By Lauren Keyson
An interview with Captain Mike Nasta, Newark (NJ) Fire Department, and Captain Raul Angulo, Seattle (WA) Fire Department
Today we interview two captains, one pro tags and one against tags-to a degree. The “pro” captain, Raul Angulo, believes that the tags are essential for knowing who is on the fireground. Mike Nasta, on the other hand, believes that tags make a department overconfident in the system and at most, identify missing persons rather than track active locations. However, both agree that the tag system needs to be closely tied to a strong incident command system to be truly effective.
LAUREN KEYSON, FIRE ENGINEERING: Raul, why do you like using tags for accountability? And why do you think the perceived problems stem not from the system but from the way the system is implemented?
RAUL ANGULO, SEATTLE (WA) FIRE DEPARTMENT: I think there are two issues. First, you have an accountability system, and then you have tagging, which is one method to identify members as part of this system. The #1 purpose of this system is to account for all firefighters working at the incident. Firefighter safety and accountability are mandated by NFPA 1500 and 1561-these standards require a functional accountability system and we have to use it. If this is the law in your state–and in Washington, it is–then we have no choice. We must implement the system. Neglecting to do so leaves the fire department open to liability.
There are various ways to go about implementing the tagging system, and how this is done is probably where the problems lies–it appears to be cumbersome, so firefighters abandon the practice. But if it’s taught correctly, I think the resistance to name tags can be overcome. I’ve looked over many different incident action plans and tactical worksheets and I don’t see that it would be difficult to implement a tagging system to any format a department is already using. It is a simple adjustment and just a matter of retraining.
KEYSON: Mike, you had said that you don’t think tagging systems are effective.
MIKE NASTA, NEWARK (NJ) FIRE DEPARTMENTM: I agree that tagging systems are the law, and they are the standard, but I believe they leave a lot to be desired-mainly because I think they are reactive. At the end of the day, they do nothing more than identify members’ bodies. It’s not a good system. We need a better system that will keep track of the guy every minute while he is in there working. I believe that to work under a strong command system, and have strict discipline– to know where these firefighters are operating and under whose supervision–is more efficient than just tagging. While we can leave the tag system at the door, and it will tell us what floor that firefighter is working on, unless he is closely supervised, we have no way of knowing where that firefighter is actually supposed to be.
In my opinion, if the firefighter is working under the direction of a company officer who is working directly with the commanding officer, then we know where he is at all times. This is because he is being closely supervised by a live body, not just by the hopes that he is operating where his tag is placed on the board. We all know that firefighters tend to deviate from where they should be working. But if he is working under a very disciplined command system, then once he has completed the task he is assigned, his officer reports the completion back to the incident commander. The he can be reassigned and the incident commander will know exactly where those people are.
KEYSON: So you are saying what should happen in an ideal situation–that if a firefighter is going to deviate, he needs to report back to his officer.
NASTA: They should not be deviating–when they are given an assignment, they should do that assignment to its completion and then wait for further assignments. They should not go off on their own agendas. However, the incident commander should be open enough, and most are, to realize that the eyes and ears are inside this building with the personnel. And if the personnel believe that their assignment needs to be adjusted, they should not adjust that assignment until they convey that information to the incident commander and receive permission to make that adjustment.
KEYSON: Raul, what about first-in firefighters?
ANGULO: I agree with what Mike is saying–that the accountability system has to be tied directly to the ICS system and your incident action plan. Seattle uses little hook and loop fastener plastic name tags that identify each member and their company. They go on a 2″x 4″ hook and loop fastener passport, a piece of plastic that holds the tags. Obviously the firefighters on the first-in company are not going to be able to hand their tags off to the battalion chief, so for the initial stages of the game, it’s up to the company officers to know who is riding on their surrounding companies. The battalion chief prints out a roster at the beginning of the shift, so the chief knows who’s on the initial response, plus we have duplicate passports on the apparatus that can be taken off the first-in units.
You can pretty much figure out what the first and second-in engines are doing as well as the first-in truck. A good size up and radio report should make it fairly easy for the incident commander to pick up where you left off. But from that point on, units arriving at the scene should report to the IC with their name tags. Those tags have to be incorporated on a tactical work board for a functioning accountability system to be in place.
KEYSON: What if the tags are incorrect?
ANGULO: It is a matter of training. The expectation of keeping the passport accurate throughout the tour, as well as the serious consequences if overlooked, needs to be clearly established and understood by all members of the company. The ultimate responsibility lies with the company officer. An officer would be negligent as well as look foolish if he showed up at a fire and turned in his tags with the names from the previous shift. Like any new practice, there’s a learning curve, but soon it becomes habit. Nametags are exchanged at the beginning of the shift. The chance that a tag is incorrect is no greater than a firefighter who shows up for work and forgets to put his gear on the rig or forgets to check the air in his SCBA. It’s a matter of habit and it rarely gets overlooked. The nametag is an extension of his safety gear. If a firefighter gets detailed out to another station, we train him to grab his bunking gear, helmet, gloves, and his tags. It’s automatic, cemented into his routine.
KEYSON: But the firefighter may not be where the tags shows him to be, creating a false sense of security.
ANGULO: Again, it’s a training issue. Battalion chiefs and anyone who could act as an IC needs to learn how to move the tags around on the tactical incident boards to indicate where firefighters are and what they are doing. It’s not hard. Here is an example: Let’s say that your first contingent went to a house fire with flames from the second floor. Their radio report would indicate they were taking a line to floor 2. You’re not going to have any tags for these guys but you should know who they are and you know where they are.
NASTA: So that’s where the system is starting to fall short already, and a strong command system becomes essential. The first two companies–we all know where they’re operating–transmit their location over the air to an incoming incident commander. Now we know where these people are going to work and we didn’t have to use the tags.
ANGULO: Right. They’ll say, “Engine 33 is on floor 2 making fire attack.” The IC should know that E33 has a crew of four, including the captain. He should at least know their names and knows those guys are operating on floor 2. If a truck gets there before the chief, and the officer radios he’s going to the roof to ventilate, the chief should know, based on his roster, the officer and the rest of the crew by name. He also knows to expect that they will be working on the roof doing ventilation. A good battalion chief will know all the firefighters on duty in his battalion. So will good officers, especially if they know that they can assume the role of IC in the initial stages of an incident.
NASTA: You’re kind of making my argument for me. All that evolves from strong SOPs and a strong command system.
ANGULO: But once the fire starts to progress from there, it’s going to start to get a little more complicated remembering everything from memory. And we also have to look at volunteer departments as well-these people are going to start showing up now, asking for assignments. The system needs to be formalized at this point. There has to be a system to check in these people with their names, not just their company, because we need to know where specific firefighters will be assigned. Seattle’s tag system allows us to put from two to five names on one tag, so that unit can be given an assignment. If they are designated “salvage/exposure group” on floor 1, I know I have four firefighters I can identify by name. They are protecting exposures and performing salvage operations on floor 1. My status board or tactical worksheet should reflect this assignment. Now I know whose is doing what and where they are located. I don’t know what room they’re in, but I know they’re on the first floor and not the second floor. Since no one knows the layouts of every building, we usually make our assignments by floor.
NASTA: It sounds like a good command system to me: They reported it to the IC, they were given a job to do, and they reported to their job. On completion, they should either report back to the IC or get sent on to rehab and then given another task. That’s the whole argument I was making.
I believe a better way to keep track of our people during the operation is to use a PAR, a personnel accountability report during the incident. I know where certain departments use a certain tone during the incident in different increments, and they’ll ask for a PAR, which means all company officers have to make an accountability report via radio to the incident commander. If that report is incomplete, then that incident commander now goes into a different mode where he knows he has missing personnel. The officer has to account for the personnel or he has go into a rescue mode.
ANGULO: We all know that incident commanders can get overwhelmed very quickly. But it gets more complicated when you add volunteers and mutual aid to the response. You can’t possibly know everyone and keep track of them once they’re on the fireground. Let’s say I have Engine 52 from the next county coming in on mutual aid. I don’t know these guys, but they check in with their nametags on E52’s passport. The fire is in the basement, and I send E52 to floor 1 to keep it from coming up the stairs. My status board shows E52, exposure, Floor 1. Now the first floor collapses into the basement. Everyone is hurt and the officer is unable to give me a PAR. Even though I do not know these guys, I know I have E52 from the county trapped in the basement. I know they have a crew of four, and I know them by name. I can immediately deploy my RIT to the basement and announce we are looking for Capt. Moberg, FF Stanley, FF Gilbert, and FF Koll of E52. I can only know this because I have nametags on their company passport.
Just to rely on the PAR is putting your eggs in one basket. Hoping that the IC will remember your name, your assignment, and where you were working on a dynamic fireground is not accountability. It’s dangerous. Two Seattle firefighters were killed in the 1980s. No one noticed these firefighters were missing. These fatality fires led to the accountability system we use today. Just look around at all the chiefs and officers in your department who may run an incident. Do you really want to entrust your safety to their memory? That’s why we use fireground checkoff lists; so we don’t forget anything. We don’t leave critical tasks to memory. We write them down. Use the nametags.
NASTA: That’s where you need to have a redundant system. I’m not totally against tags. In the volunteer setting, it is very important to know who is coming on the vehicles. But it is even more important to have those people, when they do report, to report to the incident commander for assignments. That way if they are utilizing the tag system or not, he knows who came to him. He knows where they were assigned. The discipline has to be there that they follow his assignments and follow the command system the way it is supposed to operate. My whole point with the downfall of the tag system is that by itself and without a strong command system it does not tell you where that firefighter is every minute during the operation. That can only be achieved through a strong, disciplined command system.
Mike Nasta is the captain of Truck 5 in the Newark( NJ) Fire Department as well as a senior fire instructor at the Bergen County Fire Academy and a Level II New Jersey State Certified Fire Instructor. Nasta is also a member of the South Hackensack Volunteer Fire Department and has served two terms and department. Chief. He is a H.O.T. evolutions coordinator and the lead instructor for Truck Company Search for FDIC and FDIC West.
Raul A. Angulo is a 23-year veteran of the Seattle (WA) Fire Department and captain of Engine Company 33. He is on the educational advisory boards for FDIC and FDIC WEST. He teaches courses in fire service leadership, company officer and crew development, and fireground strategy and tactics around the country. He heads the Seattle Chapter of Fellowship of Christian Firefighters.
Lauren Keyson is executive editor of Fire Engineering and conference manager for the Fire Department Instructors Conference. She has a bachelor’s degree in political science from UC Berkeley and a publishing certificate from Stanford University. She is a volunteer with the Greenville (NY) Fire Department. If you have a burning issue to discuss, please e-mail her at laurenk@pennwell.com.
