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

[johnny46]

Debate tip #764:

Using the number of years' experience of your opponant is a sure sign you're feeling beaten.

I've seen guys with one year in more accomplished than guys with ten. Seven years in a busy department probably equals decent fire experience (barring people who seek non-fire suppression positions to avoid firefighting, but put themselves up as experts on fire ground operations because they have read som cool books, memorized statistics and a few years ago fought a ripping beans on the stove fire.)

NIMS has weaknesses. Last time I checked, FDNY was managing to keep NY from burning down.

[jfTL41]

LMAO, I love the last part!

[KenNFD1219]

As for the get on board mentality...as was previously stated, the NIMS program is tied into federal grant money, that alone is the reason for the vast majority of the "training" it is not that departments agree with the concept or wish to use it, (most of the people I've spoken to either copied someone else's answers or someone else just did it for them) it is to get money to stay in the fire business.

The 700/100/200 training is just part of the NIMS that DHS has forced on us. Resource typing is another of several requirements listed on the NIMS Compliance page

The document NIMS Compliance for Local and Tribal Governments list several items for compliance, including:

-Inventory community response assets to conform to homeland security resource typing standards. (Pg 19)

-Validate that the inventory of response assets conforms to homeland security resource typing standards and provide to the state/territory as required. (Pg 23)

My interpretation is we must classify all resources into the categories and make them available to the state. We must also use resource typing when requesting equipment or personnel.

An incident commander will have to request two Type I engines and a Type I ladder instead for two engines and a ladder.

NIMS Resource Typing

For the fire service, a majority of resource typing is wildland fire based. A Type I engine (most capable) is 4 firefighters and a minimum 1000 GPM pump. A Type II engine is a 750 GPM pump (rare for a modern structural engine) and 3 firefighters. If an engine has a 2000 GPM pump, but a crew of 3, it is Type II. However, If what I need a master stream, this example of a Type II is more capable than a 1,000 GPM pump with a crew of four.

For example:
I am an IC at a large structure fire-defensive attack. I need another engine for a master stream. Right now, I would request an engine for a neighboring town to respond to the scene for a master stream operation. They would send the biggest pump they have with 2, 3, or 4 firefighters, depending on the time of day. Under this interpretation of NIMS, I would now request a Type I engine. If they can get a crew or 4, great, if not, then it becomes a Type II engine. Do I deny the resource and call someone else? If yes, it is a huge waste of time, if no, what is the purpose of resource typing? Where does resource typing help in urban or suburban structural firefighting?

I understand that resource typing works for large wildland fires. I see little to no application for the day-to-day fire incidents. DHS requires us to use NIMS for all incidents, training, and exercises and not just for the big ones.

Most of the designations are useless outside of wildland firefighting: hand crews, firefighting helicopters, helitankers, incident management teams (with wildland fire command training listed as a requirement). Ladder trucks are either 50 foot or greater than 75 feet and there is no classification for rescue trucks.

If I need to request a resource, I must look it up the resource typing guide and, if it classification exists, I request it by type for the incident. If it is not in the resource typing guide, I just ask for what I need, using plain language, like we have always done. Somehow, this is looked at as being progressive and efficient.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

The 700/100/200 training is just part of the NIMS that DHS has forced on us. Resource typing is another of several requirements listed on the NIMS Compliance page

The document NIMS Compliance for Local and Tribal Governments list several items for compliance, including:

-Inventory community response assets to conform to homeland security resource typing standards. (Pg 19)

-Validate that the inventory of response assets conforms to homeland security resource typing standards and provide to the state/territory as required. (Pg 23)

My interpretation is we must classify all resources into the categories and make them available to the state. We must also use resource typing when requesting equipment or personnel.

An incident commander will have to request two Type I engines and a Type I ladder instead for two engines and a ladder.

NIMS Resource Typing

For the fire service, a majority of resource typing is wildland fire based. A Type I engine (most capable) is 4 firefighters and a minimum 1000 GPM pump. A Type II engine is a 750 GPM pump (rare for a modern structural engine) and 3 firefighters. If an engine has a 2000 GPM pump, but a crew of 3, it is Type II. However, If what I need a master stream, this example of a Type II is more capable than a 1,000 GPM pump with a crew of four.

For example:
I am an IC at a large structure fire-defensive attack. I need another engine for a master stream. Right now, I would request an engine for a neighboring town to respond to the scene for a master stream operation. They would send the biggest pump they have with 2, 3, or 4 firefighters, depending on the time of day. Under this interpretation of NIMS, I would now request a Type I engine. If they can get a crew or 4, great, if not, then it becomes a Type II engine. Do I deny the resource and call someone else? If yes, it is a huge waste of time, if no, what is the purpose of resource typing? Where does resource typing help in urban or suburban structural firefighting?

