NIMS requirements

[RiverAux]

Some folks on another list are claiming that some NIMS requirements (various ICS courses) are already required in Middle East and Southeast Regions, but there are no approved supplements to 60-3 on the NHQ web site to back this up.  Has anyone from those regions seen anything in print?  The region web pages don't have anything about any such requirements either. 

I would be a little suprised if NHQ approved regional supplements to implement national standards rather than just doing a change to 60-3 at the national level. 

[_]

I'm from Maryland wing in MER.  From what I've heard, your concerns are being brought up to the higher leadership.  From what I recall the word came down by email.  There may have been conversations going on between the wings and region but we at the squadron levels heard about it primarily through email.  My personal feeling is that it's not a huge thing to complete the courses since they're open book tests for the lower levels.  We've been told to have the online courses (ICS100,200,700) complete by the end of this month. 300, 400 and the other higher level one's that require class time are not required till later.

[arajca]

Actually, the 300/400 level courses are not needed for about 90-95% of ES personnel. A quick breakdown:
ICS 100 & IS 700 - Everyone. Basically the NIMS version of GES.
ICS 200 & IS 800 - Front line leaders - GTL's, CUL's, AOBD, GDB, etc; PIO, Safety, Liasion Officer.
ICS 300 - Branch directors on large missions, section chiefs.
ICS 400 - Ops & Planning Section Chiefs on large missions, IC/AL

This is a simplified list and is NOT official.

[RiverAux]

I guess I'm just a little surprised that anyone would impose a whole lot of new requirements without following the clear wording in 60-3 regarding the need for an NHQ-approved supplement in order to make any change to ES qualifications. 

CAPR 60-3 1-3

Any written supplement, letter, clarification, waiver, or OI of this regulation must have prior written approval of NHQ CAP/DO.

[Tubacap]

Actually, the 300/400 level courses are not needed for about 90-95% of ES personnel. A quick breakdown:
ICS 100 & IS 700 - Everyone. Basically the NIMS version of GES.
ICS 200 & IS 800 - Front line leaders - GTL's, CUL's, AOBD, GDB, etc; PIO, Safety, Liasion Officer.
ICS 300 - Branch directors on large missions, section chiefs.
ICS 400 - Ops & Planning Section Chiefs on large missions, IC/AL

This is a simplified list and is NOT official.

Having just completed 300, this is a great breakdown.

[SeattleSarge]

ICS 100 and 700 is required to be registered as an Air SAR Emergency Worker in Washington State.  To work actual missions, CAP personnel must be registered.

FYI,

-SeattleSarge

[RiverAux]

Again, no approved supplement.  Would be easy enough to do for Washington Wing since it is a state-imposed requirement. 

[_]

I just looked back through what I have and this was put out as a policy letter.

[sardak]

Here is the list from the NIC, not from CAP.

FY07 NIMS compliance requirements for federal, state, local, tribal, private sector & non-governmental personnel to include:

Entry level first responders & disaster workers - EMS personnel, firefighters, hospital staff, law enforcement personnel, public health personnel, public works/utility personnel, skilled support personnel, other emergency management response, support, volunteer personnel at all levels
ICS-100, IS-700

First line supervisors, single resource leaders, field supervisors, and other emergency management/response personnel that require a higher level of ICS/NIMS Training.
ICS-100, ICS-200, IS-700

Mid-level management including strike team leaders, task force leaders, unit leaders, division/group supervisors, branch directors
ICS-100, ICS-200, ICS-300, IS-700, IS-800

Command and general staff, select department heads with multi-agency coordination system responsibilities, area commanders, emergency managers
ICS-100, ICS-200, ICS-300, ICS-400, IS-700, IS-800

Mike

[_]

The below chart is what we're going by.

[isuhawkeye]

hey gang. 

we have hashed this out many many times.  please do a search

[RiverAux]

Actually we have not ---- apparently these requirements are being implemented outside the normal ES regulation process in a piecemeal fashion across the country.  That seems something worth discussing.  That is new. 

[isuhawkeye]

OK lets have at it again....

down with the blasphemers who don't put changes in proper supplement.

Holding breath for the time when NHQ will put out guidance.

Oh wait, they don't think NIMS is finalized yet, so they wont put guidance out

I think that about sums it up. 

