DRAFT 60-3 posted for comments

[arajca]

CAPR 60-3 DRAFT

1-31. National Incident Management System (NIMS) Compliance. CAP is committed to
being NIMS compliant like all other response agencies across the United States. CAP's
nationwide goal is to be NIMS compliant by 30 September 2008. In order to do so all
emergency services personnel must complete current and future NIMS requirements as they are
published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Personnel will be expected to
complete certain training from DHS by 30 September 2008 in order remain current and qualified.
Training requirements by specialty qualification are outlined in Attachment 2. More information
is provided in Chapter 2 of this regulation.

Six months to accomplish what the EM/ES community has take three years to do? If they are serious about this, many of the SQTR's will need to be rewritten.

[Pylon]

I assume there is a transition plan behind this mandate?

[♠SARKID♠]

Well, at least ICS-700 is easy. (God I have too much time on my hands)

[BigMojo]

So are 100, 200 and 800.

300 and 400 I believe are in-person classes (ie can't be done online) if I heard correctly.

[arajca]

I assume there is a transition plan behind this mandate?

One would hope so...

So are 100, 200 and 800.

300 and 400 I believe are in-person classes (ie can't be done online) if I heard correctly.

You heard correctly, although the online IS-200 course is really inadequate. I taught an ICS 300 course and wasted half a day "refreshing" those who took the online IS-200 instead of the residence ICS 200 course.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

Im glad I went ahead and did 100, 200, 700 and 800 already.  Now even Mission Pilots and Observers need to have these four.

[♠SARKID♠]

Grr...I failed 800...

[arajca]

On another note, the "Agency Liasion" is going away.

CERT is being added as a qualification.

I think they realized that the CAPT 116, Part 2, isn't valid outside of CAP and decided that we should use the same course as everyone else. Why does that sound familiar?

More thoughts later...

[Pace]

(2) Team training and experience must be appropriate for the mission (proficiency in
DF use, ground rescue knowledge, concentrated area search procedures, missing person search,
etc.). Ground Team Members – Level 1 should be prepared to conduct all facets of ground team
operations for at least 72 hours. Ground Team Members – Level 2 should be prepared to
conduct limited ground team operations for up to 48 hours. Ground Team Members – Level 3
should be prepared to conduct basic ground team operations for up to 24 hours.

I really wish NHQ would define "limited" and "basic" ground team operations.

[isuhawkeye]

I hate to say we told you so,

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

[floridacyclist]

Six months to accomplish what the EM/ES community has take three years to do? If they are serious about this, many of the SQTR's will need to be rewritten.

We've had the same amount of time as everyone else. Just because some of our folks chose to ignore the handwriting on the wall does not mean that anyone had any less time to get ready for this.

As for the SQTRs, maybe not re-written, but they will definitely need a line or two added to reflect the needed ICS course for each.

[RiverAux]

Quick thoughts ---

1.  Interesting that they are sort of encouraging IC trainees to be put on alert rosters used by NOC/AFRCC.   Are we that hard up for someone to pick up the phone?

2.  "Wing Director of Emergency Services/Emergency Services Officer".  This "Director" stuff bugs me as I don't see any real consistent rationale for who is a "Director" and who is an "Officer".

3.  1-7 requires IC and IOs to coordinate with agencies on press releases, including AFRCC.  Is the AFRCC duty officer going to be authorized to "coordinate" on releases or is it going to have to go through their public affairs shop (if they have one)?  I see this being a major complication, though I understand it. 

4.  1-9e would allow seniors in a subordinate status to a more highly qualified cadet (senior GTM under a cadet GTL) to stage a coup for safety reasons. 

5.  Large incidents will require a written action plan now. Typical for ICS, but new for CAP (in reality, in my experience).  This will be a challenge for some. 

6. 1-22f has new guidance on medical care provided by CAP during missions

7. 1-23b says that if CAP is working a SAR with another agency and CAP recommends to suspend the mission, if the other agency wants to keep searching, we will -- at least thats how I read it. 

8. New guidance for the secret squirrels on classified missions -- 1-32 & 1-33 & 1-34

9.  Is CAP setting up a separate system for certifying instructors for the ICS classes?  Sort of seems like they're saying they must meet DHS standards, but doesn't say they must be certified by DHS or the state.  A little unclear. 

10.  All the specialty requirements are now referred to eservices SQTRs and actually aren't in the regulation itself. 

11.  CAP is getting access to the Government Emergency Telecommunication Service system.  Never heard of it. 

12.  Don't see VSAF specifically mentioned in the list of AFAMs in 5-3. 

[floridacyclist]

I saw that about the instructor thing....have they heard of the E/I-449 classes, ICS Train-The-Trainer? Seems like that would be a big one to list.

[smj58501]

11.  CAP is getting access to the Government Emergency Telecommunication Service system.  Never heard of it. 

In a nutshell, GETS participants "get" priority on the telecommunications system. You are issued a card with a number to dial in to and a passcode of sorts. This moves your call to the front of the line. Often in disasters the telecommunications circuits can be overwealmed. The GETS system helps ensure your call can successfully compete with all the "normal" commercial traffic.

This in general is how it works. Some specifics may have changed since I worked with the system several years ago when I was employed by our state's DEM

[IceNine]

2.  "Wing Director of Emergency Services/Emergency Services Officer".  This "Director" stuff bugs me as I don't see any real consistent rationale for who is a "Director" and who is an "Officer".

In this specific instance wings that have ES reporting to Ops are "officers". 

