Before the PC and FEMA started changing things there was a resource order form used by RUL's to tell Branch Directors, etc., what resources were checked in quals, etc.
I think it was referred to as a Form 50, but I am not looking for the Cadet Progression form.
Any ideas?
Just don't use it on a SAREVAL if you find it or you will get gigged or if they see it during a Compliance Inspection. For some reason they just don't like you using a form that meets your need rather than the "official" ICS form.
Something like this?
I have a lot of the old one's I'll keep looking for others.
Quote from: RiverAux on May 03, 2009, 03:34:18 PM
Just don't use it on a SAREVAL if you find it or you will get gigged or if they see it during a Compliance Inspection. For some reason they just don't like you using a form that meets your need rather than the "official" ICS form.
We have never had that problem here, thankfully. Maybe its just our CAP-USAF team being Awesome!
Quote from: RiverAux on May 03, 2009, 03:34:18 PM
Just don't use it on a SAREVAL if you find it or you will get gigged or if they see it during a Compliance Inspection. For some reason they just don't like you using a form that meets your need rather than the "official" ICS form.
ICS forms are not set in stone, when you take the classes they will tell you that you can and should edit them to meet your needs (within reason).
As to which forms to use, you use the ones which fit your needs and those of the missions.
As an FYI a "Compliance Inspection" is not something done during an eval - a CI is the Wing equivalent of an SUI.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2009, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 03, 2009, 03:34:18 PM
Just don't use it on a SAREVAL if you find it or you will get gigged or if they see it during a Compliance Inspection. For some reason they just don't like you using a form that meets your need rather than the "official" ICS form.
ICS forms are not set in stone, when you take the classes they will tell you that you can and should edit them to meet your needs (within reason).
As to which forms to use, you use the ones which fit your needs and those of the missions.
As an FYI a "Compliance Inspection" is not something done during an eval - a CI is the Wing equivalent of an SUI.
I know the difference between a CI and a SAREVAL and have personally seen a Wing get dinged on this very issue in both of them.
Believe me, I'm with you that we should have the flexibility to use what we need, but that isn't the way its being done in the field by CAP-USAF and other evaluators.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2009, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 03, 2009, 03:34:18 PM
Just don't use it on a SAREVAL if you find it or you will get gigged or if they see it during a Compliance Inspection. For some reason they just don't like you using a form that meets your need rather than the "official" ICS form.
ICS forms are not set in stone, when you take the classes they will tell you that you can and should edit them to meet your needs (within reason).
As to which forms to use, you use the ones which fit your needs and those of the missions.
As an FYI a "Compliance Inspection" is not something done during an eval - a CI is the Wing equivalent of an SUI.
I understand customization can make some sense, after all, CAP doesn't need forms with references to bulldozers. However, isn't standardization one of the major points of ICS? If customization is kept within reason I suppose it wouldn't be that big a deal, but who decides what is within reason?
The current issue of QST (ham radio magazine) describes some ICS form customization for ARES/RACES (ham radio emergency comm groups) and invites more samples. I know various CAP squadrons, groups, and wings are doing the same. I can envision the basic forms fracturing off into "billions and billions" of variations with little resemblance to the original. If they are at least recognizable, maybe it's not a big deal?
I'm definitely not claiming any expertise here, just sort of scratching my head. What does everyone else think?
In the ICS 300 class, we are taught that the function of the ICS form is more important than the form of the ICS form. If I was the inspector and you showed me a bunch of information crammed into a form that really didn't fit your needs, I'd ask why you didn't modify the form, and I'd want to see proof that you had attended the appropriate ICS classes, since you should know better.
Quote from: Al Sayre on May 04, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
In the ICS 300 class, we are taught that the function of the ICS form is more important than the form of the ICS form. If I was the inspector and you showed me a bunch of information crammed into a form that really didn't fit your needs, I'd ask why you didn't modify the form, and I'd want to see proof that you had attended the appropriate ICS classes, since you should know better.
Instructors and recall vary.
Customization of ICS forms is not allowed according to FEMA regulations.
It defeats the whole purpose of ICS, interoperability. Everyone uses the same thing.
People have done it and eventually it's going to bit them in the butt.
Lt. Col. Paul Rowen
NESA ICSS Instructor
Quote from: sarflyer on May 04, 2009, 10:54:53 PM
Customization of ICS forms is not allowed according to FEMA regulations.
Cite, please.
And even given something from a reg, it would still conflict with both what the instructors told us and common sense.
One only needs to look at the ICS211 to see a form we keep trying to use as-is and doesn't capture the
data we need, and asks for information it'll never get from CAP members as it doesn't exist in our context.
ICS is an attempt to standardize operations for multi-agency operations so that for the most part we all speak the same language, however the practical reality is that nothing will ever be 100% the same in all situations, and as Al says, its ridiculous to use forms that don't fulfill the mission.
QuoteCustomization of ICS forms is not allowed according to FEMA regulations.
From the NIMS Core Document, December 2008; Appendix B - Incident Command System, Tab 8, The Planning Process and the IAP, page 128, footnote to Table B-3
*ICS Forms are guidance documents to assist in writing an agency's IAP. Some modification to the forms can be made to suit an agency's need more effectively, as long as the nature of each form or numbering is not altered.Tab 9 ICS Forms, page 129
The individual forms may be tailored to meet an agency's needs. More importantly, even though the format is flexible, the form number and purpose of the specific type of form... must remain intact in order to maintain consistency and facilitate immediate identification and interoperability, and for ease of use.In July, 2008 FEMA released a draft version of the "ICS Forms Booklet, FEMA 502-2" for comment. The document has a section titled "ICS Form Adaptation, Extension & Appendices." From page 4,
These forms include the essential data elements for the ICS process they address, and create a foundation within ICS for complex incident management activities. However, the flexibility and scalability of NIMS should allow for needs outside this foundation, so the following are possible mechanisms to add to, extend, or adapt ICS Forms when needed.The rest of page 4 explains how to modify ICS forms.
This is from the NWCG Incident Operations Standard Working Team (IOWST), the folks who "invented" the ICS and its forms, and whose charter still includes responsibility for forms.
From the minutes of their February 2009 meeting:
Forms have been completed for FIRESCOPE and being reviewed by DHS. As long as our forms meet the practical intent of NIMS, they can be used. Now, having quoted chapter and verse that ICS forms can be modified, I don't agree that CAP needs to go out and modify forms, for the same reason as sarflyer. We can use the basic ICS forms 201 through 226 as is. Members need to use and become familiar with the standard ICS forms.
The form that seems to cause the most grief is the 211. Many agencies don't use it, and even when checking in on a federally managed incident, you might not see it. CAP could go back to the 103, though I'm not advocating it.
Where we need to, we already use agency specific, non-ICS forms - 104, 107, 108, 109 and 122.
Mike
Mike,
Thanks for quoting the recent changes. I wasn't aware of them and was going by what we taught last year in July. :clap:
Since the 211 is such a pain and to try to stay with the flow of the forms maybe some hot shot editor out there could submit an example of a modified one that works for us.
Sorry for the old info, I stand corrected.
So...is there an official repository of CAP sanctioned, modified ICS forms? Any direction on the subject? Or will we potentially see rampant customization like we see with CAP logos? >:D
Quote from: wuzafuzz on May 05, 2009, 08:01:57 PM
So...is there an official repository of CAP sanctioned, modified ICS forms? Any direction on the subject? Or will we potentially see rampant customization like we see with CAP logos? >:D
Just use this one >:D
Unfortunately, NHQ is not approving any modified ICS forms for CAP use. Several wings have submitted forms for approval and been denied with the reason give as CAP-USAF opposition to the modification of any ICS forms.
Washington Wing does use modified ICS forms however as the state mandates that the ones it provides must be used for all missions. They do this normally for all mission forms except for those that are specifically CAP specific like the CAF104. Both a CAP104 and the state form are filled out by the aircrews (Ground Teams do the same for the CAF107). During the last SAR EVAL I was involved in we were written up for it as an observation but still received a grade of Excellent. Go here to see the forms Washington State requires to be used.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SAR/forms.htm The ICS 211 looks a lot like the old CAPF103.