Search and Rescue Scenario - what would you do?

[antiquefirelt 994]

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.

See I find transfer of command to take place quite naturally and usually it strengthens the operations structure, but again this is in a Fire/EMS organization that has practiced this for decades. Rather losing continuity and consistency we foster it through structured transfers that have been developed and trained on. These do happen less frequently than one might think as most operations are left with the initial IC being a Lt. or A/C in our case. Very often our chiefs or COD will arrive and watch, take a look around, and hang out with the initial IC and never take command (though fully assuming responsibility) or will wait for the initial IC to ask to pass it. This allows them to have better picture than just rolling in and taking the reins. It also gives the junior officer some experience running a larger than day to day incident without fear of screwing up royally.

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.

Again, I don't see the need for a true Unified Command nor do I think realistically saying it will make it happen. Just because it's a bomb threat and LE is in charge doesn't mean we give up our operation controls and after detonation a fire IC would not ignore LE needs. My point is not that one person/agency/jurisdiction is responsible as no matter what we'll all be co-defendants, but in fact one person will have the final say about the plan. During a bomb threat PD will not have us in the UCP voting on a plan to find the device, as we will not be holding votes on rescue plans after a detonation. If a bomb detonates, everyone will first work together to ensure the safety of any and all victims and put everything else aside. This is not different than how most MVA's need to be handled, as well all work to ensure viable patients are transported before worrying about investigations or cleaning up spilled fluids. Obviously with any incident the more assets we have the more things that can be done simultaneously, as we often can do most everything at once.

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!!!!!!

Without a doubt proactive training, working on MOU's, figuring out your neighbors capabilities and constraints has to happen now, before the next big one. You guys certainly have much more potential for multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction incidents than we have up here. Our limited resources force us to share operation responsibilities to the highest priority, meaning at a bomb threat fire might provide traffic control and scene security and heaven forbid a detonation occurs, PD will be involved in rescue and EMS as we all agree it about savable lives first and foremost, everything else runs a distant second.

[helicopper 1,050]

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

Agreed, I should have put that we do "OPERATIONS" pretty well. We don't do the whole ICS thing though. We don't set up logistics, we don't plan (at least not the way ICS defines it), we don't involve public information or liaisons as we should/could, and we certainly don't do command that well as evidenced by the miusnderstandings about unified command.

Within a single department or discipline on non-complex incidents we do OK but I still say we could manage much better than we do.

[helicopper 1,050]

Again, I don't see the need for a true Unified Command nor do I think realistically saying it will make it happen. Just because it's a bomb threat and LE is in charge doesn't mean we give up our operation controls and after detonation a fire IC would not ignore LE needs. My point is not that one person/agency/jurisdiction is responsible as no matter what we'll all be co-defendants, but in fact one person will have the final say about the plan. During a bomb threat PD will not have us in the UCP voting on a plan to find the device, as we will not be holding votes on rescue plans after a detonation. If a bomb detonates, everyone will first work together to ensure the safety of any and all victims and put everything else aside. This is not different than how most MVA's need to be handled, as well all work to ensure viable patients are transported before worrying about investigations or cleaning up spilled fluids. Obviously with any incident the more assets we have the more things that can be done simultaneously, as we often can do most everything at once.

See, this is exactly my point. Unified command is one of the most misunderstood concepts in incident management and we need to remedy that so it can work for us when we need it.

• Nobody gives up operational control of their resources in unified command.
• No single person has final say about the plan.
• No there is no kumbya and vote on the plan but there is a common goal/mission and clearly defined objectives to be met. These are not necessarily voted upon but there is consensus building and strategies developed.
• Objectives are established and resources are assigned to meet them. This may be very parochial: fire does A, police does B or it may be a task force approach consisting of fire, police, EMS, utility does A, another task force does B, and so on.
• Resources are managed by objective and not strictly by discipline. A division or group supervisor will be the most qualified person and may have multiple kinds of resources assigned to him/her based upon the objectives.

As for your example of the MVA above, we do have to worry about investigations concurrently with cleaning up spills and treating and transporting victims as these are all inter-related. Evidence may be lost if we fail to consider it early-on and contaminated victims may exacerbate the situation if we don't fully deal with such hazards first. In most cases we are capable of sustaining operations toward more than one objective at a time and I don't think it is ever so straight forward as do A, then B, then C. Most times we've got people working on A, B, and C all at the same time.

Getting back to water jobs, we don't manage them as well as we should. There is no clear command, resources are not tasked with assignments based upon objectives, and safety is definitely not addressed as aggressively as it should. When there are five boats "conducting a search" and none of them are assigned an area or a search pattern we're not going to find things! When one "rescue" boat wakes another, safety is not being considered. When two aircraft are operating and one of the people claiming to be in command instructs aircraft A to operate where aircraft B is, that's simply unacceptable.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about one person having final say about the plan. Where more than one entity has statutory or other responsibility at a scene, there will be more than one person with responsibility and in most cases it can not be abdicated. But that's OK, it's a good discussion.