Wings that have chosen to seperate the 2 are Directors...

Ref 20-1

[IceNine]

And we were getting GETS access shortly after Katrina.

Corporate Officers and 1 additional card per wing was the original "deal

[isuhawkeye]

I am putting on an ICS 300 class feb 23rd and 24th

Iowa wing had three ICS instructors who could teach 100, 200, 300, 400, 700, 800.

If you need a class, and your in the vicinity of Iowa maybe I could help.

[floridacyclist]

We have a 3-level class coming up the first weekend in Mar (tentatively...still waiting for final approval from the Fire College) at the Florida Fire College. One class will be a combined ICS100, 200, and 700 with testing in the computer lab and an 800 orientation class (no time for testing), Class 2 will be ICS300, and Class 3 will be ICS400. We plan to start Fri night so that we can wrap up early on Sunday for a tabletop exercise of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. All classes are being taught by professional ICS/Emergency Management instructors (except for the 100/200/700 which is being taught by me) who have donated their time to help us with this project.

This will be our second 300 class that we have taught and they have been very well-received; the last one was covered in Volunteer Magazine. Adding the 400 class on should help with the IC situation especially with the new requirements.

Asking EM for volunteers to teach a weekend class might give you the instructors you need and lets anyone with decent organization skills put one of these classes together. Opening the class to other volunteers not only makes us look good but improves the class as the different disciplines mix it up especially if you plan a Sat night social (we had a BBQ) to go along with it.

You can read more about our ICS training at http://www.tallahasseecap.org/ICS - I'm updating that with info on the tentatively-scheduled class as soon as I have confirmation on the dates.

[CAPSGT]

I've already started adapting to some of these changes, as MER recently put them in their new supplement to 60-3.  ICS courses with a very similar course requirements chart was already in that supplement, and with the same deadline.

A couple things I don't like at first glance in this draft:

1)  It does not clearly define what the difference is between Ground Teams, UDF Teams, and CERT Teams.  I cannot find anything that restricts a UDF team or a CERT team from doing anything that a Level 1 Ground Team does.

2)  It closed a loophole in getting supplements approved that allowed units to bypass an echelon if no action (yeah, nay, or even "I need more time") was taken on the supplement after a set period of time.  I've seen that loophole become a necessity.

A couple things I do like at first glance:

1)  Getting rid of AL as a separate rating independent of IC, but with the same training requirements, just 2 additional missions.

2)  Clarifying the training requirements for first aid.

--
MICHAEL A. CROCKETT, Capt, CAP
Emergency Services Officer, Bethesda-Chevy Chase Composite Squadron
Incident Commander

[isuhawkeye]

overall this draft is great for cap.

question.

as I read the requirments to teach the ICS courses I see no requirment to attend the established TTT for these courses.  Is that how you read it?

[floridacyclist]

I saw that too....makes me wonder if they thought of that or if someone should suggest that as a "comment"

[isuhawkeye]

as an agency I don't think I would be comfertable having someone teach a federally defined course with out the instructor having the proper cridentials

[floridacyclist]

Actually, FEMA doesn't require the course either...read your ICS300 instructor's guide. They literally copied and pasted that from there.

[isuhawkeye]

Those pre-reqs were for the attendance to the TTT course. 

FEMA has delegated the issuance of 300/400 certificates to the state level.  How will CAP handle that hurdle, or will you simply issue your own

[RiverAux]

And what exactly do they expect CERT teams to do?  Are CERT teams allowed to do urban SAR, which is prohibited, but not defined in 60-3, but is one of the skill sets taught in the CERT program?  What is the concept of their operations in terms of CAP?  Has NHQ realized that CERT teams are just very poorly trained ground teams that have just received some training on using fire extinguishers?  Do you still need an IC, mission number, etc to deploy CERT teams or are they allowed to self-deploy, which is the entire concept of the CERT team -- immediate reaction in situations where communication is lost (I actually know that this isn't their intent, but it is a contradiction). 

[sardak]

I-100 to 400 can also be taught using the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) courses, which are recognized equivalents by DHS.  NWCG allows instructors to issue their own certificates.

For instructors, NWCG doesn't require the TTT, either.
Training Requirements for Instructors
• 100 level courses
No instructor training required, and may be taught by anyone possessing the knowledge and skills with local approval.
• 200 level courses
Unit instructors should have 32 hours of instructor training (Facilitative Instructor, M-410; equivalent course; Degree in Education; or, current or previous Education credential).
Lead instructors are required to have 32 hours of instructor training (Facilitative Instructor, M-410; equivalent course; Degree in Education; or, current or previous Education credential).
• 300 and above level courses
All instructors are required to have 32 hours of instructor training (Facilitative Instructor, M-410; equivalent course; Degree in Education; or, current or previous Education credential).

Mike

[isuhawkeye]

My question is this.

Since when have CERT teams been a deployable resource?

CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event when professional responders are not immediately available to help

Quote from the citizen corp web site

The first pages of training explain how this is not a responder course.  The priorities are to stabilize your home, your family, your community until professional rescuers can get to the lower hazard environments.

I have always held CAP's gound teams up as Professional responders.   

[RiverAux]

Well, you can certainly deploy a CAP unit within your community.  We do it all the time.  So, if we had CAP CERT teams, they could certainly be used within their home town (doing whatever the heck they're supposed to do). 

[isuhawkeye]

If you were CERT qualified, and a tornado hit your town would you go out and help your family as a CERT team member, or would you wait until the AFAM was issued so you could put your CAP Uniform on?

CERT is an excellent tool, but it should be used as it was intended

[davidsinn]

I was thinking that maybe the CERT qual would be a dumbed down GT qual that would allow members to go out with little better than UDF gear and sling sandbags or move supplies, or pick up tornado debris with hand tools. Perhaps this is the beginning of DR Quals?

[SJFedor]

I was thinking that maybe the CERT qual would be a dumbed down GT qual that would allow members to go out with little better than UDF gear and sling sandbags or move supplies, or pick up tornado debris with hand tools. Perhaps this is the beginning of DR Quals?

I'd say so, especially since we don't use AP and SDIS for SAR all too often.

Moreso, it's probably giving definition to a qualification so that, when we're out there helping our neighbors pick up the debris after their houses got nailed by a tornado, and we're on an AFAM, if something happens, we're acting within our qualification.

[RiverAux]

I seriously doubt many CAP members are going to bother with CERT.  Anyone actually interested in going out and getting sweaty is probably going to get GT qualified anyway. 

One thing that I didn't see was implementation of any physical standards for ground team other work.  I wonder where that stands as far as the national NIMS program is concerned. 

[floridacyclist]

CERT is an excellent tool when used as intended....neighbors cut off from outside help and helping each other until the cavalry arrives. I'm not sure what role it will have in CAP, but considering that the very earliest CERT program was born out of a need to prevent untrained disaster workers from injuring themselves immediately after a disaster or emergency, the training itself is good and useful. Perhaps it should have been included as part of GES.

[RiverAux]

Regarding the September 30th deadline to get NIMS compliant -- It will not happen.  Assuming the reg was approved tomorrow we might get most CAP members through 100,200,700,800 in that time.  But considering that the reg probably won't be officially put out for several months, they're going to have to move that deadline. 

Now, regarding 300 and 400 for the mission staff-- there is no way in heck that our mission staff are going to do the 4 courses over the internet plus 2 2 day courses by 9/30.  In my wing I think that only 1 IC may have done the 300/400 and there are probably less than 5 other mission staff members that have done them.  Everybody else would be starting from scratch. 

We need at least a year to get this done and will need to be prepared to lose 10-20% of our ES qualified members, and not just the people who have been doing the minimum to maintain their qualifications.  We will lose good people who think this is just too much.  CG Aux experience backs up this prediction.  This doesn't mean that I don't think its worthwhile, but we just have to be prepared for it.   

[floridacyclist]

I asked our instructor at Emmitsburg about how an agency was considered to be NIMS-compliant....was there a set percentage of people that had to meet the standard for their position. He said that agencies had to make it a stated goal to become NIMS-compliant and incorporate the suggested training into their standards but that there was no set percentage of compliance or restriction on non-compliant people deploying...those are recommended guidelines for our training standards.

That said, what I THINK may happen is that those who refuse to meet the standards that they have had several years to pursue will simply have to stand down until they complete them. I believe that CAP has too much at stake to consider violating our own stated training standards by openly waiving them which could then jeopardize our status as being considered NIMS-compliant. It might be tough on those remaining, but I believe that the folks who are actually committed will bounce back and once they get past the transition period will simply take the training for granted.

In short, I wouldn't count on any leniency or grace periods from on high. I may be wrong, but if so it wouldn't be the first time.

[arajca]

A big part of how many member remain active in ES will depend ALOT on how frequently the ICS 200 and 300 courses are offered. Yes, IS 200 meets the ICS 200 requirement, but it nowhere near sufficient if someone is actually going to work in an ICS environment. IS 200 is a good refresher or preparatory course for the real ICS 200 residence course.


Note: "Residence Course" only means a course you attend in person with other students and instructors as opposed to sitting in front of your computer (Online Course)

[wildman]

Six months to accomplish what the EM/ES community has take three years to do? If they are serious about this, many of the SQTR's will need to be rewritten.

We've had the same amount of time as everyone else. Just because some of our folks chose to ignore the handwriting on the wall does not mean that anyone had any less time to get ready for this.

Yes you are quite right there. I managed to take the ICS 100-200/700-800 with one of the local counties within the group. They had a FEMA instructor that came in for the class. Several in our squadron had the chance to go and only two of us ended up there.... Another local county opened up there class's for us, provided the books and the class at no cost to our members.  ICS 300 Class and I was the only one to attend. The instructor was cert to both Federal and state class's.  I realize that most of our members work during the week and its hard to take time off... but if you want to get it done.........Well the state of Florida has class's through out the year... and these are open to Florida Wing Members... if you can make the time.

In order for CAP to get reimbursed from FEMA (for federal disasters) CAP is going to have to get with the program...
thats just the way it is....

wild

Tags, and bold tags removed - MIKE

[floridacyclist]

That is why we hold our ICS Academy on weekends....and it in return is open to all disciplines but mainly aimed at volunteers.

[RiverAux]

Pretty much most adults should be able to blaze through 100,200,700,800 online without any trouble at all.  However, getting people to do it is the issue I was bringing up. 

The actual classroom courses (300,400) are being taught all over the place in my state this year and availability isn't an issue.  But, again, getting people to do it will be the problem. 

[Eclipse]

We have at least one CAP member in my wing who is has been certified as an instructor in 3/400.  Personally I would prefer to take this in an agency agnostic setting to insure I am getting a plain vanilla class, but having them offered at our convenience on the weekends will fill the need for a lot of our folks.

As to NIMS compliance as a concept, there's no way this is going to stick nationally with September.

Based on recent conversations I've had with leaders of the local SAR community, as well as friends I have who are PD/FD, most departments and agencies are in as bad or worse shape than we are in.

Further to that, and with acknowledgment or our volunteer status and limited training time, in many cases CAP is much better prepared to execute in ICS environments than local PD/FD.  This is all we do, and most of us who are effective and experienced check the ego at the door, unlike many smaller agencies.

We also don't get into fights over jurisdiction, we work for whomever calls us within our SOPs.

[RiverAux]

I took 300/400 with a bunch of firemen and policemen and since all the scenarios are fire and police oriented, it probably worked out for the best.  The scenarios were all part of the text and I don't know how much latitude is allowed to use different ones, but they would be a little tricky for a room full of CAP people to deal with.  Not impossible, but it would definetely make the CAP people wonder why they're taking this police and fire course.. 

Incidentally, although CAP's ICS training has been weak, at least we're pretty familiar with the titles and the organization. 

[isuhawkeye]

We need at least a year to get this done and will need to be prepared to lose 10-20% of our ES qualified members, and not just the people who have been doing the minimum to maintain their qualifications.

And this is the same group who was openly hostile to Iowa's program.

The former OTS has put officers into the field with 100, 200, 700 completed.

[RiverAux]

No, I don't think so.  This is a more general problem.  The more training requirements you put on volunteers, the fewer volunteers who will have the desire or the time to complete them.  You will see about the same "resistence" whether the course is absolutely outstanding and will increase your capabilities 20 fold as you would for a course that most people agree is a waste of time. 

It is even worse when you're telling somebody that has been qualifed, and perhaps even very active in a role for a long time that they must do more new training or lose the qualification.  They will feel that their years of experience are being "dissed" and will not be happy about the change. 

I'm just saying that we need to be aware of this ahead of time and be prepared for it.  Its not like we have a real choice in the matter so we'll just have to take the consequences.  However, if there is any way to mitigate the impact of the new requirements (such as stretching out the time period over which they can be met), we should do it if at all possible. 

[ZigZag911]

I'd like to see 12 months from the effective date of new 60-3 as deadline for completing ICS 300/400 for upper level mission managers.

I think those within CAP in a position to serve as instructors or get courses scheduled need to do all they reasonably can to make 300 & 400 available on weekends and evenings, in member friendly locations (no 300 mile drives)

[floridacyclist]

I'm just saying that we need to be aware of this ahead of time and be prepared for it.  Its not like we have a real choice in the matter so we'll just have to take the consequences.  However, if there is any way to mitigate the impact of the new requirements (such as stretching out the time period over which they can be met), we should do it if at all possible. 

We have been aware of it for some time....and many of us have been telling folks that they need to prepare to avoid being caught in the rush. It has been stretched out for several years already.

My only regret is that we'll be on the road on our bike trip during the main transition and won't be able to hold more classes after our Mar 1-2 one. maybe that's how we can pay for some of our meals on the road 

"Will teach for food!"

Incidentally, I drive 300 miles round trip so that I can organize and teach these classes in a more central location (Ocala rather than Tallahassee). It really doesn't hurt my feelings if others have to drive 300 miles to attend them.

[davedove]

CERT is an excellent tool when used as intended....neighbors cut off from outside help and helping each other until the cavalry arrives. I'm not sure what role it will have in CAP, but considering that the very earliest CERT program was born out of a need to prevent untrained disaster workers from injuring themselves immediately after a disaster or emergency, the training itself is good and useful. Perhaps it should have been included as part of GES.

Moreso, it's probably giving definition to a qualification so that, when we're out there helping our neighbors pick up the debris after their houses got nailed by a tornado, and we're on an AFAM, if something happens, we're acting within our qualification.

I think it's probably a CYA type of qualification for just those situations.  It could be used to help out the neighborhood before a mission is issued, but then we would have to be operating as private citizens, not as CAP.

In all though, it is good training, and there are a few things taught that are not included in Ground Team training, useful skills that everyone can use if the big one hits.

[LittleIronPilot]

I'm just saying that we need to be aware of this ahead of time and be prepared for it.  Its not like we have a real choice in the matter so we'll just have to take the consequences.  However, if there is any way to mitigate the impact of the new requirements (such as stretching out the time period over which they can be met), we should do it if at all possible. 

We have been aware of it for some time....and many of us have been telling folks that they need to prepare to avoid being caught in the rush. It has been stretched out for several years already.

My only regret is that we'll be on the road on our bike trip during the main transition and won't be able to hold more classes after our Mar 1-2 one. maybe that's how we can pay for some of our meals on the road 

"Will teach for food!"

Incidentally, I drive 300 miles round trip so that I can organize and teach these classes in a more central location (Ocala rather than Tallahassee). It really doesn't hurt my feelings if others have to drive 300 miles to attend them.

Just as a point of order...I am a 6-month member and this is the first I have heard of this. I just want people to understand that many of us have not had "years" to get ready for this...

Of course I will work to get the training, but even as active as I am, getting all of that done may be a stretch in the time frame given.

[floridacyclist]

As a 6-month member, you are still new enough that much of this is going to be irrelevant to you for the time being anyway. By the time you need the tough courses (300 and 400), it's going to be well past the cutoff; you don't need ICS300 and 400 to be a GTL or Mission Pilot, you need them to be an IC and it takes a couple of years to become a decently-qualified Command or General Staff member, let alone an IC.

Any org is always going to have new members coming on-board that have to be trained up to speed, and for all practical purposes you are coming in under the new reg. From your standpoint, this is just the route that you have to take to become fully-trained just like a new member who joins next October. Go ahead and knock out the online courses...but actually do your best to learn what they are teaching because the FEMA online technique does not always facilitate the actual learning of the material. With your background in law enforcement, much of this should seem familiar to you anyway. With your background and current position, I wouldn't stop at 400...I would get my Train-the-Trainer so that you can help teach these courses and enable others to meet the standards.

Now that you know what the regs are going to start requiring in a couple more months, there's no reason for you to approach your training from the standpoint of the old standards; the up side is that you will probably have an easier time of it than the people who have been around forever and can't understand why the old standards aren't good enough.

[Ricochet13]

We need at least a year to get this done and will need to be prepared to lose 10-20% of our ES qualified members, and not just the people who have been doing the minimum to maintain their qualifications.

And this is the same group who was openly hostile to Iowa's program.
The former OTS has put officers into the field with 100, 200, 700 completed.

It sure is nice looking at the squadron membership and being glad I (required, coerced, encouraged, supported, advised, recommended - you pick the word) members get the IS-100, 200, 700, & 800 completed, even when it wasn't required.  We're ready now and will probably be able to do the ICS-300 easily before the 28 Sep 2008 deadline.  IAWG had the right idea. 

The four FEMA courses are completed by all new members of the squadron just as they would OPSEC, CPPT, Level I, AEPSM, BCUT, ACUT, UDF, MRO, MSA, MS.  It's our own "in-house" version of OTS.  By the end of 6 months most of these things are completed and we can work on local operational training missions.

[RiverAux]

We have been aware of it for some time....and

People on this board have been aware of it, but not the general membership and it hasn't been something that our leadership has been preparing us for.  And they shouldn't have either because at the time no national NIMS standard had been presented for us to try to achieve.  Could we have jumped the gun and started requiring some of this stuff sooner?  Sure.  Should we have?  Well, probably yes for the 100 and 700 courses because it was pretty much a lock that those would be required for everybody. 

[floridacyclist]

Our ES staff has been preaching this to our membership for the past couple of years from the wing level on down...you can find several mentions of this in the Florida Wing mailing list. If squadron and group ESOs have not seen fit to pass the word, then shame on them. It's not like DHS has kept this a closely-guarded secret and there are many more communications avenues than this board.

I'm not sure who to point fingers at or if blame should be assessed for failing to inform the membership of a decision that was made years ago....perhaps if we were less-insulated from the general emergency-response community, we would not have these issues. Of course, CAP has always preferred operating in it's own little world so that should not be surprising.

At any rate, these rules have been coming down from above for some time now and we can't afford to keep our heads in the sand forever....we just have to deal with the reality that this is required and useful training and git 'r dun.

Besides, between now and Sep should be plenty of time for the courses...only a small handful of our people need all of the classes by Sep due to being ICs and they (along with many other ES specialties including MSA, CUL, Branch Directors, and all Command and General Staff) should already have ICS200; they should have already been working on 300 or 400 to get their 2 or 1 level. At the very worst for a current IC already meeting minimum standards, 8 months should be plenty of time for two 3-hr online courses and two 2-day sit-down courses....it's not like they're being asked to go earn a Doctorate.

[BillB]

One problem I see, is the lack of the 300 and 400 courses being offered. I checked with my County Emergency manager, and there are no 300/400 course weekends or weekdays scheduled.

[RiverAux]

Look on the state emergency mgt agency web page.  They probably have a training schedule and you'll probably find several nearby you in 2008.  These are almost the only classes being taught in my state this year. 

[Ricochet13]

Look on the state emergency mgt agency web page.  They probably have a training schedule and you'll probably find several nearby you in 2008.  These are almost the only classes being taught in my state this year. 

There are also lists available of approved NIMS trainers for these courses.

[floridacyclist]

According to the Florida DEM training calendar ( http://www.floridadisaster.org/trainingcalendar ) there was a 400 course a week or so ago in Ocala, about 30 miles from you. There is also an ICS TTT course in Crystal River, ICS300 training coming up in Mt Dora (Mike Hilliard is an awesome instructor - take any of his classes that you can), and a CERT TTT class in Madison Co, all in Feb.

In Mar, we have a 4-day training block with an ICS300 class in Tallahassee Mar 10-12, followed by ICS400 in Mar 13-14, plus ICS300 in Winter Park a week or so later.

With the exception of Tallahassee, all of these locations are within an hour or two's drive of Gainesville....with 4 days training in  a row, even Tallahassee is not that far away.

If my contact at the Ocala Fire College will ever confirm, there is training scheduled for the weekend of Mar 1-2 out between Ocala and Gainesville.

There are 3 simultaneous classes:

1) 100/200/700/800 - Instructed by: Yours Truly
2) ICS300 - Instructed by: Lee Newsome, owner of Emergency Response Education and Consultants
3) ICS400 - Instructed by: Mike Hilliard, Lake-Sumter Co EMS Training Coordinator

Classes will end early on Sun for a 3-hr tabletop exercise of the Minneapolis Bridge collapse put together by Mr Hilliard

http://www.tallahasseecap.org/ICS has most of the details although I am waiting for confirmation of the dates to update the page from our last ICS academy...it still shows the last dates and our old class schedule, but between what is there and what is above you can figure out what we are doing.

