Incident Communications Center Manager (ICCM)

Started by Combat_Comm, April 25, 2019, 06:51:22 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Combat_Comm

Just curious, since we are moving to FEMA COML standards to be compliant with NIMS, will CAP finally recognize the Incident Communications Center Manager spot? If a comm unit is done right, that position is a life safer for the CUL.

-Rich Long
Richard Long, Capt., CAP
Commander
Cumberland Composite Squadron TN-393
Tennessee Wing

etodd

Having zero knowledge of this, I'm just curious as to how big of an incident or event would it take, for the command system to scale up to need this position?
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

Combat_Comm

with ICCM think radio room manager. Sadly CAP seems to see the CUL as this function and its not correct ICS. The CUL should be interfacing with the PSC and OSC to build/extend the communications infrastructure to support the mission plan. The CUL is also requesting resources and issuing radios.. this doesn't leave much time for supervising the MRO's and answering their questions, scheduling breaks, etc. That's where the ICCM comes in.

I have implemented this locally by choosing a competent MRO and knighting him a supervisor but this requires a bit of extra training. I'm blessed in my squadron to have more than one.

Here is the Job aid for the wildfire folks https://www.nwcg.gov/publications/job-aids/j-257-incident-communications-center-manager
Richard Long, Capt., CAP
Commander
Cumberland Composite Squadron TN-393
Tennessee Wing

Eclipse

Not needed.  CUL is fine.  Most missions have 2 radios and a couple antennas.

Whether something interfaces externally to CAP is irrelevant, since CAP people are
not going to staff a mission without CAP being onsite or involved, so CUL is fine.

In the rare case a CAP person sits in an EOC, etc., they can wear a different vest.

CAP does not provide resources to staff oter people's ICS they "bring their own".  You can argue it's a detriment,
but that's not changing anytime soon, so all these arguments about type ratings, matching ICS
are a waste of time (or closed in 5 minutes when it becomes important.)

"That Others May Zoom"

Combat_Comm

Sadly that's not the case. I've had three exercises this year that had multi site comms with in CAP. Each site had 2 vhf and one HF to interlink the sites. There is only one CUL in an ICS structure and I was busy adding more sites and coordinating with the CAP mission staff like the federal CUL curriculum we have adopted teaches now.. the CUL was never intended to be a radio room manager.
Richard Long, Capt., CAP
Commander
Cumberland Composite Squadron TN-393
Tennessee Wing

Eclipse

#5
You can have as many assistant CULs as you want, and the TITLE is irreverent irrelevant to the duty.

"Frank, I need you to go out to Forestville and CUL for that site..."

"ICS only allows one CUL, and that's you."

"Why are you still standing here?"

"That Others May Zoom"

Combat_Comm

No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Richard Long, Capt., CAP
Commander
Cumberland Composite Squadron TN-393
Tennessee Wing

CAP9907

Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

Spam


So going from ICS precedent, how does this differ from designating a CAP member as a staging area manager? When an incident grows in scope to the point where we need people to manage different staging areas, that job isn't locked to a GBD, a GTL, or any other specific CAP qual, but rather the assignment is based on the KSAs for the task set.

When you say, "recognize", what are you asking for CAP to do in this regard?

R/s,
Spam



Holding Pattern

Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

This was also the opinion of the instructors at the DHS ECD class I just took last week regarding the ITSL position being created in ICS.

And the position of local agencies.

And the position of FEMA.

ICS 300: Lesson 2, Bullet point 2:

"List the ICS positions which may include Deputies, and describe Deputy roles and
responsibilities. Describe differences between Deputies and Assistants."

