The Service pattern flying boots did have a nominal “tread” but not enough depth / pattern gap to pick up FOD. There used to be thin “lines” of shallow tread across the main area of the sole with plain heels. It then changed to a pattern of small circular “dimples” on the sole. Dunno what the current issue is.
1 Like
When was that from? We’ve been told 2AEF wants No 3s!
It did say “or ideally PCS . . . Aka No#3”
2 Likes
Its the latest orders
Which, I suspect, covers a lot of brands!
3 Likes
It’s difficult to find anything without some synthetic material these days.
yeah went flying this Saturday with 2 AEF. the uniform was in MPT believe it’s just more practical but It has been a recent switch. was absolutely great aswell! just hoping ill be able to fly again as its usually once in a cadet career unfortunately.
3 Likes
Many cadets (and staff) have made similar remarks.
Believe me, this is not how most staff feel the situation should be….
There is an “aim” to try to deliver at least one slot per year - but access to resources / available instructors / favourable weather etc, often go against us.
3 Likes
what is frustrating for me is there appears to be
1 - little acknowledgement of this wording in policy by the paid staff
2 - with no acknowledgement there appears to be little interest in making it happen
3 - As it is not being acknowledged there no acceptance it is being missed there is no obvious desire to change it to meet the “aim” by the powers that be
1 Like
Chaps, I’ve found a solution:
2 Likes
Guide price £25,000,000 (not as crazy as it first seems)
Not exactly going to be each squadron chipping in £25,000 and we would have the pot but there could be an agreement with MOD/RAF/Aero Grants. That to get us “out of their hair” we have this site along with hiring it for other people to gain some of the monies back. Then all Flying training could be based from here alongside ACPS along with potential of some of the AEF and VGS and potentially HQ Air cadets as well as the RAFAC Leadership and Command school.
3 Likes
Heresy!! Far too sensible ideas! 
2 Likes
We were told flying must be blues but can take a change of shoes, cadets have requested MTP but told it is not allowed and can only be used for gliding. To do with no.2 been deemed safe and not a safety/fire risk etc.
It’s dependent on the AEF, as mentioned above. Some/most will dictate No2s, but there’s no real safety reason they can’t wear MTP.
1 Like
About time it was standardised for uniform requirements - shouldn’t have different safety protocols.
2 Likes
I thought it always was standardised to No2s, but then OC 2 AEF said he wanted MTP, so that’s what we do 
1 Like
Locally, from JIs, not standardised:
5AEF.
As per ACTO31 para 12, no synthetic clothing.
7AEF.
Combat uniform or No2 - no synthetic clothing.
ACTO31 para 12.
(1) No 2 uniform with trousers (not skirts and tights). Where skirts and tights are worn cadets are to change into suitable natural fibre underwear that covers all exposed skin with long natural fibre socks that fully cover the ankles.
(2) No 3 Service Dress (CS95/PCS-MTP, often referred to as ‘combats’).
Note: No 3 Service dress is preferred.
Last time I took cadets to 5 AEF, it was MTP and ‘preferably boots but bring trainers’ as well.
Considering the No. 2 shirts and trousers have a high polyester mix, PCS with a cotton t-shirt makes more sense. Flying clothing is also a form of operational clothing, so No. 3s are a lot closer to that than No. 2 SD.
Beat me to it!
Is it just me, or does listing something second then stating it’s preferred seem a bit odd? Why not put the preferred option first?
2 Likes
Cadets & RAFAC CFAVs at Sqn level are not scaled for MTPs & there isn’t the compulsion to wear them.
As such you have to go with the kit that you are scaled with first as your required dress followed by the optional but preferred dress second.
3 Likes