I haven't set a raindate just yet, but we may have to...if so, it will be in May as Apr is booked solid for us and we leave at the beginning of June for a 4-mo bike ride. You can see the write-up from our last academy at http://flwg.us/database/database/news.asp?action=print&article=495 - they butchered my story and the picture is not even mine (the one I sent in showed the group commander, another SM, a cadet and a fire chief working on an exercise together) but they got the general gist across.

Considering that this story was posted on the front page of the FL Wing website (and I think it might have made it to NHQ as well - I know that Volunteer covered us), someone in the chain of command should have been able to see this coming a while back; why they chose not to pass the word on is anyone's guess but it is still our job to salute and execute.

[jayleswo]

After reviewing the Draft 60-3 and researching what it takes to be NIMS/SEMS complaint, I found a document on the California OES website "Emergency Responder Credentialing Program" which incorporates information from NIMS at the federal level into a state sponsored program. See below

http://www.oes.ca.gov/Operational/OESHome.nsf/PDF/Emergency%20Responder%20Credentialing%20Program/$file/State%20OES%20Credentialing%20Program%203-1-07.pdf

It's not just about completing courses like ICS-400, it also includes criteria and qualifications beyond that. For example, Incident Commander requires "1 year as an upper level department manager (i.e. fire service Chief Officer, law enforcement Sergeant or above, Environmental Health Chief, Superintendent, etc.)." I'm all for raising the bar and meeting state and federal requirements, but this will be a major effort for us from what I read.

Revision 1.1 Page D4 of D22 3/1/07
SEMS Level: Field
SEMS Position: *Incident Commander (IC) – For All Type 1-5 Incidents
Certification:
• SEMS "Equivalent" Field Level Course – ACI Orientation, Basic Modules 1-6, Intermediate
Modules 7-11, and Advance Modules 12-17
  Or ICS 100-400, NWCG ICS Courses, etc.
• IS-700 NIMS "Equivalent" Overview Training
  Or SEMS/ICS/NIMS Combined Course, POST NIMS/SEMS Basic Course, etc.
• IS 800 National Response Plan Training
• Medically and physically fit to complete multiple Operational Periods.

Qualifications:
• 1 year as an upper level department manager (i.e. fire service Chief Officer, law enforcement
Sergeant or above, Environmental Health Chief, Superintendent, etc.).
  Or designated as a field "IC" in the local Emergency Plan
• 1 multi agency incident as a "Unit Leader" or "Group/Division Supervisor" or "Branch Director" or
any "Command" or "General" staff position, with an evaluation of "Satisfactory" or above by the
supervising ICS position
• 2 "complex" multi-agency incident experiences, by actually filling an IC (or Deputy IC) position at
an Incident Command Post (ICP), with an evaluation of "Satisfactory" or above by the Agency
Administrator or supervising ICS position
  Or filling the "IC" position at an ICP during 4 major multi-agency exercises, with an evaluation
of "Satisfactory" or above by the supervising ICS position or evaluator
  Or mentoring under a person filling the "IC" position during 3 "complex" multi-agency
incidents, with an evaluation of "Satisfactory" or above by the supervising ICS position
• If Haz Mat Incident - OES/CSTI or OSHA "Equivalent" Haz Mat Incident Commander Class.
• If Wildland Fire – Must meet Required Training, Prerequisite Experience, Physical Fitness standards,
and complete "Position Task Book" for appropriate position, per CICCS/310-1.
• Any other existing discipline specific certifications, qualifications and standards required by the
proper authority (i.e. CICCS, HEICS/EMSA, SFM, POST, CDHS, etc.).

Credentialing:
• Self-certification will allow for designated governing board, department/agency head or authority to
approve, document, and issue card at level and position for accreditation.
• If certifying through an existing credentialing system (e.g. CICCS) follow those procedures.
• If state certification is requested, OES Deputy Director of Planning and Training shall approve,
document, and issue a "State Credential" card for the SEMS/NIMS level and position per above
criteria and "State Credentialing Processing Procedure" (state position credentialing is voluntary,
but is required for interstate mutual aid and NIMS compliance).
• Refresher requirement may be met by documenting actual incident experiences at the position,
filling equivalent field level ICS positions, drills, exercises or other refresher training in subject
matter, position and/or function listed above within a 5 year period (except Haz Mat IC requires
annual refresher training per OSHA HAZWOPER from the last date of qualification or refresher.

*When position filled by fire personnel, personnel must meet requirements of CICCS and NIMS 700 & 800.

(fixed formatting 1/31/08)

[RiverAux]

Yep, but some of that stuff is still in flux at the national level (IIRC) and I expect some, especially the physical conditioning, to make their way into CAP eventually.  I'm not surprised that CA has already imposed additional standards. 

[isuhawkeye]

standardization is a major effort.

the next step to standardization is resource typing and nationally recognised cridentials.

in the end the IC will call for a resource and that resource should meet the same standards, and no one will be able to hide behind career/volunteer stariotypes

this note posted from a cell phone

[Larry Mangum]

In Washington State, CAP in conjunction with the WSDOT/Aviation SAR Coordinator Tom Peterson, being the transition to NIMS compliance several years ago.  Most of the command staff and general staff are NIMS compliant and we are working on getting the remaining ones there.  All ES qualified members in Washington are required to have completed ICS-100,ICS-200, ICS-500, ICS-700 and ICS-800. In addition, all command and general staff members must complete ICS-300 and ICS-400. Members must then send a copy of their certificates to the state before they can get a state card.  For the in-residence course, we have several CAP members who are state certified instructors and we are holding the classes on a regular basis at Camp Murray. 

I would agree that CAP is behind the power curve on this issue. At the PCR DO conference last May, in Portland Oregeon, I brough the issue of being NIMS compliant up and a good number of the Wing CC's and DO's did not have a clue as to what I was taking about.  That was rather scary to me.

[RiverAux]

I'm not so sure that we are really all that behind.  The 300/400 classes I was in had fire department members from a site that REALLY should have been way ahead of the game.  If they weren't up to date, I don't think CAP is horrendously behind.

[davedove]

I'm not so sure that we are really all that behind.  The 300/400 classes I was in had fire department members from a site that REALLY should have been way ahead of the game.  If they weren't up to date, I don't think CAP is horrendously behind.

From what I've seen on the FEMA site, the NIMS document is dated 2004, so that's not very long.  I would bet that a lot of agencies aren't really fully compliant.  Of course, that doesn't mean that CAP shouldn't be working in that direction.

[arajca]

In the implementation plans, the first two years are organizational years. Change processes to meet the NIMS requirements, formally adopting NIMS and ICS, using ICS on a consistant and regular basis, making necessary legislative changes, etc. Training personnel, while could have been done earlier, really wasn't necessary until recently.

CAP has, from what I can tell, not started an implementation plan yet.

[floridacyclist]

In spite of it all, we are doing better than many. I won't name names, but there are many agencies and orgs out there that we have worked with that can barely spell ICS let alone use it...and forget about NIMS. I'm not really all that worried, we'll do just fine.

[Tubacap]

Just to add 2 cents on NIMS and it's accompanying NRP.  The National Response Plan spells out what the Fed will do in an emergency.  It was outdated last week, and the National Response Framework came out.  I haven't had a chance to go over it though.

I had the same experience with my IS-300 class.  I seemed to know way more than the fire/police that were there.  In their defense, they were all willing to learn, they just don't experience it on the same level.

I think there is a thread about ICS/NIMS somewhere, that may be more appropriate to discuss this topic on further.

[ELTHunter]

Can anyone say how CAP's requirements to become an IC3 compare to other agencies?  The definition of an IC 3 is for small, short duration missions, which most of ours are.  It seems to me that the current requirement to be OSC and PSC qualified is an overkill to run 99 percent of our missions.

I know a lot of you will gasp at this suggestion, but I think they ought to relax the requirements for IC3 to enable experienced AOBD's and GBD's to advance to IC3 without going through PSC and OSC first, or at least in parallel.  My Wing really needs IC's, and I think this revision will only complicate that problem

Don't get me wrong, I think most of the additional requirements are a good thing though.  Particularly the more stringent requiremets for SET's.

The only other comment I would make is that if they are going to increase the requirements to align with other first responder organizations, it would be nice to see our missions expanded to other types of ES missions.  I don't see how the more stringent requirements are very relevent to the normal missions we have historically been tasked with.  If we are going to ask members to spend more time training, we should show them how it pays off.

Let the rock throwing begin:)

[Al Sayre]

The reason you need OSC and PSC for IC is that as IC you need to be able to do all of the jobs until you are relieved or you appoint a qualified person to do them.  If you are the guy that answers the phone, you need to be able to put together an action plan and start the planning functions moving right away so that you don't get overwhelmed as the mission progresses, especially if it is a big mission and you are the only IC that answered the phone...  You also need to have thorough understanding of the duties of  the positions that you will be assigning, so that you know what you expect from them versus what they expect to give to you. 

Also, if you aren't qualified as OSC and PSC, what will you be doing when an IC2 or IC1 shows up to relieve you?  As the man who knows what is going on and is already planned, you are probably the best person to fill either the OSC or PSC slots for the remainder of the mission.

Just some food for thought...

[Eclipse]

^ Planning is the place where most IC's fail.  Allowing them to skip that step is basically endorsing that failure.

[ELTHunter]

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I meant.  I wasn't advocating allowing the OSC and PSC to be skipped for IC2 or IC1 positions.  The planning for 4 - 8 hours ELT missions to go out to the local airport, perform ramp checks and locate an ELT isn't very advanced.

In actuality, a good AOBD or GBD who knows how to complete the proper paperwork should be able to run one of those small missions.  I know everyone wants the big Katrina/Steve Fosset type multi-day, multi-agency missions to come up, but that's not the reality we are in and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Maybe other Wings are different, but I can see the number of qualified IC's becoming a big problem for us in the future.

[Al Sayre]

The problem is that in order to do that, you would need to add a second level to the call roster.  When AFRCC has a mission, they wake up the poor dude/dudette on the top of the list and he/she runs the mission.  To have people that aren't fully qualified, you would need to wake somebody up, let them figure out who is qualified/capable and then try to wake the second person up... etc.  Now instead of having a team notified in 15 minutes or so, you spend the first half hour finding the IC who then spends another 15-30 minutes finding the right team...

[CAPSGT]

While many good AOBDs or GBDs may be able to run an ELT mission successfully, I still see merit in requiring PSC and OSC for IC3.

PSC gives members a chance to think a little more outside the box to figure out where and how to search.  It takes the member outside of their comfort zone as a branch director a bit and forces them to learn how to think more critically.

OSC gives members a chance to work with a side of operations that they may not be especially accustomed to.  Let's face it, most people are either more focused on air ops or they are more focused on ground ops.  I certainly wouldn't be comfortable letting a GBD only member run an ELT search that involved an aircrew.  I would be more comfortable letting an AOBD run one, but that's because ground teams are fairly easy to deal with; tell them where to go, fill out a 109, and they do it.  Aircrews there are other factors such as weather, fuel consumption, altitude restrictions, etc. to worry about.  As an OSC you are forced to learn about how air operations work AND ground operations work.

