Photo ID & NIMS

[lordmonar]

I agree our own regulations would not be the place to define us as a DOD assett. 

I would have to agree with that as well. CAP cannot define itself as a DOD asset. I can call myself the President or a fighter pilot or an Indian Chief, but it wouldn't hold any weight. An Air Force or DOD reg defining as a useable DOD asset I'd believe.

Already done.  The USC that creates us...says we work for the SECAF...who works for the SECDEF......If you boss is in the DoD, you are in the DoD.

[isuhawkeye]

USC 36 says we also work to support local authorities... doesnt it???

[lordmonar]

USC 36 says we also work to support local authorities... doesnt it???

Yes....when we are not on the DoD's payroll (AFAM) then we are NOT the DoD we are just a non-profit corp doing good work.

[SAR-EMT1]

My two cents: As long as our HQ is on an Air Force Base we are (at least part time) DoD... 

[DogCollar]

NIMS compliance is going to be required of CAP.  Even if we were somehow exempt, because we have a family tree that traces back to the DoD...we should be NIMS compliant anyway.  The only way I can see for CAP to be an "asset" to anyone in a disaster is if we are compliant with regulations, we are leaders in the ES/DR field, and no one perceives us as coming along kicking a screaming "DoD...DoD."  Thats not how you win friends or influence people.  Just my opinion.

[Dragoon]

Absolutely. We should get with the program.  But at the same time, it's dangerous to try to get in front of the program.  I remember when NASAR put the SARTECH standards out, and some members were pusing that we needed to adopt them "because the entire SAR community is" and if we didn't, we wouldn't get missions.

Had we gone that route, the average cost per member would have been rather significant, lining NASARs pockets nicely (they would not give CAP any kind of discount).  And in the end, it wasn't required.   The "SAR Community" (whatever that is) wasn't anywhere near as monolithic as the enthusiasts suggested.

And now we see draft NIMS standards stating "SARTECH or equivalent," which opens the door to just tweaking what we already have.  Much nicer.

Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

[Hawk200]

Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

I would agree with that note. And ICS is rather practical, no real reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Once the other programs reach final evolution, we can consider those then.

[DogCollar]

Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

I would agree with that note. And ICS is rather practical, no real reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Once the other programs reach final evolution, we can consider those then.

I would humbly suggest that we begin compliance now and adjust and evolve as ICS requirements will.  I doubt seriously that there will ever be a "final" evolution.  Remember this is the Federal government we are talking about here!
I realize that some folks might be waiting for THE training course appropriate for CAP to be offered by FEMA.  I have taken IC 100, 200 and 700, and my opinion is that ICS is ICS, whether it is in disaster relief like New Orleans were multiple agencies are involved, or a hospital responding to power failure.

[RiverAux]

I only brought up the possible DoD exemption as a way to show that CAP's situation is somewhat unusual in regards to NIMS compliance.  I certainly expect, and CAP should, become fully involved in the program.

I fully agree that we shouldn't go hog-wild crazy changing our requirements until we know for sure what will be required.  However, even making allowances for that, I'd say that at the very minimum we will be required to take ICS 100 and 700 and probably 200 and 800 for just about everybody.  We should go ahead and start getting our members to take them now.  Experience in the CG Aux has shown that even with a long phase-in period it will take a lot of work to get everybody through that initial hurdle and we might as well start. 

For anything more than that we need to wait for applicable NIMS guidelines to be totally finalized. 

[Hawk200]

I would humbly suggest that we begin compliance now and adjust and evolve as ICS requirements will. 

I would agree with that. I thought I was supposed to take 200, 700, and 800, so I did. It was still very interesting, and I'm probably going to take a few of the other IS, and ICS courses that are available. I learned a lot.

I don't think it would be too bad an idea to actually start integrating these courses into our initial training of our new officers. Since it can be used in ways besides missions, it would be pretty practical.

I doubt seriously that there will ever be a "final" evolution.  Remember this is the Federal government we are talking about here!

I find this amusing, but only because its absolutely true. Besides, it's easier to learn and then add on, than it is to learn a mass of stuff from scratch.

