Planning Section Chief

[RiverAux]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

[davedove]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

Right, in most CAP missions, several roles would be performed by one person, or rather the one position wouldn't need to be split into the differing functions.  ICS is designed to be expanded or contracted as appropriate to the incident.

[RiverAux]

Exactly.  Though I will admit that in not all cases does CAP expand and correct exactly as would have been envisioned by ICS.  But, "thats not my job" is not the attitude you need to help run a base. 

[davedove]

For one of our SAREX's, we had individuals filling positions even though they weren't needed for the scale of the exercise.  However, these people needed mission credit for the positions, so they were filled.  This resulted in a drop in efficiency as the instructions, etc. were channeled from person to person following the proper chain of command, but the people were all seated within 10 feet of one another at the mission base.  With the small scale of the exercise, these orders could have been given once to all the folks.

Fortunately, it was just an exercise and good training.  If it had been a real mission, the setup would have been needlessly complicated.

[Dragoon]

Other ICS identified positions within the communications section: radio operator, incident communications center manager, comm tech and comm unit leader.

I could go on an on.  CAP simply took its way of doing business and threw ICS titles and organization at it, but without really adopting what's behind the org chart.  Unfortunately, CAP-USAF pamphlet 12 reflects this, and is how CAP is evaluated.  But that's already another thread.

Mike

If the Comms unit doesn't run nets, why are there radio operators in the Comms section, as opposed to being listed under Ops?  And where's the specific doctrine to support that?

[davedove]

Other ICS identified positions within the communications section: radio operator, incident communications center manager, comm tech and comm unit leader.

I could go on an on.  CAP simply took its way of doing business and threw ICS titles and organization at it, but without really adopting what's behind the org chart.  Unfortunately, CAP-USAF pamphlet 12 reflects this, and is how CAP is evaluated.  But that's already another thread.

Mike

If the Comms unit doesn't run nets, why are there radio operators in the Comms section, as opposed to being listed under Ops?  And where's the specific doctrine to support that?

The way I would interpret it is this:  Communications, as a subset of Logistics, provides comm assets to the other sections.  Radio Operators are one type of asset, provided to operate the other comm assets.

[floridacyclist]

Comms can be handled two ways - as a unit under Logistics, or as operational assets under Operations. What confuses most people is that if a comm operator is assigned to Ops (say as a GTM/MRO), he is no longer under logistics...he merely checks his radios out from them, the same way he obtains any other piece of equipment. One thing to keep in mind is that there are very few dedicated radio operators in most operations...just a bunch of firefighters checking out radios from logistics (the CUL) and sticking them in a pocket.

[Dragoon]

Do you have the reference for that?  Might come in handy.

[floridacyclist]

I'd have to look back through my materials...as an ICS TTT, I've read so many books they all seem to run together LOL

Understand, I'm not talking about the incident Comm Center itself, just the tactical communicators on the teams.

I think it came from my Emergency Communications classes, but will have to confirm. I did find this in the California Wing CUL study course:

While under classical ICS concepts the Communications Unit is under the Service Branch of the Logistics Section, under CAP operations communications is normally a subordinate component of the Operations Section. As such, the CUL reports to the Operations Section Chief (OSC), but works closely with the Base Manager and other staff officers to achieve and maintain the necessary communications circuits.

I think what we're seeing here is the confusion between Incident Communications (the CUL's little shop of horrors) and tactical communications (Billy Joe Jim Bob LeeRoy humping it in a ground team with his backpack full of every radio known to man). While I understand the idea of all Radio op types reporting to the CUL for assignment, I couldn't imagine keeping them under the operational control of the CUL once they're assigned elsewhere...that's just not a good example of unity of command.

[ZigZag911]

Word is that comm training is going to be revised & expanded in the next year or so....besides user training, there are going to be 'modules' of instruction ( a lot of it on line) focusing on sqdn & group comm officer training, instructor training, technical/maintenance personnel, comm logistics....so, if this comes to pass, some of the problems identified here may begin to be resolved.

As far as focusing too much on the 'big picture' of ICS: while it's true that often a CAP-run mission will work with a small mission base staff filling multiple roles, nevertheless we need to know the system fairly thoroughly so we can "work & play well with others" -- that is, as some CAP ES resources get more & more involved in multi-agency missions.

USAF also expects us to have a good grasp of it for SAREVALs.

[sardak]

If the Comms unit doesn't run nets, why are there radio operators in the Comms section, as opposed to being listed under Ops?  And where's the specific doctrine to support that?

