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.

[Eclipse]

On an A or B mission, the boss is the IC.

Even on a C - if it has a mission #, it's got an IC, and pretty much everything has a mission number, even O-rides.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

When responding to an incident in which CAP is not the lead agency, CAP will appoint an IC who will be "the member responsible and in command of CAP resources supporting an incident.  If CAP is not the lead agency, a CAP member qualified in the IC achievement will serve as the CAP agency representative to the lead agency IC, and ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures." (CAPR 60-3, Para. 1-3d)

It's also possible for the CAP IC to have other role or function in the overall incident such as AOBD. In that case, the CAP IC is only IC with regards to CAP equipment and personnel, but will manage all air operations and assets for the entire incident.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

When responding to an incident in which CAP is not the lead agency, CAP will appoint an IC who will be "the member responsible and in command of CAP resources supporting an incident.  If CAP is not the lead agency, a CAP member qualified in the IC achievement will serve as the CAP agency representative to the lead agency IC, and ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures." (CAPR 60-3, Para. 1-3d)

It's also possible for the CAP IC to have other role or function in the overall incident such as AOBD. In that case, the CAP IC is only IC with regards to CAP equipment and personnel, but will manage all air operations and assets for the entire incident.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

When responding to an incident in which CAP is not the lead agency, CAP will appoint an IC who will be "the member responsible and in command of CAP resources supporting an incident.  If CAP is not the lead agency, a CAP member qualified in the IC achievement will serve as the CAP agency representative to the lead agency IC, and ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures." (CAPR 60-3, Para. 1-3d)

It's also possible for the CAP IC to have other role or function in the overall incident such as AOBD. In that case, the CAP IC is only IC with regards to CAP equipment and personnel, but will manage all air operations and assets for the entire incident.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

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.

When responding to an incident in which CAP is not the lead agency, CAP will appoint an IC who will be "the member responsible and in command of CAP resources supporting an incident.  If CAP is not the lead agency, a CAP member qualified in the IC achievement will serve as the CAP agency representative to the lead agency IC, and ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures." (CAPR 60-3, Para. 1-3d)

It's also possible for the CAP IC to have other role or function in the overall incident such as AOBD. In that case, the CAP IC is only IC with regards to CAP equipment and personnel, but will manage all air operations and assets for the entire incident.

See, this explanation is good, but that's not how people actually run it. An IC qualified Agency Rep. Or OPSO would be fantastic for plugging ourselves into an existing command structure, and is how we should be doing it for anything smaller scale than a regional level incident. Unfortunately, I have never seen this happen (and I have looked), but in every mission or exercise ive ever been to there has always been a CAP IC underneath the REAL IC....

I've never been able to understand that. This may be one of the reasons people get the idea that we want to "come in and take charge of the mission", and it seems to me like we want to mess with the ICS structure to suit ourselves. Instead of plugging ourselves into the structure and making ourselves useful, we stand up our own structure that stands a good chance of hindering the group above us, which is not ideal.

[Storm Chaser]

It's all about proper training. Unfortunately, we don't do enough training and exercises with other agencies. That would make a big difference and would better prepare us to work with each other.

ICs need to understand that when working in an incident where CAP is not the lead agency, their role is that of agency representative and, while they may be the assigned IC in WMIRS, their job is not to manage the incident, but to "ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures."

In ICS, the CAP Agency Representative (who must be a qualified IC according to CAPR 60-3), reports directly to the incident Liaison Officer or Incident Commander if there is no LO assigned. The CAP Agency Representative attends planning meetings as required, provides input to the planning process on the use of CAP resources, oversees the well-being and safety of CAP personnel assigned to the incident, advise the Liaison Officer (or IC) of any special CAP needs, requirements, or restrictions, ensures all CAP personnel and equipment are properly accounted for, among others.

[Mitchell 1969]

It's all about proper training. Unfortunately, we don't do enough training and exercises with other agencies. That would make a big difference and would better prepare us to work with each other.

ICs need to understand that when working in an incident where CAP is not the lead agency, their role is that of agency representative and, while they may be the assigned IC in WMIRS, their job is not to manage the incident, but to "ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures."

In ICS, the CAP Agency Representative (who must be a qualified IC according to CAPR 60-3), reports directly to the incident Liaison Officer or Incident Commander if there is no LO assigned. The CAP Agency Representative attends planning meetings as required, provides input to the planning process on the use of CAP resources, oversees the well-being and safety of CAP personnel assigned to the incident, advise the Liaison Officer (or IC) of any special CAP needs, requirements, or restrictions, ensures all CAP personnel and equipment are properly accounted for, among others.

Hence, my opinion re: CAP confusing matters by using standard ICS terminology in a non-standard way.

It would have been much clearer to simply retain "Mission Coirdinator," (or invent something else). Then write it that "When CAP is the lead agency, the IC will be a CAP member qualified as a Mission Coordinator. When CAP is not the lead agency, CAP resources will report to a CAP member qualified as a Mission Coordinator, who will serve as agency rep for CAP."

[lordmonar]

But we are using it in a standard way.

Just like the fire department does, just like the police department does, just like the USAF does.

What you are getting at is.....CAP never practices being a sub unit of someone else's Incident.

And yes....that's not a good thing.

That's what wing, region and National ES shops are supposed to be doing for us.

Until then.....We can only train as a single agency responder.

[Eclipse]

You're insinuating confusion where none exists.

This is not a "thing".

[PHall]

You guys do know that Mitchell 1969 is the retired Police Chief of the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department and has lots of experience working with the ICS system in multi-agency responses. CAP seems to be the "odd man out" here.  Maybe instead of using the title of IC when CAP is not in charge maybe we need something different like maybe OIC (Officer in Charge)?

[Luis R. Ramos]

To me all the arguments applying against "CAP Incident Commander" would also apply to "Officer in Charge."

Officer in Charge? In charge of what? Not of this incident!

Officer in Charge? Isn't the State So - and - So Department in charge here? So why is that person claiming to be OIC?

Etc.

[Holding Pattern]

Can someone point to an AAR or Lessons Learned doc on the HSDL or similar source pointing out where this was ever an issue?

[disamuel]

Just to answer an earlier part of the thread, in order to get to IC you will also need to complete ICS-300 and ICS-400. Those two classes represent five days of classroom work which cannot be completed online.

[stillamarine]

Just to answer an earlier part of the thread, in order to get to IC you will also need to complete ICS-300 and ICS-400. Those two classes represent five days of classroom work which cannot be completed online.

Many EMAs or FD or PD will host those classes over a weekend. Longer days but it works for people that work a 9-5

[PHall]

To me all the arguments applying against "CAP Incident Commander" would also apply to "Officer in Charge."

Officer in Charge? In charge of what? Not of this incident!

Officer in Charge? Isn't the State So - and - So Department in charge here? So why is that person claiming to be OIC?

Etc.

The Civil Air Patrol Officer In Charge.   Clear enough for ya?

[Eclipse]

The Civil Air Patrol Officer In Charge.   Clear enough for ya?

What if she's not an officer?

Silly enough for ya?

[Luis R. Ramos]

As clear as CAP Incident Commander.

My point is that we do not need to change terminology since the new words we decide on are going to be inducing the same ol' same ol'!

[PHall]

As clear as CAP Incident Commander.

My point is that we do not need to change terminology since the new words we decide on are going to be inducing the same ol' same ol'!

You can only have ONE Incident Commander at a time at an incident.   i.e. you can only work for one boss at a time.

[Eclipse]

You can only have ONE Incident Commander at a time at an incident.

Incorrect. Unified Command is common and allows for more then one.

Quoth the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Command_(ICS)
"In the Incident Command System, a Unified Command is an authority structure in which the role of incident commander is shared by two or more individuals, each already having authority in a different responding agency. Unified command is one way to carry out command in which responding agencies and/or jurisdictions with responsibility for the incident share incident management."

This is essentially how >all< CAP missions are conducted when CAP isn't the primary agency.

