DRAFT 60-3 posted for comments

[davedove]

I'm not so sure that we are really all that behind.  The 300/400 classes I was in had fire department members from a site that REALLY should have been way ahead of the game.  If they weren't up to date, I don't think CAP is horrendously behind.

From what I've seen on the FEMA site, the NIMS document is dated 2004, so that's not very long.  I would bet that a lot of agencies aren't really fully compliant.  Of course, that doesn't mean that CAP shouldn't be working in that direction.

[arajca]

In the implementation plans, the first two years are organizational years. Change processes to meet the NIMS requirements, formally adopting NIMS and ICS, using ICS on a consistant and regular basis, making necessary legislative changes, etc. Training personnel, while could have been done earlier, really wasn't necessary until recently.

CAP has, from what I can tell, not started an implementation plan yet.

[floridacyclist]

In spite of it all, we are doing better than many. I won't name names, but there are many agencies and orgs out there that we have worked with that can barely spell ICS let alone use it...and forget about NIMS. I'm not really all that worried, we'll do just fine.

[Tubacap]

Just to add 2 cents on NIMS and it's accompanying NRP.  The National Response Plan spells out what the Fed will do in an emergency.  It was outdated last week, and the National Response Framework came out.  I haven't had a chance to go over it though.

I had the same experience with my IS-300 class.  I seemed to know way more than the fire/police that were there.  In their defense, they were all willing to learn, they just don't experience it on the same level.

I think there is a thread about ICS/NIMS somewhere, that may be more appropriate to discuss this topic on further.

[ELTHunter]

Can anyone say how CAP's requirements to become an IC3 compare to other agencies?  The definition of an IC 3 is for small, short duration missions, which most of ours are.  It seems to me that the current requirement to be OSC and PSC qualified is an overkill to run 99 percent of our missions.

I know a lot of you will gasp at this suggestion, but I think they ought to relax the requirements for IC3 to enable experienced AOBD's and GBD's to advance to IC3 without going through PSC and OSC first, or at least in parallel.  My Wing really needs IC's, and I think this revision will only complicate that problem

Don't get me wrong, I think most of the additional requirements are a good thing though.  Particularly the more stringent requiremets for SET's.

The only other comment I would make is that if they are going to increase the requirements to align with other first responder organizations, it would be nice to see our missions expanded to other types of ES missions.  I don't see how the more stringent requirements are very relevent to the normal missions we have historically been tasked with.  If we are going to ask members to spend more time training, we should show them how it pays off.

Let the rock throwing begin:)

[Al Sayre]

The reason you need OSC and PSC for IC is that as IC you need to be able to do all of the jobs until you are relieved or you appoint a qualified person to do them.  If you are the guy that answers the phone, you need to be able to put together an action plan and start the planning functions moving right away so that you don't get overwhelmed as the mission progresses, especially if it is a big mission and you are the only IC that answered the phone...  You also need to have thorough understanding of the duties of  the positions that you will be assigning, so that you know what you expect from them versus what they expect to give to you. 

Also, if you aren't qualified as OSC and PSC, what will you be doing when an IC2 or IC1 shows up to relieve you?  As the man who knows what is going on and is already planned, you are probably the best person to fill either the OSC or PSC slots for the remainder of the mission.

Just some food for thought...

[Eclipse]

^ Planning is the place where most IC's fail.  Allowing them to skip that step is basically endorsing that failure.

[ELTHunter]

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I meant.  I wasn't advocating allowing the OSC and PSC to be skipped for IC2 or IC1 positions.  The planning for 4 - 8 hours ELT missions to go out to the local airport, perform ramp checks and locate an ELT isn't very advanced.

In actuality, a good AOBD or GBD who knows how to complete the proper paperwork should be able to run one of those small missions.  I know everyone wants the big Katrina/Steve Fosset type multi-day, multi-agency missions to come up, but that's not the reality we are in and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Maybe other Wings are different, but I can see the number of qualified IC's becoming a big problem for us in the future.

[Al Sayre]

The problem is that in order to do that, you would need to add a second level to the call roster.  When AFRCC has a mission, they wake up the poor dude/dudette on the top of the list and he/she runs the mission.  To have people that aren't fully qualified, you would need to wake somebody up, let them figure out who is qualified/capable and then try to wake the second person up... etc.  Now instead of having a team notified in 15 minutes or so, you spend the first half hour finding the IC who then spends another 15-30 minutes finding the right team...

[CAPSGT]

While many good AOBDs or GBDs may be able to run an ELT mission successfully, I still see merit in requiring PSC and OSC for IC3.

PSC gives members a chance to think a little more outside the box to figure out where and how to search.  It takes the member outside of their comfort zone as a branch director a bit and forces them to learn how to think more critically.

OSC gives members a chance to work with a side of operations that they may not be especially accustomed to.  Let's face it, most people are either more focused on air ops or they are more focused on ground ops.  I certainly wouldn't be comfortable letting a GBD only member run an ELT search that involved an aircrew.  I would be more comfortable letting an AOBD run one, but that's because ground teams are fairly easy to deal with; tell them where to go, fill out a 109, and they do it.  Aircrews there are other factors such as weather, fuel consumption, altitude restrictions, etc. to worry about.  As an OSC you are forced to learn about how air operations work AND ground operations work.

Once a member has completed those steps, they need to learn about the amount of responsibility and trust that is placed in an IC, how to deal with the controlling agency, and how to tie up the loose ends on the mission after it has been completed.

As someone who initially came up through the ground side of things, I refused to move on to OSC until I had trained and become qualified as an AOBD because I didn't want to be in a situation where I had to worry about aircrews without knowing what I was truly doing.  YMMV.

-Mike Crockett

[isuhawkeye]

the simple truth is that you never know how a mission will unfold.  I'm sure the fossett search started with a simple call for an overdue.

its imposible to predict if a mission will end up being simple or complicated based upon the initial call

[ELTHunter]

the simple truth is that you never know how a mission will unfold.  I'm sure the fossett search started with a simple call for an overdue.

its imposible to predict if a mission will end up being simple or complicated based upon the initial call

The problem is that in order to do that, you would need to add a second level to the call roster.  When AFRCC has a mission, they wake up the poor dude/dudette on the top of the list and he/she runs the mission.  To have people that aren't fully qualified, you would need to wake somebody up, let them figure out who is qualified/capable and then try to wake the second person up... etc.  Now instead of having a team notified in 15 minutes or so, you spend the first half hour finding the IC who then spends another 15-30 minutes finding the right team...

While I'm still not completely converted, I see your point.

Spacing - MIKE

[sardak]

The problem is that in order to do that, you would need to add a second level to the call roster.  When AFRCC has a mission, they wake up the poor dude/dudette on the top of the list and he/she runs the mission.

There are a number of wings where the person who AFRCC wakes up is not the person who runs the mission.  The wing alert officer takes the call from AFRCC and then notifies a properly qualified IC depending on the nature of the mission.

the simple truth is that you never know how a mission will unfold.  I'm sure the fossett search started with a simple call for an overdue.
its impossible to predict if a mission will end up being simple or complicated based upon the initial call.

The reason there are different levels of IC is because of different levels of complexity.  The whole point of creating an IC3 position was to qualify people to run the everyday DF missions and other simple missions involving, for example, one GT/UDFT and an aircraft.  One doesn't need to be an über-IC to run these.  The original intent of the IC3 position was to let well qualified ground and air branch directors run these missions.

If the mission escalates, then the IC3 gets help.  To think that the initial IC should be qualified to run whatever happens defeats the whole purpose of levels, and is not how it happens in the real world.  There the initial IC passes command to a more qualified IC if the incident escalates.   Happens every day in fire, law and ES without problems.

If a wing doesn't have personnel to take the mission from an IC3 as the mission escalates or changes, that is a wing problem, not an issue of having levels of IC. 

Getting back to the earlier question of IC quals in other organizations, the National Wildfire Coordinating Group requirement to be a Type 1 IC is OSC2 or PSC2, and the National Park Service requirement for Type 3 IC is OSC or PSC.

Mike

[Short Field]

I don't see where the training for OSC or PSC is that hard to get accomplished.  It probably only adds a few months to the training program.  And it avoids having IC3s go back to be trained as PSCs or OSCs before they can advance to IC2.

[ZigZag911]

The reality from where I sit is that there are relatively few IC 1 or IC 2 out there; some wings probably only have one or two, at best.

[Eclipse]

The reality from where I sit is that there are relatively few IC 1 or IC 2 out there; some wings probably only have one or two, at best.

Or even fewer than that, and I believe that is by design. 

I know I have read a memo recently that IC's higher than 3 would be limited and would need at least Region approval.

[Pace]

The edit: proposed design requires region/CC approval for IC1.

IC3 runs the 2 am missions from hard landings and disgruntled A&Ps who take their frustration out on the fuselage (right where the ELT is).

IC2 runs the larger missions that require a mission base, staff, multi-operational periods, etc on a state (maybe minutely regional) level.

IC1 is for when Katrina hits again.

Although routinely CAP's need is limited to IC3, I think it would be greatly beneficial to have more IC2s.  When IC1s are required, people can be relocated as needed.

[RiverAux]

I do wonder about these IC1s in regard to Katrina-like missions.  Our response to Katrina was to set up multiple mission bases, each of which seemed to be somewhat typical of a large CAP mission in terms of resources being controlled.  I suppose these IC1s will be assigned to oversee these multiple bases, however we also have to keep in mind that the C4 facilities will also be involved in moving resources to these various bases.  How will the IC1 relate to these C4s?  Are they going to be working there (which could be on the other side of the country from the disaster), or will they be at the NOC, or at a separate command post from the operational command posts where the work is being done? 

I think CAP has a way to go in working on our doctrine for our response to these missions. 

[ZigZag911]

I've run plenty of wing-level SAREXes as an IC3.....wing wanted me to run the SAREVAL a year or two ago, but I was not available....then again, maybe they're prepping me for IC 2 and just not telling me!

[RiverAux]

I don't think that in our Wing anyone is going to be appointed as an IC-3 unless the leadership also thinks that they could handle just about anything no matter what their official IC level is.