ICs for ELT missions

[Short Field]

How many qualified OSCs does your wing have?  Where is the gain over what your wing does now?

[RiverAux]

I'm talking about the several wings mentioned on this board on a regular basis where it is apparently quite difficult to find an IC to take an ELT mission. 

[cap235629]

And heck....for a simple ELT seach...the IC could be clear across the state running it from his home.

As CAP requires more ICS training to be NIMS compliant we have to rethink the way we do things.  ICS300 teaches that an IC MUST be an ON SCENE commander, close enough to have sight and sound control.  As others have said above, CAP seems to be doing it opposite of the rest of the ES world

[heliodoc]

As a former IC for fires 2500 acre or less, I will relate that to all my future training in CAP whether CAP wants to board or not....

Here's the thing... IC onsite or relatively close to the incident not necessarily at a mission base at some FBO.

How about pulling your FEMA trailers closer to the incident?  Next one would think that even the gods of CAP would establish a training program for IC and IC trainees.  The wildland fire world constantly is TRAINING successors to each IC   (IC Types 1 thru 5 according to complexity)

CAP, if it wants to play in the big world of ICS and Incident Management had better start insisting on better training the just the SQTR system.  BETTER get on board the idea of tabletops at least once a quarter and at various locations.  Figure out if your comm equip is reliable in ALL areas, you'd be suprised the numbers of problems on wildland fire assignments that the biggest problem next to crew accountability  IS communications......

START training IC's and IC trainees.  If this organization is going to survive in ANY environment (read incident) better train to DHS, FEMA, and State EM/ES standards.  CAP SQTR's are sometimes woefully short of triaining meat and start asking around to be I300 and I400 at your local FD or EM organization.

CAP will do its membership a better service if it does the way the world does NOT just the way CAP wants to do it. 

Like Hulk Hogan says  "You've got to train hard, brother!!!"

[IceNine]

While I agree with the large bulk of what you are saying.  The reality of what we do v.s what fire, ems etc do is fairly distant from what we do.

Fire needs to be on scene to be able to visualize changes on scene.  For a missing person I am totally in agreement that we should set up in the closest proximity to the last know location.

But for ELT's or missing aircraft, I believe that anywhere close to where we are searching is appropriate.  There is no need for the IC to be on the airport that the plane took off from or whatever.

I do totally agree that the training program that we have for IC's if followed to the T will set the IC up for complete failure.  However, I do know that a few wings have taken this as an opportunity to provide appropriate training for the area they will be commanding.

[heliodoc]

Yep

It was a stretch.  I can stand corrected, Natl doesn't need to fund the taskbooks.

But seriously they need an overhaul on some things and that has proven many a time here on these forums.

I wonder if CERT has these problems??? You know they do.  But that is Federal and State funded and coming thru DHS money somewhat like AFAM.  Obviously our training is more technical in some regards and on other training regimes, almost similar

[RiverAux]

Unfortunately, we have developed a very rigid training structure that assumes most missions are relatively large and require our very best people to be in charge every single one rather than the more flexible system utilized by just about every other agency I can think of.  While my proposal was to allow OSCs run ELT missions, I think it would be a safe bet that in just about any other agency you can think of it would be one of their equivalents of a UDF team member that would be their IC for the mission.  

There is a difference between the Incident Commander position CAP has created and the more generic term "incident commander" as it is more commonly used throughout the rest of the system.  

Another way of approaching it would be to have several different types of Incident Commanders.  For example:  
IC- Air SAR
IC- Lost Person
IC- ELT
IC- Disaster Relief

Then we could tailor make the training requirements for that particular type of mission.  Obviously the Air SAR and DR ICs would be our most highly trained as those are our most complex missions.  A IC-Lost Person could basically be a Ground Branch Director with a few additional skills.      

[MIGCAP]

Just more problems created by the "Lets pretend" attitude of CAP.  We embraced ICS so we could pretend to be important, we want to have an Incident Commander because that looks important.  We do not need ICs at all, or perhaps we need two or three at the NOC.
Years ago we had Mission Coordinators, job was to apply CAP assets to a task assigned by someone above us in the food chain. If a real IC needs support of an agency that provides services like search dogs, bulldozers, mounted SAR teams, etc. it is not a requirement that those suppliers by ICS, or have their own IC. They just have to follow orders. Write off all the ICS compliance, bring back the Mission Coordinator, and admit we have wasted a fortune and burned out 50% of our folks.

[RiverAux]

Like it or not, CAP does basically run the vast majority of our missions for all intents and purposes and using the ICS system and the associated titles are totally appropriate.  There is very little, if any, substantive difference between the training or duties of the old Mission Coordinators and our current ICs, so what would be served by going back other than making us less interoperable with other agencies when we do work with them? 

[DNall]

We're not interoperable now. We're bastardizing titles on people that don't meet the legit standards. An IC in CAP is not remotely the same as a FEMA IC. A CAP IC is not going to be picked up (on the basis of CAP trng/quals) to run a full multi-agency response. That's what an IC legitimately is.

The poster who said we should have a handful of highly qual'd ICs at the national/regional level who can & do take lead in a multi-agency/multi-state/jurisdiction response is dead on.

CAP runs team & at most task force level response with task organized staff & support. It's not full on ICS, and it doesn't really need to be for our internal operations. If we want to step higher on the playing field then it would be nice to learn and operate the right way, and we should train like we fight as well as do our internal missions the way we want to operate externally/strategically.

All that said... the current CAP/IC qual is not a big challenge. That's fine for ELT missions. If you don't have enough ICs, it's not cause the standards are too high. There's other org issues going on that you need to address.

[RiverAux]

An IC in CAP is not remotely the same as a FEMA IC.

And neither is the IC from the local fire department that regularly command operations involving dozens of people, but they are "Incident Commanders" as well.  There is no one standard for an Incident Commander that can run every conceivable type of incident.  Are you expecting FEMA to send an IC to run a CAP missing airplane mission at some point in the future?  No, I don't think so -- they aren't going to know the subject matter any more than a CAP IC would be able to run one of their operations. 

A CAP IC is not going to be picked up (on the basis of CAP trng/quals) to run a full multi-agency response. That's what an IC legitimately is.

Who says that?  The Fire Department IC isn't going to be asked to run a CAP mission either.  He isn't going to be put in charge of a lost person SAR or the response to the next Katrina. 

Every single agency under the sun is going to have their own specific training standards for their incident commanders and very few of them are going to be able to seamlessly run a mission for another agency or group of agencies. 

What NIMS is doing is getting everybody in the same position to have a basic core of knowledge (primarily of the NIMS system) so that when working with other agencies they're all using similar processes to run their operations and yes, at some levels, integrate with each other.  Sure, there may be some opportunities for individuals to mix and match with each other, but most likely this will only occur between agencies performing similar missions and it would be very unlikely to occur at the IC level as opposed to the lower end of the food chain.

[RiverAux]

Another way of approaching it would be to have several different types of Incident Commanders.  For example:  
IC- Air SAR
IC- Lost Person
IC- ELT
IC- Disaster Relief

I had forgotten that we sort of do this already -- we use "Counterdrug Mission Directors" to run CD missions. 

[NavLT]

I guess the discussion on old vs new is largely moot for a reason that has not hit the board yet "Funding".

CAP gets funding for ES missions, the Federal government has set some minimum standards for ICS to get funding.  IE we play by the rules or we don't get $$$.

As to the "Real ICS, or Full on ICS".  If you read the National ICS standards there is no such thing.  Level 1 Incidents are multi state national disasters, Level 4 are local multi agency and Level 5 are local one agency.  So the standard says the "Big One" is a level 1 but recognizes ICS for running smaller missions.

ICS is about scaleability and common tools.  ICS does not mean an OPS Section chief every time or helicopters every time it means when needed to maintain accountability and span of control.

As to the CAP running a mission or the Fire Chief running an air Search.  If they are appropriately trained, practice interoperability and have the capable ARs (Agency Reps) why Not?

It sounds like the old argument that a general cannot tell ships what to do and an admiral cannot tell tanks what to do.  But guess what they do, its called Joint.

ICS is supposed to be about a Good CAP ES guy trained for Plan Section Chief can do plans on a variety of incidents not just CAP SAR. 

