Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

lifespan of a helmet?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    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.
    They do sell helmets, though.

    http://www.morningpride.com/Helmets.aspx

    t also contains several alternates and non-voting members and organizational members with no profit interest whatsoever. Surely you know better than that.
    Know better than what? The secretary is an industry rep, for pete's sake.

    Say what you will, but as long as there are industry voting members, there will be questions about motivation.
    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


    • #32
      From an engineering perspective - I do see the desire to 'expire' the date on PPE.

      -Composite plastics can break down over time due to UV light exposure.
      -Composite plastics can develop fatigue cracking around attachment holes based on heating/cooling cycles.
      -PBI does break down in UV light
      -plastics and rubber can become brittle over time
      - Leather tends retain is characteristics for a very long time - so WTF about a 10yr life on leather lids?

      The fact is - gear does were out with time. The question is how do you know 'when its time'? Wear is easy. You can see it and it becomes obviously worn out. The age based wear is much harder to determine. Frankly - it would be really interesting to do some destructive testing on 'condemned' gear and see what the timelines are really looking like. It may be we are overly conservitive on some items and liberal on others. Anything less than
      actual testing is speculation.

      As for the question of service life for apparatus - we already have this to some extent. Pumps are to be tested, ladders are to be tested and regular maintenance is required. If the truck (engine, sqaud, ladder etc) fails this - its taken out of service until it can be repaired. We even pressure test hose. Its just that PPE (bunkers pants/coats) cannot be tested non-destructively to ensure its protective properties remain intact.

      Comment


      • #33
        I think enough has be said about this issue.

        I have tried to show the reality and economic situation.

        I don't think it is a matter of proving the issue.

        It is clear that the opinions of NFPA are across the board, that is to be expected. But it is also clear that most do not agree with where the Standards are or where they are going.

        Whether it is a Standard or Law may indeed be a Local issue, but the intent does not stay in touch with the majority of the departments that look to it as guidance. You are either compliant or you're not. To what degree a department is compliant might have some value in some areas where others are of little benefit.

        If you should be held to the standard as a matter of law, then every element of the Standard that is not compliant is a violation of law.

        In the case of the Standard used only as the Standard, then you are just not reaching the Standard, or the intent.

        These are two very different things, but defined in one series of Documents.

        It strikes me that the suggestion that we must comply at all costs, is still not achievable. Does one simply eliminate all of the departments that can never comply, based on the suggestion that if you can't, you should not exist?

        No doubt you may be held to the Standard, and shortcomings may be noted. Each department of firefighter must place a value on that risk. If the money isn't there, then I would really like to see the proposal that changes that situation. Statements void of a plan that solves the issue are just words.

        I don't have the answers that can solve this. I have stated so. That is the entire basis of what I state. But, the economic burden is not overcome by just stating you must do it or you're not trying.

        Unfortunatley, DM and I disagree on the this issue. EDIT: I mispoke. We are debating two different issues. I don't think we disagree on the purpose or need for the Standards. He chooses to continue to focus on something much different that what I have stated.

        I present food for thought not to create division, but to make you think about you and your situation and how this applies to you. That seems to have been successful.

        I do not boycott NFPA. I don't even comdemn NFPA. We all agree there must be something to measure us against and strive to reach. All I am trying to suggest is the economic reality prevents most from reaching compliancy. If you are subjected to the Standard as Law, then you are more exposed. But I would not condone the eradiction of your department because someone believes you to be failing or not trying hard enough.

        You can present the case to your public that we are failing and must have more of your money.... but recently this has been a failed venture. The message "if the public wants fire protection, then they must pay for it", again doesn't solve it. I want alot of things, but if I can't afford it, it must wait or it may never happen. You must balance the public demand with the economic condition. Money is always the easy answer... but it just doesn't grow on trees.
        Last edited by PaladinKnight; 08-17-2010, 07:32 AM.
        HAVE PLAN.............WILL TRAVEL

        Comment


        • #34
          Well spoken as usual. Whether you like it or not,demographics still play into this fray. We(my agency) COULD still do our jobs very nicely in 1970's gear. Oh,you can argue with me all you want,but the simple fact is based on our responses and incident load NOTHING would change if we were in the OLD esemble.AND while we're in good shape in adhereing to the Standards it is STILL a HUGE expense to the Town that by and large is unnecessary.INJURY rate was no higher in the old stuff than the new,if anything our injury rate went UP with the new gear, mostly heat related injuries. The Admin here has ALWAYS been safety concious,not to the point of not getting the job done,but they have ALWAYS looked after the membership. Since my wife comes from Conn and I used to drive a Rig there,I'm familiar with some of the States ODD way of looking at things.Not restricted to FIRE issues. On NFPA,I think most of us are going to agree to disagree. AND to an extent,age will play into that arguement.
          The younger folks,having been told by Government what to do all their lives are more apt to "buy in" to the program than many of the older seasoned vets that know it isn't the "standard" that keeps you safe,it is knowing your job,WELL,and taking proper steps to stay out of arenas that may KILL you.
          I'm not a fan of having a helmet holder in my rig,I'm a fan of operating the Rig in a manner that will keep it from CRASHING which is why they sold you the Helmet holder in the FIRST place. We bring this crap on ourselves,SO..........WHEN are we going to start operating in a reasonable and thought out manner that virtually eliminates the need for all this "hand holding"? It STARTS with YOU.then your agency,then your neighbors,until we fix the problems. And PAPER doesn't "FIX" stuff,personnel and common sense DOES. T.C.
          Last edited by Rescue101; 08-17-2010, 08:59 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by PaladinKnight View Post
            Unfortunatley, DM and I disagree on the this issue. EDIT: I mispoke. We are debating two different issues. I don't think we disagree on the purpose or need for the Standards. He chooses to continue to focus on something much different that what I have stated.
            FWIW, I don't think we're all that far apart. I see NFPA standards as an ideal goal for where we should be but recognize that it's not always feasible to get there. What's important is to make an effort and to have good reasons when we don't. (IMHO, cost alone isn't a good reason.)

            We all agree there must be something to measure us against and strive to reach. All I am trying to suggest is the economic reality prevents most from reaching compliancy. If you are subjected to the Standard as Law, then you are more exposed. But I would not condone the eradiction of your department because someone believes you to be failing or not trying hard enough.
            Agreed.

            Originally posted by Rescue101 View Post
            We(my agency) COULD still do our jobs very nicely in 1970's gear. Oh,you can argue with me all you want,but the simple fact is based on our responses and incident load NOTHING would change if we were in the OLD esemble.AND while we're in good shape in adhereing to the Standards it is STILL a HUGE expense to the Town that by and large is unnecessary.
            The trick is knowing that your "1970's gear" is adequate based on a thorough and well documented risk evaluation versus just hoping it'll do based on a seat of the pants guess. Saying it's "unnecessary" isn't enough; you need to be able to back it up.

            AND to an extent,age will play into that arguement.
            The younger folks,having been told by Government what to do all their lives are more apt to "buy in" to the program than many of the older seasoned vets...
            For the record, I'm not all that much younger than you are. I don't think that age is a significant factor.

            And PAPER doesn'r "FIX" stuff,personnel and common sense DOES. T.C.
            In my experience, the more "seasoned" I get the more convinced I am that "Common Sense" is more rare than we've been led to believe.
            "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
            sigpic
            The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

            Comment


            • #36
              I also think that having standards is a good thing. Even if they are a bit overambitious. However, there is no doubt that there is a conflict of interest having industry reps as voting members. Why do they need to be voting members?

              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
              The trick is knowing that your "1970's gear" is adequate based on a thorough and well documented risk evaluation versus just hoping it'll do based on a seat of the pants guess. Saying it's "unnecessary" isn't enough; you need to be able to back it up.
              In all fairness, is the opposite also true? Is there a scientific basis for 10 years for a helmet's lifespan? There may be, I honestly don't know.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                However, there is no doubt that there is a conflict of interest having industry reps as voting members. Why do they need to be voting members?
                Sorry, but there's no doubt that they should be part of the process. There's no more "conflict of interest" in having industry representatives than there is having fire department representatives. The point is to draw consensus from among all the stakeholders, not just one inbred special interest. Balancing committees among a variety of interests insures that no single special interest can possibly dominate the process.


                In all fairness, is the opposite also true? Is there a scientific basis for 10 years for a helmet's lifespan?
                Which year did they add a hard date? As I recall, it's only been within the last couple of editions; either 2000 or 2007. It'll be in the published committee ROP and/or ROC. If you object to the 10 year rule, by all means submit a proposal to change it for the next edition. It's an open process and you're free to participate or not -- it's your choice.
                "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                sigpic
                The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                  FWIW, I don't think we're all that far apart. I see NFPA standards as an ideal goal for where we should be but recognize that it's not always feasible to get there. What's important is to make an effort and to have good reasons when we don't. (IMHO, cost alone isn't a good reason.)



                  Agreed.



                  The trick is knowing that your "1970's gear" is adequate based on a thorough and well documented risk evaluation versus just hoping it'll do based on a seat of the pants guess. Saying it's "unnecessary" isn't enough; you need to be able to back it up.



                  For the record, I'm not all that much younger than you are. I don't think that age is a significant factor.



                  In my experience, the more "seasoned" I get the more convinced I am that "Common Sense" is more rare than we've been led to believe.
                  One of the MANY reasons I like debating with you DM. While we are often on opposite sides of the fence,it seems we are often moving in the same direction. By the way,your State is still whacked,hehe T.C.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Rescue101 View Post
                    One of the MANY reasons I like debating with you DM. While we are often on opposite sides of the fence,it seems we are often moving in the same direction. By the way,your State is still whacked,hehe T.C.
                    Different paths; same goal.

                    Of course my state is whacked. Aren't they all?

                    Stay safe!

                    Bob
                    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                    sigpic
                    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It was kinda dicussed here but I did not see the "10-year rule" defined completely.

                      10 years, as discussed in this forum, is from date of manufacture. If a set of PPE sits on a shelf for eight (8) years and then is sold, the buyer can "legally" use it for two (2) additional years.

                      Ponder that when you purchase PPE. Alot of the ads you see on this website are for vendors having "clearance sales" on different components of PPE. If you pay half price for a pair of leather fireboots during one of these sales, you are likely buying something that has been sitting on the shelf for many, many years.

                      Just a thought.

                      Stay safe and stay low brothers and sisters.
                      Last edited by rjtoc2; 08-17-2010, 10:30 AM.
                      rjtoc2

                      Career Firefighter
                      IAFF member
                      Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


                      ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

                      Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

                      A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

                      When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hey Harve,

                        I guess this means we can't wear our old rubber coated below the knee coat, 3/4 boots, our Tin Lizzie and fireball gloves anymore, Huh??



                        Stay Safe and Well Out There....

                        Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Snell recommends that motorcycle helmets be replaced every 5 years due to wear and degredation of materials. Our helmets are made from similar materials.

                          http://www.smf.org/faqs.html#10

                          You fire helmet less important to protecting your brain pan?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by neiowa View Post
                            Snell recommends that motorcycle helmets be replaced every 5 years due to wear and degredation of materials. Our helmets are made from similar materials.

                            http://www.smf.org/faqs.html#10

                            You fire helmet less important to protecting your brain pan?
                            I'm betting our helmets spend a LOT less time in the Sun than a MC helmet. I'd ALSO be willing to bet that if you tested MOST of our ten year old HELMETS they would STILL pass. T.C.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                              Why would you want to replace PPE based on an outdated standard?
                              Exactly.

                              But - there are applications in some parts of the fire service where a canvas coat would be perfectly acceptable. And given comments about our current gear being almost too protective, maybe we ought to go back. If the firefighters know the gear won't protect them in certain circumstances, maybe they won't go there in the first place...

                              Just playing the devil's advocate here...
                              Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                              Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                                Why would you want to replace PPE based on an outdated standard?
                                Exactly.

                                But - there are applications in some parts of the fire service where a canvas coat would be perfectly acceptable. And given comments about our current gear being almost too protective, maybe we ought to go back. If the firefighters know the gear won't protect them in certain circumstances, maybe they won't go there in the first place...

                                I just found some old literature whilst doing some uncluttering. Coat (nomex) - $175. Pants the same.

                                Just playing the devil's advocate here...
                                Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                                Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X