Are We Planning to Respond or Preparing to Respond?

As early as high school, I can remember being introduced to the phrases “Prior Propper Planning Prevents Poor Performance” and “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” Both phrases contain a valuable message for a young teenager.

Fast forward a few years and the military introduced me to the idea and the real-world application of the concept that “no plan survives first contact.”

Our fire service is a paramilitary structure that’s called on at a moment’s notice to bring order to chaos. This reality should cause us to dive a little deeper into the often cliché concept of planning in the fire service.

Planning and preparation

Planning is defined as the act or process of making or carrying out plans. For our application, a plan can best be defined as a method for achieving an end or as a detailed formulation of a program of action. This could be seen as an overall strategic plan for the organization, a 3–5-year plan, succession planning, preplanning target hazards and/or a quarterly/yearly training plan.

Preparation is defined as the action or process of making something ready for use or service or of getting ready for some occasion, test or duty. This definition exemplifies what should be the mindset of departments and their members every day.

Training

Departments that plan and prepare for their responses through realistic and mission-focused training see successful outcomes. Plans are nice, because they give us comfort and security that if a certain situation occurs, we have a plan. Many times, this sense of security is false, because as a team or as individuals, we failed to prepare or didn’t fully prepare.

Because this column discusses response planning and preparation in particular, much of this preparation to execute predetermined plans and to build the crucial skill of developing plans on the fly hinges on the effectiveness of the training program that the department implements.

Consider structuring your training program to prepare members to execute response plans (if you have them) under realistic and variable conditions. For example, many departments have riding assignments for members that are based on the seat they ride in an apparatus for certain calls. Let’s say that there are five seats on the pumper, and for a structure fire attack, the assignments are as follows: driver, officer, nozzle, backup and door control.

Each of those assignments comes with its own list of responsibilities, and members are trained in those responsibilities. On drill nights, you regularly load up the pumper with five members and run engine company scenarios. That’s great, because you probably are ahead of many U.S. volunteer departments with your engine work. However, your daytime response regularly sees the rig rolling with three members—or two, or even one.

Accounting for this staffing variable when you train is critical. Run drills with an engine crew of four, three, two or one. If you don’t, you lose when it comes to preparation. We all heard and maybe said things such as “train as you fight” or “practice how you play.” We must live those words when it comes to training.

Excellent training programs prepare members to be critical thinkers and to develop solutions under pressure. They don’t just check boxes. It’s easy to check boxes on, for example, a ladder drill by pulling the ladders one time, having everyone do a flat raise or beam raise, and putting back the ladders on the rig when everyone is finished. It’s a little more in depth when each person must pull the ladder in full gear and get it where it needs to be for it be useful. It takes the drill to the next level when members are given a scenario and must use the tools that are available to successfully complete the objective. Once foundational skills are built, it takes members to a new level when multiple skills are incorporated into scenarios as they are incorporated into real-life response.

Consider a vent-enter-search drill in which members must use their ladder skills, search skills, size-up skills and victim-removal skills in a limited-staff setting. For many departments, I bet that the results will be humbling, and sometimes, that’s exactly what you need on the training ground—rather than failure on the fireground.

Executing, and not

I have seen the effects of the failure to plan, the failure to adequately prepare and training that’s based on checking boxes.

At a rope rescue event earlier this year that involved a vehicle that drove off of a bluff and left a victim trapped 250 feet below, we learned valuable lessons when it came to our technical rescue preparation. Everything started smoothly, but Murphy’s law soon took effect. It quickly became clear that we hadn’t prepared adequately to operate with such a limited staff and should have requested additional resources, although the outcome was successful.

I also have seen the growth that comes from training realistically and instilling a culture of preparation within an organization. Several recent first-due structure fires illustrated this point, as pumpers showed up with less-than-optimal staffing, though we still were able to quickly get water on the fire and coordinate search, fire attack and ventilation as additional personnel arrived from our department and automatic aid.

I have beamed with pride watching members of my department execute exceptionally in many different situations. I also have been humbled when performance, including my own, didn’t meet expectations. (I’m sure that many of you can relate.) When this happens, it’s best to own it and be willing to examine the preparation, or lack thereof, that led to the event.

Build foundational skills

We can’t achieve mission success through planning alone, although we can fail from a lack of planning. A plan must be executed successfully even if it’s adjusted, and successful execution is predicated on preparation. Build foundational skills and then put those skills together under realistic conditions, particularly staffing.