|
Radios don't save lives, people do. But people must be able to communicate before they can help.
One of the most pressing first responder issues emerging in the post-9/11 era is the need to improve emergency scene radio communications. This concern actually pre-dates the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, and has been a commonly cited issue in dealing with nearly every disaster or incident of major significance for many years.
The one word repeatedly heard in describing the problems relating to disaster scene communications is “interoperability.” Without full consideration of all the causal factors, the charge has been to fix the oft -cited frustration of field responders being unable to communicate and all the blame has gone to interoperability. The 9/11 attacks were a catalyst for an unprecedented amount of money spent on radio hardware. The numbers are staggering: estimates range up to five billion dollars in homeland security grants to enable and facilitate emergency communications. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 again sent first responders looking for communications improvements. By most accounts, everyone who came to help already had a radio, but that radio only connected them to their “home” users. Visiting public-safety officials could speak neither with users who were based in the region nor with each other.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate).
Narrowing the definition down has been difficult. Is Interoperability the ability of all police officers to talk on radios to all fire fighters at the same incident? Does interoperability refer to federal agencies having radio connection to state and local officials? Is interoperability only for those at the scene, or command post or for those at the Emergency Operations Center as well? Will it be provided for every responder or command-to-command only? Or does interoperability address the wider issues of radio system coverage, frequency spectrum capacities, and alternate (non-voice) communications methods? Interoperability has been used as a catch-all phrase to describe a multitude of issues surrounding emergency scene communications.
There are numerous reasons for inadequate disaster communications. Nationwide efforts, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Project SAFECOM, (for more information http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/ ) have begun to acknowledge an expanded definition of interoperability beyond the technical to include behavioral and procedural elements. Communication impediments do include insufficient radio infrastructure, but they are also influenced by reactions of first responders in stressful situations, dysfunctional intergovernmental relations, inadequate procedures and training, and general lethargy over the need to institute special operating policies differing from routine habits and practices.
The daily routine of first responders does little to prepare those responders for the communications intense environment typical of large scale disasters. Yet the universal reaction of response personnel at after-action reviews has been shock and indignation over failed communications at disaster scenes followed by a tendency to blame the equipment instead of the people.
First responders tend to revert to normal usage habits in times of crisis, instead of modifying their use of the system when many agencies have been patched together, increasing system overload. The net result is that daily radio practices are accelerated and multiplied, with a dramatic increase in the quantity of communications by the responders at an incident; these communications are squeezed into limited communications systems. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) encourages first responders to “use interoperability solutions every day,” so that “coordinated communications in response to any incident will be a natural instinct.”
Careful insight and informed projections are needed to ensure we do not find ourselves in the same state of dysfunction ten years from now, because we bought the equipment but did not change our culture and habits.
Funding for training accompanies some interoperability grant programs (signaling recognition of the importance of attention to non-hardware solutions) yet specific examples of actual training applications are difficult to find. What constitutes “interoperability training” is vague and nonspecific, leaving room for the requesting jurisdiction to include the component in their grant application while excluding specifics. Once agencies recognize the value of training to compliment the equipment they have deployed, training packages planned by DHS in the 2007-2011 planning window should facilitate those so inclined to participate. To date there is disproportionately little collective recognition of the need for improved human interoperability communications procedures, as some first responder agencies presumably expect an out -of-the-box solution, based on building more communications infrastructure and patching radio systems together.
OK, those are a lot of 10 dollar words and, yes, those are not MY words, but a collection of about 6 reports on interoperability.
Let’s boil it down, and get to the basics.
Interoperability is not only “will my radio work once I get there” but also “will the people I am speaking to understand me?”
There are many hardware interconnects that will take radios of agencies and hook them together, and without reprogramming, allow users from different areas to talk. The most difficult part is dealing with the way we request assistance, request a wrecker to help clean up a simple 2 car accident.
We as ARPSC members already have a major bonus that most first responders lack. Radios that are frequency agile, with VFO’s that we can “program on the fly” so that when we head to Oakland County (or when Oakland County ARPSC heads here) to provide mutual aid in case of an emergency all we have to do is twist our VFO, and we are talking.
Problem #1 Solved, they can hear me, I can hear them, wonderful.
Now, here comes the difficult part, one of the people operating at the incident is strictly a “rag chewer” and when he needs something he goes on for 10 minutes, taking 3 breaks “for time” to request extra cots for the shelter he is staffing.
When we respond to a true, large emergency, brevity and clarity are our friends. Yes, there is a time that rag chewing is a welcomed thing. But when it comes down to it, Clear concise communications, in a clearly understood language, that we can track between shifts and operators is the main thing we need to concentrate on.
Another thing we get stuck on is doing all our communications on one frequency. Spreading our traffic out to extra “nets” will also help organize our traffic. Hank, K8TRS does a wonderful job of this at the Memorial Day parade. Staging is on one net, lineup changes are on another, and safety and security are on yet another. This way the issues in staging do not affect the ability for safety to get their priority traffic thru.
I will be continuing this look into interoperability in upcoming issues. For more information about interoperability, look to the following links
|