I realize that some folks might be waiting for THE training course appropriate for CAP to be offered by FEMA.  I have taken IC 100, 200 and 700, and my opinion is that ICS is ICS, whether it is in disaster relief like New Orleans were multiple agencies are involved, or a hospital responding to power failure.

The fact that all ICS is the same is what makes it so ingenious. Doesn't matter what uniform you wear, it's all the same. You learn the common titles, and they apply to everybody. No more wondering what the cop meant, or the EMS guy is telling you. The common terminology makes for an easier interface.

[lordmonar]

Basically, the federal stuff is still evolving, and we need to make sure we don't squander time and resources trying to be on the cutting edge of something that's likely.  Best to keep an eye on it and adopt it in sections, starting with those that seem unlikely to change in the future. (like the ICS classes for staff folks and ICs).

I would agree with that note. And ICS is rather practical, no real reason why we shouldn't adopt it. Once the other programs reach final evolution, we can consider those then.

I would humbly suggest that we begin compliance now and adjust and evolve as ICS requirements will.  I doubt seriously that there will ever be a "final" evolution.  Remember this is the Federal government we are talking about here!
I realize that some folks might be waiting for THE training course appropriate for CAP to be offered by FEMA.  I have taken IC 100, 200 and 700, and my opinion is that ICS is ICS, whether it is in disaster relief like New Orleans were multiple agencies are involved, or a hospital responding to power failure.

We are compiant now.  We cannot meet with requirments that have not been levied yet.

[gallagheria]

10 usc 9441:

(a)  Status.—
(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation that is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36.
(2) Except as provided in section 9442 (b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.
(b) Purposes.— The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set forth in section 40302 of title 36.

10 usc 9442:

(a)  Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.— The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

[Hawk200]

We are compiant now.  We cannot meet with requirments that have not been levied yet.

Are we really? I've only been on a couple of SAREX's, but I don't see any applications of NIMS/ICS. We should train the way we should be doing the job.

The phrase that comes to mind from active duty is "Train the way you fight, fight the way you train." Granted we don't fight, but "Train the way you work..." should be a little more regular.

[DNall]

All of this is beside the point....CAP will be NIMS complaint when it really is required of us.

That's true, but there's a wide range of it being optional, which we're in now, where we can significantly lose missions because we don't meet minimum requirements other agencies are required to follow if they want any FEMA money for anything. The bigger issue is that this has been a multi-year process for states to slowly bit by bit work tehir way into increasing levels of compliance & there's quite a bit of latitude for mistakes & problems right now. CAP is procrastinating thru that process till someone flat out in writting orders them to comply immedeatly. When that happens it's too late, cause it'll take us several years to transition & build a training program that walks our people thru in large enough numbers (less frustrating) to create a usable force, and all during that time there'll be no slack cut & no sympathy while we sit on the sideline w/ nothing to do as our traditional missions are done by someone else that won't want to give them up later. That's the problem is we're wasting time & good-will that we desperately need.

When we say things are in draft form...we are talking specificly about the training requirments for the various SAR teams.  The training requirments that have been floating around this board...are only draft recommendations at this time.  They will be finailised sometime soon (I think they said by FY 08...so that would be in October).  When that happens the will be broadcasted to the various agencies out there and we (as on of those agencies) will make the necessary changes to our training or find other sources of training.

That makes sense, but it's wrong.

Yes the credentialling documents are just coming out this year. The SaR one is out, the comment period is over, it may be final as of Monday, we'll see. That covers GTM under WSAR, and that's THE hardest thing we have to face. The individual training standards for UDF, fixed-wing, and some upper staff jobs are not out yes but will be over the course of this year. Who knows what they'll say, but most of it will be accomplishable.

The reason I say it's wrong that we'll be ordered to comply at that point though is cause we haven't been so far. States were required to type & report all their resources according to the definitions & requirements set they year before. CAP hasn't even losely attempted to do that. It'd require some re-organization & changing the way we do some of our business, but not so hard YET. But we've chosen NOT to do that. However, NB voted to get compliant, and orderd OPS to come up with a plan, that's where we are now. So knowing that, you should look at the credentialing & typing guides & start supplementing your training & reformatting your teams to fit that model.

This is not rocket science guys....nor is it the end of the world.  We have plenty of time to get in the groove.  There will be a phase in period....as someone said....you can expect it will be years before anyone is not allowed to participate in a FEMA operation.

Let's not get the horse before the cart.  What CAP needs to be doing now....is someone form NHQ needs to be in on these NIMS working groups to get first hand information and to represent CAP's view points.

Well certainly it's not rockety science, but the problem is we're in the middle of a structurally phased phase-in period & & a couple years behind in the process thinking about coming up with aplan for how to maybe get started. That & being volunteerzs trying to meet the in-process phase-in period for paid agencies... it SHOULD have been a challenge if we'd started at the begining, now it's going to be hard work & a lot of people aren't going to like it as we go.

[lordmonar]

We are compiant now.  We cannot meet with requirments that have not been levied yet.

Are we really? I've only been on a couple of SAREX's, but I don't see any applications of NIMS/ICS. We should train the way we should be doing the job.

The phrase that comes to mind from active duty is "Train the way you fight, fight the way you train." Granted we don't fight, but "Train the way you work..." should be a little more regular.

When I say that we are complaint I mean that our individual members and CAP training requirments meet the current NIMS training requirements.  The new NIMS SAR training requirments are still draft.  They have not been mandated yet and not phase in date has been set yet.  As far as how we do SAREX....here in Nevada we follow them pretty good....good enough for us to intregrate with other agencies in a multi-lat if we needed to.

[DNall]

When I say that we are complaint I mean that our individual members and CAP training requirments meet the current NIMS training requirements.  The new NIMS SAR training requirments are still draft.  They have not been mandated yet and not phase in date has been set yet.  As far as how we do SAREX....here in Nevada we follow them pretty good....good enough for us to intregrate with other agencies in a multi-lat if we needed to.

OH NO WE DON'T, not even close.

Over three years ago everyone from field trainee to mission staff had to have the appropriate level of IC100-800. No one has those courses, at least not thru CAP. The 10 question quizes on CAP.gov don't count in place of 2-4 seperate 2hr to 4day courses. All that pre-dates NIMS even.

Then what two years ago they they developed resource typing so ICs could request resouces & know what they were getting. Everyone was required to reorganize along those lines; there hasn't even been a whisper about that in CAP.

Then last year states & independent agencies were required to inventory & report what they had according to the resource typing standards. Everyone's required to do that annually from now on or you aren't supposed to get federal money from any agency.

Now this year they are putting out individual standards for those team members. They've been working on those for almost two years. They put one out at a time for review, then make it official & put out the next. All 8 sections I think it is will be official before the end of the FY (8sections x 45day review = 360days).

The point with this credentialling thing & where it crosses into officially issued IDs (based on verified training) is that it leaves no more wiggle room to keep avoiding this. It forces CAP to be all the way in or all the way out. And with it we get smartcard photo IDs. That's a touchy subject with AF which requires some groundwork to address, and the requirements stuff requires asignificant transition in the way we train & operate. It's a big change that we're not ready for & we'd like to get CAP ready for it so we don't get stuck in a bad spot when there's no other choice.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, just because the review and comment period is over doesn't mean the draft version is now official.  I have personally seen it take well over a year for something the feds put out for comment as a draft to come back as an official version.  And that official version may bear little resemblence to the draft.  Or, I've seen the draft NEVER be finalized (one document I'm familiar with has gone on over 8 years as a draft). 

Obviously CAP hasn't changed any of our regs or procedures based on NIMS, but I think you are going way out on a limb to say that no one is doing anything.  For all you or I know NHQ ES has done nothing but work on this for months and provided a 50-page comment letter on a lot of these draft documents.  Or, they maybe have never looked at it. 

CAP has been using ICS for a while in my Wing.  There are still some kinks to work out, but for the most part I think our folks understand the basics.  Frankly, I've taken 100,200,700,800 and I don't really think they added all that much to my toolbox.   

[SAR-EMT1]

Dnall, just because the review and comment period is over doesn't mean the draft version is now official.  I have personally seen it take well over a year for something the feds put out for comment as a draft to come back as an official version.  And that official version may bear little resemblance to the draft.  Or, I've seen the draft NEVER be finalized (one document I'm familiar with has gone on over 8 years as a draft). 

Obviously CAP hasn't changed any of our regs or procedures based on NIMS, but I think you are going way out on a limb to say that no one is doing anything.  For all you or I know NHQ ES has done nothing but work on this for months and provided a 50-page comment letter on a lot of these draft documents.  Or, they maybe have never looked at it. 

CAP has been using ICS for a while in my Wing.  There are still some kinks to work out, but for the most part I think our folks understand the basics.  Frankly, I've taken 100,200,700,800 and I don't really think they added all that much to my toolbox.   

I don't want to continue any argument but I will say that through my time in Boys Scouts, EMS etc. Ive taken those four, and many others besides; like hazmat managing volunteers etc...  I thought that it was nice to know, but
like River said... not too helpful overall. Remember ICS was originally formed around the early 70's for California's Dept of Forestry to use at wildfires.   It has been around awhile, but then again, it has evolved alot too.   CAP can also evolve. I think that as long as our membership takes 100, 200, 700 and 800 we should be 'OK' for a bit.  I see no current reason to charge after SARTECH, unless you live somewhere like Colorado where 'wilderness tech recscue might be necessary. Because I can say in a state like IL... its not. (at least not for CAP)
I'm personally certified, but thats for work... doesn't mean the other guys in my squadron need to be.

[DNall]

CAP isn't part of the stakeholders that created these documents. They've refused to participate in the system until just recently when they accepted that we won't be getting any kind of exemption & voted to comply.

Far as this or future documents, they don't care what you say, the very most expert people in the world have been working on this two years. It was final before it was published. It's a formaility that it has to go thru a comment period, and if someone sees a spelling error or some equiv alternative that got left off the list, or some clarification that's needed, then they may fix it. But it won't be massively overhauled. Far as the final publication date I don't know what the plan is. They may publish each of them in sequence to comments & then at the end officially publish one massive document, or they may push the SaR standards out Monday morning. It doesn't matter cause you know roughly what it's going to say.

Honestly look at that thing, there's not one unreasonable or even very difficult thing on there. SaRTechII isn't a whole lot more complicated than GTM, it just can't get pencil whipped so easy. PFT? Come on, you know very well a 300lbs guy that can't make it up the steps doesn't need to be in the woods trying to save anyone. It's just a matter of time before he's another victim. There's nothing else on there to worry about. It's all pretty easy to do, and just as useful most of the stuff in our current task guide that won't get used 99.999% of the time, but then there's that once in a lifetime, and that's what we're suppsoed to train for.

That's not even the point though. I'm not saying jump the gun & chase off after those standards before they're required. I'm saying FEMA is on a path that will force CAP to get compliant just like your local fire dept or not be able to do corporate or disaster missions. The Card remember was what this thread was talking about, the tool by which CAP would have to actually meet real quals just like professionals or get the hell out of the way. NIMS compliant right now means ICS, & it means resource typing. CAP needs to get people thru the IC100-800 courses pronto, and be typing & inventoring teams at the same time. In 24months we should be close to caught up. Between now & then the credentialing standards are going to be required. When that happens we need to be primed & ready to adapt.

[RiverAux]

I've said before and I'll say again that I don't have any significant problems with most of the NIMS stuff that I've seen. 

However, I think we are underestimating the impact of other volunteer groups other than CAP on this process.

I think CAP would compare pretty darn well to most local general SAR groups in terms of organization and record keeping for our program.  For us we're talking about some record keeping changes and we could probably pretty quickly be in line with id requirements.  A lot of these local groups probably don't even have id cards in the first place and I suspect qualification record keeping is not that sophisticated.  They will be the ones to hoot and holler the most at these sorts of requirements. 

For example, it would not surprise me one bit if a local volunteer SAR team that was in very good with the local sheriff got the sheriff to call his cousin the US Senator and BAM the requirements might change pretty signifiantly and pretty quickly because they were too onerous on the local "first responders".    And, yes this very well could happen if the photo id/record keeping system (to swing us back more on point) were very expensive.   

I'm not sure CAP has quite enough pull to swing something like that but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a group like that did.