An Overview of Research on Self-Contained

Self-Rescuer Training

By Charles Vaught, Michael J. Brnich, Jr., William J. Wlehagen,

Henry P. Cole, and Henry J. Kellner

Bulletin 695

1993

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF MINES
Cover: Miners attempting to don their SCSR's in smoke.
Bulletin 695

An Overview of Research on Self-Contained

Self-Rescuer Training

By Charles Vaught, Michael J. Brnich, Jr., William J. Wiehagen,

Henry P. Cole, and Henry J. Kellner

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary

BUREAU OF MINES
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data:

An overview of research on self-contained self-rescuer training / by Charles Vaught

... let al.].

p. em. - (Bulletin / U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines; 695)

Includes bibliographical references (p. 18).

1. Self-contained self-rescuer (Mine rescue equipment). 2. Coal miners-Rating

of. 3. Survival skills. I. Vaught, C. II. Series: Bulletin (United States. Bureau of

Mines); 695.

TN297.094 1993 [622' .89-<1c20) 92-44395 CIP
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background 3

Developing one donning procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Promoting motor-task practice 10

Integrating training into the workplace 12

Training and the second generation of SCSR's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Recommendations from lessons learned 17

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Suggested additional reading and viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Percent of trainees getting lungs isolated 5

2. The 3+3 donning sequence 7

3. Evaluation form for SCSR training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. Donning proficiency by mode of instructional delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Draeger OXY SR-60B SCSR training simulator 11

6. Donning proficiency for workers receiving posttraining practice versus those receiving no practice 13

7. Donning proficiency for the samples at the eight mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Average SCSR donning proficiency for miners sampled in the eight-mine study . . . . . . . . . 14

9. PWSCSR donning proficiency 90 days after initial training 15

10. Performances for individuals trained and evaluated on different apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

11. Percent of individuals correctly completing each donning step 16

12. PWSCSR with Viewmaster viewer and 3+3 reel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

13. Ninety-day donning proficiency on PWSCSR for trainees using the Viewmaster viewer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TABLES

1. Data collected from SCSR donning workshops 8

2. Failures due to mouthpiece errors 12

3. Follow-up evaluation by SCSR training device. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

h

m

hour

inch

pct percent

s second

mm minute
AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON SELF-CONTAINED

SELF-RESCUER TRAINING

By Charles Vaught,1 Michael J. Brnich, Jr.,2 William J. Wiehagen,3

Henry P. Cole,4 and Henry J. Kellner

ABSTRACT

In 1985, U.S. Bureau of Mines and University of Kentucky researchers began a series of studies relating to self-contained self-rescuer (SCSR) donning proficiency. During the next 5 years investigators

examined a number of factors that have a bearing upon miners' ability to put on and use the apparatus

in an emergency: the procedure being taught; availability and utilization of training models; opportunities to practice; hygiene; and on-the-job training. This report presents an overview of that research.

It is concluded that companies should adopt a hands-on training protocol that allows them to integrate

SCSR donning practice into other workplace routines such as fire drills.

1Research sociologist.

2Mining engineer.

3SupeIVisoty industrial engineer.

Pittsburgh Research Center, u.s. Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, PA.

4Professor of Education and Counseling Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

5Industrial engineering technician, Pittsburgh Research Center.
2

INTRODUCTION

This overview is part of the U.S. Bureau of Mines mission to improve the health and safety of the Nation's miners. Oxygen-breathing apparatus have been available for

use during underground mine emergencies in this country

since 1907. These devices were intended to be worn by

people engaged in rescue and recovery after such events as

fires and explosions. Apparatus were donned in fresh air

and wearers then proceeded inby to explore or work. The

popular conception ofsuch activities today often represents

employment of the device as not being a problem: mine

rescue personnel put their apparatus on and then use them

to do whatever needs to be done. This was not always the

case. Morrow (1)6 noted that in the beginning: ... it was

not unusual for one, two, three, or four men to put an

apparatus on and make, or attempt to make, explorations

ahead of fresh air after mine disasters.... Often these men

had little or no previous training in wearing the apparatus

other than a few oral instructions.... Under such conditions

it is not strange that men collapsed and lost their lives

while wearing oxygen breathing apparatus, but rather it is

surprising that a greater loss of life did not occur...."

The deaths of several men in succession led to the

adoption in 1921 of mine rescue standards (2). These

standards provided a baseline for training. The schedule

for initial instruction, which took approximately 20 hover

a 5-day period, included 9 h of practice wearing the apparatus. The Bureau recommended additional instruction

and practice be given at least once every 6 months (3).

With increased industry commitment over time, there

emerged gradually a cadre of fit, well-trained, and highly

motivated individuals for whom donning and Use of the

device was, indeed, rather nonproblematic. The end product of this historic process can be seen today in mine

rescue team members who benefit from tested protocols

for employment of their breathing apparatus and who

receive frequent opportunities to practice.

With the introduction of self-contained self-rescuers

(SCSR's) in 1981, another oxygen-breathing apparatus

became available for use during underground mine emergencies. This device was deployed with a different philosophy in mind. Whereas the older apparatus had always

been intended for use by a few individuals in rescue and

recovery work, SCSR's from inception were meant to be

donned and worn by rank-and-file miners during escape

6ltalic numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references

at the end of this report.

attempts. Whereas Bureau researchers had concluded in

1959 that "... the safe use of oxygen breathing apparatus

depends on carefully selected, well-trained men...," these

new oxygen rebreathers were to be employed by universally trained workers who would be chosen by circumstances.

Furthermore, miners might well have to don the devices in

smoke or bad air, rather than in comparative safety, before

going into a life-threatening situation.

Given the Bureau's early concern about deaths associated with inadequate training on oxygen-breathing apparatus, what would this universal instruction for SCSR's be

like? Berry and Mitchell (4) noted that the Training and

Education Committee, Coal Mining Section of the National Safety Council (NSC), released a memorandum in May

1980 making certain preliminary recommendations. These

suggestions are included in part here and will be discussed

later:

1. "Despite the differences among brands of SCSR's,

only one procedure should be taught... preferably [depicted] in bold, easily understood graphics."

2. "Training models should be as low in cost as possible. Fidelity is not important. What is important is

being able to put on an SCSR and practice procedure.

Breathing resistance is not critical, nor are features such

as the case being manufactured to the same standards as

the actual model. Low cost promotes greater use of models and therefore more actual practice."

3. "Throw-away or easily cleaned mouthpieces are necessary on the training model."

4. "The first phase of training should be classroom;

then build training into fire drills and other on-the-job

training."

In essence, the committee seemed to have cut to the heart

of some of those principles central to motor-task training:

give individuals a simple schema to follow; let them practice the entire task often; and incorporate this practice into

their everyday activities.

In the case of oxygen-breathing apparatus, as history

already had shown, an approach like that recommended by

the committee was critical. Yet, the committee's suggestions did not get translated into a general program of

action by the industry. Why not? A few of the possible,

and very plausible, reasons will be discussed in the section

that follows.
3

BACKGROUND

Cole and his colleagues (5) conducted interviews with

more than 50 mine safety experts from a cross section of

organizations during the summer of 1985. In the process,

they recorded several accounts of miners' failure to put on

their SCSR's in situations that clearly called for their use.

The general assumption of those individuals discussing

such failures was that the workers involved knew how to

employ their apparatus but did not because of poor judgment or even panic. There was little or no speculation

that rank-and-file miners in the early 1980's might just be

in the same position regarding their oxygen-breathing devices that would-be rescuers in the 1920's were with the

apparatus they had to use. Once again, could there not

simply be a lag between technology and training?

