Bomb Threats and Improvised Explosive Devices
You may have noticed on the School Security Awareness Map the rash of bomb threats; not to mention the actual detonation of a pipe bomb on a school campus and the disrupted plot to bomb a school in South Carolina. It seems the combination of spring air, the impending summer break and exams somehow help the justification of threatening a terrorist attack.
Bomb threats are scary, costly, disruptive, highly illegal and unfortunately very common. Bombs/I.E.D.’s blow up buildings, kill people and are thankfully rare. While we often associate bomb threat with explosive devices, the statistics show they are most never related. On the very rare instances they are connected, the explosive device was more likely to be planted outside the school. This certainly brings into question the policy of automatically evacuating the school in response to a threat.
Just as a fire alarm doesn’t mean there is a fire, a bomb threat doesn’t mean there is a bomb. That said, bomb threats must never be ignored. The use of I.E.D.’s is becoming all too common in school plots and attacks; such as Columbine.
Continue Reading…
An untested and untrained plan is little more than theory. After developing school/college emergency plans a training program should be designed to educate students, parents, teachers, staff, crisis team members and administrators in threat assessment procedures, emergency response, management policies and procedures. Once training is implemented, exercises should be conducted to test the plans and training.
Currently, most educational facilities have adopted a training philosophy that embraces performing extremely well under reasonable conditions, rather than performing reasonably well under extreme conditions. For example:
Lockdown, Weather, Earthquake & Fire Drills Deficiencies
Staff has advanced knowledge of the exact time of the drill and the drill occurs when all students are in the classroom.
Solution
After two or three successful drills, limit advanced knowledge to the day of the event and implement the drills during transition times. Note: Avoid conducting drills during meal periods, due to the costs associates with missed lunches. To test response, set up a mock lunch period with students and staff.
Once you have your drills up and running, it is time to conduct training exercises. Tabletop & functional exercises use vivid scenarios, guided by experienced and certified facilitators, to engage participants in discussions of how they would respond to hypothetical events. Tabletops are designed to be a non-threatening and relatively low cost approach to validating capabilities. Use Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP) based exercises to explore and validate plans, identify logical or structural conflicts or gaps in those plans and develop specific areas for further study and improvement. Scenario should be coordinated/developed with local emergency management and public safety.
Stay safe
Brad
This post is provided by SafePlans (www.safeplans.com), an all-hazards preparedness solution including emergency plans, staff training, and detailed site mapping.
Click here to learn more about the author
©2008 SafePlans, LLC
Summary
An improvised explosive device (IED) in the form of a pipe bomb was detonated outside the home of an official from an Indiana middle school. It was the second time in the last month that a device was planted in the mail box at this residence.
http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=8554147&nav=3w6o
Analysis
This action goes well beyond that of a prank as pipe bombs can cause serious injury or even death. It is highly probably that these bombings are connected to the homeowner’s position at the middle school. Placing IED’s in the mailbox could be a simple way to demonstrate the destructive effect of a pipe bomb. However, consideration must also be given to the possibility that the bomber is attempting to implement a device that is triggered by the opening of the mailbox.
In regards to actual bombings, the placement of IED’s in mailboxes is a fairly common. Unfortunately, school officials are the all too often the target of these criminal actions.
Key considerations:
- School staff should implement and practice sound physical security measures at their homes. School districts and local law enforcement should consider providing security awareness training.
- Before an IED is built, transported, placed and exploded in a mailbox, it is highly likely the bomber has recently practiced his craft.
- Threat assessment programs, such as those discussed in previous postings, are an effective tool in predicting potentially violent behavior.
- Recent bombings should give bomb threats within the district greater credibility.
- Coordinate assessment and response strategies with law enforcement. The greater the collaboration before an incident the less confusion during an incident.
Stay safe
Brad
This post is provided by SafePlans (www.safeplans.com), an all-hazards preparedness solution including emergency plans, staff training, and detailed site mapping.
In earlier posts, I discussed the critical school safety bomb threats, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and lockdown planning. From a security standpoint, an area that is closely related to these hazards is secondary attacks. For the purpose of this post, integrated school safety refers to the integration of a video surveillance/CCTV, access control, emergency planning and safety training; and a Secondary Attack refers to an attack using either a Secondary Explosive Device or Diversionary Attack or a combination thereof.
Secondary Explosive Device Definition: An explosive device that is placed in an area of evacuation or staging to inflict greater casualties and/or disrupt emergency response.
Diversionary Attack Definition: An attack wherein a force uses a means of deception with the purpose of drawing the target into an area more conducive to attack.
One of the most disturbing aspects of a secondary attack is that it preys on the good intentions of school personnel, who are attempting to protect students from a threat. Nothing is more intuitive than the desire to evacuate students at the sounding of a fire alarm or have them gather outside of a school after receiving a bomb threat. In the event of a fire, or the discovery of a suspicious package, those are not only reasonable actions, but one would be criminally negligent not to enact them. It is the bogus alarm or the baseless bomb threat that should lead school officials to consider the possibility of a secondary attack.
Secondary attacks have been a part of warfare (both conventional and unconventional) for as long as man has engaged in battle. Approximately 25 years ago, secondary attacks directed at emergency response personnel began to occur more frequently in the form of secondary explosive devices. In 1978, an explosion occurred at a state employment office in Colorado causing significant structural damage. Less than 15 minutes later another device exploded at a nearby building. This explosion unintentionally killed the bomber before he could arm a third device that was planted to target emergency response personnel.
It wasn’t until March 24, 1998 in Jonesboro, AR when 13 year old Mitchell Johnson and his cousin 11 year old Andrew Golden brought secondary attacks to our nations schools. As Johnson and Golden waited in the nearby woods, an accomplice pulled the Westside Middle School fire alarm during lunch. As the students were evacuated, they were shot ambush style, killing four students and one teacher and wounding 10 others.
Just over one year later, a secondary attack on a high school was planned using over 70 explosive devices. It is unclear as to whether the explosives were to be the main focus of the attack or supplemental to the use of firearms, but the explosives failed and the two attackers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher before committing suicide.
While these attacks do present distinct challenges for school administrators and emergency responders, there are measures that can be implemented that dramatically reduce risks. These are called Secondary Attach Countermeasures. The area most effected (and improved) by these countermeasures is evacuation planning.
When evacuating a school, the danger should be real, not perceived. A chemistry teacher seeing a fire in the laboratory needs no further evidence to know that the students are in danger. Absent evidence of fire or the discovery of an explosive device, an immediate evacuation is rarely the safest course of action. A fire alarm does not equal fire and a bomb threat does not mean that there is a bomb. These are both issues that need to be taken seriously and acted upon immediately, but the action should rarely be immediate evacuation. Rather, preparation for evacuation should take place as the school’s emergency response team searches for blocked exits, possible explosive devices or other signs of danger.
The benefits of this structured evacuation process is two-fold. First, by sending team members to immediately check exits for availability it allows for the routing of students evacuating to usable exits. In the event of a fire, this measure minimizes congestion and confusion in the areas around the actual fire. Second, this structured approach allows the facility to be used for protection while information is gathered as to the nature of the alarm. Just as teachers should not be instructed to await permission to evacuate when signs of danger exists, they should not automatically evacuate the building solely on the basis of an alarm. A recommended procedure would be as follows:
1. Upon the sounding of a fire alarm, the teacher will immediately scan the hallway or immediate area for evidence of fire.
2. If evidence exist, immediately follow the procedures for evacuation.
3. If no evidence exists, the teacher should prepare the students for evacuation:
A. Obtain Roster and Headcount
B. Allow students to gather personal items within the classroom
C. Line students up inside the room
D. Arrange assistance for students with special needs
E. Leave classroom door open and continue to monitor area for signs of danger.
F. Listen for evacuation or all clear instructions.
G. If after 3 minutes, no information has been announced, proceed with evacuation.
Remember, buildings offer protection in the form of cover and concealment. Cover is protection from gunfire and explosions (and even chemical exposure) and concealment prevents those that would harm you from knowing your exact location. When you evacuate, this protection lost. The primary issue to address when a fire alarm sounds is if there is fire. If there is fire, immediate and orderly evacuation is always the response. If there is not fire, which is the usually the case, the question becomes “Why does someone want us to evacuate?”
Always collaborate with your local responders to address issues such as fire codes, building architecture and response times.
Stay Safe
Brad
This post is provided by SafePlans (www.safeplans.com), an all-hazards preparedness solution including emergency plans, staff training, and detailed site mapping.
Click here to learn more about the author
As a follow up to underscore the importance of the “Bomb Threats and Improvised Explosive Devices (I.E.D.’s)” best practice post, I want to point out that an I.E.D. was actually detonated on school grounds on April 28th. This bombing was not associated with a threat. http://www.star-telegram.com/462/story/611203.html
Apparently the device that exploded was planted at an outdoor school basketball court on a Sunday; along with two other devices (that did not explode). The device was crude – but potentially deadly; utilizing a bottle that contained shrapnel in the form of fish hooks and bb’s to inflict maximum casualties.
Four key learning points here:
• There was no threat. Bomb threats should never be ignored; but bombs are planted to blow up things or kill people. A warning or threat is generally counter-productive to these goals.
• The device was crude, but deadly. Constructing these types of devices does not require great skill or resources. This bomber could have been practicing his craft.
• The bomb was planted outside the school. Automatic evacuation of a school due to a bomb threat is not a good policy.
• This device was crafted from a bottle. Proving yet again that what a “bomb” looks like is limited only by the imagination of the bomber.
Some general procedures for response to bomb related incidents are in the previously mentioned post. Always collaborate with your local response agencies on emergency planning issues.
Stay safe!
Brad
This post is provided by SafePlans (www.safeplans.com), an all-hazards preparedness solution including emergency plans, staff training, and detailed site mapping.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Subscribe via Email