NIMS requirements

[isuhawkeye]

You are correct that NIMS compliance is currently not a big deal.  In fact most CAP members don't even know what NIMS is. 

The problem is that NIMS is here to stay.  Most emergency responder entities have embraced these programs, and have moved forward while CAP has done nothing.

[Eclipse]

If you're saying NIMS compliance is as simple as the FEMA tests, well than

A: its not much of an issue around me because we encourage all new ES people
to take the tests to the 700 level as a matter of course..

B: if that's all NIMS is about, then its not going to make a lick of difference in our getting or not getting more missions.

C: The rank and file aircrew member and/or ground pounder does not need to know that much about ICS anyway.  Teach them to follow instructions from their designated leader, that's all they need.  There is an argument that Base personnel, especially Section Chiefs and Branch Directors could benefit from this, at least in as much as to standardize terminology, but again, its not going to change our operational model.

[Major Carrales]

It would seem to me the the best way to insure compliance is to insure that the SQTR for the appropriate level contains the taskings in regards to which ICS course is needed.  This is better than grounding the whole fleet because of rules that were likely invented because procedures between LE, FD, EMS and other such folks were all doing their own thing.

What would simply solve the problem would be 1) future qualifications require the ICS courses as needed and 2) Apply for a waiver for those already current with a "limited grandfather effect."  In other words, to requalify, one would have to take the ICS courses.

Let's think simply and realistically toward a workable solution.  Really, there are some with such an inferiority complex en re NIMS and CAP that I wonder why they even remain in CAP.  Really, we are not a rinky-dink outfit.  I suspect that is where all this controvesry comes from.

[RiverAux]

It would seem to me the the best way to insure compliance is to insure that the SQTR for the appropriate level contains the taskings in regards to which ICS course is needed.

I'm sure thats exactly how it will be done when the requirements become official. 

[Major Carrales]

It would seem to me the the best way to insure compliance is to insure that the SQTR for the appropriate level contains the taskings in regards to which ICS course is needed.

I'm sure thats exactly how it will be done when the requirements become official. 

If, in fact, NIMS is in the future of CAP (which is anyone's true guess, for all you know CAP is exempt or is to be so) then it migth be good practice for CAP officers to do the courses on theirown.

I recall some Threadsters here, like DNALL, that seemed to harp of CAP because it was not jumping on the NIMS bandwagon.  What if the Auxiliaries have another destiny?

In anycase, I have ICS 100, 200 and 700.  I have also been told the the GES tests are in fact approved versions of ICS 100 and 200.

[RiverAux]

I have also been told the the GES tests are in fact approved versions of ICS 100 and 200.

I don't know about that....They certainly cover a little of the same ground, but since CAP hasn't officially adopted 100/200 in any official way yet, it would be hard to say.  Would some outisde agency that requires 100/200 say that our GES was equivalent?  I don't know.

In the future I would hope that CAP would drop the ICS stuff from the GES text/tests and just use the "official" version.  That would be far the best way to ensure we were doing what everybody else is doing. 

[Major Carrales]

In the future I would hope that CAP would drop the ICS stuff from the GES text/tests and just use the "official" version.  That would be far the best way to ensure we were doing what everybody else is doing. 

It seems logical, however, since when has logic been a deciding factor in certain circles.

[arajca]

I have also been told the the GES tests are in fact approved versions of ICS 100 and 200.

I don't know about that....They certainly cover a little of the same ground, but since CAP hasn't officially adopted 100/200 in any official way yet, it would be hard to say.  Would some outisde agency that requires 100/200 say that our GES was equivalent?  I don't know.

The second part of the 116 test is roughly equal to ICS-100, but is nowhere close to ICS 200.

In the future I would hope that CAP would drop the ICS stuff from the GES text/tests and just use the "official" version.  That would be far the best way to ensure we were doing what everybody else is doing. 

You're making sense again. Do I have to dispatch the black van?

[RiverAux]

You're making sense again.

As much as I post, I'm bound to do that every now and again.... 

[floridacyclist]

B: if that's all NIMS is about, then its not going to make a lick of difference in our getting or not getting more missions.

C: The rank and file aircrew member and/or ground pounder does not need to know that much about ICS anyway.  Teach them to follow instructions from their designated leader, that's all they need.  There is an argument that Base personnel, especially Section Chiefs and Branch Directors could benefit from this, at least in as much as to standardize terminology, but again, its not going to change our operational model.

NIMS is about much more than some simple tests. Resource typing, resource ordering, chain of command, plus the simple act of actually using the concepts taught in the classes and tests all wrap up together. Simply passing the tests doesn't suffice if you're not practicing during exercises and other minor missions.

For more questions on NIMS compliance, see http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/faq/compliance.shtm and you can get a much better idea of what hte feds are trying to accomplish than from a CAPTALK discussion.

I agree on dropping the 116 Pt 2 and simply requiring the new members to pass Level 1, Opsec, GES test and present their 100 and 700 certificates to their CC for approval.

[RRLE]

NIMS is about much more than some simple tests. Resource typing ...

Several CAP resources are typed in the Typed Resource Definitions: Incident Management Resources http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/incident_mgmt.pdf

Airborne Communications Relay Team (Fixed-Wing) - page 4 - see the notes following the table.
Airborne Communications Relay (Fixed-Wing) (CAP) - page 5.
Airborne Transport Team (Fixed-Wing) - page 6 see the notes after the table
Communications Support Team (CAP) - page 7

Although CAP is not mentioned specifically the following type definitions in the SAR Types http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/508-8_search_and_rescue_resources.pdf might be of interest:

Air Search Team (Fixed-Wing) - page 4
Airborne Reconnaissance (Fixed-Wing) - page 5
Mountain Search and Rescue Team - page 24
Radio Direction Finding Team - page 28
Wilderness Search and Rescue Team - page 39

[isuhawkeye]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1866.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1722.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1734.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1749.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2918.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2360.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1204.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1242.0

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1073.0

Just a few other threads referencing NIMS.  Enjoy

[Dragoon]

B: if that's all NIMS is about, then its not going to make a lick of difference in our getting or not getting more missions.

C: The rank and file aircrew member and/or ground pounder does not need to know that much about ICS anyway.  Teach them to follow instructions from their designated leader, that's all they need.  There is an argument that Base personnel, especially Section Chiefs and Branch Directors could benefit from this, at least in as much as to standardize terminology, but again, its not going to change our operational model.

NIMS is about much more than some simple tests. Resource typing, resource ordering, chain of command, plus the simple act of actually using the concepts taught in the classes and tests all wrap up together. Simply passing the tests doesn't suffice if you're not practicing during exercises and other minor missions.

For more questions on NIMS compliance, see http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/faq/compliance.shtm and you can get a much better idea of what hte feds are trying to accomplish than from a CAPTALK discussion.

I agree on dropping the 116 Pt 2 and simply requiring the new members to pass Level 1, Opsec, GES test and present their 100 and 700 certificates to their CC for approval.

To be honest, I don't think ICS 100 and 700 are particulary valuable for a new "rank and file" member.   They aren't hard tests to pass, but truthfully new Mission Scanners, GTMs, Radio Operators, etc, don't need to do much at all with interagency coordination, resource typing, staging etc.  Basically, they do what their boss (GTL, MP, CUL, etc.) tells them to do.

We don't require all new USAF recruits to gain an indepth knowledge of joint doctrine, civil-military affairs, Service level budgeting, etc.  We teach them a skill and tell them to do what their sergeant tells 'em.  Seems to work out just fine.

I'd rather see ICS pushed for resource leaders (GTLs, MPs, etc) and above.  And worrying primarily about the staff folks.

Just like the old CAPF 116, we make brand new members learn all kinds of upper level stuff that has no relevance.  I recall having to learn about AFNSEP and SCATANA before someone showed me how to walk a search line.  Seems like a waste of time, or a least a misordering of priorities.

[floridacyclist]

These are not our choices, these are the requirements for all agencies that either receive federal dollars or work for other agencies that receive federal dollars - who will lose their dollars if they choose to employ non-compliant resources. Whether you agree with it or not, this is the road that we are going down as long as we choose to play in the same sandbox with others. Sure we can choose not to play by the same rules as everyone else, but our own private sandbox would soon get very lonely.

As far as NIMS (IS-700) not being suitable for new members, I happen to disagree....it gives a much broader overview of why we're having to jump through these hoops and helps the new members understand where they fit into the big picture and why these standards are required of them, plus explains the need for these standards so that folks are more likely to actually learn them rather than just pencil-whipping the online tests.

Teaching the classes in a classroom environment makes a huge difference as the online classes do not do a very good job of explaining why you are there and leave you with the impression that you are just wasting your time learning useless information.

[isuhawkeye]

ICS 100 is intended for the most basic responder to understand how they fit into the system.  It is also to establish a common frame work from which to build.  Resource leaders take the ICS 200 which teaches them material to function as a strike team, or task force leader. 

[floridacyclist]

Incidentally, among the rank and file, Radio Operators are some of the most likely people to interact with other agencies and probably need to know more than most about how the whole system works just so they can get the messages where they need to go. On a joint mission, they may end up with radios from several different agencies staring them in their faces while being asked to relay messages between positions and agencies.

[Dragoon]

Incidentally, among the rank and file, Radio Operators are some of the most likely people to interact with other agencies and probably need to know more than most about how the whole system works just so they can get the messages where they need to go. On a joint mission, they may end up with radios from several different agencies staring them in their faces while being asked to relay messages between positions and agencies.

Or, we could just let the staffers and resource leaders use their own radios.  Works well for everyone else.

[floridacyclist]

This is assuming that you have repeater coverage or that everyone can talk to everyone on handhelds...it doesn't work when you're in a wilderness situation and using base or mobile radios on fixed-mount antennas....you can't have the IC tied to a desk. Besides, he needs to be busy running the show, not relaying messages.

Actually, when we did our joint exercise with TFD, they brought a dispatcher with them. Sure the IC monitored on his handheld, but the dispatcher ran the net. We teach the same thing in emergency communications as expecting the IC to keep track of all the formal and informal communications on a busy net is just way too much of a workload. A trained communicator will screen out 90% of that traffic and just pass him what is meant for him.

[Dustoff]

And the larger the incident, the more the IC and Section Chiefs need to have an aide/scribe/RTO to take some of the routine tasks off their hands.

Jim

[Dustoff]

And help unclog their brains.............



Jim