Did I miss another uniform change? I noticed Vanguard is selling the commander badge for the BDU. Is this authorized"?
thanks
Nope. It's been proposed a number of times but I don't believe it has ever passed.
I'm betting it won't be too long before it's authorized. Their phone reps have already been telling people whether or not something is authorized, I'd be curious if they tell someone if this is.
Will the fact that vanguard now carries it and thus has inventory affect the likelihood of it being authorized? ;)
Quote from: N Harmon on July 22, 2009, 05:59:46 PM
Will the fact that vanguard now carries it and thus has inventory affect the likelihood of it being authorized?
No, the fact that it's already been proposed and there's a board meeting coming up will - one would like
to think that this was directed in advance of the approval.
They will also need to update the wear of the SARDog and ES plane patches as currently they are in the way. Perhaps get rid of them altogether? That's my vote.
Thanks for the info all. Now we will see how many people order it now and just put it on. I once observed a CAP full Colonel wearing a white on smurf blue CP badge on his BDU. The guy had it mad at a local place.
Quote from: N Harmon on July 22, 2009, 05:59:46 PMWill the fact that vanguard now carries it and thus has inventory affect the likelihood of it being authorized? ;)
That's what I'm thinking.
I just looked it at. It looks
bad. I hope later ones look better. CAP would get stuck footing the bill if they approve that garbage.
I would tro have produced at a local vendor near an AF Base.
Quote from: Strick on July 22, 2009, 06:14:30 PM
I would tro have produced at a local vendor near an AF Base.
Why near an AF base? Our CC badge doesn't look similar enough that an AF badge could be modified.
Quote from: Strick on July 22, 2009, 06:04:59 PMNow we will see how many people order it now and just put it on.
And anyone wearing it is gonna argue "Well, they make it, so it
must be authorized!"
Vanguard needs a hand slap for this.
Quote from: Strick on July 22, 2009, 06:04:59 PM
Thanks for the info all. Now we will see how many people order it now and just put it on. I once observed a CAP full Colonel wearing a white on smurf blue CP badge on his BDU. The guy had it mad at a local place.
The reality is that there are some high-end home embroidery systems that can make up everything - I was real close to buying one at one point. Its the ones that can do them at a commercial level that are expensive.
You can pick up a Brother PE-700II which would be more than capable of all of our embroidered insignia for around $700 - well within the crazy world of CAP where members spend thousands for radio equipment, etc.
http://www.brother-usa.com/HomeSewing/ModelDetail.aspx?ProductID=PE700II
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 22, 2009, 06:25:12 PM
And anyone wearing it is gonna argue "Well, they make it, so it must be authorized!"
Vanguard needs a hand slap for this.
To be fair that's been an issue since the Bookstore days. How many people do you still see wearing the embroidered edge luggage name tape on their uniforms?
You can't expect them to know our regs, especially when
we can't even agree on them as members.
Someone told them to produce them and they did. Though it probably would be better for them to wait for approval before they put them up in the store.
What we need is fewer patches/badges, not more. :P
Failing that, fewer badges/patches authorized at one time. If someone needs a badge so people will know that they're the commander, then there's something wrong with their leadership. YMMV
Quote from: Gunner C on July 22, 2009, 07:10:19 PMIf someone needs a badge so people will know that they're the commander, then there's something wrong with their leadership.
Agreed. But CAP adopted one because the Air Force did. It's really the only reason we have it. Be nice if we mirrored their policies on it, though.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2009, 06:28:58 PMSomeone told them to produce them and they did.
Do we actually know that someone did? There were a lot of folks rather puzzled when an IT badge showed up the Vanguard website, and there wasn't even any concrete criteria on the specialty track.
Kinda putting the cart before the horse.
Whats funny is that IIRC the USAF isn't wearing the CC's badge on the ABU... So, like the embroidered NCO epaulet sleeves... Day late and a dollar short.
Quote from: MIKE on July 22, 2009, 07:40:00 PM
Whats funny is that IIRC the USAF isn't wearing the CC's badge on the ABU... So, like the embroidered NCO epaulet sleeves... Day late and a dollar short.
You do recall correctly. The ABU release message states specifically that the commander's badge is not authorized.
I find it a bit amusing, a first sergeant can show position, but a commander can't. Makes you wonder a bit.
Quote from: Hawk200 on July 22, 2009, 07:28:42 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on July 22, 2009, 07:10:19 PMIf someone needs a badge so people will know that they're the commander, then there's something wrong with their leadership.
Agreed. But CAP adopted one because the Air Force did. It's really the only reason we have it. Be nice if we mirrored their policies on it, though.
The reason the AF did it was because the Navy has one. Bad reasoning on their part.
The Coast Guard has four. >:D
I reason that Squadron Command is, or should be, seen as temporary and not so much a mission related skill. I wouldn't relish the thought of having to remove the sewn on bade from my BDUs when I finally retire Squadron Command.
If you will indulge in some CAP THEORY.
This is one of those "Functional" versus "Operational" specialty issues. Squadron Command is more of the "functional specialty" side of the house and the position of Squadron Commander is really little more than notoriety at an ES function. The badge that would better serve an "operational function" would be the Incident Commander's badge.
What is the justification? Well, if you need to identify a qualified IC at a SAR or ES Activity (if that is even a need, that is to be able to identify people by qualification and position) then the IC command badge on BDUs and Flight suits would be more appropriate. Squadron Commander's badges might present confusion.
Ideally (and note the word), A Squadron Commander's badge may make more sense at a regular meeting...where blues or alternate would most likely be worn.
Note, this does not preclude the idea that BDUs might be worn to meetings. As I understand it, flight suits are only to be worn when flying is a direct factor and I am well aware that polo shirts are worn in a large number of squadron (a fact that makes badges a moot point.)
With respect to the above opinion, the ability to continue wear of the badge permanently below the nametag after being relieved of command is on the table, and frankly how difficult it might be to remove an insignia 3-4 years+ down the road should not be a factor on whether its approved.
Pretty much everyone knows who their squadron commander is within a meeting or two and those that are so new that they don't know that fact are certainly not going to understand the meaning of a Squadron Commanders badge.
It is really just a really big gaudy service ribbon in my book. There are few enough perks in squadron command that I don't begrudge those who want to wear it the small amount of notoriety it gives them.
RE: IC badge. Same thing. If you don't know the IC at a mission, you probably shouldn't be looking for him and should be working up the ICS system with whatever info you need to relay. Besides, many folks are wearing separate position badges at base anyway and one that says INCIDENT COMMANDER actually gets the job done compared to some symbolic badge that few people are going to recognize.
The IC badge is just a specialty badge - no "different" from the GT or wings.
And since its the top of the ES food chain and can take years to attain, it deserves its own badge.
There already exists a command service ribbon, right? IIRC, commanders get to continue wearing this ribbon even after moving on from command. The badge was intended to denote those currently in command, and thus had a special place on the uniform. This is as opposed to other badges like the Ground Team badges which can continue to be worn even after the wearer no longer holds the ES qualifications for them.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2009, 08:15:37 PM
With respect to the above opinion, the ability to continue wear of the badge permanently below the nametag after being relieved of command is on the table, and frankly how difficult it might be to remove an insignia 3-4 years+ down the road should not be a factor on whether its approved.
First of all you of all people should know that because things are "on the table" does not mean we place stock in them as if they were in the regulations. Secondly, why is it needed?
I thought it was the general consensus of CAPTALKERs to try to reduce the amount of "bling" on field uniforms. I mean really, the rants against US Flag patches, Pluto Patches, Squadron Patches and the like.
As my opinion dictates, field uniform items should only have items reflective of field needs.
Minimalist view of field uniforms...
1) Civil Air Patrol (be it a patch, for flight suit, or nametape, for BDUs)
2) Name tape/leather name badge for Flight Suit (for identification)
3) Grade Insignia- to know what professional development level a person as gained
4) Specialty badges (like GT or even a set of wings...some people actually fly in BDUs after all...indicated on leather name plate for flight suit)
5) ES badge/Rank Insignia (related to the ICS system...thus COMM, IC, EMS-indicated on leather name plate for flight suit giving the "duel" badge some purpose...ie when a pilot is also an IC)
I don't really care either way, but this aligns us with our parent, including the permanent wear below the
nametag.
If the ABU is ever approved, there will be a multi-year phase in, and most likely the BBDU will continue to be worn.
At that point they can remove if they want from the ABU. But they won't. The only difference between the
ABU and the BDU, if we ever get them, will be the material.
I guarantee you there will be no reduction or change to the insignia configuration. For one thing, there doesn't need to be.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2009, 08:36:27 PM
I guarantee you there will be no reduction or change to the insignia configuration. For one thing, there doesn't need to be.
You will be quoted as having said as much later.
Quote from: Major Carrales on July 22, 2009, 09:07:55 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2009, 08:36:27 PM
I guarantee you there will be no reduction or change to the insignia configuration. For one thing, there doesn't need to be.
You will be quoted as having said as much later.
Book it. ;D
Quote from: N Harmon on July 22, 2009, 08:26:32 PMThere already exists a command service ribbon, right? IIRC, commanders get to continue wearing this ribbon even after moving on from command. The badge was intended to denote those currently in command, and thus had a special place on the uniform. This is as opposed to other badges like the Ground Team badges which can continue to be worn even after the wearer no longer holds the ES qualifications for them.
Command service ribbon was out before the AF came up with a commander badge.
The Air Force allows wear of the badge after leaving a command position, but moves the location. The individual still gets to use the badge, even when they're no longer commander.
If we mirrored AF policy, you'd know the difference between a current and former commander. When it comes to someone wearing a GT badge, you won't, unless you ask.
Quote from: davidsinn on July 22, 2009, 05:44:42 PM
Nope. It's been proposed a number of times but I don't believe it has ever passed.
Since I haven't seen anybody else come out and clarify it...
NHQ's view was that the cloth badge was already approved with the metal one. Just to be sure, the National Board did in fact vote to formally authorize it at the February 2009 board meeting. The past commanders part of the proposal was defeated. See agenda item 27d on pages 83-84 of the meeting minutes.