Quote from: sardak on Yesterday at 12:24:20 PM

Communications planning is particularly important in ICS, where an incident may grow to include numerous agencies. Determining required radio nets...

From the radio operator job aid J-158:
Several nets may be operating on the incident.
Tactical Net
Command Net
Logistics/Camp Net
Air-to-Ground Net
Air-to-Air Net

"For example, the Command net radios and Camp net radios cannot talk to each other. Traffic from one net to the other must be relayed through the ICC. Listen carefully, as you [the radio operator] may have to relay if you hear a field (operations) unit calling a logistics unit."

"The radio must be monitored at all times while there are crews in the field or being transported to and from the fireline. At least two people should be by the radio, one to be the lead operator, and the other to run messages, give the lead operator a break when needed, or just to help listen or record messages."

These aren't formal nets, and in fact there is no structure to any of them so they are all "tactical" in the sense that there is no control operator.

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.

Under NIMS there is a typed resource called a "CAP Communications Support Team" but it's not intended to provide radio operators to field units.

Mike

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

This is exactly my point.  Even under the ICS form 201, air operations are pretty well down on the totem pole, down where the operators are.  In a major disaster, we would be a resource to the planning chief of the supported entity, not doing our own plans off independently. And the CAP base headquarters is, as you said, likely to be 5 people at most.  We can't mobilize a large enough response to justify all the chiefs envisioned under the ICS plan.  We have enough trouble getting the indians.

Personally, this looks to me like a back-door way to simply give more mission base experience to people transitioning from field operators to headquarters before qualifying them as IC's.  I'm cool with that, it takes training to change from being a nail to being a hammer.  You could accomplish the same objective by requiring a longer apprenticeship period for IC, but however they want to do it is fine. 

I just can't see a Planning Section in any CAP operation.  If we have that many people available, they probably would be up flying or filling their canteens for a ground sortie. 

Canteens... I'm dating myself.  I meant Camelbaks. 

[isuhawkeye]

ICS is always an interesting discussion.  Most fire departments across the country are having the same discussion that we are.  Very few single entities have enough staff to mount a full scale ICS staff. 

It is however very important to understand, and train within these positions so that when enough agencies, wing's, and staff are brought together we can function affectively within the system. 

[davedove]

ICS is always an interesting discussion.  Most fire departments across the country are having the same discussion that we are.  Very few single entities have enough staff to mount a full scale ICS staff. 

It is however very important to understand, and train within these positions so that when enough agencies, wing's, and staff are brought together we can function affectively within the system. 

I would imagine most agencies are having the discussion.  The ICS is designed to handle everything from locating an ELT to a Katrina sized situation.  A single agency can handle many incidents, and won't need to man the entire staff.  The functions will still be there, but one person could hold many roles.  As the size of the incident increases and more agencies are involved, the number of staffed positions increases based on need.  It's when a major incident occurs and multiple agencies must work together that the full staff comes into play.

But, as you say, each agency needs to train for the different positions to be ready for "the big one."

[floridacyclist]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

Even ICS books say that the vast majority of incidents will be limited to the lower levels (something like 95% are level 3 or lower IIRC)...yet we always have to plan with the big one in mind. Even pros have the same issues....most house fires or vehicle accidents are run with very few people compared to what would be mobilized should the defecation impact with the rotary oscillator.

This is exactly my point.  Even under the ICS form 201, air operations are pretty well down on the totem pole, down where the operators are.  In a major disaster, we would be a resource to the planning chief of the supported entity, not doing our own plans off independently. And the CAP base headquarters is, as you said, likely to be 5 people at most.  We can't mobilize a large enough response to justify all the chiefs envisioned under the ICS plan.  We have enough trouble getting the indians.

Which makes training at the lower levels even more important...we are much more likely to be asked to fill a Command or General staff position or lower on someone else's chain of command than we are to be the IC. That is the beauty of ICS....we can plug the pieces in from different agencies as needed, but the pieces still need to be trained to do their jobs. Believe me, a good planning person is worth their weight in gold to an IC that knows how to use him/her. Be assigned to an incident and start speaking their language and they will find work for you to do.

Perhaps the answer is more tabletop exercises where you're not worried about the Indians.

Personally, this looks to me like a back-door way to simply give more mission base experience to people transitioning from field operators to headquarters before qualifying them as IC's.  I'm cool with that, it takes training to change from being a nail to being a hammer.  You could accomplish the same objective by requiring a longer apprenticeship period for IC, but however they want to do it is fine. 

