Disaster Relief training pipeline

[Mark_Wheeler]

In a Unified Command, each responsible agency provides an Incident Commander.  All the Incident Commanders form the Unified Command. They are to work together and agree on an Incident Action Plan.

Reference: ICS 300 Instruction Guide:

Description of Unified Command
Unified Command is a team effort process, allowing all agencies with geographical or functional responsibility for an incident, to assign an Incident Commander to a Unified Command organization.

The Unified Command then establishes a common set of incident objectives and strategies that all can subscribe to. This is accomplished without losing or giving up agency authority, responsibility or accountability.

Unified Command represents an important element in increasing the effectiveness of multijurisdictional or multi-agency incidents. As incidents become more complex and involve more agencies, the need for Unified Command is increased.

This doesn't  mean that whenever CAP is involved in an incident with a Unified Command that CAP's representative will be one of the Incident Commanders. Instead, they would probably be an Agency Representative. Internally within CAP, they would be ICs, but within the ICS Unified Command, they would not.

Thanks! I was about to chime in but I couldn't find the reference! See ya tomorrow night by the way.

Mark

[LTC Don]

That's a great definition of Unified Command.  And while this discussion seems to had derailed the OP's original question, it really hasn't because we just don't do much Disaster Relief work which almost always involves multiple agencies, as someone who mentioned DeepWater Horizon.

Several have mentioned this notion of CAP control of CAP resources, with the implication being that if we don't have a CAP IC assigned, then we don't have control if 'only' an Agency Liaison (who should always be a rated CAP IC) is assigned.  That is not the case at all.  As also mentioned, the Agency Liaison IS the person in charge of CAP resources, and represents them to the Unified Command staff (IF CAP does not have a seat at the Unified Command table.)  Even though those resources may be assigned to a downstream section chief or branch director, as long as the assigned task doesn't violate CAP regulations, everything should be good to go.  That resource may provide status reports to the Agency Liaison, but they work for that section chief or branch director.  < That is a source of contention for obvious reasons, but ultimately we work for the customer.

That said, then there are two places in ICS where CAP overhead can be installed:

As an IC on the Unified Command Staff
As an Agency Liaison representative.

In both cases, those overhead positions represent CAP and work to keep from having  CAP tasked with something that may violate our regulations or violate state or Federal Law such as posse comitatus, depending on the situation/incident.

That CAP control of resources works all the way down to strike team level where that strike team leader is responsible for his/her team and it's safety.  Someone is always in charge of CAP resources and is responsible to remain compliant with CAP regulations.

There are some awfully powerful paradigms at work here, as well as some badly written regulations that don't interface well with long established national ICS publications.

This just goes to show that the Disaster Relief side of the house needs a lot of work.

Any exercises, whether table top or field, should always be done with other agencies involved.  Facetime with other agencies is absolutely critical to resolving "Who's in charge" issues before they crop up.

Great discussion!


Cheers,

[RiverAux]

Please provide a reference from a CAP regulation that says that you can run a CAP mission with anything other than an IC in charge.  There are many references in 60-3 to ICs and their various responsibilities and duties to oversee CAP resources on CAP missions, but I see nothing that allows for a CAP ICS system that doesn't have an IC at the top. 

[CommGeek]

a Liaison does NOT control resources,  they are a liaison ONLY.  They would interface to the agency in charge  and to the CAP Incident Commander.   

If at the command post and the CAP liaison was requested to have CAP fly a sortie, the CAP liaison would in turn contact the CAP IC to make it happen.  Thats it! the liaison is not really in the CAP chain of command. there is no way the liaison would have the time and staff at the Incident ICP/EOC... to manage the tactical operations of the request. The Liaison would simply hand it off to the CAP Command post to the CAP IC.  The IC would make it happen.

This was a FATAL flaw in how CAP operated during Deepwater Horizon. They were way understaffed and were controlling tatcical operations from the Unified Command Center.  We were the only agency doing this. Everyone else had a command post to control thier individual operation. Yes the Liaison would still have visability to the missiond, but not controlling them.

