ICS

[Eclipse]

NIIMS is not NIMS.

I also love you guys who think that when the basic tenants of "whatever", ES, ICS, chain of command, professional development, whatever, are reshaped or used for CAP purposes that is "plagiarizing".

Span of control and incident planning has existed since the Roman Legions, it was not invented by the Forest Service, or anyone else alive today.

[heliodoc]

^^

No need to luv us guys and there was no inference that this was invented by the USFS

We in the wildland fire biz know that NIIMS is not NIMS

Don't  like the word "plagarizing?"  OK how about templating?? That better?

But CAP STILL has yet to get the basics done and SELL itself to the real world ES folks ... Isn't that who we are trying trying to emulate so much?

We had members in this organization who did not finish the basic request of getting the I courses done

The facts are the facts .... somebody started a system that works, albeit span of control, and is being emulated forty years later in an agency full of whiz kids and computer geeks (DHS) and is being molded in a ANOTHER guv agency, whether we like it or not

CAP has to adopt or die.  Now they are playing catchup on I courses after approx 2 yrs of real or imaginary deadline.  No urinating contest here, incident planning has not been a strong point in  ALL of CAP either but we would like to think we do.  CAP has its own issues on incident planning.  One seems to be the exclusive club we there are only specific individuals trained as IC's with not job shadowing for new members to become IC.  There is nothing difficult about the whole process, but CAP thinks that there are only a certain few that can occupy the IC post.  Sadly mistaken CAP, best train more than a few IC's 'cuz there may be instances the selected CAP IC gods will not be around to run your missions.  That has been my obs from around the country.  So in this respect, there HAS to a line of succession with this stuff

We appear to beg for missions, think we can work for cheaper than anyone else (some cases we can), chirp about taking guv sponsored courses, still wonder why we are only in 1AF's back pocket and no one elses, and still not comply with online course completions.

Every agency is "reshaping" with this stuff and is plagarizing, templating or whatever the current definition of the day.   But again CAP ought to realize this was done by someone else and that these I course are now requirements to pay or play in today's current all risk environment, and they by delaying and getting quals dropped to trainee are only hurting themselves and than NATL CC and the Wing CC's down to the Unit CC's get their fanny chapped cuz we are "volunteers"  other volunteer agencies seem to have accomplished this in shorter time and I am sure there other volunteers who haven't finished either.

CAP with its rich 60 year history, I thought, would have a lead on this deal..........

Lecture us wildland fire folks on NIIMS, NIMS , ICS, span of control, and whatnot CAPers....

Some of are retired military and wildland fire folks and already well informed on span of control issues

CAP needs to get on top of its own.... Long winded aren't I 

[Eclipse]

CAP has to adopt or die.  Now they are playing catchup on I courses after approx 2 yrs of real or imaginary deadline.  No urinating contest here, incident planning has not been a strong point in  ALL of CAP either but we would like to think we do.

Adopt or die?

ICS has been the core of the ES program since at least 2000.  In a lot of cases CAP members sitting in ICS 300 classes have a better ground-level understanding of ICS structure and terminology than the professional PD/FD folks in the same room because most agencies and municipalities have been doing their own thing (albeit with local success), and generally don't need to worry about interagency, large-scale disasters (or didn't).

If you ask them, most will tell you they are doing ICS because of the NIMS requirement and grant money, and that they were doing fine with their local programs to this point.

The certification issue is a problem of dealing with volunteers, especially 300/400 (zero excuse for the online slackers), but its real easy to say "We got this covered, why don't you?" when you're paid to sit in the class by your department, vs. having to take vacation days or unpaid time to attend class.

Use whatever term you like, templating, plagiarizing, etc., to either take credit for the idea or belittle CAP's efforts, but don't forget that the totality of the members involved are unpaid volunteers, working on a national-scale budget which is less than that of most local professional departments.

Being constantly preached to by people who have 3/4 of the story is counterproductive to both sides.

[heliodoc]

No problem

I took vaca to do I 300 / 400
Not better than anyone.... just did it

Yep grant money  and  CAP needs to be on board when the grant $$$ is running around

Plenty of unpaid VOAD's that have had to comply....... Why should CAP be held to different set of standards

VFD's and paid FD's and PD have had to do it.  Belittling CAP ?? No way

Are you inferring I have 3/4 of the story??  Spent a little more time in an EMA collectively  than most CAP members and was preached to about  this day in and day out.  So I just did it....

Unpaid volunteers doesn't fly as many have said on this forum.... so drive on CAP soldiers and get the bare minimums done.  Someone else will be preaching to CAP soon..... won't be me 

[RiverAux]

ICS has been the core of the ES program since at least 2000.  In a lot of cases CAP members sitting in ICS 300 classes have a better ground-level understanding of ICS structure and terminology than the professional PD/FD folks in the same room because most agencies and municipalities have been doing their own thing (albeit with local success), and generally don't need to worry about interagency, large-scale disasters (or didn't).

Exactly right about the basics of using ICS.  However, I think everybody, including CAP, is still iffy on the doctrine regarding multi-agency incidents since there are still all sorts of conflicting laws, agency policies, etc. that make it difficult to truly implement for the large-scale missions.  It will take years for everything to adjust to a truly team effort. 

[Eclipse]

ICS has been the core of the ES program since at least 2000.  In a lot of cases CAP members sitting in ICS 300 classes have a better ground-level understanding of ICS structure and terminology than the professional PD/FD folks in the same room because most agencies and municipalities have been doing their own thing (albeit with local success), and generally don't need to worry about interagency, large-scale disasters (or didn't).

Exactly right about the basics of using ICS.  However, I think everybody, including CAP, is still iffy on the doctrine regarding multi-agency incidents since there are still all sorts of conflicting laws, agency policies, etc. that make it difficult to truly implement for the large-scale missions.  It will take years for everything to adjust to a truly team effort. 

Assuming it ever does.  A lot of this comes down to money.

We're all in it together during the big pull, but then someone has to pay the bills, and when there is doubt about the checks bouncing, people start to get less cooperative.