Communications Breakdown: Part 3 (Bonus Video Example)
Due to the popularity of the previous article in this series, we present you with a real life example recorded during One Shepherd’s Fall 2015 field training exercise (FTX). The video was recorded in an S-250 communications shelter. It houses the radio/telephone operator (RTO) equipment used by the tactical operations center (TOC). In this specific example, it depicts a conversation between a team and higher command.
Communications Breakdown: Part 2
In Part 1 of this series, we framed the SOI as to its use and focused on the portions that do not involve a radio. Building upon that knowledge, we’ll discuss Call
Signs, Encryption Code/Authentication Tables, and Brevity Codes. Each of these is a must when communicating over a radio in order to keep your message ambiguous to any unwanted listening ear.
Call Signs:
In most circumstances, call signs are designated by an alpha-numerical group. For instance, in the above example “Y44”, pronounced “Yan-kee Fow-er Fow-er”, represents Higher Command. You will notice that for Squads 2-4 there is no letter assigned to them. This is because they all share the same designation of “B” or “Bravo”. In this situation all squads are represented by “Bravo” and designated by their different numbers. If I wanted to contact Squad 4 I would use the call sign “B22” (Bravo Two Two). Without getting too far into radio etiquette, when we want to contact someone we will say their name twice and our name once as seen below:
“Yankee Four Four, Yankee Four Four, this is Bravo Two One, OVER.”
Encryption Code/ Authentication Table:
This portion serves two different functions: Coding numbers and Authentication. To represent the numbers 0-9, we tend to use a single ten letter word with no repeated letters such as “Binoculars”. You can use a combination of words as long as it totals ten letters and does not repeat any of the letters between the two words as seen above with “Dumbwaiter”. In fact, the authentication table can simply be a combination of ten random letters; however, use of random letters makes memorizing the authentication table extremely difficult.
In the event that you believe someone is using your radio frequency that should not be using it (i.e. – you do not recognize the other person’s voice), you should request an Authentication to make sure they are who they say they are. The Authentication can change with every SOI or can be set as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) by the unit. In this case, the table states that the Authentication is “2 right”. This means that when someone requests an Authentication, you will move two slots to the right and return the letter and number. It will look something like this:
“Bravo Two One, Authenticate ‘Whiskey’, OVER”
“Yankee Four Four, I Authenticate ‘India Seven’, OVER”
You will notice that Higher requested authentication of “W”. From there we moved two positions to the right (2 right) and answer, “I-7”. As stated before, this authentication can be changed with every SOI or can be set in stone. The important thing is that EVERYONE is on the same page with what the authentication process is.
Brevity Codes:
As stated above, SOI can be much more comprehensive. Next we will discuss organization and use of an SOI. Below we see some examples of things you may wish to communicate in a secure manner.
Above are two categories; REQUESTS and SITUATION REPORTS (SITREP). Each message that we wish to send is on the left side of the columns while the code word it corresponds to is on the right side of the columns (i.e. – Situation Report = COLLAR). You will notice that within each category, all of the code words begin with the same letter. This is the chosen organizational method for this specific example. While organizing the categories’ code words is not required, it does make decoding significantly faster. This is due to the fact that if one hears a word that starts with “A” then they know to look under the SITREP column. The best way to understand how to use the SOI is to analyze a few examples.
For instance, let us say Higher Command wants to know where you are in your mission and what you are doing. They would be asking for a Situational Report (SITREP) and you want to tell them that you are at your Objective Rally Point (ORP). With Higher Command in BOLD and you in Italics, the radio traffic would look something like this:
Coded Message:
“Bravo Two One, Bravo Two One, this is Yankee Four Four, OVER”
“Yankee Four Four, this is Bravo Two One, OVER”
“Bravo Two One, message follows, OVER”
“Yankee Four Four, send message, OVER”
“I send, COLLAR, how copy. OVER”
“I copy COLLAR, OVER”
“Good Copy, Over”
“Wait one”
“Yankee Four Four, I send ARMAGEDDON, ARROGANT, ANSWER, how copy, OVER”
“I copy ARMAGEDDON, ARROGANT, ANSWER, OVER”
“Good Copy, OVER”
“Understood, Yankee Four Four, OUT”
Decoded Message:
“Bravo Two One, Bravo Two One, this is Yankee Four Four, OVER”
“Yankee Four Four, this is Bravo Two One, OVER”
“Bravo Two One, message follows, OVER”
- Higher is giving you a heads up that they are about to send a message so that you can get your writing materials ready to copy the message.
“Yankee Four Four, send message, OVER”
- Once you are prepared to copy the message, you tell Higher to send the message.
“I send, COLLAR, how copy. OVER”
“I copy COLLAR, OVER”
“Good Copy, Over”
“Wait one”
- We decode to find out that COLLAR means SITREP. They want a Situation Report
- At this point we want to send that we are “Halted in our Objective Rally Point”, thus we use the codes for Halted, In/At/On, ORP
“Yankee Four Four, I send ARMAGEDDON, ARROGANT, ANSWER, how copy, OVER”
“I copy ARMAGEDDON, ARROGANT, ANSWER, OVER”
“Good Copy, OVER”
- Higher command decodes the message and understands that the patrol is in their ORP. Then sends:
Understood, Yankee Four Four, OUT
As you can see, Higher Command just got a real time situation report from a patrol in a secure manner. Even if the enemy was listening to the transmission, they would have no idea what was being communicated; unless of course they had one of our SOI’s. You will also notice that each time a coded message is sent, it is “copied” by the receiver to ensure that they heard the correct word over the radio. This seems redundant; however, this is the procedure used to ensure that communications are proficient and conveyed correctly. It is simply a procedure to make sure you are decoding the correct information and not recording the wrong code word, adding unnecessary confusion to your communication. Now, it is also important to understand that at times, these messages can be expedited as well. When communicating with someone who is familiar, certain steps can be skilled in order to speed up the communication. This is beneficial as it reduces the “time on the net” which in turn makes it more difficult for the enemy to triangulate your position, should they have the equipment to do so. That, however, is beyond the scope of this article.
Conclusion
An SOI can be as comprehensive or as simple as the mission requires. The important thing is that you have the ability to communicate securely and efficiently. Although technological advancements have allowed today’s militaries to encrypt communications, it is important to understand that technology fails. Yes, you may have a fancy GPS, but you should not solely rely on this equipment. You still carry and remain proficient with a map and compass. The same is true with this form of communication. Regardless of the manner chosen to communicate, the ability to communicate effectively can often times be the essential factor between success and failure. Over my many years of experience in One Shepherd, I cannot think of a single AAR that did not have communication come up as something to improve on. Communication is a force multiplier. Setting up lines of communication, establishing a communications SOP, and securing messages through efficient use of SOI can help any team communicate masterfully. These competencies in communication can be translated to any team, unit, project group, or leadership position. Good leaders acknowledge this fact and continuously seek to communicate more effectively.
The After Action Review (AAR) – A Primer
After Action Reviews – or AAR’s. I see them a lot on blogs and forums. People post their “AAR” of whatever product or experience they came in contact with. You typically see AAR’s on a tactical hard or soft goods and even pistol or rifle courses. This is fairly appropriate as the AAR has it’s roots as a military practice. However, most of these writings are really product reviews labeled as an AAR in an attempt to appear “in the club”. These well meaning write ups often misrepresent the end goal of a real AAR.
Sometimes, in order to describe what something is, we have to identify what it’s not.
The AAR is a tool used by leadership to improve the effectiveness of the team they lead. As the name implies, this review process takes place after the particular action has already taken place. The AAR is actually a four step process. It really is worthy of a class all to itself so we won’t be discussing how to conduct one in this article. However, we can learn from it’s basic principles. The AAR is for the benefit of the team or teams involved. It is not necessarily for those outside of that group, though we can certainly learn from the experiences of others. In order to have meaningful participation in the AAR process, you have to understand the plan that was to be carried out.
You can’t do that if you don’t know what the plan was! If you weren’t there, you don’t actively participate.
Along that note, it’s very tempting to identify what you would have done differently and how it would have changed the outcome to a more positive one. It’s very tempting to play Armchair General. A word of caution to that – your opinion likely matters very little, since you weren’t privy to the particular Operations Order that preceded whatever event you are critiquing. Your review of a situation is always tricky if you weren’t there. Even if you were, be careful. I’ve been in firefights where the guy at the other end of the line 30m away had a completely different story to tell compared to what I did. Just look at the two different accounts of the raid against UBL and those guys were practically shoulder to shoulder.
It’s easy to say what you would have done, but you didn’t experience the same thing – that’s impossible. You can use it to stimulate thought and reflect internally on how you might bring about improvement.
Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from the experiences of others. We most certainly can and that is encouraged. That is a different process though and is rather personal. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion on a particular event in history. However, the AAR is most decidedly not one’s opinion. One of critical tasks for an AAR facilitator is to steer emotion out of the discussion unless it was absolutely vital in the decision making process that followed.
The AAR is about redemption and positive reinforcement for the next time. It is not a medium by which to point fingers and place blame. Anyone who facilitates a real AAR will squash this type of behavior immediately.
Storytelling is a powerful way to convey an experience. The AAR should be a safe place to share your viewpoint on the operation. Be honest, be concise. Tell your story, but be sure to make it pertinent to the rest of the group. Telling the group how awesome your reload was isn’t helpful – unless you are confirming the effectiveness of training you received. Neither is telling the group how awfully they conducted a battle drill – unless you specifically rehearsed that before hand. There is a balance you must find.
With the right leadership, an AAR can be an effective tool for continuous improvement. In the wrong hands, it’s used to place blame. It can be used by anyone from little league coaches to corporate executives. What’s important is, regardless of what review tool you choose to use, be sure that it’s done for the betterment of the group – not to absolve the leader from the responsibility. If a leader isn’t there to be a servant those under his command, no review tool including the AAR can help.
Communications Breakdown: Part 1
The ability to communicate effectively is arguably the most important asset to any entity seeking to obtain a certain goal. Without communication the ability to relay ideas and goals to coworkers and teammates is nullified. Without properly conveying these ideas and goals to our team we fail to reach enabling and terminal objectives. It is not enough to simply open up a line of communication for the purposes of light fighting. A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) must be established in order to make communications seamless and proficient. Establishing a pattern or sequence for communication allows us to communicate successfully with other teammates. Standardizing communication is especially important because we may not even know those receiving our message very well. If communication was not standardized, efficiencies of time and message would be lost.
Communication is used in order to coordinate and assign tasks, as well as to maintain situational awareness of teams. In several circumstances we seek to keep our communications proprietary; couples do not openly discuss their finances, businesses try to keep their newest ideas secret from their competitors so that they may gain advantage in the marketplace. The idea of shielding one’s communication is evident in almost any situation in which communication is involved. In the military, this idea is condensed to Operational Security (OPSEC). In communications, OPSEC is maintained through the application of Cryptology; the study of codes.
In World War II, the Japanese could virtually decipher every code the United States was using to communicate, thus operational success suffered. The Japanese knew when, where, and what U.S. forces planned to do as a result of the compromised communications. It does not matter how big a hammer you have, if your opponent knows when and where you plan to use it, that hammer is rendered ineffective. The introduction of the Navajo Code Talkers by U.S. forces effectively secured communications against Japanese Intelligence.
The Navajo Code Talker’s Dictionary is an example of Signal Operating Instructions (SOI). An SOI decreases the time on the net (radio frequency) by shortening the length of messages and, more importantly, allowing the user to communicate in a secure manner on an otherwise insecure net. The complexity of an SOI varies depending on the mission and unit. For instance, the nature of one mission may require a large amount of time when radio communications are forbidden. In other words, the unit needs to maintain radio silence so as not to alert the opposing forces of friendly activity. Some prefer a short SOI with just a few brevity codes, while others prefer a more robust and comprehensive SOI. The contemporary age has afforded advances in cryptology that have made this form of communication all but obsolete. Encrypted radio signals no longer require militaries to code their messages when facing a less technologically advanced enemy. Regardless, there are several instances where this technology can fail or be rendered obsolete. Plus, not everyone has access to top-of-the-line communications equipment. Thus, the study and use of an SOI is still quite valuable; especially in a leadership capacity.
