National Emergency National Emergency Communications Plan Communications Plan Demonstrating Goal 2 Demonstrating Goal 2 “ “ By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.” involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.”
Transcript
National Emergency National Emergency Communications PlanCommunications Plan
Demonstrating Goal 2Demonstrating Goal 2
““By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-level emergency to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events communications within one hour for routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.”involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.”
NECP Goal 1 & 2Response-Level Emergency Communication Observational
Elements/Criteria
Common Policies and Procedures
Element: 1 Interagency communications policies and procedures were common or consistent amongst all responding agencies.
Element: 2 Established interagency communications policies and procedures were followed throughout the incident.
Element: 3 Interagency communications policies and procedures across all responding agencies were consistent with NIMS.
Element: 4 A priority order for use of interagency communications resources was followed as established in standard operation procedures or plans, such as the Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP).
Element: 5 A primary interagency operations talk path was clearly established by procedure or communicated to responders early in the incident.
Element: 6 Common terminology and plain language were used in all interagency communications.
Element: 7 Clear unit identification procedures were used.
Element: 8 Common channel names were used for designated interoperability channels.
Responder Roles and Responsibilities
Element: 9 Multiple organizations with inherent responsibility for some portion of the incident were present and joined in a unified command with a single individual designated with the Operations Section Chief responsibilities.
Element: 10 Span of controls was maintained amongst the primary operational leadership: The Operations Section Chief and first-level subordinates.
Element: 11 Communications Unit Leader (COML) roles and responsibilities were carried out by the Incident Commander (IC)/Unified Command (UC) or designee.
Necessary communications resources were effectively ordered using documented procedures.
A communications plan was established by procedure or developed early in the incident.
NECP Goal 1 & 2Response-Level Emergency Communication Observational
Elements/Criteria
Quality and Continuity
Element: 12 No more than one out of 10 transmissions was repeated amongst the primary operational leadership due to the failure of initial communications attempts.
Element: 13 Upon failure or overload of any primary communications mode, a back-up was provided.
Element: 14 Primary operational leadership communicated adequately to manage resources and make timely decisions during the incident or event.
NECP Goal 1 & 2Response-Level Emergency Communication Observational
Elements/Criteria
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 1 Interagency communications policies and procedures were common or consistent amongst all responding agencies.
• Challenges:Challenges: Agencies could be from local, state Agencies could be from local, state and federal and from across the nation.and federal and from across the nation.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conducting exercises and AARs;Conducting exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 2 Established interagency communications policies and procedures were followed throughout the incident.
Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 3 Interagency communications policies and procedures across all responding agencies were consistent with NIMS.
• How?:How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges: Challenges: Not using “codes;” “Calling format.” Not using “codes;” “Calling format.”
i.e. Called ID, then Your ID.i.e. Called ID, then Your ID. • Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events;
Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 4 A priority order for use of interagency communications resources was followed as established in standard operation procedures or plans, such as the Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan (TICP).
• How?:How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: Who gets these first? Is a LE event Who gets these first? Is a LE event
more important than a fire? Pre-plan?more important than a fire? Pre-plan?• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events;
Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 5 A primary interagency operations talk path was clearly established by procedure or communicated to responders early in the incident.
• How?:How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: Establish pre-planned channels for Establish pre-planned channels for
things such as “Calling,” “Command,” “Air-to-things such as “Calling,” “Command,” “Air-to-Ground,” “Staging,” etc.Ground,” “Staging,” etc.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 6 Common terminology and plain language were used in all interagency communications.
• How?: How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, ExerciseEducate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: Converting from using “codes” to Converting from using “codes” to
Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 7 Clear unit identification procedures were used.
• How?:How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: A numbering scheme could be developed to A numbering scheme could be developed to
identify the kind, type, and even home base of identify the kind, type, and even home base of resources. (Decades ago, a common scheme was resources. (Decades ago, a common scheme was developed in Northeast Texas which identified PD, SO, developed in Northeast Texas which identified PD, SO, Constables and is still in use today.) Simply stating the Constables and is still in use today.) Simply stating the agency’s name and then a unit number should meet this agency’s name and then a unit number should meet this requirement. requirement.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Conduct Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 8 Common channel names were used for designated interoperability channels.
• How?:How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: This will require programming and This will require programming and
ensuring common names are utilized. Vendors ensuring common names are utilized. Vendors and end-users will need to be educated.and end-users will need to be educated.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 9 Multiple organizations with inherent responsibility for some portion of the incident were present and joined in a unified command with a single individual designated with the Operations Section Chief responsibilities.
• How?:How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise Educate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: Determining who has the “lead” for the Determining who has the “lead” for the
incident and who should be in a unified command; incident and who should be in a unified command; Agreeing to an Operations Chief; Deputy OSCs could be Agreeing to an Operations Chief; Deputy OSCs could be utilized to gain acceptance.utilized to gain acceptance.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Conduct Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 10 Span of control was maintained amongst the primary operational leadership: The Operations Section Chief and first-level subordinates.
• How?: How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, ExerciseEducate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: This is basic ICS, not This is basic ICS, not
interoperability. Span of control is often a interoperability. Span of control is often a challenge where egos exist. challenge where egos exist.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 11 Communications Unit Leader (COML) roles and responsibilities were carried out by the Incident Commander (IC)/Unified Command (UC) or designee. - Necessary communications resources were effectively ordered using documented procedures. - A communications plan was established by procedure or developed early in the incident.