[Eclipse]

The confusion for most people stems from the fact that the AL can commit resources, even though they are not in command or control of them.  That doesn't make them the IC.

[LTC Don]

For some reason, the reply applet flakes out with IE8, but works fine with Firefox 

CAP is never going to run a "CAP Mission" during a disaster situation.  We will always be a supporting agency to the overall effort.  We may, or may not have a seat at the Unified Command table so at the very least, we will always have an Agency Rep who is a qualified CAP IC.  Our resources may be assigned to a Section Chief (which may or may not be a CAP staffer) or a branch (which also may or may not be a CAP staffer) as a strike team(s), or as a task force.

From CAPR 60-3, page 4, 17AUG09:

f. Incident Commander (IC); the CAP IC is the member responsible and in command of CAP resources supporting an incident. If CAP is not the lead agency, a CAP member qualified in the IC achievement will serve as the CAP agency representative to the lead agency IC, and ensure that all CAP resources are used in accordance with approved polices and procedures.

This comes under Definition of Terms, and is essentially repeated below:

Section 1-12, page 10.
The CAP IC exercises full authority over all CAP personnel for matters pertaining to the mission; the CAP IC is often not the overall IC, and often serves as an agency representative in the incident command structure.

Section 1-14, page 10.
CAP ICs not only represent CAP, but also take on a variety of responsibilities for customer agencies and organizations.


In reading through 60-3, it is clear that there needs to be a clear differentiation made between CAP-centric operations, both within a wing, and with multiple wings, and with multi-agency operations and how CAP specifically interfaces with ICS with those other agencies.  Right now, it's hard to tell sometimes which context the regulation refers to or how it is to be interpreted.

As seemingly flawed as it was, I miss the old 50-15 



Cheers,

[LTC Don]

a Liaison does NOT control resources,  they are a liaison ONLY.  They would interface to the agency in charge  and to the CAP Incident Commander.   

If at the command post and the CAP liaison was requested to have CAP fly a sortie, the CAP liaison would in turn contact the CAP IC to make it happen.  Thats it! the liaison is not really in the CAP chain of command. there is no way the liaison would have the time and staff at the Incident ICP/EOC... to manage the tactical operations of the request. The Liaison would simply hand it off to the CAP Command post to the CAP IC.  The IC would make it happen.

This was a FATAL flaw in how CAP operated during Deepwater Horizon. They were way understaffed and were controlling tatcical operations from the Unified Command Center.  We were the only agency doing this. Everyone else had a command post to control thier individual operation. Yes the Liaison would still have visability to the missiond, but not controlling them.

I would love to see an overall org chart of the deepwater ICS structure 


Cheers,

[CommGeek]

The DWH org chart was just to look good on paper....didn't really reflect what was happening on the field.


there will ALWAYS be a CAP mission, anytime CAP has assets on the field, wether it be a SAR or DR.  Even if CAP is not the lead agency!

CAP will never be under tactical control of another agency. NEVER!  we may receive tasking requests from another agency, but they will NEVER control how we do it. They do not know our policy and procedures.  I doubt any agency will want to control us.

OK lets step outside of CAP and look at this in a Fire/Law perspective.
a Cop isn't going to take tactical control over a firefighter, a Fire Officer will control his own fire personnel.  It may be at the request of the Cop.... but the cop isn't going to tell the hose jokey how to fight the fire, or how he needs to extricate the patient.

Same applies to CAP or any other agency.

DeepWater Horizon - State of Florida.
The State DEP director was the State IC...even though BP had an IC (Only on TV)
RECON teams consisted of Fish and Wildlife, FL DEP, National Guard, CAP. Each agency was given tasking, and it was carried out by each agency through their Incident Commander!

None of the agencies, AL were directing resources. They were communicating with their appropriate agency IC on the field.

even under UC each agency still has an IC...they just 'act' as one body!




Are you basing your remarks on what you have read? or have you actually been on the field? It seems like a few of you guys really need to keep your mouth shut until you have seen this work in the real world...not in the 'CAP' World.

[arajca]

Are you basing your remarks on what you have read? or have you actually been on the field? It seems like a few of you guys really need to keep your mouth shut until you have seen this work in the real world...not in the 'CAP' World.

I've worked in ICS for several years. I done the fancy training held by a number of agencies. The incidents that were conducted the most efficiently were the ones where there was ONE IC, not one IC per agency. I've work many scenes were the IC was an LEO. The IC didn't 'ask' a fire officer to do anything. He told the fire officer what the IC needed done. The fire officer used the resources at his disposal to make it happen. Those resources included fire, ems, and le personnel. Again, when the fire office needed the leo's at HIS disposal to do something, he didn't ask a LE-IC to get it done, he tasked the leo's directly. So we had fire officers taking commands from an law enforcement officer, leos taking commands from a fire officer, and ems working with everybody. ONE IC, not a Fire-IC, LE-IC, and EMS-IC.

The ugly incidents were the ones where everyone thought they were in charge. Additionally, various laws dictate who is actually in charge. In some cases it's LE, in others it's Fire, in some it's CAP.

Just because your experience isn't the same as mine, do not presume to tell me I don't know how it works in the real world.

[CommGeek]

I love it how most people who [censored] on here dont have any ES qualls!  haha... makes me laugh!

[RiverAux]

CAP ground teams are very often under the "tactical control" of another agency.  Sheriff says -- "CAP go search over there" or "CAP, my deputy is going to lead your ground team to search that ridge".  Thats just fine and dandy, but there would still be a CAP GTL over the CAP members on that team who would be reporting through CAP's ICS system.  However, that CAP GTL can veto any "tactical" decision made by whatever agency we're working for.  He can say to the sheriff "No, we aren't qualified to search that high angle ridgeline, is there another place you can use us" or "No, we can't borrow your ATVs to get to the search area". 

[CommGeek]

there is still a CAP IC running the show (at least for CAP)

[Eclipse]

I love it how most people who [censored] on here dont have any ES qualls!  haha... makes me laugh!

I believe you are incorrect in that statement.

Certainly the majority of people commenting on this thread are experienced CAP members, and active ES operators both within and outside of CAP.

[arajca]

It goes to how we deploy our resources. The current practice is to consider every member who shows up as a single resource. i.e. a CAP ground team signs in as five members and a vehicle, not one ground team (6 resources vs 1 resource). That needs to change. A fire engine signs in as one engine, not four firefighters and an engine. They are tracked and deployed as such. They do not break the crew apart (usually) and count them as individuals.

[CommGeek]

OPS QUALS says diffrent!

[CommGeek]

It goes to how we deploy our resources. The current practice is to consider every member who shows up as a single resource. i.e. a CAP ground team signs in as five members and a vehicle, not one ground team (6 resources vs 1 resource). That needs to change. A fire engine signs in as one engine, not four firefighters and an engine. They are tracked and deployed as such. They do not break the crew apart (usually) and count them as individuals.

Agreed!  We need to use the 'Crew' concept.

[wuzafuzz]

OPS QUALS says diffrent!

Ops quals doesn't say squat about what experience they may have outside CAP.  Or perhaps their quals have expired thanks to a break in CAP service.  Chill.

[CommGeek]

when you have been in CAP 5 plus years with just GES ans ICS 200 how can you comment on how ICS works?

[wuzafuzz]

when you have been in CAP 5 plus years with just GES ans ICS 200 how can you comment on how ICS works?

For all you know you are debating with an experienced wildland fire IC, who merely focuses on cadet programs in CAP. 

[Eclipse]

I am a big proponent of the crew concept myself - there is no substitute for the shorthand of a team that has worked together - but without
commitments and / requirements that the whole crew respond, the idea breaks down quickly, and since our operators are also the trainers, crews become cliques quickly and sometimes exclude the new guys.

Then one person quits the crew, the team dissolves and the unit goes from "A" to "D".