Msa Cairns 1044 Defender

[ems18909]

Last week our dept got fitted for new tunrout gear. in front of my eyes was a sample helmet that the rep bought in. It was the 1044 defender, after seeing and reading everything about this helmet, plus being in the traiditonal style i picked it up and was excited. To cut a long story short, I persuaded my chief to get me one. I have been on the dept. now for 3 yrs and had a hand-me-down since then.

I like the look and feel of the helmet and am glad to get away from the metro 660c that I had.
Has any one had any issues with the Defender goggles and feel different from having to flip the visor over your MAsk to where you wont be able to do that anymore and have any of you had any other concerns reference this helmet.

One of my fellow fireifghters and I did have issues with the metro, I personally feel uncomfortable in it and feel that the 1044 fits my large melon better. plus I feel better with the longer helmet out towards my back.

Please throw your concerns my way and let me know what you think. I appreicate it

[Rescue101]

1044 is a derivative of the proven 1010 platform.The goggle system is new enough that a true evaluation will be tough to get.We've got one on "beta" for one of the pups.The brass all wear N5/N6 so no eval there.We've been buying 1044's now for a couple years with nothing negative to date. T.C.

[WebFire]

Just received our 1044 Defenders this week. I'll post after awhile with some feedback.

[CaptainGonzo]

1044 is a derivative of the proven 1010 platform.The goggle system is new enough that a true evaluation will be tough to get.We've got one on "beta" for one of the pups.The brass all wear N5/N6 so no eval there.We've been buying 1044's now for a couple years with nothing negative to date. T.C.

Rank does have its priviledges.. :D

[RFxplr326]

I bought one in November. No problems.
I'm waiting to see how bad it fogs up. I'll know on Sunday because we're supposed to play waterball.
I've used it [the visor] 5 or 6 times for drills and a mock accident.

[acado64]

We've got three guys that have the 1044 defender. Thye have been wearing the helmets for more than 6 months if I recall correctly and no problems so far. The guys really like them and the goggles have held up well to date.

Have a nice day.

[RFRDxplorer]

mock accident.

HUH?!?!?!?!?!

[RFxplr326]

HUH?!?!?!?!?!

Owens CEP Grand Opening...

[RFRDxplorer]

Owens CEP Grand Opening...

DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I've had a 1044 Defender since Christmas. I've only used it a handful of times since I have a 1010 with Bourkes that I wear into fires mostly. (Weird logic, I know.) One thing I've noticed is that if the helmet isn't sitting exactly square on your head, the shield will hit one side of your face. It's a nice design for those who have to have NFPA helmets, and I like it because they don't burn up like Bourkes do. Still though, Bourkes and safety glasses are my favorite.

[paulmarsh]

I just got the 1044 defender, even though my chief told me it would be too heavy. I love it so far, and the goggles work fine for me...it is a bit heavier than our standard issue, but it doesn't seem to bother me at all.

[RFxplr326]

I bought one in November. No problems.
I'm waiting to see how bad it fogs up. I'll know on Sunday because we're supposed to play waterball.
I've used it [the visor] 5 or 6 times for drills and a mock accident.

The Defender does not fog up... I like playing waterball with it because it keeps the water from running behind my glasses (my old way) and eventually running down into my eyes (previous problem for me).

[Remthedays]

The Defender does not fog up... I like playing waterball with it because it keeps the water from running behind my glasses (my old way) and eventually running down into my eyes (previous problem for me).

Eye glasses will fit behind the Defenders? Thanks in advance for the info.

T.J.

[WebFire]

Eye glasses will fit behind the Defenders? Thanks in advance for the info.

T.J.

Some will, some won't. My sunglasses fit behind them. :cool:

[Remthedays]

Some will, some won't. My sunglasses fit behind them. :cool:

OK, Thanks. I understand now. It depends on the size and style of the glasses.

T.J.

[TRFirefighter25]

I have heard some good reviews, I myself have only worn it once at a trade show. Nice fit, shield is cool, just like the 1010 I wore when I was an explorer. However if your in the market for a lid you'll be happy with forever, Cairns N5A New Yorker (Leather Baby). Nothing rides your head or gives you that cool traditional look like a leather w/ bourkes. I have used all types of lids and have not seen one I liked more than my trusty old leather. Leather Forever F.O.O.L.S. Stay safe.

[oilboy2]

We just recieved the 1044 as replacements for our old helmets. The only question I have is are they safe to wear with no Front shield?
We dont have any yet and currently have the eagle exposed which could very easily snag a wire or other debris

[ehs7554]

We just recieved the 1044 as replacements for our old helmets. The only question I have is are they safe to wear with no Front shield?
We dont have any yet and currently have the eagle exposed which could very easily snag a wire or other debris

You could remove the eagle until the leather fronts come in or are ordered. This way, you could put the helmet in service without the worry of catching a snag.

[oilboy2]

So as a rule you wouldnt use these helmets without leather crest with just an eagle on them?

[ffscm72]

I've had my Defender helmet for some time now. Love it! Lightweight, doesn't fog unless you really try to make it fog. Great for vehicle rescues and oddly enough Chimney fire..lol.