This notion was borne out not only by some of the

fmdings from the Wilberg disaster (6) and the Greenwich

Collieries explosion (7), but also by impressionistic data

supplied by a mine safety trainer who had carried on

an exercise with workers at his operation. The exercise consisted of having groups of miners don one of

the compressed-oxygen SCSR's and travel several breaks

through heavy smoke in their return. The trainer summarized his observations in the following manner: (1) people

had to be prompted while putting on the apparatus; (2)

about one-fourth of the workers forgot to don their noseclips; (3) roughly a dozen individuals, out of 96, did not

use the goggles; (4) some 10 pct of the total group did not

get their oxygen turned on; (5) several miners got the

SCSR neck straps tangled with their cap lamp cords; and

(6) at least two people did not get the mouthpiece in and

sealed correctly. All in all, if one considers the intended

function of SCSR's, this portrayal of workers' level of

proficiency with the apparatus is disturbing.

Why would worker ability to don and use an SCSR be

taken for granted by the aforementioned mine safety experts in the first place? After all, had not the Bureau

already gone through one program of remediation for insufficient training on oxygen-breathing apparatus? There

are several credible answers to this question, some of

which were touched upon by Cole (5) and his colleagues.

Each is considered in turn and circumstantial factors will

be offered as support for the conclusions reached here.

First, the success of mine rescue training itself may

have had a bearing lipon how SCSR's were viewed at the

time of their initial deployment. Morrow (1) noted that

for the period from October 1940 to July 1959 there was

not a single known death among wearers of permissible

oxygen-breathing apparatus in American coal mines. In

other words, lessons from the early part of this century

had been learned and their antecedents forgotten, leaving

an effective protocol in place. Donning and use of the

device when the occasion demands it simply has not been

perceived as a problem in the recent past.

This mine rescue protocol seems to have provided the

model for self-contained self-rescuer training in 1981. For

example, original instructional materials to be used in

SCSR training are strikingly similar in form to materials

developed for mine rescue training (8-10). Both sets of

instructions provide information on how the apparatus

works and discuss conditions under which it is to be employed. Both sets of instructions present a donning procedure in which an individual is pictured standing in a

well-lighted room and going through a sequence of approximately a dozen steps in order to secure the device for

wearing. Finally, both sets of instructions warn that the

apparatus should be worn only by individuals who are

trained to don the device, but, assuming training, present

wearing in a nonproblematic way.

A second reason SCSR donning and wearing skills may

have been taken for granted so long is that there was little

empirical data at first to refute the notion that need will

somehow be translated into ability. This confused linking

of cause and effect is typical in many areas: an object

exists for a certain purpose; therefore, it is taken for

granted that the object will serve the purpose intended. In

the case of mine rescue devices, the data showing that

oxygen-breathing apparatus might not automatically serve

their intended purpose were deaths attributable to misuse.

In the case of SCSR's, the first data were donning times

for 46 workers participating in a field evaluation of two

prototype models (11). While these donning times ranged

from 30 to 196 s, there was no indication of the types of

errors being committed, nor of their frequency. In the

absence of concrete performance data, anyone wishing to

assess the proficiency of miners with oxygen-breathing

apparatus would be forced to fall back upon impressionistic accounts or fatalities in which inadequate training was

implicated.

The problem with impressionistic data or deaths attributable to misuse of an apparatus highlights the third reason SCSR donning and wearing ability may have been taken for granted by the industry at large. Without empirical

evidence to the contrary, each event in which something

goes wrong can be passed off as a discrete incident rather

than seen as part of a larger pattern. For instance, while

training at the Wilberg Mine was called into question after

the disaster in 1984 (6), there was no blanket questioning

of training practices at all operations. To repeat, one

reason for this is that there was no baseline of data from

which to draw inferences. The other reason is probably
4

that there was not a series of deaths such as had occurred

with rescue apparatus after 1907. Thus, any doubt about

the Wilberg miners' proficiency with SCSR's became just

one of many issues that arose during the investigation at

that site rather than coming to the forefront and causing

a general questioning of miners' ability to use oxygenbreathing apparatus such as had ensued in the 1920's.

A fourth explanation for why Cole (5) and his colleagues uncovered little doubt about workers' ability to use

SCSR's if they needed to may lie in the nature of how

training was mandated. While training for mine rescue fell

under its own subpart (49.8) in 30 CPR, self-rescue training was included as one of several mandatory courses in

Parts 48 and 75. The provisions for mine rescue training

required an initial20-h course of instruction in the use and

care of the type of apparatus that was to be employed.

This was to be followed by refresher training that included

wearing and use of the device for at least 2 h every

2 months. Initial training for SCSR's, though, was fit into

the required course on self-rescue and respiratory devices

such as fUter self-rescuers (FSR's) and respirators. The

course called for instruction and demonstration in the use,

care, and maintenance of self-rescue and respiratory devices employed at the mine. This was to be followed by

refresher training annually.

The entire program of annual refresher training, under

which continuing instruction on SCSR's was subsumed as

a small part, is 4 h less than the time mine rescue team

members are required to spend just on wearing and using

oxygen-breathing apparatus. Since there are only so many

hours in a day, and only so many items that can be given

attention under Part 48, it is easy to see how SCSR training could be inadequately covered. Instruction in the use,

care, and maintenance of SCSR's would be no more or

less important from a compliance standpoint than the rest

of the course dealing with FSR's and respirators. The

"self-rescue devices and respiratory devices" course itself

would be no more or less important than the dozen or so

other courses offered in that 8-h time span. Thus, just as

a trainee is assumed to be able to identify and avoid electrical hazards after instruction, or to put on and breathe

through an FSR, so would he or she be assumed to be

able to don and use an SCSR if the need arose.

Essentially, it seemed that even though modern-day

mine rescue protocols might have influenced the form of

SCSR training materials and procedures, the substance of

training on this oxygen-breathing device was more nearly

like that given to workers before 1921: ·Often these men

had little or no previous training in wearing the apparatus

other than a few oral instructions...• (1). The last bit of

evidence that miners' proficiency with SCSR's was a nonissue can be seen in the following conclusion from Cole's

research, which is very similar to Morrow's observation

quoted earlier about the state of instruction before 1921:

'The interviews support a widely held notion that very few

underground coal miners ever actually don an SCSR in

training. Rather, the typical training session will include

a fUm, a slide-tape presentation, or a talk by an instructor

who stands before the class and demonstrates the steps

involved" (5).

The following sections will discuss a series of studies

begun shortly after the Wilberg disaster. Rather than

attempt to deal with all aspects of SCSR usage, such as

whether workers know what to expect while wearing a device during an escape, these studies made donning proficiency the central issue. They addressed one by one each

element that seemed to arise as a barrier to good SCSR

donning training and evaluation. The long-term goal of

this research mission has been to secure the same industry commitment to donning proficiency with these new

oxygen-breathing devices as was given to training on the

first oxygen-breathing devices following promulgation of

the Bureau's mine rescue standards in 1921. As will be

seen, this is an attainable goal and a necessary first step in

any effort to ensure miners are able to use their apparatus

in an emergency.

DEVELOPING ONE DONNING PROCEDURE

The preliminary study, which was carried out by University of Kentucky researchers on a Bureau contract,

satisfied the first recommendation of the NSC's Education

and Training Committee: "Despite the differences among

brands of SCSR's, only one procedure should be taught...."

