Planning Section Chief

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have just recently qualified as a Ground Branch Director (pause for the cheers of the crowd to fade) and I started looking at the next level of requirements.

It looks like the next higher step is something called "Planning Section Chief" followed by "Operations Section Chief" before I can start training for "Incident Commander."

I hate to sound like a boot here, because I've been on a LOT of missions.  But I've never been on a mission with all those chiefs.  Normally we're lucky to get enough indians.  Am I reading these SQTR's correctly? 

Normally, the IC has an Air and a Ground branch director, and once in a while an intelligence officer.  How do I get experience as a Planning or Operations section chief trainee, and where do I find a chief to train me?

This NIIMS stuff is really annoying!

[isuhawkeye]

O Man....


Planning Section is the pace to be. 

I used to be in your shoes.  I never though planning did anything, and I couldn't understand its role.  That was of course until I went out on my first large scale mission.  I had the opportunity to have gentlemen named Paul Burke as a mentor.  Paul was a retired Alaska state trooper with thousands of really big missions under his belt. 

Paul showed me that the planning chief is the brains of the mission.  The planner gathers all of the information forom the debriefings.  He and his staff determine where teams go, what they do, and who will be playing tomorrow. 

The Ops chief looks at what is happening now, while the planning chief looks at what will happen next.  This guy looks at the map, and reeds the situation.  He weighs what has been done with what should be done next, and he writes the assignments for the crews. 

A good planning chief will walk into the second Operational period with three different plans of attack.  He/she  will have sorties and assignments ready to go to meet the needs of this plan. 

As the day unfolds the planner will send assignments to the Ops chief for implementation. 

In a well oiled mission this guy is the one who puts the puzzle together.  He thinks hard, and uses his resources to determine what the next move is. 


If you hadn't guessed I really enjoy the Planning role. 

Now remember.  A simple ELT search doesn't get a planning chief, and if the mission is small enough the position is never activated, but in MY wing.  We get deployed on approximately 6-7 large scale multi day operations, and manage upwards of 200-300 personnel. 

Lots of fun!!!!


Come visit Iowa.  Ill train you, and put you to work.

[RiverAux]

I have started to see the Planning Section Chief position used more lately though I don't really think everyone really has a handle on its purpose since it is still fairly new to CAP. 

[Tubacap]

Ironically enough, I was just looking at this very same topic today!  I am a newly minted AOBD, and on small scale missions, I have never seen it.  I have however been involved at the mission base level on several large scale missions where it was used.  I am definitely excited to be starting this level of training because it is definitely the "Brains" of the operation!

[isuhawkeye]

As Iowa has developed we found that our Ops Chiefs were actually doing the job of the planning section.  Once you separate those positions (on larger missions) everything functions much smoother.

[Tubacap]

I second that notion!  I think it's all about using ICS to your advantage in knowing when to call reinforcements and split positions.  In the ICS world, even under the AOBD, there are tons of sub-positions to deal with anything that would come up on a mission.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I read the ICS stuff on it.  The Planning Section Chief does a lot of what the G-2 or S-2 would do on a military staff.  I've just never been on a mission big enough to use it.  That's really all ICS is, a bastardization of the concept of a military staff, with names changed to make it comfortable for those folks from the 60's who burned their draft cards.  The functions are all the same, just new terminology.

[RiverAux]

That's really all ICS is, a bastardization improvement of the concept of a military staff

[ZigZag911]

ICS system is designed so it expands as the mission requirements increase.

On your typical ELT mission that the IC runs from his den, the IC is the OSC/PSC/FASC/LSC/CUL/MSO  (ops, planning, finance-admin, logistics, comm & safety)....plus 'butcher, baker and candle stick maker')

However: once we go into a group or wing level SAREX, SAREVAL, REDCAP, or multi-day disaster relief mission, essentially Ops Section Chief is "tactical" ("What do we do now?"), while Planning Section Chief is "strategic" ("Based on what air & ground teams have done, and the information we've fathered, what do we do next")

For a large mission, if you have the personnel available, you want a true planning section, which at minimum ought to consist of the section chief, an experienced aircrew member (a spare AOBD or mission pilot, ideally) and a first rate ground pounder (GBD/GTL, preferably).

If one or more of these individuals knows the operational area well, that's an added bonus....otherwise, see if you can latch on to someone awaiting assignment who does.

PSC feeds ideas to IC; once IC makes a decision which way to go, OSC sees that the plans are executed.

[isuhawkeye]

Great inputs. 

I hope it answers John's concerns. 

Lets try to keep this thread focused on the planning section.  I would hate this discussion to spiral out of control

[arajca]

At the risk derailing this discussion, I strongly advise taking the Inland SAR Course as soon as you can. You'll learn a great deal from that course about planning. BTDT. Also, take ICS 300 and 400. 300 is geared toward planning and you'll learn alot about ICS forms - whether you like it or not.

Since PSC's aren't used that much in CAP, you can help maintain your skills by helping with or doing long-range planning for your unit.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think I'm going to have any problems with this, I was an S-2 for an Engineer battalion for a while, and I was S-2 in a Military Police brigade as well.  The S-2 is responsible for a lot of the planning, and for developing information on both threat forces and weather that may effect the mission.  In the engineer battalion, he has the additional duty of developing information on local engineer resources that can be foraged: soil for fill, timber, etc.  My only problem is that we seldom have missions or exercises of the scope necessary to establish planning or operations sections.  Like I said, the chain usually is IC - GBD/ABD - Worker bees.

I've reviewed the NIIMS planning form.  The military 5-paragraph order is a little easier to work with, but the same information is there.  RiverAux may consider it an improvement over the military, but I don't.  The military staffing model has worked for a couple of hundred years.  All NIIMS really does is take the military staffing model and change the terminology.  There is a slight shifting of some responsibility, but not much.

[floridacyclist]

When ICS was developed, they went to a lot of places looking for ideas on how to organize it. They looked at business, the military, existing emergency management etc and took only what they thought would work best from each, what folks these days like to call "Best Practices".

You will recognize some aspects of each management system in bits and pieces through ICS, but at the same time it will seem like a bastardization because it is; the developers purposely changed enough of each idea that they stole so that the end result didn't really resemble anything and thus nobody could claim that ICS was based on their system.

Maj McCord asked me to put together an ICS training class for September that you might find interesting.

It will be at the Florida Fire College in Ocala the 2nd weekend of September (7-9). The instructors will be Lee Newsome, the owner of Emergency Response Educators (a professional emergency management education company - www.erecinc.com - he is donating the class to us as a tax write-off) and Capt Mike Hilliard, the Lake/Sumter Co EMS trainer, who will be teaching 100/200/700. I will be an asst instructor for the 300 course. Food, books, and dorm lodging is included in the total cost of $45.00 for the weekend.

Two courses are being taught - ICS100/200 and NIMS IS700 is being taught in the basic course, and ICS300 is being taught for the advanced students. Cadets are encouraged to participate - my 15yo has taken all the classes and will be in the 300 course. He's actually excited about how this will help make him more useful around a mission base - strong words from the Hawk Mountain Staff Honor Cadet. The idea is that all the old <noxious gases with a raspberry sound> can load their vans full of young <noxious gases with a raspberry sound> and go to the courses side-by-side.

Go to http://www.tallahasseecap.org/ICS for details, or just go to the Tallahassee homepage and click on ICS Training if you're not in a position to look it up now. If you click on register, it will take you to a form to fill out and then a link to pay the $20.00 deposit online.

[sardak]

Here's my perspective, as the PSC on our county Type 3 Incident Management Team, a GIS specialist (part of the plans function) on a federal Type 3 team, having assisted a federal Type 2 team in the plans section on a large missing person search and been an agency rep on an incident managed by federal Type 1 teams.  In that function I attended lots of meetings which all involved the plans section. None of these activities are/have been as a CAP member, though my CAP and non-CAP SAR background has been useful.  Among the classes I've taken are the NASAR Plans Section Chief and Incident Commander courses.

Yes, ICS is based on the military structure and was developed by the wildland fire community in the 1970s.  The names were changed way back at the start to better reflect the functions for civilians.

Many CAP members can go through their ES career without being on an actual mission that requires expanding the ICS structure to the level of having section chiefs.  Where the full structure is used most often is on SAREXs and currently USAF expects the full structure on evaluated ones.  However, the time frame on SAREXs is so compressed that functions don't really get to perform their jobs.

As mentioned, the PSC is the strategy person, thinking at least one operational period ahead.  But the plans section also has the situation, resource and documentation units, as well as assembles the IAP.  Even with a staff to help with these, the PSC can be the busiest person on staff.

Under the original ICS and two-eyed NIIMS, intel was not a specific function or position, but was generally considered part of plans.  In the current one-eyed NIMS, intel is a specific function, which can be placed anywhere in the ICS structure.  Cops like to make it a separate function at the command or general staff level.  Most everyone else seems to put it under plans, adding to that workload.

The perfect world division of duties between ops and plans is like this, which doesn't agree with the CAP model. 

- Ops determines tactics to meet incident objectives
- Ops selects the kind and type of resources to perform a particular task, i.e. ops determines work assignments and resource requirements
- Plans selects the specific resource to meet ops needs and orders additional resources (through logistics) as needed
- Plans prepares the Division Assignment Form 204 (104 and 109 in CAP)
- Ops briefs the resources
- Ops manages the tactics
- Ops manages and monitors the assigned resources
- Plans debriefs the resources
- Plans updates the situation status based on input from ops, field reports and debriefings

Plans and ops work out the resource needs at the pre-planning or tactics meeting.  The IC has no need to be involved in this process.  Ops presents the tactical plan at the planning meeting where the other functions are asked for "buy-in" to the plan.  Plans then prepares the assignment sheets for the next period.  Remember, except for situation status, and gathering intel if assigned, plans' activities are for the next operational period.  This is why on a short duration incident there will not be a plans section, but will be an ops section, since it deals with the current situation.

This is the full up version of the plans function, which is rarely needed.  However, knowing what the plans section does on a large incident helps focus the plans function on smaller incidents.

John, when you say you reviewed the "NIIMS planning form", do you mean the 201?

Mike

[JohnKachenmeister]

That's it... the 201.

I'm a LOT more accustomed to the "Situation/Mission/Execution/Service-Support/Command and Signal" plan, but I can learn to use the civilian one.

I'm also a lot more accustomed to the OPS guy doing both planning and operations functions, with input from intel, log, and pers.  The G-3/S-3 is sort of the center of the battle staff, and writes the "Execution" portion of the plan.

[Dragoon]

The biggest thing an Army guy has to learn about ICS are the differences

1.  For some unknown reason, the plans guy is the one ordering resources.  So he's kind of the S2, the S3 Plans and S1 (for mobilization).

2.  For some other unknown reason, Comms is under logistics, instead of working for the S3.

I got no answer as to why they set stuff up this way.  I just work here.

[Dustoff]

My short take on ICS 300/Planning Section Chief goes like this:

In the ICS 700/100/200 classes you learn how to function in ICS when you get invited to somebody else's party

In ICS 300 you learn how to make ICS function for you when you are the one giving the party!

Now to answer the questions:

The biggest thing an Army guy has to learn about ICS are the differences

1.  For some unknown reason, the plans guy is the one ordering resources.  So he's kind of the S2, the S3 Plans and S1 (for mobilization).

2.  For some other unknown reason, Comms is under logistics, instead of working for the S3.

I got no answer as to why they set stuff up this way.  I just work here.

1)  The Planning Section Chief (PSC) is the one that puts together the plan to accomplish the Incident Objectives, as determined by the Incident Commander/Unified Command.  The PSC looks at the objectives and develops strategies and tactics to accomplish those objectives based upon the resources that are available.  If the needed number of resources are available, then press on with the plan.  If not, then the PSC contacts Logistics to make up the shortfall.  If Logistics can't get those resources, then the PSC has to go to plan B (or C, D, etc)   The Logistics Section Chief (LSC) is the one who is responsible for getting stuff, and taking care of the stuff after it arrives.

"So Planning contacts Logistics and says that we need 27 boxes of Blue Widgets to accomplish our objectives in the next operational period.  We have only 5 on hand, can we get the other 22?  And they have to be the blue ones, the green ones won't do."

And don't forget that the Finance/Admin Section Chief has to PAY for those 22 boxes.  That's a whole 'nother subject.

2)  Comm is considered a Logistics function.  Their job is to obtain, set-up, and maintain all the comm hardware.  They don't do the actual communicating, they just develop and maintain the infrastructure.  That includes radios (of many different colors/flavors/varsities) along with the IT infrastructure (semaphore/smoke signals also included).

The actual communicating is done by the folk who actually need to talk.  Lots of operations stuff.  Very few RTO's here, usually only seen at at bigger incidents at the IC level (because the IC has much better things to do than talk on a radio).  Just give him/her the data and let them make the decisions.

Hope this helps.

Jim
Disaster Preparedness/ICS Instructor

[Dragoon]

I'm fine with Comms under log if it means "Comms Logistics Officer."  But CAPs implementation, frankly, sucks.  The Comms guys are trained to run the radios, not hand our radios.  As a matter of fact, I don't think there's a single task under CUL concerned with distributing and accounting for gear.  The CUL tasks are all about running a Comms room.

I believe operating nets is an Ops, not Log/CUL function.  But ICS doctrine doesn't spend a lot of time emphasizing this, so CAP Comms guys have the wrong idea.  And, indeed, so does the CAP-USAF evaluation guide...


The Plans guy getting assets seems like a distraction from the primary task of making a plan.   Expecially if you actually have to call up folks, handle Demob, etc.  Seems to make more sense to keep the Plans guy focused on what the situation is, what's it's likely to be tomorrow, and what needs to be done.  Identifiying "we need 3 more aircrews" is fine - actually FINDING those crews seems to be a distraction to the planning functions.  Again, this may be a CAP implementation, but I've yet to find ICS doctrine that pins the "make the phone calls" function on anyone else.

[arajca]

The Planning section determines the resources needed and turns the list over to the Logistics section who gets the reources. So, Planning determines they need 3 more a/c and crews for the mission. They pass that to Logistics, who starts calling to get the resources. Now, if the PSC knows were the resources are avaialble from, he may attach a note to make the Logistics search easier, but the PSC shouold not be getting the resources.

The problem with Comm is no one really does a comm mission. Yes, comm is used in every part of an incident, but comm is not THE incident. ICS puts comm in a support role, similar to Food Service, Vehicle Maint, etc, because comm supports the everyone. For the most part, comm will base. A relatively new compnent in ICS is the Incident Dispatch, which, while still a part of comm and Log, moves the actual communicating to a separate function. Which is similar to what CAP does.

Logistics is a catch-all for every support/service activity on an incident. It is almost as unappreciated in CAP as Fin/Admin.

Operations is primarily the front line troops. They're the ones in the field loking for whatever. Comm is not a front line operation.

[sardak]

Identifiying "we need 3 more aircrews" is fine - actually FINDING those crews seems to be a distraction to the planning functions.  Again, this may be a CAP implementation, but I've yet to find ICS doctrine that pins the "make the phone calls" function on anyone else.

Andrew is correct.  Plans identifies resource needs and logistics orders them.

This is taken directly from ICS documentation.
"The Supply Unit is responsible for ordering, receiving, processing, and storing all incident-related resources. All off-incident resources will be ordered through the Supply Unit, including:
Tactical and support resources (including personnel)."

Now, the response will be, "A Supply Unit! We don't have enough people to crew the aircraft..."  True in most cases, but someone has to order resources.  It shouldn't be the PSC though, because as mentioned, making phone calls to find resources takes the PSC away from planning.

This is from the SOG for a federal IMT.
"The Planning Section's objective is collecting, evaluating, documenting, and disseminating information about the incident and the status of resources. This information is essential to: 1) understand the current situation, 2) predict the probable course of incident events, 3) prepare alternative strategies and tactical operations, 4) provide appropriate fiscal and logistical support, 5) accurately inform the public, and 6) document the incident. If the Planning Section fails, the whole team fails."

On to comm

I'm fine with Comms under log if it means "Comms Logistics Officer."  But CAPs implementation, frankly, sucks.  The Comms guys are trained to run the radios, not hand our radios.  As a matter of fact, I don't think there's a single task under CUL concerned with distributing and accounting for gear.  The CUL tasks are all about running a Comms room.

I believe operating nets is an Ops, not Log/CUL function.  But ICS doctrine doesn't spend a lot of time emphasizing this, so CAP Comms guys have the wrong idea.  And, indeed, so does the CAP-USAF evaluation guide...

