Realistic Training: When Is "Realistic" Too Much?
Chuck Lane
Vice President of Learning & Development| 18+ years of multi-industry experience building high performing teams and programs
"If you see a tornado, it is not part of your exercise!" These are the humorous, but somewhat serious words of my friend and colleague as he prepares students for their capstone exercise in the sweltering Alabama summer. The humor in this, obviously, is because we should all know that a simulated tornado is an impressive feat, even for the nation's greatest training facility. Many have joked over the years about what they could do if they had the ability to do so. "Let's shake the building" we joke in earthquake exercises. "Let's put powdered sugar on them and make people think it's a biological weapon!" is one I've heard several times. "Let's fire blank rounds so they actually know what gunfire sounds like in an enclosed space!" The record scratches, the room is quiet, and LinkedIn explodes.
On Tuesday October 2nd a high school in Dayton, Ohio held an all day active shooter drill/training event for staff and students. During the exercise, blank rounds were fired by law enforcement officers to give students an idea of what gunfire actually sounds like in an enclosed space near to them. By all accounts the drill went well and there were no major issues reported. The drill consisted of a lengthy briefing beforehand, a slow, methodical approach to the drill itself, and a thorough after-action process that involved trauma counseling services for students and staff to discuss how they felt about the exercise. Students seemed to have mixed reactions, but nothing too horrendous. One student mentioned in an article that she was "emotional and started to cry" after hearing the gunfire and was upset about the thought of something happening at her school. Other students felt different and I quote from the National Review article; "Other students said the experience was helpful, as it prepared them for a real active shooter situation." The viewpoint of many of my friends and colleagues on LinkedIn was quite a bit more...negative.
When the article about the story was posted, along with the opinion of the poster, it began generating some strong opinions in the comments section. Several respondents lamented the trauma this may cause to the children at the school. Others pondered why this was necessary and if it was simply taking things "too far". Would this sort of exercise traumatize others into not wanting to take part in future exercises? A few others had even stronger reactions regarding why the training was needed "outside of a war zone" and positing theories about the lack of experience that the exercise planner must have to suggest something so stupid. For my part, I saw both sides of the debate, but was somewhat taken aback at the attack on the drill and the people who planned it. Unfortunately, I feel that this is becoming the norm in our industry and it is not a good look. With great social media presence comes great responsibility.
Emergency management is an interesting, unique, and rapidly growing career. It is full of people from all different backgrounds trying to achieve the same goals. We have operations minded folks, the academics, healthcare, public sector, private sector, and several others all trying to do their best while working within a framework where there just isn't a ton of history. EM as most of us know it is really, what, 18 years old now if you track it back to 9/11? The two phrases we LOVE to use are "best practices" and "lessons learned". We often use them without really thinking of the implications. What defines a best practice? Is it for the industry, the nation, or your event? What lessons did we learn? Are they applicable only to us or to others as well? There is no simple answer because every event is unique. This is what creates the subtle social media issue of what basically amounts to "program shaming".
"We don't set the school on fire or pump smoke into the building during a fire drill!" Well, of course not, because that would create a safety hazard. Firing blanks in a hallway away from students does not create a safety issue (if done properly), it creates an emotional one. The concern of creating trauma in exercise participants is a real, and important, one. However, we must remember that we live in a traumatic world. Events happen constantly that cost people their lives and our society is becoming a terrified one, constantly walking on egg shells wondering "Could I be next?" We, as emergency planners, first responders, etc. need to stop shaming others for doing something that we ourselves may not do, simply because we don't agree with the method. If there are serious safety concerns, then certainly we should speak up, but if training is to be realistic, if we are to help the everyday populace (high school students are included because they are a likely target of a school shooting) understand the body cannot go where the mind has not been, then we must prepare them for reality.
I believe all of us in the emergency management profession want to do the right thing. We want to prepare people to be their best during the worst events we can fathom. We can't do that by tearing each other down. We need to work together to develop, implement, and teach our industries how we can responsibly and realistically train and educate the everyday citizen for something we all hope never happens. So what is the line? When does realism in training and exercises cross the line? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Director Of Analytics at Liberty University
5 年The point of realism is to learn how you react to stress and learn how to handle it. We do this when training martial arts. Make yourself uncomfortable so you learn how to manage your breathing and think. You can’t think when you are panicking, if you don’t drill then you could have that panic reaction.
People Driven - Blue Line Solutions ? Arcuri Group ? Broaddus Defense - Retired Sergeant Virginia State Police
5 年Chuck, thanks for the good "exposure" that you brought to the reality of these events and our personal responsibilities in mitigating them. The overwhelming majority of civilians simply "don't know, what they don't know," and due to the negative emotions associated with these events, don't want to invest in their personal safety. Our culture devours the horror entertainment genre, binge watches The Walking Dead, etc., yet when it comes to assigning value to the reality of preparedness and safety...hmm, let's not go there due to the uncomfortable nature of preparation. Professional training/exercises geared toward our civilians should always be delivered in a "crawl, walk, run" methodology...building a foundation of competence and confidence. Stress inoculation can (and should) come at a later time. When teaching ALERRT Civilian Response Casualty Care (CRCC) classes throughout Virginia, our cadre kicks off with a very simple walk & talk drill with the students, then we devote heavily into the classroom instruction/dialogue, concluding with the same drill, with the participants responding based upon their training...slow and deliberate. The class feedback is always amazing...there is no greater reward for an instructor than that of connecting with people's hearts and minds ? What is our goal? Certainly not shock and awe tactics...as noted, many civilians are apprehensive the moment they enter the classroom. Our goal is to communicate very effectively that we are there because we care about them (don't have to know someone to care about their individual safety), we are there to be involved with them in the learning process of an uncomfortable topic, building their resiliency, and we are there to empower/educate them because they are "Immediate Responders" during active attack events...their actions are invaluable to the outcome.? Keep up the great work and mindset.
Emergency Management & Disaster Behavioral Health Specialist
5 年Great question! For me, it raises other questions: What’s the purpose of the realism? To help participants know what it’ll look, sound, feel like? So they’ll know how they may react? If it’s to fully simulate the environment, and the emotions and automatic responses that come with it, we can build up to it and/or reach these goals through different means. For example, talking through the realities, watching videos of real life situations, reading stories of other people’s experiences can help ease people into a full scale realistic drill. Someone who has never heard gunshots in an enclosed space and has never seen gunshot wounds on multiple victims suddenly exposed to all of it at once can be traumatized (someone who has experienced violence and loss can also be triggered). But, working up to full exposure and providing training to empower staff with ways of minimizing negative emotional reactions could help participants feel better prepared and more confident, which can be a way to manage the traumatic nature of a drill. Experience and exposure is invaluable. But, if people are too overwhelmed, they can’t learn or practice well and then they miss out of the real purpose of the drill.
Passionate about Academics, Emergency Management and Disaster Anthropology
5 年It should be treated the same as ethical experiments since it’s the same concept. In psychology simulated environments happen quite often but the effect of that environment on the person is considered before subjecting them to it. Think back to experiments on inmates and their guards and the ethics regarding human subjects. Why is a drill or training any different when in reality you still have a hypothesis and are testing for an outcome.