CAPR 110-3 Civil Air Patrol Heraldry Program

[kcebnaes]

We have official guidance on patch design now.

https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R_1103__25_January_2021_C3A6C608E30D2.pdf

[Spam]

"6.5. Previously approved emblems and mottoes that do not meet the requirements of this regulation do not need to be revised immediately. Modifications to existing emblems and mottoes must be updated prior to the next production of the item".

This appears to be the section that will generate the heartburn. I'm not looking forward to the discussions here.

Thanks for bringing this to our notice.
Spam

[Eclipse]

"But I just ordered 200 patches".

"After the Wing CC directed no one order any insignia until after updates?"

"Um..."

I have had that literal discussion.

[Spam]

Out of the five units I currently command (I downsized - grin) one has an "eagle in attack mode", one has a "fighter aircraft" (the ancient museum F-84 which has been parked outside their trailers for years), and one has Snoopy on a doghouse with WW1 pilot cap/goggles (custom drawn unit patch in the mid 60s by Charles Schultz).  Since all three appear to violate this new Regulation, I am not happy that we need to go arbitrate patch history when we are trying to conduct business. Its going to be a massive, profitless, divisive time suck.

But yessir yessir three bags full...

V/r
Spam

PS NHQ - please - the OCP sunset date for USAF unit patches was six months ago. hint hint.

[Eclipse]

I am not happy that we need to go arbitrate patch history when we are trying to conduct business. Its going to be a massive, profitless, divisive time suck.

This would have been another of those things perfect for "a year ago", though it's not like anything
is much happening yet.  No time like the present.

First order of business with this should have been accompanying language, with a requirement date and
an addition to the Commander SUI questionnaire.

"Review all insignia for standards compliance and identify those who must freeze procurement."

[etodd]

Uniforms ... always the greatest bane of CAP, over any other issue.

[NIN]

Uniforms ... always the greatest bane of CAP, over any other issue.

Because everybody in CAP wears some sort of uniform.

Not everybody is a pilot, or a CP-type, or a comms person, or an AE maven, or a ground team god.  But the one thing they all have in common (beside a membership card) is a uniform.

So let's retire this trope, shall we?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[baronet68]

Is there a conflict between the text at 7.5.5 and the example shown in Figure 2?

7.5.5 ...Squadron scrolls may be any color, as long as the overall design has six or fewer colors, border of disc and scroll is not white, the border of the disc and scroll are the same color as the lettering, and chosen color scheme provides contrast (one light color, one dark color) for easy readability of scroll text.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this because the second example in Figure 2 has white borders for both the disk and scroll.

 

[TheSkyHornet]

Is there a conflict between the text at 7.5.5 and the example shown in Figure 2?

7.5.5 ...Squadron scrolls may be any color, as long as the overall design has six or fewer colors, border of disc and scroll is not white, the border of the disc and scroll are the same color as the lettering, and chosen color scheme provides contrast (one light color, one dark color) for easy readability of scroll text.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this because the second example in Figure 2 has white borders for both the disk and scroll.

 

Looks like they have a red border stroke around a white inner stroke, which makes the border not the same color as the text.


I'm not really grasping why CAP units have military aircraft or weapons in their patch designs. CAP is a non-combatant force. Cute? Sure. But not really commensurate with the modern missions. A quick Google search shows aerial bombs, bombers, fighters, and attack aircraft.


The next step will be to see how many units actually update their emblem and comply.

[PHall]

Is there a conflict between the text at 7.5.5 and the example shown in Figure 2?

7.5.5 ...Squadron scrolls may be any color, as long as the overall design has six or fewer colors, border of disc and scroll is not white, the border of the disc and scroll are the same color as the lettering, and chosen color scheme provides contrast (one light color, one dark color) for easy readability of scroll text.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this because the second example in Figure 2 has white borders for both the disk and scroll.

 

Looks like they have a red border stroke around a white inner stroke, which makes the border not the same color as the text.


I'm not really grasping why CAP units have military aircraft or weapons in their patch designs. CAP is a non-combatant force. Cute? Sure. But not really commensurate with the modern missions. A quick Google search shows aerial bombs, bombers, fighters, and attack aircraft.


The next step will be to see how many units actually update their emblem and comply.

Many units have military aircraft and/or weapons on their unit patch because they have a connection of some sort with a military unit.
A lot of times it's an Air Guard unit and the unit meets at their location and in some cases may even be "sponsored" by the unit.

