 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just read your reply to Le_Forgeron.
> 1. then 2.
> Not forgetting yourself.
None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
have to be winched out one at a time. Luckily you're the one tasked to
rescue them, not one of the ones trapped.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/05/2015 09:50, Doctor John wrote:
> 'All politicians take one step forward!'
> Now rescue the ones at the back
>
You get my vote. (Unless you ask for it.)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/05/2015 09:50, scott wrote:
>> Just read your reply to Le_Forgeron.
>> 1. then 2.
>> Not forgetting yourself.
>
> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
> have to be winched out one at a time. Luckily you're the one tasked to
> rescue them, not one of the ones trapped.
>
Any other criteria that you have forgotten to mention? :-P
In that case it will be the person in the cave, mine who is elected (by
the people there) who would decide the order of who goes out.
To be honest this exercise is so contrived that it is very unrealistic.
Fortunately I have never been in the situation but I have had the
training. Stop me if I have mentioned that when I worked offshore I was
in the First Aid and Rescue Team. Too late. ;-)
That was the sort of thing we trained for. Remember the the miners are
not civilians and will have had training too. Also remember the Birkenhead.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 12.05.2015 um 09:24 schrieb scott:
> That then got me thinking, real rescue teams surely have a set criteria
> and process they use to make decisions like this? They can't afford to
> waste time discussing in a hectic manner who to save first. Google
> didn't show up anything, maybe I don't know the correct words or phrases
> to use.
>
> Any ideas or comments? What criteria would you use to decide?
I guess most people would go for the stereotypical "women and children
first" approach.
Professional rescue teams, however, will probably take an entirely
different approach:
- If there is reasonable danger of structural collapse during the rescue
operation, or any other danger to the rescue team, nobody will go in at
all. Self-protection is paramount.
- If there is some other reasonable danger that affects rescuees but not
the rescue team (such as smoke, presuming the rescue team is wearing
breathing aids), it is probably a matter of getting people out of the
danger zone in the order they are encountered. Any time spent on
assessing the "rescue-worthiness" of people would be time wasted, and
would also put the rescue team under enormous mental pressure. People
who cannot be extracted immediately for technical reasons, such as
people trapped under heavy loads, are an exception. My guess would be
that an initial attempt will be made to get them out, but if that fails
rescue workers will call in technical help, while proceed to extract
other people until that help arrives. The medical condition of the
rescuees is irrelevant: Even if there is a high risk to further injure a
person, they will be extracted from the danger zone.
- If people are in a sufficiently safe environment, but there is not
enough qualified medical personnel to take care of all of them at once,
there will be a team of paramedics responsible to assess the casualties'
injuries to prioritize them. AFAIK people with the most severe injuries
will have top priority, even if chances of survival are slim (*). In the
meantime, paramedics will try to stabilize the most severely injured
patients that medics cannot yet tend to, while unqualified volunteers
will be assigned to tend to minor injuries, reassure more severely
injured but stable people that they will receive the neccessary
treatment in due time, or just make sure that people in a state of shock
don't panic and run away.
(* I guess this might be different in a military environment, where
death is necessarily a calculated risk.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-5-2015 11:44, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/05/2015 09:50, scott wrote:
>>> Just read your reply to Le_Forgeron.
>>> 1. then 2.
>>> Not forgetting yourself.
>>
>> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
>> have to be winched out one at a time. Luckily you're the one tasked to
>> rescue them, not one of the ones trapped.
>>
>
> Any other criteria that you have forgotten to mention? :-P
Indeed! For instance: is the water rising rapidly or not? How much time
is there to save (most of) them?
>
> In that case it will be the person in the cave, mine who is elected (by
> the people there) who would decide the order of who goes out.
> To be honest this exercise is so contrived that it is very unrealistic.
The choice is left to the persons in the cave/mine, definitively. If
speed is an issue,/and/ speed of action also depends on the people
trapped, I guess the fastest/fittest people first to get most people
saved. That's a tough one to decide. If only speed matters and the
victims are helpless without the outside, it doesn't matter much who
gets out first. The most altruistic will probably die (as is shown in RL
examples).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/05/2015 11:51, clipka wrote:
>
> I guess most people would go for the stereotypical "women and children
> first" approach.
That is the Birkenhead rule, btw.
And I hope that there would be no children working down the mine.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Indeed! For instance: is the water rising rapidly or not? How much time
> is there to save (most of) them?
I don't remember the exact details, but the rate of rise of water was
given as a range of values, the worst case was bad enough that there
would be nowhere near enough time to get everyone out.
> The choice is left to the persons in the cave/mine, definitively. If
> speed is an issue,/and/ speed of action also depends on the people
> trapped, I guess the fastest/fittest people first to get most people
> saved. That's a tough one to decide. If only speed matters and the
> victims are helpless without the outside, it doesn't matter much who
> gets out first. The most altruistic will probably die (as is shown in RL
> examples).
Indeed, it's going to get messy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 May 2015 09:50:27 +0100, scott wrote:
> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
> have to be winched out one at a time.
Assuming all are equally rescuable, start with the lightest, and while
that's happening, look for an alternate solution that allows more than
one at a time to be rescued, or look for a way to deal with the flooding.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
>> have to be winched out one at a time.
>
> Assuming all are equally rescuable, start with the lightest, and while
> that's happening, look for an alternate solution that allows more than
> one at a time to be rescued, or look for a way to deal with the flooding.
That's a good call to start with the lightest - IIRC they were given no
details about the speed variability of the winch (this was a task set by
HR rather than the engineering team!), but it's possible it would go
faster with a lighter load. It certainly wouldn't go slower.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2015 08:44:13 +0100, scott wrote:
>>> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
>>> have to be winched out one at a time.
>>
>> Assuming all are equally rescuable, start with the lightest, and while
>> that's happening, look for an alternate solution that allows more than
>> one at a time to be rescued, or look for a way to deal with the
>> flooding.
>
> That's a good call to start with the lightest - IIRC they were given no
> details about the speed variability of the winch (this was a task set by
> HR rather than the engineering team!), but it's possible it would go
> faster with a lighter load. It certainly wouldn't go slower.
That's one thought - the other thought I had was starting with the
lightest also is less likely to cause a catastrophic failure of the
winch. You wouldn't want to start with someone who weighed 300 pounds
and have the winch break.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
