Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FIRE2588
    Systems do not burn down structures. Bad strategies, poor tactics, and lazy firefighters(training, ambition, pride) burn down structures.
    Originally posted by FIRE2588
    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.
    Which is it? Bad strategies and lazy fire fighters or not following some magical system that causes buildings to burn down. How does adopting the NIMS ideology fix lazy fire fighters and poor tactics?
    -------------------
    "The most mediocre man or woman can suddenly seem dynamic, forceful, and decisive if he or she is mean enough." from "Crazy Bosses"
    -----------------------------------------------
    Genius has its limits, but stupidity is boundless.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FIRE2588
      The move is toward a single command system in this country. What you or I think about it really does'nt matter.
      Sure our opinion matters...we are the end user are we not? Are we not a customer or stakeholder or whatever fancy garbage term is popular this week?

      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.
      I've worked under both type systems, how many on here have done the same? I do know it is clear based on the arguements and comments during this discussion there are quite a few who argue for a system that they clearly haven't placed against some critical assemtent and evaluation. Do I know everything about this issue...no. But I do have a fair amount of experience on both ends and that is more than I can say for those advocating this system.

      Hell one of the more popular Texts on ICS comes from a Chief in a Department that had command control procedures in place...however few were updated and few were followed and this lack in disipline and coordination was the entire basis for their adoption of the ICS "make up assigments as you go" method.

      Refer to the disscussion in the fireground deployment topic and see the comments from one of the larger proponents of ICS and how overwhelmed the IC gets if everyone arrives at once because he has to asses the situation and then tell all these companies what to do as if it was a big mystery what the 1st Engine does or what the 1st Ladder needs to do!

      I brought up a realitively simple example of what to call and Engine Company at a fire in my city and I got everything from "I suppose it would be called this" to it would change based on the floor to confusion over the type of structure I was even describing...and to boot the desination for a company performing the exact same task at two different fires within hours of each other under this ICS could be given two completely different desinations that essentially would only be known by the IC. Personell also would be called by different designations througout the operation based on their location and current task they were completing.

      This is a sophmoric effort at best and completely unacceptable in terms of accounatbility.

      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.
      To some degee you are correct, but just the same over burdensome, poorly developed command systems pushed by fire officers with little real or relevant experience also can complicate the fireground and only serve to increase the chances of failure in terms of fire control or lives saved.

      Besides, if our system isn't burning down structures why should we change our system? If bad strategy or tactics are at fault for the **** poor fire operations around this nation...how will adoption of the ICS (which its proponents claim has nothing to do with S&T) solve this larger perceived problem?


      FTM-PTB
      Last edited by FFFRED; 12-13-2006, 03:49 PM.

      Comment


      • What you or I think about it really does'nt matter.
        It's because of statements like this that we end up with these disasters. It should damn well matter to you how your fireground operates.
        "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

        Comment


        • My department has been through NIMS training.

          We got the certificates at HQ the other day.

          After sending the information to the feds with everyone's name with the proper spellings and ranks... 70% of the certificates came back with the names misspelled or the wrong rank listed.

          The feds can't even handle simple paperwork... and we are supposed to trust them to come up with the "ultimate" incident "management" system?
          ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
          Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

          Comment


          • In my state ICS is adopted for any emergency other than an medical aid (Fire, Police, EMS, Etc use it). I don't know much about NIMS other than it is similiar to ICS. I guess by reading some of the posts. You can do it on line. Kind of cheesy. Here ICS classes are 160 hrs. long classroom and scenarios. Broken over four different classes. Fire Command 1-A, 1-B and ICS 200 & 300. State fire certified classes.

            ICS is an accountability and span of control system. You let ICS work for you. You don't make it work. Meaning you don't have to plug every position in the ICS. Only what you need.

            If you have multiple companies working on the same floor. IC only wants to here from one person on that floor. The Division Leader. You don't need five different companies talking to the IC from the same location. Division will report to Ops or IC. If you use ICS on a regular basis. You should have no problem.

