Plans Are Built Before Emergencies

One of the most common questions people ask when they begin thinking about emergency communications is surprisingly similar to one we explored in an earlier article.

"What radio should I buy?"

It is a reasonable question, but it is rarely the right place to begin.

Spend enough time on YouTube, amateur radio forums, or preparedness websites and you will quickly discover no shortage of opinions. One person recommends a particular handheld radio, another insists that mobile equipment is essential, or someone else argues that satellite communications have made traditional radio obsolete. Before long, the discussion becomes centered on equipment specifications, antenna choices, battery capacity, and accessories.

These conversations are not without value because equipment does matter, and selecting the right tools is an important part of any communications plan. However, the problem is that equipment cannot answer questions that have never been asked.

Throughout Signal in the Storm, one principle has appeared repeatedly, that systems should be built around objectives rather than assumptions, and communications planning is no different. A radio, no matter how capable, cannot tell you who needs to be contacted, what information is important, where family members should meet, or what alternatives exist if your primary method of communication becomes unavailable. Those decisions must be made before an emergency occurs.

The temptation to begin with equipment is understandable because purchasing a radio is tangible, and planning is not. Sometimes, it requires discussing difficult scenarios with family members, identifying weaknesses, and accepting that no plan will ever be perfect. Buying equipment often feels like progress, while planning, by comparison, can feel slow and abstract. Ironically, planning is the more difficult, and often the more valuable part of the process.

This became evident while researching disaster communications several years ago. During that research, I came across a paper written by Bob Dyruff, W6POU, who spent many years working alongside government agencies and volunteer organizations involved in emergency communications. Rather than focusing on specific radios or technologies, he described the communications challenges that repeatedly emerge during large-scale disasters. His observations were notable because they shifted attention away from equipment and toward the realities that responders and citizens face once normal systems begin to break down, and that perspective remains just as relevant today.

Whether the emergency is a wildfire, hurricane, earthquake, flood, severe winter storm, or another large-scale event, the communications challenges are often remarkably similar, in that infrastructure may be damaged; roads may become impassable, electrical power may be interrupted, cellular networks may become congested or unavailable, and information may become scarce precisely when people need it most. These conditions cannot be prevented, they can, however, be anticipated.

A communications plan should therefore be viewed less as a checklist of equipment, and more as a framework for making decisions under uncertain conditions. The objective is not to predict every possible emergency, it's to reduce confusion when circumstances become unpredictable. That begins by asking a different set of questions, not, "What radio should I buy?" But rather: "What am I trying to accomplish?"

Start With the Mission, Not the Gear

Every effective communications plan begins with a clearly defined mission. For example, military organizations, emergency management agencies, search-and-rescue teams, and incident management organizations all begin planning in much the same way. Before discussing equipment, they first define the objective, and after the mission is understood do they begin selecting the resources needed to accomplish it.

Individuals and families benefit from the same approach. Suppose a wildfire is moving toward your community and evacuation becomes necessary. What is the first communications problem you are trying to solve? For most people, it is not establishing long-distance radio communications, it is accounting for family members. Can everyone be reached? Does everyone know where to go? What happens if cellular service becomes unavailable? Is there a predetermined rally point? Who is responsible for checking on elderly relatives, neighbors, or friends who may need assistance?

These are planning questions; the radios come later. This distinction may seem subtle, but it changes the entire planning process. Because once the objective is clearly defined, communications requirements begin to emerge naturally. If your primary concern is coordinating family members within a neighborhood during a power outage, relatively simple solutions such as Family Radio Service (FRS) or General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) radios may be entirely sufficient. If your objective involves maintaining regional communications across greater distances, amateur radio may become a more appropriate tool. Or, if you frequently travel through remote areas with limited infrastructure, satellite communications may deserve consideration.

Another useful exercise is to identify the information that will matter most during the first few hours of an emergency. Who has evacuated safely? Which routes remain open? Where should everyone meet if normal travel becomes impossible? Which hospitals are operational? What shelter locations have been established? Where can reliable information be obtained if rumors begin circulating? Notice that none of these questions require a specific brand of radio to answer; they only require planning.

This is one reason communications planning often proves more challenging than purchasing equipment. There is no universal checklist that applies equally to every family, every community, or every emergency. A family living in a densely populated urban area will likely face different communications challenges than someone living in a rural mountain valley. Geography, infrastructure, climate, transportation networks, and local hazards all influence what a realistic plan should look like.

Planning therefore becomes an exercise in understanding your own circumstances rather than copying someone else's equipment list. That idea may not be as exciting as discussing the latest radio or digital communications technology, but it reflects an important truth. That, capability begins long before the first transmission is ever made. It begins by understanding the mission, identifying the people you are responsible for, and determining what information will be needed when normal routines are suddenly interrupted. Only then does it make sense to ask which communications tools are most appropriate, because when an emergency occurs, your equipment will support your plan.

What the First 72 Hours Really Look Like

When most people imagine a disaster, they tend to picture a single dramatic event. A powerful earthquake strikes without warning. A wildfire races over the ridgeline, a hurricane makes landfall, or a tornado that tears through a neighborhood. In each case, the event itself dominates our attention. In reality, the event is often only the beginning, because what follows is a period of uncertainty during which information becomes scarce, communications become inconsistent, and emergency services must rapidly prioritize competing demands. It is this period, often described as the first seventy-two hours, that presents some of the greatest challenges for both responders and the public.

One of the most common misconceptions is that disasters immediately cause complete communications failure. Sometimes that happens, but more often communications become degraded rather than eliminated. Cellular networks may continue operating but become overwhelmed as thousands of people simultaneously attempt to call family members. Text messages may arrive hours late instead of within seconds. Internet service may remain available in one part of a community while another neighborhood experiences complete outages. Electrical power may be restored to critical infrastructure long before residential areas receive service.

From the perspective of the individual, the distinction may matter very little whether communications are unavailable because a network has failed, or because everyone is trying to use it at the same time, but the result is often the same, that you cannot obtain the information you need when you need it. This is why realistic expectations are so important.

Many emergency communications plans assume that if one system fails, another system will immediately take its place, and the historical record suggests that transitions are rarely that smooth. During major incidents, public safety agencies are simultaneously responding to life-threatening emergencies, assessing damage, coordinating mutual aid, managing evacuations, restoring infrastructure, and communicating with multiple levels of government. Their priorities are necessarily different from yours, and that is not a criticism, it's simply the reality of managing limited resources during rapidly evolving situations.

Bob Dyruff observed that large-scale disasters frequently overwhelm available communications resources during the initial response period. For example, radio systems become heavily utilized, telephone networks experience extraordinary demand, damage assessments take time to complete, and information often arrives in fragments rather than as a complete picture. Even experienced emergency managers must make decisions with incomplete information while conditions continue changing around them.

The public experiences a similar challenge, because reliable information can become difficult to distinguish from speculation. Rumors spread quickly, particularly through social media, where incomplete reports can circulate far faster than official updates. One person reports that a bridge has collapsed. Another claims an evacuation route is closed. Someone shares an image from a previous disaster without realizing it is years old. Well-intentioned people repeat information that has not yet been verified, often increasing confusion rather than reducing it.

Additionally, information scarcity creates its own form of stress, because when people cannot determine what is happening, they naturally begin filling the gaps with assumptions. This is one reason communications planning extends beyond radios and frequencies, and also involves identifying reliable sources of information before they are needed. Where will official evacuation notices originate? Which local agencies provide trustworthy updates? What amateur radio nets routinely share emergency information? Which family member serves as the primary point of contact if everyone becomes separated? Answering these questions ahead of time reduces uncertainty when uncertainty is already in abundant supply.

Another reality of the first seventy-two hours, is that outside assistance may not arrive as quickly as many people expect. Emergency responders are trained to prioritize incidents where lives are immediately at risk. Roads may be blocked, utility crews may need to restore critical infrastructure before reaching individual neighborhoods, shelters require time to establish, and damage assessments must be completed before resources can be allocated effectively. None of this suggests that emergency services are ineffective, it just demonstrates the scale of the challenge they face.

Preparedness has never been about replacing professional responders, it has always been about bridging the gap until those responders are able to help. And a realistic communications plan acknowledges this period of uncertainty. It assumes that information may be incomplete, that preferred communications systems may be congested, and it assumes that family members may need to make decisions without immediate outside guidance. Most importantly, it recognizes that the first seventy-two hours are often characterized less by complete system failure than by incomplete information, competing priorities, and the gradual restoration of order.

Understanding those realities can positively impact how we prepare. Rather than hoping communications will remain unaffected, we begin asking a more productive question, "if information becomes scarce, how will we continue making informed decisions?" Answering that question requires looking beyond the disaster itself, and turning our attention to something much closer to home, our own operating environment.

Build Your Plan Around Your Environment

No two communities face exactly the same communications challenges. A preparedness plan that works well in a coastal city, may be poorly suited to a rural mountain community. Likewise, a communications strategy developed for the Midwest may require adjustments before it becomes practical in the deserts of Nevada, or the forests of the Pacific Northwest. This is one reason there is no universal communications plan, and every plan is local.

One of the most valuable planning tools available is something emergency managers, military planners, and search-and-rescue organizations have relied upon for decades, an area study. The term may sound formal, but the concept is straightforward. Before deciding how you intend to communicate during an emergency, take the time to understand the environment in which that communication must occur.

Begin with geography. Terrain has a tremendous influence on radio communications; mountains, canyons, dense forests, and urban skylines all affect how radio signals propagate. A handheld radio that performs well across an open valley may struggle to reach someone on the opposite side of a ridgeline. Likewise, a repeater that provides excellent coverage in one community may leave significant dead zones only a few miles away.

In northern Nevada, for example, the surrounding mountain ranges create both opportunities and challenges. Elevated repeater sites can provide exceptional regional coverage under normal conditions, but line-of-sight limitations still influence direct radio-to-radio communication. Valleys that appear close together on a map may be effectively isolated by terrain unless a repeater or another relay point is available.

Understanding those characteristics before an emergency allows realistic expectations to replace optimistic assumptions, and infrastructure deserves the same level of attention. Where are the major highways? Which roads are most likely to become congested during an evacuation? Which bridges or intersections represent critical choke points? Where are hospitals, fire stations, shelters, fuel stations, and emergency operations centers located?

These questions may appear unrelated to communications at first, but they directly influence how people move, where they gather, and what information becomes most valuable during an emergency. Communications exist to support decisions, and the better we understand the environment in which those decisions will be made, the more effective our communications plans become.

Hazards should also be considered. Every region has its own collection of likely risks, and in some areas, hurricanes dominate planning discussions. Elsewhere, earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding, severe winter storms, or wildfires may represent the greater concern.

The objective is not to prepare equally for every conceivable event, it's to understand which events are most likely to affect your community, and how those events might influence communications. A wildfire may force evacuations with little warning while simultaneously damaging electrical infrastructure. A winter storm may leave roads impassable even though communications systems remain largely intact. Or, a prolonged power outage may interrupt internet service without affecting amateur radio operations. Each situation presents different communications requirements because each alters the operating environment in different ways. An area study should also include communications resources themselves.

Identify local amateur radio repeaters and understand their normal coverage areas. Learn which repeaters remain operational during commercial power outages and which rely entirely on utility power. Become familiar with local GMRS repeaters if they are available, and note areas where cellular coverage becomes unreliable during routine travel. If your community has emergency alert systems or amateur radio emergency nets, understand how they operate before an emergency occurs.

None of this requires sophisticated equipment, it only requires observation. Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of an area study is simply paying attention during everyday life. Notice where your cellular phone consistently loses signal. Pay attention to alternate routes around construction zones and traffic bottlenecks. Observe how weather affects travel through your community. And become familiar with the neighborhoods, parks, schools, and public buildings that might serve as meeting locations if circumstances require them.

These small observations accumulate over time, and eventually, they become local knowledge. And that knowledge is difficult to replace during an emergency because it cannot be downloaded after the fact. Like every other aspect of preparedness, it must be developed beforehand, and that is why communications planning is ultimately about much more than radios. The most capable communicator is not necessarily the person with the most expensive equipment, it is the person who understands the environment in which that equipment must operate.

Once you understand your mission and your operating environment, the next step becomes much clearer. Rather than relying on a single communications method, you can begin building layers of capability that support one another when conditions inevitably change.

Layer Your Communications

By this point, the communications plan is beginning to take shape. You have identified your objectives. You understand your operating environment. You have considered the types of disruptions most likely to affect your community. The next step is deciding how you intend to communicate when conditions change. One of the most practical planning tools available for this purpose is a PACE plan.

PACE stands for Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency. While the concept originated in military communications planning, its value extends well beyond military operations. At its core, a PACE plan recognizes a simple reality, that no communications method is guaranteed to remain available under every circumstance. Rather than placing complete confidence in a single system, a PACE plan establishes multiple ways to accomplish the same objective. The Primary method is the communications system you expect to use under normal conditions. For most families today, this will likely be the cellular telephone. It is familiar, convenient, and generally reliable. Under ordinary circumstances, there is little reason to complicate something that already works well.

The Alternate method provides another means of communication should the Primary system become unavailable or unreliable. For some families, this may be a set of GMRS radios. Others may choose amateur radio, satellite messaging, or another technology that better fits their environment and objectives. The important point is not which technology occupies the Alternate position, it is that one has been identified before it is needed.

The Contingency method anticipates further degradation. Perhaps the cellular network remains unavailable, batteries have become depleted, or family members have become separated beyond the practical range of handheld radios. At this stage, the communications plan shifts from convenience toward resilience. Scheduled check-in times, designated relay stations, local repeaters, or neighborhood contacts may all become valuable components of the plan.

Finally, the Emergency method represents the last available option if all previous methods have failed. This may be as simple as predetermined rally points and written instructions left at agreed-upon locations. It may involve traveling to a specific location at a predetermined time each day until contact is reestablished. Sometimes the oldest communications methods remain the most dependable because they require no infrastructure at all.

The value of a PACE plan is not that it guarantees communication, because nothing can make that promise. Its value lies in reducing uncertainty, and helping ensure that everyone involved understands what comes next if the previous method no longer works. This helps reduce unnecessary guesswork during an already stressful situation. The concept also reinforces another principle that has appeared repeatedly throughout Signal in the Storm, that capability is rarely created by adding complexity.

More often, it is created by removing uncertainty, and a layered communications plan should extend beyond equipment, it should include procedures. Suppose a family becomes separated during an evacuation. Who attempts to contact whom first? How long should someone wait before moving to the next communications method? Where is the primary rally point? What if that location becomes inaccessible? Who serves as the out-of-area contact?

These questions are every bit as important as choosing radios or programming frequencies. In fact, they are often more important. One useful exercise is to imagine a communications failure occurring at the least convenient possible moment. Children are at school, one parent is at work, another family member is traveling across town, and cellular service suddenly becomes unavailable. What happens next? If the answer is, "we'll figure it out," the plan probably needs additional work. If the answer is already written down, discussed, and understood by everyone involved, the communications plan has begun serving its intended purpose. Equipment supports those decisions, it does not replace them.

Practice Before You Need It

A communications plan that exists only on paper provides very little value. Like any other skill, communications plans must be practiced if they are expected to function reliably under less-than-ideal conditions. This is one of the easiest aspects of preparedness to overlook, because writing a plan and purchasing equipment may feel productive, but actually testing the plan requires time, coordination, and the willingness to discover that some assumptions were incorrect. That is precisely why practice matters, because the purpose of an exercise is not to confirm that the plan is perfect, it's to discover its weaknesses while the consequences remain small.

Perhaps a family member cannot remember which radio channel was selected, or a planned rally point is unexpectedly inaccessible because of road construction. Maybe a repeater that appears reliable during the week experiences heavy congestion during a community event, or batteries that were expected to last all weekend are exhausted after only a few hours of regular use. These are not failures, they are valuable observations, and each one improves the plan before circumstances make those lessons more expensive.

Fortunately, meaningful practice does not require elaborate exercises, and simple activities often reveal the most useful information. Take handheld radios on a hike and observe where terrain interrupts communications, drive the routes identified in your evacuation plan and note areas where cellular coverage becomes unreliable. Practice contacting family members using the communications methods identified in your PACE plan, and update frequencies, telephone numbers, and contact lists as circumstances change. If you participate in amateur radio, check into local nets regularly rather than waiting for an emergency to become familiar with procedures, because these small exercises gradually replace assumptions with experience.

When people have practiced together, they are far less likely to waste valuable time debating what to do next because those decisions have already been made, and this is another reason planning should remain flexible. Because communities change, roads are expanded, new repeaters come online while older ones are decommissioned, families move, children grow older, and communications technology continues evolving. A plan written five years ago may no longer reflect today's reality, and preparedness is therefore not a one-time project.

It is an ongoing process of observation, refinement, and adaptation, and that process should never become overly complicated. The objective is not to produce a three-ring binder filled with procedures that no one remembers, it's to develop a communications plan that is realistic enough to be understood, simple enough to be followed, and flexible enough to adapt when circumstances inevitably change.

In many respects, communications planning follows the same philosophy as preparedness itself, in that, we cannot eliminate uncertainty. However, we can reduce the number of decisions that must be made while uncertainty is unfolding. That may be one of the greatest benefits of planning before the storm arrives, because it allows clear thinking to take place before clear thinking becomes difficult.

Conclusion: Planning Creates Options

Disasters have a way of exposing assumptions, because they reveal which systems are resilient, which plans were realistic, and which preparations existed only in theory. Communications are no exception, and it's easy to assume that cellular networks will always be available, that emergency services will arrive quickly, or that family members will naturally know what to do when routines are suddenly interrupted.

Throughout this article, we have explored a simple progression. Begin with the mission, understand the operating environment, develop realistic expectations for the first seventy-two hours, build a layered communications plan, and practice before circumstances require you to rely upon it. None of these steps guarantees success, but that has never been the objective. Because preparedness is not about eliminating uncertainty, it is about reducing unnecessary uncertainty wherever possible.

One of the recurring themes throughout the Signal in the Storm series has been that systems matter more than individual pieces of equipment. Communications planning illustrates that principle particularly well, because a modest radio incorporated into a thoughtful plan will almost always prove more valuable than expensive equipment purchased without a clearly defined purpose. Likewise, a family that has discussed rally points, practiced alternate methods of communication, and understands what to do if separated is likely to respond more effectively than one relying entirely on improvisation. The plan creates the capability, and the equipment supports the plan.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of communications planning is not the radios themselves, it is the confidence that comes from replacing assumptions with deliberate decisions. When everyone involved understands the objective, knows the available communications methods, and has already considered what to do if those methods begin to fail, uncertainty begins to lose some of its influence. That confidence cannot be purchased, it must be built.

No one can predict the next wildfire, earthquake, hurricane, flood, or prolonged power outage. We cannot know which roads will be closed, which communications systems will remain operational, or how long recovery efforts may take. What we can do is decide whether those uncertainties will be the first time we think seriously about communication.

The best communications plans are not written during emergencies. They are built long before the storm arrives.

—PCG