ES Badges

[Sgt. Savage]

Anyone know why there isn't a badge for every ES specialty? Almost seams like MB staff, UDF, Comm people... are they not as valuable as the other ES qualified folks? Just appears inequitable.

Any thoughts?

[0]

I think the reason is because some of the specialties over-lap with other areas. 

[IceNine]

Couple of reasons pop into mind,

Production of 20 more badges...

And there is then the choice of do I spend the money on the badges for the (insert number here) ratings I hold.

I would agree that there should be certain areas that should have badges.  GT, Aero (because they already exist, IC/AL.  Many of the other areas are covered at least to some extent by speciality tracks. 

For instance people who are logistics Techs have a badge, why create a badge that is different simply to say that they are Mission rated LSC's?

[SAR-EMT1]

As for UDF or MSA etc...  In a nutshell - GTMs are the 'hotshots' of ES and get the badge. Just like observers get a badge and scanners dont.

NOW as for Unit Leaders, Section Chiefs, PIOs and ICs... I can see getting them a badge. - Take the GT badge but insert MB for GT.  - Mission Base
Basic for Unit Leaders and General Staff Officers. Senior for Chiefs, and such. MASTER  for  ICs, Agency Liasons.

[arajca]

A couple years ago, I submitted a proposal for an ES Qualifiaction badge system. It was discussed here for a while.

[Stonewall]

A slight drift but relevant.  Back in 2002 I sent up a letter though my wing proposing a 3-tier system for the EMT badge.  It was denied at the wing level, but found it ironic that a similar program came out a couple years later.  My plan was different, affording more folks the ability to acquire an "EMS badge" as motivation to seek further medical training.

First Responder:  Basic "EMT" badge.
EMT-B/I: Senior "EMT" badge.
EMT-P:  Master "EMT" badge.

Either way, we got the 3 badges now, right?

And back in the day, I had zero skills with photoshop, uploading pictures, scanning, etc., so I did actual cut and pasting on paper and took a picture for a reference image.  I just found that too...

[Sgt. Savage]

Part of what I have been considering is that some members don't want to be GT, or aircrew; they are Comm people and MB people that are happy doing that. Maybe a Comm badge and a MB badge.

MRO being a basic qual, CUL having a star

Any MB task has a basic badge, Section Chiefs have a star and wreath

Maybe a separate set for IC, AL, and IO with the basic, star and star and wreath denoting level 3, 2, or 1.

Just a thought. I guess it arises from seeing some members training in a specialty with no motivation to complete it. Especially cadets.

[davedove]

Part of what I have been considering is that some members don't want to be GT, or aircrew; they are Comm people and MB people that are happy doing that. Maybe a Comm badge and a MB badge.

...

Just a thought. I guess it arises from seeing some members training in a specialty with no motivation to complete it. Especially cadets.

Of course, many people will say that if you're only training to get the "bling" you're not really dedicated enough.

But, I can see the point that if you're going to give some people recognition, you should give it to others.

[Sgt. Savage]

I was thinking something like this:

[0]

I was thinking something like this:

I like the look but it could be quite detailed and not show up as nice in stiching.

[IceNine]

Part of what I have been considering is that some members don't want to be GT, or aircrew; they are Comm people and MB people that are happy doing that. Maybe a Comm badge and a MB badge.

...

Just a thought. I guess it arises from seeing some members training in a specialty with no motivation to complete it. Especially cadets.

Of course, many people will say that if you're only training to get the "bling" you're not really dedicated enough.

But, I can see the point that if you're going to give some people recognition, you should give it to others.

Kinda...  Don't forget that in CAP  Bling=Pay.  We often times don't get anything but a handshake for a job well done it't nice to have a piece of metal that we can be proud of for all of the hard work we do.

[Sgt. Savage]

It's just an example really. I'm just a guy that can manipulate stuff. A good visual artist can make a much better badge depiction, maybe a little more production friendly.

That aside, we have a bazillion Specialty Track badges and few ES badges. ES is where we really make our money and where being real good at it really counts. We should be rewarding all of these efforts with something more than a 101 card.

[Hawk200]

Why create a specific badge for each ES qual? Seems it would be easier to create an ES badge, with the stipulation that you don't wear it if you get another ES qual that has its own badge. Right now, if you have both a pilot wing, and an observer wing, you can only wear one of those on any one uniform.

Not too hard to carry that over. If you have GES, and get a Ground Team badge, you wear one or the other, but not both at the same time.

