HELP!!! its about the triangle-thingy

[usafcap1]

My UC wants to put the triangle-thingy on our new sqdrn patch. I ask you wat should I do or say? H e wants feedback and reasons why something should or shouldn't be on it.

[davidsinn]

My UC wants to put the triangle-thingy on our new sqdrn patch. I ask you wat should I do or say? H e wants feedback and reasons why something should or shouldn't be on it.

Just politely point out that it is not an authorized emblem per the regs.

[Eclipse]

The historic prop is much more appropriate for unit insignia.

[RiverAux]

Although not explicitly binding on CAP I seem to recall something in the AF heraldry guidelines about not putting service wide symbols inside unit patches. 

[a2capt]

Just think of how crummy the the embroidery will look with the little writing at a micro size.

Use the prop only, or make something unique since the idea of the unit patch is to be unique to the unit.

[Brad]

http://www.afhra.af.mil/organizationalrecords/guide.asp

USAF Guide to Air Force Heraldry

I know I'm a bit of a hypocrite here since my squadron is guilty of it, but DO NOT make the squadron design with the shield and scroll. Use the disc. Only Wing and above rate the shield design.

[Pylon]

Just politely point out that it is not an authorized emblem per the regs.

This.  Point out that it does not appear as an authorized emblem or seal for unit's to use in CAPR 900-2.  The national CAP emblems/insignia/logos/seals that units can and cannot use (and specifically how they can use them) are outlined in CAPR 900-2.  The triangle thingy is not there as an approved emblem for subordinate units to use; therefore units are not authorized to use it.  Problem solved.

[a2capt]

Did that. Twice, the only reply was that the question forwarded for review, and an answer from the department in charge .. and that answer never came. Pretty sure that they saw it as trolling. But that's the typical canned answer you get for using the KB if you don't get an answer within a day or so.

That it's not authorized in 900-2 didn't seem to stop them from allowing it to be used, as if they were going to send a C&D order to anyone when they themselves, NHQ, were "guilty" of blowing off the regs. on it.

Someone's cutie little pet emblem just lives on and then they backpedal by floating an agenda item to legitimize it. 

..and this comes from the same people who need a Diversity study and a million bucks to tour the country to see what isn't diverse enough.

..and who blew a wad of coin on a NASCAR flop.

..and admit there's an identity crisis, but only further dilute it.

How many uniforms, activities, and recruiting events that would have helped the organization directly could have been bought, helped and held with that money? Talk about beating around the bush.

The emblem and seal designs that 900-2 offers now are excellent to go forward with. CAP does not need another new one, does not need to join the kiddie generation of lowercase logos and corporate identities like 'at&t' and 'pepsi' that seem to be all the rage now.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Did that. Twice, the only reply was that the question forwarded for review, and an answer from the department in charge .. and that answer never came. Pretty sure that they saw it as trolling. But that's the typical canned answer you get for using the KB if you don't get an answer within a day or so.

That's the only kind of answer I've ever got from my questions to NHQ.

Someone's cutie little pet emblem just lives on and then they backpedal by floating an agenda item to legitimize it. 

..and admit there's an identity crisis, but only further dilute it.

The emblem and seal designs that 900-2 offers now are excellent to go forward with. CAP does not need another new one, does not need to join the kiddie generation of lowercase logos and corporate identities like 'at&t' and 'pepsi' that seem to be all the rage now.

All true, and adopting this bloody awful triangle is NOT going to help with that identity crisis.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...even though someone's already violated that with killing the CSU (no, I'm not trying to turn this into a uniform thread) and kiboshing this perfectly good crest:

[Ned]

Just politely point out that it is not an authorized emblem per the regs.

This.  Point out that it does not appear as an authorized emblem or seal for unit's to use in CAPR 900-2.  The national CAP emblems/insignia/logos/seals that units can and cannot use (and specifically how they can use them) are outlined in CAPR 900-2.  The triangle thingy is not there as an approved emblem for subordinate units to use; therefore units are not authorized to use it.  Problem solved.

I hear you, but I think that is sort of the opposite of the regulation.  900-2 certainly regulates the use of the images described therein, but that seems logically unrelated to whether a unit can use a different image in their patch.  The overwhelming number of images/logos/emblems, etc used in unit patches are not covered by the 900-2 and I don't think that violates regs, per se.  Otherwise we would never have seen the rich visual history of our wing patches.  Alligators, bears, pineapples, and all the rest are simply not covered in the 900-2 and the world is a richer place for it.