Quote from: ammotrucker on February 24, 2010, 10:46:04 PM
That seems funny to me, as I was just at a training event Sponsered by the state in which the only way that most of the ground teams could talk to CAP aircraft was on the AV band VHF.  If we are put in the same position of talking to there aircraft for support AV VHF may be the only way.

How about CAP radios?

Why do our GTs need to talk to anybody that doesn't already have a CAP radio? I can understand having inter-agency radios to equip a mission base but why do I, the GTL need to talk to anyone but our own base?

There may not be a CAP base.  Imagine that you are a combo CAP IC/GTL leading a team and being directed by the county sheriff.

Quote from: RiverAux on February 24, 2010, 11:23:16 PM
There may not be a CAP base.  Imagine that you are a combo CAP IC/GTL leading a team and being directed by the county sheriff.

ICs should not be in the field. Their job is to run the mission and support the assets prosecuting the mission. Even in your hypothetical the sheriff should be supplying the radio.

ICs can be "on-scene" commanders.  The first motorcycle cop who shows up on an accident scene is the IC until someone else takes over.  CAP ICs cannot flight release themselves.  There is nothing in the regs that says a IC cannot participate.  NHQ says that "prudent judgment"  would have the IC managing, not participating. 

I can see where a deployed IC would work on a small ground team operation.

Quote from: Short Field on February 25, 2010, 01:14:51 AM
ICs can be "on-scene" commanders.  The first motorcycle cop who shows up on an accident scene is the IC until someone else takes over.  CAP ICs cannot flight release themselves.  There is nothing in the regs that says a IC cannot participate.  NHQ says that "prudent judgment"  would have the IC managing, not participating. 

I can see where a deployed IC would work on a small ground team operation.

We don't deploy like that though. In our organization the (CAP) IC should be in the rear with the gear.

Put a radio equipped MRO and or CUL at the mission base/ICP.  That'll solve a fair amount of interoperability concerns.

Ground teams should include a radio savvy person, not just a person with a radio.  Knowing which channels are in your radio(s), and how to best use them will help fill in some other gaps. 

Perfect?  No.  However I firmly believe well trained people can make the most of our gear and improve communications with other agencies when needed.

Sure, readily available liaison radios sounds great.  However, the unfortunate truth is too many current members are completely lost if they can't reach their usual CAP repeater.  All to often, making informed choices about changing channels is too much to ask.  Throw yet another radio and channel set into the mix and you'll muddy the waters even more.  (Every single time I've been an MRO or CUL, I've had to teach someone how to use their radio before they leave mission base.  Pencil whipped ROA?).  I really enjoy radios, but more whiz bang gadgetry won't solve much unless more of our members develop a solid, yet basic, communications skill set.

Quote from: davidsinn on February 25, 2010, 01:31:37 AM
We don't deploy like that though. In our organization the (CAP) IC should be in the rear with the gear.

We know your opinion - now give us a regulation cite to support it. 

And you do understand that saying "in the rear with the gear" is insulting.  That's why the combat AFSCs and MOSs use it.  It ranks right up there with REMF.   In CAP, the gear tends to be deployed out with the aircrews and ground teams.  The only "gear" we tend to have at mission base is radio equipment to match what the deployed teams have so we can communicate with them and then computers so we can record what is happening as well as release the sorties.  Not much "gear" to be had in our location but maybe your location has better luck.

No where in IS 300 or IS 400 does it state the IC cannot be on-scene.  CAP does not have a regulation that states that either.  If you can find it, I would appreciate knowing about it.

IC's have no business being in the search or DR area.  At most a branch director or strike team leader could be out there.

IC's are not supposed to be involved in tactics.  Of course you can make up all sorts of ultra-tiny missions where the IC is also one of the UDF team members or something, but then we probably don't have a need for comms to start with. We're talking about common sense here.  Want some ICS?

Look where it tells you the ICP should be - and the IC belongs in there.

One common failing of CAP IC's is being "on the ground" instead of being in the office discussing SMART objectives.