[Storm Chaser]

Any confusion or misunderstanding is most likely due to lack of proper training. I haven't seen the issue come up yet. It doesn't mean it hasn't come up in other wings, but I don't really thing it's CAP-wide problem. CAP missions always have an IC. The CAP IC may or may not be the IC for the overall incident. When CAP is the lead agency, the CAP IC is the IC for the overall incident. When CAP is not the lead agency, the CAP IC is the Agency Representative for CAP reporting to either the LO or IC for the overall incident. I just don't see how that's confusing.

[RogueLeader]

^ +1

[Luis R. Ramos]

     ^ +1

[Mitchell 1969]

You can only have ONE Incident Commander at a time at an incident.

Incorrect. Unified Command is common and allows for more then one.

Quoth the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Command_(ICS)
"In the Incident Command System, a Unified Command is an authority structure in which the role of incident commander is shared by two or more individuals, each already having authority in a different responding agency. Unified command is one way to carry out command in which responding agencies and/or jurisdictions with responsibility for the incident share incident management."

This is essentially how >all< CAP missions are conducted when CAP isn't the primary agency.

Uh, no. Just being there and bring in charge of your component doesn't get you a seat in the Unified Command box on the chart. For example, let's say CAP sent a delegation of chaplains to a natural disaster to assist with CISM. (Why they would have to have a "CAP Incident Commander" in charge of them is a puzzlement to me - one would think that the ranking chaplain could handle that, but that's another matter). They show up, check in, are welcomed with open arms and put into the CISM staffing. That alone does not create any need for a CAP person to take up a place in the Unified Commamd box, which is reserved for people actually commanding the incident, not just serving it. Otherwise, that box would become meaningless, once you stuffed it with all of the agency Reid likely to show at such an event.

[Mitchell 1969]

Any confusion or misunderstanding is most likely due to lack of proper training. I haven't seen the issue come up yet. It doesn't mean it hasn't come up in other wings, but I don't really thing it's CAP-wide problem. CAP missions always have an IC. The CAP IC may or may not be the IC for the overall incident. When CAP is the lead agency, the CAP IC is the IC for the overall incident. When CAP is not the lead agency, the CAP IC is the Agency Representative for CAP reporting to either the LO or IC for the overall incident. I just don't see how that's confusing.

The confusion comes when a temporary position, assigned per incident, becomes a permanent designation.

I've never seen a police officer, firefighter or public works person identify him/herself as an IC when there is no current incident underway. CAP is the odd man out.

Also - ICS is designed to be flexible, for planned or unplanned events, for emergencies or non-emergencies. A city hosting a parade could well use ICS to run it, with agencies on the same page. A traffic collision with car fire and casualties could have an IC structure, starting with one cop arriving on scene, expanding and ultimately collapsing, with hand off from one agency to another if Unified Command isn't the best option.

I'm about done with this, it needs to last forever. My opinion stands - CAP's use of ICS and the IC title is out of sync with other agencies using ICS. If CAP only uses those internally, no harm done, I suppose. But inter-agency inter-operability takes a hit. (Not the first time I've seen it. In 2002, during a massive post-9/11 exercise, FBI actually had people designated as translators. The multiple agencies involved used ICS terminology, then the translators would translate it into "FBI-speak.")

Finally, another puzzle for me is why CAP doesn't use ICS even more. As I alluded to earlier, it's ideally suited to air shows - in fact, I think people would be surprised to see who the existing arrangements could be adapted to ICS. (Of course, to truly adapt, the "project officer" would become the "Incident Commander" - and since CAP has reserved that title to people who may not have the interests of skill sets for the air show environment, then...but wait, I think this is where I came in - the voiced opinion regarding the non-standard use of the IC title.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is. I was part of the effort to bring non-fire department agencies into ICS compliance and getting everyone to sing from the same sheet music. It wasn't easy - a lot of sacred cows and "tradition" had to be tossed out along the way. But it was worth it. The list of incidents where I've used it is long. And it wouldn't have worked well unless every agency used it the same way.

