Fireground Communications和Niosh 5

By JAIME REYES

The fire service has a problem that we must address. It’s a shared problem that we’ve all experienced at some point in our careers: our通讯, especially on the fireground. The truth is, we aren’t sure what to do about it.

Nearly every emergency incident has some sort of communications issue. Everything from too much talking to equipment failure, radio system deficiencies, unreadable transmissions, and so on—it’s a long list, and at least one of these issues rears its ugly head at every incident. What can we do about it? We know we need to be more concise, to “improve” our communications, but how exactly do we do that? How do我们solve that problem? This article will highlight the importance of our communications by looking at each causal factor of the NIOSH 5 through the narrow lens of通讯。

• Fireground Communications：指挥注意事项和责任
• Conditions That Warrant Urgent Communications to Command
• Fireground通讯：从尺寸到五月天
• Communications Broke Down: An Excuse for a Serious Problem

The NIOSH 5

Originally created by Chief (Ret.) Ron Siarnicki in 2013, the国家职业安全与健康研究所（NIOSH）“NIOSH 5” is an informal list of the top five contributing factors that lead tofirefighterline-of-duty deaths (LODDs). Since then, this list has evolved to include the following top causal factors:

1. 风险评估不当。
2. 缺乏事件命令。
3. Lack of accountability.
4. Inadequate communications.
5. Lack of standard operating procedures (SOPs) or failure to follow SOPs.

These are the操作导致死亡的因素。换句话说，当有一个消防员LODD时，接下来的NIOSH调查通常会揭示这五个因果因素中的一个或多个因素，而不是其他任何因素。这些是导致LODD的火场上往往出错的事情。知道这一点，为什么这些因素继续发生？我们缺少什么？我们是否可以通过采取有意的步骤来改善我们的所有五个因果因素通讯? Let’s take a closer look.

Improper Risk Assessment

这包括我们的初始和正在进行的尺寸。到那个时刻通讯, the size-up isn’t the time for lengthy descriptions that take up valuable radio time. What we need on an initial size-up is more of a “snapshot.” Speaking for my department, the expectation for our officers is to keep it simple. Tell us what you’ve got; let us know you’ll be getting a 360° size-up and whether it’s a working fire. That’s it. For example, we can communicate, “Engine 4’s on scene, we’ve got a one-story house, smoke showing from a window on the Bravo side. I’ll be getting a 360. Make this a working fire.”

Lack of Incident Command

我们可以通过多种方式解决通过我们的缺乏事件命令通讯。One of the simplest ways is for command to answer the radio. Notice I said “simplest” and not “easiest.” The late Chief (Ret.) Alan Brunacini from the Phoenix (AZ) Fire Department used to say that command must be “open for business.” Whoever is in command must answer theradio第一次,每一次。这意味着,如果我一个m in command, I must be aware of the many factors that could distract me from hearing and subsequently responding to radio traffic that was transmitted to command. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no excuse for a crew in the immediately dangerous to life or health environment to call command and not get an answer.

One of the most important ways we can address a “lack of incident command” through improving通讯是使用部门和组。例如,当n we create a group (i.e., “fire attack”), this immediately improves our span of control and frees up valuable airtime. Let’s say you have Engine 1 on fire attack with Engine 2 on a backup line and Engine 3 providing a second attack line. If command doesn’t create a group in this situation, he will be communicating with all three of these engine companies separately. That includes人员问责报告（PARS）等等。仅此一项就不会很糟糕，但是现在在“搜索”上添加卡车1，在“通风口”上的卡车2，“安全”和Med单位（救护车）。在这种情况下，命令现在有七个单独的单位，他负责沟通，并显然超出了该单元idealspan of control.

This situation can be improved by creating a “fire attack” group with Engines 1, 2, and 3. One of them will be the supervisor. For example, this can be set up by communicating, “Engine 1 from command, you are now the fire attack group supervisor. You have Engine 1, Engine 2, and Engine 3 working for you.”

The only thing left to do here is to communicate this move to Engines 2 and 3. Now, when command communicates with “fire attack,” he is communicating with the supervisor (Engine 1’s officer in charge), who will communicate with Engines 1, 2, and 3. That communication will most likely be face-to-face, thereby reducing overall incident radio traffic.

