1. SFT
  2. Archiwum
  3. Vol. 68
  4. Situation Awareness of the Command St...

Situation Awareness of the Command Staff in Large-Scale and Prolonged Rescue Operations – Barriers, Paradigms and Recommendations

sen. capt. Zuchlke Tomasz M.Sc. Eng

Download article
Open Access
DOI: 10.12845/sft.68.2.2026.1, pages: 6 – 24

Abstract

Purpose: This paper presents a conceptual review of Situation Awareness (SA) at the command staff level during large-scale and prolonged rescue operations within Poland's National Firefighting and Rescue System (KSRG). The objective is to identify cognitive and communicative barriers degrading collective SA and to formulate strategic systemic recommendations for the organisation of incident command within this system. The analysis deliberately shifts the unit of analysis from the individual commander to the command staff as a collective entity, in line with the binding KG PSP rules on the organisation of the command staff.

Introduction: The dominant paradigm in the firefighting literature reduces situational decision-making to the figure of the Incident Commander, omitting the collective dynamics of the command staff as a distributed cognitive system. Reports from the U.S. NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program repeatedly identify loss of situational awareness as a contributing factor in line-of-duty fatalities.

Methodology: A narrative literature review (1972–2025) was applied, based on Endsley's three-level SA model (perception  comprehension  projection), Reason's organisational accident model, Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory, Klein's Recognition-Primed Decision framework, and the distributed situation awareness paradigm of Stanton and colleagues. The conceptual analysis is illustrated with an illustrative composite case framed by Reason's “Swiss cheese” model, while its conclusions are anchored in the current KG PSP rules on staff organisation and on organising rescue operations. The review additionally draws on Cowan's revision of working-memory capacity, Parasuraman and Riley's analysis of automation-induced complacency and the literature on the irrelevant speech effect.

Conclusions: SA of the command staff is not a simple sum of individual situational pictures — it is a collective product of communication processes, role distribution and technical tools. Three problems specific to staff work (cascade distortion, communicative noise, escalation of commitment) are identified. Six systemic recommendations for the PSP are formulated: strengthening periodic command-staff briefings, the single-data-interpreter principle within the operations team, structured rotation of key staff functions, protecting the command from external distraction by officials and the media, developing a common operational picture (SWD PSP, situational maps, TAK-class systems) with an anti-complacency protocol, and integrating immersive (VR) training with structured after-action review into command education.

Keywords: situation awareness, command staff, incident command, National Firefighting and Rescue System, common operational picture

Type of article: review article

Bibliography:

  1. U.S. Fire Administration, Firefighter Fatalities in the United States – Annual Report, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, https://www.usfa.fema.gov/.
  2. NIOSH Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program (FFFIPP), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/firefighters/fffipp/about.html.
  3. Kalinko J., Lipiński S., Poziomy kierowania na potrzeby działań ratowniczych, „Zeszyty Naukowe SGSP” 2018, 66, 2.
  4. Kalinko J., Lipiński S., Kompetencje kierującego działaniem ratowniczym, „Zeszyty Naukowe SGSP” 2018, 68, 4.
  5. Berus P., Ankowski A., Istota kierowania działaniem ratowniczym w świetle obowiązującego stanu prawnego, „Zeszyty Naukowe SGSP” 2022, 82, 153–174, https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0015.8886.
  6. Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji z dnia 24 czerwca 2026 r. w sprawie szczegółowej organizacji krajowego systemu ratowniczo-gaśniczego (Dz. U. 2026, poz. 872).
  7. Zasady organizacji sztabu na potrzeby prowadzenia działań ratowniczych, Komenda Główna Państwowej Straży Pożarnej, Warszawa 2025.
  8. Zasady organizowania działań ratowniczych, Komenda Główna Państwowej Straży Pożarnej, Warszawa 2013.
  9. Endsley M.R., Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems, „Human Factors” 1995, 37, 1, 32–64, https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543.
  10. Gasaway R.B., Situational Awareness for Emergency Response, PennWell Books, Tulsa 2013.
  11. Klein G., Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, MIT Press, Cambridge 1998.
  12. Endsley M.R., Theoretical Underpinnings of Situation Awareness: A Critical Review, [w:] M.R. Endsley, D.J. Garland (red.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah 2000, 3–32.
  13. Sweller J., Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning, „Cognitive Science” 1988, 12, 2, 257–285, https:// doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.
  14. Sweller J., van Merriënboer J.J.G., Paas F.G.W.C., Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design, „Educational Psychology Review” 1998, 10, 3, 251–296, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205.
  15. Cowan N., The Magical Number 4 in Short-Term Memory: A Reconsideration of Mental Storage Capacity, „Behavioral and Brain Sciences” 2001, 24, 1, 87–114, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922.
  16. Stanton N.A., Stewart R., Harris D., Houghton R.J., Baber C., McMaster R., Salmon P., Hoyle G., Walker G., Young M.S., Linsell M., Dymott R., Green D., Distributed Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems: Theoretical Development and Application of an Ergonomics Methodology, „Ergonomics” 2006, 49, 12–13, 1288–1311, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612762.
  17. Endsley M.R., Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings, „Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making” 2015, 9, 1, 4–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343415572631.
  18. Stanton N.A., Salmon P.M., Walker G.H., Salas E., Hancock P.A., State-of-Science: Situation Awareness in Individuals, Teams and Systems, „Ergonomics” 2017, 60, 4, 449–466, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1278796.
  19. Wolbers J., Boersma K., The Common Operational Picture as Collective Sensemaking, „Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management” 2013, 21, 4, 186–199, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12027.
  20. Salamé P., Baddeley A., Disruption of Short-Term Memory by Unattended Speech: Implications for the Structure ofWorking Memory, „Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior” 1982, 21, 2, 150–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90521-7.
  21. Staw B.M., Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action, „Organizational Behavior and Human Performance” 1976, 16, 1, 27–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2.
  22. Janis I.L., Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1972.
  23. Reason J., Human Error, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.
  24. Parasuraman R., Riley V., Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse, „Human Factors” 1997, 39, 2, 230–253, https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886.
  25. Bigley G.A., Roberts K.H., The Incident Command System: High-Reliability Organizing for Complex and Volatile Task Environments, „Academy of Management Journal” 2001, 44, 6, 1281–1299, https://doi.org/10.2307/3069401.
  26. Ericsson K.A., Krampe R.T., Tesch-Römer C., The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance, „Psychological Review” 1993, 100, 3, 363–406, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363.
  27. Endsley M.R., Direct Measurement of Situation Awareness: Validity and Use of SAGAT, [w:] M.R. Endsley, D.J. Garland (red.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah 2000, 147–173.