promoting firefighter safety and effective incident

Command Training Centers 1

1

Running head: FIREFIGHTER SAFETY THROUGH COMMAND TRAINING

Executive Leadership

Promoting Firefighter Safety and Effective Incident Management through

Command Training Centers

Allison Cabral

San Jose Fire Department, San Jose, CA

December 2008


2

Certification Statement

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of

others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where

I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed: s/s Allison Cabral

______________


3

Abstract

San Jose Fire Department (SJFD) had no consistent, developed curriculum its simulator

based training program for newly promoted or aspiring officers, resulting in delays in

implementing effective incident command as well as coordinating fire ground operations

consistent with SJFD expectations. These deficiencies contributed to firefighter injuries.

The research purpose was to prevent future injuries to firefighters or civilians and

property loss by creating and implementing an ongoing simulator program (command

training center-CTC) to prepare SJFD personnel for actual emergency incidents. Through

descriptive research, questions concerning knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA’s)

relative to those reinforced by CTC environments, job description and other industries

were explored as well as a search of national standards for CTC’s and skill evaluation

beyond the simulator were addressed. The research approach was a review of pertinent

literature, survey questionnaires, and interviews. Results identified the knowledge, skills,

and abilities simulation training provides and a lack of national standards relative to CTC

development. Recommendations were made for SJFD to acknowledge the risk to

firefighter safety in the lack of effective incident management training, and offered

possible strategies for CTC adoption.


4

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................3

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................4

Introduction..........................................................................................................................5

Background and Significance ..............................................................................................7

Literature Review...............................................................................................................11

Procedures..........................................................................................................................29

Results................................................................................................................................34

Discussion..........................................................................................................................57

Recommendations..............................................................................................................62

References .........................................................................................................................64

Appendices

Appendix A: Command Simulation Training – SJFD Questionnaire Sample ................69

Appendix B: Command Simulation Training – Fire Service Questionnaire Sample ......73

Appendix C: Sample Cover Email for SJFD Questionnaire.............................................77

Appendix D: Sample Cover Email for Fire Service Questionnaire..................................78


5

Promoting Firefighter Safety and Effective Incident Management

Through Command Training Centers

Introduction

Protecting approximately 200 square miles of San Jose and Silicon Valley located

at the base of San Francisco Bay in northern California, San Jose’s career fire department

(SJFD) provides prevention and emergency response services for greater than 989,496

residents and visitors of this culturally diverse region (California Department of Finance,

n.d.). SJFD embarked upon a long range planning effort to identify resource needs as part

of a “Public Safety Augmentation Plan” in 1995 which included the completion of a

strategic plan project in December of 2000 (Emergency Consulting & Research Center

[ECRC], 2000, p. 1). As part of this strategic plan, SJFD reviewed six critical priorities

for the purpose of evaluating staffing sufficiency, practical efficiency and organizational

effectiveness. These areas included administrative support, training, fire prevention,

dispatch, human relations and wellness (ECRC).

Performance measures established in 2004-2005 targeted incidents of community

concern, such as, reductions in fire spread; corresponding property loss and community

safety aspects drawn from the City of San Jose’s Community Survey were used to refine

the service focus and measure progress towards one of the primary City identified service

goal: ‘The Public Feels Safe Anywhere, Anytime in San José’. (SJFD Business Plan, p.

9). This was in response to residents’ expressed concerns about certain emergency types

and the ability to successfully resolve these incidents in their neighborhoods. (SJFD

Business Plan).


6

SJFD further recognized training as a priority in the 2005 San Jose Fire

Department Business Plan. Specifically, the SJFD Business Plan identified several areas

that impact our ability to safely deliver services to the community as it relates to

operational readiness for emergency services delivery. Target deliverables included a

comprehensive career development plan for all personnel; supervision, management, and

operational readiness and state certification through the California Incident Command

Certification System training for company officers, battalion chiefs, and senior staff to

ensure operational readiness and efficacy and compliance with state mandates. A

formalized succession plan was another target deliverable identified by the SJFD

Business Plan to ensure department operational effectiveness with the loss of key

personnel (SJFD Business Plan, 2005).

One area affected by lack of adequate operational readiness preparation is in

training for officer development. SJFD had purchased simulation software that went

unused for years due to inadequate or inconsistent curriculum development. A review of

the post incident evaluations and incident safety reports from 2005-2008 revealed

significant firefighter safety concerns relative to command and control operations at

emergency incidents.

The problem is that SJFD has no consistent or any developed curriculum for

training in the use of its fire simulator/scenario based training for newly promoted or

aspiring officers. This has resulted in delays in implementing effective incident

command as well as coordinating fire ground operations consistent with SJFD

expectations. These deficiencies found in 2005-2008 post incident evaluations


7

contributed to firefighter injuries and have the potential to lead to a firefighter fatality or

contribute to further property loss.

The research purpose is to prevent injuries or deaths to firefighters or civilians,

and property loss potential by creating and implementing an ongoing simulator program

(command training center) in order to prepare fire service personnel for actual emergency

incidents. The descriptive research method was used to answer the following five

research questions:

1. What knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA’s) are developed or reinforced by

command training center (CTC)/simulator environments?

2. How do KSA’s developed in CTC/simulator environments correspond to the

specific KSA’s required for each level of fire professional?

3. How do other industries use simulator environments to develop or augment

professional KSA’s?

4. What national standards and/or recommendations exist for fire command

training center/simulator development?

5. How are the KSA’s developed by simulators evaluated beyond the actual

simulation?

The research approach was a review of pertinent literature, survey questionnaires,

five site visits and interviews.

Background and Significance

The San Jose Fire Department, a metropolitan career fire department of 869

employees, comprised of 753 line personnel and 116 civilian personnel (T. Mayfield,

SJFD analyst, personal communication, December 3, 2008), protect the 10th largest city


8

in the United States (California Department of Finance, n.d.). The 200 square miles of

incorporated and unincorporated land including 44,000 acres of wild land interface

(ECRC, 2000), demands that SJFD operate 34 fire stations with a minimum daily line

staffing of 194 persons in order to respond to approximately 73,963 emergencies

annually (T. Mayfield, SJFD analyst, personal communication, December 3, 2008).

The past impact of firefighter injuries and near-misses in San Jose resulted in the

formation of a Command Operations Committee in October, 2008 to review past

practices of emergency incidents, research and develop best practices for command

operations and to develop safe and effective methodologies and job aids for command

personnel (Diaz, Command Operations Committee, SB29, 2008). Preliminary research

conducted to analyze the scope of the problem facing SJFD personnel was a review of the

post incident evaluations (PIE) and incident safety reports (ISR) that included thirty-four

(34) multiple alarm incidents occurring between 2005 and 2008 in San Jose (Cabral,

2008).

All thirty-four significant SJFD emergency incidents identified in the PIE’s/ISR’s

were comprised of multiple alarm structure fires for residential and commercial

buildings, wild land fires and those significant incidents involving hazardous materials

were categorized according to data found in a 2002 class developed by retired Fire Chief

Alan Brunacini for incident commanders. Brunacini listed the top five causes for

firefighter deaths according to the 1998-2002 National Institute for Occupational Health

and Safety (NIOSH) report as compromises of one or more of the following areas: lack

of (or inadequate) incident command; inadequate risk assessment; lack of firefighter


9

accountability; inadequate communications and lack of standard operating procedures

(SOP’s) (or SOP’s not followed) (Brunacini, 2002).

The document review showed risk factors linked to firefighter fatalities have and

are occurring during SJFD emergency incident operations. The results of the PIE/ISR

review and comparison of SJFD’s target sample revealed three or more of the top five

risk factors present (55 percent) on the fire ground and in 26 percent of the cases, there

were four or more risk factors present. In one case, all five of the risk factors were

present during one four alarm fire incident resulting in four firefighter injuries. A

detailed comparison of each of the NIOSH categories revealed that in 38 percent of the

incidents, there was some comprise of incident command operations and 50 percent of

the incidents experienced inadequate risk assessment resulting in some compromise of

firefighter safety.

The August, 2007 post incident evaluation of a four alarm incident at 224

Edwards Avenue called for comprehensive scenario-based training to address fire ground

deficiencies that included communications and firefighter rescue operations. (Conant &

Hubbard, 2007, p. 5) The April, 2008 post incident evaluation of another four alarm fire

at 850 Faulstich Court identified actions taken on the fire ground that clearly placed SJFD

firefighters at risk for serious injury or potential death (Diaz, Post-Incident Evaluation,

850 Faulstich Court Incident, 2008, p. 2). Four of the five risk NIOSH firefighter fatality

risk factors were present at this incident. The Faulstich PIE report called for training for

company officers in managing as a Division Group Supervisor as part of incident

command for this event as well as a change in fire ground attitude to ensure the

prevention of potential firefighter fatalities.


10

Future organizational impacts of this applied research project could result in

finding solutions to ensure firefighter safety and effective fire suppression services

through comprehensive command operations simulation training. Incorporating

simulation methods in department wide training efforts would improve its ability to

ensure more effective command and control operations, and assist with mitigation efforts

to improve firefighter safety, while preventing potential deaths, dismemberment or

further property loss.

A National Fire Academy Executive Leadership course goal is to “develop the

ability to conceptualize and employ the key processes used by effective executive-level

manager” (National Fire Academy, 2005, pp. SM-v). Appropriate topics of the same

course incorporate aspects of decision making and succession planning. The value of

officer development and succession planning are expressed in the following excerpt:

Succession planning is a critical element of organizational strategy. Organizations with well-developed employee development and planning methods are more competitive. Public safety organizations achieve excellence through a well-trained and competitive workforce. There needs to be a clear way by which employees can predict the future, and there is a strong need for bench strength in a public safety organization. (National Fire Academy, 2005, pp. SM 7-3)

Effective decision-making and management of personnel and resources at emergency

incidents is essential to the prevention of firefighter and civilian injuries or potential

fatalities. Establishing consistent simulation curriculum or a formalized command

training program is a core element to employee preparation and success in responding to

emergencies. This ARP will help identify solutions to assist in that effort.

Potential impacts of this research project support the following United States Fire

Administration (USFA) operational objective: “to respond appropriately in a timely

manner to emerging issues” (USFA, 2005, p.II-2). SJFD’s jurisdictional neighbor, Santa


11

Clara County Fire Department experienced a firefighter fatality in 2005 (Kehmna, 2005)

and SJFD provided mutual support during and after their operations. Creating a

command training center will not only contribute to the prevention of future line of duty

deaths for San Jose but the potential of regional command training can assist in

preventing other future tragedies. This research effort also supports the National Fallen

Firefighters Foundation (NFFF) and United States Fire Administration (USFA) goal to

“reduce firefighters fatalities by 25 percent within 5 years and by 50 percent within 10

years,” and supports several of the 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives outlined in the

Everyone Goes Home program (Foundation, National Fallen Firefighters, 2008). A

desirable outcome would be regional partnerships for officer development and reductions

in potential injuries and fatalities to firefighters and civilians while limiting property loss

through improved emergency management.

Literature Review

A literature review was performed to explore the issue of command simulation

training. The literature review included searches for data, articles, or books specific to

other organizations or fire departments related to simulation training and its impact on

their organizations found at the Learning Resource Library at the National Fire Academy

in Emmitsburg, Maryland, using search engines that included Google Scholar, Highbeam

Research and Amazon books.

