ARES Logo

ARES After-Action Report:
2001 Simulated Emergency Test (SET)

by Ron Poinsett (W3DKH), Mission Coordinator,
District 24, Douglas & Elbert Counties, November 26, 2001
  1. Date of activity: October 21, 2001

  2. Description of activity Simulated Emergency Test

  3. Duration of activity
    3.5 hours

  4. Serving amateur radio groups participating
    • Colorado ARES District 24 (Douglas & Elbert Counties)

  5. Served agencies participating
    • Douglas County Sheriff's Office

  6. Describe served agency participation
    Introductory training provided the Douglas County Emergency Manager on Damage Assessment.

  7. Number of amateurs participating: 10

  8. List of amateurs participating
    • WD0JIM
    • N7ZFN
    • K0VKM
    • N0NDM
    • N0KKZ
    • W0RMJ
    • AB0NF
    • W3DKH
    • W6AUN
    • KA9ODE

  9. Person-hours of amateur service: 35

  10. Describe the Goals of the Activity
    The goal was to introduce the group to fundamentals of damage assessment and the process of gathering and compiling information.

  11. Did the Event Fulfill the Goals? Yes.

  12. What Went Well?
    The training provided by the Emergency Manager was excellent and provided a strong foundation for the purpose and process of damage assessment. The role and function of the EOC was also presented. Lacking a real incident, the field operators were creative in looking at the surroundings and visualizing potential damages that could occur as the result of the scenario. Net discipline was good. WD0JIM, a newcomer to the group, did an excellent job as net control. The decision to have two people at the EOC during the SET was fundamental.

  13. Areas needing improvement
    As was anticipated, we did a good job of funneling information from mobile field operators into the EOC but the compiling of information into a concise and meaningful format was lacking. The EOC Incident commander had asked for a status report with multiple copies. We were never able to provide this.

  14. Lessons learned
    Having two people at the EOC was good but the interface and assignment of their responsibilities was lacking. When two or more people are assigned a task, it should be standard practice to clearly and verbally state the duties and responsibilities of each. One person should be assigned as overall leader for the assignment.

    The process of having the EOC net control operator operate without a headset and having the person responsible for compiling data listen directly to the radio was flawed. In a real event operating without a headset would not be an option. Also, the net control operator did not keep a log of field station reports. It was hoped that the two would have operated such that the net control would generate hard copy of field reports to the person responsible for data compiling.

  15. Additional training needed
    Training needs to be developed and presented for practices to employ when multiple operators are at a site. This should include the necessity for clearly defined and verbally stated responsibilities and duties. Training should also be provided on gathering and preparation of real time status reporting and documenting.

  16. General comments
    This was the first time that the group functioned in a clearly stated capacity as field observers. In the past, field reporting has been a subset of the main activity and was not given primary focus. The weak points were anticipated and the activity provided a baseline for measuring progress towards development of damage assessment and field reporting as a basic service to the served agency.

  17. Ideas for Future Exercises
    Rerun the same activity at a future date after receiving additional training. During anticipated severe winter weather start an informational net to begin gathering information prior to, during, and after the storm.