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

  • #31
    In a well organized, experienced department why would there be a need for this at all? When we pull up to a fire everyone knows what their job is and what they should be doing. The chief - or "IC" - here doesn't even see all of his companies before they go to work, much less issue them each individual orders. Thats crazy to say that it is just as fast to micro-manage a fire that should be a simple, standard proceedure as it is to have well trained companies that know their duties and assignments without having to be baby talked through it by some chief. If you want an outsider to run your department, I'd be happy to do it. You will all run everything just like we do here. Why is that crazy? You are all willing to listen to some small time suburban chief who doesn't have a quarter of the real world experience as my company officer - much less my battalion chief. Wouldn't you all be better off listening to a chief from a department that actually has some experience?!?
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ChicagoFF
      In a well organized, experienced department why would there be a need for this at all?
      If the department is that well organized then it's arguably already using some sort of "ICS" wether it realizes it or not. The only issue is translating your native "ICS" to make it compatible with FEMA ICS. Why? Because when the day comes that your department has to work with a few dozen other agencies -- some of whom you may never have worked with before -- you'll all want to be speaking the same language.

      Originally posted by ChicagoFF
      When we pull up to a fire everyone knows what their job is and what they should be doing. The chief - or "IC" - here doesn't even see all of his companies before they go to work, much less issue them each individual orders.
      Okay. What part of that contradicts ICS?

      Originally posted by ChicagoFF
      Thats crazy to say that it is just as fast to micro-manage a fire that should be a simple, standard proceedure as it is to have well trained companies that know their duties and assignments without having to be baby talked through it by some chief.
      Agreed. ICS doesn't require the IC to micromanage anything so what's the problem? If your department is a as well organized as you say (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then I can virtually guarantee that nothing you're doing already is substantially at odds with ICS.

      Originally posted by ChicagoFF
      If you want an outsider to run your department, I'd be happy to do it. You will all run everything just like we do here. Why is that crazy?
      ICS doesn't put any "outsiders" in charge of your department. As for running everything like you do there, what's wrong with that? If you have a good system, run with it. But there's nothing that prevents you from keeping the system you have now and translating it into ICS terms. ICS is highly flexible and doesn't impose any substantial changes in how you fight fires: It does make it possible for you to integrate far more easily with other ICS agencies on the spot even if you may have never worked with them before.

      Originally posted by ChicagoFF
      You are all willing to listen to some small time suburban chief who doesn't have a quarter of the real world experience as my company officer - much less my battalion chief. Wouldn't you all be better off listening to a chief from a department that actually has some experience?!?
      What makes you think that ICS was created entirely by "some small time suburban chief"? ICS has been developed over some 30 years with input from dozens (if not hundreds) of developers and organizations from all over the country including, IAFF, IAFC, EMI, IFSTA, ISFSI, NFA, NFPA, NVFC, and USFA. It's just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet that there are a few Chiefs in there with quite a lot of "big city" experience. (Chances are, your company officer and department chiefs are represented among those organizations, too. Have they contributed to the development process? With all that experience it would be a shame if they weren't particpating at the national level.)
      "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
      sigpic
      The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
        If the department is that well organized then it's arguably already using some sort of "ICS" wether it realizes it or not. The only issue is translating your native "ICS" to make it compatible with FEMA ICS. Why? Because when the day comes that your department has to work with a few dozen other agencies -- some of whom you may never have worked with before -- you'll all want to be speaking the same language.

        Okay. What part of that contradicts ICS?

        Agreed. ICS doesn't require the IC to micromanage anything so what's the problem? If your department is a as well organized as you say (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then I can virtually guarantee that nothing you're doing already is substantially at odds with ICS.

