Search and Rescue Scenario - what would you do?

[helicopper 1,050]

You are dispatched to a large warehouse (let's say 400x400) for an industrial accident with injuries and people trapped. Electricity to the building is out so there are no lights and no alarms/phones/etc. Automatic mutual aid is sent with your department per standard dispatch guidelines. PD and EMS are also assigned to the job.

You arrive and deploy your personnel into the building to commence a search from the exposure 1 side of the building (the main entrance).

PD arrives and enters the building to search from the exposure 2 side.

Mutual aid department A enters the building via the exposure 3 side and MA department B enters the building on their own from the exposure 4 side. You only know this because you hear chatter on the radio but have no idea who's inside with how many people, what equipment, etc.

EMS vehicles arrive, literally flying past you in the parking lot, and the crews just enter the building from the exposure 1 side without any regard for your presence.

You hear on the radio that MA department A is calling for additional mutual aid to assist with the search because the building is so large and the interior is maze like making it very difficult to locate anyone.

The local CERT team arrives, having heard this on the radio, and starts their own search operation.

Who's searching where? What accountability do you have for these responders?

You're an officer/chief - would you tolerate this? What would you do to resolve it and/or prevent it from happening in the future?

[CFD320 35]

There is no incident command system in place in the scenario you describe, the whole operation sounds to be a recipie for disaster. A commercial building of that size needs to be divided into sectors with an ops leader for each sector. A logistics officer needs to be assigned to coordinate the automatic incoming mutal aid at a pre-planned staging area. Maze like conditions also dictate each search team deploying and searching off a rope.

As for your questions:

Who's searching where? You would have no idea

What accountability do you have for these responders? None in the scenario described

You're an officer/chief - would you tolerate this? No

What would you do to resolve it and/or prevent it from happening in the future? Order a complete evacuation of the building (the age old pull the air horn's), gain command and control of the incident by employing an ICS strategy and re-deploy assets in a coordinated manner.

my .02

[FFPCogs 863]

Well I can tell you that I would not allow this type of operation no matter what the situation or how "old school" I am, I am not in any way, shape or form into freelancing . If for some reason this scenario was playing out prior to my arrival I would call for an immediate PAR upon my arrival and pull the teams back to designated staging areas (at most two) from which to BEGIN searching like say 1/2 corner and 3/4 corner each of which would have a staging officer present and in contact with me at the CP in front of the building. As this is apparently during working hours, at my side at the CP would be representatives of the company who know the building as well as any witnesses who may have knowledge of what exactly happened and where. Of course industrial accident leaves much to the imagination first off being some sort of Haz Mat op which of course has it's attentant protocols and problems i.e. Haz Mat teams, hot, cold and warm zones, decon, rehab, evacuation ect. So not knowing even a basic idea of what is involved here any further steps would have to be based on the nature of the emergency once it's apparent. Without fail though all activity would be coordinated through the command post and additional resources would be called and staged as needed to ensure adequate personnel and equipment are on scene to mitigate the problem. One more thing if ANY of my personnel allowed such a situation to develop in the first place they would get a good swift kick in the a** at a minimum.

Cogs

Edited August 9, 2009 by FFPCogs

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Yell at the cops "what the h@ll are you guys doing entering a potentially IDLH atmosphere without gear?" Then waste the rest of the time as the incident continued to deteriorate arguing over who has jurisdiction over the incident.

Chris, you know we all love you, that's why I'm just bustin 'em.

[AFS1970 504]

I too would like to know more about the type of industrial accident, especially as it effects structural integrity for the building. Without this information I am not willing to start such a large scale operation. It seems to me that there is not ICS structure present and more than a little freelancing going on. Even if each side will have it's own entry, these need to be coordinated, which they obviously are not. By far one of the biggest problems I have is with the CERT team performing any type of interior search. Even if they have some search training, it is most likely outdoor search techniques for missing persons, not interior methods for trapped people.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

LOL. I'd like to know who truly wrote that...

