Incident Commander Requirements

[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.