For the purposes of this inquiry it is important to establish an understanding of

several terms that have varying meanings. These terms include performance, knowledge,

skills, abilities, cause. Performance is defined as the execution of an action where

something is accomplished, a result. Knowledge is defined as the facts or condition of


12

knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association with or

understanding of a science, art or techniques. Skill is defined as to matter, to make a

difference, cause or the ability to use one’s knowledge effectively and readily in

execution or performance; technical expertness or proficiency. Abilities are defined as

the state of being able, the physical, mental or legal power to perform, and competence in

doing or skill. Cause is defined as something that brings about an effect or a result, an

agent that brings something about. All above definitions were retrieved from the

Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary website (Merriam-Webster Online, 2008)

command training center (CTC) is defined by the following excerpt from the Utah Fire

and Rescue Academy Command Training Center document on Frequently Asked

Questions;

The Command Training Center trains incident commanders. The CTC provides this training utilizing a software program (or other methods) that create realistic incidents for incident commanders to manage under very dynamic conditions. The cornerstone of CTC training is using risk management as the foundation for strategic decision-making. Additionally, the CTC teaches: responder safety; responder accountability; NIMS; tactical benchmarking; initial incident company operations; the concept of Support Officer; proper radio procedures and incident organization (Utah Fire and Rescue Academy Command Training Center, 2008). Legendary football coach Vince Lombardi once said; “Practice does not make

perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.” (Vince Lombardi, n. d.) Those who play

sports, music, or other hobbies or occupations may have the luxury of being able to

practice before they’re called to perform. When Apollo planning was underway in 1960,

NASA was looking for a simulator to profile the descent to the Moon’s surface. Without

the Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV) used, Apollo 11 astronaut, Neil Armstrong,

the first human to step onto the Moon’s surface, said the mission would not have been

successful without the type of simulation that resulted from the LLRV’s. (Curry, 2004)


13

Tu Yu, an ancient Chinese commentary and student of Sun Tsu’s ancient book,

The Art of War, offered this interpretation of his work, “Without constant practice, the

officers will be nervous and undecided when mustering for battle; without constant

practice, the general will be wavering and irresolute when the crisis is at hand.” (Tsu &

Giles, 1910, 2003, p. 76). This treatise on the strategy and tactics of war written by Sun

Tsu in the fifth century B.C., is one example that illustrates how early the concept of

training and preparation existed in human history. Battling blazes is commonly heard in

news headlines when a fire department contains a fire or saves another life. Command

and control of fire and other emergency incidents is a kind of war. It’s a war against an

all consuming and unforgiving enemy—fire or other disaster.

According to the book Fire Officer Principles and Practice, every fire officer must

demonstrate the ability to take control of the situation and provide specific direction for

incoming units, which requires effective delivery of an autocratic style of leadership

(International Association of Fire Chiefs; National Fire Protection Association, 2006, p.

167).

Though every emergency incident scene is different, those called to fill the role of

Incident Commander (IC) must have a mechanism to prepare them to take command. The

IC serves as the overall command boss who determines the overall offensive/defensive

incident strategy, keeps that strategy current, allocates resources, and manages the initial

and ongoing deployment process. (Brunacini, 2008, 156) To better prepare to fill this roll

the fire service looks to the Fire Command Simulator.

Today’s virtual world allows the development of command simulators and

scenarios that allows departments to prepare that person to take command. In a March


14

2008 report, Science and Technology for a Safer Nation stated one of the Department of

Homeland Security’s (DHS) highest priorities is to help develop technologies and

systems that will enable DHS operational components and first responders to deal with

dangers to America’s safety and security. (Dittmar, 2008, 18) So important is simulator

training the United States Fire Administration developed an online command and control

online simulator for a townhouse fire. Deputy Administrator Charlie Dickinson noted that

the simulation is designed to help command officials better understand problems and

better prepare firefighters and officers to face the challenges this type of incident

presents. (New Command, 2006)

Best practices in essential leadership and management skills needed for reducing

firefighter deaths and injuries were identified in a 2006 report by researchers at

Oklahoma State University (Granito, Trench, England, & Neal, 2006, p. 4). They also

cited NIOSH recommendations as well as those developed by the United States and

United Kingdom Expert panel that convened in May, 2005. Seven of the ten NIOSH

recommendations related to elements of command and control such as ensuring the

incident commander conducts proper risk-versus-gain analysis prior to committing

firefighters to the interior and continually assesses risk versus gain throughout the

operations; review, revise and enforce standard operating guidelines specific to incident

command duties; and ensuring accountability reports are conducted in an efficient and

organized manner (Granito, Trench, England, & Neal, 2006, p. 5). The U.S. Expert Panel

identified training and structural firefighter as two of six primary domains established as

part of the National Firefighter Life Safety Summit in 2004. Best practices identified at

this 2004 summit relating to knowledge, skills and abilities essential for effective


15

command service delivery included the provision of leadership and management

education for chief officers; required commanding officer training; developed regional

standardization and training for field operations; establish improved personnel

accountability protocols; ensure risks-versus-cost strategies are emphasized; prohibit roof

operations until the incident commander provides a safety/risk assessment; require a

performance review of incident command personnel after large incidents (Granito,

Trench, England, & Neal, 2006).

Literature yielded the following applicable information relative to the research

question: What knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA’s) are developed or reinforced by


Ed Hartin (1998) in Fire-Rescue magazine, discussed tactical decision making

KSA’s developed from adapted simulations involving methods used by the United States

Marine Corps called Tactical Decision Games (TDG’s) originated by Major John F.

Schmitt, USMCR (Hartin, 1998). Hartin reports that emergency scene decision making

is more intuitive versus analytical because emergency scene decision making is fraught

with unclear possibilities and unquantifiable factors (Hartin, 1998). Hartin also reports

on the work of Dr. Gary Klein who studied command decision-making by IC’s and other

personnel faced with making urgent, time-pressured choices use intuitive decision-

making skills ninety percent (90%) of the time and use analytical skills only ten percent

(10%) of the time (Hartin, 1998). Inexperienced decision-makers rely more on an

analytical approach whereas experienced decision-makers use intuitive strategies even

more than the reported ninety percent (Hartin, 1998).


16

A result of the research effort by Dr. Klein is his recognition-primed decision

theory (RPD) which is based on the idea that an experienced decision-maker will

recognize a situation as similar to others situations previously encountered, thus creating

a matching effect (Hartin, 1998). Hartin refers to four byproducts identified by Dr. Klein

“that impact the decision-makers ability to affect decisions: 1) Expectances (what is

likely to happen). 2) Plausible goals (what may be accomplished in this situation). 3)

Relevant cues (what are the key factors that make this situation familiar or triggers to

critical decisions). 4) Typical actions (what is likely to work in this situation.)” (Hartin,

1998, p. 86) Hartin summarizes the impact intuitive decision-making has on developing

essential KSA’s for a fireground commander with a quote by T.E. Lawrence, “Nine-

tenths of tactics are certain and taught in books: but the irrational tenth is like the

kingfisher flashing across the pool, and that is the test of generals. It can only be ensured

by instinct, sharpened by thought, practicing the stroke so often that at the crisis it is as

natural as a reflex.” (Hartin, 1998, p. 86). Intuitive decision-making is a sensing process

that relies on making decisions in a realistic context or in a simulated environment

(Hartin, 1998).

Understanding the incident commander position is complex and decisions made

are closely linked to organized response standards which result in cross battalion

consistency on the fire ground (Halton & Nee, 1999). “Few training tools can compare

with well-conducted incident simulations,” according to Robert Halton and Ted Nee of

Albuquerque Fire Department in New Mexico. They likened a well-oiled football team

with smooth execution on the playing field is not unlike what is needed on the fire

ground. The KSA’s provided by simulations according to Halton and Nee include


17

developing command skills, improved decision making at strategic and tactical levels and

improves teamwork. Crucial skills developed by this environment include the ability to

give effective size-up reports; building construction and hazard recognition; use of the

order model and radio and communication protocols; staging procedures and other

command functions (Halton & Nee, 1999)

Fiona Ross, External Affairs Coordinator for Vector Command in the United

Kingdom states, “Simulators, with their ability to replicate incidents through the use of

artificial intelligence, are the key to effective and efficient fireground education.” (Ross,

2002). She highlighted different methods of simulation such as tabletop exercises, live

exercises, classroom exercises and computerized materials and identified the distinction

that a simulator brings a distinction of what she calls artificial intelligence (fire spread,

police, EMS personnel, casualties, and other resources) and facilitates real time

experience or assessment of any given incident commander or support role players

fulfilling roles in division or groups (Ross, 2002). She identified two methods for

delivering training and assessment using simulation that include what she calls syndicate

training and one-on-one training/assessment. Syndicate training is where simulation

images are project onto a large screen in classroom environments develop new concepts

and fireground management skills (Ross, 2002). One-on-one training and assessment

allows the trainer to operate the simulator system while the student makes command

decisions under pressure. This practice format develops depth of knowledge and skill at

scene assessment, strategic and tactical decision making, and firefighter and civilian

health and safety considerations for those who are required to command an incident

(Ross, 2002). Ross summarizes by saying that failure to provide training is linked to


18

death and injury on the fireground and the North American fire service is in a position to

make an impact on reducing line of duty deaths by providing their personnel with

essential tools to keep them safe (Ross, 2002).

Mike Wisby, program manager for Emergency Services Training Institute and

more than 20 Fire Chiefs from the Texas Fire Chief’s Association travelled to the

Phoenix Fire Department Command Training Center for three days to experience CTC

immersion and to evaluate the program (Wilmoth, 2004). KSA’s developed in this

environment focus on one or more of the functions of command in a classroom review

which increases the participant’s understanding of command and then participates in a

series of what is known as “sets and reps” (Wilmoth, 2004). Sets and reps develop size-

up and arrival reports; hazard recognition; building construction; resource management;

planning; risk assessment; decision making; radio protocol; apparatus positioning; initial

tactics and task initiation in divisions and groups; multiple alarm transition processes and

post-incident analysis (Wilmoth, 2004). Wisby summarized, “The CTC training program

provides the initial command officer with tools to ensure safer operations and also

challenge them in a controlled environment” (Wilmoth, 2004).

A class handout authored by Don Abbott, project manager documents command

competencies taught in the Phoenix Fire Department CTC (Abbott, 2007). Abbott

documents specifically the following knowledge and skill and ability requirements for

effective emergency management in the following categories: on scene reports; (all

hazard) strategy and tactics, incident management/command system, scene control,

incident scene and personnel safety, information technology and communications,

supervision. For example, On Scene Reports require KSA’s at three levels—first arriving


19

company officer, incident commander and incident management team and abilities

required of each role. The first arriving company officer must gain the ability to

effectively communicate an On Scene Report and establish an Incident Action Plan

(IAP). The Incident Commander (IC) must be able to complete continuous

evaluation/size-up of the incident in order to implement or modify the IAP. The IC must

also be able to conduct and author post incident evaluations to capture valuable lessons

learned from the event. The Incident Management Team member must be able to

complete a continuous size-up of the event with the big picture in mind to support or

modify the IAP and be able to identify when it is appropriate to transition into more

complex incident types as identified by the National Incident Management System

(NIMS) categories Types three, two and one (Abbott, 2007). Incident complexity as

defined by NIMS is shown in the following excerpt from the Olympia Fire Department’s

Incident Commander Credentialing System Manuel:

There are many factors that determine incident complexity: size, location, threat to life and property, number of resources, organizational complexity, jurisdictional boundaries, agency policy, political sensitivity. Incident complexity is identified by Types 1-5. For example a Type 5 incident is characterized by relatively few resources, is of short duration, and has few of the complicating factors identified above. A Type 1 incident, on the other hand has large numbers of resources and many of the complicating factors identified above. (Olympia Fire Department, 2006)

Another significant example of the KSA’s identified in Abbott’s handout related

to the Incident Management System (Abbott, 2007). In addition to possessing knowledge

and skills associated IMS/ICS at local, regional, and national levels, Abbott specifically

identifies the abilities required to perform as a successful incident commander for each

level whether first arriving officer, IC, or incident management team member. These

abilities include assumption of command at an incident with appropriate assignment and


20

coordination of multiple resources, ability to supervise a group or division, ability to use

a mobile computer terminal (MCT) and a tactical worksheet; ability to organize a

command structure in branches, groups, and divisions, establish a command post, interact

effectively with the incident management team or operate resources in a command van.

