One of the many corollaries to "Murphy's Law" is that the need always outgrows the available capacity to satisfy it. This is especially true in disaster situations, which always seem to stress emergency responders to their limits and beyond.
There are two ways to handle a disaster: react or respond. All too often, we find ourselves scrambling to get stations ready on short notice ("where did I leave those batteries?"). In "react-mode," one starts "behind the power curve" and never seems to catch up.
Have you ever noticed the difference between the reactor and the responder? The reactor says, "It's about to go crazy here! Skies are dark, heavy and lots of lightning everywhere! Never seen so much hail. Heard on the police radio that there is a tornado nearby."
The responder, on the other hand might be heard to say, "I am currently located at the crossing of Main and First Streets, and am observing a wall cloud with rotation. Wind was steady at about 40 to 50 miles per hour (estimated, large trees bending over) until about 5 minutes ago, but has how stopped. Golf-ball sized hail, approximately one inch diameter. Time of report, current time."
Which operator is the more valuable asset in an emergency?
The key to one's ability to respond instead of having to react comes with planning. The responder knew what information to communicate because he understood his served agency and know what information they needed. He knew how to communicate it because he had studied the nature of the threat (a tornado) ahead of time and had prepared himself for what he might need to observe and communicate.
Establishing effective plans-at the section, district and county jurisdiction levels-is the precise purpose of this document. The next section describes the planning necessary for a generalized response at the Georgia Section level. The next section is a guide to establishing district and county jurisdiction plans. Effective planning requires that all of these levels be addressed.
The appendices of this document provide additional detail designed help further define the plan, or make effective execution of it.
Figure 1 outlines the very simple emergency communications planning process that has been adopted for the Georgia Section. Key to this process is the initial definition of need, and the assessment of how systems could fail. All of the communications planning in the world will be for naught if it does not meet the needs of the specific disaster situation. Good planning means making a best effort at understanding what potential problems could be, and designing plans and systems to address those problems.
Figure 1. The Emergency Communications Planning Process.
This model for planning can be used at any level of response needed. This specific document addresses the needs for emergency communications response at the Georgia Section level-that is communications emergencies that occur on a broad scale and require the services and coordination at a section level.
The same model can be very effectively used for local planning, both specific and general. In the specific case, it can be used to plan a specific event, activity or drill (say Field Day). In the general case, it is a very useful tool for local Emergency Coordinators to establish plans for their county and district jurisdictions.
The challenges faced by each emergency communications group will be different. Some will face a low probability of a communication emergency, others will know with certainty that one or more large-scale disasters will occur each decade (or sooner), depending on the location and size of their jurisdiction. In addition to frequency, the size and impact of potential disasters will vary widely. The first task of any emergency communication manager is to identify all potential disasters, the likelihood of each occurring in your area, and the probable impact on the communication needs of served agencies.