The motivation for this effort lay in the research team's

perception, mentioned previously, that the wrong sort of

model had been used to guide development of the original

training materials and recommended donning procedures.

It should be emphasized that the researchers did not

consider these SCSR training materials necessarily bad

in and of themselves, nor did they consider procedures

recommended by these materials impossible to learn.

Rather, it was thought that the general information advocated a training approach that was not appropriate for

the real-life conditions a person attempting to don and use

an SCSR might encounter. Quite simply, every aspect of

the original instructions seemed to convey a sense of the

routine in discussing what to do in a situation the investigators pict~ed as being anything but routine. There

were logical reasons for making this inference, and they

primarily involved differences between mine rescue operations and self-rescue activities as perceived by the

researchers.
5

Figure 1.-Percent of train... getting lung. Isolated.

KEY

o Baseline

(groupO

Control

(group21

• Experimental

(group31

n=10114

(7.14pctl

(0.00 ctl

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

ELAPSE TIME OFCRITICAL TASK, s

o

70 r--"""'T'"-~.......,.--r----.-....,...--------.

60

50 .....

40

<.> ffi 30

a..

20

10

don an apparatus in a low smoky entry, the researchers

conducted an experiment in cooperation with a coal company in eastern Kentucky. Three groups of workers were

chosen to put on an SCSR during annual refresher training. A baseline group (number (N) = 14) was selected

from among surface workers at the operation. These

individuals had never received training on SCSR's. They

were included to see if this oxygen-breathing device was

simple enough to be put on by anyone who knew what it

was for but who had not been shown how it worked. A

control group (N = 20) had initial hands-on training using

the manufacturer's materials and recommended donning

procedure in 1981. They had been given their most recent

annual refresher demonstration 7 months before. A treatment group (N = 16) was similar to the control group in

terms of experience except that they got a demonstration

just before their performance trial.

The donning trials were conducted individually in a

private room at the company's training center. Each

person, when brought into the room, was equipped with a

pit belt, FSR, cap, and lamp. The SCSR was placed on

the floor in front of him or her. At a signal from the

researchers the individual attempted to put on the SCSR

as if he or she were in an emergency. Investigators videotaped the entire donning sequence.

Nobody was able to don his or her apparatus "proficiently," if by that term one infers some ability to put on

an SCSR well enough to do what the instruction handbook

advocated: secure the device and retreat from a hazardous

area. Regardless of that criterion, figure 1 shows that

many of these workers did not even get their lungs isolated

by activating the oxygen, inserting the mouthpiece, and

donning the noseclips. This failure probably could be

explained away for the baseline group since they had

received no instruction in how to employ the SCSR. What

was remarkable at the time was that a full third of the

others also failed to isolate their lungs.

A mine rescue team member would probably put on his

or her apparatus while standing in a well-lighted area.

Since this person could secure the breathing device and

be checked out before going into bad air, there might be

little hurry to get his or her lungs isolated. Instead, attention probably should be paid to making sure the apparatus

was on right and in good working order. Also, since the

mine rescue team member would be highly motivated and

very well trained, there would not be much need to present him or her with a simplified, easily remembered

donning procedure.

A rank-and-ftle miner might very well have to put on

his or her apparatus in a smoky entry in low coal where

the only lighting would be provided by his or her cap

lamp. In such a predicament the device would have to be

donned quickly; it would have to be put on while working

in an awkward position; and the lamp would have to be

used to illuminate what was being done. Unlike a mine

rescue team member, this person would not be highly

trained in the employment and use of a breathing apparatus. If one can imagine this situation the value of a

straightforward, easy-to-Iearn, and easy-to-remember donning procedure is readily apparent.

Given the preceding two scenarios, it was felt that existing SCSR training materials were better suited to a mine

rescue model than to a self-rescue model. First, the pictured donning positions appeared unrealistic from a selfrescue point of view. As mentioned previously, instructions generally showed an individual donning the apparatus

while standing in a well-lighted room. It was not clear

from looking at the materials how to handle the various

parts of the device to be discarded, some of which almost

invariably get entangled with straps and lamp cords. Nor

was it clear what was to be done with the cap and cap

lamp: Hang the cord around one's neck, letting the cap

dangle down the side? Remove and replace the cap as

one completes various steps? Some illustrations showed

the cap without a lamp, thereby avoiding this question

altogether. A second concern stemmed from the fact that

the donning sequence tended to put nonessential and timeconsuming tasks such as strap adjustment ahead of some

of the steps necessary to isolate one's lungs from the surrounding "mine" atmosphere. The demonstrator first inspected the seals and pressure gauge and then performed

those tasks necessary to allow him to work with the unit

while standing. Only then did he complete the steps needed to get his lungs isolated. The fmal critical tasks, such

as putting on the noseclips, might come as late as tenth in

a sequence of 14 or more steps. Third, the materials presented no simplified, easy-to-remember procedural rules

to help miners order the complex array of tasks needed to

use the SCSR in an emergency.

As a frrst step toward developing a procedure that

would be directed at the hypothetical miner attempting to
6

The research team drew some preliminary conclusions

from this initial study. First, any lingering notions that

SCSR's were somehow intuitively simple were discarded.

Investigators confirmed, to their satisfaction, at least, that

they were dealing with an apparatus that was on roughly

the same order of complexity as other oxygen rebreathers.

In that case, oral instruction or demonstration in no way

would constitute adequate initial training. Second, insofar

as mandated training on self-rescue and respiratory devices

required infrequent refreshers, it was decided that a 12- or

14-step donning procedure was inappropriate because

workers could not remember it. Third, since many coal

miners labor in low seams, the recommended donning

position was determined to be unworkable for a sizable

part of the population.

Based upon these conclusions, the research team set

about devising a more rationalized training system for

SCSR's. This system was to have one primary function:

to maximize workers' gains in donning proficiency while

minimizing the amount of resources and level of effort

companies would have to expend beyond what the regulations already required. The program to be developed was

never intended as a panacea. Instead, it would involve the

logical application of a few proven task-training principles

to achieve what was hoped might be a significant enhancement of performance.

To begin this process the investigators conducted an

extended task analysis of the videotaped donning trials.

Generally, it was found that individuals had little or no

notion of step sequencing. This was indicated by the fact

that a subject would often interrupt one task to begin

another, and complete neither. Also, in addition to omitting steps, many workers would perform incorrectly one or

more of those tasks he or she attempted. The overall

picture was one of people trying to do something they did

not know or remember how to do.

It is much easier to remember to do tasks in a proper

sequence if the entire process is laid out in some logical

and simple framework that organizes them all "naturally."

Sensitized by their task analysis, the researchers next

turned their attention to discovery of this logical framework. They operated from an assumption that even

though there were different brands of SCSR's the apparatus had one common imperative: to enable workers to

get their lungs isolated in a mine emergency. Consequently, the most pressing or "critical" steps should be to get the

oxygen started, to insert the mouthpiece properly, and to

put on the noseclips. After that the "secondary" steps,

those necessary to get the SCSR secure and ready for

travel, could be performed.

A round of hands-on tinkering and experimentation

followed in which the investigators began to make minor

tradeoffs among the various devices in order to reach an

optimized and generalizable donning sequence. Since

some workers would not be able to stand up while putting

on the apparatus, but all could kneel, the advocated

position for donning would be kneeling. Since straps had

proven to be a time-consuming and confusing element,

strap adjustment would be undertaken after the lungs had

been isolated. This could occur because the individual

would be kneeling with the SCSR lying on the mine floor.

However, because managing the neck strap was a problem

once a miner's lungs had been isolated, it was decided that

the neck strap should be looped over the head prior to

anything else being done. In this manner the research

team worked step by step toward a logical pattern of

actions that would enable workers to don their apparatus

efficiently and effectively.

The result of this effort quickly became known as the

"3+3" donning method. Using this method a miner in an

emergency would place the apparatus on the mine floor in

front of his or her knees. After removing the cap and

placing it on the floor so that the cap lamp could

illuminate the SCSR, the worker would loop the neck strap

loosely over the head. Once this was done, he or she

would complete the following "chunked" sequence of steps

(fig. 2): (1) activate the oxygen; (2) insert the mouthpiece;

(3) put on the noseclips; then (4) don the goggles; (5)

adjust the neck and waist straps; and last (6) replace the

cap and move out.

It is easy to see that the new 3+3 procedure was a

generalized prescription for how to put on any SCSR then

existing regardless of brand. It was assumed that before

an individual tried this method he or she would have been

shown how to do the discrete tasks, such as opening the

case and activating the oxygen. What people tend to

forget most quickly is not how to perform the independent

tasks once learned, but in what sequence these tasks

should be done. For that reason it is crucial to layout

steps so that the completion of one leads logically to the

next, which in turn cues the recall of those tasks which are

part of that step. Likewise, it is important to "chunk" tasks

into as few steps as possible since the fewer steps one has

to remember the more likely he or she will be able to

sequence them correctly.

The donning method was field tested during workshops

conducted for a dozen groups of coal industry people

in Kentucky. Each group was given a short videotaped

demonstration of the 3+3 sequence, and individuals then

underwent performance trials in a manner that was to

provide the standard training-evaluation protocol for subsequent studies.

Prior to each donning trial the individual was equipped

with a miner's belt, cap, and cap lamp. An SCSR was

placed on the floor in front of the subject. The trainee

was requested to await a signal from the trainer, and at

this signal to put on the SCSR as if he or she were in an

actual mine emergency. No questions were answered or
~-=

.~

~~.-

1

5

--~ ..

~.=---- 2

+

--~

~­

-~-.~

4

C ·-- -~::=-------

- -==- -------:: .. -

6

Figure 2.-The 3+3 donning sequence.

7
8

information given at this stage of the process. During the

donning trial, which was performed with no prompts, the

trainer evaluated the subject's proficiency by means of a

specially designed connect-the-dots evaluation form. This

form, which has proven highly reliable in hundreds of

trials, is intended to show sequencing errors and actions

that are done incorrectly (fig. 3). A helper recorded times

for the critical actions and the secondary actions. At the

end of the trial, if an error had been made, the instructor

pointed it out and explained how to do that particular step

correctly.

Almost all of the people, 172 of 179, in these 12 workshops were able to complete the critical tasks and isolate

their lungs. Furthermore, unlike those miners in the first

study, many workshop trainees, an overall average of

46 pet, performed a perfect sequence on their initial try

after seeing the new demonstration. The data summary is

shown in table 1.

The research team, upon achieving such a promising

display of ability in the workshops, next began incorporating the 3+3 donning method into a complete training

package. The package consisted of (1) a short videotape

and (2) an instructor's manual. The videotape conformed

to sound instructional 'principles in that it was brief and

kept procedural knowledge (needed to put the SCSR on)

separate from declarative knowledge (needed to care for

the apparatus). The instructor's guide was divided into

three parts: (1) instructions in how to conduct an effective

training class; (2) line drawings of the 3+3 donning sequence, suitable for making overhead transparencies; and

(3) an evaluation form that would allow trainers to assess

their students' performance and offer feedback. A major objective of this package was to facilitate hands-on

training.

Table l.-Data collected from SCSR donning workshops

Critical time, s Secondary time, s Prior donning1 Perfect donning

SCSR type and site Test date N Mean SO N Mean SO Mode2 Numbef sequence,

pct of total

Draeger:

E. Kentucky ........ 1/22 7 17.00 5.77 7 55.00 20.78 NAp NAp 28.57

1/28 27 23.89 10.61 27 64.70 29.08 3 12 62.96

1/29 15 20.47 4.93 15 52.20 19.18 0 11 53.33

W. Kentucky ....... 3/18 16 16.25 4.97 17 41.12 17.09 0 6 22.22

3/19 17 17.53 6.71 18 59.17 19.45 0 11 38.89

Ocenco:

E. Kentucky ........ 1/22 11 26.27 5.87 11 79.45 26.16 NAp NAp 63.64

1/29 11 33.73 10.00 11 82.45 24.11 0 9 45.45

W. Kentucky ....... 3/18 16 26.44 5.66 15 69.06 25.42 0,1 3,3 4 11 .

76

3/19 17 38.64 11.10 19 84.32 19.08 0 16 47.37

CSE: E. Kentucky .... 1/22 9 21.67 4.77 9 68.88 17.95 NAp NAp 66.67

1/29 16 24.94 11.39 16 62.44 20.91 0 9 64.71

MSA: E. Kentucky .... 1/29 10 17.90 5.15 10 51.50 14.35 0 .8 50.00

N Number in population.

NAp Not applicable.

SO Standard deviation.

lExperience with this model.

2Most frequently occurring value in a set where different values may occur more than once.

3Number of people who gave the modal response for their group.

40f the 17 trainees, 9 adjusted the straps before donning their goggles. Although this deviates from the perfect sequence, it is not

a critical error.
Performance Evaluation for Date

1. Did the miner answer the following?

A. Name the exact place where you started working last shift.

9

____yes ____ No

B. Tell me how to get to the nearest SCSRs from that place.

____yes ____ No

2. Connect the dots in the diagram below to show the steps the miner

took in donning the SCSR. DO NOT TOUCH THE DOT IF HE OR SHE

DID THE STEP INCORRECTLY.

____ Total Time (seconds)

Hat on •

Straps.

Oxygen

•

o

Start

•

Loop

•

Goggles

• Mouthpiece

Noseclips

[

Part Time (seconds)

3. After the task is completed please list any errors that need to be

corrected and then correct them.

Trainer's Signature _

Figure 3.--Evaluatlon form for SCSR training.
10

PROMOTING MOTOR-TASK PRACTICE

10

CST

MODE OF DELIVERY

80

70

60

50

40

-0

a. 30

........

Z 20

IJJ

0 10

LL

0 0 0:::

Q..

30

(f)

IJJ

IJJ

Z

«

0::: 20

Ibe a trainer's preferred way of presenting the SCSR donning task, this fInding was encouraging.

Being able to perform a task satisfactorily immediately

after seeing it demonstrated does not, unfortunately, ensure a person's ability to repeat that same procedure

sometime in the future. In order to illustrate this important principle of motor-task training the research team

next established a performance baseline by having participants repeat their donning trial until a perfect 3+3 sequence was achieved. So, regardless of how it was introduced or whether it was recorded on their first attempt or

their fifth, all individuals ended this training session at a

uniform 3+3 criterion. Ninety days later 72 of the subjects were reevaluated. The sample was apportioned evenly with 24 individuals taken from each treatment group.

Overall, only 13 people, 18 pct, were able to replicate their

The second round of studies, which were conducted

primarily by Bureau researchers, dealt with the second

piece of advice that was put forward by the NSC's Education and Training Committee: "Training models should be

as low in cost as possible.... What is important is being

able to put on an SCSR and practice procedure...." Impetus for these studies lay in the Bureau team's perception

that not only was hands-on p~actice not being done widely

in the industry, but that many d,id not realize the potential

consequences of not providing such training. People practice motor tasks so they will not forget how to do steps

correctly, but •...people can't remember what they didn't

learn..." (12).