Once a member has completed those steps, they need to learn about the amount of responsibility and trust that is placed in an IC, how to deal with the controlling agency, and how to tie up the loose ends on the mission after it has been completed.

As someone who initially came up through the ground side of things, I refused to move on to OSC until I had trained and become qualified as an AOBD because I didn't want to be in a situation where I had to worry about aircrews without knowing what I was truly doing.  YMMV.

-Mike Crockett

[isuhawkeye]

the simple truth is that you never know how a mission will unfold.  I'm sure the fossett search started with a simple call for an overdue.

its imposible to predict if a mission will end up being simple or complicated based upon the initial call

[ELTHunter]

the simple truth is that you never know how a mission will unfold.  I'm sure the fossett search started with a simple call for an overdue.

its imposible to predict if a mission will end up being simple or complicated based upon the initial call

The problem is that in order to do that, you would need to add a second level to the call roster.  When AFRCC has a mission, they wake up the poor dude/dudette on the top of the list and he/she runs the mission.  To have people that aren't fully qualified, you would need to wake somebody up, let them figure out who is qualified/capable and then try to wake the second person up... etc.  Now instead of having a team notified in 15 minutes or so, you spend the first half hour finding the IC who then spends another 15-30 minutes finding the right team...

While I'm still not completely converted, I see your point.

Spacing - MIKE

[sardak]

The problem is that in order to do that, you would need to add a second level to the call roster.  When AFRCC has a mission, they wake up the poor dude/dudette on the top of the list and he/she runs the mission.

There are a number of wings where the person who AFRCC wakes up is not the person who runs the mission.  The wing alert officer takes the call from AFRCC and then notifies a properly qualified IC depending on the nature of the mission.

the simple truth is that you never know how a mission will unfold.  I'm sure the fossett search started with a simple call for an overdue.
its impossible to predict if a mission will end up being simple or complicated based upon the initial call.

The reason there are different levels of IC is because of different levels of complexity.  The whole point of creating an IC3 position was to qualify people to run the everyday DF missions and other simple missions involving, for example, one GT/UDFT and an aircraft.  One doesn't need to be an über-IC to run these.  The original intent of the IC3 position was to let well qualified ground and air branch directors run these missions.

If the mission escalates, then the IC3 gets help.  To think that the initial IC should be qualified to run whatever happens defeats the whole purpose of levels, and is not how it happens in the real world.  There the initial IC passes command to a more qualified IC if the incident escalates.   Happens every day in fire, law and ES without problems.

If a wing doesn't have personnel to take the mission from an IC3 as the mission escalates or changes, that is a wing problem, not an issue of having levels of IC. 

Getting back to the earlier question of IC quals in other organizations, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group requirement to be a Type 1 IC is OSC2 or PSC2, and the National Park Service requirement for Type 3 IC is OSC or PSC.

Mike

[Short Field]

I don't see where the training for OSC or PSC is that hard to get accomplished.  It probably only adds a few months to the training program.  And it avoids having IC3s go back to be trained as PSCs or OSCs before they can advance to IC2.

[ZigZag911]

The reality from where I sit is that there are relatively few IC 1 or IC 2 out there; some wings probably only have one or two, at best.

[Eclipse]

The reality from where I sit is that there are relatively few IC 1 or IC 2 out there; some wings probably only have one or two, at best.

Or even fewer than that, and I believe that is by design. 

I know I have read a memo recently that IC's higher than 3 would be limited and would need at least Region approval.

[Pace]

The edit: proposed design requires region/CC approval for IC1.

IC3 runs the 2 am missions from hard landings and disgruntled A&Ps who take their frustration out on the fuselage (right where the ELT is).

IC2 runs the larger missions that require a mission base, staff, multi-operational periods, etc on a state (maybe minutely regional) level.

IC1 is for when Katrina hits again.

Although routinely CAP's need is limited to IC3, I think it would be greatly beneficial to have more IC2s.  When IC1s are required, people can be relocated as needed.

[RiverAux]

I do wonder about these IC1s in regard to Katrina-like missions.  Our response to Katrina was to set up multiple mission bases, each of which seemed to be somewhat typical of a large CAP mission in terms of resources being controlled.  I suppose these IC1s will be assigned to oversee these multiple bases, however we also have to keep in mind that the C4 facilities will also be involved in moving resources to these various bases.  How will the IC1 relate to these C4s?  Are they going to be working there (which could be on the other side of the country from the disaster), or will they be at the NOC, or at a separate command post from the operational command posts where the work is being done? 

I think CAP has a way to go in working on our doctrine for our response to these missions. 

[ZigZag911]

I've run plenty of wing-level SAREXes as an IC3.....wing wanted me to run the SAREVAL a year or two ago, but I was not available....then again, maybe they're prepping me for IC 2 and just not telling me!

[RiverAux]

I don't think that in our Wing anyone is going to be appointed as an IC-3 unless the leadership also thinks that they could handle just about anything no matter what their official IC level is. 

[RiverAux]

By the way, I hope they take the time to actually update the SQTRs to reflect the current ICS course names.  For some reason they're still using G-# courses that haven't been around for years. 

[Al Sayre]

Did anyone happen to save a .pdf of the draft that they can post or send me via email?  It's been taken down, and I need to summarize proposed changes for a presentation.

[sardak]

The draft 60-3 is attached.

Mike

[Al Sayre]

Thanks!