Air Force Fleece in an Army unit.

[Brick Top]

A CANAIRGEN was published outlining the regulations concerning the newish Air Force specific fleece shirt.  I can't list it here off the top of my head, but please believe me, it's out there.  In a nutshell, it states that the shirt can be work as an inner or outer garment, to and from work; so not just in the field (I know, I know, some of you are gagging at the notion of the terms "field" and "Air Force" used in the same sentence, but nevertheless).  The jacket/shirt has ranks on the shoulders, a velcro strip for a name tape, and a pocket on the left bicep.

Already, some crusty old Sgt Majors are spinning trying to decide what ever to do about this affront to their rigid protocols of uniformity, while others have a life and don't care either way.

But as for the former, they argue that within a land unit, they should be prohibited.  In my humble Sr NCO's opinion, if it's part of an RCAF uniform, then let the troops wear it. If one was to agree with the old crusty moustachioed guy's view, then by that logic an RCAF member shouldn't be wearing his/her blue DEUs, or conversely, be allowed to wear the marksmanship badge, Red Patch, Bde Patch and other accoutrements as worn on an Army uniform.  Or, they should be prohibited from wearing their RCAF specific rain jacket for that matter.  While we're at it, let the RCN wear their NCDs if they want.  Seriously, don't we have more pressing issues to worry about? 

The uniformity argument doesn't fly with me.  If we were honest with ourselves about uniformity, we would go back to the uniforms from the 80s, plus with everyone sporting a sash, lanyards, funny hats with feathers and pom-poms, kilts, etc...

To me, it smells of envy: "I can't wear MINE in garrison, so nobody can! SO THERE!"

Your thoughts?  Has your RSM started panicking yet, between war stories from Lahr?

Sincerely,

A Contrarian

 

[MikeL]

Already, some crusty old Sgt Majors are spinning trying to decide what ever to do about this affront to their rigid protocols of uniformity, while others have a life and don't care either way.

Going off your post,  it seems like you're the one spinning.  Are you in a Army unit and been told you can't wear the fleece around base?  Or just forecasting things to come?

If one was to agree with the old crusty moustachioed guy's view, then by that logic an RCAF member shouldn't be wearing his/her blue DEUs, or conversely, be allowed to wear the marksmanship badge, Red Patch, Bde Patch and other accoutrements as worn on an Army uniform.  Or, they should be prohibited from wearing their RCAF specific rain jacket for that matter.  While we're at it, let the RCN wear their NCDs if they want. 

Seems a bit much,  if you can't wear a fleece jacket around garrison then everything should be 100% uniform, RCAF members wear Army DEUs when in a Army unit, etc.  IMO not wearing a fleece jacket as a garrison item isn't that big of a deal.

Your thoughts?  Has your RSM started panicking yet, between war stories from Lahr?

There are many RSMs out there with more recent deployments then Germany.

 

[Brick Top]

Going off your post,  it seems like you're the one spinning.  Are you in a Army unit and been told you can't wear the fleece around base?  Or just forecasting things to come?

Seems a bit much,  if you can't wear a fleece jacket around garrison then everything should be 100% uniform, RCAF members wear Army DEUs when in a Army unit, etc.  IMO not wearing a fleece jacket as a garrison item isn't that big of a deal.

I've seen Army members wearing the old style RCAF style rain jacket,  and RCAF members wearing the new rain jacket with pockets/velcro..  the sky is falling 

There are many RSMs out there with more recent deployments then Germany.

I am indeed forecasting.  As to Army members wearing air force rain jackets and vice versa, that is exactly my point.  Why make a fuss about the fleece, but not about the rain jacket?  I'm simply arguing that it seems some folks want to make up local regulations when it suits them.  And you're right, it does have me somewhat annoyed, because like I said, we should be concerning ourselves with more important issues, or at the very least be consistent.  It's somewhat like when a Cpl gets jacked up for his sideburns, as an officer walks by with lamb-chops and sunglasses on his head.  Speaks to the enforcer's credibility, which bleeds over onto all Sr. NCOs.

