BY JIM NAGLE
This article is based on “A Systems Approach to Firefighting,” a communications/incident management system class presented by Captain John Stuckey, Fire Station 2, Bellevue (WA) Fire Department, to fire departments in the Pacific Northwest region.,
Firefighters sometimes have to deal with prob- lems of great magnitude that may occur once or twice in their career. How do you prepare for a once-in-a-career event? Some of the obvious answers include training and maintaining sharp task-level and tactical-level skills. However, this type of event also requires razor-sharp communications and incident management system (IMS) skills. That’s why it’s mandatory that firefighters train often on how they communicate on the fireground and on how the fireground is managed.
Incident commanders (ICs) need at their disposal a system that will improve safety and efficiency on the fireground regardless of the size of the incident. But let’s face it; guide books and cheat sheets are virtually useless on the fireground, especially early in an incident when operating in the offensive mode. In these cases, the IC’s decisions must come from a system that’s ingrained mentally and that encompasses strategic decision making and radio communications.
But there is more to it than just having a system. Everyone from chief-level officers down to acting lieutenants must be familiar with the system and comfortable using it. Busy engine companies that train regularly on hose-handling techniques get comfortable with deploying a 13⁄4-inch attack line because they practice it; they do it a lot. But when it comes to IMS, comfort levels plummet.
So how can ICs and potential ICs get comfortable managing a critical incident? They can accomplish this by doing the same thing that the engine company does with hoselays-practice, repetition, more practice, and implementation on the fireground. As an example, if ICs have a system in which they always set up divisions/sectors whenever two or more units work in the same geographical area or groups when units perform identical tasks, the ICs would eventually get proficient and comfortable doing that.
The same thing goes for company officers. When they regularly are required to function as division and group supervisors, they will eventually get more comfortable in these roles. When everyone’s comfort level goes up on the fireground, stress is reduced and efficiency improves. In addition, with communication discipline AND PRACTICE, the IC will spend less time on the fireground thinking about how and when to deal with span of control and initial assignments and more time thinking about how best to handle the problems presented by the incident.
THE SYSTEM
The Incident Management System (IMS) and the National Fire Academy (NFA) Communications Model can be combined to create a system within which incidents of all sizes can be effectively managed. The major components of this system are strategy, tactics, tasks, and the Discipline of Communication, a vital foundation on which the other components are built (Figure 1).
 |
Mastering this system demands frequent practice, just as any other firefighting skill. A simulated fireground is ideal. It places firefighters in various critical incident scenarios where a variety of common and not-so-common problems must be managed. Two laptop computers, each containing the same simulation software, are linked to two separate projectors. The simulator shows a selected building with problems such as smoke or flames visible, victims trapped, weapons of mass destruction, or a multicasualty incident (MCI), for example. The problems can be programmed so that conditions are automatically intensified at periodic intervals-every minute, for example. Conditions can also be changed manually. Nothing showing on arrival can become flames and smoke showing within a few minutes or a few seconds (such as in the case of a simulated explosion) at the push of a button. The buildings depicted in the simulator software are within the students’ response district. As a result, participants familiar with the structures will have an advantage in their decision making, much as they would in real life, thus reinforcing the importance of knowing the buildings in your jurisdiction.
Two views of the structure are displayed, one on each of two screens. One view is for the IC; the other is for the class members, who will play the roles of group/division/sector members and supervisors. This format creates more communication needs between the crews and the IC. If conditions are deteriorating on side C, for example, the only way the IC will know this is if someone on side C communicates this to him. Remember, the IC can’t see one or more sides of the building. The divisions and groups have to be the IC’s eyes and ears. Portable radios are used for most communications. This increases the difficulty of the drill by forcing participants to deal with the challenges our portable radios can present, such as difficulty in understanding the sender; excessive radio traffic; or the need to create short, clear, and concise transmissions while under pressure. Therefore, face-to-face communications are kept to a minimum to elevate proficiency in communicating over the radio.
THE DRILL
With all class members on a predesignated radio frequency, the first-due units are dispatched by a class facilitator. The first-in unit comes in the room and sees the IC screen, which generally shows the A side of the structure. For greater realism, the person may do a simulated walk-around or drive-around to see the other side of the structure, but the person must make a conscious decision to do this. The individual then gives a radio report based on what the picture(s) shows; this should be done in accordance with nationally recognized standards and department standard operating procedures (SOPs).
At a minimum, the initial radio report should include the following: establish command (name it), assess the situation, consider water supply needs, consider additional resources, make an operational plan (offensive, defensive, transitional), make tactical assignments, give updates. If the simulated fire is of a size and nature that make a fast attack appropriate, this first-in officer indicates such and moves to the division side of the room, or backs outside the room to indicate that the officer is inside the structure with a crew, fighting fire.
