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 letâs 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 wouldnât get rid of No1 dress, flying suits, MTP or mess dress even though none of those are strictly ânecessaryâ.
We all happily adopt the RAFâs 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 havenât got the time for people faffing around changing when a slot comes up short notice.
3 Likes
Itâs not a matter of wanting to. We have to. Those are the rulesâŚ
Iâd much rather fly in my shorts and shirt on occasions, but they wonât 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 Squipperâs 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. Itâs 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 âbecause it lends weight to getting things doneâ 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.
Donât issue them with it. Simple. We have enough financial drain without staff and cadets giving it billy big beans.
Next you will be telling me the OTC is a worthwhile use of Defence FundingâŚ
I can assure you, I have no envy of your flying suit.
Letâs face it they wear it to be âallyâ. And if you are worried about a fire, long sleeve clothing is available.
1 Like
Reactive and short notice? You arenât zooming up in Lightningâs to take on the Russians. Calm yourself.
Do you have no1s Rear Admiral? Hand them in immediately, you donât need them!
2 Likes
There should be a PPE logbook, with a monthly (or relevant time frame) inspections and signature and each time the garment is washed should be logged.
Could you provide a paper trail for the condition of your PPE? Especially since certain fire proofing materials degrade through general use and washing.
Civvie Instructor. Perks and all that.
And even when I was Regulars I had enough use out of my âNumber 1sâ to warrant the cost.
Is anyone who wears mess dress or MTP a âwaltâ? Neither dress is necessary for CFAV.
I concur. Hence my push for the ATC to be run by Civvie Instructors. Much less bureaucracy and probably be run more efficiently.
And less money spent on replacing MTP with worn out backsides from flying desks.