Sod the regulations. If they want to mandate what we wear, issue it.
As long as it’s purchase purchase, I’ll wear what I can get my hands on.
3 Likes
The very obvious - to me - answer to whether the softies, of all persuasions, are meant to be outerwear, is that if they weren’t, it’s unlikely that the MOD would have specified that their materials be windproof…
The other obvious answer is that idiotic crap like that has no business in a field environment - and that’s not just a ‘ally’ answer, that’s a genuine safety answer: if you’ve got cadets and staff out in an exposed environment, in crap weather, and a member of staff is worrying about what is written on a piece of paper, and not what what their eyes, and wealth of experience is telling them, then that person has no business being responsible for other people’s children in a wild country environment.
3 Likes
Hilariously, I can’t wear them on the flight line as they aren’t fire retardant. But my overalls aren’t either…
2 Likes
They are not to be worn as outerwear as they are not IRR treated.
That has little to no relevance to us but it’s been written across.
However I have seen regulars wearing the softie over their No.2s
If they weren’t to be worn as outers they wouldn’t have epaulettes.
2 Likes
That would assume the design committee were sensible in their decision making
I think the decision to not have them as outerwear has less to do with the design committee and more to do with the dress regulation committee…
2 Likes
Therefore it follows that if the design committee had been sensible, they would have…
The problem here is that mainstream military are allowed to wear softies as an outer layer, see it on a regular basis.
We see this and think we can do the same, yet HQAC say we can’t.
2 Likes
Cue shifty eyes from just about everyone who’s ever been on a fieldcraft exercise…
3 Likes
Have you considered simply ignoring?
HQAC could be on full send and I wouldn’t pay heed. Especially with cold weather kit.
6 Likes
That’s how I go through life 
4 Likes
gaze upon the field in which I grow my cares, and lo! See that it is barren…
3 Likes
That’s such a non-ATC answer!
Of course, in the CCF…
You can get an FR version though? I’ve seen aircrew wearing these…
They are literally just the half zips though, no lining.
You can also get fr half zips.
1 Like
I know… But they don’t issue them to engineers. Not scaled for them.
Can we get a quote that justifies why it’s acceptable?
Had an RAF chap (politely) haul me over the coals for bumbling around in a green softie and I was ill-equipped to defend myself (I too wore mine because I could affix a rank to it — because why would you need that if you can’t ever see it).
Apparently MTP outer layer is the law of the land (which is hilarious when you’re rushing between buildings on your way to the brew house).
It’s certainly much more “isms” than actually permitted.
And certainly spanner monkeys are a lot more loose with rules. Taking a very much Barbossa approach:
Odiham is very green. Where as High Wycombe is not, what fly’s somewhere certainly won’t in someone else’s trainset.
1 Like
MTP outer layer is the correct way for things to be worn.
Just very few people care.
1 Like
I get theres time and place for them.
Walting around on Sqn as i want to choose that over the the smock is not one of them
1 Like