40-Second Decisions: Applying Boyd's Air Combat Tactics to Incident Management

In 1952, during the Korean War, the United States was trying hard to establish air dominance, but things weren't going as planned. The enemy had introduced the Soviet-built MiG-15, which outperformed the American F-86 Sabre in several key areas like high-altitude capabilities and climb rates. The skies over the Yalu River, along the border between North Korea and China—ominously known as "MiG Alley"—became the backdrop for intense aerial battles. It was becoming clear that the U.S. was falling behind in air combat. The kill ratio had dropped to alarming levels, sometimes showing nearly equal losses between U.S. and enemy aircraft.

This troubling trend was due to several factors. Initially, we were using outdated, underperforming aircraft that couldn't match the MiG-15's performance. But more importantly, there was an inability to adjust tactics to the new jet age of air combat. Pilots were relying on World War II-era dogfighting tactics, which just didn't work at jet speeds. They flew in tight formations that reduced maneuverability, didn't use the vertical dimension of airspace effectively, and didn't manage altitude and speed properly. That's when Colonel John Boyd (no relation to me) came into the picture.

I first stumbled upon a book about Colonel John Boyd while wandering through the airport. The cover caught my eye because my own last name was splashed across it. Being an aviation enthusiast, I was intrigued. As I flipped through the pages, I realized this book was more than just war stories about air combat. It delved into theories and guides on how to make decisions under stress.

The author explained how Boyd wrote the manual on air combat tactics, known as the "Aerial Attack Study." He studied both U.S. and enemy aircraft, crunching the numbers to find the best tactics against adversaries. His analysis focused on preserving energy, maintaining maneuverability, and gaining a tactical advantage. By understanding the energy states of aircraft—specifically speed and altitude—and how they could be managed during engagements, Boyd developed strategies that allowed pilots to outmaneuver opponents, even those flying technically superior aircraft.

But even with the best tactics laid out, Boyd noticed that pilots often struggled to execute these strategies under the intense stress of aerial combat. Superior tactics and aircraft performance were crucial, but they weren't enough if pilots couldn't make quick, effective decisions in the heat of battle. This realization propelled Boyd on a journey to understand how decisions are made in high-pressure situations like air combat.

He dove into psychology, systems theory, and various military strategies to unravel the decision-making process under stress. This led him to develop the concept known as the OODA Loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. This model describes the four iterative steps we go through when reacting to an event:

• Observe: Gather information about the environment. Pilots must continuously watch enemy movements and other relevant factors.
• Orient: Analyze the information to form a situational understanding. This involves interpreting enemy tactics and assessing one's own capabilities.
• Decide: Choose the best course of action based on the current situation.
• Act: Execute the chosen action swiftly and efficiently.

Boyd emphasized that the speed at which you move through the OODA Loop is crucial. By cycling through these steps faster than your adversary, you can "get inside" their decision-making process, creating confusion and disruption for them, and gaining a significant tactical advantage. This was revolutionary because it shifted the focus from just physical factors to cognitive processes and decision-making speed.

To help pilots move through the OODA Loop faster, Boyd developed intensive, realistic training programs that emphasized repetitive practice of the right tactics. He believed that by drilling the correct maneuvers over and over, pilots would internalize the best responses, enabling them to act instinctively under the stress of combat. This repetition ingrained the tactical choices into their muscle memory, allowing them to compress the Orient and Decide phases of the OODA Loop. In some cases, pilots could effectively jump straight from Observation to Action, executing the appropriate response without conscious deliberation.

How does this relate to managing emergencies?

Those of us tasked with keeping the public safe and handling emergencies can learn a lot from these principles. While incident management doesn't typically involve a human adversary, we do have a formidable enemy: time. Emergencies like fires, medical crises, and natural disasters can escalate rapidly, and delays in response can lead to situations getting exponentially worse.

For example, a fire can double in size every minute. In the early stages, a simple action like using a fire extinguisher or placing a lid over a grease fire can prevent a disaster. But if not addressed immediately, that small fire can engulf an entire room or building within minutes. Similarly, someone with a severe traumatic injury can bleed out in as little as five minutes without prompt medical intervention. Immediate actions like applying a tourniquet or pressure can be lifesaving. And in today's world, misinformation can spread faster than the truth on social media, leading to panic, misallocation of resources, or unsafe behaviors during emergencies.

Let me give you a simple example to illustrate the importance of decision-making. An incident commander arrives at a fire scene where immediate decisions are crucial. Suppose the situation requires ten command decisions per minute, but the commander can only make five decisions per minute. In the second minute, another ten decisions are needed, adding to the earlier deficit, totaling fifteen decisions needed. This pattern continues, and after 20 minutes, the commander would be one hundred decisions behind the incident.

Being "behind the incident" means the commander is no longer directing events but is constantly reacting to them. The incident progresses unaffected by the commander's efforts because necessary decisions are made too slowly to influence the outcome effectively. This reactive posture can lead to missed opportunities to contain the situation, resulting in greater harm and increased risk to responders and the public.

In contrast, when a commander stays "ahead of the incident," they maintain control by making prompt decisions that shape how things unfold. By moving rapidly through the decision-making process, the commander can anticipate developments, implement strategies proactively, and allocate resources efficiently.

To stay ahead, we need to focus on both the speed and quality of our decision-making. Avoiding a decision deficit is crucial, but our decisions must also be effective in mitigating the incident. Just like Boyd identified and trained pilots on the most effective tactics, we need to find the best strategies for managing emergencies and train repetitively on these procedures.

Through realistic training that simulates high-pressure situations, we can internalize best practices, allowing us to act swiftly and effectively during real emergencies. By ingraining these strategies into muscle memory, we can compress the Orient and Decide phases of our own OODA Loop, moving more quickly from observation to action.

Under stress, our brains can't engage in complex reasoning or recall detailed protocols—we react instinctively. That's why the number of repetitions matters so much. Practicing the correct strategies repeatedly helps us internalize the best actions, making them second nature. For more on decisions under stress and "naturalistic decision making," I recommend Gary Klein's book "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions."

But what happens when a commander arrives at an incident that has already escalated, where decision-making demands exceed what one person can handle? For instance, if the situation now requires twenty decisions per minute, but the commander can only make ten, the gap widens. This is where decentralized decision-making and simultaneous actions become crucial, concepts integral to the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

NIMS provides a framework for delegating authority and responsibilities to qualified individuals on the scene. By using the Incident Command System (ICS), the commander can assign supervisory roles to trusted team members. Each supervisor can make decisions within their scope, effectively multiplying the number of decisions made per minute.

Now, the commander and supervisors are simultaneously cycling through their own OODA Loops within their assigned responsibilities. This decentralized approach means multiple decision-making processes occur in parallel, significantly increasing the total decisions made per minute. In our example, if collectively they make twenty decisions per minute, they can stay "ahead of the incident," effectively managing the evolving situation.

For this system to work optimally, it's essential that supervisors receive the same level of realistic and repetitive decision-making training as the commander. Without proper training, supervisors may move too slowly through their OODA Loops, make incorrect decisions, or operate outside their authority, causing confusion and undermining the response. Training only the commander isn't enough; the entire team must be proficient in rapid, effective decision-making under stress.

Effective communication is also essential. Clear, common language and structured communication protocols are vital for coordinating efforts among team members. Consistent communication practices eliminate confusion, reduce errors, and speed up information sharing. Communication becomes instinctual through repetitive training, helping us internalize proper structures to remain efficient under stress. Quick and accurate information exchange allows team members to stay aligned, make informed decisions, and adjust strategies as needed.

Implementing this level of training is achieved through scenario-based exercises or simulated environments. The key is to make scenarios realistic enough to achieve a "suspension of disbelief," allowing participants to become fully immersed and almost forget it's not a real incident. This realism triggers the same emotional and physiological responses as actual emergencies, embedding the training as past experience.

The training needs to be easily repeatable so participants can get enough repetitions to internalize best practices. Repetition builds muscle memory, ingraining correct actions and communication protocols into instinctual responses. By repeatedly navigating various simulated emergencies, responders become adept at moving swiftly through their OODA Loops, making effective decisions without hesitation.

In Allen, we use a simulator designed with the Unity gaming engine to get in those reps. It allows us to practice communication and organization in a controlled yet realistic environment. This kind of technology helps us create a wide range of scenarios, from common incidents to rare but high-impact events. The more varied and frequent the training, the better prepared we are to manage the unpredictability of real-world emergencies.

In our community, we have fewer and fewer fires these days, so it's tough to gain "on-the-job experience." Plus, in my opinion, "on-the-job experience" isn't effective if the right procedures aren't followed. That's why this simulated training is so valuable, it fills the gap and ensures we're practicing the correct strategies.

Whatever method you use, the goal is to create a training environment that closely mirrors the pressures and challenges of actual incidents. This prepares us not just to react, but to anticipate and adapt quickly, maintaining control even as situations evolve. By investing in realistic and repeatable training, we equip our teams with the skills and confidence needed to stay ahead of the incident.

To sum up, here are the essential steps for developing an effective team:

1. Establish a Common Organizational System

Adopt a standardized framework like the National Incident Management System (NIMS) to provide a unified structure for command, control, and coordination. This ensures everyone understands their roles and responsibilities, facilitating seamless collaboration among team members and agencies.

2. Establish Appropriate Communication Rules

Implement clear and consistent communication protocols. Standardized terminology and communication practices eliminate confusion and ensure information is shared accurately and promptly, including plain language, structured message formats, and predefined channels.

3. Use Simulated Scenarios to Achieve "Suspension of Disbelief"

Engage in realistic, scenario-based training exercises to help participants become fully immersed, almost forgetting it's not a real incident. This triggers genuine emotional and physiological responses, allowing responders to practice decision-making under stress effectively.

4. Use In-Training Feedback to Ensure Adherence to Established Systems

Provide immediate feedback during training to help participants recognize and correct deviations from established procedures, reinforcing proper practices and enhancing overall team performance.

5. Critique Training to Identify Misalignments

Conduct after-action reviews to critically evaluate performance and identify areas where participants didn't align with established systems, allowing teams to address weaknesses and refine strategies.

6. Repeat Until All Participants Have Instinctual Ability

Repetition is key to developing instinctual responses. Regularly engaging in training exercises ensures team members internalize procedures and protocols, making effective decision-making and communication second nature during actual emergencies.

By investing in comprehensive training that emphasizes both the thinking and doing aspects of emergency management, we equip our teams with the skills, confidence, and cohesion necessary to protect our communities effectively. Just as Colonel John Boyd revolutionized air combat through a focus on decision-making speed and agility, we too can enhance our emergency response capabilities by adopting these principles and practices.

Colonel Boyd wasn't just a proponent of strategically sound, experiential learning; he was an active participant who demonstrated the effectiveness of his methods firsthand. They called him "40-Second Boyd." He had a standing wager with any pilot willing to challenge him: starting from a position of tactical disadvantage, he could defeat them in air combat maneuvering within 40 seconds, or he'd pay them forty dollars.

He never had to pay the $40.