[0]

Well what about those of  us who are active in more than one?  and should those who are MP's or MO's and also GTM's not wear both as has been the practice?

[IceNine]

Personally I agree that you cannot wear a badge for a pre-qual.  What I mean by that is, If you are wearing the LSC Badge you cannot wear Comms as well.  Because it is assumed you are a CUL if you are an LSC.  BUT, 2 different areas should be allowed representation.  GT, and Aircrew, Aircrew and IC, IC and Doughnut supply officer whatever, as long as one badge does not include the other.

[0]

ok I see where you're coming from now. 

[Hawk200]

Well what about those of  us who are active in more than one?  and should those who are MP's or MO's and also GTM's not wear both as has been the practice?

I meant only the GES badge would "drop off" if you got a higher qualification. GT and MO are different qualifications with few, if any, overlapping tasks. Pilot, observer, GT, EMT would be the same as the present manner, they are skills with more training involved.

May be a good way to consider higher levels of the badge. GES with one additional qualification gets the basic badge. GES with four of five gets senior. GES with ten gets star and seat ( ).

I don't know, just a few ideas to start the process. Opinions?

[Pylon]

Somewhat related, the NB did recently authorize the creation of an oddly-designed Incident Commander's badge.  I have yet to see an example in production, however.

[baronet68]

Anyone know why there isn't a badge for every ES specialty? Almost seams like MB staff, UDF, Comm people... are they not as valuable as the other ES qualified folks? Just appears inequitable.

Any thoughts?

Maybe I missed something, but what is the purpose for these ES badges?

[0]

These ES badges are the specialty track for Professional Development

[IceNine]

The ES Badges above represent the administrative side of ES,  we are looking for an operational representation.

[Hawk200]

The ES Badges above represent the administrative side of ES,  we are looking for an operational representation.

Not administrative, the Professional Development side. It shows a member qualified in the Senior Member 213 specialty track. NERMA002 Safety is correct.

[0]

A

The ES Badges above represent the administrative side of ES,  we are looking for an operational representation.

Not administrative, the Professional Development side. It shows a member qualified in the Senior Member 213 specialty track. NERMA002 Safety is correct.

It is possible for a cadet to get the basic badge for the ES track just as it is possible for them to get it for Comm as well.

[jimmydeanno]

The problem with all the different "specialty badges" is that unlike the Air Force, CAP members have 30 different specialties that they can serve actively in simultaneously...

In the AF, a pilot doesn't also do admin or finance, they pilot.  The admin pogue doesn't cruise on over to the dining facilities to help services or guard the gate.  Even when they cross train, they stop doing what they did before.  It may be one office over, but they don't do that job again...

We don't do "cross training" and then that person only does that position, we do "cross training" and the person holds that position plus their new one... at that rate I would be eligible to wear 5 ES type specialty badges and 5 PD badges... of course I would have to limit it to 3 and select based on actual locations...yada yada...

[Hawk200]

A

The ES Badges above represent the administrative side of ES,  we are looking for an operational representation.

Not administrative, the Professional Development side. It shows a member qualified in the Senior Member 213 specialty track. NERMA002 Safety is correct.

It is possible for a cadet to get the basic badge for the ES track just as it is possible for them to get it for Comm as well.

Correct. A cadet may meet the requirements for the Basic ES badges, but cannot receive a Technician rating in the ES specialty track until they become a senior.

[0]

A

The ES Badges above represent the administrative side of ES,  we are looking for an operational representation.

Not administrative, the Professional Development side. It shows a member qualified in the Senior Member 213 specialty track. NERMA002 Safety is correct.

It is possible for a cadet to get the basic badge for the ES track just as it is possible for them to get it for Comm as well.

Correct. A cadet may meet the requirements for the Basic ES badges, but cannot receive a Technician rating in the ES specialty track until they become a senior.

This is true and they will then be authorized to wear said badge.

[Hawk200]

This is true and they will then be authorized to wear said badge.

According to CAPR 35-6, dated 17 August 2002:

"Note: Cadets can earn the Basic Emergency Services Qualification Badge as they can complete all of the requirements for this rating, though they cannot officially receive the Technician Rating until they become a senior member. "

The reg says they may earn the badge, but may not receive a Technician rating until Senior status. I don't think a reg would say they could earn a badge, but not permit them to wear it. That just wouldn't make sense. And would probably be viewed as discriminatory. If they earn it, they can wear it.

[SAR-EMT1]

This is true and they will then be authorized to wear said badge.

