Finding better ways to ensure people safety Society has long learned to accept fire as one of the many risks to life and property that simply must be effectively managed. Improved fire detection and protection systems, tougher construction codes, more extensive safety standards and more sensitive planning have all helped reduce the threat over recent years. But better ways still need to be found, not only in terms of limiting damages and costs, but also to ensure people safety, particularly as threats and our living and working environments become ‘denser’. This calls for a wider scope of emergency preparedness to intelligently respond to both traditional and new threats, a preparedness in which technology has an increasing role to play. Despite all of the advances that have been made, the estimated economic cost of fire still stands at around one percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in developed countries , while 70% of business victims of a major fire close down after three years – a stark reminder that it is not just a life safety issue. With terrorist attacks also a factor and industrial incidents, natural disasters and extreme weather claiming thousands of lives, people generally believe that their safety is more at risk than ever before. It seems ironic therefore, that on first hearing a conventional fire alarm, many people will hardly react. Many will often assume that a ringing alarm is a test procedure or an unwanted ‘false’ alarm and hesitate for several vital moments before taking action. In some cases, people are unaware of the correct emergency or evacuation procedure relevant to their location. Quite simply, they do not know what to do – and when faced with the very real dangers of a genuine emergency, some people will become flustered, disoriented or even ‘Simple detection is no longer accepted as sufficient’ panic-stricken. Most people using a hotel or an airport, for example, will not be familiar with its layout and, in a potentially life-threatening fire, may struggle to find the nearest emergency exit. Studies have also shown that on-site response personnel are not immune to the effects of stress in a real-life emergency. They, too, sometimes panic and are overwhelmed by the responsibilities involved. Addressing the ever wider “duty of care” To cope with fire and other life-threatening emergencies, there is a noticeable change of priorities taking place today. Simple detection is no longer accepted as sufficient and, driven by insurance companies and end-users – and the increase in the personal liability burden and prosecutions – the focus has shifted towards incident prevention and response management through emergency preparedness. For real contingency planning necessitates the implementation of solutions that are as widely comprehensive as possible and fire and security systems are currently needed to support real response capability in all kind of events. Regardless of the organisation – hotel, university, airport, shopping centre – the owner/operator has a duty of care towards its employees, customers and visitors, so procedures need to be put in place to reduce the potential for incident. Protection systems should also be implemented to detect the very earliest signs of combustion, intrusion, attack or other hazardous event. Building owners and occupants should be prepared to react and have plans in place to safeguard people and property – reliably and efficiently directing people to safety in any emergency situation in order to keep the consequences to a minimum, not only in terms of fatality or damage but also commercial disruption. Post-event analysis and reporting mechanisms should also be put in place both to speed up recovery and also to enable “lessons learned” to be converted into continuous improvements with regards to emergency measures and policies, as well as protection system upgrades for the prevention, detection and response to incidents. Train, retrain, and train again – yes, but is it enough? The current focus on preparedness lies predominantly in the structural (e.g. emergency stairs) and organisational (e.g. emergency plans) spheres, drawing from scenarios and known risks to derive appropriate response actions by first responders and building occupants. However, while training and drills are an essential part of emergency preparedness, they bring their own set of problems. For one, effective preparedness based mainly on organisational and structural measures necessitates the meticulous and regular training of all fire/security staff, relying on their efficiency and competence (this ranges from ensuring emergency exits are left clear at all times to ensuring regular system checks), regardless of illness, holidays or changing personnel and shift rotas. In addition, they can sometimes fail to cover the need to instruct visitors and other people unfamiliar with the building and site emergency procedures. In industries with a very international mix of staff and visitors, such as hospitality, the lack of international standards in some areas can also easily cause confusion in an evacuation situation, therefore increasing the need for clear and appropriate “training” being given to all building occupants. One example is the emergency exit sign: while the green ISO-1987 “running man” pictogram is widely used in many parts of the world, it is only starting to make its way into the US. In high-risk facilities and installations such as power stations, petrol, oil and gas refineries where there is a strictly limited number of untrained visitors, ‘rehearsed scenarios’ based on past event analysis and incident development can be usefully implemented. On other, less contained sites where there are large open areas, different buildings and/or large, inexact numbers of people in scattered locations – such as large education campuses or leisure parks – such response guidelines for the widest range of possible emergencies, are usually less viable. The difficulties include the need to ensure that everybody receives the appropriate information relevant to their own particular location and situation, as well as ensuring that everyone has been safely evacuated before extinguishing and fire-fighting activities begin. On certain remote sites, the longer mobilisation times of the emergency services will increase the challenge. So too will the extended evacuation time of certain complex facilities
