CAP 'U.S' Command Patches

[LTC Don]

As much as I like the CAP Emblem for it's simplicity, and not to read into what you are saying, but I could get behind officially replacing the CAP Emblem with the newer and more appropriate looking 'command patch' thingy. 

What are you talking about?  While the design has changed slightly several times, the patch pictured earlier in the thread is still the "command patch".

Sure.  As a replacement for the Corporate Seal on the flightsuit, it is "The Command Patch" since it represents the whole organization, but it is not a MAJCOM patch.  A MAJCOM patch in our vernacular would be a region-level patch. My Major Command is Middle East Region, not Civil Air Patrol.  So I don't how this shield became known as a MAJCOM patch, but somebody got their terminology crossed. 

[RiverAux]

So, your argument is that since CAP is not an AF MAJCOM we should not use that term for this patch but that we SHOULD use the term "command patch" to represent CAP region patches even though no one has ever used the term "major command" in reference to a CAP region and that no such level of organization exists in CAP? 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Mustang]

Seems to me that CAP regions are the equivalent of numbered air forces. YMMV.

[LTC Don]

So, your argument is that since CAP is not an AF MAJCOM we should not use that term for this patch but that we SHOULD use the term "command patch" to represent CAP region patches even though no one has ever used the term "major command" in reference to a CAP region and that no such level of organization exists in CAP? 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

CAP's relationship with the Air Force and whether it is or isn't an AF MAJCOM is not at issue here; the CAP definition of a CAP MAJCOM and how it is represented as an emblem on the uniform is.  I believe the nomenclature of calling the shield referenced above a MAJCOM patch is incorrect when studying the CAP command echelon structure.

Hopefully, most CAP members know the CAP command echelon structure: CAP (overhead organization) > Region > Wing > Group (where applicable) > Unit > Flight (where applicable).  I don't believe though that it has ever been thought through very well as to how that structure is (or should be) represented on the uniform (more specifically the flightsuit but also the BDUs).  Region staff used to wear a simple rocker on the left shoulder, don't know if they still do.

CAP's command structure has always been geographically based whereas the Air Force's structure has always been operationally/capability based (with a big dose of politics thrown in at times). 

Air Force Command Structure: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/index.html

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure_and_hierarchy_of_the_United_States_Air_Force  and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force (has a pretty nice structure list about halfway down).

This statement defining an Air Force MAJCOM caught my attention:
"A major subdivision of the Air Force, the Major Command (MAJCOM) is directly subordinate to HQ USAF or the Air Staff. MAJCOM headquarters are management headquarters for a major segment of the AF and thus have the full range of functional staff."

Which could be easily edited to read: "A major subdivision of Civil Air Patrol, the Major Command (MAJCOM) is directly subordinate to National HQ Civil Air Patrol. MAJCOM headquarters are management headquarters for a major segment of CAP and thus have the full range of functional staff." 

In our case then, the CAP MAJCOMs would be the eight Region commands.

Wheather or not any of the above is palatable is fine; it'll be a really hard sell for me to accept the 'command patch' as a 'MAJCOM' patch.


Cheers,

[Hawk200]

Wheather or not any of the above is palatable is fine; it'll be a really hard sell for me to accept the 'command patch' as a 'MAJCOM' patch.

I'd have to agree. We call it the "Command Patch" not the "MAJCOM" patch. It may look like one, but the organizational set up of CAP doesn't include "MAJor COMmand"'s.

We have our own distinctive organization, let's not confuse our own people with inappropriate and inaccurate terminologies. As the people on the outside, it looks like we're wannabes.

Personally, I don't even care for it. I liked the seal. It was distinctive, and a lot easier to cut the Velcro to shape.

[RiverAux]

Don, you seem to be the one trying to introduce AF terminology into the CAP regs.

the CAP definition of a CAP MAJCOM and how it is represented as an emblem on the uniform is.

There is no such thing as a CAP MAJCOM. 

[Mustang]

CAP's command structure has always been geographically based whereas the Air Force's structure has always been operationally/capability based (with a big dose of politics thrown in at times). 

Always?  What about the Air National Guard?

[Nick]

Always?  What about the Air National Guard?

Yep, always.  Air National Guard units are organized geographically at the state level as part of their state's defense force.  But, mobilize them to the Federal level and they become gained by their functional MAJCOM (typically ACC or AMC, with a few AETC units mixed in).

[Hawk200]

Yep, always.  Air National Guard units are organized geographically at the state level as part of their state's defense force.  But, mobilize them to the Federal level and they become gained by their functional MAJCOM (typically ACC or AMC, with a few AETC units mixed in).

Pretty much the same with the Army Guard as well. I believe that the Air Guard wears their organizational insignia (MAJCOM, Wing and unit patches) at all times. Someone more in the know could probably answer that.

When I mobilized, I had to change my patch, and then change back when I returned. It's a bit annoying, especially when there's confusion as to when exactly you can wear your home patch.

On another note, the link to awards and decs is a slick idea, Mclarty. Mind if I borrow that idea? Don't have a link to anything yet, but wanted to show the courtesy of asking.

[Nick]

Pretty much the same with the Army Guard as well. I believe that the Air Guard wears their organizational insignia (MAJCOM, Wing and unit patches) at all times. Someone more in the know could probably answer that.

That's affirm.  There were murmurs that the guard was going to start wearing the ANG patch when the reserve started wearing the AFRC patch, but as of yet that hasn't happened -- it becomes much less significant as the ABUs are phased in except for the flyers.

On another note, the link to awards and decs is a slick idea, Mclarty. Mind if I borrow that idea? Don't have a link to anything yet, but wanted to show the courtesy of asking.

More than welcome to.  I try to keep my sig line relatively unobtrusive, so I figured the bling wasn't really significant unless someone REALLY wanted to see it.

[ol'fido]

How about we just call it the "CAP shield patch" and then just call it a day.

[Hawk200]

How about we just call it the "CAP shield patch" and then just call it a day.

How about we call the "CAP command patch" like it says in CAPM 39-1? After all, that is the official uniform manual for our organization.

Be a lot easier than making up several different terms, and then having the confusion caused by different people from different areas.

How many people know the story of the tower of Babel? Or of the saying that Americans and English are a people separated by a common language?

Why do we have people so stuck on having to have their own terms for things instead of just using what's out there?

[Eclipse]

Which term is made up?

NHQ referred to it as a MAJCOM patch from day one.

[Hawk200]

Which term is made up?

NHQ referred to it as a MAJCOM patch from day one.

The term didn't make it into the manual. Page 126 of 39-1 says "CAP Command Patch". Nothing else is appropriate.

It may look like a MAJCOM patch, but it's not one, no matter how much some wannabe wants it to be.

Still amazes me how many folks here want to say "We're not the Air Force!"; but want to copy the Air Force, it's terminology, and want the "cred" associated with it. That's not "wannabeism", it's hypocrisy.

Stick to terminology that's in the pubs. If someone at NHQ called it a "MAJCOM patch", then it sounds like there's a wannabee at NHQ.

Arguing to use a clearly inaccurate and inappropriate term doesn't serve any purpose.

[Nick]

Which term is made up?

NHQ referred to it as a MAJCOM patch from day one.

The term didn't make it into the manual. Page 126 of 39-1 says "CAP Command Patch". Nothing else is appropriate.

It may look like a MAJCOM patch, but it's not one, no matter how much some wannabe wants it to be.

Still amazes me how many folks here want to say "We're not the Air Force!"; but want to copy the Air Force, it's terminology, and want the "cred" associated with it. That's not "wannabeism", it's hypocrisy.

Stick to terminology that's in the pubs. If someone at NHQ called it a "MAJCOM patch", then it sounds like there's a wannabee at NHQ.

Arguing to use a clearly inaccurate and inappropriate term doesn't serve any purpose.

Guys.  Seriously.  The Air Force doesn't even call it a MAJCOM patch.  It's a shield.  It's used at every level in the chain from group level up.  Go read here: http://www.afhra.af.mil/documents/hgc3/index.asp

[Hawk200]

Guys.  Seriously.  The Air Force doesn't even call it a MAJCOM patch.  It's a shield.

They did when I was active, but that's been a decade. However, Air Force heraldry isn't really the issue. Some people in CAP are calling it a "MAJCOM patch", and the term is inaccurate, inappropriate, and doesn't match pub.

We have too much of "but everybody knows that!" (when not everyone does) to justify using terms that we don't have published or defined in CAP publications. Allowing it to continue to when it's obviously wrong is a problem.

I remember one time when I referred to a CAP tape as a "branch tape". I had a comment (or maybe three) that "That's not in my 39-1!". So it seems like there's a lot of E.B.M. (Everyone But Me) here when it comes to using standard terminology. If it's not a big deal, why are people getting called on using non standard terminology?

You can never go wrong by using terminology that is defined and published in CAP regulation, manual, pamphlet, etc. If a pub contradicts another, then there's a continuity issue that needs to be dealt with. If it's a case of supplemental terminolgy, no real issue as long as the people you're dealing with know of the additional pub.

The simple answer is: go by official CAP publications. Saves time.

[Nick]

The simple answer is: go by official CAP publications. Saves time.

Okay then.  It's the CAP Command Patch.  Hopefully this concludes our broadcast day.

[heliodoc]

Capt McLarty

You know this is CAPTalk....this will NEVER conclude its broadcast day

Until its PROVEN.......CAP is NOT a MAJCOM its a 501 (c) 3 with everyones interpretations of command patch, command shield

Let's REALLY get the AF version on MAJCOM and REALLY see if CAP is a "MAJCOM"

[Nick]

Until its PROVEN.......CAP is NOT a MAJCOM its a 501 (c) 3 with everyones interpretations of command patch, command shield

Let's REALLY get the AF version on MAJCOM and REALLY see if CAP is a "MAJCOM"

And people wonder why in 3 years I've made 187 posts.

[Hawk200]

That's exactly what he wants, Mac.