Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Turnout Gear on Roadway Incidents

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MemphisE34a
    replied
    Originally posted by bcjack View Post
    What would you suggest as appropriate apparel to protect your firefighters and comply with Federal law????
    I apologize for the extremely long delay in resonding -just saw this.

    My response that you quoted was to an individual that stated he wears full structural PPE and a vest to ALL roadway incidents.

    My point is that full structural turnout gear is not needed at ALL roadway responses. There are times when it is perfectly acceptable and legal to not wear turnouts and only a vest.

    Leave a comment:


  • HuntPA
    replied
    Let's see. . . .
    My standpoint is to lead by example and so EVERY roadway incident (MVA, car vs. pedestrian, bicyclist down without car) I wear full turnout gear and vest.
    If it is an incident without car, what are your protecting yourself from? The DOT uses jeans, steel toe shoes, hard hat, vest, and leggings. Why do we need more if we are only directling traffic / loading a patient?
    Aren't you creating more of a hazard on a humid 90 degree day by standing on the asphalt wearing full turnouts when the aforementioned is all that is required?

    We spend a lot of $$ buying the best stuff possible for you, and we expect you to wear the stuff and be protected.
    So am I supposed to be in SCBA as well? The exaust from those passing cars could give me CO poisoning. And we spent a lot of money on those shiny trucks, should we then run every one to every call? Or, should we run them when necessary and not induce unnecessary wear and tear when they are not needed?

    Leave a comment:


  • bcjack
    replied
    Originally posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    You ever consider that you are the one that is wrong? You wear turnout gear when you need to for thermal protection or warmth depending on climate, not just because you have it.



    Same answer as above.
    What would you suggest as appropriate apparel to protect your firefighters and comply with Federal law????

    Leave a comment:


  • MemphisE34a
    replied
    Originally posted by firefighterMV View Post
    I am looking to find out what others' opinions and departments guidelines are on roadway incidents and proper PPE. Currently, our department does not have a guideline on this particular topic and does not have the best practice on wearing full PPE on roadway incidents. I am trying to change and make it standard practice that any and all incidents involving working on a roadway require full turnout gear (pants, coat, helmet) and traffic safety vest. We have a constant habit of having responders show up in bunker pants only and a vest, or even less.

    My standpoint is to lead by example and so EVERY roadway incident (MVA, car vs. pedestrian, bicyclist down without car) I wear full turnout gear and vest. I think that it is hard to argue with safety when I expect the same out of incoming crews and members of the company in which I am assigned. But it is hard to set this example with other officers not being on the same page and newer members seeing there is no continuity and agreeance among officers.
    You ever consider that you are the one that is wrong? You wear turnout gear when you need to for thermal protection or warmth depending on climate, not just because you have it.

    Originally posted by bcjack View Post
    We spend a lot of $$ buying the best stuff possible for you, and we expect you to wear the stuff and be protected.
    Same answer as above.
    Last edited by MemphisE34a; 09-25-2012, 08:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tlagow
    replied
    This is an extrication jacket from Lakeland.

    Ansi Class 3 Extrication coat using flame resistant (hi-vis yellow) Tecasafe Plus fabric.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG00377-20120518-1602 (2).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	27.1 KB
ID:	1978799

    Leave a comment:


  • johnsb
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    You better hope not, or then you will be required to wear the blinking light vest.
    Like this??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTLoR...eature=related

    Leave a comment:


  • HuntPA
    replied
    I am sure that the additional cost will be pushed directly to us that will be purchasing the units as is the case with most unfunded government mandates, but it would be an option as I do not see all departments going with this (if it does ever become available) and going away from tradition.

    I am asking for it to be done and I am in no way in any position to make it happen. Even if my department put its full purchsaing power behind the "movement" to accelerate the process, I doubt the 3 sets of gear a year will prompt much action. It is just something that I would like to see for all safety concerns.

    I like the vests on all incidents, just to have the visibility among myself and the crews is enough reason for me, let alone the public. To me, being able to do a quick visual scan and see where people are and how many I can't see is a great parallel to other accountability practices.

    Leave a comment:


  • bcjack
    replied
    Originally posted by HuntPA View Post
    Call me stupid, but to me, I would like to see Globe, MP, and the others develop the materials in the gear so that they can be ANSI compliant on their own. I don't think that it would be that great of a problem to do so, but I am not a textile engineer. As we are "supposed" to wash our gear any time that it becomes even slightly soiled, it should stay nice and bright.

    Personally, I would still wear the vest so that I could take the coat off when prudent and still be able to be more visible.
    Where is the money going to come from to pay for the new "High Tech" turnout gear meeting the ANSI requirements??? What is the timeline for making the transition from the old to the new???

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by johnsb View Post
    Yep.

    Another thing I been wondering about is that since it seems any employee that works within 50' of a street or parking lot is wearing one, are people going to become desensitized to seeing them? Just a thought.
    You better hope not, or then you will be required to wear the blinking light vest.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnsb
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Really hate that darn vest, huh?
    Yep.

    Another thing I been wondering about is that since it seems any employee that works within 50' of a street or parking lot is wearing one, are people going to become desensitized to seeing them? Just a thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by johnsb View Post
    I like the option of a lighter extrication type suit, lighter but still protects against flash fires and sharp edges. If they could come out with brighter dyes in the nomex or other fire resistant material, then it would make the vest moot.
    Really hate that darn vest, huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnsb
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I hear you... In the summer, I always liked the option to not wear my structural coat if working on the roadway and the gear wasn't needed.
    I like the option of a lighter extrication type suit, lighter but still protects against flash fires and sharp edges. If they could come out with brighter dyes in the nomex or other fire resistant material, then it would make the vest moot.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by HuntPA View Post
    Call me stupid, but to me, I would like to see Globe, MP, and the others develop the materials in the gear so that they can be ANSI compliant on their own. I don't think that it would be that great of a problem to do so, but I am not a textile engineer. As we are "supposed" to wash our gear any time that it becomes even slightly soiled, it should stay nice and bright.

    Personally, I would still wear the vest so that I could take the coat off when prudent and still be able to be more visible.
    I hear you... In the summer, I always liked the option to not wear my structural coat if working on the roadway and the gear wasn't needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • HuntPA
    replied
    Call me stupid, but to me, I would like to see Globe, MP, and the others develop the materials in the gear so that they can be ANSI compliant on their own. I don't think that it would be that great of a problem to do so, but I am not a textile engineer. As we are "supposed" to wash our gear any time that it becomes even slightly soiled, it should stay nice and bright.

    Personally, I would still wear the vest so that I could take the coat off when prudent and still be able to be more visible.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyMarshal
    replied
    Originally posted by johnsb View Post
    "Not necessarily flaggers but, in addition to blocking off a buffer zone around them as well as practical, somebody should be watching their backs."

    I agree. To me, this is much better protection than a vest.
    And all that and wearing the vest too for everyone who doesn't have a specific reason not to wear one is better protection still.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X