A3.9.1 Fuller Figure Focus Group – Summary of Free Discussions Refer to Ishikawa Chart Summary
QUESTION 1 – HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE SITUATION IS AN EMERGENCY OR NOT? (required to “start free discussion” – does not imply that Mature Age Focus Group followed this prompt)
Answer 1
‘You will be told whether it is an emergency or a trial!’ Answer 2
‘Up the road (i.e. in their other building) people can use the stairs for access between floors so that at any time there could be a number of people in the stairs in any case, so you might not know! You would still hear the alarms anyway!’
Answer 3
‘Nine times out of ten with the procedures that you have in place here – people would know’ – comment made by facilitator covering multiple discussion after Answer 2. Answer 4
NOTE: The discussion digressed to stair design resulting from people’s observations: • I would have expected that the stairs in this newer building (i.e. 275 Kent Street)
would have been wider along with the steps compared to the other older building in Martin Place. (This triangulates well with observations of respondents to the NY Times Blog, those of Andrea Galyean, A Graduate Journalism Student from the John Jay College at NYU on 2 May 2008 in an article entitled “Tall Buildings, Skinny Stairs”, http://skyscraperproject.blogspot.com/2008/05/tall- buildings-skinny-stairs-in.html )
• We use the other stairs in this building which are much better as they accessible and much more comfortable. They connect all the floors but are not continuous. Every fourth level they separate so that you have to walk from one stair to the
next. They cannot be used in a fire as they are physically separated on every fourth level – part of the original fire engineering design.
• Looked at the lift size coming up where there was a notice that 24 people could fit in but I am fairly certain that you would only fit 12. People have increased in size...(this triangulates once again with Andrea Galyean’s comments (2008)) • “What determines the width of the fire stairs?” Others answered – “Two people
walking side by side (each measuring 22”) which was called two egress units. Each egress unit was 550mm originally but that has now shrunk to 500mm as a result of metrification.”(Interesting to note that the 1968 Codes in New York were less restrictive than the former Codes. Number of stairs for buildings of 10 storeys and above were reduced by some 50% and the width between walls was 2 units of 22” which is 44”- (Jonathan Starkey on comments made by Glenn Corbett of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan published in an article entitled “Clash of Past, Present and Future Offers Context”, Skyscraper Project, on 3 May 2008, http://skyscraperproject.blogspot.com/2008/05/clash-of-past-present-and- future-offers-in.html) which allowing 100mm for handrails (single) results in a clear width of 1016mm which is similar to the current clear width in the Building Code of Australia and also the Acceptable Solution C/AS1 under the NZ Building Code. The overall width in NZ and Australia is still also directly dependent on the number of occupants where they exceed 100 persons. The formulas are slightly different.)
QUESTION TWO: BASED ON EXPERIENCES WITH FIRE STAIRS CAN YOU COME UP WITH ANY ALTERNATIVES FOR EVACUATION:
Answers
• The flights should be longer so as to have fewer turns
• Contrasting colours – improve legibility of steps, placement of handrails, signage for levels, etc. to avoid whiteout etc.
• Stairs should be wider
• Large numbers on each of the floors so that you know where you are
• Passing landing every two or three floors with enough space for those who needed to take a rest.
• Greater headroom for taller people. Two of the group felt uncomfortable with a clear height of 2030mm. Have some people in our building over 7 foot tall.
671 • Level of lighting can be enhanced
• Sound absorbing surface – very noisy with people talking and sound from MV fans.
• Following the WTC there is a heightened awareness of what can happen in a fire which could increase the levels of stress and anxiety. (triangulates well with statements in a recount of survivors’ comments and telephone conversation records of victims entitled “102 Minutes” (Dwyer and Flynn 2005)
QUESTION 3: IS THERE ANOTHER WAY OF DOING IT? Answered via general discussion and further questions which are expanded via Discussions 1-3:
1st Discussion: Direct to Question 3: • Could we use the central stairs?
• No the central stairs are blocked off every 4th floor in a file by fire shutters which come down.
• That does not mean that we could not use them in an emergency other than fire. • If there is a bomb evacuation then we could use them.
• Alternative solution from the Fire Engineer
2nd Discussion – “what if we can’t use the stairs” - modifying Q3: • Elevator evacuation?
• No problem using the elevators even using in event of fire if designed for it. Power would need to be assured.
• What about MGM Fire shafts acted as a chimney?
• We should be promoting the use of other means in our training?
3rd Discussion – “if there are other ways then should we be practicing them and would it mean that we have too many different choices?” – further modifying Q3
• One procedure for each
• Multiple triggers – few standardized responses?? • Yes it must be kept simple.
• Should be looking at blow up slides – used in Aeroplanes – there no practices by passengers but staff are familiar so that staff tell you what to do. So you do what you are told to do?? Queensland allows training of staff and not all.
• Problem with this approach! One warden in the last trial evacuation ordered a heavily pregnant woman to tackle 19 storeys worth of stairs!
• Must therefore have the right response. Must train for what we have to do. • Those people with special needs must be part of that training routine.
• If evacuating then people with needs do what they have to do and must rehearse it.