        ICS doesn't put any "outsiders" in charge of your department. As for running everything like you do there, what's wrong with that? If you have a good system, run with it. But there's nothing that prevents you from keeping the system you have now and translating it into ICS terms. ICS is highly flexible and doesn't impose any substantial changes in how you fight fires: It does make it possible for you to integrate far more easily with other ICS agencies on the spot even if you may have never worked with them before.
        I think Vinnie or someone else noted in another similar formum thread that much of ICS is our procedures just re-worded and jumbled around into so-called "new" concepts so as to sell books and fill auditoriums for seminars. The "Strategic Mode Confusion" concept is covered in our procuedural manuals in regards to Chiefs and company officer responsiblities when deploying handlines and when going from offensive strategy to defensive strategy...but I'm sure that wouldn't look as good on a power point presentation as "Strategic Mode confusion".

        "Benchmarks" are also covered in our procedures for many decades. Although we didn't put them in a book to sell to you and others and call them by the same names...I suppose someone felt it wouldn't be approriate to use terms such as "Doubtful" "Probably will hold" and "Fire is under control" along with the associated definitions since they were in use somewhere else where Chiefs actually had fire experience and would consider his book nothing more than a plagiarization.

        The Order Model is nothing more than an excercise once again in telling someone how to acknoledge and follow orders...although it shouldn't take up entire pages of a book.

        Sectoring done for years around here...although we didn't write a book that had a chapter dedicated to it and telling everyone what to call a floor and a sector. We don't need a schematic to tell us that a Big fire has firemen that report to company officers who report to Battalion Chiefs who report to Deputy Chiefs who report to Deputy Assistant Chiefs and so on and so forth. It is simply useless and rediculous to ask the men to call a Basement subsector 1 and a Cellar subsector 2 or Division or whatever you want to call it. You've just given names to areas in a building that already have names and associated definitions. Why? The only reason I can imagine is to sell a book and fill seminar seats.

        Staging: It is very simple to ask all Engines on a box respond and take a hydrant and Ladders take the front of the building...oh NO...we can't do that...we have to stage a block away in the direction of travel and do nothing to check to see if the hydrants work and get the ladders in the block and position before 3 cars and 2 taxis follow the 1st due Engine into the block....yep...thank god for ICS.

        Everything written about ICS has the IC making assignments based on his set of priorities (limitied according to Bruno to 5 or 6) thus leaving much of the success of the fire operation in question due to human error and randomness that naturally occurs when one subcribes to the concept of limiting rules and procedures as Bruno does.

        What makes you think that ICS was created entirely by "some small time suburban chief"?
        Read the title of this thread again and tell us that there isn't a signifigant portion of the fire service who have the understanding that Bruno is the guy who developed a certain form of ICS. Are you denying that this guy was the driving force behind this ICS or at least his version of it.

        All one has to do is look at the beuracracy and the orgainizational structure created by ICS, the "Tactical Sequences" that essentially as the book states must be taken care of in order...shows how slow, and unrealistic much of the ICS sillyness is. No Chief who has been a participant in 1000s of fires as a fireman, Company officer and now Battalion or even Deputy Chief would see any of these concepts as new or necessary to commit to memory as all they are is a repackaging of time tested concepts already in the field of firefighting.

        [QUOTE] ICS has been developed over some 30 years with input from dozens (if not hundreds) of developers and organizations from all over the country including, IAFF, IAFC, EMI, IFSTA, ISFSI, NFA, NFPA, NVFC, and USFA. It's just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet that there are a few Chiefs in there with quite a lot of "big city" experience. (Chances are, your company officer and department chiefs are represented among those organizations, too.
        Have they contributed to the development process? With all that experience it would be a shame if they weren't particpating at the national level.
        While I know a few of our chiefs have been involved to some degree...we are usually more focused on running our own department than worrying about the "national level". Which of course is part of the problem...if for the past 3 decades we would have not been so concerned about ourselves and gotten involved at the "national level" we could have headed off at least half of the BS that is out there in the form of NFPA and what other "experts" tell us we need in terms of command procedures. Who knows, had our battle tested Chiefs gotten involved back then you might have been on here aspousing the view that our system is supperior to some nonsense from out west.

