Squadron Team Logos

Adult Staff
22

Of/for what?

1 Like
23

Because the RAF, and therefore the RAFAC have pretty specific media and branding policies. Things need to be somewhat similar.

1 Like
24

If you don’t mind me saying surely if there’s so many badges that have not been authorised surely the current system doesn’t work. As I can bet the collage of arms (Think that what they are called) are not fast as making thease.

This could also be my lack of understanding of the system though.

25

Just because loads of people do 80mph on the motorwa, doesn’t make it legal.

In the same vein, just because lots of people choose to ignore our branding rules, doesn’t mean it should then be ignored.

5 Likes
26

Also, @OC.1324 has only recently come into office to administer the process, so is very busy at the moment working through all of the applications!

2 Likes
27

Copyright & intellectual property law is a bit different- if it’s not enforced then the regulations lapse.

it’s why the RAF lost out to Ben Sherman over the roundel.

This is the nature of volunteers though - the formal system does work for what’s intended to do - I.e. standardise & regulate formal official badges as part of a uniform organisation.

Unofficial stuff the unit can crack on with provided it’s not worn on uniform doesn’t expend (but the you have to wonder on what the point is)

28

Am not sure if you get what am looking at here. What am trying to say is I think they should be a new system for it as am not sure it’s working. A hurge part of a new system could be that educational side as seen with myself I had no clue that my squadron Badge was non official and needs updating.

29

It’s more of a staff admin thing, hence you not knowing about it (assuming you’re a cadet), but as I said, @OC.1324 has only recently taken post, so has a mammoth task ahead, which he is already making excellent progress through! Another blocker would be staff not wanting to engage with the process, and the cost associated with getting an official badge.

1 Like
30

He’s doing an awesome job no aruging with that as shown. But it’s a a shame staff aren’t as it’s a large history thing for the organisation and we should have pride in that and the fact we are lucky to be able to get official crests.

1 Like
31

This is a valid point to make and it’s something I looked at in an effort to preserve unauthorised badges in some form.

It won’t work though, and I’ll explain why. It’s actually the same as our discussions on having a system of formation patches that are separate to any other system — you then need a separate yet tandem process of governance.

We already have an effectively legal system of registering badges and them being formally recorded by the state.

If you create another system of logos, not only does it compete while being less formal, but we’d need to decide on more rules and regulations to govern them effectively, a system to ensure they’re all sufficiently different, a process for churning out artwork (even if just digital) etc

So you’d go from one system, which absorbs a healthy chunk of my life, to two systems that will probably take another volunteer’s life (and then some, because all the work currently undertaken by other agencies would need handling internally).

And you’d need to deconflict it all with heraldic badges anyway.

If your unit badge has a three-headed parrot on it because… reasons… you’re not going to let some other unit claim something too close to that under a different system. So it’d create so many problems.

And then if someone has a design under a new system of Gucci logos, are you really going to be able to tell the formal system that someone else can’t have it? So then you end up with the reverse problem where a separate and less formal system is calling the shots for badges granted in HM’s name.

For units that all claim the same thing (classic examples being a fox head, phoenix, etc) you’d then need a robust way to decide who gets it — and then you’d still have to tell someone ‘no’.

All while doing the research to deconflict with existing systems.

All that to say it’s a very valid question, but after much thinking, it was clear it wasn’t going to solve any problems.

We were also not allowed.

2 Likes
32

That makes a lot of sense to be fair. It will always be a tricky situation what’s a shame.

33

Jumping onto this from a slightly different direction.
I would love to see us allowing/generating a “logo” for each formation in the same style as RAF Stations.

Screenshot_20260219-192233
Screenshot_20260219-1922331080×2400 256 KB

As seed for Waddington, but it’s kind of disallowed at the moment by our brand guidelines.
Screenshot_20260219-193043
Screenshot_20260219-1930431080×2400 228 KB

Screenshot_20260219-193921
Screenshot_20260219-1939211080×2400 245 KB

1 Like
34

I guess because in place of the station name, we have ‘Air Cadets’ as the formation.

But I fully agree. Allowing a fourth line in the logo with the unit name would be great. Especially with an auto generator for each unit.

1 Like
35

DofE have (or at least had) that, you just emailed them and they would create you the graphics.

1 Like
36

Ironically, this is something else the RAF had to jump on because people were making their own up. There’s a list of approved ones somewhere.

1 Like
37

The official answer is no because we’re already a sub-section of the RAF brand.

I personally wish that we’d condense our logo a bit and allow for that too.

O RAF

CADETS

38

Now personally I feel like it would be a waste as am guessing we are lucky to get the prevlige for the collage of arms to make us crests and I believe we should embrace it. (also keeps you in a role :joy:)

39

Oh he’s got plenty of other hats to wear :rofl:

6 Likes
40

But what happens when the RAF wants to expand & have RAF Sea Cadets & RAF Space Cadets?

4 Likes
41

We were always known as ‘spacies’ when I was a cadet: has that changed?

1 Like