More advanced abilities include regional application, assumption of command in an

escalating incident and appropriate assignment of all command and general staff

positions, effective establishment of unified command when required and serve in a

command or general staff position of an incident management team. Abbott also outlines

advanced abilities as demobilization of resources at all levels and effective interaction

with all local, regional, state and federal resources and agencies (Abbott, 2007).

KSA’s identified as part of a program called the “Blue Card” System developed

by Retired Fire Chief Alan Brunacini and his associates address local incident

management aspects that address eight functions of command (bshifter.com, 2008).

These functions include Assumption, confirm, position command; size-up; incident

communications; deployment management; incident action planning; incident

organization; review/revision; and continuation/transfer/termination of command

(Brunacini, Fire Command Second Edition, 2002, p. 35). This program provides training

in on-line didactic and simulation environments with a focus on local incident

management of NIMS type four and type five events. The KSA’s developed are based on

four elements: incident management based on Brunacini’s Fire Command Second

Edition; regional SOP’s; tactical operations templates for local occupancy types; high

fidelity structure fire simulations (bshifter.com, 2008). This system is a certification

system that provides didactic and simulator evaluation meeting specific performance-


21

based benchmarks to qualify for certification (bshifter.com, 2008). The Blue Card

program has been submitted to the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress

through the Arizona Fire Marshal’s Office (bshifter.com, 2008).


question: How do KSA’s developed in CTC/simulator environments correspond to the


A common approach for KSA development for firefighters, engineers or other

tactically driven fireground rolls have been in computer driven simulation environments

at live fire training facilities such as the Northeast Fire Training Centre in Rochester,

New York for flammable liquid, aircraft, bus or railcar emergencies (Industrial Fire

Journal, 2002). However, CTC programs like Phoenix, Glendale or Olympia work to

provide a broad spectrum for all ranks through the efforts of commanders training

battalion chiefs and battalion chiefs in turn train company officers and engineers and

firefighters and on promotional lists (Wilmoth, 2004). In the Phoenix and Olympia

regions, CTC training is also provided to neighboring jurisdictions to ensure operational

continuity during emergency events. By allowing all levels of personnel to participate,

they learn skills such as giving and receiving assignments through sector/divisions and

groups. Each participant is assigned to a designated kiosk and has a computer monitor

displaying their particular assignment or location of the event. Each participant also has

a radio and headset that allow for communications and interactions which allows them to

develop radio protocol skills and initiate tactics and tasks (Wilmoth, 2004).

Crossover KSA’s that correspond to simulation training environments are the

same KSA’s needed for preparation for promotional exams that require performance in a


22

fire simulation. The KSA’s measured in these environments include knowledge and

skills in problem solving, resource management, multitasking, organization, planning,

interpersonal relations, oral and written communication, motivation, team-building,

delegation, empowerment, policy knowledge, goal-setting, time management, department

SOP’s, safety, and the incident command system (ICS) while demonstrating abilities in

remaining calm, confident, consistent, and command presence (Kastros, 2006). All of

these elements relate to some aspect of the KSA’s are the keys to success in every level

of fire service professional in the daily performance of our training or service delivery

whether one is a firefighter, paramedic, inspector, engineer, or fire officer (Kastros,

2006).

Following the U.S. Military’s example of facilitating war games to train their

officers and support personnel to make decisions for large-scale infrequent events, a

consortium of government agencies, fire and emergency service organizations united to

develop a simulation designed to teach stake-holder agencies how to plan and assess their

community response capabilities for Weapons of Mass Destruction events. The result of

this early effort was a simulation environment called Automated Exercise and

Assessment System (AEAS) (Huder, 2005). AEAS is used in three modalities; training,

tabletop and functional exercises. “Tabletop exercises have proven ideal for command-

level exercise or exposure to different types of incidents prior to a full-scale community

exercise” (Huder, 2005). Specific KSA’s developed here apply to individual and team

actions for incident commanders and emergency managers and their staff to reinforce

lessons in unified command as well as risk assessment and resource request and

deployment models (Huder, 2005). This program also reinforces lessons learned through


23

an automated after action report that is produced documenting all radio traffic, emails and

other communications in addition to significant choice points during the exercise (Huder,

2005).

Other simulation training centers such as the Texas Engineering Extension

Services Emergency Operations Training Center received a directive from the

Department of Homeland Security to develop incident command post-level training

relative to WMD and chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear (CBRN) events (Markley,

2008). KSA’s developed by the program included decision-making, unified command,

hazard and risk assessment by each member of the team. When a team member makes a

decision from their respective role, its affect shows up on the outcome of the simulation.

These skills correspond to all levels of fire professional in the ability to recognize a

hazard or circumstance during emergency events; communicating through their

respective chain of command and to take appropriate action based command direction or

improve participant knowledge relative to personal, crew and incident safety. All

simulations are built upon activities or actions taken at real events, such the 2004 al-

Qaida related train bombing in Madrid, Spain (Markley, 2008). Dave Nock the center

director stated that their simulations were so realistic, that he has had people work up a

sweat during the exercise and “then go outside just to make sure the world was OK.”

(Markley, 2008).

Simulators have not only helped professionals prepare for command but have also

provided help to answer questions in fire investigations. Following the February 14, 2000

death of two firefighters in a one story restaurant in Texas, the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) at the request of the National Institute for


24

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to perform computer simulations of the fire

using the NIST Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) and Smokeview, a visualization tool, to

provide insight on the fire development and thermal conditions that may have existed

during the fire. NIST used this simulator to help determine; existing fire conditions in the

attic space upon arrival of the fire department; positive pressure ventilation (PPV) effects

on fire intensity; and affects of extension tactics (lifting a ceiling tile just inside the entry

door to detect possible fire in attic spaces) (Vettori, 2002, 3) This type of simulator not

only helps to recreate incidents but gives potential Incident Commanders the opportunity

to learn from actual incidents.


question: How do other industries use simulator environments to develop or augment


The military has been the leader in much of simulation methods and technology.

The U.S. Coast Guard has implemented the use of simulator environments to augment

KSA’s using web-based technology to accommodate decentralized and mobile

environments for personnel assigned to Coast Guard cutters whether they are docked or

out at sea. Simulation courses range from fire safety to radar, weapons systems training

logistics system and command and control operations in maritime regions. This system

provides flexibility and accountability in tracking completed training. (Wireless News,

2004).

The U.S. Army has used simulators in multiple environments. In 2005, the Army

incorporated simulation environments as part of the Army Combined Arms Support

Command (CASCOM) effort for training and education of logistics soldiers (Mullins,


25

2005). Simulation was incorporated in training to assist soldiers become proficient in

warrior tasks and battle drills and train in urban environments that keep soldiers out of

forward operating bases that replicate field situations. This state-of-the-art technology

also provides multifunctional professional education for all levels of military and

Department of Defense civilians as part of creating a new hub of logistics training

(Mullins, 2005).

The medical field uses simulation environments for multiple disciplines of

medicine. One example was the development of the surgical simulation laboratory at the

University of Texas’ Medical Branch were new student residents train in surgical

techniques before they enter the operating room (U.S. Fed News Service, 2006). This

simulation environment is also used by students and faculty members to practice new

surgical techniques, ultrasound in trauma care, minimally invasive surgeries and needle-

based procedures (U.S. Fed News Service, 2006).

One success story from the auto industry is Toyota Global Production Center.

This facility provides digital training that includes visual manuals for workers to acquire

“skills as basic as rolling a bolt from palm to fingertips” (Toyota Georgetown, 2006).

They have created an environment where up to 130 trainees can practice their skills on

400 specifically designed simulation work stations. Toyota reports that practicing in this

environment allows their workers to develop their KSA’s to a standardized timeframe

which ensures efficiency during production time (Toyota Georgetown, 2006). “By

providing high-level consistent training to multiple employees simultaneously, Toyota

has cut training time in half while raising the level of skill acquisition”(Toyota

Georgetown, 2006).


26

Challenger Motor Freight, Incorporated uses simulators to develop KSA’s for

class A truck drivers ranging from seasoned veterans to new students of truck driving

(Challenger Motor Freight, Incorporated, 2007). There simulation environment

incorporates a modified Freightliner style cab that sits on a platform next to their main

training room. This simulator provides actual weather and road conditions that assist

drivers/operators in honing their safe driving practices. Examples of the types of

simulated weather conditions, drivers face include icy roads, freezing rain conditions and

driving in mountains at night (Challenger Motor Freight, Incorporated, 2007). This

simulator also assist drivers in improving fuel efficiency and can be programmed to

recreate accident events to examine failure points and learn from mistakes before they

occur (Challenger Motor Freight, Incorporated, 2007).

A study was done at The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, U.K.

involving virtual reality simulations for veterinary students learning rectal palpations for

horses presenting with colic (Braillie & Rendle, 2008). This study used a simulator and

also had a test group use a PowerPoint tutorial on the rectal palpation of horses

presenting with colic. The results of this study demonstrated that the simulator-trained

students were more systematic in their exam approach and were more apt to distinguish

normal from abnormal. This study demonstrated that simulation training provides a safe,

accessible and effective environment that has resulted in further efforts to expand the

range of simulations to other species and processes (Braillie & Rendle, 2008).

A program called Business Focus created for Barclays Bank in 2000 by Hall

Marketing designed computer simulation training for sales professionals to learn KSA’s

associated with marketing and finance skills (Hall Marketing, 2005). This program


27

provided feedback throughout the simulation related to customer development, sales

objectives, time management, business opportunity recognition and research skills,

portfolio management and team work strategies (Hall Marketing, 2005). The evaluation

piece of this simulation included a formal sales presentation reflecting their strategies,

sales status and predictions and accountability for work produced and lessons learned

(Hall Marketing, 2005).


question: What national standards and/or recommendations exist for fire command


National Fire Protection Association Standard 1402, the Guide to Building Fire

Service Training Centers states the following regarding simulator development in

Chapter 8.11:

Simulator Facility. If simulation in training is desired, space should be provided. Consideration should be given to simulation methods such as flat board mock-ups, actual equipment, videotape, simple to complex computer arrangements, and rear-screen projection (National Fire Protection Association, 2007, p. 13).

NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System,

2008 edition, Chapter 4.8 and 7.2 (pp8,14):

Training and Qualifications. 4.8.1 All responders who are involved in emergency operations shall be trained in the incident command management and personnel accountability systems to the anticipated level of their involvement. 4.8.2 The emergency services organization (ESO) shall provide refresher training at least annually. 4.8.3 Responders who are expected to perform as incident commanders or to be assigned to supervisory levels within the command structure shall be trained in and familiar with the incident management system and the particular levels at which they are expected to perform.


28

Incident Management Teams. 7.2.1 The local agency shall provide training for the responders who fill the incident management team positions. 7.2.2 Team members shall be trained together with full-scale exercise and simulations of sufficient number to develop their proficiency and allow them to maintain the necessary skills. 7.2.3 The Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) shall require training and planning with adjacent jurisdictions and agencies to jointly develop incident management teams to manage the overall incident. The Olympia Fire Department Incident Commander Credentialing System manual

that is used in their command training center states that standards used in program

development were adapted from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) for

wildland fire incidents (Olympia Fire Department, 2006, p. 2). Skills and competencies

established for the purposes of this credentialing system meet the requirements of 2005

edition of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1561—Standard on Emergency

Services Incident Management System; Chapter 8 of NFPA 1500—Standard on Fire

Department Occupational Safety and Health Program; and 20 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)

(Olympia Fire Department, 2006). The NIMS standard for occupancy typing one through

five was used to categorize incident size and resource requirements (Olympia Fire

Department, 2006). Didactic class prerequisites required participants to have Firefighter I

certificate and completion of NIMS IS 700 and ICS 100 training. Didactic classes

required as part of the credentialing system included two phases of course curriculum

titled: Incident Command Type 5 Phase I (EIC 211) and II (EIC212). These classes are

based on NIMS modeling and the student must possess a working knowledge of NFPA

standards related to incident command positions and communications.


29


question: How are the KSA’s developed by simulators evaluated beyond the actual

simulation?

Toyota keeps detailed information on worker performance relative to skill

delivery post simulation training and has documented quality assurance measures that

help determine skill performance and can track skill degredation through assembly line

process time and quality (Toyota Georgetown, 2006). Another example of post-

simulation evaluation methods occurred in the Business Focus training provided to

Barclay Bank sales employees. Post-simulation performance could be tracked via sales

statistics, time management (measure new business development through increased

customer base) (Hall Marketing, 2005). Fire service literature yielded no results related

to post-simulator evaluation information during this review effort.

The literature review included searches for data, articles, or books specific to

other organizations or fire departments related to simulation training and its impact on

their organizations. Information included here will aid in training SJFD personnel to

pursue a standardized method on how command curriculum is delivered and potentially

improve emergency scene performance through safer execution of ICS, risk assessment

and use of SOP’s.

Procedures

This ARP is a descriptive research endeavor in a search for simulator program

(command training center) program information. The research included a literature

review, interviews and questionnaires with SJFD personnel and fire service experts. The

literature review commenced at the Learning Resource Center (LRC) at the National Fire


30

Academy in May 2008. ARPs, and articles regarding the general topic of incident

command system (ICS), ICS training; training simulators; fire officer training; training

simulation; computer assisted instruction; disaster scenarios; command training centers;

officer development training were sought and reviewed.

Internet sources were explored using search engines with key words and search

for other industries that use simulation training as a resource during September 2008

through December 2008. A literature search was also conducted within San Jose Fire

Department station libraries for material related to this research effort.

The literature reviewed related to the following five research questions:

1. What knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA’s) are developed or reinforced by


2. How do KSA’s developed in CTC/simulator environments correspond to the


3. How do other industries use simulator environments to develop or augment


4. What national standards and/or recommendations exist for fire command


5. How are the KSA’s developed by simulators evaluated beyond the actual

simulation?

Five site visits and interviews were conducted at the following fire service

organizations: Glendale Fire Department; Houston Fire Department; Olympia Fire

Department; Phoenix Fire Department; Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District were

conducted to refine and understand the scope of this research effort as well as provide


31

information to answer the identified research questions. The personnel interviewed

during the site visit for the Glendale Fire Department included Deputy Chief Darrell

Johnston and Division Chief Dan Davis of the training division for a combined time

period of approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes on November 12, 2008.

Personnel interviewed during the site visit at Houston Fire Department included a

tour of the facility/interview by Apparatus Operator Brian Kimberly and a 2 hour

interview with Captain Tony Reed, Apparatus Operator Brian Kimberly of the Training

Division and a 20 minute phone interview with District Chief James Campbell. The

person who conducted the CTC tour and was interviewed during the site visit at Olympia

Fire Department was Assistant Chief Pat Dale and lasted approximately 4 hours and 30

minutes.

The person interviewed during the site visit at Phoenix Fire Department included

Don Abbott, Project Manager and developer of the Phoenix Fire Department CTC. The

site visit included a tour of the Phoenix CTC, observance of Phoenix Fire Department

personnel participating in a simulation and an interview with 45 minute Don Abbott on

November 12, 2008. Personnel interviewed during the site visit on October 17, 2008 at

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Sac Metro) included Battalion Chief Andoni

Kastros, Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Ed Crawford and Battalion Chief John Wagner,

all line battalion chiefs and instructors at Sac Metro’s CTC. The site visit at Sac Metro

included observance of a quarterly delivery of CTC training for an entire battalion of

resources for an 8 hour day.

A phone interview (approximately 40 minutes) and email communications also

occurred with industry professionals retired Fire Chief Alan Brunacini Phoenix Fire


32

Department (phone interview –December 1, 2008 and email-December 3, 2008), and I.

David Daniels Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator, Renton Fire Department

(email-December 3, 2008), pertinent to research questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 and general

discussion command training center development, standards, and evaluation methods

post simulator environment.

Ty Mayfield, Administrative Officer, SJFD Bureau of Support Services was

interviewed because of his expertise in strategic planning, deployment modeling, and

research development and fire department statistics. Mr. Mayfield was interviewed

December 3, 2008 for approximately 30 minutes.

Two questionnaires were developed by the author to help answer the five research

questions. The questionnaires were developed by first determining the purpose and depth

of the information desired from the responses. General questions were written first, and

then the breadth of the questions funneled down to specifics issues desired to be

explored. Questions were amended and some discarded. Questions were in part, based on

information gained from the literature review and feedback by SJFD Battalion Chief

Kevin Conant.

The first questionnaire was developed specifically for San Jose Fire Department

personnel to answer Research Question 1 and 2 to understand their background and

source of training in incident management. All ranks were invited to participate in the

questionnaire process. Emails were sent to all uniformed personnel either directly by

name or to the general fire station email box for distribution. A follow-up reminder email

was sent to all uniform personnel to ensure greater participation on December 3, 2008.


33

The second questionnaire was developed for fire service agencies within the

United States fire service. The sample size was determined by the fire department

members across the United States that the author could contact via email directly or via a

National Society for Executive Fire Officers (over 400 members) and the Fire

Engineering Training Community (over 4,000 members) blog and website postings. The

total number of direct emails sent was 135.

Both surveys were conducted during the period November 24, 2008 through

December 5, 2008. The questionnaires were sent via the Internet through the professional

survey company, Survey Monkey (2008) or posted on the Fire Engineering Training

Community blog page as stated above. The SJFD department questionnaire invited all

753 uniformed personnel to participate via email notification and a web-link to access the

questionnaire. Other fire departments throughout the United States were also sent 135

invites via email.

The company Survey Monkey automatically tabulates the results in an easy to

read format. Samples of each cover letter and questionnaire are found in Appendixes A

and B. The respondents for the SJFD survey encompassed all officers and available line

personnel in the San Jose Fire Department ranging from firefighter to deputy chief. Fire

Service email recipients were selected because they represented a broad spectrum of the

U.S. fire service and could be contacted via the Internet to participate in the

questionnaire.

Limitations of these results included low percentage of respondents in both

surveys. However, the SJFD officer survey identified training and protocol needs for

command operations and officer development training. The fire service industry survey,


34

despite a limited response, provided a snapshot of the U.S. fire service relative to the

methods used for their respective department relative to officer development, simulation

training, and command operations center development. The literature review resulted in

limited data sources and research efforts that specifically targeted command center

training development for the fire service. Another limitation was that some respondents

elected to skip or not answer various questions in the surveys. One other limitation was

one question (item 10 on page 2) on the Fire Service Questionnaire was eliminated due to

incorrect wording by the author.

Results

Results were grouped in three general themes based on the research effort: site

visits; internal SJFD questionnaire; and external fire service questionnaire. Five site

visits to departments that employ command training centers as part of their training

delivery programs were conducted during October and November, 2008 to investigate the

research questions. Two questionnaires were distributed to attempt to address the

project’s research questions. The first questionnaire was for all 753 SJFD uniformed

personnel. All uniformed personnel were invited to participate via email notification and

a web-link to access the questionnaire eighty-two completed (10.6%) (appendix A). This

was an anonymous questionnaire identified by rank only. This questionnaire was

designed to address research questions one and two and was broader in scope to augment

future research. Only pertinent results toward answering questions one and two will be

reported here. Responses included representatives from all ranks, with the largest

percentage 59.8% (49/82) were the rank of Fire Captain and 13.4% (11/82) were the rank

of Battalion Chief and the balance 26.8% (22) were made up of other ranks. A sample


35

email to all uniformed personnel can be located in appendix C. The second questionnaire

targeted other fire departments throughout the United States (Appendix B). Fire

departments across the United States were sent 135 questionnaire invitations; forty-eight

(35.5%) completed questionnaires were returned and were representative of fire

departments from 23 states including District of Columbia. A sample email to fire service

industry professionals is located in Appendix D. Professionals from responding states

included: Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas,

Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas,

Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin. Departments who responded to this questionnaire

ranged in size from 18 to 4,000 personnel and also ranged in call volume from 775 to

400,000 emergency responses per year.

Site visits yielded the following pertinent information related to the research

questions one, two, four and five. The first site visit was October 17, 2008 at the Sac

Metro Command Training Center in Sacramento, California and began with Battalion

Chief Andoni Kastros facilitating a tour of their new Command Training Center. The

following is a summary of the author’s interview with Chiefs Kastros. Chief Kastros

explained that this center was modeled after the CTC built by the Phoenix Fire

Department. The Sac Metro CTC was created based on a triad of guiding principles to

facilitate a positive environment for their personnel to have the most effective learning

experience. These guiding principles were based in incident command systems; standard

operating procedures and tactics and strategies to ensure safe, effective, efficient, and

consistent operations before, during, and after emergency events. The facility was


36

transformed out of an old fire house similar to the one at Phoenix. The facility has a

classroom area that is decorated with colorful posters describing the eight essential

elements of command, incident size-up, condition-action-need reports and the eight major

categories of incidents that the fire service responses to: residential, commercial,

wildland, multi-casualty, hazardous materials, aircraft, technical rescue and mutual aid.

The Sac Metro CTC facility has incorporated the latest technology that included

Don Abbott’s table-top model training, radio communications, head-sets, and

computerized incident simulations that allow the incident commander and supporting

division and group personnel to view a computer enhanced dynamic incident to run a

simulation in real time. Battalion Chiefs have a kiosk available to them that contains all

the radio and computer data terminal equipment that is normally found in a battalion

chief’s vehicle. During the simulated incident, support staff members are positioned at

individual computer kiosk stations with headsets and hand held radios for

communications representing various operational divisions or groups assigned to the

incident. Support staff view their particular assignment and location of the incident and

receive direction and report findings back to the IC via radio protocol environment to

simulate a real time incident.

