Mission Ops: Who is supposed to sign people in and track resources?

[Eclipse]

This is in support of an ongoing local discussion.

Which section is actually supposed to be in charge of the sign-in process?

How about tracking people and calling up more?

What about the pre-planning and call-up?

How about resources, including airplanes and vehicles?

The problem is that in a CAP context these duties are spread all over the place, which is a mess, and in my wing we've made up
a position that echoes ICS called "RUL" for Resource Unit Leader, which then becomes a bottleneck, since with no SQTR or
standardized expectations "some dude" generally winds up doing it.

I've argued it should be FASC (A=Admin), but I can't really find support for that, and FASC is clearly targeted at money.

People is supposed to be part of planning, but sometimes there's no PSC for a while, and what about the ramp-ups?
The PSC should not be on the phone begging people to leave the links on a sunny day, so who does he pass the request to?

Vehicles, hots and cots should be Logistics, but so many of our vehicles are tied to people, it's hard to separate them.

Ugh.

So who's doing what in your wings for larger-scale missions and evals?

[tsrup]

I suppose you can lump warm bodies in as a resource and delegate mission check in to logistics.  Otherwise the next appropriate thing would be the PSC.


Assigning people to different areas as you would any supply or resource under logistics seems to make the most sense.

[coudano]

The ICS answer is that it is the Planning Section that does these things.

CAP takes ICS and absolutely mutilates it into its own image, however; not much unlike taking a rock (CAP's structure "before ICS") and trying to smash it into a silicone cookie cutter (ICS).

Just read MOST of what you typed there, it involves concepts of future and even the word PLAN.
It's not rocket science.



That said CAP in most cases i've worked with fails epicly at properly implementing the planning section.
And while it gets us by fine for a random ELT search, we pay for that dearly on high profile and long duration missions.

[a2capt]

If I have someone working on MSA, or a cadet that has nothing yet, save for GES of course, I start there. If IMU is being used, it's a lot easier to start a cadet on a computer most of the time ... and they usually like doing it, until there's action somewhere else like the comm section, or ops assistance.  In a tight/small environment I can have a couple cadets going between comm relay/logging/operator to checkin/out and status board updating, keeping a whiteboard in sync with what IMU is showing, and the grid map on the wall with magnets or post-it's with team / aircraft positions.

[tsrup]

Straight out of the ICS-300 book

"Major Responsibilities of the planning section chief are to:.....
....reassign personnel already on site to ICS organizational positions as needed and appropriate.."

That's about the closest thing I can find with relation to personnel amass check in (after a quick search, out is a big book after all).

however in practice the PSC can still do that regardless of who physically checks them in.  for Prudence or Manning purposes it would be just as easy to have someone from logistics check people in with their great at the same time, then just forward the information up to the PSC.


Funny, I remember talking a whole lot about the importance of checking people in during my course, but I can't recall it ever being mentioned that it fall under a specific area.  I coursed this is one of those few things that an IC can use their discretion on based on the situation.



Edit:  found it finally:  people should check in their items and themselves with the resources unit which reports to the PSC.   Big book.. Glad I kept it.

[coudano]

Edit:  found it finally:  people should check in their items and themselves with the resources unit which reports to the PSC.   Big book.. Glad I kept it.

That's a question in the ics100 test, i believe...

[lordmonar]

Planning "owns" all the assets not actively in the field, air, on duty.

Planning decides who needs to be called (even if it is "we need 10 air crews and 5 ground teams and full mission base).

Planning should own the sign in staff...so they can plan the missions and dole out personel to the various sections.

Once assigned they belong to their assigned sections....i.e. MRO's to the LSC, Aircrew and ground crew to OPS, etc.

Care and feeding for all the people belones to LSC.....so when they are "signed in" but off duty (a function that IMU does not support yet) they belong to LSC.

[Robborsari]

Planning "owns" all the assets not actively in the field, air, on duty.

Planning decides who needs to be called (even if it is "we need 10 air crews and 5 ground teams and full mission base).

Planning should own the sign in staff...so they can plan the missions and dole out personel to the various sections.

Once assigned they belong to their assigned sections....i.e. MRO's to the LSC, Aircrew and ground crew to OPS, etc.

Care and feeding for all the people belones to LSC.....so when they are "signed in" but off duty (a function that IMU does not support yet) they belong to LSC.

Its still on my list

[lordmonar]

Thanks....

[JeffDG]

According to CAP-USAFI 10-2701 (The AF SAREVAL Checklist), on page 86, one of the questions for the Finance/Admin Section Chief:

2.  Were all personnel signed in and a method established to ensure that all personnel could be accounted for? Were the qualifications and credentials of all personnel checked and verified?

3. Were all aircraft and vehicles signed in?

5. Did the FASC use some method to track which members had signed into the mission base?

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_USAFI_10_2701.pdf

So, if you're doing your USAF SAREVAL, then it's the FASC's job.

[RiverAux]

Our wing has always used FASC to sign people in.  Really, there isn't much else for them them to do on most missions.

Everything else would fall under planning.  Our wing finally started catching on to what the PSC is supposed to do a few years ago, but probably still isn't using them entirely by the book. 

[Spaceman3750]

I don't agree that PSC should be responsible, even if that is what the book says. Planning should be focused on figuring out what to do next - figuring out how to do it is part logistics and part ops in my book. The people, vans, gas, L-pers, etc is logistics' issue and the tactical aspect is ops' problem.

[arajca]

Planning needs to determine what resources are needed. Logistics is supposed to get them.

[Eclipse]

Planning needs to determine what resources are needed. Logistics is supposed to get them.

That's basically my position.  OPS is "now", Planning is "next", so I don't see how "next" can be checking people in "now".

Checkins and resource tracking is critical to a well-run mission, especially for escalating incidents (see what I did there?).  I think
this idea that some random MSA can do the check-ins is why we have so many issues with knowing who is where, but I can't
find a specialty or SQTR that really speaks to it.  FASC seems to be the only one close.

Logistics in general is a major fail point for CAP activities.  Everyone wants to be the tip.

[Spaceman3750]

The person checking folks' CAPIDs doesn't necessarily have to be the same person who is keeping tabs on where all of the resources are.

[N Harmon]

Here is my understanding:

Entering the mission, people and equipment get checked-in by the FASC, and then go to the unit they belong to. For the duration of their time, they are tracked and supervised by whoever is in charge of that unit. When they leave the mission, they are checked out by the FASC.

Planning is responsible for calling in more resources as needed for the next operational period. Operations calls in more resources for the current operating period. The later should rarely happen because all needed resources should be planned for already, but some times situations change and resources are needed immediately (ie: a tow truck), that's Operations, not Planning.

Any time a particular position in the ICS is not manned, the responsibilities of that position fall upon the next higher person in the chain. No PSC because it's early in the game? Then the IC is responsible for doing the calling up.

[Eclipse]

Entering the mission, people and equipment get checked-in by the FASC, and then go to the unit they belong to. For the duration of their time, they are tracked and supervised by whoever is in charge of that unit. When they leave the mission, they are checked out by the FASC.

Sounds good on paper, but what about the pool?  (i.e. people checked in but unassigned)

This, again, seems to be an issue unique to CAP in that we have people who are dual-tracked.  Pilots not flying who are also GT's can be assigned to a mission there instead.

I can certainly buy that FASC is in charge of check-ins, but it seems like the actual process has been left by the wayside.

[arajca]

The FASC has other duties than to sign folks in. A random MSA can sign folks in. It isn't that hard.

From what I've seen many times:
Personnel arrive, get signed in by whoever is at the desk (or sign in on one of several impromptu sign-in sheets because IMU crashed again), then hang out until told to go somewhere else and hang out. Once all the aircrews have been coffee'd and had their lounge time, the aircraft are sent out. Cadets get sent to Comm or Flight Line. When someone remembers there are ground teams signed in, a mad rush to develop some GT scenarios occurs and the GTs finally get sent out. Although it has been getting better lately.

Ideally, the sign-in folks should have a list of positions that need filled now, and another list of upcoming positions that will need to be filled.

[Eclipse]

^ That's the mess we're in today, but that's not really where we should be.

A random MSA might be able to click boxes or complete the sheets, but we need an actual experienced member who is directly responsible as a core function for the process.  Maybe it should be the Deputy FASC, etc.

Our last eval had some loose(r than I'd like) structure around this, and we got kudos for it because resource requests were handled with actual
attention.

[N Harmon]

Sounds good on paper, but what about the pool?  (i.e. people checked in but unassigned)

Why are people checked in but unassigned? I thought we weren't supposed to self-dispatch. If resources are ordered, and people called upon, then they already know where they are assigned.

This is likely a problem you would run into at a SAREX, but should rarely pop up in a real mission.