According to CAPR 35-6, dated 17 August 2002:

"Note: Cadets can earn the Basic Emergency Services Qualification Badge as they can complete all of the requirements for this rating, though they cannot officially receive the Technician Rating until they become a senior member. "

The reg says they may earn the badge, but may not receive a Technician rating until Senior status. I don't think a reg would say they could earn a badge, but not permit them to wear it. That just wouldn't make sense. And would probably be viewed as discriminatory. If they earn it, they can wear it.

They can wear it provided that the paperwork is in said cadets file.
However, they cannot hold the ES Officer position or recieve credit as tech till they switch to the darkside.
I have however seen a comm setup at a SAREX that was 100% cadet.
I seem to recall the older cadets therein having the comm badge.

[Sgt. Savage]

Air Ops?

[jimmydeanno]

^How about something like this?

[Sgt. Savage]

I like it! Looks better than mine, which I would expect. I can manipulate word docs but, frankly, picture manipulation isn't my strong suit.

What badges do we need?

I'm thinking that the basic badge design should mimic the GT badges.

How would they be set up?

I like symbols but a simple "MRO" to copy the GT format might work as well.

[jimmydeanno]

The reason I chose the prop and triangle is because of the historical symbolism is presents.  Since CAP was founded for air operations and the CAP emblem is the tri-blade prop in the CD triangle, I thought it appropriate.  The prop also signifies flight.

The CAP wings have the tri-blade prop in the center, and this being an ES specialty badge...

The GT badge is ok, but I think it dates back to the days of the cartoon style ribbons and such.  I think in sticking with traditional military protocol, symbols would be best used.

[Sgt. Savage]

Ok, here is my proposed usage:



Basic Badge

IO - Information Officer
LO - Liaison Officer
MC - Mission Chaplain
MRO - Mission Radio Operator
MSA - Mission Staff Assistant
MSO - Mission Safety Officer
UDF - Urban Direction Finding Team
GTM1 - Ground Team Member Level 1
GTM2 - Ground Team Member Level 2
GTM3 - Ground Team Member Level 3
IC3 - Incident Commander Level 3
AL3 - Agency Liaison Level 3
CISM - CISM Personnel
MS - Mission Scanner
FLM - Flight Line Marshaller


Senior Badge

GTL - Ground Team Leader
AL2 - Agency Liaison Level 2
IC2 - Incident Commander Level 2
FLS - Flight Line Supervisor
CUL - Communications Unit Leader
LSC - Logistics Section Chief
FASC - Finance/Admin Section Chief 
OSC - Operations Section Chief
PSC - Planning Section Chief


Master Badge


IC1 - Incident Commander Level 1
AL1 - Agency Liaison Level 1
AOBD - Air Operations Branch Director
GBD - Ground Branch Director


Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

Any thoughts?

[0]

Ok, here is my proposed usage:



Basic Badge

IO - Information Officer
LO - Liaison Officer
MC - Mission Chaplain
MRO - Mission Radio Operator
MSA - Mission Staff Assistant
MSO - Mission Safety Officer
UDF - Urban Direction Finding Team
GTM1 - Ground Team Member Level 1
GTM2 - Ground Team Member Level 2
GTM3 - Ground Team Member Level 3
IC3 - Incident Commander Level 3
AL3 - Agency Liaison Level 3
CISM - CISM Personnel
MS - Mission Scanner
FLM - Flight Line Marshaller


Senior Badge

GTL - Ground Team Leader
AL2 - Agency Liaison Level 2
IC2 - Incident Commander Level 2
FLS - Flight Line Supervisor
CUL - Communications Unit Leader
LSC - Logistics Section Chief
FASC - Finance/Admin Section Chief 
OSC - Operations Section Chief
PSC - Planning Section Chief


Master Badge


IC1 - Incident Commander Level 1
AL1 - Agency Liaison Level 1
AOBD - Air Operations Branch Director
GBD - Ground Branch Director


Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

Any thoughts?

The ground positions already have established badges

No star is Ground Team Member
Star is Ground Team Leader
Star with "toilet seat" is Ground Branch Director

speaking as a ground team member I wouldn't want to change to a new badge just so other people can have one that's the same when the skills for what they do and I do is differnt. 

if we want to make a badge for those that don't make it one for mission base staff which would include flight line marshallers and the like.

[Sgt. Savage]

Sorry for the confussion. Each specialty would have its own indivdual badge, I guess. I wouldn't change the existing GT badges. I only included them as they already have basic, senior, and master ratings.

