NPR ran a story earlier this week on an intriguing new human factors problem: fire-safe elevators.
The fall of the World Trade Center made it painfully obvious that stairs in skyscrapers do not function adequately in emergencies. We’ve always been warned away from elevators in case of fire, and I would go so far as to say it part of our collective knowledge from a young age. With the advent of elevators you should use in a fire comes a host of difficulties.
1. Training the zeitgeist: Not all elevators will be replaced, though new tall buildings will all have fireproof elevators. There may be new rules requiring older buildings over a certain size retrofit at least one elevator as fire safe.
- This still makes fireproof elevators the exception instead of the rule. A great research question would be how to train people for a small-percentage case? You want the public, of all ages and experience levels, to know “In case of fire, use stairs, unless there is a fireproof elevator around, which you may or may not have noticed while you were in the building.”
2. Warnings and Information: The symbol in this post is probably familiar to all of you. I’ve occasionally seen it in Spanish, but not often. How will we indicate the difference between fire-safe elevators and other elevators?
- Decals, signs and other indicators will not only have to indicate which elevators are safe and their purpose, but whether other elevators in the building are safe or unsafe. My building is square, with elevators on mirrored sides. If one were safe and the other not, I am sure I could remember which was safe, especially under the cognitive demands of an emergency.
3. Wayfinding and luck: Use of the elevator may depend on the location of the fire.
- One of the original problems was that elevators opened onto smoke-filled or fire-filled floors. The story did not specify how the new elevators would avoid this. If there is a sensor that prevents them from opening onto such a floor, what if there are people desperately waiting for the elevator on that floor (as they have been re-trained to do)?
- Should the system be even more complex, with people gathering on certain floors to await the elevator rescue? And then, if those floors are on fire..
In short, researchers start your engines! We have some training, warning, design, and way-finding work to do.
Authorities on the densely populated Indonesian island of Java concluded in mid-October that the threat was imminent enough to require sending troops to forcibly evacuate tens of thousands of villagers living on the mountain’s slopes, directly in the way of volcanic ash falls, mudslides and perhaps even lava flows …
… that didn’t come. The government said on Thursday that the threat had now subsided enough for most evacuees to return to their homes and lands, and learn whether they had been looted or ruined over the weeks they were left untended.
In just two days, we’ve gotten two more big datapoints for the age-old quandary facing public officials around the world about where to set the threshold for public warnings of less-than-certain disaster.
There doesn’t seem to have been a crying-wolf issue in either case: both Mount Kelud eruptions and North Sea storm-surge floods have wrought devastation in living memory, and the authorities could offer plenty of objective physical grounds for their concerns.
Still, erring on the safe side takes its own toll, both material — the evacuated Indonesians apparently had ample cause to worry about looting — and psychological. Even when they are issued in good faith for good reason, every false alarm can drain some of the menace, and some of the effectiveness, out of the next warning.