A relatively new compnent in ICS is the Incident Dispatch, which, while still a part of comm and Log, moves the actual communicating to a separate function.

Again, direct from ICS documentation:
"The Communications Unit is responsible for developing plans for the use of incident communications equipment and facilities; installing and testing of communications equipment; supervision of the Incident Communications Center; and the distribution and maintenance of communications equipment.
Communications planning is particularly important in ICS, where an incident may grow to include numerous agencies. Determining required radio nets, establishing interagency frequency assignments, and ensuring maximum use of communications capability is essential.
If an Incident Communications Center is established, an Incident Dispatcher is responsible for receiving and transmitting radio, telephone, FAX, and computer messages, and for providing incident dispatch services." 

This part about Incident Dispatcher dates back to before 1994 , so I'd say its older than "relatively new." Other ICS identified positions within the communications section: radio operator, incident communications center manager, comm tech and comm unit leader.

I could go on an on.  CAP simply took its way of doing business and threw ICS titles and organization at it, but without really adopting what's behind the org chart.  Unfortunately, CAP-USAF pamphlet 12 reflects this, and is how CAP is evaluated.  But that's already another thread.

Mike

[RiverAux]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

[davedove]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

Right, in most CAP missions, several roles would be performed by one person, or rather the one position wouldn't need to be split into the differing functions.  ICS is designed to be expanded or contracted as appropriate to the incident.

[RiverAux]

Exactly.  Though I will admit that in not all cases does CAP expand and correct exactly as would have been envisioned by ICS.  But, "thats not my job" is not the attitude you need to help run a base. 

[davedove]

For one of our SAREX's, we had individuals filling positions even though they weren't needed for the scale of the exercise.  However, these people needed mission credit for the positions, so they were filled.  This resulted in a drop in efficiency as the instructions, etc. were channeled from person to person following the proper chain of command, but the people were all seated within 10 feet of one another at the mission base.  With the small scale of the exercise, these orders could have been given once to all the folks.

Fortunately, it was just an exercise and good training.  If it had been a real mission, the setup would have been needlessly complicated.

[Dragoon]

Other ICS identified positions within the communications section: radio operator, incident communications center manager, comm tech and comm unit leader.

I could go on an on.  CAP simply took its way of doing business and threw ICS titles and organization at it, but without really adopting what's behind the org chart.  Unfortunately, CAP-USAF pamphlet 12 reflects this, and is how CAP is evaluated.  But that's already another thread.

Mike

If the Comms unit doesn't run nets, why are there radio operators in the Comms section, as opposed to being listed under Ops?  And where's the specific doctrine to support that?

[davedove]

Other ICS identified positions within the communications section: radio operator, incident communications center manager, comm tech and comm unit leader.

I could go on an on.  CAP simply took its way of doing business and threw ICS titles and organization at it, but without really adopting what's behind the org chart.  Unfortunately, CAP-USAF pamphlet 12 reflects this, and is how CAP is evaluated.  But that's already another thread.

Mike

If the Comms unit doesn't run nets, why are there radio operators in the Comms section, as opposed to being listed under Ops?  And where's the specific doctrine to support that?

The way I would interpret it is this:  Communications, as a subset of Logistics, provides comm assets to the other sections.  Radio Operators are one type of asset, provided to operate the other comm assets.

[floridacyclist]

Comms can be handled two ways - as a unit under Logistics, or as operational assets under Operations. What confuses most people is that if a comm operator is assigned to Ops (say as a GTM/MRO), he is no longer under logistics...he merely checks his radios out from them, the same way he obtains any other piece of equipment. One thing to keep in mind is that there are very few dedicated radio operators in most operations...just a bunch of firefighters checking out radios from logistics (the CUL) and sticking them in a pocket.

[Dragoon]

Do you have the reference for that?  Might come in handy.

[floridacyclist]

I'd have to look back through my materials...as an ICS TTT, I've read so many books they all seem to run together LOL

Understand, I'm not talking about the incident Comm Center itself, just the tactical communicators on the teams.

I think it came from my Emergency Communications classes, but will have to confirm. I did find this in the California Wing CUL study course:

While under classical ICS concepts the Communications Unit is under the Service Branch of the Logistics Section, under CAP operations communications is normally a subordinate component of the Operations Section. As such, the CUL reports to the Operations Section Chief (OSC), but works closely with the Base Manager and other staff officers to achieve and maintain the necessary communications circuits.

I think what we're seeing here is the confusion between Incident Communications (the CUL's little shop of horrors) and tactical communications (Billy Joe Jim Bob LeeRoy humping it in a ground team with his backpack full of every radio known to man). While I understand the idea of all Radio op types reporting to the CUL for assignment, I couldn't imagine keeping them under the operational control of the CUL once they're assigned elsewhere...that's just not a good example of unity of command.

[ZigZag911]

Word is that comm training is going to be revised & expanded in the next year or so....besides user training, there are going to be 'modules' of instruction ( a lot of it on line) focusing on sqdn & group comm officer training, instructor training, technical/maintenance personnel, comm logistics....so, if this comes to pass, some of the problems identified here may begin to be resolved.

As far as focusing too much on the 'big picture' of ICS: while it's true that often a CAP-run mission will work with a small mission base staff filling multiple roles, nevertheless we need to know the system fairly thoroughly so we can "work & play well with others" -- that is, as some CAP ES resources get more & more involved in multi-agency missions.

USAF also expects us to have a good grasp of it for SAREVALs.

[sardak]

If the Comms unit doesn't run nets, why are there radio operators in the Comms section, as opposed to being listed under Ops?  And where's the specific doctrine to support that?

Quote from: sardak on Yesterday at 12:24:20 PM

Communications planning is particularly important in ICS, where an incident may grow to include numerous agencies. Determining required radio nets...

From the radio operator job aid J-158:
Several nets may be operating on the incident.
Tactical Net
Command Net
Logistics/Camp Net
Air-to-Ground Net
Air-to-Air Net

"For example, the Command net radios and Camp net radios cannot talk to each other. Traffic from one net to the other must be relayed through the ICC. Listen carefully, as you [the radio operator] may have to relay if you hear a field (operations) unit calling a logistics unit."

"The radio must be monitored at all times while there are crews in the field or being transported to and from the fireline. At least two people should be by the radio, one to be the lead operator, and the other to run messages, give the lead operator a break when needed, or just to help listen or record messages."

These aren't formal nets, and in fact there is no structure to any of them so they are all "tactical" in the sense that there is no control operator.

Under "classical" ICS referred to in the previous post, radio operators aren't assigned to field or tactical units because they aren't required to have any field qualifications.  They can be assigned to other incident facilities such as a camp.

If a field unit needs comm, they check out radios from the Comm unit.  They can talk on the radio just like cops, firefighters, etc. do every day. I don't think you'll find anything in the ICS documentation about assigning radio operators to the field.

Under NIMS there is a typed resource called a "CAP Communications Support Team" but it's not intended to provide radio operators to field units.

Mike

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

This is exactly my point.  Even under the ICS form 201, air operations are pretty well down on the totem pole, down where the operators are.  In a major disaster, we would be a resource to the planning chief of the supported entity, not doing our own plans off independently. And the CAP base headquarters is, as you said, likely to be 5 people at most.  We can't mobilize a large enough response to justify all the chiefs envisioned under the ICS plan.  We have enough trouble getting the indians.

Personally, this looks to me like a back-door way to simply give more mission base experience to people transitioning from field operators to headquarters before qualifying them as IC's.  I'm cool with that, it takes training to change from being a nail to being a hammer.  You could accomplish the same objective by requiring a longer apprenticeship period for IC, but however they want to do it is fine. 

I just can't see a Planning Section in any CAP operation.  If we have that many people available, they probably would be up flying or filling their canteens for a ground sortie. 

Canteens... I'm dating myself.  I meant Camelbaks. 

[isuhawkeye]

ICS is always an interesting discussion.  Most fire departments across the country are having the same discussion that we are.  Very few single entities have enough staff to mount a full scale ICS staff. 

It is however very important to understand, and train within these positions so that when enough agencies, wing's, and staff are brought together we can function affectively within the system. 

[davedove]

ICS is always an interesting discussion.  Most fire departments across the country are having the same discussion that we are.  Very few single entities have enough staff to mount a full scale ICS staff. 

It is however very important to understand, and train within these positions so that when enough agencies, wing's, and staff are brought together we can function affectively within the system. 

I would imagine most agencies are having the discussion.  The ICS is designed to handle everything from locating an ELT to a Katrina sized situation.  A single agency can handle many incidents, and won't need to man the entire staff.  The functions will still be there, but one person could hold many roles.  As the size of the incident increases and more agencies are involved, the number of staffed positions increases based on need.  It's when a major incident occurs and multiple agencies must work together that the full staff comes into play.

But, as you say, each agency needs to train for the different positions to be ready for "the big one."

[floridacyclist]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

Even ICS books say that the vast majority of incidents will be limited to the lower levels (something like 95% are level 3 or lower IIRC)...yet we always have to plan with the big one in mind. Even pros have the same issues....most house fires or vehicle accidents are run with very few people compared to what would be mobilized should the defecation impact with the rotary oscillator.

This is exactly my point.  Even under the ICS form 201, air operations are pretty well down on the totem pole, down where the operators are.  In a major disaster, we would be a resource to the planning chief of the supported entity, not doing our own plans off independently. And the CAP base headquarters is, as you said, likely to be 5 people at most.  We can't mobilize a large enough response to justify all the chiefs envisioned under the ICS plan.  We have enough trouble getting the indians.

Which makes training at the lower levels even more important...we are much more likely to be asked to fill a Command or General staff position or lower on someone else's chain of command than we are to be the IC. That is the beauty of ICS....we can plug the pieces in from different agencies as needed, but the pieces still need to be trained to do their jobs. Believe me, a good planning person is worth their weight in gold to an IC that knows how to use him/her. Be assigned to an incident and start speaking their language and they will find work for you to do.

Perhaps the answer is more tabletop exercises where you're not worried about the Indians.

Personally, this looks to me like a back-door way to simply give more mission base experience to people transitioning from field operators to headquarters before qualifying them as IC's.  I'm cool with that, it takes training to change from being a nail to being a hammer.  You could accomplish the same objective by requiring a longer apprenticeship period for IC, but however they want to do it is fine. 

I just can't see a Planning Section in any CAP operation.  If we have that many people available, they probably would be up flying or filling their canteens for a ground sortie. 

That is part of the problem...everyone wants to do the glory jobs (IC or Pilot, or GTL for those of us so inclined) and nobody wants the boring stuff...like PSC or LSC. Since under ICS an unappointed position becomes the responsibility of the next higher level, on a larger incident the IC ends up being burdened with everything that he should be delegating to the PSC and can't do his IC duties quite as effectively.

Everyone wants to be a chief or a warrior, but nobody wants to be a Shaman.

Canteens... I'm dating myself.  I meant Camelbaks. 

I carry two canteens in addition to my Camelbak and require the same of my GTs. Camelbaks are too prone to malfunctions (leaks) to trust them as a sole water source.

[isuhawkeye]

If a wing has a well trained Planning section chief who can specialize in missing person, DR, or missing aircraft that person could easily become the subject matter expert for an entire region, and be called out as much if not more than our air, and ground teams. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

Even ICS books say that the vast majority of incidents will be limited to the lower levels (something like 95% are level 3 or lower IIRC)...yet we always have to plan with the big one in mind. Even pros have the same issues....most house fires or vehicle accidents are run with very few people compared to what would be mobilized should the defecation impact with the rotary oscillator.

This is exactly my point.  Even under the ICS form 201, air operations are pretty well down on the totem pole, down where the operators are.  In a major disaster, we would be a resource to the planning chief of the supported entity, not doing our own plans off independently. And the CAP base headquarters is, as you said, likely to be 5 people at most.  We can't mobilize a large enough response to justify all the chiefs envisioned under the ICS plan.  We have enough trouble getting the indians.

Which makes training at the lower levels even more important...we are much more likely to be asked to fill a Command or General staff position or lower on someone else's chain of command than we are to be the IC. That is the beauty of ICS....we can plug the pieces in from different agencies as needed, but the pieces still need to be trained to do their jobs. Believe me, a good planning person is worth their weight in gold to an IC that knows how to use him/her. Be assigned to an incident and start speaking their language and they will find work for you to do.

Perhaps the answer is more tabletop exercises where you're not worried about the Indians.

Personally, this looks to me like a back-door way to simply give more mission base experience to people transitioning from field operators to headquarters before qualifying them as IC's.  I'm cool with that, it takes training to change from being a nail to being a hammer.  You could accomplish the same objective by requiring a longer apprenticeship period for IC, but however they want to do it is fine. 

I just can't see a Planning Section in any CAP operation.  If we have that many people available, they probably would be up flying or filling their canteens for a ground sortie. 

That is part of the problem...everyone wants to do the glory jobs (IC or Pilot, or GTL for those of us so inclined) and nobody wants the boring stuff...like PSC or LSC. Since under ICS an unappointed position becomes the responsibility of the next higher level, on a larger incident the IC ends up being burdened with everything that he should be delegating to the PSC and can't do his IC duties quite as effectively.

Everyone wants to be a chief or a warrior, but nobody wants to be a Shaman.

Canteens... I'm dating myself.  I meant Camelbaks. 

I carry two canteens in addition to my Camelbak and require the same of my GTs. Camelbaks are too prone to malfunctions (leaks) to trust them as a sole water source.

Gene:

I agree that a planning guy is needed.  But in our CAP operations, we are unlikely to have a planning section.  The ABD or GBD would jointly plan for the next series of sorties based on changing missions, changing conditions, input from the IC, and information from debriefings.  This is a process that happens routinely, and yes, planning skills are critical at that level.  The ABD/GBD guys have to constantly evaluate the mission, the situation, and their own resources, considering crew fatigue, for example.

In theory, there could be a planning section, and an operations section, in a CAP operation.  I could see that happening, IF other agencies, like Army National Guard aviation assets, were also providing air support under CAP command.  That situation, however, is highly unlikely, no matter how good our training is.  And, yes, people LIKE being hero operators instead of headquarters REMF's.  But if we were to field a headquartes of 20-25 people and only be able to get 1 or 2 sorties out, we are set up backasswards.  Our mission is to get assets on the search, not hanging around the air conditioner.

But you are right, a CPX is a great resource to train your headquarters operators.  The problem is that in CAP we are awful short of RLO's who know how to run and control a Command Post Exercise.

[floridacyclist]

If you are on an incident where you can only field 1 or 2 sorties, then it is probably not big enough to need a full ICS staff, hence you probably can get away with moving some of those Chiefs (Indian or Section, makes no difference) into the field. ICS is very scalable that way, and you don't build your headquarters at the expense of your field troops.

Couple of things to ponder here, I'll break them up to make it easier to reply seperately.

A) Most problems with ICS come from it being applied incorrectly. This is a problem whether we're talking CAP, ANG, HootnHoller VFD or BSA. That is why FEMA has mandated the classes for various levels of leadership if you want to play in the sandbox.

B) A and G Branch Directors aren't supposed to plan, they're supposed to execute the steps given to them by the OSC. In a bigger mission, they should be busy executing, not planning.

C) The OSC doesn't plan either, he figures out what tactics to use to execute the strategies laid out by the PSC and approved by the IC

D) The IC's primary duty is to set the incident objectives and coordinate those under him who actually do the work, not plan how to meet them or develop specific tactics. That is called micromanaging and is not a good thing.

E) Understand that we're not talking about smaller incidents here where the IC is probably wearing a few different hats (back to my statement about any unfilled jobs being covered by the link directly above them) such as OSC, FASC, PSC, FSC, IO, LO (if needed), SO, GBD, and AOBD. In a small mission, the IC is responsible for covering ALL responsibilities under those positions since it is often just him and a ground team or two.

F) In a slightly bigger mission, you start to split them out a little in order to maintain proper span of control, but as flexible as ICS is, you should never reverse the order of how information or authority flows. You may have the same person operating as GBD and doing plans, but in doing so he is putting on the PSC hat, not doing it because it is a job that should be done by the GBD. Combining the jobs under s single title would be a great example of an incorrect application of ICS causing confusion.

