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

[MattyJ]

Ok Matty.. that's fair. In fact, that logic that was what I expected and was looking for.

But let's be consistant. I'm am not pointing fingers at you Bro .... but for all of those who seem to want to do it thier own way because "we're different" when it comes to ICS/communications and turnouts ... let's be fair and remember that "we all work in diverse enviroments" line when it it comes to discussions over nationalized training standards and stragety/tactics where there seems to be a lot of finger pointing about who's right and who's wrong. That's all I ask. Be consistent.

However, I still beleive that there needs to be a national system that we all understand and can use when we start working out of our normal enviroment in a disaster situation. Maybe the grunts on the ground don't need to know it intimately, but all command staff and speciaized team members, such as USAR, that usually travel, need to know it and understand it. Not using it daily will make it more difficult to use when the time comes but I agree that internally, that is a department decision.

I will absolutly, 100% be the first guy to say that there is no one way to put out fires in this country. The diversity I speak of absolutly applies to tactics and planning...that is my point. Because of the vast differences in different areas and cities, it is impractical and unwise to adapt a one standard fits all mentality. Now, that is not to say that I dont think that there are departments out there that use improper tactics for their situation, or have poorly thought out tactics and planning and staffing, there are plenty of them out there. But whatever tactics a department uses, they should be based on well thought out, proven, and neccessary policy, and absolutly should NOT be based on what an outsider tells them they must use. I will always be consistant on that issue.

I know you were'nt pointing fingers at me. I agree....choosing tactics to simply do it "our way" is assinine to say the least....I would hope much more thought went into it!!

[ChicagoFF]

However, I still beleive that there needs to be a national system that we all understand and can use when we start working out of our normal enviroment in a disaster situation. Maybe the grunts on the ground don't need to know it intimately, but all command staff and speciaized team members, such as USAR, that usually travel, need to know it and understand it. Not using it daily will make it more difficult to use when the time comes but I agree that internally, that is a department decision.

As others have said, there is no need. If you ever come to Chicago to work, I promise you will have no trouble understanding the orders you will be issued. They will be in easy to understand, plain english - no code 3, 10-12345, or anything else. I assume if I had to go to NY to work they could tell me what they needed pretty easily. The only thing you might not understand or enjoy are the tactics, but thats a whole different discussion.

[ChicagoFF]

Why would it be so hard to get every department to just use firescope, and be done with it? Or would that be using logic?

Why don't you run your scenes just like we run ours instead. That would be better for us (and probably you too). Why is everyone so anxious to have some suburban nobody tell them how to run their jobs???

[DeputyMarshal]

Lets see...."Ladder xxx (yes its 3 digits Fred!) to Battalian xx, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here" VS. "Floor above search group to logistic consulting group,...
....
Ok...so I took a little poetic license.....but not that much. The fire service has its priorities straight though.

C'mon... That's a whole lot of poetic license. In reality it's more like, "Ladder xxx to Battalian xx, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here" VS. "Operations from Division 3, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here." The designations of functional units change according to the incident and the transmission properly identifies recipient then caller but that's about all.

* * * * *

I can never fathom why anyone would still be fighting using common command and control terminology across the fire service. The highest levels of the fire service have been preaching ICS for 20 years now. Frankly, I find it unbelievable that there are still any sane departments out there not already using (NFA) ICS or it's close cousin (Phoenix) IMS. If departments had kept up with using some sort of recognized ICS all along the minor transition to the latest version of (FEMA) ICS along with NIMS and the NRP would be trivial.

(Any department that has been responding to hazmat incidents has been legally required to use some form of ICS on them since ~89 anyway... So why aren't they doing the logical thing and using it for every incident?)

[Bones42]

Interesting how it appears some people push the ICS "language" so far to one extreme.

Interesting how it appears some people have no clue as to ICS and others have known and lived by it for many years.

Interesting how on this thread, some "big city"/"small town" guys are complaining about using codes/names for anything...yet they use codes that only mean something to them.

Interesting how on this thread, other "big city"/"small town" guys talk about how they don't use any codes at all and would have no trouble understanding what anyone says at a fire ground.

------------------------------------

Reading this thread shows how far apart the fire service of the USA is in many ways...and I'm not saying that is a bad thing. In my area, most departments use ICS at every incident with no problem. When we all go mutual aid and assist each other, there is no problem knowing who is talking to who and what about. All NIMS does is add higher levels to ICS 100 and 200. MOST FF's will not use NIMS at day to day operations, and the rare times and incident grows to that level...it will be handled at the command post and not "ground" operations.

The US Fire Service is smart enough to figure out what works for it in all of it's variations and locations.

[FFFRED]

C'mon... That's a whole lot of poetic license. In reality it's more like, "Ladder xxx to Battalian xx, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here" VS. "Operations from Division 3, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here." The designations of functional units change according to the incident and the transmission properly identifies recipient then caller but that's about all.

Why is the 3rd Division Chief on the floor above calling the Operations Chief McNally for a line?
We already have terms for eveything already, why is the first example inadequate and in need of change?....why should we change to suit your or Chicago's or anyone elses depts operations preferences? Why should they change to ours?

This has little to do with tactics and more to do with oganization and communications. In reality this is nothing more than semantics...we could debate the rationale behind tactics and operations for days...however this is nothing more than the difference between a hook and a pike-pole.

We do have terms for us, and you have terms for you. I really don't care what you call a floor or your Chiefs or Engine Co. 59 who has a line on the 2nd floor

* * * * *

I can never fathom why anyone would still be fighting using common command and control terminology across the fire service.

Fine then...as Chicago stated above in response to another poster...why don't you use their system...or ours for that matter? If you doubt that they are effective or work well...I seriously doubt one could find operational systems more used or more tested over the past 100 years than that of NY or Chicago. But it seems to many have bought the elixer that the snake-oil salesman has been selling to pad his retirement all these years. Why buy a system that who's origin is week or month long wildfires and is forcefully translated into a completely different senario, a typical strucure fire or urban emergency that might or might not work for your dept. or region.?

Ask anyone from the FDNY or the NOFD about differences in common terminology. There are differences and it has nothing to do with resistance or unwillingness to use ICS...the fact is we are on other ends of this country and it isn't necessary for the Denver FD to call everthing the exact same as here in NY. We might agree that Standpipes need to use 2 1/2 hose with smoothbores, but I don't think they need to know what a parlor floor of a brownstone is.

Many of you call your company assigned to FF rescue as a Rapid Intervention Team...despite the fact that here we call it a FAST Truck and I think RIT sounds like something spawned from an AA meeting or 12 step program...I really could care less if you called your RIT a "Happy Wagon" just as long as you and the guys you work with on a regular basis know what you are talking about.

The highest levels of the fire service have been preaching ICS for 20 years now.

Who might be these highest levels? What is their background fire wise? And no I'm not wanting to know what empty BS "qualifications" they have such as Fire Instructor II or EFO or any other self-promotional non-fireground experience based titles...If you are refering to who I think you are...no one around here cares one bit about what that goof has to say. He isn't fit to command our least active Engine Co.

Frankly, I find it unbelievable that there are still any sane departments out there not already using (NFA) ICS or it's close cousin (Phoenix) IMS. If departments had kept up with using some sort of recognized ICS all along the minor transition to the latest version of (FEMA) ICS along with NIMS and the NRP would be trivial.

Proud to be counted among the insane. Who is it "recognized" by? As I stated before...our NIMS stuff is extreemly high level operational command material used for long drawn out operations and the such. Daily fire operations outside those three term changes hasn't been effected one bit and not one of us wants to see it change...it ain't broken, no need to fix it.

(Any department that has been responding to hazmat incidents has been legally required to use some form of ICS on them since ~89 anyway... So why aren't they doing the logical thing and using it for every incident?)

We haven't made a habit of just adopting wholesale anyones concepts or ideas of what we should be doing unless they are proven and work for us...not you, not LA not Plano, TX, not Phoneix. That if nothing else is the most logical thing to do.

FTM-PTB

[FFFRED]

Interesting how it appears some people push the ICS "language" so far to one extreme.

Interesting how it appears some people have no clue as to ICS and others have known and lived by it for many years.

Interesting how on this thread, some "big city"/"small town" guys are complaining about using codes/names for anything...yet they use codes that only mean something to them.

Interesting how on this thread, other "big city"/"small town" guys talk about how they don't use any codes at all and would have no trouble understanding what anyone says at a fire ground.

------------------------------------

Reading this thread shows how far apart the fire service of the USA is in many ways...and I'm not saying that is a bad thing. In my area, most departments use ICS at every incident with no problem. When we all go mutual aid and assist each other, there is no problem knowing who is talking to who and what about. All NIMS does is add higher levels to ICS 100 and 200. MOST FF's will not use NIMS at day to day operations, and the rare times and incident grows to that level...it will be handled at the command post and not "ground" operations.

The US Fire Service is smart enough to figure out what works for it in all of it's variations and locations.

Bones this is much different than 10-codes in my opinon.

First our 10-codes are for us and I don't recall from here telling any of you to adopt our 10-codes simply because our "highest levels" of our dept have been preaching it for years.(not your quote,someone elses.)

Just as was discussed in that lengthly 10-code thread...there are countless other terms that you or someone from Rancho Cucamonga, CA wouldn't have the least idea what we were talking about.

Define a Parlor floor, an Fly Ash collector, a collyers mansion condition, the deadmans room, BF-4, 1620 key, refer back to appratus numbering discussion...we have MUCH bigger problems than 10-codes or this ICS panacea concept that certain people have about enabling Unit 1566 from some suburban St. Louis FD to work within the Chicago or FDNY seemlessly.

FTM-PTB

[Bones42]

FFFred, I'm agreeing. Our system works for us. Your system works for you. Neither of us needs our "systems" to work for each other and vice versa.

NIMS is nice for those situations where too many policiticians get involved.

[FFFRED]

NIMS is nice for those situations where too many policiticians get involved.

NIMS around here is a joke as well...since Popey(Ray Kelly) got his tiny little hands on it while our Mr. Magoo was taking his schedualed afternoon nap...Rummor is our Chiefs tried to wake him up...but his home health aid nurses wouldn't let them upset his nap time.

FTM-PTB

[NonSurfinCaFF]

I think alot of you are over reacting, NIMS is being "forced" onto those agencies that want to play at a national level. There is a requirement to be compliant with NIMS but that is simply a training issue, 2 hours of an online class doesn't seem to be much to ask in return for Federal grant money, nobody says you have to use NIMS in your every day operations, just that personnel be familiar with it.

As far as the pencil pushers who came up with ICS and the podunk FD's that use it every day, um LAFD, LA County, Phoenix FD, San Francisco FD, Oakland FD, Sacramento FD, Sacramento Metro FD, Seattle FD, Tucson FD, California Department of Forestry, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and numerous other places that I would have to provide maps for.

This is not to say FDNY, Chicago, Boston etc doesn't have workable systems or neccessarily even needs to change anything, but the ICS system is quite capable of being used for a 1/4 acre grass fire, room and contents fire or a 6 alarm warehouse fire. ICS is even used for planning non emergency events, I even know one guy who used it to plan his wedding ( ).

On initial exposure it does seem to add complication but once you are used to it, it is very simple and almost invisible in operation.


I'm sure if there had been an internet the US Forest Service guys would have been bitching about this damn FIRESCOPE thing, there was nothing wrong with the Large Fire Organization they had used for years.

[VinnieB]

NIMS around here is a joke as well...since Popey(Ray Kelly) got his tiny little hands on it while our Mr. Magoo was taking his schedualed afternoon nap...Rummor is our Chiefs tried to wake him up...but his home health aid nurses wouldn't let them upset his nap time.

FTM-PTB

..No No FFRED...I think Magoo had been dead for some time now....he just doesn't know it yet. Did you ever notice how our fearless leader falls asleep while standing behind the mayor during press confrences?

[FFFRED]

I think alot of you are over reacting, NIMS is being "forced" onto those agencies that want to play at a national level. There is a requirement to be compliant with NIMS but that is simply a training issue, 2 hours of an online class doesn't seem to be much to ask in return for Federal grant money, nobody says you have to use NIMS in your every day operations, just that personnel be familiar with it.

As far as the pencil pushers who came up with ICS and the podunk FD's that use it every day, um LAFD, LA County, Phoenix FD, San Francisco FD, Oakland FD, Sacramento FD, Sacramento Metro FD, Seattle FD, Tucson FD, California Department of Forestry, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and numerous other places that I would have to provide maps for.

This is not to say FDNY, Chicago, Boston etc doesn't have workable systems or neccessarily even needs to change anything, but the ICS system is quite capable of being used for a 1/4 acre grass fire, room and contents fire or a 6 alarm warehouse fire. ICS is even used for planning non emergency events, I even know one guy who used it to plan his wedding ( ).

On initial exposure it does seem to add complication but once you are used to it, it is very simple and almost invisible in operation.


I'm sure if there had been an internet the US Forest Service guys would have been bitching about this damn FIRESCOPE thing, there was nothing wrong with the Large Fire Organization they had used for years.

I don't see anyone not disputing that those depts that use it...who also happen to frequently respond to large scale wildland fires like the system...as is my understanding that is what it was developed for.

It is the fact that some "guy"(looks like a Star Trek conventioner who shops at the Don Ho thrift shop) took a system intended for week long fires and tells us it...works great for everything from wiping ones own azz to skyscraper fires. Why do you ask?...well because I made it all up here at my desk and I said so...now buy my books and pay my seminar fees.

I've worked for departments that subscribed to the ICS stuff and personally I think it was a joke compared to the large dept nearby which used pre-determined assignments, and simple command and control procedures based on the simple hierarchical nature of having companies under a Battalion Chief, a Batt. Chief under a District or Division Chief (Deputy) and then Assistant Chiefs then to the Chief.

By the time this IC has assigned all the roles and responsibilities assigned under the ICS nonsense we can read about in Skip Colemans book Incident Management For the Street-Smart Fire Officer my dept and others already have the roof open, searches underway, lines in operation and the fire is darkening down. (I don't disagree with everything in his book on a tactical level.)

The whole concept of showing up at a fire without a plan and letting whomever happens to be the Battalion Chief for the day make up assignments, priorties, positions and duties as they see fit because he is the almighty IC! is nothing more than turning a fireground into a pick-up football game.

Our chiefs use certain facets of ICS in planning for large scale events such as the Ball drop on New Years and the 4th of July fireworks shows and now for events such as Katrina and god forbid something on the scale of 9-11-01. This is all done in offices at desks with flow charts and powerpoint presentations.

Our fires have been extinguished for many years before and every year since AB came and went. I don't see us taking the word of some career desk commando and switching over to a system that to us is far from proven to work equally or better than our system of operation.

FTM-PTB

[DeputyMarshal]

I don't see anyone not disputing that those depts that use it...who also happen to frequently respond to large scale wildland fires like the system...as is my understanding that is what it was developed for.

Initially, yes. And since then it has been adapted and modified to work quite well as an all hazard system. If you understood it instead of just rejecting it out of hand, you'd know that.

It is the fact that some "guy"(looks like a Star Trek conventioner who shops at the Don Ho thrift shop) took a system intended for week long fires and tells us it...works great for everything from wiping ones own azz to skyscraper fires. Why do you ask?...well because I made it all up here at my desk and I said so...now buy my books and pay my seminar fees.

ICS was hardly conceived by 'just some guy'. Take a look at the credits in the NFA ICS course text. (There are no Star Trek conventioneer's listed.)

I've worked for departments that subscribed to the ICS stuff and personally I think it was a joke compared to the large dept nearby which used pre-determined assignments, and simple command and control procedures based on the simple hierarchical nature of having companies under a Battalion Chief, a Batt. Chief under a District or Division Chief (Deputy) and then Assistant Chiefs then to the Chief.

What makes you think using ICS precludes using "simple command and control procedures based on the simple hierarchical nature of having companies under a Battalion Chief, a Batt. Chief under a District or Division Chief (Deputy) and then Assistant Chiefs then to the Chief"? It doesn't.

By the time this IC has assigned all the roles and responsibilities assigned under the ICS nonsense...

