[Scan-DC] Quest for Interoperability Applies to Talk, Not Just Technology

[Tim]

  I've injected my comments inside the article at the relevant points,
IN CAPITALS.

  I really don't care whether an agency uses plain-English,
brevity-codes, or OPSEC codes -- I just get
annoyed at some of the "Interoperability!' hysteria and the usually
stupid arguments for plain-English, and
for better or worse, had some free time today to generate a rebuttal.

Alan Henney wrote:
> Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security
>
> September 18, 2009 Friday
>
> Quest for Interoperability Applies to Talk, Not Just Technology
>
> BYLINE: By Rob Margetta, CQ Staff
>
> LENGTH: 1135 words
>
> Here's the scenario: you're a police officer and a call of "10-24" crackles over your radio. It's another officer, from the next town over, and according to the coding language you use, he's just called for emergency backup.
>
> Unfortunately, in his own language, he just said he was stopping for a burger.
>
> The situation might sound absurd, but such mix-ups have been a very real part of emergency service radio communications for years. 
>   
GOOD NEWS!!  THE SITUATION IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!   IF YOU'RE AN OFFICER LISTENING TO ANY OTHER LE
JURISDICTION'S RADIO TRAFFIC, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR PROTOCOLS –- INCLUDING
10-CODES, COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN YOURS!   IF THAT'S A CONCEPT TOO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND, THEN
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY NOT INTELLECTUALLY QUALIFIED TO CARRY A FIREARM, LET-ALONE OPERATE A MOTOR
VEHICLE. IF YOU SHARE A DISPATCH CHANNEL WITH THAT OTHER DEPARTMENT BUT AREN'T SHARING THE SAME
10-CODES, YOUR PROBLEMS ARE MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN JUST RADIO ISSUES!

> "We had localities where the 10-code for taking a break were right next to other localities where the same code meant armed robbery," said Chris Essid, director of the Office of Emergency Communications at the Department of Homeland Security, speaking of the four years he spent as interoperability coordinator in the Virginia governor's office.
>   
AND YET SOMEHOW, THEY MANAGED TO CO-EXIST...

> While on television, police and rescue workers all seem to talk with the same "10 codes," in reality, there is no standard set of codes. They vary by jurisdiction and town, and even in some cases by different emergency services working for the same municipality.
>   
WRONG. THERE IS A STANDARD SET OF CODES, AT LEAST FOR LE.  THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS (APCO) STARTED THEIR 'PROJECT 4' TO DEVELOP AND ENCOURAGE THE USE OF
STANDARDIZED 10-CODES MANY DECADES AGO. THESE 10-CODES ARE WELL-KNOWN & PUBLISHED, AND OFTEN 
WERE AT LEAST A STARTING-POINT FOR MOST DEPARTMENTAL 10-CODES, THOUGH FOR WHATEVER REASON,
AGENCIES BRANCHED OFF WITH THEIR OWN.

> "Police officers might have a code that firefighters and EMS don't understand," said Tom Johnson, interoperability program manager for the state of Minnesota. He added that in some situations, that language barrier could be a deadly serious matter. "It could be a matter of life and death if you're looking for supplies or materials and the person who could provide them can't understand them."
>   
 OOOH, THAT SOUNDS SO DIRE!!!    MISCOMMUNICATION IS ALWAYS A RISK, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR
NOT ANY 'CODES' ARE USED.  EXTENDING THE SO-CALLED 'LOGIC' OF TOM JOHNSON, USING RECORD-MODE
(WRITTEN) COMMUNICATIONS WOULD MITIGATE MISUNDERSTANDINGS EVEN MORE, SO MAYBE ALL PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMS should BE WRITTEN, NOT VERBAL, TO REDUCE MISUNDERSTANDING.     AT A BARE MINIMUM, ANY
PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONDER NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK PERFECT ENGLISH WITHOUT ANY FOREIGN ACCENT,
TO IMPROVE INTELLIGIBILITY!  BETTER REPORT THOSE OFFICERS WITH ASIAN, IRISH, HISPANIC ET AL.
ACCENTS TO TOM JOHNSON & (cc: TO DHS) RIGHT AWAY...


> Codes and a Catch Phrase
>
>
> Interoperability is a word that's been thrown around a lot in homeland security circles since Sept. 11, 2001. The inability of firefighters, police and other emergency responders at the World Trade Center site to communicate smoothly via radio due to technological and coordination issues thrust the issue onto the national stage.
>   
I'M NOT SURE HOW INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS MAY HAVE SAVED LIVES, AND NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE
ARTICLE DOESN'T CITE EXAMPLES...  DID IT REALLY TAKE THE EVENTS OF 9/11 FOR PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS MANAGERS TO REALIZE THAT IN SOME SITUATIONS, IT MIGHT BE NICE IF A COMMUNITY'S
PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES HAD SOME SORT OF COMMON, MUTUAL-AIDE RADIO CHANNELS?!   WOULD YOU REALLY
WANT MANY HUNDREDS OF FDNY, NYPD, PAPD AND EMS RESPONDERS TO THE WTC ALL ON ONE OR TWO RADIO
CHANNELS?  I THINK USING THE 9/11 WTC CATASTROPHE TO PROMOTE INTEROPERABLE COMMS IS A VERY POOR
EXAMPLE, BECAUSE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE MOST EGREGIOUS OF THE COMMS ISSUES WERE ALONG
THE LINES POOR IN-BUILDING RF COVERAGE, RADIO AUDIBILITY OVER ENVIRONMENTAL NOISES (FIRE ALARMS,
SIRENS, PEOPLE SHOUTING & SCREAMING, ET AL), & TOO MANY PERSONNEL PER CHANNEL, ALL COMPOUNDED BY
THE SCALE & DYNAMIC NATURE OF THE SITUATION.

> Since then, the federal government has spent more than $1 billion boosting local first responder interoperability across the country. Much of the focus has been on finding ways to plug gaps in equipment -- replacing limited-band, analog equipment with multiband digital radios, or hubs that can connect otherwise incompatible gear.
>   
AND THE LOCALS ARE USUALLY QUITE EAGER TO HOP ABOARD THE GRAVY-TRAIN & GET THE GRANT MONEY,
KNOWING THAT 'INTEROPERABILITY' AND 'HOMELAND SECURITY' ARE THE MAGIC WORDS TO GET FUNDING FOR
COOL NEW STUFF THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT REALLY HAVE A USE FOR, BUT THEY'LL WORRY ABOUT THAT
AFTER THEY GET THE GOODIES.

> Progress on that front has been slower than many experts would like. Although the 9/11 commission included improving interoperable communications as part of the report it released in 2004, former members said this year that they were disappointed with the pace of improvements.
>   
GEE, MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE THE REAL-WORLD DOESN'T ACCEPT THAT THE SITUATION IS AS DIRE AS THE
'EXPERTS' CLAIM??  ALSO IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DELAYS CAUSED BY THE FCC IN OPENING UP THE 700MHZ
BAND, WHICH THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS PUNDITS ARE PREACHING AS THE (NEXT) SOLUTION TO
THE WORLD'S ILLS.  ONCE ALL THE PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES IN THE USA MIGRATE TO A 700MHZ P-25 RADIO
NETWORK, WE WILL ALL LIVE HAPPILY EVER-AFTER, UNTIL OF COURSE THE NEXT MAJOR INCIDENT, AND THEN
WE CAN EXPECT  SOME OTHER ASPECT OF COMMUNICATIONS TO BE THE NEW FAD THAT IS PREACHED TO THE
MASSES.

> But technology is only half of the interoperability issue -- or much less, depending on who you ask.
>
> "This interoperability problem is 10 percent technology and 90 percent organization," Essid said.
>   
YET DHS IS SHOVELING OUT BARRELS OF TAX DOLLARS FOR TECHNOLOGY.

