Do We Need a New Way to Communicate?
BY JEFF RUSTEEN
Considering how much public safety responsibilities have advanced over the past few decades and the increasing array of coordinated multijurisdictional responses, why are we still using the same basic verbal radio communications established by our fathers and grandfathers? As you know, the trend has been to switch from code-based systems (arbitrary numerical hierarchical systems) back to what is referred to as “plain text” so that things are “clearer” to everyone–in other words, state what you see, and ask for what you need.
Everyone who has been to a major incident has heard units talking over one another, static, noise, and then the out-of-breath response or request that often ends up with, “Unit, repeat—traffic.” This system actually works okay most of the time, not all of the time. Communications are most critical when the first-arriving unit attempts to describe the situation to the first-arriving chief and other inbound units. Errors or miscommunications can have serious, even disastrous, results.
There’s a reason the military and the airlines use acronyms and abbreviations. It speeds up communication XXX, as long as you understand the abbreviations. There’s something else pilots do: They repeat critical messages back to the controller. They don’t do that just to use up air time: If you don’t get it right, that might be the last time you ever speak on a radio. Are some of our messages more critical than others? If they are, how do we identify very critical communications vs. updates and cross talk among units?
If you’ve had a line-of-duty death, serious injuries, or close calls during responses or incidents, examine the events to see if communications played any role in it.
This article explores the possibility of developing a hybrid approach somewhere between clear text and straight code systems that conveys commonsense abbreviations that are brief, yet clear and easily repeatable. This would serve to shorten and clarify critical information and allow communications (radio) to retransmit so it is clearer to all listening. We probably have experienced that the larger the event, the more chaotic communication becomes. This method may help to decrease the chaos a little.
Every major event recently from Sandy Hook to Super Storm Sandy has involved multiagency multijurisdictional responses. If we have to communicate quickly and clearly in ways that everyone understands, clear text is too slow, and code-based systems may be incompatible.
MAJOR, MULTIJURISDICTIONAL EVENTS
We are fortunate in this country that we do not have some of the issues other countries face every day. We do have domestic terrorism issues, and we are not immune from serious attacks from foreign sources.
The Sandy Hook incident was a one-individual operation. The suspect had limited training and skill sets. What would happen if several trained assailants with or without explosives show up?
Consider a terrorist event like that that occurred in Mumbai, India, or Nairobi, Kenya–an event that involves some level of planning and timing with multiple participants who are trained and experienced. Interoperability, crosstalk, and close integration among police, fire, and medical personnel could mean the difference between terrible failure and incredible success. Are you prepared?
In the fire realm, are you using descriptors like” Smoke showing” or “Engine 241 engaging in fast attack?” None of our calls are easy. Consider adding a gas attack to a fire scenario, explosives to an active-shooter incident, or a sniper to any of the above incidents.
Here are a few ideas for an engine pulling up on the scene. If the members do not see anything, how about, “Engine 1 on the scene. Condition 1 (see Table 1).
We could extend this simple system to include other parameters such as, “Engine 1 on scene, condition 2 S exist.” Communications would then repeat that message: “Attention all responding units, Engine 1 reports condition 2S.” This lets the first-due chief know the exterior presentation indicates an advanced fire and the crew is experiencing difficulty inside. How many words would that take in plain text?
If Engine one happened to arrive at a different side of the building, the broadcast would be, “Engine 1, B (bravo side), reporting condition 2E. (Charlie exposure) exists.
Everyone responding would understand that Engine 1 is on the B side of the building reporting fire smoke and exposures on the C side of the building.
Table 1. Assumed Base Conditions
The following procedures/conditions are assumed unless the caller corrects them.
• All reports are from the A side of the building (main address or primary building entrance) unless otherwise indicated.
• ICS terminology will be used wherever applicable.
• The structure has been entered at grade.
• If any relayed information is from a resident, that fact will be communicated to command.
• As conditions are identified, they will be repeated by communications and relayed through the MDT system.
• If a resident or owner is on scene, a set of standard questions will be asked because no one else will have the answers:1
– Is anyone in the structure? If so, where do you think the person(s) is?
– Where do you think the fire is?
– Are there any special hazards inside (chemicals, firearms, dogs, and so on)?
Conditions
Condition 1 : On scene, A side. Nothing apparent.
Condition 2: On scene. Smoke and flame visible from street (side A assumed.)
Condition 3: Immediate rescue required.
Condition 4: Incident conditions severe; likely to exceed 1st-alarm capabilities.
Condition 5: Scene unsafe. Police or other resources required.
Condition 5 A: On-scene resources can handle incident.
Condition 5 B: Structure or incident is below grade.
Condition E(xposure): Immediate exposure (reporter will specify which side B, C, or D. Will indicate high-rise by floor.
Condition H(azmat): Hazmat found or identified at scene. Incident, structure, or victim on a hill.
Condition L(ocation): Difficulty locating the seat of the fire.
Condition S(evere): Severe conditions inside (specify heat, visibility, access, debris).
Condition T(russ): Truss floors or roofs.
Condition U(noccupied) : Structure or vehicle reported as unoccupied.
Condition W(ind load): Wind load on scene or against structure.
Condition X(etreme caution): Unusual hazard on scene (specify).
1. This will not always be possible for a number of reasons including language, difficulty, inability to recall under stress, fear of authority, inability to distinguish a resident, severe immediate requirement for action, and other factors. If the first-in officer is unable to ask any questions, command must be advised, and the next-due due officer must give it a try.
RAPIDLY CHANGING CONDITIONS
Consider the following scenario, moments after Engine 1 arrives at a reported residential fire. The garage, which had trapped natural gas, explodes. Now the entire structure is engulfed and is in danger of collapsing. There’s impact damage on exposures B and C; exposure B is now on fire.
The broadcasted message might be: Engine 1, emergency traffic. We’ve experienced condition EX, condition 2, 4 exists.” Condition 4 means the current assignment can no longer handle the emergency (recommend additional resources). Depending on the personnel on scene and still responding, the chief might ask for more details or simply request a second-alarm assignment.
Fighting some fires are much more dangerous than fighting others. We are taught this in basic fire academy. Operating above the fire is one of the most dangerous operations for firefighters. This is especially true if you don’t realize that. If the first-in crew is in the fire building and the conditions are hot and smoky and they’re not sure where the fire is, we could use a simple abbreviated description: condition B and L (see Table 1). This tells the responding chief that the first-in unit is having difficulty locating the fire and has not entered on the lowest floor. This information allows the chief to make a call based on that report. This condition can also be expanded on: you can add condition S (severe interior conditions) to indicate very hot, poor visibility, or other difficult operations.
The key here is a system that’s easy to understand, has the fewest elements possible, and can be repeated easily and quickly. You could add other elements, such as “the seat of the fire exceeds the preconnect length (condition EL: extra line needed). This lets all the other responding resources know that attack lines will have to be extended or run off larger lines.
BIO
JEFF RUSTEEN retired from the San Francisco (CA) Fire Department in 2011 after a combined total of 31 years in the fire service and emergency medical service. He is now an instructor for the Department of Homeland Security at the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama
