Spring 2011 NEC Agenda

[FW]

There is one very interesting agenda item here.  Who will be the first to comment....

[Eclipse]

I, for one, cannot get behind the idea of approving the last meeting's minutes...

[MSG Mac]

I assume were talking about the "Triangle" logo. It's funny they talk about how CAP needs an "identifiable" symbol, but why not use the one of the two others , Official seal and/or Emblem, that have been historically connected with CAP for over 70 years. They claim that the emblem is dated and that the US Army and Air Force, both have simple logo's that capture the eye. THIS IS THE KIND OF THINKING THAT RESULTED IN THE INFAMOUS $6,000,000+ RACE CAR.

[Pylon]

Item 8.  Approving the Triangle Thingy.  Interesting that they're seeking approval from the NEC to do what they've already been doing with the triangle thingy.  And one of the support comments mentions they are in favor of the proposed action because it will promote consistency, when in fact the proposed action simply adds the triangle thingy as yet another optional (up to 5 now), approved, current logo/seal/emblem without eliminating any of the other 4 still on the books.   


They use vague and fairly incorrect references to the Army and Air Force recruiting logos (conveniently without mentioning that those have restricted uses and are just one piece of an expensive, well-thought-out, and comprehensive brand system) as justification that CAP needs another emblem for general use along side all the others. 


And the proposed action fails to even proscribe when we should use our different logo/seal/emblems.  It's all optional if that passes.  Wanna use the seal on your squadron letterhead?  Sure.  The squadron in the next city over will be using the triangle thingy, and the Group HQ will be using the command shield.  That way we'll be sure to look like 3 different organizations to the public.


  I wish for once NHQ would consult outside industry experts when proposing things of this nature.

[Eclipse]

Triangle Thingy?  What is that?

[Pylon]

Triangle Thingy?  What is that?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10555.msg193405#msg193405

[RiverAux]

So, let me get this right... the solution to having too many logos such that none are easily identifiable is to start using a brand new one? 

I certainly concur with their statements that the seal and command patch are not ideal for "branding" purposes, but disagree that the emblem is not suitable for branding use. 

The only logical way to approach this issue is to put the same symbol on everything that is in front of the public.  Whether it is the emblem or the triangle, everything should be the same.  Its like "Highlander" -- only one can remain. 

This is basic branding 101 and by making this "optional" they are just making things worse.  Idiotic. 

However, since the NEC is a rubber stamp for the National Commander, we better get used to the triangle.

[Eclipse]

Triangle Thingy?  What is that?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10555.msg193405#msg193405

All I see is the new, official logo that was properly adopted via regulation and update of manuals and collateral sometime last year.

Everyone here seemed to like it well enough, what is the issue?

[jimmydeanno]

Is it me, or does the NLO seem to force his way into conversations that have absolutely nothing to do with legal?  It's quite obvious that he has absolutely no clue about the CAP cadet program when he adds comments to agenda items like, "Why not just let cadets take the Officer Basic Course for the Eaker award?"

It seems to me that he should stick to things that he's knowledgeable about and stop trying to provide input and legislation from his advisory role.

[Persona non grata]

CONCUR

[jimmydeanno]

And one more thing about the RCLS/COS equivalent.

We have ~2% of cadets that earn the Eaker.  When the AFIADL course was available, over nearly a decade, fewer than 50 cadets took it as the alternative for COS (remember that RCLS wasn't always available either).

Why are we, as an organization, going to invest the manpower to create a correspondence course that would apply to such a low percentage of the extremely low percentage of cadets that even make it that far in the first place?  I would assume it would be about 1% of the 2% that make it that far anyway.  A lot of effort for very little return.

What about encampment?  Some cadets can't afford to do that, either.  So, should we create a correspondence course for encampment?  After all, significantly more cadets get the Mitchell than they do the Eaker... certainly the ROI would be better, right? 

[Pylon]

And one more thing about the RCLS/COS equivalent.

We have ~2% of cadets that earn the Eaker.  When the AFIADL course was available, over nearly a decade, fewer than 50 cadets took it as the alternative for COS (remember that RCLS wasn't always available either).

Why are we, as an organization, going to invest the manpower to create a correspondence course that would apply to such a low percentage of the extremely low percentage of cadets that even make it that far in the first place?  I would assume it would be about 1% of the 2% that make it that far anyway.  A lot of effort for very little return.

Agreed. We will get far better return for our efforts if we just keep working to make Cadet Officer School/Cadet Leadership Academies more accessible.  And the cadets will get far more out any "in-residence" courses (even if they have to be offered in successive weekends or through other creative scheduling means) as a result of the ability to have interactions, team exercises, collaboration, etcetera than they could through any correspondence option however well developed. 


Plus, OBC has little to do with the Phase III and IV learning objectives.  It doesn't make sense.


But then again, when I ask my lawyer for legal advice on a speeding ticket, he doesn't try to give me advice on buying a car or where I should take future road trips.

[Eclipse]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Rather than diluting things with unrelated tests, we should be working towards making the RCLS / COS more available.

[RiverAux]

Everyone here seemed to like it well enough, what is the issue?

You got that out of a 12 page thread involving comments about how the triangle thingy is despised by most of those here?  And if the logo was made official last year why is the NEC actually proposing making it official now? 

[Al Sayre]

If you really hate the triangle thingy, then don't just gripe about it here, send a properly formatted memorandum or email  to your Wing or Region Commander THRU your chain of command detailing your opinion of why you don't like it.  See CAPR 10-1 Attachments 2 and 6, Brand dilution etc.  Like the preacher says "...speak now or forever hold your peace".

[NCRblues]

If you really hate the triangle thingy, then don't just gripe about it here, send a properly formatted memorandum or email  to your Wing or Region Commander THRU your chain of command detailing your opinion of why you don't like it.  See CAPR 10-1 Attachments 2 and 6, Brand dilution etc.  Like the preacher says "...speak now or forever hold your peace".

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

Again, I'm going to say this, just like i said when we talked about the last NB meeting....there is really nothing more important to deal with than this junk?

[RVT]

There is one very interesting agenda item here.  Who will be the first to comment....

"The intricacies of the seal design make it difficult to replicate in all sizes and media."

Considering the Auditors from national have already showed up wearing polo shirts with TTT on them I have a sneaky feeling that the next time 39-1 gets revised the "new" polo shirts will have TTT on them instead of the seal.

So theres a reason to NOT be eager for a new 39-1 to come out.

[Spaceman3750]

There is one very interesting agenda item here.  Who will be the first to comment....

"The intricacies of the seal design make it difficult to replicate in all sizes and media."

Considering the Auditors from national have already showed up wearing polo shirts with TTT on them I have a sneaky feeling that the next time 39-1 gets revised the "new" polo shirts will have TTT on them instead of the seal.

So theres a reason to NOT be eager for a new 39-1 to come out.

I've seen them too but it's paid staff that's been wearing them - not members. I would be OK with this being something for NHQ staff, but definitely not for the corporate polo. As they say, if you don't like it, write your congressman (or your wing commander).

[Al Sayre]

If you really hate the triangle thingy, then don't just gripe about it here, send a properly formatted memorandum or email  to your Wing or Region Commander THRU your chain of command detailing your opinion of why you don't like it.  See CAPR 10-1 Attachments 2 and 6, Brand dilution etc.  Like the preacher says "...speak now or forever hold your peace".

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

Again, I'm going to say this, just like i said when we talked about the last NB meeting....there is really nothing more important to deal with than this junk?

I look at it like voting:  I always vote, not because I believe that my single vote will make any difference, but rather if I'm not happy with the outcome, I at least have a valid reason to gripe about it.  If I don't vote, (or in this case speak up) then I just need to shut up because I had my opportunity and didn't use it.

[MSG Mac]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

[davidsinn]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Every one except yours and mine.

[Eclipse]

"Optional" is the way management gets things done that are unpopular when no one wants to simply make a decision and move on.

"Optional" today.

"Encouraged" tomorrow.

"Mandatory" next week.

It is, what it is.

[wuzafuzz]

If National insists on lusting after triangles, I wonder how long it will be until we see this on our uniforms.  At least the other folks wearing this particular triangle don't have to wear day-glo ultrmarine.

[RiverAux]

"Optional" is the way management gets things done that are unpopular when no one wants to simply make a decision and move on.

You're right about that.  This decision is actually even worse than just deciding to go ahead and nix the current emblem and replace it with the new one.  By adding an option it just dilutes the brand even more rather than strengthening it. 

[a2capt]

Is there any way to submit feedback on an agenda item, or is it "too late" because it's on there now?

That is the first time I've seen that comment about that thing being created for a summer board meeting, it looks like it. It's just plain awful and cheap looking.

A motion to make something officially optional? Come on. Who thinks this stuff up? With all stretched points of view on the three existing official items - we need another one? One that looks like it came from a cheap disc of clipart from the dollar store close out reject bin?

Sorry, but thats just how I see it. Whoever created it may be bent because of that viewpoint, so be it. There's obviously a lot of disdain for the item, yet they either choose to ignore it, or they don't know about it. 

We have enough graphics and they are just fine for their use.  We do not need yet another one that is an abomination of an exiting one.  The others are plenty recognizable. If only they would actually use them and stop this madness of swapping with the season change.

[SarDragon]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Every one except yours and mine.

And mine. 

[jimmydeanno]

Is there any way to submit feedback on an agenda item, or is it "too late" because it's on there now?

That is the first time I've seen that comment about that thing being created for a summer board meeting, it looks like it. It's just plain awful and cheap looking.

A motion to make something officially optional? Come on. Who thinks this stuff up? With all stretched points of view on the three existing official items - we need another one? One that looks like it came from a cheap disc of clipart from the dollar store close out reject bin?

Sorry, but thats just how I see it. Whoever created it may be bent because of that viewpoint, so be it. There's obviously a lot of disdain for the item, yet they either choose to ignore it, or they don't know about it. 

We have enough graphics and they are just fine for their use.  We do not need yet another one that is an abomination of an exiting one.  The others are plenty recognizable. If only they would actually use them and stop this madness of swapping with the season change.

You can submit feedback to your respective NEC member.  They still need to be voted on.  Just because it hits the agenda doesn't mean its a done deal.

I sent a message to my Wing Commander asking that he forward my opinion about Item #5 to my Region Commander.  the good news is that he said, "I agree with your assessment and will pass along this feedback."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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 wonder who is behind this...is it the Air Force, or the "corporatists" or a mixture of both, like killing off the CSU for no reason, and when we ask why we get told "Don't ask."

The old "mushroom management" syndrome at work.

At least when the Army went to the blue service dress they were given a semblance of an explanation (streamlining uniforms, and the heritage of the Army blues; i.e., the old Cavalry/Civil War blues).

TTT has nothing to do with our heritage, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Air Force.

If we're going to adopt a one-crest-to-find-them, one-crest-to-bind-them, it should be this:



And book the Wing patches altogether and replace with:



...maybe incorporating a rocker with the state/region/national title.

THAT has a direct link to our history, even predating the Air Force.

Again, I don't like to foment conspiracies, but at this rate I believe that one day, sooner rather than later, the polos/greys zealots will finally have us out of the AF uniform.



...though the hat on this one may look "too military."

[ßτε]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Every one except yours and mine.

And mine. 

Actually, not yours.

[jks19714]

If National insists on lusting after triangles, I wonder how long it will be until we see this on our uniforms.  At least the other folks wearing this particular triangle don't have to wear day-glo ultrmarine.

Been there, worn that, but not on my T-Shirt. 

The good news was that the S. Koreans weren't sure whether to salute me or not...

[SarDragon]

Reformatted to get around the quote limitation.

MSG Mac sez: The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

davidsinn sez: Every one except yours [FL] and mine [IN].

SarDragon sez: And mine [CA].

ß τ ε sez: Actually, not yours.

So, what are you trying to say? AFAIK, all three of the noted wings require the wing patch on BDUs. Am I missing something here? Help me understand.

[ßτε]

The current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 doesn't require a Wing Patch on BDUs.

[SarDragon]

The current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 doesn't require a Wing Patch on BDUs.

Well hush ma mouf! I guess I can take all my wing patches off now. 

[RVT]

The current CAWG Supplement to CAPM 39-1 doesn't require a Wing Patch on BDUs.

So unless we are wearing that orange shirt ground team outfit we don't need a wing patch at all.  However theres nothing else you can put on the right shoulder of BDU's in place of it.  They moved all that stuff to the left pocket.

It would have been a lot simpler to just say to replace the wing patch with a US Flag and leave everything else where it was.

[JC004]

LMAO.  The various explanations/"rationale" for the Triangle Thingy approval made me laugh.  They're hysterical.  They're self-contradictory (like saying adding an additional logo supports consistency).  They rely on looking at what logos the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard use rather than considering any standard marketing and branding practices. 

I'm going to propose to my organization that we add random, optional logos.  The board will laugh at me, but that's fine. 

:clap:  Thanks for the laugh, guys.

[Ned]

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

The RCLS agenda item was just postponed to allow curriculum work to be completed before any final decision.

At least we are meeting in a room with free wifi . . . .

[MSG Mac]

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

They're all watching the royal wedding

[Spaceman3750]

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

The RCLS agenda item was just postponed to allow curriculum work to be completed before any final decision.

At least we are meeting in a room with free wifi . . . .

It's stuttering at times, but they gave us a disclaimer to that effect.

[Smokey]

OH no......the triangle thingy is being discussed

[Ned]

OH no......the triangle thingy is being discussed

And they are discussing the very points that have been raised here -

• We already have three or so logos
  
  
• They are even using the word "branding" in the discussion
  
  
•   Why should it be optional?  Should we use and stick to a single choice?
  
  
• Compare this to the updated and current ARC and YMCA lgogs.
  
  
• Shouldn't we have a "non-military style" logo available when we partner/outreach to educational organizations in AE and STEM work?  IOW, different logos for different constiutencies.
  
  

It's actually a reasoned discussion.

[Ned]

And it returns to committee to specifically consider logos and branding.  Goal is to reduce rather than increase.

[JC004]

And it returns to committee to specifically consider logos and branding.  Goal is to reduce rather than increase.

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

Victory!

What, no comments on the web stream?  You guys are unnaturally quiet.  Makes me nervious.   

People were quiet because they were busy poking their NEC members with sharp sticks.  Others were hiding in case they needed to revolt, should they have approved it.

[WESSginger]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's

Alabama wing does not require you to wear the Wing Patch.

[RADIOMAN015]

OH no......the triangle thingy is being discussed

And they are discussing the very points that have been raised here -

• We already have three or so logos
  
  
• They are even using the word "branding" in the discussion
  
  
•   Why should it be optional?  Should we use and stick to a single choice?
  
  
• Compare this to the updated and current ARC and YMCA lgogs.
  
  
• Shouldn't we have a "non-military style" logo available when we partner/outreach to educational organizations in AE and STEM work?  IOW, different logos for different constiutencies.
  
  

It's actually a reasoned discussion.

Well before the video feed frozen permanently the National HQ Staff member did make what I think was an important observation -- It does differentiate us because our command patch is in the same shape and general format as every other military as well as federal agency uses, so you really have to get very close to the individual to see it is CAP.  I would agree with him on that.  HOWEVER, when you start to talk about one mandatory patch/logo pin, you are talking a lot of money to get this changed over for the entire membership and logistically can our vendor even support it

Why not just have it as an option for a few years and see IF it really makes any difference     Frankly the reason CAP isn't known well is because we lack an appropriate public relations plan being properly implemented to various target markets (which CAP seems to ignore in ANY of the marketing/public relations plans).   I also think on disaster relief and other missions the use of military uniforms (especially BDU's) causes public confusion as to who we are.   Maybe we would be better offer ensuring that the CAP ES patch "The Dog with the headphones on" should be mandatory on all Blue & Regular BDU's just as a start.  This would be a good differentiation to me.
RM

       

[Smokey]

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?

[RADIOMAN015]

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?

CIVIL Air Patrol members are not military members and the uniforms need to CLEARLY indicate this.  The Dog ES Patch is a VERY good differentiation (In fact I'm going to buy one and put it on my Blue BDU's).   Unfortunately, the use of the current military uniforms really doesn't differentiate us enough.

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

[Spaceman3750]

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?

CIVIL Air Patrol members are not military members and the uniforms need to CLEARLY indicate this.  The Dog ES Patch is a VERY good differentiation (In fact I'm going to buy one and put it on my Blue BDU's).   Unfortunately, the use of the current military uniforms really doesn't differentiate us enough.

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

So then go join the Red Cross & Salvation Army :angel:. They need good volunteers, and they both wear red!

[Eclipse]

sort of like the Red Cross & The Salvation Army

First, there is no other organization like the Civil Air Patrol, we are unique in our charter and capabilities, so comparisons to organizations that occasionally perform work in the same space as us is inappropriate, second, the ARC and SA have less tolerance for empty shirts and people who ignore their training
requirements than CAP.

[JC004]

...
Why not just have it as an option for a few years and see IF it really makes any difference     Frankly the reason CAP isn't known well is because we lack an appropriate public relations plan being properly implemented to various target markets (which CAP seems to ignore in ANY of the marketing/public relations plans).
...

Optional and additional logos are CONTRARY to effective marketing plans.

[RADIOMAN015]

sort of like the Red Cross & The Salvation Army

First, there is no other organization like the Civil Air Patrol, we are unique in our charter and capabilities, so comparisons to organizations that occasionally perform work in the same space as us is inappropriate, second, the ARC and SA have less tolerance for empty shirts and people who ignore their training
requirements than CAP.

I think the Red Cross is happy with whomever they can get to volunteer (they are always looking for volunteers in my area).   Again with CAP, do people join CAP because they want to LOOK LIKE THEY ARE IN THE MILITARY, or do they join CAP because of CAP's stated missions/objectives    You know as well as I that many of our missions can be performed with a CAP logo golf shirt with NO mission impairment.  Surely when one gets in the field, appropriate field gear is needed (which by the way is NOT cotton CAP BDU type uniforms/field jackets which in fact are a danger in most severe weather environments).  Frankly maybe the simplest differentiation is having the  triangle thing on an orange reflective vest (which meets the new safety standards)  and just wear the safest clothing for the environment, whatever that would be.
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.

[EMT-83]

... I think the Red Cross is happy with whomever they can get to volunteer (they are always looking for volunteers in my area)...

Actually, ARC has very strict training requirements for their volunteers who, by the way, must undergo a background investigation not unlike ours.

Don't confuse a "spontaneous volunteer" who may be of limited use during an immediate crisis situation, with a trained ARC volunteer.

[Spaceman3750]

... I think the Red Cross is happy with whomever they can get to volunteer (they are always looking for volunteers in my area)...

Actually, ARC has very strict training requirements for their volunteers who, by the way, must undergo a background investigation not unlike ours.

Don't confuse a "spontaneous volunteer" who may be of limited use during an immediate crisis situation, with a trained ARC volunteer.

Actually, ARC's is a bit more thorough than ours. Ours looks for felonies and child abuse type stuff only. ARC does a full background check, runs a credit report, and checks references.

[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?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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).

I had an opportunity to do just that this past week.  I was on my way home from a unit meeting and I stopped for a quick bite to eat.  I was wearing my CSU, which I will wear up until 11:59:59 31 December 2011.  I was in and out in 15 minutes, and as I was leaving, the cleaning crew came up to me before I got into my car.  They said, "we've been trying to figure out which service you're in."  I told them I was a Captain in the Civil Air Patrol, the volunteer Auxiliary of the United States Air Force, and a little about our mission.

Their only comment had nothing to do with uniforms, "wannabe" status, etc.

All they said was "man, you should get paid for that!"

As to your supposed "reasons" why people join CAP ("to look like they're in the military"), is that the result of quantifiable research on your part or your own suppositions based on your own distaste for the quasi-military aspects of CAP, which have been there a heck of a lot longer than you and I have?

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

[rmcmanus]

I back the others RM.  For most activities, CAP allows individuals who dislike military-style uniforms to wear those that are more "civilian-like."  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and this forum supports that, but the fact remains that you continually restate your dislike for the military relationship of CAP at every opportunity; regardless of the topic under discussion. 

[AirDX]

the ARC and SA have less tolerance for empty shirts and people who ignore their training requirements than CAP.

+1

[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?

[cap235629]

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?

[Spaceman3750]

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?

I'm actually way more proud of my GTL badge than that stupid ES patch.

[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.

[RiverAux]

I would even argue against a statement that Regions are "management level" since they have almost no direct control over anything in day to day CAP life.  As far as I can tell their only real function is to appoint Wing commanders.  Quite frankly they could be done away with and no one would notice since they have so little authority or influence. 

[FW]

Riv,  Regions are for proper "span of control" with NHQ.  The National Commander does not need to deal with 52 wing commanders on a daily basis.  It's too much.  At the Corporate Level, regions are "middle management".  They control aviation assets, liaison with CAP-USAF, and have region conferences and RSC.  Yes, at the unit level, region is basically a non entity; except for members wishing to go to RSC or for cadets participating in NCC. 
Could we survive without regions; maybe.  Do we need them; yes.

[lordmonar]

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.

I disagree.

I don't think any local squadron is a stand alone operational unit for anything larger than a single asset operation.

[Eclipse]

"isn't" doesn't mean "shouldn't be".

We have all heard the stories of days gone by regarding unit with end-to-end qualified people from IC to Ground team and the aircrews.

That is the model CAP is currently based on.  The fact that we are understaffed and have allowed units to specialize at their whim doesn't
change the model.  Groups, Wings, and Regions are supposed to be responsible for the coordination of assets, plans, programs, and compliance,
not, by design staffing a Ground Team or running a mission base.

The fact that many of our members are triple-billeted, or that most ES response brings members from all over a respective wing, doesn't make
the headquarters components "operational".

Further, Groups, Wings, and Regions are outward-facing organizations charged with providing services to the units and the members.  Units are inward-facing organizations charged with the training and utilization of the rank-and-file membership.

[lordmonar]

No...I don't think you understand what I am saying...

Even in the old days.....no single squadron could do anything other than soritie single assests.

Unless they owned 4 aircraft and 3 vans.

My point is....My squadron may have 1 or even 2 air planes....and a van.    Any operation that requires more then two aircraft and one gound team automatically becomes a group/wing level operation.  My squadron may still be doing the core of the work covering all the mission base staff positions......but it is now a wing operation.

[Eclipse]

A "wing-level operation" does not make the echelon known as "Wing" "operational", it means that it takes operational units from all over the state
to complete the mission.  That's not the same thing.

The actors and assets come form the units, not the Group, Wing, or Region.  Having a few players from the -001 charters doesn't make them "operational" components.  Their role in the flow chart is administrative, and in a perfect, fully-staffed world they would not be field assets.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse,

Even in the AD USAF squadrons are not stand alone operational units.  The local squadron commander is tasked with training, equiping and manning his unit to performed assigned missions.

It is at the wing that "operations" are conducted.

Same is true with CAP.

Wings and Groups are as much operational as a local squadron....in fact the are more operational as a cadet squadon by definition is not operational at all....or else it would be a composite squadron.

So by definition there are NO non-operational wings.  They all do the planning and conducting of operations......even if the Hommer J. Simpson Composite Squadron is able to operate independantly.

[Eclipse]

Perhaps we are stuck on the terminology.  For starters, a lot of people take exception when we only consider ES "operations", in fact, anything which is "doing" is "operations" in a CAP context.  Groups, Wings, and Regions do not have weekly meetings where they are training their members to be scanners, or doing drill, in fact Groups, Wings, and Regions aren't really supposed to have cadets assigned to them as their home squadron.

By design, Groups, Wings, and Region are the planners and administrators.

Local Squadrons are supposed to be the "doers".

Anything outside of that is an anomaly of our low membership numbers and circular reporting relationships, not the design of the system.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

For starters, a lot of people take exception when we only consider ES "operations", in fact, anything which is "doing" is "operations" in a CAP context.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[JC004]

...
By design, Groups, Wings, and Region are the planners and administrators.

Local Squadrons are supposed to be the "doers".

Anything outside of that is an anomaly of our low membership numbers and circular reporting relationships, not the design of the system.

What if they just plan to plan and administrate rather than do planning and administration?  Is it ok just to plan to plan if their function is to plan?

[LTC Don]

All verbiage aside, the command structure as stated in 20-1 isn't ambiguous.  It clearly spells out the high-level command chain in the org chart (see attached screenshot).  It doesn't say under CAP Regions (8 'sort of' Commands)    It's pretty clear on that point.

So, wear of the various command level patches on the flightsuit as the USAF does it, would bring us in closer conformity, which I would support.  USAF commanders are given the option to allow their aircrew to wear the US flag in place of their wing patch on the left sleeve. Squadron patches are worn on the right sleeve.

USAF BDU wear, has the MajCommand patch worn on the right breast pocket, and the Wing patch worn on the left breast pocket, and where authorized, the squadron patch on the right, above the nametape.  Again, a clear chain of command present. 

Being that we wear full color patches however, I could see where it gets pretty gaudy looking, as it does now with the ES patch worn upper right.

USAF AFI 36-2903 - http://www.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-2903.pdf

How does this relate to the triangle emblem now in committee.  It really doesn't.  BUT.  I could support replacing the older CAP Emblem with the present MajCom shield which is really a good looking emblem, but not in addition to.  It makes no sense whatsoever to add to the stable of quite acceptable logos/emblems representing the organization.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

To really be pedantic, wouldn't the AETC MAJCOM shield figure into the mix somehow?  (Probably not.)

But, yes, I do agree with the crest order some have suggested.

I don't know how it's done now, but I remember that neither the ANG or AFRES wore their crests on BDU's/flight suits, or if they did, I didn't see it.  They wore the crest of their gaining command: MAC, TAC, SAC, ADC, ADTAC etc.  To further complicate things, most Guard/Reserve wings/groups had units (comms, intell) that would have been gained by other higher units, like Air Force Communications Command, but still wore the MAC/TAC/SAC shields.

I would, however, go back to the MAJCOM shield that had "U.S. AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" on the scroll, with "CAP" underneath the propeller.  There is currently nothing on our field/utility uniforms that denotes any connection to the Air Force, unlike our nameplates on other orders of dress.

[PHall]

To really be pedantic, wouldn't the AETC MAJCOM shield figure into the mix somehow?  (Probably not.)

But, yes, I do agree with the crest order some have suggested.

I don't know how it's done now, but I remember that neither the ANG or AFRES wore their crests on BDU's/flight suits, or if they did, I didn't see it.  They wore the crest of their gaining command: MAC, TAC, SAC, ADC, ADTAC etc.  To further complicate things, most Guard/Reserve wings/groups had units (comms, intell) that would have been gained by other higher units, like Air Force Communications Command, but still wore the MAC/TAC/SAC shields.

I would, however, go back to the MAJCOM shield that had "U.S. AIR FORCE AUXILIARY" on the scroll, with "CAP" underneath the propeller.  There is currently nothing on our field/utility uniforms that denotes any connection to the Air Force, unlike our nameplates on other orders of dress.

AFRC now requires that the AFRC MAJCOM patch to be worn now. The gaining MAJCOM patch is no longer worn. IIRC the same rules also apply to the ANG too.

[A.Member]

Item 8.  Approving the Triangle Thingy.  Interesting that they're seeking approval from the NEC to do what they've already been doing with the triangle thingy.  And one of the support comments mentions they are in favor of the proposed action because it will promote consistency, when in fact the proposed action simply adds the triangle thingy as yet another optional (up to 5 now), approved, current logo/seal/emblem without eliminating any of the other 4 still on the books.   

They use vague and fairly incorrect references to the Army and Air Force recruiting logos (conveniently without mentioning that those have restricted uses and are just one piece of an expensive, well-thought-out, and comprehensive brand system) as justification that CAP needs another emblem for general use along side all the others. 

And the proposed action fails to even proscribe when we should use our different logo/seal/emblems.  It's all optional if that passes.  Wanna use the seal on your squadron letterhead?  Sure.  The squadron in the next city over will be using the triangle thingy, and the Group HQ will be using the command shield.  That way we'll be sure to look like 3 different organizations to the public.

  I wish for once NHQ would consult outside industry experts when proposing things of this nature.

I couldn't agree more - particularly with the last sentence.   If they really want to make a change (and I don't think one is needed, other than to cease use of the triangle thingy), then it's time to put the amateur-hour stuff aside and get people with real industry expertise involved. 

With all due respect, agenda item 8 the triangle/propeller logo was probably written by the person who created the thing.  Either way, he clearly does not understanding branding.  The "background information" is filled with opinion and the justifications offered were, well..."misguided" (to be kind). 

[Ed Bos]

AFRC now requires that the AFRC MAJCOM patch to be worn now. The gaining MAJCOM patch is no longer worn. IIRC the same rules also apply to the ANG too.

The AF Reserves wear the Reserve MAJCOM patch. The ANG is not a MAJCOM, and Guardsmen continue to wear the MAJCOM patch for the gaining MAJCOM.

The only item I am not sure about is with regard to National Guard of the US, and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau folks... I believe they may wear the Air National Guard shield-style patch, but I'm not sure.

[Slim]

The only item I am not sure about is with regard to National Guard of the US, and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau folks... I believe they may wear the Air National Guard shield-style patch, but I'm not sure.

FWIW, our former state TAG here used to wear the ANG MAJCOM patch, as did all of the permanent party AGR people at the CRTC where we hold our encampment.

[PHall]

AFRC now requires that the AFRC MAJCOM patch to be worn now. The gaining MAJCOM patch is no longer worn. IIRC the same rules also apply to the ANG too.

The AF Reserves wear the Reserve MAJCOM patch. The ANG is not a MAJCOM, and Guardsmen continue to wear the MAJCOM patch for the gaining MAJCOM.

The only item I am not sure about is with regard to National Guard of the US, and Headquarters, National Guard Bureau folks... I believe they may wear the Air National Guard shield-style patch, but I'm not sure.

Most of the Air Guard folks I've seen out here in California were sporting the ANG patch on their flight suits.
Don't know if it's a CA ANG policy or not, but it's what I have seen.

[Ed Bos]

^^ Most of the California Air Guard folks I know don't.

[PHall]

^^ Most of the California Air Guard folks I know don't.

Come out to March...