Emergency Service patch

[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.