When I was an FSC we helped cadets into the aircraft and strapped them in. If that is still the case at AEFs now then there is still a fire risk on the apron and so flying kit is necessary.
1 Like
I would have thought that was (and needed to be) done by the babcock ground crew at the AEF
And that role in the RAF is conducted by line technicians wearing coveralls.
But they don’t fly at all. FSCs do fly so should they be issued with flying suit and coveralls!
Babcock ground staff will strap cadets in at AEFs.
Flight staff cadets don’t normally get issued brand new flying suits. They’re normally serviceable used suits. Any worn clothing returned to stores is scrapped. The cost of flight staff cadets being issued with flying suits is minimal.
2 Likes
Are they maintained as safe and serviceable on a regular basis as per regular service flying suits, or are they basically coveralls with plastic knees?
They’re personal issue. So unless a problem is highlighted or noticed then there’s no regular maintenance schedule for them.
I disagree - they satisfy the needs when a “full suit” is required, namely jacket and tie, for formal events and dinners (No4s)
although i do agree with removal of tailoring - get off the peg like the rest of uniform!
I think he was being sarcastic.
Perhaps, but it is actually a valid question. Issued No1 costs a lot of money for relatively little use (much of it invented) and the problems with maintaining it in good condition, properly fitting, correctly ranked and badged are not trivial.
Perhaps issue at Sqn Ldr or even Wg Cmdr and above would be a sensible policy.
Yes but let’s be honest, who wants to see officers parading in no. 2s?
You think their lesser dress will distract from the drill? 
I was being sarcastic. I wouldn’t get rid of No1 dress, flying suits, MTP or mess dress even though none of those are strictly ‘necessary’.
We all happily adopt the RAF’s corporate identity because that is what makes the corps different to other youth organisations. So if RAFAC aircrew want to wear flying suits, well let them.
1 Like
Officers? Drill? Just fancy walking for them
Part worn (ie recycled) suits are generally issued - no additional cost to the system. Maint of coveralls is now on condition so no cost there either. Individuals attached to the flying unit and in the flying environment should wear the normal protective dress for that role which is flying suit, and they should be readily identifiable as part of the supervisory chain by appropriate badges. Flying will happen on a reactive and often short notice basis, I haven’t got the time for people faffing around changing when a slot comes up short notice.
3 Likes
It’s not a matter of wanting to. We have to. Those are the rules…
I’d much rather fly in my shorts and shirt on occasions, but they won’t allow me to if I want to fly their aeroplanes.
You have to buy/scrounge MTP. My flying kit is issued to me.
1 Like
I agree with 109115 on a couple of points.
- Deffinately some flying suit envy going on
- I issue flying PART WORN flying suits to my Staffies. So are at no cost to the tax payer as they would only be scrapped. They are perfectly serviceable and are visually checked by Squipper’s when they get kitted up to fly. Replacements are issued as and when available.
- Risk of fire on the dispersal. I insist that they use protective clothing as required. Just like they use ear defenders and hi vis jackets. It’s PPE.
- My staffies are not pen pushers. They are fully active members of the unit and escort cadets too and from aircraft. Flying suits are practical and make them feel part of the team.
3 Likes
We have aircrew at Coningsby who are flying a desk on a 2 year tour who wear flying suits day in, day out “because it lends weight to getting things done” apparantly.
1 Like
quite possibly, but as i suggest - why not pick off the peg??
there is no need for tailoring
1 Like
Please remind them that if they are on a Military base, flying suits are not to be worn in the Galley/Mess area. You are not high readiness.