Emergency Service patch

[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".