I understand that resource typing works for large wildland fires. I see little to no application for the day-to-day fire incidents. DHS requires us to use NIMS for all incidents, training, and exercises and not just for the big ones.

Most of the designations are useless outside of wildland firefighting: hand crews, firefighting helicopters, helitankers, incident management teams (with wildland fire command training listed as a requirement). Ladder trucks are either 50 foot or greater than 75 feet and there is no classification for rescue trucks.

If I need to request a resource, I must look it up the resource typing guide and, if it classification exists, I request it by type for the incident. If it is not in the resource typing guide, I just ask for what I need, using plain language, like we have always done. Somehow, this is looked at as being progressive and efficient.

I's not "progressive and efficient", it is a means to to give some Senator's kids and big financial contributors a job!

For the fire service, a majority of resource typing is wildland fire based. A Type I engine (most capable) is 4 firefighters and a minimum 1000 GPM pump.

Gee, will the feds also provide the funding for staffing each type 1 structural engine with 4 firefighters?

To sum it up in the proverbial nutshell, the feds want everyone to play of the same sheet of music, but they won't pay the musicians unless they do, nor will they fund the means necessary to get the orchestra together.

[SPFDRum]

Well as much as I tried to avoid the NIMS debate, I couldn't. Our union just organized a NIMS commitee to get the ball rolling, not so much to replace our current system, but to aid in getting grants. The chair is a NFA EFO grad focusing on this topic. I hated to say it, after reading all the info he provided, discussing it at length, I'm still not convinced. It's a typical government program layed with useless buracracy, non-relevant terms, completely ignoring the many years of firefighting command experiances of some of the largest departments in the nation. For the LA county types and your wildland interface terms, great use them, but keep them out of the core terminology of NIMS. Honestly, if terrorists come to Minnesota, it's a good bet they are NOT going to blow up the Namadgi National Forest, but just maybe might think about the RNC convention downtown St. Paul.
History has proven that a terrorist incident is going to be an inner city event. So I ask this to all proponents of NIMS why should a large city completely revamp their termonology, and increase their command layers (even prior to an event escalating) for the off chance a wildland hand crew is needed?
I agree with those opposed-where is the efficiency?

[ChiefDog]

Some of this has been LOL FUNNY!!!!

You know what I am willing to bet? When the need for assistance from whomever to where-ever the job will get done.

Understanding some of the different Command and Control methods and adapting to which ever one is being used at this time/incident will be done seamlessly by highly trained and motivated FF across the nation.

Just like cutting a hole in the wall. It can be done with an axe, a chainsaw, a saw-z-all, K-12, T-N-T....etc etc... It gets figured out and the job gets done.

[KenNFD1219]

Just like cutting a hole in the wall. It can be done with an axe, a chainsaw, a saw-z-all, K-12, T-N-T....etc etc... It gets figured out and the job gets done.

Is this for an Actual Event*, a No Notice Event*, or a Pre-Planned Event*? Did you fill out all related ICS forms and develop the Incident Action Plan (IAP)* that is scalable* with a Common Operating Picture* using interoperability and compatibility* with other organizations? Does your plan have the flexibility* and framework* to address incident specific hazards*? Do you have a Common Communications Plan* using plain language*? Did you make the appropriate equipment acquisition* from the Standard Equipment List (SEL)* and checking to see if it is in the Response Asset Inventory*? Did someone alert the Joint Information Center* to active the Joint Information System* and develop a Public Information System* (or is it the other way around)? Do you have a Multi-Agency Coordinating System (MACS)* in place? How about a Remedial Action Management Program (RAMP)* in case there are issues with cutting the wall? Are you ready to distribute the Corrective Actions* and have a Corrective Action Program* in place based on your evaluation*, After Action Report*, and Improvement Plan* of the incident?

* Terms from NIMS Compliance Metrics Definition of Terms

Actually, I'm looking forward to our town fully adopting NIMS. Maybe we can then finally put out all the fires that have been burning here for years

[LaFireEducator]

If you have a command system and it works for ya and it's not NIMS .... That's great. NIMS is a management system that was designed to handle all hazards. In my experience, it works well. Last I knew inserting local terminolgy imto NIMS is fine, as long as the core elements of the system is maintained and utilized. I'm not going to sit here and argue that you should use it. That's a local decision.

I do find it amusing though that many of those who oppose NIMS and beleive thier system is the best are the ones that most often try to push thier thoughts about how others should operate on other posters because it works for them.

[Bones42]

Actually, I think NIMS is a joke. And I really don't care what system "you" use because "you" are not in my area so it will have zero effect on me and/or you.