Mine is a 1010 but really the same thing. Just my personal opinion. Only thing I had to do it was fudge with it to make it sit lower on my nugget. Not hard to do at all if you need help let me know.

[RFxplr326]

So as a rule you wouldnt use these helmets without leather crest with just an eagle on them?

Right...

You could remove the eagle until the leather fronts come in or are ordered. This way, you could put the helmet in service without the worry of catching a snag.

That eagle sticks out 2 or 3 inches. It would be VERY easy to catch that on a low hanging wire... well, it would catch anything low hanging.

[LADDER2EKU]

So as a rule you wouldnt use these helmets without leather crest with just an eagle on them?

No, that becomes an entanglment hazard.

[AKDude]

In my dept we are changeing over to 1044's and they have been great. For most guys the shield work fine and for the guys with glasses...well the have to wear special Eye protection anyways. They can use googles. but for the rest the defender is way better. One great plus over useing the old shield is if you drop your helmet you wont break the shield off. was a big prblem on our dept. and as far as fogging you dont use them in fire fighting anyways. you use your SCBA mask.

[ehs7554]

Right...



That eagle sticks out 2 or 3 inches. It would be VERY easy to catch that on a low hanging wire... well, it would catch anything low hanging.

That is why I said to remove the Eagle until you have a leather front to put on.

[RFxplr326]

That is why I said to remove the Eagle until you have a leather front to put on.

Understood. I was agreeing with you...

[saltydogLT]

Is the defender tuffshield considered primary eye protection?

[WFDjr1]

Is the defender tuffshield considered primary eye protection?

Yes, it is.

[firemonkey311]

A chief in a near by town put his tuff shield down to fast the first day he got his helmet. cut the bridge of his nose right open.

[WebFire]

A chief in a near by town put his tuff shield down to fast the first day he got his helmet. cut the bridge of his nose right open.

I'd say that's the exception. Looking at the shield it seems it would not be a skin piercing shield. What was he using to pull it down? A cinder block?

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I'd say that's the exception. Looking at the shield it seems it would not be a skin piercing shield. What was he using to pull it down? A cinder block?

He must have pulled it down with exponential force.

[saltydogLT]

My department has tried the helmet on and the tuffshield does come right across the bridge of the nose, it's a POOR design. We have decided that if there are any injuries of this sort (which will happen) we are pulling the use of these helmets. Also I have not seen anywhere that it specifies these helmets as primary eye protection. Where can this be found? I've looked everywhere but I have found nothing. Thanks for your help.

[saltydogLT]

Yes, it is.

Where have you found the information that it is primary eye protection? Thanks again...

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

Where have you found the information that it is primary eye protection? Thanks again...

From the MSA website.

[WebFire]

My department has tried the helmet on and the tuffshield does come right across the bridge of the nose, it's a POOR design. We have decided that if there are any injuries of this sort (which will happen) we are pulling the use of these helmets.

Where would you propose it go? Across your lips? Eyelashes? And why do you think these injuries WILL happen. After testing and using it myself, I can't see where this would create any injuries.

[RFxplr326]

My department has tried the helmet on and the tuffshield does come right across the bridge of the nose, it's a POOR design. We have decided that if there are any injuries of this sort (which will happen) we are pulling the use of these helmets. Also I have not seen anywhere that it specifies these helmets as primary eye protection. Where can this be found? I've looked everywhere but I have found nothing. Thanks for your help.

What kind of injuries?
I've used my visor a bunch of times... Never has the bridge of my nose hurt. The only possible way for the visor to create injury is if the helmet was not properly put on (i.e. chin strap and tight fit on the head). It was designed to be like safety glasses, which come right across the bridge of the nose. They were designed that way...
For the record, I like the defender.

http://www.msafire.com

[saltydogLT]

From the MSA website.

Thanks brother, I have looked a few days ago but didn't see it. I will look again.

[saltydogLT]

Where would you propose it go? Across your lips? Eyelashes? And why do you think these injuries WILL happen. After testing and using it myself, I can't see where this would create any injuries.

Why are you being a smart arse? I think these injuries will happen since I put one on and someone come up behind me and pushed down on the helmet and it hit my nose. Then I imagined what it would be like if a part of a ceiling hit me in the head and I, using my telepathy powers, looked into the future and saw injuries...Answer your question? Common sense prevails...

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I would highly doubt that the defender is gonna hurt your ski-slope. The shield retracts up into the helmet if it were to tip down-painlessly at that. I should know, I've had it happen several times.

[saltydogLT]

I would highly doubt that the defender is gonna hurt your ski-slope. The shield retracts up into the helmet if it were to tip down-painlessly at that. I should know, I've had it happen several times.

So you are saying if the helmet is tipped down, your visor or primary eye protection retracts back into the helmet, leaving your eyes exposed? HMMM...

[RFxplr326]

I would highly doubt that the defender is gonna hurt your ski-slope. The shield retracts up into the helmet if it were to tip down-painlessly at that. I should know, I've had it happen several times.

I agree... Same happens to me.


By the way...... Keepback........ you're sooooooooooooooooooooo dramatic.

[DrewOnFire]

Had seen a guy that got his nose's bridge and upper cheeks all cut up from the Defender goggles, said auto glass got caught up in them or something. I don't know if that was legit or not, the guy seemed like a future Darwin Award candidate to me.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

Some people (who are expressing their uneducated opinion), just refuse to consider the Defender. Rather than giving it a chance, they had rather take one look and bawk at it. Then again, who am I kidding, they are are also the same ones who have always done it this way.

[RFxplr326]

Some people (who are expressing their uneducated opinion), just refuse to consider the Defender. Rather than giving it a chance, they had rather take one look and bawk at it. Then again, who am I kidding, they are are also the same ones who have always done it this way.

Amen to that brother...

[upstater]

they had rather take one look and bawk at it.

Not me! I tried it on and then balked at it.

Don't lump me in with them other jerks :)

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

Not me! I tried it on and then balked at it.

Don't lump me in with them other jerks :)

Trying it on does not constitute experience with it.

[chuckbrooks]

Where have you found the information that it is primary eye protection? Thanks again...

If you look on the inside of the shield itself, it says that it complies with ANSI z81 whatever the rest of the numbers are. That makes it primary eye protection for us.

Our department has just started issuing them to our new recruit classes. I like mine. I have had no problems with them at accident scenes. And if you pop them out and clean them after every fire, you can keep them clear and very easy to see through. I did not find the same true of either bourkes or the faceshield. This is the first eye protection (other than safety glasses) that I have actually used regularly.

[saltydogLT]

If you look on the inside of the shield itself, it says that it complies with ANSI z81 whatever the rest of the numbers are. That makes it primary eye protection for us.

Our department has just started issuing them to our new recruit classes. I like mine. I have had no problems with them at accident scenes. And if you pop them out and clean them after every fire, you can keep them clear and very easy to see through. I did not find the same true of either bourkes or the faceshield. This is the first eye protection (other than safety glasses) that I have actually used regularly.

I just received a fax from MSA today that states the visor is not primary eye protection. It works the same as a face shield. Officially the visor is secondary eye protection according to MSA. Safety Committees should ponder this fact when allowing it to be worn as such.

[saltydogLT]

If you look on the inside of the shield itself, it says that it complies with ANSI z81 whatever the rest of the numbers are. That makes it primary eye protection for us.

Our department has just started issuing them to our new recruit classes. I like mine. I have had no problems with them at accident scenes. And if you pop them out and clean them after every fire, you can keep them clear and very easy to see through. I did not find the same true of either bourkes or the faceshield. This is the first eye protection (other than safety glasses) that I have actually used regularly.

Yes they are rated that way but are not considered primary eye protection. There are faceshields available now that are ANSI Z87.1 (IE high impact) but are considered secondary eye protection, so is that allowed as primary eye protection? No.

[saltydogLT]

Some people (who are expressing their uneducated opinion), just refuse to consider the Defender. Rather than giving it a chance, they had rather take one look and bawk at it. Then again, who am I kidding, they are are also the same ones who have always done it this way.

I guarantee you there will be injuries from this helmet/visor to the bridge of the nose. End of story.

[WebFire]

I guarantee you there will be injuries from this helmet/visor to the bridge of the nose. End of story.

I guarantee there is no reason there should be injuries from this helmet/visor to the bridge of the nose. End of story.

[WebFire]

I just received a fax from MSA today that states the visor is not primary eye protection. It works the same as a face shield. Officially the visor is secondary eye protection according to MSA. Safety Committees should ponder this fact when allowing it to be worn as such.

As should any other secondary eye protection, including bourkes and faceshields. Must admit I don't see too many wearing goggles underneath either of this either.

[saltydogLT]

I guarantee there is no reason there should be injuries from this helmet/visor to the bridge of the nose. End of story.

It's a poor design. Period

[saltydogLT]

As should any other secondary eye protection, including bourkes and faceshields. Must admit I don't see too many wearing goggles underneath either of this either.

That's why my dept will not allow them...

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I guarantee you there will be injuries from this helmet/visor to the bridge of the nose. End of story.

"Firefighting is an inherently dangerous activity"
-The Carins sticker on the inside brim of my helmet.

end of story.

I bet this guy works for the Total Fire Group.

[saltydogLT]

"Firefighting is an inherently dangerous activity"
-The Carins sticker on the inside brim of my helmet.

end of story.

I bet this guy works for the Total Fire Group.

I guess that sticker clears Cairns of a poor product....lol. You started out by being decent but now that I set the record straight, you seem to be a jackhole. Get a job wannabe :)

[upstater]

Not me! I tried it on and then balked at it.

Don't lump me in with them other jerks :)


Trying it on does not constitute experience with it.

So much for trying to joke around and have some fun. I guess we don't do that around here.....