            As far as ICS telling first in companies on how to run the incident. Every initial responding company knows what to do. ICS comes in play to plug companies fifth, sixth, etc due to give an assignment. When that assigment is done you can use that company somewhere else that is needed. Ex. so if you are vent group and finish the vent. Report back to IC and be used elsewhere. You are not comitted only to ventalation and thats it. As far as ICS burns down building. That's BS. Everyone in this country uses some sort of ICS.

            The reason Katrina fiasco happened because you had pencil pushers trying to run the NIMS (IC) and never done it. It showed big time. Don't judge that sytem with that particlar incident. If you had fire personnal in charge I bet you it would have run smoother.
            Last edited by engineer2000; 12-13-2006, 04:10 PM.

            Comment


            • Once we all adopt NIMS, everything will be OK.

              Last edited by KenNFD1219; 12-13-2006, 04:34 PM.
              -------------------
              "The most mediocre man or woman can suddenly seem dynamic, forceful, and decisive if he or she is mean enough." from "Crazy Bosses"
              -----------------------------------------------
              Genius has its limits, but stupidity is boundless.

              Comment


              • There is a lot more to NIMS compliance than a quick on-line class.

                The requirements to develop management systems places a tremendous burden on small communities.

                Refer to the NIMS compliance metrics for local government or the implementation matrix to see the requirements for this year.

                Make sure your version of ICS is approved by DHS. After all, they know what is best for all of us.

                Many of us here have yet to see an explanation as to why we should call a floor a division. Why do we need to call companies by their task and not who they are? As an IC, if I give Truck 1 an assignment, they are still Truck 1, not vent group, search group, etc.
                Last edited by KenNFD1219; 12-13-2006, 04:37 PM.
                -------------------
                "The most mediocre man or woman can suddenly seem dynamic, forceful, and decisive if he or she is mean enough." from "Crazy Bosses"
                -----------------------------------------------
                Genius has its limits, but stupidity is boundless.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by engineer2000

                  ICS is an accountability and span of control system. You let ICS work for you. You don't make it work. Meaning you don't have to plug every position in the ICS. Only what you need.

                  If you have multiple companies working on the same floor. IC only wants to here from one person on that floor. The Division Leader. You don't need five different companies talking to the IC from the same location. Division will report to Ops or IC. If you use ICS on a regular basis. You should have no problem.
                  If my chief wants to know the progress of the searches in the fire apartment...he needs to call the 1st Ladder co. officer. If he needs the progress on the fire extinguishment...he will probably call the Engine officer; the searches of the floor above or adjoing appartments on a top floor fire, the 2nd Ladder officer; in a standpipe building water supply is the 2nd Engine officer. What are conditions in the rear, the OVM or the Roof. All these with the exception of the roof could be on the firefloor No need to add an additional level of beuracracy with some "Division" (BTW a Division around here is the next level of structure above a Battalion and calling for a Division will get you a Chief who is likely in command in the street.)

                  Why would the Chief call this one guy when he knows exactly who he needs to speak to?

                  Why would an OVM reporting extention or trapped victims in the rear report this to his officer when the Battalion is on scene? It is all needless midlemen chatter than clutters the air.

                  As far as ICS telling first in companies on how to run the incident. Every initial responding company knows what to do. ICS comes in play to plug companies fifth, sixth, etc due to give an assignment. When that assigment is done you can use that company somewhere else that is needed. Ex. so if you are vent group and finish the vent. Report back to IC and be used elsewhere. You are not comitted only to ventalation and thats it. As far as ICS burns down building. That's BS. Everyone in this country uses some sort of ICS.
                  That is not how I experineced it or how I read about it being used in many cities nor how it was discussed in the fireground deployment topic on this page....as one NIMS advocate put it.....
                  Originally posted by mikeyboy
                  ...After working in incidents where everybody comes in at once, and having been the I.C. in this type of environment can become overwhelming very quick. All our units have to say is that they are "Onscene, staging at _______." It gives the I.C. a few seconds to think about where he wants that unit to operate.
                  How is this not representative of ICS or NIMS? I experienced it much in this way, it is relayed in numerous texts this way and is continually used as an argument by persons who disagree with pre-assigned riding positions in these forums.

