NFPA Journal - September/October 2017 - 44

Perspectives
one that had occurred at about six o'clock that
morning. I specifically asked about the skycaps, to
see if they had any information about the nature
of the alarm before pushing mobility-impaired
people through the "fire" area. She told me that
the alarms happened so frequently that the skycaps ignore them unless they get a radio call to
tell them it's a real emergency.
Two more questions immediately occurred to
me: If employees don't respond to an alarm without manual notification through other means,
what purpose does the notification system serve?
And who would be making the phone and radio
calls to all the employees?
I kept those questions to myself.

NOT AN ISOLATED OCCURRENCE

nfpa.org/
perspectives
READ the Fire
Protection Research
Foundation's 2013
report on evacuation strategies
and systems in tall
buildings.

I imagine that most readers have had at least one
similar experience with a fire alarm in a public setting. In the few years since this event, I have had
the same situation occur in two other major U.S.
airports. In both cases, the public and employee
responses were the same, and comments from airport personnel were similar. On another occasion, I
was in a restaurant with members of an NFPA technical committee when the fire alarm went off. Our
table was the only one to leave, and while we waited
outside we watched people continue to walk into the
building even as the fire engines rolled up outside.
Fortunately, all of these experiences were relatively benign. The concern is that they demonstrate
weaknesses in the emergency response plan, issues
that can have devastating effects. Employees are
tasked with maintaining operations, but if they fail
to respond to an emergency or respond inappropriately, the response plan will break down. A tragic
example of such a breakdown was the Ycua Bolanos
supermarket fire in Paraguay in 2004, which was
described in detail in the November/December
2004 edition of NFPA Journal. In this incident, a
fire originating above the supermarket's food court
quickly spread through the facility. Deficiencies in
the market's construction features and egress capacity limited the ability of shoppers to escape, resulting
in nearly 400 fatalities and 360 injuries. While there
were several aspects of that facility that did not meet
NFPA codes, the actions of security personnel to
lock doors to prevent shoplifting likely increased the
number of casualties by further impeding egress.
We rely on fire alarm and emergency communication systems as critical life-safety systems in
public assembly spaces, but how effective are they?
Without a well-implemented response plan that
factors in human behavior, even the best technological solution will fail. What would you do if you
heard an alarm? Does the answer depend on where

44 | NFPA JOURNAL * S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 7

you are? Many workplaces conduct regular drills to
ensure that employees know how to respond to a
fire alarm. At home, you should have an escape plan
prepared and be ready to respond when the smoke
alarm goes off. But what about in a public space?
Will your response be different? Should it be?
The need for validation is a recognized behavioral trait. When given an indicator of an abnormal
condition, such as an alarm signal, most people will
seek reassurance to validate the initial perception
before taking any action. In an airport or retail
facility, people would likely seek validation from an
employee or security person on the presumption
that they have additional information available to
them. Social inhibition decreases the likelihood that
an individual will respond to the initial indication;
in a crowd of people, few are willing to be the first
person to take action.
For guidance on considering these factors in
emergency planning, facility managers and safety
professionals can refer to Section 4.8 of NFPA 101®,
Life Safety Code®, which describes the elements of
an emergency action plan, including procedures
for reporting emergencies and occupant and staff
response to emergencies. The underlying behavioral and social effects are described in detail in the
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, published
by the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
The public's response in these incidents was
expected, considering employees provided no validation. Unfortunately, the employee response was
also understandable given the frequency of false
alarms and the need to avoid disruptions to airport
operations. When people are exposed to frequent
false alarms, they become conditioned to ignore them.
The underlying lesson here for life-safety systems
designers and facility managers is to recognize the
normal behavioral responses and try to accommodate them with the design of safety systems. Key
elements to consider include:
False alarms reinforce poor behavior. Most people
have more experience with false alarms than true
emergencies, so the assumption is that any alarm is
false unless proven otherwise. This supports inaction
over action, unless there is some other management
system to promote action. Whenever possible, fire
alarm testing and maintenance in public facilities
should be planned to avoid generating alarms for
the general public. When alarm activations are necessary during nonemergency situations, they should
be accompanied by clear notification before the
alarm and an "all clear" afterwards.
The latest and greatest technology by itself isn't
enough. Properly applied detection solutions can

http://www.nfpa.org/perspectives http://www.nfpa.org/perspectives

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - September/October 2017