2020 IMT Discussion

#1

This beyond type 2 complexity. Type 1 C & G order only to put ink in taskbooks for the type 2 team. Removes the type 1 team of both state and national rotation. Games, games, games

3 Likes
CA-MDF-July Complex??
#2

Interesting. Wonder who’s making these decisions.

1 Like
#3

It’s the new protocol for going to all one type of team, no 1 and 2

2 Likes
#4

Yeah, it’s just working a little backwards this time. Usually the Type 2 short team goes with the Type 1, but due to the lack of incidents for the Type 1 Teams, the Type 1 short is coming to us. Either way it does mean that some part of a long team misses out on deploying.

3 Likes
#5

Yeah it does suck for the long team members of one team, but it is the most expeditious way of getting taskbooks signed off for the C&G. Especially on an incident of this complexity.

1 Like
#6

The reason the C&G of the type 2 team is suppose to go to the type 1 incident instead of the reverse is:
N
They didn’t want to take a type 1 team out of rotation since there is only 4 and the rotation is short vs the 6 type 2’s.

It’s only suppose to be for C & G not the entire type 2 team. Which would allow them to go between rotations and the state/nation would not lose a team.

1 Like
#7

And here we go with team discussions.:grin:

6 Likes
#8

I’ll stop! Lol. Just getting a little release!

2 Likes
#9

Let things work out. just maybe there is a lot going on behind the scene. Have faith brother.

5 Likes
#10

I was only poking the bear a little.:joy:

3 Likes
#11

The original understanding from CWCG was that each type 1 team had a team they would mentor. This was suppose to only be for C&G of the type 2 team to work on their qualifications. It is not suppose to work the way this fire is going. Technically it is not a type one incident if a type one team have the incident. So what are they going to do, pencil whip some ink in a task book? Not sure why the FS leadership is bending the rules.

1 Like
#12

I think you need to be a little more open minded about the process. There are many more type 2 incidents in the state than type 1, bringing in the type 1 C&G to this incident is another way to mentor. Unless you are on this incident and have seen the incident analysis, it might be type 1 in complexity. It should also be noted that just because an incident is determined to be type1 by analysis, the host agency makes the determination whether they want to bring in a type 1 team.
There have been many incidents that have met type 1 complexity that have been managed by type 2 teams in the past, for various reasons, usually that the type 2 team is doing a good job, and a transition would not be in the best interest of the incident.
I think your suggestion that there may be “pencil whipping” of task books is highly unlikely . I have personally been a Trainer for many years and know that the vast majority of us are very ethical, and objective as we rate performance. The fact that the Federal Teams are all multi-agency, also reduces the likelihood that “pencil whipping” will occur.
The reality is the deference between type 1 and type 2 teams is the type 1 teams C&G have successfully passed S-520 and demonstrated satisfactory performance on a type 1 incident. The majority of the type 2 teams I have worked with in region 5 have already demonstrated the ability to function at a type 1 level.

6 Likes
#13

In a lot of cases the only difference between T1 C&G and T2 C&G is the completion of S-520.

#14

It’s also because IMTs, as a single resource, do not have any performance capability metrics to differentiate between the complexity types. They are pretty much the only resource that doesn’t. The old answer of the circular reference, “a type 2 team manages a type 2 incident” isn’t reliable with the differing complexity guides in use.

3 Likes