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.

[Eclipse]

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.

There's lot of people who come to a mission and don't know what they will be doing, or are dual-tracked.
Until you're assigned to a GT, you're unassigned, and it's certainly not the GBD's problem to herd those cats,
same on the air side.  If you're on a crew, you're assigned, until then, you're pool.

[JeffDG]

^ 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.

Personally, I think the Finance/Admin Section (note, not the FASC personally) is responsible for signing resources into the mission, and gathering information regarding qualifications at that time (much simpler with IMU let me tell you).   The FASC may do this personally or may have "a random MSA" take care of this specific task.

Those resources are then available to the Planning Section's Resource Unit to be assigned, and thence to the Operations Section to carry out those assignments.  If the Resource Unit needs more resources, that becomes a function of the Logistics Unit to locate and requisition those resources, but once they arrive, they go through the F/A Section to sign in.

And we always have the whole mission base staff, fully spun up with well qualified people in all these roles on every mission, right???  Right?

[tsrup]

I understand the need to adjust duties in order to work with what we have, but there comes a time when we'll have to do it according to the NIMS standard because that's what the agency/agencies that we are working with will expect.

Check in with the resource unit (which may just consist of one lonely MSA).  That unit will report to the PSC, who will then assign the personnel based on their qualifications. 

if there is unassigned personnel, then they will wait in the staging area until given something to do.  Or if space were at a premium they would be told to go home and wait for a phone call (provided this its a real mission we're talking about).

[Al Sayre]

I think Safety needs to be in charge of signing in folks, since they have to verify that they are safety-current anyway...

[argentip]

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

This past year at our SAREVAL, our sign-in was handled by a Resource Unit Leader.  They worked for Planning on paper, but parovided personnel numbers and ground and air asset information for both Logistics and FASC.  It worked really well and we received acknowledgment from the AF in their report for it.

As far as unassigned resources, if personnel are on a break and resting, then they could technically be classigied as unassigned.  This past spring, INWG helped with a large sand-bagging effort in the southern portion of the state.  The operation set up (I believe) 3 staging areas for incoming resources, to have a place for personnel to rest, and to organize "teams".  If the mission/disaster/etc is large enough, you will encounter unassigned personnel.

[argentip]

I think Safety needs to be in charge of signing in folks, since they have to verify that they are safety-current anyway...

Haha.  Using this logic, sign-in should be handled by a panel of members representing Safety (to check for safety currency), Operations (or Air and Ground to check indivual qualifications), and Chaplain (to make sure you are in emotionally able to participate - you could include a Medical representative to check their physical well-being as well). 

[Spaceman3750]

^ 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.

It worked well enough from my perspective. I requisitioned a van and a ground team and 5 minutes later I had 5 GTMs and van keys. Of course, I know that those were the last 5 GTMs to come easily for the rest of the weekend but I think that part worked very well.

[JeffDG]

I understand the need to adjust duties in order to work with what we have, but there comes a time when we'll have to do it according to the NIMS standard because that's what the agency/agencies that we are working with will expect.

Check in with the resource unit (which may just consist of one lonely MSA).  That unit will report to the PSC, who will then assign the personnel based on their qualifications. 

if there is unassigned personnel, then they will wait in the staging area until given something to do.  Or if space were at a premium they would be told to go home and wait for a phone call (provided this its a real mission we're talking about).

OK, but in addition to NIMS, we follow our AF regulations, and according to the AF, and how they evaluate our performance on SAREVALS, the FASC is responsible for ensuring that all resources are signed into the mission.

Sign in is, inherently, an administrative function.  It's people saying "Hey, I'm here, and this is what I can do."  That information needs to be passed to the RUL, but it's still administravia.

[lordmonar]

"regulations" break the whole idea of NIMS.

Rule one.....what works.....works.

It is important that people get signed in and credentials checked.....it is NOT important who does it.

[JeffDG]

"regulations" break the whole idea of NIMS.

Rule one.....what works.....works.

It is important that people get signed in and credentials checked.....it is NOT important who does it.

