Outside IC coming to CAP

[ammotrucker]

If I missed this on another thread I'm sorry.

If you had an active member who is employed by the FBI.  And has FBI IC credentials, how hard do you think it would be for this member to become a CAP IC.

I know that some will say that he should go through all of the SQTR's and then he could become.  But, I don't think that would be required.

Just a thought

[Eclipse]

They would be required to complete all the SQTRs and mission activity requirements.

Anyone who is an active IC in another organization which uses an ICS structure shoudl have little problem flying through the taskings.

This is similar to the question raised regularly about whether someone like an Army Ranger should automatically be awarded the GTM qual.

We should not discount the value to CAP of recruiting legitimate professionals for our various programs, but at the same time CAP has many of its own procedures and a different internal culture, and an IC especially needs to understand these things to be effective.

[Dragoon]

I don't know if the guy is gonna fly through the ratings.  Since we require our ICs to be fully qualified air crew and GTMs first, that may cause him some problems.  After all, being an FBI IC might be entirely about LE activities, and with zero knowledge of SAR.

Taken the other way, I sincerely doubt a CAP IC would have an easy time becoming certified as an FBI IC for large crime scenes...

[♠SARKID♠]

I know that some will say that he should go through all of the SQTR's and then he could become.  But, I don't think that would be required.

Standards are standards, simple as that.  We all have to go through them.

[isuhawkeye]

the fact is that several waivers have been granted. 

Run it up the chain. see what happens

[RiverAux]

Yep, he has to go the whole route through just like any other member, and he should.  When he gets up to the staff level he should be able to rip through those tasks pretty easily though. 

I know I wouldn't want someone acting as a CAP IC who doesn't know the first thing about CAP ground or air ops. 

[bosshawk]

We have ICs in CAWG who are not rated aircrew members and some that I doubt are fully qualified Ground Team Members.  This, of course, causes a number of nasty situations during missions that they run.  Who knows, they seem to have the concurence of those in charge.  Perhaps it is because they are willing to take the missions: too bad about qualifications.

[Eclipse]

Lt. Col Reed has hit the nail - one can make the argument that an IC is simply a manager of managers, and that a street-level understanding of field operations, air or ground, is not necessary as long as the SC's and BD's are current and knowledgeable, however I think we have all seen the difference between an IC who knows the street and one who doesn't.

For the record, the current prerequisites:

IC3:
PSC - Planning Section Chief (must have been an AOBD >or< GBD)
OSC - Operations Section Chief (must have been a PSC, so the SQTR is a bit redundant)

This is how the requirements and tasks stack up:

Rating   Tasks   Missions
GTM1   16   2
GTM2   12   2
GTM3   33   2
GTL     41    2
GBD    19   2
OSC    11   2
PSC   11   2
Total   143   14



MS   32   2
MO/MP   20/24   2
OSC   11   2
PSC   11   2
Total   74   8

IC3   9   2


GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

(I'm not going to spend the whole night trying to get this to line up)

This does not take into account the taskings that run across the ground ratings, or that cut across both air and ground.

While the air route has less taskings by almost 1/2, many of those are complex tasks which require a lot of time to accomplish.

I can't see how anyone, even a really dedicated person could do this in less than 2-3 years.  I suppose a few rounds of NESA would help, but even though you can work the tasks concurrently, there are only so many weekends and missions in a given year, and the higher up the food chain you go, the less opportunities to play there will be.

[RiverAux]

Please note that I said that I wanted the IC familiar with CAP air and ground ops, not that they had to be fully qualified in both.  I just meant that I don't want someone coming into CAP and almost immediately becoming a CAP IC even if they were the best darn FBI IC in the business. 

[sardak]

An IC performs all functions on an incident until others are assigned to fill the functions.  So on small incidents the IC is the briefer/debriefer, ops, plans, etc. and therefore needs quals and knowledge in those areas.  An IC is only a manager of managers on a large incident with a full staff.  The vast majority of CAP incidents don't need an IC as manager, they need an IC as worker.

While this agent may bring valuable skills in based on experience, to be a useful IC, this person is going to need to complete the required training.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Thats a very good point that I think has been overlooked in our recent IC discussions. 

[Ricochet13]

It occurred to me while reading through this thread:  Would there be a situation where CAP might be providing assets to the FBI where the FBI qualified IC would be the overall mission IC??