The first-arriving unit is in charge and responsible for the actions taken on the fireground. However, to minimize the number of times we transfer command (reducing radio traffic), our department has the second engine take command. This has worked well for us since the result is that command is typically only transferred once, from the second engine to the first-arriving battalion chief (BC). This may not work everywhere, and this decision should be a departmental one based on your department’s resources and staffing.

作者注：A “pro tip” for BCs, when command has already been established (second engine) and the first BC arrives on scene, don’t just automatically take command. Consider the person who is currently in command. He is command and most likely making assignments (or about to). When the BC arrives and simply says, “Battalion 1’s on scene, Battalion 1 has command,” this puts an abrupt end to him being in command and doesn’t allow for a smooth transition.

Instead, communicate something such as, “Battalion 1’s on scene, I’m going to face-to-face with command.” This statement lets everyone know you’ve arrived, and they can expect you to take command soon. Next, the BC should go to command for the transfer; don’t make him come and find you.

缺乏问责制

有几种方法可以改进问责制through communications. The first one begins on arrival. When crews arrive, they should announce it on the fireground channel. If your department uses preassignments, that’s even better. For example, communicate, “Truck 5’s on scene, we’ll be taking vent/search.”

重要的是要确认这一公告。我的部门曾在船员到达时在错误的频道上处于错误的频道上，因此没有听到宣布。该官员意识到当他的无线电传输未被承认时，他在错误的频道上。在我的部门中，命令将承认这一点。例如，“收到的命令，卡车5的发泄/搜索。”

如果命令尚未确定，则Dispatch将承认。调度如何知道这样做？我们每年为调度员提供通信课。问责制当我们使用上述小组和部门时，我们的通信进一步解决了。

Having regular PARs is another way to address accountability through communications. We do these at major benchmarks (i.e., fire under control, victim removed) or anytime we change operational modes from offensive to defensive, and so on.

通信不足

Without any explanation, this can be difficult to address. “Inadequate” is a general term, and the reason it’s so general is that there are so many facets to fireground communications. Inadequate communications could mean a lot of different things to most of us, and it’s most likely dependent on personal experience.

The best way to address inadequate communications is by being intentional with your communications. There are two ways to do that. First, a department should formally adopt a communications model. For my department, it’s the “3 Cs”—Connect, Convey, Confirm. By adopting the 3 Cs model, our department is effectively stating, “This is how Plano Fire-Rescue communicates on the radio.”

采用该模型后，部门必须提供以下一些特定的沟通期望：

1. Know how to operate your radio.
2. 知道何时和更重要的是，什么时候不是to talk on the radio.
3. Carry your radioandcarry it properly on every incident.
4. 使用您部门正式采用的通信模型。

Lack of or Failure to Follow SOPs

This one is straightforward. Fire departments should have a specific SOP for communicating on the fireground. This SOP will include the department’s communications model and should also define the communications expectations. Further, it should contain the radio channel lineup as well as on-scene radio report guidance for size-ups; situation reports; and CAN reports (conditions, actions, and needs). Our communications SOP is titled “Emergency Operations Communications” and includes detailed expectations for portable radio usage and approved cleaning instructions. It provides guidance for command radio operations including the importance of establishing a command channel, which we use on all working fires. Our battalion driver [incident command engineer (“ICE”)] opens the command channel; this moves all communications between dispatch and command to this channel, which frees up a lot of radio time on the fireground channel and has greatly benefited our operations.

When evaluating our fireground operations alongside the NIOSH 5, we should do what we can to not only honor the sacrifices of those who have gone before us but also learn from prior incidents and make changes where we can. We do this as professionals so we can continue serving the public just as they expect. Although we can’t fully address every factor solely through communications, we can be intentional and take the lead by improving the areas of communications discussed here and perhaps make a difference or even change an outcome.

---

JAIME REYESis the operations assistant chief of the Plano (TX) Fire-Rescue. He is also a certified master firefighter and an instructor with the Texas Commission on Fire Protection. He has a BS degree from Texas A&M University.