Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

lifespan of a helmet?

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

  • #16
    So lets take this to the next step...

    What if NFPA rewrites 1901 to state that all apparatus must be replaced every 10 years?

    Does that change anyone's mind on this?

    This is where we're going... and this is the shear nonsense.

    The argument has been made you better comply because if the PPE comes into question, you will be held to the standard. 11 year old helmet burns down to the skull cap. 12 year old Coat ignites burns through to the thermal liner. 1 year old Mask melts into face. FF left with scars but survives. That was me...

    Now who am I going to sue?

    I guess it is a good thing that I am not vain. My body is far from the same as it was the day I joined the service. Part of that is called aging, and some is called battle injuries. You combine the two, and you look like crap.

    Face it guys, you picked a tough occupation. So when we get hurt, maimed, or disfigured, we want to hold someone's feet to the fire to make us whole again... right?

    I understand MFG defects like in SCBA with regulator failure. I understand cancer after 20-30 years of breathing the crap we are exposed to.

    But we chose this, we own it, man up and get over it. You have to take some of the damn RESPONSIBILITY!

    If you want to keep the same face and body that you had before you selected this job, then you should have picked something else... say like a model or TV star... maybe a shoe salesman or go work at Wally World. The risks are limited in those occupations, unless you tick off a customer... which some would undoubtedly would.

    Well folks, if you don't have the money to replace the PPE, then you're not replacing it. There isn't enough money on the planet to solve all of the issues and all the BS that the human race demands.

    The attorneys can argue all day "it's about the standard you failed to abide by." I have seen it, I heard the argument. But face the fact, stupidity or a command decision is usually where it moves to.

    NFPA might be law in some jurisdictions... because it was so much easier to adopt something that was already written for them than taking the time to research the damn issue. But if these cities did read it and understood the can of worms of liability they opened themselves up to, they would just toss it out.


    Hell I want a new boat, mine is 10 years old. It doesn't look the same as the day I bought it. The fiberglass has nicks and some paint is discolored. I think I might talk with the State about how rough their lake has been on my boat. Maybe they will help me buy a new one. This could be a safety issue... it might sink and I might drown. Wah, Wah, Wah...

    We do this crap to ourselves. Get informed and stay safe my friends.
    Last edited by PaladinKnight; 08-15-2010, 02:47 PM.
    HAVE PLAN.............WILL TRAVEL

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
      Not true. PPE "passes muster" if it's compliant with the standards in force at its date of manufacture and if that date is less than 10 years in the past.
      Yeah - but even though it passes muster based on that criteria - try replacing it in-kind.
      Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

      Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by PaladinKnight View Post
        So lets take this to the next step...

        What if NFPA rewrites 1901 to state that all apparatus must be replaced every 10 years?

        Does that change anyone's mind on this
        Just out of morbid curiousity, for all those who have a negative interpretation of the NFPA peer consensus process, how many serve on NFPA committees or have at least submitted a proposal or comment to the NFPA standards procedure?

        This is where we're going... and this is the shear nonsense.
        I disagree. The process is consensus based and not without valid reasons for the development of standards.

        Now who am I going to sue?
        If law suits are your preferred method of problem solving, you (or your insurance company) are going to sue the agency responsible for not following the ackowledged peer consensus standard of care in your chosen profession. Their relative exposure to liability will likely vary in accordance with their compliance with the consensus on their professional field which will lie very close to the NFPA relavant standards.

        But we chose this, we own it, man up and get over it. You have to take some of the damn RESPONSIBILITY!
        Agreed. That includes agreeing to go to work in non-compliant PPE.
        "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
        sigpic
        The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tree68 View Post
          Yeah - but even though it passes muster based on that criteria - try replacing it in-kind.
          Why would you want to replace PPE based on an outdated standard?
          "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
          sigpic
          The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

          Comment


          • #20
            DM: I have been part of the process.

            The one thing that I can say about that is it is not consensus based. It is based on who is there and who they represent. The vast majority of opinions are not represented, mostly because many do not think their voice matters.

            The entire Fire Service is not queried and the process is not a clear picture of the spectrum. But it is the system in place, like it or not.

            I will also state that most of the players do not take this lightly, and do not set out to make the standards something that is not achievable. It is centered around safety, ours and the public.

            What I am saying is very little thought is given to the true economic reality in the rural and disadvantaged regions. They look at the issues as applied to the urban/suburban attributes and not small town Main Street USA. So call this poplation based if you wish.

            I don't think you and I are really that far apart on whether we need Standards. We may not agree about how they are applied or what the intended meaning is. You are talking about a principal, I am talking about the economic reality.

            It is easy to state: The public gets what they pay for, or if they want protection, the public will have to pay for it.

            Look how the public resents how much is being crammed down their throat in the last couple of years. I won't argue that about half the country wants it all, with the Government paying the bill. The other half resents it because they are the ones that will pay for it. The taxpayers are the governments money supply. The government will make a lot of extra money after the first of the year. Do you think new spending will solve issues or create new ones?

            When we run out of money.... well that already happened didn't it? Let me start again. When cities, towns and counties finally begin to comprehend that they are out of money, tehnically broke, because of past practices, something will have to give. it is already well underway.

            How many Firefighters have been laid off? IF the economic reality is that we must lay off firefighters across many cities and towns, then would not the economic reality be that NFPA compliance is moved down the list of importancy. When you have 3 guys on a Truck and two on an Engine, then how did that get closer to NFPA Compliant? It gets closer to the econmic reality of what can be afforded, maybe. We say that is dangerous or marginal. I do not disagree.

            So if it is happening in Ohio, then you can bet your bucks it happening everywhere.

            If WE are going to refuse to work in PPE because it does not met the Standard, then be prepared to watch our own downfall.

            If the lawsuits begin to Challenge the adopted codes and hold the Jursdictions responsible for PPE that is outside of the adopted standard, then be prepared to see new rules that provide protection against these suits, at the same time that Jurisdictions begin to figure out that NFPA is too extreme for them and they can no longer afford it. This isn't a new argument.

            Remember the old saying... "you can't sue city hall"? Well someone figured out that you really can if you can prove negligence.

            So what we have done in reality is force alot of departments to become negligent, and there is nothing that they can do about it.

            They don't deliberately violate NFPA.

            They would like to be compliant, because that would mean they would vastly improve across the board.

            The reality is they can't afford it, and there is no way they can solve it.

            So if we begin to hold everyone to this standard with new rules of engagement (fees, fines, penalties), then we are creating an elitist separation of services. The haves will have and the have-nots will not have. Fire Protection in the heartland will be gone.

            You think it won't or can't happen? Look at health care right now. You don't play the game, you pay the piper.
            HAVE PLAN.............WILL TRAVEL

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
              Fire or no fire, materials degrade and gear standards change.

              A mint condition canvas raincoat may have been state of the art PPE in 1964 but it has no business on the fireground today.

              NFPA doesn't (typically) pull numbers out of a hat when it writes a standard. Ten years is the agreed consensus on the maximum recommended service life for fire service PPE. Unless your jurisdiction has adopted the relevent NFPA standards as law, you're welcome to keep it in service as long as you like but god help you if you have a gear failure related injury.

              Maintaining critical safety equipment to recognized standards is part of the cost of doing business -- no matter much much or little fire a department sees.
              And I'm QUITE sure my N6A at 12+ will STILL pass test and most likely will at 20 years. Comes a time agencies PARTICULARLY Gov. needs to back off particularly in lean times,such as we're going thru now. I don't agree with a majority of these forced mandates and I never will. I believe COMPETENT Fire Officers can run a SAFE operation without being saddled with a bunch of Bureaucratical BS.We wear out coats/pants at around 5 years,but for some members it is good for a lot longer. Time to put some lawyers in the unemployment lines before we can no longer AFFORD to live in this Country,A period that is FAST approaching.The regulations and expenses of doing business are eclipsing the money available to meet said regulations.It is out of control. T.C.
              Last edited by Rescue101; 08-15-2010, 07:15 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by PaladinKnight View Post
                What I am saying is very little thought is given to the true economic reality in the rural and disadvantaged regions. They look at the issues as applied to the urban/suburban attributes and not small town Main Street USA. So call this poplation based if you wish.
                Is fire different according to the budget of the city it's burning in?

                The standards process isn't intended to replace the budget process; it's intended to determine the consensus of how things ought to be. Meeting standards -- or not -- is a local issue.

                When you have 3 guys on a Truck and two on an Engine, then how did that get closer to NFPA Compliant?
                FWIW, NFPA doesn't set a standard for manning so nobody is
                "compliant" in that respect.

                If WE are going to refuse to work in PPE because it does not met the Standard, then be prepared to watch our own downfall.
                If we're willing to go to work in substandard PPE, maybe we deserve it.

                They don't deliberately violate NFPA.

                You can't "violate" NFPA but you can be willfully non-compliant. That's not the same as making a godd faith effort to be as nearly compliant as budget and reasonable regard for safety allows.

                So if we begin to hold everyone to this standard with new rules of engagement (fees, fines, penalties),
                But that's not an NFPA issue.
                Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 08-16-2010, 08:55 AM. Reason: typo
                "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                sigpic
                The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Rescue101 View Post
                  Comes a time agencies PARTICULARLY Gov. needs to back off particularly in lean times,such as we're going thru now.
                  The NFPA isn't a government agency and they don't have any "forced mandates."
                  "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                  sigpic
                  The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                    The NFPA isn't a government agency and they don't have any "forced mandates."
                    I'm generalizing,and it seems a lot of the NFPA BS finds it's way into LAW as you well know. The Stupidity of the country continues to INCREASE. Therein all these forced "standards" if you prefer that to mandates. But there are PLENTY of forced mandates too. T.C.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                      The NFPA isn't a government agency and they don't have any "forced mandates."
                      True, but they are perceived as an "expert witness" whose "standards" may be cited in lawsuits.

                      The perception (voiced earlier in the thread) that said standards may be set for reasons other than firefighter safety forms a central theme in this discussion.

                      It's also a two-edged sword. One fire department may cite the standard in an effort to force whoever pays their bills to purchase new gear, while another may question the standard because they feel their gear is still perfectly servicable and want to put off the expense.
                      Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                      Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Another money grab by the "corporate members" of the NFPA.
                        I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                        "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                        "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                          Another money grab by the "corporate members" of the NFPA.
                          Wake up, Chief. The "corporate members" don't write the standards.
                          "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                          sigpic
                          The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                            Wake up, Chief. The "corporate members" don't write the standards.
                            (yawn)

                            They are on the committee.

                            Its an older list, and I took out some of the non-corporate members, just to shorten the post.

                            http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/ComList.pdf

                            Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and
                            Equipment

                            FAE-AAC
                            Bruce W. Teele
                            Technical Correlating Committee
                            Staff Liaison:
                            Chair
                            Richard M. Duffy [L]
                            International Association of Fire Fighters 1750 New York Avenue,
                            NW Washington, DC 20006 Rep. IAFF

                            Secretary
                            William M. Lambert [M]
                            Mine Safety Appliances Company PO Box 426 Pittsburgh, PA
                            15230 Rep. CGA Principal

                            Leslie Anderson [E]
                            The DuPont Company 5401 Jefferson Davis Highway Richmond,
                            VA 23234

                            Nicholas J. Curtis [M]
                            Lion Apparel, Inc. 6450 Poe Avenue, Suite 300 Dayton, OH
                            45413-0576

                            Robert A. Freese [M]
                            Globe Manufacturing Company 37 Loudon Road PO Box 128
                            Pittsfield, NH 03263-0128

                            Bill Grilliot [M]
                            Morning Pride Manufacturing, LLC #1 Innovation Court PO Box
                            13616 Dayton, OH 45413-0616 Rep. FEMSA

                            William E. Haskell [U]

                            Fire & Industrial (P.P.E) Ltd. Rose Farm, Chapel Road Necton,
                            Norfolk PE37 8JA England

                            Jim Minx [C]

                            Safety Equipment Institute (SEI) 1307 Dolley Madison Blvd.,
                            Suite 3A McLean, VA 22101

                            Denise N. Statham [M]
                            Southern Mills, Inc. 6501 Mall Boulevard PO Box 289 Union City,
                            GA 30291

                            Jeffrey O. Stull [SE]
                            International Personnel Protection, Inc. 10907 Wareham Court
                            Austin, TX 78739

                            David Trivette [M]
                            Tyco/Scott Health & Safety Monroe Corporate Center PO Box 569
                            Monroe, NC 28111 Rep. ISEA

                            Robert D. Tutterow [U]
                            Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 12 Laboratory Drive PO Box 13995
                            Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3995

                            Alternate
                            Janice C. Bradley [M]
                            International Safety Equipment Association 1901 North Moore
                            Street Arlington, VA 22209 Rep. ISEA Alt. to D. Trivette

                            Gregory S. Copeland [M]
                            Celanese AG 2300 Archdale Drive Charlotte, NC 28210 Alt. to
                            R. W. Blocker

                            Patricia A. Freeman [M]
                            Globe Manufacturing Company 37 Loudon Road Pittsfield, NH
                            03263 Alt. to R. A. Freese

                            Patricia A. Gleason [RT]
                            Safety Equipment Institute (SEI) 1307 Dolley Madison Blvd.,
                            Suite 3A McLean, VA 22101 Alt. to S. R. Sanders

                            Mary I. Grilliot [M]
                            TFG/Morning Pride Manufacturing L.L.C. #1 Innovation Court PO
                            Box 13616 Dayton, OH 45413-0616 Rep. FEMSA Alt. to B.
                            Grilliot

                            Steven B. Lumry [C]
                            Lion Apparel, Inc. 219 Archer's Mead Williamsburg, VA 23815
                            Alt. to N. J. Curtis



                            SCOPE:
                            This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents
                            on the design, performance, testing, and certification of protective
                            clothing and protective equipment manufactured for fire and
                            emergency services organizations and personnel, to protect
                            against exposures encountered during emergency incident
                            operations. This Committee shall also have the primary
                            responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and
                            maintenance of such protective clothing and protective
                            equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and
                            personnel.
                            This Committee has jurisdiction over the following documents:
                            PROPOSED Selection, Care and Maintenance (SCAM) of
                            Structural Fire Fighting Protective Ensemble Elements (NFPA
                            1851), PROPOSED Selection, Care, and Maintenance of
                            Open-Circuit SCBA (NFPA1852), (PROPOSED) Protective
                            Ensemble for Urban Technical Rescue Incidents (NFPA 1951),
                            Protective Ensemble for Structural Fire Fighting (NFPA 1971),
                            Station/Work Uniforms for Fire Fighters (NFPA 1975), Protective
                            Ensemble for Proximity Fire Fighting (NFPA 1976), Protective
                            Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting (NFPA 1977),
                            Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire
                            Service (NFPA 1981), Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS)
                            (NFPA 1982), Standard for Closed-Circuit SCBA for Fire Fighters
                            (NFPA 1984), PROPOSED Breathing Air Quality for Fire
                            Emergency Service Respiratory Protection (NFPA 1989), Fire
                            Service Life Safety Rope and System Components (NFPA 1983),
                            Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous materials Emergencies
                            (NFPA 1991), Liquid Splash-Protective Clothing and Ensembles
                            for Hazardous Materials Emergencies (NFPA 1992), Protective
                            Ensembles for Chemical or Biological Terrorism Agents (NFPA
                            1994), Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations
                            I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                            "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                            "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                              It's really a bit of both but, with regard to the technology, that's one of the reasons cited for the 10 year service life. PPE technology has consistently evolved. A 10 year old piece of PPE is typically 2 to 3 standards revisions and numerous TIAs behind the current technology.
                              How can one standard apply when there are different materials used? A leather helmet and a composite helmet will both have the same lifespan?

                              Do we really anticipate some new science to impact protection? Significant enough to warrant the considerable expense of replacing a helmet that is 10 years old?

                              You can educate me on this point, what level of research was used to determine 10 years? Was destructive testing done on 10 year old helmets? Last I heard, these composite materials will be in the landfills for a few thousand years....
                              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                                They are on the committee.
                                Manufacturing interests are never more than 1/3 of the principle voting members. Currently there are 9 out of 29. None of them, BTW, manufacture helmets.

                                Its an older list, and I took out some of the non-corporate members, just to shorten the post.
                                It also contains several alternates and non-voting members and organizational members with no profit interest whatsoever. Surely you know better than that.
                                "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                                sigpic
                                The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X