ICS

[Flying Pig]

OK....can we all be done with these coveted ICS courses now? 

100, 200, 700, 800.  They all say the same thing.  Please....enough.

[Major Carrales]

OK....can we all be done with these coveted ICS courses now? 

100, 200, 700, 800.  They all say the same thing.  Please....enough.

It is a rote memory thing.

[wuzafuzz]

OK....can we all be done with these coveted ICS courses now? 

100, 200, 700, 800.  They all say the same thing.  Please....enough.

It is a rote memory thing.

The 300 course was more of the same.  Just piled higher and deeper.  I have a NIMS PhD!    

Seriously though, if we don't practice what those courses taught then the entire experience will have been squandered.  But we checked those darn boxes off!  If we, as an organization, actually embrace and use ICS then the training won't have been a waste.  Unnecessarily repetitive, but useful.

[isuhawkeye]

you do NOT have a NIMS PHD!!!

you may have a basic understanding of the material.

NIMS is still in its infancy, and we have a lot of learning, and training left to do.  there are still many years of classes, training, and policy changes on their way. 

[Stonewall]

Seriously though, if we don't practice what those courses taught then the entire experience will have been squandered. 

I agree 100%.  I took 100, 200, 700 and 800 for my Police Dept in May of 2007 and as a preparation for IS 300 this month, I went back and tried to take 100 again without studying or reviewing the material.  I failed it.  20 months had gone by and obviously I forgot enough to have a basic understanding of the content.

[Timbo]

Seriously though, if we don't practice what those courses taught then the entire experience will have been squandered. 

I agree 100%.  I took 100, 200, 700 and 800 for my Police Dept in May of 2007 and as a preparation for IS 300 this month, I went back and tried to take 100 again without studying or reviewing the material.  I failed it.  20 months had gone by and obviously I forgot enough to have a basic understanding of the content.

Which is a prime example of how this requirement will be a "listen, test, pass, forget" issue.  I know many will just do enough to pass the tests, and forget the material.  And it will not be limited to CAP.

Unless re certification requirements are in place this will be just like 9th grade calculus.  Something we all have to take once and then can forget about. 

[heliodoc]

^^^
Correct to all the above posts

Which indicates to me CAP ought to more involved at the local level and invite the Emergency Managers of their communities to at least have some sort of briefing once a quarter or once a year

I know, I know we are all busy... does not prevent a phone call

Just like our SQTR's... everyone says it all performance and hands on


Well folks this one is NOT all hands on.... getting everyone in to the mindset and at least discussing it will keep it somewhat fresh

But I know CAPers,  like Natl and Wing are suffering the SQTR debacle now....  Everyone on trainee status will argue with me all day long

Oh and that wonderful gocivilairpatrol.com....... Can not even get on eservices... everyone is in a tither

[Flying Pig]

you do NOT have a NIMS PHD!!!

you may have a basic understanding of the material.

NIMS is still in its infancy, and we have a lot of learning, and training left to do.  there are still many years of classes, training, and policy changes on their way. 

Uhhhh.....geeee.  Do you think just maybe he might have had some training outside of CAP?  I know, its highly unlikely that someone might have had training outside of CAP, but just maybe.

If this stuff is in its infancy...(which it is not) I will hate to see what this animal looks like in 10 years.   Ive been exposed to this for the last several years as a cop.

[isuhawkeye]

I have only met a few ICS experts, and most of them come from the wild land fire fire community.  true NIMS experts are even harder to find. 

The latest Five-year NIMS training plan marks out future education requirments such as

MAC specific policy and training
NIMS Resource typing
NIMS specific PIO training
NIMS communication and Information management training
NIMS Intrastate mutual aid
ICS Position Specific training courses

many of which are class room based, and still in Pilot testing periods.

unless your leaning way forward in your fox hole we still have quite a ways to go.

feel free to claim that these courses won't apply to CAP

just my 2 cents worth.  sorry for sticking my nose in it.

[heliodoc]

Flying Pig .....

It's constantly changing at the Fed level so I can see the infancy argument..

But for CAP and CAP'ers....... It will remain in infancy until all the membership can get on board

How come CERT (the guys in the green helmets) can get it done and move along.  They are not paid

CAP NEEDS to adopt ... I know the VFD's, paid FD's , and you LE types have had this on your radars for at least the last 5 years

Hang on for the CAP ride and commentary.........

