Outside IC coming to CAP

[ammotrucker]

If I missed this on another thread I'm sorry.

If you had an active member who is employed by the FBI.  And has FBI IC credentials, how hard do you think it would be for this member to become a CAP IC.

I know that some will say that he should go through all of the SQTR's and then he could become.  But, I don't think that would be required.

Just a thought

[Eclipse]

They would be required to complete all the SQTRs and mission activity requirements.

Anyone who is an active IC in another organization which uses an ICS structure shoudl have little problem flying through the taskings.

This is similar to the question raised regularly about whether someone like an Army Ranger should automatically be awarded the GTM qual.

We should not discount the value to CAP of recruiting legitimate professionals for our various programs, but at the same time CAP has many of its own procedures and a different internal culture, and an IC especially needs to understand these things to be effective.

[Dragoon]

I don't know if the guy is gonna fly through the ratings.  Since we require our ICs to be fully qualified air crew and GTMs first, that may cause him some problems.  After all, being an FBI IC might be entirely about LE activities, and with zero knowledge of SAR.

Taken the other way, I sincerely doubt a CAP IC would have an easy time becoming certified as an FBI IC for large crime scenes...

[♠SARKID♠]

I know that some will say that he should go through all of the SQTR's and then he could become.  But, I don't think that would be required.

Standards are standards, simple as that.  We all have to go through them.

[isuhawkeye]

the fact is that several waivers have been granted. 

Run it up the chain. see what happens

[RiverAux]

Yep, he has to go the whole route through just like any other member, and he should.  When he gets up to the staff level he should be able to rip through those tasks pretty easily though. 

I know I wouldn't want someone acting as a CAP IC who doesn't know the first thing about CAP ground or air ops. 

[bosshawk]

We have ICs in CAWG who are not rated aircrew members and some that I doubt are fully qualified Ground Team Members.  This, of course, causes a number of nasty situations during missions that they run.  Who knows, they seem to have the concurence of those in charge.  Perhaps it is because they are willing to take the missions: too bad about qualifications.

[Eclipse]

Lt. Col Reed has hit the nail - one can make the argument that an IC is simply a manager of managers, and that a street-level understanding of field operations, air or ground, is not necessary as long as the SC's and BD's are current and knowledgeable, however I think we have all seen the difference between an IC who knows the street and one who doesn't.

For the record, the current prerequisites:

IC3:
PSC - Planning Section Chief (must have been an AOBD >or< GBD)
OSC - Operations Section Chief (must have been a PSC, so the SQTR is a bit redundant)

This is how the requirements and tasks stack up:

Rating   Tasks   Missions
GTM1   16   2
GTM2   12   2
GTM3   33   2
GTL     41    2
GBD    19   2
OSC    11   2
PSC   11   2
Total   143   14



MS   32   2
MO/MP   20/24   2
OSC   11   2
PSC   11   2
Total   74   8

IC3   9   2


GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

(I'm not going to spend the whole night trying to get this to line up)

This does not take into account the taskings that run across the ground ratings, or that cut across both air and ground.

While the air route has less taskings by almost 1/2, many of those are complex tasks which require a lot of time to accomplish.

I can't see how anyone, even a really dedicated person could do this in less than 2-3 years.  I suppose a few rounds of NESA would help, but even though you can work the tasks concurrently, there are only so many weekends and missions in a given year, and the higher up the food chain you go, the less opportunities to play there will be.

[RiverAux]

Please note that I said that I wanted the IC familiar with CAP air and ground ops, not that they had to be fully qualified in both.  I just meant that I don't want someone coming into CAP and almost immediately becoming a CAP IC even if they were the best darn FBI IC in the business. 

[sardak]

An IC performs all functions on an incident until others are assigned to fill the functions.  So on small incidents the IC is the briefer/debriefer, ops, plans, etc. and therefore needs quals and knowledge in those areas.  An IC is only a manager of managers on a large incident with a full staff.  The vast majority of CAP incidents don't need an IC as manager, they need an IC as worker.

While this agent may bring valuable skills in based on experience, to be a useful IC, this person is going to need to complete the required training.

Mike

[RiverAux]

Thats a very good point that I think has been overlooked in our recent IC discussions. 

[Ricochet13]

It occurred to me while reading through this thread:  Would there be a situation where CAP might be providing assets to the FBI where the FBI qualified IC would be the overall mission IC??

[RiverAux]

Possible, but not terribly likely.  In that case you would still have a CAP IC knowledgable about CAP running our forces and making sure everything was being done according to our regs and policies. 

[lordmonar]

It occurred to me while reading through this thread:  Would there be a situation where CAP might be providing assets to the FBI where the FBI qualified IC would be the overall mission IC??

CAP is almost never the overall IC in any multi agency events.

Ergo...it is completely feasible for an FBI or State Trooper or Local Sheriff to be the overall IC and the guy/gal we usually refer to as "IC" is actually a "strike group commander" or "Task Force Commander" in ICS parlance.

[sardak]

"IC" is actually a "strike group commander" or "Task Force Commander" in ICS parlance.

How about "strike team leader" or "task force leader" in ICS parlance.   Depending on the incident, this person might be in any number of positions, including deputy IC or one of the ICs in a unified command.  There is also agency liaison (agency rep) but the AL does not provide tactical control over resources.  But I agree, it's rare that CAP is going to be the lead agency on a multi-jurisdictional incident.

Mike

[Ricochet13]

It occurred to me while reading through this thread:  Would there be a situation where CAP might be providing assets to the FBI where the FBI qualified IC would be the overall mission IC??

CAP is almost never the overall IC in any multi agency events.

Ergo...it is completely feasible for an FBI or State Trooper or Local Sheriff to be the overall IC and the guy/gal we usually refer to as "IC" is actually a "strike group commander" or "Task Force Commander" in ICS parlance.

Interesting.  And is it correct that there is a move within CAP to have members who are either IC1, IC2, or IC3 trained to the same standard as IC's from other agencies?

[lordmonar]

I can't say anything about a CAP wide push.....CAP does need more qualified mission base personnel....but I don't know of anyone asking us to produce an IC 2 or IC 1.

[RiverAux]

Well, we do have those categories and I'm assuming we're using them.  And, eventually CAP will get around to implementing the national NIMS standards when they're fully approved which will require the additional courses for ICs and other base staff. 

[ammotrucker]

Please note that I said that I wanted the IC familiar with CAP air and ground ops, not that they had to be fully qualified in both.  I just meant that I don't want someone coming into CAP and almost immediately becoming a CAP IC even if they were the best darn FBI IC in the business. 

The member in question is currently involved with CAP and has been for approx a year.  He has knowledge of CAP's search and rescue techiniques.  Albeit he has not progressed to the point of receiving AOBD or GBD.

I think my question should have been stated. 

Seening as how ICS structure should be consistent across the board, why would you train or retrain a person who is AOBD, PSC, OSC, on up  in his profession to do the same thing. 

This seems like a double standard, ICS is ICS weather or not it is CAP, FBI or HLS.  The standards should not be different.
IMHO

[Ricochet13]

Please note that I said that I wanted the IC familiar with CAP air and ground ops, not that they had to be fully qualified in both.  I just meant that I don't want someone coming into CAP and almost immediately becoming a CAP IC even if they were the best darn FBI IC in the business. 

The member in question is currently involved with CAP and has been for approx a year.  He has knowledge of CAP's search and rescue techniques.  Albeit he has not progressed to the point of receiving AOBD or GBD.

I think my question should have been stated. 

Seeing as how ICS structure should be consistent across the board, why would you train or retrain a person who is AOBD, PSC, OSC, on up  in his profession to do the same thing. 

This seems like a double standard, ICS is ICS weather or not it is CAP, FBI or HLS.  The standards should not be different.
IMHO

Certainly seems like a double standard.   IMO it often appears CAP has a higher than necessary regard for its own training procedure - as though no other organization could possibly meet "our" standards.  Think it may be more a case of those in positions of influence not wanting to be supplanted by someone from the outside who may be able to perform as well. 

Weren't there instances in the past (it may have been through wing supplements) where individuals with exceptional qualifications have been granted ES qualifications in CAP based on previous training?  If I read the list correctly, common sense would suggest that an externally qualified IC spend time as an IC(T) to insure proper "understanding" of how CAP operates and that this would be time better spent than requiring the individual to participate in from between 10-16 ES missions beginning as a GTM or MS. 

GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

Incidentally, it did strike me as curious that progression to IC through the GT track would require participation in 16 missions, while the same progression through the Air track would require only 10 missions, but that's another topic for another thread.

[RiverAux]

The key to your revised question is "train".  He doesn't need to do a whole lot of additional training in the upper-level staff stuff except for CAP-specific items like using WMIRs. If he can demostrate how to do the tasks in the SQTRs, he is golden.  He isn't required to go to specific training classes, etc (except for ICS-200 which is the substitute for the ICS class in the SQTR which is no longer given).  If he reads the task guides for the upper level tasks he should be good.

Just like the Army Ranger coming into CAP to do ground team stuff. He doesn't have to take a class on using the compass, just has to show somebody that he knows how. 

But, he is still going to have to do the training missions just like everybody else and thats a good thing since CAP is different in how the knowledge is applied than the FBI.

[Eclipse]

Weren't there instances in the past (it may have been through wing supplements) where individuals with exceptional qualifications have been granted ES qualifications in CAP based on previous training?  If I read the list correctly, common sense would suggest that an externally qualified IC spend time as an IC(T) to insure proper "understanding" of how CAP operates and that this would be time better spent than requiring the individual to participate in from between 10-16 ES missions beginning as a GTM or MS. 

People are pencil-whipped all the time, that doesn't make it a good idea.  We have a program with specific needs and requirements. Any IC-level asset from a professional organization is going to get 120% of my support climbing our ladder, but I'm not removing rungs.  They need to understand >OUR< program to be effective.  And a lot of that will be hearing the word "no" more often than we'd like to admit.  An FBI IC is going to be used to flashing a badge and pretty much going / doing wherever / whatever they think is important.

We don't work that way.  That will be lesson #1.

The FBI's primary responsibility is law enforcement, ours is SAR.  Two different worlds. That'll be lesson #2.

We need to get away from this idea that because we are volunteers, professionals can just slot into our staff positions with no training or transition.  I hear about "exceptional qualifications" all the time as an excuse for whipping people through.  These professionals will hold us in much higher esteem if we actually hold them to the same standards as everyone else.

GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

Incidentally, it did strike me as curious that progression to IC through the GT track would require participation in 16 missions, while the same progression through the Air track would require only 10 missions, but that's another topic for another thread.

This is the result of breaking up the GT ratings into separate 3/2/1 levels to make it "easier" to get the initial badge and qual.  Nothing more or less.

[Ranger75]

An IC is first a manager.  One reliant upon his assembled staff to provide inputs, execute operational decisions, and perform routine tasks appropriate to their assigned staff responsibility.  As a military commander, I learned to rely upon my staff to accomplish assigned missions.  Yet, I also brought to each assignment a set of personal experiences and years of professional training in my basic branch.  I stepped into each command opportunity with confidence based upon those experiences and training.  I also appreciated that I would not have had that same degree of confidence given a command challenge that took me far outside the realm of my prior experience.  I was a combat arms officer.  It appears obvious to me that an assignment to a position say in a combat service support branch would not have capitalized on my skill sets and I would have found myself unable to as effectively make judgements on the input of my staff.  I also recognize that, over time in such a circumstance, I would gain the specific knowledge and experience to gain greater confidence in command, both for myself and my subordinates. 

I believe the same holds for true for the circumstance described in this chain.  The individual you have described may be fully qualified to serve as an IC within the realm of his prior training and experience, but lacking if immediately challenged by a far differing set of circumstances.  Assuming I had served as an IC of multiple SAR-based incidents would do little to make my assignment as the IC of a hostage situation appropriate.

I concur with a number of others that this individual will likely move rapidly through the qualification criteria for recognition as a CAP IC, but that qualification through subordinate positions and mission participation  within the CAP ES environment should not be waived.

[sardak]

Seening as how ICS structure should be consistent across the board, why would you train or retrain a person who is AOBD, PSC, OSC, on up  in his profession to do the same thing. 

This seems like a double standard, ICS is ICS weather or not it is CAP, FBI or HLS.  The standards should not be different.

There is no double standard and you are correct that ICS is ICS.  However, nowhere in ICS does it state what the quals are for a given position.  ICS only defines the structure and the general duties of each position.  The qualifications to be an IC (or any position in ICS) in a particular organization are up to that organization to decide.

For example, in the national wildland fire system, the qual sequence to become an AOBD is:
firefighter 2, helicopter crewmember, helicopter boss or manager, helibase manager type 2, helibase manager type 1, air support group supervisor, AOBD trainee.  There are also specific training classes for each position.  So can a CAP AOBD be a wildfire AOBD just on the basis of having AOBD on a 101 card?  Not a chance.  Conversely, a wildfire AOBD couldn't just walk in and expect to be a CAP AOBD.  Yet both people carry a qualification card that shows AOBD.  This is acceptable under NIMS.

Command and general (C&G) staff requirements follow the same sort of sequence, with all requirements in wildland fire.

So what about NIMS?  NIMS credentialing documents ("job titles") are not finalized, but the C&G staff positions all require I-100 through 400, 700 and 800.  Then experience requirements are:
IC - Significant, ongoing experience related to the management of emergency incidents and events that may involve multiple jurisdictions requiring mutual-aid response
OSC - Significant, ongoing operational experience in strategy and tactics related to the incident scenario (e.g., wild land fire, water rescue, confined space rescue, or HazMat incident) and experience in emergency management
PSC - Significant, ongoing experience related to emergency planning and preparedness, report writing, and information management
That's it.  Nothing specific because the personnel are to be qualified within their organizations ("agency having jurisdiction").

These NIMS requirements are intended for personnel on incident management teams (IMT).  The idea behind IMTs is that an experienced management team can manage any sort of incident.  Manage is the key word because the team may not have experience or expertise in the type of incident.  The team utilizes technical specialists (experts) in the type of event, most often in the operations section.   But IMT discussion is drifting off-topic.

Mike

[LtCol Hooligan]

GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

Incidentally, it did strike me as curious that progression to IC through the GT track would require participation in 16 missions, while the same progression through the Air track would require only 10 missions, but that's another topic for another thread.

This is the result of breaking up the GT ratings into separate 3/2/1 levels to make it "easier" to get the initial badge and qual.  Nothing more or less.

I went through and counted on my fingers  and the GT track requires 12 missions to be a qualified IC.  IC, OCS, PSC, GBD, GTL, GTM3.  GTM1 and GTM2 are not required and would be considered extra.  IMHO- I believe that a good IC needs to also get trained at least as a MS so they understand what an aircrew actually does, from that perspective.  It is amazing what you don't know until you do that.

[SJFedor]

This is how the requirements and tasks stack up:

Rating   Tasks   Missions
GTM1   16   2
GTM2   12   2
GTM3   33   2
GTL     41    2
GBD    19   2
OSC    11   2
PSC   11   2
Total   143   14



MS   32   2
MO/MP   20/24   2
OSC   11   2
PSC   11   2
Total   74   8

IC3   9   2


GT IC3   152   16
Air IC3   83   10

Not to harp, but you also missed AOBD in the Air track to IC, which would bring participation to 12. And, as mentioned above, leaving out the GTM2 and 1 tasks (which, by the way, all except 4 tasks found on GTM2 and GTM1 can be found on the GTL SQTR) brings them about in line.

 IMHO- I believe that a good IC needs to also get trained at least as a MS so they understand what an aircrew actually does, from that perspective.  It is amazing what you don't know until you do that.

It's not just your opinion, it's regulation. For PSC pre-requisites, anyone becoming a PSC trainee on the grounds of AOBD must have been GTM3 or UDF rated at some point (need not be current), and anyone doing so on the grounds of being a GBD must have been a rated MS at some point (need not be current). In MY opinion, however, I think mission observer should be required for anyone going via the GBD route, and Ground Team Leader should be required for anyone doing the air route. You can do most GTM3 or MS tasks on a 2 day weekend pretty easily, w/o having to have an intense amount of subject matter knowledge other then "the basics" of the speciality. But making the MO or GTL requirement makes them have more knowledge in the function of the aircrew/ground team, and what the people that are out there making the decisions in the field (the MP/MO or GTL) are having to do, and what their capabilites really are.

[RiverAux]

I think the numbers of ICs would drop dramatically if the pilot-types had to get GTL qualified before becoming ICs.  Becoming a GTL is very much more difficult and time consuming than becoming a CAP observer and there are also some physical issues that come into play. 

[SJFedor]

I think the numbers of ICs would drop dramatically if the pilot-types had to get GTL qualified before becoming ICs.  Becoming a GTL is very much more difficult and time consuming than becoming a CAP observer and there are also some physical issues that come into play. 

To a point, yes, but MO stuff, when done properly, shouldn't be a walk through the park either. If you look at the task guide for each MO task, it's really more involved then meets the eye. They *should* be able to do every single thing in that aircraft except drive the bus, but the only MO's I've flown with that are that proficient are them high-speed NESA grads  IMHO, there should be at least 3-4 qualification sorties for MO, not the two that stand.

And honestly, is it so horrible that we expect our future ICs to do something physical? I understand some of the older people out there, but honestly, if they can't handle a hike through the woods, they probably shouldn't be in an aircraft, either. It's just a matter of whether they have an MI while they're humping it through a trail, or have an MI at 1,000 AGL with a non pilot observer and scanner. God forbid something is earned and not just given in CAP.

[RiverAux]

Requiring the 60+ year olds to become a GTL would very quicly result in either them being pencil-whipped through the system, the standards for GTL would be lowered to meet their capabilities, or we would have just drastically reduced our pools of potential ICs to GT-gods.  Keep in mind that in the not-so-distant future we will probably be forced to adopt some sort of physical requirements for our ground teams in order to be compliant with NIMS and that will also knock out a bunch of folks. 

I view the ground and air requirements as a way to make sure that a CAP IC is basically familiar with how we do our operations and for that you do not need to be a MO or GTL.  Our ICs do not need to know how you use the aircraft's GPS units.  They need to know a little bit about a lot of things in this job, but there is no need for them to be tactically proficient in everything done under their command.   

[Eclipse]

It's not just your opinion, it's regulation. For PSC pre-requisites, anyone becoming a PSC trainee on the grounds of AOBD must have been GTM3 or UDF rated at some point (need not be current), and anyone doing so on the grounds of being a GBD must have been a rated MS at some point (need not be current).

Where are you getting that?

AOBD requires Mission Observer or Mission Pilot, no ground ratings are required.

And you certainly don't need to a Mission Scanner to get the GBD rating.

[DeputyDog]

Where are you getting that?

AOBD requires Mission Observer or Mission Pilot, no ground ratings are required.

And you certainly don't need to a Mission Scanner to get the GBD rating.

He was talking about the prerequisites for PSC.

In order to train as a PSC (meet the prerequisites), you must be either an AOBD with a ground rating (UDF or GTM3) at one time, or be a GBD with an aircrew rating (MS) at one time.

[Eclipse]

Where are you getting that?

AOBD requires Mission Observer or Mission Pilot, no ground ratings are required.

And you certainly don't need to a Mission Scanner to get the GBD rating.

