N.F.S.I.M.S -VS- I.C (Brunacini Way)

[NonSurfinCaFF]

I see alot of persons here stating that they dont like when some one tells them how they should do Incident Command. So the ones in favor of NIMS what system did you follow before FEMA decided it knew best on how to run a fire service. And if FEMA who is the biggest player behind this pushing it into departments. They didnt fare to well in helping out in N.O.. Ive said it before learn what you want. And the BIG BROTHERS of the fire service, FDNY, CHICAGO, BOSTON, I hope you guys keep doing what you do best YOUR JOB..Yah I know someone will say that the Boys in the west get the job done as well I agree. However can the guys behind the nice big desk let us boys do what we do best and that is fight fires and save lives. For some reason the paper trail made it to Canada where FEMA doesnt even exsist.
So I have no choice but to learn it and I am. But the fact of the matter is will we ever use it and the biggest question I have is all of you that are in favor of NIMS do you use it like they want you to. And what about the all of the Departments in your district. If your answer is NO. Then I got the answer I wanted when I started this thread. ITS A WASTE OF TIME..
If the Big Boys want to help make a better Command System then how about funding. Because the Greatest IMS wont help if manpower and equipment are not present.

Yes, FEMA based NIMS on us, most of the examples in the NIMS classes are USFS.

That is exactly what DHS and the NIMS proponents are doing-pushing their system on everyone else. No one from FDNY or Chicago, or anywhere else is saying their incident management system is the best for everyone. We are saying our systems work for us, not a wildland fire incident management system adopted by DHS.

That is actually not true, FEMA / DHS is pushing NIMS but being compliant does not mean you use ICS on a daily basis, simply that your command system meet certain guidelines which the command systems of many departments meet. It also requires a certain amount of disaster planning by communities. The only requirement for using the NIMS ICS is if you are going to participate in FEMA responses.

If people actually took the classes instead of copying the answers you might have picked that up, its within the first 10 minutes or so of the IS700 class.

I agree FEMA has come in heavy handed but there is also alot of over exageration, I mean a post about 1/2 way through this mess one of the FDNY guys said NYC is NIMS compliant, so if ICS has to be used then how is FDNY operating without it... because their system meets the requirements of a comprehensive fireground command system under NIMS.

BTW there was an article floating around one of the fire mags recently, apparently Phoenix fire is also upset about NIMS because its not the system they developed.


NIMS is being pushed to get all those departments operating without an organized system and those communities that have no plan for emergencies, not FDNY.

Several people have made comments that they don't care what people are doing in their communities, an individual FD or community can have that attitude, FEMA can't it is part of their job to ensure communities are prepared.

[rjtoc2]

NIMS vs FCS

I've always been a fan of the Fireground Management System due to its simplicity. ICS (now NIMS) is appropriate for large scale incidents. Departments across the country use both everyday whether they realize it or not. After FEMA hit a bunch of speed bumps during Katrina, the government (for many reasons) decided that NIMS was the way to go to "ensure" inter- and intra-agency coordination/communication/cooperation.

NIMS is fundamentally ICS with a bunch of new names. NIMS will greatly impact organizations that have neither had nor recognized the need for a command structure (i.e. department of parks & recreation, sanitation department, streets department, etc.)

Emergency services (fire, EMS, and police) have utilized a command structure for years. We only have to memorize a few new names and rethink a few procedures. Non-emergency organizations bear the brunt of compliance because this will more than likely be an entirely new concept for them.

ICS is the grandfather of NIMS. We should be proud that OUR way of doing business is now the STANDARD for all to follow. Are all of the changes between ICS and NIMS necessary? The answer to that varies from person to person. Good or bad, the "new" way of doing business has been established and now we must comply.

[FFFRED]

Do you guys really listen to yourselves?

I've always been a fan of the Fireground Management System due to its simplicity. ICS (now NIMS) is appropriate for large scale incidents. Departments across the country use both everyday whether they realize it or not. After FEMA hit a bunch of speed bumps during Katrina, the government (for many reasons) decided that NIMS was the way to go to "ensure" inter- and intra-agency coordination/communication/cooperation.

Simplicity? I would really hate to see what you consider complicated!

Wasn't the Government using NIMS during Katrina...weren't IMS teams in place and wasn't the entire operation on Federal and State Mismangaged & uncoordinated to such a degree that there was a severe backlash against FEMA and the Government?

I seem to recall that the decision to go with NIMS was way before Katrina...is my memory incorrect?