> During a forum on interoperability earlier this month, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said 10-codes and their ilk have historically put a cramp in communications organization.
>   
OH NO, HERE WE GO WITH THE EVIL 10-CODES AGAIN...

> "All of the groups that need to talk to each other have to have an agreement on things like what is the language you use," he said.
>   
THANKS FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS, MIKE!  THAT'S A REAL NUGGET FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CHERTOFF
GROUP, A SECURITY CONSULTING COMPANY WHICH EARNS BIG $$ BY PONTIFICATING SUCH WISDOM.  

> And all of the high-tech radios in the world can't solve that kind of a coding issue, Chertoff said.
>   
 OF COURSE, THEY DON'T MENTION IT, BUT “HIGH-TECH” RADIOS & SYSTEMS CAN HAVE MORE POTENTIAL FOR PROBLEMS/FAILURE THAN A LOW-TECH SYSTEM...

> But organization is one area of interoperability where a significant amount of progress has been made, according to both Chertoff and Essid. 
> English Without Tears
>
>
> The past few years have seen the emergence of state and national communication plans, and coordinators at various levels of government.
SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE & PLANS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES.  THE ONLY REAL EMERGENCE HAS BEEN THE
NOTION THAT THE PLANS SHOULD ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED, AND THAT THERE'S $$$$ AVAILABLE FOR
ENLARGING THE OFFICES & STAFF OF THE COORDINATORS, CONTRACTORS, ETC.

>  The solution that they've come to on the coding issue is almost glaringly obvious: according to current National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance, emergency responders in a mutual aid or multi-jurisdiction situations should simply use what experts (and pretty much everyone else) refer to as "plain English"
>   
STUNNING REVELATION THERE!!  HOW MUCH TIME & $$$ DID THEY SPEND ON FORMULATING THAT 'GUIDANCE?'

> Plain English has been creeping into emergency communications for some time now. In 2005, during the response to Hurricane Katrina, responders were advised to stay away from using codes. 
>   
THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH INTENTIONALLY TRIES TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE PLAIN-LANGUAGE COMMS WERE NOT A
COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO MULTI-AGENCY/MUTUAL-AID SITUATIONS INVOLVING SHARED RADIO CHANNELS WELL
BEFORE KATRINA.

> While 9/11 and Katrina both faced criticism for communications issues, both inside and outside observers say that the 2007 I-35 Mississippi River bridge collapse played out as an ideal example of multi-jurisdictional coordination. Johnson said the majority of radio chatter that day used plain language -- nearly two years before the state set a policy mandating plain language use in such situations.
>   
BECAUSE IT WAS A COMMON-SENSE THING TO DO, JUST LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 20 OR 40 YEARS AGO, TOO.
NO ONE NEEDS TO CARRY OUT 'STUDIES' OR ENACT A POLICY TO GET THAT.

> Even in everyday situations, the use of coding has been on the decline, according to Essid.
>
> "A lot of the emergency response community across the country, mostly public safety, have migrated from 10 codes to plan language," he said.
>   
“A LOT” DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S ON THE DECLINE, THOUGH IT VERY WELL COULD BE, DEPENDING
ON HOW EAGER PUBLIC SAFETY COMM SYSTEM MANAGERS ARE TO FOLLOW THE LATEST FAD OR HOW 'PROGRESSIVE'
SOME AGENCY CHIEF WANTS TO ACT.

