with the tutor logo.
Every time I see a group of those shirts I can’t help but feel a bit like I’ve walked into a playgroup. Blue and yellow was always a bad choice.
In fairness, I often feel that way about the ATC in general.
I can sort of see the appeal of the smocks and trousers for outdoors type stuff… with the arm pockets cut off probably and not both at the same time, suit style…
Err, we have a whole chapter on it in AP1358C???
Err, we have a whole chapter on it in AP1358C???[/quote]
with the greatest of respect to ‘the rules’, just because some shiny-bum writes a chapter, or three, or twelve, on a particular subject, that does not automatically convey actual importance to the subject.
ones mind is drawn to the RAF’s PR department - who produce an amazing quantity of ‘product’: that does not stop 90% of what they produce from being drivel, embarrassingly ‘mountain/molehill’ related, or obvious. the four horsemen of the apocolypse could sweep through that department and it would have ne effect whatsoever on the performance of the RAF at its actual job.
activity does not equal achievement…
Err, we have a whole chapter on it in AP1358C???[/quote]
with the greatest of respect to ‘the rules’, just because some shiny-bum writes a chapter, or three, or twelve, on a particular subject, that does not automatically convey actual importance to the subject.
ones mind is drawn to the RAF’s PR department - who produce an amazing quantity of ‘product’: that does not stop 90% of what they produce from being drivel, embarrassingly ‘mountain/molehill’ related, or obvious. the four horsemen of the apocolypse could sweep through that department and it would have ne effect whatsoever on the performance of the RAF at its actual job.
activity does not equal achievement…[/quote]
Would the activity in this case be your typing that comment? Because if so I agree, it achieved nothing productive.
Clearly, a subject such as clarifying the dress position for a large proportion of our staff (who may I add, often face a bloody hard task working out what it is appropriate to wear at any given time.) does not even register on your radar.
actually, you might be distressed to find that on your main point i agree with you entirely - but the issue does not require chapter and verse in ACP blah, it requires people with an IQ above room temperature to hear/read (or possibly even think for themselves…) the three magic words: ‘appropriate to task’.
it only gets complicated when sad, lonely, deluded people try to make out that they are special, and that to proclaim their ‘specialness’ they must wear things that no one else may wear, so that all shall know them and kneel, humbled and in awe, at the might and power of these Gods amongst men.
Back to the original question… is the idea of Blue RAF PCS definitively dead?
Anyone know where the RN are on this?
As I run a tri-service organisation I’m interested…
[quote=“tmmorris” post=15925]Back to the original question… is the idea of Blue RAF PCS definitively dead?
Anyone know where the RN are on this?
As I run a tri-service organisation I’m interested…[/quote]
Pretty sure the Navy have adopted it and are introducing it into service minus the pockets on the arms.
Edit: actually, on properly checking, I discovered that they decided to adopt it, then realised they couldn’t afford to issue it to everyone in the Navy, so now aren’t having it.
[quote=“Baldrick” post=15813]My comment was only in relation to when uniformed staff and cadets are all in no3s. It would be a perfect form of dress, PPE compliant and practical.
And it’s obviously not uniform as it’s not on issue, nor is it being worn by the regular services.
Hell, I’d wear the trousers when doing hill walking.[/quote]Surely for the most part the only time that CIs really need a No 3-equivalent is for fieldcraft, which blue PCS isn’t really ideal for anyway.
The only real use I can think of is for shooting, for ranges where combat clothing is required by the range orders.
Well, that seems silly. As it was clearly just a replacement for the current No4 IAWD one would have thought that they could just roll it out as required, rather than reissue to everyone.
Well, that seems silly. As it was clearly just a replacement for the current No4 IAWD one would have thought that they could just roll it out as required, rather than reissue to everyone.[/quote]
According to the source, they didn’t want mixed rig, so it was all at once or nothing at all. FlagO’s the man to ask for certain, I’d imagine…
The smartest version of the RAF trials dress I saw was a bloke wearing the combat trousers with the current dark blue shirt…
[quote=“MattB” post=15927][quote=“Baldrick” post=15813]My comment was only in relation to when uniformed staff and cadets are all in no3s. It would be a perfect form of dress, PPE compliant and practical.
And it’s obviously not uniform as it’s not on issue, nor is it being worn by the regular services.
Hell, I’d wear the trousers when doing hill walking.[/quote]Surely for the most part the only time that CIs really need a No 3-equivalent is for fieldcraft, which blue PCS isn’t really ideal for anyway.
The only real use I can think of is for shooting, for ranges where combat clothing is required by the range orders.[/quote]
Shooting it would be ideal. As with anything else which we often do in Greens but probably shouldn’t because we’re a blue organisation. (Which at the moment can’t get blues for love nor money.)
It wouldn’t be any worse than black for fieldcraft, seeing as the AP is against CIs wearing camo at all.
Certainly for cadets I can’t imagine issuing it would cost less than the current scaling (dark blue shirt, trousers FR, white shirt, tie, trousers black, belt, jumper)…