|
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
After-Action Report:
Introduction
Exercise Objectives
Summary of Findings
Recommendations
Appendix 1: Participants
Appendix 2:
Evaluation
Objective1:Resource
Objective2:Purchasing
Objective3:Technical
Objective4:Communication
Objective5:PIO
Appendix 3:
Detailed Findings
General Comments
Staffing
Training
ECC Systems
Operations
Resource Management
Planning
Technical Information
Communications
Public Information
Complete Report
(no photos/navigation)
| |
Communications Accuracy
ECC personnel will demonstrate timely and accurate
internal and external messaging and communications, with special attention to completeness
and accuracy of whiteboard.
POINTS OF REVIEW:
- Was notification of the dam release announced to ECC personnel immediately? The
ECC Manager very effectively accomplished this virtually real-time via the PA
announcement. Note: This would have been a good opportunity for the Manager to clearly
focus immediate efforts on flood projections, evacuation requirements, shelter selection
and activation, etc.
- Was school bus rumor adequately researched and correct information provided
appropriately? Not directly observed. The input was around 1020 or so…
the determination by the school liaison that all school buses were accounted for came in a
phone call at 1105. She immediately passed this info to PIO. Comment was that it was
indeed just a rumor, but no immediate action observed.
- Were both I-205 and I-5 bridge closures posted to the whiteboard? Yes…
I-5 info received at 1126… posted at 1140. I-205 posted in real-time.
- Was the C-Tran mass casualty incident posted to the whiteboard within 5 minutes?
Yes. Received 1123… posted 1128. (But not sure if the significance of the
MCI was adequately noted.)
- Was the requested time-to-river-crest estimate relayed to field personnel
working the C-Tran incident? Not directly observed, but Dispatch Liaison
indicated that an estimate of 1-2 hours was relayed to the field.
- Did ARES/RACES staff correctly record field messages? Yes and
processed them correctly.
- Did ARES/RACES staff notice and follow up on missed or delayed transmissions? Yes,
but they need to develop a better process to keep track of missed and/or delayed
transmissions and requests to other managers in the ECC.
- Were message forms from ARES/RACES to the ECC completed and routed correctly? Yes
they were. In addition they also used their forms, which were also completed accurately.
- Were ARES/RACES staff able to access and correctly interpret river monitor data
on the computer? Yes and No. They missed one planned event on the river watch
monitor. They need to make sure that all personnel are briefed on the how to read the
data.
- If available, were ARES/RACES members dispatched to locations as requested by
the ECC? Yes, they had 10 operators ready to respond if this had been an
actual event.
Go to Summary of Findings or see detailed
findings on Communications. Additional
findings not related to the objectives can be found under General
Comments, Staffing, Training, ECC Systems, and Operations.
View more evaluation points:
Objective 1: Resource information
utilization
Objective 2:
Purchase request processing
Objective 3: Technical information in
long-range planning
Objective 4: Communications accuracy
Objective 5: Public information
coordination
|