If it's important that it get done, then someone better [darn] well be responsible for doing it.

Regulations are not antithetical to NIMS.  NIMS recognizes that different organizations have their own rules and regulations.  It recognizes that fact and fully embraces that fact.  It's when Incident Commanders press participating organizations to break their own regulations that NIMS breaks down horribly.

[tsrup]

I understand the need to adjust duties in order to work with what we have, but there comes a time when we'll have to do it according to the NIMS standard because that's what the agency/agencies that we are working with will expect.

Check in with the resource unit (which may just consist of one lonely MSA).  That unit will report to the PSC, who will then assign the personnel based on their qualifications. 

if there is unassigned personnel, then they will wait in the staging area until given something to do.  Or if space were at a premium they would be told to go home and wait for a phone call (provided this its a real mission we're talking about).

OK, but in addition to NIMS, we follow our AF regulations, and according to the AF, and how they evaluate our performance on SAREVALS, the FASC is responsible for ensuring that all resources are signed into the mission.

And where its the regulation they says that the FASC must do it?  And anecdotal evidence suggests that the AF evaluators don't even care who does it.


Heck, in NIMS the FASC isn't even a required position.   So then what?

[Eclipse]

"regulations" break the whole idea of NIMS.

Rule one.....what works.....works.

It is important that people get signed in and credentials checked.....it is NOT important who does it.

If it's important that it get done, then someone better [darn] well be responsible for doing it.

Regulations are not antithetical to NIMS.  NIMS recognizes that different organizations have their own rules and regulations.  It recognizes that fact and fully embraces that fact.  It's when Incident Commanders press participating organizations to break their own regulations that NIMS breaks down horribly.

^ Exactly.

It's not important from a "Jim vs. John" standpoint, but it is crucial in a role and responsibility standpoint, because when things get hairy and people reach the end of their bandwidth, everyone drops to baseline and the ability to hand off responsibilities is key to maintaining your sanity.

Letting something as important as sign-ins be left to the whim of chance is poor management as a textbook example.  Why?  Because the
conversation is simple, and should be easily decided and never discussed again, ever, anywhere.  The vast majority of our missions and training, everywhere, work nearly the same, so things like mission sign-ins should not have to be re-thought every time.

I've said this before, one of our biggest issues is that every crew and team is "different" and feels they can open the "getting started" book
and change things around.  That's not how professional agencies do it - they decide and move on, whatever the decision is, because the
real work is saving life and property, not signing people in.

We've had more than one person mention RUL again.

What's an RUL in a CAP context?  We don't let people key a radio without specific training and certification yet we can allow a critical task like
this go to a made-up identifier?

Also, we can't play the NIMS card, because in most cases no other agency cares what we're doing.  In anything short of Fossett, we're
a contributing partner, not the lead and are only managing our people and resources.  We should know how NIMS works, but not scale a process that rarely interacts with anyone else.

[coudano]

The USAF isn't exactly the poster child for proper application of nims/ics either
--mmmmmaybe the base emergency management unit---
Most certainly /NOT/ the CAP-USAF guys doing our evals.

The Admin part of Finance/Admin doesn't mean "general administrativa"
there is general administrativa in every branch of the command structure

The Resource Unit of the Planning Section is the job description that you are thinking of when you say the word "admin" or even "personnel" in CAP language.

It's difficult to get outside the CAP box.


Another common fault of CAP is when it arrives as a resource to somebody else's incident,
and starts calling the person in charge (of CAP) an "incident commander"
Unless CAP is the lead agency, we come to the fight as a task force, and our "IC" is really a "task force commander"
Getting that one right, would have saved CAP some serious egg on the face in many instances,
at least three of which I have seen up front, in person.  But we still insist on "mission coordinator" equals "incident commander" and can't figure out how to simply swap titles depending on the situation...

In any incident there is only ONE incident commander.

[Spaceman3750]

Unless CAP is part of a unified command (e.g. Fossett) in which case we would have an IC.

Whatever happened to the Agency Liason qual? Basically it was the CAP IC for missions we weren't running (at least on paper). The qual was there when I let my membership go a few years ago then when I came back it was gone.

[JeffDG]

In any incident there is only ONE incident commander.

So, changes of command and Unified Commands don't exist?

[JeffDG]

Unless CAP is part of a unified command (e.g. Fossett) in which case we would have an IC.

Whatever happened to the Agency Liason qual? Basically it was the CAP IC for missions we weren't running (at least on paper). The qual was there when I let my membership go a few years ago then when I came back it was gone.

LO

[Spaceman3750]

Unless CAP is part of a unified command (e.g. Fossett) in which case we would have an IC.

Whatever happened to the Agency Liason qual? Basically it was the CAP IC for missions we weren't running (at least on paper). The qual was there when I let my membership go a few years ago then when I came back it was gone.

LO

Right, but the LO isn't a qualified IC like AL was.

[tsrup]

"regulations" break the whole idea of NIMS.

Rule one.....what works.....works.

It is important that people get signed in and credentials checked.....it is NOT important who does it.

If it's important that it get done, then someone better [darn] well be responsible for doing it.

Regulations are not antithetical to NIMS.  NIMS recognizes that different organizations have their own rules and regulations.  It recognizes that fact and fully embraces that fact.  It's when Incident Commanders press participating organizations to break their own regulations that NIMS breaks down horribly.

^ Exactly.

It's not important from a "Jim vs. John" standpoint, but it is crucial in a role and responsibility standpoint, because when things get hairy and people reach the end of their bandwidth, everyone drops to baseline and the ability to hand off responsibilities is key to maintaining your sanity.

Letting something as important as sign-ins be left to the whim of chance is poor management as a textbook example.  Why?  Because the
conversation is simple, and should be easily decided and never discussed again, ever, anywhere.  The vast majority of our missions and training, everywhere, work nearly the same, so things like mission sign-ins should not have to be re-thought every time.

I've said this before, one of our biggest issues is that every crew and team is "different" and feels they can open the "getting started" book
and change things around.  That's not how professional agencies do it - they decide and move on, whatever the decision is, because the
real work is saving life and property, not signing people in.

We've had more than one person mention RUL again.

What's an RUL in a CAP context?  We don't let people key a radio without specific training and certification yet we can allow a critical task like
this go to a made-up identifier?

Also, we can't play the NIMS card, because in most cases no other agency cares what we're doing.  In anything short of Fossett, we're
a contributing partner, not the lead and are only managing our people and resources.  We should know how NIMS works, but not scale a process that rarely interacts with anyone else.

An RUL in a cap context isnt necessary.  I doubt that a mission requiring one would ever soley be conducted by CAP.  It was merely a way of tracking the chain of responsibility to the PSC. For our context assinging a MSA to the PSC with the sole designated purpose of signing in people will maintain the propper chain of responsibility.  And the people who need the information will get it.

[sardak]

Here are my answers (and the book answers) as a real world (non-CAP) Planning Section Chief.

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

How about tracking people? Planning  and calling up more? Logistics

What about the pre-planning and call-up? Not part of the ICS.

How about resources, including airplanes and vehicles? Planning

Planning and Operations jointly determine the operational resource needs. The resource orders are produced by Plans and given to Logistics which finds/orders the operational resources. Logistics is responsible for determining and ordering support resources based on input from Plans and Ops.

If the incident gets large enough, a PSC is going to want a Resources Unit Leader (rw=RESL, CAP = RUL), as you've tried, to deal with all of this because resource tracking and status are just two of the many tasks within the Planning Section. Reporting  to the RESL is the Status/Check-in Recorder (SCKN), which would be a role for an MSA in CAP. CAP has thought about creating the Resources Unit Leader (RESL/RUL) position (and others) and lists it as a future qual in the current CAPR 60-3 (p. 27).

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.

