Maintaining Manual Skills in CAD Operations
FEATURES
COMMUNICATIONS
Computer assisted dispatch (CAD) systems are in various states of gestation in fire departments throughout the country. Running from the full-blown systems that keep track of response and operating times and integrate input from multiple sources (digital status reporting systems, mechanical street boxes, dispatchers at CRT keyboards, computer-generated prompts), to automatic status keeping systems, to simple speedy “look-up” systems which retrieve stored data such as cross streets for addresses, the invasion of hardware and software into the fire communications centers is both widespread and varied.
While the pitfalls in establishing CAD systems are many and the “horror stories” of time and money lost on poorly designed systems are legion, we are going to talk about an unexpected drawback to the well-designed system. The system that works so well that it spoils its operators. Not that it borders on becoming addictive such as PacMan or Atari games did a few Christmases back, but, like the pocket calculator has made it impossible for many people to balance their checkbooks without it, a good CAD system can lull its operators into becoming dangerously dependent on it. The possibility that your dispatchers’ manual communications skills will atrophy from underuse is real.
A decade ago, there was some general apprehension in emergency communication centers around the country. Warned that the CAD system was the way of the future, many dispatchers and fire service supervisors were afraid that they would be left in the technological dust, dreaming of counting bells, while the young Turks dashed to fires with dot matrix printouts in their hands. Their misgivings turned out to be unwarranted.
For those whose departments purchased poorly advised systems (and we’ll spare them the embarrassment of naming names), it soon became apparent that the old human operators were far ahead of the soon to be scrapped new machines. For those whose departments invested in well-designed systems, ease of training and learning made it readily evident that, if CAD was the ticket to the future, it was easy to hitch a ride on a “user friendly” system. Almost too easy.
On July 4, 1985, the New York City Fire Department’s (FDNY) Starfire system, which provides CAD for the city’s five boroughs, faced with massive input in the form of alarm traffic, began to slow down. Between 9:30 and 10 P.M., 436 alarms were received. Around ten o’clock, CAD Operations personnel began to take the system down in Brooklyn and Staten Island dispatch offices—a precaution not unlike the “load-shedding” procedure followed by electric utility companies. With two boroughs off the line, the remaining three Central Offices (Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens) were able to function smoothly.
Says Mike Vitucci, chief dispatcher in charge of the CAD Operations Unit, “We were lucky that our Brooklyn office was staffed with so many experienced dispatchers. Only one man had as little as two years experience, so manual operations were relatively easy.”
Apparently, the transition time itself was a little sticky though, with units already in the field getting “lost” to dispatchers as the system went down, manual operations commenced, and heavy alarm traffic continued unabated. Without the ability for companies to transmit their status directly to the now down computer from teleprinter selector panels at the housewatch stations, status reporting had to be done either by telephone or radio.
Radio traffic was heavy with alarm transmissions, and dispatchers automatically picked up ringing “fire phones” (lines from outside and 911 interface used to report fires) before answering ringing “status phones” (in-house extensions used for administrative communication). The end result was what Vitucci calls “spurious unavailability” of units. The units were ready to go to work, but the dispatchers didn’t know it. Accustomed to the CAD system where the “re-stocking” of resources for subsequent dispatches is done via computer, the dispatchers did what came naturally, they answered calls for help. It is easy to see how this continual transmission of alarms without tracking availability depletes firefighting resources (not actually, but from the dispatchers’ point of view) rather quickly.
In the field, fire officers reported hearing alarms transmitted in their vicinity and, unable to get any “air time” on the frequency, just rolled (responded) to the scene with the communication people unaware of their activities. Similarly, “verbal alarms” (those originated by fire companies in the street) were often discovered and extinguished without the dispatchers’ knowledge. Said one officer, “I worked at two structural fires for which I had no box number, no out times, nothing. The fire reports were written in great retrospect.”
How do you prevent breakdown of control in the fact of loss of your CAD system? What course can you take to ensure the level of redundancy needed to effect safe fire protection? While there are several mechanical means for easing transition when a CAD system goes down (Starfire prints out the last known status of units, for example, so there is a starting point for manual operations), for many departments, maintaining manual fluency in dispatching is a big part of their communications program, either in planning or practice.
Philadelphia, PA, Chief Dispatcher Charles H. Pue notes that his department plans installation of a CAD system by the end of the year. Unlike some other municipalities though, Philadelphia does not view the planned installation as a replacement. From Pue’s point of view, CAD is more of an enhancement of communications personnel’s existing skills. He has no plans to scrap those skills. “We’ll retain all manual status systems and schedule periodic training and retraining of alarms,” says Pue.
From what others report of their experience with CAD, Chief Dispatcher Pue is wise in planning for retraining as well as orienting new personnel to the manual dispatching system. Says Sargeant Gary Mann of the Montgomery County Emergency Operations Center in Rockville, MD: “I’ve been here for 20 years and we went to an automatic statusing system about four years ago. When that system goes down, it’s difficult. Not just for new employees, but also for those of us with experience with the old hanging status board. You get used to the easy way.”
Captain Robert Guzzi, communications officer for the Oakland, CA, Fire Department, agrees. And he does something about it. “If you don’t use it, you lose it,” says Guzzi. So his department has ongoing “take-downs” of their twoyear-old system. “Sometimes we have to bring the system down for routine upgrades of software or system maintenance. But, even if it’s not required for some other purpose, we bring the system down to keep our people sharp.”
In addition, Guzzi reports that all new dispatchers receive initial training in the manual system. “The CAD system was spawned from the manual system. They’re going to have to use the manual system on occasion, and they have to be ready to do this just like we are ready to do everything else we do—without any prior notice.”
Oakland’s dispatchers get six weeks of training in their ninemonth probationary period and must successfully demonstrate manual dispatching skills in order to complete probation.
FDNY’s Vitucci reports that there is some concern about bringing his system down for manual training purposes. “We realize the need,” says Vitucci, “since we have 98.3% system reliability. Of the 1.7% downtime we had last year, 1.1% was preplanned. This leaves us .6% unplanned downtime. It’s a great system. However, when you run at that level of reliability with CAD, you tend naturally to become sloppy manually. Our problem lies in justifying more planned downtime should an untoward incident occur.”
Vitucci goes on to explain that, with FDNY’s potential for fast and furious alarm traffic (they processed 485,578 alarms last year), the possibility of increased response times directly attributable to the use of the manual dispatching mode presents a very realistic concern. The thinking goes that a “flurry” of alarms may result in a later arriving first-alarm assignment. If a substantial fire loss occurs, a litigant could possibly argue that the city was not using every means at its disposal to effect the fastest response to a fire. It’s a thorny issue which Vitucci is happy to leave with the FDNY legal division for the moment.
As for his area of expertise, Vitucci knows what lesson he learned from July 4th. In his report summarizing the events of that evening, he recommends that “Immediate measures should be taken to effect refresher training and practical application in manual methods of operations.”
So, if you are planning a CAD system, remember to retain not only the hardware necessary for manual dispatching, but the human skills as well. In looking back a dozen years to the early implementation stages of FDNY’s CAD system, I can remember a lot of dispatcher resistance to the idea. Some worried over the loss of tradition, some felt that they would never acquire necessary technical skills, other feared “being replaced by a computer.” It is now paradoxical that these same personnel have grown so enamored of their system that they gripe on planned down days. While it is a tribute to both the system design and the dispatchers’ adaptability, it has also presented new problems, such as the increase in sick leaves on certain days. System down? Sick calls up. You do, as Sargeant Mann said, get used to the easy way.
No matter how much resistance you may see among your troops now to a CAD system, plan it with the anticipation that attitudinal changes will take place. If your city currently operates a CAD system and your dispatchers do not attend manual training, don’t wait for your own July 4th experience. Check the legal ramifications and take your system down, preferably unannounced, to train both your dispatchers and your field personnel in manual dispatching operations. If it is decided that you can’t take your system down, make other provisions for manual training. Use a mock-up operations area if you have to, but make sure that those manual skills do not waste away.
And, if you find yourself like Mike Vitucci did in Brooklyn on July 4th, with a demand for service that is beyond your system’s ability to handle efficiently, hope that you will be as lucky as he was and have seasoned dispatchers on duty at the time. As for the only relatively new man he had that night, Vitucci shares this insight on what to do with a willing worker who has no system to operate: “Have him keep the coffee coming. You’re going to need it.”