In order to assess those factors influencing people's

learning and subsequent forgetting of SCSR donning skills,

investigators ran a training experiment with 155 professional and technical employees at the Bureau's Pittsburgh

Research Center. This effort, undertaken in July of 1986,

focused upon two elements of interest. First of all, researchers wanted to determine the optimum way to transfer instruction to trainees before practice. Second, team

members wanted to characterize skills degradation during

the coming year. Regarding instruction before practice,

Schmidt (13) presented some evidence that the way in

which a task is introduced has an impact upon how well

that task is learned. Because there has been little empirical analysis of this phenomenon, however, it was decided

to vary conditions prior to practice in the training study.

The task was the same for everyone: learn to perform the

3+3 donning sequence on a Draeger OXY-SR 6OB.7

Groups were selected at random to be given one of three

treatments before practice: a computer-based program

that presented the 3+3 method as sequential blocks of

information; a structured lecture that depicted the procedure in a series of overhead transparencies; and a stepby-step donning demonstration by a trainer followed up

with a short videotape meant to portray the routine in real

time.

Following this introduction, trainees were asked to don

the SCSR while being evaluated. The variable of interest

at this point was their first trial. The upper graph in figure 4 shows what happened. Essentially, a significantly

greater percentage of those given the demonstration treatment were able to perform a proficient sequence, getting

all steps completed properly during their initial attempt to

put on the apparatus. Since live demonstration is likely to

7Reference to specific products does not imply endorsement by the

U.S. Bureau of Mines.

Figure 4.-Oonnlng proficiency by mode of Instructional delivery. Top, Immediately following training; bottom, 90 days after

training (CBT =computer-based training).
final perfect performance of 3 months before. Their distribution among the three delivery modes is indicated

by the lower graph in figure 4. An additional 12 individuals, 17 pct, performed well enough to get their lungs

isolated and the apparatus secured. Essentially, then, a

mere 35 pct ofthe sample completed those steps necessary

to enable them to escape.

The lesson emphasized by this phase of the research is

simple. Even good SCSR training, which allows individuals to keep trying a procedure until they perform perfectlyon the day they are trained, will not keep most of them

from forgetting very quickly. Actually, what people require

in order to retain their skills is distributed practice. A

prerequisite for repeated practice over time, however, is

access to usable training devices. Therefore, the research

team decided to develop an inexpensive and hygienic

simulator that could be employed to provide hands-on

11

practice under a range of different training situations and

physical conditions.

Figure 5 shows a schematic for one of the training simulators, a facsimile of the Draeger OXY SR-60B that utilized a discarded case as its basic component. Besides being low cost and highly durable, the apparatus was built

with a feature that makes repeated practice relatively easy

for trainers and trainees alike: a quick-release hose clamp

that allows mouthpiece assemblies to be changed out in

seconds. This means that each miner being trained may

have his or her own previously cleaned mouthpiece, which

can be installed as the device is being repacked.

"Throw-away or easily cleaned mouthpieces..." was the

third critical criterion for good SCSR training mentioned

by the NSC's Education and Training Committee. The

reason mouthpiece assemblies are so important is that

workers should be taught to pe.rform a complete donning

Bell reducer

Hexagon head -in-20 bolt (1 in long)

1_in-diam hole 4

Resusci Anne lung

Sealed weld

Rigid foam

Block bond

Goggles

Pipe

Mouthpiece plug

Mouthpiece

Corrugated hose

Plastic hose clamp

(quick release)

Adaptor

(1-in tubing to 1-in pipe) '~":<:z-~"'-<:.L7>.

IS!T"----.;~~~~~~~I___-:;<--Clip (No. 1 Boston)

Bell reducer

(1-in pipe to 1-in pipe)

Metal closing clamp

Figure S.--Oraeger OXY SR-60B SCSR training simulator.
12

sequence with no shortcuts. Such an approach is, fIrst,

a sound motor-task training principle (13). Additionally,

though, empirical evidence gathered by the research team

revealed that the single biggest cause of observed failures,

in a sample of working miners trying to put on the apparatus in use at their operation, was mouthpiece error (14).

This error alone accounted for 38 of the 86 observed failures. Table 2 summarizes this fInding.

Table 2.-f'allures due to mouthpiece errors

Sample trained

to insert the

Errors mouthpiece Total

Yes No

Mouthpiece:

Number ......... 9 29 38

Pct , ........... 25.0 58.0 44.2

Other Critical:

Number ......... 27 21 48

Pct ............ 75.0 42.0 55.8

Total number .. 36 50 86

To ensure that they could safely recommend miners be

taught to insert the SCSR mouthpiece as part of their

hands-on instruction, Bureau personnel conducted two microbial tests of mouthpiece assemblies that had been used

in training by three organizations (15). Organization A

employed a chemical cold sterilant to disinfect its mouthpieces and Organization B used a bleach-water solution.

Organization C, which had supplied its miners with their

own mouthpiece to be used with the Bureau's training

simulators, simply cleaned the assemblies with soap and

water after each use. Both a standard plate count and an

anaerobic plate count indicated that there were no microorganisms for each mouthpiece tested. The researchers

decided to adopt a protocol in which used mouthpiece

assemblies would be thoroughly washed in soap and water,

soaked in a bleach-water solution for 10 min, rinsed in

plain water, air dried, and packaged individually in plastic

sandwich bags.

Within 3 years after beginning their investigations the

research team had developed a standardized donning technique, perfected an evaluation system that would yield

reliable data on how well people performed this procedure, built an inexpensive and hygienic training simulator,

and established a baseline from which to assess how

quickly people forget what they have been taught unless

they get a chance to practice. It was felt that most of

the barriers to motor-task practice, be they perceptions

that such training was not really necessary or that the

logistics were too intimidating, had been shown to be

surmountable.

INTEGRATING TRAINING INTO THE WORKPLACE

Concurrent with their efforts to promote motor-task

practice, Bureau researchers entered into a cooperative

agreement with a mine in the Western United States. This

study had the effect of meeting the fourth suggestion that

has been listed from the NSC memorandum: "The fIrst

phase of training should be classroom; then build training

into fIre drills and other on-the-job training." Such advice

points up a crucial precondition for enhancing SCSR donning proficiency by means of distributed practice. No operation is likely to hold its workers outside for a shift every

few weeks or months in order to let them practice putting

on an apparatus. Yet, if it can be shown that good handson SCSR training may be conducted without affecting production, recommendations that miners be given periodic

refresher practice seem much more reasonable.

At the western site, training began in the classroom

with a short videotape demonstrating the 3+3 method and

providing some tips on how to care for the device in use

at that operation. Then miners went to work and the research team set up their equipment in an outby location.

During the shift workers were "bumped out" on their face

jobs one at a time and sent to the training area. There

each miner was given hands-on instruction with repeated

practice before returning to the face.

Half of the miners were trained with the regular,

Draeger, training model while half were trained with the

Bureau-designed simulator. Training was alternated between the two devices. The protocol used at this mine was

to give the fIrst worker a regular training model and slowly

direct him or her through the 3+3 sequence as the device

was donned in a step-by-step manner. The SCSR was

then repacked by a trainer. The individual was next asked

to put on the apparatus unaided while being evaluated.

Trials were repeated until the miner recorded fIve perfect

performances in a row. If an error was made on any attempt, this error was explained and trial performances

started over. The second person was given a simulator

and trained in exactly this same way. Even given so many

repetitions of performance trials, the average time spent

with each wo..rker was 25 min. All 88 employees at this

operation were trained to criterion without slowing down

production.

The first follow-up evaluations were conducted 3 to

5 days after training. A random sample of 32 miners, or
13

Table 3.-follow-up evaluation by SCSR training device

KEY

o Practice

• No practice

- 80 0

Q.

t-=" 63.3

w

z 60

lJ..

0

a: 40

a..

en

w

w 20

z

<i

a:

0

A B C D E F G H

MINE

their standard protocol, Bureau researchers set up in a

crosscut outby the last open break, and workers were sent

back one at a time so that production was not interrupted.

The miners were given a training model of the apparatus

deployed at their mine and asked to put on the device unaided while being evaluated. If an individual made any

mistakes, these were pointed out in feedback utilizing

the 3+3 evaluation form (see figure 3). The worker then

returned to his or her job.

Figure 7 shows a graphic proftle of proficiency in the

samples at those eight mines. In short, skill levels ranged

from a low of 90 pct nonproficient to a high of 63 pct proficient. The proficiency rate of the best mine in this sample, 63 pet, where workers had been trained only a week

before being evaluated, does not compare favorably with

that of the western operation which had roughly the same

percentage of proficient miners several months after training. Again, a commitment by the western company to

provide good initial training and then integrate donning

practice and evaluation into their other emergency preparedness activities seems to have paid off.

Further evidence of the effect recency of training has

upon performance can be seen in figure 8. To compile

this graph Bureau personnel sorted individuals across all

eight samples by the length of time they reported since

their last annual refresher. It should be noted that this

constructed time-line is confounded by the fact that training was conducted by various instructors using different

apparatus, so that it has heuristic value only. Given this

caveat it still appears that, as figure 6 suggests, there will

be lowered skill levels among those who have had more

time to forget.

By the time this phase of their research was over,

members of the Bureau team had spent hundreds of hours

underground conducting hands-on training and doing

r....... / /............_-- / "'tr

/

/

Performance Draeger Bureau Totals

Failure ........ 1 1 2

Survivor ....... 3 3 6

Criterion ....... 12 11 23

Total ...... 16 15 31

About 90 days later another sample was chosen for

evaluation. As figure 6 suggests, these miners' skills

degraded as sharply as those of subjects included in the

degradation study at the Pittsburgh Research Center.

After 3 months, however, a new element was added at the

western mine. Safety personnel began integrating SCSR

practice and evaluation into escapeway travel and fire

drills. So, when Bureau researchers returned periodically

to conduct further donning assessments, they found proficiency levels holding at a reasonably high degree.

The relatively good overall performances of workers at

lhis site can be compared to those found in a canvass of

eight eastern mines conducted by the research team in

early 1989. In all 243 men and women, or approximately

30 at each site, were sampled for this study. Following

- 80 -----,-----,---,.-----,

..---

ffi 60

u

lL..

o 40

a:

a.

Cf) 20

w

w

z

<{

a: 0 3 6 9 12

tELAPSED TIME AFTER TRAINING, months

8 from each crew, was selected for assessment on their

sections. Four workers from each crew had been trained

with a simulator and four had been taught using a regular

training model. For this evaluation the regular training

device was used. Table 3 shows that within a week of

being trained most of the workers could still put an SCSR

on proficiently. Furthermore, there was no difference

between the performances of those who had gotten their

initial instruction with the simulator and those who had

been trained on the regular training apparatus.

Figure 6.-OOnnlng proficiency for workers receiving posttraining practice versus those receiving no practice.

Figure 7.-OOnnlng proficiency for the samples at the eight

mines.
14

follow-up evaluations. They had done much to demonstrate, empirically, the following reasons the NSC Committee's admonishment to " build training into fire drills

and other on-the-job training " should be institutionalized:

1. Short-cuts or omissions in initial training get passed

along in the form of lowered proficiency - "...people can't

forget what they didn't learn...." Even good initial training

will be forgotten rather quickly, though, unless individuals

have an opportunity for distributed practice.

2. It generally takes between one and three trials, after

prepractice instruction, for a miner to master donning the

SCSR. Instruction, from start to finish, including repacking the training apparatus, takes an average of 15 min per

worker. In other words, good in-mine training is neither

a costly nor time-consuming intervention.

In sum, it is practical to deliver high-quality hands-on

training, evaluation, and feedback without interrupting production. The best, and least interruptive, means of providing that continued practice workers need in order to keep

their SCSR donning skills is to build it into other emergency preparedness routines. If this is not done, many

miners will quickly forget how to do the task adequately.

70 r-------,-----.-------,----,

t> 60

a.

t-="

as 50

u

G:

40

a..

(/)

30

z

l= 20

101-------------....-----'

o 3 6 9 12

ELAPSED TIME AFTER TRAINING, months

Figure 8.-Average SCSR donning pronclency for miners sampled In the eight-mine study.

TRAINING AND THE SECOND GENERATION OF SCSR's

The worst case of forgetting encountered by Bureau

researchers occurred during field evaluations of CSE's new

SR-l00 Person-Wearable Self-Contained Self-Rescuer

(PWSCSR). One hundred and sixty-nine people from a

cross section of mining methods and conditions were instructed in the 3+3 procedure according to the Bureau's

standard training protocol. Before returning to interview

workers who wore the PWSCSR in field trials, personnel

selected seven mines at which to conduct follow-up donning evaluations. As with the initial in-mine training and

evaluation, researchers went to the working section and set

up an interview and donning area in a crosscut outby the

working face. Following an interview and answering of a

questionnaire, every miner was asked to don a PWSCSR

training apparatus as if he or she were facing an emergency. This trial was videotaped and evaluated.

All follow-up donning evaluations were conducted about

90 days after the miners had been trained. Figure 9 presents a pie chart showing performance trials for the 77

individuals who were sampled. The chart indicates that,

despite having been trained to perfection originally, about

90 pct performed so poorly that they may be regarded as

having almost completely forgotten how to put on the device. The poor showing of these people reinforced what

had already been found out about losses of donning

proficiency for first generation SCSR's due to a lack of

frequent and systematic practice. The only element ofsurprise was a greater than expected magnitude of forgetting.

It was thought that some of this forgetting might be

brought about by confusion. The research team hypothesized that individuals who have used the 3+3 to master

one device might still experience trouble when confronted

with another type. This notion was based on existing research that indicates "...the amount of transfer seems to be

quite small and positive unless the tasks are practically

identicaL" in which case, and under the right conditions,

"...negative transfer can be produced..." (13). Such evidence suggests that once a person has learned to do a

task, he or she will be able to transfer a small degree

of this learning to similar tasks. Under certain circumstances, however, subtle differences in procedure can create cognitive confusion.

There are some interesting implications in both ofthese

observations as they apply to SCSR training. First, to

achieve proficiency in SCSR donning, there must be a substantial front-end investment of time and effort on the part

of trainers and trainees alike. When the necessity of training people on two apparatus is factored in, this time cost

increases significantly, especially if there is little or no task

transfer. Second, if there is actually negative transfer, with
N =77

KEY

Proficient

1«:1 Not proficient

Figure 9.--PWSCSR donning proficiency 90 days after Initial

training.

practice on one device tending to create confusion when

the individual is confronted with another type of apparatus,

ways must be found to ensure proficiency on both SCSR's.

Three random samples totaling 41 workers were involved in this part of the study. All these individuals had . ' SlDce 1986, been trained annually on the Draeger. Their

last retraining had been conducted approximately 1 year

before the present experiment. Fifteen workers were

chosen to constitute a control group. The others were

either retrained to don the Draeger or taught to don the

PWSCSR.