Holding Pattern

If you want to get especially nitty gritty, you can refer to them as "technical specialists"

Holding Pattern

See also this Firescope review document:

http://www.firescope.org/firescope-history/ICS_position_title_review.pdf

Page 5:

Assistants
The next support position is the "Assistant" position. The use of Assistants has grown over the years. They are primarily found supporting the "Officer" positions. The difference between a Deputy and Assistant is that an Assistant need not be fully qualified for the Officer position they are supporting. Instead, the Assistant needs to be capable of completing the tasks assigned to them within the Command Staff function. For example, an "Assistant Safety Officer – Hazardous Materials" is typical in a Hazardous Materials response organization. This individual may not be fully qualified to be an incident Safety Officer, but has expertise to evaluate the safe conduct of Hazardous Materials entry operations. Assistants are commonly found supporting the following positions:

Safety Officer

Liaison Officer

Public Information Officer

Certain Unit Leader positions in the Logistics Section

Holding Pattern

This, by the way, is what makes MSAs in trainee status for other jobs so valuable.

lordmonar

Quote from: CAP9907 on April 26, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
The problem with Eclipse's opinion is that it is llimited in scope.   Sure....CAP if fine with just usually having two radios in a back room.....but that's one of the reasons why we are so limited.    Comm is a lot more then just a couple of ground to air radios.  It should also be the computer network infrastructure, wifi network, phones, video dissemination, briefing presentations etc et al.     Sure.....99 our of 100 CAP missions are going to just be a 1-2 day operations with 1-2 planes in the air and maybe a ground team.   But do if you don't plan and train for the once a decade FOSSETT MISSION or KATRINA MISSION...then we will never be able to support those sort of missions.    I agree that there is a balance between training for the big war or training for the war that we know we fight.  But there is something to be said for expanding our mission base communications capabilities.

On the a side note.

1st Combat Communications Squadron 1997-2001!  FILO!
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

CAP9907

Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2019, 01:52:23 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on April 26, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
The problem with Eclipse's opinion is that it is llimited in scope.   Sure....CAP if fine with just usually having two radios in a back room.....but that's one of the reasons why we are so limited.    Comm is a lot more then just a couple of ground to air radios.  It should also be the computer network infrastructure, wifi network, phones, video dissemination, briefing presentations etc et al.     Sure.....99 our of 100 CAP missions are going to just be a 1-2 day operations with 1-2 planes in the air and maybe a ground team.   But do if you don't plan and train for the once a decade FOSSETT MISSION or KATRINA MISSION...then we will never be able to support those sort of missions.    I agree that there is a balance between training for the big war or training for the war that we know we fight.  But there is something to be said for expanding our mission base communications capabilities.

On the a side note.

1st Combat Communications Squadron 1997-2001!  FILO!

And where do we get the money for this sophisticated networked infrastructure? I can't get a hotspot for my ICP let alone anyone to pay for lunch for the team...
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

lordmonar

Quote from: CAP9907 on May 10, 2019, 02:12:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2019, 01:52:23 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on April 26, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
The problem with Eclipse's opinion is that it is llimited in scope.   Sure....CAP if fine with just usually having two radios in a back room.....but that's one of the reasons why we are so limited.    Comm is a lot more then just a couple of ground to air radios.  It should also be the computer network infrastructure, wifi network, phones, video dissemination, briefing presentations etc et al.     Sure.....99 our of 100 CAP missions are going to just be a 1-2 day operations with 1-2 planes in the air and maybe a ground team.   But do if you don't plan and train for the once a decade FOSSETT MISSION or KATRINA MISSION...then we will never be able to support those sort of missions.    I agree that there is a balance between training for the big war or training for the war that we know we fight.  But there is something to be said for expanding our mission base communications capabilities.

On the a side note.

1st Combat Communications Squadron 1997-2001!  FILO!

And where do we get the money for this sophisticated networked infrastructure? I can't get a hotspot for my ICP let alone anyone to pay for lunch for the team...
Sell a plane. 

>:D
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

OldGuy

Quote from: CAP9907 on May 10, 2019, 02:12:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2019, 01:52:23 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on April 26, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
The problem with Eclipse's opinion is that it is llimited in scope.   Sure....CAP if fine with just usually having two radios in a back room.....but that's one of the reasons why we are so limited.    Comm is a lot more then just a couple of ground to air radios.  It should also be the computer network infrastructure, wifi network, phones, video dissemination, briefing presentations etc et al.     Sure.....99 our of 100 CAP missions are going to just be a 1-2 day operations with 1-2 planes in the air and maybe a ground team.   But do if you don't plan and train for the once a decade FOSSETT MISSION or KATRINA MISSION...then we will never be able to support those sort of missions.    I agree that there is a balance between training for the big war or training for the war that we know we fight.  But there is something to be said for expanding our mission base communications capabilities.

