Purpose
St. Louis County ARES^® held a "Deployment Exercise" on Saturday, May 2, 2009.

"The goal of this exercise is to develop our emergency response skills through an exercise that simulates an emergency response and encourages working as a team. In a widespread disaster situation, it is unlikely that a single individual will be able to provide all of the needed communications capabilities or capacity that is required to support a response effort. Further, it is likely that emergency communicators will be working side by side with public safety responders who are trained in National Incident Management System and the Incident Command System.

"Each team is charged with setting up a simulated emergency command center using the principles established in FEMA's Incident Command System (ICS). Through this exercise participants will not only learn how to establish a temporary emergency field communications station but will also learn the basic ICS organizational structure."

Planning
Toward this goal "Staging" was to be set up behind Barnes-Jewish West County Hospital.
"North Operations" was to be set up in the parking lot of De Paul Hospital.
"South Operations" was to be set up in the parking lot of Missouri Baptist Hospital.
Permission was requested in advance and granted by all hospitals concerned.

Other than the Planning Committee, group members were given only minimal details of the exercise in advance. Members were told the date of the exercise, and that a Call Out would be made at 11:00 AM on the 146.850 repeater. Members were told that they would be asked to get their field equipment together and to report to an unspecified location (desginated as "Staging" on the day of the exercise).

"Staging", "North Operations", and "South Operations" basic sites were set to be up in advance on the day of the exercise (that is, the Team Leaders were to be sent to remote sites ahead of the other participants).

Certain aspects of the exercise were known only to the Exercise Director. These included the source of incoming formal messages.

Exercise participants arriving at Staging were to be given a "sign in" sheet to complete. The sheet would include a list of what equipment the participant had brought, as well as his/her personal capabilities. A duplicate of each sheet would be made and given to the participant to turn over to the Team Leader when he/she arrived at his/her designated deployment site.

Upon arrival at one of the two deployment sites, each participant was to report to the site's Team Leader, turn over his/her sign in sheet, and await instructions. At this time the Team Leaders were to assign him/her specific duties to perform. The Team Leaders were nominally to arrange for one 2 meter voice station to receive incoming calls and formal messages and one 2 meter voice station to send outgoing calls and formal traffic to the other deployment site and to "ARES Command". ("Staging" was to become "ARES Command" once all participants had been deployed.) If there were enough people and stations, a Team Leader could optionally set up two stations for outgoing traffic. If the needed equipment and people were available, the Team Leader was to also set up 2 meter digital stations operating through the Missouri Emergency Packet Network and also Winlink.

Formal traffic would arrive from an unspecified source. Once received, the traffic was to be relayed to the other to sites.

At the conclusion of the exercise all participants, including the Team Leaders, were to report back to the original Staging site for a debriefing.

Execution
"Staging"/"ARES Command", "North Operations", and "South Operations" were set up as planned. A total of 17 people participated in the planned activity. The District C Rapid Response Team also set up a base at Queeny Park and operated as a semi-independent group.

Generally speaking, deployment seemed to work as planned. Formal traffic was handled by all three locations. Digital operations were set up at all three locations.

The debriefing was held as scheduled. More detailed after-event analyses were also written and submitted.

Analysis

Minutes from debriefing

• Steve Wooten, KC0QMU, got the most up-to-date forecast directly from the National Weather Service.
• Steve asked if everyone had checked their e-mail the evening before and the morning of the exercise. He is still having problems with underlivered mail.
• Steve asked if the check-in lists were useful.
  • Gary Hoffman, KB0H, said that a box asking whether the participant knows how to handle formal traffic should be added.
  • Chuck Wehking, N0EIS, said that some organizations get credit for the number of volunteer hours worked, so a "check-out" list should also be kept.
• Steve mentioned that we dealt with two different people at Missouri Baptist Hospital and were given two different set-up locations. Craig Klimczak, K4LSU, gave a critique of the locations.
• Craig said that he had anticipated that the Team Leader would deploy to the field site at the same time as the rest of the team. He said that there was too much to do alone, and he waited in his vehicle until someone else showed up to help him. Gary said that he had much the same problem.
• Mike Bien, KB0PDL, said that it might have been better not to mention the actual hospital names, as this might draw the press. There were counterarguments saying that the press doesn't listen to us so much as they do the police, and that deployed team members would often need clear directions over the air.
• Eric Bueneman, N0UIH, noted that there was a large amount of activity on 145.010 MHz (Winlink frequency).
• Craig said that the group needs to work on techniques to prevent interference among closely clustered stations. One method would be to turn down the output power on transmitters accessing repeaters. Jon Slough, KB9ATR, said that putting the digital station's antenna higher than the rest would help.
• Chuck noted that during a disaster many street signs and other landmarks will be down. He recommended that we start including GPS coordinates with our maps and directions.
• Eric mentioned that at least some messages sent contained ARL numbers. Each person handling traffic should have the ARL number list, the handling instructions, and other traffic handling instructions with them.
• The representatives from the District C Rapid Response Team said that the instructions were clear and that they felt that the exercise went well.

