Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 75
6
Training
Under threat-to-life conditions, a person wants to have a maximal chance of escaping
alive. An important way to maximize those chances is by preparing the person to perform
effectively and confidently under those conditions, and sound training is a key contributor to
being well prepared.
Designing and delivering effective training is similar to shooting an arrow at a target: a
person has to be able to see the target clearly; take into account the conditions that might affect
the shot; select an arrow that fits the situation; fire the arrow at the target with good form; check
to see how close your shot came to the bull’s eye; and make corrections before the next shot. If
one leaves out any of these steps, the person will shoot poorly or not hit the target at all.
Similarly, in training, one has to have a clear and specific view of the goal of the training; take
into account the conditions that might affect training; select the training methods that fit the
training situation; deliver the training using best practices; verify how close the training came to
having the training goal; and make any corrections necessary to improve the next training
opportunity.
There are several excellent reviews of the training design and delivery process that
provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues: see, especially, Brown and Sitzmann
(2011); Cannon-Bowers and Bowers (2011); and Noe (2010). In this chapter, we discuss the
processes that seem to be most relevant to the mine self-escape task. We also discuss aspects of
training content and current industry practice that are relevant to self-escape.
CURRENT TRAINING IN THE MINING INDUSTRY
Required Training
Safety training in the U.S. mining industry is regulated by The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA). Requirements set out which miners must be trained, how much training
is required, who may provide the training, and the subject areas that need to be covered.1 As
noted earlier, much has changed in the training of miners, as well as the resources available to
them, since the mandates of the 2006 MINER Act: quarterly hands-on training on the use of self-
contained self-rescuers (SCSRs) and escapeway drills, the location of caches of additional
SCSRs positioned along escapeways, and the availability of gas detectors, directional lifelines,
refuge alternatives, and wireless communication and tracking systems.
The regulations on relevant training have been organized around new miners,
experienced miners, and annual refresher training. New miners, before they start work duties, are
required to receive no less than 40 hours of training. New miner training consists of instruction
in 14 areas:
1
Much of this summary draws on the regulations applicable to training for self-escape from underground
coal mines, in 30 CFR Parts 46 and 48; see Appendix A for more details.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-1
OCR for page 76
(1) statutory rights of miners and authority and responsibility of supervisors;
(2) self-rescue and respiratory devices;
(3) mine transportation and communication;
(4) work environment;
(5) escapeways and emergency evacuation;
(6) roof and ventilation plans;
(7) health;
(8) rock dusting;
(9) hazard recognition;
(10) electrical hazards;
(11) first aid;
(12) mine gases;
(13) health and safety aspects of relevant tasks; and
(14) other subjects required by the district MSHA manager based on mine conditions.
(adapted from 30 CFR § 48.5)
Experienced miner training and annual refresher training cover many of the same areas. The
regulations spell out when experienced miner training is required (see Appendix A). All
employed miners are required to receive a minimum of 8 hours of annual refresher training.
Although all the training areas have the potential to increase miners' familiarity with
mine-specific resources and protocols and as such equip miners with the knowledge necessary
for self-escape, areas (2) and (5) have been recognized as most pertinent to self-escape. For area
(2), miners are instructed on the use, care, and maintenance of self-rescue and respiratory
devices. They must receive hands-on training in the complete donning of all types of devices
used at the mine and in transferring between devices. For area (5), instruction is required to
orient miners to the mine emergency evacuation and firefighting program approved by the
district manager (under 30 CFR § 75.1502). Such instruction is supposed to include a review of
the mine map and escapeway system, as well as methods for barricading when necessary.
As a result of the 2006 MINER Act, training on self-rescue, respiratory devices,
escapeways, and emergency evacuation are now required quarterly as part of mine emergency
evacuation training and drills (see discussion in Chapter 2). Instruction is now expected to
emphasize the importance of not removing the SCSR mouthpiece, even to communicate, from
respiratory devices. “Expectations training,” which includes the donning and transferring of
SCSRs in smoke or equivalent degraded environment and the use of training units that provide
the sensation of SCSR airflow resistance and heat, is required annually. In the evacuation drills,
miners are required to travel the entire primary or alternative escapeway and to physically locate
lifelines, SCSR caches, refuge alternatives, and other self-escape resources.
In addition to knowing the location of refuge alternatives, miners are required to review
quarterly the procedures to deploy and use refuge alternatives and their components as well as to
be trained on the proper transportation of refuge alternatives and components. Annually, they are
expected to experience the deployment and operations of refuge components. They are supposed
to be instructed when to use refuge alternatives during an emergency, with emphasis on using as
a last resort if escape is possible.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-2
OCR for page 77
Training Gaps
Today’s mine safety training programs appear to emphasize training duration and
frequency rather than training to competency. The committee heard from several stakeholders
that current self-escape training is not satisfactory to meet the needs of miners. The Mine Safety
Technology and Training Commission (2006), in its review of mine safety in underground coal
mines, recognized that existing training requirements do not adequately address all areas needed
to improve miners’ ability to escape in mine emergencies: see Boxes 6-1 and 6-2. The
commission acknowledged the mining industry would need to consider providing miners with
additional training beyond what is required by law in order to adequately prepare them for
emergency situations.
BOX 6-1
Self-Escape Skill and Knowledge Areas
Knowledge of Escape/Rescue Technologies: Miners must be competent in the use of the
technologies designed to assist them during an emergency situation. They must be proficient
in the use of self-contained self-rescuers (SCSRs), directional lifelines, refuge chambers, gas-
monitoring devices, and similar types of technologies. As a last resort, they must also be
familiar with how to construct a proper barricade.
Mine-Specific Knowledge: Miners must be intimately familiar with their mine’s escapeways,
ventilation system, mine map, SCSR storage locations, lifelines, escape capsules,
communication networks, and other emergency systems. In addition, miners must be
proficient in the specifics of their mine’s emergency response/evacuation plan and related
mine-rescue protocols.
Escape/Rescue Conceptual Knowledge: A key escape/rescue competency often overlooked
is the ability of miners to think and adapt to changing emergency situations. Miners must
have effective problem-solving and decision-making skills. The ability of miners to define
the nature of their problem, identify alternative escape strategies, effectively use available
technology, and execute their decisions all depends on their ability to think conceptually.
Conceptual knowledge is a higher level of understanding. It is not gained by rote instruction
alone. Instead, it is attained by exposing learners to good and bad examples of the concept
they are trying to understand. Miners can better understand the concepts of self-escape if they
are exposed to various types of mine disaster scenarios.*
SOURCE: Adapted from Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission (2006).
* Federal regulation currently requires coal mine operators to identify four different scenarios using fire, explosion,
inundation of gas and water, in their mandatory Firefight Evacuation Plans. A different scenario is required for each
90 day Firefight Evacuation Drill.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-3
OCR for page 78
BOX 6-2
Specific Training Elements to Maintain and Improve
SCSR Donning/Transfer: This is a fundamental escape skill. If miners do not have the ability
to quickly don their SCSRs, they have no chance of successfully escaping through carbon
monoxide (CO), smoke, or both. Miners need hands-on training in the SCSR donning (and
transfer) procedure. In addition, SCSR training needs to be repeated frequently, or it tends to
be forgotten.
SCSR Expectations: SCSR expectations training involves having miners actually breathe
through their SCSRs to provide them a realistic idea of what to expect from the device in an
emergency.
Simulated Smoke: Again, realistic experiences prepares miners for the sensations they may
experience in emergencies.
The Effects of Carbon Monoxide: Increased training on the dangers posed by CO may
encourage early donning of SCSRs and improve the ability of miners to self-escape.
The Concept of Ventilation Leakage: Excess smoke in mine pathways may be the result of
ventilation leakage and not specifically tied to the significance of an existing fire. Such
smoke can be walked through. A better understanding of this concept may improve the
problem-solving ability of miners confronted with such situations.
Wayfinding: Wayfinding or being “mine wise” is a miner’s knowledge of alternative escape
routes other than the primary escapeway. It also involves the ability to use alternative
directional devices, such as track and belt lines to successfully exit a mine in limited
visibility.
Effective Warnings: Miners and responsible surface personnel need to know how to provide
and receive accurate information as to the nature, location, and severity of a problem.
Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Skills: Miners could benefit from additional training
to develop their problem-solving and decision-making skills in emergency situations.
SOURCE: Adapted from Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission (2006).
In the mining industry, the capacity to provide adequate escape training seems to be
somewhat piecemeal. A recent review by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007, p.
3) found:
Underground coal mine operators face significant challenges preparing for emergencies,
including ensuring that miners receive realistic training and organizing mine rescue teams
that satisfy new requirements. Mine operators recognized the importance of providing
emergency training in a simulated environment. However, on the basis of our survey
results, an estimate of 81 percent of mine operators considered the availability of special
training facilities for providing such training as a challenge, and 70 percent considered
the costs of providing simulated training as a challenge.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-4
OCR for page 79
The committee was informed that despite training development done by by the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, MSHA, some universities, and some mine operators,
the quality and quantity of escape training this is still room for improvement to ensure that all
mine personnel can effectively escape a mine emergency. This conclusion applies to almost
every aspect of escape behavior training, from donning, removing and exchanging SCSRs to
working effectively as an escape group. Although there are exceptions, escape training programs
in the industry seem to be oriented primarily toward ”checking the box” of minimal compliance
with federal and state training criteria.
The committee was told that miners seldom have to demonstrate mastery of a skill, but,
instead, they just have to attend the required training. We also learned that programs for
preparing and certifying self-escape trainers are few and of variable quality. According to the
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007), MSHA’s monitoring of training and certified
instructors is insufficient. Although MSHA has guidelines for the approval of new instructors, it
allows variance in the processes for approval across districts. The report also notes that MSHA
“does not have continuing education requirements for instructors… and does not ensure that they
keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Further, MSHA does not adequately monitor
instructors or evaluate training sessions, and does not assess how well miners are learning the
skills being taught” (page 4).
The number of training facilities capable of preparing miners and responsible persons in
escape appear to be insufficient, especially with regard to facilities that have the capability of
simulating mine fire conditions and providing integrated training between miners, responsible
persons, and the surface communication centers. A recent inventory of coal mine rescue training
capabilities and facilities (Bealko et al., 2009) found 12 facilities in the United States that offer
what is considered real-life training activities or features that could enhance training. And of
these, only eight are readily available public facilities. The other facilities are either government
research, academic, or privately owned facilities. Only one of the public facilities was recognized
as providing training to individual coal miners to respond to mine emergency conditions): most
of the facilities were focused on preparing mine rescue teams. The inventory considered the
provision of 11 basic features and training capabilities (e.g, firefighting, navigation in smoke,
water rescue, incident command) and determined that comprehensive regional facilities do not
exist in the United States. The inventory (Bealko et al., 2009) did acknowledge that existing
facilities are providing some kinds of realistic and hands-on training experiences.
Currently, a source of best practices and sharing of training programs on mine health and
safety is an annual mine instructors conference held by MSHA at the National Academy for
Mine Health and Safety (in Beaver, West Virginia). The primary objective is to train and retrain
the MSHA mine instructors; a secondary objective is to perform outreach to the mining industry
as a part of the agency’s Educational Field Service (EFS). At present, there are a very few
programs at the annual conference on training miners to escape, and there are no programs that
focus on the responsible persons and support to escaping miners.
The MSHA academy has the potential to expand escape training and offer programs on
training in an integrated way. It could also be a venue for training on curricula developed by the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on effective tools and their
proper use. Other examples of existing sources of training include the many health and safety
papers and presentations held in conjunction with the American Society of Safety Engineers, the
International Society for Mine Safety Professionals, the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-5
OCR for page 80
Exploration, the Joseph A Holmes Safety Association,2 vendor training programs, and various
state coal mining institutes.
PRINCIPLES OF TRAINING DESIGN
There are a number of “best practice” principles and tools available through the work of
both researchers and practitioners (for a thorough review, see Salas et al., 2012). The general
principles apply regardless of whether the students are miners, members of a responsible person
team, or trainers learning how to be better trainers. For discussion purposes, the rest of this
chapter focuses on developing training for miners and members of responsible person teams.
One of the fundamental conceptual principles is that effective training is developed
through a systematic process (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990; Goldstein, 1986; Brown and
Sitzmann, 2011; Salas et al., 2012;). The essential elements include (1) conducting a training
needs analysis which would include task, systems, and critical incidents analyses (see Chapter 3),
(2) developing objectives and a design, (3) pilot testing that design, and (4) evaluating both the
learners and the design. These steps are taken within the context of also considering how the
learners will best absorb and retain what the training seeks to deliver, how the learners will
accept or engage with the training, and how the training will facilitate transfer of the requisite
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal attributes (KSAOs) back to the work
environment.
As Brown and Sitzmann (2011) note, one key conclusion is to make training as similar as
possible to what the learners will have to actually do on the job (Holton and Baldwin, 2003).
This conclusion essentially captures the military doctrine of “train as you fight” and the
importance of psychological similarity between the training experience and the actual application
(i.e., escape under threat-to-life pressure and adverse conditions).
Training is but one intervention that may be called for to enhance success in escape
scenarios. The scope of interventions that should be considered will be defined by a needs
analysis. Once the needs analysis points to training as a key element, analyses of tasks, critical
incidents, and the system in which escapes take place, are required to provide the basis for the
content and design of the training needed. A task analysis and related training needs analysis
make the target of your training clear and reveal priorities regarding what should be trained.
Research on training provides a number of evidence-based best practices for training
design and delivery (Noe, 2010; Brown and Sitzmann, 2011; Salas et al., 2012) that can be key
resources for mining industry personnel responsible for training or management. In particular,
Salas and his colleagues (2012) not only list and review best practices, but they also provide
tables and checklists for the pre-training, in-training and post-training periods. Among those
practices listed is the conduct of a training needs analysis. As part of that assessment, a task
analysis, critical incidents analysis, cognitive task analysis, and team and system task analyses
can specifically define the KSAOs that need to be trained, as well as relevant choice points,
technologies and conditions under which specific KSAOs should be demonstrated. For the task
2
The association, begun in 1916, is a private nonprofit organization that recognizes achievements in mine safety; it
gives annual awards and publishes a bulletin containing mine safety information. In includes representatives of
federal and state governments, mining organizations, and labor unions.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-6
OCR for page 81
of self-escape, such an analysis would cover the tasks, behaviors, decision points, technologies,
competencies, and conditions of the self-escape for miners.
Accompanying the task analysis would be a general analysis of the organizational climate
and the extent of its readiness and support for this training. Organizational obstacles, negative
supervisory attitudes, or lack of resources for effective training and its transfer would have to be
resolved before expecting good training results. When organizational leaders support a
particular training, the result of the training is improved (Salas et al., 2012). A similar outcome
might be expected from support by union leaders, foremen, and formal and informal leaders
among section crews in mines. To promote motivation and accurate perception of the training,
Salas and colleagues (2012, p. 83) emphasize that “organizations should prepare and encourage
supervisors, mentors, and team leaders to have effective conversations with trainees prior to
training.”
Lastly among the training analyses would be a work force analysis. A work force
analysis will help the industry, and perhaps individual mines, determine whether the mode of
training needs to accommodate changing employee demographics and any variations in miners’
capacities to learn. As noted to the committee, the work force of the coal mine industry may be
shifting, with an increase in younger workers as well as those with primary languages other than
English. Several researchers make a case for training older workers differently than younger
workers (Mayr and Kliegl, 1993; Mead and Fisk, 1998; Salas et al., 2012). As younger miners
enter the workforce, this population might be more engaged in training that is presented through
computers, virtual reality formats, or the Internet. Although digital training should not replace
high-fidelity simulation or hands-on experience in threat-to-life training, it might be appropriate
and effective for portions of self-escape training, such as case-based decision making, problem
detection and awareness, medical and refuge decision criteria, common wayfinding mistakes,
and best practices, presented digitally prior to actual practice. Older employees may respond
better to highly structured practice and traditional instructional materials (Salas et al., 2012).
Another important difference to keep in mind in assessing the work force, is the
difference between mine employees and contracted employees. Currently, about one-fifth (about
10,000) of the workers in underground mines are contractors. There is uncertainty about these
workers in several regards: the training they have received; their familiarity with the layout of a
particular mine; their skills for using available escape equipment and technologies; their
knowledge of the authority for and in response to decisions; and group dynamics when
contracted employees are part of a group in an emergency.
TRAINING MINERS FOR SELF-ESCAPE
A systematic and industry-wide approach to training for miners would be beneficial for
the miners and the industry. Such an approach would focus on the two critical parties to mine
self-escape: (1) an individual miner alone and as a member of an escape group, and (2) the
responsible team, which consists of the responsible person, the people staffing the
communications center at the mine site, and the other one or two people who are designated to
assist the responsible person during the escape process. It is clear from the extensive list of tasks
given to the responsible person (see Appendix A) that the person cannot perform the tasks alone:
she or he will necessarily rely on other miners for assistance. Regardless of the composition of
the team, or of other duties they perform when mine operations are nominal, each member of a
responsible person team needs to be fully capable at all times for assuming the responsible
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-7
OCR for page 82
person team role. Training is an important component in the preparation of the miners and the
responsible person and the responsible person team.
Across the mine industry as a whole, training for these two critical groups appears to
have taken place in a piecemeal way, with little integration between them. Separate training is
required for each of the groups; however, there seem to be few instances in which coordinated
training with both occurs. The importance of integrated training is that it gives an opportunity for
the two groups to exercise their interrelated roles and identify opportunities to improve the way
an escape is coordinated and information is exchanged. Although at times this may involve a
mine-wide exercise, great gains also can be made using a responsible person team and only one
work group of miners. Such a partial simulation would most benefit the surface personnel, who
will have to periodically refresh their familiarity with escape procedures, and it is a good way to
establish responsible person team procedures before applying them to mine-wide integrated
drills. The ultimate goal for training, however, is a fully integrated emergency response drill
among everyone who would be involved in an escape situation, conducted on a regular basis (see
Recommendation 1 in Chapter 2).
Types of Escapes
Before an escape begins, the decision must be made as to whether the emergency can be
resolved and so obviate the need to escape. The detection and evaluation of the emergency and
the kinds of decisions required to stay and resolve the emergency would be important elements
in any comprehensive training program. As a first and obvious step, safety values need to be in
place as part of prevention so that miners take care to avoid any actions that could start a fire or
cause another emergency.
As noted in previous chapters, the committee learned during its work that every mine and
every emergency situation is unique. However, there are some fundamental similarities as well.
In Chapter 3, an example of a preliminary self-escape task analysis for underground miners is
illustrated. That task analysis was useful in highlighting escape behaviors and potential decision
points as well as identifying conditions that characterize different types of escapes. Table 6-1
identifies six basic circumstances, based on wayfinding and communications implications of
possible environmental conditions, under which mine escapes occur, regardless of variations in
the mines or personnel. These basic circumstances are further defined by whether the escaping
miner is alone or in a group . The environmental conditions determine the technology that will
have to be used, as well as the functional limitations of the individual or group during the escape.
Essential to wayfinding and decision making, sight and speech are key functional capabilities
and may or may not possible. These capabilities will be affected in part by smoke or limited
lighting, which can restrict visibility, and the widely used SCSR technology, which limits
speech. Therefore, miners must be trained to deal effectively with all six of the basic escape
circumstances.
During any specific escape, a miner is likely to experience more than one of these six
circumstances over the course of the escape. A miner may be in thick smoke and with an SCSR
and later come into fresh air, or vice versa; visibility may come and go as the escaping miner
makes his way through escapeways; a miner also may begin in a group and then later become
separated from that group, or vice versa.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-8
OCR for page 83
TABLE 6-1 Basic Circumstances of Escape and their Wayfinding and Communication
Implications
Kind of Escape Type I Type II Type III
Individual Escape No visibility; Partial visibility; Good visibility;
no speech; no speech; full speech;
tactile wayfinding tactile and visual visual and verbal
wayfinding communication and
wayfinding
Group Escape No visibility; Partial visibility; Good visibility;
no speech; no speech; full speech;
tactile tactile, visual and visual and verbal
communication and sign-signal communication and
wayfinding communication and wayfinding
wayfinding
Training Across Types
There will be important variances in a task analysis according to each circumstance and,
consequently, variances in the specific training needed. For a complete picture, a task analysis
is also needed for the job tasks of the responsible person and the responsible person team during
an escape. We can see that teamwork training, discussed further below, will be necessary for
miners in Type 2 and, especially, Type 3 conditions, as well as for the responsible person and his
team in all instances.
Training designers should first address the worst-case scenario--an individual miner who
is forced to escape by himself in thick smoke or darkness while wearing an SCSR that prevents
speaking. Addressing the worst-case scenario first assures that all personnel in the mine share a
common basic skill set and wayfinding ability. Comprehensive basic training will build
confidence within the individual miner about leading a group out or following a leader on a
tagline3 under Type 1 conditions. It will also serve as a knowledge base from which each miner
can contribute to group decision making if they are escaping under better conditions.
Because of the potential for shifting environmental conditions, individual miners have to
be able to manage themselves and the appropriate technologies for each of these conditions.
Thus, every miner must not only be trained and prepared for each of the six conditions, but must
also be trained to recognize when conditions change and how to mobilize the coping strategies
3
A tagline is a long heavy duty rope with tethers spaced at even intervals, designed to link members of a mine crew
together in the event of an emergency, particularly in dense smoke and little or no lighting.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6-9
OCR for page 84
and technologies best for each one. These needs require a flexible situational competency, in
addition to the skills needed to deal with each of the basic conditions.
Specifically, miners have to have situational awareness. As discussed in Chapter 4,
situational awareness is knowing what is around you, understanding it, and being able to project
what might happen in the future (Endsley, 1988; Endsley and Garland, 2000). This type of
awareness can be developed by training miners to see emergencies through the eyes of an
“expert miner” (see Klein et al., 2013; see Chapter 4). By drawing on the knowledge base of
highly experienced miners, one can learn what types of environmental cues these experts notice
and the decisions and actions they might invoke in each situation. This knowledge can then be
taught to less experienced miners. It should be noted that situational awareness is important not
only for miners underground but also for surface personnel. Surface personnel could also be
trained using the above mentioned expertise approach, in terms of knowing what information is
most important to communicate and receive from underground.
Regardless of the type of escape, miners will benefit from training on common decision-
making pitfalls and mistakes that tend to occur in emergency situations. Chapter 4 discusses in
detail how stressful situations can compromise miners’ thinking and reasoning skills and outlines
decision-making mistakes that are likely to occur during self-escape. These include following
through on an initial decision rather than considering alternative options, particularly if
conditions change (i.e., sunk costs), looking for information that confirms one’s assumptions
about the emergency situation rather than disconfirms them (i.e., confirmation bias), not thinking
about options for self-escape in terms of routes outby that may be behind you (i.e., backup
avoidance). Common biases that can occur include not acknowledging an emergency situation
early enough and decisions that are driven by panic, emotion, or fear, rather than a thorough
consideration of all the information at hand: these biases can also be addressed during training.
Being informed about these decision-making issues and training in ways that allow miners to see
the consequences of various decision paths--using past mine disasters or even fictitious
scenarios--is likely to help miners act most appropriately during self-escape. This type of
“mindset education,” that is, educating miners about key psychological factors that can affect
decision about the the implementation of self-escape, can be carried out through computer or
virtual reality training.
Training needs to include correct self-location and wayfinding in the mine, procedures
for using and changing breathing devices, and decision making with regard to use of refuges and
other beneficial technologies in the mine. Under Type 1 conditions, current breathing
technologies prevent group problem solving and increase the importance of passive, embedded
wayfinding aids, whether individuals are escaping solo or in a group. Individual miners should
be trained to demonstrate mastery of individual and group wayfinding aids, and refresher training
needs to be provided on a regular basis to maintain skills and knowledge. As improved passive
wayfinding and breathing technologies are put into place (see Chapter 3), self-escape training
should be integrated with these aids and technologies.
With Type 1 training and technologies as a base, organizations can address training
individuals and teams for the slightly better conditions associated with Type 2 escapes. In this
situation, marginal visibility is present but breathing technologies prevent speech. With partial
visibility, miners have some, although limited, ability to communicate through hand signs and
headlamp signals. This ability enables some communication within the escape group, although
no verbal contact with the responsible person team would be possible.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 10
OCR for page 85
Thus, training needs to address this rudimentary form of communication. A close review
of the sign-signals that are currently taught—in conjunction with a careful study of escape tasks,
decision points, and what comprises vital information in an escape group—might reveal that
some of the current sign-signals are more important than others and that ones of low important
could be dropped from training. Similarly, it may be found that by adding just a few carefully
selected signs (e.g., question signs or escapeway designation signs), the exchange of critical
information in a group could be greatly expanded.
Type 3 conditions of full sight and speech open up the possibility of training for effective
decision making in groups of miners. Under emergency conditions, not every decision can or
should be made as a group. However, with speech comes the option for leaders to explain their
perception of the situation, describe a plan, consider information and alternatives offered by
others, delegate some actions, call the responsible person team outside the mine and exchange
information, and so forth. Other miners in the group can offer factual information, provide
reminders, suggest alternative courses of action, volunteer for tasks, give opinions, and provide
other informational support to the leader and other group members. With more information
being shared throughout the escape process, either in an escape group or between an individual
miner and the responsible person team, the chances are greater that the individual or group can
choose better courses of action that fit the evolving conditions and particular difficulties
encountered.
For miners who, in training, do not demonstrate competency at SCSR skills under Type 1
conditions, it cannot be assumed that they have the skills necessary to escape. Similarly,
responsible persons and their teams who have not demonstrated team coordination competency
under Type 3 conditions cannot be assumed to have the skills necessary to facilitate miners’
escapes.
Type 2 and Type 3 circumstances permit more knowledge to be shared through vision
and within-group communication, in contrast with Type 1, in which the group will have to rely
heavily on the knowledge of the leader. Type 3 conditions are well suited for training that covers
leadership and followership behavior, maximizes the exchange of wayfinding and status
information, and promotes effective courses of action. Also under Type 3 conditions, the
responsible person and his delegates and the communication center have an opportunity to work
as a team to solicit, discuss, and provide information with escaping miners.
Leaders and Followers
Both leadership and followership become important skills under any of the escape types.
It is easy to understand how someone connected to a tagline and following a leader through thick
smoke would want the leader to be fully and recently trained on wayfinding and making critical
decisions about direction, resource locations and refuges. Leaders on taglines must not only be
well trained on these things must be visually identifiable as such, perhaps miners who have
demonstrated competency in mine escape should be given a reflective helmet tag or some other
identifiable symbol.
Since an escape group also is likely to encounter Type 2 or 3 conditions during its escape,
leadership training needs to include verbal leadership skills, such as soliciting information and
opinions from others, exchanging information with the responsible person team, delegating,
decision making, laying out alternative courses of action, communicating his intentions and
rationale, setting up and managing a refuge group. The demands of escape conditions and the
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 11
OCR for page 86
degree of time pressure will determine naturally the extent to which the group is able to discuss
various alternatives. When there is time and the ability to speak, more group discussion and
follower input can take place; when time is critically short, what is said must be concise and and
clearly understood, and the leader needs to be able to be more autocratic. When to listen and
when to dictate is an important decision requiring good judgment, so training for leaders also
needs to include situational leadership.
Followership is equally critical to successful team functioning under stress. To promote
escape success, the follower role includes providing factual data openly for the team and leader
to consider, as well as providing one’s own recommendations, rationale, and reminders. In an
escape situation, great responsibility is placed on the leader and followers to share information.
Under Type 2 and 3 conditions, communication can be done with pointing, signals, signs and
language. When to speak and when to keep quiet and when to insist and when to defer are all
part of both leadership and followership. During a Type 1 escape, reminders and guidance
sometimes can be shared by mumbling through the SCSR and through shoulder taps and other
tactile ways. Followership should be taught in conjunction with leadership.
Some rules for communication that could be useful in a mine emergency, especially
between personnel on the surface and miners underground, are available from research on
training:
Repeat back key pieces of information to make sure it was understood correctly.
Talk in “to do” statements rather than abstract statements (Chang et al., 2010).
State key pieces of information stated first to ensure that receiver understands the context
of what is being communicated (Bransford and Johnson, 1972).
To the extent possible, having the same person(s) consistently on both ends can lead to a
feeling of comfort and also less likelihood for misunderstandings (Gary Klein,
MacroCognition LLC, personal communication)
Responsible Person and Team Training
Currently in the mine industry, attention seems to be on isolated training for an individual
responsible person (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). This is important of course, but the
responsible person does not function alone during an escape. Under the current regulations, the
responsible person must be trained to cover an enormous number of tasks in the event of a mine
emergency. It is a bit unrealistic to expect one individual to meet all of these needs, especially
when he/she may not be immediately available: if the responsible person is underground when
an emergency begins, miners' escape efforts may be unnecessarily delayed while the
communications center tries to contact him or her. Even if the responsible person is in contact
with the communication center, one may likely concentrate on assuring that all miners are
evacuated safely to the surface and making decisions focused on addressing the hazard itself.
The responsible person needs to be aware of how decisions affect the self-escape efforts
and must be trained to facilitate and aid the evacuation of miners. This must be a primary
concern and anything done to mitigate the source of the emergency will, out of necessity, take a
back seat to the escape under way. Therefore, it is important for other persons on the shift to be
prepared to take over some of the secondary duties anticipated by the regulations. It is important
to have a clear line of authority described for every mine regarding who assumes the responsible
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 12
OCR for page 87
person role and the different responsible person team member roles under the various possible
scenarios.
Under all conditions, the responsible and the responsible person team would benefit from
team coordination and decision making-training, such as crew resource management training or
one of its derivatives (Salas et al., 2012). This kind of training addresses effective team
communication, situational awareness, detection of problems, and good team leadership and
followership behavior. This training first requires that the responsible person team members be
clearly distinguished and their roles be crisply defined. In this way, the functions of the team and
its members are distinguishable from other incident response teams that may be involved in an
emergency. In organizations that want to have a subsequent handover of responsible person
responsibility to mine management or other personnel that arrive sometime later during the
emergency, that transfer should be explicitly described in a mine’s emergency response plan.
Anyone—including higher management—that participates in tactical decision making pertinent
to an escape also should undergo team coordination training.
A major review of research on team training (Cannon-Bowers and Bowers, 2011), which
has primarily occurred in the military and aviation, identifies several things of particular interest
to mine escape teams and responsible person teams. One is that teams under time pressure rely
on existing, shared knowledge or shared mental models of the situation and of each other. Thus,
training to build shared team knowledge of what to do under different escape conditions and
circumstances would be beneficial for both in-mine and above-ground teams. Among the many
aspects of team training reviewed, scenario-based training and team coordination and adaptation
training appear to be particularly suited to both miner and responsible person team preparation
for escape.
Since there is little history of formal responsible person team training in the mining
industry, team coordination and adaptation training could build on the considerable knowledge
of current responsible persons. Responsible person teams would also need refresher training to
keep their shared knowledge current, as well as the understanding in the miner and rescue groups
regarding everyone’s roles.
Cannon-Bowers and Bowers (2011) also point out that there is significant evidence from
learning research to support scenario-based training. They provide specific guidelines for team
training and for the transfer of team training to the work setting.
Basic team coordination training is a tool that also should be considered for miner escape
groups and responsible person teams. As discussed above, with improved escape conditions,
opportunities for miners to communicate increase. Although Type 1 circumstances require a
group to rely heavily on the knowledge of the leader, Type 2 and Type 3 circumstances permit
more knowledge to be shared through improved vision and within-group communication. Type 3
circumstances are well suited for training in leadership and followership skills, maximizing the
exchange of wayfinding and status information, and promoting effective courses of action. Also
under Type 3 circumstances, the responsible person, delegates, and the communication center
have an opportunity to work as a team. There is a natural opportunity here to improve their
coordination and effectiveness, as well as their communication with miner escape teams, through
team training.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 13
OCR for page 88
TRAINING TOOLS
There are a large number of training tools, methods, and strategies available and
described in the research on training that are suited for individual miners and responsible person
teams (e.g., Gagne et al., 1988; Noe, 2010). These include, but are not limited to, classroom
lectures, rote physical drills, mentoring, modeling, part-task trainers, full-task trainers, team and
crew resource management training, integrated simulations, computer-based training, virtual
reality, environmental simulators, remote online training, and in-mine simulations.
A training designer should select the tools that are most appropriate to achieve the
training objectives and to maximize transfer of learning back to the task. Any method by itself
will not fully address a training task rather a combination of tools and methods, combined with
specific content, will form the best training strategy (Cannon-Bowers and Bowers, 2011). When
the goal of training is effective performance under life-threatening conditions, the training
designer should select the tools that lead to rapid detection of trouble, automatic actions,
effective use of available information, and good decision making. The various training tools
should be mixed, modified, and arranged to form a sequence of training experiences that leads to
effective in-mine escape capability. The sequential arrangement of these experiences constitutes
the escape training flow or program.
Currently, classroom lectures are widely used in the corporate training environment and
in annual SCSR refresher training for miners. This tool is suitable for the presentation of
overview information, general concepts, background, and historical and technical information, as
well as for introductory familiarization to hardware and procedures. However, this type of
training does not yield learning that lasts particularly long by itself, and it does not transfer well
to a life-and-death escape situation. As a tool to introduce the SCSR and familiarize miners with
its parts, procedures, and function, classroom training is potentially useful; however, by itself it
does not adequately prepare a miner to be able to use the SCSR under actual escape conditions.
Therefore, classroom training needs to be used in combination with other training tools in order
to ensure proficiency under actual escape conditions.
Escape performance in a real mine emergency will be improved to the extent that miners
and the responsible person teams have been trained under realistic conditions and scenarios. This
is the “train as you fight” maxim that is supported by training research and practiced by a
number of high-risk, high-stakes industries, such as the military and the space industry. Hands-
on, experiential training in a simulator brings workers close to the actual experience they must
master and is essential training for threat-to-life situations. The psychological fidelity of the
training experience in this approach is also higher than in classroom training as environmental
conditions, scenarios, difficulties, time pressure, and other aspects are similar to the actual
escape. Workers not only learn to perform necessary tasks under pressure, but are also able to
practice managing their emotions.
The use of high-fidelity simulators are likely to be useful in training for the types of
emergencies faced by individual miners and teams. Simulators could be mounted on trucks and
periodically taken to mining sites for initial training and follow-up practice, so that each locale
need not develop and program its own equipment. An example of this is a mobile fire escape
simulator used extensively by West Virginia University in SCSR expectation training at mine
sites(Bealko et al., 2009). Note, however, that when training is done in high-fidelity simulators,
emergency conditions that produce high levels of stress may interfere with learned responses.
The use of work aids that miners could carry with them as a quick reference to decision rules and
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 14
OCR for page 89
strategies could be useful in training and subsequently in emergencies as reminders of what to
do.
The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and offshore oil drilling companies conduct training in simulators for pilot and
passenger escape from helicopters and jets that have to ditch at sea. A helicopter that goes down
in the sea will often roll over and submerge before anyone can get out, and such an accident can
occur during day or night. To train for these escape situations, trainees are strapped into a
“dunker,” which is usually a helicopter body complete with crew compartment, passenger
compartment, doors and windows. The dunker is then dropped into water, fills up and rolls over,
and the trainees must extract themselves while upside down and submerged. Trainees first do
this with their eyes open; they then do it with no vision while wearing blackened swim goggles.
A high level of motivation is provided by the lack of oxygen, and the trainees have to
demonstrate that they are able to escape unaided in order to be certified as competent in this skill.
For miners, even the current classroom SCSR training could be improved if the trainees
were required to open, activate, don, and transfer SCSRs repeatedly under eyes-open and then
no-vision conditions. Rote learning of SCSR use under the no-vision condition leads to
confidence and automatic behavior during an actual fire or other emergency, freeing a miner to
be assessing his situation, the threat, his fellow miners, and what action should be taken next.
This kind of augmented classroom experience would be considered a “part-task trainer” because
the training focuses solely on SCSR skills, which are only one part of the integrated skill set that
must be mastered to self-escape.
In psychology and related motor-learning fields, there has been extensive research on
understanding optimal practice conditions for the long-term retention of information. For
instance, repeatedly practicing the same skill (massed practice), leads to less successful long-
term retention than interspersing it with other skill practice or even separating that practice by
time (distributed practice) (Proctor and Dutta, 1995; Schmidt and Lee, 2011). Massed practice
(otherwise known as cramming) may give a miner the illusion, for example, of effectively
donning an SCSR, when this is not the case. In more distributed situations, when the miner first
practices donning, takes a break, and comes back and practices donning again,not only will the
miner have a better understanding of what was remembered and what was not, but he/she will
likely retain what was practiced for a longer period of time.
Practicing in one extended session without any breaks is also likely to lead to boredom,
compared with distributing practice over time (Jarvis, 2006). This is important given concerns
the committee has heard about some miners being complacent and reporting that training is
uninteresting. Fostering more engagement and interest by trainees through distributed practice
may not only enhance learning, but also increase motivation during training.
There is a common belief that the more realistic training is the more effective it will be.
It is certainly true that matching the conditions under which individuals are trained with those in
which they will have to demonstrate their skills is beneficial for performance (for a general
review, see Galotti, 2001). It may also be the case that technology-infused training that
capitalizes on miners’ (especially young miners’) experience and positive attitudes towards video
games or virtual reality can enhance engagement. However, as these technologies emerge, they
need to be fully validated and tested demonstrating their appropriateness for use as a training
tool. Furthermore, technology alone is not sufficient to ensure learning. It is still critical that the
construction of training--from what specifically is trained to how it is trained (e.g., practice
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 15
OCR for page 90
schedules)—is guided by the research on training and decision science. This is true regardless of
the form of the training.
There are a number of ways to define and evaluate whether training has been effective
and the relative advantages and disadvantages of different methods (see, especially, Cook and
Campbell, 1979; Brown and Sitzmann, 2011). Evaluators can determine which methods are
appropriate for the portions of the overall escape task that are being trained. However, Brown
and Sitzman (2011) note that the pre-experimental designs, such as the postest only and the pre-
and posttest, are quite suitable for situations in which the main concern is whether or not the
students have reached a particular level of competency on some task.
TRAINING IN OTHER INDUSTRIES
As mentioned above, industries outside of coal mining train and prepare individuals and
teams to escape a confined work environment under dire circumstances. These industries include
the military, firefighting, rescue, and space exploration. For our purposes, instances in which
the physical environment, conditions and constraints on escape are similar to coal mining are
termed here escape analogues. The jobs, work demands, personnel demographics, and other
factors may differ substantially from those found in coal mining. However, key aspects are
similar enough to provide ideas for improving training in the mining industry. They include: the
escape environment (e.g., highly confined work areas), emergency conditions (e.g., smoke in
passageways), evacuation constraints (e.g., obstacles in passageways and restricted
communication opportunities), escape equipment (e.g., respirators), personnel work units (e.g.,
teams), and requirements for successful escape (e.g., effective decision making and teamwork)
Recognizing this, NIOSH conducted a literature review of other industries and found 18 articles
from a number of analogues that appeared to be pertinent to mine escape (Harrald et al., 2008).
These articles were identified for the mining community to use. A common theme that emerged
was the need for more attention to organizational and behavioral issues.
All space-faring nations train their flight personnel to escape their vehicles under
conditions of fire at different points in the launch, flight, and landing phases. For the flight
phase, training focuses on first containing the fire and then—if that fails an escape vehicle such
as the Soyuz capsule is available for— escaping. In the case of a space station, such an escape
would require people’s donning protective gear, moving through a number of modules to fight
the fire, communicating with one another, and working systematically as a team.
Astronauts in training for missions aboard the International Space Station train for fire
containment. European, Japanese, Canadian, Russian and U.S. astronauts go through a
comprehensive and systematic training procedure that entails five major phases:
1. classroom briefings that present the ”big picture” of fire survival aboard the station,
such as fire prevention, containment, and onboard resources;
2. a second round of classroom-based familiarization that focuses on firefighting
procedures, why those procedures are written as they are, handling the hardware to be
used, and donning and doffing breathing masks;
3. a walk-through of the procedures with an instructor inside a space station simulator,
providing more familiarization with the equipment, gas sensor displays and where
equipment is located; followed by a walk through with several different instructor-
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 16
OCR for page 91
led scenarios in order to understand how to respond to a variety of circumstances that
are most likely to arise;
4. trainees’ going through various scenarios in the station simulator in small teams; the
instructor is observing and invokes ”green cards” on trainees at various times with
unexpected constraints or problems; and
5. multiple repetitions of the Phase 4 training with multiple unexpected scenarios to
demonstrate mastery of the all the skills covered.
Separate similar training flows are followed for other emergency conditions, such as
station depressurization and the release of toxins in the station atmosphere. In all cases, the flow
is sequenced to begin with classroom procedure familiarization, move through hardware
familiarization, advance into guided practice in the simulator, progress to independent practice
with different scenarios, and conclude with a test of skills mastery. Demonstration of skills
mastery is required before an astronaut is allowed to fly.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Training is a necessary step in preparing individuals and groups to use available
resources appropriately. Regulations relevant to training for self-escape appear to emphasize
training duration and frequency rather than training to mastery. A detailed systematic task
analysis would identify knowledge, skills, abilities, and other personal characteristics (KSAOs)
critical to a successful self-escape. These KSAOs will provide a general blueprint for self-escape
training programs and essential competencies.
Subsequent verification of training effectiveness would best be accomplished by NIOSH
validating the entire training package so that operators do not have to do that. Those miners and
responsible person team members who are trained to master could have a reflective symbol
placed on their helmets so that in the event of an emergency other less trained individuals can
immediately recognize those in their work groups with expertise at escaping and managing an
escape. Refresher training should occur periodically according to NIOSH findings on training
decay for the various elements. Individuals who retain their mastery should retain the helmet
symbol.
Currently, self-escape training for miners, responsible persons, and responsible person
teams seems to be piecemeal in the mining industry as a whole. Despite training developments
by NIOSH, MSHA, and some universities and mine operators, the quality and quantity of escape
training still falls far behind what is necessary to ensure that all mine personnel can effectively
escape a mine emergency. This conclusion applies to almost every aspect of escape behavior
training, from donning, doffing, and exchanging SCSRs under Type 1 conditions to miners’
working effectively as a responsible person team.
As detailed above, effective training and transfer of what is learned in training to an
actual emergency situation requires a supportive work climate. With only a few exceptions, most
escape training programs in the industry are poorly designed, and many seem to be oriented
primarily toward minimal compliance with federal and state training regulations. In training,
miners seldom have to demonstrate mastery of a skill, but only have to be in attendance. To
ensure that miners can function effectively in an emergency, a train-to-mastery system with
competency standards is needed, not time in class. Research will determine the minimum KSAO
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 17
OCR for page 92
levels required to escape successfully under simulated crisis conditions and at various levels of
reliability. The definition of mastery varies by what level of performance and reliability is
acceptable: and increasing levels come with higher price tags of training time and general cost.
The committee envisions that after step (A) in Recommendation 7 below is completed, and the
KSAOs are identified for self-escape, then a consensus group of stakeholders will meet to
determine what level of performance is acceptable and define competency standards for those
KSAOs. This meeting would include representatives from NIOSH, mine operators, and miner
organizations.
The number of training facilities capable of preparing miners and responsible person
teams in escape appear to be insufficient, especially those with the capability of simulating mine
fire and other emergency conditions and providing integrated training between miners and
responsible person teams. Programs for preparing and certifying self-escape trainers also are few
and of variable quality.
For mines that cannot afford to send their miners long distances to available training
facilities, there may be demand for portable training simulators to give miners the experience of
donning an SCSR and wayfinding in a smoke-filled environment. Similarly, if multiple high-
fidelity simulators are needed, mounting them on trucks may be a cost-effective way to make
them available to all mines. Training center personnel can also facilitate small mine scenario
exercises by helping design problems and supporting inexperienced management teams
throughout the process. They can also provide important feedback to mines on their performance
in the effort. This information can be stripped of mine identification information and then sent to
NIOSH for inclusion into a self-escape database (suggested in Recommendation 1, see Chapter
2).
The West Virginia University facility, visited by the committee, is not currently designed
to provide Type 3 or responsible person team training. However, it would be possible for this
facility or others to be expanded to cover integrated Type 3 and responsible person team training
with the addition of more tunnel complexity and with verbal team problem-solving scenarios for
an escape group and the external responsible person team. Alternatively such integrated Type 3
training could be conducted in facilities suitable just for that purpose. Following classroom,
part-task, integrated, and environmental simulation training, regular integrated simulations
should be conducted at mine site, using the mine and its resources.
RECOMMENDATION 7: To advance self-escape training:
A. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) should conduct
or sponsor a formal task analysis and an analysis of the knowledge, skills, abilities
and other personal attributes (KSAOs) required for miners to self-escape effectively
in coordination with the efforts of the responsible person, the communication center
and mine management.
B. On the basis of these analyses and working with interested stakeholders, NIOSH
should undertake the research required to identify the training modalities,
techniques, and protocols best suited for those KSAOs as well as the interactions
between miners, responsible persons, the communication center and mine
management. Thereafter, NIOSH should review current training and identify
existing gaps within the mining industry.
C. On the basis of the research and review in B. above, and using best practices within
the training field, the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health should revise or develop training flows
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 18
OCR for page 93
that bring miners, responsible persons, communication centers and mine
management to mastery in those KSAOs including interactions between those three
groups.
D. NIOSH should conduct research to verify the effectiveness of training developed in
C. above and miners' retention of information learned under simulated emergency
conditions.
E. In its current review of facilities supporting mine rescue training, the Mine Safety
and Health Administration should also evaluate whether these facilities could
support self-escape simulation and scenario training.
Prepublication Copy – Uncorrected Proofs 6 - 19
