The world has gone mad!

As per last post. Drills (both announced and unannounced) are intended to test the systems the organisation has put in place. Just like any other activity a suitable and sufficient risk assessment needs to be in place e.g. Emergency preparedness. The fact that it is being stated (alleged) that an individual suffered an injury is not a reason to purely rely on announced drills.

Thanks all...You are all saying exactly what I am thinking, however, if anyone does know the relevant case in hand, that would be useful?

Safe access and egress. If you can't provide that you are negligent.

This smells like an urban myth or even something that happened in the US rather than here. If something like this did happen, then I can’t see how that fact there was an unannounced fire drill caused the fall. Surely it was down to the inadequacy of the traffic routes being used, which could happen whether or not here was a fie drill with or without a prior warning. I would argue that an unannounced fire drill is a better test of the system than an announced drill.

It means making sure that people can get in and out of their place of work safely whatever the circumstance. The fact that it is a fire evacuation is irrelevant. If you haven't got a safe way of getting in and out, whether controlled physically or by procedures, then you are negligent.

There are always going to exceptions due to the added risk that you would announce the fire evacuation to take place. When you go on cruise the first thing they do is test the procedure with all passengers, but they don't expect you to run around shouting woman and children first, then jump to a life craft. The idea is to look at reaction times and how quickly the building is cleared, how procedures are followed etc. We do not announce because we need to know how employees are assisting those in need. If you always announce then people react differently so you never get the true picture.

I am with sadlass on this. Your system should include both. If you have revised your procedures, e.g. introduced sweeps or installed new fire doors etc., then do an Announced drill. The next drill should be Unannounced to test that employees understand the current procedures and will comply with them in a real emergency. My main customer has 10,000s litres or flammable material in tanks, there are hot processes, lots of electrics and machines. They have very good controls in place, training is comprehensive, so our Fire Risk Assessment concludes that the risk is 'Tolerable' - we only have Unannounced drills - the process of evacuation is not much different to shutdown at 5.00pm so the risks during a drill are not higher, we're not going to worry particularly about an accident during a drill, and as stevie says the fact that it is a drill does not remove any legal liabilities or duties.

David - New Look 2007 fire evac prosecution being a classic example of how things go wrong. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...gland/london/8379503.stm

Behind all of this is the myth that once there is an alarm people will panic and run around hysterically like they do in the Airplane movies. This is something that is perpetuated by the media, whose headlines always include “panic amongst passengers” and “chaotic evacuation scenes”. Then when we you read the article you realise that far from panicking people were almost in denial that anything was wrong and just stand there waiting for instructions or going on about their normal business and trying to pretend that nothing was happening. Pre-announced emergency drills have a place but sometimes (especially if there is no public about) it is important to assess just what people will do: will the fire marshals turn up( with tabards and loudspeakers) will the place evacuate in the allotted time(including the CEO and his mates), and will people congregate at the assembly points rather than just in front to the building which is just where the fire brigade might wish to set up?

Not Folklore happened in a northwest school the claiment got £158.000 in an out of court settlement http://www.itv.com/news/...in-compensation-in-2011/ and here http://www.dailymail.co....tripping-wheelchair.html

Not an urban myth. In fact quite a tragic case and very recent too. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34974333 "Kenya's police chief has warned universities not to carry out security drills without his approval following the death of a woman on Monday. Esther Kidemba died after apparently jumping from a building during a drill at the private Strathmore University in the capital, Nairobi. Gunshots were fired during the drill, causing panic on the campus. "

I am still unsure what announcing the fire evacuation will achieve! The situation wasn't the fire drill it was mud on the path, the path would still of been muddy. I don't think she would of been running, no-one ever does even when they are unannounced. The other one in South Africa, is amazing, good job they never played War of the Worlds! I am still astounded at the pay out.

On the question of 'announced' or 'unannounced' fire drills. Ask yourself, do you have a policy that states that if an employee 'maliciously' sets off the fire alarm when there is not a fire, are they then subject to a charge of gross misconduct? If so, why? is it because they could be placing persons safety at risk? If so, what is the difference when the Safety Officer sounds the alarm for a 'surprise' drill????

No - It is because they intentionally or recklessly interfered with something provided in the interest of Health and Safety.

My stance is that announced fire drills are not as beneficial as unannounced drills 90% of the time. Yes announced drills will still mean that people are getting chance to exit via the routes, hear the alarm etc. etc., but you are not going to get a true reflection on what would happen during an actual evacuation, i.e. evacuation times. In the 'case' of this injury and subsequent law suit, I would suggest that if in fact this is true and actually occurred, they successfully sued, because escape routes etc. are designed to allow for quick and SAFE evacuation, so if she has been injured due to the design or layout of the escape, or obstructions etc. then the employer is failing in his duties to ensure a safe and obstruction free escape route, but obviously this is just an assumption that this may have been the case. Alternatively, was she injured because she didn't know how to evacuate and had not received any form of information or training on how to evacuate safely, if her lawyers were able to successfully argue that a lack of training was the cause of the incident, then this may answer why it was a successful claim. IF people have received the sufficient training, information, and the escape routes etc. are as safe as they are supposed to be, then I see no controllable reason why someone should be injured during a drill, now obviously you are unable to 100% prevent and injury, but as long as you have done everything you are legally bound to do to ensure that injury is unlikely, you are safe from a successful legal case against you.

The debate about whether to announce a drill or not is hugely dependent on the particular environment & what "works" in one industry or place may not suit another. For places where there are no particular issues, I tend to advise on a compromise solution, i.e. announce a day when the drill is to take place, but not the time.

I am very much of the opinion that if your drills are 'announced' or 'unannounced' is done to individual circumstances. However it is interesting that those who are in favour of unannounced drills cite the main reason for this as it means it is more 'realistic', but then say that they would carry out these drills at convenient times. No drills which may have an adverse effect on production, or during a senior managers important meeting, or in inclement weather, because as we all know a fire would never occur at these times?

Ray agree, try doing it with 90 prisoners 4 members of staff in the rain, even worse in the snow as it is like play time.

Excerpt from RRO Procedures for serious and imminent danger and for danger areas 15.—(1) The responsible person must— (a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures, including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons; Does this answer your question O'Donnell54548