Notes and observations from Gary Hoffman, KB0H

• De Paul was supposed to put out traffic cones to mark our area. They didn't. Would it be worthwhile to get our own traffic cones?
• No one called North Operations asking for directions. Everyone found the location without difficulties.
• Half of the participants at North Operations did not bring tables or chairs. We should probably reiterate developing check-lists.
• Winlink and other digital modes are great. But, the systems necessary to run them can be very fragile (mine broke). There is often little redundancy because so few people have these modes.
• North Operations had no visitors other than one ambulance driver, who picked up general ham radio brochures.
• The exercise operational parameters changed a couple of times, and not everyone knew what was supposed to happen. Regarding message handling, I set up "incoming" and "outgoing" message stations, but we only had "incoming".
• We need to figure out the optimal placement of the ARES banners on our canopies. We want them to be visible, but not to block the view of what is under the canopy.

Notes and observations from Lori Yount, KD0EPN

• I think a few of us had questions on the message handling instructions, and thought there were things we could do in our meetings, nets, or other exercises to help us prepare.
• I think it was a great exercise, and want to also say that it is practical, hands on experiences and learning opportunities that are the strength of this group, and one of the main reasons I think ARES is attracting a good inflow of new folks. So, (the exercise) was a great start, and let's keep building on that great foundation!
• I think, in order to serve our "served agencies" well, we need to understand Messaging as a "process." I don't mean to make it seem overly complex or add an inordinate amount of detail, but I've spent a lot of my career developing processes and implementing systems, and sometimes it takes getting down to that level to think about the different variables and questions people may have. To explain a bit - there is almost always some sort of "input" - i.e. perhaps a message I receive over radio and document on a message form. Or, maybe it is a person at my served agency who "walks up" and gives me a message they need sent. Questions: Can anyone at the served agency give me a message? Or, should I expect to get them only from certain focals? Next, I've written the message on the form. If it "terminates" at my served agency - what next ? What constitutes "delivery?" How do I "log" the receipt and indicate I've "delivered" it? If, instead, it is a message I need to either "relay", or one that started at my served agency, I need to "send" it. We're doing well with the forms, maybe even on the transmitting, but, what about the logging? Do I log a "received" message and a "sent" message? Do I fill out another section of the form to indicate I've transmitted? How is this reflected on our logs? Maybe we need to spend some more time on "guidelines" for what I can / should send and what I shouldn't. We spent some time last week re: guidelines about not sending personal info over the radio, deaths, personal details, etc. All good stuff. But, can we be certain our served agencies will know that? Or, that in the flurry of activity in a real emergency, that we'll remember? We need to be solid on that. Maybe even document some guidelines. And, maybe we need a process for handling something that might seem "questionable" - i.e. ask a "lead" or "senior" member at the served agency, ask a control op from ARES, whatever. Probably some training is needed on the different types of message forms, when we might be expected to use them, etc. logging - not just creating a log, but walking through how to use it. Could be linked to our process flow : - any other message protocol we might be expected to know and understand.
• I think putting more emphasis on the scenario might have filled in some of the gaps on the "messaging process" that I described above. It would have helped too, to somehow "close the loop" on the message process and learn how to
  1. do the logging
  2. make any necessary updates to the document to indicate delivery
  3. perhaps even deliver messages to each other to simulate some of the different situations that could happen.
• We had a lot of "down" time given the number of people we had respond, which is a good thing, but means there are more training / experience opportunities available.
• We have someone in the group with a lot of experience in documenting processes ... this might be an area where she could really contribute - helping us look at the overall messaging process and document how we want and need it to work to best support our served agencies.

Notes and observations from Joseph Wozniak, KD0EFW

• Time is of the essence in an actual emergency. I would have timed all members from where they called in from (and NOT tell them). Those of the ARES members in that "affected area" should have been told "Not to use 141/64 (and other smaller roads around there) and to use a "specific alternate routes." I live in SStL so it was no problem for me to avoid that area, but many of the members live in the west co. area and probably used that route. They would not have been able to in an actual emergency.
  All ARES members addresses should have been called up, and those near ground zero should have been set aside. These people would then receive a specific driving route to central ops. The responder would have to copy down the information on paper, and specifically drive that route to central ops. I would then have someone from central ops time these people WITHOUT the responder knowing (somebody might "cheat"). When they arrive at ops they hand in their diving instruction paper that they wrote it down on (napkin, scrap paper, old sock whatever), and the response time is figured out and recorded to file.
  Those like you, me, and others would not have done this just those in the affected area.
• After the responder arrrived at central ops, he/she was given that one paper. The arrival time then would have been put on that paper and when the responder would arrive at the designated position, the team commander would record a second time (kind of like a split time from central ops). Once again this would be recorded to file.
• From here the responder would have set up "only his/her" equipment and get it working at the final site. I'm talking about everything, shelters/chairs, radios, antennas, power sources/systems, digging a latrine, I mean everything. If they are the first at the site, they would not have anyone to help them (once again this would be cheating if someone did help them). After the individual is set up, they report back to the team commander and receive a final time. Once again this is recorded and saved to file with the other times.

  Yes, yes, I know this is a lot and it would take time to figure it out in advance, but look at the advantages. Following specific directions (remember the driving routes), message taking/handling problem solving, and most of all time. At a later meeting after the excersise, each responder would then receive their times. From call in to central ops, to deployment site, to set up, and finally an overall time. Here each individual, team, and the ARES group as a whole could work on how to get set up faster from scenario to scenario. The responder would have to try to improve their times. Each team would have to improve there times. The ARES group could then give an approximate responce time to all who they assist in an actual emergency(hospitals, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.).

  We could even make it fun for the responders in return. Have an ARES In-Group awards. StLCo ARES would give a "certificate of swiftness" for the different responce times. The fastest to set up their station. The fastest to the deployment site. The fastest from central ops to their team site. Finally the fastest overall time. Team Certificates could be handed out too! This would give a sence of individual competition and team competition, and to see how well everybody works on that team. You could also see if someone doesn't work out on a particular team (because they got in a fist fight with someone or spilled coffee on your power system). If you or the group think that that person would work better with a different team you could note that for the next excersise.

  What I like about it is the idea that everyone would have to deside if they are serious about this kind of stuff. Are you the kind of person that just wants to stroke your own ego just because you have five radios, ten antennas, an elaborate power system, three laptops, flashing lights a scrolling billboard, and all of the bells and whistles and cables and...? Or are you serious about how prepared you actually are, and how fast can you actually can start helping out. It should give everybody really something to think about.

Notes and observations from Tori Vernau, KC0EEP

• It would be most helpful next time if the scenario were set up (you know, the more realism and detail is better) as we checked in. Even if it is a printed synopsis given out, that would be helpful. Even the processes could be set up at each operations center, such as : This is serving this agency, and these are the people authorized to give you messages to send.
• I'm sure that you have probably brought this up already, but the "rules of the game" need to be the same throughout the exercise. You had at least 2 operators monitoring - so maybe next time, if you need that, THEY could call in messages too - so that there would be more messages to go around, and get resent? Just a thought. I'm sure that Helen for instance would have loved to participate, and she could have as Steve did, from her home QTH.....
• We could continue doing the less active types of activities on net nights. For instance, a message handling exercise doesn't necessarily have to occur on a Saturday, which are at a premium. Perhaps smaller scale ones could happen on or after the net? I really enjoyed when we were trying other repeaters too - did we exhaust that?
• What about making wire J-poles at a meeting? That would probably be popular and we'd end up with another tool in the arsenal......and it sure wouldn't hurt to practice putting on connectors. I need the practice....
• Craig is right, one person should not be sent to do set-up ahead of the team, but I am thinking of a different reason than he brought up. Whoever shows up, will potentially be be-sieged by the served agency or worse, the press/public. One person alone will do nothing against that, even if they are responding to a station that is already set up inside and ready to go.
• Do try to establish before any exercise a different frequency to use for the "1st responders/organizers" than the one that you plan to use to call out the rest of us on. For the past exercise, we had the radio on well before the call out time, and heard quite a bit that maybe we didn't really need to hear. It also becomes confusing when you have both groups trying to use the same frequencies for different purposes.
• We deployed without any guidance on radio protocol - which could have been helpful. What is expected? Is it enough for me to take off any time after the announcement and just show up, or is it better if I let the base know that I am enroute, and approximately my eta? Same questions with regard to being released from the sign-in "base" site to go to the assignment. Should I be letting them know that I am enroute or should there be radio silence? And how should the locations be defined on the radio? I know that these are able to be monitored, but is there any radio discipline that we should be careful to use?
• Lessons learned....we had alot of them - I hope that someone is documenting them...

Comments from others

• Cynthia Erickson, KC0YAS, said that she had taken the requisite FEMA courses, but needed clarification on what the Emergency Coordinator needed from her regarding these courses.
• Unknown party said that message handling should be periodically brought up in the ARES meetings.
• Steve Schmitz, W0SJS, said that it would probably be a good idea to make sure that each field location has the following message forms:
  1. ARRL Standard Radiogram
  2. ARRL Disaster Message Form
  3. American Red Cross Message Form

More comments expected
Photos coming soon

© 2010 St. Louis County ARES^®

00441