Specialist Task Force 472
Reference Scenario
Mass Transportation
Accident
STF472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
Reference Scenario
Mass Transportation Accident
 Response Overview
 Information exchanges
 WG advice
 Topology model (considerations)
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
2
MTA Response Overview
Background Support
Information Sources
Assisting
PSAPs/ECCs
Public Safety Answering Point
Service A, B, C
Information
Exchange
Networks/Services
Incident
Commander
Local Authority
Emergency Control Centre
Service A, B, C
Alternative ECCs
(Inter-)National
Resources
Infrastructure
Private Mobile Radio
(Voice)
Individuals
Emergency Task Force
Private Mobile Data
Fixed/Mobile Telephone
(Voice)
Fixed/Mobile Data
Incident Area
Coordinating Field
Emergency Control Centre
Sensors
Service Incident
Commanders
Sector Cmdrs.
Service A
Team Officers
Service A
Sector Emergency Control
Centres Service A
Teams
Service A
Sector 1
Field Emergency Control
Centres Services A, B, C…
Sector Cmdrs.
Service B
Sector Emergency Control
Centres Service B
Team Officers
Service B
Sector …
Sector 2
PMR, trunked mode
Not (yet) widely used
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
PMR, direct mode
(In-)Directly Affected
Individuals
Teams
Service B
Public network
Fixed private network
3
Response Mission Search, Fire, and Rescue
Individuals
Information flow
Authority / Task Force
PSAP
ECC
PSAP/ECC
IC
Incident Area
FECC
Holding Area
FECC
SECC
SECC
Inner Cordon
Extrication and
Height
Rescue
Rescue
Hazard Area
Firefighting CBRN Defence
CCP, Triage &
Registration
Outer Cordon
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
4
Response Mission Casualties Management
Individuals
Information flow
Authority / Task Force
PSAP
Outer Cordon
ECC
PSAP/ECC
Incident Area
IC
FECC
Holding Area
FECC
FECC
Inner Cordon
SECC
SECC
SECC
SECC
Hazard Area
CCP, Triage & Interim Care
Centre
Registration
Transport
Hospitals
Immediate
Unwounded, minor
Interim Shelter
Shelter
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
5
Characterisation of Information Exchanges
 Voice services
 PMR group call channels
 Data services
 Point-to-point data transfer (e.g., ECC sends background information to
CFECC);
 Multi-point-to-point data transfer (e.g., PPE data from team members is sent to
team officer, aggregation of registration and triage data);
 Multi-point-to-multi-point data transfer (e.g., synchronisation of common
operating picture or casualties data between ECC/CFECC/FECCs/SECCs);
 Unidirectional point-to-point streaming (e.g., data generated by sensors);
 Bidirectional point-to-point streaming (e.g., real-time telemedicine applications);
 Multi-point-to-multi-point streaming (e.g., audio/video conference calls).
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
6
SES SatEC WG Advice Required
1. Description of MTA reference scenario

at present descriptions of MTA commonalities and generic response tasks in
TS, but no “real reference scenario”

STF concern: focus on specific MTA setting (e.g., train) could mean loss of
generality

question 1: does the WG prefer a specific setting as requested in the ToR?

question 2: does the WG require with this specific setting a specific
dimensioning (e.g., nbr. of emergency services, nbr. of FECCs)?
2. T2.2 “For each information exchange, a list of user requirements (delay,
reliability) based on user interviews.”

at present qualitative characterisations in TS (e.g., timeliness in
seconds/minutes), but no quantitative information (e.g., bit rate)

STF consideration: quantitative dimensioning in phase 2 after model
parameter identification (see previous slide)

question 3: does the WG support this approach?
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
7
SES SatEC WG Advice Required
3. T4.1: Topology modeling of user deployment and motion

“For four of the missions identified in Phase I, a definition of a topology model
either from the literature or based on end-user interviews.”

question 4: MTA response to be treated as single mission or as set of
separate missions? If separate, for which missions should we develop
topology models?
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
8
Outlook: Topology Model (early draft)
IC
FECC
SIC
PSAP
ECC
FECC
SSC
SSC
SECC
Hazard
Area
SECC
SIC
FECC
Incident
Area
IC: Incident Commander
SIC: Service Incident Commander
SSC: Service Sector Commander
FECC: Field Emergency Control Centre
SECC: Sector Emergency Control Centre
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
9
MTA Model Parameters (early draft)
 size incident area (position and size fixed)
 (number of hazard areas (position fixed, size time-variant))
 number of casualty collection points (number and positions time-variant)
 number of interim care centres (positions fixed, number time-variant)
 number of deployed FECCs/SECCs (positions fixed, number increasing over time)
 number of holding areas (positions fixed, number time-variant)
 number of deployed emergency teams
 number of casualties
 transport capacity and frequency of transports (time-variant)
 number of receiving hospitals
 size of triage data sets (per patient)
 general assumptions about data to be transferred/synchronised (volume, bit rate etc)
Specialist Task Force 472
SES SatEC#26, Florence, Sept. 11th/12th 2014
10