Patch Design Proposal

Started by arajca, August 20, 2005, 01:41:38 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Buzz

Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2005, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: Buzz on August 31, 2005, 08:12:37 AM
Quote from: arajca on August 20, 2005, 01:41:38 AM
I am preparing a proposal to gradually standardize CAP patches - all levels.

I am looking for constructive comments.



The AF already has a set of standards.  Let's use those.  Wing patches should be rolled into a standard frisbee -- for instance, CAWG would still have their flying bear, but it would be an element in a round patch of standard size rather than having an unusual outline.

I agree with those who say take it off the Class As anyhow.  Keep the embroidery for the BDUs and flight suit.


Close, but no cigar. The AF standard for wings is the modified heater shield (aka AF shield). It is also the standard for groups. Squadrons use the disk.

BTW, What is a CAP Class A uniform? I can't find it in CAPM 39-1.

Okay, so let's use the shield.  I've been away from home for several years getting other stuff done and lost track of this stuff, but was under the impression that AF had standardardized us on shield for MAJCOM and frisbees below that, with rockers below the wing level.

Excuse me all to hell for not providing complete nomenclature of uniforms.  If you don't know what "Class A" means, then you should go back to your day job as a wheel chock.


Buzz

Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2005, 09:57:51 PM

3. I have used colloquailisms. I also try to use proper terminiology. Call it a bad habit from running on a Hazardous Materials Response Team.

Once you have properly identified it as being a bad habit, any qualification is merely making excuses.

Quote
Using the wrong term can have major consquences.

If I am ever involved in a HAZMAT event which has anything to do with AF uniforms ("Run!  It's going to BLUE UP!"), I'll be certain to use the proper designations.

Dragging the wrong simile into a discussion can also have major consequences.  And I would bet that my outside job is at least as (if not far more) exacting in regard to use of the English language, terminology and jargon as is yours.   I don't let it turn me into a word Nazi.

The purpose of language is to communicate concept from one person to another.  Arguing over terminology when it is not necessary is just queep.




arajca

#22
Killed


fyrfitrmedic

Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2005, 09:57:51 PM
Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on August 31, 2005, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2005, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: Buzz on August 31, 2005, 08:12:37 AM
Quote from: arajca on August 20, 2005, 01:41:38 AM
I am preparing a proposal to gradually standardize CAP patches - all levels.

I am looking for constructive comments.



The AF already has a set of standards.  Let's use those.  Wing patches should be rolled into a standard frisbee -- for instance, CAWG would still have their flying bear, but it would be an element in a round patch of standard size rather than having an unusual outline.

I agree with those who say take it off the Class As anyhow.  Keep the embroidery for the BDUs and flight suit.


Close, but no cigar. The AF standard for wings is the modified heater shield (aka AF shield). It is also the standard for groups. Squadrons use the disk.

BTW, What is a CAP Class A uniform? I can't find it in CAPM 39-1.

That's just petty semantics at best.

I would imagine that you've never used a colloquialism in your life...  ::)
1. The Service Dress Uniform, which many folks mistakenly call 'Class A', does not have a wing patch on it (unless your a cadet with the old style).
2. It's not just petty semantics, it's using proper terminology.
3. I have used colloquailisms. I also try to use proper terminiology. Call it a bad habit from running on a Hazardous Materials Response Team. Using the wrong term can have major consquences.

Perhaps it's just me, but I've always been able to distinguish from speaking in the vernacular and speaking in technical terms.

I don't remember a course section regarding silly hair-splitting in any of my training. It certainly wasn't in either the Hazardous Materials Technician or the Hazardous Materials Incident Commander curriculi, nor in anything in fire suppression/rescue/EMS that I've taken or taught over the years. I'd like to think that most of us are intelligent enough to make a distinction between chemical nomenclature and informal terms...

Lighten up already.
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

PWK-GT

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on September 01, 2005, 10:36:58 AM
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2005, 09:57:51 PM
Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on August 31, 2005, 09:18:33 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 31, 2005, 07:35:56 PM
Quote from: Buzz on August 31, 2005, 08:12:37 AM
Quote from: arajca on August 20, 2005, 01:41:38 AM
I am preparing a proposal to gradually standardize CAP patches - all levels.