[Pylon]

There already exist badges for Ground-qualified individuals and for Aircrew-qualified individuals.  In addition, the Incident Commander's badge is already approved and underway.  That leaves mission support staff without a badge.

So a simple solution would be to create a three-tiered badge for mission support staff.  The exclusions from that group would be mission chaplains, as they already sport the much more important and recognizable chaplain's badge.

[jimmydeanno]

So putting the letters on, (using your example of MRO from earlier (slightly modified)), would give us something like this...?

[jimmydeanno]

There already exist badges for Ground-qualified individuals and for Aircrew-qualified individuals.  In addition, the Incident Commander's badge is already approved and underway.  That leaves mission support staff without a badge.

So a simple solution would be to create a three-tiered badge for mission support staff.  The exclusions from that group would be mission chaplains, as they already sport the much more important and recognizable chaplain's badge.

There is a big difference, IMO, between an MSA rated person and an AOBD in terms of qualification.  So using the same device with a star or such on it wouldn't be right.  The assumption would be that the MSA person with the basic badge would be a junior AOBD.  Similar to the Specialty Track Badges, a Basic CP badge wearer is a junior rated CP person compared to the CP badge with a wreath.

IMO, they are very different "specialties" and qualifications and wouldn't 'rate' having the same badge...

I bet TEDDA is rolling over laughing at our graphic abilities

[arajca]

Ok, here is my proposed usage:



Basic Badge

IO - Information Officer
LO - Liaison Officer
MC - Mission Chaplain
MRO - Mission Radio Operator
MSA - Mission Staff Assistant
MSO - Mission Safety Officer
UDF - Urban Direction Finding Team
GTM1 - Ground Team Member Level 1
GTM2 - Ground Team Member Level 2
GTM3 - Ground Team Member Level 3
IC3 - Incident Commander Level 3
AL3 - Agency Liaison Level 3
CISM - CISM Personnel
MS - Mission Scanner
FLM - Flight Line Marshaller


Senior Badge

GTL - Ground Team Leader
AL2 - Agency Liaison Level 2
IC2 - Incident Commander Level 2
FLS - Flight Line Supervisor
CUL - Communications Unit Leader
LSC - Logistics Section Chief
FASC - Finance/Admin Section Chief 
OSC - Operations Section Chief
PSC - Planning Section Chief


Master Badge


IC1 - Incident Commander Level 1
AL1 - Agency Liaison Level 1
AOBD - Air Operations Branch Director
GBD - Ground Branch Director


Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

Any thoughts?

Since AOBD/GDB ia a requirement for OSC/PSC why do they have a higher level badge? If I go from AOBD to IC3, do I lose the star/wreath?

If you'll pull up my proposal, you'll see that I made the progression points line up the ICS structure. FLM, MRO, MSA, etc get the basic badge, everything between the them and the section chiefs (plus LO/IO/SO) get the senior badge, and section chiefs get the senior badge. I had the IC in the mix as a fourth level, but with the new IC badge, that is not needed. The progression points cover the major responsibility changes. The unit leaders, branch directors, etc have more responisibiilty tham the basic levels. The Section Chiefs have more responsibiity than the unit leaders. The IC has the most responsibility of all.

[SarDragon]

Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

I understand MO, but what specific badge does a TMP or MP wear above and beyond pilot wings?

[Pylon]

Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

I understand MO, but what specific badge does a TMP or MP wear above and beyond pilot wings?

None.  Why should they?

[SarDragon]

OK, I didn't put in enough info.

Ok, here is my proposed usage:
Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

Any thoughts?

What is "as is", and what is the distinction between MP, TMP, and CAP Pilot?

I don't think a distinction is essential, I'm just trying to figure out what he's talking about.

[SAR-EMT1]

So putting the letters on, (using your example of MRO from earlier (slightly modified)), would give us something like this...?

ACTUALLY, I think it would be better to insert MB  in lieu of GT
MB- Mission Base or MBS - Mission Base Staff

Putting MRO in would eventually require initials for every posit.
So either go with the Prop and Triangle of just MB. IMHO

[Sgt. Savage]

Left as is
MP - SAR/DR Mission Pilot
TMP - Transport Mission Pilot
MO - Mission Observer

I understand MO, but what specific badge does a TMP or MP wear above and beyond pilot wings?

None.  Why should they?

Actually, MO's and pilots can earn a senior and master rating based on hours acrued. All of these suggestions are just that, suggestions. GBD already has a badge, a master level badge. Seems like it should stay, though, the section chiefs may also warrant a master level badge.

[Sgt. Savage]

Just in from my "art studio". My version of a logistics badge.



It's crude but you get the point. I incorporated the cog design from the AF material command but replaced the star with the CD triangle.

[0]

Just in from my "art studio". My version of a logistics badge.



It's crude but you get the point. I incorporated the cog design from the AF material command but replaced the star with the CD triangle.

I like it. Simple but effective.

[thefischNX01]

Off Topic I admit, but this is the first I've heard of the IC Badge.  Can someone show me a picture or the regulation authorizing it?

[Hawk200]

Off Topic I admit, but this is the first I've heard of the IC Badge.  Can someone show me a picture or the regulation authorizing it?

CAPHistorian posted a photo of the new proposed medals, along with the IC badge included in this post:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1034.msg12852#msg12852

It's pretty good looking.

[thefischNX01]

Thanks, Hawk. 

And now back to your regularly scheduled programing...

[afgeo4]

Just in from my "art studio". My version of a logistics badge.



It's crude but you get the point. I incorporated the cog design from the AF material command but replaced the star with the CD triangle.

I like it. Simple but effective.

Pretty sweet... can you do a Recruiting & Retention badge and base it loosely on the USAF one?

[afgeo4]

I think this IS an important topic. As we come up on the release of ABU's for CAP we're also looking at having no patches on field uniforms.

Currently, communications, safety and ES qualified personnel can be identified by their authorized patches (if they choose to wear them). When the ABU comes out, there will be no patches authorized and we should have basic duty badges out. I like the idea of using the existing GT badge to create new ones, but perhaps make it a little bit larger (along with the existing GT badge)... maybe to the size of the AF occupational badge.

My suggestions are for:
Urban Direction Finding - UDF
Base Staff - MBS
Radio Operator - MRO
Section Chiefs (Logistics, Finance, Personnel, etc) - OPS
Flightline Ops - FLT
Safety - SAFE
Air Branch Director - ABD
Medical - Already exists
Chaplain - Already exists
Incident Commander - Already exists
Ground Branch Director - Already exists
Ground Team Member - Already exists
Ground Team Leader - Already Exists

Not sure if I've forgotten anyone, but this is all I'm coming up with right now.

[Hawk200]

I think this IS an important topic. As we come up on the release of ABU's for CAP we're also looking at having no patches on field uniforms.

Currently, communications, safety and ES qualified personnel can be identified by their authorized patches (if they choose to wear them). When the ABU comes out, there will be no patches authorized and we should have basic duty badges out. I like the idea of using the existing GT badge to create new ones, but perhaps make it a little bit larger (along with the existing GT badge)... maybe to the size of the AF occupational badge.

..............

What makes you think that the restriction on patches will carry over to CAP? Allowing patches on CAP uniforms and not for Air Force personnel would be the kind of differentiation that the Air Force would want. Be real easy to tell either way from a distance.

CAP getting ABU's has already been discussed at the higher levels. Configuration has not been. We don't know how it's going to be arranged. And I doubt the Air Force would forbid them. I'm betting that even though they aren't a member, Vanguard does probably have some influence on what's going to be worn as well.

[afgeo4]

I'm thinking that the patches wont carry over because of AF culture. The reason why we wear patches, their styling, and their placement has been overall aligned with Air Force traditions. Since USAF is changing this tradition with the ABU, I'm guessing CAP will go with that too. Does that have to happen? No. I just believe it will. Vanguard will be just as happy selling more occupational (ES) badges as they were patches. In fact, I think they'd sell more of them than our "Goofy" and "Stan/Eval" or "PJOC" patches for example.

[Psicorp]

I think this IS an important topic. As we come up on the release of ABU's for CAP we're also looking at having no patches on field uniforms.

Currently, communications, safety and ES qualified personnel can be identified by their authorized patches (if they choose to wear them). When the ABU comes out, there will be no patches authorized and we should have basic duty badges out. I like the idea of using the existing GT badge to create new ones, but perhaps make it a little bit larger (along with the existing GT badge)... maybe to the size of the AF occupational badge.

My suggestions are for:
Urban Direction Finding - UDF
Base Staff - MBS
Radio Operator - MRO
Section Chiefs (Logistics, Finance, Personnel, etc) - OPS
Flightline Ops - FLT
Safety - SAFE
Air Branch Director - ABD
Medical - Already exists
Chaplain - Already exists
Incident Commander - Already exists
Ground Branch Director - Already exists
Ground Team Member - Already exists
Ground Team Leader - Already Exists

Not sure if I've forgotten anyone, but this is all I'm coming up with right now.

I disagree with having an MRO badge...it's a basic qualification that says you can operate a radio, it's needed for virtually all the mission qualifications.

How about grouping Mission Base Staff all together and have a basic, advanced, and senior ratings based upon the level of qualification (ICS position)?  Ex:  MRO, MSA, Flightline Marshaller / Supervisor, etc are basic; CUL, GBD, ABD, Chaplain, SE, Section Chiefs are advanced; and ICs (1,2, & 3) are senior?

[Hawk200]

I'm thinking that the patches wont carry over because of AF culture. The reason why we wear patches, their styling, and their placement has been overall aligned with Air Force traditions. Since USAF is changing this tradition with the ABU, I'm guessing CAP will go with that too. Does that have to happen? No. I just believe it will. Vanguard will be just as happy selling more occupational (ES) badges as they were patches. In fact, I think they'd sell more of them than our "Goofy" and "Stan/Eval" or "PJOC" patches for example.

As CAP, we wore patches on the BDU's in locations that the Air Force didn't. Our tradition was based on theirs, but with some differences. It's in the Air Force's interest to have our uniforms look distinctively different. The removal of the right arm patches, and the wing patch were a Pineda thing, not the Air Force.

As far as Vanguard goes, five specialty type badges would cost far less than five larger patches. They would stand to make less on them. It's all money, and they won't like it if they have to sell lower cost items.

Additionally, there are patches that really should be identifiable from a distance. Specialty badge style wouldn't be so much, you have to be talking "in-person". There's a place for them.

[RogueLeader]

I disagree with having an MRO badge...it's a basic qualification that says you can operate a radio, it's needed for virtually all the mission qualifications.

Not quite, a CAPF 76 is the basic qual for operating a radio. The B-cut means that you can talk, the A-cut means you can have your own callsign. 

MRO means that you can find location, set up, and run comm operations.  They are also trained to pass traffic, troubleshoot problems such as dropped communications, use the proper frequencies/repeaters etc.  Which is a far cry from B-CUT

[Sgt. Savage]

So,

I've created more badges... AL, genralMB badge, and a couple of others..

How do we propose these badges to national?

[alamrcn]

I'm thinking that the patches wont carry over because of AF culture. The reason why we wear patches, their styling, and their placement has been overall aligned with Air Force traditions.

ERR-HUM, that would be Army Air Corps traditions. Had we watched the USAF more closely the last 50 years, we would have dumped off the shoulder patches long ago.

But I hear what you are saying. Wanna propose some badges to National? Convince your wing CAC to give it a go - that's how we have the ribbons we have today and not the Monopoly (TM) piece ones from 30 years ago.

I was going to suggest a "PT Campaign" ribbon, but I didn't think it would be appropriate in this particular discussion.

-Ace

[RiverAux]

Seems to me that very few CAP members are actually wearing all the specialty track badges that are authorized now, so don't see much need to add even more badges that most people probably wouldn't bother to wear. 

[arajca]

Seems to me that very few CAP members are actually wearing all the specialty track badges that are authorized now, so don't see much need to add even more badges that most people probably wouldn't bother to wear. 

I think the same thing, which was I put up one badge to cover a plethora of ES ratings, instead a separate badge for each rating.

[Sgt. Savage]

Seems to me that very few CAP members are actually wearing all the specialty track badges that are authorized now, so don't see much need to add even more badges that most people probably wouldn't bother to wear. 

Can't you only wear 2 ST badges? That and I can't think of a member with an ES rating that doesn't wear SOME badge.

But I hear what you are saying. Wanna propose some badges to National? Convince your wing CAC to give it a go - that's how we have the ribbons we have today and not the Monopoly (TM) piece ones from 30 years ago.

I'm, not even sure who is on the CAC. Besides that, do we usually leave it up to cadets to do this kind of work?

Just Curious

[RiverAux]

Aircrew usually wear their pilot or observer badges, but it seems to be a lot more unusual for ground team folks.  Most cadets seem to wear GT badges, but seniors don't seem to bother as much unless they are one of the few hardcore ground team folks. 

[Sgt. Savage]

I think this represents what I've put together so far.



Feedback?

[MIKE]

Finally some decent looking badges!  But in IMO this is what specialty track badges should look like.

[afgeo4]

I absolutely agree. This IS what specialty track badges should look like, but as far as ES badges go... these are great!