Planning Section Chief

[Dustoff]

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

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

Jim

[flyguy06]

O Man....


Planning Section is the pace to be. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Lots of fun!!!!


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

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

[floridacyclist]

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

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

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

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

[ZigZag911]

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

[RiverAux]

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

[isuhawkeye]

River,

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

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

[isuhawkeye]

See I run things a more like a fire department. 

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

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

[arajca]

See I run things a more like a fire department. 

Which is where ICS got its start in emergency services.

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

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

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

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

[SARPilotNY]

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

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

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

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

This NIIMS stuff is really annoying!

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

[RiverAux]

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

[floridacyclist]

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

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

I got a question for you, Gene...

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

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

[isuhawkeye]

I'm not gene, but I can help. 

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

[sardak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

[Al Sayre]

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

[Dustoff]

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

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

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

Jim

[SAR-EMT1]

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

FULLY AGREE

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

Tags - MIKE 

[SARMedTech]

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

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

Tags - MIKE 

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