Firefighter Accountability

[traumajunky 5]

So I am curious as to how different departments manage firefighter accountability during an incident.

What they use, how they manage and keep track etc...

Currently my department is trying different methods to see which one fits.

The problem is that no one wants the responsibility of knowing where everyone is at all times.

Any input would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Every department has different methods and what works for one might not work for another. Pleasantville FD uses accountability tags. We have a red one for all members and a green tag for interior members. Both tags say PFD on the back and have a picture of us on the front along with out full names. The Green tag also says interior on the front. Every truck in our department has a red tag on it in the crew cab that says the truck number on it along with PFD. While responding we attach our red tags to the red tag on the truck and hand it up to the officer. The officer then gives the cluster of tags to the IC once on scene. This provides the IC with who arrived on what rigs along with what rigs have arrived if he does not hear them call on-scene on the radio. The green tags are collected by the safety officer or someone else who is assigned to stand at the front entrance of the structure. The crew members going in hand him/her the green tags. This allows the Ic to contact the safety officer and ask who is in the structure.

[chris 18]

We use a two tag system, one goes with the rig you are with, the other goes to an accountability officer near the entry point of the incident. The one on the rig stays on the rig until you go home, the other should be handed back to you when you complete and then leave the task you were assigned to, and then you wait for another job to do, and your tag goes to the new designation. And the accountability officer has a dry erase board with your tag on a ring with the rest of your team on it, so he can keep track of what your task is, this will help to know where you should be. Pretty sure our board has 8 rings for different jobs. Then the command post is a different ball game.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Every department has different methods and what works for one might not work for another. Pleasantville FD uses accountability tags. We have a red one for all members and a green tag for interior members. Both tags say PFD on the back and have a picture of us on the front along with out full names. The Green tag also says interior on the front. Every truck in our department has a red tag on it in the crew cab that says the truck number on it along with PFD. While responding we attach our red tags to the red tag on the truck and hand it up to the officer. The officer then gives the cluster of tags to the IC once on scene. This provides the IC with who arrived on what rigs along with what rigs have arrived if he does not hear them call on-scene on the radio.

This is one of a number of very similar systems that only covers a portion of "accountability". It only tells you who is onscene. Tracking where members are is needed for accountability along with time in the IDLH environment.

Also what happens when a member shows up at the scene, not on a rig?

The green tags are collected by the safety officer or someone else who is assigned to stand at the front entrance of the structure. The crew members going in hand him/her the green tags. This allows the Ic to contact the safety officer and ask who is in the structure.

Does this mean that the 1st arriving unit can not go in, till this member is there? If they can how do you account for them after the fact?

Does this safety officer track where in the structure and how long they have been in? What about tracking exterior operations?

My problem with the tag systems is they help ID the body or make you look for the body before leaving the scene. THey do not work in real time.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Also what happens when a member shows up at the scene, not on a rig?

If a member shows up in a pov, the firefighter reports to IC and is accounted for and assigned to a team or task.

Does this mean that the 1st arriving unit can not go in, till this member is there? If they can how do you account for them after the fact?

Does this safety officer track where in the structure and how long they have been in? What about tracking exterior operations?

I am not sure what you mean by "till this member is there?"...what member? I meant when your team goes in to the structure, all team members are present and all can give their tags to whoever is collecting them.

The safety officer should have a board with him that allows him to track how long teams have been in the IDLH. As far as exterior operations, I am unsure of exactly how this works by I would imagine that the exterior operations chief or officer keeps track of this. The exterior operations chief should be aware of all teams operating outside of the structure.

Tags are not perfect, but based on so many departments using systems like this, it must work sometimes... when a perfect system is developed I am sure departments will switch over to it,

[helicopper 1,050]

Every department has different methods and what works for one might not work for another. Pleasantville FD uses accountability tags. We have a red one for all members and a green tag for interior members. Both tags say PFD on the back and have a picture of us on the front along with out full names. The Green tag also says interior on the front. Every truck in our department has a red tag on it in the crew cab that says the truck number on it along with PFD. While responding we attach our red tags to the red tag on the truck and hand it up to the officer. The officer then gives the cluster of tags to the IC once on scene. This provides the IC with who arrived on what rigs along with what rigs have arrived if he does not hear them call on-scene on the radio. The green tags are collected by the safety officer or someone else who is assigned to stand at the front entrance of the structure. The crew members going in hand him/her the green tags. This allows the Ic to contact the safety officer and ask who is in the structure.

The IC shouldn't be accounting for or tracking individual resources unless it is a very small incident.

The Safety Officer isn't the guy who should be standing at the door collecting tags because he's then not doing fulfilling any of the other duties and responsibilties of the Safety Officer.

