Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2018, 12:05:44 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Cadet Flight Duty Uniform
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print
Author Topic: Cadet Flight Duty Uniform  (Read 3125 times)
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2018, 11:50:10 AM »

Question: What would be the best example of "attempting to do something in violation of a reg?"

Answer: "Some personal opinions were not consistent with the way the reg is worded."

Another good source is CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7 which has the definition of terms - what is directive, non-directive, etc. The words "Shall, Shall Not, Will, Will Not, Must or Must Not" or "May", "Should".

Logged
DocJekyll
Forum Regular

Posts: 181

« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2018, 11:50:41 AM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.
Logged
Always give 100%, unless you're giving blood.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,045

« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2018, 11:53:46 AM »

Another good source is CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7 which has the definition of terms - what is directive, non-directive, etc. The words "Shall, Shall Not, Will, Will Not, Must or Must Not" or "May", "Should".

Unfortunately that's not any more help, as NHQ does not follow it's own guidelines for that in a lot of cases,
and / or has regs that internally conflict with themselves, or conflict with other regs or pamphlets.
Logged


jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2018, 11:54:31 AM »

Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So...members should email the Wing CC each time they go to a meeting and ask if they
can wear a given uniforms?

Or maybe there should be a report that's updated each week so when people get a rating
the Wing CC can access it to be able to respond?

Or...

Wear a flight suit when you're going to be in a CAP plane, and not when you're not.

Your last idea would be an appropriate directive for a wing commander to issue according to the reg.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,045

« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2018, 11:55:46 AM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

The problem with this assertion is it negates the need for 1/2 the verbiege - why assert only aero ratings and then
later say assert "anyone" regardless of rating?

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

This.
Logged


jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2018, 11:56:37 AM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

I'm not saying that he/she would not be a toolbag - that's a whole different discussion. I'm just saying that being a toolbag is not against regulations.  :D
Logged
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2018, 11:58:07 AM »

Another good source is CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7 which has the definition of terms - what is directive, non-directive, etc. The words "Shall, Shall Not, Will, Will Not, Must or Must Not" or "May", "Should".

Unfortunately that's not any more help, as NHQ does not follow it's own guidelines for that in a lot of cases,
and / or has regs that internally conflict with themselves, or conflict with other regs or pamphlets.

On that I agree with you.
Logged
DocJekyll
Forum Regular

Posts: 181

« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2018, 11:58:44 AM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

The problem with this assertion is it negates the need for 1/2 the verbiege - why assert only aero ratings and then
later say assert "anyone" regardless of rating?

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

This.

It doesn't give blanket authorization though, it says "may be authorized", so that means they still need approval from someone higher up. I wouldn't say that negates any of the verbage above it.
Logged
Always give 100%, unless you're giving blood.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,045

« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2018, 11:59:13 AM »

I'm not saying that he/she would not be a toolbag - that's a whole different discussion. I'm just saying that being a toolbag is not against regulations.  :D

Maybe that should be General Order #1.

"Don't be a toolbag."
Logged


jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2018, 12:01:27 PM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

The problem with this assertion is it negates the need for 1/2 the verbiege - why assert only aero ratings and then
later say assert "anyone" regardless of rating?

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

This.

It doesn't give blanket authorization though, it says "may be authorized", so that means they still need approval from someone higher up. I wouldn't say that negates any of the verbage above it.

May indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment (nondirective).

CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7
Logged
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2018, 12:04:34 PM »

I'm not saying that he/she would not be a toolbag - that's a whole different discussion. I'm just saying that being a toolbag is not against regulations.  :D

Maybe that should be General Order #1.

"Don't be a toolbag."

If they had just added that we wouldn't have needed this entire discussion...
Logged
DocJekyll
Forum Regular

Posts: 181

« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2018, 12:31:59 PM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

The problem with this assertion is it negates the need for 1/2 the verbiege - why assert only aero ratings and then
later say assert "anyone" regardless of rating?

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

This.

It doesn't give blanket authorization though, it says "may be authorized", so that means they still need approval from someone higher up. I wouldn't say that negates any of the verbage above it.

May indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment (nondirective).

CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7

Read it again. "May be authorized" May (indicating a non-directive) be Authorized (having official permission or approval)

This indicates a higher authority can give them permission to wear it, but they don't have to. Don't get caught on one word, look at the whole thing. This ain't rocket science.
Logged
Always give 100%, unless you're giving blood.

Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,678

« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2018, 12:48:34 PM »

Good Lord!   :-\

Stop taking it and understanding it piecemeal!  :-\ :-\

Read it in its entirety!  :-\ :-\ :-\

Interpret it in its entirety!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

The answer has been given by Eclipse!!!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 12:56:19 PM by Luis R. Ramos » Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2018, 12:57:05 PM »

Good Lord!   :-\

Stop taking it and understanding it piecemeal!  :-\ :-\

Read it in its entirety!  :-\ :-\ :-\

Interpret it in its entirety!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

The answer has been given by Eclipse!!!  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\  :-\

Relax. I thought there were more dissenters at the beginning of this thread, but maybe I am the only one left.