The author was allowed to observe the entire eight hour training module which

was focused on fires in commercial structures. Battalion Chiefs Ed Crawford and John

Wagner were the lead instructors for the day and facilitated CTC training for an entire

battalion of resources. This type of training occurs quarterly for each battalion with a

focus on one of the “Big 8” types of response incidents. This eight (8) hour day of

training for all engine and truck companies present began with a review of lessons


37

learned at the Charleston, South Carolina incident that claimed the lives of nine

firefighters at a commercial furniture showroom in June of 2007. This classroom session

was followed by a post incident review and comparison of a near-miss fire that had

occurred in Sacramento in June, 2008 in which nine (9) Sac Metro firefighters almost lost

their lives in an incident similar to the Charleston nine tragedies.

After the PIE for the Sac Metro incident was completed, companies were split up

for rank specific training. Company Officers were placed at the individual kiosk stations

for a session of the Phoenix coined term of “sets and reps” facilitated by Battalion Chiefs

Crawford and Wagner. Sets and rep drills position each participant at a computer kiosk

to view a dynamic story board of pictures. Each company officer is given the opportunity

to complete a size-up of the incident, then a review of radio traffic is done and a

discussion takes place among peer officers about what worked and what could work more

effectively for each scenario. During this period (approximately 90 minutes), engineers

and firefighters were transported to an off-site vacant commercial building that had

previously housed a furniture store and received task-specific training on pumping

evolutions, large-line deployment practices and comprehensive nozzle review.

The last segment of the day focused on the application of the KSA’s developed in

the earlier segments with a real time response drill to the vacant furniture commercial

building. Here officers had the opportunity to apply lessons learned in scene size-up,

initial arrival reports, decision-making and direction of resources as well as engineers and

firefighters being able to deploy and use lessons learned related to hydraulics, fire flow,

water supply, large hose line deployment technique and nozzle technology. This


38

experience allowed the author record information applicable to answering research

questions one, two, four, and five.

The second site visit was with Phoenix Fire Department occurred November 12,

2008. The site visit at the Phoenix Fire Department CTC provided information to assist

in answering research questions one, two, four and five which are summarized at the end

of this segment. The author met with Don Abbott of Phoenix Fire department to learn and

discuss their command training center program. The experience included a tour of the

facility, observation of Phoenix Fire Department personnel and personnel from

neighboring jurisdictions participating in classroom tactics and strategy

session/simulation drills and interview with Don Abbott, project manager and lead

facilitator for their CTC and Captain Mark Robens, CTC participant. Don Abbott was

the original creator of Abbottville, a models method for training with tactics and strategy

using full scale models and buildings to work in a three dimensional setting to enhance

the simulation experience and determine resource location. Don provided handouts, and

software in support of command training center curriculum development, and

infrastructure requirements.

The following is a summary of the interview with Don Abbott. Don also

provided a historical perspective relative to the Phoenix CTC development. Don stated

he was brought to Phoenix in 2000 by then Fire Chief Alan Brunacini to assist with the

creation of the Phoenix CTC, which was one of the first of its kind in the nation. Don

stated Gary Klein’s Recognition Primed Decision-making theories and methods are

taught at the CTC and used to create a slide carrousel of memory/experiences of

simulated events for incident commanders which allowed them make more effective


39

decisions in managing emergencies based on recognizable trigger points during a

simulated exercise. Abbott also stated that forty percent (40%) of the learning that takes

place in the CTC is through the simulation itself and sixty percent (60%) of the learning

takes place in the discussions and post incident review afterward.

After reorganization occurred at Phoenix Fire Department, shift commanders

responsible for developing and delivering command training became more invested in

assisting personnel with performance improvement. This evolved out of daily briefings

at shift change between each shift commanders. What started as a sharing between shifts

quickly evolved into the shift commanders (a 56-hour deputy chief) becoming facilitators

and leading post incident review discussion about simulations. Their efforts lead the

Command Training Center becoming a place that was safe to have authentic discussions

about the way they delivered and managed hazard zone operations. Don also explained

that the driving force behind every effort was “does this make sense?”. Ultimately, a

standardization of operations occurred out of their goal to provide a higher quality of

training.

One advantage of CTC type of training is that you have to “put up or shut up”,

stated Abbott. An example he gave related to a desire to improve their mayday/rapid

intervention operations. Over the period of a year this laboratory, each shift commander

facilitated 10 simulations with line personnel to vet out workable deployment solutions

which were followed up with hands on drills. Don mentioned there was a percentage of

individuals who were opposed to the type of training that was taking place at their CTC

and were caught up in bureaucracy and committee process and ego. Over time the

detractors ended up agreeing with the operational changes that had been vetted out in the


40

CTC environment. Don’s perspective is summarized in the following conversational

excerpt (personal conversation Don Abbott, November 12, 2008):

“Quality training outperforms committee meetings. As long as the leadership of the department supports the CTC training, there isn’t much the few detractors can do to stop it. You’ll never get 100% of any fire department to agree on anything. In my experience it can be an insurmountable mistake to stop moving forward because a small and over-represented minority is upset over something.”

The third site visit was with Glendale Fire Department on November 12, 2008.

The author met with Deputy Chief Darrell Johnston and Division Chief Dan Davis of the

Training Division for Glendale Fire Department. A comprehensive tour of their regional

public safety training facility was conducted and their efforts to provide simulation

training for their fire department and their regional public safety partners that include the

cities of Peoria, Avondale, Surprise, Maricopa Community College District and law

enforcement. Glendale is currently beta testing the Blue Card system designed by Alan,

Nick and John Brunacini according to Deputy Chief Johnston which provides what has

been designed as a Blue Card standard for managing NIMS Type 4 and 5 incidents

(Local Incident Management). Several options exist for this training provided by Blue

Card which includes sending subject matter experts to the local jurisdiction to evaluate

for local Type 4 and 5 target hazards to be used for customized simulations specific to

their jurisdiction; or Glendale could send their personnel to the Blue Card training offices

for participation in the Blue Card simulation training environment; or there is a “train-

the-trainer” option that provides a five day intensive training by Blue Card experts to

Glendale personnel so that they can deliver simulation training “in-house”. Another

option is that photos taken within the jurisdiction can be sent to the Blue Card experts to

have customized scenarios developed for Glendale and its public safety partners.


41

Division Chief Davis reported that the option they utilize is the “train-the-trainer” option

with advanced training accessed through Target Safety on-line education services. There

is an annual subscription cost. Glendale has started their Blue Card training with their

executive staff and then the rest of their command staff through company officers will

receive the training in the near future. The on-line piece of the Blue Card training is a 48

hour review of incident command based on the eight functions of command prior to any

simulation participation. For command training delivery they have designed a “CTC in a

Box” concept with a collection of lap tops wireless computers, portable radios equipped

with simulations and program delivery to ensure that the scenario timing delivery is

calculated based on real time occurrence to provide a realistic experience of time it takes

to deliver assigned tasks at an emergency scene. Upon completion of the simulation

training phase, students are tested for competency. If successful, they are “Blue Card”

certified which requires continuing education hours and a recertification in a Blue Card

simulation environment every three years. The site visit at the Glendale Fire Department

CTC provided information to assist in answering research questions one, two, four and

five which will be summarized at the end of this segment.

The forth site visit was with Houston Fire Department (HFD) in Texas on

November 13, 2008 at the Val Jahnke Training Facility. The author received a detailed

tour of the Houston Fire Department Strategic Simulator from Apparatus

Operator/Engineer (AO/E) Brian Kimberly, a primary facilitator, system design

coordinator for HFD’s Officer Development Division. AO/E Kimberly provided HFD

software, multiple HFD class manuals and information regarding the development of

their Strategic Simulator and for classes taught in their Officer Development Center.


42

Class manuals provided included HFD’s Chief Officer Development course; Incident

Commander Development; the HFD/TEEX ICS course; Officer Development course.

Further discussions were held with Captain Tony Reed about the development of their

simulation training, officer development programs and information related to research

questions one, two, four and five. According to Captain Tony Reed, the Houston Fire

Department’s Strategic Simulator was four years of planning and development that arose

after the deaths of four Houston firefighters at a fast food restaurant. The department

enacted the elements of the Everyone Goes Home program and realized that a paradigm

shift needed to occur for HFD to prevent further injury or loss to Houston’s 4000

firefighters.

With a strong leadership commitment from HFD Fire Administration to

dramatically improving firefighter safety for their personnel, Captain Reed reported that

HFD invested over two million dollars in the development of their Strategic Simulator.

HFD acquired the latest in computer and DVD, sound, and communications technology,

and developed a staff of eleven to support the delivery this much needed simulation

training. Captain Reed also reported that HFD’s total immersion concept and feedback

provided ensures immediate integration of behaviors or decisions needing correction for

greater effectiveness during command and control operations of fire scene management.

Apparatus Operator Brian Kimberly provided the author with a verbal description of how

the facility works during the tour. There facility has been designed with two major

chambers that allow a full size District Chief/Battalion Chief type vehicle to park inside

the center. Once the apparatus bay doors close, the student will assume the role of

incident commander or one of the division or group support roles in a darkened


43

environment to provide a truer immersion effect. HFD’s Strategic simulator is complete

with theater lighting, smoke machines and sound effects to simulate the emergency. The

incident commander will sit in the vehicle with all the tools available to them inside the

vehicle, (radios, mobile data computer, resource guides, etc). The IC has the choice to run

the incident from inside the vehicle which assists with reducing noise and other

distractions that commonly occur at emergency events. There is a screen in front and to

the side of the IC’s parked vehicle. The front screen is to display a moving film of the IC

driving to the incident. Upon arrival the alternate screen (the size of the entire wall)

displays the incident location. From there, the IC directs the incident. Support roles in

divisions and groups are located just beyond a dark partition at computer kiosk terminals

with two computer screens and a headset to communicate and receive radio traffic. The

incident is conducted in real time to provide the most realistic experience with resource

arrival times and delays. All HFD officers participate in an eight hour refresher training

two times per year. Currently HFD’s internal demand occupies their Strategic Simulator

approximately 300 days per year.

The center is also developing a command van simulator for larger incident

simulations. The center has a fully equipped classrooms for curriculum delivery. Reed

reports HFD works in partnership the Texas Engineering Extension Service for scenario

and curriculum development. HFD not only provides training for its own personnel, but

also provides simulation training for surrounding jurisdictions and industrial fire

departments to support mutual aid efforts and safety. HFD also provides training on a

contract basis with outside jurisdictions and groups on a cost recovery basis. According

to Brian Kimberly, the HFD motto for their Strategic Simulator is “what happens in the


44

simulator, stays in the simulator” to provide a positive and non-threatening learning

environment. Captain Reed encouraged partnerships with other agencies in the

development of a simulation training program and to be sure to work with local labor

organizations and city management to pave a smooth path to success. The site visit at the

Houston Fire Department Strategic Simulator provided information to assist in answering

research questions one, two, four and five which will be summarized at the end of this

segment.

The fifth site visit was with Olympia Fire Department (OFD) in Olympia,

Washington on November 18, 2008 at the OFD Command Training Center. The author

received a detailed tour of the Olympia Fire Department CTC from Assistant Chief Pat

Dale, creator and facilitator for OFD’s regional command training center. Assistant Chief

Dale also provided an overview of OFD’s Incident Commander Credentialing System.

OFD’s Command Training Center is based on the Phoenix model. Assistant Chief Dale

traveled to Phoenix to learn the development and operation process of this style of CTC.

Olympia Fire Department secured the funding and refurbished an old fire station for

approximately $70,000. The OFD Command Training Center was operational in two

years.

A partnership was created with Bates Technical College to deliver prerequisite

courses required for participation in OFD’s Command Training Center. The

credentialing system adapted curriculum for the National Wildfire Coordinating Group

(NWCG) for wildland fire incidents. This system creates a curriculum and a competency

based task book to ensure the student acquires the necessary KSA’s for effective

emergency management. The computer system software is from Digital Combustion. A


45

team of Battalion Chiefs from OFD and eight neighboring jurisdictions facilitate CTC

training and task book performance evaluations for the simulator. OFD’s CTC can

accommodate up to 10 people at a time depending on the size of the incident. There is a

simulation battalion vehicle positioned in the simulation room with screens, computer

and audio-visual equipment. A room is established for resource staging and a full

communications console is established for certified dispatchers to assist with simulation

radio communications. In order to accommodate larger scale incidents, OFD was able to

purchase a fully equipped command van that is stored in the apparatus bay. The

apparatus bay is equipped with large screen monitors that transmit the incident scene so

when an incident simulation escalates, participants transfer command to the command

van and the incident continues providing a realistic experience for large scale incident

management.

The Task Book is an important accountability aspect of this system. It requires

the completion of 36 hours of simulations in order to complete the task book. Training

sessions run for approximately six hour time increments with four simulations being

completed during that period. This system has proven to be an effective way for local

agencies to work together in mutual aid environments for NIMS Type 4 and Type 5

incidents. A business model was developed to maintain cost recovery for local agencies

who want to conduct command training and officer development for incident command.

Through the dedication from many members of OFD, their CTC provides an excellent

environment to ensure safe and effective command operations. Chief Dale reported that

OFD Lieutenant Greg Rightmier has created approximately 10 simulations to date with a

30-40 hour time investment for each simulation. Assistant Chief Dale described a recent


46

fire incident that had benefited from the training conducted at the OFD CTC. An early

morning fire in a local restaurant had incapacitated one of its workers and OFD was able

to successfully rescue this victim as a direct result of clear, effective communications and

size-up combined with proper incident command and control organization. Chief Dale

reported several comments from OFD line personnel at the incident. Comments like

“Hey Chief, it was just like the CTC!” provided Chief Dale with an excellent example of

the effectiveness of simulation training. Chief Dale emphasized the importance of

collaborating with all stakeholders in any CTC development endeavor. Chief Dale also

advised that successful endeavors begin with partnerships and working with local

officials and labor groups to ensure CTC program success. The site visit at the Olympia

Fire Department CTC provided information to assist in answering research questions one,

two, four and five which will be summarized at the end of this segment.

In answering the research question number 1: What knowledge, skills, and

abilities (KSA’s) are developed or reinforced by command training center

(CTC)/simulator environments? Andoni Kastros, Battalion Chief for Sac Metro

emphasized the goals of their CTC were to prevent a firefighter injuries, accidents and

deaths and to improve operations through training and development of consistent practice

and reinforcement of knowledge of department SOP’s; use of nationally recognized

strategy and tactics to achieve improvements in communications, use of stronger incident

command and the implementation of safe and effective direction and task delivery.

Don Abbott emphasized that KSA’s developed at the Phoenix CTC are centered

on strategic, and tactical issues and focused on the eight functions of fire ground

command as developed by Brunacini and Phoenix Fire Department over the last 30 plus


47

years as well as problem recognition/size-up, decision making, command presence and

leadership, resource allocation, communications, personnel accountability, and incident

management knowledge. Captain Mark Robens concurred with these KSA’s as being

reinforced by participation in the Phoenix CTC environment.

Glendale confirms that KSA’s facilitated by this type of training include the

reinforcement of SOP’s, incident command hazard recognition, radio and communication

protocol, strategic and tactical priorities.

Brian Kimberly and Captain Tony Reed of the Houston Fire Department

confirmed during the November 13, 2008 site visit that KSA’s developed in their total

immersion simulator apply to all ranks and communications staff and includes the

following elements: problem recognition; decision-making; command presence and

leadership; resource allocation; fire ground accountability; communications and tactics

and strategy implementation. Captain Reed reports that all HFD officers are required to

attend two 8-hour refresher simulation classes annually to enhance and improve KSA’s

developed in their strategic simulator.

Assistant Chief Pat Dale reports the following KSA’s are developed in the OFD

Command Training Center: problem recognition, decision-making; command

presence/leadership; resource allocation; personnel accountability; communications;

appropriate use of strategy and tactics; reinforcement of ICS knowledge; and facilitates

IC abilities to implement changes in the strategic plan. Pat Dale reports all interested

ranks are invited to participate in the CTC incident commander credentialing program.

The SJFD internal questionnaire asked, what KSA’s do you feel improved or

developed as a result of your simulation experience? This question augments information


48

collected from literary reviews and site visits. Eighty-two questionnaires returned,

thirteen skipped the question, leaving sixty-nine responses. Forty of the sixty-nine

respondents (58%) identified the following areas that improved as a result of their

participation in a simulation experience: problem recognition; decision-making; resource

allocation; personnel accountability; communications; tactics and strategy; ICS

knowledge and ability to modify/implement a strategic plan.

To address research question number 1: the Fire Service questionnaire

asked a what KSA’s are developed by your simulation environment? Forty-eight

responses were received from fire service professionals from twenty-three states, of those

respondents, seventeen skipped the question. Thirty-two responses were documented and

of those approximately seventy-two percent (23/32) identified the following KSA’s as

being developed in their simulations environments: problem recognition; decision

making; command presence/leadership; resource allocation; personnel accountability;

communications; tactics and strategy; ICS knowledge; ability to implement/modify

strategic plan.

In answering research question 2: How do KSA’s developed in CTC/simulator

environments correspond to the specific KSA’s required for each level of fire

professional?

Battalion Chief Ed Crawford (personal conversation during October 17, 2008 site

visit) reported that the KSA’s for all ranks developed in Sac Metro’s CTC correspond to

their implementation of scene/risk assessment, communications, accountability,

understanding and use of ICS and greater adherence to department SOP’s. Chief

Crawford expressed that knowledge and skill development afforded to firefighter and


49

engineer roles included improved understanding of the goals and tasks required of them

at an incident and have assisted with reducing freelancing while officers worked to

improve their skills through a safe environment where they can make mistakes in the

simulator and each colleague can help learn from the simulation.

A handout provided by Don Abbott of Phoenix Fire Department and cited in this

project’s literature review, identified KSA’s developed in their CTC included: on scene

reports; (all hazard) strategy and tactics, incident management/command system, scene

control, incident scene and personnel safety, information technology and

communications, and supervision. Captain Mark Robens concurred and added the

following comment;

“It is indisputable that this type of training is vital, especially in high risk, low frequency events. It allows emergency operations to exhibit standard events, utilizing standard actions, hopefully leading to standard outcomes based upon the troops being trained up in the same manner. This is also important in training the many departments around us who are a part of our automatic aid system.” Division Chief Davis emphasized that KSA development with their current

system corresponded with each level of fire officer in relation to crossover training within

department members and along with their public safety partners in different incident

types, creating consistency in operations and job performance.

Brian Kimberly of HFD reported the correlation for all ranks related to each rank

requiring elements of all the KSA’s in the delivery of services related to the type of

emergency incident. For example, during their firefighter/paramedic recruit training,

students are placed in the simulator to effectively determine mass casualty incident

priorities needed for tactical service delivery.


50

Assistant Chief Pat Dale, OFD emphasized the correlation for every level of fire

professional lies in the direct benefits of incident scene application.

Two questions in the SJFD questionnaire provide insight as to the perception

SJFD uniform personnel hold regarding the correlation between KSA’s developed in

simulation environments and specific roles/jobs in the fire service. Did your simulation

experience help you gain greater understanding of your specific role/job on the fire

ground or emergency incident? Sixty-nine of eight-two responses were received.

Thirteen skipped the question. Approximately eighty percent (55/69) indicated that

indeed simulation training provided greater understanding of their specific job or role on

the fire ground. Were you able to carry out your assigned tasks more effectively as a

result of your simulation experience? Approximately eighty-three percent (52/63)

respondents reported being able to carry out their assigned tasks more effectively as a

result of simulation experience and more than half of those respondents had only used

simulation training in preparation for promotion or in assessment centers. Some SJFD

line personnel added comments. A few examples include: “The simulator was the #1

thing that prepared me for real incident management. It was invaluable at all levels, and

all personnel should have at least an exposure to implementing basic ICS” (SJFD

Captain); Command simulators should be the rule and not the exception. It should be the

standard in our industry. In absence of the real thing, scenario based simulation is a

must!”(SJFD Captain); “Given the limited fire ground opportunities for officers to

experience command opportunities, a simulator should be used for initial, annual and on-

going tool as part of our Seldom Used Skills for all officers!”(SJFD Battalion Chief).


51

To address research question 2: The Fire Service questionnaire asked, “In your

opinion, how do you think the simulation experience correlates to the KSA’s needed for

each rank or role in managing emergencies?” Forty-eight responses were returned by fire

service professionals and 17 skipped the question. Thirty-one answered the question.

The following are two examples of the narrative responses received. Battalion Chief

Kevin Garling of Kent Fire Department emphasized that “Simulation offers avenues

through training topics, and then the simulation is used to reinforce the “right way” to

perform the task requested. Basic Adult learning provides the pathway to acquired KSA

development through “hear about the right way, have a chance to practice the right way,

get kudos for employing the right way.” Deputy Chief Mike Bryant, Special Operations

Division for the Los Angeles County Fire Department stated, “it provides them with the

“big picture” or 20,000 foot level view. In addition, it provides the command staff the

ability to think in the “next” instead of the now.”

In answering research question 4: What national standards and/or

recommendations exist for fire command training center/simulator development?

Battalion Chief Andoni Kastros of Sac Metro reported that because there are no

established guidelines or standards for CTC development and operation, his department

uses every cutting edge avenue and expert in the fire service to augment and enhance

their training. Some of these standards include their own SOP’s; Firefighting Resources

of Southern California Organized for Potential Emergencies (FIRESCOPE), NIOSH,

NFPA, Phoenix Fire Department data; Los Angeles County and city SOP’s and

curriculums; lessons and practices from fire service industry experts such as Vincent

Dunn and John Norman.


52

Captain Mark Robens reported Phoenix CTC curriculum is based on the Fire

Command (FGC) concept developed by Alan Brunacini and Phoenix Fire Department

SOP’s. Division Chief Davis reported that he knew of no national standard for CTC

development. However, Glendale Fire Department relies on department SOP’s, NFPA,

IFSTA and Brunacini’s Fire Command reinforced in the Blue Card system. Retired Fire

Chief Alan Brunacini confirmed that there are no CTC standards. (A. Brunacini, email

dated December 3, 2008). Chief Brunacini also confirmed in the same December 3, 2008

email that “Phoenix had the first facility that was specially designed and used to teach

local incident command.”

Apparatus Operator/Engineer Brian Kimberly reported that they did not find a

national standard for developing an officer development/command training center and

they sent several representatives to classes at the Phoenix CTC to learn in that

environment. HFD representatives brought back lessons from Phoenix and used their

own HFD SOP’s based on nationally accepted practices (NFPA 1021 and 1500, IFSTA

and the Texas Common of Fire Protection Certifying Agency) in addition to their own

experience base (over 200 working structure fires per month and 300,000 emergency

calls per year) to develop curriculum for the HFD Strategic Simulator.

Assistant Chief Pat Dale reports there was no national standard for the

development of command training centers in his initial search and preparation. In light of

that fact, NFPA Standard 1561, the Standard on Emergency Services Incident

Management, 2005 edition, 1021, NFPA 1500 Standard on Fire Department

Occupational Safety and Health-Chapter 8, and 20 CFR 1910.120 (q)(3) and lessons

learned from Phoenix were used as a basis for curriculum development.


53

Noted fire service author and Fire Chief I. David Daniels of Renton Fire

Department, Renton, Washington indicated that he was not aware of any national efforts

to standardized command training centers, however he stated, “I believe that incident

simulation will become the preferred method of command training some day, based on

the risk and cost involved in full scale exercises.” Chief Daniels thought that two

standards that should serve as the foundation for a CTC standardization effort should be

NFPA 1561, Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management and NFPA 1026,

Standard for Incident Management Personnel Professional Qualifications. (I.D. Daniels,

email dated December 3, 2008).

To address research question 4; the Fire Service questionnaire asked fire service

professionals about the establishment of their respective command training/simulations

programs, did they find a national standard for CTC creation or implementation? Forty

seven responded to the question and eight respondents skipped the question.

Respondents that answered comprised twenty eight of forty one (68%) stated they found

no national standards for command training center/simulation program development.

The remaining respondents reported as information not available. Deputy Chief Mike

Bryant reported no national standards were found in the establishment of their

simulation/command training program. Chief Bryant stated, “No, Los Angeles County

Fire Department takes lessons learned from previous incidents by taking the challenges

and accomplishments and developing inputs for the simulations. Other standards include

LACo Fire Department's command SOG's and procedures, along with FIRESCOPE field

operations guide 420.”


54

In answering research question 5: How are the KSA’s developed by simulators

evaluated beyond the actual simulation?

Battalion Chief Ed Crawford and John Wagner reported no formalized evaluation

tools were in place for concrete evaluations exist other than observation by Sac Metro

management during drills and operations and in post incident analysis.

Captain Mark Robens reported that evaluation takes place post CTC environment

during the Phoenix Fire Department “Minimum Company Standard evolutions, frequent

battalion training and Sunday drills. As reported by Division Chief Dan Davis, at this

time, Glendale Fire Department relies on observation, battalion drills post incident

reviews and the recertification process in the Blue Card system for evaluation efforts

beyond the initial simulation to ensure ongoing competence and performance of its

personnel.

Apparatus Operator/Engineer Brian Kimberly reported during the November 13,

2008 site visit that HFD participants are evaluated through the department’s quality

assurance program which is implemented through their Emergency Operations Division.

He did not have any details of how the evaluation takes place and referred the author to

District Chief Michael Schrum who oversees that department. An email was sent to

Chief Schrum but was unable to be reached for comment or details of their specific QA

oversight. However, Brian Kimberly stated, “there have been no firefighter fatalities

since the inception of their Strategic Simulator.” District Chief James Campbell cited a

recent experience at a five alarm mid-rise senior residential care building. According to

Chief Campbell, he had spent a significant a lot of time both teaching and receiving

training in HFD’s Strategic Simulator. He is convinced that the time he has spent at the


55

HFD Strategic Simulator made a tremendous impact on how command and control

operations went that day. During the incident, over 120 live rescues were made during

the evacuation phase of the incident and three (3) maydays occurred with lost or

endangered firefighters. Through his training, Chief Campbell stated that command and

control operations ran smoothly and divisions and groups were able to effectively meet

the severe challenges of the incident and were able to safely rescue firefighters and

civilians. Chief Campbell also stated with respect to this incident, “it was one of the

proudest moments in my career to effectively and safely manage a complex incident with

such positive outcomes.” Chief Campbell that while he was not directly involved with

tracking HFD’s fire ground quality assurance tracking, he can tell that emergency

operations have improved as a result of department wide participation in the simulator.

Chief Campbell explained further that he listens to the radio scanner of emergency

activity throughout his shift and he has noticed a significant improvement in officer radio

traffic. Chief Campbell stated, “officers are making better radio reports during size-up

and during condition-action-needs reports, using more descriptive terms about what they

see and what specific resources are needed to mitigate the incident.”

Assistant Chief Pat Dale reported that Olympia Fire Department has no formal

methods to evaluate performance beyond anecdotal evidence. Chief Dale stated during

the November 18th site visit, “Command Center/Simulation training is the most effective

training that I have delivered in my 27 years of experience.”

In addressing research question 5: the Fire Service questionnaire asked fire

service professionals about how KSA’s developed by simulators evaluated beyond the

actual simulation. Nine of thirty-two respondents reported no formal evaluation system in


56

place post simulator/CTC environment. The remaining twenty-three respondents

provided a variety of methods that ranged from sign-off books; meeting with the fire

chief; direct feedback post incidents; on scene reviews or other benchmarks established

by chief officers.

The literature review, interviews, and two questionnaires disclosed various levels

of understanding and experience with simulation training methods in use within the San

Jose Fire Department, as well as other fire service organizations throughout the United

States. Literature validated the value and need for simulation training as a viable path to

knowledge, skill and ability development for officers in the fire service. However, no

direct statistical correlation was established in the two questionnaires as to the affect this

type of training had on firefighter safety or death reduction as a result of this training

effort. Anecdotal and comment information from multiple officers and other fire service

personnel citing examples of fire ground experiences that resulted in civilian saves,

reductions in firefighter fatalities, and smoother fireground operations established

valuable insight as to the essential nature of this type of training program.

Results of this research revealed themes common to SJFD personnel responses

that pointed to the need for consistent training methods in order to provide safe, effective,

efficient and consistent operations on the fire ground and other types of emergencies

occurring in San Jose. Other fire service organization responses provided class

curriculum, infrastructure and anecdotal information regarding CTC development and the

significance of KSA development in simulation training environments currently used in

other parts of the United States. Aspects of this information that could be adopted to

provide a foundation for developing a command training center environment in San Jose


57

or regionally for Santa Clara County. Each response provided an industry snapshot and

background on current command training program practices and methods.

Discussion

The research effort here originated from a recognition that San Jose Fire

Department is at risk for a sentinel event as identified in the analysis of the SJFD 2005

through 2008 PIE’s and ISR’s. The report to the SJFD Command Operations Committee

identified 55% of SJFD’s multiple alarm incidents had three or more risk factors for

firefighter deaths present during these events (Cabral, 2008). Additionally, PIE authors

who were the incident commanders for many of these incidents identified the vital need

for simulation training for SJFD personnel to better implement safer, more effective

emergency management. SJFD Battalion Chiefs Conant and Hubbard identified in the

August, 2007 post incident evaluation of a four alarm incident at 224 Edwards Avenue

which called for comprehensive scenario-based training to address fire ground

deficiencies that included communications and firefighter rescue operations. (Conant &

Hubbard, 2007, p. 5). SJFD Battalion Chief Diaz, who was the incident commander at

the four alarm Faulstich incident in April, 2008 called for training for company officers

in managing as a Division Group Supervisor as part of incident command for this event

as well as a change in fire ground attitude to ensure the prevention of potential firefighter

injuries or deaths. Four of the five risk NIOSH firefighter fatality risk factors were

present at this incident. (Diaz, Post-Incident Evaluation, 850 Faulstich Court Incident,

2008, p. 2).

These calls to arms in defense of firefighter life safety relates to results found in

the following literature and confirmed by site visits and questionnaires. This relates to


58

the established criteria each incident commander must demonstrate as described in the

book Fire Officer Principles and Practice, where every officer must demonstrate the

ability to take control of the situation and provide specific direction for incoming units,

which requires effective delivery of an autocratic style of leadership (International

Association of Fire Chiefs; National Fire Protection Association, 2006). More evidence

related to this subject was found in the Oklahoma State University study in 2005 where

experts from the United States and the United Kingdom convene to discuss best practices

toward firefighter safety and reviewed the NIOSH recommendations for firefighter

safety. Seven of the ten NIOSH recommendations related to elements of command and

control such as ensuring the incident commander conducts proper risk-versus-gain

analysis prior to committing firefighters to the interior and continually assesses risk

versus gain throughout the operations; review, revise and enforce standard operating

guidelines specific to incident command duties; and ensuring accountability reports are

conducted in an efficient and organized manner (Granito, Trench, England, & Neal,

2006, p. 5).

Best practices for KSA’s relating effective command service delivery were

identified by experts at the 2004 National Fallen Firefighter Life Safety Summit (Granito,

Trench, England, & Neal, 2006). These KSA’s compare and were confirmed by site visits

as well, Don Abbott emphasized that KSA’s developed at the Phoenix CTC are centered

on strategic, and tactical issues and focused on the eight functions of fire ground

command as developed by Brunacini and Phoenix Fire Department over the last 30 plus

years as well as problem recognition/size-up, decision making, command presence and

leadership, resource allocation, communications, personnel accountability, and incident


59

management knowledge (Abbott, 2007). These KSA’s identified in the results of the

SJFD questionnaire identified the following areas improved as a result of their

participation in a simulation experience: problem recognition; decision-making; resource

allocation; personnel accountability; communications; tactics and strategy; ICS

knowledge and ability to modify/implement a strategic plan. These correlate with

identified best practices and those taught at the first formalized command training center

in the country located at the Phoenix Fire Department. Hartin discussed the importance

and significance of Dr. Gary Klein’s work in recognition-primed decision theory (RPD)

relative to its effective impact on developing KSA’s for fire service personnel to better

prepare them for command and control operational service delivery (Hartin, 1998).

“Simulators, with their ability to replicate incidents through the use of artificial

intelligence, are the key to effective and efficient fireground education.” (Ross, 2002).

Recognizing one of DHS’s highest priorities is to help develop technologies and systems

that will enable DHS operational components and first responders to deal with dangers to

America’s safety and security (Dittmar, 2008, 18), it is imperative that local focus be

given greater priority in preparing SJFD personnel and its jurisdictional public safety

partners for command and control of emergencies.

Simulation training has impacted many other professions as well. Neil

Armstrong, the first human to step onto the Moon’s surface, said the mission would not

have been successful without the type of simulation that resulted from the LLRV’s.

(Curry, 2004) Even historical military masters agree, the impact of training cannot be

understated, as this author is reminded of the elemental and essential nature of training in

Sun Tsu’s ancient book, The Art of War, “Without constant practice, the officers will be


60

nervous and undecided when mustering for battle; without constant practice, the general

will be wavering and irresolute when the crisis is at hand.” (Tsu & Giles, 1910, 2003)

Recalling the military continues to be a leader in simulation technology in

examples such as the U.S. Coast Guard use of simulator environments to augment KSA’s

using web-based technology on Coast Guard cutters whether they are docked or out at sea

to deliver its courses on fire safety, radar, weapons systems, and command and control

operations in maritime regions (Wireless News, 2004). Other professions such a Royal

Veterinary College in London demonstrated through their study the effectiveness of

simulation training in the treatment of horses (Braillie & Rendle, 2008). Toyota

Corporation is one of the most significant examples of being able to measure the impact

of simulation training with the noted reductions in training time of new employees for

manipulative assembly line tasks and Toyota’s ability to track the results (Toyota

Georgetown, 2006).

