O
n October 2013, in Sandbornton, N.H., a man shot at a school bus with a toy “airsoft” gun because students made “obscene gestures” at him.
In Philadelphia in August 2011, a passenger chastised a mother on a public transit bus for spanking her child. Te mother made a call, and when she got to her stop, some men sprayed the bus with rifle fire. No one was hurt. In the May 1970 Avivim School Bus Massacre, a
bus carrying 37 people was ambushed by a Palestinian terrorist group. With guns and bazooka fire, the attackers wounded 25 and killed 12, including nine children. After the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting and the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, major changes to active-shooter preparation and response has occurred in many communities. We have extensively researched these and more common weapons situations. We will focus on what we know works under field condi- tions through careful evaluation in contrast to theoretical emotional approaches. Te above situations demonstrate that incidents of bus violence can be dynamic and diverse. In his book, “Streetlights and Shadows — Search for the Keys of Adaptive Decision Making,” Dr. Gary Klein cautions, “In complex situations, people will need judgment skills to follow procedures effectively, and to go beyond them when necessary.” Our research and direct experience with seven K-12 active shooter incidents, 300 other school and school bus-related weapons incidents and nearly 4,000 one-on-one crisis simulations, lead us to conclude that focusing intently on active shooter training for school bus drivers is less reliable. Tese approaches could also increase danger in some situations. Research shows that if the majority of training for
school bus weapons incidents is centered on active shooter situations, it will be less effective than broader approaches. To put it bluntly, due to the way the brain works under stress, focusing on a limited range of specific situations to the exclusion of more common violence could cost lives. While there is a body of experience and limited
research to support some techniques being taught in some active shooter programs, most have been derived from concepts used by elite military and law enforcement tactical teams. Te background of a Navy SEAL is quite different from that of the average school bus driver. It is questionable at best whether such techniques are suitable for use by personnel who do not have the physical, experi- ential or mental stress inoculation training for approaches that involve attacking an armed aggressor as a last resort.
How much training is needed for relatively predictable outcomes?
While researching our new book, "Staying Alive —
How to Act Fast and Survive Deadly Encounters," we interviewed a variety of subject matter experts including Tom Satterly, a recently retired Delta Force Special Op- erator who was awarded six Bronze Stars for his service in the military. Tom, depicted in the movie “Black Hawk Down,” was in combat for 18 straight hours in Mogadi-
38 School Transportation News January 2014
shu. Having actually applied such concepts in the field, he, like many law enforcement trainers we have inter- viewed, is skeptical that complex skills like disarming a gunman can be safely and effectively taught by watching a video, or by participating in a two- or three-day class. In addition, people who make life-and-death decisions perform better when they have what Dr. Klein calls a base of knowledge. When training is focused on one type of scenario, people have difficulty dealing with anything not specifically taught to them. School bus drivers experience many critical incidents
not related to active shooter situations. Tough active shooter preparedness is important, our research suggests it be addressed with a balanced approach using a wide array of other more common weapons scenarios as well.
Every problem can become a nail
Over-emphasis on active shooter responses can create expectations that anyone with a gun is an active shooter. Tis is evident in simulations where those with active shooter training opt to attack when it would be more dangerous to do so. An old saying goes, “To a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.” Te danger of school bus drivers trained in some active shooter approaches “at- tacking” someone brandishing a gun, holding hostages or threatening suicide is very real. In contrast, police officers are trained using a variety of “use of force” simulations, but the training specifically does not center on “shoot” scenarios only. Tis prevents conditioning officers to shoot innocent people. Officers typically run numerous scenari- os, including many “no shoot” situations, along with those that require officers to shoot to neutralize a threat.
Practical approaches for school bus drivers Like law enforcement officers, school bus drivers
require training that provides a base of knowledge for a range of weapons situations they are likely to encounter. Techniques that can be realistically learned and applied under duress are important. Dr. Klein, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.) and many other experts feel that scenario-based approaches enhance the ability of people to make life-and-death decisions. Training using verbal, video and role-playing scenarios helps peo- ple improve crisis decision-making. While most active shooter programs teach attacking the shooter as a last resort, they are still primarily weighted towards aggres- sive action. Active shooter incidents are more complex than most other types of weapons incidents, but they should not dominate training to the point that more common weapons situations and hostage situations are given little attention.
The Window of Life
Tough people desire a common response to active shooters, these dynamic events do not lend themselves to linear solutions. A framework for crisis response can help. Tere are concepts that apply to most crisis events and can be easily implemented under stress in the first critical seconds of an event. Te Window of Life consists of four simple steps that
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60