And compliance is one of the easier things to do. Just make it part of the CI/SUI checklist. Unit patch is not IAW the reg, that's a finding. After a few "failed" inspections things will start to change, maybe...

[Fubar]

And compliance is one of the easier things to do. Just make it part of the CI/SUI checklist. Unit patch is not IAW the reg, that's a finding. After a few "failed" inspections things will start to change, maybe...

Not how inspections work. Except for money and equipment, as long as you submit a "plan of action" to correct the discrepancy you're good to go (they are a bit more picky about missing cash or stuff for obvious reasons). You can get the same discrepancy again in the following inspection, change the date on the POA and submit it again to close it out. Sure, it might downgrade your effectiveness score for having a "repeat discrepancy" for whatever tab they decide to throw the patch inspection on (put it right next to the email signature inspection*), but unless your squadron/wing is already failing it won't impact the overall score. Rinse and repeat.

Oh and I'm not forced to do anything until I need to do a new production run? Well it's still listed on Vanguard and Jim has about 2,000 of them in the storage shed from that time a member hooked us up on a discount, so I guess we're not there yet. Just like everything else, this will remain really important to the guy who wrote the reg and when he moves on to some other area to pee in their cereal, that will become the new important thing.

How on earth do you put really horrible looking "examples" of patch designs next to some really well designed and nice looking patches at the end of that regulation? Boggles the mind.

* Yes, I know the OPR was forced to remove the email signature inspection from SUIs after the outrage reached a crashing crescendo. One does wonder if history will repeat itself.

[Eclipse]

Not how inspections work. Except for money and equipment, as long as you submit a "plan of action" to correct the discrepancy you're good to go (they are a bit more picky about missing cash or stuff for obvious reasons). You can get the same discrepancy again in the following inspection, change the date on the POA and submit it again to close it out. Sure, it might downgrade your effectiveness score for having a "repeat discrepancy" for whatever tab they decide to throw the patch inspection on (put it right next to the email signature inspection*), but unless your squadron/wing is already failing it won't impact the overall score. Rinse and repeat.

The same can be said for basically anything on the inspection sheets - the "scores" are literally meaningless.

At least if it's pointed out, it can't be said "we didn't know". Otherwise I basically agree.

If nothing else, it certainly says something about the organizaiton that it's taken 21+ years to
get a published standard on something so basic.  When I joined and was asked to design my first insignia,
the first thing I did was ask "Where's the standard?", to a resounding response of crickets.

Enforcement aside, it's a start, and no one can ever say, "there's no standard..."

I suppose I should be happy enough that one of my designs is in the reg, even if no one asked me about
what I thought of some of the standards.

[GroundHawg]

I suspect many units will do what I would do and just retire their unit patches altogether. It's much easier to just not wear one than go through all the red tape and BS that is now required.

[Eclipse]

Honestly, this might have been / should be the best course, and this is coming from
someone who has invested a lot of time with insignia design and cleanup.

It's supposed to be "One CAP" right?  So move to just using charter numbers as
as administrative identifiers and drop all the regional, hardkewl local identity stuff.

I would say the same for the Wing and Region patches.

It ends the conversation, saves members moneys, and allows for no significant effort
as an excuse to delay Day-1 implementation.

Done.

[NIN]

So move to just using charter numbers as
as administrative identifiers and drop all the regional, hardkewl local identity stuff.

How about not?

Actual conversation with a former CA Wing guy I met out here:

Me: "Oh, you were in CAP in California? I have a bunch of buddies out there. What squadron?"
Him: "257" (Not the actual number)
Me: "Oh, uhhh, where's that?"
Him: "It was in Group 23" (also not the actual number)
Me: "Yeah, no I mean the squadron..where was it?"
Him: "Oh, it was the Lt Jimmy Smith Cadet Squadron"
Me: "WHERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WAS YOUR SQUADRON LOCATED?"
Him: "Oh, uh, Orange County."
Me: "*sigh* Pretend I don't know anything geographically about California except that its in the Western US. Is that near a city?"

I can't count the number of times I've asked someone what unit they're from and they say something like "IN-927" or "056". Can you please be a bit more descriptive for the circumstances? I'm not looking your charter number up in eServices on my phone.

Its like that old joke about the balloonist who floats up alongside a building in the fog, and shouts out to a guy on the building "Hey, I'm lost! Where am I?"
The guy shouts back "You're in a balloon!"
"Oh, this must be the Microsoft campus."
"Yes! How did you know that?"
"Beceause you gave me an answer that's technically correct but completely useless for my circumstances."

[Eclipse]

Your example is only useful if you know where a given airport or city is, not
everyone knows, or for that matter cares, but like all things in CAP, those
who need to know, do.

Someone from out of state, Region, or 1/2 way across the country, doesn't
need to know, and when and if they do, it works it self out quickly.

Further, due to the realities of the way units move around, and that people
don't like change, often a unit retains an historical name, even though it
isn't any where near where it was when originally chartered.

The average member, from the average unit, rarely leaves his unit,
more rarely leaves his Group for anything, and the number of members
who ever go out of Wing is statistically insignificant, especially for
this conversation, and there is literally no mission-focused reason
for knowing someone is from out of wing, or even what unit they are
with, at least in regards to "low-light-identification".

Hey, I'm the patch and coin guy, I love this stuff, but like everything
else in CAP, due to lack of fortitude in enforcement, published standards,
and then the "gotcha" culture, the organization takes something that should
be a fun sidenote and turns it into one more thing to argue about and get
uninformed non-stakeholder grief about.

"What is the significance of the black in the tires on the airplane?"

"Cessna tires are black."

"Yes, but black can have a negative connotation on a herald."

"It can also have a positive one, and Cessna tires are black..."

"I'll need to discuss this with the Wing CC."

An actual conversation I had.

[TheSkyHornet]

I'm absolutely lost when people tell me what unit they're in and start citing numbers or names in memoriam. I'm confused enough when I hear of a city or county that I don't even know exists.

"Where are you from?"
"155"
"Where?"
"Tangela"
"Where's that?"
"Down south"
"Oh, gotcha" (don't gotcha, but okay)

"Where are you from?"
"Wiley E. Coyote Composite Squadron"
"Where?"
"155"
(repeat steps above)

It's gibberish.

That said, we don't really need to know that stuff. We're technically charted as a location-based squadron name, but we traditionally refer to ourselves by our charter number. We've had numerous conversations about officially changing to use that indefinitely in the event that we move to a new location and to avoid any city-based distinction. We actually use our county name, but we get inquiries from people who assume we don't take members from outside of the county ("Is it okay to join even though we don't live there?"). God help those outside of CAP who try to figure out what the heck a Senior or Composite Squadron are, let alone those who don't even know that CAP is more than just a youth cadet organization.

I'm actually kind of stoked to redo our patch; we've talked about redesigning it since I joined. In fact, I think we actually have been using an unofficial design for years on our pamphlets and materials, not even using the actual patch (that nobody has seen in a while; nobody in the current unit even knows it exists, I bet). We haven't worn unit patches for a few years and started phasing out the practice just before ABUs were approved for transition. I'm looking forward to continuing to not add another sew-on item just because we revised our patch design. If anything, it's nice to have on letterhead.

[Eclipse]

I've been in favor of removing the charter type from names and insignis for years.

It's meaningless to the general public, for the most part functionally meaningless,
and those who need to know need to know.

Nice to see that's been indicated as a "don't" now.

[TheSkyHornet]

It's meaningless to the general public, for the most part functionally meaningless,
and those who need to know need to know.

I actually had this conversation a couple days ago with my staff team. I asked someone, "Are you guys a composite squadron or a cadet squadron, or are you a composite squadron that acts like a cadet squadron?"

[Crashaxe]

Thank the heavens that this existential crisis, rising so greatly above the strictly petty issues facing CAP today, has been addressed!!!

I will sleep so much better tonight knowing that the mortal threat of wayward heraldry has been crushed.

[Okayish Aviator]

So maybe I'm missing something, but did they completely skip over the process for squadrons to submit their emblems? I only seem to see the one for wing and region to submit theirs...

Seems a bit of an oversight as usual.

[Eclipse]

So maybe I'm missing something, but did they completely skip over the process for squadrons to submit their emblems? I only seem to see the one for wing and region to submit theirs...

Seems a bit of an oversight as usual.

Page 1, Paragraph 2:
"If a squadron uses or displays an emblem or motto in any format or manner, the squadron
commander must submit it to the wing commander, (through the group commander, if
applicable) followed by the region commander, for approval. The group, wing, or region
commander may return the emblem for corrections before approving"

[baronet68]

It's meaningless to the general public, for the most part functionally meaningless,
and those who need to know need to know.