Please precede with your discussion

.......Goes and sits in the corner.....

[RiverAux]

Gee, I guess I was just being silly about thinking that our regulations meant what they said and that it was generally a good idea to follow them.  My mistake. 

[davedove]

I just looked back through what I have and this was put out as a policy letter.

Jon, I may be mistaken, but didn't they tell us at CLC that they had worked it through National, and that National was working to make it a requirement for all of CAP.

[_]

I just looked back through what I have and this was put out as a policy letter.

Jon, I may be mistaken, but didn't they tell us at CLC that they had worked it through National, and that National was working to make it a requirement for all of CAP.

I didn't catch the whole conversation so I'm not sure. 

[Dustoff]

OK lets have at it again....

down with the blasphemers who don't put changes in proper supplement.

Holding breath for the time when NHQ will put out guidance.

Oh wait, they don't think NIMS is finalized yet, so they wont put guidance out

I think that about sums it up. 

Please precede with your discussion

.......Goes and sits in the corner.....

Maybe they're waiting for the NIMS revision due our July '07

...holding my breath for FEMA...     

Jim

[arajca]

OK lets have at it again....

down with the blasphemers who don't put changes in proper supplement.

Holding breath for the time when NHQ will put out guidance.

Oh wait, they don't think NIMS is finalized yet, so they wont put guidance out

I think that about sums it up. 

Please precede with your discussion

.......Goes and sits in the corner.....

Maybe they're waiting for the NIMS revision due our July '07

...holding my breath for FEMA...     

Jim

My, you're a pretty shade of blue. :angel:

[ammotrucker]

I just don't understand why your making such a fuss about this.   I have not seen anything in SER mentioned that it is currently mandatory.  If member want to get up to speed before it becomes so much the better.

At some point it will be mandatory you ban bet on that.

So, if you are IC, AL or command staff I would get it done and out of the way.  SO You can continue to perform your duties

[floridacyclist]

It's not that big of a deal. Yes, we have been told that it's OK to teach to the new standards....that means that we can explain NIMS compliance to our students and when we teach GES, we include ICS100, 200, and 700 as well...then send them back to the national website for part 2 of the 116 test. It is not required or absolutely mandatory any more than GES; we have simply made it a part of our OTS and told folks they need to get it if they want to be used in an emergency.

[isuhawkeye]

You are correct that NIMS compliance is currently not a big deal.  In fact most CAP members don't even know what NIMS is. 

The problem is that NIMS is here to stay.  Most emergency responder entities have embraced these programs, and have moved forward while CAP has done nothing.

[Eclipse]

If you're saying NIMS compliance is as simple as the FEMA tests, well than

A: its not much of an issue around me because we encourage all new ES people
to take the tests to the 700 level as a matter of course..

B: if that's all NIMS is about, then its not going to make a lick of difference in our getting or not getting more missions.

C: The rank and file aircrew member and/or ground pounder does not need to know that much about ICS anyway.  Teach them to follow instructions from their designated leader, that's all they need.  There is an argument that Base personnel, especially Section Chiefs and Branch Directors could benefit from this, at least in as much as to standardize terminology, but again, its not going to change our operational model.

[Major Carrales]

It would seem to me the the best way to insure compliance is to insure that the SQTR for the appropriate level contains the taskings in regards to which ICS course is needed.  This is better than grounding the whole fleet because of rules that were likely invented because procedures between LE, FD, EMS and other such folks were all doing their own thing.

What would simply solve the problem would be 1) future qualifications require the ICS courses as needed and 2) Apply for a waiver for those already current with a "limited grandfather effect."  In other words, to requalify, one would have to take the ICS courses.

Let's think simply and realistically toward a workable solution.  Really, there are some with such an inferiority complex en re NIMS and CAP that I wonder why they even remain in CAP.  Really, we are not a rinky-dink outfit.  I suspect that is where all this controvesry comes from.

[RiverAux]

It would seem to me the the best way to insure compliance is to insure that the SQTR for the appropriate level contains the taskings in regards to which ICS course is needed.

I'm sure thats exactly how it will be done when the requirements become official. 

[Major Carrales]

It would seem to me the the best way to insure compliance is to insure that the SQTR for the appropriate level contains the taskings in regards to which ICS course is needed.

