Incident Commander Requirements

[Theodore]

Hi all,
I was wondering what the requirements for becoming an IC were?
Thanks.

[Angus]

you can look that up in eServices as well the SQTR's and task guide.

[JeffDG]

There are two paths to IC...there are potential detours along the way, but these are the shortest paths:

Path 1:

GTM3->GTL->GBD->PSC->OSC->IC
                    MS>|

Path 2:

MS->MO or MP->AOBD->PSC->OSC->IC
            UDF or GTM3>|

[Eclipse]

If I did the math right, that's a minimum of 12 missions successfully evaluated at the various levels, plus
the myriad tasks along the way.

I seemed to recall that ICs also had to be recommended formally to the Wing CC to begin training, but that might be a per wing / region policy.

[Angus]

If I did the math right, that's a minimum of 12 missions successfully evaluated at the various levels, plus
the myriad tasks along the way.

I seemed to recall that ICs also had to be recommended formally to the Wing CC to begin training, but that might be a per wing / region policy.

There is some Wing policy that does come into play in some places.  They like to say ok you've met the paper but per our local EMA you all need to know this or ask you do an extra couple of missions just to make sure you know your stuff.

[lordmonar]

If I did the math right, that's a minimum of 12 missions successfully evaluated at the various levels, plus
the myriad tasks along the way.

I seemed to recall that ICs also had to be recommended formally to the Wing CC to begin training, but that might be a per wing / region policy.

Just a quibble......that is 12 "sorties" not missions.

[Storm Chaser]

Unless someone is bringing significant outside training and experience, it's nearly impossible to become an IC in 12 sorties/operational periods.

[SarDragon]

I get 14 sorties - y'all left out the side qual from the other side of the house (air or ground) to be a Branch Director.

[Spaceman3750]

I get 14 sorties - y'all left out the side qual from the other side of the house (air or ground) to be a Branch Director.

That requirement was formerly for OSC and does not appear to be in place any more.

[Eclipse]

Just a quibble......that is 12 "sorties" not missions.[/quote]

Correct, though at the branch director of higher, it's difficult to turn multiple sorties unless you're doing it for more then
one OP, however I have seen people do more then one job on a given mission and get credit for them.

Unless someone is bringing significant outside training and experience, it's nearly impossible to become an IC in 12 sorties/operational periods.

Seriously - 12 years is more realistic.  Unless you're doing NESA every year, or hyper-involved, things tend to slow down
at the higher levels since there's less opportunity and a lot of oversight.

[JeffDG]

I seemed to recall that ICs also had to be recommended formally to the Wing CC to begin training, but that might be a per wing / region policy.

CAPR 60-3, 2-2

f. Authorization for experienced personnel to train for the IC specialty rating is approved
by a wing or higher commander or their designees. The wing or higher commander or their
designees will renew the IC specialty rating.

I know in my wing, there are no designees, as the Wing Commander wishes to personally review/approve all IC quals.

[husker]

Unless someone is bringing significant outside training and experience, it's nearly impossible to become an IC in 12 sorties/operational periods.

Seriously - 12 years is more realistic. 

Agree wholeheartedly. 

[Mitchell 1969]

In my opinion, CAP went out if it's way to confuse things when it called this designation "Incident Commander." To the entire rest of the world that uses the term, IC is the Commander of a particular Incident. Until an Incident starts, nobody is an IC. Once an Incident ends, there is nobody called Incident Commander. Everybody else using ICS knows what Incident Commander means. Yet, CAP made a needless deviation from that standard definition and use. I don't get it.

Under ICS, the main qualifications to be an IC are to have an Incident and assume Command of it. Whether that Incident is a derailed train spilling chemicals, or a shooting, or a parade, or a mass casualty event or even an aircraft search, the title is the same.

Meanwhile, by taking it over and giving it CAP specific meaning not connected to the true ICS definition, CAP is really muddying things with other agencies, and also muddying things for CAP people who might participate in non-CAP commanded multi-agency incidents.

[lordmonar]

In my opinion, CAP went out if it's way to confuse things when it called this designation "Incident Commander." To the entire rest of the world that uses the term, IC is the Commander of a particular Incident. Until an Incident starts, nobody is an IC. Once an Incident ends, there is nobody called Incident Commander. Everybody else using ICS knows what Incident Commander means. Yet, CAP made a needless deviation from that standard definition and use. I don't get it.

Under ICS, the main qualifications to be an IC are to have an Incident and assume Command of it. Whether that Incident is a derailed train spilling chemicals, or a shooting, or a parade, or a mass casualty event or even an aircraft search, the title is the same.

Meanwhile, by taking it over and giving it CAP specific meaning not connected to the true ICS definition, CAP is really muddying things with other agencies, and also muddying things for CAP people who might participate in non-CAP commanded multi-agency incidents.

Yes...but unlike other agencies....CAP is not a First Responder.  We don't have to worry about scaling up from from a cop at the scene of of the overturned tanker truck.   We always start with a call to the IC and work down.

And there are a lot of other agencies that do the same ways as CAP.
 

[Mitchell 1969]

In my opinion, CAP went out if it's way to confuse things when it called this designation "Incident Commander." To the entire rest of the world that uses the term, IC is the Commander of a particular Incident. Until an Incident starts, nobody is an IC. Once an Incident ends, there is nobody called Incident Commander. Everybody else using ICS knows what Incident Commander means. Yet, CAP made a needless deviation from that standard definition and use. I don't get it.

Under ICS, the main qualifications to be an IC are to have an Incident and assume Command of it. Whether that Incident is a derailed train spilling chemicals, or a shooting, or a parade, or a mass casualty event or even an aircraft search, the title is the same.

Meanwhile, by taking it over and giving it CAP specific meaning not connected to the true ICS definition, CAP is really muddying things with other agencies, and also muddying things for CAP people who might participate in non-CAP commanded multi-agency incidents.

Yes...but unlike other agencies....CAP is not a First Responder.  We don't have to worry about scaling up from from a cop at the scene of of the overturned tanker truck.   We always start with a call to the IC and work down.

And there are a lot of other agencies that do the same ways as CAP.

It isn't a question of being a first responder. The whole point of ICS is inter-agency operability and using common language. That goes out the window when one agency re-defines ICS terminology to suit their particular needs.

As to other agencies doing it the same way as CAP - SAME way? Can you cite an example?

[jdh]

In my opinion, CAP went out if it's way to confuse things when it called this designation "Incident Commander." To the entire rest of the world that uses the term, IC is the Commander of a particular Incident. Until an Incident starts, nobody is an IC. Once an Incident ends, there is nobody called Incident Commander. Everybody else using ICS knows what Incident Commander means. Yet, CAP made a needless deviation from that standard definition and use. I don't get it.

Under ICS, the main qualifications to be an IC are to have an Incident and assume Command of it. Whether that Incident is a derailed train spilling chemicals, or a shooting, or a parade, or a mass casualty event or even an aircraft search, the title is the same.

Meanwhile, by taking it over and giving it CAP specific meaning not connected to the true ICS definition, CAP is really muddying things with other agencies, and also muddying things for CAP people who might participate in non-CAP commanded multi-agency incidents.

Yes...but unlike other agencies....CAP is not a First Responder.  We don't have to worry about scaling up from from a cop at the scene of of the overturned tanker truck.   We always start with a call to the IC and work down.

And there are a lot of other agencies that do the same ways as CAP.

It isn't a question of being a first responder. The whole point of ICS is inter-agency operability and using common language. That goes out the window when one agency re-defines ICS terminology to suit their particular needs.

As to other agencies doing it the same way as CAP - SAME way? Can you cite an example?

Any and every county that has an IMT (Incident Management Team) they have pre-determined ICS Command Staff that respond to the scene when requested and assume those roles. FEMA even has a few of these for Type 1 incidents.

[Eclipse]

CAP always provides resources in a Unified Command, there's no issue with its use of the term IC.

There are no CAP missions without an IC appointed.

[Mitchell 1969]

CAP always provides resources in a Unified Command, there's no issue with its use of the term IC.

There are no CAP missions without an IC appointed.

And what do you call the guy in charge of an incident that is not, per se, a CAP Mission, as that term is used?

Remember, incidents can be planned or unplanned, emergencies or non-emergencies. If CAP shows up to staff a shelter, hand out water bottles and blankets, that wouldn't mean that the CAP guy in charge is an "Incident Commander." S/he would take on the title appropriate to the assignment.

Meanwhile, staffing an airshow could well lend itself to the ICS structure, with the head CAP guy being perhaps the IC, either alone or as part of Unified Command. But that IC wouldn't need to be a rated CAP IC in order to actually be the IC.

All I'm saying is that it is confusing and doesn't have to be. And I'm especially puzzled when people introduce themselves as "LtCol O'Ramirezwitz - I'm the CAP Incident Commander" when I know who the Incident Commander is - and it isn't him.

[SarDragon]

CAP always provides resources in a Unified Command, there's no issue with its use of the term IC.

There are no CAP missions without an IC appointed.

And what do you call the guy in charge of an incident that is not, per se, a CAP Mission, as that term is used?

Remember, incidents can be planned or unplanned, emergencies or non-emergencies. If CAP shows up to staff a shelter, hand out water bottles and blankets, that wouldn't mean that the CAP guy in charge is an "Incident Commander." S/he would take on the title appropriate to the assignment.

Meanwhile, staffing an airshow could well lend itself to the ICS structure, with the head CAP guy being perhaps the IC, either alone or as part of Unified Command. But that IC wouldn't need to be a rated CAP IC in order to actually be the IC.

All I'm saying is that it is confusing and doesn't have to be. And I'm especially puzzled when people introduce themselves as "LtCol O'Ramirezwitz - I'm the CAP Incident Commander" when I know who the Incident Commander is - and it isn't him.

In my experience, CAP members only work for one boss, a CAP member, who may report to someone else higher in the personnel structure for  a particular event. In the case of airshows, and perhaps DR work, I've seen that boss called the project officer or supervisor. On an A or B mission, the boss is the IC. The highlighted text above points out that exact relationship - he is the CAP Incident Commander, to whom all CAP personnel report.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

If CAP shows up to staff a shelter, hand out water bottles and blankets, that wouldn't mean that the CAP guy in charge is an "Incident Commander." S/he would take on the title appropriate to the assignment.

If it's on a mission number, then the person in charge of the CAP people is the Incident Commander.  If it's a unit activity,
then it isn't ES, per se, and he can be called "Chuck", or the POC, since the members aren't working within CAP's ES framework. 

Meanwhile, staffing an airshow could well lend itself to the ICS structure, with the head CAP guy being perhaps the IC, either alone or as part of Unified Command. But that IC wouldn't need to be a rated CAP IC in order to actually be the IC.

If there's a mission #, it's a CAP IC in charge of CAP people.  If it's not, this conversation doesn't apply.