Organizational Patch on Flightsuit, and a couple other things

Started by Hawk200, September 29, 2019, 05:04:54 pm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hawk200

Was reading 39-1, and noticed that there is a bit of contradiction.

On page 97, 8.2.4.5 "...except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear." on the FDU.

However, Attachment 4 on page 123 shows Region, Wing, and Organizational patches positioned on "RS", which is defined as "Right Sleeve" of the USAF FDU and corporate flight duty unifom.

Second, anyone know if there has been something put forward on using cloth rank insignia on the green flightsuit? If we're still sewing on plastic, I'd rather just not have any. (That's a druther, not indication that I won't wear it properly.) Anyone on board with ditching it altogether, let everyone wear green, and lose the blue flighsuit? I've got a few perfectly serviceable ones that I picked off the Bay ( :D ) for $5 a pop.

Third: Cloth Namepatches? You can get them about the same price as leather nowadays. Anyone suggested these lately?

Semi idle thoughts. Hoping to get back in soon, getting various and sundry uniform items back together.

PHall

Cloth grade insignia and name patches have been suggested multiple times in the past.
National Headquarters and CAP-USAF have said in the past that they are not interested in asking Headquarters Air Force for permission.

Jester

The rumor I read (don't remember where) was that cloth grade insignia and name patches were in the new edition of 39-1 that seems to be in development hell.

Eclipse

Quote from: Hawk200 on September 29, 2019, 05:04:54 pm
Was reading 39-1, and noticed that there is a bit of contradiction.

On page 97, 8.2.4.5 "...except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear." on the FDU.

However, Attachment 4 on page 123 shows Region, Wing, and Organizational patches positioned on "RS", which is defined as "Right Sleeve" of the USAF FDU and corporate flight duty uniform.


There's no contradiction.  Your the former says no unit patches below Wing, the second says the same thing and includes patches as specified.

The great thing is that this is largely ignored and a lot of members just wear whatever the want.



PHall

Quote from: Eclipse on September 29, 2019, 06:40:33 pm
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 29, 2019, 05:04:54 pm
Was reading 39-1, and noticed that there is a bit of contradiction.

On page 97, 8.2.4.5 "...except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear." on the FDU.

However, Attachment 4 on page 123 shows Region, Wing, and Organizational patches positioned on "RS", which is defined as "Right Sleeve" of the USAF FDU and corporate flight duty uniform.


There's no contradiction.  Your the former says no unit patches below Wing, the second says the same thing and includes patches as specified.

The great thing is that this is largely ignored and a lot of members just wear whatever the want.


The beauty of velcro, you can change patches as you need too.

Dwight Dutton

Quote from: Eclipse on September 29, 2019, 06:40:33 pm
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 29, 2019, 05:04:54 pmWas reading 39-1, and noticed that there is a bit of contradiction.On page 97, 8.2.4.5 "...except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear." on the FDU.However, Attachment 4 on page 123 shows Region, Wing, and Organizational patches positioned on "RS", which is defined as "Right Sleeve" of the USAF FDU and corporate flight duty uniform.
There's no contradiction.  Your the former says no unit patches below Wing, the second says the same thing and includes patches as specified.The great thing is that this is largely ignored and a lot of members just wear whatever the want.


Here is probably the source of the confusion:

For the FDU (green flight suit)
8.2.4.5. Right Sleeve. An authorized patch contained as outlined in Attachment 4 may be worn, except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear.

For the CFDU (Blue flight suit)
8.3.4.5. Right Sleeve. An authorized patch an outlined in Attachment 4 may be worn.

So on the blue suit, I do indeed wear my squadron patch.  On the green suit, I wear the communications patch or the wing patch as those are the only choices I have.

Hawk200

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on September 30, 2019, 12:25:55 am
Quote from: Eclipse on September 29, 2019, 06:40:33 pm
Quote from: Hawk200 on September 29, 2019, 05:04:54 pmWas reading 39-1, and noticed that there is a bit of contradiction.On page 97, 8.2.4.5 "...except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear." on the FDU.However, Attachment 4 on page 123 shows Region, Wing, and Organizational patches positioned on "RS", which is defined as "Right Sleeve" of the USAF FDU and corporate flight duty uniform.
There's no contradiction.  Your the former says no unit patches below Wing, the second says the same thing and includes patches as specified.The great thing is that this is largely ignored and a lot of members just wear whatever the want.


