Does anyone know the reasoning behind the addition of the pseudo Triangle Thingy in the 900-2? They have removed a very nice, historic emblem and changed it with... that.
Basic rundown: CAP emblem (blue Civil Defense circle with prop inside white triangle) is now no longer authorized in any way, shape, or form. Most uses have been replaced by a logo which is just the prop and triangle, with Civil Air Patrol spelled out in a "Cornerstone" typesetting. POVs using the old emblem are now authorized the MAJCOM shield emblem.
I thought the round emblem was quite smart and recognizable, guess I must have been in the minority.
Quote from: kd8gua on January 06, 2013, 09:37:06 AM
.....
I thought the round emblem was quite smart and recognizable, guess I must have been in the minority.
+1 I am with you and therefore I must have been in the minority too.
I can only hope that it was not removed because it contained the words "USAF Auxiliary", anything with that wording is slowly disappearing from our images, one piece at the time.
Quote from: vento on January 06, 2013, 11:24:35 AM
Quote from: kd8gua on January 06, 2013, 09:37:06 AM
.....
I thought the round emblem was quite smart and recognizable, guess I must have been in the minority.
+1 I am with you and therefore I must have been in the minority too.
I can only hope that it was not removed because it contained the words "USAF Auxiliary", anything with that wording is slowly disappearing from our images, one piece at the time.
That's an interesting idea that you point out. I've only been back with CAP for a little while now and I've been extremely busy reaquainting myself with the organization. This has included reading A LOT of policy and procedures. From what I have gathered so far, it seems as though CAP is only the auxiliary of the Air Force during AFAMs and/or whenever the USAF want us to be. Otherwise, CAP is just a federally chartered, non-profit, paramilitary, volunteer organization (and a very nice one at that :D). Then again, I could be way off. Anyway, we still have the official CAP seal.
I only hope that what others have said about those at the higher echelons are reading this board.
That change is the most asinine that can be made. Most people posting here are against "the triangle thingy." I guess someone at the higher echelons prefer to do things their members do not like, as the Corporate Uniform.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on January 06, 2013, 03:00:32 PM
I only hope that what others have said about those at the higher echelons are reading this board.
That change is the most asinine that can be made. Most people posting here are against "the triangle thingy." I guess someone at the higher echelons prefer to do things their members do not like, as the Corporate Uniform.
Flyer
You forget one important fact, the people posting here are a very, very small vocal minority who may or may not reflect the views of the general membership.
I guess you do like "the triangle thingy..."
Honestly, I think this is a reasonable compromise - it moves the MAJCOM to all vehicles, including POVs, which is
appropriate and looks more professional in that capacity then the other things that have been used, while it modernizes
the traditional prop and triangle without moving it too far away from the original.
Those who understand the historical significance of the original roundel may prefer it, but the challenge is that
most people won't understand that significance until after they are members. The updated logo is much more
akin to current design thinking, which is streamlined with a limited color palette.
While 900-2 indicates a preference for the triangle, it also fully allows for the subjective use of the MAJCOM
based on audience acceptance. So those who deal with the military and ES agencies will likely continue to
use it without any regulatory concerns.
Quote from: flyer333555 on January 06, 2013, 07:45:43 PM
I guess you do like "the triangle thingy..."
Actually, I have no opinion either way. To me, it's a non-issue.
Quote from: PHall on January 06, 2013, 08:10:05 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on January 06, 2013, 07:45:43 PM
I guess you do like "the triangle thingy..."
Actually, I have no opinion either way. To me, it's a non-issue.
+1
Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2013, 07:59:10 PM
Honestly, I think this is a reasonable compromise - it moves the MAJCOM to all vehicles, including POVs, which is
appropriate and looks more professional in that capacity then the other things that have been used, while it modernizes
the traditional prop and triangle without moving it too far away from the original...
While 900-2 indicates a preference for the triangle, it also fully allows for the subjective use of the MAJCOM
based on audience acceptance. So those who deal with the military and ES agencies will likely continue to
use it without any regulatory concerns.
You might remember that it was the 11" Scotchlite seal decal that was used on corporate vehicles for ages, with a five-digit CAP number in white numbers underneath (the first two being the wing's number in alphabetical order). To me, the seal was the best representation, but times have changed.
We also used a larger seal decal on the tails of our aircraft. Our livery's much nicer now, though I guess if I were to change anything, it would be to add tail markings that reflect at least the region the plane's attached to, with the MAJCOM emblem at the top.
All said, the 900-2 is a welcome update. The new logo may not be quite to your liking, but it definitely works better than the previous "triangle thingy." More to come on the marketing front, I'm sure, to reinforce its use and help carry the "brand" message forward.
The seals were absolutely horrible from a public affairs point of view. They are very generic, too complex for easy reading, and not very eye-catching.
One of the best decisions CAP has made in years was to dump the seal from everyday use on uniforms, vehicles, and planes.
They may have been a little difficult to read at a glance, granted, but they had the official air to them that gave our members stronger credibility when they rolled onto an emergency situation. It didn't hurt that at the time, most of our vehicles were Air Force blue, some with white tops, and included vehicles like school buses and pickup trucks.
Oh, and in those days, "CIVIL AIR PATROL" was atop the seal, in Goudy Old Style bold. Can't miss that on first glance.
has anyone seen or have a downloadable copy of the logo?
Quote from: peter rabbit on January 07, 2013, 02:51:18 AM
has anyone seen or have a downloadable copy of the logo?
Can't find the new Triangle logo in any official pages yet. There are a few on the internet if you Google.
For everything else, the official sites are:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/seals-emblems-and-patches/ (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/seals-emblems-and-patches/)
and
http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187 (http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187)
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_cap_logo_approved_by_national_executive_committee&show=news&newsID=13163 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_cap_logo_approved_by_national_executive_committee&show=news&newsID=13163)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/AtnOX0dCAAALeQ4.jpg)
(http://r2.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/CAVC/2013/JAN/600x400/bell-ringing-photo_10849164.jpg)
^^^^The logo displayed above doesn't match the one on the screen in the picture. That one matches the "official" version reached by following the link in 900-2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/7189667303/#in/set-72157630134037440 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/civilairpatrol/7189667303/#in/set-72157630134037440)
Which is what happens when the design guidelines only provide the colors and not the typeface/font to be used, causing the whole point of having a standard design to be lost.
QuoteCan't find the new Triangle logo in any official pages yet.
The link in CAPR 900-2 takes you to it.
Mike
I noticed the improper scaling caused by the exchanges TV, but not the bad font. That's direct from the CAP Twitter page.
Here's a shot direct from 900-2:
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7011/caplogo2013.jpg)
I hate they did away with the Hap Arnold symbol. That was a great link to "Ma Blue." Cadets loved it.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on January 07, 2013, 01:35:06 PM
I hate they did away with the Hap Arnold symbol. That was a great link to "Ma Blue." Cadets loved it.
I actually wish we could do away with everything except two: A logo/emblem and an official corporate seal. A guy can have dreams, can't he? ;)
Also, besides the fact that there's already several noticeably different versions of new triangle thingy out there -- what about the
other triangle thingy with the words around the triangle? Is that still being used by NHQ? I still see it places. What's the deal with that one? Can we now infer that one should never be used again, too?
It's a bummer about the USAF wings. It's going to force a fair number of encampments and other activities to redesign their
t-shirts and other collateral, but it'll kill that !@#$% metallic blue abomination that's been floating around since 2003,
so that's a silver lining.
As to people using the "olde" stuff improperly, there's still a fair number of places the "olde" stuff pops up from NHQ
in documents, photos, etc., so I wouldn't expect the "bad" TTT to disappear from the landscape completely any time soon.
It might have helped it they had clarified in this new version what are now "no longer acceptable graphics, elements, and uses." At least then you could point to the CAPR 900-2 and say "Look, it's very clear. This [Air Force Hap Arnold wings lockup/Roundel/Emblem/Logo/] is no longer usable. Please change it."