[Eclipse]

I'm about done with this, it needs to last forever. My opinion stands - CAP's use of ICS and the IC title is out of sync with other agencies using ICS. If CAP only uses those internally, no harm done, I suppose. But inter-agency inter-operability takes a hit. (Not the first time I've seen it. In 2002, during a massive post-9/11 exercise, FBI actually had people designated as translators. The multiple agencies involved used ICS terminology, then the translators would translate it into "FBI-speak.")

Finally, another puzzle for me is why CAP doesn't use ICS even more. As I alluded to earlier, it's ideally suited to air shows - in fact, I think people would be surprised to see who the existing arrangements could be adapted to ICS. (Of course, to truly adapt, the "project officer" would become the "Incident Commander" - and since CAP has reserved that title to people who may not have the interests of skill sets for the air show environment, then...but wait, I think this is where I came in - the voiced opinion regarding the non-standard use of the IC title.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is. I was part of the effort to bring non-fire department agencies into ICS compliance and getting everyone to sing from the same sheet music. It wasn't easy - a lot of sacred cows and "tradition" had to be tossed out along the way. But it was worth it. The list of incidents where I've used it is long. And it wouldn't have worked well unless every agency used it the same way.

This may well be a local perception, which is somewhat ironic since you apparently come from a state where we are perpetually told that CAP can't get in the game more because "the Sheriffs own SAR.".

CAP uses ICS >A LOT<, in fact, much more then many other agencies, which in many cases care about ICS more because of grants and federal requirements then actual operational
efficiency. In many cases our people stand in for, or run operations because the incident exceeds the scope of the local agency and they appreciate the help.  In my wing this has been the situation
with rural agencies when a missing person or aircraft starts to use air assets and the local authorities "don't speak plane".

CAP has done nothing but ICS in the nearly 17 years I've been in, maybe that's partially accounted for with the large number of ES people in my wing that are
also NESA participants and instructors, maybe not, but I don't think I've ever been involved in an action, incident, or activitiy of mention-able consequence where ICS and / or it's principles
didn't play a part.

Is CAP perfect or the best at it?  No.   Am I still waiting on the OPLAN or a FLOP from 5 years ago? Yep, x's a bunch, but we're better and more "used to it" then many.

The bottom line, this non-issue isn't costing CAP work on any scale, and if has anecdotally, then it's because the agency requesting CAP's help is more interested in "their box" then CAP's considerable resources.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is.

Accepting reality doesn't require "liking it".  Gravity could not care less if you like it or not, it simply "is".
To say otherwise infers those who understand and accept the situation are somehow naive or misguided, which is far from the case here.

[Storm Chaser]

Any confusion or misunderstanding is most likely due to lack of proper training. I haven't seen the issue come up yet. It doesn't mean it hasn't come up in other wings, but I don't really thing it's CAP-wide problem. CAP missions always have an IC. The CAP IC may or may not be the IC for the overall incident. When CAP is the lead agency, the CAP IC is the IC for the overall incident. When CAP is not the lead agency, the CAP IC is the Agency Representative for CAP reporting to either the LO or IC for the overall incident. I just don't see how that's confusing.

The confusion comes when a temporary position, assigned per incident, becomes a permanent designation.

I've never seen a police officer, firefighter or public works person identify him/herself as an IC when there is no current incident underway. CAP is the odd man out.

In CAP, IC is both a position (when assigned to a mission) and a qualification. When a member says "I'm an IC" what he's really means is that he's a qualified IC (IC3, IC2, or IC1). When a member says "I'm the IC" within the context of a mission, then he's stating that he's in command of that mission.

Also - ICS is designed to be flexible, for planned or unplanned events, for emergencies or non-emergencies. A city hosting a parade could well use ICS to run it, with agencies on the same page. A traffic collision with car fire and casualties could have an IC structure, starting with one cop arriving on scene, expanding and ultimately collapsing, with hand off from one agency to another if Unified Command isn't the best option.

No disagreements here. I've seen CAP use the ICS system just as you described, within the scope of CAP's missions and programs.

I'm about done with this, it needs to last forever. My opinion stands - CAP's use of ICS and the IC title is out of sync with other agencies using ICS. If CAP only uses those internally, no harm done, I suppose. But inter-agency inter-operability takes a hit. (Not the first time I've seen it. In 2002, during a massive post-9/11 exercise, FBI actually had people designated as translators. The multiple agencies involved used ICS terminology, then the translators would translate it into "FBI-speak.")

I can't speak for your wing, but I just haven't seen that in mine.

Finally, another puzzle for me is why CAP doesn't use ICS even more. As I alluded to earlier, it's ideally suited to air shows - in fact, I think people would be surprised to see who the existing arrangements could be adapted to ICS. (Of course, to truly adapt, the "project officer" would become the "Incident Commander" - and since CAP has reserved that title to people who may not have the interests of skill sets for the air show environment, then...but wait, I think this is where I came in - the voiced opinion regarding the non-standard use of the IC title.

My wing uses the ICS system for other events such as large airshows. Yes, there's an IC who may or may not be the project officer. There's no requirement in CAP for the project officer to be an IC. When the mission starts (training, exercise, airshow, etc.), the the IC takes command and the project officer assumes another role within the mission.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is. I was part of the effort to bring non-fire department agencies into ICS compliance and getting everyone to sing from the same sheet music. It wasn't easy - a lot of sacred cows and "tradition" had to be tossed out along the way. But it was worth it. The list of incidents where I've used it is long. And it wouldn't have worked well unless every agency used it the same way.

No need to apologize. You've obviously have different experiences. But as I've said before, I don't think the issue is with the way CAP does things, but with the lack of proper training. That includes training with other agencies. CAP needs to do a better job in this area.

[Holding Pattern]

I'm about done with this, it needs to last forever. My opinion stands - CAP's use of ICS and the IC title is out of sync with other agencies using ICS. If CAP only uses those internally, no harm done, I suppose. But inter-agency inter-operability takes a hit. (Not the first time I've seen it. In 2002, during a massive post-9/11 exercise, FBI actually had people designated as translators. The multiple agencies involved used ICS terminology, then the translators would translate it into "FBI-speak.")

I'm not sure an incident that predates NIMS applies to a post NIMS world.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I'm about done with this, it needs to last forever. My opinion stands - CAP's use of ICS and the IC title is out of sync with other agencies using ICS. If CAP only uses those internally, no harm done, I suppose. But inter-agency inter-operability takes a hit. (Not the first time I've seen it. In 2002, during a massive post-9/11 exercise, FBI actually had people designated as translators. The multiple agencies involved used ICS terminology, then the translators would translate it into "FBI-speak.")

Finally, another puzzle for me is why CAP doesn't use ICS even more. As I alluded to earlier, it's ideally suited to air shows - in fact, I think people would be surprised to see who the existing arrangements could be adapted to ICS. (Of course, to truly adapt, the "project officer" would become the "Incident Commander" - and since CAP has reserved that title to people who may not have the interests of skill sets for the air show environment, then...but wait, I think this is where I came in - the voiced opinion regarding the non-standard use of the IC title.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is. I was part of the effort to bring non-fire department agencies into ICS compliance and getting everyone to sing from the same sheet music. It wasn't easy - a lot of sacred cows and "tradition" had to be tossed out along the way. But it was worth it. The list of incidents where I've used it is long. And it wouldn't have worked well unless every agency used it the same way.

This may well be a local perception, which is somewhat ironic since you apparently come from a state where we are perpetually told that CAP can't get in the game more because "the Sheriffs own SAR.".

CAP uses ICS >A LOT<, in fact, much more then many other agencies, which in many cases care about ICS more because of grants and federal requirements then actual operational
efficiency. In many cases our people stand in for, or run operations because the incident exceeds the scope of the local agency and they appreciate the help.  In my wing this has been the situation
with rural agencies when a missing person or aircraft starts to use air assets and the local authorities "don't speak plane".

