Current Dress Regs

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t see any pictures of scraggly and patchy “beards” in any of those…

Back when I first joined to grow a beard we had to submit a request form, have it approved and have our Chief review our beard in 3 weeks.

If it was patchy and looked like a mangy dog the Chief ordered you to shave and you couldn't grow a beard.

That was a good system we lost.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Meanwhile, from the 'Why you yell at the TV' files

Military Berets. The pain in a military advisors backside and how to shape them.

The pain in my backside and a constant complaint amongst veterans who will scream and rant at the TV “who was the military advisor on that” Last week, I ran a short poll on what grips t…

militaryadviserforfilmandtv.com

The IDF and berets. Painful.

 

[markppcli]

I'm not kink shaming you buddy

Inspections are super important; and so is crushing people who are insudordinate and fail them.

Naw like you I'm a fan of clear directions. We need that because of the idiots we work with who push the envelope to see what they can get away with. Example - homeless looking zz top beards.

We had pretty wide arcs with what could have been a great gentlemens understanding. Nope.

That’s precisely what I mean when I say we had a behave like grown ups and look

I can tell you that if you saw me on the street that you wouldn’t associate me to being a fighter pilot: I don’t « look the part. ». Somehow, I managed to have a pretty successful career so far.

Well as a fighter pilot I’m sure you’d let him know within 30 seconds

 

[SupersonicMax]

Well as a fighter pilot I’m sure you’d let him know within 30 seconds

Feel free to stand by stereotypes

 

[markppcli]

Feel free to stand by stereotypes

Having had to search a hanger for a grown man that referred to himself as ray gun I feel justified

 

[SupersonicMax]

Having had to search a hanger for a grown man that referred to himself as ray gun I feel justified

Individual callsigns have a purpose and a meaning. It is a tradition that goes well beyond Canada. I respond as much to my callsign as to my first name.

Using our callsign is always situation dependent. In general military settings, I’ll put my callsign in signature blocks, title slide of a presentation, or anytime I am asked what my callsign is. Within the RCAF or when interacting with other air forces, I will generally refer to myself as my callsign to people I interacted with before, and will always use my callsign with flying units. That seems to work fairly well and it doesn’t confuse people too much .

 

[daftandbarmy]

Individual callsigns have a purpose and a meaning. It is a tradition that goes well beyond Canada. I respond as much to my callsign as to my first name.

Using our callsign is always situation dependent. In general military settings, I’ll put my callsign in signature blocks, title slide of a presentation, or anytime I am asked what my callsign is. Within the RCAF or when interacting with other air forces, I will generally refer to myself as my callsign to people I interacted with before, and will always use my callsign with flying units. That seems to work fairly well and it doesn’t confuse people too much .

The facial expressions can give it away too

 

[dimsum]

we employ soldiers, sailors, and aircrew (I refuse to use the term "aviator") in the Profession of Arms.

Small quibble: “Aircrew” isn’t a comprehensive-enough term for folks who wear light blue.

There are 7 (8 if you count Astronauts) “aircrew” trades - they are the folks who wear the big spread-out wings. There are some other folks in different trades that also wear the upswept full wings (e.g. door gunners). But the vast majority of RCAF members do not wear either - they wear the half-wing over their nametag.

I don’t know if I’d call a bunch of light blue Med Techs and MMTs standing together “aircrew”. I do ack that “aviator” is now a rank so it’s not really the right term either.

I propose “airpeople”.

 

[dapaterson]

Small quibble: “Aircrew” isn’t a comprehensive-enough term for folks who wear light blue.

There are 7 (8 if you count Astronauts) “aircrew” trades - they are the folks who wear the big spread-out wings. There are some other folks in different trades that also wear the upswept full wings (e.g. door gunners). But the vast majority of RCAF members do not wear either - they wear the half-wing over their nametag.

I don’t know if I’d call a bunch of light blue Med Techs and MMTs standing together “aircrew”. I do ack that “aviator” is now a rank so it’s not really the right term either.

I propose “airpeople”.

Airheads?

 

[dimsum]

The IDF and berets. Painful.

I think it’s a matter of primacy bias: We’re used to the Canadian way of berets. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other methods of shaping a patch of felt on your head. I would suspect that the IDF folks would see our berets and think “wtf”.

The French Chasseurs and their massive pizza plates, the Paras with the badge practically on their ear, and the Americans with the flap pulled down past their ear all look weird to me, but whatever.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Small quibble: “Aircrew” isn’t a comprehensive-enough term for folks who wear light blue.

There are 7 (8 if you count Astronauts) “aircrew” trades - they are the folks who wear the big spread-out wings. There are some other folks in different trades that also wear the upswept full wings (e.g. door gunners). But the vast majority of RCAF members do not wear either - they wear the half-wing over their nametag.

I don’t know if I’d call a bunch of light blue Med Techs and MMTs standing together “aircrew”. I do ack that “aviator” is now a rank so it’s not really the right term either.

I propose “airpeople”.

Or... hear me out... we could call them Airmen, as that is both historically, etymologicaly, and linguistically accurate.

Men, plural of man, derived from the Proto-germanic "mann" meaning "person". Derived from the Sanskrit "Manu" or "humanity."

Following this protocol:

-Airman, signalman, infantryman, artilleryman, crewman, foreman, craftsman, draftsman, storeman, manning, management, manager, manufacture, mankind, man-made, etc.

they're all gender neutral already. I understand the recent (50 years or less) masculine/feminine connotations, however, academically it makes my eye twitch as it is completely against English grammatical structure.

What's worse is that "aviator" is not gender neutral, and is in fact (as per Latin grammatical structure) masculine. AviaTRIX is the feminine form and AviaTORES (tor-ezz) in plural.

 

[MacNav63]

Or... hear me out... we could call them Airmen, as that is both historically, etymologicaly, and linguistically accurate.

Men, plural of man, derived from the Proto-germanic "mann" meaning "person". Derived from the Sanskrit "Manu" or "humanity."

Following this protocol:

-Airman, signalman, infantryman, artilleryman, crewman, foreman, craftsman, draftsman, storeman, manning, management, manager, manufacture, mankind, man-made, etc.

they're all gender neutral already. I understand the recent (50 years or less) masculine/feminine connotations, however, academically it makes my eye twitch as it is completely against English grammatical structure.

What's worse is that "aviator" is not gender neutral, and is in fact (as per Latin grammatical structure) masculine. AviaTRIX is the feminine form and AviaTORES (tor-ezz) in plural.

WoMAN...

 

[Jarnhamar]

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other methods of shaping a patch of felt on your head.

Non-binary beret.

 

[dimsum]

Or... hear me out... we could call them Airmen, as that is both historically, etymologicaly, and linguistically accurate.

Men, plural of man, derived from the Proto-germanic "mann" meaning "person". Derived from the Sanskrit "Manu" or "humanity."

Following this protocol:

-Airman, signalman, infantryman, artilleryman, crewman, foreman, craftsman, draftsman, storeman, manning, management, manager, manufacture, mankind, man-made, etc.

they're all gender neutral already. I understand the recent (50 years or less) masculine/feminine connotations, however, academically it makes my eye twitch as it is completely against English grammatical structure.

What's worse is that "aviator" is not gender neutral, and is in fact (as per Latin grammatical structure) masculine. AviaTRIX is the feminine form and AviaTORES (tor-ezz) in plural.

We in the RCAF had this discussion from the get-go when Aviator became a rank. I agree with you, for what it’s worth.

Interestingly, the Royal Australian Air Force also changed from “Airmen/Airwomen” to “Aviator” as a collective term in 2021, but kept Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman (AC / ACW) and Leading Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman (LAC / LACW) as ranks.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/releases/2021-04-08/air-force-transitions-airmen-aviators

 

[rmc_wannabe]

WoMAN...

Exactly.

English started with "mann" being "person"; with "were" meaning masculine and "wif" meaning feminine. We see this in Germanic languages still like Dutch, Frisian, and German (i.e. Herr or Mr.) and in English words such as "wife".

Like everything, language evolved and it was easier to differentiate man and wifman, as we evolved from a patriarchal society. Wif evolved to woman, and well here we are. Had it been reversed, we would have men and weremen instead.

Instead, some foolishly want to use person, which is a Latin word that evolved from persona, or an actor's mask, role, etc.

Fitting that its the preferred term used by PM "Personkind" himself...