        FTM-PTB

        PS- Any Chief who's dept regs state that when working off standpipes they should use fog tips for "safety" reasons...should be forced into retirement and should immediately raise concerns about his judgement and first hand fireground experience.
        Last edited by FFFRED; 11-06-2006, 12:20 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
          If the department is that well organized then it's arguably already using some sort of "ICS" wether it realizes it or not. The only issue is translating your native "ICS" to make it compatible with FEMA ICS. Why? Because when the day comes that your department has to work with a few dozen other agencies -- some of whom you may never have worked with before -- you'll all want to be speaking the same language.



          Okay. What part of that contradicts ICS?



          Agreed. ICS doesn't require the IC to micromanage anything so what's the problem? If your department is a as well organized as you say (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then I can virtually guarantee that nothing you're doing already is substantially at odds with ICS.



          ICS doesn't put any "outsiders" in charge of your department. As for running everything like you do there, what's wrong with that? If you have a good system, run with it. But there's nothing that prevents you from keeping the system you have now and translating it into ICS terms. ICS is highly flexible and doesn't impose any substantial changes in how you fight fires: It does make it possible for you to integrate far more easily with other ICS agencies on the spot even if you may have never worked with them before.



          What makes you think that ICS was created entirely by "some small time suburban chief"? ICS has been developed over some 30 years with input from dozens (if not hundreds) of developers and organizations from all over the country including, IAFF, IAFC, EMI, IFSTA, ISFSI, NFA, NFPA, NVFC, and USFA. It's just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet that there are a few Chiefs in there with quite a lot of "big city" experience. (Chances are, your company officer and department chiefs are represented among those organizations, too. Have they contributed to the development process? With all that experience it would be a shame if they weren't particpating at the national level.)
          The answer is simple then, just convert all of the operations in this country to the CFD's way of doing things and use all of our common terms for things. I'm glad you agree that our way is the best for everyone. Dummy up FDNY - we're in charge now!
          I am a complacent liability to the fire service

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ChicagoFF
            The answer is simple then, just convert all of the operations in this country to the CFD's way of doing things and use all of our common terms for things. I'm glad you agree that our way is the best for everyone. Dummy up FDNY - we're in charge now!

            Ahhh Christ....does this mean now I have to figure out what the hell a "lead out" is!!

            FTM-PTB

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by FFFRED
              I think Vinnie or someone else noted in another similar formum thread that much of ICS is our procedures just re-worded and jumbled around into so-called "new" concepts so as to sell books and fill auditoriums for seminars.
              I think you're interchanging "ICS" with a few "experts" version of how their version of fireground tactics should be applied under the guise of ICS in order "to sell books and fill auditoriums for seminars". ICS doesn't dictate tactics. It addresses some fundamental command & control concepts and common terminology. The dirty little secret the "experts" don't want you to realize is that ICS is a collection of simple, common sense, organizational management concepts that don't require a lot of books or seminars to master. Most incidents under ICS will be handled the same way they've always been: by preplan or SOP with only the barest ICS elements even taken out of the ICS "toolbox".

              Originally posted by FFFRED
              Everything written about ICS has the IC making assignments based on his set of priorities (limitied according to Bruno to 5 or 6) thus leaving much of the success of the fire operation in question due to human error and randomness that naturally occurs when one subcribes to the concept of limiting rules and procedures as Bruno does.
              Everything? I think not. Contrary to his own opinion, "Bruno" isn't the sole author of ICS, nor is his theory of how to apply it to tactics the only way. One of the main strengths of ICS is that it is independent of individual tactics. Adopting and using ICS doesn't mean you have to change your department's basic philosophies about strategy and tactics at all -- it certainly doesn't mean you have to do everything "Bruno's" way.

              Originally posted by FFFRED
              Read the title of this thread again and tell us that there isn't a signifigant portion of the fire service who have the understanding that Bruno is the guy who developed a certain form of ICS. Are you denying that this guy was the driving force behind this ICS or at least his version of it.
              Bruno was (and remains) the driving force behind (Phoenix) IMS, was certainly one of the drivers behind NFA ICS, and is probably a part of FEMA ICS (when he has time from his travel for dollars schedule). But he is far from the only part. Either way his opinions about tactics have nothing to do with ICS. You use ICS and still either take or leave Bruno's theories about tactics.

              Originally posted by FFFRED
              All one has to do is look at the beuracracy and the orgainizational structure created by ICS, the "Tactical Sequences" that essentially as the book states must be taken care of in order...shows how slow, and unrealistic much of the ICS sillyness is.
              Let's back up a bit. Exactly which "book" are you referring to? If it's just the another gospel according to Bruno book, it isn't about ICS -- its about Bruno. I ask because I don't seem to recall any mention of "Benchmarks" or "Tactical Sequences" in any NFA or FEMA ICS course (both of which I've taught at the state level at one time or another). Those are terms right out of Bruno tactics -- not ICS.

              Originally posted by FFFRED
              While I know a few of our chiefs have been involved to some degree...we are usually more focused on running our own department than worrying about the "national level".
              That's really a shame. That level of experience really ought to be shared with the rest of the fire service community. If the fire service doesn't strenghten its national identity, we're going to continue to get the short end of the stick in determining how we fit into the national picture and national funding.

              Originally posted by FFFRED
              Who knows, had our battle tested Chiefs gotten involved back then you might have been on here aspousing the view that our system is supperior to some nonsense from out west.
              Can't argue with that. But I would bet that the resulting system would be functionally equivalent to the "nonsense from the west" you're so dead set against now just because it originated somewhere else...
              Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 11-06-2006, 01:11 PM.
              "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
              sigpic
              The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeputyMarshal
                Bruno was (and remains) the driving force behind (Phoenix) IMS, was certainly one of the drivers behind NFA ICS, and is probably a part of FEMA ICS (when he has time from his travel for dollars schedule). But he is far from the only part. Either way his opinions about tactics have nothing to do with ICS. You use ICS and still either take or leave Bruno's theories about tactics.

                The NFA ICS was developed based on the FIRESCOPE System.

                Now on another note...

                I find it intersting that Bruno is to blame for all that is wrong (in some peoples minds) with ICS/IMS or what ever you chose to call it today.

                Departments in our part of the world have used a mix of Firescope and NIIMS, not to be confused with the current NIMS. This is due to our heavy involvement with wildland and the federal agencies we work with. We have also taken portions of Fireground Command and others to tweak our systems.

                And we are able to start operations when we arrive, no group hugs, no committee meetings in the street, etc, etc....

                If what you are doing in New York, Chicago, Denver or Tumbleweed work, then continue to use it... And maybe you can write a book or two, teach it to the rest of us and make a dime!
                Buckle Up, Slow Down, Arrive Alive
                "Everybody Goes Home"

                IACOJ 2003

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by FFFRED
                  Ahhh Christ....does this mean now I have to figure out what the hell a "lead out" is!!

                  FTM-PTB
                  or some probie running up and asking if you have your second lead out

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    DeputyMarshal,

                    Where do you think this ICS would help our daily operations or Chicagos for that matter?

                    I mentioned that our top level chiefs use it for large scale planning as that is what ICS was formed out of...large scale wildfires. I mentioned that essentially nothing from a Deputy on Down to the fireman on the backstep is different in terms of taking in runs and our daily fires and emergencies...you seem to think there is a problem and that we desperately require ICS concepts and terms to be worked in and this would improve our operations.

                    Essentially much of what I can find on line about ICS is nothing more than a sales pitch which dances around for 40 pages and tells us how useful it is...and how all the terminology is identical...but I can't find much outside of the texts that I own and recall the training I recieved years ago in my former depts on the issue. I know what I can read in fire service journals, former dept SOPs, books I own, and a few seminars that I've attended.

                    So what I'm asking is:

                    -Tell us all what needs to change about our fire operations and why we or Chicago, Boston, Gary, IN or whomever FD should use your ICS?
                    -What terminology of ours doesn't work for you?
                    -How would our operations improve?

                    FTM-PTB

                    PS-Regardless of how ICS was intended to be used and regardless of how it has nothing to do with AB offically...I know first hand how it is really recieved by departments in Anytown, USA as I was a member of one in a county full of Depts that sucked on the teets of AB until a few of us were sick of the BS routine comming from the Desert. So while theoretically AB doesn't have anything to do with ICS...in Practical experience to much of US FDs...he has EVERYthing to do with ICS.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Pretty good discussion here.

                      ICS is highly flexible and customizable. In fact, it's so customizable/flexible, my "ICS" structure can be nothing like CA's "ICS" structure....yet were both using the same ICS system. Doesn't that make it clear as mud? And in that case, why have a "national" system at all since we are all bastardizing/customizing/flexing it as much as we want?
                      "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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bones42
                        ICS is highly flexible and customizable. In fact, it's so customizable/flexible, my "ICS" structure can be nothing like CA's "ICS" structure....yet were both using the same ICS system. Doesn't that make it clear as mud? And in that case, why have a "national" system at all since we are all bastardizing/customizing/flexing it as much as we want?
                        Bones, you are quite clear: you have someone in charge; divide the incident in sectors, floors, divisions, or whatever; groups of people perform tasks and report to a supervisor; you follow a plan or procedure and anticipate\request additional resources in order to control the incident. That is a version of ICS that covers almost any incident any of us will ever respond to as fire fighters.

                        Trying to make everyone in the country use the same ICS model and terminology is a joke and a waste of resources. It is much more important that emergency responders follow some version of ICS/NIMS/NIIMS/Firescope/IMS. Since these programs all have the same core management concepts, I do see the logic in forcing us to change to the same model.

                        There are many fire departments in the U.S. that do not use any formal incident management system-this is where the real problem is, not if FDNY divides a building by floors and someone else uses divisions.

                        There are more similarities than differences in the various incident command models and local requirements often change the model to fit the particular department. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it works for the department and allows them to manage fires and other emergencies in a safe and expedient manner.
                        Last edited by KenNFD1219; 11-06-2006, 03:54 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


                        • #42
                          Excuse me, but I thought it was decided that I was in charge now!
                          I am a complacent liability to the fire service

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Does that mean I can get my long coat and 3/4 boots back?
                            Last edited by KenNFD1219; 11-06-2006, 04:00 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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by FFFRED
                              I think they use some parts at the Boro level...with very little at the Division and even less at the Battalion Level. They were told in the McKinsey report that ICS was necessary...the only times one really hears about it is after incidents like the Cory Lidle plane crash or other similar complicated incident.

                              But as far as day to day operations nothing has changed and we still use the command and control methods that we've developed over the past 140+ years.

                              The only thing I can think of that has changed is three different titles for 3 certain special designation units at fires were changed...which again highlights my general dislike for this Bull Sh*t ICS nonsense as much of it is just giving fancy names to things, places, people that already have identifing titles....

                              For example... the "Communications cordinator" is now the "Resource unit leader!" The roll and responsiblities weren't changed..so why the name change...everyone new what that Chief did before just fine.

                              But I digress. In the end I haven't seen any use of any ICS nonsense that my former depts used regularly and honestly things run much smoother around here with out that silly Phoneix BS. JMHO.



                              Calling floors "Divisions" and Ladder 43 Outside team as the "Ventilation Group" is far from KISS in my book...but that's just me.

                              FTM-PTB



                              In short no.
                              Damn Fred....you had to say it twice??? lol

                              I think you actually answered my question in another post. You do in fact operate under a command system, you just use differen't terminology. The very basic concept is met however.
                              RK
                              cell #901-494-9437

                              Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

                              "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


                              Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                [QUOTE][QUOTE=DeputyMarshal]
                                What makes you think that ICS was created entirely by "some small time suburban chief"? ICS has been developed over some 30 years with input from dozens (if not hundreds) of developers and organizations from all over the country including, IAFF, IAFC, EMI, IFSTA, ISFSI, NFA, NFPA, NVFC, and USFA. Lets not forget (To name a few more) the DEA, CIA, ATF, PTA, ACLU, FAA, FBI, CDC, KGB, NCAA, NFL, AAU, MADD, BRFF, FFA, MENSA, NRA, ABC, CBS, NBC, and of course..........NUTS (National Utah Token Society)

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X