And I am definitely against having my state (which it already has) adopt this NIMS crap as the state standard. Therefore, we are mandated to do all the training, check all the boxes, etc. and ignore it when there is a call. And on the off-chance that my County gets involved with a forest fire response (and all goes well until the county gets involved) they will request either a Type I, II, or III engine from my dispatcher, who will simply page us out and dispatch us to send an engine. And I won't care if there is a JIC, JIS, PIO, or any of that garbage cuz none of it is going to help put the fire out.

You will find many NJ departments saying they are NIMS compliant (cuz the state mandated it) and very very few that actually follow it.

[FFFRED]

If you have a command system and it works for ya and it's not NIMS .... That's great. NIMS is a management system that was designed to handle all hazards. In my experience, it works well. Last I knew inserting local terminolgy imto NIMS is fine, as long as the core elements of the system is maintained and utilized. I'm not going to sit here and argue that you should use it. That's a local decision.

I do find it amusing though that many of those who oppose NIMS and beleive thier system is the best are the ones that most often try to push thier thoughts about how others should operate on other posters because it works for them.

I feel our system is best for us...you might like it if you tried something similar...but then again I don't care and I won't mandate it for you either. You like your IMS, ICS, Firescope...whatever you call it, great, use it even if it is short on reasoning.

As for tactics...we can argue good and bad tactics based on fireground experience and reasoning. There are tactics that are sound and best practice and those that are poorly thought out and without merit.

There is a large gulf between tactical arguments and discussions where certain persons claim an entire command system developed for forest fires 30 years ago will be supperior to the one that we developed for the past 140+.

Thats what I find amusing.

FTM-PTB

PS- I (and I imagnine the others) are willing to entertain the possibility that this NIMS is better than our system as you can see when a few have actually taken the time to offer some real world examples...however it also can be seen in their statements that this "system" would be a reduction in efficency and accountablity for us.

[FFFRED]

You will find many NJ departments saying they are NIMS compliant (cuz the state mandated it) and very very few that actually follow it.

Thats the key, Bones. We just got the rubber stamp and do what we do regardless of this Federal garbage.

FTM-PTB

[jfTL41]

Words of wisdom from your 7 long years of emergency service experience?

7 years huh? must be some type of "new" math.

[KenNFD1219]

I do find it amusing though that many of those who oppose NIMS and beleive thier system is the best are the ones that most often try to push thier thoughts about how others should operate on other posters because it works for them.

That is exactly what DHS and the NIMS proponents are doing-pushing their system on everyone else. No one from FDNY or Chicago, or anywhere else is saying their incident management system is the best for everyone. We are saying our systems work for us, not a wildland fire incident management system adopted by DHS.

[firefighter1962]

I’m a hick from the sticks (translation vollie) with 17 yrs experience (3.5 in career years) in the Great White North (translation Canada), beauty eh? (translation haw). Currently it’s snowing, with a temperature of -23 C (translation -9 F) with a wind chill of -35 C (translation -31 F).

As long as our commander can speak to his commander in the accepted language, everything is going to be fine. The Hosers can continue to speak Hoser between themselves and methodically get the job done, because they have their own radio frequency.

Conversely if the other department’s commander can speak the accepted language to his commander, then all is well. The other department can speak their own language between themselves and methodically get the job done, because they have their own radio frequency.

The operations chief knows that the objective is being completed, because the status of the objective has been told to him in his language (NIMS)

The important thing is that all of these diverse groups are able to clearly communicate in a common language at the strategic level, not the tactical level.

Many cultures of the world consider it very important to teach their children their native tongue in their own home. In this part of world though, they’re eventually going to have to learn English if they want to venture outside of their own house.

Just a thought

Stay Safe

[WBenner]

Thanks for the Info..Heres what I found.

I see alot of persons here stating that they dont like when some one tells them how they should do Incident Command. So the ones in favor of NIMS what system did you follow before FEMA decided it knew best on how to run a fire service. And if FEMA who is the biggest player behind this pushing it into departments. They didnt fare to well in helping out in N.O.. Ive said it before learn what you want. And the BIG BROTHERS of the fire service, FDNY, CHICAGO, BOSTON, I hope you guys keep doing what you do best YOUR JOB..Yah I know someone will say that the Boys in the west get the job done as well I agree. However can the guys behind the nice big desk let us boys do what we do best and that is fight fires and save lives. For some reason the paper trail made it to Canada where FEMA doesnt even exsist.
So I have no choice but to learn it and I am. But the fact of the matter is will we ever use it and the biggest question I have is all of you that are in favor of NIMS do you use it like they want you to. And what about the all of the Departments in your district. If your answer is NO. Then I got the answer I wanted when I started this thread. ITS A WASTE OF TIME..
If the Big Boys want to help make a better Command System then how about funding. Because the Greatest IMS wont help if manpower and equipment are not present.