'for every action there is a reaction'
- Russell Grant
- Feb 26
- 4 min read
Once again, another of those extremely frustrating to watch situations where for those of us who have the luxury and benefit of knowledge and distance, the inevitable is about to happen and only those that watch it later have the right answers on what actions should have been taken and when...grrrrr!
Apart from the developing 'moth syndrome' situation that was unveiling slowly and draws the eye so readily, I through habit, scanned the remainder of the narrow workspace that the team find themselves operating in, in order to get a feel essentially for the working environment these folk have had to get used to. Why?, well, in agreement with many of those that have already commented, indications are present that elude to the possible reasoning of 'little or no training' of those seen in the video clip. A lack of appropriate training 'may' be the case but not necessarily always so.
Across my HSE career I have many times found myself undertaking investigations of events that involved behaviors and actions of people, and, more commonly, the 'people' have in fact been experienced or qualified within their role and undertaken numerous courses enabling them to be designated or considered as competent. Fire situations are notoriously more complex than, as an example, slipping a hand from a spanner and causing a laceration which once all the cursing and swearing has surpassed the injured party can now take more time to reflect on what just happened, and how best to deal with the aftermath. A fire, as we all know wants in very basic terms to 'get bigger' and in many cases grows significantly and rapidly and lends us to doing quite the opposite of what we should...this example is perfect for making that point. Unless a lot of people are a bit weird like myself and have always found 'fire' an attraction and interesting and then pursued a career in dealing with them, the last time they may have encountered a fire was as a child playing with a box of Grandads matches in the garden.
The situation these guys find themselves confronted with would I hope have been discussed and demonstrated in any specific fire training course they 'should have' been provided with. I have taught this type of training to many thousands of people across my time but please let us also consider these following points...
1. The training 'may' have been several years prior to this event. Not every company will provide their employees with Annual 'practical' based training when attempting to meet their legislative obligations.
2. The training session would hopefully have included both theoretical and practical elements with explanations and (importantly) demonstration of the correct means and methods of 'actions to take in the event of' just such a situation.
3. Notoriously, extinguisher sessions (as they are referred to) last between 20 and 30 minutes and may include numbers of 5 to 25 trainees at any one time. In some regions of the world I have seen sessions undertaken with in excess of 50 people and for no longer than 10 minutes.
4. The range of extinguishers used will be the 'norm' workplace available types, and each attendee may or may not get a quick squirt of each from which someone then deems them 'competent' and signs a piece of paper supporting that decision.
Here, once again I have to offer some personal caution while hoping that any training these guys had received was of a quality standard that it could and should have been, however, we have to also ask ourselves further questions;
1. Was the training (if any at all) of any value, structured and relevant to their work type and environment?
2. Did the training adequately prepare them for a kitchen type scenario?
3. Was the training meaningful enough to prompt an immediate and measured response?
Going by the actions shown in the clip and still images the first impression we would have is NO!
PPE Standards - As I earlier implied, I looked at the workspace and the team and note that while working in high heat, hot temperature cooking oil environments the team are wearing short-sleeved tops and therefore have exposed arms.
I have never been a great advocate of tiled flooring in kitchen spaces and have historically (through investigation) found a number of incidents have been attributable to slips of employees as floor surfaces are wet, damp, and can become oil contaminated etc. In the clip, both of the team are wearing similar safety footwear so I assume this is part of a 'corporate dress code', however, at 11 seconds into the video clip one of the teams foot slides somewhat as he adjusts his position which again draws my eye over the footwear type, and floor surface and compatibility between the both.
I believe I am correct in assuming both personnel were able to vacate the space safely after the application of water to the flames and the subsequent expansion. A momentary slip while attempting to evade the massive flame and temperature increase may have complicated this situation considerably.
As highlighted above, the team have evidently become accustomed to negotiating open door panels and extending equipment handles that encroach into the already existing narrow working corridor. Could these items have impeded an emergency evacuation of the space?
Continually asking ourselves the 'what if' questions will certainly help keep us and our colleagues safe. The legislative expectations placed upon businesses are, despite how some may feel about them, necessary and there for such reasons as witnessed in the clips used for this submission.
For those of you holding responsibility toward creating and maintaining a safe work environment I can only implore you to set equal expectations of your training providers, those that are providing risk assessment services on your behalf and of your employees and staff to not only work safely but to ask of themselves also.
If we can be of service, or you simply need advice...please get in touch.
Stay safe everyone and remember that 'safety is never a compromise'
Comments