What Mines Rescue Brigades Said They Need From VR

Few groups have been asked as carefully about VR training as the mine rescue brigades of New South Wales. Researchers from the University of Wollongong, funded by the Coal Services Health and Safety Trust, interviewed brigade members before and after VR training sessions at Woonona, Lithgow, Singleton and Newcastle. The work became a final report in 2016 and a PhD thesis in 2018.

What brigades said they need is a useful checklist for anyone buying VR safety training, in mining or anywhere else.

The study in brief

284 trainees were interviewed before and after sessions in a 360-degree immersive VR environment. A second round of 222 trainees was interviewed around desktop VR sessions using a multi-player environment, 150 of whom had been through the first round. The thesis describes the research as conducted with Mines Rescue Pty Ltd and covering 372 trainees over twelve months.

What brigades said they need

The needs analysis found training needs for underground coal mining that apply regardless of the technology used:

• Recreating real conditions and scenarios
• Allowing for physical activity
• Training opportunity accessible at any time
• Providing a variety of scenarios and mine environments
• Experiencing hazards and danger
• Limited level of distraction from the training task
• Possibility to repeat the drills and learn from mistakes

Trainees also described what made traditional pit training hard: getting access and consent from mine operators, logistics and time, a high-risk environment, limited chances to review during a session, and limited variety.

What worked in VR

The SWOT analysis credited VR with a reasonable level of fidelity and realism, practising high-risk activities in a controlled environment, reinforced learning through repeated drills, real-time feedback and discussion, and overcoming the logistics of pit training. Overall, 88% of the 284 interviewees rated their 360 VR session successful or very successful.

What did not

The same report is candid about limits. 36% of trainees found the 360 environment lacked realism. Weaknesses mentioned by trainees, trainers and designers included simulator sickness, the fact that VR cannot entirely replace real-world training, resource-intensive content creation and technical glitches.

Most telling for buyers, the authors note that some limitations restricted the scenarios that could be used: lack of group coordination, lack of separate individual activities, lack of physical activity and lack of active motion, with most trainees seeing the environment revolve around them rather than exploring it. In the desktop VR round, many trainees reported better engagement and immersion.

What this means for VR safety training today

Headsets have changed a lot since 2016. Standalone, room-scale 6DoF headsets now let trainees walk, crouch and reach, which speaks directly to the physical activity and active motion gaps. Several headsets can share one scenario, which helps with group coordination. But the brigades’ checklist still holds. When you assess any VR safety product, ask:

1. Can trainees act, or only watch?
2. Do they move their bodies, or sit and look around?
3. Can a team work the same scenario, with separate roles?
4. Can they repeat a drill and see what they got wrong?
5. Is there enough variety of scenarios and environments?

Where we are

Firsthand XR has confined space and electrical low-voltage rescue scenarios available now, and a mines first aid and rescue scenario in the pipeline, shaped by the needs above. See the mining and industrial page, and our comparison of interactive simulation vs 360 video.