> Aside from the language barriers coding creates, many of the advantages it once offered have disappeared. 
THERE'S NO *&%#@ “LANGUAGE BARRIER” IF THE USERS HAVE THE COMMON-SENSE TO KNOW WHEN IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO USE ONE LANGUAGE, VERSUS ANOTHER!   IF I'M USING MY HAM RADIO, I AM COGENT
ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK OR TRANSMIT IN CW (MORSE CODE) 'QTH.'  IF I'M USING MY POLICE
RADIO, I CAN SAY '10-20.'  IF I'M TALKING TO A REGULAR PERSON, ON A PUBLIC-SAFETY MUTUAL-AIDE
CHANNEL OR OTHERWISE DEALING WITH AN AGENCY I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH, I KNOW TO SAY 'LOCATION,'
AND I'M ABLE TO DO THAT ON MY OWN, IN ROUTINE & STRESSFUL SITUATIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO READ
ANY STUDIES OR LISTEN TO ANY PREACHING ABOUT IT. JUST LIKE MANY POLICE OFFICERS IN LOS ANGELES
CAN FIGURE OUT ON THEIR OWN WHEN TO ISSUE COMMANDS TO A SUBJECT IN SPANISH VS. ENGLISH.   DO
SPOUSES, CHILDREN, FRIENDS & RELATIVES OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS REPORT DIFFICULTY IN
COMMUNICATING WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW TO DROP THE WORK VERNACULAR WHEN THEY ARE
OFF-DUTY?

> In one instance, the codes were originally promoted because police radios in the 1930s and 1940s often clipped parts of transmissions, making the codes easier to understand. Better radios have helped solve that issue.
>   
SO I GUESS IF YOU BELIEVE SOME OF THE HYPE ABOUT THE RF RANGE & INTELLIGIBILITY PROBLEMS OF P-25
SYSTEMS, 10-CODES SHOULD STILL BE USED THERE?

> Codes at one time also gave police and other responders a method of communicating that any members of the public listening in couldn't understand. Essid said that, too, is a thing of the past, thanks to the spread of information through the Internet and other new technology.
>   
COMPLETE BS! THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE 'CODES,' SUCH AS '10-CODES,' USED ON PUBLIC SAFETY COMM
SYSTEMS ARE BREVITY-CODES, USED IN LIEU OF PLAIN-LANGUAGE TO SAVE AIR TIME.  ANYONE SMART-ENOUGH
TO TUNE-IN THE POLICE ON THEIR AM RADIOS IN THE 1940S WOULD HAVE FIGURED OUT FAIRLY QUICKLY &
EASILY WHAT THE 10-CODES MEANT, BASED ON CONTEXT.

> "I have an application on my iPhone that will tell me what the 10-codes are for any city, and I can hear the radio right over a scanner," Essid said. "If people know what they are anyway, why bother using them?"
>   
WOW, THEN LET'S JUST ISSUE ALL FIRST-RESPONDERS AN iPHONE WITH THAT APP! IT'LL SAVE BILLIONS OF
$$.  AGAIN, THE SAME SETS OF 10-CODES AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET OR iPHONE APPS WERE CREATED FOR
BREVITY, NOT COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY.  PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES CAN, SHOULD, & OFTEN DO HAVE SOME
SPECIAL CODES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR OPERATIONS-SECURITY PURPOSES.  THESE AREN'T THE ONES
ESSID SEES WHEN HE'S PLAYING WITH HIS iPHONE.

> Johnson said one of the supposed benefits to 10-codes was likely overstated.
>
> "It's perceived to be faster, especially for the dispatchers," he said. "You don't have to decipher speech patterns. You have the numbers. But I'm just not sure based on my experience if that's the case."
>   
A FORMAL STUDY --APCO PROJECT 14-- STATED OTHERWISE...

> In fact, he said, the codes take time to learn, and can be easy to confuse in stressful situations.
>   
YES, THE BREVITY CODES TAKE TIME TO LEARN. SO DO THE RULES, LAWS & PROCEDURES THAT PUBLIC SAFETY
PROFESSIONALS & OTHER FIRST-RESPONDERS NEED TO KNOW. THE ABILITY TO LEARN AND PROPERLY UTILIZE
THE INFORMATION IS WHAT GRANTS SOMEONE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A FIRST RESPONDER! SHOW SOME
RESPECT FOR THEIR INTELLIGENCE, JOHNSON! POLICE CAN & DO USE “PLAIN LANGUAGE” WHEN REFERRING TO
SOMEONE AS BEING “DRUNK,” UNLESS THEY THINK THE SUBJECT OVERHEARING THAT MAY FEEL INSULTED &
BECOME BELLIGERENT, SO THEY'LL USE SOME SORT OF CODE (COMMON ONES IN CALIFORNIA WOULD BE “647F”
(PENAL CODE FOR DRUNK IN PUBLIC), “HBD” (HAS BEEN DRINKING), OR IN MY AREA, THE BREVITY 10-CODE
“10-51” (DRUNK).  EMS PERSONNEL USUALLY AREN'T PERMITTED TO MAKE SUCH A DIAGNOSIS, SO INSTEAD
THEY SAY “ETOH” (ETHANOL, AS-IN ALCOHOL, AS IN PATIENT IS SHOWING SYMPTOMS OF ALCOHOL). SO WHAT
'PLAIN-LANGUAGE' DO YOU EXPECT TO BE USED ON A COMMON CHANNEL FOR THAT?

> "You wouldn't want to be the person who used the wrong code in a deadly situation," he said.
>   
UGH... THAT'S SO RIGHT...  WHAT IF DURING A HOSTAGE SITUATION, A COMMANDER FROM ONE DEPARTMENT
GAVE THE CODE OVER THE RADIO FOR “I NEED A BATHROOM BREAK” & THE SHARPSHOOTER ON-SCENE FROM
ANOTHER DEPARTMENT RECOGNIZED THAT CODE TO MEAN “SHOOT THE SUSPECT NOW!”   OOH, THE HORROR...

> Like other states that now require plain language in multi-jurisdictional settings, Minnesota is planning to hold regional exercises to make sure first responders are used to using it. Johnson said the state authorities are actually depending on department dispatchers to help remind officers to avoid the use of codes.
>
> "We know it's a learning curve, and it's not something we're going to be very critical of, but it's something we want to see adopted, especially by our incident commanders," he said. "It's not something you re-learn overnight."
>   
PLAIN LANGUAGE HAS BEEN A PART OF THE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM FOR A WHILE NOW. ICs SHOULDN'T
NEED TO STAY UP LATE TONIGHT “LEARNING” PLAIN LANGUAGE.  AGAIN, SHOW THEM SOME RESPECT...

> Still, both he and Essid said that considering the guidance against using coding when departments collaborate, and the diminished need for them, they expect that police and other first responders will abandon the 10-codes and other systems altogether.
>
> "I think it will evolve, just like many things in public safety evolve," he said. "I think you'll eventually see everybody switch to plain language."
>   

NOT IN OUR LIFETIMES...

  IN THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY & WELFARE, LET'S GO ALL-OUT WITH THIS INTEROPERABILITY STUFF!
ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS NEED TO STANDARDIZE ON ONE TYPE OF SERVICE SIDEARM, CARBINE, SHOTGUN,
TASER, AND SCOPED RIFLE.  AMMO, OF COURSE, SHOULD ALSO BE STANDARDIZED.  ALL FIRE/EMS VEHICLES
NEED TO HAVE STANDARDIZED EQUIPMENT – MEDICAL SUPPLY TYPE & QUANTITY, LOCATION OF GAGES, LENGTHS
OF FIRE HOSE, ETC.  DUE TO DISPARITIES IN TRAINING, LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE JUST WENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICE, FIRE & EMS DEPARTMENTS & PHASED OUT STATE, COUNTY & LOCAL ONES.   FINALLY OF
COURSE, WE WILL NEED TO STANDARDIZE ON JUST ONE BASE, MOBILE AND PORTABLE RADIO MODEL (CELLPHONE &
MOBILE DATA COMPUTER TOO, OF COURSE), SO NO ONE CAN GET CONFUSED AND HIT A WRONG BUTTON OR TURN
THE WRONG SWITCH...


  TIM

> Rob Margetta can be reached at rmargetta at cq.com.
>
> Source: CQ Homeland Security
> ©2009 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved