I agree that simply having "more of the same" is not a different type of
resource.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <chris.snyder@...>
To: <NRCEV@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 16:14
Subject: [NRCEV] Updated NRCEV Communications Support Team Certification
documents published


> Revised documents for Communications Support Team Certification has
> been published to the Documents page of the website.
>
> Major change is in the name of the team from ARCT to CST.
>
> The NRCEV is no longer using the resource typing matrix originally
> proposed. The original typing matrix was based on the one developed by
> the World Radio Relay League (WRRL). This typing matrix is the one
> that has been most familiar to those involved in emergency communications.
>
> However, after much research and discussion, the NRCEV has decided not
> to continue to utilize the modified WRRL typing matrix for two reasons.
>
> 1) Type I teams defined in the WRRL matrix are in actuality a Task
> Force as defined by NIMS and the NRP. The WRRL matrix, and the one
> modified by the NRCEV describe a Type I team as a combination of 1
> Type II team and 4 Type III teams.
>
> The NIMS/NRP definition of a "Task Force" is as follows: "Any
> combination of resources assembled in support of a specific mission or
> operational need. All resource elements within a Task Force must have
> common communications and a designated leader". Clearly, the Type I
> team described above falls under the Task Force definition.
>
> Additionally, The NIMS/NRP definition for a "Type" is: A
> classification of resources in the ICS that refers to capability. Type
> 1 is generally considered to be more capable than Types 2, 3, or 4,
> respectively, because of size; power; capacity; or, in the case of
> incident management teams, experience and qualifications.
>
> While, the Type I ARCT as defined the WRRL and original NRCEV typing
> definition is larger in number of personnel than the other Type ARCTs,
> the Type I does not specify any additional capabilities. Therefore, it
> can be argued it is not a different type of resource.
>
> 2) The National Integration Center (NIC) has already defined a
> resource type for Communications Support Teams (CST). The CST already
> defined is for Civil Air Patrol (CAP) resources. And the Type I CAP
> CST is appreciably different from the Type I ARCT proposed by the WRRL
> and that the NRCEV also originally adopted.
>
> Therefore, the NRCEV has concluded that, until a definitive ruling is
> made by the NIC on resource definitions for Amateur Radio EmComm
> resources, we should align the typing definitions for NRCEV CSTs with
> those already adopted, for similar resources, in order to remain
> compliant and consistent with both NRP definitions and existing
> resource typing structures established by the National Integration Center.
>
> Should the NIC publish a different typing matrix or adopt the one
> submitted by the WRRL, the NRCEV will make any necessary changes to
> remain compliant with NIMS.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> http://www.nrcev.orgYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>