Standards for Communication in Emergency Management

Effective communication is, of course, paramount in emergency management. The standards and practices we adopt can significantly impact safety and operational success. This article outlines the origins of communication standards, including the 10 Standard Firefighting Orders and the 18 Watch Out Situations, and how they can be adapted for use by EmComm operators. First, we need to understand how we got here. Then, how can we develop and adapt a proven risk management tool for EmComm operation.

History of Fire Orders

The ten Standard Firefighting Orders were established in 1957 by a USDA Forest Service task force to mitigate firefighter injuries and fatalities. They were developed after analyzing common factors that contributed to accidents and deaths over two decades. Shortly afterward, the 18 Watch Out Situations were introduced to provide more detailed cautionary guidelines.

The Standard Firefighting Orders were developed by identifying key causes of firefighter fatalities and injuries, and then creating systematically organized rules aimed at reducing risks. Development was initially based on a study of firefighter incidents, and were revised for clarity and memorization. The orders were developed from lessons learned in a number of major wildland fires that led to the deaths of trapped firefighters. The most recent revisions follow:

Standard Firefighting Orders

Fire Behavior:

1. Keep informed on fire weather conditions and forecasts.

2. Know what your fire is doing at all times.

3. Base all actions on current and expected behavior of the fire.

Fireline Safety:

4. Identify escape routes and safety zones and make them known.

5. Post lookouts when there is possible danger.

6. Be alert. Keep calm. Think clearly. Act decisively.

Organizational Control:

7. Maintain prompt communication with your forces, your supervisor and adjoining forces.

8. Give clear instructions and ensure they are understood.

9. Maintain control of your forces at all times.

If you consider 1-9, then:

10. Fight fire aggressively, having provided for safety first.

Watch Out Situations

“Watch Out Situations” expanded on the above 10 orders by describing specific scenarios demanding heightened vigilance. The combined use of these standards provides a foundational risk management and decision-making framework.

18 Watch Out Situations (Fire Service)

1. Fire not scouted and sized up.

2. In unfamiliar terrain at night.

3. Safety zones and escape routes not identified.

4. Uninformed about local weather factors.

5. Lack of clarity on strategy and tactics.

6. Instructions and assignments unclear.

7. No communication link with crew or supervisor.

8. Constructing line without secure anchor points.

9. Building Fireline downhill with a fire below.

10. Attempting a direct assault on the fire.

11. Unburned fuel between the operator and fire.

12. Unable to see the main fire or contact someone who can.

13. On a hillside where rolling materials may ignite available fuel.

14. Increasing heat or dryness in weather.

15. Wind changes direction or intensifies.

16. Frequent spot fires across the line.

17. Challenging terrain for escape routes.

18. Napping near the Fireline.

Why a Standard of Communication for EmComm?

Reflecting on deployment scenarios reveals common situations that lead to accidents. By using established protective measures, we analyze incidents to identify root causes and address training gaps without assigning blame. Standard communication protocols can enhance the safety and effectiveness of ARES, RACES, and ACS (Auxiliary Communication Service) operators and groups. Creating communication standards must focus on key aspects: simplicity, relevance, logical structure, and trigger points to avoiding tunnel vision.

Outcome

 Reviewing my fire service career with organizations like BLM (Bureau of Land Management), CALFIRE, and USFS (United States Forest Service) highlighted the importance of standards for safety and survival that emphasize weather awareness, escape routes, safety zones, communication, and alertness—serving as a critical illumination for developing effective communications and having a proven risk management tool.

Development of COMMS ORDERS

 Taking inspiration from the 10 Orders and 18 Watch Out Situations described above, I adapted these principles for EmComm operations, ensuring they are sensible and structured:

-- Proposed COMMS Orders:

1. Communicate using plain language.

2. Observe all accepted policies and procedures.

3. Maintain a professional attitude at all times.

4. Maintain situational awareness continuously.

5. Safety is the first Operational Thought.

6. Obtain current mission status.

7. Remain in communication with other operators, your supervisor and served agency.

8. Determine safety zones and escape routes.

9. Ensure mission objectives are clearly communicated.

10. Retain control consistently.

11. Stay alert and calm, think clearly, and act decisively.

-- Proposed Watch Out Situations:

 1. No communication with other radio operators.

2. Instruction and assignments not clear.

3. Safety hazards not clearly identified.

4. Radio equipment not checked prior to mission.

5. Not working in accordance with work instructions and relevant work procedures.

6. Not ensuring equipment is properly grounded.

7. Uninformed on strategy, tactic, and hazards.

8. Unfamiliar with weather and local factors.

9. Safety zones and escape routes not identified.

10. Not identifying overhead hazards.

11. In an area not seen in daylight.

12. Not identifying the key points of the assignment and taking action in order of priority.

13. Not recognizing changing conditions and immediately revising plans to handle.

When to Say No -- How to Refuse Risk Properly

Accepting risk is part of the job of being an EmComm operator, but no supervisor or representative of a served agency has the right to force you to take an unacceptable risk, particularly if there are safer alternatives for completing the assignment.

The Placer County ARES leadership is in the process of developing a guideline set adapted from the NWCG (National Wildfire Coordinating Group) that spells out the proper way to exercise your right to refuse risk that you believe extends beyond the boundaries of the job.

Every individual has the right and obligation to report safety problems and contribute ideas regarding their safety. Supervisors and/or the representatives of the served agency are expected to give these concerns and ideas serious consideration. When an individual feels an assignment is unsafe, they also have the obligation to identify, to the degree possible, safe alternatives for completing that assignment. But, turning down an assignment is one possible outcome of managing risk.

A “turn down” is a situation in which an individual has determined they cannot undertake an assignment as given and they are unable to negotiate an alternative solution. The turn-down of an assignment must be based on an assessment of risks and the ability of the individual or organization to control those risks. Individuals may turn down an assignment as unsafe when: there is a violation of safe work practices; environmental conditions make the work unsafe; they lack the necessary qualifications or experience; and/or defective equipment is being used.

If a turn down situation presents itself, the process for resolving it in the field is as follows: Individual will directly inform their supervisor and/or the representative of the served agency that they are turning down the assignment as given. The most appropriate means to document the turn down is by citing the criteria (the EmComm Orders, the Watch Out Situations, etc.) outlined in the risk management process and assessment. The supervisor or the representative of the served agency will notify the Safety Officer immediately upon being informed of the turn down. If there is no Safety Officer, notification shall go to the appropriate person or to the Incident Commander. This provides accountability for decisions and initiates communication of safety concerns within the incident organization.

If the supervisor or the representative of the served agency asks another resource (volunteer) to perform the assignment, they are responsible to inform the new resource that the assignment has been turned down and the reasons that it was turned down. If an unresolved safety hazard exists or an unsafe act was committed, the individual should also document the turn down by submitting a detail of the incident in a timely manner.

These actions do not stop an operation from being carried out. This protocol is integral to the effective management of risk as it provides timely identification of hazards to the chain of command, raises risk awareness for both leaders and subordinates, and promotes accountability.

Conclusion

Adopting these standards promotes effective communication, prevents creative decision-making or “freelancing,” and empowers operators to take ownership of their safety while functioning as an essential risk management tool. This standard of communication serves as a vital framework for fostering comprehensive decision-making and risk management in emergency response scenarios. Emphasizing established orders and situations gives EmComm operators the clarity and focus needed to perform effectively under pressure. To learn more or schedule a presentation via Zoom for your group, please reach out to me. Please visit the Placer County ARES Website. -- Scott Read, KM6RFB, Communications Coordinator, Placer County ARES EC COML, COMT, AUXCOMM