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

[WBenner]

For many years I've been taught the Phoenix Fire Ground Incident Command system. I've become very fond of this system and how it works. It's very simple for all Departments being Vollie / Career or Combination. Then about 2 weeks ago or Training Division comes to us with this new
National Fire Service Incident Management System Consortium. It seems as if they took a good thing and added a very complex system. Just wondering who uses this and what you think?

[FFFRED]

For many years I've been taught the Phoenix Fire Ground Incident Command system. I've become very fond of this system and how it works. It's very simple for all Departments being Vollie / Career or Combination. Then about 2 weeks ago or Training Division comes to us with this new
National Fire Service Incident Management System Consortium. It seems as if they took a good thing and added a very complex system. Just wondering who uses this and what you think?

Both sound like wastes of time..conjured up by desk commandos and bureacrats who don't have much fire ground experience and plenty of time on their hands. The only texts that quote Bruno as an authority are his own books.

FTM-PTB

[MemphisE34a]

Fred,

I know you are not a Brunicini fan, and thats all fine and dandy, but I am sure you guys use some kind of ICS structure......right?

To answer the original question, yes, it seems the fairly straight foward easy to use standard ICS system was just made more difficult to use nationwide.

K.I.S.S.

[NonSurfinCaFF]

Well a little history, NIMS is just the latest incarnation of FIRESCOPE which was developed in California in the late 70's. From FIRESCOPE we got NIIMS which is what most wildland agencies use, FIRESCOPE and NIIMS are very similar. Brunicini took FIRESCOPE and modified it for "day to day" operations (a step I feel was unnececcessary since I've used FIRESCOPE and NIIMS on small incidents with no problems). NIMS has just taken NIIMS and spun it to include non-wildland responses (again fairly unneccessary as FIRESCOPE has included non-wildland resources for years).

I think the seeming complexity comes from being different, I've talked to people who use IMS and their complaint is always how can you have Groups (fuctional) and Divisions (geographic), and I wonder why anyone wouldn't.

I find it amusing that FEMA feels it is qualified to tell the people who invented ICS how its supposed to be done.

[SBrooks]

The DC Fire Department uses successfully uses NIMS on day to day operations without problem, nor much effort.

[mtnfireguy]

For the record

The National Fire Incident Management System Consortium is an organization of fire service professionals whose goal was to merge the two most popular incident command systems used by the American fire service into a single common system. These two systems are the Fire Ground Command System, developed by the Phoenix, Arizona, Fire Department, and the Incident Command System, developed in California by the FIRESCOPE program.

This effort involved the participation of 23 major fire service organizations, including FIRESCOPE, Phoenix Fire Department, National Fire Academy, International Association of Fire Chiefs, The International Society of Fire Services Instructors, the Emergency Management Institute, IFSTA/Fire Protection Publications, among others. (See Appendix A).

The merger was achieved through a consensus process representing the American fire service.

http://www.ims-consortium.org/backinfo.htm

[PureAdrenalin]

Why would it be so hard to get every department to just use firescope, and be done with it? Or would that be using logic?

[FFFRED]

Fred,

I know you are not a Brunicini fan, and thats all fine and dandy, but I am sure you guys use some kind of ICS structure......right?

I think they use some parts at the Boro level...with very little at the Division and even less at the Battalion Level. They were told in the McKinsey report that ICS was necessary...the only times one really hears about it is after incidents like the Cory Lidle plane crash or other similar complicated incident.

But as far as day to day operations nothing has changed and we still use the command and control methods that we've developed over the past 140+ years.

The only thing I can think of that has changed is three different titles for 3 certain special designation units at fires were changed...which again highlights my general dislike for this Bull Sh*t ICS nonsense as much of it is just giving fancy names to things, places, people that already have identifing titles....

For example... the "Communications cordinator" is now the "Resource unit leader!" The roll and responsiblities weren't changed..so why the name change...everyone new what that Chief did before just fine.

But I digress. In the end I haven't seen any use of any ICS nonsense that my former depts used regularly and honestly things run much smoother around here with out that silly Phoneix BS. JMHO.

K.I.S.S.

Calling floors "Divisions" and Ladder 43 Outside team as the "Ventilation Group" is far from KISS in my book...but that's just me.

FTM-PTB

[FFFRED]

Fred,

I know you are not a Brunicini fan, and thats all fine and dandy, but I am sure you guys use some kind of ICS structure......right?

I think they use some parts at the Boro level...with very little at the Division and even less at the Battalion Level. They were told in the McKinsey report that ICS was necessary...the only times one really hears about it is after incidents like the Cory Lidle plane crash or other similar complicated incident.

But as far as day to day operations nothing has changed and we still use the command and control methods that we've developed over the past 140+ years.

The only thing I can think of that has changed is three different titles for 3 certain special designation units at fires were changed...which again highlights my general dislike for this Bull Sh*t ICS nonsense as much of it is just giving fancy names to things, places, people that already have identifing titles....

For example... the "Communications cordinator" is now the "Resource unit leader!" The roll and responsiblities weren't changed..so why the name change...everyone new what that Chief did before just fine.

But I digress. In the end I haven't seen any use of any ICS nonsense that my former depts used regularly and honestly things run much smoother around here with out that silly Phoneix BS. JMHO.

K.I.S.S.

Calling floors "Divisions" and Ladder 43 Outside team as the "Ventilation Group" is far from KISS in my book...but that's just me.

FTM-PTB

Why would it be so hard to get every department to just use firescope, and be done with it? Or would that be using logic?

In short no.

[LaFireEducator]

And we wonder why the fire service in this country can't speak with a single voice on an issue.

What is so hard about adopting to a nationalized ICS system that wiill allow us to operate on the same page when we need to? It's really not that difficult.

[MattyJ]

Agree 100% with you Fred. I dont see changing names and titles giving any benefit to anyone, except to the people who thought it up to feel good about themselves.

Lets see...."Ladder xxx (yes its 3 digits Fred!) to Battalian xx, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here" VS. "Floor above search group to logistic consulting group, have the resource unit leader consulte with the water resource leader and then notify the Incident comander to have the back up group start a resource to the floor above division, make sure to notify the saftey consulting coordinator leader that members were operating in the floor above sector prior to proper water resources; these members were not in complience with IDHL PPE, and must meet with the OSHA health and saftey coordinator prior to leaving the Command Sector" ......Yeah, seems much easier.

Ok...so I took a little poetic license.....but not that much. The fire service has its priorities straight though.

[MattyJ]

And we wonder why the fire service in this country can't speak with a single voice on an issue.

What is so hard about adopting to a nationalized ICS system that wiill allow us to operate on the same page when we need to? It's really not that difficult.

Because we dont have a "Nationalized" Fire Department...yet. We all work in very diverse and different cities, with terms and languages that developed out of neccesity over the past centuries. My question is why are so many determined to set policy,and force it on, departments they will never operate with, and in the off chance they do, it will be very brief?? And if it did happen, I'm not so sure I want guys coming to help that cant decifer the complicated code of "Ladder xxx to Battalian xx, we need a line on the floor above!" Is it that slow and boring out there that there is nothing else to do but come up with new shtuff??

[LaFireEducator]

Ok Matty.. that's fair. In fact, that logic that was what I expected and was looking for.

But let's be consistant. I'm am not pointing fingers at you Bro .... but for all of those who seem to want to do it thier own way because "we're different" when it comes to ICS/communications and turnouts ... let's be fair and remember that "we all work in diverse enviroments" line when it it comes to discussions over nationalized training standards and stragety/tactics where there seems to be a lot of finger pointing about who's right and who's wrong. That's all I ask. Be consistent.

However, I still beleive that there needs to be a national system that we all understand and can use when we start working out of our normal enviroment in a disaster situation. Maybe the grunts on the ground don't need to know it intimately, but all command staff and speciaized team members, such as USAR, that usually travel, need to know it and understand it. Not using it daily will make it more difficult to use when the time comes but I agree that internally, that is a department decision.

[FFFRED]

And we wonder why the fire service in this country can't speak with a single voice on an issue.

What is so hard about adopting to a nationalized ICS system that wiill allow us to operate on the same page when we need to? It's really not that difficult.

First, I've yet to see anyone rationalize or make articulate a reasonable argument as to why "nationally" we need to now how to work together when we won't ever need that. Hose threads are different and operations are different...in some cases completely diametrictly opposed to each other.

Even in NO when the FDNY and others were down there. The system they developed worked. Does that mean the NOFD and the FDNY should have identical communications, or identical opertational concepts? I'm not going to get into it but I don't think you or anyone else could find a single person familiar with both depts who would argue that we should wholesale adopt NOFDs operations and terms or that they should adopt ours.

If the rare need should arrise as it did with Huricane Katrina...then we will do what is necessary to make things work. It was done 100s of years ago for the Great fires in many major cities, certainly on a more regular basis than we see today and I don't see any texts from the 1st half of the 20th Century that are clamoring for such needs as common operational structures and terms.

What's so hard about understanding that firemen who go to fires on a regular basis don't see the logic in calling the 4th Floor the 4th Division?? Or Engine Co. 71 as 3rd floor Fire attack group 3.

Or making up terms and wearing silly vests or any of the other facets of the ICS system that appear to be focused on symbolism over substance.

We go to fires without this "system" developed by a hawaian shirt wearing clown that was so focused on lining his pockets on the lecture circut and was too focused on telling everyone else how to run their fires that he overlooked training the members of his dept on simple properties of hazmats (toluene) that had been known for decades and one ended up DEAD. The PFD members I've met considered him an absentee landlord. A guy who promotes concepts and ideas in his writtings and his books that his department either doesn't employ or found to lacking in operational utility is nothing short of a quack.

His contemporaries at the time from Depts like mine laughed at him because they had the experience and the real credentials to know that what works well for week long or month long fires in forests covering 1000s of acres doesn't translate to the dynamic and fast paced nature of a simple apartment fire on the 3rd floor of a 4 story NFP MD or even a high-rise fire.

To many though, without the experience to fall back on, bought this dog and pony show and today we have guys like you who actually believe that a guy who spent very little time in busy fire companies and most time pushing paper (most for his own books or travel argangements to seminars far from the PFD) has some credentials on how to run a simple All-Hands fire...let alone an entire fire department or a national command system.

FTM-PTB

PS- Futhermore I'll refer you to the apparatus numbering forum where some depts have disregarded the simple method of calling Engine 1 Engine 1 and Ladder 4 as Ladder 4...and would rather develop the most complicated coded systems for idenifying a company such as Unit 11-302 or 1154. Work on that first and then get back to us.

If I can't even figure out which one, 11-56 or 44-1033 is an Engine or a Ladder or Battalion Chief....how are we ever going to "operate on the same page when we need to?"

[FFFRED]

Agree 100% with you Fred. I dont see changing names and titles giving any benefit to anyone, except to the people who thought it up to feel good about themselves.

Lets see...."Ladder xxx (yes its 3 digits Fred!) to Battalian xx, we have extension to the floor above...we need a line up here" VS. "Floor above search group to logistic consulting group, have the resource unit leader consulte with the water resource leader and then notify the Incident comander to have the back up group start a resource to the floor above division, make sure to notify the saftey consulting coordinator leader that members were operating in the floor above sector prior to proper water resources; these members were not in complience with IDHL PPE, and must meet with the OSHA health and saftey coordinator prior to leaving the Command Sector" ......Yeah, seems much easier.

Ok...so I took a little poetic license.....but not that much. The fire service has its priorities straight though.

Matty, at least I'm familiar with two digit Battalions... Excellent illustration of the nature of the layer upon layer of terms for things, people, places that we already have sensible terms for.

It shouldn't take 4 CIA agents and an enigma machine to translate common sense terms.

It would be one thing if we didn't have terms for the items found in FIRESCOPE or whatever system you prefer...but we already do. The 5th Floor of a 8 story building doesn't need to be called...the 5th Division of a 8 Division Structure.

The frivilous nature of much of this ICS stuff as evidenced above is why I firmly believe this "system" was developed by certian persons to do nothing more than create a business oportunity for themselves and their friends...period.

FTM-PTB