Quote from: Short Field on February 25, 2010, 01:14:51 AM
ICs can be "on-scene" commanders.  The first motorcycle cop who shows up on an accident scene is the IC until someone else takes over.  CAP ICs cannot flight release themselves.  There is nothing in the regs that says a IC cannot participate.  NHQ says that "prudent judgment"  would have the IC managing, not participating. 

I can see where a deployed IC would work on a small ground team operation.

You seem to have missed what I said.  There is a big difference between what is required vs what is "prudent judgment".   Size of the incident and available communications would be major factors as well.   In the major of cases, prudent judgment would preclude the IC being on-scene unless there was a mobile command post set up.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 25, 2010, 05:21:17 AM
IC's have no business being in the search or DR area.  At most a branch director or strike team leader could be out there.

IC's are not supposed to be involved in tactics.  Of course you can make up all sorts of ultra-tiny missions where the IC is also one of the UDF team members or something, but then we probably don't have a need for comms to start with. We're talking about common sense here.  Want some ICS?

Look where it tells you the ICP should be - and the IC belongs in there.

One common failing of CAP IC's is being "on the ground" instead of being in the office discussing SMART objectives.

What he said.

There is no regulation to back me up merely common sense. I just took ICS300 last month so it's still fresh in my mind. Yes in other ES organizations the IC is first on scene but his job on an expanding incident is to set up an ICP that is outside the incident area and manage, not perform the mission.

Yes in the rear with the gear is somewhat insulting but that doesn't make it any less true. A ground team is the pointy end of the stick. The IC is at the back providing the thrust with the GBD being the guiding hand.

Since the subject of this thread is interoperability:  I'm no IC but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that interoperability will be best served by having the CAP IC at or near the mission base or ICP.   Close to those other agency IC's or liaisons. 

It might not be required in our regulations, but would seem to make a whole heap of sense.

Interoperatbility is by definition the ability of more than one organization to work together with some cohesion.  The location of the ICP, the location of the Staff, The locaiton of the IC, the Radio carried by a team are all small factors that effect interoperability.  The only way to find out if you can work together with cohesion (in buisness substitute ROI) is to practice doing so and find out where it does not work/why and fix the issues. 

As an IC out side of CAP (merely a OSC in CAP) how involved the IC gets at a mission is a great thread to have in another posting because some best practices about that whole ICS (type 1, type 2, type 3, type 4 and type 5) sizing of an incident dictates how ICS system responds.  Type 1 incidents the IC is on site because the ICP is his car.......Type 5 indicents you cannot even see the smoke from the fire usually.

911, Katrina, Hugo, Andrew, Earthquakes in Haiti..... It gets thrown in our faces every year that figuring out how it should work on paper is a good first step but failing to test the plan until the mess happens usually results in lost lives, lost property and wasted $$$$.


Practice Practice Practice!

"Perfect practice makes perfect, not just practice" so we need to work on improving our practice.

V/R
LT J.

^^^  :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: Eclipse on February 24, 2010, 11:16:03 PM

Quote from: ammotrucker on February 24, 2010, 10:46:04 PM
That seems funny to me, as I was just at a training event Sponsered by the state in which the only way that most of the ground teams could talk to CAP aircraft was on the AV band VHF.  If we are put in the same position of talking to there aircraft for support AV VHF may be the only way.

How about CAP radios?

How would you like to explain how to talk to Fish and Wildlife on a CAP radio?  While they are transmitting on 800MHz

Quote from: ammotrucker on February 26, 2010, 12:30:29 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 24, 2010, 11:16:03 PM

Quote from: ammotrucker on February 24, 2010, 10:46:04 PM
That seems funny to me, as I was just at a training event Sponsered by the state in which the only way that most of the ground teams could talk to CAP aircraft was on the AV band VHF.  If we are put in the same position of talking to there aircraft for support AV VHF may be the only way.

How about CAP radios?

