PACE Planning: Phase-Specific Communication Requirements and Role Assignment

A PACE plan is not a static document taped to a wall — it changes with the mission. Each phase of an operation places different demands on who talks to whom, how far signals need to travel, and what happens when the primary method fails. The most common failure in communication planning is building one PACE plan for an entire event and assuming it covers every scenario. It does not. Phase-specific planning forces you to think through how communication requirements shift as the situation evolves, and role assignment ensures that every participant knows who is establishing the plan and who is receiving it.

Why Communication Requirements Change by Phase

Consider even a simple civilian preparedness scenario: a community response to a regional disaster. During the initial alert phase, the requirement is long-range notification — getting the word out that something has happened. During the coordination phase, the requirement shifts to mid-range, reliable two-way communication between dispersed teams. During execution, the requirement narrows to short-range, low-latency communication between individuals working in close proximity. And during recovery, the requirement may expand again to long-range reporting and status updates.

Each of these phases demands different equipment, different frequencies, and different protocols. A cell phone may be the Primary method during the alert phase but completely useless during execution if cellular infrastructure has failed. An HF radio may be irrelevant during close-range execution but critical during long-range recovery coordination. The fundamental insight behind the PACE Planning Framework is that every method has trade-offs in range, reliability, licensing, and privacy — and those trade-offs matter differently depending on what phase you are in.

This principle also applies to the fragility of infrastructure-dependent systems. Cloud-connected devices, cellular networks, and internet-dependent platforms create single points of failure that degrade or disappear under stress. A phase-specific PACE plan forces you to identify exactly where those dependencies exist and build alternatives around them. During calm preparatory phases, an internet-connected tool like ATAK may function perfectly as a Primary. During a contested or degraded phase, the plan must shift to methods that operate independently of centralized networks — simplex radio, HF digital modes, or even visual signals.

Role Assignment: Who Establishes the PACE Plan

The most critical structural question in any multi-person PACE plan is role assignment: who is responsible for establishing and distributing the communication plan, and who receives and executes it. Without clear role assignment, groups default to ad hoc communication, which collapses under pressure.

There are five functional roles in phase-specific PACE planning:

Main Effort. The main effort is the element around which the operation is organized. The main effort establishes the collective PACE plan for all elements under its coordination. This means the main effort defines Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency methods for every phase, publishes those methods to all supporting elements, and is responsible for ensuring everyone has the equipment and knowledge to execute the plan. In a civilian context, this might be the neighborhood team leader, the family head during an evacuation, or the group coordinator during a community response.

Direct Support. Direct support elements are those operating in immediate support of the main effort — adjacent teams, logistics runners, medical personnel operating in the field. These elements receive the PACE plan from the main effort and execute it. They do not independently establish their own external communication plan; doing so creates conflicting protocols and frequency confusion. Their responsibility is to confirm they can operate on the designated methods and to report any capability gaps before the operation begins.

General Support. General support elements operate independently but must coordinate with the main effort. Examples include MEDEVAC assets, higher command or coordination cells, or external agencies. General support elements maintain their own PACE plans. The main effort integrates with these plans rather than overriding them. This is a crucial distinction — you do not dictate communication methods to an element you do not control. Instead, you ensure your plan includes the methods needed to reach them. If the regional emergency coordination center operates on a specific GMRS repeater frequency, you build that into your PACE plan as a contact method, not the other way around.

Team Internal. Every team needs an internal PACE plan for intra-unit communication. This covers how members of a single element talk to each other across different phases. During movement, this might be handheld simplex radio on a designated FRS or GMRS channel. During a halt or defensive position, it might shift to hand-and-arm signals or runner. The internal PACE plan is established by the team leader and must be compatible with — but distinct from — the collective external PACE plan. Confusion between internal and external communication methods is a common failure point. See Internal Team Communications and External Friendly Force Contact Separation for the doctrinal underpinning of this separation.

Lost Friendly. Lost friendly protocols cover what happens when an element loses communication with the main body. These are typically established by the highest coordinating authority so that all elements share a common recovery method. A lost friendly plan might designate a specific frequency, a rally point, a time-based check-in schedule, or a combination. The lost friendly protocol does not change by phase — it is the fallback that remains constant when everything else has shifted.

Building a Phase-Specific Plan

The practical methodology is straightforward: first define the communication problem for each phase, then evaluate available technologies against that problem. Do not acquire equipment and then try to fit it into a plan. Define the requirement, then match the tool.

For each phase of your operation or scenario, answer these questions:

1. Who needs to talk to whom? Map the communication relationships — main effort to direct support, main effort to general support, internal, and lost friendly.
2. At what range? Short-range (within a building or block), mid-range (across a neighborhood or valley), or long-range (across a region or beyond line-of-sight).
3. What infrastructure is available? Cellular, repeaters, internet, or nothing.
4. What is the emissions security posture? Can you transmit freely, or does the situation demand reduced emissions? In contested environments, passive RF monitoring tools provide situational awareness without active transmission — a critical consideration when planning the Contingency and Emergency tiers. This connects directly to Electronic Warfare, OPSEC, and Signal Security.
5. What equipment do participants actually have and know how to use? A plan that relies on HF digital modes is worthless if no one in the group has an HF radio or the training to operate one.

Once these questions are answered for each phase, assign the four PACE tiers. A realistic example for a community disaster response coordination phase might look like:

• P — Cellular group text (fastest, most familiar, infrastructure-dependent)
• A — GMRS repeater net on a designated channel (no internet required, regional range)
• C — GMRS simplex on a pre-coordinated frequency (no repeater required, line-of-sight range)
• E — Runner to a designated rally point with written message

If the operation transitions to a field phase where cellular is confirmed down, the phase-specific plan shifts:

• P — GMRS repeater net
• A — GMRS simplex
• C — HF digital mode via JS8Call (mid- to long-range, no infrastructure dependency)
• E — Runner or visual signal

The key is that the plan evolves with the situation rather than remaining locked to assumptions made before the operation began. Tools like the mcom offline software platform or ATAK with cached maps allow digital communication and navigation without internet dependency, but they must be assigned to the correct tier and phase. An offline HF digital tool is not a Primary during a calm coordination phase when cell phones work — it is the Contingency or Emergency method that activates when infrastructure fails.

Matching Tools to Roles and Phases

The full spectrum of available communication methods — from cell phones to FRS to GMRS to amateur HF — each carry trade-offs in range, licensing, privacy, and reliability. Simplex personal radio services like FRS are geographically limited to short ranges but require no licensing and are immediately available, making them strong candidates for team internal communication during close-range phases. GMRS provides greater range, especially with repeater access, and requires only a simple FCC license. Amateur HF radio provides regional and beyond-line-of-sight capability but requires a technical exam and equipment investment. See Radio Licensing and Regulatory Considerations for licensing details and Communication Method Evaluation Criteria and Trade-off Analysis for a structured comparison.

Community infrastructure investments like GMRS repeaters and Winlink RMS gateways function as force multipliers — they extend communication capability for an entire local area, not just individual operators. If your PACE plan depends on a repeater for the Alternate tier, someone in the group must own and maintain that repeater. If no one does, that tier is a fantasy, not a plan.

Integration with Broader Preparedness

Phase-specific PACE planning is not an isolated communications exercise. It connects directly to Mission-Based PACE Planning and the broader METT-TC framework, where communication is one variable among terrain, enemy, troops available, and time. Terrain in particular drives communication method selection — a method that works in flat open terrain may be useless in a hilly, forested environment where line-of-sight is blocked. Time constraints determine whether you can establish a repeater link or must rely on simplex. The number and skill level of available personnel determine whether HF digital modes are realistic or whether the plan must stay within simpler, more familiar technologies.

The discipline of phase-specific planning also reinforces a core principle from the PACE framework: every tier must be tested before the operation begins. A phase-specific plan that includes four tiers across three phases means twelve distinct communication methods that must be confirmed functional. If that sounds like a lot of work, it is — and that work must happen during preparation, not during execution. The time to discover that your Contingency-tier HF relay cannot reach the general support element is during a tabletop exercise, not during an actual emergency.

Common Failures

The most frequent failures in phase-specific PACE planning fall into predictable categories:

1. Single-phase planning. Building one PACE plan and assuming it applies to all phases. This ignores the reality that range requirements, infrastructure availability, and emissions posture change as the situation evolves.

2. Role ambiguity. Failing to designate who establishes the plan. When no one owns the communication plan, everyone improvises, and improvised plans do not interoperate.

3. Capability assumption. Assigning a tier that depends on equipment or skills the group does not actually possess. Every method in the plan must be verified against real inventory and real training levels.

4. Infrastructure dependency without redundancy. Placing cellular or internet-dependent tools in the Primary tier across all phases without acknowledging that those systems are the most likely to fail in the scenarios that demand a PACE plan in the first place.

5. Neglecting the lost friendly protocol. Teams plan for success but not for fragmentation. A lost friendly protocol must be briefed to every participant before the operation begins, and it must be simple enough to execute under stress without reference to written materials.

Summary

Phase-specific PACE planning transforms a communication plan from a static reference card into a living framework that adapts to changing conditions. Role assignment ensures that the plan is established by the right authority, distributed to all participants, and executed without conflicting protocols. The combination of phase-specific thinking and clear role ownership is what separates functional communication from the ad hoc chaos that emerges when groups assume their phones will always work and someone will figure out the rest. Define the phases, assign the roles, match the tools, test every tier, and publish the plan before the first phase begins.