Disaster Relief training pipeline

[resq1192]

Hi all,

I wanted to solicit some opinions on a project I've wanted to float to the Wing command staff.  Out my way, we do a decent amount of ES SAR training but "miss hte boat" when it comes to disaster relief training.  I'm also a Disaster Services instructor for the red cross.  I was planning on floating the idea of a "Disaster Relief training institute" to my bosses at RC and to the Wing Command staff. This would be  a wing-wide initiative to improve ES capabilities in regard to disaster responses not involving a downed aircraft/lost hiker, etc.  Any thoughts?

[Eclipse]

We "miss the boat" because in many cases the types of operations "missed" are outside out scope.

For example, we are not shelter managers, but for some reason people keep wanting us to get in that business.

What kinds of training are you talking about?

[Smithsonia]

We have taken CERT (Civilian Emergency Response Teams (training)) and substituted this training for general CAP Disaster Relief. There is an additional advantage to this in that the CERT training is done by Counties, Disaster Management, EMS, and Fire Depts, so we get liaison alliances and brownie points too.

There is even an additional advantage for CERT. In many communities, due to ES cut backs, trainers are tough to come by. So CAP organizing the Federally mandated training looks good to every body. So even if you take it from one county, then propagate it into one of these hard pressed counties, the sheriff or county manager will love you. By the way - we haven't actually done this "instructing" portion but made the calculation. Some of our CERT guys are going to a "train the trainers" CERT weekend soon. I'll do the same later this winter.

[RiverAux]

If CAP would ever actually decide what they want our ground personnel doing during disasters, I would be all for a focused training program.  As it stands now we have no real assigned ground DR missions.  Sure, after every disaster some random units end up doing some random things, but its rarely because the task was something that CAP has any particular training for or interest in. 

Do we want to be shelter managers?  Sandbaggers?  Work command posts?  Or do we want to generally continue to do nothing on the ground while the aircrews take photos? 

[CommGeek]

Actually, National is looking deeper into the CERT concept (Community Emergency Response Team).  When FEMA was talking about catastrophic planning a while back,  CAP came up as force multipliers to augment USAR Teams, as non-technical urban SAR.  National likes the idea. A national committee is actually working the concept as we speak.

[Eclipse]

CAP Ground teams already exceed CERT capabilities and adding another group of letters to our 101 cards won't change readiness, response, or mission without making the relationships in advance.

I agree the CERT connection is good for local connections, but with or without it won't change what we do or can do.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eclipse:
I agree that CAP GT has higher quals than CERT. Although I must say I learned a lot that I didn't know before like mass casualty assessment and triage. No CPR for victims, no spending more than a minute or two on any one body -- if they are shocky or not breathing, black tag'em, tell them you'll be back in a bit and move on. So that is quite different than my standard first aid training. Also I knew nothing about post disaster urban environmental hazards and had no training in earthquake search and rescue before CERT.

HOWEVER, that is not the point really. Air Force Fighter Pilots still have to go through our Stan/Eval system. The same is true for those we work with. The Disaster Missions will go through Disaster Management at the Federal, State, or County level. These leaders need to know us. These leaders need to rely on us. CERT starts the process. Otherwise our reputation of "not playing nice with others", persists.

Take CERT. Be a CERT. CERT's worth it.

[CommGeek]

It adds credibility to CAP.  if you tell a non CAPer that were UDF, GTM1 they have no clue what you are talking about.  But as soon as you say CERT everyone knows what your capabilities are...instant credibility.

[sarmed1]

Do some searching here: I beleive this horse has been beat a few times: 
Some highlights that come to mind:

Its hard to come up with a "universal" disaster track; as the scope of likely disasters vary from location to location so things need to be either very general or location specifc in the specialty area.

CERT is a nice course; however its not meant to be a proffesional qualification; CERT teams are meant to be a stop gap measure of local citizens to try (I repeat try) to minimize disaster impact until a real USAR/Fire/medical team can get in amongst the chaos.

The disaster relief world is very customer driven:  Its hard to train up for a mission without first making the relationships that will get you called out for that mission;  and equally as hard to figure out which mission that is so you can train for it to sell our services to the associated EMA.

Some areas/wings have come up with Disaster training qualifications based on their known disasters or actually mission taskings they get from their associated EMA's; I would start looking at some of them.  Florida wing comes to mind as one.