How would you like to explain how to talk to Fish and Wildlife on a CAP radio?  While they are transmitting on 800MHz

You don't. You put a CAP GTM with an ROA card with the F&W team.

QuoteType 1 incidents the IC is on site because the ICP is his car.......Type 5 incidents you cannot even see the smoke from the fire usually.

Check your numbers. A Type 1 is a federal level incident and a Type 5 is a single tree smoldering from a lightning hit.

QuoteI'm no IC but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that interoperability will be best served by having the CAP IC at or near the mission base or ICP.  Close to those other agency IC's or liaisons.  It might not be required in our regulations, but would seem to make a whole heap of sense.

On small incidents (5, maybe 4), ICS doesn't prohibit the IC from being in the field. If the incident is big enough to have an ICP, then yes, that's where the IC is supposed to be per ICS. If the incident is big enough to have multiple ICs, agency reps and liaison officers, then you need to have a unified command going. Unfortunately, unified command isn't carried out well very often - because it doesn't happen very often. As stated, practice, practice, practice. The classic case is the fire IC being interviewed in front of the fire ICP explaining how the law enforcement IC is in the LE ICP is down the street.

As for interoperability in its intended sense - comm - SAR in general, not necessarily CAP, has had to learn to make it work more often then most agencies. SAR teams have to deal with hams, local law and fire, park rangers, aircraft, and various federal agencies, so they often have more diverse communications capabilities than the other groups. "Frequency agile" is a term not heard much anymore. It's become "radio agile."

Mike

Doesn't work that way!

  Have you ever seen the Fire Dept driving around with a Sheriff in the engine so they can talk to the cops?
Or the FBI driving around with the local Police so they can talk?

FWC Teams have 2 people, in a pickup truck with only 2 seats...

Same issue for the National Guard... Civilians (CAP) cant ride in a HUMMVEE!   

And its not practical.....

Were not in the old days anymore guys.  The bottom line is if we cant talk, we need to take a back seat and give up on DR!

1. This topic is currently being discussed among the DCs, DCS/Comm, and National. It is fairly lengthy email discussion.

2. There is a reason why there are INTEROPERABILITY CHANNELS. No one makes a radio that can have every frequency programmed into it. Most agencies buy radios that have enough channels for their day-to-day needs and mutual aid and/or interoperability channels, but not many extra channels.

3. Part of the COML's (the rest-of-the-world designation for Comm Unit Ldr) job is developing a comm plan for an incident. Part of this process involves finding out what bands everyone operates on and how to cross-band communicate. Not often an easy task.

4. Sometimes, it may be necessary to embed CAP personnel with other agencies for this purpose.

5. While we, as an organization, need to be able to communicate with other agencies, individual members generally don't. On large incidents, each agency uses its own channels to talk to their own people and mutual aid or inter op channels to talk to other people.

Quote from: CommGeek on February 27, 2010, 03:32:41 AM


Doesn't work that way!

  Have you ever seen the Fire Dept driving around with a Sheriff in the engine so they can talk to the cops?

They don't have to.  Chances are that the sheriff's dispatcher is sitting in the same room as the fire department dispatcher.

QuoteOr the FBI driving around with the local Police so they can talk?

Historically, the FBI doesn't talk to anybody anyway.

QuoteFWC Teams have 2 people, in a pickup truck with only 2 seats...

Assume you're referring to Florida Fish and Wildlife cops (we have something similar here, we call them critter cops).

QuoteSame issue for the National Guard... Civilians (CAP) cant ride in a HUMMVEE!

Guess someone should tell all those guardsmen on the east coast who were transporting civilian cops and EMS to calls, and transporting hospital staff so they could get to work, and even taking patients to hospitals that they can't transport lowly civilians in their vehicles.

QuoteAnd its not practical.....

Were not in the old days anymore guys.  The bottom line is if we cant talk, we need to take a back seat and give up on DR!

We can talk just fine within our own organization, and back to the ICP/EOC, just like all those other agencies are doing.