Sounds to me like we need to start turning pages in the ICS books, getting past the IC and command staff, and start using positions like status check-in recorders, staging area managers, and perhaps most important resource unit leader. On every greater alarm fire in NYC a battalion chief is assigned as resource unit leader and on really big jobs they roll out an entire incident management team to support the operation. There's no good reason for us not to do something similar.

We bastardize terms from ICS and NIMS to suit egos and attitudes or just because "we've always done it that way". As bnechis points out, we need to know more than just who is on scene.

It's high time we start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk.

[robert benz 344]

If a member shows up in a pov, the firefighter reports to IC and is accounted for and assigned to a team or task.

I am not sure what you mean by "till this member is there?"...what member? I meant when your team goes in to the structure, all team members are present and all can give their tags to whoever is collecting them.

The safety officer should have a board with him that allows him to track how long teams have been in the IDLH. As far as exterior operations, I am unsure of exactly how this works by I would imagine that the exterior operations chief or officer keeps track of this. The exterior operations chief should be aware of all teams operating outside of the structure.

Tags are not perfect, but based on so many departments using systems like this, it must work sometimes... when a perfect system is developed I am sure departments will switch over to it,

The key word you used is "whoever". is there to collect them, what if the first to arrive is ready to advance into the structure, and the safety officer or the "whoever" guy isnt standing by the front door, who does the officer give his cluster of tags to?

and if it is the safety officer, you stated he has a board, is that next to the front door also, the safety officer by definition should have a bigger role than just collecting tags. Also what happens with a crew taking a ground ladder to the rear, do they have to stop by the front door first with the ladder before proceeding.

I understand the tag system, having good accountability is very important, but it is so much deeper than just tags.

here is the scenario, your "whoever" guy did a good job of collecting tags, hell he has twenty of them, then there is a mayday over the radio, just one, no name given, please someone tell me how the twenty tags collected are going to help identify the member down as opposed to any other method, PAR, rollcall or whatever you call it.

I do like you your faith in the "it must work sometimes or so many depts wouldnt be using it theory"

[antiquefirelt 994]

Two tag system. Tag has Rockland FD on one side, your name on the other.

First tag is placed on either the apparatus you ride in on or for off duty and call members coming to second alarm+ incidents, they tag the attack engine or tower ladder. This tag shows you're on the fireground. If your on a hydrant engine, your tag is there.

Second tag is placed on a traffic cone at the point of entry to the building. This cone is placed by either the first in officer or the Safety Officer if the cone had not been placed (slight hole in the system. If you enter any door without a cone, you have a third tag which is larger, Orange and says "TAG IN" on it. It features a loop of cord and a draw-tite on one end and a metal key loop on the other. This allows it to be hung on door knobs, ladders, porch railings, etc and leaves the metal key loop to clip onto.

We've found the key to making it work, is doing it all the time. Alarms, MVA's, you name it, we need to tag the truck and place the cone if going inside. Without doing it routinely, we fail to do it when it's real! I must admit, this is one of our biggest weaknesses.

This system replaced a common one I see, which is after a fireground catastrophe, you send a member back to the station to see who's gear is one the wall, and figure they're likely OK!

[newsbuff 286]

From what I can tell in Mohegan, they use the two tag system, but there are pictures all over their website of people walking around in structure fires with both tags.

It's only useful if you utilize the system properly...

[traumajunky 5]

It's only useful if you utilize the system properly...

I agree with you there 100% newsbuff.

The poilcy in place for my battalion are as follows:

All departments will have a color coded tag system, official colors are as follows.

Green is for on scene of the incident, issued to all firefighters and responders for the purpose of being accounted for on scene. Exterior only operators will be given 2 of these.

Red is issued to all qualified Interior Structural Firefighters. Those qualified will have 1 green tag and 1 red tag.

Orange is to be utilized for radio accountability of radios that are assigned to apparatus and not to officers (as not all firefighters have thier own radios)

When operating on scene the Incident Commander will determine Zones of Operation. The incident and immediate surrounding area(collapse zone) will be known as the Hot Zone or Working Area. A determined area outside of the Hot Zone will be the incident Cold Zone. A staging area will also be utilized outside of the incident.

The first due assignment will be in charge under the IC, and the Accountability Officer for that department. The IC, Accountability Officer with the Tactical Operations Board, FAST Officer, Deputy Coordinator (Battalion) and Incident Safety Officer will remain just outside of the Hot Zone.

Staging Area Accountability:

Upon arriving at the scene of an incident all incoming fire personnel will report to the Staging Area and wait for a Line Officer or their Accountability Officer to tag into the scene. Fire personnel from incoming mutual aid departments will be in this area until utilized by the IC for the sole purpose of better on scene accountability, and eliminating free lancing or wandering.

