Coal Age Magazine - For nearly 100 years, Coal Age has been the magazine that readers can trust for guidance and insight on this important industry.
Issue link: https://coal.epubxp.com/i/421812
training, all agreed there is a need for guidance in developing sce- narios that include judgment and decision-making components. Incorporating Judgment and Decision-making Into Escape Training During quarterly escapeway training, miners must travel either the primary or alternate escapeway in its entirety, find and use directional lifelines and tethers, locate caches of SCSRs as well as refuge chambers, cross overcasts and/or undercasts, travel through mandoors, switch escapeways if needed, and negotiate unique escapeway conditions. Given these requirements, adding teaching points requiring miners to make decisions during their escape can be accomplished when a particular scenario is devel- oped. Creatively incorporating judgment and decision-making components into mandated quarterly training will help add vari- ety to the training and enhance the miners' learning experience. Sample Scenario Based on a Mine Fire Event Looking at an excerpt from a sample situation based on a mine fire will be illustrative. The selection comes from an example escape scenario developed by NIOSH (Brnich and Hall 2013). The decision points identified in the example scenario are based on real-life decisions that escaping miners had to make. For this example, decision point excerpts were used from a sce- nario where there is a fire located at the section belt takeup, outby the working section. The crew is to travel the primary escapeway, which is also the section's main intake. While these sample deci- sion points are not all inclusive, they present examples of the types of decisions escaping miners may face. Initial information provided: The section foreman receives a call that there is a fire in the takeup rollers of the section belt at the head drive. Heavy smoke has been observed just inby the mouth of the section and is moving toward the section in the primary escapeway. The foreman is ordered to evacuate the section. Initial action: Initially the foreman notifies miners of the prob- lem and tells them to gather at the section assembly location. When everyone is gathered, the foreman makes a head count and has everyone together. The crew smells smoke but no smoke is visible. Referring to the judgment and decision-making model (Figure 1), trainees at this stage are made aware of the initial problem and are in the process of perceiving the problem and processing information. Example decision point: Smelling smoke on the section and based on their diagnosis of the situation, the crew members must decide whether they should don their SCSRs. Even if the CO level is as low as 0 to 5 ppm, the crew members can elect to delay don- ning their SCSRs. As part of the training, the crew members should be allowed to talk about possible choices and decide what they should do. Discussion: Although the CO level may be under 50 ppm, CO levels can rise to high levels in a very short period of time without warning. High levels of CO can be present, even in clear air. Trainees should consider the positive and negative aspects of donning their SCSRs at this time. Real-life example: In November 1968, 21 coal miners escaped the Farmington No. 9 mine following a major explosion. Eight of the escapees were rescued from the Mahan's Run airshaft. All eight miners were wearing a filter self-rescuer when they arrived at the bottom of the air shaft. While waiting to be res- c u e d , f i v e o f t h e e i g h t m i n e r s r e m o v e d t h e i r s e l f - r e s c u e r s because the air was clear of smoke. Even though more than 144,000 cfm of air was coming down the shaft, the five miners became unconscious because of high CO levels in the immedi- ate vicinity. Luckily they were revived before being hoisted up the shaft to safety (NIOSH 2009). Example decision point: As the crew continues their escape on foot in the primary escapeway, one miner injures his ankle when he steps on a piece of coal lying on the mine floor. The miner says it is hard to walk. The crew members must decide what they will do to help the injured miner. This decision point adds a back- ground problem along with stress, and complexity to the escape situation. The crew must look at available options for managing the injured miner and then make a choice on how to proceed. Discussion: Talk with the group about possible options for deal- ing with the injured miner. These might include slowing the group down so the injured miner can keep up, helping the injured miner walk, or taking him to the nearest outby refuge alternative. Ask miners in the escape group what they would do. Another Real-life example: There have been instances where miners have been injured while escaping a mine emergency. In one case, crew members were escaping from their section after a fire was discovered on a piece of haulage equipment outby the section. The coal seam height was around 48 in. and the walkway between the belt and the rib was narrow. One miner in the group was having difficulty navigating along the beltline and breathing from his SCSR. Eventually the miner collapsed and could no longer continue escaping with the group. The crew had to make a critical decision — stay with the downed miner and try to help him escape, or split the group and allow the faster miners to escape and notify incoming emergency responders about the downed miner. The crew decided to split the group. When the first miners reached safety, they told incoming rescuers where the downed miner was located. Since the fire had been extin- guished, intake air was redirected to the belt entry to bring fresh air down the belt to where the downed miner was located. He was successfully rescued (Vaught et al. 2000). These example decision points presented are typical of those that escaping miners might encounter during a mine fire emer- gency. The decision points miners may encounter will depend on the type of emergency they face. The nature of the situation, the effects of the event on the mine's physical environment, and the overall complexity of the escape also influence the decisions that escaping miners must make. Discussion and Conclusions For decades, emergency escape training has included few if any opportunities for challenging miners' decision-making capabili- ties. Generally mine safety and health practitioners have focused on select components of mine emergency escape such as knowl- edge of escapeways and the use of emergency breathing appara- tus. It has only been since 2006 that miners have been required to participate in more frequent escape drills, based on one of four possible general emergency scenarios. Past research has shown that good judgment and decision- making is a critical element in mine emergency escape. While development and administration of training simulations for teaching miners judgment and decision-making skills is not new, the idea of teaching these skills in the context of mandated quar- terly escape training is relatively new. As Cole et al. (2001) dis- cussed, both mine safety trainers and miners themselves found substantial value in the use of classroom simulation exercises for e s c a p e t r a i n i n g c o n t i n u e d 46 www.coalage.com November 2014