New Zealand Mines Rescue Competition

Transcription

Report and Recommendations
on the inaugural New Zealand
Mines Rescue Competition
NEWMONT WAIHI GOLD 30 NOVEMBER 2014
April 2015
FOREWORD
Mines rescue competitions are events that enable our collective strengths and areas for
improvement to be assessed so that we can develop highly skilled, consistent mines rescue
capability that can integrate with relative ease when the occasion calls for a large scale response.
Mines rescue competitions are important. They are important because they simulate the
highly charged nature of actual events, and because they enable information sharing between
teams. They are also important for gaining a snap shot of New Zealand’s collective strengths
and weaknesses in specific areas of mines rescue and targeting training according to the
overall picture.
Until November 2014, New Zealand had never held a national mines rescue competition.
While the initiative had been taken by certain mines rescue teams to cross-pollenate through
joint training sessions with other mines rescue brigades and emergency services, some teams
were left isolated due to their proximity to other brigades and emergency services.
Mines rescue teams in New Zealand are recognised as a credible emergency service in the
mining context, and in the wider community. Between 2000 and 2010, mines rescue brigades
were called to approximately 110 incidents as first responders to emergency services callouts.
Incidents ranged from fatalities, injuries and entrapments at mining operations, to vehicle
accidents and medical emergencies in the wider community. It is anticipated that updated
statistics for 2005-2015 will likely show an increase to the number of callouts, rather than
a decline.
Unsurprisingly for a first competition, there were inevitably areas we will have to work on to
improve. Having been an assessor underground in the lifting bag event, I saw some key themes
emerging. Technical skills in the use of lifting bags require honing, and this should be an area
of training focus for 2015.
The purpose of the competition is to induce real pressure and in this, it succeeded. The result
was a general sense of haste, which unfortunately affected certain areas of scene and hazard
assessment. Analysis of the scores shows that this is an area for improvement across the board.
Adrenaline, if not controlled well, is not a friend. Working under intense pressure should be a
further area of focus for 2015. There will be team discussion questions throughout this report
that will direct focus to these areas.
We saw some great results in the bench test and theory examination, with a small number
of focus areas for training. I was fortunate to be able to watch teams compete in the first
underground event, which comprised a first aid component. While there were some areas
for general improvement, the teams all showed that first aid was a key strength.
Mines rescue competitions are big events to organise, and a lot of work was done by a large
number of people to bring this competition to reality. It would be wrong to name individuals
in this report, given the wide spread participation from across New Zealand, Australia and the
United Kingdom. While there were thanks provided at the prize giving dinner, I would like to
take the opportunity once more to thank all those who assisted, and those who participated.
Combined individual contributions culminated in a very successful event. Notwithstanding my
prior comments, a big thank you must be given to Straterra Inc., proud and involved supporter
of this competition and Newmont Waihi Gold, the host mine for the inaugural competition.
The competition could not have gone ahead without your help.
The project team, individuals and sponsors will be named at the back of this document, and
it is anticipated that where warranted, wider thanks will be disseminated through project team
members to those in individuals and organisations who assisted each delegate.
I look forward to presenting this report to you in further detail at a later date and following
team discussion, planning the next steps.
Tony Forster
Chief Inspector, Extractives
WorkSafe New Zealand
TABLE OF CONTENTS
01
INTRODUCTION4
02
THE COMPETITION RESULTS
8
2.1
Physical events – the big picture
9
2.2
The fitness test
11
2.3
Underground event 2 – stress and lifting bags
24
2.4
Theory and Bench Test
28
03
DOMESTIC AND TRANS-TASMAN DIFFERENCES
36
04
RECOMMENDATIONS39
05
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
43
FIGURES
1
Collective scores – core skills
2
Collective scores – core competencies, fitness
12
3
Event specific assessment criteria collective assessment
13
4
Combined scores, underground event 1, core skills
17
5
Combined scores, underground event 1, event specific assessment
17
6
Combined scores, underground event 1, first aid casualty 1
19
7
20
8
20
9
Combined scores, core skills, underground event 2
25
9
10 Combined scores, Underground event 2, event specific assessment
25
11
29
Combined scores, theory test
12 Combined scores, parts recognition
30
13 Combined scores, BG4 faults
30
01/
INTRODUCTION
4
SECTION 1.0 // INTRODUCTION
WorkSafe New Zealand led the development of the
inaugural New Zealand mines rescue competition,
which was hosted by Newmont Waihi Gold in Waihi
on Saturday, 29 November 2014.
This was an initiative to support the implementation of Recommendation 14 of the Royal
Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. The competition was supported by Straterra
Inc., the key membership body in New Zealand promoting the interests of the mining and
resources sector.
Annual mines rescue competitions are held at regional and national levels globally. New Zealand
mines rescue teams have never competed. The key benefits of mines rescue competitions
include the simulation of ‘real life’ situations in a highly-charged environment, enhancing
knowledge, increasing skill levels, and assessing collective strengths and areas for improvement.
During implementation of the recommendations following the Royal Commission on the Pike
River Coal Mine Tragedy (the Royal Commission) it became clear that New Zealand needs to
align itself better with Australian operations and enhance relationships to avoid becoming insular.
This competition also served to strengthen relationships with our Australian counterparts in
New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, ensuring New Zealand does not become
insular in its approach to mining health and safety.
Recommendation 14 of the Royal Commission was to develop an emergency management
protocol with a mining expert in charge of the rescue/recovery operation. The Underground
Mines Emergency Protocol (the Protocol) was developed as a key aspect of the Pike River
Implementation Project, completed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
in 2013 and coming into effect on 1 April 2014. The Protocol is now owned by WorkSafe
New Zealand. Recommendation 14 was aimed at the management of the emergency, but
requires increased capability at operational level to support its function.
NEW ZEALAND MINES RESCUE CAPABILITY
Mines rescue capability in New Zealand is well-used. Between 2000 and 2010, mines rescue
brigades in New Zealand responded to approximately 110 callouts ranging from spontaneous
combustion to fatalities, and incidents such as responding to a derailment of a coal train in the
Kaimai Tunnel. Attendance at incidents as first responders in the wider New Zealand community
made up a significant portion of the callouts.
Mines rescue capability in New Zealand is acknowledged as an established and credible emergency
service. Building on this established experience to develop an effective unified national capability
is the logical next step, and will enhance the reputation and effectiveness of this service.
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE INAUGURAL NEW ZEALAND MINES RESCUE COMPETITION
AUSTRALIA AND UK INVOLVEMENT
Given the limited experience and capability with mines rescue competitions in New Zealand,
New South Wales Mines Rescue (NSWMR) and Queensland Mines rescue Service (QldMRS)
released personnel to assist with judging, along with the set-up and final risk analysis of events.
Western Australia mines rescue personnel also assisted with judging of events underground.
Scenarios were developed by a consultant in the United Kingdom, with assistance in finalising
and setting up these scenarios from Australian mines rescue personnel.
Teams from Australia were invited to participate, however due to general downturn in the
industry none were available this year. It should be noted that a number of teams will reconsider
their position for future competitions.
OBJECTIVES
A summary of the objectives and outcomes is in the table below:
OBJECTIVE
OUTCOME
Gain an understanding of
“collective” national mines
rescue capabilities
>> Collective areas of strength in national mines rescue capability
identified through event marking sheets.
>> Collective gaps in training in national mines rescue capability
identified for further development.
>> Areas of difference in practice among individual teams identified.
>> Areas of difference among Australian and New Zealand teams
identified for further analysis and understanding.
Build/enhance relationships
with Australian counterparts
>> Australian counterparts participate or send observers.
Strengthen relationships
between Newmont Waihi
Gold and the Waihi
community
>> Waihi community engaged with the competition by way
of observation and participation where practicable.
Strengthen relationships
between national mines
rescue squads
>> Dialogue relating to collective national strengths commences.
>> The majority of feedback from the public is positive.
HOW TO READ THIS DOCUMENT
Each document has a number of sections for each event. This includes the briefing, the overall
results and findings, judges observations, comments from judges and Brian Robinson.
There are also questions for team discussion and training tips. This document should be read
from the beginning of each chapter. Team discussion questions should be read within the context
of the chapter they are in, and the training tip should also be read in that chapter’s context.
Teams should discuss the questions with the context of the chapter they come from to ensure
the answers are in line with findings from that specific event.
6
SECTION 1.0 // INTRODUCTION
Analysis of the competition results. Newmont Black team members stand ready to move to their next event
7
01/
02/
THE
COMPETITION
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
IN THIS SECTION:
2.1Physical events
– the big picture
2.2The fitness test
2.3Underground event 2
– stress and lifting bags
2.4Theory and Bench Test
8
SECTION 2.0 // THE COMPETITION RESULTS
2.1
PHYSICAL EVENTS – THE BIG PICTURE
The three physical events which comprised a fitness test, an underground search and rescue and a
lifting bag exercise all contained two separate score sheets. There were event specific score sheets,
and a score sheet that assessed the core generic skills of mines rescue. These core skills are:
>> teamwork and leadership
>> scene assessment/hazard identification
>> safe work practices
>> time management.
Each team was marked out of a total of 15 points for each core skill in each event. When the
points were all combined across the three events, this came to a total of 180 points per core skill.
Given a key objective was to analyse collective strengths and areas for improvement the scores
from each team and each event have been combined. The result is in the graph below:
COMBINED OVERALL SCORES, ALL PHYSICAL EVENTS
Combined total out of a possible 180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Scene/hazard
identification
Captain's leadership/
teamwork
Safe work practices
Time management
Assessment criteria
Figure 1: Collective scores – core skills
POINTS TO NOTE
It is important to note at this time:
>> No team differed from the others, to such an extent it could be responsible for any major
increase or decrease in collective scores.
>> Scores were taken from the three physical events and through the view point of eight
different judges.
>> Following discussions with teams, this competition was coached. Teams were prompted to
risk assess in the second underground event, which contributed to an increase in the overall
result for this category.
9
Winning team, Newmont Black with Gordon McDonald, Chief Executive, WorkSafe New Zealand
KEY FINDINGS
The individual events will see further break down of these scores but what is immediately
evident is:
>> the low score in safe working practices across the three events
>> scene/hazard identification gained 90 out of a possible 180 points
>> time management however, gained 135 points out of a possible 180
>> team work/leadership showed a good result at 120 points.
Brian Robinson’s thoughts:
As far as the various exercises went, it was important for the captains and teams to carefully
view their surroundings in order to both ensure team safety, and in order to use their
surroundings and equipment to the best use to get the tasks completed.
Team discussion questions:
>> Given the time pressures, did safety give way to speed?
>> Did time pressure cause the team to lose focus on good process?
>> Is more training under time pressure required?
>> How do team members control their adrenaline? Could this have been a contributing
factor to the low safety and hazard identification scores?
>> How can the team work to become more consistent with safety, scene assessment
and time management in the future?
10
A training tip from Dave Connell, New South Wales Mines Rescue:
The keys to maintaining safety, good process and emotional arousal due to stress and
adrenalin is realism and repetition.
>> Clearly identify with team members what good hazard identification looks like and the
response protocols to control the hazards.
>> Practice the protocols with mentoring in realistic scenarios. This will help develop clear
and correct mental models of rescue responses for the team members so that what they
know can be instinctively matched to what they see.
>> Give targeted and immediate feedback to correct errors.
>> Reinforce correct behaviours.
>> Practice realistic scenarios under time constraints once the team is performing to the
desired standard.
>> Give comprehensive debriefs.
2.2
THE FITNESS TEST
The fitness test was designed to ensure a careful balance between “brains and Braun” was used
to complete the task. This event was a public event and members of the Waihi community, and
accompanying family members of others travelling to the competition took pleasure in watching
this event.
THE BRIEFING TO TEAMS
A stubborn fire is ongoing in a disused part of the mine, with limited and difficult access.
It has been advised that approximately 300 litres of water is required to extinguish the fire.
The actual firefighting task will be completed by another team.
Team safety is paramount. Team members from OceanaGold Ltd filling sand bags during the fitness test
11
Your team’s task is to:
>> safely access the area, supporting the roof as required in the concrete culvert
>> ALL persons and materials must pass through the culvert
>> manually place 300 litres of water from tank 1 to tank 2
>> form a pipeline between tank 2 and tank 3, to be supported at least 50cm off the ground
all the way and allow the 300 litres to flow via gravity from tank 2 to tank 3
>> in order to stop air flow to the fire zone, the concrete culvert pipe will be sealed off with
sandbags (to be filled) at the marked location.
The task will be deemed complete when the seal is fully erected, the team report back to the
briefing point, even if the water is still flowing in the pipe system.
>> Personnel cannot pass through the culvert until the roof has been cleared and fully supported.
>> No one is allowed to step directly in to the trough, but have to travel via a constructed bridge.
>> Personnel cannot use the grass area, all traffic must be via the tarmac tracks.
THE OVERALL RESULT
Two score sheets were used in assessing this event. The first score sheet was to assess core skills,
and the other was used to assess event specific skills. The charted collective results are below:
FITNESS TEST COMBINED SCORES
70
Combined scores out of 60
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Scene/hazard
identification
Leadership and
teamwork
Safe work practices
Performance measures
Figure 2: Collective scores – core competencies, fitness
12
Time management
FITNESS TEST BROKEN DOWN
Combined % of maximum marks
120
100
80
60
40
20
Control of team
02 checks regular
Captain final check of team
Captains checks
Apparatus donning
Team discipline
Work control
Motivation/encouragement
Brief team
0
Figure 3: Event specific assessment criteria collective assessment
POINTS TO NOTE
>> Safe work practices gained the lowest mark at 25 collective points out of a possible 60.
>> Time management was the “stand out” core competency with a collective 60 out of 60.
>> This event was the best event for scene/hazard assessment, which was undertaken by teams
without the need for prompting.
>> Leadership and teamwork was notably good.
>> As marks for event specific score sheets were weighted and each assessment category
carried a different mark, percentage of the overall possible score has been used to adequately
compare each assessment.
>> A collective “zero” was gained in work control and rotating team members around tasks.
>> Control of team and occasional rest, ensuring no over exertion received 50% of the total
possible marks.
>> Briefings and captains checks, along with procedural tasks all gained 100% of possible marks.
>> Team discipline gained 75% of possible marks.
13
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
AREA OF FOCUS
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
Scene assessment/hazard
identification
>> The general theme running through the event was that hazards being
identified but not always controlled.
>> One team displayed excellent team lifting and housekeeping.
>> A pipe was thrown downhill in an uncontrolled manner and a person
was on top of the tank.
Captain’s leadership and
teamwork
>> There was a notable loss of some control by team captains during
some tasks.
>> Team captains didn’t always make basic allowances, a good example
of this was filling the tanks exactly to the minimum fill line without
making allowances for spillage during the transfer process.
>> One team showed signs of failing to listen to, or ignoring the captain.
>> Signs of stress in the team and the captains were obvious at times
toward the end of the event.
Safe work practices
>> One team continued with the event despite props being knocked out.
Time management
>> There were a number of situations where captains became too
involved in tasks to oversee their team.
Congratulations to Newmont Black team for its excellent team lifting and housekeeping.
JUDGES
Dave Bellett, Specialist Health and Safety Inspector, Mines, Quarries Tunnels, WorkSafe New Zealand
David Connell, Regional Manager, New South Wales Mines Rescue.
Judge’s perspective: comments from Dave Bellett, WorkSafe New Zealand:
When it came to filling the water tank, we provided teams with a hose connection that did not
fit. This was designed to test the ability of teams to adapt and improvise. One team proved to
be very “MacGyver like” and adapted the connection with some tape that they had cleverly
included in their response kit. Overall the fitness test proved that all the teams could work at
high speed and were up to the task.
Questions for team discussion:
>> Was there a good balance between focussing on the procedural aspects of the task and
focussing on the people within the team?
>> Is there a relationship between the focus placed on people and safe working practices?
>> Would the team perform better and faster overall if the current split in focus was weighted
further toward the wellbeing of team members?
>> What makes it easier to focus on procedure than to focus on team support and wellbeing?
>> Further to the question above, what would counteract any problems identified?
14
The physical task required careful planning, and then going at the task with gusto, taking time
on these things is not an option for just finishing or certainly winning. I was very pleased to
see teams go at this the way it was planned, and with a few hiccups all teams did well.
UNDERGROUND EVENT 1 – UNDERGROUND RESCUE
Underground rescue is the life blood of mines rescue squads. This event was comprised
of an underground search and rescue, and a first aid portion.
THE BRIEFING TO TEAMS AND ASSESSORS
Teams and assessors were briefed as below:
On your return to the FAB with casualties from the blasting area, you are informed another
casualty immediately requires your assistance.
>> It appears the blast also dislodged a large RSJ that has trapped a worker.
>> He was being dealt with by Paramedics, but as the areas atmosphere has become
irrespirable they had to leave the casualty.
>> Medium Pressure Lifting equipment (lifting bags) is available, your task is to safely extricate
the casualty and recover him to the FAB.
>> The Paramedics report that this is a TIME CRITICAL INJURY, in order to prevent future
disabilities or worse.
You have no more than 15 minutes to complete this.
ASSESSOR INFO
The re-entry should be straightforward on receiving the above information, and should be done
without removing facemasks and shutting down apparatus. Thus it is imperative that assessors
inform the captain at the FAB to remain with masks on for a further briefing.
The casualty (dummy for safety) will have both legs pinned by an RSJ weighing in excess
of two tonne.
The exercise will be all about safety, of the team when using lifting equipment, and safety
of the casualty.
Risk Mitigation will be completed by:
>> captain overseeing from a safe location
>> team operating from safe locations
>> only attempting to lift the RSJ or extract casualty when chocking has been completed
to a safe height (this will be 30cm)
>> one observer per lifting bag
>> one operator
>> the area is also to be left in a safe position.
15
If questioned the Deputy Manager gives additional information:
>> The mine emergency plan has been implemented.
>> The roll call and observer accounts show three persons missing.
>> A surveyor was known to be working in the main return (give name and number).
>> All other workers are either evacuated or safe at refuge chambers awaiting instructions
>> Ventilation is flowing as normal.
>> Other than the immediate entrance by the FAB, the next cross cut into the return
is approximately 1.5km inbye.
THE OVERALL RESULT – UNDERGROUND RESCUE
Three score sheets were used in this event. The core skill assessment sheet, an event specific
sheet and a first aid specific sheet. The collective results are in the tables below:
UNDERGROUND EVENT 1 COMBINED SCORES
Combined points out of possible 60
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Scene/hazard
identification
teamwork
Safe work practices
Figure 4: Combined scores, underground event 1, core skills
16
Time management
UNDERGROUND EVENT 1 BROKEN DOWN
Combined % of total marks
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Captain general
Arrival at FAB
Return to FAB
Number 3 casualty
Number 2 casualty
Locate casualties
Turn into shot firing area
Re-entry
Number 1 casualty
Travel inbye
Fresh air base
0
Figure 5: Combined scores, underground event 1, event specific assessment
POINTS TO NOTE:
UNDERGROUND RESCUE
>> 10 points out of a possible 60 were awarded for safe work practices.
>> 20 points out of a possible 60 were award for scene assessment/hazard identification.
>> Combined scores dipped around the middle of the exercise.
>> General marks for team captains were high.
INFORMATION REGARDING THE CASUALTIES – FIRST AID COMPONENT
Casualty 1, (the surveyor), was situated in the return airway to the downwind side of the cross
cut (approx 50 – 60m), vehicle facing the team. He was semi-conscious but uninjured and able
to indicate that he is ok but cannot walk. His self-rescuer has been operating for an unknown
time, mouthpiece OUT of mouth, and unit is VERY HOT. CO is 750ppm, Nitrous fumes off scale
(if they have detector).
Casualties 2 and 3, were investigating the problem and were overcome by blasting fumes within
the immediate area of the shot, casualty 2 was wearing a self-rescuer (HOT and bag not fully
inflated) but had no injuries, and was very concerned about her colleague. Casualty 3 is found
without his self-rescuer, it is by the side of his face indicating partial use, he is unconscious and
has an open fracture of the lower leg. A large slab (weighing 500kg) is on his leg and a second
slab (weighing 1.5 tonnes) was in the vicinity and looked unstable. CO 950ppm, Nitrous fumes
off scale, light smoke observed.
On removing the slab, spurting of blood occurs, not controlled by direct pressure or dressing.
17
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
>> On arrival at the FAB the team captain say his name, what team, declare they are fit and have
adequate equipment.
>> Fresh Air Base is set up at the (safe haven) or intake side of doors.
>> On gaining their required information, and with the aid of a mine plan, formulate where their
route of travel is, and suspected locations of incident and casualties. Estimate of gaining info
and getting under Oxygen, 8 minutes.
>> Team to make effective use of the phone and radios in the safe haven.
>> If the team does not have suitable equipment to detect Nitrous Fumes a Drager pump and
tubes will be offered if asked for.
>> The surveyor will be located and recovered to the FAB first (distance <100m) he will be handed
over to first aiders and the team re-deployed (second rescue team still 45 minutes away).
>> First Aid Kit (with CAT tourniquet inside) picked up from surveyors vehicle.
A Newmont team treating one of the casualties under an unstable rock. The judge in the foreground
is Ray Smith of Queensland Mines Rescue Service
18
On redeployment priority should be given to:
>> if team asks, they have available an O2-SR, Resuscitator, stretcher
>> ensuring the team does not get disorientated in any haze
>> the use of route marking equipment as several junctions need to be negotiated
>> control of further roof movement by securing loose debris or stone
>> making safe multi shot exploder
>> extinguish any fires found
>> ensuring all vehicles are isolated and left in a safe condition
>> casualty assessment and evacuation techniques (use of resuscitators/O2 self-rescuers)
>> use of CAT to stop bleeding.
FIRST AID CASUALTY 1
120
100
80
60
40
20
Request availability of
other equipment
Speedy handover to
First Aiders
Swift retrieval to FAB
Advise FAB of ETA
Load onto stretcher
Administer oxygen
Check casualty
Check vehicle isolated
0
Figure 6: Combined scores, underground event 1, first aid casualty 1
19
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Reassure/
safe position
How long
FSR worn
Change FSR
for O2 SR
Secondary
assessment
Keep casualty
under control
Assessment criteria
120
100
80
60
40
20
Assessment criteria
20
Good handover
to first aiders
Check time leg
trapped
Load onto stretcher
Dress wound,
immobilise fracture
Resuscitator/oxygen
Breathing
Airway
Response
Confirm danger of
rock slabs
Assess condition
0
POINTS TO NOTE – FIRST AID
>> Checking the casualty was the lowest scoring of all assessment criteria.
>> Three collective 100% scores were achieved.
>> Save for the casualty checks, all other assessment criteria scored a collective 25%.
>> Treatment of this casualty resulted in the least consistent marks in assessment criteria
of the three casualties.
>> Secondary assessment of the casualty earned a collective zero.
>> Only two of the four teams inquired as to how long the FSR had been worn.
>> This was the highest scoring element of all four events.
>> Seven out of the ten assessment criteria collectively scored 100%.
>> The other three criteria each scored a collective 75%.
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
AREA OF FOCUS
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
Fresh air base (FAB)
>> One team displayed excellent retracing of their route to the FAB, using wire
to do so.
>> There was a failure to provide a return time to the FAB in one team’s briefing.
Vehicles
>> Failure to isolate vehicles.
>> Vehicles not being chocked.
>> Vehicles not isolated and made safe.
Rock slabs
>> A general failure to notice and stabilise a dangerous rock slab above casualty
2. This was one of the key themes running through score sheets for this event.
Casualty 2
>> One team did an excellent job at maintaining control of this casualty.
>> It took a long time to administer oxygen to the casualty.
>> At times there was a failure to ask the casualty basic questions.
>> The casualty was not always positioned well on the stretcher.
>> Checks of what time the casualty’s leg was wrapped were not always done.
>> With regard to basic safety, at times team members were seen stepping over
the casualty.
>> One team displayed excellent rotation of stretcher bearers.
Casualty 3
>> It took too long to administer oxygen to this casualty at times.
>> One team inadvertently reapplied the old SCSR to this casualty.
Other points to note
>> One team was noted to have undertaken good buddy checks.
>> There was a failure to check the mine plan was up to date (although it has been
acknowledged by judges that this would normally be done on the surface).
Congratulations to Huntly Mines Rescue team for its good buddy checks and rotation
of stretcher bearers.
21
JUDGES
Chris Clifford, Training Officer, New South Wales Mines Rescue
Dale Eylward, W.E.S.T. Rescue Pty Ltd, Western Australia
Ray Smith, Operations Manager, Dysart Rescue Station, Queensland Mines Rescue Service
The importance was firstly on gaining information quickly to determine casualty locations,
the overall situation, and thus planning the rescue operation accordingly. In many cases
the exploder was missed, this could obviously have been crucial in an incident involving
explosives/shot firing, as was viewing the roof, sides and “loose” objects in the area, after
all team safety is paramount.
First aid for the casualty in such a case requires extra measures, with a casualty that has been
trapped for a protracted time, yet requires speedy evacuation, the extra measures to control
bleeding were crucial, after firstly isolating the casualty from the outside atmosphere with
the MARS resuscitator.
Deployment of a second Oxygen Self-Rescuer on the walking casualty should be prompted
by the team member doing the task, ensuring the casualty is aware and reassured of every
step, and ensuring mouthpieces and nose clips are secured properly.
Questions for team discussion:
>> Did fatigue and/or confusion contribute to the “dip” in scoring of the event?
>> What were the causal factors for safe working practices and hazard identification being
scored so low?
>> Is there a correlation between safe work practices being low and time management
being high?
>> What improvements can be made that will target the lower scoring criteria of this event?
>> Did the team begin to lose focus on its surroundings and associated hazards when
casualties were introduced to the scenario?
>> What was the causal factor for not undertaking a secondary assessment on casualty 2?
>> How could checks on casualty 1 have been improved?
A newmont team treats a casualty prior to moving him onto the stretcher and carrying him to the surface
22
A training tip from Dave Connell, New South Wales Mines Rescue
>> Practice the critical elements of a response such as protecting casualties, including team
members in distress, from irrespirable atmospheres with a MARS and self-contained selfrescuers at every training session. Man Down drills must be performed correctly the first
time when they are needed. They take very little time in a training session and can be
added easily during or at the end of a scenario.
>> Ensure that all team members are trained to deal with casualties.
>> Maintain a high level of realistic first aid training. Realistic training which includes moulage
has the added benefit of assisting with team member psychological resilience during and
after traumatic rescue events.
>> As always, realism and repetition are the keys.
The judge’s perspective: Comments from Ray Smith, Queensland Mines rescue service
Team discipline was well carried out by all teams from donning suits to handing over patients
and then being ready for the task. The buddy checking of team members was excellent,
but I’m not a fan of throwing the suits over one’s head to suit up, when buddying up this
can avoid any unnecessary injuries during this task.
Scene assessment at the 1st incident location of the vehicle was done well, it then seems
that the focus dropped off when re-entering from FAB for the Explosive area. One team gas
monitored very well throughout, this maybe be from the emphasis on coal teams of exposures
to flammable/explosive gas. Only one team recognised the large rock unstable above the
trapped casualty.
In all a very well run competition, with many new skills and knowledge for teams.
OceanaGold Ltd carrying the casualty to the surface on the stretcher, watched closely by Ray Smith
of Queensland Mines Rescue Service
23
2.3
UNDERGROUND EVENT 2 – STRESS AND LIFTING BAGS
This event was designed to test technical skills on the use of lifting bags, and also to test the
team’s response to stress when the added pressure of an unexpected event, judged by prominent
faces was added to an already stressful situation.
The judges for this event were chosen individually for reasons such as their authority in
New Zealand mining, credibility, being well known and respected, and by mere stature, having
an imposing presence in a small space. The technicality of the lifting bags combined with the
added pressure of the event delivered some interesting results.
THE BRIEFING PROVIDED TO TEAMS
On your return to the FAB with casualties from the blasting area, you are informed another
action that immediately requires your assistance.
We are simulating a large block that has trapped a worker.
Medium Pressure Lifting equipment (lifting bags) are available, your task is to safely raise
the block to a desired height of 30cm.
This is time critical injury, in order to prevent the situation worsening.
You have no more than 15 minutes to complete this and return to FAB.
Once again, team safety is paramount.
THE BRIEFING PROVIDED TO ASSESSORS
The re-entry should be straightforward on receiving the above information, and should be done
without removing facemasks and shutting down apparatus. Thus it is imperative that assessors
inform the captain at the FAB to remain under Oxygen for a further briefing.
The block weighing in excess of 2 tonne has to be raised correctly to the desired height,
without spilling liquid from the 2 cups placed at both ends of the block.
The exercise will be all about safety, of the team when using lifting equipment, and safety
of the casualty.
Risk Mitigation will be completed by:
>> captain overseeing from a safe location
>> team operating from safe locations
>> only attempting to lift the block or when chocking has been completed to a safe height
(this will be 30cm)
>> one team safety observer per lifting bag
>> one team operator for ALL bags
>> the area is also to be left in a safe position.
24
THE OVERALL RESULT
UNDERGROUND EVENT 2 COMBINED SCORES
Combined points out of possible 60
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Scene/hazard
identification
teamwork
Safe work practices
Time management
Figure 9: Combined scores, core skills, underground event 2
UNDERGROUND EVENT 2 BROKEN DOWN
120
100
80
60
40
20
Cylinder pressure
released
Airbags lowered on
completion
Sufficient packing
Packing in contact
with load
Appropriate use of
wedges
Pack under load
Correct colour hoses
operated on
Operated in controlled
manner
Airbags correctly
positioned
Assemble airbag
correctly
0
Figure 10: Combined scores, Underground event 2, event specific assessment
25
POINTS TO NOTE
>> This is the event in which safe work practices scored the lowest.
>> Time management also scored lowest overall in this event.
>> Captain’s leadership and teamwork also received the lowest score in this event than the
remainder of the competition.
>> Scene assessment and hazard identification was undertaken as much as a result of coaching
as by team initiative.
>> Only four of the 10 assessment criteria scored above 25% of total achievable marks.
>> Three of the ten assessment criteria scored collective “zero’s”.
>> This was the least successful event of the competition.
>> Scores came from three separate judges, independent of one another, and all keen supporters
of New Zealand mines rescue.
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
AREA OF FOCUS
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
Scene and hazard
identification
>> Two of the four teams checked the roof.
>> Only one team removed all the hazards.
>> A commonly occurring theme of this event was limited or site
assessment and hazard identification.
Captain’s leadership and
teamwork
>> One team did well with leadership, where the team captain stood
back and gave good clear instructions.
>> Among other teams there was either limited leadership at parts
of the exercise, loss of focus, confusion or too much practical task
undertaken by the team captain, and not enough standing back.
>> There was also a situation whereby the captain did not listen to his
team’s suggestions.
>> One team captain had very good discussions with his team on how
they were going to complete the lift. However, he became confused
when the plan was not followed.
Safe work practices
>> The most commonly occurring theme in this assessment category was
a failure of the team and/or captain to wear gloves. Every team had
at least one member who was stopped by judges and made to put
gloves on.
>> Timber packing was either non-existent or unsafe for most teams.
>> A commonly occurring theme was the overlapping of the bags.
>> One team did well insofar as they did pack and wedge as they went,
ensuring at all times wedges remained in contact with the block.
>> A team captain was found to be doing a lot of manual work instead
of standing back and watching over the exercise and team safety.
>> A cylinder was used without a cover and hoses thrown in the dirt
as a team was packing up.
Time management
>> None of the teams completed the exercise and got the gear packed up.
>> One team managed to lift the block the full 300mm but ran out of
time to pack up.
26
AREA OF FOCUS
JUDGES OBSERVATIONS
Airbag and equipment
properly assembled and set
to the correct pressure
>> A number of teams were using inexperienced team members to do
this. This could be seen as positive if done for the purpose of training.
However, this would not be recommended in a genuine event.
>> One team assembled all equipment to the standard.
Control of lift
>> Lift controllers appear to have been the stand-out performers of this
event, making good calls and ensuring operators knew which bag
was which.
Use of packing timber/
wedging
>> In some situations, nobody made an effort to pack, this was in some
cases, due to the fact they had already used up the packing timber.
>> In some situations the timber was placed on top of the air bags.
>> In other cases, timber/packing was not slid into place as lifts were made.
Air bags
>> A common theme of the event was that air bags were often overlapping,
and in one case, this obstructed.
Congratulations to the OceanaGold Ltd team for very good assembly of airbags and equipment
to the correct standard.
JUDGES
Tony Forster, Chief Inspector-Extractives, WorkSafe New Zealand
Kevin Pattinson (Dinghy), OceanaGold Ltd, New Zealand Mines Rescue Service board member
Mike Walker, Queensland Mines Rescue Service
Brian Robinson’s thoughts
Lifting Bags are universal equipment for underground rescue and teams showed little
competence for their use. As these devices can be quite dangerous to both team members
and casualties, care needs to be taken that everyone is informed of each stage of lifting, and
that adequate support for heavy items is used.
Questions for team discussion
>> Overall, what went wrong?
>> What aspects of this event went well?
>> Further to the question above, what elements were different at the point things went well
to when things were not going so well?
>> Did fatigue from the first event contribute to the lower result in this event?
>> How did the team control its stress response during this event? Was it worse for this event
than others?
>> What measures are in place for the team to pause and “regroup” when it’s clear a task isn’t
going well?
>> Does the team feel confident in the use of lifting bags?
>> Should targeted training in the use of lifting bags be undertaken during 2015?
>> What training and mentoring is available for team captains to learn how to deal with
unexpected situations as they arise?
>> What training and mentoring is available for team captains to learn how to deal with a poor
stress response from their team? Is there a general rule as to what they should do, and do
they get tested during training in a practical sense on how they cope?
27
Judge’s perspective – Kevin Pattinson, OceanaGold Ltd, Board Member, New Zealand
Mines Rescue Service
The event was a resounding success. All team members took the event very seriously and
all applied themselves to the very best of their abilities. Every competing member should
be proud of their achievements. They learnt so much from the competition and their
preceding preparation.
A training tip from Dave Connell, New South Wales Mines Rescue
>> To ensure there are no gaps in skills required by team members, a comprehensive list of
tasks that are likely to be performed in a rescue situation should be developed. Associated
skills required to perform these tasks should also be developed.
>> Once all of the skills have been identified and training program developed to target
these, a retraining program schedule should be developed based on the level of risk.
For example, team emergency procedures may be trained every session as a high risk
item whilst air bags may be an annual refresher as the likelihood of this skill being required
is significantly lower.
>> Ensure all team members have enough knowledge, skill and experience to be able to
perform all core competencies, too much specialisation creates undue single point
sensitivity which leads to a heavy reliance of individuals rather than the team as a whole.
2.4
THEORY AND BENCH TEST
The purpose of the theory and bench test is to examine technical knowledge in a non-practical
sense. For the purpose of the inaugural competition the theory test was an open book
examination, in which the whole team could participate. The examination is usually conducted
blind, and often, verbally. Teams were provided with 17 questions to answer, and a number of
publications where the bulk of the answers could be found.
However, not all questions had answers provided. It was anticipated that there would be enough
questions for the time allowed for teams to use their prior knowledge where they were certain
of an answer.
Prior to providing the answers to the questions, it must be noted that question 14 “In the ABC
of resuscitation, what does the “C” represent?” only one possible answer was given and that
was “compressions”. Judges of the event marked any other possible answer as incorrect in
accordance with their brief. While this would not have changed the outcome of the event,
we acknowledge that the three teams that answered “circulation” cannot be penalised for
answering the question incorrectly, as this is a well-known version of ABC, and has been used
more commonly in New Zealand than the term “compressions”. Further information and a key
recommendation is available in this chapter of the report under the sub-heading Resuscitation.
28
COMBINED SCORES THEORY
9
Score out of possible 8
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Question number
Figure 11: Combined scores, theory test
PARTS RECOGNITION COMBINED SCORES
9
Score out of possible 8
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Parts 1
Parts 2
Parts 3
Parts 4
Parts 5
Parts 6
Parts 7
Question number
Figure 12: Combined scores, parts recognition
29
COMBINED SCORES BG4 FAULTS
25
Points out of possible 20
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
BG4 fault number 1-5
Figure 13: Combined scores, BG4 faults
POINTS TO NOTE:
>> The result for question 14 of the theory test is not properly representative of the overall
knowledge in this subject. If the scores were updated to reflect the fact that “circulation”
was not in fact, an incorrect answer, question 14 would receive a 100% overall combined score.
>> Question 15 scored low, however the question was not sufficiently clear. Some gave
an answer that provided the frequency for operational checks according to their own
operation’s standard. It was not immediately evident that the question referred specifically
to manufacturer guidelines for monthly checks. This would not have changed the outcome
of the final scores, but we recognise that this question could have been better clarified. Any
answer given that referred to the policy of their own operation as to the frequency and types
of checks should be considered correct, as long as the frequency is at a minimum of monthly.
>> The breathing hose protector was the least recognised part in the parts recognition test,
however teams generally scored well.
>> Teams struggled with faults 4 and 5 in the BG4 fault test.
>> Notwithstanding the points above, teams scored highly in the remainder of the fault finding test.
>> Some team members nominated to undertake the BG4 checks wanted to pull the unit apart
but did not know if they could. For future competitions, this is a question that team members
can clarify with the judges.
Thank you to Newmont Red team for becoming the catalyst in the discussion regarding first
aid standards.
30
Member of the OGL team examines BG4 set during the bench test
31
RESUSCITATION
Question 14 of the theory test highlighted an interesting topic for discussion and recommendation.
The answer to the question of what the “C” stands for in the “ABC” of resuscitation has
resulted in two answers having been given in the theory test. Three teams gave the answer as
“circulation”. While this is not technically correct for the purpose of basic life support, it is widely
used in New Zealand. A fourth team gave the same answer as that provided as being correct
in the test – “compressions”. While it was marked as correct in the examination, it is strictly
speaking, incorrect.
In accordance with the New Zealand Resuscitation Council Guidelines (2010 Revised Ed.,
currently under review), the correct answer is “CPR”. These are the guidelines used be
New Zealand Mines Rescue Service in all first aid training. The Australian Resuscitation Council
has recently changed the “C” to “compressions” and as both councils tend to issue the same
information, it is reasonable to anticipate that this change will likely be made in New Zealand
in the near future.
32
NEW ZEALAND RESUSCITATION COUNCIL RESUSCITATION PROCESS
33
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THEORY QUESTIONS
1. In building an Explosion Proof “Type D” stopping underground (to Code), what is the
minimum length of stopping required? At least 5m, from Ventilation Code P89.
2. In NZ Mining Code, what are both the Time Weighted Average and Short Term Exposure
Limit for Oxides of Nitrogen? 3 and 5ppm, Ventilation Code P28.
3. What is the cross sectional area (in m²) of a roadway/drive measuring 5m wide x 3.5m high?
17.5m², Ventilation Code P56.
4. On a small underground vehicle like a personnel carrier of engine rating less than 200kw,
what type and minimum size of fire extinguisher is required, and what colour coding would be
on such an extinguisher? Rating 80ABE, 9kg Fire or Explosion Code P104, WHITE, Ext Colour
Code Chart.
5. What is the minimum length of a section of 40mm or 70mm fire hose? No less than 20m,
Fire or Explosion Code P104.
6. What is the mine plan symbol for an underground auxiliary fan? Various diagrams
in Exp and Fire codes, and Vent Codes.
7. At what pressure should the low pressure warning sound on the Drager BG4 Bodyguard/
Monitron? 55 Bar BG4 manual, P6.
8. What is the breathing bag volume (in litres) on the BG4? 5.5Ltr, BG4 manual P59.
9. What is the size, pressure and volume of the BG4 Oxygen cylinder? 2ltr, 200bar, BG4 manual
P58, 400ltr basic maths.
10.During testing a BG4, at what pressure should the minimum (demand) valve operate?
0.1 and 2.5 mbar, BG4 manual P50.
11. During testing a BG4, at what pressure should the relief valve operate between 4 to 7 mbar,
BG4 manual P48.
12.When testing the BG4 for a positive pressure leak, what is the maximum pressure loss over
one minute? 1mbar, BG4 manual P47.
13.On the MARS O2 resuscitator, when set on LARGE ADULT, what is the tidal volume of O2
(amount of oxygen delivered per breath)? 900ml, MARS handbook P25.
14.In the ABC of resuscitation, what does the “C” represent? COMPRESSIONS, basic first aid.
15.How often should the MARS unit be checked? Monthly, MARS handbook P16.
16.What is the TWA (time weighted average) and 15 min STEL (Short term exposure limit) for
Carbon Monoxide (CO) according to NZ Worksafe Guidance Levels? 25 and 200ppm, NZ
Worksafe Guidance P40.
17. If working in a mining situation where the temperature and humidity readings were 38 dry,
33 wet, what MAXIMUM time would the team have to operate? 27 minutes, PINK hot and
humid safe work time chart.
18.What is the chemical that gives off oxygen in a Chemical Oxygen SCSR, a) Potassium
Super Oxide(KO2), b) Soda Lime, c)Sodium Hydroxide, d) Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)
basic rescue knowledge.
34
PARTS RECOGNITION ANSWERS
1. BG4 drain valve disc
2. Relief valve disc
3. Breathing Hose Protector
4. MARS Patient Valve body
5. BG4 inhale/exhale valve
6. Drager CABA (PA90) inner mask/orinasal insert
7. Minimum valve stem
BG4 FAULTS ANSWERS
1. One mask strap disconnected
2. One hose retaining ring damaged/unusable
3. Connector between breathing bag and ice cooler disconnected
4. Main central connector O ring missing
5. One cam lock buckle on CO2 absorber unsecure
JUDGES
Priscilla Page, Specialist Health and Safety Inspector, Mines, Quarries, Tunnels, WorkSafe New Zealand
Barry Gill, Regional Manager, Draegar Safety Pacific Pty. Ltd.
Owen Young, Lead Technician, Draegar Safety Pacific Pty. Ltd.
Brian Robinson’s thoughts
The Oral/Bench test seemed to throw in the most problems. For the oral questions again it
required teamwork after the captain delegating tasks, and using ALL of the available material
provided. With the BG4 checks, these were carried out very professionally, with just a few
mistakes overall.
35
03/
DOMESTIC AND
TRANS-TASMAN
DIFFERENCES
36
SECTION 3.0 // DOMESTIC AND TRANS-TASMAN DIFFERENCES
Aligning domestically and with our Australian
counterparts
INTRODUCTION
Two of the key objectives of this competition were for mines rescue squads to strengthen
relationships and find key areas of difference with their Australian counterparts. In order to drill
down on any key differences internationally, it is best to understand any key points of difference
domestically, and to work to align those differences.
In the event of a major underground mining emergency, it is foreseeable that Australian mines
rescue personnel will be called in to assist and bolster our national capability (this was what
happened at Pike River). In order to achieve success in bringing Australian and New Zealand
teams together in these circumstances, it is best to have as much alignment as possible in mines
rescue capability.
DOMESTIC DIFFERENCES
It was evident there had been cross-pollination of team skills and procedures. Australian judges
were surprised by the remarkable similarities between team procedures. However, there are still
some minor differences that should be noted and acted upon where practicable:
FIRST AID
This was for the most part, discussed in detail in the competition results, under the heading
“Resuscitation”. However, the key focus in that area was theoretical and with regard to basic
resuscitation without focussing on wider first aid skills. This discussion should be considered a
symptom of a potentially significant area of difference, and should be examined in further detail
as to what qualifications mines rescue squads hold and where they come from, as well as how
often they need to be renewed.
Judges from Australia, New Zealand and the UK watch events unfold underground. They are (left to right)
Kevin (Dinghy) Pattinson from OceanaGold Ltd, Tony Forster of WorkSafe New Zealand and Dale Eylward
from W.E.S.T. Rescue Pty. Ltd in Western Australia
37
This should happen with a view to all mines rescue personnel holding the same first aid
qualification. This would not prevent medics from gaining advanced first aid qualifications.
EQUIPMENT
The key difference immediately noticed by Australian judges was the difference in the amount
of kit carried by metalliferous mines when compared with that of coal mines. Squads trained
for rescue in metalliferous mines carry substantially more equipment than their coal mining
counterparts. Hard rock versus coal mining are very different by nature, so it is reasonable to
anticipate there will be some differences in the equipment required. However, mines rescue
squads from both specialities should commence dialogue on exactly what equipment is
necessary for rescue in both coal and metalliferous mines.
Following any agreements that may come out of these discussions, mines rescue squads should
discuss and agree by sector what equipment is absolutely necessary for a rescue operation that
is specific to the type of mine they are most likely to enter for the purpose of rescue. This should
form a standard that is recognised by all rescue personnel and where practicable, should align
closely with Australian rescue squads.
TRANS-TASMAN DIFFERENCES
Judges from each of the three states represented were asked to advise what clear differences
exist, that would be a hindrance to a rescue effort that required mines rescue personnel from
both Australia and New Zealand to work together. Surprisingly, by consensus among Australian
mines rescue specialists, there were none. It was noted that the Australian judges found many
similarities, and no clear differences that would create barriers to a dual rescue operation.
One difference was noted however, and that was the donning procedures for BG4’s, which could
pose some risk to the individual. Discussion of this issue could be facilitated by NZMRS and
passed onto other rescue squads following analysis of the potential risks proffered by Australian
mines rescue personnel.
The New Zealand Mines Rescue Service Huntly Team undertakes BG4 donning procedures prior to underground
event 1
38
04/
RECOMMENDATIONS
39
Standing out in our approach to New Zealand’s mines
rescue capability
INTRODUCTION
There is little doubt that New Zealand has a high level of capability in mines rescue. Unsolicited
comments from domestic and international judges spoke of the high degree of professionalism
carried by the squads, how well they turned out and that they would be happy to deploy any
of the teams. Harnessing the essence of this feedback and aligning it to a national standard for
mines rescue brigades would complement all step change improvements made by mines rescue
squads in New Zealand.
Building a unified multi-skilled national mines rescue capability could be considered an
aspirational target, and not necessarily achievable. With a relatively small service in a small
nation, New Zealand is in the privileged position where this is an achievable target, and step
change is already occurring through the review of mines rescue qualifications and crosspollination of teams in sector based training. The recommendations in this part of the report
are designed to enhance the process of building a unified national mines rescue capability,
and to align processes to Australian counterparts.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Health and safety was the main casualty of this competition. Following analysis of the scores,
this can be partly attributed to a low threshold among teams for responding well to stressful
situations. There are separate recommendations for this aspect of mines rescue capability
under the heading “Human factors”. While it could reasonably be anticipated that safety
procedures would be followed more diligently under a higher threshold for stress, the following
recommendations are being made on the basis that diligence and improvement in this skill set
is always beneficial.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Mines rescue training should include human factor modules, including self-awareness and
stress response, with a core value of “safety first” running through this training.
RECOMMENDATION 2
Team captain training should include basic awareness of striking the balance between task
work and team wellbeing.
HUMAN FACTORS
The main recurring theme from analysis of the competition results was one of a low threshold
for responding to stressful situations. Another recurring theme was one of being “task focussed”
at the expense of team safety and wellbeing. It is likely that with a higher tolerance for stressful
situations that in the next competition, there will be a notable increase in the marks given by
judges for scene/hazard identification, and for safe working practices.
40
SECTION 4.0 // RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 3
Teams should undertake more frequent training in highly charged situations and under significant
pressures such as time pressure, and in situations where there are distractions unrelated to the
task at hand, in order to build a higher tolerance to these factors. Adrenaline control should be
a core aspect of all training sessions.
RECOMMENDATION 4
Team captains should be trained to recognise stress within their teams and how to de-escalate
the situation. They should also be trained in how to balance the focus on the task at hand with
the focus on team wellbeing.
RECOMMENDATION 5
Live casualties should be used more frequently in training sessions, some of whom are unknown
to the teams being trained and both male and female where practicable.
TEAMWORK AND LEADERSHIP
Teamwork and leadership was generally good, however there were situations where the judges
noticed the team captain was not respected as such. This involved situations where team
members watched the team captain working on tasks instead of allowing the captain to stand
back, and failing to listen to the captain. Teams of all types generally have a dedicated captain.
The other team members are subordinate to the captain in the operational chain of command ,
and therefore, teams should not train as “equals” within that chain.
RECOMMENDATION 6
There should be a clear rank structure among brigades, with team captains being trained to
be the captain, rather than being a squad member who steps up into the role. This should not
prevent the squad from training other members into the position of leadership, as this would
also be necessary for good succession planning. However, in order to maintain some respect
for a rank structure, a level of seniority within the team should be achieved by members prior
to being trained to lead. Having a number of specialist team captains available would also
allow for training to be directed at command, leading safety and wellbeing, human factors
in leadership, and learning the key indicators of stress within the captain’s own teams.
FIRST AID
The first aid portion of the competition went very well, however what became evident during
analysis of the competition is the need for uniformity in maintaining first aid standards
RECOMMENDATION 7
Teams should all train to follow the New Zealand Resuscitation Council guidelines. New Zealand
Mines Rescue Service already follows these guidelines, as do Australian teams under the
Australian Resuscitation Council (note both logos on the procedure on page 34). Aligning other
teams to this standard would be a key enabler to aligning New Zealand and Australian teams;
and developing a unified national capability.
41
LIFTING BAGS
There is little doubt that with regard to hard skills, the lifting bags were the competition’s
main area for improvement.
RECOMMENDATION 8
Teams should all work to gain more experience in the use of lifting bags, including assembly
and packing up. Leadership in the use of lifting bags for team captains should be included.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
It is important for teams to continue to look for ways to improve their skills and enhance their
current level of capability.
RECOMMENDATION 9
Teams should discuss the questions and answers for team discussion and develop an action plan
for training focus in 2015. This should not require teams to work independently of one another.
Teams could pool their resource for the purpose of joint training where there are clear similarities
in training requirements, and all participate in discussions around areas of mines rescue
capability that should become uniform across New Zealand.
Comments from Trevor Watts, New Zealand Mines Rescue Service
In my view the extractive industries in New Zealand emerged as one of the real winners from
the inaugural Mines Rescue competitions. Rescue teams from both the gold and coal sectors
were able to come together to test their skills and share their experiences along with ERT
Coordinators, senior mining officials, New Zealand, Australian and U.K Mines Rescue specialists
and WorkSafe staff. The relationship building from what I experienced was huge. The open,
cooperative and cohesive manner in which all participants and stakeholders engaged with has
significantly enhanced the building of relationships which will have enormous benefits should
a multi-stakeholder emergency response be required to any major underground incident in
New Zealand.
42
05/
THANKS FOR
YOUR HELP
43
PROJECT TEAM
Straterra Inc.
Newmont
Waihi Gold
WorkSafe
New Zealand
Kelly Garmonsway
Project
Manager
Kevin Storer
Dave Bellett
(Operations
lead)
(Health and
Safety)
Trevor Watts
Ash O’Halloran
Brian Robinson
OBO
WorkSafe NZ
(Event design)
Jodi Turton
(Comms Lead
and planning/
logistics
support)
Sophie Warren
Julian Robins
Project
Assistant
(comms
support)
Kit Wilson
(comms
support)
Straterra Inc.
WorkSafe NZ
NZ Mines Rescue Service
OceanaGold
Newmont Waihi Gold
44
SECTION 5.0 // THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
JUDGES
NAME
ORGANISATION
Dave Connell
New South Wales Mines Rescue
Chris Clifford
New South Wales Mines Rescue
Ray Smith
Queensland Mines Rescue Service
Mike Walker
Queensland Mines Rescue Service
Dale Eylward
W.E.S.T. Rescue Pty Ltd
Barry Gill
Draegar Safety Pacific Pty. Ltd.
Owen Young
Draegar Safety Pacific Pty. Ltd.
Kevin (Dinghy) Pattinson
OceanaGold Ltd
Tony Forster
Dave Bellett
Priscilla Page
THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS
Thanks also to Draegar Pacific Pty. Ltd for their support. Unfortunately we were unable to receive
a logo in time for this report to be published.
45
Level 6
86 Customhouse Quay
PO Box 165
Wellington 6011
Phone: +64 4 897 7699
Fax: +64 4 415 4015
0800 030 040
www.worksafe.govt.nz
@WorkSafeNZ
ISBN: 978-0-478-42516-1 (online)

New Zealand Mines Rescue Competition

Transcription

Similar documents

ARL`s Paws in the Park 2014 - Animal Rescue League of Boston

To the Rescue! - Long Leash On Life

5K REG NO DATE 2016 ugly elise logo

Safe-T-View Cover Competitive Points List

event schedule - Animal Rescue Alliance

PDF - Sinn

Rescue Rebuild - Bathe To Save

School Pack

Huntingtown Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, Inc

January 2007 - Papillon Haven Rescue

a LEaDING INNOVaTOR THROUGH COLLaBORaTIVE