He was talking about the prerequisites for PSC.

In order to train as a PSC (meet the prerequisites), you must be either an AOBD with a ground rating (UDF or GTM3) at one time, or be a GBD with an aircrew rating (MS) at one time.

And again, I'm asking where you guys are coming up with this - I've dug the SQTRs, and don't see that anywhere. 

Is this a notation somewhere in the regs? 

EDIT: I just checked the PSC SQTR in the current 60-4, dated 2001.  The only prerequisite for PSC is AODB >or< GBD, with no mention of cross training.

[Eclipse]

 

OK, I found it - 60-4 has not been updated, but the SQTRs have. 

The new ones are here: http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5590

Qualified Air Operations Branch Director or Ground Branch Director
(Personnel applying based on qualification as an Air Operations Branch
Director requirement must have been qualified as a ground team or Urban DF
team member at one time. Personnel applying based on qualification as a
Ground Branch Director must also have been qualified as a mission scanner
at one time.)

It should also be noted that neither the WMU nor MIMs PSC SQTRs have been updated to include the text above (which appears on the hardcopy) - I have no way of knowing if this logic is built into the pre-req approval on either system.  My guess is no, since you don't have to be current.

You just can't win with this stuff...

[lordmonar]

But E-service has been for several years.

[Eclipse]

But E-service has been for several years.

Where?  Built into the approval logic? It doesn't say anything on screen.

[lordmonar]

I guess I was wrong. 

[SJFedor]

OK, I found it - 60-4 has not been updated, but the SQTRs have. 

The new ones are here: http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5590

Qualified Air Operations Branch Director or Ground Branch Director
(Personnel applying based on qualification as an Air Operations Branch
Director requirement must have been qualified as a ground team or Urban DF
team member at one time. Personnel applying based on qualification as a
Ground Branch Director must also have been qualified as a mission scanner
at one time.)

It should also be noted that neither the WMU nor MIMs PSC SQTRs have been updated to include the text above (which appears on the hardcopy) - I have no way of knowing if this logic is built into the pre-req approval on either system.  My guess is no, since you don't have to be current.

You just can't win with this stuff...

You'll need to read the correct regulation, which is CAPR 60-3, Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions, dated 26 May 2004.

i. Planning Section Chief (PSC).
1) Trainee Prerequisites. Satisfy the following to begin training for PSC:
a) Qualified Air Operations Branch Director or Ground Branch Director (need not be current). Personnel applying based on qualification as an Air Operations Branch Director requirement must have been qualified as a ground team or Urban DF team member at one time. Personnel applying based on qualification as a Ground Branch Director must also have been qualified as a mission scanner at one time.
b) At least 21 years of age.
c) Qualified GES.

RTFM.

[Eclipse]

Let's go to the big board and see what are totals are!


Rating   Tasks   Missions
MS     32     2
GTM3   33   2
GTL     41     2
GBD    19    2
OSC    11    2
PSC    11     2

Ground Route   147   12


UDF     17   2
MS      32    2
MO/MP   20    2
AOBD    17   2
OSC     11    2
PSC      11    2

Air Route   108   12

IC3   9   2

Total Ground IC3   156   14
Total Air IC3                117     14

[KyCAP]

Has anyone spoken to NHQ to let them know the problem is in the system?

[isuhawkeye]

14 missions to run the entire show is not unreasonable.  With many wings conducting 6-12 training missions a year, plus actualls you could )In theory) get through this quickly

[Dragoon]

This also assumes that the person passes all tasks within those minimums.  Most of our GTLS go through a lot more than two missions before they get qualified.

Of course, in places that pencil whip, you can only count on the minimums occurring.

[RiverAux]

A lot depends on the type of missions.  I've lived places where I could have knocked out 14 ELT missions in 7-12 months and not have a clue about how to run a "real" mission. 

[KyCAP]

Just refreshing this thread.   My Squadron ES officer says that as of a week ago e-services has fields to track FEMA ICS training in it.