• How?: How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, ExerciseEducate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: Seldom will a written ICS-205 be written on a Seldom will a written ICS-205 be written on a
small incident. However, verbal is commonly used to small incident. However, verbal is commonly used to designate channels in the fire service. designate channels in the fire service.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Conduct Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 12 No more than one out of 10 transmissions was repeated amongst the primary operational leadership due to the failure of initial communications attempts.
• How?: How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, ExerciseEducate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: This may require a supervisor to This may require a supervisor to
carry or have access to at least two radios. carry or have access to at least two radios. Certain channels must be monitored. Certain channels must be monitored.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 13 Upon failure or overload of any primary communications mode, a back-up was provided.
• How?: How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, ExerciseEducate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: This may be as simple as changing This may be as simple as changing
to “talk-around” or it may require a policy to to “talk-around” or it may require a policy to change to a “Secondary” channel. change to a “Secondary” channel.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
Common Policies and Procedures
• Element: 14 Primary operational leadership communicated adequately to manage resources and make timely decisions during the incident or event.
• How?: How?: Educate, Train, Evaluate, ExerciseEducate, Train, Evaluate, Exercise• Challenges:Challenges: This also is basic ICS and not This also is basic ICS and not
necessarily “interoperability.” Making timely necessarily “interoperability.” Making timely decisions is an individual thing. decisions is an individual thing.
• Demonstration:Demonstration: Document incidents / events; Document incidents / events; Conduct exercises and AARs;Conduct exercises and AARs;
RecommendationsCann
Mann
Recommendations
OVERVIEW• It was the consensus of the Goal 2 Demonstration
Working Group that Goal 2 is achievable and we shouldn’t make it complicated.
• In many locales in Texas, Goal 2 is and has been demonstrated on a regular basis. During wildfire responses since 1998, federal, state and local entities have been applying Goal 2 interoperability over vast geographic areas of the state. This includes state and federal aircraft. Goal 2 is simply having and utilizing common interoperable channels in the same day-to-day frequency band and having access to a mobile or fixed gateway which has the interoperable frequencies of the other bands.
Recommendations
GATEWAYS• Mobile gateways will be needed to fully achieve Goal 2 in
all locales. Feasibly, these should be shared and made available to all public safety entities. Plans, such as RICPs, should, and do, include procedures for requesting and implementing these gateways.
• Installing common VHF interoperable frequencies in UHF/700/800 MHz trunked sites and UHF/700/800 MHz interoperable frequencies in VHF trunked sites could allow not only allow for interoperability with Goal 2, but even day-to-day operations.
Recommendations
PROGRAMMING and COMMON TEMPLATES• It is obviously essential that all public safety users have
all interoperable frequencies, of their day-to-day frequency band, programmed in their radios. Some COG regions are paying for the programming of radios whether or not they were purchased with Homeland Security funding. Some COG regions are purchasing all public safety radios in their region. Some COGs are working with the end-users and vendors to create common templates for every radio. All of these things combined help ensure interoperability and meeting the requirements of Goal 2.
Recommendations
CACHES• Caches of radios for use in interoperable situations
should be programmed with interoperable frequencies and, if applicable, updated with common names.
USAGE of INTEROPERABLE CHANNELS on INCIDENTS / EVENTS
• The use of the interoperable frequencies is only an item of Goal 2, but it must be considered that these frequencies will be assigned as tactical, air-to-ground, and command channels on an incident. This might be an opportunity to pre-designate some of these frequencies ahead of an incident.
• Documenting use of interoperable channels on incidents and events should be done to reflect compliance.
Recommendations
CHALLENGES• Some federal agencies don’t want outside
agencies talking to them on their radios and are encrypted. To reach Goal 2, radios with interoperable frequencies might have to be issued to these agencies.
• At least some interoperable training must be on the radio equipment that the individual will be using on a regular basis. Interoperable training received at academies, external courses, etc, may not be on equipment that the end-user will be using on a day-to-day basis.
Recommendations
DEMONSTRATING GOAL 2Education• The end-users, elected officials and vendors
should be educated on aspects of interoperability and Goal 2. Definitions must be a part of this; include terms such as “narrowband, P-25, interoperability, ICS, NIMS, Goal 2, State and regional communications plans, etc.” Part of the education piece should also be included in the training.
Recommendations
DEMONSTRATING GOAL 2
Training• Classes on radio operation and interoperability
will be needed at the local level and on a regular basis. This should be for all end-users and dispatchers.
Recommendations
DEMONSTRATING GOAL 2Evaluation• All end users should demonstrate the use of
interoperable frequencies. Key end-users should demonstrate the setting up, integrating and using a gateway device. Evaluations could be associated with routine training and with exercises. Evaluations should be based on the plans, training, procedures, and equipment on hand that would be used on an initial incident as associated with Goal 2.
RecommendationsDEMONSTRATING GOAL 2Exercise• Exercises should include a scenario which will involve the
utilization of multiple interoperable channels, establishing and designating command, tactical and air-to-ground frequencies, developing and distributing an ICS 205, conducting a briefing on communications, and simulating a “shift-change” transition. Personnel not directly associated with the entity being evaluated should be utilized to evaluate the results of exercises. These personnel shall conduct a fair, impartial and thorough evaluation to ensure the goal is met. All end users should demonstrate the use of interoperable frequencies. Key end-users should demonstrate the setting up, integrating and using a gateway device.