I am looking for constructive comments.



The AF already has a set of standards.  Let's use those.  Wing patches should be rolled into a standard frisbee -- for instance, CAWG would still have their flying bear, but it would be an element in a round patch of standard size rather than having an unusual outline.

I agree with those who say take it off the Class As anyhow.  Keep the embroidery for the BDUs and flight suit.


Close, but no cigar. The AF standard for wings is the modified heater shield (aka AF shield). It is also the standard for groups. Squadrons use the disk.

BTW, What is a CAP Class A uniform? I can't find it in CAPM 39-1.

That's just petty semantics at best.

I would imagine that you've never used a colloquialism in your life...  ::)
1. The Service Dress Uniform, which many folks mistakenly call 'Class A', does not have a wing patch on it (unless your a cadet with the old style).
2. It's not just petty semantics, it's using proper terminology.
3. I have used colloquailisms. I also try to use proper terminiology. Call it a bad habit from running on a Hazardous Materials Response Team. Using the wrong term can have major consquences.

Perhaps it's just me, but I've always been able to distinguish from speaking in the vernacular and speaking in technical terms.

I don't remember a course section regarding silly hair-splitting in any of my training. It certainly wasn't in either the Hazardous Materials Technician or the Hazardous Materials Incident Commander curriculi, nor in anything in fire suppression/rescue/EMS that I've taken or taught over the years. I'd like to think that most of us are intelligent enough to make a distinction between chemical nomenclature and informal terms...

Lighten up already.

AMEN to that, brother.
I am continually amazed at how many people have not grasped one simple premise..........that our ideas, policies, practices, etc. all vary by experience and opinion. To impose one's viewpoint without respecting anyone else's views is simply ARROGANT at best. I agree with those who feel that one needs to assume SOME responsibility for what we do in CAP. This includes injecting a little common sense when we know someone else is using the vernacular, or an outdated term, etc. If you can't figure it out........perhaps do some digging on your own--instead of having it spoon-fed to you. Isn't this the type of thing that everyone benefits from? Some have argued in these instances that we need to take great pains to prevent any forum viewer from mis-interpreting what is said--or what is trying to be said. I wonder why some of us have to idiot-proof the world further for those who can't discern casual talk from gospel fact---Where are THEIR responsibilities? Perhaps those who need things 'idiot-proofed' ought to rethink their own capabilities. All this from the world that has given us PASS-FAIL courses, because we don't want to hurt the feelings of those who perform in a lesser manner by actually saying how bad they scored. Where oh where did accountability go........
But, again, this is just MY opinion. I respect anyone's right to their own opinion to the contrary. We're supposed to be professionals, right? Let's all act like it.
"Is it Friday yet"


abysmal

Quote from: griggs5113 on September 02, 2005, 04:01:06 AM

I wonder why some of us have to idiot-proof the world further for those who can't discern casual talk from gospel fact---Where are THEIR responsibilities? Perhaps those who need things 'idiot-proofed' ought to rethink their own capabilities. Where oh where did accountability go........

This reminds me all too much of whats going on with the "Blame-Game" right now in New-Orleans.
It can't be MY fault.......
Someone else has to take responsibility for what happened.
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona

SarDragon

I guess no one decided to check out the other thread, so I'll try to condense my comments here. This site is used by folks of all experience levels, from newbies to members with more than 40 years experience. The former are here to learn; the latter to share their knowledge, and maybe learn something new, too.

Using incorrect terminology today serves only to perpetuate long standing errors and confuse new folks who will have nowhere to look when they wish to find a definition. This is a disservice to new members. They are learning things wrong. Not good. "That's the way we've always done it" is rarely a good reason for doing things all by itself. I don't see this as a move to idiot-proof the world, just teach the new members the right information.

People come here because they aren't getting adequate guidance at their local units. I think we have some obligation to give them the assistance they seek, and at the same time, to refrain from passing on incorrect information. That, to me, is the the basic purpose here. Aside from the pure fun aspects of CAP Talk, and CS,  I post so I can share my knowledge and experience with others, and in turn, learn from these very same people.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

abysmal

Who could possibly argue with that!
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
[red]Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer[/red]
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona