Originally posted by mikeyboy
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.
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?"

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
Comment