Tactical Operations Accountability:

Each firefighter actively performing a task within the Hot Zone or Working Area will report to the Tactical Operations Board for the assignment that they have been given. Firefighters will tag the board with either their red tag for interior operations or green tag indicating that they are performing an assigned task within the Hot Zone. When the task is complete firefighters will return to the tactical accountability board and tag out of the Hot Zone or Working Area until assigned to a different task.

EMS Rehab Accountability:

When a firefighter is sent to EMS or a designated rehab area they will tag the EMS/Rehab area of the Tactical Operations Board. Tags will remain on the EMS/Rehab area until such time that the firefighter is released to return to duty or being transported to the hospital for further evaluation.

Radio Accountability:

Each portable radio not assigned to an officer will have an orange accountability tag describing the radio number (based on the apparatus it is assigned to) and the department. Upon being used the radio tag will be attached to the firefighters accountability tag that will be attached to the Tactical Operations Board. If the radio is reassigned to another firefighter on scene it is the firefighters responsibility to attach the radio tag to the proper accountibility tag.

Policy:

Each department will appoint accountability officers (completely seperate from safety officers) for their respective agency to work on scene of incidents for utilization of accountability. All firefighters at the scene of an incident will give their green tag to their respective accountability officer in the staging area. Upon being utilized into the hot zone or working area firefighters will take either their assigned red or remaining green tag and report to the Tactical Operations Board for assignment. In the event that there is not yet an accountability officer on scene, an accountability identification board will be on the apparatus that has responded. It is the sole responsibility of the accountability officer to work with the Incident Commander and the Tactical Operations Board to determine which firefighters are actively performing what tasks.

When a firefighter leaves the scene all accountability tags will be returned to them.

So basically to sum this up is that every department has an accountability officer that is responsible for their own members safety. If a department is first due to an assignment it is the responsibility for that department to set up the Tactical Operations Board, along with their own accountability on scene board. You tag in and out on the Tactical Ops Board every time you enter and exit the Hot Zone, and you tag in and out of the scene through your department's on scene board.

When operating as one department individual tasks are tracked on the Tactical Ops board, and on scene accountability is kept track by what apparatus you arrive on or assigned to.

I am usually roped into being the accountability officer for my department. That is why I am asking for others input on the topic.

For more info on our system or a visual diagram please feel free to PM me. Posted is a pic of out Tactical Ops Board, when I can I will post a pic of our individual dept. on scene board, which there is one on every truck.

CR

Edited March 18, 2010 by traumajunky

[Bnechis 3,961]

All I see is a lot of effort and a lot of policies to have tags of lots of colors, but I still do not hear accountability.

Here is a scenario:

Reported house fire, upon arrival you have a 2 story private dwelling with light to medium smoke showing. you arrive with 1 engine, 1 ladder and 1 chief. each rig has 1 officer and 2 firefighters plus the chief. The members could be career &/or volunteer but they assembled at the station and arrived together in approximatly 6 minutes. It is 6:30 in the morning and there is a minivan in the driveway. No one is outside upon arrival, the neighbor says she does not know if anyone is home, but they often leave for work at this time.

All 6 firefighters/officers are certified interior. Now from some of the threads I've already taxed some departments.

Engine #1 - 1 firefighter and 1 lt stretch a 1 3/4" handline and the driver operates the pump.

Ladder #1 - 1 FF and the Capt. Force entry and start to search. The other firefighter as part of the two out helps the pump operator make a hydrant.

The chief is IC.

Who is collecting these tags at the door? Who is the 2nd "out" member?

Now its 10 minutes later, an additonal 6 members are on scene (again a stretch for many) who is collecting tags? In a few minutes it will be time to rotate members due to low air.

A PASS alarm goes off and is not reset, what does your tag ("accountability") system do for you?

Who's alarm?

Where are they?

Who has what radio (if equipped) ?

You do a PAR and 2 members do not answer (but only 4 of the 7 members inside have radios). So how does your tag ("accountability") system help?

Visability starts to deteriorate and one of the truck members shows up in a 2nd floor window, a ground ladder is placed and he gets out. He does not know where anyone else is. How does your tag ("accountability") system help?

[chris 18]

Someone else must have been in the class's I was at when I was told to think outside of the box, to shoot from the hip sometimes, not everything is black and white. The table tops and what ifs can never end if any one person doesn't want them to, there are a never ending amout of wrenches to throw into a conversation. Its kind of like a kid just always saying "WHY". Routine is no longer acceptable to the fire service if you cannot improvise hang up your gear and get a desk job. But be careful you could get a paper cut then maybe an infection then maybe we will need to amputate then maybe ???????????????????????????????