G) As the mission grows, you add staff as needed in order to maintain proper span of control, but you never add positions just because some book says you should; there are policy and legal exceptions with some agencies, but we won't deal with those. I agree, 25 chiefs and 2 Indians would be stupid. However, how about the following:

1 IC (coordinating and setting objectives, managing by wandering around and making tweaks via the chain of command)
   |
   | 1 IO (if it is real, the press WILL be there)
   | 1 CUL (planning comm, issuing radios, running the net)
   | 1 PSC (Gathering feedback, making plans / developing IAP for next operational period, jointly setting strategies with IC)
   | 1 OSC (developing specific tactics from overall strategies)
         | 1 ABD (Executing strategies by dispatching and tracking aircrews, following up and reporting back on progress)
               | 3 flight crews (flyin)
         | 1 GBD (Executing strategies by dispatching and tracking groundteams, following up and reporting back on progress)
               | 3 ground teams (humpin)

As you can see, the IC already has a correct number of folks reporting directly to him...as do the OSCs and BDs...yet there are still 21 people in the field (out of 30 total) assuming 3-person flight crews and 4-person ground teams...all under an effective span of control with room to grow some without adding more overhead. Sure it could be adjusted some, but nothing is perfect.

H) The PSC doesn't normally kick in until the 2nd Operational Period, so we rarely will see the results of their labor except maybe on REDCAPS since disaster planning will usually be handled by someone else.

I) One thing to remember is that by definition of the phrase "transitioning to NIMS/ICS" there will be changes in the way we do things. ICS is not just a new way to look at the old way of doing things, but in some specific examples, a whole new way to do it. Having the Branch Directors doing the planning may be "how it's always been done", but we can't use that as a valid reason to keep doing so unless we can prove that it's better in all situations (including WTSHTF)...and then we have to practice and train that way whenever possible. We have to keep that in mind when we see things that don't make sense and we also have to expect a few growing pains as we learn a new (and standardized-across-the-board) way of doing things and stop trying to shoehorn our old way into new terminology.

J) That said, as a new IC, is there any reason (budgetary maybe?) I shouldn't be calling out a max effort fully-manned and staffed (within the limits of local squadrons) search for an ELT given that we only get one every 6 months or so in our area? Our people are getting restless and losing proficiency with no practice to keep them sharp. This goes right in with us not using half these positions because they're so rarely needed for real that most folks don't know what they are.

[BillB]

Gene, who is going to feed those 20-25 people you list? What about housing (hotel, tents whatever). You left out logistics, a major ICS position. And logistics can handle finance, such as who's going to pay for the fuel those 3 aircrews and 3 ground teams use.

[floridacyclist]

Under ICS, those things would fall to the IC until he delegates them to an LSC

In real-world, most of us should be capable of dealing with those things ourselves for the first few days at least.

[Dustoff]

ICS is a standardized, pre-defined structure that allows an IC to delegate authority and responsibility when their ability to command/control their resources and accomplish their objectives are stretched too far.  A good IC knows their limitations (thanks Dirty Harry!) and knows when to delegate.  Anything that isn't delegated remains the responsibility of the IC.

You can usually find an over-stressed IC curled up in a corner, sucking their thumb! 

Jim

[flyguy06]

O Man....


Planning Section is the pace to be. 

I used to be in your shoes.  I never though planning did anything, and I couldn't understand its role.  That was of course until I went out on my first large scale mission.  I had the opportunity to have gentlemen named Paul Burke as a mentor.  Paul was a retired Alaska state trooper with thousands of really big missions under his belt. 

Paul showed me that the planning chief is the brains of the mission.  The planner gathers all of the information forom the debriefings.  He and his staff determine where teams go, what they do, and who will be playing tomorrow. 

The Ops chief looks at what is happening now, while the planning chief looks at what will happen next.  This guy looks at the map, and reeds the situation.  He weighs what has been done with what should be done next, and he writes the assignments for the crews. 

A good planning chief will walk into the second Operational period with three different plans of attack.  He/she  will have sorties and assignments ready to go to meet the needs of this plan. 

As the day unfolds the planner will send assignments to the Ops chief for implementation. 

In a well oiled mission this guy is the one who puts the puzzle together.  He thinks hard, and uses his resources to determine what the next move is. 


If you hadn't guessed I really enjoy the Planning role. 

Now remember.  A simple ELT search doesn't get a planning chief, and if the mission is small enough the position is never activated, but in MY wing.  We get deployed on approximately 6-7 large scale multi day operations, and manage upwards of 200-300 personnel. 

Lots of fun!!!!


Come visit Iowa.  Ill train you, and put you to work.

In the Army, we call that the future OPS chief and he would fal under the S3(Operations) section

[floridacyclist]

Under "classical" ICS referred to in the previous post, radio operators aren't assigned to field or tactical units because they aren't required to have any field qualifications.  They can be assigned to other incident facilities such as a camp.

If a field unit needs comm, they check out radios from the Comm unit.  They can talk on the radio just like cops, firefighters, etc. do every day. I don't think you'll find anything in the ICS documentation about assigning radio operators to the field.

This was some of what we addressed in the Comm Camp and why the Ranger Program got involved - Maj Cason wanted better communicatons for GTs as many places where GTs and RECON teams go are p-poor comm-wise - there aren't many cell or repeater towers in those places. All of our people were cross-trained as MROs/CULs and received ham and emergency communications training to boot. While they could function very well at a mission base (and did so in the exercise where they had to set up HF, VHF, and IT from scratch in 30 minutes before deploying to two remote field locations to set up further stations) they were also about 90% GT-qualified. A lot of our discussion was on extending the range and performance of a GT's radios in the field using backpackable HF and portable (wire) high-performance VHF antennas, or how they might use their newly-learned ham knowledge to increase the performance of cellphones or even aircards.

These aren't your average "mash to talk, release to listen" "people with radios issued" and could just as easily be placed under Log or Ops according to whether you needed them at mission base or on a field team.

[ZigZag911]

It makes a great deal of sense, and would enhance mission effectiveness, if at least some GTMs & MOs trained as Mission Radio operators...not only for the improvement in communications between field & base, but also to provide cross-training & experience....I'm a firm believer that, where possible, mission base folks need to get back into the field periodically....conversely, it can be valuable for the tactical operators to see what goes on at mission base (aside from the consumption of vast quantities of coffee!)

[RiverAux]

In my opinion when you've got a full-on CAP mission base set up with 5-10+ planes and multiple ground teams I think it would be more useful to have Air Ops and Ground Ops report directly to the IC while having a PSC working on what they're going to do.  I don't see the need for an OPS chief between Air/Ground and the IC on any of our missions.  In practice on these missions I see the OPS and Air OPs position sort of combined with a separate Ground Ops person and that seems to work well, especially when there is a PSC working on overall strategy. 

[isuhawkeye]

River,

Thats a great theory, but when the IC gets pulled to deal with his primary duties (external, and higher echelons) an Ops chief becomes invaluable.

[RiverAux]

Maybe for a SUPER large CAP mission you might really need a stand-alone OPS chief, but as has been said Ground and Air Ops are just carrying out a plan and if you've got a Planning Chief on the job to figure out the plan, they can do it.

What I've seen until recently is the OPS chief trying to run his assets while at the same time figuring out what needs to be done while keeping the IC in the loop.  Thats just too much on a typical large CAP mission. 

Really though its almost 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. 

[isuhawkeye]

See I run things a more like a fire department. 

My first assignment is to get an OPS chief.  I work the state and local authorities.  I do the admin/finance, and lots of the planning up front while the Ops chief is getting air and ground crews together (mission staff of 2). 

As the mission gets bigger we assign, and deploy resources accordingly.

[arajca]

See I run things a more like a fire department. 

Which is where ICS got its start in emergency services.

My first assignment is to get an OPS chief.  I work the state and local authorities.  I do the admin/finance, and lots of the planning up front while the Ops chief is getting air and ground crews together (mission staff of 2). 

As the mission gets bigger we assign, and deploy resources accordingly.

I'm personally moving more toward the Logistics and Admin side of things, since that is where my personal strengths are.

My county has a Type 3 Incident Management Team. It is seldom deployed out of the county intact, but the Logistics and Planning personnel are always being called out. Just about every major incident Colorado has had in the last three years, my county has sent Log and Plan folks to. We've also sent them to Katrina and Wilma.

[SARPilotNY]

I have just recently qualified as a Ground Branch Director (pause for the cheers of the crowd to fade) and I started looking at the next level of requirements.

It looks like the next higher step is something called "Planning Section Chief" followed by "Operations Section Chief" before I can start training for "Incident Commander."

I hate to sound like a boot here, because I've been on a LOT of missions.  But I've never been on a mission with all those chiefs.  Normally we're lucky to get enough indians.  Am I reading these SQTR's correctly? 

Normally, the IC has an Air and a Ground branch director, and once in a while an intelligence officer.  How do I get experience as a Planning or Operations section chief trainee, and where do I find a chief to train me?

This NIIMS stuff is really annoying!

If the IC needs both a GOBD & a AOBD, why doesn't he have a OSC?

[RiverAux]

Personally I think that the IC can control air and ground ops personally for most missions without an Ops chief without exceeding his realistic span of control so long as he has a planning chief.  If no planning chief, then he would need an Ops chief who would probably mostly be doing planning. 

[floridacyclist]

No, if he didn't have a PSC, the IC would be doing the planning...unless he designated the OSC as an OSC and PSC (you can wear two hats, but you can't combine two duties under one hat).

You are right about most CAP missions not requiring all the positions...I believe we've covered that a few times already. Once again, ICS works because it is flexible. If you don't need a position, you don't fill it. Sometimes for training purposes you might fill one unnecessarily, but we all know the difference between real world and training.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I got a question for you, Gene...

Assume that Joe Pilot is reported overdue and presumed down on a flight from Myrtle Beach to oh, say Lakeland, FL.  I'm the PSC.  I have to come up with a plan for the next 24 hours.  I take in all the infor I've got, and come up with one.

Now, what do I put on page 1 of the 201?  The 201 is set up (like the rest of ICS) for commanding operations at a fireground, which is a defined area.  Do I draw a map of the 3-state area?  Our SAR operations (Unless we're looking for a missing person on foot) lend themselves to illustration on a map but not a sketch.

[isuhawkeye]

I'm not gene, but I can help. 

Write see attached in the blank space.  evelope a map defining the search area, and attach it.

[sardak]

If I may (I see isuhawkeye beat me to part of this),
it is acceptable to put "see attached map (or chart)" on the map sketch page.  Just remember to attach it.  It would also be acceptable to draw the three state area, however, an attached map would obviously be more useful.  Use judgement in how big of a map to attach.  This isn't the map that everyone is going to be planning from.

Since you as the PSC have asked about completing the 201, here is something to think about.  The 201 is suppposed to be the first form used on an incident.  In the real world, the ICS 200W or ICS 200Y form is probably the first one used  (those are the lined note pads in white or yellow you pull out of a desk or your briefcase).

Since the 201 is started at the beginning of the incident, there probably isn't going to be much of a staff, particularly a PSC.  As discussed previously, an OSC is probably going to be designated before a PSC.

That being the case, the 201, per ICS documentation, is completed by the IC.  In fact, the task of "Initiate and Maintain a 201" is in the Position Task Book (PTB = SQTR) for Incident Commander, not Plans Section Chief.  The PSC PTB says to "Obtain a completed 201 and map(s) of the incident."

In the PTBs, under "Suggested Items for a Kit" the 201 is listed in the IC kit, not the plans kit (though every good PSC carries them and knows how to complete them).

As a result, more time is spent on the 201 in the IC class than the PSC class.  What you also learn is that the 201 is designed so that pages 1 and 2 (on one sheet), and any maps, go to the situation unit and pages 3 and 4 (on one sheet) go to the resource unit.

But this being CAP, and ICS being flexible, as we've repeated, you can do what you DWP.

Mike

[Al Sayre]

During the recent mission near Oxford MS, I did the 201 both ways, the first day when the incident was limited to a small area, I simply pasted in a small part of the sectional that was beng searched.  The second day, the search area changed and expanded, so I simply wrote "See Attached Search Areas marked on partial Sectional" and added a much larger piece of the sectional that contained the areas already searched and those that needed to be searched.  Not all that hard.  It's pretty easy to do with an electronic copy of the sectional and MS paint for marking the area. 

[Dustoff]

I always think of the 201 as a snapshot.  It is a picture. in words/sketches/maps/diagrams of what is going on in the incident at the time it is generated.  How often do they need to be done?  Whenever the IC thinks it needs to be.  It documents the initial phases and functions as documentation of initial actions.

At the point when the IC delegates a PSC, it's time to start the more formal planning process, the "Planning P".  Now the PSC, as they work through the planning process, is going to start generating those other ICS forms to document the plan for the next operational period.  That's the 215, 215a, 202, 205, etc as needed.

Is there still a role for a 201?  As an incident briefing form/snapshot, I think so.

Jim

[SAR-EMT1]

I read the ICS stuff on it.  The Planning Section Chief does a lot of what the G-2 or S-2 would do on a military staff.  I've just never been on a mission big enough to use it.  That's really all ICS is, a bastardization of the concept of a military staff, with names changed to make it comfortable for those folks from the 60's who burned their draft cards.  The functions are all the same, just new terminology.

FULLY AGREE

Furthermore I feel that FEMA should be disbanded and that its responsibilities should be assumed by DoD. - ESPECIALLY AFTER KATRINA
the Dod (especially the USCG) was on the ball. FEMA however really screwed the pooch.
Short of DoD assuming FEMAs role, we should go back to the old 'Civil Defense' Service.

Then you have something called a MERT - Medical Emergency Response Team. -- This is basically a bastardized ER / MASH unit.
I say, forget that, lets get a few more National Guard MASH units
OR ( even better)  Lets get our own CAP MASH units back.
(they WERE around a few decades ago)

[RiverAux]

[the Dod (especially the USCG) was on the ball.

Uh, the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security right now not the Department of Defense.

Tags - MIKE 

[SARMedTech]

[the Dod (especially the USCG) was on the ball.

Uh, the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security right now not the Department of Defense.

Tags - MIKE 

Ah you beat me to it. And for the record and for what its worth, I would like to see us have a stronger link to DHLS.

[Dustoff]

Furthermore I feel that FEMA should be disbanded and that its responsibilities should be assumed by DoD. - ESPECIALLY AFTER KATRINA
the Dod (especially the USCG) was on the ball. FEMA however really screwed the pooch.
Short of DoD assuming FEMAs role, we should go back to the old 'Civil Defense' Service.

The scuttlebut from Greensburg is that the residents are singing the praises of FEMA.  Maybe they learned some lessons?!?

Cruised through there the other day.  Gonna be a big mess for a v-e-r-y long time.

Jim

[arajca]

Furthermore I feel that FEMA should be disbanded and that its responsibilities should be assumed by DoD. - ESPECIALLY AFTER KATRINA
the Dod (especially the USCG) was on the ball. FEMA however really screwed the pooch.
Short of DoD assuming FEMAs role, we should go back to the old 'Civil Defense' Service.

DoD has no interest - or authority - to run long-term recovery operations. FEMA operations do not end after a few weeks. The recovery end can easily last years - and usually does. The only DoD function that has anything similar is the ACE, but even their mandate is very limited and generally does not include direct assistance to disaster victims.

I suggest reviewing the history of FEMA. FEMA History.

Before FEMA every disaster was handled differently and required a Congressional action to get relief or help to the victims.

Then you have something called a MERT - Medical Emergency Response Team. -- This is basically a bastardized ER / MASH unit.
I say, forget that, lets get a few more National Guard MASH units
OR ( even better)  Lets get our own CAP MASH units back.
(they WERE around a few decades ago)

Interesting idea. Do you have any kind of a plan for this idea? The laws have changed significantly since the last CAP MASH units closed.

[floridacyclist]

Then you have something called a MERT - Medical Emergency Response Team. -- This is basically a bastardized ER / MASH unit.
I say, forget that, lets get a few more National Guard MASH units
OR ( even better)  Lets get our own CAP MASH units back.
(they WERE around a few decades ago)

Is that anything like a DMAT? All the information I found on MERTs referred to small teams trained to handle medical emergencies in companies and factories until the FFs could get there. We used to have something similar at our office complex because the nearest red truck was 10 minutes away.

[ZigZag911]

From my sources I understand that FEMA was pretty good at what it did when it was a 'stand alone agency',  till it was swallowed by HLS Dept and got drowned in the bureaucracy & political infighting.

[SarDragon]

FEMA has sucked for a long time. They were really horrible during Hurricane Hugo and  the SF 'quake in '89, and promised they would use lessons learned to improve. Then there was Hurricane Andrew in '92, and they still sucked, but, according to some, not as much. More here. It's not a perfect article, but gives useable info.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Part of FEMA's problem in Katrina was that nobody took charge.  The LA state governor never even called out the NG for political reasons (She is a Democrat, and wanted to try to link the lack of an NG response to troop levels in the War on Terror, she told the media that President Bush did not give her "Permission" to mobilize her NG forces).  The mayor of NO was (and still is) an incompetent boob, and the state and local police forces are the poster children for corruption.

FEMA's Brown, being a lawyer, recognized that FEMA's mission is to asist local and state agencies, and insisted on waiting for requests per policy and guidance.  Since the state and local agencies were paralyzed, FEMA failed to go into action until it was too late.

What was needed, in my opinion was an "Al Haig Moment," referring to the time when Reagan was shot, with the Vice President out of Washington, and Haig being Secretary of State annoucing that he was "In charge."  Actually, he wasn't, both the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House were in Washington and were ahead of him in the line of presidential succession, but that made no difference. 

Nobody stepped up to take charge until DoD took over the effort. 

[RiverAux]

The LA state governor never even called out the NG for political reasons (She is a Democrat, and wanted to try to link the lack of an NG response to troop levels in the War on Terror, she told the media that President Bush did not give her "Permission" to mobilize her NG forces). 

Kach, this is factually incorrect.  Please see this timeline of LA NG activities in regards to Katrina http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/Katrina/020906_Landreneau_Timeline.pdf.  There were significant deployments of the LA NG before the hurricane even hit. 

The LA Gov did slam the President  for having 3000 of the LA NG overseas where they could do no good for the state, but the rest of the Guard was active.

[floridacyclist]

I also recall Nagin coming up on the news Monday afternoon and telling everyone that "We're OK, we dodged the bullet". I'm sure at that point that many forces began standing down.

3 days later, I was on the ground in New Orleans and there were lots of federal and FEMA folks at the airport, which was crawling with DMATs (was how I got involved with them), and more pouring in.

I won't say that FEMA performed flawlessly and I think Michael Brown should have been put in jail for fraudulently endangering the public (if he was in China, he would have been executed), but I do not see where they did nearly as badly as the media made them out to be considering the vast scope of the disaster. They have always told folks to be ready to be on their own for 3 days; we were there at K+3 and FEMA was rolling into town in force in the areas they could drive in.

After that experience, I do not trust the news media...the first story I saw on CNN when I got out was how  we were eacuating Tulane hospital by helicopter because they were a rich white hospital and ignoring the poor mostly-black Charity hospital while neglecting to mention that we had volunteered to stay over and continue the evac of Charity since their LZ was flooded. They turned us down because they thought it was too dangerous flying choppers between the skyscrapers.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I stand corrected.  There was a callout of the Guard before the storm hit.

[SARMedTech]

Then you have something called a MERT - Medical Emergency Response Team. -- This is basically a bastardized ER / MASH unit.
I say, forget that, lets get a few more National Guard MASH units
OR ( even better)  Lets get our own CAP MASH units back.
(they WERE around a few decades ago)

Is that anything like a DMAT? All the information I found on MERTs referred to small teams trained to handle medical emergencies in companies and factories until the FFs could get there. We used to have something similar at our office complex because the nearest red truck was 10 minutes away.

To both of the posters quoted here:

I think you need to do some more research into MERT teams. I am a BLS Specialist on a MERT team and some of your information is not quite right: Here's why:

1. They are not bastardized anythings. These are teams of highly trained professionals doing what can be very difficult work and they also provide the medical specialists for the USAR Task Forces that operated in 28 states.

2. MERT teams do not respond to situations in factories and the like until the FF can get there. Im not sure where you got that information, but it really doesnt match up with the facts. About the only way a MERT would show up at a factory is if it caught fire and took days to contain and constant onsite medical teams were needed.

3. MERT teams not only work very closely with the NG, they also provide medical standby and emergency care for NG units during training and emergency domestic deployments.

4. There is nothing MASH like about a MERT since MASH units are surgical hospitals.

5. As opposed to "CAP MASH" units, MERT teams are made up of MDs, EMTs, Medics, Nurses, CNAs, and even dentists and veterinarians.

6. They are well trained and highly regarded enough to have responsed along with USAR Task Forces to the WTC, Katrina and Rita. The Illinois MERT (IMERT) is also the medical provider on standby in Chicago each year when a few million visitors converge on the city for a outdoor festival called Taste of Chicago as well as responding to the windy city during the heat emergencies of the summer of 2006.

Im honored to be a part of such a great program and am amazed and the great work they do. You might want to do some fact checking before you go slinging insults. The closest MERTs get to resembling military medical units is that they are uniformed (in BBDUs and boonies) and wear combat boots. There ends the similarity.

[JohnKachenmeister]

SARMed:

I'm rushing to the defense of my fellow Floridian, Gene.

Gene did NOT toss out any insult, and from his post, it appears that he did try some fact-checking.

I have never heard of "MERT" and the facts that Gene could find indicated that they were industrial-based first-responders, somewhat akin to local "Fire Brigades" that respond to emergencies in fire-prone industries such as chemical plants.

If there is something else out there, educate us.  Don't get mad because MERT is America's second-best kept secret after CAP.

[floridacyclist]

Some of the pages I was looking at....

http://www.lessstress.com/mert.htm
http://www.lifesafety.com/mert
http://www.med.umich.edu/em/clinops/mert.htm
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0105/mert.html
http://www.roughnotes.com/rnmagazine/2006/may06/05p068.htm

My unit's homepage
http://www.floridaonedmat.com

You know, that's the 4th  time I've seen a variant of the B-word used in this thread LOL

[SARMedTech]

SARMed:

I'm rushing to the defense of my fellow Floridian, Gene.

Gene did NOT toss out any insult, and from his post, it appears that he did try some fact-checking.

I have never heard of "MERT" and the facts that Gene could find indicated that they were industrial-based first-responders, somewhat akin to local "Fire Brigades" that respond to emergencies in fire-prone industries such as chemical plants.

If there is something else out there, educate us.  Don't get mad because MERT is America's second-best kept secret after CAP.

First off, I apologize for my over-reaction. MERT teams like the one with which I am associated (IMERT-Illinois Medical Emergency Response Team) are associated with several agencies including FEMA, the Red Cross, DHS, USPHS and also provide the medical specialists (doctors, dentists, EMTs, etc) for the USAR Task Forces (Like IL-TF-1) which fall under the auspices of FEMA and DHS.

There are other types of MERT teams, but to my knowledge there PRIMARY job is not to handle a situation until FD or EMS gets there, but rather to be deployed by local, state and federal agencies to assist during disasters, both man made and natural. The IMERT team has responded in recent years to an ice storm in Macon County, Illinois in which they provided medical services for people who were on life support or had just been released from the hospital and no one to tend to their medical needs. They also responded to Katrina, Rita, Ivan and the recent tornadoes in Kansas and other Plains states.

That being said,yes, there are industrial MERT teams, teams that only handle mass casualty industrial accidents, teams that handle only MCIs in terms of train derailments and its also now the fad to find MERT teams at colleges and universities staffed by students and staff who are trained and licensed to the FR or EMT level.

What I objected to most was the "bastardized MASH" comment. That makes it sound as if MERT teams are slap-dash and haphazard in their organization and that the responders that staff them are somehow second rate, which is simply not the case. IMERT has surgeons, dentists, nurses, paramedics, EMTs and allied health professionals. They are funded and supplied by state and federal grants and are often transported to disaster sites by ANG C-130s and USAF transport and cargo aircraft. State MERT teams enjoy a close connection with the NG and ANG and here in Illinois often work side by side with service men and women from those organizations. So to call the a bastardized anything is really demonstrative of a lack of knowledge about what they do, their skill level and their dedication to what they do. Another interesting aspect is that though I am an Illinois licensed EMT, if I am deployed to other states, I can still function within the scope of my license, so long as it is current and I am in good standing. This sort of makes me think of the whole idea of CAP EMS (not really CAP MASH since MASH by definition is a surgical hospital which I believe has been replaced by the CSH or combat support hospital system...the last MASH unit, the 4077th, was disbanded more than a decade ago). If independent MERT units can get this kind of MOU that they can operate across state lines regardless of where the team members are licensed, it certainly seems that CAP ought to be able to accomplish something roughly similar to this concept. Just a thought.  I shall now don my flame suit.

[floridacyclist]

OK, but I was still asking about how that is like or different from a DMAT?

[SARMedTech]

OK, but I was still asking about how that is like or different from a DMAT?

Capt-

Im only familiar with DMATs in passing, but my understanding is that MERT teams and DMATs are largely similar, though they may operate under the auspices of different agencies (ie DHS, FEMA, etc). Also as has been said, MERTs can be run by state EMAs, regional emergency systems or federal ones and as my new research tells me, the MERT is not always about disasters, though that is where they come into their own as well trained medical "strike forces." It was correct that MERT training is available to non-medical personnel also to respond to medical emergencies in schools, universities, etc. Then there are CERT teams, which tend to be community based and ERT teams which can be medical but can also have a techinical rescue and extrication team, fire fighting abilities, etc. The MERT I am with is state run and only does medical as its is associated with IL-TF-1 which is a USAR team and they provide the extrication, SAR, etc. I hope that answers your question. In the wake of 9-11, there are alot of similar teams like these cropping up to provide training and rapid response to large scale disasters and terrorist events. The Illinois MERT team responds to many natural disaster events but also spends alot of time training for post-terror attack medical response. For example in September there will be a course for IMERT members focusing on immediate response to NBC type attacks. The IMERT team is also set up so that the first team can be deployed within 4 hours maximum of being dispatched. They train quite heavily for rapid response and deployment scenarios. Long story short, it seems to me that DMAT and state MERT teams are quite similar.

[Dustoff]

Web link

http://www.imert.org/

Jim

[floridacyclist]

Cool. We function as a MERT too then, only we call it the SMRT..State Medical Response Team. Kind of like CAP or the Nat'l Guard, we can serve under federal or state auspices according to who mobilizes us.

[SAR-EMT1]

MERT and DMAT are identical but for the agency in cahrge.

I am fairly up to date with  DMATs and MERTS (and IMERT in particular)
- as for ToC and Lolopalooza in Grant Park... BTDT

I apologize if I enflamed anyone with my use of the term 'bastardized MASH'

I know IMERT isnt a MASH - I was refering more to the mobile medical facility aspect.
But I never mentioned that calling a MERT/DMAT a MASH unit is a slap in the face.
Most MASH units had fine personnel and werent slap and dash outfits with second rate personnel.

Maybe instead of bastardized I should have said civilianized.

[SARMedTech]

MERT and DMAT are identical but for the agency in cahrge.

I am fairly up to date with  DMATs and MERTS (and IMERT in particular)
- as for ToC and Lolopalooza in Grant Park... BTDT

I apologize if I enflamed anyone with my use of the term 'bastardized MASH'

I know IMERT isnt a MASH - I was refering more to the mobile medical facility aspect.
But I never mentioned that calling a MERT/DMAT a MASH unit is a slap in the face.
Most MASH units had fine personnel and werent slap and dash outfits with second rate personnel.

Maybe instead of bastardized I should have said civilianized.

Again, I am sorry for my enflamed reaction. Youre right that it was the word "bastardized" which to me has the connotation of being sort of watered-down and not as good. I think "civilianized" is a better word, though Ive found IMERT so far to be loosely based on the military model, but then most of EMS is. In fact, IMERT uses the terms "Commander" and "Lieutenant" for certain higher ups on each team, generally physicians. The rest of us are merely "Specialists." SAREMT, are you on IMERT?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Incidentally, I think the Army had MASH units until something like 2006.  A Mobile Army Surgical Hospital was intended to provide surgical care at a level between the Battalion Aid Station and a Field Hospital.  They were not intended to provide nursing care beyond postoperative care, as the patient would be evacuated farther to the rear real fast.

They were usually located in the Brigade rear, but could also be found in the Division Support Area.

[SARMedTech]

Incidentally, I think the Army had MASH units until something like 2006.  A Mobile Army Surgical Hospital was intended to provide surgical care at a level between the Battalion Aid Station and a Field Hospital.  They were not intended to provide nursing care beyond postoperative care, as the patient would be evacuated farther to the rear real fast.

They were usually located in the Brigade rear, but could also be found in the Division Support Area.

I thought the last MASH to be disbanded was the 4077th. Perhaps I just remember it being disbanded because of its notoriety and assumed it was the last. I know there was the 8055th, the 8063rd and Im not sure about the rest. When theh 4077th was disbanded I remember there was a big deal about it because of the TV show and several of the actors from the program were honored guests at the "decommisioning" ceremony. Im willing to admit that I may be wrong about it being the last. I thought it was disbanded sometime around 1996 but could be wrong there as well. As Stonewall says about being wrong, "aint no thang." I also thought that MASHs were the intermediate between Aid Stations and Evac Hospitals but I suppose it depended on whether the service member was wounded severely enough to go home. I remember reading a book about the Korean conflict and it talked at some length about the 121st Evac in Seoul. I read it a long time ago and that head injury during the auto accident knocked alot of historical knowledge out of my skull. I guess I was also under the impression that the CSHs had replaced MASHs now. I guess these are the things that someone like myself without PME doesnt know the intricacies of.

[JohnKachenmeister]

SARMed:

The actors from the MASH TV series were invited to the deactivation of the last MASH unit in Korea.

The MASH unit, unlike what was depited in the series, was rendered obsolete by the helicopter.  The purpose was to provide a surgical capability close to the front, that could move with the division.  When helicopters became the preferred method of battlefield evacuation in Vietnam, they could take a casualty to any of several medical units in a short time.  In Vietnam, the presence of doctors with specialties determined who was evacuated where.  Except, of course, when the situation went all to hell, and any casualty would be taken anywhere.

So, when I was on the USS Repose and we had a neurosurgeon, we got a lot of head injuries.  (Which developed in me a psychotic and obssesive desire to wear a helmet when in combat)  Later, we got a plastic surgeon, and then we got a lot of burns and disfiguring facial wounds through our Triage unit.

[sardak]

16 October 2006
U.S. Army Converts Last Mobile Army Surgical Hospital

By Lea Terhune
Washington File Staff Writer

Washington – The Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH) was famous on the front lines of war long before a movie and the television series M*A*S*H made it a household word in the United States and, after satellite television, around the world.

But the real MASH is no more. The 212th MASH, the last of its kind, was converted into the 212th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) October 16 with a ceremony to mark its recasting into a modernized unit. In its new incarnation, the 212th will be an upgraded medical field hospital more responsive to current military needs. The event was held at the Miesau Army Depot in Germany, where the 212th MASH has been based since 2000.
---------------------------
U.S. closes MASH unit that inspired movie, TV show
June 11, 1997

CAMP HUMPHREYS, South Korea (CNN) -- The Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, the U.S. military unit that inspired the book, classic movie and long-running television series "M*A*S*H," officially disbanded in South Korea Wednesday.

"Today you are joining us in making history ... saying farewell to America's MASH," unit commander Col. Ronald Maul said at his camp 35 miles south of Seoul.

Maul's 43rd MASH unit was among only four left in the world that are being phased out to make way for what the military says is a smaller, faster, more efficient medical group called the Forward Surgical Team.

Attending the ceremony, and later signing autographs and cutting the farewell cake, were three actors from the television series...

[This MASH started the Korean war as the 8055th but it became the 43rd sometime before the end of the war.  The author of the book "M*A*S*H", which was used as the basis for the movie, then the TV show, was an MD in the 8055th.]

Mike

[ZigZag911]

The 4077 designation used on TV (and in prior book & movie) was fictitious, no doubt to protect innocent and guilty alike!

[SAR-EMT1]

MERT and DMAT are identical but for the agency in cahrge.

I am fairly up to date with  DMATs and MERTS (and IMERT in particular)
- as for ToC and Lolopalooza in Grant Park... BTDT

I apologize if I enflamed anyone with my use of the term 'bastardized MASH'

I know IMERT isnt a MASH - I was refering more to the mobile medical facility aspect.
But I never mentioned that calling a MERT/DMAT a MASH unit is a slap in the face.
Most MASH units had fine personnel and werent slap and dash outfits with second rate personnel.

Maybe instead of bastardized I should have said civilianized.

Again, I am sorry for my enflamed reaction. Youre right that it was the word "bastardized" which to me has the connotation of being sort of watered-down and not as good. I think "civilianized" is a better word, though Ive found IMERT so far to be loosely based on the military model, but then most of EMS is. In fact, IMERT uses the terms "Commander" and "Lieutenant" for certain higher ups on each team, generally physicians. The rest of us are merely "Specialists." SAREMT, are you on IMERT?

Have applied, wasn't accepted. (I wasnt deemed experienced enough at the time)