Emergency Service patch

[FO Ford]

Does anyone know if we have to wear the Emergency Service patch on the BDU, if you are Ground Team and wear the badge on the BDU, or is it optional?

[Hawk200]

There is really no "have to wear" on the BDU, other than name, CAP, rank, and flag. Everything else is pretty much optional.

The ES patch is kinda superfluous if you're wearing a GT badge. The eligibility to wear the patch is "Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification." Ground team meets that criteria.

I have a couple sets of BDUs that only have the bare minimum.

[Airrace]

There is really no "have to wear" on the BDU, other than name, CAP, rank, and flag. Everything else is pretty much optional.

The ES patch is kinda superfluous if you're wearing a GT badge. The eligibility to wear the patch is "Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification." Ground team meets that criteria.

I wear my emergency service patch on my flight suit.

I have a couple sets of BDUs that only have the bare minimum.

[Hawk200]

I wear my emergency service patch on my flight suit.

Permissable, but not relevant to the original post.

[DrDave]

The ES patch is kinda superfluous if you're wearing a GT badge. The eligibility to wear the patch is "Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification." Ground team meets that criteria.

Where is this from?  Which regulation?

Thanks,
Dr. Dave

[Eclipse]

[opinion]
The Sardog and aircraft ES patches are generally worn by newer members who want shiny things on their uniforms.
[/opinion]
I, most of my staff, and those I work with on a regular basis, shed the extra bling several years ago when the wing patches were made optional.  I don't even have a unit patch on most of my field uniforms, and I'm the "unit insignia guy".   I just like the cleaner look of tapes and specialty.

I'd say in my AOR its more unusual to see one these days than not.

[JC004]

DIE DOG PATCH, DIE!   

[Eclipse]

Assuming the Commander's badge is ever approved, they will need to reconsider the SARDog's placement
anyway, and I'm hoping that its simply fades into the past...

[JC004]

I don't think so.  It's a great way to get less people to wear it. 

[DC]

The ES patch is kinda superfluous if you're wearing a GT badge. The eligibility to wear the patch is "Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification." Ground team meets that criteria.

Where is this from?  Which regulation?

Thanks,
Dr. Dave

CAPR 35-6

[CadetProgramGuy]

a while ago when I used to be a regular visitor to the State EOC, I was approached and politly asked (by CAP members) to ditch the bling from my uniform.  There was a need to look "normal" to our hosts, as opposed to a walking x-mas tree.

[Airrace]

The ES patch is kinda superfluous if you're wearing a GT badge. The eligibility to wear the patch is "Current and qualified in accordance with CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions as a general emergency services member with one additional specialty qualification." Ground team meets that criteria.

Where is this from?  Which regulation?

Thanks,
Dr. Dave

CAPR 35-6

Here is the link in case you need to find more information.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/u_082203095100.pdf

[Gunner C]

There is really no "have to wear" on the BDU, other than name, CAP, rank, and flag. Everything else is pretty much optional.

I made a quick trip to the 39-1 . . . didn't see anything about the backwards flag.  it was in a an ICL dated 25 Jan 2008, which has since expired.  Name tape, CAP tape, and rank insignia are pretty much it.  Wearing Goofy is definitely optional.

[Eclipse]

a while ago when I used to be a regular visitor to the State EOC, I was approached and politly asked (by CAP members) to ditch the bling from my uniform.  There was a need to look "normal" to our hosts, as opposed to a walking x-mas tree.

Another good point.  I noticed the other day in a training film from the early 00's that the USAF had just as many patches, actually more, on their BDU's as we do - the major difference was they were subdued.

There's a few departments out there that are patch-happy, especially rescue squads and EMA's, but most generally have pretty "quiet" tactical uniforms.

[Hawk200]

There is really no "have to wear" on the BDU, other than name, CAP, rank, and flag. Everything else is pretty much optional.

I made a quick trip to the 39-1 . . . didn't see anything about the backwards flag.  it was in a an ICL dated 25 Jan 2008, which has since expired.  Name tape, CAP tape, and rank insignia are pretty much it.  Wearing Goofy is definitely optional.

Which is where the membership got left holding the bag. If all those authorized uniform items had been written into a supplement to the manual, this wouldn't have been an issue.

The flag isn't "backwards", it's a right hand flag. It still faces forward when worn. It would have been wiser to use a left hand one, and wear it on the left. It would be nice if the National Board cleaned up some of the things that HWSRN brought in.

a while ago when I used to be a regular visitor to the State EOC, I was approached and politly asked (by CAP members) to ditch the bling from my uniform.  There was a need to look "normal" to our hosts, as opposed to a walking x-mas tree.

Another good point.  I noticed the other day in a training film from the early 00's that the USAF had just as many patches, actually more, on their BDU's as we do - the major difference was they were subdued.

There's a few departments out there that are patch-happy, especially rescue squads and EMA's, but most generally have pretty "quiet" tactical uniforms.

I think that this is a place we could clean up our uniforms a bit, and go with "semi subdued" rather than vivid. The items would be brighter than subdued, just not as bright as what we have now.

[FO Ford]

Thanks all for your help, especially Hawk, it cleared things up for me. I just bought new uniforms and was thinking to myself that there is realy no need for the ES patch when the Ground Team badge is on the BDU, and being the cheap scape that I am  , I  really didn't feel like paying the extra $ 1.85 per patch, and then another $3 per patch to get each one sewed on  . So once again thanks   

[Hawk200]

Thanks all for your help, especially Hawk, it cleared things up for me. I just bought new uniforms and was thinking to myself that there is realy no need for the ES patch when the Ground Team badge is on the BDU, and being the cheap scape that I am  , I  really didn't feel like paying the extra $ 1.85 per patch, and then another $3 per patch to get each one sewed on  . So once again thanks   

If you want to save money, sew them on yourself. You know what stitching looks like, just duplicate it. I won't kid you, it will take time. However, if you take the time, you can save yourself a lot of money.

Back in tech school, I took a couple uniforms to the cleaners to have them done. It cost me a lot more than I expected, and I refused to pay anyone to do it again. I've gotten to the point that people swear I did it on a machine, and sometimes don't even believe me when I show them the back of shirt.

But, I must reiterate, you have to take your time. It may take an hour per tape, and about half that for a flag or sewn collar insignia. That could still save you from 5 to 10 bucks per uniform.

[Rotorhead]

Thanks all for your help, especially Hawk, it cleared things up for me. I just bought new uniforms and was thinking to myself that there is realy no need for the ES patch when the Ground Team badge is on the BDU, and being the cheap scape that I am  , I  really didn't feel like paying the extra $ 1.85 per patch, and then another $3 per patch to get each one sewed on  . So once again thanks   

If you want to save money, sew them on yourself. You know what stitching looks like, just duplicate it. I won't kid you, it will take time. However, if you take the time, you can save yourself a lot of money.

Back in tech school, I took a couple uniforms to the cleaners to have them done. It cost me a lot more than I expected, and I refused to pay anyone to do it again. I've gotten to the point that people swear I did it on a machine, and sometimes don't even believe me when I show them the back of shirt.

But, I must reiterate, you have to take your time. It may take an hour per tape, and about half that for a flag or sewn collar insignia. That could still save you from 5 to 10 bucks per uniform.

I use a machine and have become good at it. Now I can do an entire BDU blouses' worth of patches in a few minutes. Doesn't seem worth it to pay someone to do it anymore.

[Fifinella]

DIE DOG PATCH, DIE!   

+1!

[wuzafuzz]

DIE DOG PATCH, DIE!   

+1!

What they said! 

I understand the desire for an ES patch or badge since not everyone does ES.  A professional looking alternative  might find a home on more BDU's, while avoiding the "walking Christmas tree" mentioned earlier. 

[Eclipse]

A professional looking alternative  might find a home on more BDU's, while avoiding the "walking Christmas tree" mentioned earlier.

We'd be better off just adding a couple more specialty badges - maybe a generic "mission staff" badge or similar than re-drawing the ES patch.  That would give those who complain that without the SARDog they get no recognition for their ES quals something to wear and dim our uniforms a bit.

[arajca]

A professional looking alternative  might find a home on more BDU's, while avoiding the "walking Christmas tree" mentioned earlier.

We'd be better off just adding a couple more specialty badges - maybe a generic "mission staff" badge or similar than re-drawing the ES patch.  That would give those who complain that without the SARDog they get no recognition for their ES quals something to wear and dim our uniforms a bit.

Gee, I submited this very idea about a year before the IC badge was created. Obviously, it didn't take.

[Hawk200]

I understand the desire for an ES patch or badge since not everyone does ES.  A professional looking alternative  might find a home on more BDU's, while avoiding the "walking Christmas tree" mentioned earlier.

I can see this. As of late, I've forgone the Pluto patch on BDU's. A badge to replace it would be a good idea. A badge with the same criteria as the existing patch.

I would add a stipulation that if an individual has already been awarded an ES badge that it would be worn in lieu of the "General ES" badge. For some ES specialties, it would be double dipping to get both.

[Eclipse]

As of late, I've forgone the Pluto patch on BDU's. A badge to replace it would be a good idea. A badge with the same criteria as the existing patch.

I don't mean a badge to replace it, I mean just ramp a few more badges for other ES qualifications and drop Pluto and the plane altogether.

Right now you can wear it if you are GES and "other". Whenever we discuss dropping Pluto, the MSA's get their shorts in a bunch because they won't have anything on their uniforms to show they are involved in ES.

So if there is a SQTR for it, make a badge for it, and / or just make a badge for base operations or something and use that.  With 20 minutes to think about it we could easily slot the various specialties that don't have badges into base/senior/command and get on with our lives.

(Hint: MSA would be base, FASC would be command, etc.)

[Hawk200]

I don't mean a badge to replace it, I mean just ramp a few more badges for other ES qualifications and drop Pluto and the plane altogether.

Right now you can wear it if you are GES and "other". Whenever we discuss dropping Pluto, the MSA's get their shorts in a bunch because they won't have anything on their uniforms to show they are involved in ES.

All those other specialties, including MSA, get the patch. So what's the issue of replacing it with a badge? Nobody loses anything. They gain a badge that looks cleaner than a big bright patch.

What other specialties really need a badge? I think the current badges cover pretty much everything. The continuation of giving everybody something so no one gets left out is a really bad idea. We really need to cease catering to the lowest common denominator.

[Eclipse]

I don't mean a badge to replace it, I mean just ramp a few more badges for other ES qualifications and drop Pluto and the plane altogether.

Right now you can wear it if you are GES and "other". Whenever we discuss dropping Pluto, the MSA's get their shorts in a bunch because they won't have anything on their uniforms to show they are involved in ES.

All those other specialties, including MSA, get the patch. So what's the issue of replacing it with a badge? Nobody loses anything. They gain a badge that looks cleaner than a big bright patch.

What other specialties really need a badge? I think the current badges cover pretty much everything. The continuation of giving everybody something so no one gets left out is a really bad idea. We really need to cease catering to the lowest common denominator.

I agree - but today all we have are ground rating, aircrew, and IC.  None of the other base staff positions.  I'd like the Pluto to just go away, but the complaint I hear, usually on this board, is that Pluto is losing Pluto is "fine" for those of us with a rating that has a badge, and not cricket for all the others.

[Strick]

I hate to add badges , but maybe CAP could create omething similar to the NIMS badge that the National Guard uses.  It is hard for people to take you serious when ou have a Disney character patch on your uniform.  I put my patch on my flight helemt bag.  As a cdet I wore it on the BDU.  Maybe they could redesign the old gas station patch.  I do think we need o clean up our filed uniforms. 

[Hawk200]

I agree - but today all we have are ground rating, aircrew, and IC.  None of the other base staff positions.  I'd like the Pluto to just go away, but the complaint I hear, usually on this board, is that Pluto is losing Pluto is "fine" for those of us with a rating that has a badge, and not cricket for all the others.

In all fairness, I can see the point of those with base staff positions. I don't agree with it, but I can see the point. I do feel that those without some type of ES badge already should have at least something. But I don't think that it should extend to creating different badges for each, or even a grouping of ES type specialties. One patch currently covers them all, no reason one badge couldn't. It would simply be trading one insignia for another.

Just for the record, I don't have any ES qualification badges. Working on my scanner now, but don't think I'll be using that "Mission Scanner" line on my nameplate. Just don't feel like spending money on a nametag.

I hate to add badges , but maybe CAP could create omething similar to the NIMS badge that the National Guard uses.  It is hard for people to take you serious when ou have a Disney character patch on your uniform.  I put my patch on my flight helemt bag.  As a cdet I wore it on the BDU.  Maybe they could redesign the old gas station patch.  I do think we need o clean up our filed uniforms. 

I think the easiest thing to do is just create a badge with the Pluto on it, but I have to agree with the point of being taken seriously with a dog on it. I don't have any ideas, but I'm sure it's possible to find something that says "Emergency Services" that's fitting for CAP (and not copied from another organization).

[DC]

I wouldn't be opposed to creating a Mission Base Staff badge that could cover all the base staff positions with the exception of IC, with the basic, senior and command ratings denoting how far up the chain they are. I would also approve of general 'Aircrew Wings' for both scanners and observers and creating a badge for UDFT members (maybe a GT badge minus the 'GT' inside the triangle?). Keep the current pilot wing, IC and GT badge system and that should pretty well cover it.

That gives everyone a badge, gets them off that ridiculous looking patch, but stops short of creating a thousand individual qual badges for every possible or theoretical ES position.

[Rotorhead]

I think the easiest thing to do is just create a badge with the Pluto on it, but I have to agree with the point of being taken seriously with a dog on it. I don't have any ideas, but I'm sure it's possible to find something that says "Emergency Services" that's fitting for CAP (and not copied from another organization).

Why not just wear the other ES patch? The one with the airplane on it?

[Smithsonia]

On our BDUs - Rotorhead wears the T-34/ES patch. I wear and I love the Pluto patch. Rotorhead is taken seriously. I am comedy relief. It works. Somebody has to go to the staff meetings and someone else has to go to meet the press. 

[Stonewall]

When I was a cadet (i.e. a kid) I thought the ES patch (airplane one) was the bee's knees.   There were no other ES related patches or badges for non-flyers.

As an adult, I took the ES patch off, even before GTM/EMT badges came out.  I can't stand either of them, but the lesser of two evils; go with the airplane ES patch.

[wuzafuzz]

I hate to add badges , but maybe CAP could create omething similar to the NIMS badge that the National Guard uses.  It is hard for people to take you serious when ou have a Disney character patch on your uniform.  I put my patch on my flight helemt bag.  As a cdet I wore it on the BDU.  Maybe they could redesign the old gas station patch.  I do think we need o clean up our filed uniforms.

Is that the MEMS badge?  I've heard you have to pay SGAUS for that one and CAP doesn't currently approve it. Something along those lines would give us ground bound ES types a professional looking badge and replace Pluto and the old T-34.  (Isn't the airplane patch obsolete now?  It does kick butt over Pluto though.) 

Take the GT badge, or something like it, put ES in the middle, and call it good.  Limit of no more than one specialty badge to prevent our uniforms from looking busier than a face full of piercings.  Done.

[wuzafuzz]

I don't mean a badge to replace it, I mean just ramp a few more badges for other ES qualifications and drop Pluto and the plane altogether.

Right now you can wear it if you are GES and "other". Whenever we discuss dropping Pluto, the MSA's get their shorts in a bunch because they won't have anything on their uniforms to show they are involved in ES.

All those other specialties, including MSA, get the patch. So what's the issue of replacing it with a badge? Nobody loses anything. They gain a badge that looks cleaner than a big bright patch.

What other specialties really need a badge? I think the current badges cover pretty much everything. The continuation of giving everybody something so no one gets left out is a really bad idea. We really need to cease catering to the lowest common denominator.

Make it meaningful at the same time.  Or add additional levels to it, so those who go all the way to IC400 aren't mixed in with the lowest common denominator.

[arajca]

As I mentioned before, a proposal was submitted but was never acted upon.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2536.60

I would defintely be ready to update it, if I thought is had a snowball's chance in Hades of being approved.

[wuzafuzz]

As I mentioned before, a proposal was submitted but was never acted upon.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2536.60

I would defintely be ready to update it, if I thought is had a snowball's chance in Hades of being approved.

That was a good discussion, too bad the idea fizzled out.  The point about fewer patches on ABU's had merit as a justfication for a Pluto retirement and ES badge creation.  It's true we might go a different path than the AF, but it might provide better odds of approval this time.  Looks like there would be a few years to work on it pending ABU adoption.

[Hawk200]

Is that the MEMS badge?  I've heard you have to pay SGAUS for that one and CAP doesn't currently approve it.

The MEMS badge requires progression in a practical curriculum to be authorized the badge. It's targeted at State Guard members, but pretty much anyone can go through the program. SGAUS states that current membership is required to wear it.

Program progression details here: http://www.sgaus.org/MEMS.html

Limit of no more than one specialty badge to prevent our uniforms from looking busier than a face full of piercings.

One specialty badge total? That means that a member would not be able to wear observer wings and a ground team badge. Why? There's nothing wrong with two badges overall (other than the fact that the manual doesn't permit it). It looks fine. I wouldn't want it done the Army way with up to five, and I wear an Army uniform too. I just don't think that's appropriate for us.

Make it meaningful at the same time.  Or add additional levels to it, so those who go all the way to IC400 aren't mixed in with the lowest common denominator.

Agreed. I think levels would be a good idea. Something that considers number of qualifications, time performing in those qualifications, minimum number of missions (SAREXs would count) each year. There are people here that could come up with something reasonable, we'd just have to get National to buy off on it.

[wuzafuzz]

Limit of no more than one specialty badge to prevent our uniforms from looking busier than a face full of piercings.

One specialty badge total? That means that a member would not be able to wear observer wings and a ground team badge. Why? There's nothing wrong with two badges overall (other than the fact that the manual doesn't permit it). It looks fine. I wouldn't want it done the Army way with up to five, and I wear an Army uniform too. I just don't think that's appropriate for us.

I thought wings were called aeronautical badges not specialty badges?

[Major Carrales]

Limit of no more than one specialty badge to prevent our uniforms from looking busier than a face full of piercings.

One specialty badge total? That means that a member would not be able to wear observer wings and a ground team badge. Why? There's nothing wrong with two badges overall (other than the fact that the manual doesn't permit it). It looks fine. I wouldn't want it done the Army way with up to five, and I wear an Army uniform too. I just don't think that's appropriate for us.

I thought wings were called aeronautical badges not specialty badges?

This is an example of a post that illustrates the "issue" with most uniform threads here. 

Hawk just provided an excellent reply citing items of logic with a degree of grounding in CAP regs and the spirit of regs when compared to the uniform of another organization and the reply to it did not even mention any of this but instead clings to the minutia of jargon making the entire point somewhat moot.

By the way, aeronautical badges by definition are specialty badges.  But, such arguments of semantics do nothing but allow people to argue over what amounts to really nothing.

Sorry, I felt I had to make the comment.

[wuzafuzz]

Limit of no more than one specialty badge to prevent our uniforms from looking busier than a face full of piercings.

One specialty badge total? That means that a member would not be able to wear observer wings and a ground team badge. Why? There's nothing wrong with two badges overall (other than the fact that the manual doesn't permit it). It looks fine. I wouldn't want it done the Army way with up to five, and I wear an Army uniform too. I just don't think that's appropriate for us.

I thought wings were called aeronautical badges not specialty badges?

This is an example of a post that illustrates the "issue" with most uniform threads here. 

Hawk just provided an excellent reply citing items of logic with a degree of grounding in CAP regs and the spirit of regs when compared to the uniform of another organization and the reply to it did not even mention any of this but instead clings to the minutia of jargon making the entire point somewhat moot.

By the way, aeronautical badges by definition are specialty badges.  But, such arguments of semantics do nothing but allow people to argue over what amounts to really nothing.

Sorry, I felt I had to make the comment.

I asked a question about aeronautical badges for crying out loud.  It wasn't an argument; lighten up.   

You may also notice I was responding to the question Hawk200 posed about my earlier post.  Further, the point of the discussion was to provide awards for accomplishment without looking like "walking Christmas trees."  The spirit of my comments was intended to provide for adequate recognition while establishing reasonable limits to the excessive bling factor.

Disagree with my comments and conclusions if you must, but lets keep it civil and refrain from labeling one anothers'  thought process as an "issue."   

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Short Field]

It is hard for people to take you serious when ou have a Disney character patch on your uniform. 

Good thing the Germans and the Japanese didn't take us seriously in WWII.  From the National Museum of the USAF:

The Insignia Art of Walt Disney Productions During World War II

"The insignia meant a lot to the men who were fighting ... I had to do it ... I owed it to them." 
- Walt Disney, 1901-1966

Walt Disney Productions created approximately 1,200 designs during World War II for both American and Allied military units. Designs were also created for other organizations such as civil defense and war industries. All of this work was done by the studio free-of-charge as a donation to the war effort.

[Strick]

That stuff was fine for that time.............  Come on ........ disney characters on a woodland camo uniform.   Thanks for the histroy lesson on the patches........  Those patches were worn by air crews not on regular G.I uniforms in ground combat.

[Hawk200]

That stuff was fine for that time.............  Come on ........ disney characters on a woodland camo uniform.   Thanks for the histroy lesson on the patches........  Those patches were worn by air crews not on regular G.I uniforms in ground combat.

Our original turned present Pluto patch was worn on our ground uniforms, too. Wasn't limited to aircrews. And Woodland camo was a long way off when it first came out. Back then insignia was brightly colored. The concept of subdued insignia didn't really take until the Vietnam era. For us, it's never happened.

Now the military didn't wear such patches on their ground uniforms. Most ground based uniform insignia have a specific heraldry to them. Disney related characters weren't utilized by the RM on fatigues for the most part.

[Short Field]

And CAP has Ground Combat units manned with Warriors???

[Strick]

And CAP has Ground Combat units manned with Warriors???

Warriors Yes, Ground combat no...  I dont dislike the patch I just think it looks silly on the BDU and that just my thought.   I also think ranger tabs and other CAP patches look goofy but I dont knock people for attending the activity and earning the privlige to wear the article.  I just think we should clean up our uniform

[D2SK]

The ES patch is a CAP merit badge.  Most CAP soccer moms love them.  I do not wear the merit badge or the jiffy lube patch.

[RADIOMAN015]

That stuff was fine for that time.............  Come on ........ disney characters on a woodland camo uniform.   Thanks for the histroy lesson on the patches........  Those patches were worn by air crews not on regular G.I uniforms in ground combat.

Our original turned present Pluto patch was worn on our ground uniforms, too. Wasn't limited to aircrews. And Woodland camo was a long way off when it first came out. Back then insignia was brightly colored. The concept of subdued insignia didn't really take until the Vietnam era. For us, it's never happened.

Now the military didn't wear such patches on their ground uniforms. Most ground based uniform insignia have a specific heraldry to them. Disney related characters weren't utilized by the RM on fatigues for the most part.

Very true, and of course all the military "wanna bees" that are wearing the BDU's etc really don't want to show easy differentiation between CAP & the actual military.

I frankly think this should be a mandatory wear item on all BDU/flight suit  type uniforms.  It allows a VERY easily seen distinction between a CAP member and a "real" military member.  Last time I looked at our mission, we weren't invading countries & communities, so having a more brightly colored patch on the uniform is a great & meets our current motto of "Citizens Serving Above, & Beyond
RM     

[Hawk200]

Warriors Yes, Ground combat no...  I dont dislike the patch I just think it looks silly on the BDU and that just my thought.

I'd be a little interested in your definition of "warrior". CAP today doesn't really fit the definition.

I would agree that our ES patches are a little loud on the BDU.

I also think ranger tabs and other CAP patches look goofy but I dont knock people for attending the activity and earning the privlige to wear the article.  I just think we should clean up our uniform

This is where I'm a little amused. The old ES patch (T-34 patch) wasn't huge, but it was a good sized splash of color on BDU's.

The original new (meaning not the ones from the '50s and '60s) was almost four inches in size. I think the "new new" one is around three.

Now those patches are large in relation to the Hawk tabs, which near as I can tell are all about half inch high, and about three inches wide. Seems like smaller insignia would look "cleaner" than large stuff. Maybe it's a concept to consider. Probably wouldn't fly, but we could market those as "subtle but distinctly different" on a utility uniform to the Air Force. Personally, I'd rather sew something small, so less time adding things to the uniform.

A lot of people think that we should replace the ES patch with something else. A "General ES" badge seems to be the general concensus. Small tabs would certainly be in the same spirit.

And no, I haven't been to Hawk, and don't have any of their awards.

[capchiro]

I have to agree with radioman.  We aren't the military and have no need for subdued anything.  We need to be seen in the field and don't need camoflauge.  And we wouldn't lose all of the cadets.  We have a good program and it's not about the BDU's.  If I had my way, we would all wear BBDU's and keep the colorful patches to make us uniform and singular from any other group.  We should be proud of CAP and have our own uniform and patches and not be second rate military.  I think this would get rid of a lot of our "angst".  And yes, I used to be Real Military myself.  I wore that uniform with pride and I wear our uniform with as much pride.  It's a different outfit and should have a different uniform..  JMHO, as usual.. 

[Hawk200]

Very true, and of course all the military "wanna bees" that are wearing the BDU's etc really don't want to show easy differentiation between CAP & the actual military.

Personally, I resent your ignorant implication that I'm a "wannabe". My BDUs were all issued to me by the military, I just put CAP insignia on them. It's idiotic of you to expect me to purchase Blue BDUs because you dislike military uniforms.

I frankly think this should be a mandatory wear item on all BDU/flight suit  type uniforms.  It allows a VERY easily seen distinction between a CAP member and a "real" military member.  Last time I looked at our mission, we weren't invading countries & communities, so having a more brightly colored patch on the uniform is a great & meets our current motto of "Citizens Serving Above, & Beyond
RM

All right, put your money where your mouth is, and cough up the money for every member to be issued it. Keep in mind that you will have to continue to do so for the duration of CAP's existance, or the duration of the patch, whichever ends first.

When it comes to the difference between CAP and military, the only people that don't know the difference are either ignorant or blind. And when it comes to real military members, they're real or they're not, no quotes apply.

That argument of "we're not invading countries" is old, tired, and useless. You ought to find an organization that doesn't wear them, but then again, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

[Hawk200]

I have to agree with radioman.  We aren't the military and have no need for subdued anything.  We need to be seen in the field and don't need camoflauge.  And we wouldn't lose all of the cadets.

Two words: ORANGE VEST. When you wear one, you can be seen. I guess you forgot the part where they're mandatory.

We have a good program and it's not about the BDU's.

It's not to all senior members, but it is to a lot of cadets. Might want to think about that.

If I had my way, we would all wear BBDU's and keep the colorful patches to make us uniform and singular from any other group.

Yeah, instead of looking military, we'll all look like police. You're just trading one look for another. That's a failed justification.

We should be proud of CAP and have our own uniform and patches and not be second rate military.  I think this would get rid of a lot of our "angst".  And yes, I used to be Real Military myself.  I wore that uniform with pride and I wear our uniform with as much pride.  It's a different outfit and should have a different uniform..  JMHO, as usual..

CAP members are not "second rate military". They're not military at all. Period. If that's what you think, that's you're own feelings. The Air Force seems to think we're useful at times, even though we've had problems because of stupid people.

If you want to change the uniform, then obviously you lack pride in it for some reason.

There are other organizations that do SAR that don't wear military uniforms, look into them.

[Strick]

That stuff was fine for that time.............  Come on ........ disney characters on a woodland camo uniform.   Thanks for the histroy lesson on the patches........  Those patches were worn by air crews not on regular G.I uniforms in ground combat.

Our original turned present Pluto patch was worn on our ground uniforms, too. Wasn't limited to aircrews. And Woodland camo was a long way off when it first came out. Back then insignia was brightly colored. The concept of subdued insignia didn't really take until the Vietnam era. For us, it's never happened.

Now the military didn't wear such patches on their ground uniforms. Most ground based uniform insignia have a specific heraldry to them. Disney related characters weren't utilized by the RM on fatigues for the most part.

Very true, and of course all the military "wanna bees" that are wearing the BDU's etc really don't want to show easy differentiation between CAP & the actual military.

I frankly think this should be a mandatory wear item on all BDU/flight suit  type uniforms.  It allows a VERY easily seen distinction between a CAP member and a "real" military member.  Last time I looked at our mission, we weren't invading countries & communities, so having a more brightly colored patch on the uniform is a great & meets our current motto of "Citizens Serving Above, & Beyond
RM   

We have the blue tapes to distingush us from RM, I have seen it all from seniors wearing subdued branch tapes to metal grade .  They go out of the way to look diffrent from everbody else in CAP.  I fly so I dont wear BDU'S, I have before and I dont mind the blue tapes.   Radioman talks about wannabees, they are in every orginization including the military(the supply guy who thinks he is special forces )  When I talk about WARRIORS, I mean those in this orginization who take the lead and push on to accomplish the mision. 
I not a fan of disney....too bad are ES patch could not have sponge bob

[wuzafuzz]

Wow, this thread went sideways in a hurry.

For what it's worth, I don't recall seeing anyone suggest a toned-down ES insignia should actually be subdued.  Nor do I recall anyone saying they want to look more like the real military.  There was discussion about presenting a professional appearance.  That does not make anyone a "wannabe," a "has-been," or a poser. 

I would like to see a new ES the same as most other badges, no more no less.

[davedove]

Another less patches, or less colorful patches argument arises.

What gets me is that when the fashion climate changes and CAP becomes more subdued, but the other services have swung back to more colorful, the same people will then be arguing "Why do we have all these subdued patches?  Who are we hiding from?  Why don't we have the full-color patches like everyone else?"

Sometimes I like wearing the patches and sometimes I don't.  They're "optional" so if you don't like them, don't wear them.  I have two sets of field clothes, one set has all the patches, the other is stripped down.  I call the one with patches my "NASCAR" uniform.

[Hawk200]

What gets me is that when the fashion climate changes and CAP becomes more subdued, but the other services have swung back to more colorful, the same people will then be arguing "Why do we have all these subdued patches?  Who are we hiding from?  Why don't we have the full-color patches like everyone else?"

For some it's a desire to be exactly like the Air Force which causes the swing, which we can't really be. For the most part, CAP patches have been larger and/or more colorful than AF patches on in the same locations on equivalent uniforms.

Sometimes I like wearing the patches and sometimes I don't.  They're "optional" so if you don't like them, don't wear them.  I have two sets of field clothes, one set has all the patches, the other is stripped down.  I call the one with patches my "NASCAR" uniform.

I've gone on the lighter side when it comes to insignia anymore. My "fully configured" uniform has tapes, flag, rank, and a couple badges (which are subdued military ones, so most people don't even notice them). My "light" uniform has tapes, rank, and flag. I just don't feel like putting anything else on anymore.

If we get a unit patch, I may put that on for the sake of unit comraderie. But it will depend on what it looks like.

[arajca]

To continue off topic...

I am slowly reworking my proposal from many moons ago, with a few changes. I am planning to include an air crew badge series as well.

Attached is a table showing how I associated the current ES qualifications with the respective badges. General guidelines I used:
1. Increased based on level of responsibility in ICS (LSC has more responsibility than MRO).
2. Scanner & HRO are entry level only. Scanner progresses to Observer. ARCHER and related will have full progression based on experience/years of service/mission participation.
3. Some will not have a badge.

These are not set in stone, but I think I got it right. Feel free to try to persuade me otherwise, if you want.

Badge designs will be in another post.

[DC]

That's pretty much exactly what I had in mind, with the exception of UDFT members. IMHO, that isn't a MB staff position, I would lump them in with the Ground Team tier somehow instead.

Other than that,  :clap:.

[Strick]

What the heck dude, I dont get a scuba badge or dolphins for water survival
All joking aside, the table looks good and makes sense.   Now what would the badge look like?l

[arajca]

That's pretty much exactly what I had in mind, with the exception of UDFT members. IMHO, that isn't a MB staff position, I would lump them in with the Ground Team tier somehow instead.

Other than that,  :clap:.

I actually had a UDF badge designed - same GT except it had UDF in the middle. Only one level.

[arajca]

How's about this...

[DC]

How's about this...

The revised distribution is great, as far as the badge designs, my only comment is on the Aircrew Wings. I see where you were going with the space wing-based design, but in the AF those, as I understand it, are given to non-flying AFSPC fields, while just about any job that involves flying, like Flight Surgeon, Navigator, Enlisted Aircrew, ABM, etc, get more traditional wings.

I was thinking the same basic wings as the pilot and observer badges, but with 'AC' super imposed. There is already a precedent for that with the glider and observer wings both using letters placed over the tri-prop in the middle.

The Mission Base Staff design is great, very simple, yet distinctive. I'd also stick a triangle behind the UDF text on the UDF badge, just to keep with the Civil Defense theme that just about all CAP insignia has on it

Anyway, just my $0.02... (or $0.03...)

[Hawk200]

How's about this...

The revised distribution is great, as far as the badge designs, my only comment is on the Aircrew Wings. I see where you were going with the space wing-based design, but in the AF those, as I understand it, are given to non-flying AFSPC fields, while just about any job that involves flying, like Flight Surgeon, Navigator, Enlisted Aircrew, ABM, etc, get more traditional wings.

I was thinking the same basic wings as the pilot and observer badges, but with 'AC' super imposed. There is already a precedent for that with the glider and observer wings both using letters placed over the tri-prop in the middle.

The Mission Base Staff design is great, very simple, yet distinctive. I'd also stick a triangle behind the UDF text on the UDF badge, just to keep with the Civil Defense theme that just about all CAP insignia has on it

Anyway, just my $0.02... (or $0.03...)

In the Air Force, non-rated officer aircrew wear a badge with an eagle in the shield. We could follow the same precedent, and it would be pretty recognizable to most military that saw it. It also wouldn't require a completely new design, it would just be a new badge in the aircrew wing family.

As to a UDF badge, I simply don't see the need. Keep it within the General ES category.  We need to make the badges the result of a journey, not just a reward for a single step.

[Strick]

looks great  :clap:

[arajca]

In the Air Force, non-rated officer aircrew wear a badge with an eagle in the shield. We could follow the same precedent, and it would be pretty recognizable to most military that saw it. It also wouldn't require a completely new design, it would just be a new badge in the aircrew wing family.

I could look into something like that.

As to a UDF badge, I simply don't see the need. Keep it within the General ES category.  We need to make the badges the result of a journey, not just a reward for a single step.

UDF is a valid entry level qualification as is MRO and MSA. It has only one level and, as written, any further progression is through the GT track. You'll notice GES does NOT get a badge, and the badges replace the much maligned (here) ES patches. One or the other during phase-in/out, not both.

[flyboy53]

In regard to the ES Patch, it isn't a WW II patch, gang. That patch evolved from a 1950s-60s CAP Program called the Owner Pilot Service (OPS) and I wouldn't be surprised if it went back further. The patch (much smaller), was worn on hats and flight suits in place of the CAP specific or hubcap command patch and there was a red name plate that was worn above the original black name plate. You only saw those guys at REDCAPs or (then) SARCAPS. By the 70s, this program evolved into General Aviation Members. That program kind of died out, too. I think there is a valid place for either ES patch, but I believe the dog patch should be worn on the shoulder of flight suits and BDUs as a option like all the other activity (SPECIAL ACTIVITIES) or mission specific (ARCHER) patches. The ES oval is great for baseball caps. Imagine how you'd clean up the uniforms.

Regarding the badge proposal, GREAT, but can't we keep the aircrew badges of uniform design? If you want an aircrew badge, shouldn't it be similar in design to the other wings. Why not just put AC over the center of a current observer or pilot wing. Why not also re-introduce the old stewardess badge for scannners, HI-BIRD, SDIS or ARCHER specific operators if they want wings. Why not follow Army or AF style and have a simplified CAP seal in the center. I do know a lot of scanners who look at the work load of an observer and get scared away from progressing further...but then you'd start running out of observers if you didn't keep it in its current progression mode.

On an unrelated note, I wish NHQ would change the criteria for master observers to include CD missions instead of the current SAR and DR requirements.

[wuzafuzz]

How's about this...

Like the ideas across the board.  Agree with other comments to use existing wings for "AC" badges.

If only the idea would gain traction outside CAP Talk.

[arajca]

Take Two.

[Hawk200]

Take Two.

OK, I gotta ask: Why do the aircrew wings have to have a shield instead of a round center? What's the point? Other than being able to say "I made that!", I don't see any merit to the concept.

You state this in your document:"Using the current CAP aeronautical badge as a start, the center has been changed from a round to shield shape. This change provides an easy identification the these are not pilot's wings."

Current Observer wings are not pilot wings, and they are not shaped any different than pilot wings. Your justification doesn't seem to fit. Or work.

I'm stil wondering why even bother with a UDF badge at all. It's a single level badge that would be replaced by a GT badge upon advancement to GT. Even for the cadets that like the bling, it might only be worn for a few months. An alternate problem I could see is people wearing their UDF badge along with a GT badge when doubling up wouldn't be authorized.

Sorry, but from where I'm standing, the UDF badge seems to be making a badge for the sake of making a badge. That's the wrong reason.

On the positive side, I think some of the criteria specified are good. When it comes to things that won't result in "No badge", I'd remove those from document. They don't do anything but take up space that's best reserved for the changes proposed.

[DC]

Take Two.

OK, I gotta ask: Why do the aircrew wings have to have a shield instead of a round center? What's the point? Other than being able to say "I made that!", I don't see any merit to the concept.

You state this in your document:"Using the current CAP aeronautical badge as a start, the center has been changed from a round to shield shape. This change provides an easy identification the these are not pilot's wings."

Current Observer wings are not pilot wings, and they are not shaped any different than pilot wings. Your justification doesn't seem to fit. Or work.

I'm stil wondering why even bother with a UDF badge at all. It's a single level badge that would be replaced by a GT badge upon advancement to GT. Even for the cadets that like the bling, it might only be worn for a few months. An alternate problem I could see is people wearing their UDF badge along with a GT badge when doubling up wouldn't be authorized.

Sorry, but from where I'm standing, the UDF badge seems to be making a badge for the sake of making a badge. That's the wrong reason.

I agree with you on the A/C wings, but UDF is more than just an intro to Ground Team, and should be recognized for the different skill set that it requires.

[SarDragon]

OK, I gotta ask: Why do the aircrew wings have to have a shield instead of a round center? What's the point? Other than being able to say "I made that!", I don't see any merit to the concept.

You state this in your document:"Using the current CAP aeronautical badge as a start, the center has been changed from a round to shield shape. This change provides an easy identification the these are not pilot's wings."

Current Observer wings are not pilot wings, and they are not shaped any different than pilot wings. Your justification doesn't seem to fit. Or work.

Pilot and Observer wings are easily confused at a distance. A different shape woild avoid this.

I'm stil wondering why even bother with a UDF badge at all. It's a single level badge that would be replaced by a GT badge upon advancement to GT. Even for the cadets that like the bling, it might only be worn for a few months. An alternate problem I could see is people wearing their UDF badge along with a GT badge when doubling up wouldn't be authorized.

Sorry, but from where I'm standing, the UDF badge seems to be making a badge for the sake of making a badge. That's the wrong reason.

On the positive side, I think some of the criteria specified are good. When it comes to things that won't result in "No badge", I'd remove those from document. They don't do anything but take up space that's best reserved for the changes proposed.

Why the presumption that someone will move on from UDF to GT? I know several members who function quite well just as UDF, because of the urban environment we operate in, and will probably not move on to GTM.

I, myself, used to be a GTM3, but allowed the qual to lapse because I didn't use most of the skills often enough, and likely will not in the future.

YMMV.

[Hawk200]

Pilot and Observer wings are easily confused at a distance. A different shape woild avoid this.

At a distance, the difference doesn't matter. Only means something when you have to talk to one of them about something specific to their specialty. And you're usually talking to the whole crew anyway. When you are, you're close enough that differences in wings are pretty clearly visible.

Even with an "aircrew" (meaning not pilot or observer) wing, it'll be easy to figure out the specialized crewmember in a crew. But now that I think about it, maybe a wing for scanner isn't really appropriate. Why? Read on.

...UDF... and should be recognized for the different skill set that it requires.

Different skill set? The tasks for UDF are simply tasks pieced out of GTM1, 2 and 3 SQTRs. There's nothing different or unique of UDF. At best, it's a GT "lite".

I can see how UDF would be an excellent way to introduce people to the GT specialty. It allows an individual to actually gain a qualification, and makes them useful. But I don't see how it rates it's own badge. Either go all the way, or do without bling. There are other tasks with just as much or even more work.

Looking at it, UDF progressing to GT is the same principle as a scanner going observer. Giving a badge to the ones without is catering to a lowest common denominator. Everybody gets a cookie, even if you don't bother to show any further commitment.

But another thing to consider: When do we stop? UDF gets a badge, then Flightline Marshallers want one. They have almost as many tasks. Different ones, but similar amount of work. What about things like a Planning Section Chief, Finance/Admin, or Ops Section Chief? Definitely a good bit of time involved in those. They would rate a badge then, too.

If we start to give badges to UDF, where does the cascade end?

[wuzafuzz]

But another thing to consider: When do we stop? UDF gets a badge, then Flightline Marshallers want one. They have almost as many tasks. Different ones, but similar amount of work. What about things like a Planning Section Chief, Finance/Admin, or Ops Section Chief? Definitely a good bit of time involved in those. They would rate a badge then, too.

That is exactly what is being proposed.  Not 4 zillion unique badges, but simply a basic, senior, and master badge for ES.  (A generic aircrew badge was added to the discussion at some point.)  This "ES" badge would be a replacement for the Pluto patch.  Mere UDF's and MSA's would not earn the same level badge as section chief's.  However, all ES accomplishments are "rewarded" as their volunteer paycheck.

If we start to give badges to UDF, where does the cascade end?

Is there a compelling reason NOT to recognize volunteer achievements?  We are only talking three or four badges here.  Personally I see no problem with giving ES folks a badge, and no reason to deny them a badge representative of their achievements. 

[Eclipse]

Hawk,

What's wrong with anything important enough to rate a SQTR having its own badge?

You're making the same incorrect argument that things like MSA, UDF, and Scanner are somehow "stepping stone" to other ratings.

Doesn't the military have a badge for most things people do career/job wise?

[Hawk200]

What's wrong with anything important enough to rate a SQTR having its own badge?

You're making the same incorrect argument that things like MSA, UDF, and Scanner are somehow "stepping stone" to other ratings.

Each one? Each and every one? Gonna be making a lot of unique badges. I wonder how many people that are doing FLM or UDF actually want a badge.

All in all, based on the SQTRS, scanner and UDF fully appear to be stepping stones. You seem to think that I consider people that stop as scanner or UDF as quitters. I don't. They may be specialties in their own right, but they are prerequisite to becoming GT or Observer.

Doesn't the military have a badge for most things people do career/job wise?

Not that I know of. The Air Force has a badge per field, but rarely (pay attention to that word) anything is specific to a single AFSC. Most badges are shared with another AFSC in field. Knowing the badges only tells you a rough idea of what they do, not a specific job.

The Army doesn't have many badges that are specific to an MOS. Rigger and EOD come to mind as examples, but that's the only ones I can think of at the moment.

The Marine Corps only has about 14 badges (which they refer to as breast insignia), and all theirs  seem to fit in one of four categories: flyers, jumpers, bomb techs, or divers.

I don't know how Navy badges really categorize. The NAVPERS 15665I  lists a whole bunch of them. They don't seem to be specific to a rate though. Ask a sailor how that works, I don't know.

I wouldn't be surprised if Coasties pretty much mirrored the Navy on badges. Don't feel like looking them up at the moment.

[Hawk200]

Did you even really read what you quoted? I think if you had, you'd realize you were simply using different words to say the same thing.

For starters:

This "ES" badge would be a replacement for the Pluto patch.

Yeah. Agreed. Completely. Replace ES patch with an ES badge. Levels on that new ES badge is a new concept being added, but fitting. I wasn't arguing against this. If it seems like it to you, then read it again til it registers. 

Mere UDF's and MSA's would not earn the same level badge as section chief's. 

Also agreed. Once again, read through again until that registers.

If we start to give badges to UDF, where does the cascade end?

Is there a compelling reason NOT to recognize volunteer achievements?  We are only talking three or four badges here.

We're talking three or four new badges to replace one patch. The issue isn't recognizing acheivements. The issue is creating new stuff that rewards everybody equally when some dedicate more time than others.

Personally I see no problem with giving ES folks a badge, and no reason to deny them a badge representative of their achievements.

I don't see a problem either. As to  "a badge representative of their achievements", I've explained it, you don't get it, I don't think you will.

But, as far as this thread goes, I quit. I don't seem to be able to get the point across, and I'm tired of trying. If anyone wants to disuss the concept further, PM. It's beginning to feel like I'm trying to teach a pig to sing.

[Eclipse]

From a rainbow perspective, 50 new white / blue badges over the nametape is better than one Sardog - mainly because each member can only wear one.

As to UDF being a prerequisite for anything other than an advanced base staff position (i.e. GBD, AOBD), cite please.

[Short Field]

Either UDF or GTM3 qualification (not required to be current) is required if you are meeting the prerequisites for PSC as a AOBD.

[brasda91]

They may be specialties in their own right, but they are prerequisite to becoming GT or Observer.

Except that the SQTR for GT doesn't require you to be UDF qualified first.  You can jump right into GT and bypass UDF.

[SarDragon]

If you compare the tasks for the two positions, you'll see that most of the UDF tasks are also on the GTM3 SQTR.

[Eclipse]

If you compare the tasks for the two positions, you'll see that most of the UDF tasks are also on the GTM3 SQTR.

So?

UDF isn't a perquisite for anything in the context of "stepping stone".

[DC]

Okay, I don't have arajca's photoshop (or illustrator, or whatever program he used...) skills, but I tried my hand at a few AC wing designs. I did them in Paint, so please excuse the pixelation and general crappiness of the images.

Option 1 - Pilot Wings sans the prop, similar to Pre-Solo wings compared to Solo Wings


Option 2 - Option 1 plus the text 'AC' superimposed over the circle for added clarity.


Option 3 - Pilot Wings with 'AC' added in the same manner as Observer and Glider Pilot wings.

[SarDragon]

They may be specialties in their own right, but they are prerequisite to becoming GT or Observer.

Except that the SQTR for GT doesn't require you to be UDF qualified first.  You can jump right into GT and bypass UDF.

If you compare the tasks for the two positions, you'll see that most of the UDF tasks are also on the GTM3 SQTR.

So?

UDF isn't a perquisite for anything in the context of "stepping stone".

In the context of the post just before mine, quoted above, UDF might be viewed as a stepping stone, since many (9 of 16) of the UDF tasks transfer directly to GTM3. One transfers to GTM2. Also, eight are in common with GTL, allowing for the autonomy of the UDF team outside the GT structure.

I was just pointing out some commonalities, and making comparisons.

It looks like you are arguing for argument's sake, outside of the fundamental badge discussion.

[VPI18]

Okay, I don't have arajca's photoshop (or illustrator, or whatever program he used...) skills, but I tried my hand at a few AC wing designs. I did them in Paint, so please excuse the pixelation and general crappiness of the images.

Option 1 - Pilot Wings sans the prop, similar to Pre-Solo wings compared to Solo Wings
Option 2 - Option 1 plus the text 'AC' superimposed over the circle for added clarity.
Option 3 - Pilot Wings with 'AC' added in the same manner as Observer and Glider Pilot wings.

Option 4 - CAP Seal in replaces triangle and prop.

I don't think the Navy would too fond of options 2 and 3:

[DC]

Okay, I don't have arajca's photoshop (or illustrator, or whatever program he used...) skills, but I tried my hand at a few AC wing designs. I did them in Paint, so please excuse the pixelation and general crappiness of the images.

Option 1 - Pilot Wings sans the prop, similar to Pre-Solo wings compared to Solo Wings
Option 2 - Option 1 plus the text 'AC' superimposed over the circle for added clarity.
Option 3 - Pilot Wings with 'AC' added in the same manner as Observer and Glider Pilot wings.

I don't think the Navy would too fond of options 2 and 3:

When did the Navy get ownership rights to the letters A and C? Different style of wings, different underlying symbol, the only thing the two have in common are the round shape and two letters.

I could deal with your Option 4, but that might be a little difficult to duplicate in a 2" or 3" metal badge...

[SarDragon]

Actually, the "AC" options are workable, since the navy wings are gold. The CAP wings would be silver. Also, if the letters had a three-bladed prop behind them, instead of an anchor, they would be even more distinguishable.

[VPI18]

The similarities stated may be enough to cause confusion. The first thing I notice on the Naval Aircrew wings are the letters "AC". While the design of the wings differ, the outlines are nearly identical. Therefore, from a distance, one may perceive proposed wings as silver-colored Naval Aircrew Wings.
However, such wings do not exist... Then again, the Navy doesn't have to approve badges for the AF-style uniform, so who knows... Option 3 certainly looks more distinguishable, but it think it looks a little too "busy."

Regarding the difficulty of my option, they did it with the Great Seal of the United States on Army and AF Aircrew Wings, so the CAP Seal should not be too difficult...

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Guess we could call them mission specialists and put a big "S" over the middle, like observers have an "O" and glider pilots have a "G." It'd be a lot more legible than jumbling it up with two letters, and it would fall in line nicely and neatly with what we already have.

(I'd be happy to do it, but I'm not in the mood as I post this to mess with making a JPEG of an Illustrator file, then fighting with Imageshack and embedding it here. It's late, and I just finished ICS 300 today and have a testy infant to tend to.)

This begs the questions: Why do we need aircrew wings? Just to make scanners feel more comfortable? Or is it to recognize ARCHER crew members?

Frankly, we have too many badges, especially those ugly shield-shaped specialty badges. Most, if not all, of them should have a phase-out date. Among them, also, the church-stained-glass-window-looking AE badge and the Cadet Programs badge. (To top it all off, we have too many places to put those badges, too. One should be enough.) But to add another aeronautical rating for a mission specialist, I'm not sure.

Next, we'll have a "mission staff" badge like the ground-team badge, except with a silver donut in the middle...

[arajca]

..

[flyboy53]

Yes, give this man a hand...too many stupid looking specality badges. Can't we minimize to just a few?

[wuzafuzz]

This begs the questions: Why do we need aircrew wings? Just to make scanners feel more comfortable? Or is it to recognize ARCHER crew members?

Frankly, we have too many badges, especially those ugly shield-shaped specialty badges. Most, if not all, of them should have a phase-out date.

We don't need any wings or badges, including those for pilot and observer.  CAP chose to use them and there isn't a reason in the world we couldn't choose to recognize other accomplishments.  Heck, we probably don't NEED uniforms either.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

We don't need any wings or badges, including those for pilot and observer.  CAP chose to use them and there isn't a reason in the world we couldn't choose to recognize other accomplishments.  Heck, we probably don't NEED uniforms either.

Since we have uniforms and badges to place upon them, how much is enough and how much is too much?

1. I'm digressing from another aircrew rating for a second here, but: There's three places now to put specialty badges on the uniform. Why? (FULL DISCLOSURE: I can wear three. I only wear one.)
2. There's specialty badges for everything but CISM, I think. Why do we need so many? Why can't we consolidate within major areas instead (think along the lines of the A staff)?
3. Why should a scanner be given a full aeronautical rating, like an observer? It's like training to be a pilot and not quite getting to the solo, isn't it?
4. Conversely to No. 3, there are some special skills an aircrew member/specialist can bring without training as an observer. So maybe another set of wings isn't a bad idea.
5. Regardless, we need to rein in the number of badges and the number of placement options, lest we start looking like the metallic Boy Scouts. As if we don't face enough scorn already for looking like Mexican generals.

[jimmydeanno]

5. Regardless, we need to rein in the number of badges and the number of placement options, lest we start looking like the metallic Boy Scouts. As if we don't face enough scorn already for looking like Mexican generals.

Not sure where you are, but I've never faced scorn for looking like mexican generals.  But if you're concerned about having too many badges, shouldn't you be more concerned about looking like American generals?

[D2SK]

Yes, give this man a hand...too many stupid looking specality badges. Can't we minimize to just a few?

Why don't we start by eliminating the ones you've earned?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

The Air Force didn't want uniforms as cluttered as the Army's. The "clean uniform" concept has worked pretty well, especially when McPeak took it to its logical (and historical) conclusion in the early 1990s.

CAP members tend to like more bling. Thing is, the Air Force doesn't, and we wear their uniform. Maybe that's why HWSRN wanted his own uniform (come to think of it, he has that now, doesn't he?). We don't need a specialty badge for every specialty track, but instead could name six or seven that work across all specialties. We don't need a special set of wings for ARCHER operators or for scanners, but a set of wings for flying specialists might be OK.

I think it was D2SK who said we should "start by eliminating the ones you've earned." I'm fine with that, as long as there's a consolidation instead of a wholesale scrapping -- meaning that we can recognize specialty track achievements by major operational/support area instead of having one for every individual specialty. For instance, a communications badge would support public affairs, information technology, recruiting and other related fields (just like on the A staff!), and stars and wreaths would be issued for senior and master levels. I'm also in favor of moving away from shields to a chrome badge like the Air Force's, 1/2" above ribbons, and an embroidered version for work uniforms.

Do we need an "aircrew" aeronautical rating, per se? No. Specialists, as they develop, could be authorized an "S" wing, though.

[flyboy53]

Why don't we start by eliminating the ones you've earned?

Remember that wearing speciality badges is voluntary, i.e., personal choice. I don't wear them now. Too much bling.

[flyboy53]

Also, one other note, especially in regard to BuckeyeDE, I agree. I've seen some officers with more specialty badges on both sides of their uniforms than ribbons. In earlier posts, some of the members/officers reflected how they took a lot of the patches off their uniforms and went more conservative in their appearance....it's also a lot more professional looking. I think something like a mission specialist badge is a great idea, especially when the qualifying criteria would cover a number of mission specialities. Among my AF badges is a Security Police Qualification Badge (NOT THE SHIELD and not the current speciality badge). It meant a little more to me because of all the stuff you had to go through to earn it. It's the one on my discharge and I still proudly wear it because it was the one issued to me even though I racked up three other AF specialities during my career. I don't wear the other stuff. I understand that in the CAP, we offer a lot of badges and ribbons as incentives to get people to progress through those areas, but I really believe we've gotten carried away.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Also, one other note, especially in regard to BuckeyeDEJ, I agree. I've seen some officers with more specialty badges on both sides of their uniforms than ribbons. In earlier posts, some of the members/officers reflected how they took a lot of the patches off their uniforms and went more conservative in their appearance....it's also a lot more professional looking. I think something like a mission specialist badge is a great idea, especially when the qualifying criteria would cover a number of mission specialities. Among my AF badges is a Security Police Qualification Badge (NOT THE SHIELD and not the current speciality badge). It meant a little more to me because of all the stuff you had to go through to earn it. It's the one on my discharge and I still proudly wear it because it was the one issued to me even though I racked up three other AF specialities during my career. I don't wear the other stuff. I understand that in the CAP, we offer a lot of badges and ribbons as incentives to get people to progress through those areas, but I really believe we've gotten carried away.

Amen, brother.

I could see a bit of an overhaul. The specialty-track badges could be winnowed down, as I explained earlier, but operational badges would conform, too... and it would force people to pick and choose, sure, but that's not a bad thing.

Do we really need an IC badge? Why not an emergency service badge that, in three steps, identifies grunts with a basic badge, management (division/branch levels, basically) with a senior badge, and command officers and section chiefs with master ratings? The ground-team badge could wave bye-bye, since there's confusion with UDF and God knows how many other ground-pounding ratings.

Do we really need the ground-team badge? No, especially since defines one specialty but forsakes UDF, CERT, et al. See "do we really need an IC badge?" above.

Could we use a flight specialist aeronautical rating? Sure. ARCHER operators and others who are specialized but not observers, scanners or pilots. Put an "S" in the middle of the circle, like the "O" on observers' wings.

Do we really need all those shield badges? Absolutely not. See previous posts of mine for a simpler solution. And the simpler solution is a chrome-silver badge, much like the Air Force uses, that stacks above the ribbons.

The dilemma: You can only wear two. What that does is force individual members to make the choice of what's more important, or what tells their CAP service history best. Qualifications not chosen for uniform wear are always in e-services, on the 101 card, and readily available via a paper trail.

The beauty of it: It leaves room for commanders badges without conflict, it allows room under the ribbons/welt pocket for another OPERATIONAL badge (as the Air Force does it), and it cleans up a chaotic mess.

[SarDragon]

That proposal makes entirely too much sense, and is therefore null and void.