NIMS is fundamentally ICS with a bunch of new names. NIMS will greatly impact organizations that have neither had nor recognized the need for a command structure (i.e. department of parks & recreation, sanitation department, streets department, etc.)

You don't think that depts that have supperior control and command systems in place with assoicated terminology will also be adversely affected if they are force fed this beuracratic sillyness?

Emergency services (fire, EMS, and police) have utilized a command structure for years. We only have to memorize a few new names and rethink a few procedures. Non-emergency organizations bear the brunt of compliance because this will more than likely be an entirely new concept for them.

Our command structure is light years ahead of yours and the Federal Governments yet, you and the Feds argue we must regress back to your level of operations?

Calling a floor a Division and giving a new designation to a Engine Company or Ladder Company at every fire that changes with the Chief in Command and and the particular moment during the fire in which we are operating....isn't a new concept for us? It is a poorly concieved concept based on irrelevant operations and experiences with poorly disiplined Fire Departments. Why should we "rethink" a few procedures that are battle tested and proven in over 140 years of development? Because some desk commando from D.C. tells us? That my man, is lunacy.

ICS is the grandfather of NIMS. We should be proud that OUR way of doing business is now the STANDARD for all to follow. Are all of the changes between ICS and NIMS necessary? The answer to that varies from person to person. Good or bad, the "new" way of doing business has been established and now we must comply.

"Your" way might work well for you but to us it is a poorly thoughtout overly complicated mess of un-needed structure and quasi-accountability. Established by whom? A bunch of woodland firefighters who think their way works best or some office clerk for FEMA who'll I'll NEVER see on the fireground much less firefloor?

You can comply all you want...We are going to continue to pose the tough questions based on our expeirence and resist this un-needed goverment intrustion into our daily operations.

FTM-PTB

[Bones42]

is my memory incorrect?

Your memory is quite accurate.

[NonSurfinCaFF]

FFFRed it is a mistake to associate FEMA with the performance of ICS as on practically every incident with a major FEMA response CDF, USFS, NPS and BLM personnel end up teaching ICS classes to FEMA. Unfortunately FEMA doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept of working with others. FEMA is required by law to be pushing ICS but they still don't have a solid grasp of what that actually means, unfortunately FEMA thinks when they show up they should be in charge instead of just making sure things get done.

If you really want a good example of ICS look at the Federal Incident Management Teams (mostly wildland firefighters), they have been responding to major disasters (earthquakes, fire, floods, hurricanes, terrorist attacks etc) for 20+ years. The thing they do differently from FEMA is they bring order and help make sure everybody can do their job, they do not show up and start barking orders and putting on funny hats to show their authority. While FEMA was getting grilled for incompetence the USFS was getting pats on the back for being the go to guys (and gals), people learned fast that if you wanted something done you looked for the people in green nomex pants not some FEMA weenie with a clip board.

Unfortunately FEMA is tainting NIMS due to their need to be the big dog.

[KenNFD1219]

Unfortunately FEMA is tainting NIMS due to their need to be the big dog.

There is no doubt that the wildland IMT's are top notch at what they do. If my town were to be wiped out by a hurricane, I'd rather see the men and women in green Nomex pants than the clipboard carrying bureaucrat from DHS with the manicure and bad comb-over here to help us manage the incident.

Unfortunately, DHS does not take into account places like NYC, Boston, and many other towns (big and small) that have tried and true incident management systems in place that not only work, but are not really that far off from NIMS requirements. I believe FEMA has destroyed what little credibility it had with the fire service over NIMS.

Fred-I believe you are 100% correct, DHS pushing NIMS on everyone is nothing more than an attempt by the federal government to fix FD's and other response agencies that have little to no discipline and lack basic incident management capabilities.

I am in charge of NIMS compliance for my town. We are taking a VERY broad approach to the requirements in order to check the boxes on compliance.

[FFFRED]

I am in charge of NIMS compliance for my town. We are taking a VERY broad approach to the requirements in order to check the boxes on compliance.

Ken,

That is how we usually have dealt with these guys starting with 2in-2out and now contiuning with this IMS stuff. A very broad and loose interpretation is the best course of action for many.

These FEMA and government guys come from a world of forms, paperwork and checklists. As long as you have filled out the forms and have the paperwork in order, you can go about your operations the same way you always have. To me it seems on here way too many guys are being much too honest with the government and are actually materially changing their operations because some government clown says so.

One question for the supporters. Suppose the politicans who view fire protection as a local issue win on Capital Hill and the Grants and the $$$ disapear....will you still follow the desires of some guys in Washington DC?

FTM-PTB

[johnny46]

FFFRED,

I have a pressing question.

Is your nickname depicting a stutter, initials for FireFighter, or a clever combination of both?

[FFFRED]

FFFRED,

I have a pressing question.

Is your nickname depicting a stutter, initials for FireFighter, or a clever combination of both?

Years ago on this forum while in its infancy my name was slightly different. They changed their format and for some reason I couldn't use my old name and so I had to change it, abit only slightly to what it is today. Why is that a pressing question?

FTM-PTB

[SPFDRum]

Why is that a pressing question?

johnny46 couldn't quit get to 69?

[FIRE2588]

This topic has been debated for a long time. I for one am sick of hearing about it. Both systems work. The Federal Goverment wants everyone on the same page which is the right thing to do. I have been through 4 NFA classes and the system works. Most of what people gripe about is terminology which is easy to learn. If you dont have the need for a helibase dont use it. It is that simple. The system works for both structural and wildland firefighting. It is completly stupid to make all this fuss about something that is so easy to comply with and will make it easier to work with all other agencys. Pull up your boots, learn the system, and move foward.

[FFFRED]

This topic has been debated for a long time. I for one am sick of hearing about it. Both systems work. The Federal Goverment wants everyone on the same page which is the right thing to do. I have been through 4 NFA classes and the system works. Most of what people gripe about is terminology which is easy to learn. If you dont have the need for a helibase dont use it. It is that simple. The system works for both structural and wildland firefighting. It is completly stupid to make all this fuss about something that is so easy to comply with and will make it easier to work with all other agencys. Pull up your boots, learn the system, and move foward.

It is not only the terminology but the structure and coordiantion of commuications and the so called "accountablity" that is touted as a strength. I think if you review this discussion I and many others have shown this system doesn't work well on the fireground or at least the one that many of us work in.

For us there is no "moving forward" our compliance with this would only have us moving backwards!

FTM-PTB

[FIRE2588]

The reason we are here is to protect life and property. The Departments that are using the NIMS are not to my knowledge burning down any more buildings or killing any more Firefighters or civilians than the departments that have not yet jumped on board. Systems do not put out fires. All they do is help organize and hopefully by doing that make operations a little easier and safer. We used a combination of the two prior to making the transition. It was not easy for us either. We are still learning. Look at the big picture, remember why we are here, and do whatever it takes to get the job done. If this entails jumping on board and learning a new system do it.

[FFFRED]

The reason we are here is to protect life and property. The Departments that are using the NIMS are not to my knowledge burning down any more buildings or killing any more Firefighters or civilians than the departments that have not yet jumped on board.

To my knowledge none are either...if the system works for them then great. However I think it has been well established in this disscusion that your system doesn't work to protect life and property in many cities in fire departments with Millions of people.

Also I've worked under depts that used ICS, IMS or whatever you want to call it and compared to the system I work in now...it is decades behind in terms of control of the fireground and it is nothing less than comparing the NFL to a pick-up football game.

PS-I've been to fires with dept that use ICS to a T and largely because of it have burned the building almost to the ground.

Systems do not put out fires. All they do is help organize and hopefully by doing that make operations a little easier and safer. We used a combination of the two prior to making the transition. It was not easy for us either. We are still learning. Look at the big picture, remember why we are here, and do whatever it takes to get the job done. If this entails jumping on board and learning a new system do it.

Following the demands from extortionists...errr I mean the Federal Government to follow some system that during Katrina showed to be a dismal failure and to use it in our daily operations to me seems based on poor reasoning and logic.

You can trust every man I work with knows why we are here and is looking at the big picture and that is precisely why we choose to largely maintain our command and control procedures developed over 140+ years in lieu of a wholesale adoption of your 3 decades of flow charts and fancy terms from the Left Coast.

FTM-PTB

PS-Reread the entire disscussion and then tell us again why we should all get on board.

[FIRE2588]

The move is toward a single command system in this country. What you or I think about it really does'nt matter. My whole point was that this issue has been debated by firefighters for years who probably know a great deal more about this issue than both of us put together. Systems do not burn down structures. Bad strategies, poor tactics, and lazy firefighters(training, ambition, pride) burn down structures. We will be required to work in a specific system regardless of whether we like it or not. The more important issue is if departments make the changes neccessary to adapt and continue to do a good job on the fireground or just blame bad strategy and tactics on the "system" for burning down structures.