New Florida Wing Patch.

[Major Carrales]

Figures, FLWG announces that Wing patches are not to be worn with the BDU;s and than comes up with an updated wing patch.

It makes sense to me, the particular "shield," MAJCOM, shaped patches look ridiculous as a shoulder flash.

[AlphaSigOU]

Figures, FLWG announces that Wing patches are not to be worn with the BDU;s and than comes up with an updated wing patch.

Watch 'em change or rescind the order.

[alamrcn]

Does anyone have a copy of the Policy Letter recinding this Policy Letter regarding wear of the Florida Wing patch from two years ago?

http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library/reg-man/39-1pol_fl060727.pdf

[BuckeyeDEJ]

http://flwg.sercap.us/page10904552.aspx

[DC]

Figures, FLWG announces that Wing patches are not to be worn with the BDU;s and than comes up with an updated wing patch.

They didn't say they shouldn't be worn, they just rescinded an order making them mandatory, allowing them to be optional like every other wing in the country. You can still wear 'em if you want to.

[DBlair]

In response to the question earlier regarding if certain NCSA patches can worn on the left shoulder in place of the Wing patch, please note the following copied from the letter cited above:


3. As a result of National Board action, certain school/activity patches may be worn on the left shoulder. The following patches are approved for wear ½" below the left shoulder seam:
a. National Emergency Service Academy
b. National Flight Academy
c. Cadet Officer School
d. National Honor Guard Academy
e. Hawk Mountain Ranger School
f. Blue Beret
g. Air Force Space Command Familiarization Course
h. Pararescue Orientation Course

[DC]

Did they specifically exclude some activities that have patches, SUPTFC for instance, or did they simply forget about them?

[PHall]

Figures, FLWG announces that Wing patches are not to be worn with the BDU;s and than comes up with an updated wing patch.

They didn't say they shouldn't be worn, they just rescinded an order making them mandatory, allowing them to be optional like every other wing in the country. You can still wear 'em if you want to.

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

[Hawk200]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

That sounds like something California Wing would do.

[SarDragon]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

That sounds like something California Wing would do.

And that's a bad thing? 

[Hawk200]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

That sounds like something California Wing would do.

And that's a bad thing? 

I think so.

[ßτε]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

Could you please give a reference for this.

[PHall]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

Could you please give a reference for this.

CAWG Sup 1 to CAPM 39-1. It's not currently accessable from the Wing website because it's "under revision".
Hopefully the revision is to remove the requirement for the wing patch. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

[SarDragon]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

That sounds like something California Wing would do.

And that's a bad thing? 

I think so.

Care to add any amplifying commentary? I happen to like wing patches, but I'm kinda olde school. I even say that knowing that the CAWG patch is a major PITA to sew onto a uniform.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

That sounds like something California Wing would do.

And that's a bad thing? 

I think so.

Care to add any amplifying commentary? I happen to like wing patches, but I'm kinda olde school. I even say that knowing that the CAWG patch is a major PITA to sew onto a uniform.

What's wrong with wing patches?  Like bright encased rank on flight suits, ultramarine blue nametapes, and leather flight suit name badges, CAP has not kept in step with the Air Force as the AF uniform has evolved.

Wear of the patch on the sleeve is very Army-ish, but we haven't been an auxiliary of the Army since 1948.

And don't ask me about the reversed flag patch.

IF we are to wear wing patches, we should wear them in the same manner as our parent service... shield-shaped and on the pocket.

[Hawk200]

Care to add any amplifying commentary? I happen to like wing patches, but I'm kinda olde school. I even say that knowing that the CAWG patch is a major PITA to sew onto a uniform.

I know how much of a pain it is, it's the first wing patch I ever wore. California wing had a few other issues that I won't address here.

My issue is not with the wing patch, it's with wings that mandate items made optional by National. I just think that's wrong. To me, optional means optional.

If National said I had to wear it, I'd wear it. If they tell me that it's up to me, I'll leave it off for simplicity's sake, as I hand sew all my own uniforms (I don't like paying for it, and everyone that looks at my uniforms swear that I had to have done it on a machine until I show them the inside stitching.)

A lot of wing reps respond that they're proud of their wing patch. If it was optional and people chose to wear it anyway, that shows me true pride. A wing requiring it shows me artificial pride and ego. Neither of which I really have any respect for.

Keep in mind, it's my opinion only. If you think you should wear yours, great, I have no issues with it, and I respect your choice. I simply have other feelings on the matter.

IF we are to wear wing patches, we should wear them in the same manner as our parent service... shield-shaped and on the pocket.

Agreed. Although, currently the AF doesn't wear them. If they return them to the uniform, we should mirror their policy.

[PHall]

You are so wrong about the optional thing.

There are some wings, California being one, where wear of the Wing Patch is mandatory, period.

That sounds like something California Wing would do.

And that's a bad thing? 

I think so.

Care to add any amplifying commentary? I happen to like wing patches, but I'm kinda olde school. I even say that knowing that the CAWG patch is a major PITA to sew onto a uniform.

What's wrong with wing patches?  Like bright encased rank on flight suits, ultramarine blue nametapes, and leather flight suit name badges, CAP has not kept in step with the Air Force as the AF uniform has evolved.

Wear of the patch on the sleeve is very Army-ish, but we haven't been an auxiliary of the Army since 1948.

And don't ask me about the reversed flag patch.

IF we are to wear wing patches, we should wear them in the same manner as our parent service... shield-shaped and on the pocket.

I asked the then CAWG/CC about how she could make an "optional" item an "mandatory wear" item.

She said that the option rests with the Wing Commander. At least that's the way the entire National Board understands it.

I then replied that that's not the way it was published by National, that it just said optional and didn't state who's option it was.

It was about then that she forcefully changed the subject...

[ßτε]

CAWG Sup 1 to CAPM 39-1. It's not currently accessable from the Wing website because it's "under revision".
Hopefully the revision is to remove the requirement for the wing patch. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

There currently is no CAWG Sup 1 to CAPM 39-1.  According to CAWG Sup 1 to CAPI 0-2, it was obsolete a little over a year ago.

[RiverAux]

I asked the then CAWG/CC about how she could make an "optional" item an "mandatory wear" item.

She said that the option rests with the Wing Commander. At least that's the way the entire National Board understands it.

I then replied that that's not the way it was published by National, that it just said optional and didn't state who's option it was.

Presumably this is something that would have been clarified had they actually published a real ICL (or god help us, a revised regulation) with specific regulatory language in it rather than the progression of letters that we've been operating with for years.

[PHall]

CAWG Sup 1 to CAPM 39-1. It's not currently accessable from the Wing website because it's "under revision".
Hopefully the revision is to remove the requirement for the wing patch. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

There currently is no CAWG Sup 1 to CAPM 39-1.  According to CAWG Sup 1 to CAPI 0-2, it was obsolete a little over a year ago.

It says that the 1 April 2006 version is obsolete. Doesn't say when it became obsolete.
And if you then look at the California Wing Supplements to National Regulations page you will find that the Sup is under revision.

The 1 April 2006 version is currently under revision and the new version is supposed to be released at the Wing Conference in September.

The 1 April 2006 version requires wear of the Wing Patch.