Mess Kit and Other Anti-Air Force Ramblings Split from: Air Force

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm thinking now would be a good idea to seperating this pissing match.

 

[GO!!!]

No way! I am on the edge of my seat waiting for his scooper's reply!

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What I meant was take your conversation and seperate it from the original question

 

[Neill McKay]

The way I understand it, is that if you are required to wear something, and unable to get it from the supply system, they cannot make you pay for it out of your own pocket.

Mess kit?

 

[aesop081]

Mess kit?

You are NOT required to have mess kit

 

[Neill McKay]

You are NOT required to have mess kit

Unless there's been a recent change, reg. force officers are required to have it within six months of commissioning.  Reserve officers and all NCMs may get it if they wish, but aren't required to.

 

[navymich]

Unless there's been a recent change, reg. force officers are required to have it within six months of commissioning. 

Really?  I haven't heard that one before.

 

[aesop081]

Really?  I haven't heard that one before.

I'll be sure to mention it to the ones wearing bars in DEU with white shirt and bow tie then.  Not saying you are wrong though

 

[aesop081]

I would realy like to see what CF policy (CFAO or whatever) that says you have to have mess kit six months after comissioning.........just for curiosity's sake

 

[Gunner]

I would realy like to see what CF policy (CFAO or whatever) that says you have to have mess kit six months after comissioning.........just for curiosity's sake

It may be contained in A-AD-265-000/AG-001 (Canadian Forces Dress Instructions) and I'll leave it to one of the keeners on this site to check it at work through the DIN (go through the DHH site).

From a Regimental perspective, the RCA Standing Orders (www.artillery.net) dictates that mess dress uniform is for wear in preference to No 3 order of service dress .... The following personal may wear it:

a.  newly commissioned Regular or Reserve Officers during the six months accorded them to obtain mess dress;

b.  officer cadets; and

c.  non-commissioned members of both Regular and Reserve Forces.

(see article 810 of the RCA Standing Orders.)

 

[aesop081]

Thanks Gunner

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The six month directive (for Regular Force officers) is certainly contained within Dress Regulations.  I was looking something up yesterday and noticed the applicable paragraph.

Chapter and verse to follow tomorrow.

 

[Bullit]

A-AD-265-000/AG-001
(page 2-1-14)

WEAR OF MESS DRESS
57. Acquisition
a. All Regular Force officers are required to be
in possession of mess dress No. 2, which
shall be procured at individual expense.
Newly-commissioned officers are required to
obtain this order of dress not later than six
months after commissioning.

b. Mess dress No. 2 is optional for Regular
Force non-commissioned members and all
members of the Reserve Force. Acquisition
is the responsibility of the individual.

c. army colonels, on promotion to that rank,
may elect to continue to wear their previous
branch/regiment mess dress, with current
rank insignia, instead of the pattern
authorized for army colonels (less honorary
and Royal appointees) and described in
Chapter 6, Appendix 1 to Annex B,
paragraph 8.

 

[GO!!!]

This was part of a nefarious plot to divert their attention from the fact that the Air Crew are getting C8's and Sig Saurs P226's for PDW in the TacHel world. 

Good first step!

Now all they need is a helicopter that is deployable and some aircrew with the stones to fly it lower than 2000 feet!

AdminHel!

 

[Zoomie]

Now all they need is a helicopter that is deployable and some aircrew with the stones to fly it lower than 2000 feet!

That's a pretty bold statement to make Go!! - I know that my rotor-head brethren get vertigo at anything over 500' AGL - talks with TacHel drivers leads me to believe that the lower they go, the more fun they have.  Must be a training versus operational dogma - when they carry the pax (you crunchie types) they don't want to un-necessarily put you in harms way by flying too low.  The rest of the time I am sure that they are down to 8' AGL with their skids just above the grass.

 

[aesop081]

Zoomie.......i may be wrong but i think GO!! is refering to the fact that on past operations, we seldom saw tachel operating down low (i.e. in the threat evelope for ground fire).....but i'm sure he'll come back and explain what he meant.

 

[GO!!!]

Sigh.

What I meant was that:

1. The Gryphons are largely undeployable. If anyone can list when they've been deployed anywhere but the "mature" rotos to Bosnia, I'm all ears.

2. The "Tac" in my experience is wildly overstated. I've spent plenty of time in the Gryphons, and their pilots, as a group, have a penchant for flying high and fast, during the day, and little else.

3. Constant protests that the "rules" prohibit anything else don't hold much water when British and Kiwi exchange pilots are flying so low the gophers are scattering while the other pilots on the lift insist on staying at altitude. When asked why, the Canadian pilots stutter and the kiwi says "it was authorised, so I did it".

4. Loadies and their gunnery "skills". <tee hee> on our last ex, one loadie saw some enemy, and attempted to engage them with his door mounted C6. He had no luck, as he had numerous stoppages, never getting off a round. Fortunately, there was an infantry officer present who informed him that the belt on his wpn was in the box and feed tray upside down.

More?

 

[Gunner]

If anyone can list when they've been deployed anywhere but the "mature" rotos to Bosnia, I'm all ears.

Haiti....

I know the intent of your post and I agree that the Griffon is not a good "military" helicopter. I have no doubt our tac hel fellows could do awesome things with a proper platform and the planned procurement of the Chinook will go far in addressing our lift capabilities.  Griffon and Chinook, can Apaches be far behind! 

 

[aesop081]

3. Constant protests that the "rules" prohibit anything else don't hold much water when British and Kiwi exchange pilots are flying so low the gophers are scattering while the other pilots on the lift insist on staying at altitude. When asked why, the Canadian pilots stutter and the kiwi says "it was authorised, so I did it".

Ok, so the rules did not expressy restrict the activity .  Does that make it right ?  Did the situation require pilots to be flying in the weeds ?

Not too long ago, a pilot friend of mine retired and his advice was to ask "Is it legal ? Is it safe ? Is it smart ?"  Sure it might have been legal for those exchange pilots to be down in the weeds, it may have been safe as well, but was it smart ( as in reqired) ?  Its always , IMHO, to be dealing with emergencies at higher altitudes than at 15-50 feet.  We can fly the Aurora at 100 feet above the waves if we so wish...but do you think its smart to do if its not needed by the situation ?  If the threat dictates that aircraft should be flown low then by all means, go down NOE and stay there but if the threat doesnt require it......why not be at 2000 feet ?

And as far as the topic is concerned.....my blue nametags have never seen the light of day, My CADPAT uniforms are still in the plastic bag they came in and the name tags that i wear day to day are OD green with some black  on them............as with all the other badges i have on.

 

[GO!!!]

Ok, so the rules did not expressy restrict the activity .  Does that make it right ?  Did the situation require pilots to be flying in the weeds ?

If you want to play it that way, then yes, the Exercise situation required it, there was an EN AA threat, and we were tactical. In the "Real World", no, it was not required, there were no Grenobians with MANPADS, but by that logic, you should never train at all!

We are constantly told to "train like you fight", it is frustrating when the AF does not do it as well. I thought we were a team!