Without a doubt proactive training, working on MOU's, figuring out your neighbors capabilities and constraints has to happen now, before the next big one. You guys certainly have much more potential for multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction incidents than we have up here. Our limited resources force us to share operation responsibilities to the highest priority, meaning at a bomb threat fire might provide traffic control and scene security and heaven forbid a detonation occurs, PD will be involved in rescue and EMS as we all agree it about savable lives first and foremost, everything else runs a distant second.

See, we're in complete agreement here. I think the assignments you describe can be managed through effective objectives and assignment of resources and maybe more imaginative strategies need to be considered earlier rather than later.

We may not have the limited resources that you have up north but we certainly need to focus on sharing responsibilities more effectively and less defensively! You probably do that better out of necessity than we do.

Thanks for taking the time to state your case! This is what's great about this forum. Intelligent discussions!

[FFPCogs 863]

The traditional rivalries between agencies has long been a bane to smooth operations at larger incidents, even when spelled out in advance. It is no different between FDs alone either..the "this is my sandbox" mentality stills rules in most minds, especially here in the Northeast. Now I'm a fervent traditionalist in many areas of the fire service, mostly having to do with the attitudes and hows and whys of how we conduct operations. One area though where I'm am most definitely not a traditionalist is when it comes to working together, be it between individual FDs or multi agency cooperation. Pride should not get in the way of providing the absolute best service possible, and yet pride is one of the main stumbling block to that end. One of the other huge factors is money...in a nutshell the more we do the more we're worth. Loss of control or authority if you prefer of incidents could cost far more than simply prestige. Jobs, funding and in some cases maybe even the very existance of an organization is tied to their ability to "handle" their duties. Who in their right mind would not fight tooth and nail to protect that?

So what then is the answer? Well first off any organization that has as it's primary duty the safety and welfare of the public as it's mission should ensure that it's members are up to the task. If you want to call yourself a fire dept, BE ONE!!!!! Meet the responsibilities of the job by making sure your members are up to the challenge through training and keeping an adequate number of trained personnel available. (For career dept that may mean relying on volunteers at times to assist you and for volunteers that means training your people thoroughly to meet that possibility). FDs that have even a remote chance of working together should avail themselves to training together at least a few times a year and should maintain official contact regularly to update SOP/Gs and info. Now when law enforcement and fire mix there is a long history of an oil and water relationship..the only way to alleviate that is to determine the role of each BEFORE an incident and adhere to that determination during one.

Of course there is one more factor and it is probably the most difficult task of all to accomplish...compromise. Maybe a good hard look at how things were and how they are now will dictate that compromise is called for to ensure what is best for those we ALL serve. It may mean reduced funding or staffing for YOUR agency, but a better overall ditribution of resources. Or maybe it means an increase for all. Compromise may mean any number of things to you in your circumstances, the point being that compromise usually in the end serves all.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line the most basic of the tenets that should drive us all has been lost, that being that the public we serve comes first. And that loss folks is a cancer the will serve no one well.

Cogs

Edited August 16, 2009 by FFPCogs

[antiquefirelt 994]

See, this is exactly my point. Unified command is one of the most misunderstood concepts in incident management and we need to remedy that so it can work for us when we need it.

Misunderstood? Sure by many or most, but even those that understand it must look at reality, we're dealing with humans, and most likely Type "A" strong personalities with deep seated beliefs in "we know better than you". After all this are who we attract, develop and promote. This is certainly not always true, but quite often a part of the problem.

• Nobody gives up operational control of their resources in unified command.

True but Very often misunderstood to the point of stalemate. People take the classes file the certificates, declare NIMS compliance, get a grant, end of story.

No single person has final say about the plan.

Sure they do, it's far too altruistic to believe everyone will agree all the time. Again, day to day when resources are adequate this is rarely an issue, but when we all need to truly share resources for a common goal, someone will need to have the final say. Again, maybe it can be done, but most recent events and large incidents prove this to be a big stumbling point.

No there is no kumbya and vote on the plan but there is a common goal/mission and clearly defined objectives to be met. These are not necessarily voted upon but there is consensus building and strategies developed.

I agree this is how the book says it must be, but again I work with a bunch of freaking humans that can't seems to set aside 30-40 years of their experiences. In event planning this nearly always works per NIMS training, but the background whispers say otherwise will occur when then the defecation hits the rotary wind device.

Objectives are established and resources are assigned to meet them. This may be very parochial: fire does A, police does B or it may be a task force approach consisting of fire, police, EMS, utility does A, another task force does B, and so on.

Agreed, again the ops plan can develop strike teams or task fores as needed. But i fail to see how this will occur in the initial action phase which is where this thread started. As I said, I agree with the concept of Unified Command with a dose of reality thrown in. I certainly was not trying to "diss" it but share my view after 23 years having the time of my life and having been on both sides of the desk in classes.

Resources are managed by objective and not strictly by discipline. A division or group supervisor will be the most qualified person and may have multiple kinds of resources assigned to him/her based upon the objectives.

See above. I agree but maybe my realistic view is bordering on pessimistic. I need to work on that.

As for your example of the MVA above, we do have to worry about investigations concurrently with cleaning up spills and treating and transporting victims as these are all inter-related. Evidence may be lost if we fail to consider it early-on and contaminated victims may exacerbate the situation if we don't fully deal with such hazards first. In most cases we are capable of sustaining operations toward more than one objective at a time and I don't think it is ever so straight forward as do A, then B, then C. Most times we've got people working on A, B, and C all at the same time.

My view of this is that most of us do our day to day well and can cover all the bases concurrently. My fear is that just because we've sat through NIMS training we are calling ourselves prepared for the big one. There will be a day, when the incident will outpace our resources and everyone will have to work on the same priority. As with the MVA case, my view is that it's always the victims. It would be tragic to have fire or PD fail to assist EMS when it's needed only to ensure fault was found or special squirrels habitats were protected, when humans lives could be lost. I frequently see this with auto extrications by FD's who do not provide EMS. They are so caught up in the cutting and tearing that they forget this is an EMS incident and often spend longer than necessary cutting and prying when a simpler less action oriented method would be faster.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about one person having final say about the plan. Where more than one entity has statutory or other responsibility at a scene, there will be more than one person with responsibility and in most cases it can not be abdicated. But that's OK, it's a good discussion.

See, we're in complete agreement here. I think the assignments you describe can be managed through effective objectives and assignment of resources and maybe more imaginative strategies need to be considered earlier rather than later.

I think maybe now the only disagreement is the timing of when this happens, with me thinking this will not occur during initial operations. I certainly don't see anyone abdicating their responsibilities under a single commander, I just think that in any group there will always be a leader. It might be someone completely out of our norm? But generrally disagreements are overcome when someone has 51% or more of their argument agreed to and the other 49% or less. True 50/50 compromise is hardly realistic in emergency services where we all tend to have strong personalties. But alas, the mark of the true professionals are those who can do this with grace and courtesy vs,. flat out name calling and stomping of feet.

We may not have the limited resources that you have up north but we certainly need to focus on sharing responsibilities more effectively and less defensively! You probably do that better out of necessity than we do.

No I think I'm seeing that we are not doing as effectively as your area, though we may have a more significant need to. With 90% volunteer FD's and volunteer EMS agencies, getting everyone to be in the same book, nevermind on the same page has been a long struggle. My own dept. is fortunate to have career fire/EMS staff and the city has a decent sized PD so we can train together as well as plan and implement some of the ICS system outside our day to day ops.

Thanks for taking the time to state your case! This is what's great about this forum. Intelligent discussions!

This has been a good thread with excellent intelligent discussion.

[helicopper 1,050]

Misunderstood? Sure by many or most, but even those that understand it must look at reality, we're dealing with humans, and most likely Type "A" strong personalities with deep seated beliefs in "we know better than you". After all this are who we attract, develop and promote. This is certainly not always true, but quite often a part of the problem.

I've seen some very strong Type-A personalities make this work and I've seen some demand that it be done because they know it's better than the alternative. These were, however, educated leaders with experience using ICS so they weren't resistant because of fear of the unknown.

I've also seen situations where it has failed miserably because the people running the show couldn't spell ICS but that's another story for another thread.

Agreed, again the ops plan can develop strike teams or task fores as needed. But i fail to see how this will occur in the initial action phase which is where this thread started. As I said, I agree with the concept of Unified Command with a dose of reality thrown in. I certainly was not trying to "diss" it but share my view after 23 years having the time of my life and having been on both sides of the desk in classes.

See above. I agree but maybe my realistic view is bordering on pessimistic. I need to work on that.

I agree that absent a cohesive plan and training on implementing the plan it is hard to get organized during the initial response. My position is that we have enough responses to the same areas (Hudson River, Long Island Sound) involving the same agencies that we can/should have pre-plans that define who is doing what and with what preliminary organization. If it's structured as a task force or strike team to start, there should be less resistance to it.

All it really needs is more people banging the drum and reminding others that we have to do it better before the next one. The people who go around patting each other on the back after every debacle do us all a great disservice.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

I certainly was not trying to "diss" it but share my view after 23 years having the time of my life and having been on both sides of the desk in classes.

Great thread and discussion. I was the person that originally used the word "dissing". I did not direct those comments toward you Chief, or anyone for that matter. I guess the way I used the word is more about "disagreeing" than "disrespecting."

But I am out of the game (retired 2006), and no matter how I think about NIMS and ICS, I will stay out where appropriate.

~Stay safe brothers.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Great thread and discussion. I was the person that originally used the word "dissing". I did not direct those comments toward you Chief, or anyone for that matter. I guess the way I used the word is more about "disagreeing" than "disrespecting."

But I am out of the game (retired 2006), and no matter how I think about NIMS and ICS, I will stay out where appropriate.

~Stay safe brothers.

No worries, I wasn't "dissed" by the "dissing" comment , but in fact used the term to note that while I have some reservations about the realistic implementation of NIMS and Unified Command I was not stating I don't believe there is value in both. Just trying to keep up with the current terminology of our youth