The next-in unit can be a chief officer or another company officer who can assume command if department SOPs allow. Either way, the emphasis is on the IC’s management of the scene by communicating assignments by portable radio to the other arriving units in the class. The scenarios can range in scope from the typical “bread-and-butter” room-and-contents house fire to high-rise fires that will eventually get to four or five alarms. Everyone can participate in the role-playing, but anyone who has the potential to be an IC at a real incident should take a turn in the IC role in the drill.
Unit ID/accountability tags using regularly assigned or fictitious unit designators are handed out prior to the beginning of each scenario. Some people may have to role-play more than one unit when the event escalates to a multialarm incident. Also, the personnel accountability system used by the department should be included in the drill. This forces the IC and division/group supervisors to track personnel assigned to them.
To maximize the benefits of this training, the facilitator should add difficult problems to the scenario. A Mayday (firefighter lost) or a report of fire extension to an adjacent structure, for example, can be added to the scenario simply by writing down the new problem on a flash card and handing it to any participating officer or firefighter with a radio. This practice sets up mandatory communication needs to challenge all participants. It’s also a great way to work through your department’s Mayday procedures or to discover that it’s time to revise them or develop some.
At the conclusion of each scenario, the class should consider doing a post-incident analysis, where the tactics and strategy used by the IC and first-in units can be discussed. The simulator is designed to make conditions worse, thereby forcing lots of radio traffic and span-of-control issues. Another result of this preprogramming is that a small fire may get really big despite participants’ best simulated fire attacks.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Communications
The primary objective of this training exercise is to give people an opportunity to practice making uniform fireground communications by portable radio as clearly and effectively as possible.
Another goal is to practice a proactive implementation of IMS, specifically groups and divisions. Remember that Discipline of Communication is the skill being developed and practiced. The word “discipline” is quite appropriate, because to do this right, everyone must be committed to following the National Fire Academy Communication Model to the letter:
1. Sender gets receiver’s attention.
2. Receiver indicates readiness to listen.
3. Sender sends the communication.
4. Receiver acknowledges by repeating communication.
5. Sender confirms a correct understanding (affirmative) or, if incorrect (negative), restates communication.
Although many fire departments have adopted this model for their fireground communications, it’s doubtful that many ever get to step 5-the affirmative. But this is the most important part of any communication; it is “the handshake.” It’s the crucial confirmation that the communication was successfully conveyed and understood. Without it, there’s no guarantee that the intended communication ever took place.
Let’s look at some common communication problems that can occur if all the steps of the Discipline of Communication are not followed.
The first example is an error the receiver often commits:
IC: “Engine 2, from Main St. command.”
E2: “Engine 2.”
IC: “Lay a supply line to Engine 3.”
E2: “Received.”
Many would look at that exchange and feel confident that the job will get done. And in a real event, the IC may be able to actually witness Engine 2 getting the water supply for Engine 3. But what if the IC’s too busy or if Engine 2 is around the corner, out of the IC’s sight? Should the IC assume that E2 is doing exactly what he wanted them to do? In our business, we say no. He shouldn’t. If you believe that one missed communication or misunderstood communication can mean the difference between success and failure, then you must also believe that there is no room for error here, especially because it involves an order for a water supply.
A disciplined communication would go as follows:
IC: “Engine 2 from Main St. command.”
E2: “Engine 2.”
IC: “Lay a supply line to Engine 3.”
E2: “Engine 2 laying a supply line to Engine 3.”
IC: “Affirmative” (handshake).
With the repeated command followed by the handshake of “affirmative,” both parties in the communication feel confident that what the IC intended to convey was not only conveyed but understood.
What can also disrupt Discipline of Communication is the IC’s forgetting or forgoing the affirmative and the receiver’s assuming that what he or she repeated was heard and understood. For example:
IC: “Engine 2 from Main St command.”
E2: “Engine 2.”
IC: “Take a second attack line to floor 2 and assist Engine 4.”
E2: “Engine 2 to take a second line to floor 2 and back up Engine 4.”
IC: (no response).
Why was there no response from the IC? Chances are it’s because the IC was already thinking about the next thing he wanted to do to mitigate the problem or there was some other distraction at the command post. Or, perhaps he listened long enough to hear Engine 2 come back and start to repeat the message but missed the fact that Engine 2 thinks it is to back up Engine 4, not assist with fire attack as the IC intended. This seemingly minor misunderstanding may be enough to sink the entire operation.
A disciplined exchange would have been as follows:
IC: “… second attack line to the 2nd floor and assist Engine 4.”
E2: “Engine 2 to take a second line to the 2nd floor and back up Engine 4.”
IC: “Engine 2, that’s negative. Take a second attack line and assist with fire suppression.”
E2: “Engine 2 to take a second attack line to the 2nd floor and assist Engine 4 with fire suppression.”
IC: “Affirmative.”
The correction was made because the IC had the DISCIPLINE TO WAIT AND LISTEN for Engine 2 to repeat the order and then give the affirmative. What you may find is that even in a comfortable, air-conditioned classroom where everyone is well rested-without the stress and pressure that a real-life incident creates, SCBA masks to talk through, heat and smoke, and snow or rain-this is no easy task. And that is because firefighters don’t practice this. We get used to saying received instead of repeating an order; we aren’t used to giving or waiting for an affirmative. We allow the stress of the incident to distract us from ensuring that every communication is done correctly.
Another obstacle to reaching affirmative is other fireground units with radio traffic for the IC relaying their messages before the IC and the first unit have had a chance to get to their affirmative. This is where the IC must be disciplined enough to tell the second unit to stand by and then finish up the initial communication. In this way, the IC begins to control the SPEED of the incident communication flow, which can also reduce stress at the command post.
Incident Management System
The communication above lends itself nicely to moving to the IMS side of this drill. But, first consider that any firefighting tactician will agree that being ahead of the fire with proactive decision making is preferable to being reactive, playing catch up. The latter usually means that we’ve lost; it’s usually too late to recover. With this in mind, here’s how the IC above can be disciplined and proactive in managing the event:
E4: (Operating an initial attack line on floor 2, makes a request for assistance) “Main St. command from Engine 4.”
IC: “Main St. command.”
E4: “Requesting 2nd engine company for operations on floor 2.”
IC: “Understand that Engine 4 requests 2nd engine company for operations on floor 2.”
E4: “Affirmative.” (Notice that the use of the NFA Communications Model works not only down the chain of command but up as well.)
IC: (Determines the availability of additional engine company; in this case, it’s Engine 2) “Engine 4, Main St. command.”
E4: “Engine 4.”
IC: “You are now Division 2 with Engine 4, Engine 2 assigned.”
E4: “Engine 4 is Division 2, with Engine 4, Engine 2 assigned.”
IC: “Affirmative.”
Being skilled at Discipline of Communication is to never assume that a communication was heard and understood by all interested parties. The IC above has created a division with a supervisor (E4 officer) and a unit (E2) and INCLUDED the crew of E4 as assigned to the Division. However, E2 has not been notified! This can be handled in a variety of ways, one of which is as follows:
IC: “E2, Main St. command.”
E2: “Engine 2.”
IC: “You are assigned to Division 2, Engine 4 officer.”
E2: “Engine 2 assigned to Division 2, Engine 4 officer.”
IC: “Affirmative.”
Now, with a Division 2 created early in the event, several things were accomplished by the IC:
• Span of control is of less concern if the incident escalates. Any unit assigned to Division 2 (floor 2) will be under the supervision of the Engine 4 officer.
• Radio traffic to the command post has been reduced. Now only Division 2 (E4 officer) should be talking to the IC regarding operations on floor 2.
• The incident is better managed. By creating the division and naming the supervisor, the tasks being undertaken on floor 2 have a better chance of being coordinated, and someone can be held accountable for actions taken or not taken. A very likely alternative to this technique is that the two crews will operate independently, with little coordination, if any, and with less efficiency.
• Everyone on the fireground has had another opportunity to get more comfortable working as divisions or groups, or within them.
• • •
When should the IC begin setting up divisions and groups? One suggestion is any time two or more units are assigned to the same geographical area or performing the same task.
It is worth reemphasizing that the IC sets the pace of communication on the fireground. The IC must be committed to ensuring that all communications on the fireground get to the handshake and that IMS is initiated not after the third alarm has been struck but early in the first alarm. If ICs aren’t holding themselves and their crews accountable for this, then the system has no chance of getting out of the classroom and onto the streets where it’s needed.
Amazingly, some fire departments have elected to allow only their officers to take his training. This is akin to expecting a car to make a turn when there’s no mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the tires. It just won’t work. Everyone on the fireground must be trained on the system. Everyone must know Discipline of Communication; everyone must know and feel comfortable with divisions and groups. Not only is this training beneficial for officers and future officers, but everyone on the fireground will function better when they understand what’s happening over the radio.
Finally, and most importantly, the system will never work in a department unless all members from the chief down are committed to making it work. ■
■ JIM NAGLE is a captain with the Everett (WA) Fire Department, assigned to Engine 1. He has served with the department 11 years and has held the positions of training officer, operator/engineer, and fire inspector/origin and cause investigator. He has an associate’s degree in a nonfire-related discipline.
