CAPR 110-3 Civil Air Patrol Heraldry Program

[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.