Disaster Relief training pipeline

[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.