[helicopper 1,050]

Someone else must have been in the class's I was at when I was told to think outside of the box, to shoot from the hip sometimes, not everything is black and white. The table tops and what ifs can never end if any one person doesn't want them to, there are a never ending amout of wrenches to throw into a conversation. Its kind of like a kid just always saying "WHY". Routine is no longer acceptable to the fire service if you cannot improvise hang up your gear and get a desk job. But be careful you could get a paper cut then maybe an infection then maybe we will need to amputate then maybe ???????????????????????????????

Chris, I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the plausible scenarios posed by bnechis are "what if's" that take the discussion to an illogical conclusion? I don't think so. I think we have paper plans that are nothing more than that - paper. There are many benefits to a tag system but only as a part of a greater overall accountability and resource management system.

If you get a mayday from within a burning structure and are holding a ring full of tags, what do you do? What does that ring full of tags tell you?

[helicopper 1,050]

This thread and the accompanying linked audio highlights the point and also shows quite a few other issues.

http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=36137

[wraftery 1,275]

The major problem with accountability is the myriad of systems in use throughout the US. Until the fire service comes with one standard system, we're just blowing smoke. All you need is a little mutual aid that exceeds your "planning zone" (for want of a better term) and the accounting system changes. It's worse by far than the 'Ten signal confusion'...my green tag is your red tag is his blue tag. I've also witnessed company officers walk up to an unmanned IC board, chuck a fistful of tags on the table and walk off to freelance. That guy believed he was accounted for.

The NIMS powers that be are the ones that have to set the standard. That standard has to address all the questions and scenarios described in this thread by guys like Barrry Nechis and Bob Benz. It does no good to post 'here's my system' because it is not OUR system...your...mine...everybody's, from Maine to Hawaii.

As far as who is the accountability officer goes, NIMS addresses this already. It is the responsibility of the IC. He can do it himself for small incidents (with less than 7 things to think about, if you remember what span-of-control is about). If the IC wants to put the fire out instead of losing sight of the overall picture by counting heads, he appoints a person to do the task. Under ICS, that person is already addressed. it is the Resource unit leader or RUL (found under the PLANNING section in your model ICS chart). IT IS NEVER NEVER THE SAFETY OFFICER!!!

Edited March 18, 2010 by wraftery

[robert benz 344]

Someone else must have been in the class's I was at when I was told to think outside of the box, to shoot from the hip sometimes, not everything is black and white. The table tops and what ifs can never end if any one person doesn't want them to, there are a never ending amout of wrenches to throw into a conversation. Its kind of like a kid just always saying "WHY". Routine is no longer acceptable to the fire service if you cannot improvise hang up your gear and get a desk job. But be careful you could get a paper cut then maybe an infection then maybe we will need to amputate then maybe ???????????????????????????????

couple of things i have to rebutt,

1. Most of the time routine, is what gets things accomplished on the fire ground. If shooting from the hip becomes the norm, then anything anyone does can be conscrued as the right thing to do.

2. Isn't thinking outside the box saying/asking "WHY"?

3. And I agree there are very few "always" and "nevers"

4. I will take your advise and watch out for the paper cuts and possible amputation as i sit behind my desk and type this.

[antiquefirelt 994]

As far as who is the accountability officer goes, NIMS addresses this already. It is the responsibility of the IC. He can do it himself for small incidents (with less than 7 things to think about, if you remember what span-of-control is about). If the IC wants to put the fire out instead of losing sight of the overall picture by counting heads, he appoints a person to do the task. Under ICS, that person is already addressed. it is the Resource unit leader or RUL (found under the PLANNING section in your model ICS chart). IT IS NEVER NEVER THE SAFETY OFFICER!!!

Due to semantics or lack of detailed questioning we maybe aren't talking about the same "whole picture" accountability that you and Barry note. Without a doubt, the tags, which are inanimate objects do not make for a system, it takes training, personal responsibility, discipline and leadership for true accountability to be realized.

A few of us have shown the equipment and basic premise of our accountability systems. It should go without saying, though I know full well it isn't across the board, that knowing where your personnel are is a huge part of actual accountability. Freelancing is not the fault of an accountability system, not knowing who's assigned to what task is not a failure of the accountability system, they're both failures of the incident command system.

Please forgive the lack of 100% buy in to NIMS for all incidents. The use of ICS is automatic on every incident and has been long before NIMS. Regardless of who is responsible for resources at a Type III or greater incident, 98% of our runs do not involve a planning section, so the RUL will not be specifically designated. But as with any ICS/NIMS system, the structure is modular and based on span of control, will grow as needed with those positions needed filled. I doubt any of us are really thinking the RUL in the planning section will every be directly responsible for know who is in what corner of a building at any moment. A safety officer or call him, accountability officer will. As with anything in ICS, if it falls under your area of responsibility and you don't delegate it, it's yours.

As for Barry's scenario: if we overlay the normal ICS structure and responsibilities onto a well implemented tag system, and ensure the dept has instilled discipline at all levels, then you can have a decent total accountability system. We don't rely on tags to keep track of where people are, this is the function of each company officer, assigned sector officers (now group/division)and the IC. There are electronic systems that provide more information, but we still will need a back-up to the electronics as we see failures every day that have life altering implications (see Toyota) I've yet to see an electronic solution to freelancing or ensuring members follow the rules, though since I'm going out to dig up my dog's underground fence for yet another repair, I'm starting to hatch an idea! PASS?PAR systems with elecrtic behavior modification!

[wraftery 1,275]

This thread and the accompanying linked audio highlights the point and also shows quite a few other issues.

If you listen to the radio xmissions, it is difficult to differentiate between the words "first' or "third' referring to floors, especiallly with SCBA.

A better terimology is to say "Number one" or "Number three" Floor. FD's should get used to using the term "Number_____Floor" to reduce the chance of miscommunication

[wraftery 1,275]

Due to semantics or lack of detailed questioning we maybe aren't talking about the same "whole picture" accountability that you and Barry note. Without a doubt, the tags, which are inanimate objects do not make for a system, it takes training, personal responsibility, discipline and leadership for true accountability to be realized.

A few of us have shown the equipment and basic premise of our accountability systems. It should go without saying, though I know full well it isn't across the board, that knowing where your personnel are is a huge part of actual accountability. Freelancing is not the fault of an accountability system, not knowing who's assigned to what task is not a failure of the accountability system, they're both failures of the incident command system.

Please forgive the lack of 100% buy in to NIMS for all incidents. The use of ICS is automatic on every incident and has been long before NIMS. Regardless of who is responsible for resources at a Type III or greater incident, 98% of our runs do not involve a planning section, so the RUL will not be specifically designated. But as with any ICS/NIMS system, the structure is modular and based on span of control, will grow as needed with those positions needed filled. I doubt any of us are really thinking the RUL in the planning section will every be directly responsible for know who is in what corner of a building at any moment. A safety officer or call him, accountability officer will. As with anything in ICS, if it falls under your area of responsibility and you don't delegate it, it's yours.

SORRY. I tend to interchange NIMS and ICS. ICS is what makes NIMS work, and I should have just said ICS.

In any case, you don't have to establish the entire Planning Section if you just need a RUL.

A Safety Officer by definition has no other duty except for Safety.

I would say your 98% number is low. Most of us will never have to establish a full Planning Section in our entire career, but RUL is another story.

I would say 98% of anyone's total runs don't need ICS

I'm not arguing with you, either. I agree wtih what you said...well, at least 98%. I just said we all should have the same system.

[bfxfd 8]

All I see is a lot of effort and a lot of policies to have tags of lots of colors, but I still do not hear accountability.

Here is a scenario:

Reported house fire, upon arrival you have a 2 story private dwelling with light to medium smoke showing. you arrive with 1 engine, 1 ladder and 1 chief. each rig has 1 officer and 2 firefighters plus the chief. The members could be career &/or volunteer but they assembled at the station and arrived together in approximatly 6 minutes. It is 6:30 in the morning and there is a minivan in the driveway. No one is outside upon arrival, the neighbor says she does not know if anyone is home, but they often leave for work at this time.

All 6 firefighters/officers are certified interior. Now from some of the threads I've already taxed some departments.

Engine #1 - 1 firefighter and 1 lt stretch a 1 3/4" handline and the driver operates the pump.

Ladder #1 - 1 FF and the Capt. Force entry and start to search. The other firefighter as part of the two out helps the pump operator make a hydrant.

The chief is IC.

Who is collecting these tags at the door? Who is the 2nd "out" member?

Now its 10 minutes later, an additonal 6 members are on scene (again a stretch for many) who is collecting tags? In a few minutes it will be time to rotate members due to low air.

A PASS alarm goes off and is not reset, what does your tag ("accountability") system do for you?

Who's alarm?

Where are they?

Who has what radio (if equipped) ?

You do a PAR and 2 members do not answer (but only 4 of the 7 members inside have radios). So how does your tag ("accountability") system help?

Visability starts to deteriorate and one of the truck members shows up in a 2nd floor window, a ground ladder is placed and he gets out. He does not know where anyone else is. How does your tag ("accountability") system help?

What do you suggest for accountability? You bring up a lot of good points as to the flaws of a tag system. I just want to know how you do accountability and why you find that it is a good way?

[helicopper 1,050]

Due to semantics or lack of detailed questioning we maybe aren't talking about the same "whole picture" accountability that you and Barry note. Without a doubt, the tags, which are inanimate objects do not make for a system, it takes training, personal responsibility, discipline and leadership for true accountability to be realized.

A few of us have shown the equipment and basic premise of our accountability systems. It should go without saying, though I know full well it isn't across the board, that knowing where your personnel are is a huge part of actual accountability. Freelancing is not the fault of an accountability system, not knowing who's assigned to what task is not a failure of the accountability system, they're both failures of the incident command system.

Please forgive the lack of 100% buy in to NIMS for all incidents. The use of ICS is automatic on every incident and has been long before NIMS. Regardless of who is responsible for resources at a Type III or greater incident, 98% of our runs do not involve a planning section, so the RUL will not be specifically designated. But as with any ICS/NIMS system, the structure is modular and based on span of control, will grow as needed with those positions needed filled. I doubt any of us are really thinking the RUL in the planning section will every be directly responsible for know who is in what corner of a building at any moment. A safety officer or call him, accountability officer will. As with anything in ICS, if it falls under your area of responsibility and you don't delegate it, it's yours.

I don't think they are failures of the ICS, I think they're failures to implement the system properly and effectively. If you go back to my original post on the topic I said that using ICS is more than just designating an IC and Safety Officer. We don't use the system to its full potential.

You can by all means have a resource unit leader without a full planning section or even a Planning Section Chief. There's no reason not to if you're worried about accountability and tracking of resources.

In addition to ICS, NIMS also includes resource management as a key component so between ICS and NIMS there is a great deal of discussion about it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that we can do better with ICS implementation and use the process more effectively because it isn't a failure of the system. It works on major incidents so it should definitely work on the average sized ones.

[chris 18]

Chris, I'm missing your point. Are you saying that the plausible scenarios posed by bnechis are "what if's" that take the discussion to an illogical conclusion? I don't think so. I think we have paper plans that are nothing more than that - paper. There are many benefits to a tag system but only as a part of a greater overall accountability and resource management system.

If you get a mayday from within a burning structure and are holding a ring full of tags, what do you do? What does that ring full of tags tell you?

O.K. when the mayday hits, the fast should be getting ready to make entry as they see fit, the accountability officer ( we try to use one of our deputy chiefs so the safety officer is free to do his 360's ) should be getting ready to conduct a PAR by handing out tags to the crews who exit the bldg , the IC and the fast liasion should be monitoring the radio channels for further radio communications with the mayday at the command post. As the par is being conducted the fast will be doing there proactive thing but depending on the scenario not just running in like nuts. When the PAR is complete ( the tags are handed out and there are none left ) or someone is not acounted for because you still have a tag or two the fast operation will go into full swing. ( I guess the ring of tags if done properly will tell you who is in the house).

[chris 18]

couple of things i have to rebutt,

1. Most of the time routine, is what gets things accomplished on the fire ground. If shooting from the hip becomes the norm, then anything anyone does can be conscrued as the right thing to do.

2. Isn't thinking outside the box saying/asking "WHY"?

3. And I agree there are very few "always" and "nevers"

4. I will take your advise and watch out for the paper cuts and possible amputation as i sit behind my desk and type this.

#1 I agree with you, but there has to be a leash on routine. Shooting from the hip shouldn't be the norm.

#2 Yes, but there is always another "why" ready and waiting. And don't get me wrong when the norm isn't, then you think outside of the box.

#4 You can never be to careful.

[chris 18]

The major problem with accountability is the myriad of systems in use throughout the US. Until the fire service comes with one standard system, we're just blowing smoke. All you need is a little mutual aid that exceeds your "planning zone" (for want of a better term) and the accounting system changes. It's worse by far than the 'Ten signal confusion'...my green tag is your red tag is his blue tag. I've also witnessed company officers walk up to an unmanned IC board, chuck a fistful of tags on the table and walk off to freelance. That guy believed he was accounted for.

The NIMS powers that be are the ones that have to set the standard. That standard has to address all the questions and scenarios described in this thread by guys like Barrry Nechis and Bob Benz. It does no good to post 'here's my system' because it is not OUR system...your...mine...everybody's, from Maine to Hawaii.

As far as who is the accountability officer goes, NIMS addresses this already. It is the responsibility of the IC. He can do it himself for small incidents (with less than 7 things to think about, if you remember what span-of-control is about). If the IC wants to put the fire out instead of losing sight of the overall picture by counting heads, he appoints a person to do the task. Under ICS, that person is already addressed. it is the Resource unit leader or RUL (found under the PLANNING section in your model ICS chart). IT IS NEVER NEVER THE SAFETY OFFICER!!!