[desertengineer1]

^^^
Correct to all the above posts

Which indicates to me CAP ought to more involved at the local level and invite the Emergency Managers of their communities to at least have some sort of briefing once a quarter or once a year

I know, I know we are all busy... does not prevent a phone call

Just like our SQTR's... everyone says it all performance and hands on


Well folks this one is NOT all hands on.... getting everyone in to the mindset and at least discussing it will keep it somewhat fresh

But I know CAPers,  like Natl and Wing are suffering the SQTR debacle now....  Everyone on trainee status will argue with me all day long

Oh and that wonderful gocivilairpatrol.com....... Can not even get on eservices... everyone is in a tither

eservices is up.  Just verified the trainee status glitch is still active.  However, all information is still in the individual SQTR entry page.

[wuzafuzz]

you do NOT have a NIMS PHD!!!

you may have a basic understanding of the material.

NIMS is still in its infancy, and we have a lot of learning, and training left to do.  there are still many years of classes, training, and policy changes on their way. 

UGH...  It was an attempt at humor that missed the mark.  What I wrote was that ICS 300 Piled the info Higher and Deeper... PhD.  I wasn't actually claiming expert status...joke hits the ground at Mach 3 and burrows a very deep hole.

Flying Pig was right though, I do have experience outside CAP.  It's dated, but it taught me more than the recent ICS classes did.

[wingnut55]

Yes this is pathetic, I agree we need to fall into an line with the rest of the EMS, Search & Rescue, emergency services world.

But eeeGad what a waist of time, did it in about 4 hours all total no wonder NHQ waited for so many years to require this. We still don't match the pimple on the butt of the L.A. county Sheriffs search and rescue Volunteers

Sorry too descriptive?   

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL

[MikeD]

Yes this is pathetic, I agree we need to fall into an line with the rest of the EMS, Search & Rescue, emergency services world.

But eeeGad what a waist of time, did it in about 4 hours all total no wonder NHQ waited for so many years to require this. We still don't match the pimple on the butt of the L.A. county Sheriffs search and rescue Volunteers

Sorry too descriptive?   

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL

Do tell, what about them?  I heard we kicked their butts in a SAREX a few months ago? 
(From LA Co's northernmost pimple, Palmcaster)

[ol'fido]

We in CAP tend to confuse qualification with competency. Okay, this person has done the hoop jumping and checked all the boxes, he is qualified and that must mean he's competent. Right? Wrong! Qualification does not necessarily mean competence. A person may be qualified(i.e. have all the quals and ICS courses on his resume') but that does not always tranlate to competence.

Now before anyone says that if someone goes to all this trouble to learn and take the courses they should be competent, remember everybody that grasduates high school gets the same diploma. Some are valedictorians and some get through by the skin of their teeth but they are all "qualified".

Perhaps one answer would be to desdign a CAP course on the lines of SLS, CLC, UCC, or TLC that each wing could put on once, twice, or several times a year that would teach the ICS in a less "see spot run" form. Or maybe add a IDL course in the ICS concept. I don't what the answer is for this, but taking these courses online at EMI and saying we are competent in the ICS is silly. Qualified yes, competent...maybe...

[Short Field]

We in CAP tend to confuse qualification with competency. Okay, this person has done the hoop jumping and checked all the boxes, he is qualified and that must mean he's competent. Right? Wrong! Qualification does not necessarily mean competence. A person may be qualified(i.e. have all the quals and ICS courses on his resume') but that does not always tranlate to competence.

Competence is a major issue.  I don't see the competency issue as caused by taking and passing the courses as with a lot of the people with SET qualifications.   Far too many of them get their SET, then proceed to sign off other members without EVER looking at the appropriate task guide.  The requirement to partiicpate in two Exercise periods on the SQTRs is really weak.  Far too often the "particpation" consists solely of watching the person manning the posiiton and doing a couple of tasks under their supervision.   I see folks that are signed off as ICs who have an extremely hard time even working the AOBD function.    Oh well....just a personal peeve that always puts me on the soapbox.

[Stonewall]

Competence is a major issue. 

I truly believe this could be a completely separate discussion.  No, I'm not joking.

Picture a 350 lb "ground team leader" in very dense woods over a July 4th weekend looking for a missing plane.  Got that image?  Now, picture a helicopter coming to pick him up and take him to a trauma center because of heat stroke.  That was the scene at a 1993 joint search with a local SAR group out of Virginia.  Thank God it wasn't a CAP SM because I was confident that was the next scene.

Face it, becoming qualified in CAP ground SAR or in any other organzation does not require any physical assessment, so as long as you check boxes and can be signed off by someone equally incompetent, you can be the man on the scene to represent the entire SAR community.

[sardak]

This caution regarding ICS-300 is circulating from National.
--------
"...there is an on-line class that many CAP members are considering to meet the requirement for the ICS-300. Members who take this class receive a certificate from the Dept of Agriculture (USDA) that they are submitting as accomplishing the required ICS-300 course.

USDA says in a course description:
[ICS-300] consists of two days of classroom training where the ICS Planning Process is taught and reinforced through exercises. Prior to attending the classroom training, all participants must take the pre-course overview of ICS-300 via the Internet or from a CD-ROM. [This requirement is for an in-house ICS-300 taught by USDA.]

There is a perception by many wings that this will meet the CAP regs. There are already a bunch of these awaiting approval in E-services.

Clearly this certificate does not meet the requirements of the required ICS-300 which cannot be taken on-line. This class and certificate does not meet the CAP requirements for the ICS 300."
-------
Apparently members are taking the on-line pre-course and submitting the cert as their ICS-300 certificate.

Mike

[Short Field]

Thank God it wasn't a CAP SM because I was confident that was the next scene.

But it wasn't and I haven't heard of any CAP SM incidents.    Feel free to not sign-off anyone you feel is not qualified to be on a Ground Team, but you need to have an objective guideline you are following.  What physical fitness standard do we use?  Army? USAF? Navy?  I really don't see out-of-shape SMs pushing themselves beyond their physical abilities.  The out of shape ones do the GTM3 and GTL quals so they can become competent GBDs.   Besides, being in shape didn't help Jim Fixx.

[SJFedor]

Thank God it wasn't a CAP SM because I was confident that was the next scene.

But it wasn't and I haven't heard of any CAP SM incidents.    Feel free to not sign-off anyone you feel is not qualified to be on a Ground Team, but you need to have an objective guideline you are following.  What physical fitness standard do we use?  Army? USAF? Navy?  I really don't see out-of-shape SMs pushing themselves beyond their physical abilities.  The out of shape ones do the GTM3 and GTL quals so they can become competent GBDs.   Besides, being in shape didn't help Jim Fixx.

But are you really a competent GBD if you're too out of shape to do anything other then the 2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL? 

[cap235629]

Thank God it wasn't a CAP SM because I was confident that was the next scene.

But it wasn't and I haven't heard of any CAP SM incidents.    Feel free to not sign-off anyone you feel is not qualified to be on a Ground Team, but you need to have an objective guideline you are following.  What physical fitness standard do we use?  Army? USAF? Navy?  I really don't see out-of-shape SMs pushing themselves beyond their physical abilities.  The out of shape ones do the GTM3 and GTL quals so they can become competent GBDs.   Besides, being in shape didn't help Jim Fixx.

But are you really a competent GBD if you're too out of shape to do anything other then the 2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL? 

Since GBD is a COMMAND role I would say YES as this job requires the ability lead, direct, multi-task, make decisions, conduct briefings, plan missions and keep up with your teams IN THE COMMAND POST.  You use your brain, not your brawn.  The purpose of having the GBD qualified as a GTL and GT3 is so that they have an UNDERSTANDING of how a team works in the field.

How many of you have ever been frustrated by the expectations and instructions from an OPS chief or IC that came up through the air side of the house and cannot undestand why it is taking so long for the team to get to the area that the aircrew identified an hour ago?

That is why they do this training, NOT so they can be the High Speed, Low Drag super trooper of SAR.

[Short Field]

But are you really a competent GBD if you're too out of shape to do anything other then the 2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL? 

Well, I figure I have to be more competent than I am now.     Besides, I just need 2 sorties as I already have GTM3.   

I have reviewed a lot of ICs records and it looks like a lot of them got the "magic wave" and were appointed GBD because they were ICs.  That is simply based on them not having GTL showing up anyplace in their records.  I would expect to at least see GTL and GTM3 showing up in eServices as "expired" on a person who recently became an IC.  They got qualified as a GBD the month after they got qualified as an IC.  duh.... 

[Stonewall]

But it wasn't and I haven't heard of any CAP SM incidents.    Feel free to not sign-off anyone you feel is not qualified to be on a Ground Team, but you need to have an objective guideline you are following.  What physical fitness standard do we use?  Army? USAF? Navy?  I really don't see out-of-shape SMs pushing themselves beyond their physical abilities.  The out of shape ones do the GTM3 and GTL quals so they can become competent GBDs.   Besides, being in shape didn't help Jim Fixx.

No, it wasn't a CAP SM.  And luckily, no major incidents have happened with SMs that I know of either.  But I personally witnessed at least 3 SMs "go down" during training exercises and all 3 were far too heavy to be humping through the woods during the heat of the summer.  Then, on a REDCAP circa 2000, while on a search for a missing plane, an SM from another wing stopped in the middle of a ground sortie due to exhaustion.

Fortunately for me none of these members were under my watch or in my squadron.  I'm no superman but I can hold my own.  And I am not saying that a specific weight restriction needs to be applied, but I think it is ridiculous that people can be qualified on paper but no checks and balances are there to certify that someone is physically competent to perform certain tasks.  I don't have the GTM task guide in front of me, but I don't think there is a 6 mile hike requirement with 72 hour gear.  There should be.

[cap235629]

I am a 350 lb GBD and I WILL NOT go into the field as a GTL beyond the scope of an ELT search because I do not want to burden my comrades when I pass out.  MOST of the members who are in my situation feel the same way.  For those who have delusions of grandeur and are clueless as to the realities of extended field operations maybe a one on one "chat" from the GBD might be in order.  I still believe that having ALL GBD's qualified is a good idea from a command standpoint so you know how the teams are going to respond.

[MikeD]

But are you really a competent GBD if you're too out of shape to do anything other then the 2 sorties each for GTM3 and GTL? 

Well, I figure I have to be more competent than I am now.     Besides, I just need 2 sorties as I already have GTM3.   

I have reviewed a lot of ICs records and it looks like a lot of them got the "magic wave" and were appointed GBD because they were ICs.  That is simply based on them not having GTL showing up anyplace in their records.  I would expect to at least see GTL and GTM3 showing up in eServices as "expired" on a person who recently became an IC.  They got qualified as a GBD the month after they got qualified as an IC.  duh.... 

According to the SQTRs, IC3 has Ops Section Chief as a prerequisite, OSC has Planning Section Chief as a prerequisite, and PSC has *both* GBD and AOBD as prerequisites.  Or am I reading that wrong?  I have to be, otherwise all ICs have to be GTMs and Mission Pilot...

[RiverAux]

Actually you can become an AOBD by being a Mission Observer.

And keep in mind that there are still a host of active ICs that were holdovers from the old Mission Coordinator days that were grandfathered in.  You're probably not going to find much in the computer about their old qualifications.  Also, keep in mind that once you're an IC you aren't required to maintain qualifications in the lower skills, so some of the folks that look like they have no GT experience may have gotten it very long ago and just didn't keep it current so it was never in the system or dropped out once they let it expire.

[MikeD]

Actually you can become an AOBD by being a Mission Observer.

And keep in mind that there are still a host of active ICs that were holdovers from the old Mission Coordinator days that were grandfathered in.  You're probably not going to find much in the computer about their old qualifications.  Also, keep in mind that once you're an IC you aren't required to maintain qualifications in the lower skills, so some of the folks that look like they have no GT experience may have gotten it very long ago and just didn't keep it current so it was never in the system or dropped out once they let it expire.

The way I read the SQTR for AOBD it looks like you have to be both MO and MP.  Or is it an either/or?   Either/or makes the most sense.

[cap235629]

According to the SQTRs, IC3 has Ops Section Chief as a prerequisite, OSC has Planning Section Chief as a prerequisite, and PSC has *both* GBD and AOBD as prerequisites.  Or am I reading that wrong?  I have to be, otherwise all ICs have to be GTMs and Mission Pilot...

You are reading it wrong, in order to be a PSC you must have EITHER GBD or AOBD, NOT BOTH

[MikeD]

Alright, I'm glad I got that cleared up, thanks!

[SJFedor]

Actually you can become an AOBD by being a Mission Observer.

