Can the name and branch tape be attached to the ACU with VELCRO under the new regulations?
I have to pay to have tapes sewn ($4) EACH) and when tapes change (remember US Civil Air Patrol?) it would be thriftier if I could just Velcro the new one on.
TIA
1 - No.
2 - What makes you think they are going to change?
If you put dark blue w/ silver on now, you're going to be good well into the 2020s.
Quote from: RNOfficer on November 29, 2016, 09:07:46 PM
Can the name and branch tape be attached to the ACU with VELCRO under the new regulations?
Also, just to ensure clarity, we wear the A
BU, not the A
CU.
Ugh. Again with the velcro. I realize that there seems to be some kind of misconception about how much easier and fun it would be to slap on the insignia and go.
Wrong.
The last day in the ACU was one of my fondest memory of wearing it. Strike that. It is my only fond memory of wearing it. Nothing says "curse you ACU" better than realizing that your nametape is stuck to your seatbelt and not on you as the boss is walking in.
I would rather shave my eyeballs than wear velcro. It's not even allowed in my house. Spend a few bucks, buy a sewing machine and forget about velcroing on your insignia.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2016, 09:09:45 PM
2 - What makes you think they are going to change?
If you put dark blue w/ silver on now, you're going to be good well into the 2020s.
That's what they said about "US Civil Air Patrol".
Quote from: THRAWN on November 29, 2016, 09:33:47 PM
Ugh. Again with the velcro. I realize that there seems to be some kind of misconception about how much easier and fun it would be to slap on the insignia and go.
Wrong.
The last day in the ACU was one of my fondest memory of wearing it. Strike that. It is my only fond memory of wearing it. Nothing says "curse you ACU" better than realizing that your nametape is stuck to your seatbelt and not on you as the boss is walking in.
I would rather shave my eyeballs than wear velcro. It's not even allowed in my house. Spend a few bucks, buy a sewing machine and forget about velcroing on your insignia.
Can I trust you won't reveal that my tapes are sewn to my fleece jackets?
Quote from: RNOfficer on November 29, 2016, 09:42:19 PM
That's what they said about "US Civil Air Patrol".
And how many times did you have to change your tapes to support that? As a matter of fact, it was never actually
required to change, and a lot of members never did.
The mandatory wear date for the "US CAP" tapes, as implemented in Mar 2007, was 1 March 2010, which
by coincidence, was also the mandatory phase-out date back to just "CAP".
Quote from: Damron on November 29, 2016, 09:43:23 PM
Can I trust you won't reveal that my tapes are sewn to my fleece jackets?
I hope this is not legit as it would a direct violation of 39-1.
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Damron on November 29, 2016, 09:43:23 PM
Can I trust you won't reveal that my tapes are sewn to my fleece jackets?
I hope this is not legit as it would a direct violation of 39-1.
Direct violation or literal interpretation? My tapes are "mounted on black Velcro" per 39-1. They are also sewn.
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 05:06:11 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Damron on November 29, 2016, 09:43:23 PM
Can I trust you won't reveal that my tapes are sewn to my fleece jackets?
I hope this is not legit as it would a direct violation of 39-1.
Direct violation or literal interpretation? My tapes are "mounted on black Velcro" per 39-1. They are also sewn.
Are you able to remove them without the use of a sharp implement? If so then yes direct violation.
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 05:24:35 AM
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 05:06:11 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Damron on November 29, 2016, 09:43:23 PM
Can I trust you won't reveal that my tapes are sewn to my fleece jackets?
I hope this is not legit as it would a direct violation of 39-1.
Direct violation or literal interpretation? My tapes are "mounted on black Velcro" per 39-1. They are also sewn.
Are you able to remove them without the use of a sharp implement? If so then yes direct violation.
Please provide the source for your interpretation. 39-1 does not provide that level of detail, it doesn't prohibit an additional means of attachment or say they must be removable.
Sometimes when CAP copies portions of AF uniform regs, the original AF context and justification is lost.
The AF rationale behind the Velcro is to allow the fleece to be used naked as an APECS liner or dressed up as an outer garment. I don't know why having tapes and grade not affixed when used as a liner is a big deal.
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 05:59:58 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 05:24:35 AM
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 05:06:11 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 12:33:10 AM
Quote from: Damron on November 29, 2016, 09:43:23 PM
Can I trust you won't reveal that my tapes are sewn to my fleece jackets?
I hope this is not legit as it would a direct violation of 39-1.
Direct violation or literal interpretation? My tapes are "mounted on black Velcro" per 39-1. They are also sewn.
Are you able to remove them without the use of a sharp implement? If so then yes direct violation.
Please provide the source for your interpretation. 39-1 does not provide that level of detail, it doesn't prohibit an additional means of attachment or say they must be removable.
Sometimes when CAP copies portions of AF uniform regs, the original AF context and justification is lost.
I think the AF rationale behind the Velcro is to allow the fleece to be used naked as an APECS liner or dressed up as an outer garment.
It's implied. If the tapes were meant to be permantly sewn down it would say so. The manual says what you may do if it doesn't say it you don't do it. But I shouldn't have to tell a Sq CC that. Stellar example...
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 06:44:52 AM
The manual says what you may do if it doesn't say it you don't do it.
I guess you have a problem with blousing bands and sewn-down pockets too?
My secondary means of attachment improves the appearance of my uniform and is virtually undetectable. I don't promote this technique in my unit for fear of poor results and appearance if a professional seamstress or tailor is not used.
As far as the appearance of my uniform, I strive to be a stellar example.
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 06:44:52 AM
The manual says what you may do if it doesn't say it you don't do it.
I guess you have a problem with blousing bands and sewn-down pockets too?
My secondary means of attachment improves the appearance of my uniform and is virtually undetectable. I don't promote this technique in my unit for fear of poor results and appearance if a professional seamstress or tailor is not used.
As far as the appearance of my uniform, I strive to be a stellar example.
Straw man argument. And apples to oranges.
Quote from: RNOfficer on November 29, 2016, 09:42:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 29, 2016, 09:09:45 PM
2 - What makes you think they are going to change?
If you put dark blue w/ silver on now, you're going to be good well into the 2020s.
That's what they said about "US Civil Air Patrol".
I don't think we're going to have another National Commander like HWSNBN again. That was all to support his trying to distinguish us from the Civil Air Patrol's in other countries.
It's not a straw-man argument to provide examples where 39-1 is commonly interpreted. Using your standard, 39-1 doesn't address blousing bands, so they must be prohibited. How about sewing down unused pockets? 39-1 is silent on the matter.
Heck, I don't think 39-1 even describes how patches and embroidered items should be affixed to a uniform. They describe the location of these items, the desired appearance.
When interpreting any regulation, the goal of that regulation should be considered above all else. If my secondary means of attachment was visible and did not support a uniform appearance, I wouldn't have used it. My fleece looks perfect, that matters to me.
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 02:37:33 PM
It's not a straw-man argument to provide examples where 39-1 is commonly interpreted. Using your standard, 39-1 doesn't address blousing bands, so they must be prohibited. How about sewing down unused pockets? 39-1 is silent on the matter.
Heck, I don't think 39-1 even describes how patches and embroidered items should be affixed to a uniform. They describe the location of these items, the desired appearance.
When interpreting any regulation, the goal of that regulation should be considered above all else. If my secondary means of attachment was visible and did not support a uniform appearance, I wouldn't have used it. My fleece looks perfect, that matters to me.
So again as long as YOU look good, forget the rules and regulations got it. Please stay away from my wing...
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 02:47:07 PM
Please stay away from my wing...
Can you be more specific? I'm curious what wing has to deal with your pedantic crap.
Quote from: Damron on November 30, 2016, 03:00:02 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 02:47:07 PM
Please stay away from my wing...
Can you be more specific? I'm curious what wing has to deal with your pedantic crap.
One that plays by the rules. Again you show exactly the example you set. Keep breaking regs...
Quote from: abdsp51 on November 30, 2016, 03:07:21 PM
One that plays by the rules. Again you show exactly the example you set. Keep breaking regs...
You act like you are the sole arbiter on the matter. Keep ending sentences in ellipses ...
Be civil, professional, and polite or get out. No need for the holier than thou attitudes. Thanks.