I wear multiple hats (and have not gone bald yet) and it helps to have multiple players trained in different areas in on the command and general staff, they provide options a single point of view might never see.  Not being trained in ICS just takes the CAP options off the table which is not good for anyone.

V/R
LT J.

[Al Sayre]

The IC is a manager, he picks his staff based on the available resources and expertise. 

When I went through ICS 300 & 400, most of the table tops were related to Fires and Natural/Ecological Disasters.  I have a rudimentary knowledge of Fire Service Procedures from 30 years ago on the VFD, and 3 semesters of college chemistry to help me understand chemical spill implications, but I claim no expertise in either area, but I didn't have any problem running the exercises because I had people on my "staff" that were experts.  They knew best how to fight a fire, plan an evacuation etc.  As the IC my job was to see that they got what they needed to do it, keep track of the big picture, and make sure the paper got processed. 

That is the real beauty of ICS, you can put the experts where they are needed, handling all the details in their area of expertise, rather than tying them up trying to solve the managment issues. 

You don't need to be an expert in the field to run a mission; Search, Disaster, Fire, etc.  You just need leadership skills, a little common sense, a knowledge of the required paperwork, and most importantly know how to get in touch with those that are the experts.

[Larry Mangum]

As someone who has particpated in missions under the old MC system and under IC's as we do now, there is a big difference.  The majority of the MC's I have know or worked with have a tendency to be play GOD. They did not delegate or fully utilize the mission staff.   The IC's I have worked with on the other hand have been really good at utilizing the mission staff and understanding that CAP was just one player in the mission.  Why the difference? Because the training to become an IC for CAP is much more specific and requires specific training and classes in NIMS then it ever was for an MC.  You could be an MC just because the wing king decided you should be. The requirements to become an IC can not be wavered by the Wing King, only national can do so and they are very reluctant to do so. 

Is CAP NIMS compliant? NO, but individual wings are working on it and in some cases the majority of the IC's have completed all of the NIMS requirements.

[DNall]

An IC in CAP is not remotely the same as a FEMA IC.

And neither is the IC from the local fire department that regularly command operations involving dozens of people, but they are "Incident Commanders" as well.  There is no one standard for an Incident Commander that can run every conceivable type of incident.  Are you expecting FEMA to send an IC to run a CAP missing airplane mission at some point in the future?  No, I don't think so -- they aren't going to know the subject matter any more than a CAP IC would be able to run one of their operations.

No. I'm expecting at some point a CAP IC could go run a multi-state/multi-agency disaster response mission - not just the little piss ant jobs that get pawned off on CAP as one tiny little volunteer group in a mass of professional agencies. Moving our training to a point where some of our people can be the decision makers, and be team players with the real emergency response community... that's what IC actually means. Any other use of it is bastardizing the term to the point it has no meaning & ICS is all BS - hundreds of billions of dollars worth of BS at that.

A CAP IC is not going to be picked up (on the basis of CAP trng/quals) to run a full multi-agency response. That's what an IC legitimately is.

Who says that?  The Fire Department IC isn't going to be asked to run a CAP mission either.  He isn't going to be put in charge of a lost person SAR or the response to the next Katrina. 

Every single agency under the sun is going to have their own specific training standards for their incident commanders and very few of them are going to be able to seamlessly run a mission for another agency or group of agencies. 

What NIMS is doing is getting everybody in the same position to have a basic core of knowledge (primarily of the NIMS system) so that when working with other agencies they're all using similar processes to run their operations and yes, at some levels, integrate with each other.  Sure, there may be some opportunities for individuals to mix and match with each other, but most likely this will only occur between agencies performing similar missions and it would be very unlikely to occur at the IC level as opposed to the lower end of the food chain.

[/quote]
Actually, the point of NIMS is to take pieces from all over the place & assemble them into one single unified (temporary) organization/command structure that exists for the purpose of responding to X situation. It's just like an expeditionary Air Force, or what we more commonly call task organized units. CAP can't plug & play in that system. A whole lot of people can't yet and it may be some time before they can, but that's the purpose of NIMS (ICS is just a tool - software within that hardware environment).

My point being we don't need to lower the standards of what we got now. We need raise those. With ELTs though... a police dept doesn't activate ICS to run a house alarm call. That's done under a routine SOP with an in-place command structure. It's completely reasonable for us to run UDF in the same way, just like we do O-flts & a hundred other things.

[ZigZag911]

A police department, according to NIMS doctrine, actually does "activate" ICS on a house alarm response or any other minor event....however, it does notexpand the ICS staff structure -- that is, the "IC" would be the LE officer responding to the initial call, who would handle the situation and close it out.

Hypothetically let's say the event escalated --turned out to be a home invasion in progress. This would almost certainly expand quickly just within LE structure: SWAT, crowd control, investigators negotiators, senior supervisors.

And that's just within one resource specialty...depending on how things develop, this could eventually call for EMS, possibly fire dept, who knows?

The whole point to NIMS is to give emergency responders (first or otherwise) common terminology, forms, structures -- a format for encouraging interoperability when needed.

"IC" is the common term that signifies 'person from our agency who makes command decisions". It is not grandiose for CAP to have such individuals....it is a necessity.

Further, while an ELT-only IC makes sense, we need to establish it carefully, and part of the training needs to emphasize to these most basic level ICs the ability to recognize when the mission complexity has expanded to the point that a more experienced ("higher ;level", simply meaning more fully trained) IC is required.

[RiverAux]

You don't need to be an expert in the field to run a mission; Search, Disaster, Fire, etc.  You just need leadership skills, a little common sense, a knowledge of the required paperwork, and most importantly know how to get in touch with those that are the experts.

Actually, you do.  Remember, it is the IC's job to sign off on everything that is done in the mission.  How in the world do you expect an IC that knows nothing about a particular type of emergency to know if the plan being presented to him by mission staff makes sense or not? 

A police department, according to NIMS doctrine, actually does "activate" ICS on a house alarm response or any other minor event....however, it does notexpand the ICS staff structure -- that is, the "IC" would be the LE officer responding to the initial call, who would handle the situation and close it out.

Exactly.  I have been the official agency Incident Commander for a wildfire -- that "fire" consisted of nothing more than a smoking snag that had been hit by lightening and I was the only guy on scene waiting for the pumper truck to come up and put some water on it. 

"Incident Commander" is a very generic term that means different things in different situations and the training to hold that position has to be different depending on what the incident is.  Some people are trying to turn a system designed for maximum flexibility into a rigid structure that can't ever be alterered no matter what situation is in front of them.

[NavLT]

You don't need to be an expert in the field to run a mission; Search, Disaster, Fire, etc.  You just need leadership skills, a little common sense, a knowledge of the required paperwork, and most importantly know how to get in touch with those that are the experts.

Actually, you do.  Remember, it is the IC's job to sign off on everything that is done in the mission.  How in the world do you expect an IC that knows nothing about a particular type of emergency to know if the plan being presented to him by mission staff makes sense or not? 

Actually you do not need to be an expert in the field, you need to be the one responsible for the incident. It is nice to be both an expert and responsible but not always possible.  The IC for the next volcano explosion is not going to be a vulcanologist from FEMA it is going to be a Level 1 or 2 FEMA IC with command experience with Vulcanologists on his team.  The IC from Mt St Helen's is dead now and not available. The IC from the world trade Center colapse had never handled a 100 story building colapse before and the IC from the pentagon had never dealt with a Kamikaze 737 either.

[RiverAux]

There is a big difference between such once in generation events and routine incidents that can be expected to happen on a regular basis.  But, lets play that game -- the response to a volcano eruption will be quite similar to what happens in other incidents -- mass evacuation, mass casualties, etc.  You just need the volcano experts to tell you when to bug out and where not to go. 

You guys are just insane if you think that every Incident Commander in every agency is going to be interchangable and that they will be treated as such.  I don't care if you send a CAP IC to every training course available, if he hasn't been out cutting fireline at some point in his past, he isn't going to be put in charge of a multi-agency wildfire control operation.  And neither is FEMA going to call that US Forest Service wildfire IC to run the response to a terrorist incident in downtown LA.