GPJ and NCOs

Everyone Uniform and Drill
41

All,

I think we can discuss the pro’s and con’s about the wearing of GPJ’s for Cadets until we are blue in the face.

However, AP1358C was written by members of the ATC SNCO cadre and approved by the Royal Air Force Dress committee. Any amendments or questions should be raised via your chain of command which in turn will reach the CACWO, WO (ATC) G Tonks. He and his dress committee can then discuss and review your questions/comments at the next meeting.

If they agree with you they can then seek permission from the RAF dress committee and go through the correct procedures for changing the dress regulations.

Going back to woodhouse2152 original question:

“Just out of curiosity

Are cadet NCO’s permitted to wear a GPJ?

Only asking because I have seen cadet NCO’s wearing them before and got told different stories saying you are allowed and other people saying your not?

What is the regulations for GPJ “

The answer is no, only Officers and SNCO’s/WO’s are authorised to wear GPJ’s.

Word from ATF is that AP1385C is about to get another update/amendment, this includes some picture changes very soon. They hope that the regulations will be reviewed and updated every 6 months.

Can we put this subject to bed until then?

WO Merlin

42

[quote=“merlin456” post=5765]All,

I think we can discuss the pro’s and con’s about the wearing of GPJ’s for Cadets until we are blue in the face.

However, AP1358C was written by members of the ATC SNCO cadre and approved by the Royal Air Force Dress committee. Any amendments or questions should be raised via your chain of command which in turn will reach the CACWO, WO (ATC) G Tonks. He and his dress committee can then discuss and review your questions/comments at the next meeting.

If they agree with you they can then seek permission from the RAF dress committee and go through the correct procedures for changing the dress regulations.

Going back to woodhouse2152 original question:

“Just out of curiosity

Are cadet NCO’s permitted to wear a GPJ?

Only asking because I have seen cadet NCO’s wearing them before and got told different stories saying you are allowed and other people saying your not?

What is the regulations for GPJ “

The answer is no, only Officers and SNCO’s/WO’s are authorised to wear GPJ’s.

Word from ATF is that AP1385C is about to get another update/amendment, this includes some picture changes very soon. They hope that the regulations will be reviewed and updated every 6 months.

Can we put this subject to bed until then?

WO Merlin[/quote]

I’ve got nothing against you personally and I hope you wwon’t see this as an attack or ‘playing the man rather than the ball’ but actually as it’s intended: a genuine question.

How can you post what you have here when you started a thread the other day looking for a way to get around the fact that you’re not allowed to wear ammo boots (which you said yourself you had kept doing in defiance of the new regs) and have repeatedly made posts on how you wear ammo boots, mudguards (before it was allowed), QCS hat, etc.?

AP1358C doesn’t allow cadets GPJ by ommission, not prohibition; it does, however, prohibit wearing civilian clothes with uniform (unless you’re on a motorbike). So please stop trying to justify your arguments by saying ‘but the rules say’, folks, you’re just making yourselves look silly.

43

Or, to put it another way, “AP1358C doesn’t allow cadets [to wear the] GPJ”

44

I see your point. But please remember my background which you would have seen on the previous ACC. Do you not think this is justifiable enough?

Now, I hear some of you say “But your not in anymore, leave it behind you. Your now in the ACO”

So does that mean I should leave my medals behind? My qualifications? My experience? Mudguards, hat and boots are all part of my background… if it’s any consultation, I have stopped wearing the sash as I can see some arguments for it, and the boot to shoe conversion is a step, no?

45

[quote=“merlin456” post=5773]I see your point. But please remember my background which you would have seen on the previous ACC. Do you not think this is justifiable enough?

Now, I hear some of you say “But your not in anymore, leave it behind you. Your now in the ACO”

So does that mean I should leave my medals behind? My qualifications? My experience? Mudguards, hat and boots are all part of my background… if it’s any consultation, I have stopped wearing the sash as I can see some arguments for it, and the boot to shoe conversion is a step, no?[/quote]

With regards to dress you should bring with you what the ACO in it’s dress regs says you can (Medals, mudguards etc) and leave the rest.You haven’t got a leg to stand on with regards to dress otherwise.

Ex regs have loads to offer but lose credibility with the “it’s in my background” arguement.

46

[off topic]
on the subject of Merlin’s “background”

mudgaurds, hat, boots, sash and anything else are all in place for the office held, unique to the role/duty that was being served (Regt).

there would be colleagues outside of the Regt with similar/same medals, qualifications and experience but they are not permitted to wear/use the Regt specific items (hat/boots mudguards etc) as they are not in that Regt in much the same way WO Merlin is now no longer in that role.

a Ex-Marine isn’t permitted to wear a Marine’s beret as an ATC SNCO, as the only uniformed personnel to be permitted to wear one are Marines, an ATC SNCO is a ATC SNCO and therefore not a Marine.

But the qualifications and medals which are not specifically unique to the Regt would be hard to restrict. They were earned either through attendance at a course/passing a test (qualification) or in recognition of duty or an act (medal) while the items WO Merlin describes are all “badges of office” and unique and specific to a role being undertaken – if no longer in that role, or in a position where that role is not valid there is little point acknowledging them.

Take the for instance a Police Officer loses their powers when leaving the Police Service, their access to records, their ability to freely search a member of the public, freedom to carry around a taser, handcuffs and use the police/emergency services radio frequencies and other such duties relevant to that role. But that doesn’t mean that when they leave they suddenly are not permitted to drive any more, or walk along the road, or notice suspicious activity as they are all skills learnt in the police service to become a habit.

Personally I cannot see why the Regt Mudguards are permitted to be worn, but not knowing what is required to get through to earn wearing them can’t argue the case strongly – I presume it is in recognition as a “qualification” to have passed through the Regt system of selection? And therefore seen alongside other qualification badges of previous service are offered the same privilege (pilot/navigator/parachutist etc)
NB i have nothing against ex-service being recognised and qualification badges being worn, they all require hard work and effort to complete and earn…but i can’t see what they bring/offer when the badge is not necessarily relevant to “service” in the ATC

47

Let’s try and keep on topic - we can make another one if we need to debate the wearing of previously held entitlements?

48

Or, to put it another way, “AP1358C doesn’t allow cadets [to wear the] GPJ”[/quote]

It also doesn’t forbid it…

But it does forbid wearing mixed dress, which you suggested as an alternative.

No. Because the regs say ‘DMS’. Meaning rubber soles.

I would never presume to lecture you on it and I massively respect your background and experience. Honestly, do what you want, I haven’t got a problem with it. But I’d be a hypocrite if I said it was okay for you to wear a QCS hat but not for a cadet to throw on a GPJ in cold weather.

[quote]Personally I cannot see why the Regt Mudguards are permitted to be worn, but not knowing what is required to get through to earn wearing them can’t argue the case strongly – I presume it is in recognition as a “qualification” to have passed through the Regt system of selection? And therefore seen alongside other qualification badges of previous service are offered the same privilege (pilot/navigator/parachutist etc)
NB i have nothing against ex-service being recognised and qualification badges being worn, they all require hard work and effort to complete and earn…but i can’t see what they bring/offer when the badge is not necessarily relevant to “service” in the ATC[/quote]

Current boss has fought the fight (and won it) to have mudguards recongnised as q-badges rather than branch insignia. Right or wrong? Jury’s out for me… however, purely for CFAV types, I’d say the wearing of mudguards does suggest credibility in ‘green’ stuff at a glance, which other staff may lack… (See the ‘Fieldcraft Instructor’ thread…)

49

I’m sorry, I’ll try to stop spawning new threads from old ones…

50

It’s not a problem, but we were asked to be stricter as a moderating team, so I’m trying to be :slight_smile:

51

Or, to put it another way, “AP1358C doesn’t allow cadets [to wear the] GPJ”[/quote]

It also doesn’t forbid it…[/quote]

Come on people, we’re not getting on to that old line of ‘because it doesn’t say I can’t wear it, it must mean I can’ are we? I believe that pink tutus have been mentioned in other threads!

AP1358C has ‘ORDERS OF DRESS – ALL (MALE and FEMALE) ACO PERSONNEL INCLEMENT WEATHERWEAR’ and in my book orders mean ‘you are to’, simples!

52

Or, to put it another way, “AP1358C doesn’t allow cadets [to wear the] GPJ”[/quote]

It also doesn’t forbid it…[/quote]

Come on people, we’re not getting on to that old line of ‘because it doesn’t say I can’t wear it, it must mean I can’ are we? I believe that pink tutus have been mentioned in other threads!

AP1358C has ‘ORDERS OF DRESS – ALL (MALE and FEMALE) ACO PERSONNEL INCLEMENT WEATHERWEAR’ and in my book orders mean ‘you are to’, simples![/quote]

Ok…here’s another real world example for you…

AP1358 (the real, grown up one) doesn’t mention ‘softie’ jackets, either the issue copies or the original commercial snugpack ones or the many other similar thermal jackets. The bit on combat clothing only refers to the issue fleece and says it’s to be worn under the field jacket.

Should airmen wearing the (issued remember) reversible softie be told to get it off?

53

[quote=“tango_lima” post=5795]

Should airmen wearing the (issued remember) reversible softie be told to get it off?[/quote]

It’s a different scenario in my view as you generally don’t see people cutting around a Station wearing a softie jacket instead of a combat jacket (note the generally bit), softies tend to be worn in limited places such as on ranges, in the field etc. Furthermore, as you say, the softie jacket is also issued to airmen whilst the GPJ is not issued to cadets. What we are discussing, I think, is cadets wearing (their non-issue) GPJs all the time they are in blues. Technically though, the answer to your comment above is yes, they should be told not to wear them as the softie is a middle layer and is for cold conditions under the smock. I know of people who have been re-briefed by the SWO for wearing their green fleece as a top layer!

54

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=5799][quote=“tango_lima” post=5795]

Should airmen wearing the (issued remember) reversible softie be told to get it off?[/quote]

It’s a different scenario in my view as you generally don’t see people cutting around a Station wearing a softie jacket instead of a combat jacket (note the generally bit), softies tend to be worn in limited places such as on ranges, in the field etc. Furthermore, as you say, the softie jacket is also issued to airmen whilst the GPJ is not issued to cadets. What we are discussing, I think, is cadets wearing (their non-issue) GPJs all the time they are in blues. Technically though, the answer to your comment above is yes, they should be told not to wear them as the softie is a middle layer and is for cold conditions under the smock. I know of people who have been re-briefed by the SWO for wearing their green fleece as a top layer![/quote]

You’ve misunderstood. I’m talking about it being worn as a mid-layer, since it isn’t mentioned at all in AP1358 then, according to most people on this thread, it shouldn’t be worn at all.

It’s analogous to the GPJ and cadets because it’s an item of ‘issue’ kit that isn’t issued. They’re only handed out to people going on Ops to cold places (in the RAF - I know the RMs issue them to Nods) so lots of people buy them off eBay (if they think they can’t get away with a better commercial equivalent like my sexy Keela Beelay Advance).

Oh. And a fair few people wear them around station. Mostly movers, etc working on the airfield, but plenty of others too.

55

Sorry, I get what you mean, ‘issue’ as in ‘military’ kit in general vs ‘issued’ as in kit they’ve actually been officially given! But if something is worn underneath the combat jacket, it’s probably not going to be seen, so it doesn’t really matter. Arguably, the same could be said for the ‘issued’ shreddies that you get when going on ops, they’re not mentioned in AP1358 either :slight_smile:
Those people you mention will most likely have been on Ops so will have had their softies issued and in my experience, you can pretty much wear what you want on the flight line etc.
I think the argument here is cadets wearing the GPJ (that they have neither been ‘issued’ nor are scaled for - yet) as a routine piece of kit that isn’t detailed as an official order of dress for cadets.

56

An interesting point which links both concurent debates…

AP1358 (RAF Regs) doesn’t authorise the wearing of ammo boots; yet they are issued to DIs (whether they’re Regt/QCS/or not) and it’s accepted that they wear them when doing drilly things.

Discuss…

A similar point:

AP818 prescribes a specific way for performing movements such as stepping sideways or change step in quick time…Halton are teaching recruits a different way of performing those movements.

The book may say one thing, but it’s not always in line with accepted practice in the service. Practice can change, APs take a long time to be updated.

Whilst there does have to be a line somewhere, I think we in the ACO should be looking to the parent service more often for guidance and precedent on certain issues.

57

Just do what the book says…its easier. Or should i follow Merlins footsteps and grab every badge i qualified for as an infantryman? maybe get my regimental lanyard back, where the regiments DZ patch on my greens jacket…yeah look super cool…

58

I’ve been reading this thread with interest and the one huge thing that junps out at me is how anal the ATC are when it comes to wtf people wear and when they wear it.

I’m sure the ATC put the ‘A’ in ‘Anal’.

The RAF - to a large degree - doesn’t give a monkey’s left bollock a lot of the time and so long as people don’t get all outrageous, no-one ever bothers pulling people up. Why then, do we have to have our people getting all bent out of shape over cadets wearing such a bloody mundane and everyday item?

That said, if the rules were re-written to permit cadets to wear the jacket, then Squadron Commanders should also be given a forcible heads-up that when the book of words says that it’s an ‘optional item’, then it bloody well means ‘optional’ and that the wearing - like stable belts - isn’t just reserved for the chosen few who hold certain levels of rank.

/rant.

59

I think the problem occurs when people lose the ability to see what is reasonable.

Sure, Merlin above who has been there, seen it and done it would consider it reasonable to have special shoes, or a stick or whatever, but someone somewhere will then think that makes it acceptable for Johnny Big Balls to have his own cane, or his own No1s because he looks good.

Cue the regulars getting snotty because we’re trying to be the dreaded W word and then we start having problems.

60

I think my ATC motto for 2013 shall be “the RAF aren’t worried about this; why are you?”