Rank: New forum user 
|
Does anyone have any experience of using artificial smoke or fog to simulate an area affected so we can identify how staff will take appropriate avoiding action? We feel that staff are a little complacent in drills so we'd like to shake it up a little bit without causing harm or panic.
Obviously any substance used would need to be harmless, vulnerable indiviuals who have breathing conditions or are suceptibile to panic attacks, we intend to notify fire service of drill beforehand should anyone else see smoke and the hear the alarms call them. Fire marshalls present to maintain order, give direction and assure concerned staff etc to avoid pushing or suchlike on stairwells are other things we have considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I wouldn't even contemplate it outside of the uniformed services. You have no idea how some people may react.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have to agree with Smurf,
I can just imagine claims and absence rates increase following use of such props.
How are you going to differentiate the vunerable employees from such actions? A very important defence for your actions!
Fire drills are there to test the system not the individuals as humans are unpredictable beasts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There are plenty of other ways to make drills more interesting - block an exit, have someone pretend to be injured or go missing and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have to agree with the above. I wouldn't go any further than blocking off random exits to keep staff on their toes.
You never know how people will react - and often, those you think are least likely to act adversely in such conditions are the first to 'panic'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Judging from what the students are saying in the interview it sounds like they were in on it and the drill was for the emergency services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rolf,
These exercises are done to test the emergency services response to an incident. We carry them out on site and they take months of detailed planning and extensive post job reviews.
I admire your efforts to vary the scenario but I'd steer away from it and go with the suggestion to use fire marshalls to block exits and vary the escape route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We had such an event on our site. It was for the Emergency services, and run by them. It included some people 'trapped' in a Mezzanine floor above a smoke-logged room.
The trapped volunteers had a fire officer with them the whole time, in case of physical or mental distress.
I would not recommend doing a drill with smoke unless the people are suitably warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Can you get one of those flip chart sized post-its and draw some flames and smoke on it, with a no entry sign and stick it on doors etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is it really Friday?
For once I find myself in total agreement with the responses here. I have heard rumors of companies who allegedly use smoke but I think it would created undue risk for an average workplace due to the fear/panic it may cause. Likewise I think you should decide in a practice where the fire is and block an escape route to see what effect that has on the situation. In my view far too many premises have none fire practices as they assume every exit will be available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree strongly with all the views expressed against this practice. Our Company Fire Officer insists on using a 'Smoke Generator' as part of his fire drills, and recently used such a device to test our 'call challenge' procedures. This led to an incident were a member of staff who suffers from asthma was overcome with breathing difficulties and had to leave work. The employee later had to attend the local Hospital and was off work for two days. One of the recommendations from the ensuing incident investigation was that the practice of using a 'Smoke Generator' should cease, but our Fire Officer has rejected this recommendation because he insists that the drills should feel 'real' and our Senior Management are supporting him because he is the 'expert'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
@ O'Donnell54548
Sounds like your fire officer is either bored with his job, unhinged or both.
Unless of course you work on a warship, a submarine or a nuclear power station.
I'd be inclined to disassociate myself from him before it gets really expensive!
I'm assuming his so called 'expert' status is linked to some really exciting job he has had in the past?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Presuming this is within a public service area, wouldn't it be more cost effective to move away from risks to the business by means of expensive legal claims and use the savings in a more cost effective way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You will probably not be surprised Safety Smurf to be told he is an ex Fire Service Officer. The Smoke Generator is only one of the many quirks (PAT is a legal requirement, leave wheelchair users in the refuge area to be rescued by the Fire Service, Enforcement Officers will prosecute you if you do not produce a written roll call for all persons etc) which has led to him being described as "a character". Never mind another 7 weeks and I move on to pastures new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I do have to add to this thread. In my industry the use of smoke machines is the norm and is used on many drills and during audits.
However, all persons present are the workforce and problems such as asthma will be known and arrangements be made to accommodate their particular needs.
Industry - merchant shipping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I once pretended to be a wildfire and ran up and down a corridor telling people to find and alternative escape route during a fire drill. I might have been more scary than a smoke machine.
O'Donnell54548- We too have characters who have interesting backgrounds. Aren’t they a pest!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Use real smoke? Why not? Inject some real panic into the place.You could sell tickets for it. :-)
Not the best plan!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In a previous job my predecessor had bought one. The government contract that we worked to stipulated a fire drill once per month (yes twelve a year). I avoided using the darn thing until my line manager complained (it cost money to buy it and he wanted to see his money being well spent). So, I used it once and once was enough to convince me never to use it again. The heat generated by the machine is a fire hazard in its own right.
I got rid of it by singing its praises to and then lending it to our sister company. I then deliberately forgot to ask for it back. Good riddance if you ask me.
Sorry Ken ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have to agree with previous responses. Having been in the emergency services for 30 years and done several of these for real, in meticulously well planned 'training scenarios' for emergency service personnel, the effects of artificial smoke can be quite dramatic and present problems to those who you might least expect to be affected.
Whilst emergency drills do need to be treated with realism, I can only agree that blocking off normal and 'used to' routes will provide an interesting dilemma for those affected.
You do need however to observe the overall purpose of a drill, 'a safe and efficient evacuation', it is not a race!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I wonder if this is a timely point to inform you all I have access to smoke machines from little tiny dinky things right up to a machine that could smokelog wembley stadium in about 2 minutes, on the top shelf however, are all manner of "safe" explosives for sale, as renting these seems pointless as they never get returned.
I am of course in the entertainment industry which includes Film, TV, Theater etc and if anybody wants proper realism... then I know a good tobacconist.
Sorry all, I missed Friday due to work commitments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
On top of all of which advice against, consider that occupiers of neighbouring premises not in on the drill will very likely dial 999 and call the Fire Service who will probably have to respond genuinely without regard to having been pre-advised of your plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: O'  You will probably not be surprised Safety Smurf to be told he is an ex Fire Service Officer. The Smoke Generator is only one of the many quirks (PAT is a legal requirement, leave wheelchair users in the refuge area to be rescued by the Fire Service, Enforcement Officers will prosecute you if you do not produce a written roll call for all persons etc) which has led to him being described as "a character". Never mind another 7 weeks and I move on to pastures new.
Thank God!: Keith Lard is alive and well :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Latest update from our 'character' - as the fire risk assessor it is not his role to identify persons at risk or prepare emergency plans, this is the responsibility of managers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have to admit that in a previous life we did use smoke pellets (the ones to test chimneys & flues) to generate some smoke to test out a team of "trained" fire marshals in a large warehouse.
The scenario went something like this: smoke starts drifting across the warehouse at high level; nobody reacts initially & just carries on working; someone decides to act, but not sure what to do; encouraged by my boss to use the fire break glass, decides to use his elbow to do so, screams in agony & falls to floor; his mate decides to assist & uses pick-axe handle which just smashes the whole unit, but still no alarm sounds!
At the "inquest" we discover that the maintenance guy was making his own "home-made" break glasses using toughened glass to save money.....!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have assisted, a couple of times, the local fire brigade when they have been familiarizing themselves to given buildings with exercises. When they wanted to safely replicate low vision in order to disorientate all they did was to place different forms film and polythene across their visors, that way if need be they could instantly remove the block and all is well :o) maybe you could just used covered safety goggles if you really want to highlight just how things change when in lower visibility, am not sure whether this is common practice still and for each person tested there was a non impaired buddy JUST-IN-CASE! Just an idea, all the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would be interested in knowing how you "accommodate" the needs of those with asthma, copd et-al.
Presumably that means you will have ambulances standing by with resuscitation teams as well ?
I would like to point-out that people with the above conditions (common in the UK) go from bad to dead very easily, and quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:I would be interested in knowing how you "accommodate" the needs of those with asthma, copd et-al.
Simple - if there is anyone who is known to have a problem which could be agravated etc by smoke then they are accommodated elsewhere during the drill. And all seafarers have to have a two yearly medical check so there are unliklely to be any hidden problems. Although not absolutely clear cut, a person with respiratory disease would be unable to get this certification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Known being the operative word.
Personally, as long as the smoke is generated from burning health and safety personnel, I feel the testing would be ok: Probably.
Probably the same would be necessary for those with coronary disease, if known.
Of course, since the smoke is unnecessary, there remains a possibility of civil action if it goes pear shaped: Hopefully.
Of course, this government is shortly to make legal action by those with less than a few million in the bank illegal....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.