Dual Emblem Name Tag for Flight suit?

[KyCAP]

http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_400&products_id=13583

Anyone seen this?

[MIKE]

Ewww... icky.  Wrong layout.

[RiverAux]

Kind of silly to put a ground team badge on a flight suit name tag isn't it?

[KyCAP]

for real

[MIKE]

Ok, rip the wings off of everything but your bags. 

If I were to buy the Utility Uniform, you can bet I'm putting my GT badge on the ASNP.

[mikeylikey]

for reals yo.........made me puke in my mouth a little bit. 

[RiverAux]

I don't think its asking too much for a uniform meant for flying to basically have flying-related emblems on it.  While you can wear your BDU with wings on it to fly in the airplane, there are very few ground team missions where a flight suit is appropriate to wear. 

[Stonewall]

Friggin Vanguard.  What a rip off and waste of our time and money.

What an embarassment to all of us.

[afgeo4]

Well I don't mind the GT badge on it, but it should be a secondary (small) badge and off to the left. The wings should be the primary badge and larger and to the right. This is a flight uniform after all.

The argument for flying uniforms not having GT badges is pretty silly. You probably have wings on your BDUs.

[Short Field]

How about a triple threat name tag - Wings, GT emblem, and IC emblem?   

[SJFedor]

Kind of silly to put a ground team badge on a flight suit name tag isn't it?

I wear dual cools, and it helps my cred a little bit at the ICP when you can see I'm both a pilot and a GTL.

It's also pretty silly that the AF puts any of the qualification badges on their nameplates, but they do. Earn it, wear it.

[KyCAP]

I guess my initial reaction when I first posted this was that it just looked "strange" / "cluttered".   Is this "common" Air Force practice to have multiple things on a name tag?

[SJFedor]

Their model does, in fact, look cluttered. I don't like it. The ones I have are the Wings over GTL badge, centered. The GTL badge is a little smaller then it probably should be, but still looks better then that.

[jb512]

I also wear a combo of observer wings over a GT badge on mine, but it doesn't look junky like that.  The supplier I used puts the wings directly above the other badge.

[AlphaSigOU]

The common layout for dual aeronautical/specialty badges (i.e. pilot and jump wings) is pilot wings on top, jump wings or specialty badge on bottom. Only chaplain's badge above wings. Usually no more than two badges on the name tag.

'Pocket rocket with toilet seat' (missile badge with ops designator) is usually set off to the left, as is the AF command emblem for sitting commanders. (Graduated commanders do not wear the command embem on a fight suit name tag.) Name badges can be made larger than the standard 2" X 4" (usually 2-1/2" or 3" X 4") to accommodate multiple badges.

Some AF cloth name badges will include the squadron emblem set off to the left; in this case only one wing is worn.

I wouldn't buy the Vanguard abortion.

[SJFedor]

I also wear a combo of observer wings over a GT badge on mine, but it doesn't look junky like that.  The supplier I used puts the wings directly above the other badge.

It's that awesome supplier we don't talk about 

[lordmonar]

Kind of silly to put a ground team badge on a flight suit name tag isn't it?

About as silly as putting flight wings on BDUs...

[jb512]

Kind of silly to put a ground team badge on a flight suit name tag isn't it?

No, not at all.

[DrDave]

Kind of silly to put a ground team badge on a flight suit name tag isn't it?

No, not at all.

I think that's his point.

Remember that this leather name plate is also authorized for the black A2 jacket and the blue flightsuit.  It's not just for aircrew.

Dr. Dave

[jb512]

Kind of silly to put a ground team badge on a flight suit name tag isn't it?

No, not at all.

I think that's his point.

I was hoping that was the case.

[RiverAux]

Gee, the predominant theme in most uniform-related discussions here is that our uniforms are too cluttered.  This situation is a prime example of un-necessary clutter.

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn. 

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

Incidentally, I do put my money were my mouth is and don't wear my Observer Wings on my BDU or have my GT badge on my flight suit name tag. 

[Al Sayre]

Aww c'mon  I earned 'em I should be able to wear 'em...

How about a big honking leather patch with my Commanders badge, IC Badge, Wings, GBD badge, and a painted representation of my ribbon rack 

[jb512]

Gee, the predominant theme in most uniform-related discussions here is that our uniforms are too cluttered.  This situation is a prime example of un-necessary clutter.

There's a difference between wearing two professional looking qualification badges and wearing 5 cartoon colored patches in every corner of your uniform.

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn. 

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

Incidentally, I do put my money were my mouth is and don't wear my Observer Wings on my BDU or have my GT badge on my flight suit name tag. 

And I operate under the idea that the military uses where they wear their qualification badges on all uniforms all the time, but I do not wear the boy scout looking patches on my BDUs.

I am an observer and a ground team member regardless of the uniform that I'm wearing.  I also starch my BDUs, block my BDU hat, and while I don't iron my flight suit, I don't leave it wadded up in the floorboard of my truck to pull out when I go flying.

[Hawk200]

Gee, the predominant theme in most uniform-related discussions here is that our uniforms are too cluttered.  This situation is a prime example of un-necessary clutter.

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn. 

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

Incidentally, I do put my money were my mouth is and don't wear my Observer Wings on my BDU or have my GT badge on my flight suit name tag. 

That's your option. But as long as it's within regulation or equivalent, then it's acceptable for others to do as they wish. Personal opinon is fine, just don't make the mistake of telling others that they can't. Regulations are published at a much higher level than just indviduals.

Just out of curiousity, do you wear those same badges on blues (or corporate equivalent) ?

[RiverAux]

Personal opinon is fine, just don't make the mistake of telling others that they can't.

Where did I say that someone couldn't do it? 

Just out of curiousity, do you wear those same badges on blues (or corporate equivalent) ?

I sometimes wear the Observer Wings, but I'm not terribly consistent about it.  Don't even have the actual GT badge or any other of the badges that I've earned (I think I'm eligible for at least 2 others, but haven't checked).   

[CadetProgramGuy]

Don't like the cluttered look. 

Here's my stance.  Wherever you choose to wear the leather tag, choose only one emblem.

I.E. Flight Suit - Wings
Jackets - what ever you choose....

[isuhawkeye]

Next time you are over Ill show you the name tag for my zoom bag.  I bet you'll change your mind

[Hawk200]

Personal opinon is fine, just don't make the mistake of telling others that they can't.

Where did I say that someone couldn't do it? 

OK, I'll bite. Where did you say you couldn't do it? (Since my sarcasm seems to be a little subtle, I'll point out that is sarcasm.)

The problem with being vocal about some things is that some people believe you're telling them they shouldn't or can't. I had a commander that disliked jungle fatigues (back when they were authorized), and would give me all kinds of grief when I wore them. After a while, I quit wearing them because being harassed about them annoyed me. I wasn't in any formations so "uniformity" wasn't really an issue. That was back in the mid '90's. There's less "uniformity" nowadays.

If people want to something that's allowed, let them and don't give them grief about it. It's wrong to do so. If CAP allows a uniform, a combination, or insignia; let people wear it. It's not hurting you or anyone else if it's worn properly.

[RiverAux]

I was critisizing the regulation that allowed it,  not the people who wear multiple badges in accordance with that regulation.  If they want to do it, and its allowed, thats fine by me.

[Major Carrales]

Wings on BDUs make a bit more sense since one is more likely to fly in a set of BDUs than go on a Ground Team mission in a Flight suit.  Thus, a set of BDUs with Wings is not all that far fetched.

As for GT badges on Flight Suits...that is a matter of personal preference.

[Short Field]

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

LOL - what is that old saying about opinions??

[RiverAux]

If you don't want to hear other people's opinions, I suggest that an online discussion board isn't where you should spend your time.

[jb512]

If you don't want to hear other people's opinions, I suggest that an online discussion board isn't where you should spend your time.

We're not knocking you for having an opinion; you're free to do so.  It just doesn't make sense to those of us who have been around the military for any length of time.  No one wears different badges on different uniforms, they wear all of their badges on all of them because that's what they've earned, and those are the jobs that they do.

Now I know that we're limited to two, for the most part, so wings and a badge of choice makes sense to most of us on every uniform that we would wear, especially in an Air Force uniform.

[lordmonar]

It is intresting that someone who touts how much he hates CAP's corporate mentality....can just then just display his own version of it.

Look.....it is simple.....its optional....if you don't want to wear two badges on your flight suit...don't.  Words like "silly" and "there wrong too" don't help your argument.

We spend a lot of time in uniform threads saying that we have to get USAF's approval for everthing and how much it would be great to do everthing just like the USAF....but then you spring this little gem. 

Okay.....just do what you want.

[RiverAux]

I don't really know where you got that I hate CAP's corporate mentality.  Never said that to my recollection.  On that whole corporate-military thing, I'm sort of a moderate.  I'm also not one of those who believe that its critical that all our regulations mirror exactly how the AF does things.  But, does the fact that a CAP regulation mirrors and AF regulation mean that CAP people can't critisize it?  You know, the AF can make bad decisions as well.

I find it highly amusing that the thought that something looks silly is not an argument for why it shouldn't be on our uniform.  But, you'll also note that I said that extra badges are unnecessary as well. 

Okay.....just do what you want.

Already said what I'd like, you're welcome to read it again.

[KyCAP]

OK - I started it..

Mod - Lock it please - beaten this horse to death.

[Hawk200]

I was critisizing the regulation that allowed it,  not the people who wear multiple badges in accordance with that regulation.  If they want to do it, and its allowed, thats fine by me.

Apparently, you don't think it's "fine by you". If you feel the pub is wrong, then you would also have to consider the people that follow it wrong. Not doing so is a serious incongruity.

What I am curious about is why you consider it wrong. It brings no harm to anyone, and it doesn't discredit CAP or the Air Force (especially considering it mirrors them). Why do you consider it an issue?

A great many people would consider it envy, especially since you choose not to wear the other badges. They would think you envy their additional badges and only have one of your own. You have an easy option to prove them wrong. It may be a completely inaccurate assessment of you, but it will probably happen.

When it comes to having a GT badge and an observer wing, you have a person that has performed in both arenas. They have experience that bridges the gap. With both badges on a single tag, it's known that they have done so.

Multiple badges tell the story of what a person is useful for. Two badges tell more than one.

[RiverAux]

Apparently, you don't think it's "fine by you". If you feel the pub is wrong, then you would also have to consider the people that follow it wrong. Not doing so is a serious incongruity.

Seems pretty consistent to me -- I'm not going to criticize someone else for following the regulations and wearing items that are properly authorized.  However, just because I support the regulations doesn't mean that I have to agree that they are the right regulations in the first place. 

What I am curious about is why you consider it wrong. It brings no harm to anyone, and it doesn't discredit CAP or the Air Force (especially considering it mirrors them). Why do you consider it an issue?

Another person who didn't read what I wrote previously--getting frustrating....  So, I'll quote myself:

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn.

A great many people would consider it envy, especially since you choose not to wear the other badges. They would think you envy their additional badges and only have one of your own.

Huh?  I don't recall ever mentioning this particular position to anyone in my unit, so I'm not too worried about it.  They already know everything I'm qualified in, so I don't think they're going to think I envy them their badges when they know that I I am qualified for more badges than I wear.

Anyway, I'm pretty tired of defending myself over something so trivial, so I'm out. 

[Hawk200]

Apparently, you don't think it's "fine by you". If you feel the pub is wrong, then you would also have to consider the people that follow it wrong. Not doing so is a serious incongruity.

Seems pretty consistent to me -- I'm not going to criticize someone else for following the regulations and wearing items that are properly authorized.  However, just because I support the regulations doesn't mean that I have to agree that they are the right regulations in the first place. 

Hmm...The reg is wrong, but it's OK for people to comply with a regulation? I don't see any consistancy here at all. Somehow, I think that there are others here that don't see it either.

What I am curious about is why you consider it wrong. It brings no harm to anyone, and it doesn't discredit CAP or the Air Force (especially considering it mirrors them). Why do you consider it an issue?

Another person who didn't read what I wrote previously--getting frustrating....  So, I'll quote myself:

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn.

Here you're inconsistant as well. First you mention working uniforms, but then reference all of them. If you had any consistancy here, by your own logic, you have no justification to wear wings on a dress type uniform.

Something you haven't considered is that the Air Force requires aeronautical ratings on all common uniforms, regardless of type. Whether it be blues, BDU's, or a flightsuit, they're required if you have been awarded them. It's been a requirement for a long period of time.

And I read what you wrote. You still haven't explained why you feel that way. If you have an actual reason that makes sense, I can respect that. But the simple "Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn." doesn't explain anything.

If you have a legitimate reason for it, say so. It will gain a great deal more respect than taking a martyr "no one tries to understand me" stance, or else attempt condecension when your viewpoint doesn't seem to make sense.

So...what's the reason? Does more than one badge confuse you? Does it present some form of difficulty to you when someone wears them that way? Does it offend some type of value that you learned while growing up? Do you feel that these members should spend their money on something else?

A great many people would consider it envy, especially since you choose not to wear the other badges. They would think you envy their additional badges and only have one of your own.

Huh?  I don't recall ever mentioning this particular position to anyone in my unit, so I'm not too worried about it.  They already know everything I'm qualified in, so I don't think they're going to think I envy them their badges when they know that I I am qualified for more badges than I wear.

Anyway, I'm pretty tired of defending myself over something so trivial, so I'm out. 

It's not trivial, it's a major item when dealing with uniforms for CAP and the Air Force. You express judgement by saying that the Air Force is wrong in the manner that they do things. And yes, it is judgement when you state that something is "wrong", rather than you "think something is wrong". Following it up with "in my opinion" doesn't change that. Maybe you're not aware, but many will consider it arrogance.

I will state also that I'm not looking for a fight here, but an understanding. If you have no legimate reason for why you believe something, then you have no conviction about it. In which case, your statements are intended as a way of stirring up discontent. I would like to understand, but you must communicate for me to do so.

[jb512]

OK - I started it..

Mod - Lock it please - beaten this horse to death.

So quick to lock, once again...  We are having an adult, respectful conversation and as long as we stay within the code of conduct there's no reason to throw out a lock just because people are disagreeing.

To get back to Hawk and River, we have corporate uniforms that the AF has stayed out of and I think that if you want to wear whatever you want within CAP regs, then that's just fine (although I still don't understand not wearing wings and a badge on all uniforms).

As far as AF uniforms, I think that we should do exactly what the AF does, within our regs, as is required.  As it was pointed out, we don't want to look gaudy and silly but there's no reason why an aviator should not wear his wings on his BDUs or a specialty badge on his flight suit.  Wearing different clothes does not change the person's qualifications.

[KyCAP]

OK - I started it..

Mod - Lock it please - beaten this horse to death.

So quick to lock, once again...  We are having an adult, respectful conversation and as long as we stay within the code of conduct there's no reason to throw out a lock just because people are disagreeing.

To get back to Hawk and River, we have corporate uniforms that the AF has stayed out of and I think that if you want to wear whatever you want within CAP regs, then that's just fine (although I still don't understand not wearing wings and a badge on all uniforms).

As far as AF uniforms, I think that we should do exactly what the AF does, within our regs, as is required.  As it was pointed out, we don't want to look gaudy and silly but there's no reason why an aviator should not wear his wings on his BDUs or a specialty badge on his flight suit.  Wearing different clothes does not change the person's qualifications.

It's wandered from a discussion about the design aesthetics to another body politic that can be moved to another topic.

[jb512]

It's wandered from a discussion about the design aesthetics to another body politic that can be moved to another topic.

That's ok and it looks like a natural progression.  We established that the design asthetics offered by the vendor do not match the current military style and we went into the issue of wearing more than one badge, etc.  Those who choose not to participate in the discussion are welcome to choose a different one to engage in.

[afgeo4]

Gee, the predominant theme in most uniform-related discussions here is that our uniforms are too cluttered.  This situation is a prime example of un-necessary clutter.

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn. 

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

Incidentally, I do put my money were my mouth is and don't wear my Observer Wings on my BDU or have my GT badge on my flight suit name tag. 

That's your option. But as long as it's within regulation or equivalent, then it's acceptable for others to do as they wish. Personal opinon is fine, just don't make the mistake of telling others that they can't. Regulations are published at a much higher level than just indviduals.

Just out of curiousity, do you wear those same badges on blues (or corporate equivalent) ?

Never knew Integrity was optional in CAP.

[Hawk200]

Gee, the predominant theme in most uniform-related discussions here is that our uniforms are too cluttered.  This situation is a prime example of un-necessary clutter.

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn. 

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

Incidentally, I do put my money were my mouth is and don't wear my Observer Wings on my BDU or have my GT badge on my flight suit name tag. 

That's your option. But as long as it's within regulation or equivalent, then it's acceptable for others to do as they wish. Personal opinon is fine, just don't make the mistake of telling others that they can't. Regulations are published at a much higher level than just indviduals.

Just out of curiousity, do you wear those same badges on blues (or corporate equivalent) ?

Never knew Integrity was optional in CAP.

You're going to have to clarify that one. Because I don't see how it's an integrity issue for people to excercise an option given to them by a CAP published regulation, manual, pamphlet, or policy. If a pub says "You can do this or that", then where is that "optional" integrity?

[afgeo4]

Gee, the predominant theme in most uniform-related discussions here is that our uniforms are too cluttered.  This situation is a prime example of un-necessary clutter.

Working uniforms should have a minimal number of badges and other items on them and I think it is reasonable for there to be some relationship between badge wear and the uniform on which it is being worn. 

And if the AF does it that way, that just means they're wrong too (IMHO).

Incidentally, I do put my money were my mouth is and don't wear my Observer Wings on my BDU or have my GT badge on my flight suit name tag. 

That's your option. But as long as it's within regulation or equivalent, then it's acceptable for others to do as they wish. Personal opinon is fine, just don't make the mistake of telling others that they can't. Regulations are published at a much higher level than just indviduals.

Just out of curiousity, do you wear those same badges on blues (or corporate equivalent) ?

Never knew Integrity was optional in CAP.

You're going to have to clarify that one. Because I don't see how it's an integrity issue for people to excercise an option given to them by a CAP published regulation, manual, pamphlet, or policy. If a pub says "You can do this or that", then where is that "optional" integrity?

Sure thing.

The Regulations state the minimum requirements. Doing the right thing is going above those requirements to preserve the image of CAP and the Air Force. Doing the right thing is making sure your uniform always looks best, not just good enough for regs because it reflects on those great organizations. Doing the right thing, even when not required by regulations is INTEGRITY. Integrity is one of CAP core values and as such, isn't an option for CAP members.

As such, wearing your uniform if it is in poor condition and would reflect poorly on CAP and USAF goes against CAP's core values (Integrity and Excellence).

Clear enough?

[Hawk200]

Sure thing.

The Regulations state the minimum requirements. Doing the right thing is going above those requirements to preserve the image of CAP and the Air Force. Doing the right thing is making sure your uniform always looks best, not just good enough for regs because it reflects on those great organizations. Doing the right thing, even when not required by regulations is INTEGRITY. Integrity is one of CAP core values and as such, isn't an option for CAP members.

As such, wearing your uniform if it is in poor condition and would reflect poorly on CAP and USAF goes against CAP's core values (Integrity and Excellence).

Clear enough?

Clear, but not where I was going, or even really related to what I was trying to say.

The angle I was working from was that if a pub allows taking an option on something, then people may take the option or leave it as they wish.

Example: 39-1 permits the wear of cufflinks on the blue shirt. Which means a member may choose to wear them, if they wish. If they don't want to, then they don't have too.

OR

For the green flight suit, a patch is optional on the right shoulder. I take the option of not wearing one. The pub permits me that.

OR

A tie or tab is optional with the blue pullover sweater when a short sleeve shirt/blouse is worn. Personally, I wear a tie with it, I feel it looks better. Someone else may choose not to wear one. The reg permits both, neither person is wrong.

OR even

A service hat is optional for senior members. I don't have one yet, and right now, not important to me. Other people obtain and wear them. Neither person is wrong for wearing appropriate headgear to the uniform.

Just a few examples. None of the above is in any way, shape or form an integrity issue. I address proper compliance with publications, not "good enough" examples.

Then again, I guess if you always assume the worst of people, you should be pleasantly surprised most of the time.

[Pylon]

Uhm, hey, far be it from me to point out the obvious - but the manual has left the option up to personal preference.  It seems clear from the two sides of this debate that there are multiple personal preferences.  Imagine that.  Everybody can wear what they prefer.

[Hawk200]

Uhm, hey, far be it from me to point out the obvious - but the manual has left the option up to personal preference.  It seems clear from the two sides of this debate that there are multiple personal preferences.  Imagine that.  Everybody can wear what they prefer.

That was kind of my point. Guess I wasn't clear on it.

[flyerthom]

for reals yo.........made me puke in my mouth a little bit. 

http://www.prilosecotc.com/

Don't go to vanguard's website.

[Captain Morgan]

 
http://www.metamap.com/files/CMNametag.jpg

[jb512]

http://www.metamap.com/files/CMNametag.jpg

That's awesome.

If I were you, I'd never promote.

[Tubacap]

There is a Capt. Morgan that lives down the street from me.  Also a lot of him in the house next to me, but not the same kind.

[mikeylikey]

..............Also a lot of him in the house next to me, but not the same kind.

For shame Sir, for shame.  I expect to see some of the good CAPT at Encampment next week.  You bringing him??  I say we meet him in your BOQ!!

[KyCAP]

 :clap:

OMG Captain Morgan...



Thou shalt never complete Level 3.