I just can't see a Planning Section in any CAP operation.  If we have that many people available, they probably would be up flying or filling their canteens for a ground sortie. 

That is part of the problem...everyone wants to do the glory jobs (IC or Pilot, or GTL for those of us so inclined) and nobody wants the boring stuff...like PSC or LSC. Since under ICS an unappointed position becomes the responsibility of the next higher level, on a larger incident the IC ends up being burdened with everything that he should be delegating to the PSC and can't do his IC duties quite as effectively.

Everyone wants to be a chief or a warrior, but nobody wants to be a Shaman.

Canteens... I'm dating myself.  I meant Camelbaks. 

I carry two canteens in addition to my Camelbak and require the same of my GTs. Camelbaks are too prone to malfunctions (leaks) to trust them as a sole water source.

[isuhawkeye]

If a wing has a well trained Planning section chief who can specialize in missing person, DR, or missing aircraft that person could easily become the subject matter expert for an entire region, and be called out as much if not more than our air, and ground teams. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I think some folks are getting a little too wrapped up in the technicalities of how ICS is supposed to be run on large missions where you've got a base staff of 20+ people and real-world CAP missions where the CAP base staff is much more likely to be 5 people or less.     

Even ICS books say that the vast majority of incidents will be limited to the lower levels (something like 95% are level 3 or lower IIRC)...yet we always have to plan with the big one in mind. Even pros have the same issues....most house fires or vehicle accidents are run with very few people compared to what would be mobilized should the defecation impact with the rotary oscillator.

This is exactly my point.  Even under the ICS form 201, air operations are pretty well down on the totem pole, down where the operators are.  In a major disaster, we would be a resource to the planning chief of the supported entity, not doing our own plans off independently. And the CAP base headquarters is, as you said, likely to be 5 people at most.  We can't mobilize a large enough response to justify all the chiefs envisioned under the ICS plan.  We have enough trouble getting the indians.

Which makes training at the lower levels even more important...we are much more likely to be asked to fill a Command or General staff position or lower on someone else's chain of command than we are to be the IC. That is the beauty of ICS....we can plug the pieces in from different agencies as needed, but the pieces still need to be trained to do their jobs. Believe me, a good planning person is worth their weight in gold to an IC that knows how to use him/her. Be assigned to an incident and start speaking their language and they will find work for you to do.

Perhaps the answer is more tabletop exercises where you're not worried about the Indians.

Personally, this looks to me like a back-door way to simply give more mission base experience to people transitioning from field operators to headquarters before qualifying them as IC's.  I'm cool with that, it takes training to change from being a nail to being a hammer.  You could accomplish the same objective by requiring a longer apprenticeship period for IC, but however they want to do it is fine. 

I just can't see a Planning Section in any CAP operation.  If we have that many people available, they probably would be up flying or filling their canteens for a ground sortie. 

That is part of the problem...everyone wants to do the glory jobs (IC or Pilot, or GTL for those of us so inclined) and nobody wants the boring stuff...like PSC or LSC. Since under ICS an unappointed position becomes the responsibility of the next higher level, on a larger incident the IC ends up being burdened with everything that he should be delegating to the PSC and can't do his IC duties quite as effectively.

Everyone wants to be a chief or a warrior, but nobody wants to be a Shaman.

Canteens... I'm dating myself.  I meant Camelbaks. 

I carry two canteens in addition to my Camelbak and require the same of my GTs. Camelbaks are too prone to malfunctions (leaks) to trust them as a sole water source.

Gene:

I agree that a planning guy is needed.  But in our CAP operations, we are unlikely to have a planning section.  The ABD or GBD would jointly plan for the next series of sorties based on changing missions, changing conditions, input from the IC, and information from debriefings.  This is a process that happens routinely, and yes, planning skills are critical at that level.  The ABD/GBD guys have to constantly evaluate the mission, the situation, and their own resources, considering crew fatigue, for example.

In theory, there could be a planning section, and an operations section, in a CAP operation.  I could see that happening, IF other agencies, like Army National Guard aviation assets, were also providing air support under CAP command.  That situation, however, is highly unlikely, no matter how good our training is.  And, yes, people LIKE being hero operators instead of headquarters REMF's.  But if we were to field a headquartes of 20-25 people and only be able to get 1 or 2 sorties out, we are set up backasswards.  Our mission is to get assets on the search, not hanging around the air conditioner.

But you are right, a CPX is a great resource to train your headquarters operators.  The problem is that in CAP we are awful short of RLO's who know how to run and control a Command Post Exercise.