An answer was given by Eclipse, not the answer...
Logged
jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2018, 01:20:28 PM »

I mean, it's pretty clear, (emphasis mine):

Quote
8.1. USAF-style and Corporate-style Flight Duty Uniform (FDU) Guidance
8.1.1. Authorized FDU.
8.1.1.1. The USAF-style FDU and Corporate FDU (CFDU) are Flight duty includes preparation, preflight, in-flight, post-flight, and other flight related duties associated with aircraft operations. The FDU and CFDU are authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6, Aeronautical Ratings, Emergency Services Patch and Badges, and Ground Team Badges, and/or have a current aircrew mission qualification (mission pilot, transport pilot, observer, scanner, aerial photographer, etc.). Personnel who do not have a current aircrew mission qualification or a current or prior aeronautical rating may be authorized wear of the FDU and CFDU on days when actual flying is planned or anticipated. Wing commanders will determine when FDU and CFDU wear is appropriate.

So:
  • Is authorized functional clothing for wear by individuals who perform aviation particular duties.
  • Is authorized for wear by personnel who have or previously had a CAP aeronautical rating as defined by CAPR 35-6
  • Can be worn by those without an aeronautical rating / aircrew rating when actual flying is planned or anticipated.
  • Can be worn by those with an Aircrew or Aeronautical Rating (no restrictions are given except those outlined in 8.1.2 of the CAPM-39-1 for those WITH a rating)

The problem with this assertion is it negates the need for 1/2 the verbiege - why assert only aero ratings and then
later say assert "anyone" regardless of rating?

That said, don't be the one dude at the squadron wearing a flight suit on a squadron meeting when everyone is in ABU's or Blues. Don't be that toolbag.

This.

It doesn't give blanket authorization though, it says "may be authorized", so that means they still need approval from someone higher up. I wouldn't say that negates any of the verbage above it.

May indicates an acceptable or suggested means of accomplishment (nondirective).

CAPR 1-2 Attachment 7

Read it again. "May be authorized" May (indicating a non-directive) be Authorized (having official permission or approval)

This indicates a higher authority can give them permission to wear it, but they don't have to. Don't get caught on one word, look at the whole thing. This ain't rocket science.

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,045

« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2018, 01:28:20 PM »

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.
Logged


jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2018, 01:47:15 PM »

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,045

« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2018, 01:53:31 PM »

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

What would you say to members who showed up every week wearing full GT battle rattle?
Logged


DocJekyll
Forum Regular

Posts: 181

« Reply #58 on: September 20, 2018, 02:01:09 PM »

I'm not advocating that we start wearing the bags at meetings or even change what seems to be a common interpretation of the regulation. I just think it is interesting that there is almost an anti-aircrew sentiment in an organization that has flying as an integral component of its mission. This is the only service that cares so much about this issue compared to other services including military, law enforcement, medical, etc. Every branch or agency that has rated flyers consider the flight suit their duty uniform whether they are flying that day or not.

CAP doesn't even need the flight suit - the rest of the GA world flies in shorts and t-shirts.
Nomex in a Cessna is a silly affectation, and there is no statistical basis for it to be considered a
factor in reducing GA injuries, because thankfully there aren't enough GA crashes that include both
fire and Nomex.

CAP doesn't have a "duty uniform".  It does have an MBU, which is whites.

CAP doesn't issue uniforms to adults, nor compensate them for the purchase, therefore
they can't have a "duty uniform" (despite the assertion by 39-1 that a CC can set any UOD).

Expecting people to dress properly and leave the tactical onsie at home when it's inappropriate
for the activity isn't "anti-aircrew" it's "pro appearance and common sense".

However if there is an "anti-aircrew bias" look to the behavior of the "zipper-suited sun gods"
who in many cases disregard not only uniform but other CAP protocols and policies, including height and grooming,
not to mention wearing the same bag they bought 20 years ago, including the wrong insignia and coffee stains.

The argument against the flight suit could be made for more than just GA. It's not usually the fire that kills you, it's the sudden impact prior to the fire.

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

I was always politely informed that the reason for the fire bag is so that you can be properly identified after the crash, not to protect you from dying during a crash and the subsequent fire. lol.

But the May Authorize is in regards to those without qualifications.... for those who have them, there are no restrictions.

That said, and as I stated above... don't be that toolbag.
Logged
Always give 100%, unless you're giving blood.

jb512
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 816

« Reply #59 on: September 20, 2018, 02:04:53 PM »

I get it, it's a mentality that some are better than others or think that the rules don't apply for whatever reason. That is not limited just to CAP, trust me. It's just interesting to me that the flight suit is the only one where so many people scream "No! Never to our squadron meetings!" when it's just another uniform hanging in the closet.

What would you say to members who showed up every week wearing full GT battle rattle?

Equipment is a different story. I would not expect 24/72 hour packs to be worn into a normal squadron meeting any more than I would expect a headset, gloves, or pockets full of charts.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: Cadet Flight Duty Uniform
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.507 seconds with 25 queries.