Rather depends on whether their rules call them uniforms or not, doesn't it? And they are out of uniform. As in, out of. You know? Is this unclear somehow? I'm not sure what your argument is. I am trying to avoid watching videos of drum corps when I could be watching Cyrus of Chaos' sabre videos instead. Time is not in infinite supply. I can but shrug and lift my palms. In wartime, "s##t happens". Some of it is passing strange. Standards get...relaxed. That doesn't mean that the standards cease to exist, or that the standard now recognizes all those idiosyncracies. It could also be argued that those are parts of the equipment of the aircraft rather than uniform items. Ever see them worn in formations? NB Just searched AR 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia ( the US Army Uniform Regulations ). Aviator or flight helmets are neither described nor depicted, so apparently they are not part of the uniform. ) I'm confused. You brought up door gunner helmets, and now you are saying they aren't relevant? That's not utility. Things which affect those engaged in the sport---those have utility. What utility do military uniforms have for the civilians back home? Appeal to Inexpert Authority. A website is not the authoritative source of definitions for a sport. The official documents of the governing body are. This page http://usfencing.org/resources/fencing-facts appears on the US Fencing webpage. See how many howlers you can spot on it. That's my whole point: It's contradictory. If it's a uniform, it should be a uniform. If not, they should call it something else. But what...do they call the clothing?