In the development of command training centers results clearly indicated the lack

of national standards for command training center development or evaluative methods for

post simulator experience. Retired Fire Chief Alan Brunacini confirmed Phoenix had the

first command training facility and no standards existed at the time of its inception nor do

they exist today (A. Brunacini, December 3, 2008 email). Fire Chief I. David Daniels of

Renton Fire Department also indicated that he was not aware of any national efforts to

standardized command training centers but believed that incident simulation would

become the preferred method of command training. (I.D. Daniels, email dated December

3, 2008). Sixty-eight percent of the fire service questionnaire respondents stated they

found no national standards for command training center/simulation program


61

development. Deputy Chief Mike Bryant reported no national standards were found in

the establishment of their simulation/command training program. Chief Bryant stated in

his questionnaire response, “No, Los Angeles County Fire Department takes lessons

learned from previous incidents by taking the challenges and accomplishments and

developing inputs for the simulations. Other standards include LACo Fire Department's

command SOG's and procedures, along with FIRESCOPE field operations guide 420.”

The implication of the lack of national standard in CTC development or operation points

to the possibility of inconsistent application of NIMS and incident command and control

principles needed for safe and effective fire ground operations. No consistent method or

practice was identified for post simulation evaluations. Results indicated a variety of

methods including many who stated they have no method at all, only anecdotal storied to

confirm that operations are running more effectively. Houston Fire Department as

reported by AO/E Brian Kimberly during the site visit was the only department who

could definitely point to the statistic that they have had no firefighter fatalities since the

inception of their Strategic Simulation program.

This author’s interpretation of these findings centers on the increased depth of

understanding that was acquired about the science of making decisions, the effectiveness

of simulation training, the discovery of the lack of national standards for the development

and operation of CTC’s and subsequently the lack of evaluative tools for specific

measurable results. Fire Service experts and many participants of simulation training are

convinced of its essential and effective results in their ability to perform better during

emergencies.


62

Based on the results of this research, SJFD should acknowledge that problems

associated with inadequate command and control operations and the lack of a consistent

or formalized command and control training program leads to freelancing among SJFD

personnel. The implications of this inadequate training program and the results of recent

SJFD incidents demonstrates the increased risk potential for firefighter or civilian

injuries, further property loss for the community or worse—possible deaths to

firefighters. San Jose Fire Department should further its commitment to firefighter

safety by implementing a command training center for the safe, effective and efficient

development of command and control for incident operations.

Recommendations

The research showed aspects of command training centers and simulation training

and identified required KSA’s needed for curriculum development that would benefit the

San Jose Fire Department. The following recommendations are offered toward the

development of a command training center for SJFD and its regional partners in public

safety that will assist in providing firefighter safety during emergencies through effective

incident management.

1. Recognize and acknowledge the risk posed to local firefighters when lack of

adequate and consist incident management training exists.

2. Create a county-wide partnership committed to the development of a regional

command training center through the South Bay Training Consortium; Santa

Clara County Fire Chiefs Association; and the Santa Clara County Training

Officers Association similar to Houston and Olympia Fire Departments.


63

3. Create a stakeholders group of local fire service labor organizations, San Jose and

other Santa Clara County fire departments; and fire department and city

management representatives and community members to provide oversight and

input to find workable solutions toward the development of a regional command

training center.

4. Consider alternative possibilities to provide department command simulation

training for all officers at established command training center programs such as

Phoenix Fire Department Command Training Center; Houston Fire Department;

Texas Engineering Extension Services Emergency Operations Training Center; or

the Utah Fire and Rescue Academy Command Training Center.

5. Consider a customized program for San Jose Fire Department using Blue Card

training system for local incident management from the B-shifter.com or another

similar program designed to meet the needs of SJFD incident management

training.

6. Establish a command training center budget and find grant funding for the

development of a command training center for San Jose only if regionalization

was not possible.

7. Conduct further research for find methods for statistical tracking and evaluation

of the effects of simulation training on the occurrence of injuries or fatalities

during emergencies.

8. Create an initiative for submittal to NFPA to address the need for a national

standard for CTC development and operation to ensure greater consistency in

training and incident management across the nation.


64

References

Abbott, D. (2007, August 3). Command Competencies. Handout-Phoenix Fire

Department CTC . Phoenix, AZ, United States of America: Phoenix Fire

Department.

Announcement of In-Service Career Promotional Exam For Fire Captain. (2008).

Retrieved November 1, 2008, from City Of Tucson Web site:https://

www.tucsonaz.gov/sigma/JobDetails.aspx?Postings=3293

Braillie, S., & Rendle, D. (2008). www.live.ac.uk. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from

The Royal Veterinary College: www.live.ac.uk/documents/baillie/IMSH2008.pdf

Brunacini, A. (2002). Command Issues for the Next Generation of IC's. Command Issues

for the Next Generation of IC's . Phoenix, AC, USA: Alan Brunacini.

Brunacini, A. (2002). Fire Command Second Edition. Jefferson City: Von Hoffmann

Corporation.

Brunacini, A. (2008, October). Going to School for 50 Years. Fire Engineering, 161(10),

156.

bshifter.com. (2008, December 2). bshifter.com. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from

bshifter.com: http://bshifter.com/bluecard/default.aspx

Cabral, A. (2008). Preliminary Research for the Command Operations Committee. San

Jose: San Jose Fire Department.

Challenger Motor Freight, Incorporated. (2007). Challenger Motor Freight. Retrieved

December 3, 2008, from Challenger Motor Freight Incorporated Web site:

http://www.challenger.com/Drivers/simulator.htm

Conant, K., & Hubbard, C. (2007). Post-Incident Evaluation 224 Edwards Avenue. San


65

Jose: San Jose Fire Department.

Curry, M. (2004). Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) training flight with astronaut

Neil Armstrong. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from NASA Movie Collection

Dryden Flight Research Center Web site: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/

Movie/LLRV/HTML/EM-0019-05.html

Diaz, J. F. (2008). Command Operations Committee, SB29. San Jose: San Jose Fire

Department.

Diaz, J. F. (2008). Post-Incident Evaluation, 850 Faulstich Court Incident. San Jose: San

Jose Fire Department.

Dittmar, M. J. (2008, September). Technology: Where We Are, Where We Have To Go,

What We Must Do To Get There. Terrorism and the Fire Service a Supplement to

Fire Engineering, 160(9), 18.

Emegency Consulting & Research Center (ECRC). (2000). San Jose Fire Department

strategic plan project. San Jose, CA: Emergency Consulting & Research Center.

Fire Protection Research Foundation. (2002). Recommendations of the research advisory

council on post-fire analysis - A white paper (p. 9). Quincy, MA: Fire Protection

Research Foundation.

Foundation, National Fallen Firefighters. (2008, November 28). 16 Firefighter Life Safety

Initiatives. Retrieved November November 28, 2008, 2008, from Everyone Goes

Home: http://www.everyonegoeshome.com/initiatives.html

Granito, J., Trench, N. J., England, R., & Neal, C. (2006). Identifying Leadership and

Management Best Practices for Reducing Firefighter Deaths and Injuries.

Oklahoma City: Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State University.


66

Hall Marketing. (2005, June 23). Hall Marketing: Provenance. Retrieved December 3,

2008, from Business Focus: http://www.simulations.co.uk/BFeval.htm

Halton, R., & Nee, T. (1999, March). Incident Simulations as a Training Tool. Fire

Engineering , pp. 138-142.

Hartin, E. (1998, January). Tactical Decision Making: Games We Should Play, Part 1.

Fire-Rescue , pp. 84-88.

Huder, R. C. (2005, October 1). Shall We Play a Game? Fire Chief .

Industrial Fire Journal. (2002). Training Alternatives for Firefighters. Industrial Fire

Journal , 51-57.

International Association of Fire Chiefs; National Fire Protection Association. (2006).

Fire Officer Practices and Prinicples. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

Kastros, A. (2006). Mastering the Fire Service Assessment Center. Tulsa: Penwell

Corporation.

Kehmna, K. (2005, November 1). Investigation Summary of Fire Captain Fatality.

Investigation Summary of Fire Captain Fatality . Santa Clara County, CA, United

States of America: Santa Clara County Fire Department.

Lombardi. Vince (n. d.). Vince Lombardi Quotes. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from

ThinkExist.com Web site: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/vince_lombardi

Mark W. Smitherman, D. C. (1998). British Styles of Incident Safety: Command

Decisionmaking and Team Knowledge. Nottinghamshire: Nottinghamsire Fire &

Rescue Service.

Markley, R. (2008, June 1). Virtual Training. Fire Chief .

Merriam-Webster Online. (2008, November 17). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.


67

Retrieved November 17, 2008, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Mullins, M. (2005, September 1). Retrieved November 17, 2008, from HighBeam

Research: www.highbeam.com

National Fire Academy. (2005, October). Executive Leadership. Executive Leadership

Student Manual . Emmitsburg, MD, USA: Department of Homeland Security.

National Fire Academy. (2005, October). Executive Leadership. Executive Leadership-

Student Manual . Emmitsburg, MD, United States of America: Department of

Homeland Security.

National Fire Protection Association. (2007). NFPA 1402 Guide to Building Fire Service

Training Centers. Quincy: National Fire Protection Association.

New Command Simulation Available On U.S. Fire Adminstration's Virtual Campus.

(2006). Retrieved November 2, 2008, from FireRescue1 Web site: http://www/

firerescue1.com/official-announcements/16641/

Olympia Fire Department. (2006). Incident Commander Credentialing System. Olympia

Fire Department Incident Commander Credentialing System . Olympia, WA,

United States of America: Olympia Fire Department.

Ross, F. (2002, March). Put the AI in Training. Fire Chief , pp. 74-78.

Survey Monkey. (2008). Online service that assists in designing, conducting, and

compiling results of surveys. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from HYPERLINK

"http://www.surveymonkey.com" http://www .surveymonkey.com .

Toyota Georgetown. (2006). Toyota Global Production Center. Retrieved December 3,

2008, from Toyota Motor Manufactureing Kentucky, Inc.:


68

http://www.toyotageorgetown.com/spc.asp

Tsu, S., & Giles, L. (1910, 2003). The Art of War. New York: Barnes and Noble Classics.

U.S. Fed News Service. (2006, December 20). HighBeam Research. Retrieved November

17, 2009, from HighBeam Research, Inc.: www.highbeam.com

United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2005a).

Student handbook. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

United States Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2005).

Operational policies and procedures-applied research study guide (pp. II-2).

Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

United States Fire Administration (Ed.). (2004). Executive development – self study

guide. Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy.

Utah Fire and Rescue Academy Command Training Center. (2008, December 2). CTC

Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from

http://www.uvu.edu/ufra/docs/FAQ_CTC.pdf

Vettori, R., Madrzykowski, D., & Walton, W. (2002). Simulation of the Dynamics of a

Fire in a One-Story Restaurant -- Texas, February 14, 2000 (NISTIR6923, p. 3).

Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Wilmoth, J. (2004, September 1). Top-Down Training. Retrieved November 25, 2008,

from www.firechief.com:

http://firechief.com/training/ar/firefighting_topdown_training/

Wireless News. (2004, August 2). SumTotal Supports U.S. Coast Guard With Training

Solution. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from HighBeam Research:

http://www.10meters.com


69

Appendix A

Command Simulation Training – SJFD Questionnaire

Sample


70

Appendix A- continued

Command Simulation Training – SJFD Questionnaire Sample


71




72




73

Appendix B

Command Simulation Training – Fire Service Questionnaire Sample


74

Appendix B -continued



75




76




77

Appendix C

Sample Cover Email for SJFD Questionnaire


78

Appendix D

Sample Cover Email for Fire Service Questionnaire

promoting firefighter safety and effective incident

Documents