And keep in mind that there are still a host of active ICs that were holdovers from the old Mission Coordinator days that were grandfathered in.  You're probably not going to find much in the computer about their old qualifications.  Also, keep in mind that once you're an IC you aren't required to maintain qualifications in the lower skills, so some of the folks that look like they have no GT experience may have gotten it very long ago and just didn't keep it current so it was never in the system or dropped out once they let it expire.

The way I read the SQTR for AOBD it looks like you have to be both MO and MP.  Or is it an either/or?   Either/or makes the most sense.

Either/or, as not everyone is a pilot.

CAPR 60-3, Chapter 2 gives you a breakdown of pre-reqs/trainee requirements.

[Short Field]

An AOBD becoming a PSC must also be a GTM3 or UDF.  A GBD becoming a PSC must also be a MS.

[Short Field]

And keep in mind that there are still a host of active ICs that were holdovers from the old Mission Coordinator days that were grandfathered in.  You're probably not going to find much in the computer about their old qualifications.  Also, keep in mind that once you're an IC you aren't required to maintain qualifications in the lower skills, so some of the folks that look like they have no GT experience may have gotten it very long ago and just didn't keep it current so it was never in the system or dropped out once they let it expire.

I was only refering to ICs created under the new system.   The is a belief among some people that since a IC is qualified to run a mission base by himself, that it automatically results in being fully qualified in all the mission base qualifications.   When an IC renews his qualification, all of his other mission base qualifications get renewed at the same time.    However, this doesn't mean if you renew or get a IC qualification, you automatically get the other mission base qualificatoins - just the ones you earned the way everyone else earns them.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The NIMS system is a corruption of what every military officer is already familiar with... the staffing system.  I was forced as a lieutenant to sleep with FM 101-5, and as such I can easily adapt to the NIMS system, once I learn the new silly terms and definitions that the government is so fond of.

My problem is that I sometimes still refer to the "2-shop" when I should say the more political-correct term, the "Planning Section."

[NJMEDIC]

NIMS has evolved from the Incident Command System which got it's start in Calf. as a means to manage large wildfires. The New Political correct saying Incident Management System. Not only Fire/EMS have to use it now. All Town Mayor and government group must have a form of it, Public Works and Law Enforcement also. During my deployment to New Orleans during KATRINA, the NJ State Police OEM ran our group under this system. There were State and local police, Fire Dept. haz mat teams, private hospital teams and NJ Task Force 1 USAR team all under a NIMS system under the State police. Worked very well.

[isuhawkeye]

NJMedic,

ICS is a component of NIMS.  NIMS did not evolve out of ICS. 

NIMS composes many different components.  ICS is just one aspect of that system

[heliodoc]

^^^

THE Original NIIMS was started with wildland fire under FIRESCOPE in 1970.  NIIMS or double eyed NIMS has been around in CA and the wildfire system since then.........

The "new" NIMS is the DHS whiz kid crud that was plagarized from the wildland fire folks back in the day and put into form so that everyone from city officials to volunteers can understand a management sytem.

The ICS system for lack of better terms is the playbook for on scene on site operations.  So yes ICS is a component of NIMS

Right the ICS is a  staffing system and all those silly terms are just something the current day CAP'ers will have to get used to

Wildland fire folks have done this tuff for pushing forty years now.  I served the arena of both  wildland fire and Army aviation and when one has to learn two sytems..... well that is just education

just because some of us were former military we should be able to adapt to the silliness, God knows there was plenty of silliness in the military.... such as painting rocks, wasting time for hours on dog and pony shows like pass and review.... now there is a silly waste of time.... I would rather screw around with NIMS and ICS and learn how CAP OUGHT to integrate into the REAL ES system and getting to the real business of CAP moving into the real world...

Oh and I slept with FM 101-5, too   ..... as an enlisted man

[isuhawkeye]

Its good to see someone who knows the difference between NIMS, and NIIMS. 

[Eclipse]

According to my best friend Wiki:

NIMS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Incident_Management_System
The system's development was instigated on February 28, 2003 by President George W. Bush, who in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, Management of Domestic Incidents directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and administer the system. [1] After the proposed system went through a period of vetting and coordination among federal agencies, NIMS was released by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on March 1, 2004.[2]

The 2003 presidential directive required all federal agencies to adopt the NIMS and to use it in their individual domestic incident management and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation programs and activities. The directive also required Federal departments to make adoption of NIMS by State, tribal, and local organizations a condition for Federal preparedness assistance beginning in Fiscal Year 2005. In addition, all State, tribal, and local emergency personnel with a direct role in emergency preparedness, incident management or response were to have completed NIMS training by October 1, 2005. After the directive was adopted, all State, tribal and local personnel with any role in emergency response were given until October 1, 2006 to complete training for NIMS compliance.

ICS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System
The Incident Command System (ICS) is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazard incident management concept in the United States. It is a management protocol originally designed for emergency management agencies and later federalized. ICS is based upon a flexible, scalable response organization providing a common framework within which people can work together effectively. These people may be drawn from multiple agencies that do not routinely work together, and ICS is designed to give standard response and operation procedures to reduce the problems and potential for miscommunication on such incidents. ICS has been summarized as a "first-on-scene" structure, where the first responder of a scene has charge of the scene until the incident has been declared resolved, a superior-ranking responder arrives on scene and seizes command, or the Incident Commander appoints another individual Incident Commander.

My scope is admittedly limited on this subject, but I have never heard of any connection between NIMS and the Wildfire Service, while every ICS class I have ever taken starts with the origins of ICS being in the fire services after a major fire in the 70's.

[RiverAux]

Right the ICS is a  staffing system and all those silly terms are just something the current day CAP'ers will have to get used to

You mean the ones we've been using since about 2000?

[heliodoc]

The really was no connection to NIMS and the wildland fire service

Only that the current NIMS has been plagarized by a system that has worked in the past

NIIMS or National Interagency Incident Mamagement System was a joint venture of the US Forest Service, California Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) or current Cal Fire, USDOI in some parts

But in all these posts there has been no stating that NIMS originated out of the fire service although all of this new push of "knowledge" has been borrowed, plagariged, quoted, whatnot from the people that have had to depend on this for life safety...

Whether or not CAP wants to take this stuff seriously,,  that'll be up to them and apparently with the push that has happened in the last week evidenced by CAP nationwide.......... some could not take simple instruction


Makes you wonder how they would work outside of SAREX's, ARCHER missions and some disaster operations.  Some have with the infamous Katrina and other disasters nationwide.  Wouldn't be too critical of how this is all being interpreted....   But thanks for the distinctions of both ICS and NIMS for those who have been working in for years... CAP just has to adopt if it wants to play and become more than just a force muliplier to the AF...... They need to be a force multiplier in getting minor online assignments done!!!

The real disaster is not getting the basics done as requested.  

[Eclipse]

NIIMS is not NIMS.

I also love you guys who think that when the basic tenants of "whatever", ES, ICS, chain of command, professional development, whatever, are reshaped or used for CAP purposes that is "plagiarizing".

Span of control and incident planning has existed since the Roman Legions, it was not invented by the Forest Service, or anyone else alive today.

[heliodoc]

^^

No need to luv us guys and there was no inference that this was invented by the USFS

We in the wildland fire biz know that NIIMS is not NIMS

Don't  like the word "plagarizing?"  OK how about templating?? That better?

But CAP STILL has yet to get the basics done and SELL itself to the real world ES folks ... Isn't that who we are trying trying to emulate so much?

We had members in this organization who did not finish the basic request of getting the I courses done

The facts are the facts .... somebody started a system that works, albeit span of control, and is being emulated forty years later in an agency full of whiz kids and computer geeks (DHS) and is being molded in a ANOTHER guv agency, whether we like it or not

CAP has to adopt or die.  Now they are playing catchup on I courses after approx 2 yrs of real or imaginary deadline.  No urinating contest here, incident planning has not been a strong point in  ALL of CAP either but we would like to think we do.  CAP has its own issues on incident planning.  One seems to be the exclusive club we there are only specific individuals trained as IC's with not job shadowing for new members to become IC.  There is nothing difficult about the whole process, but CAP thinks that there are only a certain few that can occupy the IC post.  Sadly mistaken CAP, best train more than a few IC's 'cuz there may be instances the selected CAP IC gods will not be around to run your missions.  That has been my obs from around the country.  So in this respect, there HAS to a line of succession with this stuff

We appear to beg for missions, think we can work for cheaper than anyone else (some cases we can), chirp about taking guv sponsored courses, still wonder why we are only in 1AF's back pocket and no one elses, and still not comply with online course completions.

