Originally posted by ChicagoFF
Originally posted by FFFRED
Originally posted by FFFRED
This really doesn't have anything to do with ICS, this sounds like poor pre-planning, there is nothing about ICS that says you have to do everything without a plan. When we arrive on scene of an incident we do not just stand around with our thumbs up our butt waiting for direction, we get to work, our company officers know what the first engine is supposed to do etc. I don't know where this idea that ICS = a slow, overly complex operation with no room for self determination comes from. I have seen those departments that have a rank hang up, that believe only Chief officers can make a decision, that think they have to fill every position in ICS on a smells & bells call etc. I've seen engine crews stand around waiting for orders giving them permission to attack a small spot fire instead of just hitting it and letting their boss know what they have. None of these things are good examples of ICS, that is not the system that is problems within the department management.
ICS requires a certain amount of common sense in its implementation which is not always there, it wouldn't matter if you use CFD's or, FDNY's system, poor managers will always screw things up.
In a functional department the IC is not almighty, generally the first arriving resources have already got things going and the IC falls into the groove following up on what the pre-plan and company officers have already got going, an IC that does differently either misunderstands their role or doesn't trust the resources working for him.
It is really simple, you arrive onscene of a warehouse with an alarm sounding but no smoke showing, you establish an IC and an investigation group, and stage the rest of the resources near their assignments for a working fire. If there is no fire you reset the alarm, call the alarm company and go home, but if there is a fire you have the resources in place and a command system is ready to go, just start plugging in positions as you need them. No different than what you would do under any fuctional command system. ICS does not advocate the "pick up football" style of management.
As far as NIMS being "forced" on everybody, keep in mind this is a work in progress, there have been a number of revisions to the initial one ICS to rule them all concept, those departments that choose to keep their own system are being allowed to, there are still some standards that must be met (like having some kind of functional IMS) but the only people that have to meet all the training and ICS functions are those that plan on being part of the national response. Those departments that choose to remain behind the fence do not have to meet the same level of compliance as those who want to play with FEMA. It says this several times right up front in IS700. What NIMS does require is that departments start dealing with certain planning and command fuctions, how they do it is up to them so long as they have something that works.
DHS/FEMA have not done the best job getting this off the ground, they came in with alot of musts, shalls and threats, they would have been better off using the model used in wildland for years, the adoption of ICS and the Interagency wildland qualifications were slowly integrated with outside agencies, and the benefits for adopting the system was made visible to those agencies that participated. The Federal IMT's have done a good job of integrating themselves into the local system when it was neccessary (9/11, Katrina etc) they don't show up and start throwing their weight around even though they could, they show up to SUPPORT the operations in place. DHS/FEMA is the new 800 lb gorilla and they haven't learned tact yet.
No I don't agree that everyone should have to do it the same way, but I do think NIMS is a good idea to get all departments to get with the program and start planning ahead and working on management so we don't keep seeing "pick up football games" when a major disaster happens.
Edited for spelling and grammer.

Comment