Spotlight on Better Uniforms for Female GIs:

[darrels joy]

Spotlight on Better Uniforms for Female GIs:


From an AP story I'm just gonna' throw it out there with no snarky comments such as "do these Kevlar inserts make my ass look big?" or "I really wish the USMC would switch over to Prada combat boots, which I think would clash far less with the Vuitton cartridge belts."

Nope...I ain't going there.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Imagine U.S. combat troops and aviators wearing body armor that fits so poorly that it's tough to position a weapon to shoot, combat uniforms with knee pads that hit around mid-shin and flight suits that make it nearly impossible to urinate while in flight."

"For many female troops, it's just another day on the battlefield as they wear clothing and protective gear designed primarily for men. Each of these issues is now getting some attention from the military."

"Seven hundred female Army troops are testing a new combat uniform for women with shorter sleeves and knee pads in the right place for their generally shorter legs. A committee on women's issues has recommended that flight suits be redesigned for both men and women so it's unnecessary to completely disrobe before urinating. And engineers have been looking at ways to design body armor that better fits the contours of a woman's body."

Besides, I'm not really in the mood to get my ass kicked by Demi Moore at this late hour...



Especially since she's discovered a new piece of anatomy that must've previously escaped her notice. Meanwhile,

http://minx.cc/?post=315117

[BLUEHAWK]

"A committee on women's issues has recommended that flight suits be redesigned for both men and women so it's unnecessary to completely disrobe before urinating."

That oughta be interesting...

[darrels joy]

Some of us have always been jealous of that "handy thing you guys take to a picnic"

Seriously, I don't think I'd ever want to wear something as part of a uniform. I have worked out in various fields and have managed.

Joy

[darrels joy]

Urine-containment technology sparks lawsuit




By Brian Shane - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 26, 2011 11:00:15 EDT

Is the “Piddle Pak” the same as the “Flight Extender?”

American Innotek, the California company that makes the latter, doesn’t think so and is suing the federal government over alleged infringement of its patented urine containment bag.

Innotek filed its complaint April 8 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The company is entitled to “reasonable compensation” stemming from lost profits, said Dan Ernsberger, an attorney for American Innotek. The suit mentions no dollar figure.

So what’s all the fuss about?

Some military pilots who undertake lengthy flights don’t have the luxury of a bathroom on board. Instead, they get a plastic bag, and somebody has to manufacture it.

In 1991, American Innotek had the government contract to provide that bag to the military, their “Flight Extender II.”

Ten years later, Innotek faced competition from the not-for-profit organization New York City Industries for the Blind. The charity made its own baggie called the “Piddle Pak.” And because it employed the disabled, the federal government — by law — had to give that company preference in awarding the procurement contract.

That meant Innotek lost its contract, andabout $203,000 in annual revenue, the complaint notes. At the time, the company wanted to take legal action, according to the lawsuit, but did not because of the expected cost of litigation.

Rick Bland, CEO of Industries for the Blind, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

In 2009, Industries for the Blind made a play for another Innotek product, the “Porta-Quick,” a mobile field lavatory system aimed at military use, the lawsuit claims.Innotek decided it could not bear the financial loss of another government contract and moved to sue.

Innotek alleges that Industries for the Blind sold the “Piddle Pak” while Innotek still held the patent and that the competitor asked far more than the fair-market price.

“The price was essentially double what we were charging — it still is — and it’s not supposed to be that much,” said Innotek company president Niki Kopenhaver.

That’s where it gets a little messy.

Innotek last sold its product at $409.28 for a box of 100 bags, according to a federal parts supplier database. That was September 2001.

The government last bought Piddle Pak bags at a price of $410.60 for a box of 100. That was one month ago.

If the Innotek’s “Flight Extender” were available on the market today, the government would expect to pay $642.98, said Crystal Beasley, a sales representative with defense supplier ISO Parts in Melbourne, Fla. The company works with registered government contractors as a stocking distributor for hard-to-find military and aviation parts.

Kopenhaver, Innotek’s president, declined to address price points.

The lawsuit seeks lost profits, royalties and manufacturing rights based on Innotek’s allegation the government knew it was buying an already-patented product.

The government has until June 7 to respond to the complaint, court documents show.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/0...awsuit-042611/

[reconeil]

I never knew long flights could be such a messy business.

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally Posted by reconeil

I never knew long flights could be such a messy business.

Neil

Last time I had to take a whiz aboard a military aircraft, the correct receptacle was a funnel attached to a tube, which then spread my internal juices out over somewhere near Amarillo at 6,000 feet.