                  Now as for the "Vent group" reporting back to the IC for reassignment. First, lets say the Roof man is now complete with his tasks and now drops down to search the top floor of a 6 story NLT. Now according to you he is no longer Vent Group 1 but now he is Search Group 1 Sector 6 or is the 2nd Due OVM already have this designation and now becomes Group 2.

                  Does his company officer now know what his newly dubed desination is that was given to him by the IC? When he offers a Mayday are we going to have confustion as who which person is assigned to radio 0700104? or to Search group Division 4?

                  Don't forget the fact that we could be doing the same duty at different jobs and have a different designation that also changes throughout the operation.

                  Honestly our chiefs have a million other things to worry about other than giving new titles and names to men on the fireground who already know who they are where they are to be and what they need to do.

                  One question for you...a person who is part of lets say a three man "Vent Group"...let say gets seperated or caught in a collapse... What does he call himself when he radios the Chief?

                  The reason Katrina fiasco happened because you had pencil pushers trying to run the NIMS (IC) and never done it. It showed big time. Don't judge that sytem with that particlar incident. If you had fire personnal in charge I bet you it would have run smoother.
                  Did those pencil pushers not take the same NIMS classes that everyone else is mandated to do?

                  This NIMS stuff can be traced back to the poor operations in the West with week long wildfires and I'm sure that is what it works well for those...however to think that this needs to be brought in for fireground operations is absurd and as of yet without a soild argument.

                  Don't judge by that one particular incident? Isn't a regional-wide disaster that demands the involvement of multiple agencies and departments exactly what the ICS and NIMS people expected to need this NIMS system for? This is the text book example of where as one guy put it Fish & Game can be easily intergrated and apparently it doesn't work as advertised and now you guys think that we need this supposed common language so you can fight fires with me and I can fight fires with you?

                  The FDNY and NOFD got along quite well and made things work without taking these silly little exams and using your supposed common language. The brass used some parts for management of the large scale paper and planning issues but the fireground was handled much like it is handled everyday of the week.

                  They had terms and proceedures that were foreign to us and many of ours were completely foriegn to them...but they all worked that out...without some NIMS compliance or common language.

                  FTM-PTB

                  Funny how firemen in the late 19th and early 20th century would travel 100s miles to other cities to help battle conflagarations and in the aftermath there was no call for some common language among the fire departments. Hmmmm how did they ever get it done?
                  Last edited by FFFRED; 12-13-2006, 05:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • FFFred:

                    You read to much into the system. Keep it simple. Once your finished with a assignment. IC will reassign the company and may add them to a group already assigned to a task. I.E. Rescue group. Yes they will know their assignment group. In a big incident. Your going to have more than one company in that group. That is assigned to a Division. If there are multiple division. Then Division A, Division B, etc. After five division you can lump them into Branches. You will only start using these if its a major warehouse or highrise fire. Span of control and limits radio traffic. You can use ICS with any incident. Small or big. We don't need a Chief to call all hands on the radio to start working.

                    As you stated if one of the vent group personnel goes down. You still reply back to Ops or IC as vent group. State your mayday.

                    Our Chiefs (BC, Deputy or whatever) are assigned overhead positions. Assigning positions is part of mangements job here. Sounds like your way is a little confusing and everyone is blabling on the radio with evryone freelancing around with no accountability.

                    As far as your statement: poor operations in the west with week long veg fires. Apparentely you never been in a urban interface major veg fire. I don't think anyone of your Chiefs would understand the complexity of a major veg fire or yourself. Don't bash the firefighter's in the west about veg fires. They are among the experts. You would s**t your pants with a wall of flames coming at you. Hundreds of homes in danger and a strike team only to protect them.

                    ICS is one system of termology to be used for all incidents. Not use one for veg fire then another system for structure fires or hazmat.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by engineer2000
                      FFFred:

                      You read to much into the system. Keep it simple. Once your finished with a assignment. IC will reassign the company and may add them to a group already assigned to a task. I.E. Rescue group. Yes they will know their assignment group. In a big incident. Your going to have more than one company in that group. That is assigned to a Division. If there are multiple division. Then Division A, Division B, etc. After five division you can lump them into Branches. You will only start using these if its a major warehouse or highrise fire. Span of control and limits radio traffic. You can use ICS with any incident. Small or big. We don't need a Chief to call all hands on the radio to start working.
                      I only read what is available on line and that is supposedly the same thing everyone else is reading plus I worked in Depts that used more ICS on the fireground and took in mutual aid with some that really used all aspects of ICS in every response. I've had training in it and I have seen its real world application. I'm not a complete novice with this stuff.

                      You speak of combining companies into one large group called a Division, first We have Battalions which are organized into Divisions, anytime you call for Division 6 you are asking to speak to a Deputy Chief who is in command of the 6th Division for the tour. Second...well who then is the officer in comand of that group of two companies combined or placing more men under a different officer? As a fireman do I answer to my company officer or one from another Engine or Ladder? Every officer has at least 4 to 5 men under their supervision at anyone time. You are talking about a continually changing command board where the tracking of companies with changing desinations of tasks and chains of command can only lead to poor accountability and increased confusion.

                      I've been to many high-rise fires and Don't see the need for your designations or your terms. Calling a floor a Division is outright nonsense and calling Engine Co. 47 Fire Attack Group 2 Division 3 then Division 4 when they change floors during the push is unecessary.

                      As you stated if one of the vent group personnel goes down. You still reply back to Ops or IC as vent group. State your mayday.
                      The Vent Group lets say is Bob the officer, Vinny and Ralph, Now Ralph finds himself lost or trapped. How does Ralph identify himself to the Chief because he isn't the Vent group...he is simply only a member of said group. How does he identify himself and does this change throughout the incident with his title?

                      Our Chiefs (BC, Deputy or whatever) are assigned overhead positions. Assigning positions is part of mangements job here. Sounds like your way is a little confusing and everyone is blabling on the radio with evryone freelancing around with no accountability.
                      Assigning positions and tasks once the fire breaks out is a bit amaturish. A basic SOP or contigency plan for your basic initial operations isn't that hard to accomplish.

                      Your ideas and methods where it is impossible to develop a simple starting plan for fires were something my Dept subscribed to early in the 20th Century. Obviously we have progressed past that archaic line of thinking.

                      The safety and efficency of our operations greatly depends on the accountability of the members and that the prescribed duties they are assigned are carried out swiftly.

                      Our Chief upon arrival at the typical All-Hands fire knows exactly where each member of each company is operating and what tools they have and what duties they are performing and what information they can possibly provide to him. This is all without him saying a single word.

                      Sounds like you are another guy who has never heard us work or seen us work or even begins to understand our simple and functional system. I've seen how ICS works...you apparently have no idea what you are even arguing about. I've read up on the ICS materials, have you read up on my depts procedures?

                      As far as your statement: poor operations in the west with week long veg fires. Apparentely you never been in a urban interface major veg fire. I don't think anyone of your Chiefs would understand the complexity of a major veg fire or yourself. Don't bash the firefighter's in the west about veg fires. They are among the experts. You would s**t your pants with a wall of flames coming at you. Hundreds of homes in danger and a strike team only to protect them.
                      I've been to small wildland fires that didn't involve the degree of vegitation or terrian and I've never claimed to be an expert at telling them how to fight a fire. I have stated multiple times I don't know that much about forest fires...and truthfully I don't care to. They by they own accounts had lots of poor coordination and depts with poor disipline that couldn't work together to put out these fires and developed a system that worked for them and their circumstances....and apparently they state it works well for them. Neither I nor anyone else has disputed that.

                      As for me sh#tting my pants over a wall of fire or me bashing anyone...that is debateable as if I had the training for operating in an environment like that I hopefully wouldn't loose my head. I didn't claim that you should adopt our system of operation. Those fires I'm sure are very complex and they often last for days or weeks. That is where your system works well...a quickly evolving fireground in an urban city isn't even close to apples to apples and compared to our system that is in place...it creates too many issues and leaves too many questions unanswered.

                      ICS is one system of termology to be used for all incidents. Not use one for veg fire then another system for structure fires or hazmat.
                      And if you review you will find that your terminology while it works for you is largely superfolous and a burdensome excersise in semantics to us.

                      FTM-PTB
                      Last edited by FFFRED; 12-13-2006, 08:23 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FIRE2588
                        The move is toward a single command system in this country.

                        Now I'm confused. While this certainly seems like the plan, I don't get why we need a single command system in the country. This isn't Honduras or some other country the size of Iowa, nor is it any of the remaining Socialist paradises. We don't need and can't use a single command.
                        I am a highly trained professional and can find my :: expletive deleted:: with either hand in various light conditions.

                        Comment


                        • FFFred:

                          You would report to the Group Supervisor. Which would be the first assigned Company Officer. As a company you still report to your Eng. or Truck Officer as a FF. Your Officer will coordinate with the Group Supervisor for the assignment. Who will report to the Division for conditions or assignment complete. Its just like your Battalions report to your Chief division. Who I would think, coordnates to the IC. It sounds time consuming with names, but if you do it. It flows like second nature. Like I said, major fires w/ multiple alarms is where this will or may come into play. Depends on what the fire conditions are. My dept. does this with most calls. Except medicals.

                          As far as accountbility issue. When you get assigned we have accountablity name tags left with IC @ the CP. Every FF has an radio for communication in case of trapped FF or hurt FF. ICS assigns position so you know accountability. When multiple companies are responding.


                          The Vent Group lets say is Bob the officer, Vinny and Ralph, Now Ralph finds himself lost or trapped. How does Ralph identify himself to the Chief because he isn't the Vent group...he is simply only a member of said group. How does he identify himself and does this change throughout the incident with his title?

                          The whole company is the vent group. Not just your Officer. The Officer in charge will report. The crew stays together. You will know who goes down. Besides every dept. has their own radio designater (sp?) per rank.

                          No I don't know how you operate. Don't care. Just defending the ICS. Which works. Apparentley the Feds want to go with NIMS. Don't care. If our state has a crises we will handle it with the ICS which I guess is similiar to NIMS. Which excedes the Feds mandate. CDF does a great job here with veg fires under the ICS until Feds get involved. Did not need them for the Loma Prieta Earthquake or any other earthquake. If they get involved it's because we need Federal Money for disaster.
                          Last edited by engineer2000; 12-13-2006, 08:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Man, I'm getting tired of this we've been doing this for 140 years crap. The military has been organizing large and small groups of people for centuries. How do they do it? They do through uniform command and control.

                            Let's just suppose 40 years ago, somebody came up with a brilliant firefighting idea, but was shot down because someone told them that they had been doing it right for 100 years. Just think how much better they would have actually been if they would have bought into a good idea today.

                            The biggest problem is that there are some people who simply don't realize that tactically nothing is going to change. The main benefit of a common language is that it turns tribes into armies.

                            Let's suppose we have a crew of bricklayers from wherever and only one of them knows how to speak English. The boss comes along and tells the one bricklayer what to do, and he tells the rest of them in whatever language. Guess what? The job gets done and done well. You can have a multinational group, and as long as the top guy of each group can speak the common language, it's going to work.

                            Now let's suppose that nobody on the bricklaying crew knows how to speak English. It's going to be a Charlie Foxtrot, plain and simple.

                            ICS is going to have its growing pains. Sure, you’ll get horse traders that couldn’t find their a** with both hands in the top spot, but once they got that coast guard and army guy in the driver’s seat, things started to happen. In ICS the problem isn’t going to be at the top with skilled leaders. The biggest breakdowns are going happen with incompetence in middle management, just like the corporation. When that happens, the bigwigs have to scramble because large scale objectives cannot be met. Then the domino effect ripples right to the top. The quicker middle management learns the system, the better the results.

                            Speaking of management, there are only 3 things that affect production.
                            1. unawareness
                            2. inability
                            3. unwillingness

                            For the people that can’t seem to figure it out, which one is it?

                            Stay Safe

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by engineer2000
                              FFFred:

                              You would report to the Group Supervisor. Which would be the first assigned Company Officer. As a company you still report to your Eng. or Truck Officer as a FF. Your Officer will coordinate with the Group Supervisor for the assignment. Who will report to the Division for conditions or assignment complete. Its just like your Battalions report to your Chief division. Who I would think, coordnates to the IC. It sounds time consuming with names, but if you do it. It flows like second nature. Like I said, major fires w/ multiple alarms is where this will or may come into play. Depends on what the fire conditions are. My dept. does this with most calls. Except medicals.
                              Here is the problem. Certain members don't operate standing next to their officer so now the officers designation changes yet the members who are under the functional supervision of the officer and performing their assigned duties might not get the word about the change in the officers designation. Besides the fact that under your system the IC would be swamped with tons of personell asking him for another task when that could easily be handled by calling each respective company officer who is actually responsible for the supervision of said members. The Officer might call for Division 7 Vent Group(looking for his roofman) When the roofman was now assigned Division 6 Sector B Search...and since he is no longer on the roof he won't answer to Division 7 Vent Group.

                              Meanwhile here the Officer of Ladder Co. 29 is always "Ladder 29" and the Irons man of Ladder Co. 155 is always "Ladder 155 Irons" or more commonly "155 Irons" Regardless of what specific thing he is doing at that time...searching, venting or overhauling. Considering that during a typical fire the Irons man from Ladder 155 performs all those tasks why should we constantly change his name and the names of the other 50+ members operating at a simple fire just because they are venting this moment and later performing overhaul?

                              What would the Control man of Engine 230 be called if he were operating the standpipe on the 14th floor landing and the handline was operating on the 15th? How would the officer contact him for more pressure?

                              As far as accountbility issue. When you get assigned we have accountablity name tags left with IC @ the CP. Every FF has an radio for communication in case of trapped FF or hurt FF. ICS assigns position so you know accountability. When multiple companies are responding.
                              What do you do before the Chiefs arrival? Who do you leave your tags with? Are your Chiefs aides really expected to handle 50+ tags and names? The call-signs under your system constantly change throughout the incident and add another layer of titles for guys who under our system already have names and associated responsibilities.

                              Originally posted by FFFRED
                              The Vent Group lets say is Bob the officer, Vinny and Ralph, Now Ralph finds himself lost or trapped. How does Ralph identify himself to the Chief because he isn't the Vent group...he is simply only a member of said group. How does he identify himself and does this change throughout the incident with his title?
                              The whole company is the vent group. Not just your Officer. The Officer in charge will report. The crew stays together. You will know who goes down. Besides every dept. has their own radio designater (sp?) per rank.
                              You misunderstood the question: You are the member in trouble...your officer in the smoke and confusion doesn't know you are missing. You need to call the Chief and transmit a Mayday...what do you call yourself. For example here If a member was trapped it would be something like this.... "Mayday-Mayday-Mayday, Ladder 102 Can to Battalion 34"

                              Now either you are overly optomistic or naive in that you believe that everyone will know you aren't there and are having a problem. That isn't how it will play out I assure you.