Sounds like a typical day in many areas...different emergency service disciplines that have not communicated nor communicate. Lack of pre-planning of an obvious high risk facility. No incident management system understanding, training or even implementation. If people are flying by you, not recognizing your presence, etc. Guess what...that is your and your agency's fault for putting you in that situation. Was there an established, identified command post? Why not contact those agencies your having problems with and request a member come to the command post and act as the IC to work with you. People enter the building freelancing...they will leave the building organized and enter a staging area that should have been established upon arrival or in a pre plan. Industrial institutions only have so many entries and exits..control them.

Also one other thing to point out in the scenario as its written. Good IMS planning solves the who's jurisdiction it is. The answer is its everyone as each agency has their own mission. No one is ahead of the other. That is why its called UNIFIED COMMAND. Enough with the sandbox BS. That scenario is written that as whomever is supposed or apparently believes they are in charge from the FD is the supreme allied commander. Not so...I mean flat out from that text they can't even control the FD side of the house lone less coordinating response to maximize the efforts that may be needed.

[Goose 188]

Sounds like a situation where CIDS information could be used....but i doubt many Westchester FDs have that sort of thing in place. Just pray this never happens here.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I too would like to know more about the type of industrial accident, especially as it effects structural integrity for the building. Without this information I am not willing to start such a large scale operation. It seems to me that there is not ICS structure present and more than a little freelancing going on. Even if each side will have it's own entry, these need to be coordinated, which they obviously are not. By far one of the biggest problems I have is with the CERT team performing any type of interior search. Even if they have some search training, it is most likely outdoor search techniques for missing persons, not interior methods for trapped people.

As a member of a CERT Team, I can tell you that CERT teams do have indoor search and rescue training. They are hardly collapse rescue techniciansl, but its something. Generally speaking, a CERT should not be entering without the direction of the IC, that is VERY heavily stressed during the training program. They are taught about voids and collapses (and to avoid them.) The collapse of finish materials, etc is fine for a CERT to search, but as soon as they recognize structural collapse (and a good team will) they are to pull out and notify for heavier resources. Your best bet is to meet and train with your local CERT team to find out where their strengths/weaknesses are and to learn how to best integrate them into your responses.

Now, back to this scenario. If I were IC, I would do the following:

1. Appoint Safety Officer and Operations Officer, call for HAZMAT and Tech Rescue assets, Fire Marshal, Building Official

2. Pull every responder that I don't currently have accountability for out to Staging Area.

3. Account for every responder on scene and attempt to find out how many people were known in the building.

4. FD entry teams with meters and appropriate PPE enter.

5. While Entry Team recons, Operations Officer will assign SAR Teams with equal capabilites (each team has medical personnel, etc and a Team Leader with communications to the Command Post)

6. Team Leaders meet with IC to discuss protocols, expectations and objectives. Triage/Treatment/Transport locations to be set up. PAR Checks every 15 minutes (This is while they wait for the meter results.)

7. If Entry Teams has negative readings on meters, SAR teams may enter per the IC's/Ops' orders to search METHODICALLY for victims.

8. It should basically be all self explanatory from there, extricate/decon/triage/transport the victims, account for all personnel/equipment, pack it up, debrief, etc, go home.

Edited August 9, 2009 by SageVigiles

[Remember585 815]

We definitely have the potential for this type of incident, specifically at the Metro-North Croton-Harmon Yards. Deployment from all four sides, if possible, would be the most advantageous. CFD320 nailed it, there needs to be one IC, sector leaders, etc. We keep search ropes on all companies, so if this occurred in our area, each company responding could be assigned a sector, rope off & enter. That Company Officer, a Chief or Deputy Chief, could be the Sector Boss. The ropes are only 100', so if we can make entry from multiple points on each side, we could search from one point, regroup, then re-enter. Of course, the easiest thing to do is to have preplans, CIDS, a layout of the building, and best of all, someone there to tell you where the incident occurred! If this all can be done on arrival, you may not need more then one or two companies and EMS!

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING should be initiated until someone establishes Command, develops and shares their IAP, establishes accountability and finds out what exactly has occurred. You say it's an industrial accident - to me this could simply be someone with their hand stuck in a conveyer belt. Full PPE, SCBA, etc. may not be needed.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Enough with the sandbox BS. That scenario is written that as whomever is supposed or apparently believes they are in charge from the FD is the supreme allied commander.