Quote from: Pylon on January 07, 2013, 05:35:16 PM
It might have helped it they had clarified in this new version what are now "no longer acceptable graphics, elements, and uses."
Agree - I didn't see any phase-out, either. In the past there has been a phase-out period to allow for the consumption
of letterhead, etc.
I've got a pile of business cards to pitch now, and a few logos to change.
Are we missing the 90-day periods for comment on these new regs? Seems like had this feedback been provided prior to the reg being issued, a lot of this could have been clarified and improved.
There was no comment period for these latest changes.
Quote from: arajca on January 07, 2013, 07:56:08 PM
There was no comment period for these latest changes.
I haven't seen a regulation posted for comment in quite some time.
A few of the recent dump could have used some external comment, like the new 110-1.
The comment period was very useful. I know some input into the new Public Affairs regulation avoided a serious ambiguity that could have caused problems (and NHQ responded to the comment almost immediately and made the requested change to clarify) before it became a final regulation.
Quote from: arajca on January 07, 2013, 07:56:08 PM
There was no comment period for these latest changes.
Yeah. That needs to change.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on January 07, 2013, 01:35:06 PM
I hate they did away with the Hap Arnold symbol. That was a great link to "Ma Blue." Cadets loved it.
I have the feeling that was a USAF dictate.
The USAF site used to have a far more liberal use policy of the Hap Arnold Wing. That has changed drastically now:
http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/displaying/index.asp (http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/displaying/index.asp)
Now, only MAJCOM and higher can nestle a logo inside of the wing.
On one hand, it's a bummer. On the other hand, I'd say more than 75% of the CAP uses of that particular logo were incorrect, so in the long run it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Thought that Hap Arnold/CAP combination was horrible looking and am glad its gone.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 07, 2013, 10:37:23 PM
Thought that Hap Arnold/CAP combination was horrible looking and am glad its gone.
I liked it alot, and use it on my letterhead. Now I have to change it. >:(
Florida Wing has used the CAP Hap Arnold on an official business card template for wing staff members for years. The staff still has to purchase the cards with their own funds, so I'm still expecting them to be in use until people run out.
Quote from: ctrossen on January 07, 2013, 09:22:19 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on January 07, 2013, 01:35:06 PM
I hate they did away with the Hap Arnold symbol. That was a great link to "Ma Blue." Cadets loved it.
I have the feeling that was a USAF dictate.
The USAF site used to have a far more liberal use policy of the Hap Arnold Wing. That has changed drastically now:
http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/displaying/index.asp (http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/displaying/index.asp)
Now, only MAJCOM and higher can nestle a logo inside of the wing.
On one hand, it's a bummer. On the other hand, I'd say more than 75% of the CAP uses of that particular logo were incorrect, so in the long run it's not necessarily a bad thing.
I just want to point out that what you all are referring to is
not the Hap Arnold symbol. This is: http://www.trademark.af.mil/logos/hap/index.asp (http://www.trademark.af.mil/logos/hap/index.asp). That is the "official Air Force symbol". :( It was designed by a
private corporate identity firm, Siegel & Gale (italics mine). The Hap Arnold insignia was used after WWII; initially still authorized on the new uniform and continuing on flight gear until the early '60's at least. I have a pamphlet from basic training in
1975 with the Hap Arnold symbol on the back cover.
I, and others I know, feel the same way about the new symbol as some feel about the "Triangle Thingy". The other services haven't changed their symbols, why should the Air Force?
Quote from: LegacyAirman on January 09, 2013, 01:33:10 AM
I, and others I know, feel the same way about the new symbol as some feel about the "Triangle Thingy". The other services haven't changed their symbols, why should the Air Force?
"The Army has doctrine, the Navy has tradition, and the Air Force is new."
Quote from: LegacyAirman on January 09, 2013, 01:33:10 AM
I, and others I know, feel the same way about the new symbol as some feel about the "Triangle Thingy". The other services haven't changed their symbols, why should the Air Force?
