Spring 2011 NEC Agenda

[RADIOMAN015]

I am sure we can fight about this all day long with pros and cons, BUT somehow in whatever we do there's got to be a way for people to immediately see we are CIVIL AIR PATROL, and not ROTC, AF, AFR, or ANG or another military service, sort of like the Red Cross & The Salvation Army :angel:
RM

RM, that seems to be your quest in life, to get us to "know" we are CIVIL Air Patrol.

There's only one problem...

WE ALREADY KNOW.

If the general public has any questions, they can ASK, and often do.  I have explained CAP to everyone from the general public to military veterans (most of which had heard of CAP, they just didn't know we still existed) to law enforcement officers (again, many of whom were already familiar with CAP).

The day if, and when, CAP adopts your "scarlet-letter" shoulder marks and nameplates, I'm outta here.

I think the over objective as stated by one of the National HQ civilian staffers is to get us readily identified to EVERYONE as being CIVIL AIR PATROL, without asking who we are, but just knowing by the logo on our uniform WHO we are.  I think they really are trying to look at one logo overall for the organization.

I noted that there were some discussion today about this at the NER Color Guard Competition by some wing & region high level personnel, and there were difference of opinions such as "they want us to be less military" and another with we have way to many logos.  One suggested the logo we currently have on the side of the vans is the one we should use.

From a public relations standpoint I personally feel we do need to stand out in a crowd and IF we continue with our current green BDU's & green flight suits than we likely will need a different type of patch to better differentiate us.  HOWEVER, since the AF considers all the green & blue uniforms to be theirs, it might be difficult to get approval for something that is not compliant with the typical shape/size of organizational patches as currently authorized.  Remember our current patch/logo scheme is red, white, blue, so there can be a variety of changes to uniforms to utilize these colors.   I also think the challenge is to make this happen with the least cost to the organization as well as the membership.   This isn't going to be an easy decision for CAP to make.

I would hope no one would leave the organization on uniform issues, because I do think that our organizational missions are what we join CAP for and the uniform is not our primary reason for joining
RM         

[SarDragon]

That dog patch has got to go....and as usual radioman, you once again show how you feel about our realtionship to anything military....we know already..OK?

OK, what's your idea of an acceptable ES patch? The T-34/Beech is OK, but it, IMHO, is even more dated than the dog. I am not in favor of ditching the ES patch completely, because it's the only way people in ES get to advertise that fact.

Why do they need to advertise?

Why not?

Almost everyone else gets to wear something on their 'mission' uniform advertising their jobs and accomplishments. Why can't the non-aircrew, non-comm  ES folks do the same?

isn't the GT Badge enough?

OK, I left off the GT folks. These are the ES folks who get bling on their BDUs: aircrew - MS & MO, GTM, GTL, comm (if they have done the PD stuff), and  base staff who have moved up from one of the above. These people get left out: FLS, FLM, FASC, LO, LSC, MC, MS, MSA,PIO, and UDF.

Why can't they have the ES patch to recognize their participation? Are they too lowly or insignificant?

[cap235629]

why not a patch version of the es badge similar to the Comms patch worn in the same place?

[davidsinn]

why not a patch version of the es badge similar to the Comms patch worn in the same place?

Because that would only be for people in the ES specialty track.

[SarDragon]

+ 1 !

[cap235629]

+ 1 !

on the patch?

[Ned]

Interesting CP notes:

The NEC - based on a  recommendation by the NCAC - decided to significantly spread out the new member training requirements (OPSEC, EOT, ORM, Basic Safety, etc) for new cadets by spacing them out through Phase 1 rather than having them all due before the Curry.  Details to follow after staff works out the progression.  Good call and good work by the NCAC.

The NEC also decided to revive a distance-learning equivalent for RCLS to act as a safety net for the relatively few cadets who cannot attend COS or RCLS.  Again, staff will need to work out the details before it is officially announced.

Overall, a good meeting for CP.

Ned Lee

[SarDragon]

why not a patch version of the es badge similar to the Comms patch worn in the same place?

Because that would only be for people in the ES specialty track.

+ 1 !

on the patch?

Agreeing with Dave Sinn that your idea wasn't inclusive enough. The ES badge is for folks enrolled in the ES PD track, regardless of their actual ES job. The Comm badge/patch is the same way.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I think the over objective as stated by one of the National HQ civilian staffers is to get us readily identified to EVERYONE as being CIVIL AIR PATROL, without asking who we are, but just knowing by the logo on our uniform WHO we are.  I think they really are trying to look at one logo overall for the organization.