I got this straight out of Jimmy Griffith's "FDNY Operational Reference" It shows how they organized joint operations between agencies:

"The Mayor's directive of May 1997, designated OEM as 'On-scene Interagency Coordinator.' The OEM role is to assist the IC in ensuring optimum use of agency resources while eliminating potential conflict among agencies which have overlapping areas of expertise and responsibility.

FDNY is designated IC at fires, haz-mat (I think this might have been changed a bit), explosions, structural collapse, rail and air crashes, and confined space rescues.

NYPD provides the IC for civil disturbances, bomb threats including suspicious and actual devices, hostage incidents, sniper situations, and water rescues.

Responsibility for terrorism is shared. NYPD handles threats (including conventional weapons, bombs, or chemical or biological release). FDNY manages mitigation of an actual explosion or release(again I think haz-mat protocols in NYC have been revized) ; followup investigation falls to the NYPD.

DEP is responsible for water main breaks, DOC manages jail disturbances, NYSDOCS manages prison disturbances. OEM provides coordination to mitigate power and telephone outages.

OEM will designate command responsibility in multifaceted situations where there is no obvious lead agency. Note that OEM does not assume command.

Extrication at vehicle accidents is not addressed in the 1997 directive. Presumably, the 1994 guidance continues i.e. first agency to arrive initiates rescue ops and continues to completion or relief upon request; NYPD is in charge. It is presumed that resources from both agencies will be used at the common incidents shown above, and that management is as indicated."

Simple, straight forward, and most agencies in Westchester have similar SOPs(the work quoted is not the official NYC SOPs, it is a summary written by the author), maybe not spelled out everywhere in Westchester, and if not they should be.

[helicopper 1,050]

Alright, let's say the building is in more than one jurisdiction. How would you decide who's the command?

[fireandbikes 3]

Alright, let's say the building is in more than one jurisdiction. How would you decide who's the command?

Unified command, one from each jurisdiction, but only one operations officer designated by the unified command.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Unified command, one from each jurisdiction, but only one operations officer designated by the unified command.

I like it.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Alright, let's say the building is in more than one jurisdiction. How would you decide who's the command?

First Officer in takes command, transfer if necessary later. Good jobs start with decent command. Some FD's don't need a lot of radio orders to initiate ops, but in your scenario, some one with some command presence better take charge right now! Never mind all the NIMS group hugs and passing out vests, but take charge, develop a plan and make orders based on the plan. These big NIMS ops do not start with the planning P or unified command meetings, they start with operations doing task level functions to control the incident. The command structure will need to be built, modified and expanded into a NIMS looking op, but it still starts with one person taking charge and others taking actions.

[Remember585 815]

Alright, let's say the building is in more than one jurisdiction. How would you decide who's the command?

Rock, paper, scissors.

If the incident is known to be on Department A's side and not Department B's, why not let Chief A assume Command and have Chief B take Operations or another role?

[efdcapt115 1,511]

First Officer in takes command, transfer if necessary later. Good jobs start with decent command. Some FD's don't need a lot of radio orders to initiate ops, but in your scenario, some one with some command presence better take charge right now! Never mind all the NIMS group hugs and passing out vests, but take charge, develop a plan and make orders based on the plan. These big NIMS ops do not start with the planning P or unified command meetings, they start with operations doing task level functions to control the incident. The command structure will need to be built, modified and expanded into a NIMS looking op, but it still starts with one person taking charge and others taking actions.

Nice post. Now you are talking about character. The character of an officer in charge will make or break how this scenario develops. You need a guy to take charge in a firm yet respectful way; a guy who will immediately contact all incoming agencies and say "look here's the deal, and here's what we need to do." You get a guy running around yelling orders in a chaotic fashion and nobody is going to listen. I always found the IC who spoke softly, confidently, firmly and respectfully to all was the guy I wanted to listen to, to get the job done the right way.