Every agency is "reshaping" with this stuff and is plagarizing, templating or whatever the current definition of the day.   But again CAP ought to realize this was done by someone else and that these I course are now requirements to pay or play in today's current all risk environment, and they by delaying and getting quals dropped to trainee are only hurting themselves and than NATL CC and the Wing CC's down to the Unit CC's get their fanny chapped cuz we are "volunteers"  other volunteer agencies seem to have accomplished this in shorter time and I am sure there other volunteers who haven't finished either.

CAP with its rich 60 year history, I thought, would have a lead on this deal..........

Lecture us wildland fire folks on NIIMS, NIMS , ICS, span of control, and whatnot CAPers....

Some of are retired military and wildland fire folks and already well informed on span of control issues

CAP needs to get on top of its own.... Long winded aren't I 

[Eclipse]

CAP has to adopt or die.  Now they are playing catchup on I courses after approx 2 yrs of real or imaginary deadline.  No urinating contest here, incident planning has not been a strong point in  ALL of CAP either but we would like to think we do.

Adopt or die?

ICS has been the core of the ES program since at least 2000.  In a lot of cases CAP members sitting in ICS 300 classes have a better ground-level understanding of ICS structure and terminology than the professional PD/FD folks in the same room because most agencies and municipalities have been doing their own thing (albeit with local success), and generally don't need to worry about interagency, large-scale disasters (or didn't).

If you ask them, most will tell you they are doing ICS because of the NIMS requirement and grant money, and that they were doing fine with their local programs to this point.

The certification issue is a problem of dealing with volunteers, especially 300/400 (zero excuse for the online slackers), but its real easy to say "We got this covered, why don't you?" when you're paid to sit in the class by your department, vs. having to take vacation days or unpaid time to attend class.

Use whatever term you like, templating, plagiarizing, etc., to either take credit for the idea or belittle CAP's efforts, but don't forget that the totality of the members involved are unpaid volunteers, working on a national-scale budget which is less than that of most local professional departments.

Being constantly preached to by people who have 3/4 of the story is counterproductive to both sides.

[heliodoc]

No problem

I took vaca to do I 300 / 400
Not better than anyone.... just did it

Yep grant money  and  CAP needs to be on board when the grant $$$ is running around

Plenty of unpaid VOAD's that have had to comply....... Why should CAP be held to different set of standards

VFD's and paid FD's and PD have had to do it.  Belittling CAP ?? No way

Are you inferring I have 3/4 of the story??  Spent a little more time in an EMA collectively  than most CAP members and was preached to about  this day in and day out.  So I just did it....

Unpaid volunteers doesn't fly as many have said on this forum.... so drive on CAP soldiers and get the bare minimums done.  Someone else will be preaching to CAP soon..... won't be me 

[RiverAux]

ICS has been the core of the ES program since at least 2000.  In a lot of cases CAP members sitting in ICS 300 classes have a better ground-level understanding of ICS structure and terminology than the professional PD/FD folks in the same room because most agencies and municipalities have been doing their own thing (albeit with local success), and generally don't need to worry about interagency, large-scale disasters (or didn't).

Exactly right about the basics of using ICS.  However, I think everybody, including CAP, is still iffy on the doctrine regarding multi-agency incidents since there are still all sorts of conflicting laws, agency policies, etc. that make it difficult to truly implement for the large-scale missions.  It will take years for everything to adjust to a truly team effort. 

[Eclipse]

ICS has been the core of the ES program since at least 2000.  In a lot of cases CAP members sitting in ICS 300 classes have a better ground-level understanding of ICS structure and terminology than the professional PD/FD folks in the same room because most agencies and municipalities have been doing their own thing (albeit with local success), and generally don't need to worry about interagency, large-scale disasters (or didn't).

Exactly right about the basics of using ICS.  However, I think everybody, including CAP, is still iffy on the doctrine regarding multi-agency incidents since there are still all sorts of conflicting laws, agency policies, etc. that make it difficult to truly implement for the large-scale missions.  It will take years for everything to adjust to a truly team effort. 

Assuming it ever does.  A lot of this comes down to money.

We're all in it together during the big pull, but then someone has to pay the bills, and when there is doubt about the checks bouncing, people start to get less cooperative.