Air Force "Regulating Out" A-2?

[zoomer]

A recent(?) USAF vet reported the following on another bulletin board awhile back.

That was the rule in the USAF NO leather in the cockpit or while performing crew duties ie flight engineer walk around etc. On the crew bus to the plane no problem. To the hotel no problem. In flight strictly verboten.

Interesting...I know it's bad joss for servicepeople to analyze the motives behind orders and regulations, but it seems the AF has regulated the A-2 to be strictly a travel garment - not to be worn in any location or for any function (including the warplane or crewing same), only "to and from" such activities.

That is a real comedown for such an honored piece of gear. I wonder if there is, or will be, an order that A-2s must be removed on arrival to lodgings, during long layovers in transit, or other situations where civilians might see them. This is how the services traditionally decommission a uniform - by regulating it can be worn only in situations so specialized that it would be impractical to change into it, or make no sense to even own it. It then becomes "not part of the image" of the service.

Case in point: the Navy aviation greens, a uniform impractical for work that remained classed as a "working uniform," thus prohibited for dress. Here again, you have to wonder how much of this was based on keeping it out of civilian view: even Navy personnel used to mistake it for a Marine uniform.

 

[Weasel_Loader]

I see the crew members of our bombers getting into the aircraft wearing A-2's occasionally. What they with them once inside, I'm not sure. Most prefer -36's or -45's.

When I worked fighter aircraft throughout the 1990's, I can maybe remember two or three times I saw fighter pilots (F-4 & F-16) strap while still wearing their A-2. I did look a little funny as the A-2 just doesn't mesh well with moodier flight gear, especially G Suits.

 

[zoomer]

"moodier" flight gear? I didn't know flight gear could be "moody."

 

[Falcon_52]

I'm not sure about this one. I have seen USAF and Air National Guard pilots wearing A-2s over their flight suits for official functions (i.e. meetings). When I was flight testing at Edwards AFB in March I was allowed to wear my A-2 with my flight suit although the rest of the crew wore nylon.

Noel

 

[zoomer]

That suggests it's not even an issue of safety in or near aircraft. Curiouser and curiouser.

Is the A-2 allowed over any other uniform than a flight suit, ie class B or C shirtsleeves?

 

[flightmac]

That suggests it's not even an issue of safety in or near aircraft. Curiouser and curiouser.

Is the A-2 allowed over any other uniform than a flight suit, ie class B or C shirtsleeves?

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903
2 AUGUST 2006
Incorporating Change 1, 6 August 2007
Certified Current 17 February 2009

3.2.3.1. Leather A-2 Flying Jacket is authorized for wear as prescribed in Table 3.6. of this
instruction. Wear of the leather A-2 jacket in flight is authorized unless prohibited by MAJCOM
Supplement or restricted due to safety of flight concerns (underline mine). Authorized individuals are listed below.

3.2.3.1.1. Aircrew Members. Rated, Career Enlisted Aviators, and Non-rated Aircrew members
who have been permanently awarded an aeronautical badge IAW 11-402. The aeronautical
order permanently awarding (italics mine) the aeronautical badge constitutes authority for wear of the
leather A-2 flying jacket.

Table 3.6. Distinctive Uniforms--Miscellaneous.

Leather A-2 flying jacket with flight suit, hospital
whites, or service uniforms (not service dress
uniform). Do not wear with civilian clothes. Attach
MAJCOM patch and nametag with velcro. Nametag
is 2 x 4 inches, brown or black leather, simulated
leather. Emboss with wings or qualifying badge, first
and last name, rank, and USAF. Members may add
an inside pocket, at their expense, when it does not
detract from the external appearance. The Wing and
Star patch maybe worn by individuals not assigned to
a MAJCOM. Issue brown leather flying gloves may
be worn. NOTE: Generals (4 Star), regardless of
their Air Force Specialty Code are authorized to wear.

I used to like to wear mine over the light blue shirt (what used to be referred to as a Class "B" uniform, as opposed to the Service Dress "Class A" uniform) with a tie, especially when I was a Liaison to the Air Force Auxiliary (Civil Air Patrol). Even though no longer in a flying position, you are authorized to wear the A-2 after permanent award of wings (3 years flying for aircrew).

 

[ausreenactor]

Australia is the other way. Flightline(ALSE) to Aircraft, Sortie, Aircraft to Flightline(ALSE)

Couchy

 

[Tim P]

I think that whoever is in charge of the USAF clothing regs is a crack smoking preek. those blazer style blues with the elimination of collar devices make for a sloppy look which is made worse by the addition of chrome buttons and wings that cheapen it further. A military cut tunic with natural metal looking insignia that attribute the wearer to the United States Military is called for (is it happening?)
The elimination of the A2 as a practical and serviceable item of duty wear is at odds with the practices of other armed forces in the world, such as the RAF with their semi official 'tornado' jackets and similar who carry the A2 ethic on. In fact I think the Royal Air force uniform per se can buy and sell the USAF as things stand. It makes no sense to phase it out.
I do like the sage green camo idea however.

 

[zoomer]

Traditions are important in any service. But I think we in the US use them as tools towards the mission more than most. What's really important in our military is the technology of our weapons and the way we train our people - mentally and emotionally as well as tactically. Servicepeople today have to be inspired by traditions they cannot necessarily model themselves after.

