CAP Talk

Didn't care much for the design in the 39-1 draft, so I whipped this up.  Feedback invited.

(http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18355.0;attach=5217)

Other than I can see some confusion between these, the Observer wings, and the pilot wings, I like it.

Maybe make the "C" gold?

What exactly is an "alternative" crew member?  Is becoming an Observer really that hard if you want a set of wings that bad?

Flying Pig, I think he's making alternative wings for Aircrew, which is apparently now a Thing in the draft 39-1.

Quote from: Flying Pig on January 05, 2014, 10:58:15 PM
What exactly is an "alternative" crew member?  Is becoming an Observer really that hard if you want a set of wings that bad?

It is not "alternative" crew member, rather alternative "crewmember wings".  Look in CAPM39-1 for the proposed crewmember wings.

Quote from: Flying Pig on January 05, 2014, 10:58:15 PM
What exactly is an "alternative" crew member?  Is becoming an Observer really that hard if you want a set of wings that bad?

Most of the real work in the airplanes is done by the GIB these days, that should be recognized.

Quote from: Panache on January 05, 2014, 10:55:12 PM
Other than I can see some confusion between these, the Observer wings, and the pilot wings, I like it.

Maybe make the "C" gold?

This has never been a problem with CAP Glider Pilot wings, which served as the basis for my design.

Quote from: Mustang on January 05, 2014, 11:22:49 PM

Quote from: Panache on January 05, 2014, 10:55:12 PM
Other than I can see some confusion between these, the Observer wings, and the pilot wings, I like it.

Maybe make the "C" gold?

This has never been a problem with CAP Glider Pilot wings, which served as the basis for my design.

Just another reason for the "C" to stand out more, since it looks very, very much like the "G" in the glider wings.

I like where you're going with this, fwiw.  Just needs to be differentiated some more.

Quote from: Panache on January 06, 2014, 12:01:11 AM

Quote from: Mustang on January 05, 2014, 11:22:49 PM

This has never been a problem with CAP Glider Pilot wings, which served as the basis for my design.

Just another reason for the "C" to stand out more, since it looks very, very much like the "G" in the glider wings.

I like where you're going with this, fwiw.  Just needs to be differentiated some more.

Point taken, but if implemented, you'll see far more crew wings out there than glider wings.  I doubt there are more than a hundred CAP Glider Pilots out there, most people have never seen anyone wearing glider wings.

Also, adding a second color metal to the insignia would drive up the cost enormously as it would add a n additional degree of complexity to the manufacturing process that isn't there now with all current wings.  And before anyone says it, I will hunt down anyone who suggests adding colored enamel! :)

Maybe you could add some colored enamel.

Quote from: BHartman007 on January 06, 2014, 12:57:09 AM
Maybe you could add some colored enamel.

I would duck into hiding, if i were you...    ;D

Quote from: MacGruff on January 06, 2014, 01:03:47 AM

Quote from: BHartman007 on January 06, 2014, 12:57:09 AM
Maybe you could add some colored enamel.

I would duck into hiding, if i were you...    ;D

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/011/548/3059_135068129530.jpg)

I have GLIDER wings!!!!

Buncha wiseguys, eh? :)

There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge". This would enable one badge to encompass all non-pilot aircrew specialties. The Basic badge would be authorized for scanners, aerial photographers, and all other non-pilot and non-observer crew duties. The senior badge would be authorized for Observers. The Master badge would be authorized for members who are qualified Air Operations Branch Directors. Using this method, there would be no need to design, cast or produce a new style insignia in the various versions (full, mini, cloth, and leather nametag). Organizationally, only a change to existing regs would be necessary, with negligible funding impact. The cost to members would be minimal.

Can't seem to find the verbage concerning the 'aircrew' member wings in the 39-1 proposal. I noticed the pic in the illustrations, but can someone point out the wording concerning these?

You're not alone. Just another example of the cart before the horse...no description of the training requirements, just a shiny new badge...

Quote from: capmaj on January 06, 2014, 03:08:42 PM
Can't seem to find the verbage concerning the 'aircrew' member wings in the 39-1 proposal. I noticed the pic in the illustrations, but can someone point out the wording concerning these?

Quote from: capmaj on January 06, 2014, 03:08:42 PM
Can't seem to find the verbage concerning the 'aircrew' member wings in the 39-1 proposal. I noticed the pic in the illustrations, but can someone point out the wording concerning these?

A new CAPR 35-6 will have to be released to provide that information.  At this point, it is unknown to us "masses".   >:D

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 03:37:57 PMYou're not alone. Just another example of the cart before the horse...no description of the training requirements, just a shiny new badge...

NCO Program announcement, anyone? At least this is still draft, so there's an excuse.

I'm not sure we need another set of aircrew wings. That said, if NHQ is going to authorize them, I would recommend they be awarded to additional aircrew qualifications such as Airborne Photographer (AP), but not to Mission Scanners (MS). The reason being, I see MS as sort of a transitional aircrew qualification. MS is a prerequisite to all other mission aircrew qualifications and its requirements are not that many or that difficult. I don't see why a MS can't go the extra steps to become a MO or AP in order to earn his/her wings. I would venture to say that most active MS also hold additional aircrew qualifications anyway.

AP has only been a "thing" for about 10 minutes.

Also, without MS' there is no searching out the left side of the plane, which kind of limits your mission effectiveness.

Repeating now, Mission Scanner is not a "pre-requisite" for anything, any more then GTM is a "pre-requisite" for GTL.
MS' are important and should be recognized as such.

The pressure to move "up" to MO is one of the reasons we have plenty of people who don't belong in the right
seat wearing wings.  In fact that constant "up" pressure is an issue in a lot of quals.

Some people are good at specific things, and there's no reason they should not be able to remain there.

I am an AP and MS, working on the MO. I am not really Comfortable doing the MO Job, If i had to Sure, But i like being an MS and Love being an AP. I can see why there are seperate wings, Does anyone have a link to the new "Design"

LOL, seen new Design, Reminds me of this Design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-NavyAircrew.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-NavyAircrew.jpg)

I wanted this When I was in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CombatAircrew.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CombatAircrew.png)


I like the CAC badge.

Doc, I said the same thing. If we're going to creatively procure insignia from the naval services, they should be the "cool" ones...

Quote from: Devil Doc on January 06, 2014, 06:31:57 PM
LOL, seen new Design, Reminds me of this Design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-NavyAircrew.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-NavyAircrew.jpg)

I wanted this When I was in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CombatAircrew.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CombatAircrew.png)


I like the CAC badge.

Exactly. I knew a MO who was all thumbs in the right seat. As a MS she could find a dime at 1000 feet. She never wanted to be an MO, but fell victim to the "up or out" mentality.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2014, 06:13:19 PM
AP has only been a "thing" for about 10 minutes.

Also, without MS' there is no searching out the left side of the plane, which kind of limits your mission effectiveness.

Repeating now, Mission Scanner is not a "pre-requisite" for anything, any more then GTM is a "pre-requisite" for GTL.
MS' are important and should be recognized as such.

The pressure to move "up" to MO is one of the reasons we have plenty of people who don't belong in the right
seat wearing wings.  In fact that constant "up" pressure is an issue in a lot of quals.

Some people are good at specific things, and there's no reason they should not be able to remain there.

We could go old school. ;)

Wasn't something like this for stewardesses back in the day?

I'm not belittling the work of a Mission Scanner, as I am one as well and know what it entails. But the truth is that MS training is not that difficult and can be completed in a weekend or two. Since CAP aviation badges are mandatory and take precedence over all other badges, that means that an Incident Commander badge, which requires a lot more training, experience and effort to earn, would rank below this new aircrew badge. If an Incident Commander comes up through the ground track, i.e. as a Ground Branch Director, he/she cannot choose to wear the IC and Master GT badges simultaneously, as this aircrew badge would take precedence. Even the Air Force, which we're trying to imitate with this new manual, gives equal standing to aeronautical, space and cyberspace badges. In fact, a cyberspace badge ranks higher than a non-rated aircrew badge. That's really my main problem with this new aircrew badge; it's too easy to earn, yet it would rank higher than all other CAP "occupational" (not really) badges.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 06, 2014, 07:00:14 PM
I'm not belittling the work of a Mission Scanner, as I am one as well and know what it entails. But the truth is that MS training is not that difficult and can be completed in a weekend or two.

The same can be said of just about every other CAP badge except for IC.

And just because a badge is "worn below" doesn't mean it "ranks below".

You're reading way too much into it.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2014, 07:17:06 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 06, 2014, 07:00:14 PM
I'm not belittling the work of a Mission Scanner, as I am one as well and know what it entails. But the truth is that MS training is not that difficult and can be completed in a weekend or two.

The same can be said of just about every other CAP badge except for IC.

And just because a badge is "worn below" doesn't mean it "ranks below".

You're reading way too much into it.

I respectfully disagree on all three.

I still say add some coloured enamelling and make Scanner wings a half-wing.

I know some don't like it but there is precedent, both among CAP and our allies.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Original-WWII-WW2-Sterling-Silver-Civil-Air-Patrol-CAP-Observers-Half-Wing-Pin-/00/s/NDAwWDI5OA==/z/HfQAAMXQVhFR8rkG/$T2eC16ZHJGMFFo(+jgDoBR8rkFpQDQ~~60_35.JPG)

This was listed on Evilbay as a "CAP Observer Half-Wing"

(http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/btw/us/images/presleyobserverhalfwingfrtsm.jpg)
US 1919 Observer Half-Wing

(http://images1.hellotrade.com/data2/TI/TL/MY-593169/mod-australia-engineer-half-wing-250x250.jpg)
RAAF Flight Engineer Half-Wing

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 06, 2014, 07:25:43 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2014, 07:17:06 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 06, 2014, 07:00:14 PM
I'm not belittling the work of a Mission Scanner, as I am one as well and know what it entails. But the truth is that MS training is not that difficult and can be completed in a weekend or two.

The same can be said of just about every other CAP badge except for IC.

And just because a badge is "worn below" doesn't mean it "ranks below".

You're reading way too much into it.

I respectfully disagree on all three.

The location of a badge does not equal it's worth.  It is the same for the military and it is the same for CAP.  The location simply refers to the type of badge it is.  Now if the reg stated the GTM takes precedence over the EMT badge, that does.  However, saying an aviation badge is more important than a non-aviation badge is not true. 

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge".

Sounds great, except it's got a huge "O" on it.  Changing to a "C" makes even more sense if all non-pilot aircrew will wear it.  Or to something not requiring a letter to differentiate. 

Who says it's an O? It's a circle. Make is symbolic of the 360 degree view that aircrews have...

Quote from: Mustang on January 07, 2014, 12:52:11 AM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge".

Sounds great, except it's got a huge "O" on it.  Changing to a "C" makes even more sense if all non-pilot aircrew will wear it.  Or to something not requiring a letter to differentiate.

During the 1950's-70's CAP had another half wing. It was more or less like the 1940's Observer wing, but in solid silver and only made in full size. Other than a few Historians, I doubt anyone would know what this wing was awarded for.  Hint: it was only issued to cadets.  I have one somewhere (I didn't earn it) but can't find it to shoot a photo.

Quote from: BillB on January 07, 2014, 01:38:17 PM
During the 1950's-70's CAP had another half wing. It was more or less like the 1940's Observer wing, but in solid silver and only made in full size. Other than a few Historians, I doubt anyone would know what this wing was awarded for.  Hint: it was only issued to cadets.  I have one somewhere (I didn't earn it) but can't find it to shoot a photo.

So this lets me know that no one reads my posts....

The Stewardess half-wing? You had to take some kind of stewardess orientation program to earn it. There was one floating around my old squadron supply room wiwac back in the early 90s.

GroundHawg is correct. There were three Stewardess Schools for Female cadets. Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and one on the west cost somewhere. On graduation of the two week school the cadets were awarded the Stewardess Wings. For some reason there were never produced in the small size for the blouse, only the large size which normally would be worn on thne service coat. Several years ago National told me that 275 female cadets had completed the Stewardess Schools before the program was dropped due to costs.

I'll take a stab as to why they were only produced for the "dress" uniform: unlike today, back in the classic era of flight, people dressed to go flying. Men wore ties, women hats, and everybody smoked. Flight crews looked razor sharp. Clean cut, formally dressed....These days, flying commercially is more akin to cross country travel on the big gray dog. The "laid back" nature of dress is reflected by the crews, and typified by the shorts and polos of a "directional" air carrier.

Quote from: BillB on January 07, 2014, 05:08:36 PM
GroundHawg is correct. There were three Stewardess Schools for Female cadets. Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and one on the west cost somewhere. On graduation of the two week school the cadets were awarded the Stewardess Wings. For some reason there were never produced in the small size for the blouse, only the large size which normally would be worn on thne service coat. Several years ago National told me that 275 female cadets had completed the Stewardess Schools before the program was dropped due to costs.

(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

Worlds better than the Navy wings in the 39-1 draft...

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

DANG!  Those look better than the current MP wings!  But, probably too close to the USAF Pilot Wings.  :(

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFv_x75Ebzwu9ZMMXTvVeBsH3sN7a9x98yI5cfrVn_XLLUqHlp)

Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2014, 06:33:44 PM
Worlds better than the Navy wings in the 39-1 draft...

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Air_Force_Pilot_Wings.jpg)
(http://[font=verdana][size=78%][url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Air_Force_Pilot_Wings.jpg%5Dhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Air_Force_Pilot_Wings.jpg%5B/url%5D%5B/size%5D%5B/font%5D)


This was the inspiration...We could probably use another CAP icon as the center, but this way, much like the AF, aircrew wings and pilot wings are different.




Edit: Papabird sees the issue I see as well.

Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2014, 06:33:44 PM
Worlds better than the Navy wings in the 39-1 draft...

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

Ditch the 'CIVIL AIR PATROL' scroll... the shield is good enough as is.

This was a momentary idea done in PS.  Agreed on ditching it, just the concept of a shield/non pilot circle.

^ Agreed - would look pretty nice, actually.  Nicer then the MP wings, actually.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 11:12:52 PM
This was a momentary idea done in PS.  Agreed on ditching it, just the concept of a shield/non pilot circle.

But it brings up a better point.  Is there a more rounded & CAP centric symbol that could be used.  Maybe a camera lens, or binoculars or CAP rondelle? 

Remember that the center of USAF officer wings are all shield shaped, and the enlisted aircrew/RPA is circular.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/United_States_Air_Force_Officer_Aircrew_Badge.svg) VS (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/United_States_Air_Force_Enlisted_Aircrew_Badge.svg/225px-United_States_Air_Force_Enlisted_Aircrew_Badge.svg.png)

I wonder why all of our wings are circular...  ::)  And yes that type of stuff matters to some people.   I don't wear either one so...shrug.

Quote from: Papabird on January 08, 2014, 02:57:30 AM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 11:12:52 PM
This was a momentary idea done in PS.  Agreed on ditching it, just the concept of a shield/non pilot circle.

But it brings up a better point.  Is there a more rounded & CAP centric symbol that could be used.  Maybe a camera lens, or binoculars or CAP rondelle? 

Remember that the center of USAF officer wings are all shield shaped, and the enlisted aircrew/RPA is circular.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/United_States_Air_Force_Officer_Aircrew_Badge.svg) VS (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/United_States_Air_Force_Enlisted_Aircrew_Badge.svg/225px-United_States_Air_Force_Enlisted_Aircrew_Badge.svg.png)

I wonder why all of our wings are circular...  ::)  And yes that type of stuff matters to some people.   I don't wear either one so...shrug.

The CAP ones are round probably because of the prop in a triangle in a circle insignia.

It has been awhile since I have served on a uniform committee, so forgive me if my heraldry is not 100%. With regard to the wings discussion, the Civil Air Patrol wings and many of its symbols for that matter, should be round!

The round shape is symbolic of a non combatant and recognizes the benevolent nature of the wearers service and hence not hostile intentions. Side note about the USAF enlisted wings: I believe they are round because the airman is not in command. The round disk in the Civil Air Patrol wings is a Lozenge. The shield in the USAF wings is an escutcheon, or scutcheon.

The escutcheon shape is based on the Medieval shields that were used by knights in combat, today our knights would be officers.

Noncombatants, civilians, hospital workers and clergy do not wage war therefore they do not bear a shield. Instead, their symbols are portrayed on a lozenge — a rhombus standing on one of its acute corners or a cartouche (round or oval In shape) for their armorial representation.

And, in the spirit of Public Law 476, (and to stir the pot a bit) which we all know established Civil Air Patrol as a benevolent, non profit organization, the rank insignia of our full colonels should not have arrows, only olive branches.

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on January 08, 2014, 05:04:51 AM
It has been awhile since I have served on a uniform committee, so forgive me if my heraldry is not 100%. With regard to the wings discussion, the Civil Air Patrol wings and many of its symbols for that matter, should be round!

The round shape is symbolic of a non combatant and recognizes the benevolent nature of the wearers service and hence not hostile intentions. Side note about the USAF enlisted wings: I believe they are round because the airman is not in command. The round disk in the Civil Air Patrol wings is a Lozenge. The shield in the USAF wings is an escutcheon, or scutcheon.

The escutcheon shape is based on the Medieval shields that were used by knights in combat, today our knights would be officers.

Noncombatants, civilians, hospital workers and clergy do not wage war therefore they do not bear a shield. Instead, their symbols are portrayed on a lozenge — a rhombus standing on one of its acute corners or a cartouche (round or oval In shape) for their armorial representation.

And, in the spirit of Public Law 476, (and to stir the pot a bit) which we all know established Civil Air Patrol as a benevolent, non profit organization, the rank insignia of our full colonels should not have arrows, only olive branches.

To futher stir the pot a little...

Yes the USAF Enlisted Aircrew Wings are round, just like the ring around the US insignia that the enlisted wear on their service dress uniforms.

Quote from: BillB on January 07, 2014, 05:08:36 PM
GroundHawg is correct. There were three Stewardess Schools for Female cadets. Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and one on the west cost somewhere. On graduation of the two week school the cadets were awarded the Stewardess Wings. For some reason there were never produced in the small size for the blouse, only the large size which normally would be worn on thne service coat. Several years ago National told me that 275 female cadets had completed the Stewardess Schools before the program was dropped due to costs.

I met a grand total of one cadet who earned the Stewardess wing. I think she wore it for a year before replacing it with pilot wings.

Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2014, 05:24:59 PM
I'll take a stab as to why they were only produced for the "dress" uniform: unlike today, back in the classic era of flight, people dressed to go flying. Men wore ties, women hats, and everybody smoked. Flight crews looked razor sharp. Clean cut, formally dressed....These days, flying commercially is more akin to cross country travel on the big gray dog. The "laid back" nature of dress is reflected by the crews, and typified by the shorts and polos of a "directional" air carrier.

Quote from: BillB on January 07, 2014, 05:08:36 PM
GroundHawg is correct. There were three Stewardess Schools for Female cadets. Eastern Airlines, Delta Airlines and one on the west cost somewhere. On graduation of the two week school the cadets were awarded the Stewardess Wings. For some reason there were never produced in the small size for the blouse, only the large size which normally would be worn on thne service coat. Several years ago National told me that 275 female cadets had completed the Stewardess Schools before the program was dropped due to costs.

I think the exolanation is even easier. In the 60's/70's, 2" wings were optional on the shirt. It was quite common to see 3" (coat size) wings on shirts. Also, the "full size" stewardess wing was already small, about 1.5". No burning need to make a miniature of it.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 07, 2014, 11:24:32 PM
^ Agreed - would look pretty nice, actually.  Nicer then the MP wings, actually.

Concur and much better than the AC wings shown in the draft.

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on January 08, 2014, 05:04:51 AM
It has been awhile since I have served on a uniform committee, so forgive me if my heraldry is not 100%. With regard to the wings discussion, the Civil Air Patrol wings and many of its symbols for that matter, should be round!

The round shape is symbolic of a non combatant and recognizes the benevolent nature of the wearers service and hence not hostile intentions. Side note about the USAF enlisted wings: I believe they are round because the airman is not in command. The round disk in the Civil Air Patrol wings is a Lozenge. The shield in the USAF wings is an escutcheon, or scutcheon.

The escutcheon shape is based on the Medieval shields that were used by knights in combat, today our knights would be officers.

Noncombatants, civilians, hospital workers and clergy do not wage war therefore they do not bear a shield. Instead, their symbols are portrayed on a lozenge — a rhombus standing on one of its acute corners or a cartouche (round or oval In shape) for their armorial representation.

Agreed!  We should have the round shape, overall, that is what I was saying.  I have heard the same explanation about the round for combat (which always made me wonder about the enlisted wings)

Maybe like the USAF Enlisted wings (this is my limit of artistic skill):
(http://i.imgur.com/1pVuG7m.png)

Taking our service cap device and putting that in the middle.  What do you all think?

complicated and expensive to die.

Quote from: Papabird on January 08, 2014, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: Robert Hartigan on January 08, 2014, 05:04:51 AM
It has been awhile since I have served on a uniform committee, so forgive me if my heraldry is not 100%. With regard to the wings discussion, the Civil Air Patrol wings and many of its symbols for that matter, should be round!

The round shape is symbolic of a non combatant and recognizes the benevolent nature of the wearers service and hence not hostile intentions. Side note about the USAF enlisted wings: I believe they are round because the airman is not in command. The round disk in the Civil Air Patrol wings is a Lozenge. The shield in the USAF wings is an escutcheon, or scutcheon.

The escutcheon shape is based on the Medieval shields that were used by knights in combat, today our knights would be officers.

Noncombatants, civilians, hospital workers and clergy do not wage war therefore they do not bear a shield. Instead, their symbols are portrayed on a lozenge — a rhombus standing on one of its acute corners or a cartouche (round or oval In shape) for their armorial representation.

Agreed!  We should have the round shape, overall, that is what I was saying.  I have heard the same explanation about the round for combat (which always made me wonder about the enlisted wings)

Maybe like the USAF Enlisted wings (this is my limit of artistic skill):
(http://i.imgur.com/1pVuG7m.png)

Taking our service cap device and putting that in the middle.  What do you all think?

Quote from: THRAWN on January 08, 2014, 02:27:35 PM
complicated and expensive to die.

Really any more than other designs?  I have not researched the cost, but the others seem to be just about as complex.  If so, the eagle might be simplified to reduce that impact.

But what do you think of the idea.  Specifically it meets the idea of unique and CAP based, but still mirrors USAF closer than what we do with MP/MO wings now.

I just really think the AC Wings in the CAPM 39-1 looks like Navy wings.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

I had submitted this design - without the scroll - over a year ago. I had included three levels based on qualification. I never was able to find out how high it got, but apparently someone did not like the idea and I guess it never reached the NUC based on their lack of response on whether they even received it. The one that is in the draft was designed by a former historian and CAPTalk poster.point corrected by appropriate party

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 07, 2014, 10:28:25 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2014, 06:33:44 PM
Worlds better than the Navy wings in the 39-1 draft...

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

Ditch the 'CIVIL AIR PATROL' scroll... the shield is good enough as is.

I like these much, much better than the current "AC" wings in the draft (which I'm really hoping is just placeholder art).  Although I would suggest keeping the scroll, but having it say "AIR CREW" instead (one word to either side).  This would further differentiate it from AF pilot wings.

For those in the know, just how much cost would it be to make the tri-prop gold (to make it even more distinct)?  Quite a few (all?) of our specialty track badges as well as some occupational badges (I'm thinking EMT/Paramedic) have more than one color, and they're not horrendously expensive.  And I wager to say that, assuming these would be awarded to Mission Scanners and Aerial Photographers, it would probably be the most frequently worn / sold wings (to help keep the costs down).

That eagle is pretty detailed, which would add to the cost of the die. Don't forget, this has to be embroidered and laid out in gold leaf as well. Conceptually, it's good. It's distinct and of a unique enough design to make it distinct from the pilot wings.

Quote from: Papabird on January 08, 2014, 02:33:17 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 08, 2014, 02:27:35 PM
complicated and expensive to die.

Really any more than other designs?  I have not researched the cost, but the others seem to be just about as complex.  If so, the eagle might be simplified to reduce that impact.

But what do you think of the idea.  Specifically it meets the idea of unique and CAP based, but still mirrors USAF closer than what we do with MP/MO wings now.

I just really think the AC Wings in the CAPM 39-1 looks like Navy wings.

Quote from: arajca on January 08, 2014, 02:33:56 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

I had submitted this design - without the scroll - over a year ago. I had included three levels based on qualification. I never was able to find out how high it got, but apparently someone did not like the idea and I guess it never reached the NUC based on their lack of response on whether they even received it. The one that is in the draft was designed by a former historian and CAPTalk poster.

I submitted a design, but it was not used.

Quote from: Panache on January 08, 2014, 02:53:16 PM

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 07, 2014, 10:28:25 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 07, 2014, 06:33:44 PM
Worlds better than the Navy wings in the 39-1 draft...

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 07, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/Untitled-3copy.jpg)

Ditch the 'CIVIL AIR PATROL' scroll... the shield is good enough as is.

I like these much, much better than the current "AC" wings in the draft (which I'm really hoping is just placeholder art).  Although I would suggest keeping the scroll, but having it say "AIR CREW" instead (one word to either side).  This would further differentiate it from AF pilot wings.

I'd say the Navy-style are a done deal, not a place holder. If you look at the other image placeholders, they're all a boxed X.

QuoteFor those in the know, just how much cost would it be to make the tri-prop gold (to make it even more distinct)?  Quite a few (all?) of our specialty track badges as well as some occupational badges (I'm thinking EMT/Paramedic) have more than one color, and they're not horrendously expensive.  And I wager to say that, assuming these would be awarded to Mission Scanners and Aerial Photographers, it would probably be the most frequently worn / sold wings (to help keep the costs down).

It would probably be cheaper and easier to make an enamalled disk than to just make the prop gold. The prop is a part of the die, so a new die without the prop would be needed plus the prop die, then there's the assembly cost. I checked the back of my EMT badge and it's a GTM badge with an enamalled disk.

Quote from: arajca on January 08, 2014, 03:01:26 PM
I like these much, much better than the current "AC" wings in the draft (which I'm really hoping is just placeholder art).  Although I would suggest keeping the scroll, but having it say "AIR CREW" instead (one word to either side).  This would further differentiate it from AF pilot wings.

I'd say the Navy-style are a done deal, not a place holder. If you look at the other image placeholders, they're all a boxed X.

QuoteFor those in the know, just how much cost would it be to make the tri-prop gold (to make it even more distinct)?  Quite a few (all?) of our specialty track badges as well as some occupational badges (I'm thinking EMT/Paramedic) have more than one color, and they're not horrendously expensive.  And I wager to say that, assuming these would be awarded to Mission Scanners and Aerial Photographers, it would probably be the most frequently worn / sold wings (to help keep the costs down).

It would probably be cheaper and easier to make an enamalled disk than to just make the prop gold. The prop is a part of the die, so a new die without the prop would be needed plus the prop die, then there's the assembly cost. I checked the back of my EMT badge and it's a GTM badge with an enamalled disk.
[/quote]

Here is a really cheap idea: (http://i.imgur.com/isyEwOd.jpg)
Lol

"Taking our service cap device and putting that in the middle.  What do you all think?"