And to speak to your point about more recent deployments than Germany, you're right, but stereotypes are a real time-saver!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The CANAIRGREN (I've read it) states the AF Fleece is authorized as outer wear.  However, and I could be wrong, dress is authorized, in CFP 265, to the discretion of local/unit commanders as well.  So, my 23 years of CF brain tells me (1) you can wear it with no grief as outer wear on any Wing.  (2) If a local dress policy in an non-AF unit/Base states "fleece shall not be permitted as outer wear", and it is an official dress policy sanctioned by that commander, say Comd CTC Gagetown or something well...that direction is IAW the authorized given in CFP 265.

Does the CAS have authority over dress policy everywhere?  Nope.  Same as the Army Dress policy for Petawawa doesn't count 2 beans in North Bay, just down the road.

I don't have the ref handy, but somewhere in CFP Chap 1, there is authority given to local commanders to add to the direction in 265. nd in my understanding, therein lies the authority for things like Base and Unit dress instructions. 

Also, remember DIs are not limited in their purpose for just uniformity.  Safety, as an example, is another reason.

So, globally, the CANAIRGEN allows for the wearing of the fleece as outerwear, but local/unit DIs can exist that deny it.  However, it has to be the Comd that makes/signs the dress policy for his / her command, not MWO Bloggins or WO Pickaname.

:2c:

Editted to add ref from CFP 265.  It may not be the only ref in 265/all inclusive, but I didn't feel like searching 360ish pages:

CFP 265 (may not be most up to date ver) (link fixed, sorry for brainfart).

Chap 1, Art 8: 

8. Control is exercised by local commanders
who may standardize the dress of subordinates on
any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements
and alternative or optional items, subject to overall
command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1,
paragraph 44.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

WRT to the "Air Force/Army" rain gear.  AF bought the 2-in-1 suit first, army didn't pay or play so got none.  Then, IIRC, the army wanted/needed some, AF has surplus so they 'sold/transferred' some to them.

Army then took the AF 2-in-1 raingear/dissapative suit, and wanted to make some changes.  AF was interested too, and together they came up with it now called the CCR, Converged CADPAT raingear.

So, in reality, there is no more "AF" or "army" raingear.

Thats my UFI story for today. 

 

[Brick Top]

The CANAIRGREN (I've read it) states the AF Fleece is authorized as outer wear.  However, and I could be wrong, dress is authorized, in CFP 265, to the discretion of local/unit commanders as well.  So, my 23 years of CF brain tells me (1) you can wear it with no grief as outer wear on any Wing.  (2) If a local dress policy in an non-AF unit/Base states "fleece shall not be permitted as outer wear", and it is an official dress policy sanctioned by that commander, say Comd CTC Gagetown or something well...that direction is IAW the authorized given in CFP 265.

Does the CAS have authority over dress policy everywhere?  Nope.  Same as the Army Dress policy for Petawawa doesn't count 2 beans in North Bay, just down the road.

I don't have the ref handy, but somewhere in CFP Chap 1, there is authority given to local commanders to add to the direction in 265. nd in my understanding, therein lies the authority for things like Base and Unit dress instructions. 

Also, remember DIs are not limited in their purpose for just uniformity.  Safety, as an example, is another reason.

So, globally, the CANAIRGEN allows for the wearing of the fleece as outerwear, but local/unit DIs can exist that deny it.  However, it has to be the Comd that makes/signs the dress policy for his / her command, not MWO Bloggins or WO Pickaname.

:2c:

Editted to add ref from CFP 265.  It may not be the only ref in 265/all inclusive, but I didn't feel like searching 360ish pages:

CFP 265 (may not be most up to date ver)

Chap 1, Art 8: 

8. Control is exercised by local commanders
who may standardize the dress of subordinates on
any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements
and alternative or optional items, subject to overall
command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1,
paragraph 44.

You are absolutely correct in every point you bring up, and I thank you for what you have brought to the table.  Indeed, it IS up the the commander's discretion to authorise these sorts of items.  That said, the impetus behind my original post is the hypocrisy of certain leaders when they decide to arbitrarily prohibit such a garment in the name of uniformity, when the very concept of uniformity is only ever enforced based on aforementioned person's personal opinions.  Furthermore, in my experience, it is only army bases which ever impose such restrictions.  In my 15 years of service, I have never heard of a Wing Commander prohibit an Army soldier from proudly sporting his/her element specific uniform or regalia. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You are absolutely correct in every point you bring up, and I thank you for what you have brought to the table.  Indeed, it IS up the the commander's discretion to authorise these sorts of items.  That said, the impetus behind my original post is the hypocrisy of certain leaders when they decide to arbitrarily prohibit such a garment in the name of uniformity, when the very concept of uniformity is only ever enforced based on aforementioned person's personal opinions.   Furthermore, in my experience, it is only army bases which ever impose such restrictions.  In my 15 years of service, I have never heard of a Wing Commander prohibit an Army soldier from proudly sporting his/her element specific uniform or regalia.

You state you're a Snr NCO. Certainly this concept isn't new or a suprise to you. If you're on a Land base or with a Land unit, prudence would say to do what the natives do. However, you're free to die on whatever hill you wish.

Personally, I'd pick something more important.

 

[GnyHwy]

This reminds me of a story of when we first got fleece around 95ish.  It was part of a big kit issue, first rain coat that worked, gortex boots, bivie bags, fleece pants and shirts etc.  It was just like Christmas, especially for those who hadn't had new kit in a while.  There wasn't much direction on how it should be used or worn, and there was an exercise the very next day, so we all just did what we thought was right.

Well, one of the troops figured that the fleece was an outer garment and that the bivie bag was meant to be used as a duffle bag.  If you can imagine a grown man wearing fleece top and bottoms, arctic mitts, mukluks, and a bivie bag full of kit slung over his shoulder getting ready to deploy for exercise.  It was quite the sight.

Maybe you should try this dress.  Fleece toque, fleece top over your flight suit, with CADPAT leather gloves, and brown cbt boots.  That'll turn some heads.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Add some Oakleys and SWATs, with threads growing off every patch and slip-on...chewing gum and some Elvis sideburns.... >

(although IIRC correctly the blue fleece CANEX toque is restrictly.  We can only wear the toque, wedge or beret with the 1 or 2 piece flight suit, and choice of flying jacket, CADPAT raincoat, CADPAT cmbt jacket, and now the fleece.)

Its a frickin' wardrobe!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

......and patches. Lots and lots of AF centric velcro patches, bought online, with funny sayings and pictures on them. :nod:

 

[Brick Top]

You state you're a Snr NCO. Certainly this concept isn't new or a suprise to you. If you're on a Land base or with a Land unit, prudence would say to do what the natives do. However, you're free to die on whatever hill you wish.

Personally, I'd pick something more important.

Exactly right.  It's isn't a new concept to me.  That's not to say it isn't an idiotic concept.  And perhaps you're right; I should concern myself with something more important.  But one of my original points was that some folks who actually make these decisions should themselves worry about more pressing issues.  Some might tell me, as I've heard stated to so many folks over the years to members with an axe to grind over this sort of stuff, that if I don't like it I can just get out.  To that argument I say bravo.  Rather than recognising that there is a double-standard, that something might be wrong with the way we do business, let's just bury our heads in the sand and push out anyone who disagrees with us. 

So as to me picking something more important, I first have to consider this:  is the sort of policy being discussed not indicative of a larger problem?  That perhaps the CF often lag behind the rest of society, the same we are purported to reflect, because of a refusal to change?  Tradition is the greatest obstacle to progress.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Exactly right.  It's isn't a new concept to me.  That's not to say it isn't an idiotic concept.  And perhaps you're right; I should concern myself with something more important.  But one of my original points was that some folks who actually make these decisions should themselves worry about more pressing issues.  Some might tell me, as I've heard stated to so many folks over the years to members with an axe to grind over this sort of stuff, that if I don't like it I can just get out.  To that argument I say bravo.  Rather than recognising that there is a double-standard, that something might be wrong with the way we do business, let's just bury our heads in the sand and push out anyone who disagrees with us. 

So as to me picking something more important, I first have to consider this:  is the sort of policy being discussed not indicative of a larger problem?  That perhaps the CF often lag behind the rest of society, the same we are purported to reflect, because of a refusal to change?  Tradition is the greatest obstacle to progress.

What you're forgetting is that it is part of the duties of these people that you're ranting about to do exactly that. Make decisions on dress.

Your duty is to follow and enforce them, no matter what you think about it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Seriously? Its fleece. If you're cold wear a jacket.

As someone pointed out, this is your hill to die on?

 

[Brick Top]

What you're forgetting is that it is part of the duties of these people that you're ranting about to do exactly that. Make decisions on dress.

Your duty is to follow and enforce them, no matter what you think about it.

Again, I agree with you in part.  Please note that I'm not forgetting  the duties of these individuals. But, it's something that also bothers me... we use a lot of public monies (while state coffers are in the pooper) to pay 80k+ salaries to people so that (amongst other things), they can tell grown men and women, often parents, what type of toque is authorised, and to take their hands out of their pockets.  Now, I don't want to paint them with a broad brush.  Some of them don't really concern themselves with this stuff so much, because they know it's not that important.  The CF will not spiral into a state of anarchy if things change a little.  It's the ones who pay too much credence to these issues I'm concerned about.  They strike me as a little too indoctrinated, a little to impressionable.  More and more we're seeing the results of people who never question, no matter how asinine a policy might be.  I just came back off a month of EX, and in the first 6 days, I had 12 O-Groups related to dress policy, and two pertaining to actually conducting the EX in the hope of getting some war-fighting skills out of it.  On ROTO 3-10, there was an alarming number of MWOs and CWOs deployed to KAF - to the tune of 100+ judging from the global address list.  As the old cliché goes: "An inspection ready unit never passes combat, and a combat ready unit seldom passes inspection."

On another occasion about 7 years ago, I witnessed an AF CWO call a parade to jack up an entire squadron over the state of their DEUs.  The man showed up on parade in his DEU -1a with a beret on.  Nice work.  Then I spotted an RCAF MWO last year in the same getup.  WTF?

Again, it speaks to credibility.  Rarely do I see them approach an officer with as much gumption, and that in turn is witnessed by junior personnel.  When they see that, as when I was in the junior ranks, it had a collateral effect on the respect for ALL senior ranks in the eyes of their subordinates.  I'm not trying to say that leadership should be a popularity contest by any means, but it is better to have people follow you because they want to, rather than because they have to for fear of administrative consequences, no?

So I guess my original post has evolved into a wider discussion... which is the beautiful thing about these forums.  As to my duty to follow and enforce, check fire, because that sort of argument smells of the Nuremberg defence.  Everything is good sir, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on.

 

[Loachman]

There is no such thing as as an "RCAF member" in an Army unit.

There is no such thing as an "RCAF uniform".

Regardless of the colour of the dress uniform issued, everyone posted to an Army unit is a member of the Canadian Army. That is because there is still only one Service, the Canadian Armed Forces, and those organizations now bearing the names of the pre-1968 Services are nothing more than the three environmental commands. As soon as one is posted out of the Organization Formerly Known as Air Command, one ceases to be "RCAF". There was never any such thing as a "Land Force Command uniform", nor is there currently a "CJOC uniform" either.

Now, imagine the whining that would take place if some people in a unit were allowed to wear fleece and others were not, simply because of the colour of their dress uniform. Is that any more fair?

As for your Nuremburg reference, feel free to use a claim that dress regulations equate to mass murder or are not lawful commands in your defence.

 

[dangerboy]

  As to my duty to follow and enforce, check fire, because that sort of argument smells of the Nuremberg defence.  Everything is good sir, nothing to see here, keep calm and carry on.

So what are you suggesting that we blindly ignore people that are not following dress regulations?

 

[Brick Top]

There is no such thing as as an "RCAF member" in an Army unit.

There is no such thing as an "RCAF uniform".

Regardless of the colour of the dress uniform issued, everyone posted to an Army unit is a member of the Canadian Army. That is because there is still only one Service, the Canadian Armed Forces, and those organizations now bearing the names of the pre-1968 Services are nothing more than the three environmental commands. As soon as one is posted out of the Organization Formerly Known as Air Command, one ceases to be "RCAF". There was never any such thing as a "Land Force Command uniform", nor is there currently a "CJOC uniform" either.

Now, imagine the whining that would take place if some people in a unit were allowed to wear fleece and others were not, simply because of the colour of their dress uniform. Is that any more fair?

As for your Nuremburg reference, feel free to use a claim that dress regulations equate to mass murder or are not lawful commands in your defence.

Yet, dress regs prohibit certain qualification and formation badges and accoutrements from being worn on a blue (but not a real RCAF) uniform.  This suggests that there IS a difference, no?  And no, I'm not suggesting that we should blatantly ignore certain infractions, even though that sort of thing is already rampant, as in cases previously mentioned, which most anyone you ask has witnessed, I'm sure. 

I am merely trying to get people's thoughts on where they stand on how do best address issues which are, to many, in dire need of being addressed.  Rather than picking only those individual points because you disagree, can you state whether or not you think we pay too much attention to certain matters and speak to the larger question?  I made points about double-standards, about hypocrisy, about tastes which are quickly falling out of synch with Canadian society.  I think these facts are irrefutable.  Those are the real cause of whining, more than one individual being permitted a to wear a garment over another, or allowed to wear a beard, or all other manner of environment-specific policy. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Few quotes from 265.

In accordance with these instructions the
Commanders of Commands are delegated authority
to establish rules for the design and wear of their
respective operational orders of dress. See
Chapter 5, Annex D, paragraph 2.

Commanders at all levels shall ensure that
personnel under their command, whether
environmentally or extra-environmentally employed,
are dressed in accordance with these instructions.

High standards of dress, deportment, and
grooming are universally recognized as marks of a
well-trained, disciplined and professional force.
Commanders shall maintain the standards at all
times to reinforce these characteristics for peace or
war. Modified or idiosyncratic dress demonstrates
inefficient and undisciplined training and a failure of
those in command to focus on the purpose of a
uniformed armed force. See also Chapter 2,
Section 1, paragraphs 2. to 4.

A military force’s uniform is an outward
symbol of its commitment, identity and ethos.
Coupled with overall appearance, the uniform is the
most powerful visual expression of pride by the
individual service member, and is the primary means
by which the public image of the CF is fashioned.

I'd read this stuff before of course, but the first time I realized just how true this "uniformity" in uniforms can impress the public was the first time I went to the Nova Scotia International Tattoo.  Civies were impressed with how "they all looked the same" when commenting on a band, or drill team, or trampoline act.  Listening to them all around me, well I realized that even civies get certain impressions from a 'professional' looking group in uniform. 


And, for me, what makes it REALLY easy for to not go off chasing the wild bologna...

QR & O, Vol 1, Chap 5, Art 5.01, specifically Art 5.01(a)(iv) and Art 5.01(c).

It's too easy, someone already figured out what my job is in general terms as a NCM, I just gotta follow it.  Someone also writes up Dress Regs, and again....the QR & O ref tells me what my job is WRT to them.

I've always tried to keep it that simple.  :2c:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

  I think these facts are irrefutable.  Those are the real cause of whining, more than one individual being permitted a to wear a garment over another, or allowed to wear a beard, or all other manner of environment-specific policy.

That is simply your opinion, which doesn`t seem to be shared by many here.

It`s your hill.

 

[Tollis]

On another occasion about 7 years ago, I witnessed an AF CWO call a parade to jack up an entire squadron over the state of their DEUs.  The man showed up on parade in his DEU -1a with a beret on.  Nice work.  Then I spotted an RCAF MWO last year in the same getup.  WTF?

Just as a side not I believe beret is authorized in RCAF 1A under certain circumstances I believe there was a topic on it ill try to locate.  The photo of the new base commander here in Borden has her wearing her beret in 1A