We’ve all listened to that fire. Not necessarily the biggest fire. Just a routine working fire where, from the very first radio transmission, everything seems to fall into place. Companies acknowledge their assignments clearly. Progress reports are concise. Incoming units know exactly where to report before they even step off the apparatus. The incident commander sounds calm, the fireground sounds organized, and the entire operation seems to move with purpose. It almost sounds easy.
| READ NEXT: Fireground communication isn’t just about radios — it’s about discipline
Then we’ve all listened to the opposite: The radio sounds like Thanksgiving dinner with 30 cousins trying to tell the same story at the same time. Firefighters call each other by their first names. One company reports they’re “making good progress,” another says they “have a good knock,” while a third asks Command to repeat an assignment because three people keyed their microphones simultaneously. Nothing catastrophic has happened, but the incident already feels harder than it needs to be. Instead of building a clear picture of the incident, the radio becomes another problem the IC must manage.
The difference usually isn’t better firefighters. It isn’t better radios, either. It’s better communication. Or, more accurately, standardized communication.
Good fireground communications don’t happen by accident. They happen because someone took the time to decide, long before the first alarm was dispatched, how their department would communicate during an emergency. Like accountability systems, mayday procedures and incident command, standardized communications should never be something firefighters invent on the way to the call. They should be practiced, predictable and understood by everyone on the fireground — because confusion spreads almost as fast as the fire.
Good communications don’t happen by chance
Every department has standard operating guidelines that define how firefighters perform high-risk tasks. We develop procedures for rapid intervention, personnel accountability, mayday operations and incident command because we recognize the value of consistency. Those documents remove guesswork, establish expectations and help firefighters make better decisions under pressure.
So why do many departments leave one of the most frequently used tools on the fireground almost entirely to habit? The radio.
For something every firefighter uses on virtually every emergency incident, many organizations provide surprisingly little guidance beyond basic radio etiquette. We teach firefighters how to operate the radio but not always how to communicate. There’s a difference. Knowing which button to press is important. However, knowing what information to transmit, when to transmit it and how to transmit it consistently is what improves incident management.
A well-written communications SOG isn’t intended to script every radio transmission. Firefighters shouldn’t sound like they’re reading from a teleprompter during a working fire. Instead, it should establish a common framework that allows everyone, from the newest firefighter to the IC, to communicate critical information in a predictable manner. That consistency improves situational awareness, strengthens accountability and reduces unnecessary radio traffic. Most importantly, it allows the IC to spend less time translating information and more time leading the incident.
Predictable is professional
When firefighters hear the word standardized, they sometimes worry that it means rigid, robotic or overly procedural. In reality, the exact opposite is true. Standardization creates freedom. It removes uncertainty so firefighters can focus on solving problems instead of figuring out how everyone else communicates.
Think about the last really good working fire you listened to. Chances are, you noticed something almost immediately. Companies acknowledged assignments the same way. Benchmark reports occurred when you expected them. Incoming officers understood the strategy before they ever reached the command post. Nobody was trying to decipher what another company meant by “we’re getting after it.” Everyone was speaking the same operational language.
That predictability becomes even more valuable when mutual-aid companies are involved. Today’s emergency incidents rarely occur in isolation. Large fires, technical rescues, hazmat incidents and natural disasters often bring together companies from multiple departments. Those firefighters may have never worked together before, yet they’re expected to operate as one team within minutes of arriving on scene. That’s difficult enough. It becomes nearly impossible when every department speaks a different language over the radio.
The goal isn’t to make every firefighter sound the same. The goal is to ensure the information they’re sharing is consistent, concise and immediately understood by everyone listening. Dispatch should understand it. Mutual aid should understand it. The incoming safety officer should understand it. Most importantly, the IC should never have to wonder what a radio transmission actually means.
Stop calling “Bob”
One way to improve your department’s communication habits, namely radio consistency, is to answer this question: How should firefighters identify themselves on the radio? It sounds like a simple question, but listen to enough fireground radio traffic and you’ll hear just about every answer imaginable. Some firefighters identify themselves by their first name. Others use rank. Some use apparatus names. Others simply key the microphone and start talking, assuming everyone knows who’s transmitting. That might work around the kitchen table. It doesn’t work very well on the fireground.
I’ve been on incidents where someone keyed the microphone and simply said, “Hey, Chief ....” The problem wasn’t that I knew who was talking. I probably did. The problem was that the mutual-aid company arriving from the next jurisdiction didn’t. Dispatch didn’t. The safety officer monitoring another tactical channel didn’t either. We often assume everyone listening knows our crew as well as we do. They don’t.
Position-based radio identifiers eliminate that guesswork. Rather than calling for “Bob” or “Mike,” departments should consider adopting standardized identifiers tied to the apparatus and assignment. Communications such as Engine 3 Officer, Truck 6 Driver or Rescue 1 Firefighter immediately tell everyone on the incident exactly who is speaking and where they fit within the operation.
That consistency becomes even more valuable during larger incidents involving multiple agencies. Mutual-aid companies don’t know Bob. They don’t know Mike. They probably don’t know the captain who just transferred into your department last month, either. What they do understand are standardized unit identifiers that communicate function rather than familiarity.
Make the radio work for command
Every radio transmission should accomplish something. It should acknowledge an assignment. Request a resource. Communicate a benchmark. Report changing conditions. Confirm accountability. In other words, it should answer a question, not create a new one.
One of the easiest ways to recognize an experienced IC is by listening to what they don’t say. They aren’t filling dead air with unnecessary updates, nor do they expect companies to provide a running commentary of every action they’re taking. Instead, they listen for meaningful benchmark reports that help them build and maintain an accurate picture of the incident. Likewise, company officers should think about what Command actually needs to know:
- “Engine 2 has water on the fire.”
- “Primary search complete.”
- “Division 2 reports all visible fire knocked down.”
Those brief transmissions immediately improve situational awareness. They tell the IC that something important has changed and help shape the next decision. Now compare that with a transmission we’ve probably all heard before.
“Yeah Command, we’re making pretty good progress in here.”
That’s encouraging. It’s also useless.
Progress means something different to every firefighter. One crew’s idea of “good progress” might mean the fire is nearly out. Another crew may simply mean they’ve finally made it to the second floor. The IC shouldn’t have to interpret subjective updates while simultaneously managing strategy, accountability and incoming resources.
A communications SOG should establish the types of benchmark reports expected throughout an incident and encourage firefighters to communicate objective information rather than opinions. Doing so creates a common language that everyone understands and significantly reduces the need for Command to ask follow-up questions.
Give split companies a common identity
As incidents grow, companies are often asked to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Truck companies split between ventilation and search. Rescue companies divide personnel to support different operational objectives. Engine companies may assign one crew to fire attack while another completes utilities or exposure protection.
None of that is unusual. What often becomes confusing is how those crews identify themselves once they’ve separated.
Without a standard, firefighters naturally begin creating identifiers on the fly. One crew becomes “Truck 6 Roof.” Another calls themselves “Truck 6 Interior.” A third simply uses the senior firefighter’s name. While those designations may make sense to the crew using them, they can quickly become difficult for Command, Dispatch and mutual-aid companies to track during a rapidly evolving incident.
A simple solution is to standardize it before the incident ever happens. For example, our department identifies a split crew by adding the designation “X” to the apparatus assignment, such as Truck 6-X or Rescue 1-X. The company officer retains the original apparatus designation while the remaining crew operates under the “X” identifier.
Is “X” the only answer? Of course not. Your department may develop a different system that better fits your operations. The important part isn’t the specific identifier. It’s that everyone knows what it means before the next working fire. Because consistency doesn’t happen on scene. It happens long before the dispatch tones ever drop.
One fireground. One language.
Take a few minutes this week and pull out your department’s communications SOG. Better yet, ask someone where to find it.
Does it clearly define how personnel identify themselves on the radio? Does it establish benchmark reports that help Command build situational awareness? Does it explain how split companies should communicate? Most importantly, does it create a common language that every firefighter understands before the first apparatus ever leaves the station?
If the answer is yes, that’s outstanding. Continue training on it until those communications become second nature. If the answer is no, you’ve probably just identified your department’s next leadership project.
The best communications SOGs don’t try to script every radio transmission. They don’t take the personality out of the fire service, and they certainly don’t replace good judgment. Instead, they establish a framework that allows firefighters to communicate clearly, consistently and predictably when the incident is at its most chaotic.
Fires are unpredictable. Your communications shouldn’t be.