It takes no more time to assign roles and responsibilities on the fireground with ICS than it does without it. (And it probably takes a lot less time to do it in a mutual aid situation where all agencies involved are familiar with ICS.) That kind of statement makes it clear that you simply don't understand ICS.

The whole concept of showing up at a fire without a plan and letting whomever happens to be the Battalion Chief for the day make up assignments, priorties, positions and duties as they see fit because he is the almighty IC! is nothing more than turning a fireground into a pick-up football game.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with ICS.

Our chiefs use certain facets of ICS in planning for large scale events such as the Ball drop on New Years and the 4th of July fireworks shows and now for events such as Katrina and god forbid something on the scale of 9-11-01. This is all done in offices at desks with flow charts and powerpoint presentations.

If that's all they are using ICS for, maybe they just don't understand ICS. Or, maybe they just don't think that their firefighters are up to understanding it?

[Bones42]

2 hours of an online class

IF only it was that simple. 2 hours taking an I700 class is only 1 little step in NIMS.

NIMS is being "forced" onto those agencies that want to play at a national level

Wrong. NIMS is being forced on everyone. Public works employees, tow truck operators, politicians, etc.

I think alot of you are over reacting

IMO, some people are under reacting.

[FFFRED]

Initially, yes. And since then it has been adapted and modified to work quite well as an all hazard system. If you understood it instead of just rejecting it out of hand, you'd know that.

Never rejected it out of hand...used it, worked under it for better part of a decade and I've worked under the system that I do now and see the difference in simplicity and superiority of our system over ICS as far as daily fire operations in urban and suburban environments. (For the record I'm not disputing that ICS works well for wildland fires over days or weeks)

What makes you think using ICS precludes using "simple command and control procedures based on the simple hierarchical nature of having companies under a Battalion Chief, a Batt. Chief under a District or Division Chief (Deputy) and then Assistant Chiefs then to the Chief"? It doesn't.

I worked many years for departments that used ICS. I received plenty of training on ICS, own and read many books that discuss ICS and that is how it works. I suppose all that nonsense in Fire Command, IC for the street smart fire officer and other texts, don't give an accurate view of how a fire should be run under their system? Hell Skip Coleman essentially recounts how his dept members failed to follow simple command and control procedures, disregarded alarm assignments, possesed poor disipline and in lieu of just getting the members to follow what should be realitively easy procedures now apparently has the Chief or IC assign everyone roles and responsiblies on site and it is all based on that one guy and how he wants to re-write the book of firefighting on that particluar day.

It takes no more time to assign roles and responsibilities on the fireground with ICS than it does without it. (And it probably takes a lot less time to do it in a mutual aid situation where all agencies involved are familiar with ICS.) That kind of statement makes it clear that you simply don't understand ICS.

I've worked under both types of systems and I can say without doubt. it does and it has an discernable effect on operational accountability, speed and effectiveness. To tell me that under my former depts ICS where the IC would assign roles, responsibilities and duties on the site versus my dept now where members are responsible for certain duties based on the fire location and type of building is laughable. It would be impossible to obtain the same level of coordination and accountability under an ICS pick-up football game that we do daily with our command and control procedures under the same time constraints.

If that's all they are using ICS for, maybe they just don't understand ICS. Or, maybe they just don't think that their firefighters are up to understanding it?

Just stating "You don't understand it" without supporting arguements isn't going to convince me or anyone else that your view is the correct one. Our procedures and the duties and responsiblities that individual firemen need to grasp and maintain is proably not equalled anywhere. This is well known and I don't know anyone who would even attempt to make that argument unless it was in jest.

For you to infer that our chiefs don't understand it or don't think we are up to is...is a joke and a poor one at that. Our procedural manuals I assure you are the most indepth and thorough you will find. Our chiefs collectively have more real fireground experience than just about anyone and I assure you more anyone that comes from the dessert southwest. We are one of few independent minds in the fire service who collectively have the expeirence and background to continually question some system developed for wildfires that appears focused on nothing more than semantics and vauge guidelines that don't serve to create a safe and consistant response to fires in urban environments.

FTM-PTB