Experience on Emergency Response Guide

It is never an "operational bible" that must be followed 100%, but a "decision-making reference coordinate system" to help you get the bottom line - the core must be to balance the boundaries between "strictly following the process" and "flexible on-site response". You can neither regard the guide as a constraint, nor completely abandon the guide and rely on experience.

To be honest, when I first came into contact with various emergency manuals, I really thought they were just waste paper for inspection. I memorized the company's operation and maintenance emergency manual for three days and got perfect marks on the test. When my colleague spilled iced coffee on the edge of the server cabinet, my first reaction was to turn to the page of the manual. I asked for "liquid spill disposal", but the old operation and maintenance guy next to me kicked me over and asked me to unplug the backup power strip around the cabinet and wipe the dripping coffee on the casing with an absorbent cloth. I didn't get scared until I reviewed it later. After I finished flipping through the manual, the coffee seeped into the motherboard and half of the business line had to be shut down.

There are actually two completely different views on the use of guidelines in the industry, and they have been arguing for many years without reaching a unified conclusion. One group is the "system-first" group, which believes that people can easily be distracted by panic in emergency situations, and every step of the process must be strictly blocked. Even if the loss seems a bit large at the moment, it is also a problem of process design. The process can be optimized in the future, which is better than changing steps privately and causing a safety accident. The other group is the "on-site first" group, which believes that all guides are based on scenarios that have occurred in the past and cannot be applied to new emergencies. Experienced practitioners make intuitive judgments, which is much more efficient than rigidly following the process.

I have seen real positive and negative cases for both of these statements. Last year, an electric vehicle caught fire in the underground garage of our community. The security guard who had just taken up his post took the fire emergency manual. The first entry read, "Turn off the power supply to the area first and then call the fire alarm." He squatted in front of the electrical box and searched for the corresponding switch for three minutes. He was just passing by. The old owner first called 119 and grabbed two dry powder fire extinguishers to put down the fire that had just broken out. At that time, the fire source was still two meters away from the nearest circuit, so there was no risk of electric shock. Instead, the best time to control the fire was missed. But I’ve also seen people who didn’t believe the guidelines suffer big losses. Last year, a fire broke out in a hardware warehouse in a neighboring city. Based on experience, an old worker believed that the fire was caused by ordinary paper shells and plastics, so he took a water pipe and poured water on it. Unexpectedly, there was a batch of lithium batteries waiting to be shipped piled up in the corner of the warehouse, and they exploded when exposed to water. If he had followed the guidelines to first confirm the source of the fire and then select the fire extinguishing agent, such a big thing would not have happened.

Who do you think is right? I had been struggling for a long time before, until I participated in the last practical training of the Municipal Emergency Management Bureau, and the teacher said something that made it clear: all the steps written in the guide are marked with "prerequisites" that you can't see. For example, the prerequisite for "cut off the power and then extinguish the fire" is "the fire source is close to live lines, and there is a risk of electric shock." If there is no such risk at the scene, you can completely adjust the sequence. ； “The prerequisite for "Do not move trapped persons without permission" is that "moving may cause secondary damage." If a child is stuck in a security window and is about to fall off, you cannot stand underneath and wait for the fire fighters to arrive. It is definitely right to reach out and hold the child first.

Speaking of which, I came across news a few days ago about a car owner who caught fire after being rear-ended by a car behind him on the highway. He did not follow the procedure of "waiting for the traffic police to determine the responsibility first" and dragged the driver of the car behind him out of the car. The car exploded just ten meters away. Some people in the comment area criticized him for destroying the scene. I really think it is ridiculous. Isn't the core of emergency response first to save human lives and the most important losses?

Now, whether I am looking at the company's operation and maintenance emergency guide or the fire and gas emergency cards posted at home, I can no longer memorize the steps verbatim. I have added my own notes next to each clause: you can skip steps in any situation, but you must follow the process in any situation. For example, the first guideline for gas leaks says "Open windows for ventilation." I added the following note: "If you smell an obvious odor, don't touch any switch, including the range hood. Open the door and run out before making a phone call.” ； For example, in the company's data breach emergency clause, I marked "If the impact exceeds the threshold of 1,000 users, switch to the backup link first and then go through the reporting process. If it is below the threshold, report it first and then deal with it."

Anyway, my current attitude towards the guide is like the navigation you take when driving a long distance car: it tells you which road has the speed limit, which section has accidents, and where to turn. But if a rock suddenly falls in front of you, you can't wait for the navigation to update before turning the steering wheel, right? The guide is to help you avoid detours and make stupid mistakes, not to tie your hands and feet. That's it.