That means changing the meaning of traditions and symbols to underline the mission. We emphasize or de-emphasize parts of history to create a usable tradition. Uniforms are part of that because they have to be. They change for a lot of reasons, some practical, some not so practical. If they become impractical - or their symbolism and meaning can't be changed easily - they go.

In the case of the AF dress blues - which changed drastically:
A 1950s looking uniform, dignified and squared away tho it was, was not considered fitting for a service that is more technologically oriented than any other, and certainly not for a society where suits are less and less important in everyday dress. Something less functional, less costly and tailored, and more symbolic was needed to express a new esprit de corps.

In the case of the A-2 - which has not changed so much as become standardized:
While it is probably not going away completely, it has also had to become more symbolic than it once was, by being worn on fewer duty tasks and by fewer airmen. It has become a badge, like the campaign hat that every soldier once wore in a more or less salty way but is now a stiff emblem of the drill, TI, or DI and his highly performative authority.

The historic aspect is changed and the continuity with the past strictly limited, but it is always carefully pointed out to be there. This does 2 things: it legitimizes the current mission, and it reassures people inside and outside the service that some things have not changed. What those things are, of course, is often nobody's business.

Finally, a smaller service or nation has the luxury of keeping its uniforms longer, both because of funding and political issues.

 

[Cliff]

Could it be that its not flame retardent and so does not tick all the boxes in the health and safety world ??

cheers
Cliff

 

[Weasel_Loader]

Could it be that its not flame retardent and so does not tick all the boxes in the health and safety world ??

cheers
Cliff

Yes. I'm sure that has a lot to do with regulating that. Can you imagine the uproar if an airman were burned by inferior equipment that the government knew was more dangerous than available equipment and material?

 

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day you have to wonder what the point of issuing a flight jacket that isn't actually authorised for flight duty really is. Perhaps best to stop issuing it and leave it consigned to history like leather flight helmets etc ....

Dave

 

[FtrPlt]

You actually need only go back to the re-introduction of the A-2 back in the 80s. The jacket was brought back to buck up pilot morale and reduce the (at the time) exodus of pilots to the airlines.

 

[Silver Dollar]

You actually need only go back to the re-introduction of the A-2 back in the 80s. The jacket was brought back to buck up pilot morale and reduce the (at the time) exodus of pilots to the airlines.

I was active duty at the time and I remember when the jacket was reintroduced. As far as I remember, the whole thing sounded like a big joke. The statement "The way to increase pilot retention was to give them leather jackets? You have to be kidding me." seemed to be the reaction. Surprise surprise. I know, it didn't make sense to me either. The jackets the A2 replaced are now some of the most desirable jackets on the market. Go figure.

 

[FtrPlt]

What I find interesting is that the original 1980s jackets are somewhat jealously guarded -- being perceived as the domain of 'old salts' from the 'brown jacket' days. Of course, the youngest of the original recipients of these jackets are now right at 20 years service.

I received my A-2 (Saddlery) via the ANG around 1989. Didn't really wear it that much after the intial novelty wore off. The CWUs are far more comfortable. My jacket's now two decades old and still hasn't lost its glossy finish.

 

[dilbert]

I knew a Marine pilot from my last squadron (years ago) who flew into a landing zone in 'Nam in summer. It was common due to the intense heat and humidity to fly without gloves and with the sleeves of the flight suit rolled up. Just as he set down the helo took a mortar round. He was the only one who got out. He was terribly burned from the elbows down to his fingers, just where the skin was exposed. Nomex protected the rest of his body. He went through many painful months of burn recovery and then had to go through withdrawal of the meds they were giving him for pain. He was a great advocate for Nomex and was not bashful about telling anyone he saw with sleeves rolled up the danger they were putting themselves in.

Leather jackets look and feel great but when flying nothing beats Nomex.

 

[Silver Dollar]

You said a mouthful there, dilbert. Safety is the most important thing in the air. As was mentioned before, leather protection was devised because it didn't soak up gasoline and oil so it was more protective than cloth. That was the technology back then. Now that we have better materials, I can't see using anything else. Nomex is the best.

 

[FtrPlt]

I'm a huge fan of nomex, too. I'm also very much aware of the environment it's supposed to afford protection in. High heat, flash fires (yikes! I was just hit by an air-to-air missle and my jet blew up) -- nomex is superb. Low-heat, long duration fires (yikes my fuel tank ruptured into the cockpit and the gasoline is now on fire) -- nomex does okay but not really much better than other natural fibers, particularly wool. Wool is actually a very good insulator and does not burn.

My point here being that a WW2 aviator in woolen uniform was actually decently protected against a gasoline fire. Goggles, leather helmet, and O2 mask protecting the face; leather gloves on the hands; leather boots for the feet. Often a woolen flight suit was worn over this -- adding another layer of protection. Add a B-3, A-2, B-10, etc and you add even more layers of insulation. In a gasoline fire, I suspect a multi-layer WW2 airman would fare equal to or better than just a nomex flight suit and jacket. Not because the nomex is inferior but simply because there would be far fewer layers to keep the heat away from the skin.

All the above said, failure to properly use your gear -- be it today or 70 years ago -- was and still is a recipe for disaster.

To get back on topic: the downside to leather is that it shrinks when exposed to heat. Shrink it enough and it can cut off circulation to arms, etc. Probably not a huge issue with a bulky jacket like a B-3 or Irvin but the tight-fitting A-2 could pose a major problem to the wearer. Of course, USAF replaced the A-2 with a nylon jacket so not really much improvement there!