Here is probably the source of the confusion:

For the FDU (green flight suit)
8.2.4.5. Right Sleeve. An authorized patch contained as outlined in Attachment 4 may be worn, except organizational patches for groups, squadrons or flights are not approved for wear.

For the CFDU (Blue flight suit)
8.3.4.5. Right Sleeve. An authorized patch an outlined in Attachment 4 may be worn.

So on the blue suit, I do indeed wear my squadron patch.  On the green suit, I wear the communications patch or the wing patch as those are the only choices I have.


So, basically, it says "You can't wear these," but in the table it says "Here's where you wear it."   ::)

Oh well, not really a concern. Gonna be a while before I'm back, maybe it will be authorized (or clarified) by the time I am.

SimpleCM

I've seen the "final draft" of the new CAPR 39-1, and it includes cloth nametags and cloth rank (silver on dark navy, same as utility uniforms and CFDU). The nametags are not bad, medium/dark (not navy) blue with silver badges, text and piping.

And yes, it's definitely hung up in "development hell".


-- Bob
Lt Col Bob Jennings, CAP
Vice Commander - Operations
HQ, NJ Wing

Gunsotsu

We've been hearing that particular song-and-dance for more than three years now.

Dear NHQ, put up or shut up.

NIN

Quote from: Gunsotsu on November 14, 2019, 06:21:37 am
We've been hearing that particular song-and-dance for more than three years now.

Dear NHQ, put up or shut up.


Its not exactly NHQ.

But yes, we need an updated uniform manual.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
Wing Dude
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
Nothing posted on CAPTalk should be considered policy unless otherwise stated
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2020 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

DocJekyll

This is where we as an organization need to have some integrity. If the uniform regs change, the ICL or new reg should be out pretty fast. Ideally the ICL comes out when the announcement is made, and the regulation changed shortly thereafter. We've been waiting years for things to get posted. If it's confusing for those of us who have been in over a decade, just think how insane it looks to new members...
Always give 100%, unless you're giving blood.


Eclipse

Agreed, and it's not just the "ideal" it is what is mandated by the very regulations being updated.

Further, the vast majority of the ICLs issued in the last 5 years, if not longer, were invalid upon publication
because they violated they did not meet the mandate of an ICL to begin with.



Fester

Quote from: NIN on November 14, 2019, 12:38:13 pm
Quote from: Gunsotsu on November 14, 2019, 06:21:37 am
We've been hearing that particular song-and-dance for more than three years now.

Dear NHQ, put up or shut up.


Its not exactly NHQ.

But yes, we need an updated uniform manual.


If it's not NHQ, where is the hold up coming from?  And, more importantly, is there an idea of when it will be published?
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

NovemberWhiskey

Quote from: NIN on November 14, 2019, 12:38:13 pm
Its not exactly NHQ.


Genuine question: do you know it seems so intractable for transparency to the general membership to be created around this process? Clearly there are lots of people who are interested.

PHall

Quote from: NovemberWhiskey on November 15, 2019, 12:48:33 pm
Quote from: NIN on November 14, 2019, 12:38:13 pm
Its not exactly NHQ.


Genuine question: do you know it seems so intractable for transparency to the general membership to be created around this process? Clearly there are lots of people who are interested.


Well lets see here. You have a National Headquarters that is minimally manned as in the absolute minimum number of people needed to handle the day to day operations of CAP.
Then you have the volunteer National Staff that are part time volunteers who have real lives to live too. So you may get 10 hours a week out of them, maybe.
Then you have this massive publications review/rewrite that you dump on them and oh yeah, they still have to do their "normal" work too.
And since it appears that the "Not Invented Here" syndrome is alive and well in Alabama, outside help from the general membership appears to not be welcome.
And you guys ask why it's taking so long.... ::)

Eclipse

Quote from: PHall on November 15, 2019, 05:51:06 pm
And since it appears that the "Not Invented Here" syndrome is alive and well in Alabama, outside help from the general membership appears to not be welcome.


This is the core issue.

The re-numbering should have take a couple hours not years, and not have been tied to updates or other projects,
that's like trying to do ISO and Six Sigma at the same time, you just spin your wheels in a circle and never finish.

As to 39-1, not only were many of the issues pointed out and then ignored while it was still in draft,
they should have been fixed immediately once pointed out by the rank and file when they started causing problems, same
goes for incorporation of newly approved wear items.

Fair game for things that actually need CSAF or USAF approval, but errata should be corrected immediately.

If you're going to tout 60K members on one hand, you can't cry "under manned" on the other. This kind of thing is literally
what the internet and collaborative platforms are for.