The issue you have is that merchandise is not publicly funded & costs would come from Sqn funds.
The system you suggest would require a single supplier which a lot of sqns committees may object to using if there is a local supplier able to do so cheaper or more quickly.
That is a fair point.
Scouts have a centralised supplier and their uniform is expensive.
It would need careful management.
Agreed, certainly an aspirational thing.
It’s one of those things right, you’ll always pee someone off regardless of what you do
It’s one of those weird things due to the quasi-charity independent trustee aspect.
HQAC can dictate uniform, they can’t dictate civilian dress & they can’t dictate what a Sqn committee decides to spend money on.
So if your Sqn committee decides to create a (non-heraldic) logo & use that on Sqn merchandise such as mugs & notepads I don’t know what authority there is within RAFAC to overrule or countermand that provided no public funds are spent on it.
Of course if it something that is used in a parade or carried in uniform then RAFAC can get involved but unless the flag or logo is grossly offensive I’m not sure what authority they would have over things like hoodies baseball caps & trolley tokens.
I suppose you c oh of have the air cadet charity try to reign in but that isn’t the current model.
I don’t think they can (and even why would they?)
The official badge would be the best option but absent of one, a mascot or similar emblem would presumably be ok, provided it’s not trying to look like an official badge?
Asked ChatGPT to come up with a corporate logo for a Sqn - didn’t do too bad.
Any reason something similar couldn’t be worn/printed on Sqn private purchase merchandise?
Edited to Add - just remembered this was one (amongst many) of the issues with Thurston Sqn & the Salmon trust & the resulting shenanigans
Not quite.
My suggested solution is that if people want to wear something civilian and branded while on cadet activity, we can tell them exactly what is expected and hopefully even ensure there is somewhere to get it where we know they’re offering the right stuff.
That wouldn’t stop people going elsewhere, but if they buy something that isn’t made according to the specifications (which could be publicly available) then they’re not to wear it.
That’s my personal take and the basis of my suggestion, anyway.
What we can’t have, in my personal opinion, is a Wild West where people just do what they want with official branding on the basis that “it’s civilian clothing”.
Get my squadron’s name out of your mouth! 
Apologies
it was a quick type & I didn’t want to use a Sqn that didn’t have an approved badge less someone get silly ideas & use it seriously - at least I know that would not be the case with yours 
If you’re choosing to represent your unit with a visual identity, you’re formalising something and not conforming to branding guidelines.
I think that’s pretty straight forward.
We all have the ATC badge and the CCF badge.
There is one path to a bespoke level of personalisation, which is an authorised unit badge.
Anything else is branding that isn’t authorised. There’s no right to endless sub-branding. It’s the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, not the local youth club.
That might sound harsher than I intend it to, but I think I’d stand by the core point.
Whilst I concur from a uniform aspect - it’s the charity/trust who are officially separate- so could civcoms have their own separate logo?
They are not part of the RAF nor governed by the Air Cadet Charity (with some being separately registered in their own right)
Even taking the technicalities out of it, the purpose is to represent and expose the “brand” to the world.
Therefore that branding should be consistent and recognisable wherever people are or may be looking for it. Why then would you dilute by using something that won’t be on your website/Facebook/gazebo/3A?
But who are they a part of?
They’re a part of, not separate from, the squadron.
Therefore they should be following the same branding rules. Without the squadron they’re not even an entity.
My civ com is naturally well and truly covered by our new unit badge. If it works that way when there’s a bespoke badge to be used, why would it work differently if it’s “just” the ATC badge?
Vomit reaction when???
Based on the timescale for a badge (2-3 years?) it will be 4-6 intakes we need to kit out before then.
It would be good to have some official guidance at this point.
Please request it through the DPSG. It will help highlight demand.
I fully intend push for something more detailed, but my priorities can’t always be the organisation’s priorities.
Until then, the correct route is to use only the ATC badge or CCF badge.
I think there does need to be an option for units that either cannot get the Squadron badge authorized or don’t have the money. A units identity is normally very important to those people involved with the Squadron and often generations and decades have gone by using an image that represents the Squadron.
I don’t think it is good enough to just say, use the generic RAFAC logo, for a lot of people it just doesn’t represent their Squadron, who take pride in being identifiable to other neighbouring units.
it would be good to see a format, and some guidelines that every unit could adopt, similar I guess to the CCF units that don’t need heraldic approval.
This is something that I’m working hard on, but whatever may come of it, it will almost certainly be the ATC badge but with a standardised “adaptation”.
As with my previous attempts to manage and preserve unauthorised badges, I’ve gone through many permutations and suggestions.
One of the few, possible remaining solutions could be mirroring the squadron banner format, whereby the ATC badge is set above a scroll bearing the unit’s name and number. This would clearly link all units to their organisation while giving a formal way for their unit name to be displayed with it (which we currently lack).
But for reasons previously explained in this thread, there’s just no conceivable outcome where units are permitted to create their own designs and someone is left deciding who “owns” a tiger’s head. It’s just not reasonable.
And actually, set in the context where unit identity is rightfully argued as being important as you have done, we can’t then allow units to copy the badges of other units (including parent service units), which therefor undermines and dilutes the identities of others.
But without a formal system, there’s no way of protecting the heritage of units.
There are no unit badges without the inspectorate, parent service or cadet forces.
The CCF is a different organisation and has its own rules that come from a different history and practice.
We need to understand where our own history and traditions come from.
RAFAC unit badges cover all units under that banner, from ATC squadrons and wings to VGSs and CCF (RAF) sections, but they don’t reach further into the CCF than that.