PS: I own a home in Lincoln County, Town of Whitefield. Maine is a beautiful state, but the ocean sure stays cold all summer long;-)

[Remember585 815]

Nice post. Now you are talking about character. The character of an officer in charge will make or break how this scenario develops. You need a guy to take charge in a firm yet respectful way; a guy who will immediately contact all incoming agencies and say "look here's the deal, and here's what we need to do." You get a guy running around yelling orders in a chaotic fashion and nobody is going to listen. I always found the IC who spoke softly, confidently, firmly and respectfully to all was the guy I wanted to listen to, to get the job done the right way.

Well put!

[antiquefirelt 994]

Nice post. Now you are talking about character. The character of an officer in charge will make or break how this scenario develops. You need a guy to take charge in a firm yet respectful way; a guy who will immediately contact all incoming agencies and say "look here's the deal, and here's what we need to do." You get a guy running around yelling orders in a chaotic fashion and nobody is going to listen. I always found the IC who spoke softly, confidently, firmly and respectfully to all was the guy I wanted to listen to, to get the job done the right way.

PS: I own a home in Lincoln County, Town of Whitefield. Maine is a beautiful state, but the ocean sure stays cold all summer long;-)

You're absolutely right, this is a problem with much of our fire service today. We (the FS) have tons of officers, but those with quiet confidence that exude a true command presence are becoming a rarity. I suspect is has a lot to do with the lack of fires and a bit to do with our PC society which has created a sense that everyone's opinion must be heard and they're never wrong. Sorry to sound like a bitter old timer, I'm really not I just long for more true leaders not educated managers.

Whitefield is only about 1/2 West of us in the next county.

[bigrig77 95]

Why are the incoming units not reporting to the IC? Sounds like you have no control of the on scene units. This is only going to lead to someone getting hurt or killed.

[ex-commish 490]

Who's searching where? What accountability do you have for these responders?

You're an officer/chief - would you tolerate this? What would you do to resolve it and/or prevent it from happening in the future?

If this happened when I was a chief... everyone out. Untill I know what exactly the situation is and what type of accident I would not want people in there. Let's not create more casulaties. Is this accident a collapse? Chemical spill? Result from a natural disaster? Is the building stable? Gas leaking? Other hazards? Untill we are sure people should not be in there. I would request resources such as tech rescue, hazmat, etc. Set up a command post. Make sure ems is staged and ready.

If in a dual jurisdiction, unified command. Time to work together and not against.

[helicopper 1,050]

Glad to see all the responses about the need for command and/or unified command, good accountability, a plan for operations, etc. but I have to say if we change the geography of this incident a little bit all those concepts are thrown out the window and it seems more like the wild wild west.

Change our search scenario from a building search to one for a jumper down or an overturned boat in the Hudson River or Long Island Sound. "Rescue" boats from at least two counties and mulitiple jurisdictions including police, fire, and USCG/SeaTow/others, multiple boats responding from significant distances some dispatched and some not, absolutely no command and control, no organized search patterns, waking each other, ignoring each other, and no accountability.

When someone does finally assert that they are "in command" it is often done without regard for statutory jurisdiction and without full knowledge of the resources assigned and their current operations.

Just because it's on water doesn't mean we don't do all the things that we say we'll do for an incident on land.

So, with this said, who's got a plan to fix it?

[FFPCogs 863]

Much has been made here of multi agency/jurisdictional issues, and rightly so since unfortunately they do exist. One possible way to reduce those issues is to train regularly with those other agencies that you may have to work with following mutually established protocols. Proactivity instead of reactivity can do wonders to solve these issues before they start.

Cogs

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Unified command, one from each jurisdiction, but only one operations officer designated by the unified command.

Not a bad concept, but how would you then maintain span of control? Also how could the IC's designate a single operations officer? The whole point is that every incident commander is handling their responsibilities and working with the other IC's of the other agencies to the common goal of mitigating the incident. For most incidents where multiple emergency services agencies are needed to handle the task, there are far too many things going on to have a single operations officer.

The simple answer is the first arriving officer establishes command and gets the ball going. Your first 2 minutes are going to basically dictate your next 20 minutes and those 20 minutes are going to dictate your next 2 hours. If there is no guidance based on pre-plans or policy then once its figured out what section of jurisdiction the ball is bouncing..command can then be passed by the current IC and assumed by the one taking it over. Attempting "unified" command of similiar agency personnel makes no sense and personnel can be better utilized within the command structure. I find that concept as touch feely BS. Its not time to beat on your chest.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Attempting "unified" command of similiar agency personnel makes no sense and personnel can be better utilized within the command structure. I find that concept as touch feely BS. Its not time to beat on your chest.

Amen!! Though I frequently instruct ICS/NIMS programs, I must note that I truly believe Unified Command is a tool that cannot start/should not be attempted in the first 20-60 minutes. In reality the types of UC structures preached in NIMS will not begin to really take shape until the second or third operational period, except in those wildland papplications that use it as often as we use basic ICS. As you noted this applies to same resource types, meeting with and co-locating PD-EMS-Fire decision makers does need to happen early on, though rarely does this make a true Unified Command structure.

In the end, some one will be accountable, which is not "unified" (but possibly vilified ). Someone is the final ruler, the last stop, the true IC. This person may change in name period to period, but ultimately it will likely the person with the most dogs in the fight at that time. Bomb threats are a perfect example: perfect scenario for a Unified Command, but one that easily starts with Law Enforcement in the lead role, and can quickly change to Fire in the lead if there's an actual detonation, then swing back to PD when the scene is "safe" again. Whoever is not "in charge" is in a supporting role until their expetise is needed most then the roles reverse.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Antique...excellent post brother and I can agree as well. I can't believe we've never hooked up to teach NIMS or an IMS course.

99% of most incidents will not require a unified command structure. Larger incidents such as the scenario mentioned in this post will as you will have multiple agencies operating. The point is no one is higher then the other and its to work on a common goal. Fire has to mitigate the issue, PD has perimeter control and once the FD contains the incident so its safe then they can begin their investigation into what happened and work with allied agencies like OSHA. EMS depending on the scale of the incident can either fall under the Fire Commander as a group or deal with their operations on their own as part of the unified command.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Antique...excellent post brother and I can agree as well. I can't believe we've never hooked up to teach NIMS or an IMS course.

You have a lot of good things to say brother; but did you notice the Chief is from Rockland Maine K? I can give you directions, you should check out Camden while you're there, "where the mountains meet the ocean."

[helicopper 1,050]

ALS and antique, I respectfully disagree with some of your points. Unified command absolutely can work, even early in an incident - if people actually know what their roles and responsibilities are and you preplan for it. One of the problems is that we don't do ICS well with single command on small incidents so we don't adapt well when the incident grows. I find the notion of transferring command more problematic than embracing unified command. Every time you transfer command you lose some continuity and consistency. So you could take two steps backward everytime you change command simply for the sake of changing it.

The whole point is that every incident commander is handling their responsibilities and working with the other IC's of the other agencies to the common goal of mitigating the incident. For most incidents where multiple emergency services agencies are needed to handle the task, there are far too many things going on to have a single operations officer.

There will only be one Operations Section Chief even with unified command and an enormous field response. Again, the participants are well schooled and experienced in their responsibilities. Imagine having Operations Section Chief training before assuming that role? Novel concept, I know.

The span of control issue is a simple function of organization and you can have thousands of responders properly organized into a "NIMS compliant" (read effective) organizational model. I've seen it work for PD, utilities, wildfires, severe storms, and planned events.

As for "every incident commander handling their responsibilities" that is the definition of unified command but practically speaking, if you don't put them together and coordinate the effort, how do you know you're being effective? In this example, if you don't coordinate a water-search and put resources in the right places you're not handling your responsibilities. And from a safety perspective, if you direct resources into the same area as another "IC" without coordinating them you're setting up a great environment for an accident.

In the end, some one will be accountable, which is not "unified" (but possibly vilified ). Someone is the final ruler, the last stop, the true IC. This person may change in name period to period, but ultimately it will likely the person with the most dogs in the fight at that time. Bomb threats are a perfect example: perfect scenario for a Unified Command, but one that easily starts with Law Enforcement in the lead role, and can quickly change to Fire in the lead if there's an actual detonation, then swing back to PD when the scene is "safe" again.