Immediately following prior instruction the subjects

were required to practice until they had reached the criterion goal of being able to perform a perfect sequence.

They were then given a donning trial, using not the apparat~s they had just been trained on, but the other type

of deVIce. There were, therefore, two treatments included

in this assessment. Treatment 1 consisted of training a

sample of subjects on the PWSCSR, and once they had

demonstrated competence on this device, having them don

the Draeger. Treatment 2 had individuals trained to criterion with the Draeger undergo an evaluation on the

PWSCSR. For purposes of the present study, these performances would permit researchers to assess certain

aspects of both positive and negative task transfer as

individuals changed from one apparatus to another.

Subjects' performances on the trials following instruction were divided into two categories: (1) not proficientthose who did not get their lungs isolated from the ambient atmosphere (or) those who succeeded in getting their

lungs isolated, but who did not secure the apparatus well

en~ugh to allow them to escape (or) those who isolated

~helr lun.gs but who secured the apparatus in such a fashIOn t~~t It would have allowed escape only under favorable

conditions; and (2) proficient-those whose performance,

15

although not perfect, made them escape ready (or) those

who had a perfect 3+3 sequence on the first trial. Figure 10 contains pie charts that present the observed performances for those evaluated on the apparatus that was

the diametric of the one they had just been trained on

(Draeger or PWSCSR). These charts may be compared

with that of the control group who were not trained recently, but were evaluated with the device they had last

attempted to don a year before.

An examination of the areas in these charts is interesting. Essentially, there was a greater proportion of proficient sequences for those trained on the PWSCSR, but

evaluated on the Draeger, than was found among the control group. Conversely, there was a smaller proportion of

proficient sequences for those trained on the Draeger, but

evaluated on the PWSCSR, than had been exhibited by the

control group.

Another way to look at performance is by examining

types of errors. Figure 11 provides an accounting of errors

made on each task by apparatus used. An examination of

the figure shows that the areas where people seemed to

have the most trouble were in activating the oxygen, inserting the mouthpiece, donning the goggles, and adjusting

the straps. These omissions are relatively serious, and

would impair a person's ability to escape. In each category there were more errors committed by people who

had been trained on the Draeger but who were donning

the PWSCSR. As a matter of fact, at least some of those

trained on the Draeger who then attempted to don the

PWSCSR had problems with each step in the donning

task, except remembering to replace their hard hats.

Achieving adequate strap adjustment was problematic for

both groups, but especially for those trained on the Draeger and evaluated on the PWSCSR. Actually, this subtask

did not tend to transfer well in either direction.

In sum, this part of the study addressed an important

problem related to the anticipated deployment of new

person-wearable SCSR's, even when the training method

is the same for all apparatus. This issue involves task

transfer, or what happens when individuals taught to don

one device attempt to put on another type of apparatus.

If, as common sense would indicate, there are differences

in the degree of difficulty each SCSR confronts the individual with, then it might be expected that the task of

putting on an apparatus would transfer better in one direction than in the other. Particular attention should be

paid to achieving and maintaining proficiency on the device

people have the most trouble learning. While this does

n~t obviate the need to give thorough hands-on training

WIth each type of SCSR, it presents a cautionary note to

instructors who are in the process of introducing new

apparatus. This introduction must not be done casually.
16

n=11

n=3

Trained onthe Draeger,

evaluated on the PWSCSR

n=7

Control group

Trained on the PWSCSR,

evaluated on the Draeger

n=8

KEY

Proficient

t~(tJ Not proficient

-

o

a-

......

Z

W

U

LL

o

0::

a..

CJ)

w

IJJ

Z

<{

0::

....

Figure 10.--Performances for Individuals trained and evaluated on different apparatus.

KEY

Trained on Draeger, evaluated on PWSCSR

IT] Control group

Trained on PWSCSR, evaluated on Draeger

100 r---""'T"':"'~r--~-----Y"7"""'l:"...-r----"-nr.y,or-------~---r:t'I~---'

J

80

60

40

20

Loop Oxygen Mouthpiece Noseclips Goggles Strops Hot

Figure 11.--Percent of Individuals correcUy completing each donning step.
17

Figure 12.-PWSCSR with V1ewmaster viewer and 3+3 reel.

Figure 13.---I,jlnety-day donning proficiency on PWSCSR for

trainees using the V1ewmaster viewer.

N=8

TREATMENT

KEY

ProfiCient

N=8 I·:·:·:-:-:! Not proficient

CONTROL

Such a marked difference suggests mental practice holds

much promise as a practical and simple mechanism for

maintaining an acceptable level of SCSR donning skills between actual performance opportunities. Further research

is needed to explore this possibility.

One of the more remarkable fmdings from motor-skills

research deals with the effect mental practice has on concrete task performance. Various studies have shown that

covert rehearsal can lead to a large positive transfer of

skills when a particular task is actually attempted (13).

With these fmdings as a guideline, Bureau personnel decided to design a simple device that would provide an opportunity for distributed mental practice of the cognitive

elements related to PWSCSR donning. Their intention

was to help workers maintain procedural proficiency between hands-on practice sessions with a device that could

be used in a variety of situations.

This device is a 3-D Viewmaster viewer reel depicting

a miner performing the 3+3 donning sequence: open and

loop; (1) activate oxygen; (2) insert mouthpiece; (3) put on

noseclips; (4) put on goggles; (5) adjust straps; and (6)

replace cap. It was hypothesized that once an individual

had learned those discrete actions involved in putting on

a PWSCSR, he or she would benefit from reviewing the

steps by using a Viewmaster viewer (fig. 12). In this way

a person, once trained, could prepare mentally for his or

her next performance by running through the sequence

periodically.

A small number of state inspectors to whom the

PWSCSR was being issued by their organization were

trained using the 3+3 donning method. The participants

were then given a Viewmaster viewer and reel showing the

sequence of steps they had just learned. A freshly trained

group that was similar demographically, which constituted

a control, was given nothing. Those receiving viewers were

asked to use them and mentally practice the donning procedure at a regular time during every workday. Approximately 90 days after training these participants were evaluated. Figure 13 illustrates how the two groupings fared in

terms of proficiency (perfect or adequate) and nonproficiency (marginal, poor, or failing to isolate the lungs).

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LESSONS LEARNED

First of all, there is no protocol for self-rescue, such as

exists for mine rescue, that has made this function of

oxygen-breathing devices nonproblematic. Whether or not

workers can don and use SCSR's well enough to escape a

fatally toxic mine atmosphere is still very much at issue, as

indicated by recent Bureau interviews of 48 individuals·

who have escaped mine frres through smoke (l6). The

following recommendations are not, however, a suggestion

that the industry initiate an SCSR training effort modeled

after what is done to prepare people for use of mine

rescue apparatus. Rather, they are based upon much empirical evidence that the original memorandum drawn up

by NSC's Committee on Education and Training suggested

a protocol that was not only workable, but that would have

made SCSR donning proficiency a reality for most miners:

1. Only one procedure should be taught.

2. Training should be hands-on, with evaluation and

feedback. The entire procedure ought to be taught and

performed correctly, with no shortcuts.

3. Training ought to be conducted in-mine to avoid

interrupting production and thereby introducing a distraction. Instruction should be done on a one-to-one basis in

order to keep each miner's attention focused on the

learning task.
18

4. Hands-on practice should be scheduled throughout

the year. Training can be built into fire drills and other

emergency preparedness routines.