I would argue the Army has used different symbols over the years as well. I don't think the Marine's use much other than their ubiquitous eagle, globe, and anchor. Not too sure about the Navy I admit.
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on January 09, 2013, 07:07:42 AMI don't think the Marine's use much other than their ubiquitous eagle, globe, and anchor. Not too sure about the Navy I admit.
Bingo on the Marine Corps. Our service emblem (the Eagle, Globe & Anchor) is also the central element on our seal, is also our cap badge and collar devices, is also embroidered on our cammies, and is featured on our guidons, flags, etc. Even the Air Force symbol, it all its uses, doesn't quite go that far. The symbol on the service uniform buttons is a different wing symbol, the service cap badges are different, it's not seen on any Air Force uniform (except the lightweight blue jacket if the airman gets the optional embroidery), and it's not in the Air Force seal. CAP actually had more "universality" and widespread use with its symbol of the triangle & propeller, which could be seen worked into everything from the CAP seal, to the command emblem, to the SM and cadet cap badges, to our wings, etc.
This is just another move away from the Air Force and from our heritage...and unless someone knows more than I do, I have a feeling it's
CAP doing it, not the Air Force, just as
CAP killed the CSU, not the Air Force.
This is another step in the same mould as removing "USAF AUX" from our aircraft. Yah sure, yah betcha, I know the "official" reasoning about providing assistance to LE. Whether I believe it or not is another matter, and, I know, is irrelevant.
Until this page is changed or someone way up the food chain tells me directly not to, the symbology is still valid as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187 (http://www.af.mil/art/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=5187)
I will not use that hideous looking new symbol on my business cards. Period.
I will use this:
(http://www.af.mil/shared/media/ggallery/webgraphic/AFG-080407-024.jpg)
Quote from: Pylon on January 07, 2013, 08:19:53 PM
Quote from: arajca on January 07, 2013, 07:56:08 PM
There was no comment period for these latest changes.
Yeah. That needs to change.
When was the last time our input
was solicited?
As far as the MAJCOM shield still being used, what we've got now is a bowdlerised imitation of a shield I wore proudly. I know of people who
still wear this one (the names will be kept secret to protect the "guilty").
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Civil_Air_Patrol_US_Air_Force_Auxiliary_Command.png/180px-Civil_Air_Patrol_US_Air_Force_Auxiliary_Command.png)
I am not one for conspiracy theories. However, I do not believe I am the only one seeing a negative trend, synergy, etc.
I'll say it openly:
If we are being cut loose from the Air Force, please do it all at once, not by a thousand cuts.
Quote from: LegacyAirman on January 09, 2013, 01:33:10 AM
Quote from: ctrossen on January 07, 2013, 09:22:19 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on January 07, 2013, 01:35:06 PM
I hate they did away with the Hap Arnold symbol. That was a great link to "Ma Blue." Cadets loved it.
I have the feeling that was a USAF dictate.
The USAF site used to have a far more liberal use policy of the Hap Arnold Wing. That has changed drastically now:
http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/displaying/index.asp (http://www.trademark.af.mil/symbol/displaying/index.asp)
Now, only MAJCOM and higher can nestle a logo inside of the wing.
On one hand, it's a bummer. On the other hand, I'd say more than 75% of the CAP uses of that particular logo were incorrect, so in the long run it's not necessarily a bad thing.
I just want to point out that what you all are referring to is not the Hap Arnold symbol. This is: http://www.trademark.af.mil/logos/hap/index.asp (http://www.trademark.af.mil/logos/hap/index.asp). That is the "official Air Force symbol". :( It was designed by a private corporate identity firm, Siegel & Gale (italics mine). The Hap Arnold insignia was used after WWII; initially still authorized on the new uniform and continuing on flight gear until the early '60's at least. I have a pamphlet from basic training in 1975 with the Hap Arnold symbol on the back cover.
I, and others I know, feel the same way about the new symbol as some feel about the "Triangle Thingy". The other services haven't changed their symbols, why should the Air Force?
I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up!