FLWG used to have a very extensive DR training program: basic, intermediate and advanced training programs including as "Special Operations" capability; most of that fell by the wasy side a few years back; when I was ES/Ops officer in FL i developed the folowing training program/guidline:
1 CAP General Emergency Services Training CAPT 116 Part I & II
2 ICS 100 Basic Incident Command System FEMA IS 100 or equivilent
3 Adult CPR with Automated External Deffibrilator
4 Basic First Aid Training
5 Recognizing and Identifying Hazardous Materials FEMA IS-5 or equivilent
6 Basic Communications for Emergency Services
7 [ ] Have 12, 24 and 72 hour individual Gear and Equipment
   [ ] Describe in order, how to REPLENISH, REPAIR, REPACK and REST after a  sortie/mission.
8 Bloodborne Pathogens
[ ]Describe the concept of Universal Precautions
[ ]Demonstrate application and removal of personal protective equipment
9 Risk Management for CAP ES missions [ ]Identify the 6 steps of risk management
10 Critical Incident Stress Management [ ]Define the four common Critical Incidnet Reactions and give an example of each
11 Legal Issues for CAP Emergency Services-Define the restrictions on
CAP ES operations in regards to the following: [ ]Posse Commitus [ ]Tresspass
[ ]Use of Force [ ] Negligent Liability
12 Fire Extinguisher Use [ ]Describe the Fire Tetrahedeon
[ ]Describe the 4 classifications of combustable materials
[ ]What does the acronym P.A.S.S. stand for?

1 Organization of Disaster Relief Operations
Complete FEMA IS 292 Disaster Basics
[ ] Florida Wing CAP Disaster Operations
[ ] Recon [ ] Forward Control Team
2 Command Structure: Complete the following:
[ ] FEMA IS 200 Incident Command System
[ ] FEMA IS 700 National Incident Management System
[ ] FEMA IS 800 National Response Plan
3 Light Debris Removal
Complete IS-632 Introduction to Debris Operations in FEMA's Public
Assistance Program
4 Radio Communications
Complete Advanced Communications User Training
5 Describe the hazards associated with common utilities and describe
the shut off procedures for [ ] Water [ ] Gas [ ] Electric
6 Damage Assessment
[ ] Complete Red Cross Damage Assessment Course or equivilent
[ ] Demonstrates ability to fill out damage assessment form
7 Photographic Target Assessment
Describe attributes of good picture taking during damage assessment
missions.
8 Helicopter Operations, Safety and Landing Zone
[ ] Aircraft safety concerns [ ] LZ requirements, hazard identification and marking
[ ] Aircraft communications [ ] Marshalling signals
9 Swift/Flood Water Safety
[ ] Basic swim test 100m any style, tread water 2 minutes
[ ] Personal safety considerations [ ] Rescue Sequence
[ ] Self Rescue [ ] Use of throw bags
10 Small Boat Safety and Operations
[ ] Open Water Safety Considerations
[ ] Manual Boat Operations
[ ] Swamped/Overturned Boat Procedures
11 Urban Search and Rescue Awarenss
[ ] Identify sizeup requirements for USAR situations
[ ] Describe the most common techniques for searching a structure
[ ] Describe marking of searched structures
12 Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEEX)
Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction for First Responders


mk

[wuzafuzz]

In Colorado Wing we have received a fair number of requests for disaster relief assistance.  YMMV. 

Typically we've accepted everyone with a GES to be our DR boots on the ground, instead of requiring a ground team rating.  It's my belief that GES is insufficient.  While GTM shares some traits with CERT it is not a good fit either. CERT adequately fills the gap for the types of things CAP is usually tasked to do in DR.  Plus, as others mentioned, CERT has the advantage of recognition outside CAP.

CERT, at it's most basic is intended to teach people to better take care of themselves and their families instead of depending on that mythical "someone else" when resources are scarce.  At that level it can be viewed as an optional yet valuable element of a citizenship program, fitting squarely into the mission of cadet programs.  Of course adults can play too.

In spite of the "T" for "team" in the acronym, CERT training does not require membership in an organized team. While attendance at CERT training may include a sales pitch to join or create a local team, you can take the training and run.  Many jurisdictions are happy to teach people basic preparedness, how to use fire extinguishers, not to run into burning or heavily damaged buildings, and so on.  If all it does is teach our members not to be canaries in camouflage, it's a good thing.

Even if CAP never defines our role in DR, CERT training can still have value to CAP.

[resq1192]

Thanks for the input so far.  What has been kicked around is that there is a lot of Red Cross training courses "required" in the regs for "Disaster Relief" training for acting as an available resource in disasters.  We had some large-scale flooding in New England this past March and that got everyone kicking around the idea. Many members in my area are of the consensus that if ES interested members pursued some of these RC classes they would provide an available for ce to provide CAP assistance when requested by our state EMA for missions other than the typical CAP stuff.  It would also qualify more of our personnel for the Disaster Relief Ribbon by getting the courses under their belts.  Basically I and a few other CAP folk who are also RC instructors would provide the training for other interested members in the wing.  We would do it in a weekend in course block format.  Any thoughts?

[CommGeek]

The regs that mention Red Cross are very dated.  Some of the red cross classes mentioned dont even exist.

I think the point is that its great to train for disasters with CAP.  But if your wing dosent have a working relationship with your State EMA, then your wasting your members time to think that the State will call you out....they dont even know you exist.  It also goes back to credibility, if your EMA knows your are CERT trained they instantly know your capability

[Eclipse]

In the situations where we have assisted the ARC and special training was required (i.e damage assessment), the training was provided on the spot.

Within CAP there are no ARC classes "required" for anything but the DR ribbon.