We could make it a pigeon.   ;D
   

Quote from: Grumpy on January 08, 2014, 08:31:39 PM
We could make it a pigeon.   ;D

Or a turkey.  ;)  Ha ha.

Quote from: THRAWN on January 08, 2014, 02:27:35 PM
complicated and expensive to die.

CNC does magical things these days.

Quote from: SarDragon on January 08, 2014, 10:22:05 PM
CNC does magical things these days.

You know, I thought about that a  year or so ago when we were looking/thinking about new insignia items for the USAC.

Especially on dress uniforms, cadet insignia got worn like 2-3 times a year. So I was looking at manufactured plastic insignia with gold flashing.

I mean, hey, if you can turn the equivalent of a set of cutouts (collar brass) from $5 a pair to $2.50, or some badge from $10 (because its a limited run) to less than $5, why not?

Swap all insignia to white or black and 3D print them!

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2014, 11:21:51 PM
Swap all insignia to white or black and 3D print them!

Quality still sucks. Would take 30 minutes or so.

QuoteSwap all insignia to white or black and 3D print them!

And for those last minute or field promotions and awards, "The World's First 3D Printing Pen, The 3Doodler!"  http://www.the3doodler.com/ (http://www.the3doodler.com/)

Mike

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 08, 2014, 11:32:16 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2014, 11:21:51 PM
Swap all insignia to white or black and 3D print them!

Quality still sucks. Would take 30 minutes or so.

Still faster than Vanguard.

/obligatory.

Quote from: NIN on January 08, 2014, 11:49:30 PMStill faster than Vanguard.

..and probably better detail, too.

Quote from: a2capt on January 08, 2014, 11:52:10 PM

Quote from: NIN on January 08, 2014, 11:49:30 PMStill faster than Vanguard.

..and probably better detail, too.

Actually no. We looked into 3d printers for production. It ain't there yet.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on January 09, 2014, 12:06:29 AMActually no. We looked into 3d printers for production. It ain't there yet.

But this is the Big V we're comparing to. Have you seen some of those badges? ;)

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge". This would enable one badge to encompass all non-pilot aircrew specialties. The Basic badge would be authorized for scanners, aerial photographers, and all other non-pilot and non-observer crew duties. The senior badge would be authorized for Observers. The Master badge would be authorized for members who are qualified Air Operations Branch Directors. Using this method, there would be no need to design, cast or produce a new style insignia in the various versions (full, mini, cloth, and leather nametag). Organizationally, only a change to existing regs would be necessary, with negligible funding impact. The cost to members would be minimal.

But all of that would result in a deviation to the hierarchy system used in wings and badges in general. The star and star/wreath is supposed to represent higher levels of the rating shown by the badge/wings. Following this suggestion uses the star and star/wreath to create an entirely different badge with each addition.

Quote from: NIN on January 08, 2014, 11:08:55 PM

Quote from: SarDragon on January 08, 2014, 10:22:05 PM
CNC does magical things these days.

You know, I thought about that a  year or so ago when we were looking/thinking about new insignia items for the USAC.

Especially on dress uniforms, cadet insignia got worn like 2-3 times a year. So I was looking at manufactured plastic insignia with gold flashing.

I mean, hey, if you can turn the equivalent of a set of cutouts (collar brass) from $5 a pair to $2.50, or some badge from $10 (because its a limited run) to less than $5, why not?

I've got some Russian badges of recent manufacture that are made of plastic. Some are enameled looking, others look like metal. There is no way to tell that they are plastic unless you look at the reverse.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on January 09, 2014, 04:00:51 AM
I've got some Russian badges of recent manufacture that are made of plastic. Some are enameled looking, others look like metal. There is no way to tell that they are plastic unless you look at the reverse.

Yeah, the manufacturing methodologies have changed over the years.. :)

Seriously, for cadet insignia, it probably would be cheaper and as durable.

Quote from: NIN on January 09, 2014, 04:12:08 AM

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on January 09, 2014, 04:00:51 AM
I've got some Russian badges of recent manufacture that are made of plastic. Some are enameled looking, others look like metal. There is no way to tell that they are plastic unless you look at the reverse.

Yeah, the manufacturing methodologies have changed over the years.. :)

Seriously, for cadet insignia, it probably would be cheaper and as durable.

Cadets manage to break the pins on the current insignia...

Must be a local problem,  maybe because the things are frozen ;)

Quote from: Eclipse on January 08, 2014, 11:21:51 PM
Swap all insignia to white or black and 3D print them!

And then I would like some tea.  Earl Gray.  Hot.

Quote from: Papabird on January 08, 2014, 05:06:37 PM
I'd say the Navy-style are a done deal, not a place holder. If you look at the other image placeholders, they're all a boxed X.

(depressed sigh)

I can pretty much assure all of you right now that we won't be adopting any sort of insignia with AF-style wings attached. Ain't gonna happen.

Quote from: Mustang on January 09, 2014, 07:33:59 AM
I can pretty much assure all of you right now that we won't be adopting any sort of insignia with AF-style wings attached. Ain't gonna happen.

There is a frustrating irony that the United States' Air Force Auxiliary won't / can't adopt AF-style aviation insignia, but instead uses naval-style insignia.

Makes you wonder why.

It does not. The CAP Aircrew badge slick wings would represent the "intro" level of air crew qualification. The Senior CAP Aircrew badge represents more advanced qualifications, and the Master CAP Aircrew badge represents the entry into air mission management. Just as the GT badge represents quals at different levels....the addition of the star and star/wreath doesnt change the name of the badge.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on January 09, 2014, 03:17:01 AM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge". This would enable one badge to encompass all non-pilot aircrew specialties. The Basic badge would be authorized for scanners, aerial photographers, and all other non-pilot and non-observer crew duties. The senior badge would be authorized for Observers. The Master badge would be authorized for members who are qualified Air Operations Branch Directors. Using this method, there would be no need to design, cast or produce a new style insignia in the various versions (full, mini, cloth, and leather nametag). Organizationally, only a change to existing regs would be necessary, with negligible funding impact. The cost to members would be minimal.

But all of that would result in a deviation to the hierarchy system used in wings and badges in general. The star and star/wreath is supposed to represent higher levels of the rating shown by the badge/wings. Following this suggestion uses the star and star/wreath to create an entirely different badge with each addition.

Quote from: Panache on January 09, 2014, 10:03:45 AM

Quote from: Mustang on January 09, 2014, 07:33:59 AM
I can pretty much assure all of you right now that we won't be adopting any sort of insignia with AF-style wings attached. Ain't gonna happen.

There is a frustrating irony that the United States' Air Force Auxiliary won't / can't adopt AF-style aviation insignia, but instead uses naval-style insignia.

Makes you wonder why.

FTFY.  CAP wasn't given a choice.

Same deal with the gray shoulder marks and ultramarine-backed embroidered insignia on BDUs.

Quote from: THRAWN on January 09, 2014, 12:43:58 PM
It does not. The CAP Aircrew badge slick wings would represent the "intro" level of air crew qualification. The Senior CAP Aircrew badge represents more advanced qualifications, and the Master CAP Aircrew badge represents the entry into air mission management. Just as the GT badge represents quals at different levels....the addition of the star and star/wreath doesnt change the name of the badge.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on January 09, 2014, 03:17:01 AM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge". This would enable one badge to encompass all non-pilot aircrew specialties. The Basic badge would be authorized for scanners, aerial photographers, and all other non-pilot and non-observer crew duties. The senior badge would be authorized for Observers. The Master badge would be authorized for members who are qualified Air Operations Branch Directors. Using this method, there would be no need to design, cast or produce a new style insignia in the various versions (full, mini, cloth, and leather nametag). Organizationally, only a change to existing regs would be necessary, with negligible funding impact. The cost to members would be minimal.

But all of that would result in a deviation to the hierarchy system used in wings and badges in general. The star and star/wreath is supposed to represent higher levels of the rating shown by the badge/wings. Following this suggestion uses the star and star/wreath to create an entirely different badge with each addition.

So Scanner would be Basic wing. AP or Aerial Imaging Operator(GIIEPS, Archer, FLIR, ad nauseum) or Observer would be Senior. AOBD would be Master, right?

Correct.

Quote from: arajca on January 10, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 09, 2014, 12:43:58 PM
It does not. The CAP Aircrew badge slick wings would represent the "intro" level of air crew qualification. The Senior CAP Aircrew badge represents more advanced qualifications, and the Master CAP Aircrew badge represents the entry into air mission management. Just as the GT badge represents quals at different levels....the addition of the star and star/wreath doesnt change the name of the badge.

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on January 09, 2014, 03:17:01 AM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 06, 2014, 02:52:23 PM
There is no need to design and produce a new set of badges for members of CAP aircrews. Current designs would suffice for the purpose of designating individuals as aircrew with no additional cost to the member or the organization. It is my proposal that the current Observer style aviation badge be redesignated "CAP Aircrew Badge". This would enable one badge to encompass all non-pilot aircrew specialties. The Basic badge would be authorized for scanners, aerial photographers, and all other non-pilot and non-observer crew duties. The senior badge would be authorized for Observers. The Master badge would be authorized for members who are qualified Air Operations Branch Directors. Using this method, there would be no need to design, cast or produce a new style insignia in the various versions (full, mini, cloth, and leather nametag). Organizationally, only a change to existing regs would be necessary, with negligible funding impact. The cost to members would be minimal.

But all of that would result in a deviation to the hierarchy system used in wings and badges in general. The star and star/wreath is supposed to represent higher levels of the rating shown by the badge/wings. Following this suggestion uses the star and star/wreath to create an entirely different badge with each addition.

So Scanner would be Basic wing. AP or Aerial Imaging Operator(GIIEPS, Archer, FLIR, ad nauseum) or Observer would be Senior. AOBD would be Master, right?

So, what would a pilot who progressed to AOBD without going through the aircrew track wear?

Same as they do now....pilot wings.

Quote from: arajca on January 10, 2014, 06:59:33 PM
So, what would a pilot who progressed to AOBD without going through the aircrew track wear?

Quote from: THRAWN on January 10, 2014, 07:16:08 PM
Same as they do now....pilot wings.

Quote from: arajca on January 10, 2014, 06:59:33 PM
So, what would a pilot who progressed to AOBD without going through the aircrew track wear?

What differentiates them from a non-AOBD high-hour pilot?

Why not keep the same as the observer wings?

MS get the basic
MS +1 add on aircrew rating + 100 hours you get the senior.
MS +1 add on aircrew rating+ AOBD +200 hours gets you the Master.

BTW I think we need to add sorties/hours to the GT badge and not just leave it up to getting the ES ratings.

YMMV.

I gotta hand it to you Thrawn, you're a master of obfuscation. (Do you work for the government or something? lol )  And you thought changing the O to a C added confusion!  ::)

Quote from: THRAWN on January 10, 2014, 07:16:08 PM
Same as they do now....pilot wings.

Quote from: arajca on January 10, 2014, 06:59:33 PM
So, what would a pilot who progressed to AOBD without going through the aircrew track wear?

+1 - A SAR/DR pilot has certainly "come up through the aircrew track".

Perhaps I need new glasses, but I find comparing our wings

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/00000CAP0751ab_MED.jpg)

to those of the USN/USMC/USCG

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/00000002180100_MED.jpg)

just a tad off-the-mark.

If anything, they seem closer (in my aging eyes) to the wings worn by CGAUX aviators:

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/00000002171000_MED.jpg)

I haven't seen any guidance (yet) on the new Aircrew Member rating (no new CAPR 35-6 out yet) but from what I could glean from the draft CAPM 39-1 it's just going to be a single rating, no senior or master. At least the scanners and other aircrew members other than the pilot and observer get to wear wings, even though the wing design is unimaginative in my opinion. (That and 50 cents won't even buy a cup of coffee! :D)

Think about our WW II "droopy" wings and that evolutionary chain.  The history sorts may want to chime in.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 10, 2014, 09:51:42 PM
Perhaps I need new glasses, but I find comparing our wings

The only real comparison is the use of the "AC" in the circle which is a Navy thing.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 10, 2014, 09:51:42 PM
Perhaps I need new glasses, but I find comparing our wings

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/00000CAP0751ab_MED.jpg)

to those of the USN/USMC/USCG

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/00000002180100_MED.jpg)

just a tad off-the-mark.

You need a clue, not new glasses.  THESE are the wings everyone is referring to:

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/large/00000002179900_LRG.jpg)

I'm new, so assume I'll get flamed, but have broad shoulders, so fire away-But, my opinion-Round is certainly not indiciative of a non combatant role.  Or, if it is, after 20+ years of wearing round USAF enlisted aircrew wings, I assure you, the bad guys did not get that memo.

2nd, why not keep it simple? Pilot wings. Crew wings. Star/Wreath based on a quantifiable system, based on achievent and/or hours? Or, keep it even MORE simple-Pilot wings. Period.

Frankly, the fewer uniform parts I have to buy the better.  I would rather not have have to buy a set of crew wings, observer wings, and pilot wings, as I go through all this especially since they're embroidered on the polo (about all I ever see worn anyway). With Navigators on the way out on Active, there will only really be two kinds of wings for officers, Pilot, and Crew.  (are backseaters in fast movers Nav wings or Mission Crew wings? Don't know, never around  2 seaters or AWACS/NEACAP/etc folks enough to notice what the mission crew wears-Point being, keep it simple)

Quote from: Shortline on January 11, 2014, 12:54:25 AM
I'm new, so assume I'll get flamed, but have broad shoulders, so fire away-But, my opinion-Round is certainly not indiciative of a non combatant role.  Or, if it is, after 20+ years of wearing round USAF enlisted aircrew wings, I assure you, the bad guys did not get that memo.

2nd, why not keep it simple? Pilot wings. Crew wings. Star/Wreath based on a quantifiable system, based on achievent and/or hours? Or, keep it even MORE simple-Pilot wings. Period.

Frankly, the fewer uniform parts I have to buy the better.  I would rather not have have to buy a set of crew wings, observer wings, and pilot wings, as I go through all this especially since they're embroidered on the polo (about all I ever see worn anyway). With Navigators on the way out on Active, there will only really be two kinds of wings for officers, Pilot, and Crew.  (are backseaters in fast movers Nav wings or Mission Crew wings? Don't know, never around  2 seaters or AWACS/NEACAP/etc folks enough to notice what the mission crew wears-Point being, keep it simple)

Back seaters on the fast movers wear Nav Wings.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 10, 2014, 09:51:42 PM
Perhaps I need new glasses, but I find comparing our wings

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/00000CAP0751ab_MED.jpg)

to those of the USN/USMC/USCG

Deleted wrong wings

just a tad off-the-mark.

If anything, they seem closer (in my aging eyes) to the wings worn by CGAUX aviators:

Deleted - not even close

Try these:

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/00000002179900.jpg)

That's what is being compared with.

Quote from: Shortline on January 11, 2014, 12:54:25 AM
I'm new, so assume I'll get flamed, but have broad shoulders, so fire away-But, my opinion-Round is certainly not indiciative of a non combatant role.  Or, if it is, after 20+ years of wearing round USAF enlisted aircrew wings, I assure you, the bad guys did not get that memo.

2nd, why not keep it simple? Pilot wings. Crew wings. Star/Wreath based on a quantifiable system, based on achievent and/or hours? Or, keep it even MORE simple-Pilot wings. Period.

Frankly, the fewer uniform parts I have to buy the better.  I would rather not have have to buy a set of crew wings, observer wings, and pilot wings, as I go through all this especially since they're embroidered on the polo (about all I ever see worn anyway). With Navigators on the way out on Active, there will only really be two kinds of wings for officers, Pilot, and Crew.  (are backseaters in fast movers Nav wings or Mission Crew wings? Don't know, never around  2 seaters or AWACS/NEACAP/etc folks enough to notice what the mission crew wears-Point being, keep it simple)

There's a lot of flame talk around here lately considering that's pretty much not tolerated here by the mods.

There's no requirement to embroider your ES quals on the golf shirt, and I would certainly not recommend anyone do it until their
ascension has leveled out, especially if they are being cost conscious.

Quote from: Shortline on January 11, 2014, 12:54:25 AM
I'm new, so assume I'll get flamed, but have broad shoulders, so fire away-But, my opinion-Round is certainly not indiciative of a non combatant role.  Or, if it is, after 20+ years of wearing round USAF enlisted aircrew wings, I assure you, the bad guys did not get that memo.

2nd, why not keep it simple? Pilot wings. Crew wings. Star/Wreath based on a quantifiable system, based on achievent and/or hours? Or, keep it even MORE simple-Pilot wings. Period.

Frankly, the fewer uniform parts I have to buy the better.  I would rather not have have to buy a set of crew wings, observer wings, and pilot wings, as I go through all this especially since they're embroidered on the polo (about all I ever see worn anyway). With Navigators on the way out on Active, there will only really be two kinds of wings for officers, Pilot, and Crew.  (are backseaters in fast movers Nav wings or Mission Crew wings? Don't know, never around  2 seaters or AWACS/NEACAP/etc folks enough to notice what the mission crew wears-Point being, keep it simple)

You also forgot about ABMs who have their own wings. Additionally, more 'wing-like' devices have been getting added. First were the 'Spings' then the 'Cyberwings' which are mandatory badges equivalent in order of precedence to aeronautical ratings. (In fact if you are in a non-space billet, and were on the ALCS when they had/earned both, after that assignment having either one on top is technically correct. Go figure.)

That being said, I could see Pilot wings and Aircrew wings. (Since as has been pointed out MS is a full on speciality itself and with AP, and other sensor operators, it kind of makes sense.)

I also don't like lettered wings with multiple letters like that. They look ugly IMHO.

I agree. Someone didn't have a whole lot of imagination when they dreamed that one up. I thought I saw those somewhere in a pilots supply catalog.

As far as the best design, I've seen so far, it's the one with the hat emblem in the middle. That design best confirms with the current AF standard, do it would be recognized as aircrew. As far as round or shield, round goes with the heraldry of this organization -- it would also fit if any of those scanners are NCOs.

As far as enameling something in the center, can we nix that. I'm so tired of all the Cracker Jack box speciality/occupational badges, why compound that with an aircrew wing. These days of embroidered insignia or leather name badges, that would truly be so expensive and bad looking on a ABU/BDU utility uniform.

You know I remember a while ago on this site, one of you suggested just having one or more speciality/occupational badges that were modeled similar to the ground team badge. I wish that idea had caught the eye of NHQ.

Alas, I think NHQ revolves around in the stratosphere and doesn't listen to the field.

How about removing the triangle from the center and making the prop a little smaller. This would maintain close to the original design but allow the C for "crew" to stand out better.

At the risk of being negative, it looks like a defective Observer wing.

Maybe I'm just being crazy here, but I feel that the Civil Air Patrol Aircrew wings should, you know, actually have the CAP logo on it somewhere.

Right now, with a generic "AC" (and nothing else) in a blank disc, it looks like a cheap prop you would buy at a costume shop for Halloween.

Excuse my laughable photoshop skills, but even something like this would be an improvement...

(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z165/Xoxotl/CAP/CAPWingsAC.jpg)

The farcical side of me thinks they put that text in there and then said "now let's go watch the people on CAPTalk go argue what it should be .. and then pick something they don't ever mention".

So cover -all- the bases. Quick. Make NIH Syndrome -really hard- for them. ;)

Quote from: a2capt on January 12, 2014, 11:48:12 PM
So cover -all- the bases. Quick. Make NIH Syndrome -really hard- for them. ;)

Heck, use the current "Observer" wings, but make it bronze-colored instead of silver.  This way they can keep the same die / embroidery design, but just use a different alloy / color thread.

Actually, I would concur with an earlier post that suggested re-activating the old stewardess badge. It's already in the system and is distinctive.

All for abolishing all uniforms, (polo shirts for all) and just the persons name and underneath the word Pilot, Observer, etc.  No wings, no symbols.  plain and simple.
Benefits:
  Cost effective for the members.
  Eliminates confusion of uniform/rank between CAP and Real Military.
  Something easily understood by all.

Quote from: flyboy1 on January 14, 2014, 01:00:32 PM
Actually, I would concur with an earlier post that suggested re-activating the old stewardess badge. It's already in the system and is distinctive.

Or the old observer half wing. That I would wear.

Quote from: flyboy1 on January 14, 2014, 01:00:32 PM
Actually, I would concur with an earlier post that suggested re-activating the old stewardess badge. It's already in the system and is distinctive.

Hasn't been awarded since the stewardess - ahem - flight attendant special activity went away in the early 80s.

Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on January 14, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
All for abolishing all uniforms, (polo shirts for all) and just the persons name and underneath the word Pilot, Observer, etc.  No wings, no symbols.  plain and simple.
Benefits:
  Cost effective for the members.
  Eliminates confusion of uniform/rank between CAP and Real Military.
  Something easily understood by all.

Abolishes virtually all of our identity, as well.

Would your recommendation also cover cadets?

Quote from: AlphaSigOU on January 14, 2014, 06:26:52 PM
Hasn't been awarded since the stewardess - ahem - flight attendant special activity went away in the early 80s.

I wasn't around then.  Just what exactly was there for a CAP "stewardess/flight attendant" to do?

Serves coffee from the back seat of a 206.

I'm pretty sure that was a career exploration/introduction activity.. not a specialty.

If I remember correctly (from my days as a cadink, back when the earth cooled and dinosaurs roamed the earth ;) ) that was a special career exploration activity that was held with several airlines, one of them being the late Eastern Airlines. It was held in Miami (HQ for Eastern) and the training lasted a week. Pretty much a female-only special activity, and the last one I can remember was back in 1979. One of the cadets in my squadron at the time went to the activity and came back with 'stewardess wings'.

Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on January 14, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
All for abolishing all uniforms, (polo shirts for all) and just the persons name and underneath the word Pilot, Observer, etc.  No wings, no symbols.  plain and simple.
Benefits:
  Cost effective for the members.
  Eliminates confusion of uniform/rank between CAP and Real the Military.
  Something easily understood by all.

Fixed that for you, and I'm officially implementing a moratorium on the use of the term "Real Military" in this context.
Since CAP doesn't purport to be any type of military, it's actually an incorrect comparison.  Considering the knowledge-level
and attention span of the average member of the general public, being mistaken for being in a military service (usually the Army) is a risk
anytime you wear just about anything with even a slightly tactical appearance.

"Real" vs. "not-real" might be apt in regards to SDFs, ad-hoc militias, or the random home-grown
group of guys in ACUs, but not to CAP, which is officially a military auxiliary, authorized by its parent service and the US Congress
to wear what it does, and to a certain extent, that service intends for CAP to appear to be, at a minimum, affiliated.

Further to this, there's actually no "confusion" in any meaningful way - if Joe-Sixer thinks we're in the USAF, so
what?  It's on us not to exploit the confusion to personal means.  If someone in another service does, then perhaps they
need to be better informed or increase their SA.

Either way, some Airman's indignation at accidentally saluting a CAP officer should be zero concern to CAP, and
a big concern for the USAF who is clearly not communicating their Auxiliary's place in the universe.

As an AD member I have had to explain to every supervisor I have had what CAP is.  Whenever my EPR comes around the first time with them I have a packet of things that I bring them re: What CAP is, what quals I have achieved since my last EPR, and whatever numbers I can get a hold of.  Kind of sad considering we are the Auxiliary and almost no one knows what CAP is.  I plan on informing as many as I can at this new base.

As for saluting eh it is what is, salute it if it's shiny, if not pick it up.  If it can't be picked up, paint it.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2014, 12:20:17 AM
Either way, some Airman's indignation at accidentally saluting a CAP officer should be zero concern to CAP, and
a big concern for the USAF who is clearly not communicating their Auxiliary's place in the universe.

How about Joe Airman accidentally saluting a CAP NCO?  :)  Happened to me just last week.....our uniforms do confuse them sometimes....  but other then that I agree with you Eclipses.....we ARE part of the TOTAL FORCE.....we ARE.....ALWAYS......the official civilian Auxiliary to the USAF and defacto part of the "real" military.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2014, 06:45:22 AM
How about Joe Airman accidentally saluting a CAP NCO?  :) 

Heck, I accidentally saluted an E-4 Spec one morning.  He was an old E-4 and I was not completely awake.  I thought it was an O-5 at a distance.

I'm enjoying the feedback on the AC wings...Since every aircrew member needs to have wings why not go with the proposed circular design with the following marks....  MS, MO, MP or just a plain S, O, P (Scanner, Observer, Pilot)......

As for the mistaken identity and saluting a salute is a courtesy and if a CAP Officer is rendered a salute then return it.    While attending NSC last year at NHQ I was saluted by REGULAR COMMISSIONED USAF OFFICERS who were lower in grade than I am in CAP.  I returned their salute with a proper greeting and went about business.   :clap:

Quote from: LSThiker

Heck, I accidentally saluted an E-4 Spec one morning.  He was an old E-4 and I was not completely awake.  I thought it was an O-5 at a distance.

I got saluted by a bunch of three- degrees on the Terrazzo once.  They saw Army Green and stuff on the epaulets and started whipping out salutes. Turned into an impromptu class on Army enlisted grade insignia.

Quote from: GroundHawg on January 06, 2014, 06:59:58 PM
We could go old school. ;)

Wasn't something like this for stewardesses back in the day?

This is far and away my favorite proposal for the new "aircrew" wings. Though I would use the pilot wings as a base, not the observer wings. This would essentially create an updated version of the WWII era observer wings, except without the colored enamel. This would create a badge with historical relevance to OUR organization and not look like illegitimate Navy wings.

How about something like Army Air Assault wings only with the CAP observer emblem in the middle.  Somebody whip up that design.  I don't know how to do that stuff

We could always go back to the old "droop" wings that were worn into the '80s?

I still think you are all working too hard.   Just award the Observer Wing to Scanners and then be done with it.

Or we can just leave CAPR 35-6 as it is. That would require less work. >:D

Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2014, 06:58:30 PM
I still think you are all working too hard.   Just award the Observer Wing to Scanners and then be done with it.

There is no such thing as " working too hard" when it comes to discussing uniforms on CapTalk.   :)

Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on January 14, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
All for abolishing all uniforms, (polo shirts for all) and just the persons name and underneath the word Pilot, Observer, etc.  No wings, no symbols.  plain and simple.
Benefits:
  Cost effective for the members.
  Eliminates confusion of uniform/rank between CAP and Real Military.
  Something easily understood by all.

Costs:
   A large majority of the membership
   Lack of recognition as an auxiliary of the Air Force
   Being confused with just about every other SAR organization out there

I have never understood why people join CAP if they don't want to be uniformed.  I mean, it's not like it's a big secret that nobody springs on you until your check is cashed by National - you know going in that CAP is the auxiliary of the Air Force, we are a uniformed organization, and we utilize military ranks and titles.  If you don't want to wear a uniform or be called by a rank or progress through a military-style advancement system, why in the world did you join?  There are plenty of other organizations that don't have uniforms and ranks and insignia and all that you could've become a part of.

Good grief.

