Disaster Exercises Avoiding a Train Wreck

I didn't get to see the train plow into the yellow school bus, but hundreds of Argentines witnessed the crumpled bus tossed along the railroad tracks by the oncoming train engine. They looked delighted. It must have been quite a sight.

This was June 2000, and I had been invited to one of Buenos Aires' outlying neighborhoods to view an MCI exercise. The enthusiastic planners had crashed a train engine into a bus, liberally sprinkling the jumbled mess with an assortment of hysterical and bleeding "victims." By the time I arrived, the exercise scene was a flurry. There didn't seem to be an incident command system (ICS) in place, and I could discern absolutely no organization to the response.

The excitement of the train stunt had attracted hundreds of nearby residents who had to be kept at bay by law enforcement. There were at least as many "victims" as in any real train disaster and more responding agencies than I was able to count. None­theless, the entire exercise was completed before I got my bearings. When one of my smiling hosts asked me for an evaluation, I was speechless.

I asked diplomatically, "Who exactly was directing the incident?" No one could tell me. What struck me, however, was that virtually all the dozens of responders, regardless of their individual affiliations, knew and greeted each other by name. I wasn't accustomed to seeing that kind of comradery during any interagency activity, real or otherwise.

Though it is hard to talk about "orthodoxy" when the incident command system has only been around since the 1980s, to my eyes, the Argentine exercise appeared unconventional at best. Nevertheless, the moulaged victims had been quickly transported to appropriate facilities. It is hard to argue with the methods when the results surpass expectations.

The bane of every MCI or disaster, real or otherwise, can generally be reduced to one word: communications. My Argentine colleagues appeared to have overcome this conundrum effortlessly. In that mysterious economy of group effort, I suspected there was something useful to be discovered about multi-agency emergency response. It wasn't until much later, during my own participation in disaster-exercise planning, that I began to unravel the secret to that curious Argentine model.

Overcoming Sibling Rivalry

Interagency competition is particularly acute in the EMS arena, where fire services have increasingly taken on a nontraditional medical role. As is always the case in Argentina, doctors staffed the ambulance crews during the exercise I witnessed. These doctors choose to work on the street and enjoy rubbing elbows with fire department personnel and law enforcement. Other personnel, who had virtually no medical training, viewed the doctors as skilled professionals, not competitors. At the end of the exercise, the smiles I saw attested to the sense of shared accomplishment.

Outstanding examples of disaster response are rare, as evidenced by the attention they continue to receive years after their physical effects have been erased. Current FEMA training materials laud the response of Woodbury County public-safety personnel to the crash of United Airlines Flight 232 in Sioux City, IA, in 1989, where out of a total of 285 passengers and 11 crew, 174 passengers and 10 crew members survived. It is generally recognized that, were it not for the responders' exemplary preparation, the victims would likely have fared much worse. Gary Brown, director of Disaster and Emergency Services for Woodbury County, didn't sound at all surprised when I called him wanting to know his community's "secret."

Gary immediately understood my question. Over the years, he'd been invited to observe many exercises and had watched how overly ambitious designs and interagency one-upmanship could undermine what he insisted should be considered "training." Over the course of our conversation, Gary returned time and again to the need for frequent training--he is involved in a table-top, functional or full-scale exercise every other week--and respect between the different participating agencies. When I asked him how the agencies in his community maintain mutual respect, he struggled a little. Many sparsely populated miles separate Woodbury County from outside assistance. Necessity born of being so remote, he claimed, obliged local agencies to work together. Gary sensed I wasn't entirely satisfied with that answer. Finally, he brought up that elusive factor I'd witnessed in Buenos Aires. "Well, we have a good time," he told me.

Of course, making everyone happy is not the responsibility of disaster exercise planners, and cheerful responders are not the litmus test of exercise success. Nevertheless, if disaster exercises create responder anxiety, planners need to determine if the exercise is accomplishing its goal. Though an enjoyable exercise will make conducting future exercises easier, the enjoyment is probably an indicator, rather than the cause, of a successful multi-agency collaboration.

Eventually, agencies that find it impossible to work together harmoniously will likely be forced to do so by forces beyond their control. Effective interagency cooperation during MCIs and disasters can only be achieved through a comprehensive long-term commitment that includes coordinated exercises. FEMA offers useful disaster exercise development materials on the Internet (see https://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is139lst.asp). These materials highlight the need for a wide participatory process in both the design and execution of disaster exercises. Likewise, the FEMA materials emphasize the need for each training opportunity to be seen as part of a continuum of disaster-preparedness activities. In fact, these two complementary elements--group participation and a sustainable disaster-exercise program--should be the primary goals of disaster planners.