5. Training models (or simulators) with easily cleaned

and replaceable mouthpiece assemblies ought to be used.

6. Distributed mental rehearsals could be provided between hands-on practice sessions.

7. Trainers should sample their workforce periodically

and do spot evaluations in order to keep track of profi~

ciency levels. Remediation can then be given as needed.

REFERENCES

1. Morrow, A. E. Loss of Life Among Wearers of Oxygen Breathing

Apparatus. BuMines IC 7279, 1959,28 pp.

2. Committee ofthe International Mine Rescue Standardization Conference. Mine Rescue Standards: A Tentative Study. Dep. Commerce,

BuMines, 1923, Tech. Pap. 327-334.

3. Parker, D. J., G. S. McCaa, and E. H. Denny. Self-Contained

Oxygen Breathing Apparatus: A Handbook for Mine.rs. BuMines, 1934.

4. Beny, D. R, and D. W. Mitchell. Recommended Guidelines for

Oxygen Self-Rescue.rs - VOlume I, Underground Coal Mining (contract

JOI99118, Foster-Miller Assoc.). BuMines OFR 86(1)-81, 1981,52 pp.;

NIlS PB 81-225872.

5. Cole, H. P., and Staff. Research and Evaluation Methods for

Measuring Nonroutine Mine Health and Safety Skills: Volume I (contract H0348040, Univ. KY). BuMines OFR 18(1)-89, 1988, 229 pp.;

NIlS PB 89-196646.

6. United Mine Workers of America Department of Occupational

Health and Safety (Washington, DC): Report on the Disaster at the

Wilberg Mine, Emery Mining Corp., Orangeville, Emery County, Utah,

Dec. 19, 1984. 1985, 82 pp.

7. Fesak, G. M., and D. R Cavanaugh. (Underground Coal Mine

Explosion) Greenwich Colleries No.1 Mine. MSHA Rep. Invest., 1984,

17 pp.

8. Mine Safety and Health Administration (Dep. Labor). MSA One

Hour SSR Self-Contained Self-Rescuer: Instruction Guide Series 38,

Aug. 1981, 35 pp.

9. Mine Safety and Health Administration (Dep. Labor). (Formerly

Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (Dep. Interior)) Mine

Rescue Training Using the MSA McCaa Mine Rescue Apparatus. Dec.

1975,49 pp.

10. U.S. Department of Labor. Draeger OXY SR-60B Self-Contained

Self-Rescuer: Instruction Guide Series 39, Aug. 1981, 33 pp.

11. Peluso, R G. Results From the Field Evaluation of Self-Contained

Self-Rescuers. Paper in Proceedingll of the 12th Annual Institute on

Coal Mining Health, Safety and Research, ed. by M. Karis, W. H.

Sutherland, J. L. Patrick, and J. R Lucas. Dep. Mining Miner. Eng., VA

Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1981, pp. 125-131.

12. Johnson, S. Effect of Training Device on Retention and Transfer

of a Procedural Task. Human Fact., v. 23, No.3, 1981, pp. 257-272.

13. Schmidt, R Motor Control and Learning. Human Kinet. Pub.,

1988, p. 407.

14. Vaught, c., W. J. Wiehagen, and M. J. Brnich, Jr. Self-Contained

Self-Rescuer Donning Proficiency at Eight Eastern Underground Coal

Mines. BuMines RI 9383, 1991, 17 pp.

15. Brnich, M. J., Jr., and H. P. Kellner. Oeaning, Disinfecting, and

Sterilizing Self-Contained Self-Rescuer Mouthpiece Assemblies Used in

Hands-On Training. BuMines IC 9236, 1989, 7 pp.

16. Brnich, M. J., Jr., C. Vaught, and L. G. Mallett. Miners' SelfContained Self-Rescuer Donning Proficiency and the Use of SCSR's in

Mine Fires. COAL, July 1992, pp. 52-54.

SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL READING AND VIEWING

In addition to those publications that have been cited in

the report, there are various other materials that report,

in-depth, results of the studies referred to in this overview.

These documents, many of which are included in the next

section, form a strong base for all recommendations listed

here. An examination of the indicated materials, along

with ones contained in the reference section, will suggest

a possible and practical protocol for SCSR donning training and practice.

Cole, H. P., and C. Vaught. Problems in Donning the SelfContained Self-Rescuer. BuMines IC 9134, 1987, 57 pp.

__. Training in the Use of the Self-Contained Self-Rescuer.

BuMines IC 9134, 1987, 57 pp.

Cole, H., C. Vaught, H. Kellner, and E. Chafin. Miners' Proficiency in Donning SCSR's. Proceedingll of the Thirteenth Annual

Training Resources Applied to Mining. WV Univ., Morgantown, WV,

1986, pp. 149-166.

E&T Group. Instructor's Guide and Videotape-Escape From a

Mine Fire. 1990. Distributed by National Mine Health and Safety

Academy, Beckley, WV.

__. Instructor's Guide and Videotape-An Efficient Method for

Teaching Mine.rs To Don the SR-l00. 1990. Distributed by National

Mine Health and Safety Academy, Beckley, WV.

Kovac, J. G., and C. Vaught. Self-Contained Self-Rescue.rs: New

Developments in Technology and Training. BuMines OFR 27-89, 1989,

pp.417-424.

Kovac, J. G., C. Vaught, and M. J. Brnich, Jr. Probability of Making

a Successful Mine Escape While Wearing an SCSR BuMines RI 9310,

1990,11 pp.

Vaught, C. Development of an Inexpensive Simulator for Use in

Hands-on Self-Contained Self-Rescuer Training. BuMines Tech News

301, 1988.

__. Development of an Inexpensive Training Simulator for the

Ocenco SCR BuMines Tech News 303, 1988.

Vaught, C. Development of an Inexpensive CSE SCSR Simulator for

Use in Self-Contained Self-Rescuer Training. BuMines Tech News 311,

1988.

Vaught, c., M. J. Brnich, Jr., and H. Kellner. Instructional Mode

and Its Effect on Initial Self-Contained Self-Rescuer Donning Attempts

During Training. BuMines RI 9208,1988, 11 pp.

__. The Effect of Training Strategy on Self-Contained SelfRescuer Donning Performance. BuMines IC 9185,1988,124 pp.

Vaught, c., and H. Cole. Teaching Miners Proficiency in Donning

Self-Contained Self-Rescuers. Proceedingll of the Fourteenth Annual

Training Resources Applied to Mining. PA State Univ., College Park,

PA, 1987, pp. 82-94.

__. The Development and Assessment of an Innovative SCSR

Donning Method. Paper in Symp. on Safety in Coal Min., Pretoria,

South Africa, Oct. 5-8, 1987, pp. 8.4. Council for Sci. and Ind. Res.,

1987,13 pp.
Vaught, c., H. P. Cole, W. J. Wiehagen, and M. J. Brnich, Jr.

Overview of Research on Mine Emergency Skills. Proceedings of the

Seventh U.S./Korea Joint Workshop on Coal Utilization Technology.

Dept. of Energy, 1990, pp. 30-51.

19

Vaught, c., W. J. Wiehagen, and L. Derick. Achieving and Maintaining Competence in Donning the Self-Contained Self-Rescuer. Proceedings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Annual Training Resources Applied

to Mining, 1988-89. WV Univ., Morgantown, WV, pp. 107-134.

INT.BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA 29752

* U.s.G.p.a.: 1993--709-008/80004
U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Mines

810 7th Street, N.W., MS #9800

Washington, D.C. 20241-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER