Wing Patches and AF Heraldry standards

[RiverAux]

Okay, so we know that CAP does not have any national standards for Wing, Group, or Squadron patches.  Some here have argued that we should either adopt by reference the AF standards (summarized here: http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/heraldry/heraldry.html ) or come up with something on our own in an attempt to standardize them to some extent. 

So, I was wondering how many CAP wing patches would meet the current AF standards if we adopted them.  Basically, AF wing patches use a shield shape (like the CAP command patch).  So, I went to Vanguard to look at the current patches and here is what I found:

Would you be surprised to learn that there isn't a single CAP wing that currently has a patch appropriate for a Wing level organization?  While there are a handful of Wings with something that is shield-shaped, none of them were exactly the right type of shield.  The predominant shape is the round shape appropriate for squadrons (according to AF standards).

So, if we went to the AF standards, or something very similar, we would find all our Wings out of compliance.  Personally, I bet all existing patches would be "grandfathered", and that only if a Wing wanted to change their patch would they have to meet the standard.  So, we would probably be stuck with "non-standard" patches for decades. 

Now, down at the squadron level I think we would see change more quickly.  Since they seem much more likely to make changes (because they ran out of the old patches or they never had one before, or at least not in recent memory), we would probably see most of them start to come into compliance sooner. 

[Major Carrales]

I think this is a bit of a non-issue. 

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, there is not any mandate to do so.  I suspect there never will be since CAP tradition and USAF tradition, while linked by the Auxiliary status, are rooted in very different traditions.

First off, the nature of the CAP's inception and creation of the Wings, local traditions going back to the 1940s mean that many of these patches are historical markers in their own sense.

Now, how and why would standardization of these patches benefit the units beyond extra cost? 

If you wanted a case of the famous MAJOR CARRALES hyperbole...I could see the perfect standardization of CAP Wing Patches to be like the Florida model with the CAP National "Cookie" with a rocker of the state's name.  Imagine that.

All the above is respectully submitted to spur debate and discussion.

[RiverAux]

As I said, I expect existing patches to be grandfathered in so extra cost wouldn't be an issue.  Just for reference, the AF would treat it differently -- they would require the patches to be changed to meet new standards.

Personally, I think having some standards is important to avoid getting more comic book characters and other just plain goofy patches being approved.  At the Wing level, I don't see this as much of a problem since they don't change very often anyway. 

I'm not quite as hung up on the shape of the patch, but it was an easy thing to research.  If I were to start a thread about which wing patches wouldn't meet my "goofiness" standards, that would be something else.   

But, if we were to adopt any sort of standrards for new patches, I don't see any reason for not adopting the AF way of doing things as long as we're writing a reg (or adopting their's by reference). 

[Major Carrales]

As the Commander of a Unit that has a patch with a so called "Comic Book" character on it I respectfully disagree. 

A few points, if I may, you expect existing patches to be grandfathered in so extra cost wouldn't be an issue.  Do you expect any new States or Commonwealths to be added to the Union?  If not, then your plan lacks solvency issues.  There is no significant reason, such as a mandate from the USAF or pressing matter, to do so.  It may harm tradition and it presents an issue of inherency in that the existing patches currrently exist and are in wear.

If the standards you set are your own, I will grant you your opinion.  I will also grant you that if there is to be a standard, then the USAF one is preferred.

[ThorntonOL]

If I remember right some of the goofy cartoony patchs have been around for quite a while, an have a histroy to them as Major Carrales said.

[RiverAux]

The primary reason for standards is for squadron patches.  As I said, they seem to change or new ones come into existence much more frequently and that is the area most patch-related discussions on this board have focused on.  I was just bringing the Wing patch situation to light as an interesting (to me) side note.  

Now that I think about it, changing Wing patches would probably be the easiest thing to do.  Think about it -- for squadron patches the squadron has to go through all the trouble of ordering them special made, but Wing patches are all made by Vanguard (or at least ordered by them).  Its not like Minnesota Wing has to send a shipment off to Vanguard to sell every year.

So, if we wanted to require Wings to meet the new standards, all you would have to do is set a deadline for the Wings to come up with a new design, have them send that design to Vanguard, and then say that after a certain date the only patches being sold would be the new ones.  Let all the patches currently sewn on uniforms be worn until no longer servicable.  This would get most of the old patches out of circulation within 5-10 years.  You could set a phase-out date for the old patches, but I wouldn't prefer it (cost/time and trouble issue).  

I certainly wouldn't require all squadrons with existing patches to change them to meet the standard since that would put a big burden and some cost directly on the squadrons.  And, lets face it, not all squadrons have the artistic or technical ability to come up with new designs anyway.  They just might not have the talent at any given time to do so.  So, I would let them keep the old ones and say that if you want to change anything, you'll need to also need to meet the new standard when you do so.  

[mikeylikey]

[RiverAux]

That isn't what Vanguard is picturing on their web site.  http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_402_404&products_id=7164

So, not my fault (always blame Vanguard when you can!)

But, its nice to know at least one would work.

[AlphaSigOU]

If the current USAF heraldic standard were applied to historic emblems, you'd see something like this (this is ONLY a comparison, though):

Historic 8th Air Force emblem:


Current 8th Air Force emblem:


Many of the traditional CAP wing patches would probably retain their design with minor changes to make them fit the shield shape; for the more unusually-shaped patches, retaining the traditional shape within the shield wouldn't be too difficult.

[mikeylikey]

The round wing patches are a throwback to the Army.  Anyway, in my opinion, Wing Patches have no place on the AF-style ANYTHING uniform.  The National Commander needs to update the policy letter, stating "Remove all wing patches, and they are no longer an optional item to be mandated by the wing Commanders".

Get rid of the patches, when the ABU's are approved.  In fact, we should follow strict guidelines established by the AF for the ABU and badges, patches and bling.  If AF doesn't wear equivalent item, CAP does not wear it.  I think on ABU's you can wear 1 Occupational badge and wings.  SO CAP should be "One specialty badge and Wings".  

   

[MIKE]

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, ...

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

[AlphaSigOU]

The round wing patches are a throwback to the Army.  Anyway, in my opinion, Wing Patches have no place on the AF-style ANYTHING uniform.  The National Commander needs to update the policy letter, stating "Remove all wing patches, and they are no longer an optional item to be mandated by the wing Commanders".

However, there will be a guaranteed revolt by certain wing kings (and queens) if that ever happened. "They'll pry the wing patch off my cold, dead left shoulder!"

[Major Carrales]

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

In terms of the rethoric here, most people of consequence support the USAF guideline; however we run into a rather strange happenstance.

1) most on here are not on the "committee" that produces the patches or the like and has no say in the matter.

2) Most are proud of their local patch designed locally and sometime with lots of tradition, so they have a sort of "Janus" view where they want a patch that conformes to the USAF but they also want their patch and its tradition to continue.

3) The cost of producing a new design is somewhat less than in the budget and most houses offering the service offer only certain shapes.  Custom is a bit more than people are willing to pay.

[Hawk200]

I think on ABU's you can wear 1 Occupational badge and wings.

Current message on the ABU says this:

"11. AERONAUTICAL, CHAPLAIN, AND OCCUPATIONAL BADGES AND REQUIRED DUTY SHIELDS ARE AUTHORIZED. OCCUPATIONAL BADGES ARE OPTIONAL. OTHER BADGES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. AFI 36-2903, TABLE 5.2, NOTE 5, APPLIES TO THE ABU: A MAXIMUM OF THREE BADGES CAN BE WORN, WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO ABOVE THE US AIR FORCE TAPE ON THE LEFT SIDE. A THIRD BADGE MAY BE WORN IF AUTHORIZED FOR PLACEMENT ON THE LEFT BREAST POCKET. THERE IS NO BADGE, PATCH OR INSIGNIA AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR ON THE RIGHT POCKET."

The practice of a badge only, or a badge and a wing went away when McPeak left. Allegedly, when McPeak was asked why only aircrew were allowed more than one, he supposedly said that those not aircrew didn't have any need to display a prior career field. (Note that I did say allegedly). The practice was discontinued when Fogleman took office.

With the current -2903, two sets of wings may actually be worn. From Table 5-2, Note 2 says: " When more than 1 aeronautical or space badge is worn, the second badge becomes optional."

As far as patches go, there are many people that have stated "We are not the Air Force". I think that a few patches would be fine, especially wing on one pocket, unit on the other, and a third "personal award" patch over the nametape. We need to keep stuff off sleeves, except NCO stripes. Wearing patches would differentiate us from the Air Force. Done tastefully (IOW no garish colors), it would look fine.

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, ...

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

I'd have to agree. There are a lot of units that have AF Heraldy type shapes, but I wouldn't agree with most.

[RiverAux]

1) most on here are not on the "committee" that produces the patches or the like and has no say in the matter.

If having any actual authority to order or recommend any change was a pre-requisite, not much would be discussed on CAP-Talk at all. 

[Major Carrales]

1) most on here are not on the "committee" that produces the patches or the like and has no say in the matter.

If having any actual authority to order or recommend any change was a pre-requisite, not much would be discussed on CAP-Talk at all. 

I'm talking about authority in the unit. 

For example, many who post here are not in their Squadron's commander. 

In fact, and this is not meant to be an insult to anyone, but one might conjecture that some people who might express certain things on certain matters on these forums likely do so because they are not in position in their sphere to change those things.  That is simply human nature. 

Thus, a person who might spout "out here" that all patches should conform to the standards, likely is in a unit where they could not make that a reality. Who knows, its possible.

That is a conjectural construct to prove the point, however, not being in a position to implement one's agenda is a fact of life in lots of circles.

[RiverAux]

I think you're making a big assumption there that is beside the point anyway.  As it stands now, squadrons, groups, or wings can design their patch the way they want and the only opinion that matters is that of the Wing Commander and they are under no obligation to follow AF standards, as I said at the beginning of the thread.  Though, I think I recall hearing that some wings do have heraldry standards that the Wing Commander would have to take into account (though he could change them too if he wanted). 

[Major Carrales]

I think you're making a big assumption there that is beside the point anyway. 

Yes, that was a big assumption.  I made it on purpose to highlight what migth be true with many.  It was not directed at anyone, but likely pretains to some.

Fact is, if you were a member of a unit that had a patch, and you wanted to make it conform to the mentioned standards, and the unit command and other CAP Officers were against the change...you would have little say, recourse nor chance of making your agenda (making the patch conform) come to frution.

[RiverAux]

If your wing has heraldry rules, please post them here for examples:

Here is Indiana Wing:http://inwg.cap.gov/Wing/Sections/Admin/Supplements/CAPM39-1,%20Sup%201.pdf

NOTES:
3. (ADDED) Organizations need visible symbols in the form of emblems to promote esprit de corps, morale, and a sense of heritage. New organizational emblems approved by the Indiana Wing Commander must meet the following requirements effective 1 Jul 07:
a. Eligibility. Groups and squadrons may have organizational emblems and mottoes. If a group or squadron uses or displays an emblem designed after 1 July 07, it must meet the following standards.
b. Approval Process: Units will submit an approval memorandum, through channels, for the Wing Commander's signature with a color picture file of the proposed unit emblem attached. An explanation of the symbolism of the patch should also be provided.
c. Form:
1) Groups: Group emblems will be displayed on a shield (see figure to the right). A group will put its designation or an approved motto on the scroll below the shield.
2) Squadrons: Squadron emblems will be displayed on a roundel (see figure to the right). A squadron will put its designation on a scroll below the disc and a motto, if one exists, on the scroll above the disk.
d. Heraldry. Designers are encouraged to look for Air Force heraldry
guidance at http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/heraldry/heraldry.html.
Emblem designs and mottoes must:
* Reflect favorably on Indiana Wing, Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force, and the United States of America.
* Be original, distinctive, dignified, and in good taste (non-controversial).
* Emblems should include the Air Force colors of blue and gold and/or the Civil Air Patrol colors of red, white and blue. Total colors should generally not exceed three for the emblem.
* Emblems should typically include two or three design elements. Designers are reminded that clarity of design is important in helping others identify the unit emblem

IL Wing has an entire supplement: http://ilcap.org/ilsups/ILWGP1.pdf which seems to contain an exact copy of the AF heraldry web page I cited in the opening post. 

[Eclipse]

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, ...

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

I agree, the only time people want to conform is if it doesn't mean they have to redesign theirs.

My wing currently has two patches - a "wing patch" which does not meet the guidelines, but would fall under the
"historical"allowances, and a command shield, recently adopted, for wear only by those on Wing staff as their "unit insignia".

IL Wing has an entire supplement: http://ilcap.org/ilsups/ILWGP1.pdf which seems to contain an exact copy of the AF heraldry web page I cited in the opening post. 

All units in ILWG creating new insignia are now held to the guidelines, and units with non-standard shapes and insignia are encouraged to consider redesigns.  I will take a chunk or credit on this as before we did our shield they had no idea there even >were< guidelines.

The supplement also includes an authoritative listing of all the heralds approved in the wing, which serves as authorization to wear it on the utility and flight suit as an option on the right shoulder.  You'd be amazed how many units never bothered to have their insignias reviewed and approved, which did cause some gnashing for a few.