CAP has done nothing but ICS in the nearly 17 years I've been in, maybe that's partially accounted for with the large number of ES people in my wing that are
also NESA participants and instructors, maybe not, but I don't think I've ever been involved in an action, incident, or activitiy of mention-able consequence where ICS and / or it's principles
didn't play a part.

Is CAP perfect or the best at it?  No.   Am I still waiting on the OPLAN or a FLOP from 5 years ago? Yep, x's a bunch, but we're better and more "used to it" then many.

The bottom line, this non-issue isn't costing CAP work on any scale, and if has anecdotally, then it's because the agency requesting CAP's help is more interested in "their box" then CAP's considerable resources.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is.

Accepting reality doesn't require "liking it".  Gravity could not care less if you like it or not, it simply "is".
To say otherwise infers those who understand and accept the situation are somehow naive or misguided, which is far from the case here.

He said ICS, not NIMS... NIMS coming around didn't alter what he's saying.

ICS has been around since 1968.

For instance, given the assertion that it's not costing us any work (which I respectfully disagree with, because you can see only what you have been offered, not what you've been passed over for) I would say that that my Mountain Rescue team has no shortage of calls from all over my state from County sheriff's that often have their own teams... CAP has never gotten that kind of attention here. I think sheriff's get the bad taste in their mouths when CAP wants to show up to an incident that they are running and not seamlessly integrate themselves into it. Every other group plays the game in that manner, but here we are using our own titles and "subordinate but equal" structure for no good reason.

In many of these cases it's not been an area or unified command situation, CAP forces it to be one. These IC'S could really use trained staff to plug in and help with the operation of the mission, but CAP resources can't work for them, nope, they have to work for a CAP IC only...

If I'm a sheriff, I'm asking "why bother with the hassle?"

[Storm Chaser]

I know there are issues in many jurisdictions, but the problem is not because of the way we use ICS. Many sheriff's offices would like to call CAP and have us just show up. But we can't do anything without an approved mission number. And then there's the question of who's paying for it. And, of course, if we get that figured out, then there's the issue of joint training or lack of it. There are many contributing factors.

[Larry Mangum]

I think that is more of the way the "Wing" chooses to play ICS.  I have been part of a wing, where CAP was integrated, and on several missions, I wore two hats, serving as the "CAP IC/AL" and as the "Operations Section Chief" for the mission, when State, CAP and other volunteer groups were involved.

As the Operations Section Chief, I oversaw the operation of all the resources, not just, Air Ops was a joint effort as well, with the only noticeable difference, was the release of CAP Air Sorties, by a CAP person, for legal reasons. All crews were briefed by joint briefing crews, intelligence was developed by joint teams, etc.  This worked because the wing, knew and taught that it was one of several secondary SAR groups in the state and it would  very seldom ever be the primary SAR agency in the state. In fact, the only time I can remember that we did not work hand in hand with the state, was a major flood, when we where specifically, told by AFRCC, to not accept direct tasking from the state, but rather could only take tasking from them, as there where federal assets, from the Navy, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard and CAP involved.

If you want it to work, you must train as a part of the overall team, for if you go in to the mission, with the mindset of "Cap is here and we are in charge!", you are not going to get called.

[Eclipse]

if you go in to the mission, with the mindset of "Cap is here and we are in charge!",

This has actually happened about as many times as the ubiquitous "CAP Lt trolling salutes on a military base".

[Storm Chaser]

if you go in to the mission, with the mindset of "Cap is here and we are in charge!",

This has actually happened about as many times as the ubiquitous "CAP Lt trolling salutes on a military base".

I agree. That hasn't been my experience at all.

[Holding Pattern]

I'm about done with this, it needs to last forever. My opinion stands - CAP's use of ICS and the IC title is out of sync with other agencies using ICS. If CAP only uses those internally, no harm done, I suppose. But inter-agency inter-operability takes a hit. (Not the first time I've seen it. In 2002, during a massive post-9/11 exercise, FBI actually had people designated as translators. The multiple agencies involved used ICS terminology, then the translators would translate it into "FBI-speak.")

Finally, another puzzle for me is why CAP doesn't use ICS even more. As I alluded to earlier, it's ideally suited to air shows - in fact, I think people would be surprised to see who the existing arrangements could be adapted to ICS. (Of course, to truly adapt, the "project officer" would become the "Incident Commander" - and since CAP has reserved that title to people who may not have the interests of skill sets for the air show environment, then...but wait, I think this is where I came in - the voiced opinion regarding the non-standard use of the IC title.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is. I was part of the effort to bring non-fire department agencies into ICS compliance and getting everyone to sing from the same sheet music. It wasn't easy - a lot of sacred cows and "tradition" had to be tossed out along the way. But it was worth it. The list of incidents where I've used it is long. And it wouldn't have worked well unless every agency used it the same way.

This may well be a local perception, which is somewhat ironic since you apparently come from a state where we are perpetually told that CAP can't get in the game more because "the Sheriffs own SAR.".

CAP uses ICS >A LOT<, in fact, much more then many other agencies, which in many cases care about ICS more because of grants and federal requirements then actual operational
efficiency. In many cases our people stand in for, or run operations because the incident exceeds the scope of the local agency and they appreciate the help.  In my wing this has been the situation
with rural agencies when a missing person or aircraft starts to use air assets and the local authorities "don't speak plane".

CAP has done nothing but ICS in the nearly 17 years I've been in, maybe that's partially accounted for with the large number of ES people in my wing that are
also NESA participants and instructors, maybe not, but I don't think I've ever been involved in an action, incident, or activitiy of mention-able consequence where ICS and / or it's principles
didn't play a part.

Is CAP perfect or the best at it?  No.   Am I still waiting on the OPLAN or a FLOP from 5 years ago? Yep, x's a bunch, but we're better and more "used to it" then many.

The bottom line, this non-issue isn't costing CAP work on any scale, and if has anecdotally, then it's because the agency requesting CAP's help is more interested in "their box" then CAP's considerable resources.

My apologies to those who like it just the way it is.

Accepting reality doesn't require "liking it".  Gravity could not care less if you like it or not, it simply "is".
To say otherwise infers those who understand and accept the situation are somehow naive or misguided, which is far from the case here.

He said ICS, not NIMS... NIMS coming around didn't alter what he's saying.

ICS has been around since 1968.

I am aware, but the point of NIMS was, among other things, to get everyone on the same interop page for issues like the one described there.

[Eclipse]

In many of these cases it's not been an area or unified command situation, CAP forces it to be one. These IC'S could really use trained staff to plug in and help with the operation of the mission, but CAP resources can't work for them, nope, they have to work for a CAP IC only...

CAP IC directs CAP PSC to "go work with the planning cell"...(rinse / repeat for other resources and quals)...

...done. BTDT many times (in my wing, not me personally)

With the only issue being if and when a CAP IC or other operational leader directs a CAP member to do something against CAP regs,
which is more of the case then any "Alexander Haig" silliness.  An ad hoc "vigilante" from the neighborhood, or mom and her
SAR Pelican, can potentially do things a trained CAP Ground Team or air crew member can't because of posse comitatus or other regulations.

If I'm a sheriff, I'm asking "why bother with the hassle?"

Well, for starters, CAP will bring a million dollars of aircraft to your little soiree with fully trained crews, plus support staff for
anywhere from "free" to about $250 a flight hour(ish) with little more then a phone call.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'm having a glitch on this topic only...keep seeing people post, and time stamps, but
Larry Mangum's post from 09:56 is the last one I see...

[Майор Хаткевич]

After eclipse posted about "Wonkiness", I came back here to check it out...I was the first post on page 2, and now I'm the 5th. The Eclipse, storm, startfleet, eclipse posts preceding mine were not visible, albeit the "new posts" sections showed them as there until I clicked.

[Flyboy86]

You seem to have gotten lost talking about ICS rather to answer the question about CAP requirement to be an IC.

In many ways, the IC is the corporate executive in charge of the mission so the IC has to have all the knowledge need to muster the resources and produce the requested outcomes. To do this, a prospective applicant has to show they can do the job by demonstrating the ability to manage the missions. Have knowledge of the rules and policies including local practices, the ability to lead, the ability to communicate and take in information, the ability to train others, ability to delegate and the ability to operate in a dynamic atmosphere.

There is no fixed number that can show all of the above.

A member seeking to be an IC has to recognize this becomes a job interview where a resume should be produced. There is no particular check list that when completed you become an IC.

I believe an IC should also be SET qualified in almost every rating save except pilot and Chaplin if not a pilot or Chaplin.

Lets face it, not everyone has the leadership skills need to be an IC. The whole thing is subjective as I think it should be.

[JeffDG]

In many ways, the IC is the corporate executive in charge of the mission so the IC has to have all the knowledge need to muster the resources and produce the requested outcomes.

The IC is the personal representative of the Wing or higher commander on a mission. 

The way I like to describe it is the IC is a temporary virtual Wing Vice Commander with respect to the mission.  That's, literally, the level of authority that CAP vests its incident commanders with...they have the authority to draw upon and utilize all of the assets and resources of the Wing for the accomplishment of the mission.

That being said, an IC must have the trust and confidence of the Wing (or higher) commander, and that is the most important qualification.

[Storm Chaser]

That experience, training, knowledge, skills, trust, and confidence needed to be an IC can't be gained in two exercise participations, but over an extended period of time.

[Eclipse]

That experience, training, knowledge, skills, trust, and confidence needed to be an IC can't be gained in two exercise participations, but over an extended period of time.

Well, it's not "two", ever (except in the rare occasion someone is appointed directly based on outside quals).

What did we find when we did the math, it's more like 18-20+, depending on which ladder you climb, over a 5-10 year period (for most),
and you're highly visible during that time, so there's no hiding in the back of the van and getting a ticket punched with everyone else.

[JeffDG]

That experience, training, knowledge, skills, trust, and confidence needed to be an IC can't be gained in two exercise participations, but over an extended period of time.

Well, it's not "two", ever (except in the rare occasion someone is appointed directly based on outside quals).

What did we find when we did the math, it's more like 18-20+, depending on which ladder you climb, over a 5-10 year period (for most),
and you're highly visible during that time, so there's no hiding in the back of the van and getting a ticket punched with everyone else.

Once you get to the "Branch Director" level, the hiding in back gets pretty tough.

[Storm Chaser]

That experience, training, knowledge, skills, trust, and confidence needed to be an IC can't be gained in two exercise participations, but over an extended period of time.

Well, it's not "two", ever (except in the rare occasion someone is appointed directly based on outside quals).

What did we find when we did the math, it's more like 18-20+, depending on which ladder you climb, over a 5-10 year period (for most),
and you're highly visible during that time, so there's no hiding in the back of the van and getting a ticket punched with everyone else.

I wasn't counting all the other exercise participation, sorties, missions, etc. required for the other qualifications because, while they contribute to the overall training and experience needed to be an IC, they're not as an IC3 trainee. My point is that two exercise participation as an IC3 trainee are not enough in most cases. Ideally, you want to expose the IC3 trainee to a variety of missions, which can't be done effectively over two operational periods.

[Eclipse]

You can't discount the cumulative training experience, because really, that's all there is.

As an IC you're supposed to function as a "manager of managers", not turn the wrenches yourself, so the SQTR
is pretty much about shuffling paperwork other people submit (at the 1-team overnight level you're more a Branch Dir then an IC,
from a functional perspective).

So at the IC3 level, which is really scoped towards overnight table tops, I don't see the issue.  With experience, more is always better,
however in this case, not required.

The problem is that we have IC3s trying to run multi-state activities, that takes a lot more experience, a lot more "managerifyin",
and exceeds the scope of the entry level IC.

[Storm Chaser]

I'm not discounting ANY experience or training. But in MY experience as an IC2, most members will need more than two exercise participation as an IC trainee to really learn how to be an IC and complete their qualification. Are they exceptions? You bet. But in MY experience, most members will need more rather than less. Believe me, it's very easy to tell the level of training and experience an IC has based on their performance (or lack of) during a mission.