On the a side note.

1st Combat Communications Squadron 1997-2001!  FILO!

And where do we get the money for this sophisticated networked infrastructure? I can't get a hotspot for my ICP let alone anyone to pay for lunch for the team...
There is a story about the legendary soldier with a problem for every solution.

You might ask for ideas from Captalk. You might find that many carriers offer non profit hotspots at way low prices. See https://www.techsoup.org/products/--G-49861-- for an example.

OldGuy

Quote from: OldGuy on May 10, 2019, 04:02:26 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on May 10, 2019, 02:12:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2019, 01:52:23 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on April 26, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
The problem with Eclipse's opinion is that it is llimited in scope.   Sure....CAP if fine with just usually having two radios in a back room.....but that's one of the reasons why we are so limited.    Comm is a lot more then just a couple of ground to air radios.  It should also be the computer network infrastructure, wifi network, phones, video dissemination, briefing presentations etc et al.     Sure.....99 our of 100 CAP missions are going to just be a 1-2 day operations with 1-2 planes in the air and maybe a ground team.   But do if you don't plan and train for the once a decade FOSSETT MISSION or KATRINA MISSION...then we will never be able to support those sort of missions.    I agree that there is a balance between training for the big war or training for the war that we know we fight.  But there is something to be said for expanding our mission base communications capabilities.

On the a side note.

1st Combat Communications Squadron 1997-2001!  FILO!

And where do we get the money for this sophisticated networked infrastructure? I can't get a hotspot for my ICP let alone anyone to pay for lunch for the team...
There is a story about the legendary soldier with a problem for every solution.

You might ask for ideas from Captalk. You might find that many carriers offer non profit hotspots at way low prices. See https://www.techsoup.org/products/--G-49861-- for an example.

Or sell a plane. :)

CAP9907

Quote from: OldGuy on May 10, 2019, 04:02:26 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on May 10, 2019, 02:12:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2019, 01:52:23 AM
Quote from: CAP9907 on April 26, 2019, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Combat_Comm on April 26, 2019, 05:26:09 AM
No worries. That's your opinion. Thanks for it. Anyone else care to chime in?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Well, no. I'm pretty much gonna go with Eclipse on this one.

~9907
The problem with Eclipse's opinion is that it is llimited in scope.   Sure....CAP if fine with just usually having two radios in a back room.....but that's one of the reasons why we are so limited.    Comm is a lot more then just a couple of ground to air radios.  It should also be the computer network infrastructure, wifi network, phones, video dissemination, briefing presentations etc et al.     Sure.....99 our of 100 CAP missions are going to just be a 1-2 day operations with 1-2 planes in the air and maybe a ground team.   But do if you don't plan and train for the once a decade FOSSETT MISSION or KATRINA MISSION...then we will never be able to support those sort of missions.    I agree that there is a balance between training for the big war or training for the war that we know we fight.  But there is something to be said for expanding our mission base communications capabilities.

On the a side note.

1st Combat Communications Squadron 1997-2001!  FILO!

And where do we get the money for this sophisticated networked infrastructure? I can't get a hotspot for my ICP let alone anyone to pay for lunch for the team...
There is a story about the legendary soldier with a problem for every solution.

You might ask for ideas from Captalk. You might find that many carriers offer non profit hotspots at way low prices. See https://www.techsoup.org/products/--G-49861-- for an example.

again, wayyy low prices don't work if you have zero dollars.. let alone a networked Comms/data fusion system...
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

lordmonar

Well....then that's it.

But.......maybe if someone were to push the idea of a mobile communications suit (phones, computers, vtc, data back up, internet source)....and they come up with a price tag for 2-3/wing.....I bet the money could be found.

But.....if we are happy with the status quo....mission base housed in the same location with just a couple of old desk tops and the base station....we will never get it.....and we will never expand/improve our missions.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP