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

[FFFRED]

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.

Mikeyboy,

In lieu of attempting to trivialize others view points why don't you or the others address the questions and concerns with real responses as opposed to vauge replys such as:

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.

We already have reasonable spans of control as every working fire has a deputy overseeing two battalion chiefs overseeing approximately 9 companies at an all-hands.

But again I ask why does adoption of your system require us to change the identifing names for people, places and things that already have names?

Such as what Division is the fire on? Division....yes remember they used to be called floors.

Try this on for size:
"Command to Fire Attack group 2 Division 4 take your line to Division 5 we have more fire up there in Sector C, meet up with Search group 2 Division 5.

OR we could just do this...

"Battalion 14 to Engine Co. 71 take your line from the 4th to the 5th floor rear and meet up with Ladder Co. 29 they have fire there.

Everyone knows who everyone is on sight and on the radio and there is no confusion when the Lt. in L-29 has to ask every company he sees....are you Fire attack group 2?

Or as I have asked repeatedly what do we call the following Engine Co... They hook up on the 12th floor advance to the 14th and fight fire on the 13th floor of a duplex apartment? Fire attack group 1 Division 12, 13, or 14? Or does their name change?

Because reading all this ICS stuff online and from working in departments that used it, this is how it should be identified no?

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?"

This isn't a insurance salesmans job nor is it a wedding planners job...we don't have interviews our promotions are strictly based on civil service merit and fitness through written exams. We don't use that silly biased patronage system you guys use. We got rid of that "who ya know" garbage in the late 1800s. We only care if you know the procedures and policies of our department, not how much you can BS, brownnose or suck up to some Chief.

You might not want to "blast" a system...but perhaps it is because you know nothing else besides those type systems and have never worked under anything else, I don't know. For me, I've worked under ICS depts and it is the most burdensome, beuracratic, paper form, flow chart based garbage I've ever seen. I've seen both sides and I'll take the side I'm on.

Now it probably works very well for strategic meetings involving large scale long operations, such as forest fires, the ball drop in Times Square, the RNC or DNC...etc. which is where our chiefs use it. They use it where everyone works over days and weeks with charts and powerpoints and in that way it works well. But as for daily fireground operations it is a waste and for us it would be a reduction in accountability and a impeidment to safe fireground operations.

This "tool in the tool box" concept is all to often used as nothing more than an excuse for bad tactics and poor operations. We have enough to know and worry about without having to dictate to memory some operational flow charts and terms from the desert.

FTM-PTB

[DeputyMarshal]

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!

You can teach ICS with a blackboard and a piece of chalk. You don't need power point, you don't need seminars. Textbooks are nice to have and you used to be able to get them from NFA for free. But you can do without them if your students don't mind actually taking a few notes.

And, BTW, there is no need to fill out any forms in ICS.

You really haven't addressed my question as to why our operations on the fireground need this complete overhaul in terms and structure?

Probabaly because they don't. ICS doesn't require any particular structure; it just provides tools for describing the structure you choose to have. ICS certainly encourages common terminology and it would be beneficial to get in the habit of using ICS terms for every incident from a training perspective, but you can still (micro)manage all your incidents by individual unit if you choose. (That's an option in ICS, too.)

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.

Honestly, judging by the repeated mis-statements about what "ICS makes us do this that and the other thing" when it doesn't, I think the "all been subject to idiots" explanation sums it up pretty well.

No one expands on this or offers any sound reasoning to why a floor should be called a Division!

Personally, I'd be happy with floor. Tell me though, which floor in a building is the "1st floor"? Is it the ground level or the one above it? Because it could be identified either way in the building itself. What about when the building has street level entrance on multiple levels? Or when it skips floors? Those are the issues division tries to address by clearly defining a simple term that can't be confused with a less clearly defined common term. I don't know if it's really necessary, but that's why it exists. At least it forces us to be specific if we're going to insist on using so-called "common terms" instead of ICS terms.

This ICS is the complete antithesis of the KISS principle that the vast majority of my department has embraced.

I disagree, but you probably knew that. But then, when you say "ICS" you seem to be referring to something totally different from what I know as "ICS" so that's not surprising.

And it is that KISS principle that has kept us safe for 140+ years...

To paraphrase, "140 years of tradition unhampered by progress"...

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.

In other words, ICS will never work for you because it doesn't have your name on it. It would never work there becasue you'd never allow that to happen.

You've summed up you're whole "argument" rather nicely.

[Bones42]

Tell me though, which floor in a building is the "1st floor"? Is it the ground level or the one above it? Because it could be identified either way in the building itself. What about when the building has street level entrance on multiple levels? Or when it skips floors? Those are the issues division tries to address by clearly defining a simple term that can't be confused with a less clearly defined common term

How? What, in each of your situations above, would be Division 1 and how/why would that differ from Floor 1?

[FFFRED]

You can teach ICS with a blackboard and a piece of chalk. You don't need power point, you don't need seminars. Textbooks are nice to have and you used to be able to get them from NFA for free. But you can do without them if your students don't mind actually taking a few notes.

Yes we need nothing to teach ICS...just dirt a stick and some rocks. In reality there is a big market out there and dept's that I HAVE WORKED FOR spent lots of money on that stuff just as every other department does...I've been to Fire-Rescue Int; FDIC..etc. those vendor booths are filled with products that someone is buying, otherwise they wouldn't be there going through all the trouble of marketing their products. If all that was needed was free from the government then I'm pretty sure all those materials for sale that I just mentioned wouldn't be there at FDIC on on the internet would they?

And, BTW, there is no need to fill out any forms in ICS.

Bull- It is imposible to track multiple companies and what they are called based on the IC assigned roles with any assuredness of accountability without papers not to mention all the other non-sense information for the sake of information that ICS wants you to account for...besides why would their be forms at all if they aren't necessary? BTW I'm refering to these forms... http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/I...Cntr_Forms.htm

Probabaly because they don't. ICS doesn't require any particular structure; it just provides tools for describing the structure you choose to have. ICS certainly encourages common terminology and it would be beneficial to get in the habit of using ICS terms for every incident from a training perspective, but you can still (micro)manage all your incidents by individual unit if you choose. (That's an option in ICS, too.)

We already have a structure and we don't need to describe our units by the terms provided in the glossaries of ICS training manuals...so what is your justification for using different terms and describing a structure that doesn't need describing. Can you understand why this appears to be an excercise in semantics?

Honestly, judging by the repeated mis-statements about what "ICS makes us do this that and the other thing" when it doesn't, I think the "all been subject to idiots" explanation sums it up pretty well.

Do you have any other non-insightful non-responsive answers or do you plan on actually telling us why this system works better than the one we have now?

You like to speak in vauge terms and what appears to be theoretical conjecture..."that isn't required by ICS"..."that is someones interpretation"...but I'm speaking in reality of seeing how it has been implemented and utilized and I also recognize that even though they aren't the true founders of it...just as is found in the title of this thread "(the brunacini way)" there are a number of people who have taken the reigns of ICS and to many, dictate how it is implemented and works...that isn't in theory...that is the real world...perhaps you would like to join us.

Personally, I'd be happy with floor.

This isn't about you "personally"..this is about the terms in the glossary of these ICS books...and it doesn't have floors they specificly show a diagram of buildings cut up into quadrants and floors and what each one is to be called according to ICS.

Tell me though, which floor in a building is the "1st floor"? Is it the ground level or the one above it? Because it could be identified either way in the building itself.

For us it can't be described anyother way and it is defined in our operational manuals. The first floor is the first floor and when operating up in a highrise you use the floor number to which you are on because the floor numbers in high-rises can and do skip around occasionally.

Tell us do you know which floor the Basement of a Brownstone is? It is defined for us? How about the Parlor floor? Or do you even know what a brownstone is? How about a duplex apartment? Did I loose you back there? Is that why you are avoiding answering the question regarding what do we call Engine Co. 47? Again...they are hooked up on 12, advancing to 14 and working down to 13... are they Fire control group 1 or fire attack group 1 Division13...or wait they enter 14...oh wait their front peice is a black 47...oh wait...

What if the building like you said skips floors should we call the 12th floor Division 12...the 14th- 13th Division...since the 13th floor oops Division is ommited? What kind of confusion do you think would result from members walking up stairs and walking all the way to 14 just to go down and find 12 to then realize that the 13th Division is actually the 14 floor? Highrise stairwells get awfully crowded to start confusion like this.

What about when the building has street level entrance on multiple levels? Or when it skips floors? Those are the issues division tries to address by clearly defining a simple term that can't be confused with a less clearly defined common term. I don't know if it's really necessary, but that's why it exists. At least it forces us to be specific if we're going to insist on using so-called "common terms" instead of ICS terms.

Divisions don't do that any better than calling a floor a floor. The 1st floor is the 1st Division under your plan..no matter it is the same thing! We have floors defined in our operational manuals and calling them a different name just for the sake of sounding technical is an excercise in semantics.

Making up terms such as "division" and substituting it for the term "floor" is assinie and truly demonstrates the absurdity of much of this west coast jargon.

I disagree, but you probably knew that. But then, when you say "ICS" you seem to be referring to something totally different from what I know as "ICS" so that's not surprising.

So again I ask you tell us how our operations need improving or how they will benefit from adoption of your ICS? You tell us it will work with us to provide common terminology(something we already have) and clearly defined terms (something we already have) so what is the problem this ICS will solve and what are your solutions for it?

To

paraphrase, "140 years of tradition unhampered by progress"...

To paraphrase: Just because something is new and made up by some small time chiefs in the west coast to solve a problem they had with numerous depts with poor disipline and a lack of procedures working together at grass and tree fires doesn't make it progressive.

Many of the items described as "progressive". Quints, LDH, class A foam and wet water...etc. were all tried by my dept and found that it would hammper, be a waste or be "regressive" as compared to our current operations.

When we collectively as a department have as much experinece as we do and continually place ourselves in harms way on a regular basis...we want something that is proven and developed over decades that works for us...not something made up last week (30 years ago compared to 140(200+ if you count the volley days) is last week.) Our procedures were developed over decades during the heaviest fire duty anyone in this country has ever seen and probably ever will see.(that isn't chest beating, it is just a historical reality) and to think that somehow our system is deficent because you or some quack chief from nowhere tells us so is amusing at best.

In other words, ICS will never work for you because it doesn't have your name on it. It would never work there becasue you'd never allow that to happen.

You've summed up you're whole "argument" rather nicely.

You've done nothing but put words in my mouth...it doesn't have to have our name on it...however it does have to work for us and giving us replacement terms and a command structure that we already have in place that works just fine for us is nothing short of ludicrious.

We are still wating for your "argument" as to why this system is an improvement over the one we currently use? I've worked under both ICS and our command and control and I'll take ours over ICS any day of the week.

FTM-PTB

[MemphisE34a]

Fred,

I am willing to take the bashing for this, just be gentle.

I do find it a little ironic that you are for "plain language" in ICS, but adamantly defend your departments 10 codes.

Like I said, easy big fella. =)

[FFFRED]

Fred,

I am willing to take the bashing for this, just be gentle.

I do find it a little ironic that you are for "plain language" in ICS, but adamantly defend your departments 10 codes.

Like I said, easy big fella. =)

No bashing...you know I like a discussion as much as the next guy.

I'm not for "plain language". I'm just not for making up terms and designations for people, places and things that already have standardized terms and definitions, it is a complete waste of time and energy in my opinion. It encumbers the operation by saddling it with unecessary and often changing dialogue.

As I believe I stated in the 10-codes discussion...regardless of the 10-codes my department had 1000s of other terms and acronyms that mean something to us and us only. All-Hands, Deadmans room, Colyers mansion, 10-14 Engine, 1620 key, OVM, Door man, Parlor floor...etc.

Just the same as in Memphis I'm sure you have your own terms and associated definitions. I know that in New Orleans when our members were down there...they had their terms and we had ours...but it doesn't take long for everyone to basicly understand what the other was saying

What are some terms that Memphis uses that most of us would probably be unfamiliar with?

Also I never told anyone that they should use 10-codes or that it would unequivocally improve their operations. People who don't even understand what the majority of our 10-codes are used for claimed we should switch.

In proby school our guys are taught I think formally 10-45(fire victim), 10-75,76,77(working fires)...and perhaps 10-70(water relay) and maybe 10-86(foam)

A 10-45 is a fire victim...regardless of the operation...but Ladder Co. 29 inside team could be Search group 2 Division 4 or Inside Ventilation Group 1 Divsion 5...either way it is much more reliable and easier to maintain accountability if one just calls for Ladder 29 in lieu of one of the above ICS assigned desinations.

10-codes are mostly an adminstrative accountablity issue for proper record keeping of alarms and their disposition..not the most of the fireground communications.

FTM-PTB

PS- I still don't understand why our "Communications Cordinator" name was changed to "Resource Unit Leader" Sure RUL sounds more catchy and progressive for our simple minded friends like DeputyMarshal...but the duties and responsiblities didn't change...so why the excercise in semantics.

[MemphisE34a]

Fred,

Hmmm, I am thinking, but at the moment actually cannot think of a term that is very unique that no one else would be able to "decode" it.

We keep things fairly simple. Nozzleman, Hook Up man, Lil Ladder Man, Inside Team, Outside Team, Fire Under Control, Fire Knocked Down, etc.

I do understand your setiment however. Thanks for being gentle! lol

[DeputyMarshal]

How? What, in each of your situations above, would be Division 1 and how/why would that differ from Floor 1?

Div 1 would always be the ground floor at the main entrance regardless of the building's own idiosyncratic floor numbering. (You've taken ICS, right? So you already knew that.)

[FFFRED]

Fred,

Hmmm, I am thinking, but at the moment actually cannot think of a term that is very unique that no one else would be able to "decode" it.

We keep things fairly simple. Nozzleman, Hook Up man, Lil Ladder Man, Inside Team, Outside Team, Fire Under Control, Fire Knocked Down, etc.

I do understand your setiment however. Thanks for being gentle! lol

Perhaps...but I don't know the duties, tools and responsiblites of all those guys...they might sound similar to our positions...but I would wager they might do some different things as compared to our Outside team...we don't have a hook-up man and I really could only guess at what he hooks up? The Plug, the hose after the strech is made?...does he back-up the nozzle man?

Although I'm sure either of us could figure out what the other was saying in a matter of seconds.

I'm perplexed at how in the early 1900s depts such as mine sent members and appratus to places like Baltimore and afterwords they weren't complaining about not being able to understand how to operate with the other departments...the only problem I recall was that the threads on the fittings are different and we can see how swiftly that problem has been solved!

FTM-PTB

[FFFRED]

Div 1 would always be the ground floor at the main entrance regardless of the building's own idiosyncratic floor numbering. (You've taken ICS, right? So you already knew that.)

That is the same thing we have done...we just didn't call a floor a divsion.

But we just call it a floor regardless of what the floor is numbered...we do however refer to the apartment number and the floor...because in Brownstones and Tenements the floors and apartment numbers don't neceesarily match.

You can have Apartments 1A on the 1st floor or apartment A. One could have apartment 2A on the 2nd floor or 1A or A especially if the 1st floor is a storefront. One could also have apartment 3A on the 3rd or 2A or even CA or CE or C2....how you may ask? Floors can be labled as A, B, C...etc. in lieu of 1, 2 or 3...etc. The apartments on each floor then can be labled as E&W for East and West...or F&R for Front and Rear. Or just lettered like the floors in an SRO and have apartment 5F on the 4th floor.

So we already have a system for designating floors and another that designates by the apartment as it is identified by floor and designation within the building that works for us.

If you want to call floors divsions then knock yourself out...but claiming our procedures are somehow defiencent as compared to your system that is far from proven...well that is just nonsense.

FTM-PTB

PS- Still wating on what to call Engine 47 or how E71 and L29 should communcate with the 14th Battalion....?

[DeputyMarshal]

If all that was needed was free from the government then I'm pretty sure all those materials for sale that I just mentioned wouldn't be there at FDIC on on the internet would they?

You do understand the concept of marketing for profit don't you? You seem to be saying that anything for sale must be necessary. They must love you at the shopping mall...

Bull- It is imposible to track multiple companies and what they are called based on the IC assigned roles with any assuredness of accountability without papers...

No more impossible than it is to track multiple companies without it. I would hope that most ICs would be keeping notes at larger incidents whether they're using ICS or not. Either way they don't have to use any special forms or equipment. Whatever method works for them is fine with me (and, coincidentally, fine with ICS.)

...besides why would their be forms at all if they aren't necessary? BTW I'm refering to these forms... [url]

Because there are people who can't figure out how to document anything without a form somebody else hands them. The fact that the (suggested) forms exist doesn't mean that anyone is required to use them. They're supplied as resources to take or leave. If your IC is more comfortable documenting whatever needs to be documented some other way, all the power to him. (Personally, I generally prefer a pad full of "Universal Form 1's" although having a magnetic whiteboard handy has it's merits, too.)

...so what is your justification for using different terms and describing a structure that doesn't need describing.

How about training for the day the structure does need describing or the day you're called on to work with an unfamiliar agency that would describe it differently?

Can you understand why this appears to be an excercise in semantics?

Can you not understand why semantics can be critical during an inter-agency or otherwise unusual response?

Do you have any other non-insightful non-responsive answers or do you plan on actually telling us why this system works better than the one we have now?

Again? Nobody said ICS necessarily works "better." I'm willing to bet that it works at least as well and it has the benefit of working with multiple other agencies who use ICS. That's the whole point.

but I'm speaking in reality of seeing how it has been implemented and utilized...

Yes, I know. Apparently badly. I'm sorry you got shafted on your intro to ICS. I doubt anyone is going to be able to reintroduce it properly until the current generation of anti-ICS firefighters in your area moves on.

Tell us do you know which floor the Basement of a Brownstone is? It is defined for us? How about the Parlor floor? Or do you even know what a brownstone is? How about a duplex apartment? Did I loose you back there? Is that why you are avoiding answering the question regarding what do we call Engine Co. 47?

No, FFFRED, you haven't lost me. And I would presume that Engine Co. 47 should generally be called Engine Co. 47. I'm not "avoiding" anything but I am clearly trying to teach a pig to sing.

[VinnieB]

Deputy, you clearly have zero knowledge or insight of how our job works. As stated, adnauseaum,...day in and day out we handle emergencies and fires. Our system is simple, to the point and clear. The chance of us working with "mutual-aid" is RARE at best. And we should not tailor our methods of day to day ICS for the rare event we have to use MA. I work in the Bronx, very close to the cities of Mount Vernon and Yonkers.....and it is rare that we go across the border, maybe once in a blue moon. And they will never come into NYC for our everyday job or emergency.

You claim to be a proponent for progress, but you fail to relize, if we were to take the ICS verbatum as its taught today, (by people who think thier is a pancea in the fire service,) the chaos that would ensue for a dept of over 11000 members, around 400 fire companies, who's been developing and improving thier operations for 142 years.

And for those who think our radio comms are confussing....all I have to say is that you have never actually heard us on the radio then. Planin english is used, but as ffred stated...we do have our own "language"....heres a sample...if anyone can't figure out what we are saying....I pity you then. BTW, I bet any member of our job can determine what due the members on the radio are.....for us to know that....thats accountability.

http://www.firegroundphotos.net/bronxco/

[FFFRED]

You do understand the concept of marketing for profit don't you? You seem to be saying that anything for sale must be necessary. They must love you at the shopping mall...

I don't buy the garbage they are selling...but my point is plenty of people do...otherwise most of these people would be out of business and not returing year after year. And that is what most of this ICS is about $$$.

No more impossible than it is to track multiple companies without it. I would hope that most ICs would be keeping notes at larger incidents whether they're using ICS or not. Either way they don't have to use any special forms or equipment. Whatever method works for them is fine with me (and, coincidentally, fine with ICS.)

Sure at larger incidents but in the beginings of an incident and the majority of our fires which are all-hands...the chief knows not only where each company is but essentially where every member is operating based on their assingment on the box. ICS doesn't provide that because the IC assigns tasks and responsiblites according to his preferences

Because there are people who can't figure out how to document anything without a form somebody else hands them. The fact that the (suggested) forms exist doesn't mean that anyone is required to use them. They're supplied as resources to take or leave. If your IC is more comfortable documenting whatever needs to be documented some other way, all the power to him. (Personally, I generally prefer a pad full of "Universal Form 1's" although having a magnetic whiteboard handy has it's merits, too.)

How about training for the day the structure does need describing or the day you're called on to work with an unfamiliar agency that would describe it differently?

We work with ourselves...anytime we go outside the city on Mutual aid (a rare occuance even for Eastern Queens and North Bronx companies) we send an entire assignment and only take orders from our chiefs who meet with the Chiefs of the city who called for our help.

We don't typically (99.999% of the time) have other agencies working with us on operations that would require us to use their terminology...it makes no sense to completly adjust our operations to suit a potential situation that might occur 0.001% of the time.

Can you not understand why semantics can be critical during an inter-agency or otherwise unusual response?

Making up new terms and uneccesarily complicating things with utility control group 1 and Fire control division 3 is far from critical in my opinion.

As I stated that is for top level chiefs who would be dealing with those persons at incidents...we only take orders from our superiors and no one else...so the Chief who speaks to these other agencies will undoubtely translate any confususion before he tells his subordinate officers what he needs us to do. It isn't difficult...however you make it seem like it is a major undertaking to do so. The Cory Lidle plane crash was a multi-agency operation and as I stated for the most part we don't use your fancy little terms and everything worked out great as usuall...the companies got in there...did what we always do for highrise fires and viola...it was taken care of.

Again? Nobody said ICS necessarily works "better." I'm willing to bet that it works at least as well and it has the benefit of working with multiple other agencies who use ICS. That's the whole point.

Again...based on what...your lack of expierence with something other than your ICS? I've worked on both sides and despite your claims I assure you ICS is far from the panacea you purport it to be. I don't have to bet anything...I know first hand.

Yes, I know. Apparently badly. I'm sorry you got shafted on your intro to ICS. I doubt anyone is going to be able to reintroduce it properly until the current generation of anti-ICS firefighters in your area moves on.

And you think the probies today will believe some nonsense concocked out of week long forest fires somehow works better than the system we developed and use to handle urban fires and emergencies for 140+ years when they someday attain the rank of Chief? The experience that they gain between appointment and their promotion to Chief is what guides them and keeps them level headed...notice how we might put a new fad to trial but unless it shows substantial improvement over our established operations...we don't use it...no matter what NFPA, IFSTA, FEMA, or some quack from the desert has to say.

No, FFFRED, you haven't lost me. And I would presume that Engine Co. 47 should generally be called Engine Co. 47. I'm not "avoiding" anything but I am clearly trying to teach a pig to sing.

That isn't what ICS states...I just spent the better part of last night and today researching it on line just to make sure I didn't forget anything from years ago and it states in every training document on-line that companies assigned to tasks or operations are designated into "Groups" and then Geographic areas...aka "Divisions" and a few gave examples.

There is no "presume" either it does or it doesn't and from everything I've been taught, practiced in my former depts or learned online...this is what is required. By using the words "presume" that makes me and probaly others think you really aren't sure what the hell to call it other than what I just described because when I give you a senario it obviously points out the shortcommings in your operational thought process.

Why does stating Ladder 29 to Battalion 14 we have fire in the rear apartment on the 5th floor need to be suplanted with Search group 2 Divison 5 to Operations Sector Charlie we have fire extenstion and need Fire Attack 1 to bring their line to the 5th Division Bravo Charlie Quadarant?

This requires everyone to remember on the spot who was assigned to what role and what repsoniblity on what floor when that is already done without the neccesary semantics.

Calling Engine 47 by its name doesn't meet any of the requirements laid out in common terminology or tracking by ICS and I doubt it would be allowed in a table top excercise.

We all would appricate some real answers and not your continued non-responsive replys if you are to convince anyone that your system is for the "sane" departments as you put it and that the "highest" levels of the fire service that you claim have been triumphing this system actually have the credentials to back up their claims of it being functional for fire ground operations.

FTM-PTB

[SBrooks]

It boils down to this, gentlemen:

If you wan't the money that the feds taxed from your citizens to come back, you've got to adopt NIMS.

****ty but true.

They (we) take money in the form of Federal Taxes from jurisdictions, and then give it back with strings attatched.

That being said, my department, DCFD, uses NIMS on every incident with a chief officer. We are also HEAVILY dependent on pre assigned SOGs. Like you, we know where everyone is supposed to be, based on the building type and their dispatch order. First & Third engine are the 'Attack Group'. Second Engine is in the rear. First & Second Trucks are front & rear, 'Vent Group'. The Squad is 'Rescue Group'. Radio comms are by Company # & Position. e.g. 'Squad 2, Team B to the chief, primary negative on the second floor', or 'Engine 30 to the chief, basement is clear'. Rarely are the NIMS designations used, but everyone knows what they are and what they mean. If we have to pair companies to get a task done (like you pair engines to pull a line), that workgroup would have a designation that would be used.

[MattyJ]

No bashing...you know I like a discussion as much as the next guy.

I'm not for "plain language". I'm just not for making up terms and designations for people, places and things that already have standardized terms and definitions, it is a complete waste of time and energy in my opinion. It encumbers the operation by saddling it with unecessary and often changing dialogue.

As I believe I stated in the 10-codes discussion...regardless of the 10-codes my department had 1000s of other terms and acronyms that mean something to us and us only. All-Hands, Deadmans room, Colyers mansion, 10-14 Engine, 1620 key, OVM, Door man, Parlor floor...etc.

Just the same as in Memphis I'm sure you have your own terms and associated definitions. I know that in New Orleans when our members were down there...they had their terms and we had ours...but it doesn't take long for everyone to basicly understand what the other was saying

What are some terms that Memphis uses that most of us would probably be unfamiliar with?

Also I never told anyone that they should use 10-codes or that it would unequivocally improve their operations. People who don't even understand what the majority of our 10-codes are used for claimed we should switch.

In proby school our guys are taught I think formally 10-45(fire victim), 10-75,76,77(working fires)...and perhaps 10-70(water relay) and maybe 10-86(foam)

A 10-45 is a fire victim...regardless of the operation...but Ladder Co. 29 inside team could be Search group 2 Division 4 or Inside Ventilation Group 1 Divsion 5...either way it is much more reliable and easier to maintain accountability if one just calls for Ladder 29 in lieu of one of the above ICS assigned desinations.

10-codes are mostly an adminstrative accountablity issue for proper record keeping of alarms and their disposition..not the most of the fireground communications.

FTM-PTB

PS- I still don't understand why our "Communications Cordinator" name was changed to "Resource Unit Leader" Sure RUL sounds more catchy and progressive for our simple minded friends like DeputyMarshal...but the duties and responsiblities didn't change...so why the excercise in semantics.

Hey Fred....you forgot 10-51!! EVERY guy on our job knows that one. A few terms you forgot, Square Rooter,Hairbag, Pop-Time, Johnny, 9x,6x,mutual,Onion Skin,coward stick,chicken in a bucket,or being assigned the "keys" or the "top" for the tour.