I think there are already enough of those:

Our nameplates, both senior and cadet.
Our white-on-blue nametapes.
Our MAJCOM shield.

Those who cannot deduce that we are CIVIL AIR PATROL from reading those should brush up on their literacy.

I noted that there were some discussion today about this at the NER Color Guard Competition by some wing & region high level personnel, and there were difference of opinions such as "they want us to be less military" and another with we have way to many logos.  One suggested the logo we currently have on the side of the vans is the one we should use.

Please cite sources as to who wants us to be "less military" than we already are.

This has been kicked around (to death) ever since the berry boards era.  The "corporatists" who came to power in the upper echelons around that time have been trying to move us away from the Air Force ever since.  With the "help" of Senator John McCain, they nearly succeeded around 1995.

What is on the side of the vans is our MAJCOM shield.

I would hope no one would leave the organization on uniform issues, because I do think that our organizational missions are what we join CAP for and the uniform is not our primary reason for joining
RM       

It depends on what you call our "organisational missions."

In your posts I notice a heavy emphasis on ES.  Not everyone has that emphasis.  We are not just an ES organisation.

My squadron does not do a lot with ES; to my knowledge we only have three qualified pilots and two observers (including me).  We have a few (both seniors and cadets) who are GT qualified, but we do not have an integral ground team.

However, we do a LOT with AE, and we have almost 50/50 senior/cadet ratio, with slightly more cadets, so CP is also a big focus.

In the 18 years (off-and-on) I have been part of this organisation, I don't know of anyone who has joined just to wear a military-type uniform.  People I know of who do that are usually re-enactors that do what they do just for fun and to educate the public on military history.

However, I know a hell of a lot of people, myself included, who are proud to wear the uniform of the United States Air Force, modified to CAP specs.

Many of those people are not able to serve in the Armed Forces, and CAP is their only connection to come close to fulfilling that desire.

There is also a fair bit of resentment over the axing of the CSU, especially since we were not given a concrete reason.

Some of those who served during the pre-berry boards era are still smarting about losing the blue epaulets.

So, even though there are probably those who did join just for the uniform, I don't know of any personally.  I do know of several (including myself) who are sick of all the being jerked around over the uniform and all the hand-wringing over the "low light/at a distance" Bravo Sierra.

As far as I know, it doesn't happen in the Army Cadet Corps, the USCG Auxiliary (I can speak from experience on that) or the Navy Sea Cadet Corps...and all of those look MUCH more "military" and like their parent services than we do.

[FARRIER]

The bog-awful triangle thingy is just another visual symbol of distancing CAP from the Air Force.

We lost the CAP crest for flight suits, and replaced it with the first MAJCOM-type shield.

Then we had the relatively-brief "U.S." shield.

Now we have just "Civil Air Patrol."

- I'm betting the triangle thingy was CAP answer to the updated wings logo that the USAF uses on all of its t-shirts ans other items (JUST AN OBSERVATION).

- Why we created the MAJCOM shield, I still don't get that one. The Corporate seal worked just as well. If we want to whack one, lets whack the MAJCOM shield.

:redx:

[RiverAux]

Corporate shield is too "busy" for use as a patch and really wans't all that distinctive since all seals more or less look alike.  The command patch (any of the recent versions) is fairly simple and easy to identify. 

[ol'fido]

Since a lot of people don't like the T-34 patch or the Dog ES patch, does anybody have any ideas about an ES patch?

[davidsinn]

Since a lot of people don't like the T-34 patch or the Dog ES patch, does anybody have any ideas about an ES patch?

Um...Nothing? We don't have an AE patch or a CP patch so just drop the thing.

[Eclipse]

That dog patch has got to go....and as usual radioman, you once again show how you feel about our realtionship to anything military....we know already..OK?

OK, what's your idea of an acceptable ES patch? The T-34/Beech is OK, but it, IMHO, is even more dated than the dog. I am not in favor of ditching the ES patch completely, because it's the only way people in ES get to advertise that fact.

Why do they need to advertise?

Why not?

Almost everyone else gets to wear something on their 'mission' uniform advertising their jobs and accomplishments. Why can't the non-aircrew, non-comm  ES folks do the same?

Honestly?  Because there are very few mission specialties of significant importance that won't have the member picking up a GT, AC, or IC badge along the way.  I'd much prefer we consolidated those base-staff and support jobs into a badge and lose the ES patches.

We all know that, by a long shot, those patches are not worn by lifer-FASC's, most are reached for by cadets and new-guys as "something" they can add to their uniforms, and they look ridiculous.  Ever notice that more people "do", the less the "advertise" it?

Hey, its human nature, I get that, I did it too, that doesn't make it a good idea, and part of our program should be getting people to understand
why looking like a Nascar driver doesn't work in our favor most days.

[LTC Don]

- Why we created the MAJCOM shield, I still don't get that one. The Corporate seal worked just as well. If we want to whack one, lets whack the MAJCOM shield.

I disagree with this one.  I came back in after the creation of this majcom patch thing and found myself scratching my head on what the purpose of this patch was/is, and to an extent still do.

However, I think it is a great looking patch, and would hate to see it go, but in it's current form as applied on the flight suit, isn't implemented on the flight suite properly when compared to how the Air Force applies organizational patches to their flight suits.

Applicable to flight suits, it would be great to move to a standard the Air Force uses as applied to CAP, which is a geographic command structure, whereby, for North Carolina, as an example - the breast patch is the major 'Command' patch, which in our case is Middle East Region, then the 'Wing', which would be North Carolina on a shoulder, and then finally the squadron patch on the opposite shoulder.  You have a logical 'chain-of-command' illustrated on the flightsuit just as the Air Force does.

The Air Force equivalent would be a pilot who is a member of Air Combat Command, has the ACC patch on the breast, then their Wing,  4th Wing, on one shoulder, then their squadron, 334th Fighting Eagles, on the opposite shoulder.


I have to bite my tongue somewhat, but I'm all for being more like the Air Force in some ways.........


Edit: Agreed on the 'ES' patch.  It really serves no meaningful purpose, and I cringe a bit when I see it on someone's uniform.  I do think we need applicable specialty badges for all 101 specialities though.


Cheers,

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't disagree about wing and squadron patch placement, but just for general public affairs purposes, think the CAP majcom patch would be superior to region patches.  Also, regions aren't really operational units and vary quite widely in size and aren't really equivalent to a major command.  CAP has an overall unit is equivalent in size to one. 

[arajca]

Almost everyone else gets to wear something on their 'mission' uniform advertising their jobs and accomplishments. Why can't the non-aircrew, non-comm  ES folks do the same?

Edit: Agreed on the 'ES' patch.  It really serves no meaningful purpose, and I cringe a bit when I see it on someone's uniform.  I do think we need applicable specialty badges for all 101 specialities though.

I designed and submitted (twice) an ES badge, similar in size and shape as the GT badge, proposal. It went to National and got lost in a black hole. I did post it here on CAPTalk last year and, with a couple exceptions, was widely praised.

It was one, three level badge for all non-aircrew, non-GT , non-IC qualifications, not one badge for each. It would be phased in so members would wear either the ES badge OR the ES patch, but not both. My notion was that shortly after the introduction, the members would voluntarily migrate away from the patch and in 3 - 5 years, the ES patch could be dropped with a minimum of fuss.

[JC004]

I wouldn't disagree about wing and squadron patch placement, but just for general public affairs purposes, think the CAP majcom patch would be superior to region patches.  Also, regions aren't really operational units and vary quite widely in size and aren't really equivalent to a major command.  CAP has an overall unit is equivalent in size to one.

I go with this.

One organization, one identity, ONE LOGO.  Wing and subordinate unit patches are fine.

[LTC Don]

Also, regions aren't really operational units and vary quite widely in size and aren't really equivalent to a major command.  CAP has an overall unit is equivalent in size to one.

I think Col Vazquez, MER CC would take exception to that.  Region Commanders Giveth, and Region Commanders Taketh.......Region command is a management level command, not typically operational.  And yet, MER is indeed our "major command" since our Wing Commander answers directly to the Region Commander just as in the Air Force, the 4th Wing Commander would answer to the Air Combat Command CC.

My region is quite operational (as in, having a significant presence)....as I suspect all the others are.

Thus, the MajCom breast patch would be the region patch which can simply be the current CAP MajCom patch with the region name in the scroll.



Cheers,

[Eclipse]

Groups, Wings, and Regions are not operational commands, they are headquarters components.

The only operational entities in CAP are the local units.  We may not operate that way, but that is the design.