Here's another example where it should be unified command without question. Even if there is a detonation, law enforcement has responsibilties that can not be abdicated or ignored. Law enforcement can and should remain the lead agent in unified command and coordinate with the other responsible parties to insure that everything is done safely and effectively without compromising the investigative and evidentiary matters. I am not an advocate of these frequent transfers of command (as you can read).

You imply that only "one" person/agency/jurisdiction will be responsible but that is absolutely not true. In our area, with overlappng jurisdictions, layers of agencies having jurisdiction, there are often many players with statutory responsibility and accountability. They're not going to let the fire chief off the hook for an incident going bad in his jurisdiction when he says that the police chief was in charge or vice versa.

Our naivete and relative inexperience with basic applications of ICS is what holds us back from expanding our management capacity with simple concepts like unified command. Unified command has been around for more than a quarter century and yet we still act like it's some new and unproven concept. It is tried and true - we just haven't embraced it. It isn't just "who has the most dogs in the fight", it's about overall responsibility. There may be many more EMS resources involved in a public health emergency but the ultimate responsibility is still going to be vested in the Commissioner of Health.

As for 99% of incidents not requiring unified command, I think the issue above of overlapping layers of different agencies having jurisdiction prove that we are actually operating with the need for unified command 99% of the time. It is the rare example where only one agency/jurisdiction is involved (at least in this state with its 1500 different "governments").

From my perspective it simply boils down to safety. Establishing unified command isn't touchy feely BS, its the only way to insure that we know where all the resources are and what they're doing in a large, multi-agency(county) response to prevent/avoid an accident. And from what I've seen, we've been lucky thus far but luck eventually runs out and I don't want to see someone get hurt or worse because we still can't manage an incident effectively.

I think far too many people are trying to simplify ICS concepts instead of actually understanding them. You can't tell the PD or Public Health that they're not in command of an incident for which they have statutory authority and responsibility to their agency administrators simply because you think the FD should be in charge. This is so far beyond the old arcane arguments about who's in charge - things have changed and we have to catch up to them.

Much has been made here of multi agency/jurisdictional issues, and rightly so since unfortunately they do exist. One possible way to reduce those issues is to train regularly with those other agencies that you may have to work with following mutually established protocols. Proactivity instead of reactivity can do wonders to solve these issues before they start.

Great points Cogs and you're absolutely right. It's time to be proactive rather than reactive. We've seen two major incidents in the Hudson River this year that thankfully were south of our border but I still don't hear people discussing how we'd handle it if it happened to us. Proactive, people, proactive!!!!!!

[efdcapt115 1,511]

One of the problems is that we don't do ICS well with single command on small incidents so we don't adapt well when the incident grows.

Chris, I gotta disagree with you on this one. You would be amazed at how good some places like Eastchester(which from this perspective I shall comment), NR,MV,Y FIRE Department incidents are handled. A working fire. A crew of 16 on duty (including the Chiefs). The coordination between the UNDERSTAFFED engine companies, the truckies doing their thing, but most importantly an officer riding that front seat of responsibility; the tour commander, the man looking at potential life hazards on a regular basis.

From a shift perspective, ICS and NIMS are in effect implemented simply by the way the department operates. Look, the tour commander is going to come in and do the initial instructing of what direction for an understaffed crew to take and do the best they can.

Command is shifted to the Chief on the exterior because of the obvious disadvantages of having the tour commander leading his men into the fire; we now have the Chief's eyes and knowledge outside to coordinate what direction the incident will take, particularly if the conditions deteriorate and action needs to be taken regarding the safety of the members.

This command change happens rapidly, and effectively. It is a process that the brothers of an understaffed system have proven to be the best way they can proceed to give it the best fight they possibly can.

I agree with you that "dissing" unified command is not the way to go. You seem to be really concerned about these water rescue issues, and after seeing that bird and piper collide this past week with 9 dead, I can completely understand where you are coming from.

