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

[NonSurfinCaFF]

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!

Well I think the simple answer is will Chicago start paying out fire grants?

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.

But the thing is they don't only use it for wildland, they use it for a pot on the stove, vehicle accident etc. Yes it was developed following several large wildland fires in So. California but it was also developed to encompass smaller incidents. I have never understood why Chief Brunnacini felt it was neccessary to make a "small" ICS, I wonder if that is where the idea ICS can't do small came from.

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.

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.

[Bones42]

an investigation group

Which around here, is called First Due Truck, not investigation group.

An the State of NJ mandated full NIMS compliance. Not worried about it having any effect on Federal Grants...since all we get are "Dear Johns".

[MattyJ]

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?)

Well I guess the FDNY is not a "sane" department then....but we still seem to do a pretty decent job of putting out fires.

Exactly who determines who the "highest levels of the fire service" are?? Whoever the best "salesman" is my opinion. I can only speak from my experience, and in NYC, there is very little problem communicating at jobs. And our "functional units" (whatever the hell that means) dont change according to the incident...Ladder xxx is Ladder xxx no matter where or what they operate at, and Battalian xx is still Battalian xx...That seems simple to me. I dont know how we manage to get it done, without following all the "experts" advice.

[Dalmatian190]

Since someone posted that Haz-Mat incidents require use of ICS...

OSHA 1910.120 appendix C:

6. Incident command system (ICS). Paragraph 1910.120(q)(3)(ii) requires the implementation of an ICS. The ICS is an organized approach to effectively control and manage operations at an emergency incident....

The ICS is not much different than the "command post" approach used for many years by the fire service. During large complex fires involving several companies and many pieces of apparatus, a command post would be established. This enabled one individual to be in charge of managing the incident, rather than having several officers from different companies making separate, and sometimes conflicting, decisions. The individual in charge of the command post would delegate responsibility for performing various tasks to subordinate officers. Additionally, all communications were routed through the command post to reduce the number of radio transmissions and eliminate confusion. However, strategy, tactics, and all decisions were made by one individual.

...
Therefore, no matter what size or complexity an incident may be, by implementing an ICS there will be one individual in charge who makes the decisions and gives directions; and, all actions, and communications are coordinated through one central point of command. Such a system should reduce confusion, improve safety, organize and coordinate actions, and should facilitate effective management of the incident.


FFFRED & Company: Do the FDNY procedures meet the above description of an ICS

It MATTERS if you implement the goals -- not what you call it.

==============================
As far as national standardization, why?

We should be forming Task Forces & Strike Teams from the same geographic areas (County level?). Have them operate as a cohesive unit, and stay together. If you're operating far enough away from your home area that you could get confused by local vernacular....the situation is big enough that you can slow down and have Chief Officers ask questions and make sure they're clear on their assignments, and you can have tailboard meetings to make sure the members in the Task Force are clear what their mission is.

There's plenty of room for local customs & terms -- as long as we all know the principles of Officer In Charge, delegation, span of control, and following orders. If you have those in order, you can be plugged in effectively into any well organized operation. If you don't have those in order...it doesn't matter what you call the management system for your cluster frack.

[batcapt]

FFFRED,

I agree entirely.

Batcapt

[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.

Yes I agree, that is some of it, I personally know of at least one dept in a midsized suburb that has had Engines sit and watch a house burn because a chief didn't order them to begin attacking the fire while another different Dept Engine second due walked right past and began work...however, regardless of who had what intentions regarding the development and use of ICS there are a number of influential invdividuals that have taken this ICS deal for a detour down "seminar circle" and essentially have made their ideas the rule as to how ICS is to be used and implemented.

How do FDs accross the country get exposure to "new" ideas. Most read Fire Engineering or Firehouse and perhaps Firenuggets, or FDTN...Chiefs read Fire Chief and attend a few seminars...where the same guys who write text books give talks about whatever is their topic...some guys have reasonable credentials and experience to offer...others like to note they have MBAs, EFO...etc. These guys are the ones that drive how ICS or anything else is employed through the country. I've seen it first hand myself in my former depts..."this is how ICS is run because Bruno says this is how PFD does it..." Books like his and Skip Colemans have much more influence on thinking than I think you are giving them credit for.

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.

Generally that is now how this ICS stuff reads or how I've seen it employed at what are considered competant FDs.

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.

This is partially what I find so odd. That someone(s) developed this system that would seem to take operational principles from other depts that had essentially no involvement and establish new, fancy sounding names and designations and repackages it and sells it to everyone as the latest and greatest thing. How is it that our system according to everyone fits right in with how ICS works...so well. If our system essentially already does everything ICS does...why use ICS...or why not use our system if it is the same as ICS? Or Chicago's for that matter?

Our procedures dictate that the 1st Due Ladder (engine in the prolonged absence of a ladder) will investigate. Why create another level of designations and call them a investigation group when they already have a designation (Engine XX or Ladder XXX, there ya go Matty! )

Under this nonsense the Fire attack group is differenciated by location, so we could have a fire in a 16 floor highrise with a duplex apartment going down from the 14th to the 13th. Now the line is hooked up on the 12th, enters from the 14th and eventually when they make it down there will be operating on the 13th floor. Now what division(formerly known as floor) are they designated fire attack for...or should we just call them Engine Co. 47 which is exactly what they are the entire time.

As for pick-up foot ball...sure it does. The first IC(first Co. officer for example) sets his priorties and objectives based on his size up and assigns companies as HE sees fit...until lets say a Chief arrives..then he has to somehow communciate all the things he considered and actions taken and results...then the chief takes in everything, actions taken, what HE sees as the priorties and assigns incoming companies as he sees fit. This leads to two fires in the same Battalion could be fought completely differently based solely on who shows up and makes up the rules for that fire.

I've been to fires in my former dept where the IC completely overlooked Search or decided according to him (and against all best practice and decades long accepted fireground expierence & texts) that search wasn't needed. Where it is physically impossible to assign all the tools and responsibilites to each member but that somehow under ICS the god at the top of the pyramid is supposed to always have the answers and the insight to properly address all concerns.

I've been trying to find some mention of it...but having pre-determined positions, objectives and responsiblies assigned prior to any fire and based on the building involved is not mentioned or as I can tell according to any tabletop excercise I've been party too, or materials I've read, not allowed under these ICS rules and all decisions are based solely upon the IC giving orders as to what needs to be accomplished.

Today the 1st Due Engine stretches the 1st line and then the Chief lets say arrives and assigns the 1st Due ladder to XYZ tasks...then tommorow a different chief would assign YZX tasks because he sees things differently and makes up his rules on how to fight a fire on that particular day.

Also from what I can see this system is typical of West Coast operations where companies, especially Ladder Co's are considered single resources...as in and ENTIRE Ladder Co. of 3,4 or 5 men is assigned a task and that is it until that task is completed. It doesn't appear to allow for our style of individuals working together towards one common goal and individual accountablity. How is the officer going to know what designations to call other companies, or other men in his company? The OVM would change designations and the roof man might also as well thorughout the operation. What is so hard about calling them by their assigned position?

As you can see much of my dislike of this ICS concept is its superfluous nature (aka= creating a labyrinth titles and names on top of the ones already in existance) and its tendency to work well in classroom table-top drills with flow charts and plenty of markers, no rain, plenty of paper, no real people jumping from windows, no fire burning half a block down and no mayday calls from your men who are lost or trapped.

ICS is a blank slate that is supposed to create itself as the incident evolves...however a Chief shouldn't have to be confused as to who Fire Attack Group1 Division 7 is...did I assign that to Engine 8 or is that Engine 26?

FTM-PTB

[pete892]

I'm glad

I'm sure glad I'm retired. Too many new terms to learn. It used to be that engine companies put water on the fire, ladder companies did search, rescue and ventilation. Chief officers sort of coordinated things, made sure they had enough engines and ladders and watched for things like walls coming down on firefighters.

Now I hear junk on the radio like: We have a fully involved dumpster fire, xxx will have command, we plan to stretch a line to the A side, incoming units are to stage at xxx and xxx and await instructions.

Geez. its a dumpster fire. I would hope that my firefighters know to stretch a line without anyone telling them since that should be the PRE-PLANED procedure for that type of fire.

Some people need to get a new life.

Stay safe,

Pete

[FFFRED]

I'm sure glad I'm retired. Too many new terms to learn. It used to be that engine companies put water on the fire, ladder companies did search, rescue and ventilation. Chief officers sort of coordinated things, made sure they had enough engines and ladders and watched for things like walls coming down on firefighters.

There are a few places left that still do Pete.

Now I hear junk on the radio like: We have a fully involved dumpster fire, xxx will have command, we plan to stretch a line to the A side, incoming units are to stage at xxx and xxx and await instructions.

I hope to god this is a joke...but I know from working in my last dept...there are Chiefs and places where a 1st alarm company must sit on the appratus until assigned a duty at a working fire by whomever is the boss that day! But they are fully ICS intergrated and compatable!

Enjoy your retirement.

FTM-PTB

[MattyJ]

Listen to any audio from the FDNY during late 60's and early 70's. A system of incident management has been around longer than those who claim to have invented it. Its just our form did'nt need fancy titles,symbols,and hyphans. Radio transmitions frequently included size ups with exposures,doubtful, probably will hold...etc...Battalian and Division Chiefs in charge. Change a few words and now call it "Incident Command", sell a few books,give a few lectures,lobby for it to become the law of the land and your a legend.

When our Chief arrives at a job, all he has to do is look at a response ticket, and he knows who is operating on what floor and where,including where each individual company MEMBER is operating!!(now thats what I call contol over an incident!!) Each company officer knows they are being called by the Chief when he asks Battalian xx to Ladder xxx....each company member knows when he is being called specifically....Battalian xx to Ladder xxx Roof., No confusion over what floor, exposure,building, or tactic. You think its an accident that our Chiefs have very little problem coordinating 100 plus firefighters at a multiple alarm??? Its because the system we use works well for us....if your department does'nt like it, dont use it.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

People people people...

We have all been using incident command in one form or another for years... we just didn't know it as such.

The whole NIMS thing was the center of a conversation at the Fire Academy the other day. The question came up.. "how in hell did we put out fires back in the day before the alphabet soup and vest system?"

We knew the job, knew the responsibilites and got to work!

Yes, there are FD's that won't do a damn thing at a fire until all of the vests are given out..and that's a damn shame.

For the rest of us.. FTM-PTB-KTF-RFB-DTRT-EGH!

[DeputyMarshal]

I haven't had time to sit down and compose replies to the last round of arguments against ICS so I'll summarize:

By and large, every arguement I've seen posted in this thread about why ICS is bad has nothing to do with ICS. The only rational conclusion I can draw is that the people complaining about have been badly educated about what ICS actually is and where ICS stops and editorial interpretations about it begin.

ICS does not dictate tactics. It doesn't change the fact that engine companies put water on the fire and truck companies vent and do search & rescue. It doesn't make size-up any longer or more detailed. It doesn't require vests. It doesn't require anyone to significantly change their operational SOPs. In short, it's an organizational system and management tool -- that's all.

If you've had a nightmare experience with poor leadership or poor organization masquerading as ICS, take a closer look. ICS probably isn't the problem. More likely, the problem was poor, disorganized leaders. ICS doesn't make poor leaders any better. Don't blame the tool for the person using it.

[Dalmatian190]

I think you just agreed with the majority of the people criticizing the mandate for adopting NIIMS or whatever Deputy --

ICS is a management system.

Doesn't mean it's any better or worse then other systems. Many departments have had long standing, and highly effective incident management systems in place.

ICS was sold to many as the solution to poor and disorganized leadership. It's not, but it's use and purpoting to be is what annoys many. You don't command incidents; you command men and how they use their knowledge and equipment.

There is an analogy to the people who think the solution to "communication" problems is to design radio systems so a cop in one corner of a state can talk to a firefighter at the opposite corner. There are systems out there to do that...but it doesn't address the real issue which is the communication coordination takes place much higher then the level of the guys on the line.

Telling line operations that they can't use radio codes anymore, or that this is the one-and-only way to organize your operations is similiarily aiming at the wrong target. The command coordination that's of national interest takes place back at the command post level, not at what flows underneath the command post.

"Adopt NIIMS...because we say so and all your problems with command go away!" "We don't have a problem commanding large incidents today." "Doesn't matter, we're from the Goverment and we're here to help you."

[DeputyMarshal]

I think you just agreed with the majority of the people criticizing the mandate for adopting NIIMS or whatever Deputy --

ICS is a management system.

Doesn't mean it's any better or worse then other systems. Many departments have had long standing, and highly effective incident management systems in place.

But they'll all different management systems with different terminology, or worse, the same terminology for completely different things. That makes it difficult when multiple agencies have to work together and find that they don't speak the same language.

ICS was sold to many as the solution to poor and disorganized leadership.

Shame on anyone who tries to sell it that way. ICS isn't a substitue for leadership. It is, however, a tool that any good leader can use to good effect.

Telling line operations that they can't use radio codes anymore,

ICS does discourage most use of codes and jargon and, personally, I have to agree with that. It doesn't, however, absolutely forbid them.

or that this is the one-and-only way to organize your operations is similiarily aiming at the wrong target.

And, fortunately, ICS doesn't do that. There are as many ways to organize operations under ICS as there are Incident Commanders.

[FFFRED]

I haven't had time to sit down and compose replies to the last round of arguments against ICS so I'll summarize:

By and large, every arguement I've seen posted in this thread about why ICS is bad has nothing to do with ICS. The only rational conclusion I can draw is that the people complaining about have been badly educated about what ICS actually is and where ICS stops and editorial interpretations about it begin.

Call it what you like but I worked in a dept that was in a county of over 1/2 million people and just about every department embraced this ICS sillyness and sent everyone through training on it using standardized textbooks and used standardized simulation software for drills and would consistantly manage these fires right into the ground! This is the same material commercially available from NFPA, IFSTA, the Feds and whomever else is selling this garbage for profit scheme.

This was far from unusual as many other depts worked very similar and for some of them looked up to these departments as an example of how to operate at fires. I saw it first hand for many, years...it was far from being badly educated...it was seeing exactly how this ICS sillyness plays out in the real world.

ICS does not dictate tactics. It doesn't change the fact that engine companies put water on the fire and truck companies vent and do search & rescue. It doesn't make size-up any longer or more detailed. It doesn't require vests. It doesn't require anyone to significantly change their operational SOPs. In short, it's an organizational system and management tool -- that's all.

It is an orgainzational system and management tool that applies itself ON TOP OFF already existant terms and structures.

Tell us then what do we call Engine Co. 47 that hooks up on the 12th floor, advanced to the 14th and down to the 13th fire floor in a highrise duplex appartment? Are they Fire Attack group 1 on Divsion 12, 13, or 14? Or when the 11th Battalion needs to call this "resource" do they just call Engine Co. 47? Doesn't sound as good(aka = new, fancy...etc.) and doesn't require depts. to spend $1000 on training materials, power point presentations and seminars, or the need to fill out ICS form 201, ICS form 211 or ICS form 204! That 204 sure is a doozy! but what the hell it has only worked for 140+ years!

If you've had a nightmare experience with poor leadership or poor organization masquerading as ICS, take a closer look. ICS probably isn't the problem. More likely, the problem was poor, disorganized leaders. ICS doesn't make poor leaders any better. Don't blame the tool for the person using it.

You really haven't addressed my question as to why our operations on the fireground need this complete overhaul in terms and structure? We aren't talking about long drawn out operations like forest fires and disasters on the scale of 9-11...just your everyday PD fire, MD fire, Gas leak in a taxpayer, manhole fire, scafold rescue or highrise fire.

All we have heard is how much easier this ICS will make everything and how it works well for everyone, yet no one on here has really put that in to defineable terms and given explainations for our concerns except that, we have all been subject to idiots who don't really know how ICS works...and it is left at that. No one expands on this or offers any sound reasoning to why a floor should be called a Division!

This ICS is the complete antithesis of the KISS principle that the vast majority of my department has embraced. And it is that KISS principle that has kept us safe for 140+ years...you better come with a pretty good argument to persuade any of us that your system developed for week long grass fires is better than what we've been using since the before the West became civilized.

FTM-PTB

[mikeyboy411]

Laughin'..........

It always makes me laugh when somebody or something new comes along and says "Hey try this."
I laugh not because of tryin' new things I laugh because of the lack of open-mindedness that is contained in our job. We all use the ICS on almost every type of call, should we have a Nationwide Standard? I say yes, we should at least have a back-up plan or in this case, Command System...... and be familiar with that system. Instead of having to retrain personnel onscene there should be a system in place that all that needs to happen is all incoming Departments are advised that the ______ System is being used and the personnel what how to operate within that system. What's wrong with having a system that every Department understands and can function under.
Nobody said that all positions in the ICS have to be filled. Just the positions that need to be filled to maintain a reasonable span of control..... It's as simple as that.
Attacking somebody that has an idea and name calling....... Yeah, I did that in Elementary School and also into Middle School. If that's your cup of tea, then so be it. It's funny how the ones that complain the most about a change in policy are usually the ones that contribute the least to the Department. If you have a problem with the Federal System then get involved, so that your voice is heard.
I would never think about coming onto a National website and calling my Chiefs names..... mainly because we as a Department would never allow that to happen.
Most of us have heard or at one time said "Sticks and stones may break my bones...... but words will never hurt me." Here's a modern day one: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..... but emails and posts last forever." Hhhmm, imagine the look on the persons face when the question comes up in the promotional interview...... "Yes Mister _______ how do you feel about the Management of this Department and how do feel you could work in this environment?" "What do you hope to bring to our Department?"
I'm not a Management Sympathyzer....... just an honest fella who also, much like everybody else here has an opinion.

As far as what this post was started about. I currently work for two Departments one large...... Currently 67 Stations and within a few years here we should be up to about 70, and a small Department..... Currently 3 Stations and in the next few years here we should be at 4 or 5 houses. I have used both systems at both Departments and find that just like every system out there it has it's strengths and weaknesses. However, I am not gonna come in here and blast a system...... They are tools in the toolbox, use what you can of them and modify them to work for you.