CAPR 110-3 Civil Air Patrol Heraldry Program

[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