Jack

Quote from: KarlIceman on January 15, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
While attending NSC last year at NHQ I was saluted by REGULAR COMMISSIONED USAF OFFICERS who were lower in grade than I am in CAP.  I returned their salute with a proper greeting and went about business.   :clap:

That's another thing, while I'm venting my spleen here.  Why do some of us have everything up to congestive heart failure if we get a salute from a member of the active duty military?  Why do we think that we have to "educate" them that they don't, in fact, have to do so?  Why is it so incredibly freaking difficult to just return the salute and carry on?  Why is this an issue at all???????  (N.B. - this is not addressed to KarlIceman, who apparently handled the situation just right.  This is for all of us who get a bellyache when we get a salute.)

Good grief.  Again.

Jack

Exactly. The RealMilitary® side of the house is NOT obligated to pop off a salute to CAP members, but it's common military courtesy. I sure ain't gonna jack up Airman Snuffy if he or she is unsure about CAP and doesn't pop off one, just simply greet him or her. If he or she pops off a salute, just simply return it, give a greeting and CARRY ON!!!

Quote from: PA Guy on January 15, 2014, 06:38:58 PM
We could always go back to the old "droop" wings that were worn into the '80s?

The letter "O" on current observer wings can't be seen unless you are fairly close, and doesn't show up in photographs at all.

Give Observers the old style "droop" pilots wings, then you can tell who is who from a distance.

Quote from: ColonelJack on January 15, 2014, 08:28:19 PMThat's another thing, while I'm venting my spleen here.  Why do some of us have everything up to congestive heart failure if we get a salute from a member of the active duty military?  Why do we think that we have to "educate" them that they don't, in fact, have to do so?  Why is it so incredibly freaking difficult to just return the salute and carry on?  Why is this an issue at all??????? 

Low self-esteem coupled with a huge missing "clue" chromosome.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

For Col Jack.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

For Eclipse.

Flyer

About the only time I .. educated, for lack of a better word, anyone was recently, going on base for a meeting, the MP asked me "so, how do your ranks work, do we need to salute?" and I said, we're not commissioned, we're a volunteer auxiliary and our structure is modeled similarly to the Air Force, both professional development for advancement, and rank, grade, but saluting isn't required at all.

.."but I can do it if I want?" .. "absolutely".. and he snapped a sharp one, and I returned it as he handed me back my cards.

About as much as I could converse without holding up the queue at the gate ;)

Otherwise, yes- If I get a salute, I just return it smartly, and carry on. Somehow I have to figure that goes -a lot further- than all the heartburn others have over it.

Sometime down the line when that guy realizes "I didn't have to salute him".. he'll think back "but he returned it professionally, properly.."..

Whatever. ;)

Go back to arguing over halos in the wings.

Quote from: a2capt on January 15, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
About the only time I .. educated, for lack of a better word, anyone was recently, going on base for a meeting, the MP asked me "so, how do your ranks work, do we need to salute?" and I said, we're not commissioned, we're a volunteer auxiliary and our structure is modeled similarly to the Air Force, both professional development for advancement, and rank, grade, but saluting isn't required at all.

.."but I can do it if I want?" .. "absolutely".. and he snapped a sharp one, and I returned it as he handed me back my cards.

About as much as I could converse without holding up the queue at the gate ;)

Otherwise, yes- If I get a salute, I just return it smartly, and carry on. Somehow I have to figure that goes -a lot further- than all the heartburn others have over it.

Sometime down the line when that guy realizes "I didn't have to salute him".. he'll think back "but he returned it professionally, properly.."..

Whatever. ;)

Go back to arguing over halos in the wings.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: ColonelJack on January 15, 2014, 08:23:07 PM

Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on January 14, 2014, 02:21:35 PM
All for abolishing all uniforms, (polo shirts for all) and just the persons name and underneath the word Pilot, Observer, etc.  No wings, no symbols.  plain and simple.
Benefits:
  Cost effective for the members.
  Eliminates confusion of uniform/rank between CAP and Real Military.
  Something easily understood by all.

Costs:
   A large majority of the membership
   Lack of recognition as an auxiliary of the Air Force
   Being confused with just about every other SAR organization out there

I have never understood why people join CAP if they don't want to be uniformed.  I mean, it's not like it's a big secret that nobody springs on you until your check is cashed by National - you know going in that CAP is the auxiliary of the Air Force, we are a uniformed organization, and we utilize military ranks and titles.  If you don't want to wear a uniform or be called by a rank or progress through a military-style advancement system, why in the world did you join?  There are plenty of other organizations that don't have uniforms and ranks and insignia and all that you could've become a part of.

Good grief.

Jack

Technically speaking we are only an auxiliary of the Air Force when on an Air Force mission.  So most of the time we are a civilian corporation.  When I was a member of a volunteer Search and Rescue team in Illinois, even though we reported through the Fire Department we wore polos and tactical pants.

Quote from: Alaric on January 16, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
Technically speaking we are only an auxiliary of the Air Force when on an Air Force mission.  So most of the time we are a civilian corporation.  When I was a member of a volunteer Search and Rescue team in Illinois, even though we reported through the Fire Department we wore polos and tactical pants.

100% WRONG!!!!

I SAY AGAIN MY LAST!   100% WRONG!

We are always the Civil Air Patrol, The Official Auxiliary of the USAF!  Says so in the law that created us!

What you are getting confused about is:   We are only an instrument of the U.S. Government and covered by Federal Tort Protection, and Federal Workers Compensation during USAF Assigned Missions.

So get let's forget this AUX ON/AUX OFF stuff!

Sorry for my rant!

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2014, 01:42:23 AM
Sorry for my rant!

You know Pat, and I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Quote from: NIN on January 16, 2014, 01:53:40 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2014, 01:42:23 AM
Sorry for my rant!

You know Pat, and I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Yes I know....but then but with out my caffeine I'm not able to function in the morning.  :)

Quote from: ColonelJack on January 15, 2014, 08:28:19 PM

Quote from: KarlIceman on January 15, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
While attending NSC last year at NHQ I was saluted by REGULAR COMMISSIONED USAF OFFICERS who were lower in grade than I am in CAP.  I returned their salute with a proper greeting and went about business.   :clap:

That's another thing, while I'm venting my spleen here.  Why do some of us have everything up to congestive heart failure if we get a salute from a member of the active duty military? 

Because of all the apocryphal stories floating about that refuse to die about how CAP members like hanging around the BX trolling for salutes.  Nobody wants to be That Guy, so we tend to overcompensate.

Personally, I will go out of my way (literally) to avoid Airmen when I'm on base and in uniform.  I don't have a problem with saluting officers, nor do I have a problem returning a salute if one is given to me.  I just can see some Airman popping off a salute, his buddy saying "Hey, he's CAP, you don't have to salute him, newbie," and the now-embarrassed Airman changing the story to his buddies to how now I was trolling for salutes.

Back to Air Crew wings...

I'm not sure how I feel about the half-wings.  I understand that it has a precedent for prior usage in both CAP and history as "Air Crew", but personally I don't like them because, well, they're non-symmetrical.  I realize this is just personal preference, though.

But even that would be an improvement over a blank disc with "AC" on it.  Ugh.

But if we want to go into historical precedent, I think the 40's-era pilot wings are pretty darn sharp, even if we removed the colored enamel bit and just make the tri-prop silver.

(http://www.poorwilliam.net/pix/cap-wings.jpg)

Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2014, 12:20:17 AM
Either way, some Airman's indignation at accidentally saluting a CAP officer should be zero concern to CAP, and a big concern for the USAF who is clearly not communicating their Auxiliary's place in the universe.

Which they have not done for some time, at least not at an educational level.  Upper echelons know who we are (as Colonel Lee can well attest) but the further down the totem pole you go knowledge diminishes.  When it gets to the point where some Airman writes in to Air Force Times saying that in BMT their MTI said to "ignore" CAP members, that's pretty bad - if true.

One thing I am sick to death of are all the apocryphal stories of how some CAP officer tried to chew out an airman/NCO for not saluting him/her.  I mean instances that are not verifiable as having been dealt with as a disciplinary/educational matter by CAP.

It's never been a big thing with me.  I'm just as happy if someone gives me a friendly "hi, how ya doin'?" when they see me.

I wish I could replicate the time just after I got my butterbars back in '94 and was coming out of MCSS and passed an Air Force Reserve Major or Lieutenant Colonel (the colour of the oak leaf fades with memory).  I snapped him my best salute and said "good afternoon, Sir."  He returned my salute and stopped, gave me a vigorous handshake and engaged me in conversation about how appreciative the Air Force and he personally was of CAP.  He said, "Keep on what you're doing, Lieutenant."

That's a warm fuzzy that a thousand salutes couldn't buy for me.  Them wuz the dayz. :(

I still say adopting a half-wing for aircrew would be good.  No lettering, and make the prop/triangle enamelled, like in the old days of CAP.

Quote from: a2capt on January 15, 2014, 09:44:33 PM
.."but I can do it if I want?" .. "absolutely".. and he snapped a sharp one, and I returned it as he handed me back my cards.

Nicely said, and close to what I tell military personnel who are curious.

I say "you don't have to, but we appreciate it if and when you do."

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2014, 01:42:23 AM

Quote from: Alaric on January 16, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
Technically speaking we are only an auxiliary of the Air Force when on an Air Force mission.  So most of the time we are a civilian corporation.  When I was a member of a volunteer Search and Rescue team in Illinois, even though we reported through the Fire Department we wore polos and tactical pants.

100% WRONG!!!!

I SAY AGAIN MY LAST!   100% WRONG!

We are always the Civil Air Patrol, The Official Auxiliary of the USAF!  Says so in the law that created us!

What you are getting confused about is:   We are only an instrument of the U.S. Government and covered by Federal Tort Protection, and Federal Workers Compensation during USAF Assigned Missions.

So get let's forget this AUX ON/AUX OFF stuff!

Sorry for my rant!

Non-concur.

Quote10 USC §9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.—
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

Paragraph (a) identifies pretty clearly when we are considered "a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"; the implication being that anytime that condition--"when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."--is NOT met, we are not considered as such.

Slightly off topic.... but check out the attached picture (http://www.okwgcap.org/2012/05/10/okwg-civil-air-patrol-supports-presidential-visi/) to this story.

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Paragraph (a) identifies pretty clearly when we are considered "a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"; the implication being that anytime that condition--"when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."--is NOT met, we are not considered as such.

Which doesn't change my main point ... if you don't want to wear uniforms (whether AF or corporate) and don't want to hold a rank and don't want to be part of a military-styled advancement system, you are in the wrong organization and I question why you joined in the first place.

N.B. - this is my view and mine alone; your mileage may vary.

Jack

Quote from: Panache on January 16, 2014, 10:31:17 AM
Slightly off topic.... but check out the attached picture (http://www.okwgcap.org/2012/05/10/okwg-civil-air-patrol-supports-presidential-visi/) to this story.

I'm sorry, what are we checking out?

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:07:35 PM

Quote from: Panache on January 16, 2014, 10:31:17 AM
Slightly off topic.... but check out the attached picture (http://www.okwgcap.org/2012/05/10/okwg-civil-air-patrol-supports-presidential-visi/) to this story.

I'm sorry, what are we checking out?

Click on the words "attached picture" and you will see a picture of a Lt Col wearing a flight cap with the blue flight suit.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:14:04 PM

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:07:35 PM

Quote from: Panache on January 16, 2014, 10:31:17 AM
Slightly off topic.... but check out the attached picture (http://www.okwgcap.org/2012/05/10/okwg-civil-air-patrol-supports-presidential-visi/) to this story.

I'm sorry, what are we checking out?

Click on the words "attached picture" and you will see a picture of a Lt Col wearing a flight cap with the blue flight suit.

Under current CAPM-39-1 this is within regs.  Check out page 86, table 4-5, line 6.

Personally as someone who got their degree in History I am all for the World War I or II Observer rating badges.  Slightly updated without the straight wing design of the Great War.  Just my two cents.  Fair Winds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png)

Quote from: Ground_Pounder on January 16, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Under current CAPM-39-1 this is within regs.  Check out page 86, table 4-5, line 6.

Yes it is.  Did not say otherwise.  Of course, I could have described the major wearing a green flight suit with the flight cap.  However, I figured I would just describe the ranking officer in the picture.

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Paragraph (a) identifies pretty clearly when we are considered "a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"; the implication being that anytime that condition--"when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."--is NOT met, we are not considered as such.

Nope, wrong.

We are always the USAF Auxiliary.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 16, 2014, 07:55:03 AMWhich they have not done for some time, at least not at an educational level.  Upper echelons know who we are (as Colonel Lee can well attest) but the further down the totem pole you go knowledge diminishes.  When it gets to the point where some Airman writes in to Air Force Times saying that in BMT their MTI said to "ignore" CAP members, that's pretty bad - if true.

And it almost certainly isn't.

Apocryphal stories by disgruntled Airmen fresh out of BMT should likely be treated with, "suspicion", at best.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 02:28:07 PM

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Paragraph (a) identifies pretty clearly when we are considered "a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"; the implication being that anytime that condition--"when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."--is NOT met, we are not considered as such.

Nope, wrong.

We are always the USAF Auxiliary.

+1

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:28:03 PM

Quote from: Ground_Pounder on January 16, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Under current CAPM-39-1 this is within regs.  Check out page 86, table 4-5, line 6.

Yes it is.  Did not say otherwise.  Of course, I could have described the major wearing a green flight suit with the flight cap.  However, I figured I would just describe the ranking officer in the picture.

Why are we "checking them out"?  They both look fine.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 02:34:09 PM
Why are we "checking them out"?  They both look fine.

Do not ask me.  I agree.  I do not see anything particularly glaring.  Ask Panache.

Anything written in the Mil Times or Military.com should be taken with a grain of salt.  It is not the AFs job to educate the masses it is our job.  As I have said before if we want folks to be aware it is up to us, but BMT and Tech School are not the places for it.  Sorry but until we are considered part of the total force initiative then the AF is not going to educate the masses beyond what they do currently.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:14:04 PM

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:07:35 PM

Quote from: Panache on January 16, 2014, 10:31:17 AM
Slightly off topic.... but check out the attached picture (http://www.okwgcap.org/2012/05/10/okwg-civil-air-patrol-supports-presidential-visi/) to this story.

I'm sorry, what are we checking out?

Click on the words "attached picture" and you will see a picture of a Lt Col wearing a flight cap with the blue flight suit.

You're point?

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:39:45 PM
You're point?

Well I do not think I am a point.

However, I misread your question.  I thought you were asking where the attached picture was.  My apologies.  My only point was where the picture is located and a very simple description of said picture.

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:45:49 PM

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:39:45 PM
You're point?

Well I do not think I am a point.

Well it could be argued that you are a data point, and your location on a map is represented by a point. It's also possible that I made a typo, but I doubt it.  ;D

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:50:27 PM
Well it could be argued that you are a data point,

I prefer to make data points when I carry out my research.  :)

Quote from: unmlobo on January 15, 2014, 12:30:47 AM

As an AD member I have had to explain to every supervisor I have had what CAP is.  Whenever my EPR comes around the first time with them I have a packet of things that I bring them re: What CAP is, what quals I have achieved since my last EPR, and whatever numbers I can get a hold of.  Kind of sad considering we are the Auxiliary and almost no one knows what CAP is.  I plan on informing as many as I can at this new base.

As for saluting eh it is what is, salute it if it's shiny, if not pick it up.  If it can't be picked up, paint it.

Actually I was Shocked the other Day, I asked an Co-Worker if they knew what CAP was, they said Ya, wernt they from WW2 or something, Im was in total shock they knew that much.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 02:28:07 PM

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Paragraph (a) identifies pretty clearly when we are considered "a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"; the implication being that anytime that condition--"when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."--is NOT met, we are not considered as such.

Nope, wrong.

We are always the USAF Auxiliary.

Yes Bob, you're right, the law is wrong. (Do you pull this crap with CAP regs too?)

We may always be "the" USAF Auxiliary, but according to that section of federal law, we enjoy auxiliary status ONLY when performing missions for federal agencies. 

The easy way to understand this: if you're performing an AF-assigned (A or B) mission, you have auxiliary status, which provides FECA/FTCA protections.  If you're performing a corporate mission, you don't have auxiliary status, so no FECA/FTCA. 

So yeah,  the AUX ON/AUX OFF distinction remains valid and important. 

FECA/FTCA doesn't dictate our place as a USAF auxiliary, except in the minds of a lawyer somewhere.
If it did, we could only wear USAF-style uniforms during AFAMs.

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 04:50:32 PMYes Bob, you're right, the law is wrong.

Thank you, however we're not talking about a nuance of liability insurance, are we?

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
(Do you pull this crap with CAP regs too?)

Interpret them properly?  Yes.

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
We may always be "the" USAF Auxiliary, but according to that section of federal law, we enjoy auxiliary status ONLY when performing missions for federal agencies.

"Enjoy auxiliary status?"  What does that mean in any way relevent to the average member.

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 10:20:46 AM
Paragraph (a) identifies pretty clearly when we are considered "a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force"; the implication being that anytime that condition--"when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government."--is NOT met, we are not considered as such.

Please provide a list of activities and duties the average member participates in that aren't, in some way, used "by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government".
For starters, last I checked, CAP-USAF is a "department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government".

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:36:44 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 02:34:09 PM
Why are we "checking them out"?  They both look fine.

Do not ask me.  I agree.  I do not see anything particularly glaring.  Ask Panache.

Duh.  I've been reading the draft 39-1 too many times and I had a temporary case of cranial-rectal inversion.  I forgot that it is currently authorized.  I very rarely (read: never) wear a flight suit.

My bad, sorry.

That being said, now I'm irked that they're specifically forbidding it in the draft 39-1 when it is currently authorized.  But, hey, we still get to keep our orange baseball caps!   :-[

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2014, 01:42:23 AM

Quote from: Alaric on January 16, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
Technically speaking we are only an auxiliary of the Air Force when on an Air Force mission.  So most of the time we are a civilian corporation.  When I was a member of a volunteer Search and Rescue team in Illinois, even though we reported through the Fire Department we wore polos and tactical pants.

100% WRONG!!!!

I SAY AGAIN MY LAST!   100% WRONG!

We are always the Civil Air Patrol, The Official Auxiliary of the USAF!  Says so in the law that created us!

What you are getting confused about is:   We are only an instrument of the U.S. Government and covered by Federal Tort Protection, and Federal Workers Compensation during USAF Assigned Missions.

So get let's forget this AUX ON/AUX OFF stuff!

Sorry for my rant!

You can rant all you like, doesn't make you right.  The USC says we are the auxiliary when we are doing missions for the government, which of course means we are not the auxiliary when we are not doing missions for the government.  Vehemence does not equal accuracy

Quote from: Alaric on January 16, 2014, 06:48:12 PM
You can rant all you like, doesn't make you right.  The USC says we are the auxiliary when we are doing missions for the government, which of course means we are not the auxiliary when we are not doing missions for the government.  Vehemence does not equal accuracy

The USC is speaking only in regards to FECA/FTCA benefits, which are a tiny part of the CAP universe.
Again, FECA/FTCA doesn't define CAP's overall auxiliary status.

Then you'd love the high collared, Billy Mitchell style uniforms, too...

Quote from: unmlobo on January 16, 2014, 02:26:07 PM
Personally as someone who got their degree in History I am all for the World War I or II Observer rating badges.  Slightly updated without the straight wing design of the Great War.  Just my two cents.  Fair Winds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png)

I seem to have left my copy of the USC in the car. Isn't the full name of the corportation (from 36USC) Civil Air Patrol, Inc, the USAF Auxiliary? So as I understand it, much like Rhode Island, the name is shortened to be manageable. The full title and the law, names us as the dual hatted organization (corporation and USAF auxiliary...interestingly, "an" auxiliary...) and 10USC outlines specifically when we act as a corporation or an auxiliary. I love that "an"...

Quote from: Alaric on January 16, 2014, 06:48:12 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2014, 01:42:23 AM

Quote from: Alaric on January 16, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
Technically speaking we are only an auxiliary of the Air Force when on an Air Force mission.  So most of the time we are a civilian corporation.  When I was a member of a volunteer Search and Rescue team in Illinois, even though we reported through the Fire Department we wore polos and tactical pants.

100% WRONG!!!!

I SAY AGAIN MY LAST!   100% WRONG!

We are always the Civil Air Patrol, The Official Auxiliary of the USAF!  Says so in the law that created us!

What you are getting confused about is:   We are only an instrument of the U.S. Government and covered by Federal Tort Protection, and Federal Workers Compensation during USAF Assigned Missions.

So get let's forget this AUX ON/AUX OFF stuff!

Sorry for my rant!

You can rant all you like, doesn't make you right.  The USC says we are the auxiliary when we are doing missions for the government, which of course means we are not the auxiliary when we are not doing missions for the government.  Vehemence does not equal accuracy

From the Bylaws of CAP:

ARTICLE II
NAME AND STATUS
The name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian
auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or
by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.

Quote from: THRAWN on January 16, 2014, 08:31:20 PM
Then you'd love the high collared, Billy Mitchell style uniforms, too...

Quote from: unmlobo on January 16, 2014, 02:26:07 PM
Personally as someone who got their degree in History I am all for the World War I or II Observer rating badges.  Slightly updated without the straight wing design of the Great War.  Just my two cents.  Fair Winds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png)

Actually I did like them.  I think as a whole we, the Air Force, have gone astray from our historical roots.  This in turn is also a reflection of CAP.  I feel we do need a re-blueing and reminder of where we came from and who we are. 

Maybe this will clarify things or make them "clear as mud":

Quote from: AFPD 10-27, 29 Jul 2005
2. CAP Mission Status. CAP may conduct its activities as either an auxiliary of the Air Force or in its
corporate status:

2.1. Air Force Auxiliary. CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when it assists the Air Force or any Federal agency in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions. CAP support may include, but is not limited to, Air Force-assigned missions in support of homeland security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil support. CAP may only support an agency or department of the Federal government in its capacity as the Air Force Auxiliary. Certain
CAP programs, such as cadet orientation flights, may be approved and assigned as Air Force missions
when these support Air Force non-combat programs and missions.

2.2. Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Corporation. CAP Corporation may use Federally provided resources to provide assistance requested by state or local governmental authorities and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to perform disaster relief missions and other emergency or
non-emergency public purpose missions and activities. CAP may also use Federally provided resources to perform certain missions that fulfill its corporate purposes as described in paragraph 1. of this Policy Directive.

Quote from: AFI 10-2701, 29 Jul 2005
1.2. CAP Status as an Auxiliary of the Air Force. Title 10, USC § 9442 identifies CAP as an auxiliary of the Air Force when carrying out a mission assigned by the SECAF to provide services to any department or agency in any branch of the Federal government, including the Air Force. CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary.

Quote from: CAP Constitution, 1 Oct 2012
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol is designated as the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force under 10 USC § 9441 which authorizes various Air Force support and designates Civil Air Patrol and its members as instrumentalities of the United States while performing Air Force non-combat missions.

Quote from: CAPR 20-1, 2 Jan 2013
4. CAP, as an Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. In 1943 CAP began as an auxiliary of the Army Air Corps and later continued with the Army Air Force. The Congress codified that status declaring CAP as the official Auxiliary of the newly created United States Air Force on 26 May 1948 by a law frequently referred to as the CAP Supply Bill (10 USC 9441). In 2000, Congress codified CAP's status as an auxiliary of the Air Force when it is performing a mission for a "department or agency in any branch of the Federal government". The CAP and its members are deemed to be instrumentalities of the United States with respect to any act or mission of the CAP in carrying out a mission assigned by the Air Force (see 10 U.S.C. 9442).

Can't say that I disagree in either case. They looked...martial....and we do need to get back closer with Mom Blue.

Quote from: unmlobo on January 16, 2014, 09:01:22 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on January 16, 2014, 08:31:20 PM
Then you'd love the high collared, Billy Mitchell style uniforms, too...

Quote from: unmlobo on January 16, 2014, 02:26:07 PM
Personally as someone who got their degree in History I am all for the World War I or II Observer rating badges.  Slightly updated without the straight wing design of the Great War.  Just my two cents.  Fair Winds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TechnicalObserverWings.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_-_Balloon_Observer_WWI.png)

Actually I did like them.  I think as a whole we, the Air Force, have gone astray from our historical roots.  This in turn is also a reflection of CAP.  I feel we do need a re-blueing and reminder of where we came from and who we are.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 16, 2014, 09:02:46 PM
Maybe this will clarify things or make them "clear as mud":

Quote from: AFPD 10-27, 29 Jul 2005
2. CAP Mission Status. CAP may conduct its activities as either an auxiliary of the Air Force or in its
corporate status:

2.1. Air Force Auxiliary. CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when it assists the Air Force or any Federal agency in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions. CAP support may include, but is not limited to, Air Force-assigned missions in support of homeland security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil support. CAP may only support an agency or department of the Federal government in its capacity as the Air Force Auxiliary. Certain
CAP programs, such as cadet orientation flights, may be approved and assigned as Air Force missions
when these support Air Force non-combat programs and missions.

2.2. Congressionally Chartered Nonprofit Corporation. CAP Corporation may use Federally provided resources to provide assistance requested by state or local governmental authorities and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to perform disaster relief missions and other emergency or
non-emergency public purpose missions and activities. CAP may also use Federally provided resources to perform certain missions that fulfill its corporate purposes as described in paragraph 1. of this Policy Directive.

Quote from: AFI 10-2701, 29 Jul 2005
1.2. CAP Status as an Auxiliary of the Air Force. Title 10, USC § 9442 identifies CAP as an auxiliary of the Air Force when carrying out a mission assigned by the SECAF to provide services to any department or agency in any branch of the Federal government, including the Air Force. CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary.

Quote from: CAP Constitution, 1 Oct 2012
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol is designated as the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force under 10 USC § 9441 which authorizes various Air Force support and designates Civil Air Patrol and its members as instrumentalities of the United States while performing Air Force non-combat missions.

Quote from: CAPR 20-1, 2 Jan 2013
4. CAP, as an Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. In 1943 CAP began as an auxiliary of the Army Air Corps and later continued with the Army Air Force. The Congress codified that status declaring CAP as the official Auxiliary of the newly created United States Air Force on 26 May 1948 by a law frequently referred to as the CAP Supply Bill (10 USC 9441). In 2000, Congress codified CAP's status as an auxiliary of the Air Force when it is performing a mission for a "department or agency in any branch of the Federal government". The CAP and its members are deemed to be instrumentalities of the United States with respect to any act or mission of the CAP in carrying out a mission assigned by the Air Force (see 10 U.S.C. 9442).

Lousy facts, always getting in the way of assumptions and misinterpretations...

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 09:07:38 PM
Lousy facts, always getting in the way of assumptions and misinterpretations...

I've always believed and taught that CAP is always the Air Force Auxiliary. However, after finding all these references, I can see why some may believe that our auxiliary status only applies when conducting missions for the Air Force or other Federal agencies.

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:45:49 PM

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:39:45 PM
You're point?

Well I do not think I am a point.

Well it could be argued that you are a data point, and your location on a map is represented by a point. It's also possible that I made a typo, but I doubt it.  ;D

"You're point" is a contraction of "you are point", hence the subsequent discussion.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 16, 2014, 09:13:43 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 09:07:38 PM
Lousy facts, always getting in the way of assumptions and misinterpretations...

I've always believed and taught that CAP is always the Air Force Auxiliary. However, after finding all these references, I can see why some may believe that our auxiliary status only applies when conducting missions for the Air Force or other Federal agencies.

True enough, however that is only one piece of auxiliary status related to funding and liability, not the total picture.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 09:15:30 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 16, 2014, 09:13:43 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 09:07:38 PM
Lousy facts, always getting in the way of assumptions and misinterpretations...

I've always believed and taught that CAP is always the Air Force Auxiliary. However, after finding all these references, I can see why some may believe that our auxiliary status only applies when conducting missions for the Air Force or other Federal agencies.

True enough, however that is only one piece of auxiliary status related to funding and liability, not the total picture.

Is there another reference that can shed some light on this?

Quote from: SarDragon on January 16, 2014, 09:14:11 PM

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:50:27 PM

Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2014, 02:45:49 PM

Quote from: jeders on January 16, 2014, 02:39:45 PM
You're point?

Well I do not think I am a point.

Well it could be argued that you are a data point, and your location on a map is represented by a point. It's also possible that I made a typo, but I doubt it.  ;D

"You're point" is a contraction of "you are point", hence the subsequent discussion.

Yes, thank you, I know that; hence the second sentence and smiley face in my reply.

It's interesting how the CAP Constitution references CAP as THE auxiliary and the law references CAP as AN auxiliary. Words, and language, mean things...

Quote from: THRAWN on January 16, 2014, 09:46:32 PM
It's interesting how the CAP Constitution references CAP as THE auxiliary and the law references CAP as AN auxiliary. Words, and language, mean things...

Well, there used to be more than one auxiliary to the Air Force . . . so when the law was written, it was accurate.

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 16, 2014, 09:54:56 PMWell, there used to be more than one auxiliary to the Air Force . . . so when the law was written, it was accurate.

Isn't MARS still considered an auxiliary?

Quote from: Ground_Pounder on January 16, 2014, 02:22:06 PM
Under current CAPM-39-1 this is within regs.  Check out page 86, table 4-5, line 6.

It is, and the difference between the "blue flight suit" and "blue utility suit" was never made clear by 39-1.  At least the rough draft of the new 39-1 seems to put paid to that.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 10:14:56 PM

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 16, 2014, 09:54:56 PMWell, there used to be more than one auxiliary to the Air Force . . . so when the law was written, it was accurate.

Isn't MARS still considered an auxiliary?

I believe so, but I am unsure how much use the military makes of them in this day and age of instantaneous communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Auxiliary_Radio_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Auxiliary_Radio_System)

Remember when Packet Radio was the "next big thing?"

Quote from: RogueLeader on January 16, 2014, 09:54:56 PM
Well, there used to be more than one auxiliary to the Air Force . . . so when the law was written, it was accurate.

What others were there besides MARS, which is not Air Force-specific?

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 16, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
It is not the AFs job to educate the masses it is our job.  As I have said before if we want folks to be aware it is up to us, but BMT and Tech School are not the places for it.  Sorry but until we are considered part of the total force initiative then the AF is not going to educate the masses beyond what they do currently.

And why is it not the Air Force's job?  We wear a modified version of their uniform, we receive a good chunk of funding from them, we are part of the operations of 1st Air Force (ask Colonel Lee), and they used to educate their members about us.

In the most black-and-white terms (and I say this as a former ANG airman), we are more of a direct part of the Air Force than the Air National Guard.  Under Title 32 and Title 10 USC, the ANG is only directly a part of the Air Force when placed under Federal control by the President.  Until then, they are controlled by their state Governors and Adjutant General.  In fact, ANG aircraft used to only carry "U.S. AIR FORCE" titling when this happened; otherwise they carried their state name.

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y215/uncletommo/53-2677F-89DScorpion.jpg)

We are "all federal, all the time," and AUX ON/OFF be hanged.

Short of banging on the door of a base Wing King's office, how is it our part to "educate the Air Force" about us?

Quote from: CyBorg on January 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 16, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
It is not the AFs job to educate the masses it is our job.  As I have said before if we want folks to be aware it is up to us, but BMT and Tech School are not the places for it.  Sorry but until we are considered part of the total force initiative then the AF is not going to educate the masses beyond what they do currently.

And why is it not the Air Force's job?  We wear a modified version of their uniform, we receive a good chunk of funding from them, we are part of the operations of 1st Air Force (ask Colonel Lee), and they used to educate their members about us.

Because, simply put, the job of the Air Force is to fly, fight and win... in air, space and cyberspace.

Quote from: CyBorg on January 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM

And why is it not the Air Force's job?  We wear a modified version of their uniform, we receive a good chunk of funding from them, we are part of the operations of 1st Air Force (ask Colonel Lee), and they used to educate their members about us.


Short of banging on the door of a base Wing King's office, how is it our part to "educate the Air Force" about us?

Cite please on one and on two how is it not our job?  Bottom line the AF has bigger issues to deal with than educating the force on us.  If you want the AF to know about us, step up put together a brief and present it at your local installation. 

BLUF it is our job to educate the populace on us not MA blues.  It is our job to build and maintain relationships with people not Ma Blues.

This is similiar to your gripe about the uniforms.  You want things done but do not want to take the steps to do it.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 17, 2014, 12:23:52 AM
Because, simply put, the job of the Air Force is to fly, fight and win... in air, space and cyberspace.

And CAP is supposed to be part of that total force, relieving stress points wherever it reasonably can.
We're another card in the deck, the "Joker" to head off others, and like a Joker in a deck, not used often,
and with specific uses, but when needed, very handy, sometimes a game changer.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 05:00:29 PM
FECA/FTCA doesn't dictate our place as a USAF auxiliary, except in the minds of a lawyer somewhere.
If it did, we could only wear USAF-style uniforms during AFAMs.

Auxiliary status dictates when we have FECA/FTCA coverage. Which has nothing to do with which uniforms we wear when.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 05:00:29 PM

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 04:50:32 PMYes Bob, you're right, the law is wrong.

Thank you, however we're not talking about a nuance of liability insurance, are we?

We're talking about the mechanism by which we acquire FECA/FTCA coverage. That mechanism is when we are wearing our "auxiliary" hat--which we only wear when conducting AFAMs. Let me restate that for clarity: we have federal Title 10 status ONLY when conducting AF-assigned missions. The rest of the time, we're the Boy Scouts or the Red Cross.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 05:00:29 PM

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
(Do you pull this crap with CAP regs too?)

Interpret them properly?  Yes.

I beg to differ. You're ignoring what is actually stated and inserting your own misconceptions.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 05:00:29 PM

Quote from: Mustang on January 16, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
We may always be "the" USAF Auxiliary, but according to that section of federal law, we enjoy auxiliary status ONLY when performing missions for federal agencies.

"Enjoy auxiliary status?"  What does that mean in any way relevent to the average member.

As a practical matter, it means that you aren't gonna get sued personally if you lose control of a corporate van and drive it into someone's living room during a mission. Do that during a squadron field trip though, and you're hosed.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2014, 05:00:29 PMPlease provide a list of activities and duties the average member participates in that aren't, in some way, used "by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government".
For starters, last I checked, CAP-USAF is a "department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government".

Squadron meetings. Wing staff meetings. Conferences. All flight ops released under a C flight code.  Color guards marching in parades. Pretty much anytime we aren't under operational control of First Air Force. 

Do any of you more seasoned members out there know how one may read any comments submitted about the draft version of the 39-1?    It would be interesting to see if any changes have been made to it. ???

(http://static.squarespace.com/static/519e9748e4b048f9f832e39e/t/51d23400e4b0d519d0c0473e/1372730369119/escalated%20quickly.jpg%3Fformat%3Doriginal)

Chapter 909 - Civil Air Patrol, Title 10 USC was completely rewritten in 2000 and implemented under PL 106-398 (Defense Authorization Act for FY01). Per the Committee On Armed Services Report, 
SECTION 906--ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL AIR PATROL "This section would revise section 9441 of title 10, United States Code to define more clearly the relationship between the United States Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol (CAP)."

The rewrite added sections 9442 through 9448 (9447 created the BoG). Among the added sections:
§ 9443. Activities performed as federally chartered nonprofit corporation
blah, blah, blah

§ 9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force
blah, blah, blah

(11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by furnishing—
(A) articles of the Air Force uniform to cadets without cost; and
(B) any other support that the Secretary of the Air Force determines is consistent with Air Force missions and objectives; and

(12) provide support, including appropriated funds, for the Civil Air Patrol aerospace education program to the extent that the Secretary of the Air Force determines appropriate for furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.

To further define the "missions" as an auxiliary, the Statement of Work (SOW) between CAP and USAF was signed in 2001.  From the SOW:
2.3. CAP Missions
2.3.1. General. CAP, as an Air Force Auxiliary, shall maintain a capability to assist the Air Force in performing its roles, missions, and operations in a timely manner and to assist Federal, state, and local agencies or activities. This section describes missions CAP currently performs as an Air Force Auxiliary. The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of CAP to assist the Air Force in performing roles, missions, and operations and also expects CAP to support Air Force missions.

Contained within this section are:
2.3.2 Emergency Services
2.3.3 CAP Cadet Program
2.3.4 CAP Aerospace Education Program

Reading all of the sections of Chapter 909 of Title 10 and the SOW, it becomes clear that the missions that CAP performs as an auxiliary to the USAF include more than just ES "Air Force [Assigned] Missions."

Mike

Here are a couple publications that will clarify the finer points of our "auxiliary" status. These provide the "official" interpretation of the applicable federal statutes (and thus supercede Bobbo's "expert" interpretations):

Air Force Policy Directive 10-27 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/AFPD_1027.pdf)
Air Force Instruction 10-2701 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/AFI_102701.pdf) (Chapters 1 and 2 in particular)

I will cherry-pick a few important statements from each:

Quote from: AFPD 10-272. CAP Mission Status. CAP may conduct its activities as either an auxiliary of the Air Force or in its corporate status:

2.1. Air Force Auxiliary. CAP is an auxiliary of the Air Force when it assists the Air Force or any Federal agency in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions. CAP support may include, but is not limited to, Air Force-assigned missions in support of homeland security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil support. CAP may only support an agency or department of the Federal government in its capacity as the Air Force Auxiliary. Certain CAP programs, such as cadet orientation flights, may be approved and assigned as Air Force missions when these support Air Force non-combat programs and missions.

Quote from: AFI 10-2701, Ch 1 preambleThe Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is a Federally chartered non-profit corporation that may be utilized as a civilian volunteer auxiliary of the Air Force. The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) can employ the services of CAP in lieu of or to supplement Air Force resources to fulfill the non-combat programs and missions of the Air Force. Such services may include Air Force-assigned missions (AFAMs) in support of homeland security operations, consequence management, support to civilian law enforcement, and other civil support. Certain CAP cadet and aerospace educational programs may also be approved and assigned as Air Force non-combat missions. When performing Air Force-assigned programs and missions, CAP assets function as an auxiliary of the Air Force.

Quote from: AFI 10-27011.1. Capabilities. CAP conducts three primary programs: emergency services and civil support, aerospace education, and a cadet program. CAP may conduct emergency service and civil support activities as a corporation or when approved and assigned by the SECAF (or the designee), as an auxiliary of the Air Force. As a general rule, Aerospace Education and Cadet Program activities are not AFAMs.

[...]

1.2. CAP Status as an Auxiliary of the Air Force. Title 10, USC § 9442 identifies CAP as an auxiliary of the Air Force when carrying out a mission assigned by the SECAF to provide services to any department or agency in any branch of the Federal government, including the Air Force. CAP is deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States while carrying out missions assigned by the Secretary.

(Bolded emphasis mine)

So, to summarize:

   
• CAP may be utilized as "an auxiliary of the Air Force".
• CAP serves as "an auxiliary of the Air Force" only when performing Air Force Assigned Missions (AFAMs).  It operates in its capacity as a federally chartered corporation at all other times.
• AE and CP are not generally included within the definition of AFAMs, but certain aspects may; Cadet Orientation Flights, for example, are AFAMs.
• Anytime CAP members are performing an AFAM, they carry "federal instrumentality" status.
• Anytime CAP members are performing a corporate mission that is not an AFAM, they carry neither "federal instrumentality" nor "Air Force auxiliary" status.

Therefore.....

...while it is true that CAP is "the official civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force",  it only serves in this auxiliary capacity under very specific circumstances. 

Quote from: Mustang link=topic=18355.msg334555#msg334terpretations are yours, and incorrect, if only because they chose t555 date=1389955117
Here are a couple publications that will clarify the finer points of our "auxiliary" status. These provide the "official" interpretation of the applicable federal statutes

No, they presumably provide the text of the regulations.  The ino limit scope to make your argument.

Again, you've decided ES mission status is the only delimiter of being an auxiliary of the USAF.  It isn't, except when discussing a small portion of being an auxiliary, liability and insurance during one of CAP's many missions and activities.  As CYA, the regs say the USAF will only cover CAP when it assigns or approves an activity, they don't say
"you aren't are auxiliary all the other time".  For whatever reason you've decided being  specific instrumentality of the feds, is the only way to be an auxiliary.  It isn't.

A car is a car, even when it doesn't have insurance.

CAP is an auxiliary of the USAF even when it isn't covered by FECA/FTCA.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 01:29:18 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 17, 2014, 12:23:52 AM
Because, simply put, the job of the Air Force is to fly, fight and win... in air, space and cyberspace.

And CAP is supposed to be part of that total force, relieving stress points wherever it reasonably can.
We're another card in the deck, the "Joker" to head off others, and like a Joker in a deck, not used often,
and with specific uses, but when needed, very handy, sometimes a game changer.

Thank you.  You make the point better than I could have.  WIWANG, CAP was looked at differently than we seem to be now; but in many ways there has been a moving-apart from the Air Force, and I don't believe it was the Air Force that made most of the moves away.

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 17, 2014, 12:39:42 AM
Cite please on one and on two how is it not our job?  Bottom line the AF has bigger issues to deal with than educating the force on us.  If you want the AF to know about us, step up put together a brief and present it at your local installation. 

First of all, just checking Mapquest, my closest active AFB is 280.90 miles.  The next "closest" is 611.28 miles.

They USED to educate their members about us.  I know that BMT has changed a lot since my day, but it would not take one bit away from BMT to use yet another marathon underwear-folding session to do so, or at the very least at an Airman's first duty station, especially if there is a CAP unit on that base.

I am not sure if they still do this, but at night in the dorm dayroom the MTI used to hold briefings.  They ranged from topics as diverse as how P.O.'d he was with us and he was going to kick all of us into next week and then recycle us all to Zero Week if we didn't shape up, to watching your mates for signs of suicidal behaviour, to basically him talking about How Great He Art and how the AF could not run without him (yawn), to just plain bull sessions (mostly him telling jokes).  It would be quite painless to maybe have a PowerPoint (in my day it would have been an overhead transparency) saying "this is who these people are, and this is how they fit with us."

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 17, 2014, 12:39:42 AM
BLUF it is our job to educate the populace on us not MA blues.  It is our job to build and maintain relationships with people not Ma Blues.

The populace in general and the membership of the military are not the same thing.

Quote from: abdsp51 on January 17, 2014, 12:39:42 AM
This is similiar to your gripe about the uniforms.  You want things done but do not want to take the steps to do it.

What can be done in either case by a Captain who rarely sees anyone above squadron level?  Have you "taken steps" to correct things you find incorrect about the organisation?

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 01:47:18 PM
Again, you've decided ES mission status is the only delimiter of being an auxiliary of the USAF.

Far, far, far, far too much of our membership tends to believe that way, especially in senior squadrons.

I'm with Cyborg here.

In my BMTS we learned all about the other MAJCOMS and a bunch of other minutia that we did not need.    It would not detract from anything they are doing to give us 10 whole minutes to get us on the General Population's radar.

After BMTS....give us a half page in the Promotion Study Guide.

It's not like I'm asking for a yearly CBT or anything.

Quote from: lordmonar on January 17, 2014, 07:29:11 PM
I'm with Cyborg here.

In my BMTS we learned all about the other MAJCOMS and a bunch of other minutia that we did not need.    It would not detract from anything they are doing to give us 10 whole minutes to get us on the General Population's radar.

After BMTS....give us a half page in the Promotion Study Guide.

It's not like I'm asking for a yearly CBT or anything.

Thank you.

I would add that not all of us are PAO's, or even equipped to be such (I hold those who are in high regard for their abilities, whether inborn or acquired).  I am not unskilled with words in written correspondence but fall all over myself communicating face-to-face, which is why I tend to be somewhat monosyllabic in person.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 01:47:18 PMAgain, you've decided ES mission status is the only delimiter of being an auxiliary of the USAF.  It isn't, except when discussing a small portion of being an auxiliary, liability and insurance during one of CAP's many missions and activities.  As CYA, the regs say the USAF will only cover CAP when it assigns or approves an activity, they don't say "you aren't are auxiliary all the other time".  For whatever reason you've decided being  specific instrumentality of the feds, is the only way to be an auxiliary.  It isn't.

A car is a car, even when it doesn't have insurance.

CAP is an auxiliary of the USAF even when it isn't covered by FECA/FTCA.

I give up, you're apparently incapable of understanding the nuances here.  I've shown you both federal law and the AFIs which implement it that say otherwise. That federal law and those AFIs are pretty clear on the subject: CAP operates in either corporate mode or AF auxiliary mode, but not both at the same time, and we're in AF auxiliary mode ONLY when engaged in AFAMs, period.  We are NOT "always federal, all the time".

Quote from: Mustang on January 17, 2014, 10:56:19 PMI give up, you're apparently incapable of understanding the nuances here.  I've shown you both federal law and the AFIs which implement it that say otherwise. That federal law and those AFIs are pretty clear on the subject: CAP operates in either corporate mode or AF auxiliary mode, but not both at the same time, and we're in AF auxiliary mode ONLY when engaged in AFAMs, period.  We are NOT "always federal, all the time".

No one said we were, but we actually are, unless you're going to make the case that the US Congress is not a federal organization.

You're ignoring the points made and then accuse me of missing nuance.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 11:05:59 PM

Quote from: Mustang on January 17, 2014, 10:56:19 PMI give up, you're apparently incapable of understanding the nuances here.  I've shown you both federal law and the AFIs which implement it that say otherwise. That federal law and those AFIs are pretty clear on the subject: CAP operates in either corporate mode or AF auxiliary mode, but not both at the same time, and we're in AF auxiliary mode ONLY when engaged in AFAMs, period.  We are NOT "always federal, all the time".

No one said we were, but we actually are, unless you're going to make the case that the US Congress is not a federal organization.

You're ignoring the points made and then accuse me of missing nuance.

Come again?

Quote from: CyBorg on January 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM
In the most black-and-white terms (and I say this as a former ANG airman), we are more of a direct part of the Air Force than the Air National Guard.  Under Title 32 and Title 10 USC, the ANG is only directly a part of the Air Force when placed under Federal control by the President.  Until then, they are controlled by their state Governors and Adjutant General.  In fact, ANG aircraft used to only carry "U.S. AIR FORCE" titling when this happened; otherwise they carried their state name.

We are "all federal, all the time," and AUX ON/OFF be hanged.

To correct CyBorg's post, we are only directly a part of the Air Force when performing AFAMs under Title 10, same as the National Guard. The rest of the time, we're a Title 36 nonprofit.

And if you think we're part of Congress too, you're up in the night, dude.

Who charters us?

Also...

in·stru·men·tal·i·ty 3. A subsidiary branch, as of a government, by means of which functions or policies are carried out.

aux·il·ia·ry 1. An individual or group that assists or functions in a supporting capacity

These are not mutually exclusive via either definition or law.

CAP is always the USAF Auxiliary, and sometimes an instrumentality.    The difference is inconsequential except in
regards to who covers costs and liability.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 11:12:30 PM
Who charters us?

Irrelevant. They created us, and we still answer to them, but we are not part of them.

Created and funded by the US Congress, an auxiliary of the USAF.

100% Federal, 24x7.

Are you repeating that simply to convince yourself that it's true?  I'm here to tell you it isn't and you have only your opinion to back up your belief that it is.  Go read the [darn] AF regs I provided links to.

For a lieutenant colonel, your lack of corporate knowledge is embarrassing.

Quote from: Mustang on January 17, 2014, 11:26:46 PM
I'm here to tell you it isn't...

Oh, sorry, didn't realize.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 11:20:01 PM
Created and funded by the US Congress, an auxiliary of the USAF.

100% Federal, 24x7.

Let's take a sampling of other Congressionally chartered organizations, that are also, apparently "100% Federal, 24x7."

Chapter 201--Agricultural Hall of Fame
Chapter 202--Air Force Sergeants Association
Chapter 203--American Academy of Arts and Letters
Chapter 205--American Chemical Society
Chapter 207--American Council of Learned Societies
Chapter 209--American Ex-Prisoners of War
Chapter 210--American GI Forum of the United States
Chapter 211--American Gold Star Mothers, Incorporated
Chapter 213--American Historical Association
Chapter 215--American Hospital of Paris
Chapter 217--The American Legion
Chapter 219--The American National Theater and Academy
Chapter 221--The American Society of International Law
Chapter 223--American Symphony Orchestra League
Chapter 225--American War Mothers
Chapter 227--AMVETS (American Veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam)
Chapter 229--Army and Navy Union of the United States of America
Chapter 231--Aviation Hall of Fame
Chapter 301--Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
Chapter 303--Blinded Veterans Association
Chapter 305--Blue Star Mothers of America, Inc.
Chapter 307--Board for Fundamental Education
Chapter 309--Boy Scouts of America
Chapter 311--Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Chapter 401--Catholic War Veterans of the United States of America, Incorporated
Chapter 403--Civil Air Patrol
Chapter 405--Congressional Medal of Honor Society of the United States of America
Chapter 407--Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety
Chapter 501--Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War 1861-1865
Chapter 503--Disabled American Veterans
Chapter 601--82nd Airborne Division Association, Incorporated (see 82nd Airborne Division (United States))
Chapter 701--Fleet Reserve Association
Chapter 703--Former Members of Congress
Chapter 705—The Foundation of the Federal Bar Association (See Federal Bar Association)
Chapter 707--Frederick Douglass Memorial and Historical Association (See Frederick Douglass National Historic Site)
Chapter 709--National FFA Organization
Chapter 801--General Federation of Women's Clubs
Chapter 803--Girl Scouts of the United States of America
Chapter 805--Gold Star Wives of America
Chapter 901—Reserved
Chapter 1001--Italian American War Veterans of the United States
Chapter 1101--Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, Incorporated
Chapter 1103--Jewish War Veterans, U.S.A., National Memorial, Incorporated
Chapter 1201—Reserved
Chapter 1301--Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic (See Grand Army of the Republic)
Chapter 1303--Legion of Valor of the United States of America, Incorporated
Chapter 1305--Little League Baseball, Incorporated
Chapter 1401--Marine Corps League
Chapter 1403—The Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America
Chapter 1405--Military Order of the Purple Heart of the United States of America, Incorporated (See Purple Heart)
Chapter 1407--Military Order of the World Wars
Chapter 1501--National Academy of Public Administration
Chapter 1503--National Academy of Sciences
Chapter 1505--National Conference of State Societies, Washington, District of Columbia
Chapter 1507--National Conference On Citizenship
Chapter 1509--National Council On Radiation Protection and Measurements
Chapter 1511--National Education Association of the United States
Chapter 1513--National Fallen Firefighters Foundation (See National Fallen Firefighters Memorial))
Chapter 1515--National Federation of Music Clubs
Chapter 1517--National Film Preservation Foundation
Chapter 1519--National Fund for Medical Education
Chapter 1521--National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum
Chapter 1523--National Music Council
Chapter 1524--National Recording Preservation Foundation (See National Recording Preservation Board)
Chapter 1525--National Safety Council
Chapter 1527--National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated
Chapter 1529--National Society, Daughters of the American Colonists
Chapter 1531--The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution
Chapter 1533--National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution
Chapter 1535--National Tropical Botanical Garden
Chapter 1537--National Woman's Relief Corps, Auxiliary to the Grand Army of the Republic
Chapter 1539--The National Yeomen F (see Yeoman (F)
Chapter 1541--Naval Sea Cadet Corps
Chapter 1543--Navy Club of the United States of America
Chapter 1545--Navy Wives Clubs of America
Chapter 1547--Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Incorporated
Chapter 1601—Reserved
Chapter 1701--Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chapter 1703--Pearl Harbor Survivors Association
Chapter 1705--Polish Legion of American Veterans, U.S.A.
Chapter 1801—Reserved
Chapter 1901--Reserve Officers Association of the United States
Chapter 1903--Retired Enlisted Association, Incorporated
Chapter 2001--Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists
Chapter 2003--Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War
Chapter 2101--Theodore Roosevelt Association
Chapter 2103--369th Veterans' Association
Chapter 2201--United Service Organizations, Incorporated
Chapter 2203--United States Capitol Historical Society
Chapter 2205--United States Olympic Committee
Chapter 2207--United States Submarine Veterans of World War II
Chapter 2301--Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Chapter 2303--Veterans of World War I of the United States of America, Incorporated
Chapter 2305--Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.
Chapter 2401--Women's Army Corps Veterans' Association

Quote from: MisterCD on January 18, 2014, 05:06:36 PMChapter 1601—Reserved

Curses. I wanted that one!

Quote from: MisterCD on January 18, 2014, 05:06:36 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 11:20:01 PM
Created and funded by the US Congress, an auxiliary of the USAF.

100% Federal, 24x7.

So you're saying they aren't?

Also, are any of those military auxiliaries?

CAP is, in this regard, fairly unique.

Quote from: MisterCD on January 18, 2014, 05:06:36 PM
Chapter 2001--Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists

FEMA calls these guys when the have a horticultural emergency, or they need flora support for a Federal event.

^
Hard.

Kewl.

No other way around it.

Quote from: MisterCD on January 18, 2014, 05:06:36 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2014, 11:20:01 PM
Created and funded by the US Congress, an auxiliary of the USAF.

100% Federal, 24x7.

Let's take a sampling of other Congressionally chartered organizations, that are also, apparently "100% Federal, 24x7."
Chapter 2003--Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War
Chapter 2303--Veterans of World War I of the United States of America, Incorporated

Who is supposedly in these at this point?

Mostly the 1601 guys, reserved for "Time Travelers Council of Elders"

Quote from: MisterCD on January 18, 2014, 05:06:36 PMChapter 1701--Paralyzed Starship Captains

They totally missed an opportunity here.. Resistance is futile.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2014, 10:46:24 PM
^
Hard.

Kewl.

No other way around it.

They get to have cool lights and stuff on their floral delivery vehicles.. :)

ETA: And berets. Can't forget the berets. And floral-print baseball caps..

floral-print berets?  ;D

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/FEMA_-_33704_-_FEMA_worker_prepares_emergency_housing_in_California.jpg)

Perennials?  CHECK!

Bulbs? CHECK!

Water can? CHECK!

Spade and Hoe?  CHECK!

Roll it out boys!

(http://theflowertruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/photo-23.jpg)