The Measure of Success

Just as the disorganized Argentine exercise I witnessed appeared oddly successful, a well-organized exercise can leave an unpleasant aftertaste if unreasonable or unarticulated expectations are not met. In disaster exercises, just as in a real disaster, "perception is everything." Our colleagues, the media and the public don't measure the effectiveness of a real response according to the devastation of the event--which is largely beyond our control--but rather against our ability to anticipate, recognize and deal with the resulting needs effectively. Just as the lead agency in the disaster exercise should refrain from imposing the exercise design, it should make certain it has defined something more important--the standard against which the exercise is to be measured. Ideally a "lead" agency should be all but invisible--I never was able to determine who was responsible for the Argentine exercise--but the agency should ensure that expectations are clear and attainable.

Synchronizing expectations isn't easy. When you hear the term MCI, chances are a picture leaps into your head that is different from the one your partner has. If someone says disaster exercise, do you think fire, ambulance and police? Does your list of participants include hospitals? How about affiliated medical institutions? Water and power? Environmental experts? State law enforcement? Nursing homes? Schools? What about amateur radio operators? Would DMAT teams be mobilized to assist you locally? Would the National Guard have a role to play? Do you test communications? Unless your department frequently participates in multi-agency exercises, what you envision is certainly different from the image that pops into the head of a firefighter or a law enforcement officer from another agency.

When you prepare a disaster exercise, you set out on a path that will, for better or worse, lead to an event that will look different from what any of the participants expected when they signed on. Waiting to unveil a prepared disaster scenario until the day of the exercise is foolhardy. No realism is achieved by presenting agencies with a scenario whose artificial boundaries and challenges they must decipher and whose finish line shimmers like a mirage. Gary Brown was adamant: "If you make it too complicated, you set yourself up for failure. You shouldn't be playing 'let's surprise the responder.' "

To create a comfortable and familiar exercise environment, a clear, tangible objective is the best place to start. If I had asked my Argentine friends what the goals and objectives of their exercise were, they would have likely considered it an odd question. "Getting the patients to the hospital," they probably would have answered. I suspect the success of their minimalist approach was due to the effortless collaboration between the exercise participants. In many ways, through our elaborate struggle to impose order on chaos, many of us in U.S. public safety have lost this simple clarity of purpose. While we shouldn't abandon our increasingly high standards and expectations, my Argentine hosts reminded me about not getting "lost in the trees."

When an MCI or disaster exercise is over, there should be no question about whether its goals and objectives have been reached. Responding effectively is a nebulous concept that makes determining the bounds of the exercise nearly impossible. On the other hand, using the MCI plan to move 20 accident victims from the highway to appropriate medical facilities is understood by all. While testing the plan is an appropriate goal for the lead agency to establish with the political leadership, fleshing out the actual exercise objectives should be done in concert with the other participating agencies. Through discussions with those other agencies, the lead agency should develop concrete objectives like "ensuring that all contaminated patients are properly assessed and treated." An ideal disaster objective is one that can be achieved, requires group cooperation and, once attained, leaves the participants feeling confident rather than exhausted.

Currently, use of the ICS is considered an indispensable part of MCI and disaster response. Progressive agencies are eager to ensure their personnel are properly trained. Though clearly an effective organizational model, ICS can be a severe taskmaster. When adherence to ICS is used as the measure of an exercise's success, the perception of failure is practically assured. If, instead, the measure of success is more tangible than an ability to follow ICS--such as getting the injured to a higher level of care quickly or determining how many people can be inoculated in one hour--it is less likely that participants will leave the exercise feeling dissatisfied. Results, rather than organization, should drive efforts and expectations.

I recently participated in an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) exercise where individual disagreements about the proper use of certain ICS forms had become the focus. The endpoint of the exercise had been left open, so there was nothing compelling us to overcome this artificial obstruction. Recognizing that the exercise was beginning to flounder, one astute participant suggested a simple objective: see that a request for resources from a simulated field site be responded to quickly using the efforts of all the participants. It was a modest goal and one that could easily be achieved within the imposed time constraints as long as we weren't distracted by peripheral issues. As if by magic, our focus was redirected and the goal was met.

The resolution represented by filling that field request occupied a tiny portion of the time devoted to the EOC exercise. Successfully processing that single goal contributed little to the broad objective of learning and using ICS. Nevertheless, the effect of that small success was to convert an atmosphere of frustration into one of satisfaction. Faces relaxed and smiles appeared. Certainly, during the post-exercise discussion, there were many suggestions for improvement, including better use of ICS. Most important, however, the participants, who represented nearly two dozen different agencies, were excited about what they had accomplished together. The experience convinced all of us of the power of a clearly articulated objective to keep many individuals working effectively toward the same goal.

The Disaster Team

The ranks of public-safety agencies are filled with men and women who focus on results. Sharing responsibility like that of designing an exercise usually feels ponderous. In fact, bringing more people and agencies to the table can feel like policy by committee. Most of us understand the impulse to want to get it done. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that both disaster exercises and real disaster response are much like problem-solving by committee. The disaster-exercise-design process provides a trial run for the type of cooperation that is needed during any real disaster.

Collaboration during the design process shouldn't be perceived as a hurdle to overcome, but an opportunity to be pursued. I have participated in multi-agency disaster exercise development processes in which the principles of unified command and ICS organization were followed at nearly every stage leading up to the actual event. Logistics people from different agencies worked to solve logistics problems, planning people collaborated in planning, etc. In this way, we developed experience working together and were prepared not only for the exercise, but also for a real disaster before the exercise ever took place.

Keep in mind that individuals' and agencies' commitment and involvement in a project increase according to the time they've invested. If an agency hasn't participated in the exercise-design process, it is usually evident in the way its personnel stand around during the exercise with little or nothing to do except adopt the role of evaluators and spend their time noting the lead organization's shortcomings.

Even after an agency has recognized the value in inviting partner agencies to the exercise-design table, getting them to show up isn't necessarily easy. To overcome this hurdle, FEMA recommends beginning the exercise-development process by securing support from your political leadership. Though a generation of disaster planners has struggled with this challenge, after 9/11 political support for disaster preparedness abounds. Media interest is also high. The public expects us to be prepared.

The Argentine exercise certainly generated public interest. Most American municipalities would probably have trouble matching a staged train wreck in a densely populated suburb. Nevertheless, most disaster exercises provide the "visuals" so appreciated by local television. Securing even a brief mention by the local media will likely increase the interest of exercise participants and potential participants in future exercises.

Beyond encouraging buy-in for future exercises, exercise planners should work with the media to enhance the disaster preparedness of all community members. All participating agencies should be involved in defining the message, but once determined, this message should be funneled through a single source. For this reason, the selection of a Public Information Officer (PIO) should occur early in the disaster planning exercise process. A clear, succinct message should address the issues of highest priority, like disaster risks, household preparations, evacuation routes, preventive measures and recommendations about where to find more information. Carefully selecting and managing the information shared with the public will ensure that attention directed toward the exercise event translates into better community disaster preparedness. An informed public can do much to protect itself from identified risks.

Shared Experience

In the Argentine example, it appears the exercise participants stumbled upon their success by accident. So far as I could tell, no effort was expended trying to get participants to jointly develop clear objectives and collaborate on the exercise design, and still the Argentine responders came to their exercise with a shared expectation about what the event should look like and left with increased confidence.

Not surprisingly, the shared experience the Argentines brought to the train wreck went beyond mere exercises. Much of their mutual understanding could be traced back to January 1994, when the seven-story Argentine Israeli Mutual Association building was leveled by the detonation of an ammonium nitrate fuel-air explosive device with the power of 660 lbs. of TNT. The explosion injured 282 people and killed 86 in the most crowded business area of downtown Buenos Aires. Even on a good day, traffic crawls through that part of the city.

It was in that crucible of dead and injured bodies that many of the people participating in the train exercise learned their most difficult professional lessons. It wasn't hard to get them to talk about it. Even several years later, they continue to replay that event over and over in their heads, sharing their thoughts and experiences with their younger protégés. The train exercise was a product of their long years of frequent inter-personnel contact and their shared memories of that horrible day.

Most of us are fortunate to have been spared that type of shared experience, at least directly. Still, as participants in a multi-agency disaster response, we too need to be prepared to act in concert. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, gave urgency to that need. Among the many lessons learned or re-learned that day is that disaster preparedness begins at home in local communities. Well after terrorist plans brought down the World Trade Center buildings, local passion and expertise were hard at work restoring order to the affected community.

The calamity that those Argentine responders confronted, the carnage of United Airlines Flight 232 witnessed by the men and women who work with Gary Brown, and the horror of 9/11 are experiences we hope never to face ourselves. But if we haven't been tested as severely, most of our communities have faced a catastrophic event that tested our ability to work together. The power of that shared legacy should not be underestimated. Querying fellow agencies about their experiences and the lessons they learned underscores your interest in what they can bring to the table. Familiarity with past local events not only provides clues about how best to prepare, but increases confidence that future problems can and will be dealt with effectively.

Despite the frustrations associated with organizing a multi-agency event, it's essential to keep in mind that that effort itself--the meetings, discussions and even negotiations that go into preparing for an exercise--are where the most effective disaster mitigation occurs. More than anything else, it is the personal relationships that are developed that strengthen agency communication and collaboration and form the foundation for effective and timely disaster response. Flexibility in the face of the unforeseen will always be the secret to successful planning. When disaster does strike, it is inter-personnel trust in the street and in the EOC, and the familiar voice on the radio and on the telephone, that will fuel the teamwork that saves lives.