Culturally, many of the brothers take an attitude that can be misconstrued by other agency members. This is a big problem. I found a few times as a tour commander, wearing a white shirt and a tie, that I'd be catching a 'tude from a rookie cop. I'd be like "what's up with this kid", with the other PD brothers/sisters who I'd been working along side for many years. We had many famous clashes between FD/PD but the football games in Eastchester seem to have helped some of the brothers take out their feelings; in a good positive athletic way.

Anyway I guess I just really want to say, some of the most effective services the residents of lower Westchester get, is when they have the unfortunate experience of a fire emergency. The early stages of the fire attack/ and control thereof is the specialty of the brothers I know and worked with; and my hat is off to all of them.

Edit: for spelling

Edited August 15, 2009 by efdcapt115

[DOC22 1]

Much has been made here of multi agency/jurisdictional issues, and rightly so since unfortunately they do exist. One possible way to reduce those issues is to train regularly with those other agencies that you may have to work with following mutually established protocols. Proactivity instead of reactivity can do wonders to solve these issues before they start.

Cogs

I got into this one a bit late, but as I read each post this was the one I was looking for. You are going to know you have one of these monsters in the area, so Let's work And TRAIN together, and EXTENSIVELY, so EVERYBODY knows, even those who make a limited number of calls. In my department, to respond M/A for work at scene or standby, if you are not an interior firefighter, you don't go.

Of course, I may be speaking totally out of class here since it's been 20 plus since I wore the white hat.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Chris- I agree that Unified Command is a useful concept. My point and agreement was with ALS's note that when you have multiple jurisdictions of the same discipline, it should be a typical ICS structure and Unified Command is not necessary and without the training and exercise you speak of, will slow actual operations.

Our municipality works the unified approach frequently with large planned events, significant MVA's, shootings, etc. I don't think your assessment of what needs to happen and my thought on what we'd call the oganizational structure is much different. But in classes and event planning everyone plays nice and says they can function in a UC organization. My experience is that in a real incident PD will not want fire or EMS weighing in on decisions about law enforcement assets or operations, nor would most Chief's want to. Similarly, most fire chief's will not give up their resources to PD if it's outside their scope of operations. What we end up with is two branches or divisions under operations one fire/EMS and one LE, allowing each discipline to operate independantly of each other under OPS, though my feeling again is that early on one of the two disciplines will circumvent the Ops Officer depending on his/her affiliation to Fire/EMS/LE. This is more human nature, we trust our own. I would state I agree without a doubt that with more integration of operations and training this will get better and already has. This is why I say, having studied many incidents of significance, most of the time true Unified Command takes many operation periods to come into fruition as it takes time for everyone to realize they need to put many of these inter-discipline hang-ups aside for the greater good. Of course the other thing that has happened in that same time frame is the exciting nature of the incident has subsided. Victims are rescued, incident stabilazation has occurred and we are more likely to give up control of our resources for ongoing operations than initial ops. Again, I attribute this to human nature and the types of people involved in Fire/EMS and Law Enforcement, as most are far from meek and willing.

I think some of us, many I hope, do ICS well. Contrary to the West Coast's assertion that ICS started with FIRESCOPE on the Left Coast, I'd say that since the early days of Currier and Ives pictures we have document proof of ICS. The guy in hte pics with the "megaphone" to his lips was the IC. Police agencies have not called their organization structures ICS, but in essence they always have been. First officer was in charge until a more senior one came or the Chief, even in Mayberry with Barney Fife and Andy. EMS is still learning that ICS is a useful tool, but given the nature of 90% of runs being handled by crews of two, this is a slower process to adapt.

Back to the original post, the scenario begs for someone to take charge, make decisions and assign incoming units. Waiting to develop a command structure may cost lives, realistic command doesn't mean the first in junior assigns all the M/A units. But this is where having worked out the details of this stuff before the incident will pay off. If two FD's go the same call and cannot work under the others structure or figure out who's in charge in seconds, there's a problem. No amount of ICS or NIMS training and mandates will fix the fact that to command structures don't trust each other. Only working, training and talking to each other will cure this. Cogs is right on about being proactive, but man where does the time go?

Edited August 15, 2009 by antiquefirelt