Main Menu

Scanner Wings

Started by SAR-EMT1, January 26, 2007, 03:12:57 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SAR-EMT1

Fair enough.
We ought to get Mother Blue to give us more respect and through the new respect more missions FIRST.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

DNall

well yeah, but that's a different topic. And really the focus thre has to be what causes their lack of respect... some of that is PR that needs to be addressed aggressively & persistently, but much of it relates to legitimate complaints that we need to address, let me let's say, agressively & persistently. That's the kind of stuff you'll see me talking about most of the time.

BillB

DNall,  where did you get the idea that AF no longer authorizes the Stewardess wings? I've seen a couple of former cadets, one of which is a LtCol now, wear them. The Wings were a CAP specific design and AF said OK forty years ago. As far as availability, The Booksore probably turned over a box of Stewardess Wings to Vanguard at the switch.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

DNall

They're not now listed in 39-1. Items aren't generally de-authorized individually. They may come in that way between regs, but that's no thow they go out. When a new reg is put together, AF reviews & approves their sections. That becomes the ONLY things authorized at that point. Hence they are not authorized, just as many other CAP & AF items that were once okay & are now obselete. Any stock that was transfered is available for sale as a historical item.

Anyway, AF approval is a very easy process. The problem we routinely have is creating things w/o legitimate justification, that run significantly afowl of the AF-way to the extent the board is uncomfortable with it. You also have to time it to the AETC board or else you're wasting a general's time & the standards for it getting done now versus the normal process are higher.

BillB

I would agree if it's not in 39-1 it's not authorized.  But National seems to think that CAP started in 1964, and forget all the items that were authorized prior to that. An example is the Cadet COP ribbon, National admits they forgot to list it and it's still authorized. As to the Stewardess wings, they are still authorized for wear, but are no longer issued since all of the Stewardess schools Cadet special actities are no longer conducted. At least two Wings are considering doing a Wing level Stewardess School in cooperation with two major airlines, but since they can't award the Stewardess wings, are not pushing forward on this strongly.
Basically the only insignia National has dropped has been ribbons and the suspense date was published when the ribbons were newly designed or dropped.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

DNall

I understand what you're saying, but the uniform must be updated over time, and obselete items should be eliminated or converted for those that previously earned them. In the case of the Stewardess wing, just because it was once authorized by AF doesn't mean it now is, and it should not be worn, nor should the policy change to allow it to be worn. If you were a WWII AAF pilot, you'd need to wear modern Army wings (maybe AF? not sure actually), not the ones authorized when you were on active duty. In the case of the cadet COP ribbon, I'm of the oppinion that it should not be worn. Not that it shouldn't be recognized, but it should be converted to the modern equiv cadet ribbon & there should be a conversion chart avail for items like that in the back of the reg.

I don't personally believe it's appropriate to have a stewardess badge or activity. A tour of their facility & breif/demo of the emergency proceedures might be fun, but we should be pushing our kids, especially young girls, to go to school & drive the thing, not hang out in back keeping the cattle quiet.

Ref'ing the above... if you did convert the whole current scanner & observer ratings down into basic-senior-master aircrew, thereby making it a meaningful & lasting rating, and laid the advanced skills & new technology stuff (functions: on-scene mission commander, CD & HLD/S; & tech: high-bird, ARCHER, FLIR, Radmon/CRBNE, etc) up on navigator observer... that being the point at which I support aircrew wings, and revamp all the wings while you're at it... I still got the designs I did before on this if anyone wants them posted.

Monty

Friends,

I know I said it back on Page 2, but I think it bears repeating...

There's nothing *wrong* with the way we have it now.  If we think about the pros and cons, what's really gained outside of egos by creating revamped badges?

-ego
-someone stated that ICs won't check 101 cards (that's a bad IC right there)

It bears repeating...CAP does, in fact, have a reputation with some in the Air Force for being a bit too bling happy.  Please don't ask me to reveal sources; suffice it to say, it's not anybody I know at high levels but rather, regular 'ole Joes and Jackies.

Please...all...consider that the system we have is sufficient for our purposes and for the purposes of well-grounded individuals, who happen to secure in themselves.  (Everybody is entitled to an opinion...the sentiment I've relayed, however, tends to be a common theme in many of my blue-suited officer comrades 'n associates.)

The same sort that many want to be like....

Pick your poison: establishing service for the sake of service first (with bling as an distant afterthought) or establishing service for the sake of bling first (with service as an distant afterthought.)

:)

Major Carrales

As an aside,  I beleive that there are only four places badges can be worn on a uniform...so, what would it matter how many options there would be to choose from?

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Quote from: msmjr2003 on January 28, 2007, 04:11:55 PM
Friends,

I know I said it back on Page 2, but I think it bears repeating...

There's nothing *wrong* with the way we have it now.  If we think about the pros and cons, what's really gained outside of egos by creating revamped badges?

-ego
-someone stated that ICs won't check 101 cards (that's a bad IC right there)

It bears repeating...CAP does, in fact, have a reputation with some in the Air Force for being a bit too bling happy.  Please don't ask me to reveal sources; suffice it to say, it's not anybody I know at high levels but rather, regular 'ole Joes and Jackies.

Please...all...consider that the system we have is sufficient for our purposes and for the purposes of well-grounded individuals, who happen to secure in themselves.  (Everybody is entitled to an opinion...the sentiment I've relayed, however, tends to be a common theme in many of my blue-suited officer comrades 'n associates.)

The same sort that many want to be like....

Pick your poison: establishing service for the sake of service first (with bling as an distant afterthought) or establishing service for the sake of bling first (with service as an distant afterthought.)
I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact I agree completely. What we have now does work for now.

You can also make a case to change the standards for the observer wings to align with those of the GT badge. That being scanner gets the basic wings, observer gets senior, & AOBD gets master. You could do the same w/ pilot (TMP, MP, AOBD), but that's a whole extra fight I'm not interested in. I'm not making that case, but it does make some sense.

Then there's my version.... Forget the badges, I don't care about them accept in terms of professional appearance, appropriateness, incentive to train, and indicator of operational skill level; and, all that is an afterthought to the practical. So put that out of your mind for a moment.

The scanner/observer field has & is changing significantly. There's a huge difference between A) looking out the window, assisting a PIC thru a grid, and helping w/ radios; and, B) assuming overall on-scene command of air & ground ops in a target area, operating ARCHER, FLIR, radmon/CRBNE, etc, and the nature of CD & HLD/S missions. Looking forward, we can only expect this divide & the skill sets to continue widening, and we don't have a unified progression of training for that or a quick refernce badge for the base staff to grab & reassign you w/o pouring over paperwork at sign in.

What I'd like to see is two NEW ratings in place of the one we have now:
A) "Aircrew" which covers the in three levels (basic, senior, master) the skills from entry level scanner thru observer. Spread out the training & task guides for both & add on additional experience requirements to move thru the progression. And,
B) "Navigator/Observer" which STARTS at the advanced observer level & covers all those items I mentione dabove in a unified training program that take you thru the basic & senior level wings, and AOBD at the command level wings.

That's not about badges at all, it's about a real & practical simplification & structuring of training that's right now a mess & will just get worse as we move along. Considering the AF has officer & enlisted aircrew wings, and navigator wings in addition to a few others, I don't think they're going to have a big problem with us following in their example as we fix our program.


afgeo4

I'd hate to bring this threat to its original topic, but... I'm not particularly fond of flying (former MX airman) and I'm doing scanner training to supplement my understanding of ground missions.

Having said that... If I'm going to get into an aircraft, get myself rated, do the work and fulfill the mission as a member of an aircrew, WHY AM I NOT RECOGNIZED AS AIRCREW? 

If you all look at the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy you'll see that they all issue wings to all rated airmen. ALL. Even flight med techs get them. There's no issue of what one could upgrade to if they decided to one day because that's not what the wings are for. They are for rating. To denote those that FLY for a living and accept the dangers and the extra training involved in it. I'm sorry, but if one of our aircraft goes down and all 3 aircrew members die, are the pilot and observer buried with honors while the scanner is tossed into a random ditch because he "failed to qualify for observer?" It's time to look at all members of aircrews as equals who simply perform different tasks.

Scanners provide a real, vital mission to CAP and the Air Force and go through a lot of training to perform this mission and I don't see any of the previous arguments valid enough to not recognize these members as true, valuable, and essential members of aircrews. Remember, wearing the bag is necessary because of safety, not recognition.

Now, if you have problems with members not moving up to Observer, perhaps you ought to tackle that on its own and review WHY they don't do it as often as you'd like.

Hey, if you wanted cadets to become seniors when they turn 21, would you take away their cadet status and insignia and give them nothing to encourage that? Would that satisfy the program requirements? 

I for one think the idea of having Pilot and Aircrew wings is great. Basic Aircrew wings can be for current scanner requirements, Senior for current Observer requirements, and Master can be for those who are ARCHER/CD/HS trained and qualified observers with say some minimum hours of operation.
GEORGE LURYE

SAR-EMT1

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 12:00:03 AM
I'd hate to bring this threat to its original topic, but... I'm not particularly fond of flying (former MX airman) and I'm doing scanner training to supplement my understanding of ground missions.

Having said that... If I'm going to get into an aircraft, get myself rated, do the work and fulfill the mission as a member of an aircrew, WHY AM I NOT RECOGNIZED AS AIRCREW? 

If you all look at the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy you'll see that they all issue wings to all rated airmen. ALL. Even flight med techs get them. There's no issue of what one could upgrade to if they decided to one day because that's not what the wings are for. They are for rating. To denote those that FLY for a living and accept the dangers and the extra training involved in it. I'm sorry, but if one of our aircraft goes down and all 3 aircrew members die, are the pilot and observer buried with honors while the scanner is tossed into a random ditch because he "failed to qualify for observer?" It's time to look at all members of aircrews as equals who simply perform different tasks.

Scanners provide a real, vital mission to CAP and the Air Force and go through a lot of training to perform this mission and I don't see any of the previous arguments valid enough to not recognize these members as true, valuable, and essential members of aircrews. Remember, wearing the bag is necessary because of safety, not recognition.

Now, if you have problems with members not moving up to Observer, perhaps you ought to tackle that on its own and review WHY they don't do it as often as you'd like.

Hey, if you wanted cadets to become seniors when they turn 21, would you take away their cadet status and insignia and give them nothing to encourage that? Would that satisfy the program requirements? 

I for one think the idea of having Pilot and Aircrew wings is great. Basic Aircrew wings can be for current scanner requirements, Senior for current Observer requirements, and Master can be for those who are ARCHER/CD/HS trained and qualified observers with say some minimum hours of operation.

Very well put. I also like this idea of revamping the pilot scanner/observer positions into 2 new sets of ratings.
Though with the new tech you almost want to call Senior AC a Navigator/ Payload Specialist   
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

afgeo4

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 29, 2007, 02:19:53 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 29, 2007, 12:00:03 AM
I'd hate to bring this threat to its original topic, but... I'm not particularly fond of flying (former MX airman) and I'm doing scanner training to supplement my understanding of ground missions.

Having said that... If I'm going to get into an aircraft, get myself rated, do the work and fulfill the mission as a member of an aircrew, WHY AM I NOT RECOGNIZED AS AIRCREW? 

If you all look at the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy you'll see that they all issue wings to all rated airmen. ALL. Even flight med techs get them. There's no issue of what one could upgrade to if they decided to one day because that's not what the wings are for. They are for rating. To denote those that FLY for a living and accept the dangers and the extra training involved in it. I'm sorry, but if one of our aircraft goes down and all 3 aircrew members die, are the pilot and observer buried with honors while the scanner is tossed into a random ditch because he "failed to qualify for observer?" It's time to look at all members of aircrews as equals who simply perform different tasks.

Scanners provide a real, vital mission to CAP and the Air Force and go through a lot of training to perform this mission and I don't see any of the previous arguments valid enough to not recognize these members as true, valuable, and essential members of aircrews. Remember, wearing the bag is necessary because of safety, not recognition.

Now, if you have problems with members not moving up to Observer, perhaps you ought to tackle that on its own and review WHY they don't do it as often as you'd like.

Hey, if you wanted cadets to become seniors when they turn 21, would you take away their cadet status and insignia and give them nothing to encourage that? Would that satisfy the program requirements? 

I for one think the idea of having Pilot and Aircrew wings is great. Basic Aircrew wings can be for current scanner requirements, Senior for current Observer requirements, and Master can be for those who are ARCHER/CD/HS trained and qualified observers with say some minimum hours of operation.

Very well put. I also like this idea of revamping the pilot scanner/observer positions into 2 new sets of ratings.
Though with the new tech you almost want to call Senior AC a Navigator/ Payload Specialist   

Perhaps we can draw on the Air Force Officer Aircrew wings?
GEORGE LURYE

DNall

By request, here's the wings I did before....

Don't mind the Astronaut wings, that was directed at an AE program to recognize NASA astronauts working w/ CAP AE programs & getting more of them involved. Again, I don't support adding a badge for scanner unless the program is changed as I mentioned above. These were designed for that, and as a part of an overall resdisign effort for retention, recognition, & professional image. I'm not of the opinion that we should change any of this now. There will be a point in a couple more years where the stated revision & simplificaiton of the tracks is more of a priority. When that happens, this is an idea to kick around.

SAR-EMT1

Id prefer if they were not in color. So as to keep with the AF standard and AWAY from the corporate trend.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

afgeo4

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 29, 2007, 04:02:35 AM
Id prefer if they were not in color. So as to keep with the AF standard and AWAY from the corporate trend.

Love the aircrew/scanner wings.. reminds me of enlisted aircrew wings in USAF.

Yeah.. the color thing's a little bit... childish and unprofessional... especially when you consider that enamel will chip and discolor. I think the wings are quite distinctive even if in all metal with their three prop design. What's the worst that can happen? Some Air Force pilot confuses us for CAP (we wear distinctive uniforms, remember?) aircrew? Wait... that's what we are! If they cry to their CCs that our wings are too similar to theirs, they can be sent for an eye exam because they're not the same... ours have a CAP distinctive design.
GEORGE LURYE

DNall

The center shield of course is the same one off the cadet chevrons. I heard these complaints on the color issue before. It was all about being distinctive so as to use the AF outter wings & wreath on the other operational badges so as to be more in line w/ them. On a mini badge w/o color it could be hard to tell. For Blues & BDUs you'd hope they'd figure it out from the other stuff, but toss on a green flight suit, and you might have a problem. Hell I've been saluted before by people that took a quick glance at the flight hat & thought the device was LtCol & had the hand moving before they figured it out. The original plan was just to drill out AF wings & put a red prop device thru them the way they used to do w/ the sheild on older cadet chevrons.

SAR-EMT1

I think that must have been before my time s a cadet. Both seem a tad unprofessional. If the AF guy walking down the street cant tell the difference between our wings and his thats his problem..all he has to do is look at our epulets or cover.
If we are in a flight suit..all he has to do is look at the tarmac to see that we are walking towards a Cessna not an Eagle.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

Major Carrales

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 29, 2007, 07:42:39 AM
I think that must have been before my time s a cadet. Both seem a tad unprofessional. If the AF guy walking down the street cant tell the difference between our wings and his thats his problem..all he has to do is look at our epulets or cover.
If we are in a flight suit..all he has to do is look at the tarmac to see that we are walking towards a Cessna not an Eagle.

Extremely Logical...
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

What's unprofessional looking?

I don't particularly like the red prop on AF wings idea, neither did anyone else, that's why it got dropped. The above redesigns came next. A CAP specific shield that we have a long tradition with surronded by AF-style wings, what exactly is wrong with that?

And far as AF telling what the wings are. First of all you could be a CAP member that used to be an AF pilot, and that would be meaningful to them. Second, the tarmac is not alaways in the picture, you could just as easily be walking thru base before or after landing, at a meeting or activity. The only reason they care about CAP being distinctive is so their people can tell immediately that they don't need to take anything we say as an order, that & international/federal law, plus not wanting their warfighters to feel insulted that some guy w/a PPL gets wings that look like the ones he had to work two years for.

JohnKachenmeister

I always did like your design, Dennis.  I think the color center seal does two things:

1.  Makes it very clear who's who... you don't have to get up-close-and-personal to differentiate the wings, and...

2.  Is sufficiently different from the USAF so that Big Mother Blue will find them acceptable.

I also REALLY like the idea of Astronaut wings, but I'm here near The Cape, and the space program is an important cultural feature of Brevard County society.

Another former CAP officer