I'm sure thats exactly how it will be done when the requirements become official. 

If, in fact, NIMS is in the future of CAP (which is anyone's true guess, for all you know CAP is exempt or is to be so) then it migth be good practice for CAP officers to do the courses on theirown.

I recall some Threadsters here, like DNALL, that seemed to harp of CAP because it was not jumping on the NIMS bandwagon.  What if the Auxiliaries have another destiny?

In anycase, I have ICS 100, 200 and 700.  I have also been told the the GES tests are in fact approved versions of ICS 100 and 200.

[RiverAux]

I have also been told the the GES tests are in fact approved versions of ICS 100 and 200.

I don't know about that....They certainly cover a little of the same ground, but since CAP hasn't officially adopted 100/200 in any official way yet, it would be hard to say.  Would some outisde agency that requires 100/200 say that our GES was equivalent?  I don't know.

In the future I would hope that CAP would drop the ICS stuff from the GES text/tests and just use the "official" version.  That would be far the best way to ensure we were doing what everybody else is doing. 

[Major Carrales]

In the future I would hope that CAP would drop the ICS stuff from the GES text/tests and just use the "official" version.  That would be far the best way to ensure we were doing what everybody else is doing. 

It seems logical, however, since when has logic been a deciding factor in certain circles.

[arajca]

I have also been told the the GES tests are in fact approved versions of ICS 100 and 200.

I don't know about that....They certainly cover a little of the same ground, but since CAP hasn't officially adopted 100/200 in any official way yet, it would be hard to say.  Would some outisde agency that requires 100/200 say that our GES was equivalent?  I don't know.

The second part of the 116 test is roughly equal to ICS-100, but is nowhere close to ICS 200.

In the future I would hope that CAP would drop the ICS stuff from the GES text/tests and just use the "official" version.  That would be far the best way to ensure we were doing what everybody else is doing. 

You're making sense again. Do I have to dispatch the black van?

[RiverAux]

You're making sense again.

As much as I post, I'm bound to do that every now and again.... 

[floridacyclist]

B: if that's all NIMS is about, then its not going to make a lick of difference in our getting or not getting more missions.

C: The rank and file aircrew member and/or ground pounder does not need to know that much about ICS anyway.  Teach them to follow instructions from their designated leader, that's all they need.  There is an argument that Base personnel, especially Section Chiefs and Branch Directors could benefit from this, at least in as much as to standardize terminology, but again, its not going to change our operational model.

NIMS is about much more than some simple tests. Resource typing, resource ordering, chain of command, plus the simple act of actually using the concepts taught in the classes and tests all wrap up together. Simply passing the tests doesn't suffice if you're not practicing during exercises and other minor missions.

For more questions on NIMS compliance, see http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/faq/compliance.shtm and you can get a much better idea of what hte feds are trying to accomplish than from a CAPTALK discussion.

I agree on dropping the 116 Pt 2 and simply requiring the new members to pass Level 1, Opsec, GES test and present their 100 and 700 certificates to their CC for approval.

[RRLE]

NIMS is about much more than some simple tests. Resource typing ...

Several CAP resources are typed in the Typed Resource Definitions: Incident Management Resources http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/incident_mgmt.pdf

Airborne Communications Relay Team (Fixed-Wing) - page 4 - see the notes following the table.
Airborne Communications Relay (Fixed-Wing) (CAP) - page 5.
Airborne Transport Team (Fixed-Wing) - page 6 see the notes after the table
Communications Support Team (CAP) - page 7

Although CAP is not mentioned specifically the following type definitions in the SAR Types http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/508-8_search_and_rescue_resources.pdf might be of interest:

Air Search Team (Fixed-Wing) - page 4
Airborne Reconnaissance (Fixed-Wing) - page 5
Mountain Search and Rescue Team - page 24
Radio Direction Finding Team - page 28
Wilderness Search and Rescue Team - page 39

[isuhawkeye]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1866.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1722.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1734.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1749.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2918.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2360.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1204.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1242.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1073.0

Just a few other threads referencing NIMS.  Enjoy

[Dragoon]

B: if that's all NIMS is about, then its not going to make a lick of difference in our getting or not getting more missions.

C: The rank and file aircrew member and/or ground pounder does not need to know that much about ICS anyway.  Teach them to follow instructions from their designated leader, that's all they need.  There is an argument that Base personnel, especially Section Chiefs and Branch Directors could benefit from this, at least in as much as to standardize terminology, but again, its not going to change our operational model.

NIMS is about much more than some simple tests. Resource typing, resource ordering, chain of command, plus the simple act of actually using the concepts taught in the classes and tests all wrap up together. Simply passing the tests doesn't suffice if you're not practicing during exercises and other minor missions.

For more questions on NIMS compliance, see http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/faq/compliance.shtm and you can get a much better idea of what hte feds are trying to accomplish than from a CAPTALK discussion.

I agree on dropping the 116 Pt 2 and simply requiring the new members to pass Level 1, Opsec, GES test and present their 100 and 700 certificates to their CC for approval.

To be honest, I don't think ICS 100 and 700 are particulary valuable for a new "rank and file" member.   They aren't hard tests to pass, but truthfully new Mission Scanners, GTMs, Radio Operators, etc, don't need to do much at all with interagency coordination, resource typing, staging etc.  Basically, they do what their boss (GTL, MP, CUL, etc.) tells them to do.

We don't require all new USAF recruits to gain an indepth knowledge of joint doctrine, civil-military affairs, Service level budgeting, etc.  We teach them a skill and tell them to do what their sergeant tells 'em.  Seems to work out just fine.

I'd rather see ICS pushed for resource leaders (GTLs, MPs, etc) and above.  And worrying primarily about the staff folks.

Just like the old CAPF 116, we make brand new members learn all kinds of upper level stuff that has no relevance.  I recall having to learn about AFNSEP and SCATANA before someone showed me how to walk a search line.  Seems like a waste of time, or a least a misordering of priorities.

[floridacyclist]

These are not our choices, these are the requirements for all agencies that either receive federal dollars or work for other agencies that receive federal dollars - who will lose their dollars if they choose to employ non-compliant resources. Whether you agree with it or not, this is the road that we are going down as long as we choose to play in the same sandbox with others. Sure we can choose not to play by the same rules as everyone else, but our own private sandbox would soon get very lonely.

As far as NIMS (IS-700) not being suitable for new members, I happen to disagree....it gives a much broader overview of why we're having to jump through these hoops and helps the new members understand where they fit into the big picture and why these standards are required of them, plus explains the need for these standards so that folks are more likely to actually learn them rather than just pencil-whipping the online tests.

Teaching the classes in a classroom environment makes a huge difference as the online classes do not do a very good job of explaining why you are there and leave you with the impression that you are just wasting your time learning useless information.

[isuhawkeye]

ICS 100 is intended for the most basic responder to understand how they fit into the system.  It is also to establish a common frame work from which to build.  Resource leaders take the ICS 200 which teaches them material to function as a strike team, or task force leader. 

[floridacyclist]

Incidentally, among the rank and file, Radio Operators are some of the most likely people to interact with other agencies and probably need to know more than most about how the whole system works just so they can get the messages where they need to go. On a joint mission, they may end up with radios from several different agencies staring them in their faces while being asked to relay messages between positions and agencies.

[Dragoon]

Incidentally, among the rank and file, Radio Operators are some of the most likely people to interact with other agencies and probably need to know more than most about how the whole system works just so they can get the messages where they need to go. On a joint mission, they may end up with radios from several different agencies staring them in their faces while being asked to relay messages between positions and agencies.

Or, we could just let the staffers and resource leaders use their own radios.  Works well for everyone else.

[floridacyclist]

This is assuming that you have repeater coverage or that everyone can talk to everyone on handhelds...it doesn't work when you're in a wilderness situation and using base or mobile radios on fixed-mount antennas....you can't have the IC tied to a desk. Besides, he needs to be busy running the show, not relaying messages.

Actually, when we did our joint exercise with TFD, they brought a dispatcher with them. Sure the IC monitored on his handheld, but the dispatcher ran the net. We teach the same thing in emergency communications as expecting the IC to keep track of all the formal and informal communications on a busy net is just way too much of a workload. A trained communicator will screen out 90% of that traffic and just pass him what is meant for him.

[Dustoff]

And the larger the incident, the more the IC and Section Chiefs need to have an aide/scribe/RTO to take some of the routine tasks off their hands.

Jim

[Dustoff]

And help unclog their brains.............



Jim

[floridacyclist]

A common problem I see in everything from squadrons to incidents to planned events is "delegaphobia"...fear of delegation. ICs, section chiefs, branch directors all want to do everything themselves and are very loathe to delegate duties...even when doing so will make them much more effective in their jobs.

When assigning comm, having the leader of an element handle his/her own communications can easily increase their span-of-control well past what is manageable, especially on a complex incident. By assigning RTOs, it cuts down on the number of people that leaders have to deal with as all messages come through that one comm operator....who with all the cross-linking and relaying going on really needs to understand the nuts and bolts of ICS to know where all the links fit in the chain.

No, you will not find a lot of this in any CAP manuals or even in the ICS training itself...but as an ARRL Level 3 Emergency Communications Instructor who has responded on every major storm to hit FL since early 2004 as well as tons of exercise both with CAP and ARES, I have a vague clue as to how to effectively use radio communications in an emergency.

Nearly every disaster response AAR pinpoints effective communications (or lack of same) as a major achilles heel of the operation. Often, those problems can be traced to having untrained people trying to figure out how to run an effective comm network instead of concentrating on their real jobs and delegating comm to someone with training and a specific assignment to handle same....which is why you don't see police and fire chiefs dispatching.

[Dustoff]

A common problem I see in everything from squadrons to incidents to planned events is "delegaphobia"...fear of delegation. ICs, section chiefs, branch directors all want to do everything themselves and are very loathe to delegate duties...even when doing so will make them much more effective in their jobs.

A point I try to emphasize in the Intermediate and Advanced ICS courses.  It's a challenge since they don't usually do that on a day-to-day basis.

If we don't train'em to delegate, they won't do it when they're up to their neck in alligators! 

Develop the thought pattern/habit.

Train like you fight, fight like you train.  ( I think that's my mantra..... )

Jim

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

I still find it hard to understand why there is no place in our computer system to put the ICS Courses we have completed.  I have completed 100, 200, 700 and 800 and there is no place to put these certificates except in my 201 file.

[floridacyclist]

Simple answer: CAP ain't NIMS-compliant yet. Give it time and you'll see signoff boxes popping up on SQTRs, In the meantime, file those puppies and save them for when they really do count for something more than the knowledge learned.

Speaking of knowledge, remember this is more than just a signoff. Those who pencil-whip these tests online are just wasting their time. The piece of paper is pretty worthless if you don't understand the concepts being taught and train with them in your exercises and minor missions. I have seen tons of folks show up at an ICS300 class barely able to spell ICS (I have actually seen that misspelled...multiple times...all the time referred to as the ISC courses etc so you know they're clueless) because they used the find feature in Acrobat to pass the test and didn't learn a single cotton-pickin thang...or else, they figured it out enough to pals it, but continue to ignore the concepts on exercises and other missions.

The real value can be seen when we're on a multi-agency multi-jurisdictional mission  (like the Fossett search or some of our hurricanes) and we're all...cops, CAP, FFs, FEMA etc singing from the same sheet of music and working together.

[sardak]

The real value can be seen when we're on a multi-agency multi-jurisdictional mission  like the Fossett search...

It would be interesting to know how it was managed.  Area (unified) command? MACS? Neither? (my bet).

As for delegation, it is said that on a well managed large incident, the IC is the person walking around with their hands in their pocket, or one hand in their pocket and the other holding a cup of coffee.

I/IS-100 is a necessary class and should be given to everyone in a classroom as part of their GES training, not online.  Unfortunately, DHS has taken a course that was originally intended to be self-study, but was generally taught as a 1 to 2 hour class, and turned it into over 200 PowerPoint slides and a recommended agenda of 9 hours of classroom training. No wonder most everyone takes it online.  However, the necessary concepts can be properly taught in 2 hours.  I also think I/IS-200 should be taught in a classroom, over two days. 

As others have said, there is a growing number of "ICS trained" people who took 100 and 200 online and still don't have a clue what ICS is about.

Mike

[floridacyclist]

MBWA..Management By Wandering Around..have never heard that phrase taught in CAP but it makes perfect sense. I think I picked it up in my NASAR Search Theory book.