Outlier Considerations to Improve Morbidity & Mortality During Active Shooter Events- Part 2B
CCP’s...Big topic, lots of questions...lots of variables, not a lot of guidance out there. So what is a bad-ass responder like yourself to do? Equip yourself with some principles, with some options, with a comfort to engage chaos (or at least ambiguity), and a realistic understanding of your organizations organic assets (and how to maximize them to their greatest extent). As we repeatedly state throughout this video, there is no “one” way or “Best” way of creating or executing CCP’s operationally. There is only the way that works for your organization, given the assets you have on hand, the nature of the threat, the training (interoperability) you have performed prior to the event, and what will promote survivability for the casualties you encounter.
What we can never forget is, there will be NO perfect execution of any plan operationally. You will be responding to an ahistoric event within an austere environment. Perfection only occurs at the whiteboard administrative planning session (deductive reasoning). I am not sure who said it first, but I remember a line Forrest Griffin said after a UFC fight, “Everybody has a plan, until they get punched in the face”.
We plan, analyze, assume capabilities, allocate resources, and feel pretty confident. Then...the doors at the school shooting are chained, the LEO gets dropped with 7.62 x 39 in the breach point, the dedicated RTF assets are on a two alarm fire that went down 30 minutes before the active shooter event... and we get hit by the outlier. It can be anything...look at some of the scenarios that DHS proposed in their latest First Responder Guideline (June 2015), specifically Scenario 7, that is a bad day.
We plan on digging deeper into the CCP topic over the next few months. In this episode we scrape the surface. We try and put forth some concepts and options, with the help and views of some folks that have used and trained with CCP’s extensively. When looking at this topic, we have to utilize the HRO principle, “difference to expertise”. Very few of us in the civilian realm have a solid grasp of CCP dynamics during mass casualty acts of violence, so we must seek that expertise from vetted and experienced individuals.
We discuss the Hasty, Floating (dynamic), and Deliberate CCP concepts as a base. Our mindset must be fluid, we can not go in with rigid “rules”, our training must drive us to make decisions when there is no obvious answer or clear pathway to success.
We have also been asked about the portion of the video which discusses putting a casualty out the window on a munter hitch and grabbing extra friction (to lighten the casualty weight) on the two angles of the window sill... great question. We will address this in the Rescue Revolution Blog. We will show a few examples of how to estimate friction gained from a descent control device, munter hitch, and/or improvised from wall corners and window sills. It is basically an equation where you add the angles of contact of your rope, convert to degrees radian (Pi), then estimate the coefficient of friction (COF) of the rope and the building material it interfaces with....plug this into the equation with the constant e (2.71828182845904)...and BAM, you have the estimate. More on this later.Breaching considerations during a dynamic violent event
In this episode we briefly discuss why we take an HRO approach to the dynamic violent incident, versus an evidence-based medicine / methodology. We will be going into greater depth on this subject in the near future... I am sure you will be just as surprised, (and disappointed) as we were. We also discuss some breaching considerations and options, we touch on a little halligan anatomy, and some of the physics behind various breaching techniques, which is the foundation for improvisation.