Today was a good day. My nationalGuard unit is a WMD unit and as part of our certification, we had do complete ICS 300 today. Kinda borning but we got through it. My CAP expereince came into play when we started talking about the ICS system.I knew it right off and the instructor was impressed.
My question is now that I have ICS 100, 200, 300, 700,and 800, how can I use that for CAP certification to be an IC? I want to be a Air Ops Branch Director and Ops Chief as well.
It is one of the boxes that you will have to check off before becoming an IC, but its not like its going to let you bypass all the other training requirements. I'm not sure if they've updated the SQTRs to reflect the recent CAP ICS requirement changes or not.
^ No idea how that will help you. However, congrats on getting 300. Now, get in on 400 and you will be complete according to CAP (I think).
It won't help you outside of the fact that you will not be able to understand what other services are doing should you interact with them on a mission.
Until we begin to live ICS, and away from our quasi ICS status you will simply be using the principles but not the full feature list.
But again, it has always been a stopping block to work with local EMA and such because they run off of pure ICS where we were kinda ICS. So we didn't know what units were actually doing what, when and who we should have our units working with.
They also use strike teams and things, which to us is a pretty foreign concept
Thanks IceNine, actualy, in a few weeks, my unit is going somewhere where will be using the ICS in a real world situation. thats why we're jumping through the hoops trying to get this done.
Yeah....at the moment CAP is paying lip-service to ICS.
I had a GEMA guy ask me if we were following ICS yet and do our asset breakdown per ICS, I just looked at him and laughed.
It is inarguable that CAP has adopted about 95% of the structure of the ICS system. I see definite weaknesses in how we implement certain aspects of it (the use of the PSC, for example, though my wing has gotten much better at it lately).
What we haven't adopted to any great extent is the paperwork associated with ICS, for the simple fact that a lot of it doesn't suit our purposes. We've had it referenced in our books for years, but a lot of it just doesn't fit with what we do.
Lack of proper use of ICS is not a CAP issue as an organization, it is lack of local people who basically
refuse to apply the training they already have, adopt the proper forms, or keep their attention
focused on the jobs they are assigned because...
"...I've been doing this 'x' years and no one is going to tell me they know how to do 'y' better..."
GBD's who try to involve themselves in what the planes are doing, AOBD's who stick their noses into the
ground operations, and section Chiefs and above so focused on what is for lunch, who is driving "their" van,
or where the antenna farm is being set up that they forget to set objectives and goals at a planning level.
We have the tools and the training, it is incumbent upon commanders to marginalize those who will not play the game correctly.
ICS is not rocket science, any more than anything we do is, but like flyinf a plane it requires attention to detail and discipline, all of which pays off when things escalate.
As a matter of course we should be directing out unit and activity commanders to utilize ICS for everything
bigger than a unit meeting, that way even those who refuse to involve themselves in ES will have hands-on exposure.
I completed ICS 300 last week. I am a GBD with a fair number of large missions under my belt, the other CAP participant
is an AOBD/PSC/OSC who is leaning into IC.
The rest of the class of about 20ish, total, was made up of local PD/FD/Public Works/Corrections, and EMA people. Several were Chiefs in their respective services. The majority of those that held rank in their service were LT or higher. One other participant had been to Katrina, and most had participated in a variety of high-visibility, major operations within the state and region.
My thoughts below.
CAP probably uses ICS more often, formally, and correctly than a majority of non-Federal agencies. Note, this is not to say we do anything "better", but since most of us know nothing else but ICS, we have no different procedures to learn, nor anything to really change.
ICS is not a "set-in-stone" standard, it is an operational framework that can be customized for your respective agency (to a point), so those that postulate that we do it "wrong" or "right" are over-emphasizing something unimportant.
Taking the class in an agency-agnostic environment is a big advantage. It also provided some great contacts, and I anticipate a number of follow-ups with these agencies as most, especially the rural counties and towns, were very interested in our capabilities, which they were almost completely unaware of.
If you paid attention at all to 100/200, the basics will come easily and the more advanced stuff is new to everyone.
After introductions, we were all students, there was no posturing, etc. Being volunteers and still being able to speak with
authority about the topics, if anything, brought us credibility. Everyone else in the room was being paid to participate.
Most agencies are involved because of funding and NIMS, but once they understand, they see the advantages of structured planning, even over and above whatever non-ICS plans they have in place already.
Everyone gets too involved in tactics.
We handled the "Ryan / Fossett" issue (the story broke on day 2 of the class)with good humor and as a "teachable moment" within the class. Everyone on my team (at least) understood from their own personal experiences, that people make mistakes, and that you have to be vigilant at all times with the media and OPSEC in general.
Taking this highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of how we use ICS, and provided me with several pages of notes for going forward.
Bottom line, if you are serious about "raising the bar" in CAP, and your personal abilities, treat this as more than a "ticket punch". Its worth the time and effort.