3 Common Missteps in Industrial Rescue Drills- and How to Avoid Them

Introduction

In high-risk industrial environments, mines, chemical plants, refineries, energy facilities, and construction sites, emergency preparedness is not optional; it’s life-saving. Central to that preparedness is the industrial rescue drill. Whether practising confined space entry rescues, rope rescues at height, or chemical spill evacuations, the intention behind a rescue drill is to simulate realistic emergencies so that teams respond swiftly, safely, and effectively.

However, good intentions don’t always translate into effective training. Poorly executed drills can reinforce bad habits, undermine confidence, and provide a false sense of readiness. Worse still, they can create organisational blind spots that only become evident in real-life emergencies- when it's too late.

This article dives deep into three common missteps made during industrial rescue drills. We’ll explore why these issues occur, how they manifest in both technical and cultural domains, and- most importantly- what can be done to ensure your rescue drills are preparing your team, not setting them up for failure.

Misstep #1: Prioritising Speed Over Realism

The Problem

One of the most common and dangerous pitfalls in industrial rescue drills is the overemphasis on speed as the defining metric of success. In an effort to demonstrate competency, teams are pushed to "beat the clock" rather than focus on methodical, safe, and technically correct responses. This pressure to perform quickly can drive risky shortcuts, incomplete hazard assessments, poor communication, and unrealistic scenarios.

The logic is understandable: in real emergencies, every second counts. But when drills become a race, realism and learning suffer.

How It Manifests

• Skipping key steps like gas testing, communications setup, or entry permits to “get the casualty out.”

• Neglecting PPE protocols to reduce donning time.

• Rushing patient packaging, compromising spinal integrity or airway management.

• No debrief afterwards- just a high-five and a stopwatch.

• Over-reliance on pre-positioned gear rather than realistic deployment from normal storage locations.

In some cases, rescue teams rehearse the exact same drill repeatedly, making it a choreographed performance rather than a spontaneous simulation. This leads to complacency and a lack of adaptability when faced with unanticipated complications.

Why It Happens

• Leadership wants to demonstrate performance to regulators, insurers, or clients.

• Rescue team members (often volunteers or dual-role workers) feel pressure to “look good” or “win.”

• Rescue equipment vendors may be involved in drills as a sales demonstration.

• Trainers may use time as the sole measurable benchmark in reports.

The Fix

Shift the focus from speed to technical accuracy, safety, and adaptability. This means:

• Designing scenario-based drills that unfold in real time and include dynamic variables (e.g., changing weather, simulated bystanders, equipment failures).

• Building in decision-making opportunities that require hazard analysis, not just rescue response.

• Timing the drill, yes- but using the clock as one data point, not the primary outcome.

• Conducting thorough after-action reviews (AARs) that reward safe behaviour and problem-solving over fast extractions.

• Including fail conditions- for example, if the team forgets atmospheric testing, the “patient” becomes hypoxic halfway through.

By making drills more realistic and focused on process, not just outcomes, organisations ensure their rescue teams develop the resilience and discipline needed in real emergencies.

Misstep #2: Treating Drills as Isolated Events Instead of Systems Tests

The Problem

Another critical failure is treating rescue drills as standalone exercises rather than opportunities to test the full emergency response ecosystem. While the rescue team is a vital cog, they’re not the only moving part in an emergency. Communication protocols, security access, muster point coordination, equipment retrieval, shift supervision, and even external emergency services all play essential roles.

If your rescue drill is limited to a handful of technicians pulling a dummy from a tripod- without involving command and control structures or testing system-level elements, you’re not testing readiness. You’re testing a silo.

How It Manifests

• Drills begin with the rescue team already at the scene, eliminating dispatch or notification procedures.

• Permit controllers, safety officers, and site management are unaware or uninvolved.

• Emergency control rooms, if they exist, are not engaged.

• No interface is tested with external emergency services like ambulance, fire, or law enforcement teams.

• Post-incident processes such as investigation readiness, incident logs, or workforce communication are ignored.

These omissions reinforce the idea that emergencies are isolated and manageable by a small group of technical responders, rather than complex events requiring multidisciplinary coordination.

Why It Happens

• Logistical convenience: involving more departments complicates planning.

• Fear of disrupting production.

• Lack of clarity around emergency roles beyond the rescue team.

• No centralised emergency response plan, or a dusty, unread one.

The Fix

Adopt a systems-based approach to rescue drills, treating them as miniature crisis simulations rather than isolated technician performances. Key strategies include:

• Start-to-finish realism: Begin with a “discovery” moment (e.g., a worker is found unconscious in a tank) and simulate notification procedures, radio protocols, and escalation chains.

• Include non-rescue personnel: Safety officers, supervisors, and operations managers should play active roles in scenario response.

• Pre-plan command structures: Use Incident Command System (ICS) principles or similar frameworks to simulate real hierarchy and communication channels.

• Engage external responders in complex scenarios to test handover protocols, map access routes, and test compatibility of gear and procedures.

• Audit the entire timeline- from emergency discovery to “return to normal operations.”

By embedding rescue drills in the broader organisational emergency response system, you test the full range of latent conditions and bottlenecks that could derail a real incident response.

Misstep #3: Neglecting Psychological Safety and Learning Culture

The Problem

A drill should be a safe space to learn, reflect, and grow, not a tool to shame, blame, or discipline. Unfortunately, in many organisations, rescue drills become high-pressure events where failure is ridiculed, mistakes are punished, and debriefs become interrogations.

This culture creates a performance trap: people do what they know will “look good” rather than what is safe or real. Team members are reluctant to admit uncertainty, avoid asking questions, and hesitate to speak up when something seems wrong- all of which are dangerous in a real emergency.

Psychological safety, the belief that one can speak up, ask questions, or make mistakes without fear of humiliation or reprisal, is the foundation of effective emergency teams. When it’s missing, learning stops.

How It Manifests

• Debriefs focus on errors, not what went well.

• Team members are embarrassed in front of peers for minor mistakes.

• No opportunity to speak openly about fears, doubts, or confusion.

• Trainers or assessors dominate, rather than facilitate, discussion.

• Low participation in drills due to past negative experiences.

This not only damages individual confidence but weakens the team’s ability to operate cohesively under pressure.

Why It Happens

• Drill evaluators may be untrained in coaching-style feedback.

• Organisational culture prizes “flawless execution” over growth.

• Supervisors view mistakes as threats to compliance or reputation.

• Training budgets and KPIs focus on pass/fail metrics, not learning depth.

The Fix

Build a learning culture around drills, rooted in humility, curiosity, and psychological safety:

• Normalise mistakes as part of the training process. A “mistake-rich” drill is often more valuable than a flawless one.

• Use structured debriefing tools, like the “Four F’s”: Facts (What happened?), Feelings (How did you feel?), Findings (What did we learn?), and Future (What will we change?).

• Create peer-led reflections where team members share insights in their own words.

• Involve safety psychologists or coaches in high-stakes or emotionally charged drills.

• Train facilitators on how to conduct trauma-informed, blame-free debriefs.

• Celebrate learning moments, not just performance metrics.

By fostering an environment where people feel safe to learn and grow, rescue drills become not just procedural checklists- but human-centred learning experiences that actually build resilience.

Bonus Insight: The Power of Red Teaming

Red Teaming refers to the practice of intentionally trying to break a system to uncover hidden vulnerabilities. This concept has a powerful application in industrial rescue drills.

Rather than running the same “safe” drills over and over, designate a “Red Team” (could be a supervisor, third-party observer, or even a creative team member) to inject new variables, curveballs, or surprises into the drill:

• What happens if the first rescuer goes down?

• What if the casualty is wedged under a beam?

• What if the radio fails?

• What if the escape path is blocked?

Red Teaming forces adaptability and reveals latent weaknesses in procedures, communication, and mindset. It transforms drills from exercises in performance to explorations of possibility.

Conclusion: Drills as Culture, Not Just Compliance

Industrial rescue drills are more than regulatory tick-boxes or insurance obligations. They’re opportunities to shape team readiness, expose hidden risks, and build a culture of safety, learning, and agility.

But only if they’re done right.

The three missteps outlined- prioritising speed over realism, treating drills as isolated events, and neglecting psychological safety, are not simply operational errors. They are reflections of deeper organisational beliefs and priorities. Fixing them requires not just better drill design, but a more mature and integrated approach to emergency preparedness.

Leaders must ask themselves:

• Are our drills building or eroding trust in our systems?

• Are we reinforcing reality or rehearsing illusions?

• Are we cultivating responders, or just performers?

When rescue drills are grounded in realism, integrated into broader systems, and foster a safe space for growth, they become not just simulations but transformative tools for resilience and readiness.