[RiverAux]

Possible, but not terribly likely.  In that case you would still have a CAP IC knowledgable about CAP running our forces and making sure everything was being done according to our regs and policies. 

[lordmonar]

It occurred to me while reading through this thread:  Would there be a situation where CAP might be providing assets to the FBI where the FBI qualified IC would be the overall mission IC??

CAP is almost never the overall IC in any multi agency events.

Ergo...it is completely feasible for an FBI or State Trooper or Local Sheriff to be the overall IC and the guy/gal we usually refer to as "IC" is actually a "strike group commander" or "Task Force Commander" in ICS parlance.

[sardak]

"IC" is actually a "strike group commander" or "Task Force Commander" in ICS parlance.

How about "strike team leader" or "task force leader" in ICS parlance.   Depending on the incident, this person might be in any number of positions, including deputy IC or one of the ICs in a unified command.  There is also agency liaison (agency rep) but the AL does not provide tactical control over resources.  But I agree, it's rare that CAP is going to be the lead agency on a multi-jurisdictional incident.

Mike

[Ricochet13]

It occurred to me while reading through this thread:  Would there be a situation where CAP might be providing assets to the FBI where the FBI qualified IC would be the overall mission IC??

CAP is almost never the overall IC in any multi agency events.

Ergo...it is completely feasible for an FBI or State Trooper or Local Sheriff to be the overall IC and the guy/gal we usually refer to as "IC" is actually a "strike group commander" or "Task Force Commander" in ICS parlance.

Interesting.  And is it correct that there is a move within CAP to have members who are either IC1, IC2, or IC3 trained to the same standard as IC's from other agencies?

[lordmonar]

I can't say anything about a CAP wide push.....CAP does need more qualified mission base personnel....but I don't know of anyone asking us to produce an IC 2 or IC 1.

[RiverAux]

Well, we do have those categories and I'm assuming we're using them.  And, eventually CAP will get around to implementing the national NIMS standards when they're fully approved which will require the additional courses for ICs and other base staff. 

[ammotrucker]

Please note that I said that I wanted the IC familiar with CAP air and ground ops, not that they had to be fully qualified in both.  I just meant that I don't want someone coming into CAP and almost immediately becoming a CAP IC even if they were the best darn FBI IC in the business. 

The member in question is currently involved with CAP and has been for approx a year.  He has knowledge of CAP's search and rescue techiniques.  Albeit he has not progressed to the point of receiving AOBD or GBD.

I think my question should have been stated. 

Seening as how ICS structure should be consistent across the board, why would you train or retrain a person who is AOBD, PSC, OSC, on up  in his profession to do the same thing. 

This seems like a double standard, ICS is ICS weather or not it is CAP, FBI or HLS.  The standards should not be different.
IMHO

[Ricochet13]

Please note that I said that I wanted the IC familiar with CAP air and ground ops, not that they had to be fully qualified in both.  I just meant that I don't want someone coming into CAP and almost immediately becoming a CAP IC even if they were the best darn FBI IC in the business. 

The member in question is currently involved with CAP and has been for approx a year.  He has knowledge of CAP's search and rescue techniques.  Albeit he has not progressed to the point of receiving AOBD or GBD.

I think my question should have been stated. 

Seeing as how ICS structure should be consistent across the board, why would you train or retrain a person who is AOBD, PSC, OSC, on up  in his profession to do the same thing. 

This seems like a double standard, ICS is ICS weather or not it is CAP, FBI or HLS.  The standards should not be different.
IMHO

Certainly seems like a double standard.   IMO it often appears CAP has a higher than necessary regard for its own training procedure - as though no other organization could possibly meet "our" standards.  Think it may be more a case of those in positions of influence not wanting to be supplanted by someone from the outside who may be able to perform as well. 

Weren't there instances in the past (it may have been through wing supplements) where individuals with exceptional qualifications have been granted ES qualifications in CAP based on previous training?  If I read the list correctly, common sense would suggest that an externally qualified IC spend time as an IC(T) to insure proper "understanding" of how CAP operates and that this would be time better spent than requiring the individual to participate in from between 10-16 ES missions beginning as a GTM or MS. 

GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

Incidentally, it did strike me as curious that progression to IC through the GT track would require participation in 16 missions, while the same progression through the Air track would require only 10 missions, but that's another topic for another thread.