Comparing Evacuation Training

A fire at an office building in Cempaka Baru, Kemayoran, Central Jakarta, on Tuesday 9 December 2025 killed 22 people. According to police statements quoted by detikcom, the fire is thought to have started with batteries on the ground floor, which also served as a storeroom. Staff tried to put it out, but the fire grew and smoke rose to the sixth floor while some employees were taking their break on floors 2 to 6. Some 101 firefighters and 28 appliances were deployed, and crews broke windows to open an escape route because the smoke was already dense (Tim detikcom, 2025).

At the time of writing the investigation is still under way and no official report is available, so we draw no conclusion about the cause or about anyone's fault. The event does raise a question that comes up in many workplaces: what kind of training teaches people when to fight a fire and when to get out?

What the Rules Require

Minister of Manpower Decree No. KEP.186/MEN/1999 on fire response units in the workplace requires employers to hold regular fire response training and drills (Article 2(2)(e)). A fire response unit consists of fire wardens, a fire response team, a coordinator and a fire safety specialist. There must be at least 2 fire wardens for every 25 workers, and their duties include putting out fires at the initial stage and directing evacuation (Menteri Tenaga Kerja Republik Indonesia, 1999). The decree does not prescribe the form of the drills, so the choice of method rests with the company.

Four Comparison Criteria

We compare three common approaches, namely classroom training with extinguisher practice, evacuation drills and virtual simulation, against four criteria: closeness to real conditions, disruption and cost, evidence of learning, and coverage of the individual tasks being trained.

Classroom and Extinguishers

This is the cheapest approach and the easiest to schedule. Workers learn to recognise hazards, use an extinguisher and understand the procedure. An online survey of 323 respondents and 28 semi-structured interviews found that people with evacuation training experience felt more familiar with safety procedures and felt greater personal responsibility. Perceived preparedness also correlated with perceived training quality, while participants complained that training situations lacked urgency and seriousness (Menzemer et al., 2024). The weakness is that a classroom brings no smoke, no panic and no blocked routes.

Evacuation Drills

A drill tests the building's whole procedure: alarm, routes, stairs, assembly point and warden roles. A review by Gwynne et al. (2019) found that drills in many jurisdictions are run inconsistently, rarely reported and not used to their full potential. Trying to train and assess participants in the same drill weakens both, and advance warning makes the result a poor guide to a real event. The authors summarise the considerations in BS 9999: drills at least once a year, not at predictable times, without prior knowledge for participants, with varied scenarios including the loss of an escape route, and followed by a full debrief. The limits are ethical and economic, because a drill that is too realistic can injure participants and disrupt operations.

Virtual Simulation

A scoping review of 73 sources published between 1997 and 2022 found that research on evacuation training is dominated by virtual reality, augmented reality and serious games. Greater immersion and realism were reported to improve learning, and these technologies can reduce the cost and disruption of conventional drills. However, the ways of measuring trainee performance vary so widely that conclusions do not go beyond qualitative trends (Menzemer et al., 2023).

Weighing the Three

The evidence suggests the three approaches do not replace one another. Classes train individual decisions, drills test whether the building's procedure actually works, and virtual simulation rehearses scenarios that are too dangerous or costly to stage for real, such as smoke filling the main stairway. In our view the gap most often missed is the decision to stop firefighting. Fire wardens are tasked with putting out fires at the initial stage, but extinguisher training that focuses only on spraying technique does not teach when that effort should end. We also note that most evidence on all three methods comes from Europe and North America, and that measures of success are not yet consistent.

Practical Steps

• Set the purpose of each session: to train or to assess, not both at once.
• Add stop criteria to fire warden training, for example when one extinguisher does not put the fire out or when smoke starts to fill the room.
• Run an unannounced drill at least once a year, including during breaks and with a scenario in which the main route cannot be used.
• Use virtual simulation or tabletop exercises for scenarios that are unsafe to act out.
• Record times, routes used and problems, then follow them up in the fire emergency plan.

Support From Nusa Safety

Nusa Safety helps companies design and run exercises through Emergency Preparedness and Drills, while fire response team courses are delivered with licensed PJK3 partners through Fire Brigade Certification. To assess the readiness of alarms, escape routes and the storage of flammable materials, the Nusa Safety team can carry out a Fire and Emergency Safety Audit (FESA).

This article is general information and not legal or professional advice for any specific case.

References

1. Gwynne, S. M. V., Kuligowski, E. D., Boyce, K. E., Nilsson, D., Robbins, A. P., Lovreglio, R., Thomas, J. R., & Roy-Poirier, A. (2019). Enhancing egress drills: Preparation and assessment of evacuee performance. Fire and Materials, 43(6), 613-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.2448
2. Menteri Tenaga Kerja Republik Indonesia. (1999). Keputusan Menteri Tenaga Kerja Nomor KEP.186/MEN/1999 tentang Unit Penanggulangan Kebakaran di Tempat Kerja [Minister of Manpower Decree No. KEP.186/MEN/1999 on fire response units in the workplace]. https://jdih.kemnaker.go.id/peraturan/detail/3122/keputusan-menteri-tenaga-kerja-nomor-186-tahun-1999
3. Menzemer, L. W., Ronchi, E., Karsten, M. M. V., Gwynne, S., & Frederiksen, J. (2023). A scoping review and bibliometric analysis of methods for fire evacuation training in buildings. Fire Safety Journal, 136, 103742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103742
4. Menzemer, L. W., Vad Karsten, M. M., Gwynne, S., Frederiksen, J., & Ronchi, E. (2024). Fire evacuation training: Perceptions and attitudes of the general public. Safety Science, 174, 106471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106471
5. Tim detikcom. (2025, December 10). 7 hal soal kebakaran gedung Terra Drone Jakpus yang tewaskan 22 orang [Seven things about the Terra Drone building fire in Central Jakarta that killed 22 people]. detikJabar. https://www.detik.com/jabar/berita/d-8252098/7-hal-soal-kebakaran-gedung-terra-drone-jakpus-yang-tewaskan-22-orang