[floridacyclist]

If you are on an incident where you can only field 1 or 2 sorties, then it is probably not big enough to need a full ICS staff, hence you probably can get away with moving some of those Chiefs (Indian or Section, makes no difference) into the field. ICS is very scalable that way, and you don't build your headquarters at the expense of your field troops.

Couple of things to ponder here, I'll break them up to make it easier to reply seperately.

A) Most problems with ICS come from it being applied incorrectly. This is a problem whether we're talking CAP, ANG, HootnHoller VFD or BSA. That is why FEMA has mandated the classes for various levels of leadership if you want to play in the sandbox.

B) A and G Branch Directors aren't supposed to plan, they're supposed to execute the steps given to them by the OSC. In a bigger mission, they should be busy executing, not planning.

C) The OSC doesn't plan either, he figures out what tactics to use to execute the strategies laid out by the PSC and approved by the IC

D) The IC's primary duty is to set the incident objectives and coordinate those under him who actually do the work, not plan how to meet them or develop specific tactics. That is called micromanaging and is not a good thing.

E) Understand that we're not talking about smaller incidents here where the IC is probably wearing a few different hats (back to my statement about any unfilled jobs being covered by the link directly above them) such as OSC, FASC, PSC, FSC, IO, LO (if needed), SO, GBD, and AOBD. In a small mission, the IC is responsible for covering ALL responsibilities under those positions since it is often just him and a ground team or two.

F) In a slightly bigger mission, you start to split them out a little in order to maintain proper span of control, but as flexible as ICS is, you should never reverse the order of how information or authority flows. You may have the same person operating as GBD and doing plans, but in doing so he is putting on the PSC hat, not doing it because it is a job that should be done by the GBD. Combining the jobs under s single title would be a great example of an incorrect application of ICS causing confusion.

G) As the mission grows, you add staff as needed in order to maintain proper span of control, but you never add positions just because some book says you should; there are policy and legal exceptions with some agencies, but we won't deal with those. I agree, 25 chiefs and 2 Indians would be stupid. However, how about the following:

1 IC (coordinating and setting objectives, managing by wandering around and making tweaks via the chain of command)
   |
   | 1 IO (if it is real, the press WILL be there)
   | 1 CUL (planning comm, issuing radios, running the net)
   | 1 PSC (Gathering feedback, making plans / developing IAP for next operational period, jointly setting strategies with IC)
   | 1 OSC (developing specific tactics from overall strategies)
         | 1 ABD (Executing strategies by dispatching and tracking aircrews, following up and reporting back on progress)
               | 3 flight crews (flyin)
         | 1 GBD (Executing strategies by dispatching and tracking groundteams, following up and reporting back on progress)
               | 3 ground teams (humpin)

As you can see, the IC already has a correct number of folks reporting directly to him...as do the OSCs and BDs...yet there are still 21 people in the field (out of 30 total) assuming 3-person flight crews and 4-person ground teams...all under an effective span of control with room to grow some without adding more overhead. Sure it could be adjusted some, but nothing is perfect.

H) The PSC doesn't normally kick in until the 2nd Operational Period, so we rarely will see the results of their labor except maybe on REDCAPS since disaster planning will usually be handled by someone else.

I) One thing to remember is that by definition of the phrase "transitioning to NIMS/ICS" there will be changes in the way we do things. ICS is not just a new way to look at the old way of doing things, but in some specific examples, a whole new way to do it. Having the Branch Directors doing the planning may be "how it's always been done", but we can't use that as a valid reason to keep doing so unless we can prove that it's better in all situations (including WTSHTF)...and then we have to practice and train that way whenever possible. We have to keep that in mind when we see things that don't make sense and we also have to expect a few growing pains as we learn a new (and standardized-across-the-board) way of doing things and stop trying to shoehorn our old way into new terminology.

J) That said, as a new IC, is there any reason (budgetary maybe?) I shouldn't be calling out a max effort fully-manned and staffed (within the limits of local squadrons) search for an ELT given that we only get one every 6 months or so in our area? Our people are getting restless and losing proficiency with no practice to keep them sharp. This goes right in with us not using half these positions because they're so rarely needed for real that most folks don't know what they are.

[BillB]

Gene, who is going to feed those 20-25 people you list? What about housing (hotel, tents whatever). You left out logistics, a major ICS position. And logistics can handle finance, such as who's going to pay for the fuel those 3 aircrews and 3 ground teams use.

[floridacyclist]

Under ICS, those things would fall to the IC until he delegates them to an LSC

In real-world, most of us should be capable of dealing with those things ourselves for the first few days at least.