An unmanned IC board is the start of all the problems ( sometimes just the opposite ) it starts from the top either way . And no disrespect to Bobby or Barry but like you said " here's mine and its not yours " BUT if we unify command it should work better, I dont have to worry about yours your people do. You are good, span of control at 7, I always thought 5, but I just might be slow and nobody told me yet !

Edit due to a friend calling and saying I'm slow..

Edited March 18, 2010 by chris

[chris 18]

Due to semantics or lack of detailed questioning we maybe aren't talking about the same "whole picture" accountability that you and Barry note. Without a doubt, the tags, which are inanimate objects do not make for a system, it takes training, personal responsibility, discipline and leadership for true accountability to be realized.

A few of us have shown the equipment and basic premise of our accountability systems. It should go without saying, though I know full well it isn't across the board, that knowing where your personnel are is a huge part of actual accountability. Freelancing is not the fault of an accountability system, not knowing who's assigned to what task is not a failure of the accountability system, they're both failures of the incident command system.

Please forgive the lack of 100% buy in to NIMS for all incidents. The use of ICS is automatic on every incident and has been long before NIMS. Regardless of who is responsible for resources at a Type III or greater incident, 98% of our runs do not involve a planning section, so the RUL will not be specifically designated. But as with any ICS/NIMS system, the structure is modular and based on span of control, will grow as needed with those positions needed filled. I doubt any of us are really thinking the RUL in the planning section will every be directly responsible for know who is in what corner of a building at any moment. A safety officer or call him, accountability officer will. As with anything in ICS, if it falls under your area of responsibility and you don't delegate it, it's yours.

As for Barry's scenario: if we overlay the normal ICS structure and responsibilities onto a well implemented tag system, and ensure the dept has instilled discipline at all levels, then you can have a decent total accountability system. We don't rely on tags to keep track of where people are, this is the function of each company officer, assigned sector officers (now group/division)and the IC. There are electronic systems that provide more information, but we still will need a back-up to the electronics as we see failures every day that have life altering implications (see Toyota) I've yet to see an electronic solution to freelancing or ensuring members follow the rules, though since I'm going out to dig up my dog's underground fence for yet another repair, I'm starting to hatch an idea! PASS?PAR systems with elecrtic behavior modification!

Someone call OSHA and NFPA this could work..

[antiquefirelt 994]

SORRY. I tend to interchange NIMS and ICS. ICS is what makes NIMS work, and I should have just said ICS.

In any case, you don't have to establish the entire Planning Section if you just need a RUL.

A Safety Officer by definition has no other duty except for Safety.

I would say your 98% number is low. Most of us will never have to establish a full Planning Section in our entire career, but RUL is another story.

I would say 98% of anyone's total runs don't need ICS

I'm not arguing with you, either. I agree wtih what you said...well, at least 98%. I just said we all should have the same system.

I agree you can call the accountability tag taker the RUL or Sally or Joe, but it will still be someone's specific role unless it goes unassigned. In our case, the S.O. (all Capt.'s) is this person unless he assigns an accountability person. In my mind, and I guess that of those before our current admin, accountability is paramount to safety. It does not relieve the company officers, the IC or other officers of their responsibility to keep track of their personnel and stick to their assignments.

I said 98% because 99.9% seemed almost a cliche. In fact we might use the planning section 1 or 2 times a year counting any full scale WMD/Haz-mat exercises we participate in. Our team covers 3-4 counties plus overlapping another 3 or so, allowing for an above average number of NIMS compliant drills. It's a wonder our guys remember what to do when there's smoke showing, but that's a different problem all together.

My only disagreement is your last statement about 98% of runs not needing ICS. Maybe not ICS as we've been teaching it with NIMS, but both FD's I've been a member of have always believed in clear leadership and any form of rank structure and accountability to a higher rank to me, smacks of ICS. You may not call your day to day operations ICS, but I'm betting they fit nicely into the ICS principles. Upon arrival is not one person incharge? Maybe a higher ranking officer comes in and may or may not take control? Do members follow assigned task and report to their officer and not end run to the IC?

Contrary to what guys from the Left Coast say, ICS didn't begin with FIRESCOPE or any wildfires. We have all seen Currier and Ives pictures proving that ICS was around before the turn of the last century.

And no offense taken on the Maine to Hawaii.IDTIP In fact I wondered how you knew I'd be going to Hawaii next month for vacation?

[antiquefirelt 994]

I don't think they are failures of the ICS, I think they're failures to implement the system properly and effectively.

One might say a failure to properly and effectively implement something constitutes failure? I don;t think we're disagreeing here. Maybe I look as ICS differently. It seems many people see this as a tool that gets used as needed for larger incidents. My FD uses this for every call. We don't designate a "named command" for EMS calls, but pretty much everything else does. But ICS is more than filling boxes and passing out vests (which we do very little of). It is a whole organizational system. Everyday our personnel are assigned to an officer who reports to a higher officer who reports to the Chief of Department. For us, ICS begin here. My firefighters don't come directly to me, they go to heir Lieutenant, who in turn comes to me. We are small enough that this formal structure isn't absolute, but it is formal enough that outside the bricks, everyone know who give them their assignments and who they report to. No vests need 99.9% of the time. The use of position titles as in NIMS helps when the routine alarm turns into more, with off duty, call personnel and mutual aid responding. Rather than rely on unit numbers or voice recognition, your assignment is what you're title is. ie: first floor, attack, roof, exposure 2, safety, etc. the detail depends on the incident.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that we can do better with ICS implementation and use the process more effectively because it isn't a failure of the system. It works on major incidents so it should definitely work on the average sized ones.

It works on all incidents. So many of you are using ICS, you just don't call it that. One person is in charge, call him/'her what ever you like, thats the Incident Commander. Someone else is in charge of the crew that is attacking the fire. This is the company officer or attack officer. Firefighters report to the officer they're with and assigned to, that officer reports to the officer in charge of the area their in (Sector officer?) and that officer reports to the IC. Basic incident command. i'll bet most of you use it on most incidents. In fact I really don't know how things get done when there truly is no sign of ICS at an incident?

My "brother-in-law" runs an EMS service north of us, and they have no command structure and everyone just shows up and does what is necessary. They don't play well with others though. In the end injured people get the appropriate care facility but it's like sausage, the final product is good, but you don't want to see how it's made.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Without a doubt, the tags, which are inanimate objects do not make for a system, it takes training, personal responsibility, discipline and leadership for true accountability to be realized.

Well said. To many ff's believe that it ends with the tags.

A few of us have shown the equipment and basic premise of our accountability systems. It should go without saying, though I know full well it isn't across the board, that knowing where your personnel are is a huge part of actual accountability. Freelancing is not the fault of an accountability system, not knowing who's assigned to what task is not a failure of the accountability system, they're both failures of the incident command system.

Agreed. My comments were ment to bring that out.

As for Barry's scenario: if we overlay the normal ICS structure and responsibilities onto a well implemented tag system, and ensure the dept has instilled discipline at all levels, then you can have a decent total accountability system. We don't rely on tags to keep track of where people are, this is the function of each company officer, assigned sector officers (now group/division)and the IC. There are electronic systems that provide more information, but we still will need a back-up to the electronics as we see failures every day that have life altering implications (see Toyota) I've yet to see an electronic solution to freelancing or ensuring members follow the rules, though since I'm going out to dig up my dog's underground fence for yet another repair, I'm starting to hatch an idea! PASS?PAR systems with elecrtic behavior modification!

To many depts do not have the discipline or follow the ICS enough to make this work. Bring on the "antiquefirelt behavior Pass System".......what a great idea.

[Bnechis 3,961]

O.K. when the mayday hits, the fast should be getting ready to make entry as they see fit, the accountability officer should be getting ready to conduct a PAR by handing out tags to the crews who exit the bldg , the IC and the fast liasion should be monitoring the radio channels for further radio communications with the mayday at the command post.

If I call a mayday, I hope that this is not what is done!!!!!

If I know its radio 22c and he advises he's low on air and lost. I would hope that the firefighters in the building would not abandon him. We still need fire attack, infact, we need more members inthere, not less. we know who is missing. and if he is low on air, he will be out of air by the time we collect all of the tags!!!!

I do not want just the FASt looking for him. Also not every fire is in a single family residential, exiting the building may take time, time that the member in distress does not have.

We do not exit and leave our brother behind to do a PAR, we leave because the conditions have deteriorated to the point that Command decides we must.

An exit par is only done (in my dept.) if conditions radically change (explosion, collapse, etc.) and we do not know if anyone is missing. Normally a PAR is done by calling each company officer and having him acknoledge that he and his company members are ok and where they are. If we know where everyone is and that they are ok, then we are set.

As the par is being conducted the fast will be doing there proactive thing but depending on the scenario not just running in like nuts. When the PAR is complete (the tags are handed out and there are none left ) or someone is not acounted for because you still have a tag or two the fast operation will go into full swing. ( I guess the ring of tags if done properly will tell you who is in the house).

The ring of tags will help the Medical Examiner narrow down who's dental records are needed.

[wraftery 1,275]

A PAR can be called for, even when there is no emergency like a collapse or m'aidez. In fact an IC should call fo a PAR if the incident starts getting complicated, or if you have been on scene for a long period of time. Sometimes an IC wants to make sure people are where he thinks they are, and doing what he told them to do. A PAR message is not a get out message.