Trying something on constitutes nothing more or less than trying it on. When I put on a pair of shoes that don't fit right, I don't need to wear them for another six months to gain some sort of "experience" or new insight or to prove to myself or anyone else that they don't fit right. If someone wore your "defender" for six months and then stated that it wasn't his cup of tea, would that be experience enough, or would it have to be a year?

Keepback, please bear in mind that I never stated that the "defender" would cause injury, and I made no claims as to its status as primary or secondary eye protection. I just said that I didn't care for the setup, and I don't really see any advantage gained.

[WebFire]

That's why my dept will not allow them...

So you only use goggles. Good for you. That is your choice. I don't really care for goggles, but I don't go around bashing them like they are the worst product ever made, without any sort of proof that such is true.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I guess that sticker clears Cairns of a poor product....lol. You started out by being decent but now that I set the record straight, you seem to be a jackhole. Get a job wannabe :)


Set the record straight? You did nothing more than blow hot air. Just as I thought...you wear a Morning Pride lid don't you?

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

So much for trying to joke around and have some fun. I guess we don't do that around here.....


Trying something on constitutes nothing more or less than trying it on. When I put on a pair of shoes that don't fit right, I don't need to wear them for another six months to gain some sort of "experience" or new insight or to prove to myself or anyone else that they don't fit right. If someone wore your "defender" for six months and then stated that it wasn't his cup of tea, would that be experience enough, or would it have to be a year?

Keepback, please bear in mind that I never stated that the "defender" would cause injury, and I made no claims as to its status as primary or secondary eye protection. I just said that I didn't care for the setup, and I don't really see any advantage gained.

If someone wore the Defender for any length of time ON AN ACTUAL JOB and decided it wasn't his cup of tea, then that's plenty.

[chuckbrooks]

I just received a fax from MSA today that states the visor is not primary eye protection. It works the same as a face shield. Officially the visor is secondary eye protection according to MSA. Safety Committees should ponder this fact when allowing it to be worn as such.

Didn't mean to make you angry.

I'm not exactly high on the decision making totem pole over here. I wear what they issue me. So far, they have worked well for me. I haven't experienced any of the problems that people have mentioned.

[RFxplr326]

Set the record straight? You did nothing more than blow hot air. Just as I thought...you wear a Morning Pride lid don't you?

Nah... He wears a salad bowl... Specifically a Glad container.

[saltydogLT]

Set the record straight? You did nothing more than blow hot air. Just as I thought...you wear a Morning Pride lid don't you?

Yea, I set the record straight: Defender visors are not primary eye protection...look it up! I'm out and youre done :)

[saltydogLT]

Nah... He wears a salad bowl... Specifically a Glad container.

Bullard w/ a faceshield, safety glasses in my pocket and ess goggles attached. You must be the president of my fan club. Get off my jock and try some elses on ok? Mine is too big for you!

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

Yea, I set the record straight: Defender visors are not primary eye protection...look it up! I'm out and youre done :)

How about you pull your head out of your ass and go back and look and you will see I never stated that it was. I only stated that the information pertaining to that question could be found on the MSA website. You dodged the question about TFG, but reaffirmed my suspicions. Do us all a favor and never post here again.

[WebFire]

Yea, I set the record straight: Defender visors are not primary eye protection...look it up! I'm out and youre done :)

You are being quite "salty". Not being primary eye protection has nothing to do with the Defender system. Not any more than you have a faceshield.

Someone mistakenly posted that it was primary, and the were wrong. Now back on topic.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

You are being quite "salty". Not being primary eye protection has nothing to do with the Defender system. Not any more than you have a faceshield.

Someone mistakenly posted that it was primary, and the were wrong. Now back on topic.

I don't mind debating the topic with you, bro. This guy, however, is just an @$$hole.

[WebFire]

I don't mind debating the topic with you, bro. This guy, however, is just an @$$hole.

Agreed. :cool:

[saltydogLT]

How about you pull your head out of your ass and go back and look and you will see I never stated that it was. I only stated that the information pertaining to that question could be found on the MSA website. You dodged the question about TFG, but reaffirmed my suspicions. Do us all a favor and never post here again.
Closed minded: Yea I know your type. Your way or no way.Bring it bum! You hide behind forums and talk crap, can't listent to anyone. You'll be the result of friendly fire...
oh a reminder this is a democracy type forum, don't evaaaa tell me what to do again...

[ehs7554]

I don't know, but I would think that the defender visor does act as primary eye protection. It meets both NFPA 1971-2007 and ANSI Z87.1 standards. I am not sure how one would wear goggles or safety glasses under the visor for primary protection the way bourkes or a faceshield are designed.

[saltydogLT]

I don't mind debating the topic with you, bro. This guy, however, is just an @$$hole.
Seems you have many enemies on these forums probie. Time you make some friends...now go take a FF1 class bozo

[saltydogLT]

I don't know, but I would think that the defender visor does act as primary eye protection. It meets both NFPA 1971-2007 and ANSI Z87.1 standards. I am not sure how one would wear goggles or safety glasses under the visor for primary protection the way bourkes or a faceshield are designed.
They do meet high impact standards according to ANSI but that does not make them primary eye protection. They act as a faceshield and are considered secondary eye protection. They now make face shields that are z87.1 but they still are not primary eye protection, they are secondary.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

Seems you have many enemies on these forums probie. Time you make some friends...now go take a FF1 class bozo

Did MSA realize they were faxing a specification sheet to a competitor? Your insults mean nothing, by the way. I'll retake FF1 when you go get a college education, d!ckhead.

[ehs7554]

This report tells that regular faceshields do not meet ANSI. The defender system does, and come to think of it, I have never noticed an ANSI label on any faceshields I have worn in the past. I am writing CAIRNS!!

Author: Mike McKenna
Risk Control Consultant
One Sierra Gate Plaza, Ste. 345B
Roseville, CA 95678
Voice: (916) 566-4316
Fax: (916) 783-0334

INTRODUCTION

There is a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding primary eye protection for firefighters including the use of self-contained breathing apparatus face pieces, faceshields, and Bourke-style eye shields. Each fire department should have a primary eye and face protection policy to provide a proactive, balanced, aggressive and direct approach in providing line personnel with primary eye protection, as required by NFPA and OSHA. The faceshields on the structural firefighting helmets provide only secondary eye/face protection as defined by American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The protection provided by the faceshield has long been inadequate when relied upon as primary eye/face protection and has provided a false sense of security. In addition, suppression personnel routinely rely on opaque faceshields, ill fitting and opaque goggles for eye protection during non-medical responses. Many personnel still use no eye protection during medical aid responses. A properly deployed faceshield provides only a minimal amount of face protection and even less eye protection. CAL/OSHA, for example, requires that primary eye protection be used, applicable to the potential danger and must meet ANSI Z87.1. Faceshields alone do not meet ANSI Z87.1 as primary eye protection.

Faceshields are often used incorrectly as the form of primary eye protection. It is evident that when eye protection equipment, such as faceshields and goggles, are exposed to ultraviolet degradation, abrasion, as well as products of combustion, they become scratched, cloudy, opaque, and can be rendered unserviceable in a very short period of time. In many instances, the faceshield is lifted so that the wearer can see what he is doing, leaving the eyes unprotected and exposed to the dangers of flying debris. This is also the situation with the inexpensive glasses issued for use on medical aid incidents. These glasses are usually made of soft plastic and are scratched very easily. The scratches often look like sandpaper was taken to the lenses and the view is completely obscured. The glasses are then removed, again, leaving the eyes vulnerable to injury or blood borne pathogens.

One of the initial uses for faceshields was radiant heat protection. This occurred when helmet manufacturers shortened the rear bill of the helmet and moved towards the Euro-styled structural helmet. This occurred in conjunction with impact cap and suspension changes to helmets that prevented them from being turned around. It had been a common practice to turn the traditionally shaped, long-billed, helmet around and use the rear bill to protect the wearer from radiant heat. With these design changes and the common use of SCBA the role of the faceshield changed. The faceshield was required by NFPA 1972 as a means of secondary eye protection. NFPA 1500 requires that partial face/eye protection be deployed on an emergency scene to protect personnel from "unexpected exposures" to injurious materials. CAL/OSHA requires that primary eye protection be used. It is very confusing.

Here is a short reference list of commonly used firefighting standards and applicable laws. The legal requirements may be different in your area, so when determining the minimum requirements, make sure that you check with all applicable regulations.

National Fire Protection Association standards are the legally recognized consensus standard for the industry and multiple references are made throughout publications mandating eye protection. NFPA reported that there were 3830 reported cases of eye injuries in 1997. The human eye is very susceptible to damage and can be a quick route to permanent injury and a medical disability. This is unfortunate because the eye is also one of the easiest parts of our body to protect. However, many departments still take the attitude that "it will never happen to me." It happened to firefighters over 3830 times in 1997. The best plan is to protect your department with a comprehensive eye/face protection policy. This type of policy protects the department from liability and protects the firefighters from injury. If you are an administrator and a firefighter suffers an unnecessary eye injury, you may have to explain why you failed to follow NFPA.

Below is a list of some of the eye/face protection requirements.

NFPA 1500 -- Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, 1992 Edition.

5-10.1 "Primary face and eye protection appropriate for a given specific hazard shall be provided and used by members exposed to that specific hazard such primary face and eye protection shall meet the requirements of ANSI Z87.1, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection."

5-10.2 "The full facepiece of SCBA shall constitute face and eye protection when worn."

5-10.3 "When operating in the hazardous area at an emergency scene without the full facepiece of SCBA worn, members shall deploy the helmet faceshield for partial face protection."

NFPA 1971 Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting (1997 Edition)

1-1.6 Nothing herein shall restrict any jurisdiction or manufacturer from exceeding these minimum requirements.

1-3 Definitions. Approved. "Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction."

1-3 Definitions. Authority Having Jurisdiction. "The organization, office, or individual responsible for approving equipment, an installation, or a procedure."

1-3 Definitions. Faceshield. A helmet component intended to help protect a portion of the wearer?s face in addition to the eyes not intended as primary eye protection.

1-3 Definitions. "Partial Eye/ Face Protective Interface Component. An interface component intended to help shield a portion of the wearer?s face in addition to the eyes; not intended to provide primary eye protection.

5-7 The standard calls for the helmet to provide partial eye/ face protection through the use of a faceshield or to have the partial eye/ face protection component permanently attached to the helmet.

IFSTA Essentials, Third Edition, Chapter 3, Firefighter Personal Protective Equipment, page 52.

"Any time there is a danger to the eyes, safety glasses or goggles must be worn."

"For more information on requirements for eye protection reference ANSI Standard Z87.1."

NFPA 1500 Handbook, Edited by Bruce Teele, NFPA, 1993

"When specific danger to the eyes is present, such as while operating saws or other tools or pulling ceilings, primary eye protection is required. Primary eye protectors must meet federal OSHA regulation for eye protection in 29 CFR 1910.133. Primary eye protection may be provided by goggles or SCBA facepieces. "The faceshield is not intended to be used as primary eye protection, but is required by the standard because it provides partial face and eye protection when specific hazards are not present or expected, but unexpected exposures could occur given the nature of emergency scenes."

CAL/OSHA General Industry Safety Orders: Article 10.1

Personal Protective Clothing and Equipment for Firefighters

Section 3401(a) These Orders establish minimum requirements for personal protective clothing and equipment for fire fighters when exposed to the hazards of fire fighting activity, and take precedence over any other Safety Order with which they were inconsistent."

Section 3403(B) Section 3-9 "Faceshields" shall be optional when protection required by Section 3404 is provided.

Section 3404(1) Employees exposed to eye injury hazards shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of Section 3382.

Section 3382(d) Design, construction, testing and use of devices for eye and face protection shall be in accordance with ANSI Z87.1.

Section 3410(b) Wildland Firefighting Requirements. Eye Protection. Employees exposed to eye injury hazards shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of Section 3382.

American National Standards Institute, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection Standard Z87.1

Definition. Faceshield - A protective device commonly intended to shield the wear?s face, or portions thereof, in addition to the eyes, from certain hazards. Faceshields are secondary protectors and shall be used only with primary protectors.

Definition. Goggle - A protective device intended to fit the face immediately surrounding the eyes in order to shield the eyes from a variety of hazards.

Section 10.1 - While they are primary protectors and may be used alone, they may also be used in conjunction with the other protectors

THE PROBLEM ? CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS

CAL/OSHA requires primary face and eye protection appropriate for the specific hazard be provided and that that protection must meet ANSI Z87.1.

NFPA 1971 (1997 Edition) requires a faceshield or permanently attached goggles. NFPA 1971 requires primary or secondary eye protection.

Faceshields are quickly damaged beyond functional use. In addition, the NFPA 1971 requirement of permanent attachment of the goggles to the structural helmet exposes the goggles to the exact elements and conditions, which destroy the faceshields. There are several problems associated with the current deployment of the goggles on top of the helmet:

1. Goggles are damaged from ultraviolet degradation, dirt, heat and other products of combustion.
2. Goggles are deformed from their original design shape to the shape of the helmet. The goggles are held against the helmet shell by elastic cords. This pressure deforms the goggles to such a shape that renders them useless.
3. The elastic or thin rubber strap will become stretched out and the goggles cannot be placed into the proper location. Replacement of the elastic is an unrealistic solution, as the elastic is rendered useless in a matter of weeks. The strap retention systems are made with inexpensive and brittle materials causing failure after even short exposures to fire, or even from rough storage.
4. Inexpensive goggles can also melt on top of the helmet and can open the opportunity for injury under high heat exposures.
5. Many goggle styles prevent the faceshield from being deployed. The goggles are thick and obstruct the deployment of the faceshield. One particular model of goggle is designed to be used for people who wear prescription glasses and is commonly used by fire departments for general use. However, this model does not allow for any faceshield deployment. While it is not common, personnel have both goggles and faceshield to facilitate access to eye and face protection.
6. Placement of the goggles as well as the faceshield on the top of the helmet increases weight and decreases the balance of the helmet by raising the center of the gravity.

The damage to goggles is magnified by the selection of inexpensive goggles. Many goggles used by the fire service have thin plastic lenses and retention systems that will be damaged and rendered unusable very quickly. Many of these problems will be minimized by the evolution of goggles under the NFPA 1971 requirement. The placement of goggles, which must meet NFPA 1971 requirements, will force the development of a more durable and suitable goggle and retainer system.

Even with the negatives, the NFPA 1971 requirement is based on solid logic. There is always the possibility that inexpensive goggles that do not meet the heat standard can melt and could possibly cause injuries.

The NFPA 1971 Committee recognized that ease of access would determine the amount of use that eye protection devices will receive. In order for firefighters to use eye protection, it must be readily accessible and fit properly.

A SOLUTION

* Provide personnel with primary eye protection that meets the requirements of the General Industry Safety Orders that are applicable.

* Develop a primary eye protection policy that conforms to the required standards and legal requirements.

* Implement a primary eye protection policy and to provide department wide training. Some states require that personnel be trained on any new equipment or policy. Personnel should receive training on the goal of the eye protection policy and well as the plan for implementation. Records should be kept along with copies of the lesson plans. This information can will be very useful in case of a catastrophic injury.

A PLAN

1. Issue personnel with one each pair of quality safety glasses meeting ANSI Z87.1.
2. Development of a Primary Eye and Face Protection Policy. Policy should include provisions so that eyes appropriately protected 100% when the potential of eye injury exists by one of the following means:

* ANSI approved Safety Glasses

Selection of safety glasses should include:

1. ANSI Z87.1 labeling

2. Complete eye coverage

1. Side guards
2. Brightly colored frames to assure compliance
3. Proper fit
4. Retention cords

* Safety Goggles

1. ANSI Z87.1 labeling
2. Quality and heavy duty construction
3. Proper fit
4. NFPA 1971 Compliance (if on structure helmet)

* SCBA Facepiece1

3) Implementation of Policy.

IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation of the Primary Eye Policy should be initiated with department wide company training. During the department, training the policy should be explained. The underlying theme of the policy is that the eyes are required to be protected at the appropriate level 100% of the time. These will be clearly spelled out in the policy and procedures manual.

The policy depicts three levels of protection:

Policy should require the use of a SCBA facepiece for all structure fires, vehicle fires, dumpster fires, or anytime there is visible smoke or haze.

Goggles should be required to be used with shroud for wildland operations. In addition, goggles should be required during vehicle extrication and saw operations. While the eyeglasses provide adequate protection, but the goggles are not as easily dislodged from the face.

Safety glasses are considered the minimum level of protection when any type of hazard potentially exists. They are required during all other incidents. Safety glasses, as the minimum requirements, allow all personnel to be protected by ANSI Z87.1 level protection during all incidents.

The glasses are not necessarily suitable replacements for the goggles. Each component provides a different level of protection that is appropriate to the level of potential dangers the eyes may face. It is very important to note that for this type of policy to be successful the eye protection device must be accessible at all times and personnel should be aware of what level is appropriate for given hazard.

In addition, it should be noted that the Bourke-style eyeshields is "cosmetic" in nature and is not to be used as eye protection. Bourke-style eyeshields are not NFPA 1971 approved and are not considered primary eye protection.

JUSTIFICATION

This Primary Eye Protection is a more comprehensive policy that exceeds NFPA 1971 and is compliant with NFPA 1500, Section 3404 and 3382 of the California General Industry Safety Orders: Article 10.1. Policy 228.113 Primary Eye Protection requires that ANSI Z87.1 eye protection be used on all incidents to "provide partial face and eye protection when specific hazards are not present or expected."

This primary eye protection, as defined by the legal requirements, is already required because it states that a SCBA must be worn on all structure fires, vehicle fires, dumpster fires, or anytime there is visible smoke or haze. Under ANSI Z87.1, the SCBA facepiece is considered primary eye protection. The policy also requires the use of goggles during wildland operations. This is consistent with the requirement of California's General Industry Safety Orders Section 3410(6)(b), which requires the use of primary eye protection during wildland fire operations.

The issue of primary and secondary eye protection has been the topic of controversy for several years. The standards and codes are inconsistent and mutually exclusive on numerous points. CAL/OSHA General Industry Safety Orders Section 3401(a) takes precedence over any other safety order. Section 3404 requires that eye be protected from hazards in accordance with Section 3382. Section 3382 requires that eye protection meet ANSI Z87.1.

The implementation of this policy also meets or exceeds the requirements put forth for the protection of emergency medical personnel from blood and airborne pathogens.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of Primary Eye Policy is a comprehensive primary eye policy deigned to be as unobtrusive as possible while meeting the legal requirement of primary eye protection as well as exceeding the various NFPA and legal requirements. The policy is designed to ensure that personnel will be protected from eye related injuries. It is, for example, impossible to list circumstantial exceptions to the policy without diluting the policy and its effectiveness.

In order for the policy to be effective several things must occur:

1. There must be an organizational commitment to eye protection.
2. The policy must be enforced.
3. Eye protection devices must be comfortable and of a quality, that will encourage use.
4. The eye protection devices must be easily accessible. If the devices are not accessible, they will not be used.

[saltydogLT]

Did MSA realize they were faxing a specification sheet to a competitor? Your insults mean nothing, by the way. I'll retake FF1 when you go get a college education, d!ckhead.

Outstanding, nice manners. I added to the thread with facts. You became negative and insulting. I guess I'll finish it spud.

[saltydogLT]

This report tells that regular faceshields do not meet ANSI. The defender system does, and come to think of it, I have never noticed an ANSI label on any faceshields I have worn in the past. I am writing CAIRNS!!
Fax 800 967 0398 have them fax you a FAQ about the defender tuffshield visor and you'll see the defender is secondary and not primary eye protection. It is from MSA who now handles cairns helmets product line.

[ehs7554]

I know that MSA handles Cairns. I am still writing them.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

Outstanding, nice manners. I added to the thread with facts. You became negative and insulting. I guess I'll finish it spud.

You insulted me first old man. Get your facts straight, @sshole.

[RFxplr326]

Closed minded: Yea I know your type. Your way or no way.Bring it bum! You hide behind forums and talk crap, can't listent to anyone. You'll be the result of friendly fire...
oh a reminder this is a democracy type forum, don't evaaaa tell me what to do again...

Go shove yourself in a hole... Jack@ss and STFU.

Seems you have many enemies on these forums probie. Time you make some friends...now go take a FF1 class bozo

Sorry... Keepback is highly respected around here. You're a big boy... You can talk smack and insult people over the internet... That's mature.

Outstanding, nice manners. I added to the thread with facts. You became negative and insulting. I guess I'll finish it spud.
Does this ring a bell salty?

Closed minded: Your way or no way.Bring it bum! You'll be the result of friendly fire... don't evaaaa tell me what to do again...
Time you make some friends...now go take a FF1 class bozo

Seems to me you started all the insulting and negative stuff.

[saltydogLT]

You insulted me first old man. Get your facts straight, @sshole.

UR confused...figures jackholes from Cackalacki are. Merry Christmas bunghole....

[saltydogLT]

Go shove yourself in a hole... Jack@ss and STFU.



Sorry... Keepback is highly respected around here. You're a big boy... You can talk smack and insult people over the internet... That's mature.


Does this ring a bell salty?

Seems to me you started all the insulting and negative stuff.

U2 are one in the same...nice try tho. If he is respected, well obviously he is losing his credibility now, look at what he has said.
I come on the forums and shut him down. He's upset and lashing out at me. It happens, there's a new man in the house...it happens. It wouldn't surprise me if keepback has a boyfriend cuz he sure is acting like a b#tch. U2 should get together and celebrate christmas together, come each others stashes and talk about good ole saltydoglt...I can send you both a membership to my fan club...consider it done :)

[RFxplr326]

U2 are one in the same...nice try tho. If he is respected, well obviously he is losing his credibility now, look at what he has said.
I come on the forums and shut him down. He's upset and lashing out at me. It happens, there's a new man in the house...it happens. It wouldn't surprise me if keepback has a boyfriend cuz he sure is acting like a b#tch. U2 should get together and celebrate christmas together, come each others stashes and talk about good ole saltydoglt...I can send you both a membership to my fan club...consider it done :)

You, sir, are among the most disgusting people I've ever come across in my life. You are the most immature. I doubt you have 14+ years... You maybe have less than one. If you do have 14+ years, prove it. Tell me the city and department name. If you don't, I'll assume you're a worthless piece of sh!t... Well I already knwo that. Tell us the city and department name to prove it, though.
You're a slob who has no life but to come on Firehouse and attempt to bring us down to your level. Sorry, that's not happening. Get a life. Grow up.

Post reported. I'm going to report it again once I submit this. If the WebTeam doesn't respond to both of those, I'll PM them later tonight.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I've reported him twice. They aren't gonna do anything.

[MarcusKspn]

Bring Hottrotter Back!!!

[WebFire]

Troll..........

[MarcusKspn]

Sometimes I wonder how many brain cells I loose by reading some of these posts.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

U2 are one in the same...nice try tho. If he is respected, well obviously he is losing his credibility now, look at what he has said.
I come on the forums and shut him down. He's upset and lashing out at me. It happens, there's a new man in the house...it happens. It wouldn't surprise me if keepback has a boyfriend cuz he sure is acting like a b#tch. U2 should get together and celebrate christmas together, come each others stashes and talk about good ole saltydoglt...I can send you both a membership to my fan club...consider it done :)

His posts don't even make sense. He finds it necessary to talk crap to me when all I stated was that the information could be found on MSA's website. He writes like he's in the third grade. Come to think of it, that's probably the last grade he finished.

[KEEPBACK201FEET]

His posts don't even make sense. He finds it necessary to talk crap to me when all I stated was that the information could be found on MSA's website. He writes like he's in the third grade. Come to think of it, that's probably the last grade he finished.

I'm sorry for all the trouble I've caused on the forums in my day, it's my fault for being just...well, a complete jerk to people. I had no reason slamming saltydoglt like I have. I have completely forgot that I am an American FF and just lost touch with reality and that we are brothers. I really deserved my suspension on the forums. Accept my apology for my small mindedness.

[KEEPBACK200FEET]

I'm sorry for all the trouble I've caused on the forums in my day, it's my fault for being just...well, a complete jerk to people. I had no reason slamming saltydoglt like I have. I have completely forgot that I am an American FF and just lost touch with reality and that we are brothers. I really deserved my suspension on the forums. Accept my apology for my small mindedness.

FYI: I think It's obvious, that is not me as I am on a hiatus.

[WebFire]

You can bet your @ss that account won't be closed, but I will probably be suspended for saying so. :rolleyes:

[HolleyFF241]

Fellas fellas, cant we all just get along? The straight answer is that whether or not they are primary eye protection depends on what state you live in, and whether you follow NFPA or OSHA... ;)