[RiverAux]

The shelter management class is ok though I would make sure that somone locally is actually intersted in using CAP for that purpose before starting the training. 

[Hawk200]

I'm starting to wonder if maybe if there needs to be something like the original Civil Defence (sic) Corps again. Granted, a lot of the various volunteer functions of the original Civil Defence (sic) Corps are parts of various agencies now, but there's probably a few that could be utilized.

Instead of CAP trying to handle a major load of Distaster Relief Functions, utilize CAP as a component of a greater organizational structure. It would probably be fairly easy considering the way ICS is outlined (and supposed to function).

[resq1192]

Hi everyone,
Thanks once again for the continued input.  Our wing is fortunate to  have a good working relationship with our state EMA.  That's part of the reasoning behind this idea I'm floating.  Many state EMA personnel know that CAP is capable of more mission performance than just SAR and is looking to us for trained manpower to assist other agencies (state/local EMA, Red Cross, etc) to fill in the blanks.  For reasons unkown to me, CERT was floated as a training pipeline to meet that request (I myself have undergone CERT training ... was an interesting experience for an FF/EMT in that class ... made me thing of what old-school CD training was like) but for some reason rejected.  The plan that seems to be "getting the upcheck" right now is using the Red Cross training as outlined in the DRR quals to meet that goal.  Thus the idea I'm presenting.  No idea if this backstory provides any more insight for opinions, but ... there it is ...

Everyone's continued interest and input on this topic is most appreciated.

[RADIOMAN015]

The key issue to remember is that CAP members have to remain under CAP control.  You can't just send 2 CAP members to be on a team made up of other CERT or Red Cross Shelter Members.   CAP directly supervises their membership.  Any agreement has to be crafted to reflect CAP specific control and also our right to pull out members from any mission if we deem necessary.

Currently on the ground team side of CAP, in some(maybe many) wings there's very little actual mission activity for the amount of member required training and equipment to become qualified.   Also when you introduce cadets into the CERT/Shelter training, what will the using agency actually allow as far as the minimum age limits? Do you train under age cadets just for the sake of training?

Surely, for senior/adult members it is better to be on an AF sponsored CAP mission than on a CERT or Red Cross Team because if you are injuried it's unlikely they are going to pay very much for your volunteerism (maybe medical expenses, although I understand CERT members have had to sign waivers -- that's the reason why in my community I won't be a CERT member).

RM

[cap235629]

The key issue to remember is that CAP members have to remain under CAP control.  You can't just send 2 CAP members to be on a team made up of other CERT or Red Cross Shelter Members.   CAP directly supervises their membership.  Any agreement has to be crafted to reflect CAP specific control and also our right to pull out members from any mission if we deem necessary.

Currently on the ground team side of CAP, in some(maybe many) wings there's very little actual mission activity for the amount of member required training and equipment to become qualified.   Also when you introduce cadets into the CERT/Shelter training, what will the using agency actually allow as far as the minimum age limits? Do you train under age cadets just for the sake of training?

Surely, for senior/adult members it is better to be on an AF sponsored CAP mission than on a CERT or Red Cross Team because if you are injuried it's unlikely they are going to pay very much for your volunteerism (maybe medical expenses, although I understand CERT members have had to sign waivers -- that's the reason why in my community I won't be a CERT member).

RM

Define under CAP control.  You can integrate members onto a mixed team as long as one of the members assigned to the team is in control of the other members assigned to the team.  Control is relative.

[RiverAux]

You can't just send 2 CAP members to be on a team made up of other CERT or Red Cross Shelter Members. 

Sure you could.  Just so long as one of those CAP members is in charge of the other CAP member and is either an IC or is reporting to an off-scene IC and that it is understood that the CAP members may or may not do everything that the other members of the team are doing based on our regulations.

There isn't any essential difference in that and having a CAP GT participating in a search with other SAR agencies under the command of the county sheriff. 

CAP is always in charge of CAP, but that doesn't mean we can't take direction from others -- just that we make the final call on whether or not what we are asked to do is okay with what our regulations allow us to do. 

[LTC Don]

Under Incident Command, if an agency has representatives working at the branch level (well, any level for that matter), then there should be an agency liaison.  That Agency Liaison rep should be a CAP rated IC, even if they aren't the overall IC for the incident.  CAP first and foremost is a "force multiplier" or assisting agency in many cases and we need to be able to adjust our mindset on the fly.

If there is not a member assigned as the agency liaison (but MUST be actively pursued), then CAP personnel can still report in as long as a mission number has been assigned, and someone back at the home base is coordinating the response.  The senior CAP member on the scene working the incident must keep track of what the other members are doing by some mechanism.  Certainly, cadets could not be allowed to report in freelance.  Senior representation must be there.

My very first mission as a cadet had me deploying on a sortie with a mixed SAR team for a missing person.  We were assisting another agency for this search.  Other senior and cadet personnel were helping in other areas but I was by myself on that sortie.  The earth didn't crack open, and no lightning was witnessed.

This notion of always having to have a CAP IC assigned before anyone can move is ridiculous and has caused major problems since we still don't seem to understand how ICS works.

If we are assisgned an aircraft search as the responsible agency, then sure, we need to assign an Incident Commander.  In all other instances, we are the assisting agency, we do not assign an Incident Commander, we assign an Agency Liaison, to coordinate CAP assistance as either a strike team or task force or whatever our task(s) is/are for the incident.

Here in N.C., we are looking to re-invigorate our CERT initiative started in 2008 with the state after some changes in the CERT office at Emergency Management.  Being trainers brings about a whole set of unique issues including dealing wth fire extinguishers (testing, refilling, etc.), extrication equipment/props, moulage, etc.

We are also moving forward on a new initiative with Emergency Management on a new project called Points of Distribution, which has a short FEMA course called IS-26.  With our unified human resources spread around the state, it makes us well positioned to take on this type of tasking.  Our first formal training is next month.

Disaster Relief has been the step-child for a lot of years.  And since we don't do it very often, we keep trying to apply old or current, and sometimes inappropriate paradigms to it.  Some standardization is definitely needed but what form that will take remains to be seen.


Cheers,

[CAP Marine]

The PoDS concept is definitely worth training up on. During the response to Hurricane Ike, working on a PoDS was the lions share of the action our non aircrew members got in TXWG. It is essentially grunt work (passing out water, food, etc.) that an organization designated as a force multiplier fits into nicely. Having a CERT qualification could be helpful in this case, but this is an area where GES becomes applicable as a minimum IMO.

[CommGeek]

We need to be sure that just because we took an on line PODS course does not mean that we can just show up to a POD and expect to work.   Another issue is many States will not allow anyone under 18 to volunteer, for liability reasons.

You need to work closely with your local or State EMA BEFORE you train on anything disaster.  What it they dint need or want your help?  you just trained for nothing.  When disaster strikes is NOT the time to start to solicit CAP for work.  You must start long before.... This is the main reason why CAP is frowed upon in many States, we show up after a disaster and expect to be put to use...then we get pissed when they tell us to go away...

[RiverAux]

This notion of always having to have a CAP IC assigned before anyone can move is ridiculous and has caused major problems since we still don't seem to understand how ICS works.

You ALWAYS need a CAP Incident Commander.  The CAP IC just doesn't need to be the person in charge of the whole mission.  And the CAP IC doesn't need to be on scene (heck in most CAP missions they aren't). 

[Eclipse]

My very first mission as a cadet had me deploying on a sortie with a mixed SAR team for a missing person.  We were assisting another agency for this search.  Other senior and cadet personnel were helping in other areas but I was by myself on that sortie.  The earth didn't crack open, and no lightning was witnessed.

This notion of always having to have a CAP IC assigned before anyone can move is ridiculous and has caused major problems since we still don't seem to understand how ICS works.

This is one of the reasons CAP IC's are assigned to every mission.   Amazing.

[CommGeek]

But wait....why do we need an IC Again?  ...hahahaha

[arajca]

This notion of always having to have a CAP IC assigned before anyone can move is ridiculous and has caused major problems since we still don't seem to understand how ICS works.

You ALWAYS need a CAP Incident Commander.  The CAP IC just doesn't need to be the person in charge of the whole mission.  And the CAP IC doesn't need to be on scene (heck in most CAP missions they aren't).

No. Each incident has ONE IC, not one for every agency involved. Those that have multiple "ICs" are discussed in worst practices papers. CAP has a qualification called "Agency Liaison" whose requirements are the same as the same level IC. That person will be responsible for the commitment or withdrawl of CAP forces. They are also responsible for ensuring OUR rules are followed for OUR personnel. ICS has a position called "Agency Representative" who does the same thing.  If CAP is not the lead agency, the CAP AL is the position used, not the CAP IC. Unfortunately, too many of CAPs ICs don't get that.

[LTC Don]

This notion of always having to have a CAP IC assigned before anyone can move is ridiculous and has caused major problems since we still don't seem to understand how ICS works.

You ALWAYS need a CAP Incident Commander.  The CAP IC just doesn't need to be the person in charge of the whole mission.  And the CAP IC doesn't need to be on scene (heck in most CAP missions they aren't).

No. Each incident has ONE IC, not one for every agency involved. Those that have multiple "ICs" are discussed in worst practices papers. CAP has a qualification called "Agency Liaison" whose requirements are the same as the same level IC. That person will be responsible for the commitment or withdrawl of CAP forces. They are also responsible for ensuring OUR rules are followed for OUR personnel. ICS has a position called "Agency Representative" who does the same thing.  If CAP is not the lead agency, the CAP AL is the position used, not the CAP IC. Unfortunately, too many of CAPs Wings don't get that.

Fixed it for ya. 


As I said, the Agency Liaison should be rated as a CAP IC, but when CAP is an assisting agency, we work at the pleasure of the requesting agency or the responsible agency.  The agency reps come directly under the Incident Commander and work to help integrate dissimilar agencies into the command structure.

You go into too many command posts and ask to report to the CAP IC, and I can guarantee you there won't be any more requests for our services.

Oh, and that first mission was oh, about twenty-seven years ago, when cadets could actually do stuff. 

Having said that, Yes,  I get that we always have a "CAP IC" on duty when we spool up operations.  But the terminology can get us into a bind when used in the wrong location or context.

Cheers,

[RiverAux]

No. Each incident has ONE IC, not one for every agency involved. Those that have multiple "ICs" are discussed in worst practices papers.

I said that the CAP IC wasn't necessarily the guy in charge.  But there WILL be a CAP IC.  He may be called something else in the overall incident command flowchart (we don't care about that), but he/she will be a qualified CAP IC.  Heck, look at 60-3 1-12 which specifically discusses this situation. 

Yes, there may be a CAP liaison person as well, but that person will be reporting back to a CAP IC who will be ultimately responsible for CAP members. 

You just can't have a CAP mission without a CAP IC.

[arajca]

Which just goes to show that National hasn't figured this ICS thing out yet.

[cap235629]

here is an easy fix, replace the term Incident Commander with Mission Commander at all levels of CAP. Keep the training the same just call it MC1, MC2 or MC3. If it is a CAP only show, the MC becomes the IC under ICS.

Oh wait, that makes sense, never mind.......   

[CommGeek]

In the real world guys, every agency has an IC!  thats just the way it is!

[arajca]

Then I guess we live in different real worlds. Every agency has an agency rep, and maybe a seat on a unified command team (depending on the incident), but every incident has one IC. In a unified command team, everyone is in the same room and make decisions together, but the individual team members are not each the IC for the incident.

Everytime I've read an AAR that had the note that "no knew who was in charge," it was also noted the there were multiple folks at multiple locations each calling themselves the IC.

[Hawk200]

In the real world guys, every agency has an IC!  thats just the way it is!

Each agency may have someone qualified to work as an IC, but that doesn't make the person an IC. IC is a position to fill. It requires certain training to practice as one, but the two are not the same.

If the person is in charge of the whole enchilada, they're the IC. If they're only in charge of their agency's assets, regardless of their qualifications,  they're an agency liaison.

As someone said earlier, keep asking for the "CAP IC" during an incident, and it won't be long before we're not welcome. We make a point of asking for the "CAP Liaison" and people won't get the idea that we think we're running the show.

[CommGeek]

the liaison and IC are separate people...  I know what the book says... but I have been involved in Local, State, and Federal emergency management for 20 years.  In the real world, every agency has an IC.     

Lets take a look at Deepwater horizon.  on the news it was 'unified command'  nothing was unified.  CAP had an IC, DEP, USCG, every state and Branch had an IC.  Thats just the way it works in the real world!   

Someone with real world experience should chime in and help me out here...  Unified Command rarely works. try to tell a cop that they cant run an incident....wont get you too far.   

CAP has an IC, so does every other agency. get over it!

[Hawk200]

CAP has an IC, so does every other agency. get over it!

Alright, CAP has an IC. Show me. You can tell me all you want, but not gonna believe it til I see something in writing from a legitimate reference.

I know things are done certain ways, but it doesn't mean it's right or even legitimate. The real world has a load of stupid issues because there's a bunch of control freaks. Ego gets in the way, problems arise. The structure calls for one IC. The ways it's supposed to work is if you're not the head honcho, you're not an IC.

What we as CAP need to do is to pull our heads out, and defer to the proper chain on an incident. The nature of the term "Incident Commander" pretty much implies the top person. If you walk into an ICP and ask "Where's the IC?" and get six people raising their hands, there is a problem so obvious that it couldn't be more so if it slammed you in the face with a shovel.

Would you prefer to do it the right way, or the "we've always done it like this"(and always had a bunch of problems) way?

[CommGeek]

I give up....   CAP WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN IC....read the 60-3!

CAP assets must remain in control of CAP assets!

I wish you could get out and really see a real live operation and realize that there is more than one IC.

Im tired of CAP people trying to dictate how the real world works!  this is why we look look like fools!   Im done with you idiots!

[cap235629]

I give up....   CAP WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN IC....read the 60-3!

CAP assets must remain in control of CAP assets!

I wish you could get out and really see a real live operation and realize that there is more than one IC.

Im tired of CAP people trying to dictate how the real world works!  this is why we look look like fools!   Im done with you idiots!

NON CONCUR

I have been involved in Emergency Services for over 20 years as a professional AS WELL as a CAP volunteer. My experience with ICS goes back to the Fire Service 20 years ago.  There is 1 Incident Commander WHEN ICS IS PROPERLY UTILIZED! The problem is EVERYONE wants to be the boss and ICS rarely gets implemented properly. What we idiots who get paid to use the system are trying to tell you expert volunteers is, LEARN THE SYSTEM AND USE IT PROPERLY and these problems go away. As I said above, change 60-3 to read Mission Commander rather than Incident Commander and things will be SO much easier!

But what do I know, I'm an idiot! 

[Hawk200]

I give up....   CAP WILL ALWAYS HAVE AN IC....read the 60-3!

I did. The online NIMS course that CAP links us all to says differently.  60-3 is a CAP regulation, not a NIMS one. Hopefully, the next pub will clear things up.

CAP assets must remain in control of CAP assets!

I agree. But explain to me why the person in charge of our particular agency has to have the title "Incident commander." Seems like they would still have control of CAP assets even if they were called "Agency Liaisons."

I wish you could get out and really see a real live operation and realize that there is more than one IC.

Seen some, really messy. Lot of people all trying to be the Big Man for the incident. If all the people vying for a title decided to just do the job as laid out in national incident plans, probably would have been a lot more effective.

Im tired of CAP people trying to dictate how the real world works!  this is why we look look like fools!   Im done with you idiots!

If you'd paid attention, you'd note that some of the CAP methods are part of the problem. We need to be following the established national plan instead of modifying it to entertain ego.

But, if you choose to be "done with" us, then goodbye. Probabably better that way.

[RiverAux]

Why are people getting their shorts in a bunch over this? 

Just who does it hurt if in a multi-agency incident there is a CAP member identified by CAP as the CAP IC?  The local sheriff or state emergency management agency may have them identified as something else on their org chart, but that doesn't matter to CAP.  The CAP IC will still be reporting to somebody else in almost every case (assuming that there won't be many incidents of unified command where a CAP IC will be on an equal footing with others). 

The fact remains that there are 0 allowances in 60-3 for someone other than a CAP IC to run a CAP mission and the reg specifically states that the CAP IC may not always be in overall command of the mission, but he is still the CAP IC.

[ßτε]

In a Unified Command, each responsible agency provides an Incident Commander.  All the Incident Commanders form the Unified Command. They are to work together and agree on an Incident Action Plan.

Reference: ICS 300 Instruction Guide:

Description of Unified Command
Unified Command is a team effort process, allowing all agencies with geographical or functional responsibility for an incident, to assign an Incident Commander to a Unified Command organization.

The Unified Command then establishes a common set of incident objectives and strategies that all can subscribe to. This is accomplished without losing or giving up agency authority, responsibility or accountability.

Unified Command represents an important element in increasing the effectiveness of multijurisdictional or multi-agency incidents. As incidents become more complex and involve more agencies, the need for Unified Command is increased.

This doesn't  mean that whenever CAP is involved in an incident with a Unified Command that CAP's representative will be one of the Incident Commanders. Instead, they would probably be an Agency Representative. Internally within CAP, they would be ICs, but within the ICS Unified Command, they would not.

[Mark_Wheeler]

In a Unified Command, each responsible agency provides an Incident Commander.  All the Incident Commanders form the Unified Command. They are to work together and agree on an Incident Action Plan.

Reference: ICS 300 Instruction Guide:

Description of Unified Command
Unified Command is a team effort process, allowing all agencies with geographical or functional responsibility for an incident, to assign an Incident Commander to a Unified Command organization.

The Unified Command then establishes a common set of incident objectives and strategies that all can subscribe to. This is accomplished without losing or giving up agency authority, responsibility or accountability.

Unified Command represents an important element in increasing the effectiveness of multijurisdictional or multi-agency incidents. As incidents become more complex and involve more agencies, the need for Unified Command is increased.

This doesn't  mean that whenever CAP is involved in an incident with a Unified Command that CAP's representative will be one of the Incident Commanders. Instead, they would probably be an Agency Representative. Internally within CAP, they would be ICs, but within the ICS Unified Command, they would not.

Thanks! I was about to chime in but I couldn't find the reference! See ya tomorrow night by the way.

Mark

[LTC Don]

That's a great definition of Unified Command.  And while this discussion seems to had derailed the OP's original question, it really hasn't because we just don't do much Disaster Relief work which almost always involves multiple agencies, as someone who mentioned DeepWater Horizon.

Several have mentioned this notion of CAP control of CAP resources, with the implication being that if we don't have a CAP IC assigned, then we don't have control if 'only' an Agency Liaison (who should always be a rated CAP IC) is assigned.  That is not the case at all.  As also mentioned, the Agency Liaison IS the person in charge of CAP resources, and represents them to the Unified Command staff (IF CAP does not have a seat at the Unified Command table.)  Even though those resources may be assigned to a downstream section chief or branch director, as long as the assigned task doesn't violate CAP regulations, everything should be good to go.  That resource may provide status reports to the Agency Liaison, but they work for that section chief or branch director.  < That is a source of contention for obvious reasons, but ultimately we work for the customer.

That said, then there are two places in ICS where CAP overhead can be installed:

As an IC on the Unified Command Staff
As an Agency Liaison representative.

In both cases, those overhead positions represent CAP and work to keep from having  CAP tasked with something that may violate our regulations or violate state or Federal Law such as posse comitatus, depending on the situation/incident.

That CAP control of resources works all the way down to strike team level where that strike team leader is responsible for his/her team and it's safety.  Someone is always in charge of CAP resources and is responsible to remain compliant with CAP regulations.

There are some awfully powerful paradigms at work here, as well as some badly written regulations that don't interface well with long established national ICS publications.

This just goes to show that the Disaster Relief side of the house needs a lot of work.

Any exercises, whether table top or field, should always be done with other agencies involved.  Facetime with other agencies is absolutely critical to resolving "Who's in charge" issues before they crop up.

Great discussion!


Cheers,

[RiverAux]

Please provide a reference from a CAP regulation that says that you can run a CAP mission with anything other than an IC in charge.  There are many references in 60-3 to ICs and their various responsibilities and duties to oversee CAP resources on CAP missions, but I see nothing that allows for a CAP ICS system that doesn't have an IC at the top. 

[CommGeek]

a Liaison does NOT control resources,  they are a liaison ONLY.  They would interface to the agency in charge  and to the CAP Incident Commander.   

If at the command post and the CAP liaison was requested to have CAP fly a sortie, the CAP liaison would in turn contact the CAP IC to make it happen.  Thats it! the liaison is not really in the CAP chain of command. there is no way the liaison would have the time and staff at the Incident ICP/EOC... to manage the tactical operations of the request. The Liaison would simply hand it off to the CAP Command post to the CAP IC.  The IC would make it happen.

This was a FATAL flaw in how CAP operated during Deepwater Horizon. They were way understaffed and were controlling tatcical operations from the Unified Command Center.  We were the only agency doing this. Everyone else had a command post to control thier individual operation. Yes the Liaison would still have visability to the missiond, but not controlling them.

[Eclipse]

The confusion for most people stems from the fact that the AL can commit resources, even though they are not in command or control of them.  That doesn't make them the IC.

[LTC Don]

For some reason, the reply applet flakes out with IE8, but works fine with Firefox 

CAP is never going to run a "CAP Mission" during a disaster situation.  We will always be a supporting agency to the overall effort.  We may, or may not have a seat at the Unified Command table so at the very least, we will always have an Agency Rep who is a qualified CAP IC.  Our resources may be assigned to a Section Chief (which may or may not be a CAP staffer) or a branch (which also may or may not be a CAP staffer) as a strike team(s), or as a task force.

From CAPR 60-3, page 4, 17AUG09:

f. Incident Commander (IC); the CAP IC is the member responsible and in command of CAP resources supporting an incident. If CAP is not the lead agency, a CAP member qualified in the IC achievement will serve as the CAP agency representative to the lead agency IC, and ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures.

This comes under Definition of Terms, and is essentially repeated below:

Section 1-12, page 10.
The CAP IC exercises full authority over all CAP personnel for matters pertaining to the mission; the CAP IC is often not the overall IC, and often serves as an agency representative in the incident command structure.

Section 1-14, page 10.
CAP ICs not only represent CAP, but also take on a variety of responsibilities for customer agencies and organizations.


In reading through 60-3, it is clear that there needs to be a clear differentiation made between CAP-centric operations, both within a wing, and with multiple wings, and with multi-agency operations and how CAP specifically interfaces with ICS with those other agencies.  Right now, it's hard to tell sometimes which context the regulation refers to or how it is to be interpreted.

As seemingly flawed as it was, I miss the old 50-15 



Cheers,

[LTC Don]

a Liaison does NOT control resources,  they are a liaison ONLY.  They would interface to the agency in charge  and to the CAP Incident Commander.   

If at the command post and the CAP liaison was requested to have CAP fly a sortie, the CAP liaison would in turn contact the CAP IC to make it happen.  Thats it! the liaison is not really in the CAP chain of command. there is no way the liaison would have the time and staff at the Incident ICP/EOC... to manage the tactical operations of the request. The Liaison would simply hand it off to the CAP Command post to the CAP IC.  The IC would make it happen.

This was a FATAL flaw in how CAP operated during Deepwater Horizon. They were way understaffed and were controlling tatcical operations from the Unified Command Center.  We were the only agency doing this. Everyone else had a command post to control thier individual operation. Yes the Liaison would still have visability to the missiond, but not controlling them.

I would love to see an overall org chart of the deepwater ICS structure 


Cheers,

[CommGeek]

The DWH org chart was just to look good on paper....didn't really reflect what was happening on the field.


there will ALWAYS be a CAP mission, anytime CAP has assets on the field, wether it be a SAR or DR.  Even if CAP is not the lead agency!

CAP will never be under tactical control of another agency. NEVER!  we may receive tasking requests from another agency, but they will NEVER control how we do it. They do not know our policy and procedures.  I doubt any agency will want to control us.

OK lets step outside of CAP and look at this in a Fire/Law perspective.
a Cop isn't going to take tactical control over a firefighter, a Fire Officer will control his own fire personnel.  It may be at the request of the Cop.... but the cop isn't going to tell the hose jokey how to fight the fire, or how he needs to extricate the patient.

Same applies to CAP or any other agency.

DeepWater Horizon - State of Florida.
The State DEP director was the State IC...even though BP had an IC (Only on TV)
RECON teams consisted of Fish and Wildlife, FL DEP, National Guard, CAP. Each agency was given tasking, and it was carried out by each agency through their Incident Commander!

None of the agencies, AL were directing resources. They were communicating with their appropriate agency IC on the field.

even under UC each agency still has an IC...they just 'act' as one body!




Are you basing your remarks on what you have read? or have you actually been on the field? It seems like a few of you guys really need to keep your mouth shut until you have seen this work in the real world...not in the 'CAP' World.

[arajca]

Are you basing your remarks on what you have read? or have you actually been on the field? It seems like a few of you guys really need to keep your mouth shut until you have seen this work in the real world...not in the 'CAP' World.

I've worked in ICS for several years. I done the fancy training held by a number of agencies. The incidents that were conducted the most efficiently were the ones where there was ONE IC, not one IC per agency. I've work many scenes were the IC was an LEO. The IC didn't 'ask' a fire officer to do anything. He told the fire officer what the IC needed done. The fire officer used the resources at his disposal to make it happen. Those resources included fire, ems, and le personnel. Again, when the fire office needed the leo's at HIS disposal to do something, he didn't ask a LE-IC to get it done, he tasked the leo's directly. So we had fire officers taking commands from an law enforcement officer, leos taking commands from a fire officer, and ems working with everybody. ONE IC, not a Fire-IC, LE-IC, and EMS-IC.

The ugly incidents were the ones where everyone thought they were in charge. Additionally, various laws dictate who is actually in charge. In some cases it's LE, in others it's Fire, in some it's CAP.

Just because your experience isn't the same as mine, do not presume to tell me I don't know how it works in the real world.

[CommGeek]

I love it how most people who [censored] on here dont have any ES qualls!  haha... makes me laugh!

[RiverAux]

CAP ground teams are very often under the "tactical control" of another agency.  Sheriff says -- "CAP go search over there" or "CAP, my deputy is going to lead your ground team to search that ridge".  Thats just fine and dandy, but there would still be a CAP GTL over the CAP members on that team who would be reporting through CAP's ICS system.  However, that CAP GTL can veto any "tactical" decision made by whatever agency we're working for.  He can say to the sheriff "No, we aren't qualified to search that high angle ridgeline, is there another place you can use us" or "No, we can't borrow your ATVs to get to the search area". 

[CommGeek]

there is still a CAP IC running the show (at least for CAP)

[Eclipse]

I love it how most people who [censored] on here dont have any ES qualls!  haha... makes me laugh!

I believe you are incorrect in that statement.

Certainly the majority of people commenting on this thread are experienced CAP members, and active ES operators both within and outside of CAP.

[arajca]

It goes to how we deploy our resources. The current practice is to consider every member who shows up as a single resource. i.e. a CAP ground team signs in as five members and a vehicle, not one ground team (6 resources vs 1 resource). That needs to change. A fire engine signs in as one engine, not four firefighters and an engine. They are tracked and deployed as such. They do not break the crew apart (usually) and count them as individuals.

[CommGeek]

OPS QUALS says diffrent!

[CommGeek]

It goes to how we deploy our resources. The current practice is to consider every member who shows up as a single resource. i.e. a CAP ground team signs in as five members and a vehicle, not one ground team (6 resources vs 1 resource). That needs to change. A fire engine signs in as one engine, not four firefighters and an engine. They are tracked and deployed as such. They do not break the crew apart (usually) and count them as individuals.

Agreed!  We need to use the 'Crew' concept.

[wuzafuzz]

OPS QUALS says diffrent!

Ops quals doesn't say squat about what experience they may have outside CAP.  Or perhaps their quals have expired thanks to a break in CAP service.  Chill.

[CommGeek]

when you have been in CAP 5 plus years with just GES ans ICS 200 how can you comment on how ICS works?

[wuzafuzz]

when you have been in CAP 5 plus years with just GES ans ICS 200 how can you comment on how ICS works?

For all you know you are debating with an experienced wildland fire IC, who merely focuses on cadet programs in CAP. 

[Eclipse]

I am a big proponent of the crew concept myself - there is no substitute for the shorthand of a team that has worked together - but without
commitments and / requirements that the whole crew respond, the idea breaks down quickly, and since our operators are also the trainers, crews become cliques quickly and sometimes exclude the new guys.

Then one person quits the crew, the team dissolves and the unit goes from "A" to "D".

[CommGeek]

when you have been in CAP 5 plus years with just GES ans ICS 200 how can you comment on how ICS works?

For all you know you are debating with an experienced wildland fire IC, who merely focuses on cadet programs in CAP.

Agreed.  But you never know.  I could be a FEMA/DHS Type II IC with 30 years exp.

[HGjunkie]

And I could be General Pine... 

[sardak]

I would love to see an overall org chart of the deepwater ICS structure

Here you go.
Mike

http://captalk.net/MGalleryItem.php?id=267

[CommGeek]

The chart is not correct.... it looks good on paper but that was not anyway how it was setup.

[RiverAux]

I know some CG Auxies who went down on DWH and saw the org charts -- they would blow your mind.  Some of the command posts alone had 1000 people at them and there were multiple huge org charts produced each day just to keep track of those people.