I actually had this conversation a couple days ago with my staff team. I asked someone, "Are you guys a composite squadron or a cadet squadron, or are you a composite squadron that acts like a cadet squadron?"

I've wondered if this was an attempt a preventing any possible confusion with Real Military™ units.  Are there any Cadet, Senior, or Composite squadrons in the USAF?

[Okayish Aviator]

So maybe I'm missing something, but did they completely skip over the process for squadrons to submit their emblems? I only seem to see the one for wing and region to submit theirs...

Seems a bit of an oversight as usual.

Page 1, Paragraph 2:
"If a squadron uses or displays an emblem or motto in any format or manner, the squadron
commander must submit it to the wing commander, (through the group commander, if
applicable) followed by the region commander, for approval. The group, wing, or region
commander may return the emblem for corrections before approving"

Thanks. I was being blind as usual. Unfortunately we've had a request in the chain since April of last year. It was never approved. I'm now revising everything to resubmit.

[Paul Creed III]

What are units supposed to do when they run out of their current stock but don't have someone *truly* talented to help create a new one?

Perhaps NHQ could have a stock unit emblem that just requires fill-in-the-blank on the unit name?

[baronet68]

What are units supposed to do when they run out of their current stock but don't have someone *truly* talented to help create a new one?

Perhaps NHQ could have a stock unit emblem that just requires fill-in-the-blank on the unit name?

My local unit had this problem, nobody in the squadron had the necessary skills or software to do a patch design.  They started asking around the various CAP groups on Facebook and found an interested cadet with some skills and helped redesign their patch.  The cadet wasn't even in the same wing but it gave the cadet an opportunity to gain more experience and the unit was able to get a design they really like.

[PHall]

What are units supposed to do when they run out of their current stock but don't have someone *truly* talented to help create a new one?

Perhaps NHQ could have a stock unit emblem that just requires fill-in-the-blank on the unit name?

Why? Unit insignia is not required on any CAP uniform. Yeah it's nice to have but if you run out you can still wear the uniform.

[arajca]

Also, most patch manufacturers will help with the design work. I've seen some very rough sketches turn into nice patches. Of course, you're committed to buying from them, but that's not a bad thing.

[Spam]

What are units supposed to do when they run out of their current stock but don't have someone *truly* talented to help create a new one?

Perhaps NHQ could have a stock unit emblem that just requires fill-in-the-blank on the unit name?

Well your units could do as many active duty units do - ignore the issue, and keep purchasing Squadron T shirts with their legacy patch design.  Since they transitioned to OCP and hit the June 2020 wear out date for unit patches, the only appearance of "patches" are on USAF unit T shirts, wall emblems at the squadrons, letterheads, etc. and I could see CAP going the same route.

Since the USAF does at least have some appreciation of their Heritage (cf. the Heritage Flight, heritage units in training), several of the units I've worked with are carrying on with their old, WW1 and WW2 patches, regulation be darned. Examples include F-22 units I've worked with with cartoon bulldogs (Elmo), lions (the Golden Pride, a legacy WW2 patch), and even a cartoon night fighter bat with goggles, a knife, and fangs dripping blood. All still there, all selling t shirts with the logos at their coffee messes last I checked when at their units. Even the combat SAR squadrons won't give up their Jolly Green Giant logos (a cartoon).

Combat unit or support unit, USAF or USAFR or ANG or CAP, telling people that the organization is cancelling the visual logo of their history is an idea which should never be done in a cavalier manner if leaders really respect the motivational sources of their people. So with respect to tearing apart our heritage I will rise as the loyal opposition and question this applied retroactively. I've seen enough iconoclasts the last couple of years tearing things down, and I've had my fill of that. When the cancel culture goes after a legacy unit patch because it has a cartoon or a jet or an eagle on it, something is out of order.

R/s
Spam

[PHall]

What are units supposed to do when they run out of their current stock but don't have someone *truly* talented to help create a new one?

Perhaps NHQ could have a stock unit emblem that just requires fill-in-the-blank on the unit name?

Well your units could do as many active duty units do - ignore the issue, and keep purchasing Squadron T shirts with their legacy patch design.  Since they transitioned to OCP and hit the June 2020 wear out date for unit patches, the only appearance of "patches" are on USAF unit T shirts, wall emblems at the squadrons, letterheads, etc. and I could see CAP going the same route.

Since the USAF does at least have some appreciation of their Heritage (cf. the Heritage Flight, heritage units in training), several of the units I've worked with are carrying on with their old, WW1 and WW2 patches, regulation be darned. Examples include F-22 units I've worked with with cartoon bulldogs (Elmo), lions (the Golden Pride, a legacy WW2 patch), and even a cartoon night fighter bat with goggles, a knife, and fangs dripping blood. All still there, all selling t shirts with the logos at their coffee messes last I checked when at their units. Even the combat SAR squadrons won't give up their Jolly Green Giant logos (a cartoon).

Combat unit or support unit, USAF or USAFR or ANG or CAP, telling people that the organization is cancelling the visual logo of their history is an idea which should never be done in a cavalier manner if leaders really respect the motivational sources of their people. So with respect to tearing apart our heritage I will rise as the loyal opposition and question this applied retroactively. I've seen enough iconoclasts the last couple of years tearing things down, and I've had my fill of that. When the cancel culture goes after a legacy unit patch because it has a cartoon or a jet or an eagle on it, something is out of order.

R/s
Spam

Don't know what Air Force OCP you're looking at but you still wear your unit patch on your right shoulder right under the flag. And you wear your MAJCOM patch on the left shoulder. So you still need patches. You just can't wear the full color ones but you're authorized to wear your current subdued patch until your OCP compliant patches come in.

It was the ABU uniform that did away with unit patches. The OCP brought them back.

[Spam]

You're absolutely correct, sorry, not sure what I was thinking there!
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1821282/air-force-senior-leaders-update-ocp-uniform-guidance/

Thanks!
Spam

[Eclipse]

I've actually helped convert a few to subdued.

[Okayish Aviator]

I've done unit emblems for... 5 units now for CAP. I'd be happy to render assistance if anyone needs help.

I'm a little upset that some of the design principles are so restrictive though. We had one in the pipeline (for some reason we're almost a year out with it sitting on someones desk) and then the new reg popped so we're having to resubmit with a corrected version.

[RiverAux]

Having been involved with developing some Wing standards for this in the past, I think this was a good step to take, even if not the most important thing in the world. 

Sadly though, once you take some of the "fun" stuff out of the patches I don't think anyone ever develops any strong attachment to them even if the designer comes up with some reasonable explanation of why they might have some relevance to the members. 

[biomed441]

Having been involved with developing some Wing standards for this in the past, I think this was a good step to take, even if not the most important thing in the world. 

Sadly though, once you take some of the "fun" stuff out of the patches I don't think anyone ever develops any strong attachment to them even if the designer comes up with some reasonable explanation of why they might have some relevance to the members. 

Agreed. It was the correct step.  Not essential, but a needed change.  The fun stuff can still happen if you think outside the box.  I've had my hand in a few designs too and a quick Google search for USAF squadron patches can give some pretty interesting ideas.  Get the unit involved in the design process. If you have cadets, give them the parameters to work in and let their imaginations go.  Some of the stuff they can come up with is gold. 

[Eclipse]

Just to show how this will affect units.

Two of the three CAP insignia in this article, which to my eye look
recently designed and well-done, violate the regs.

https://www.cap.news/calif-colo-nc-cadets-reach-cyberpatriot-xiii-national-finals/

[Mitchell 1969]

Just to show how this will affect units.

Two of the three CAP insignia in this article, which to my eye look
recently designed and well-done, violate the regs.

https://www.cap.news/calif-colo-nc-cadets-reach-cyberpatriot-xiii-national-finals/

One for sure. What else do you see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Air Academy has too many characters (46 vs 30 max w/ space) in the scrolls, and potentially prohibited
aircraft based on being (possibly) combatant. Approved abbreviation for "Cadet Squadron" is "Cdt Sq".

Fullerton needs to be a disc, has non-letters in the scroll, text and numbers in the field.

And after a second look - NCWG has the wrong color for the lettering in the scroll - must be Ultramarine blue,
an argument could be made the field color is incorrect as well.

[Spam]

Teammates, I think its important to point out (as I have to my subordinate units) that there are two things going on here.


The first and most important thing is that MG Smith, in his recent direction down the chain on the patch/coin/emblem topic, has implemented a quick review of our heraldry and imagery to scan for inappropriate content. This, in accordance with USAF customer direction. So if we were to have a legacy image or product with an offensive or extremist content, that should be the initial goal to ensure that we're complying.


The matter of compliance with the minutiae of the new Reg seems (to me) to come in a far second in terms of importance. Whether or not waivers may be issued via the chain of command is not stated but I would suggest that we focus on providing answers as requested through our Wing and Region commanders on the first issue. Then, pivot to the second issue of justifying historical patches with jets and cartoons and what not, or, alternatively, spending time reinventing new patches.


All the time we use here is either a waste, or an investment. Let's spend our time first on answering the mail.

R/s,
Spam

[Mitchell 1969]

Teammates, I think its important to point out (as I have to my subordinate units) that there are two things going on here.


The first and most important thing is that MG Smith, in his recent direction down the chain on the patch/coin/emblem topic, has implemented a quick review of our heraldry and imagery to scan for inappropriate content. This, in accordance with USAF customer direction. So if we were to have a legacy image or product with an offensive or extremist content, that should be the initial goal to ensure that we're complying.


The matter of compliance with the minutiae of the new Reg seems (to me) to come in a far second in terms of importance. Whether or not waivers may be issued via the chain of command is not stated but I would suggest that we focus on providing answers as requested through our Wing and Region commanders on the first issue. Then, pivot to the second issue of justifying historical patches with jets and cartoons and what not, or, alternatively, spending time reinventing new patches.


All the time we use here is either a waste, or an investment. Let's spend our time first on answering the mail.

R/s,
Spam

There's no reason why both can't be done at the same time. One is more pressing, the other is more academic, but they are each in the same General bin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

There's no reason why both can't be done at the same time. One is more pressing, the other is more academic, but they are each in the same General bin.

This.

The main point I am trying to make is that when you issue a regulation that stipulates action
be taken in regards to existing symbols, this is the consequence.

Much of the reg is based on the general understanding members have been operating under
(and often willfully ignoring) for 20 years, but a few of the prescriptions seem arbitrary,
such as the character limit.

Yes, waivers, etc., except the issuance of too many of those defeats the purpose of standardization.

[Mitchell 1969]

There's no reason why both can't be done at the same time. One is more pressing, the other is more academic, but they are each in the same General bin.

This.

The main point I am trying to make is that when you issue a regulation that stipulates action
be taken in regards to existing symbols, this is the consequence.

Much of the reg is based on the general understanding members have been operating under
(and often willfully ignoring) for 20 years, but a few of the prescriptions seem arbitrary,
such as the character limit.

Yes, waivers, etc., except the issuance of too many of those defeats the purpose of standardization.

There is no requirement to make immediate changes. The character limit mirrors USAF policy; rather than being arbitrary it sets a readability standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

There is no requirement to make immediate changes. .

Any regulation that prescribes change, yet sets no deadline for that action beyond
"future" is setup nicely to become largely ignored, except where it can be used as
as value-added way to make members' lives more "pleasant".

At a minimum there should have been a requirement to review all existing insignia,
including those at the National level, within 6 months of publication with formal notification
to all of those that are non-compliant in that regard.

This would have been, and still could be, an excellent use of Covid downtime.

And yes, as usual there's plenty of wiggle-room left for "history and justification",
which sounds like a great idea, until you look back at how well CAP generally deals with
situations where member effort is filtered through someone's personal feelings on a matter.
Standards should be standards.  Period.  If setting a standard means uncomfortable conversations,
and even expense, then it's either not worth setting, or it should just be weathered and
then moved on.

The character limit mirrors USAF policy; rather than being arbitrary it sets a readability standard.

Only in the worst way.
 
The specification calls for 30 characters max on a disc, yet 36 for the shield, but unlike the USAF,
sets no prescription for the font size. More characters in less space is hardly an effort towards
readability. It's arbitrary, an oversight, or both.

It also makes things harder on units then Groups or Wings as few of the latter have mottos, yet most of the former do.

(The latest Heraldry guide I can find, 2013, also calls out Corel Draw and presumably Microsoft Paint, yet makes no mention of Adobe, which is kind of hilarious).

For those sewing at home:
    "United states Air Force Auxiliary Civil air Patrol" is 50 characters.
    "Civil Air Patrol Semper Vigilans" is 32.

Setting up handy "but NHQ does..." to which there can be both historical exception
and DAISNAID.

[Eclipse]

And yes, I get it, like everything else in CAP, ES, encampments, UAVs, whatever, if you're not involved in the thing...What's the big deal?

But for those of us who have been involved in capricious arguments about the heraldic significance of
black tires, and / or spent / wasted hours on design only to then waste waiting months for responses, it's a big deal.

[TheSkyHornet]

But for those of us who have...wasted hours on design only to then waste waiting months for responses, it's a big deal.

This on any subject, really.

Rules come out. We make these changes and spend a LOT of time on them, only for the bureaucracy to hold it up for so long; sometimes until the next rule comes out.

It's certainly not unique to CAP. But we're an organization surrounded by regulations and training protocols/programs that...I don't want to use the phrase "get in the way"...but they take a lot of time to work through only to be told later "This is changing anyway, so stand down until then." And then the change takes 3 years.

And, for an organization that is structured heavily from a regulatory standpoint, we sure seem to look the other way on a number of items under the statement "We're just a volunteer organization, yanno."

Why have regulations posted if we don't follow them? Why use phrases like "Yeah, but nobody is going to beat you up if you don't do X?"

[Eclipse]

"This is changing anyway, so stand down until then." And then the change takes 3 years.

Yes, the infamous "double-secret supplement pending approval", which is often found to be someone's
good idea or preference that they are "intending to write up "soon".

And, for an organization that is structured heavily from a regulatory standpoint, we sure seem to look the other way on a number of items under the statement "We're just a volunteer organization, yanno."

Why have regulations posted if we don't follow them? Why use phrases like "Yeah, but nobody is going to beat you up if you don't do X?"

I have found that the organizaiton as a whole tends to be more willing to make invested and involved high-performers, 
who know and try to follow the regs, sad then edge players who are as likely to quit as much as comply. Whether its promotions, activities, or patches, this has been my experience, anyway.

[CAP10Bob]

One interesting factoid: If you compare the USAF Heraldry reg with the CAP one, you will find that USAF ((paraphrasing))"allows a unit to return to its (first) historical patch."
CAP did not include that in this reg, sadly, and it should have.
A look at the existing patches ((see CivilAirPatrolPatches.com)) shows that it is truly a 'patchwork' of different shapes, sizes and designs... SQs with Wing (shield/modified shield) shaped patches, Wings with ROUND squadron shaped patches, etc. etc.
IMHO, something that has decades of history behind it (like one Wing patch that has been in existence almost as long as CAP itself!) should be left alone. Maybe the reg should have been going forward only, and left "history" alone....

[arajca]

The "return to historical patch" section of AFI 84-105 says:

3.6.6.2.An organization that has had more than one emblem may request to return to its first emblem (i.e., its historical emblem).
   3.6.6.2.1. The MAJCOM History Office and Major Command commander or deputy commander endorses the request to return to the historical emblem. (See paragraph 3.6.6.1.2).
   3.6.6.2.2. Do  not  change  elements  of  the historical  emblem  except  to  comply  with paragraph 3.7.5.
   3.6.6.2.3. Place   the   historical   emblem   within   the   parameters   of   a   shield   (See paragraph 3.3) or disc (See paragraph 3.4), as appropriate.

So, while the unit may use the historical design, it must on the current appropriate shape for the organizational level. I.e. units use a disc, group/wings/regions use a shield. So a unit with a historical shield patch cannot use the shield, but must put the elements of the historical patch into a disc. This also only applies if a unit has had multiple designs throughout its history.

[PHall]

One interesting factoid: If you compare the USAF Heraldry reg with the CAP one, you will find that USAF ((paraphrasing))"allows a unit to return to its (first) historical patch."
CAP did not include that in this reg, sadly, and it should have.
A look at the existing patches ((see CivilAirPatrolPatches.com)) shows that it is truly a 'patchwork' of different shapes, sizes and designs... SQs with Wing (shield/modified shield) shaped patches, Wings with ROUND squadron shaped patches, etc. etc.
IMHO, something that has decades of history behind it (like one Wing patch that has been in existence almost as long as CAP itself!) should be left alone. Maybe the reg should have been going forward only, and left "history" alone....

Nice dead link there ( CivilAirPatrolPatches.com ).

[AdAstra]

Correct link for Civil Air Patrol patches is www.incountry.us

[arajca]

Or not. I get a "403 - Forbidden" message.

[Eclipse]

Or you could use the correct link...

http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/

The other website posted isn't even a site, the domain is available.

[SarDragon]

Correct link for Civil Air Patrol patches is www.incountry.us

That one comes up 403 - Forbidden.

[Eclipse]

Correct link for Civil Air Patrol patches is www.incountry.us

That one comes up 403 - Forbidden.

See above, the root link does not work but the correct link does.