AN INSIDE LOOK AT FIRE SERVICE COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
Fire service communications and dispatching remains one of the most talked about yet most neglected areas in all of public service There are two principal reasons. It is expensive to change and upgrade a communications system to maintain it at or near state of the art. And for the most part, during normal operation, the systems work well.
It is during peak periods and major emergencies that systems become overloaded and fail. In 28 years in our business, I have never been to a postfire critique where communications were not one of the major issues discussed, and usually negatively.
My point of reference is principally Los Angeles County, since I spent 25 years there prior to coming to Anaheim. However, the conditions are relatively the same in Anaheim and in dozens of other communities which I have visited over the years.
Antiquated systems
Most communications centers and systems are built around NFPA Pamphlet 73, which until the recent past was primarily geared to wired systems Radio and microwave received scarcely a mention and were c ertainly not recognized as a dispatch circuit One result is that many systems are a holdover from days past They are antiquated and are not designed to handle today’s competing demands for service nor to create the mountains of paper and reports the fire service continues to demand Dispatch personnel are then asked to operate a manual system and make it responsive to an increasingly automated world
Cable plants were and are extremely expensive to install and maintain Therefore, the cost to change to electronic systems is prohibitive.
In many cases existing cable is incapable of handling high-speed data transmissions; hence it is difficult and expensive even to update such systems. Even though street box systems receive little or no credit from ISO, are expensive to maintain and are a major source of false alarms, there is a reluctance to do away with them because of capital investment.
“Most fire departments fail to recognize that the primary needs are for automation and the proper management, selection and training of personnel, and those departments therefore continue to blame dispatchers and communications personnel for system failures which are really outside their ability to control.”
When changes are made they are often piecemeal and may result in a mix of systems. All too often these systems mean that the dispatch personnel must support the system rather than having the system support them.
Most fire departments have failed to recognize that rapidly increasing alarm ratio (competing demands) beyond any demographic projection is the real problem. Much of this accelerated increase has been brought about by the relatively recent advent of emergency medical services for which fire departments must now allocate resources. Adding forms and even people to existing manual systems is not a solution.
Consider what happens under “normal conditions.” The dispatcher is the first interface with the public. He or she must receive the alarm or elicit pertinent information from a caller (often from someone who is hysterical or nearly so), match that information to a (hopefully) preprogrammed response, dispatch the equipment, make proper notifications (often to people who could care less or who say “keep me informed”), fill out a response ticket (these take various forms and are sometimes based on what people think they need to know), keep track of the equipment dispatched and respond to requests for additional service. The response ticket is usually the basis for an incident file and also provides information for fire information reporting systems. Additionally, they must keep other information such as street closures, hydrants out of service and various other bits of pertinent information.
If alarms always happened separately, there would be no problem. But such is not the case. As the alarm rate increases, dispatch times increase, the chance for error increases and status-keeping may easily become confused. Bear in mind that the same people who wanted information before now want even more. Also, as the rate of incidences goes up, the number of phone calls rises almost exponentially. It can become a viscious and never-ending cycle.
Organized chaos
Even a reasonably efficient dispatch center with an average workload is perceived by those of us with communications experience to be a sort of “organized chaos.” Add to that average workload a major emergency — and the chaos is absolute.
It was my privilege (penance?) to work in Los Angeles County’s headquarters dispatch center during the Watts riots of the mid-sixties. During one 24-hour period that center dispatched and attempted to control over 350 pieces of equipment. The number of phone calls handled and radio transmission received and made are incalculable. Throughout one three-day period there was never a time when the radio and phones were quiet. It must be remembered that “normal” business does not stop during major emergencies, and the fact that no lives were lost outside the riot areas remains a miracle. There is no question that fire losses were greater and that the potential for loss of life was certainly there. We missed responses, alarms were delayed up to 20 minutes, we lost track of equipment (one unit for 24 hours) and personnel, and in short the system broke down. Had it not been for the courageous and tireless efforts of those involved it would have been a complete disaster. Dispatch personnel went up to 48 hours without rest.
Our own system supplied too little information, and we had to rely on public broadcasts to ascertain status of the incident and even to determine our own involvement. At one point one of the dispatchers saw one of our rigs, which our records showed as being in quarters, fighting a fire in the riot zone.
Another problem area is that since the dispatch center is the nerve center, everyone not on the emergency wants to come in, watch and listen and offer advice and ask questions. The noise level grows consistently and adds to the already overwhelming confusion. It is hard for a dispatcher to order ranking personnel out of the center.
You may wish to argue that the plight of many communications/dispatch personnel is somewhat dramatically overstated. There is a true incident which I believe supports what I feel may be the philosophy of some departments. A fire department (which shall remain nameless) was considering using a basement area for added office space. A high-ranking department official inspected the area and indignantly declared, “You can t put people in here!” Guess what: they put the dispatchers there instead.
Tips for Managing a Communications Center
• The person in charge should be at management level with access to top fire department management, should have a good working knowledge of communications systems and dispatch operations and should be experienced in personnel management. The position should not be rotated on a one, two or three-year basis.
• The manager should interact with other departments through communications organizations, seminars and training programs.
• High-caliber dispatch personnel should be recruited on the basis of education and experience and with full recognition that they are the department’s first contact with the public in emergencies.
• Salary and benefits should be at a level to encourage personnel to stay in the system.
• Dispatch and communications personnel must be recognized and appreciated as an integral part of department operations and not “secondclass citizens.”
• Training must be provided to cover at least:
a. Entry level training, prior to operation of the system.
b. Ongoing/in-service, to assure state-of-the-art knowledge.
c. Fire department operations and policies.
d. Fireground operations. (How many of your dispatchers ever rode on fire apparatus or saw an emergency in progress?)
• Dispatch and communications personnel should attend captains’ and staff meetings and should be on station mailing lists for all department information.
• Endeavor to provide a system and an environment which supports the people who operate it and not vice versa.
The pressure is staggering
It is really impossible to describe the incredibly intense level of activity which takes place during such an emergency. Dispatchers learn that every phone call or alarm is a potentially life-threatening emergency and they are dedicated to responding accordingly. The pressures to keep that commitment in the face of those odds are staggering.
An incident of similar magnitude occurred in 1970 when brush fires raged over most of Southern California. Over 700,000 acres of watershed and hundreds of homes and buildings were destroyed. The same manual systems existed in 1970 as had in 1965. It was from those fires that the FIRESCOPE program and the incident command system was born. Keeping track of the sequence of events in such instances is an awesome responsibility and no manual system can do so. Yet to recreate the incident in its entirety with records is the responsibility of the communications or dispatch center personnel.
A few years ago Los Angeles County began a massive effort to completely redo their communications and dispatc h system and to build a state-of-the-art command and control center. Much progress has been made and those involved are to be commended. However, the system discussed in this article was a manual system typical of the majority of systems currently used throughout the nation.
We must ultimately realize that manual communications systems such as Los Angeles County’s and most others (our own included) are not designed and cannot be “patched” to allocate resources among increasing and competing demands in a sensible, logical and cost-effective manner Manual systems only attempt to assure that resources will be dispatched, and they sometimes fail to do even that. Most fire departments fail to recognize that the primary needs are for automation and the proper management, selection and training of personnel, and those departments therefore continue to blame dispatchers and communications personnel for system failures which are really outside their ability to control.
