No one has a tactical need to wear MTP around camp!
But you’re right on the working blue comparison - the army wear the ‘barrack shirt’ (aka CS95 style) as their normal working dress, and the PCS shirt or jacket in the field. So that’s exactly what you’d expect to see on an army base.
Except for Guard/Aug force, surely?
If cadets were issued with combats then I’d agree with them but when they rely on what we can beg, borrow, steal & rely on parents toshell out for then I’d be having a sensible chat with those precious enough to excited about something a predominately “Blue” organisation only wear from time to time.
I’m reminded of a phrase I’ve heard the RAF Reg use - “Combats are for dying in, not ironing” 
Not really, MTP is worn more for it’s practicality than for camouflage. RN sentries often wear blue PCS.
The issue is that the RAF have no need for a barrack dress shirt as outside of the Regiment your barrack dress is Blue, as Incy has pointed out we just copy their dress regulations rather than going “well that doesn’t apply to us” and using common sense.
Im sure that I had an email when these shirts first came on saying “the rules are you can’t wear them, but common sense needs to prevail and if all you can get is this then wear it” or words to that effect. That’s the policy I adopt and if any pace stick world era don’t like it they can go and phone someone who cares!
But the RAF are issued MTP, not Blue PCS. I can’t see us crawling around on the floor in 2b dress? Even the scuffers stopped wearing blues for anything but office duties. I’m probably being pedantic but I’d say practicality IS the tactical need, not necessarily camouflage and if PCS is what’s issued then that’s more suitable than blues.
There is even less tactical need for home-unit Army units (my REME stepson for example) to wear MTP during normal daily duties but it’s the norm for them, not the exception.
The CS95 cut shirts are so much more comfortable than the PCS ones as well, love mine.
More often than not if you take a walk around a station and look at those who are in MTP the senior NCO or officer ranks will most likely have on barrack shirts. They shouldn’t as per the regs but they appear to ignore that.
Maybe our organisation just takes itself a little too seriously at times.
i don’t recall the email, but my Sqn has a large quantity of MTP CS95 that fell off the back of an accounting sheet - the cadets have been wearing it publicly, and mixing it with MTP PCS, since MTP was allowed (and before that on longer duration exercises when they needed more clothes, and we didn’t have more DPM…), we’ve never had a problem within our wing, but one of our cadet SNCO’s went on a summer camp with another wing and got a bit of a wigging from some slope-faced mouth breather.
[edit: names removed, persec]
Subject: Re: 20180518-PCS-MTP Barracks and CS95-MTP Shirts-O
All
I’ve gone back to ATF for an update on the whole Barracks Shirt issue as the RAF are about to issue this item to the regiment and I’ve also witnessed other regulars wearing them, be it the actual barracks shirt or the original CS95 pattern in MTP. Their attitude has become more pragmatic over time and they also accept that, as the majority of our personnel have to self-source, we cannot really prevent cadets and staff from purchasing these items.
The official line going forward is that as long as the shirt or trousers is an official MOD issued item and was manufactured using the correct MTP material then personnel can wear it.
UBACS are still not permitted as there is still no requirement for RAFAC to wear body armour.
AP1358C will be updated to reflect the change in due course.
Please cascade as appropriate.
They’ve obviously never run a Squadron in South London 
Haven’t we been waiting for an update for the past 18 months…?
Nice to see that actually making its way down the chain… 
This comes down to a I don’t care moment. If Cadets have to buy their own kit, as long as it is matching pattern, I don’t care!!
The only way such uniform regs could be enforced is if we are issued with the kit and I don’t want huge amounts of money wasted in doing that!!
Yes, but apparently the hold up is with RAF Legal…
Not sure why… we aren’t in the RAF anymore…
That may be the issue then - hqac being stuck in the past, sending it off to raf legal as it’s what they’ve always done, raf legal promptly throwing it away.
Surely if they were willing to put out more regular updates there wouldn’t be such an issue, even every 6 months, any minor amendments required could be made, rather than waiting 18 months+, in which time more updates would need to be added and the cycle continues…
Why do people go to ATF on these issues? Presumably that email comes from a Wing or Region WO. Why do ATF think that their opinion is important?
ATF is an HQAC training sub-unit; they’re not the policy makers.
In this case there is only one opinion which has any bearing, and that is the opinion of the RAF Clothing and Dress Policy Committee.
Brian holds the gold copy of AP1358C on behalf of the dress committee. Probably being an ex QCS WO helps his credibility.
RWO L&SE holds the silver copy and does the bulk of the actual work on it. RAF legal then sit on it…
Hence why he’s in half the pictures!