Incident Commander (IC-2) rating

[disamuel]

What are National's requirements for IC-2? The SQTR only requires two missions as IC-3, but there must be more to it. Can anyone point me to the correct reg or policy? Is it set by region?

Thanks in advance-

[Rafka]

All the requirements are in Operations Qualifications in eServices. Besides the 2 missions, you need to complete IS100, IS200, IS700, IS800, ICS300, and ICS400. As well as the CAPT 117 ES CE Exam Part 3 and Flight Release Officer Training.

CAPR 60-3 says that all requirements are found in Ops Quals. It's in Chapter 2-3 section f.

[sardak]

Correct, IC2 = IC3 + 2 missions, and IC1 = IC2 + 2 missions. There is nothing more to it, there are no other requirements or qualifications necessary. Pretty silly, isn't it?

At the November, 2011 NEC meeting, a proposal to increase the requirements for IC1 and IC2 was presented. It was addressed again in May 2012 and November 2012.  The item was closed without action at the May 2013 CSAG meeting. At least one region supplement was floated that changed the requirements, but it apparently wasn't approved by NHQ. There are no current NHQ approved supplements at any level that make changes to these requirements.

Mike

[Al Sayre]

However, you need the wing commander to approve the IC ratings.  i.e. If you screw up the two missions as an IC3, they can disapprove the IC2...

[JeffDG]

Generally speaking, an IC2 is expected to run larger scale missions than an IC3.

Personally, I would expect the two mission participations as an IC2 trainee to be "Wing Level" missions, not smaller scale.

IC1s need to be approved at a Region level, and I would expect multi-wing mission experience for those.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Would now be a good time to discuss how our IC qualifications violate ICS when we work with other agencies?   

Seriously though, I'd really like to see Agency Liaison used more and I'd like our curriculum to be good enough that a prospective customer wouldn't scoff at it immediately. I've been to a few major searches and know that those Sheriff's offices could have really used some knowledgeable staff embedded with them. Trouble is, our people aren't often flexible enough to do it and we end up playing only in the CAP world.

That is all.   

[sardak]

Step 1 is to use the proper terminology. There is no such position in ICS as Agency Liaison. There is an Agency Representative (AREP) and a Liaison Officer (LO, LNO, LOFR).  CAP corrected itself on Agency Liaison in 2008 by getting rid of the Agency Liaison 1, 2 and 3 quals and creating a single Liaison Officer qual. There is no Agency Representative qual/rating because per CAPR 60-3 para. 1-3(d) the member filling this position must be IC qualified.

The ICS definitions are:
Agency Representative is an individual assigned to an incident from an assisting or cooperating agency who has been delegated full authority to make decisions on all matters affecting that agency's participation at the incident. Agency Representatives report to the Liaison Officer, if that position has been filled. If there is no Liaison Officer, Agency Representatives report to the Incident Commander. There will be only one (1) Agency Representative from each agency assigned to the incident.

Liaison Officer is responsible for serving as the incident's point of contact for coordinating with agency representatives from assisting and cooperating agencies. Reports to the Incident Commander and is a member of the Command Staff. This position may have one or more assistants assigned.

Mike

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Sir, I'm not sure terminology matters much when CAP has fixed the terminology, but affixed that terminology to job descriptions that are incorrect. Agency Reps seem to be the proper this to change the IC qualification to, unless we plan to train people that could walk into a sheriff's office and coordinate a multi agency and multi jurisdictional mission.
You've yelled at me for accidentaly using the wrong term, fine. Now could we get around to fixing the problem?

[jdh]

Sir, I'm not sure terminology matters much when CAP has fixed the terminology, but affixed that terminology to job descriptions that are incorrect. Agency Reps seem to be the proper this to change the IC qualification to, unless we plan to train people that could walk into a sheriff's office and coordinate a multi agency and multi jurisdictional mission.
You've yelled at me for accidentaly using the wrong term, fine. Now could we get around to fixing the problem?

Some of us are trained for and have experience with tier 3 and tier 2 events for IC, Command Staff and General Staff positions but still have to go through all of the CAP steps and positions before we can get an IC rating in CAP. Right now in CAP I am in training status for LO (just need missions) but I have held IC on several large scale exercises and incidents over the last 15 years.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Understanding CAP'S side of the equation is important, but I imagine when you become an IC and none of your peers or superiors are capable of handling incidents you already have, that must be pretty disappointing. If we're going  to utilize and train people with your skills and qualifications and offer them to agencies as IC's, excellent! Unfortunately, that's now what's happening, we have agency reps called IC's that operate under other IC's...

It's sad that you have to go back to 're-learn' how to be an IC from an organization that uses the incorrect job description for IC's. 

[Storm Chaser]

Just because someone has experience as an IC handling certain types of incidents doesn't mean they can handle every type of incidents. CAP ICs are trained to handle CAP-specific missions and assets, so I think it's only reasonable to expect members to go through the required training to understand how CAP does things. That said, a member may always request a waiver for a specialty qualification based on equivalent training received from other agencies in accordance with CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-1e.

[jdh]

Just because someone has experience as an IC handling certain types of incidents doesn't mean they can handle every type of incidents. CAP ICs are trained to handle CAP-specific missions and assets, so I think it's only reasonable to expect members to go through the required training to understand how CAP does things. That said, a member may always request a waiver for a specialty qualification based on equivalent training received from other agencies in accordance with CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-1e.

I have a 3 inch binder full of certs for all kinds of things that would be equivalent or higher than a lot of the requirements but was told that it would be faster just to go through the trainings and get evaluated on the tasks for all of it than it would to get any of the waivers approved. So thats what I'm doing. I have been doing ES (both public sector and military) since 2000. The hard part is getting the mission requirement taken care of.

Edit: rearranged two sentences so it made more sense.

[Storm Chaser]

Just because someone has experience as an IC handling certain types of incidents doesn't mean they can handle every type of incidents. CAP ICs are trained to handle CAP-specific missions and assets, so I think it's only reasonable to expect members to go through the required training to understand how CAP does things. That said, a member may always request a waiver for a specialty qualification based on equivalent training received from other agencies in accordance with CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-1e.

I have a 3 inch binder full of certs for all kinds of things that would be equivalent or higher than a lot of the requirements but was told that it would be faster just to go through the trainings and get evaluated on the tasks for all of it than it would to get any of the waivers approved. So thats what I'm doing. I have been doing ES (both public sector and military) since 2000. The hard part is getting the mission requirement taken care of.

Edit: rearranged two sentences so it made more sense.

If you have documented training, you can certainly request a waiver. Requesting a waiver doesn't prevent you from continuing to pursue ES qualifications in CAP while your waiver request is being reviewed and processed.

As a side note, the two exercise/mission participation are just the minimum requirements for qualification. It doesn't mean that after two missions you automatically get the sign off. In fact, IC training will most likely take more that two missions or operational periods. When I completed my IC3 training, I was required to run a 10 day exercise, a few actual missions, two remote (in two separate groups, over 400 and 600 miles away respectively), a night mission, and a mission with simultaneous operations from two separate locations. Of course, only two of those missions were signed off on my SQTR.

I've been working on IC2 for a while and have already ran several missions as a trainee. IC2s are expected to run larger missions on a multi-area or wing level. The exercise participation sign offs should take that into consideration. Because IC3s and IC2s must by appointed by the wing commander, the wing commander or designee is also the approving authority to begin training as an IC (cf. CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-2f).

CAPR 60-3, Para. 2-2d(1) states:

...commanders should exercise discretion and reasonable judgment in assigning these [IC] qualifications as they require great trust and levy great responsibility on the members being designated as ICs.

Most wings will have policies in place to determine the criteria to select IC trainees at the different levels, to designate IC trainers and mentors, and to develop training plans and criteria for IC qualification beyond CAPR 60-3, the SQTR and the Task Guide. Since the current SQTR for IC2 does not have additional tasks, but only the standard ICS courses and two exercise participation, it provides wing and region commanders with some flexibility in tailoring training for their ICs.