                              No I don't know how you operate. Don't care. Just defending the ICS. Which works. Apparentley the Feds want to go with NIMS. Don't care. If our state has a crises we will handle it with the ICS wich I guess is similiar to NIMS. Which excedes the Feds mandate. CDF does a great job here with veg fires under the ICS until Feds get involved. Did not need them for the Loma Prieta Earthquake or any other earthquake. If they get involved it's because we need Federal Money for diaster.
                              You are telling me our operations amount to freelancing yet you don't know how we operate?

                              Yes I'm sure it works...but some of you just don't understand that it might not work for many of us.

                              One question...if the money the Feds are sending in grants and such dried up...would you be such an advocate for this system or is this simply a $$$ motivated decision for you?

                              FTM-PTB

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by firefighter1962
                                Man, I'm getting tired of this we've been doing this for 140 years crap. The military has been organizing large and small groups of people for centuries. How do they do it? They do through uniform command and control.
                                Yes and so do we, largely based on military models as many of our early chiefs were soliders and sailors before they were firemen.

                                Why though are you tired of this 140 years "crap". Do you find that our collective experience contradicts your opinions and ideas about how fire operations should be conducted...are you and your ideas somehow supperior to 140+ years of firefighting knowledge, tradition and experience? What do you mean by this statement?

                                Let's just suppose 40 years ago, somebody came up with a brilliant firefighting idea, but was shot down because someone told them that they had been doing it right for 100 years. Just think how much better they would have actually been if they would have bought into a good idea today.
                                Our methods and procedures have changed over 140 years...we aren't doing things the way we did them 140 years ago...however all changes big and small until now have been measured and tested against the previous decades of expeirence and only after it is proven as supperior is it adopted. We've tried Quints, We tried foams and wet waters, we tried LDH and numerous other things and we found it just doens't compare to what we did before.

                                This system developed to coordinate multiple FDs from all over some western states might work well for the purpose it was designed for...but to think that it somehow magicly works better than what we already have been using is laughable.

                                The biggest problem is that there are some people who simply don't realize that tactically nothing is going to change. The main benefit of a common language is that it turns tribes into armies.
                                I don't see that being the major issue here or even really being discussed. Perhaps I'm missing something.

                                Let's suppose we have a crew of bricklayers from wherever and only one of them knows how to speak English. The boss comes along and tells the one bricklayer what to do, and he tells the rest of them in whatever language. Guess what? The job gets done and done well. You can have a multinational group, and as long as the top guy of each group can speak the common language, it's going to work.

                                Now let's suppose that nobody on the bricklaying crew knows how to speak English. It's going to be a Charlie Foxtrot, plain and simple.
                                So as long as all firemen everywhere speak English we won't need this NIMS...is that what you are saying?

                                ICS is going to have its growing pains. Sure, you’ll get horse traders that couldn’t find their a** with both hands in the top spot, but once they got that coast guard and army guy in the driver’s seat, things started to happen. In ICS the problem isn’t going to be at the top with skilled leaders. The biggest breakdowns are going happen with incompetence in middle management, just like the corporation. When that happens, the bigwigs have to scramble because large scale objectives cannot be met. Then the domino effect ripples right to the top. The quicker middle management learns the system, the better the results.

                                Speaking of management, there are only 3 things that affect production.
                                1. unawareness
                                2. inability
                                3. unwillingness

                                For the people that can’t seem to figure it out, which one is it?
                                I don't know how we got on a discussion of production and private sector management issues...what has this got to do with anything we are discussing? Are any of you clowns firemen or are you desk commandos with more of your fancy terms?


                                FTM-PTB
                                Last edited by FFFRED; 12-14-2006, 08:14 AM.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X