There is a RESL checklist available from FEMA which is duplicated on the NESA ICSS page .
http://www.nesa.cap.gov/icsscurr.htm
http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/ICSResource/PositionChecklists.htm

CAP takes ICS and absolutely mutilates it into its own image

which is why

According to CAP-USAFI 10-2701 (The AF SAREVAL Checklist)..., if you're doing your USAF SAREVAL, then it's the FASC's job.

And the evaluation team will tell you that it doesn't care how the real world works, the team just follows the checklist, right or wrong.

AL and LO have two completely different functions. There is an Agency Representative (AREP) position in the real world (there I go again) which is the person FROM an assisting or cooperating agency that reports TO the Liaison Officer at the ICP. An AREP has the authority to commit resources from his/her home agency. CAP has things all screwed up with its AL and LO quals, and tried to straighten things out by dropping the AL qual and requiring, per CAPR 60-3, the member functioning in that position to be an IC based what an AREP does.

Mike

[Eclipse]

How is this not boilerplate?   If the process of getting people working isn't straightforward, how can we expect anything else to be simple?

[coudano]

It's actually (ICS/NIMS) Finance/Admin section that has little to no role in a CAP operation.
This is a simple mismatch in terminology and title.
The ROLE has to happen.  What you CALL it maybe different.
Who it falls under in terms of org chart does matter.

Nobody is getting paid, and most likely not filing claims (these are FASC roles)
The 108 process as we do it probably not being done in house, while the mission runs (unless it's a long duration mission, but even then, probably not being done the ics way)

Receiving, Tracking, and Releasing people,
These are all PSC roles.

[Ed Bos]

It's actually (ICS/NIMS) Finance/Admin section that has little to no role in a CAP operation.
This is a simple mismatch in terminology and title.
The ROLE has to happen.  What you CALL it maybe different.
Who it falls under in terms of org chart does matter.

Nobody is getting paid, and most likely not filing claims (these are FASC roles)
The 108 process as we do it probably not being done in house, while the mission runs (unless it's a long duration mission, but even then, probably not being done the ics way)

Receiving, Tracking, and Releasing people,
These are all PSC roles.

Agreed.

If the issue is that you haven't stood up a Planning Section with a chief in the early part of a large mission, then the Resource Unit Leader can report to the IC, but it's definitely a Planning function, not an Admin one.

[ol'fido]

Having worked sign up at the last eval, let me share my .02.....

Having a RUL be in charge of sign-in is fine if certain conditions are met. First, the RUL needs a copy of the ICS 203 for the mission so that they know which positions have been filled, who is filling them, and where the needs are. Then as people sign in and the quals are reviewed they can be assigned to fill open slots or put into a "stand by pool" if they are extra GT, AC(These also need a designated area to be in to await an assignment and not just wandering around mission base looking for a job.)

Second, there need to be several people working sign-in initially. Most can be reassigned after the initial rush, but it avoids having people piling up at the sign in table. We spent a lot of time hunting down people who came in and said, "Oh, the lines to long and I'm too important, I'll go ahead and get started and sign in later.

Third, once the initial sign in is over, the RUL should be sitting in with the PSC and not stuck out at the foyer. An MSA can be assigned to the personnel holding area and keep track of all unassigned personnel and  be ready to assign or dispatch someone when requested by the PSC or RUL.

Forth, all supervisors should have a clear and concise knowledge of the resources request system and how to fill out a 308 instead of "hey, you, are you scanner qualified? I've got a aircrew that needs a scanner right now. We'll figure out the paperwork later."

Lastly, although we need to follow the ICS forms and be familiar with them, I think a 211 that is more tailored to CAP needs for internal use only would be in order. Half the time, we couldn't reed the info on the 211s because the space provided was so small.

[Spaceman3750]

Didn't we all have to sign in again after you ran sign-ins?

Just ribbing you, please don't lock me up somewhere in your jail...

[ol'fido]

Why not? Bubba wants a roommate.

[arajca]

How's about these...

[Eclipse]

^ A good start, but their use assumes the wing is not locked into the mentality that ICS forms are engraved in stone.

[JetDriver777]

DHS recently redesigned all the ICS forms....

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/ics_forms_2010.pdf