One of the most noticeable traits of good leaders is their ability to communicate effectively. This entails the ability to express their vision through Commander’s Intent (CI) as well as disseminate information under stress. In One Shepherd’s Technical Institute of Leadership, we apply the use of SOI during training to not only shield communications from the Opposing Force (OPFOR), but also to facilitate our student leaders in learning how to communicate effectively under stress. Using an SOI in stressful situations forces the user to condense the message down to its simplest form. Thus, teaching leaders the art of clear and concise communication. In order for leaders to apply the use of SOI, they must first learn its composition and how to employ it.
So what goes into an SOI? Due to the comprehensive nature of this topic, this article will condense the information into five main points; Call Signs, SOI Timeline, Encryption Code/ Authentication Table, Passwords, and Brevity Codes. An example of SOI will help gain a more comprehensive understanding of its use.
Example format of the “required” information in an SOI.
Not every member of the patrol carries a radio, but every member must be familiar with the SOI should they be the one to need to communicate using the radio. Part 1 of this article will focus on the portions that every member of the patrol must be familiar with as they are explicitly non-radio based – the SOI Timeline and Passwords.
SOI Timeline:
This section is rather intuitive. By extensive use of the same SOI, the opposition is allotted the time and repetitiveness to decipher our SOI. Thus, an SOI is only used for a designated time; often 24 hours. In the above timeline, you should observe that the SOI is in effect starting at 071630SNOV14. This is a Date Time Group (DTG) of the form DDHHMMT MM YY. So the first part “07” represents the 7th day. The next four numbers represent the time “1630” or 4:30 P.M. Next we have “S” which is the Time Zone designator for Central Time. “NOV” represents the month of November and finally “14” indicates the year 2014. So putting everything together we get that the date time group is saying that the SOI will go in effect at 16:30 Central time on the 7th of November, 2014.
Passwords:
When linking up with another unit, each other, or simply making contact with another person in the field, it is imperative to immediately identify whether they are “friend or foe”. We do this through Challenge and Passwords. An all too familiar Challenge and Password is that of the Allied forces during WWII – Thunder and Flash. The movie Saving Private Ryan contains several classic examples of passage of lines. Passage of lines is conducted several times with the Challenge and Password to confirm the identity of each other. This film contains a fatal flaw. When giving a challenge and password it would be extremely easy to pick-up the challenge of ‘thunder’ and the password of ‘flash’. The proper (more secure) way of conducting the challenge and password would be to incorporate the two words into a sentence. Using the example table from above, it may look something like this:
Challenge
“Halt! Did you find the Badger in the garden?”
Password
“Nah, but we did locate a Priest so that Joe can go to confession”
The incorporation of the Challenge and Password into a sentences make it less obvious to a spy/ scout/ or enemy nearby. Another important step to this process is to inform the challenger of how many people you have with you so they may count them in. This is a procedure used to maintain a unit head count as well as keep an enemy spy from infiltrating your patrol; however unlikely it may be. Sometimes we know that we are going to make contact with another unit and we do not have the time and luxury of stopping and having this dialogue. In situations like this, we use what we call a running password. When using a running password you continuously yell out the word AND the number of people you have with you. A fellow warrior you are running towards hears you call out the running password, he knows you are friendly and that you are in a hurry. Secondly, he hears you call out a number and he knows how many friendlies are following you. For instance, you hear “Popcorn 5, Popcorn 5…” You know that 5 friendlies are coming in. Any one after that is considered an enemy.
“One, Two, Three, Four, and Five……… wait Six? (BANG!!!)”
The other password you see in the table is the number combination. With the number combination, the sum of the challenge and password must equal the designated number. Above we have the number combination of “Five”. The challenge can be anything less than five and the password has to be the number that creates the sum of five (i.e. – Challenge “2”, so Password is “3”; 2+3 = 5). While not necessarily required, you should incorporate these numbers into a sentence similar to the Challenge and Password from before. Using the same number combination, 5, it may look something like this:
Challenge
“Halt! Did you get those 4 apples I asked for?
Password
“Yes, and I found 1 raccoon too!”
Here we can see that 4 and 1 add to make 5, thus completing the number combination. While you can standardize when, or even if, you use each type of password, the general rule of thumb is that number combinations are used behind enemy lines and the Challenge and Password is used behind friendly lines.
Conclusion: Part 1
Every member of the patrol should be familiar with the Timeline and Password portions of the SOI. These basic building blocks should be rehearsed prior to step off and the patrol leader should quiz the members of the patrol on these two areas during the pre-combat inspection (PCI). Without these communication control measures in place, the entire operation can be compromised should an enemy sneak into your patrol. Even worse is avoidable fratricide. Learn and practice these basic concepts first, and you’ll be well on your way to maintaining solid communications with your team.
After Action Review: Process-Oriented Enhanced Performance
There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time. – Malcolm X
The US Army has used the After Action Review (AAR) since the end of the Second World War, although this process did not become institutionalized within the Army until the onset of the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, CA in 1981. Notably, the AAR achieved the rare feat of instantaneous and unanimous hatred.
The AAR was despised by all. Battalion commanders, late-career lieutenant colonels, left the AAR tent in tears. Captains got into fistfights with senior NCOs in middle of the AAR process.
The AAR process seemed doomed to rejection, and yet today it would be very difficult to think of any military training program that didn’t incorporate the AAR process. It just required a little time to adjust our attitude toward criticism, and develop a culture around the AAR.
Let’s be clear, no one likes to fail. No one. And having another professional – a supervisor, subordinate or peer point out our failures publicly is humiliating. It humbles us as warriors.
If that is all we intend to achieve, to humiliate fellow warriors, then let us never employ the AAR again! If we are seeking blame, then lay blame. Don’t bother with anything so academic or constructive as the AAR. If it is blame we are seeking, then let’s wallow in the muck of despair and depraved, vindictive wickedness.
For the AAR is an exalted tradition. It is not about blame – instead it is about redemption.
Accordingly, if it is a process-oriented team-building performance enhancement we are seeking, then the AAR can get us there. We must embrace humility and remain diligently focused on redeeming our performance as a team.
The AAR follows a simple but effective four-step process. When available, a facilitator from outside the team is employed to regulate the flow of the AAR.
The Plan
In this step of the process the leader – defined as the individual responsible for developing Paragraph 3. Execution of the Operation Order (OPORD) – briefs the plan.
What normally happens at this point is that the leader begins back-peddling, or rationalizing his plan, or the leader may attempt to explain what did and didn’t go to plan from his perspective. This is understandable because the leader pours considerable time and effort into the plan, and feels that he should offer some insight into his thinking. Perhaps that might help.
Do NOT do this! Do not allow the leader to rationalize, explain, or even discuss what happened during the execution phase of the mission. The plan is the plan. The leader only discusses the planning phase at this point of the AAR.
This is important because the plan must be kept separate from the execution in discussion. We will invariably see that the plan does not perfectly match the execution phase of the mission, and the entire AAR process is focused on the gap between the plan and the performance!
So don’t discuss the performance at all. Not in the first step of the process. This cannot be overemphasized. The leader briefly explains the plan, and only the plan.
Now also watch other team members for a specific reaction when the leader is explaining his or her plan. Often enough, we will see confusion on at least one persons face during the leader’s explanation. Some troops might even interrupt the leader or turn to one another and say, “Really? I didn’t know that was part of the plan.”
This is critical, because it might very well mean that the team is experiencing a problem with the communication of the plan – regardless of how valid the plan was or wasn’t.
The Performance
Once the leader has given a brief explanation of the plan, the AAR facilitator opens the floor to the second part of the process, the discussion on the performance of the mission.
A simple technique is for the facilitator to ask, “Is that the plan everyone understood before the mission began?” This will almost always get the discussion rolling.
Can the leader take part in the discussion on performance in the field? Yes. Absolutely and the leader’s input is encouraged. But there is one caveat; the leader should not attempt to defend or explain his plan.
Instead, it is good practice to have the leader participate in this discussion of the team’s performance by asking questions rather than making statements. The point here is for the leader not to be confrontational, and not to defend his or her actions.
What happens during this discussion is that we find the age-old Clausewitz axiom still holds true, “No plan survives the first shot.” There will inevitably be a gap between the plan and the performance. More shocking still, sometimes the gap is a positive gap, meaning the team does far better in performance than anyone expected. There are lessons here, too.
The Issues
At this point in the discussion the normal human tendency is to begin to explore what caused the gap between the plan and the performance. What issues gave cause to that gap?
Sometimes the issues are immediately apparent. If team members are saying, “I didn’t know that was our plan” during the first step of the AAR then it’s pretty obvious in the third step, the issues, that communicating the plan didn’t go so well. Now we have to determine why.
Sometimes the issues aren’t immediately apparent. This takes some brainstorming as a team. It means being brutally honest, even when it’s painful to do so. Redemption can only be achieved through candid reflection and accounting of our performance.
The Fix
Once we have identified the issue, we need a fix. Let’s be very clear here, the fix is not some obtuse comment to the sum of “oh, I guess I shouldn’t do it that way next time.” Nope. The fix is achieved with an assigned name and date/time due.
It is sometimes the case that we don’t even know what the fix will entail. But with an assigned name and date/time due we can still rest assured that we will address the issue. For example, if the issue is a radio procedure that breaks communication security (COMSEC) then we can turn to the team’s RTO and say, “Corporal Espinoza will have a fix for this issue at 0900 Friday morning.”
Until we have a fix in place, we have not addressed the issue. Merely complaining about the issue is not a fix. Don’t assume that it has been addressed simply because we all agree.
Will we always agree on the issues and fixes? No. Consensus is good, but not required. If the leader is satisfied that this is the correct issue and fix, so be it. It will soon be put to the test again, and the leader is ultimately responsible for the success of the mission.
Do all issues require improvement as a fix? No. Fixes come in either an identified need to improve a deficiency, or an identified success to sustain. Fixes can be either an “improve” or “sustain”.
We must not be afraid to take account of our successes, too. This is prudent and wise.
What the AAR is not…
In our enthusiasm for performance enhancement the US military has culturally embraced the AAR process. Yet the term “AAR” now generically refers to many forms of feedback. Regrettably this causes more harm than good.
The AAR is not a “hot wash”. The hot wash is a viable feedback function by which an assigned Observer-Controller (OC) in the role of either a mentor or facilitator offers their perspective to the team. This perspective comes most commonly in the format of “three up, three down” – meaning the OC offers three issues the team needs to improve upon and three issues the team needs to sustain. And again, the hot wash can be a valuable form of feedback. But the hot wash is an external perspective, outside the team. It is not the sort of tradition of reflective practitioner that the AAR offers.
The AAR is not a “sensing session”. This form of feedback is intended to help the command team or a training institution address shortcomings. Again, the sensing session is a viable form of feedback and it does come from within the team or student body. But because there is no clearly defined plan to be compared to the performance, the sensing session does not explore a gap in performance. Nor does the sensing session address the specific fix through an assigned name and date/time due. At least it does not do so for the sake of team members or student body of an institution.
The AAR is a process-based performance enhancement tradition. It is achieved internally to the team and requires a candid reflection and inventory of our performance as compared to our plan. Yet we must also be diligent in keeping this valuable tradition of feedback from becoming a blame-game intended on humiliating fellow warriors. If the AAR turns to this, it will fail in its purpose. That purpose is the redemption of our team on our path to excellence.
This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.
Hand and Arm Signals
[swf src=”https://warnerds.com/wp-content/uploads/handandarm_form.swf” height=”750″ width=”1000″][/swf]
This article was originally published on odjournal.com (Olive Drab: the journal of tactics) and has been transferred here with permission.