lifespan of a helmet?

[ChiefKN]

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.

No need to apologize. They can be a part of the process, but should not have a vote.

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.

Sure, I can submit comments. However, my comments will never have the weight of the people who are selling the products and have a VOTE on the standards.

[DeputyMarshal]

But - there are applications in some parts of the fire service where a canvas coat would be perfectly acceptable.
....
Just playing the devil's advocate here...

I agree. This brings us around to another discussion altogether. We (the fire service) often has a sort of "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to PPE. It's the old, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

We spend big bucks on highly specialized stuructural firefighting gear and then insist on using it for just about everything -- including activities where an old canvas coat or even a set of Walmart coveralls would be more appropriate.

Somewhere we need to get it into our heads that "PPE" doesn't always equal "structural firefighting gear." (NFPA compliant or otherwise. )

[DeputyMarshal]

No need to apologize. They can be a part of the process, but should not have a vote.

Why not? Can you think of anyone who knows the technology better?

Sure, I can submit comments. However, my comments will never have the weight of the people who are selling the products and have a VOTE on the standards.

With all due respect, you're mistaken. If your comments have merit, they're as likely to sway a technical committee as anyone else who submits a proposal. The "people selling products" don't control a majority vote; they have to back their proposals just like everybody else.

Then there's always the possibility for you to volunteer to be one of those voting members...

[ChiefKN]

Why not? Can you think of anyone who knows the technology better?

Oh, I agree they may have access to technical information. Does anyone know if they share that information or is it mostly proprietary? I don't object to their participation, I do object to their voting on the standard.

Why do they need to vote? There are other non-voting members.

With all due respect, you're mistaken. If your comments have merit, they're as likely to sway a technical committee as anyone else who submits a proposal. The "people selling products" don't control a majority vote; they have to back their proposals just like everybody else.

I understand they don't have a majority and I'm sure that they have valuable input, but again... why do they have to vote?

Then there's always the possibility for you to volunteer to be one of those voting members...

Not in the cards for me.

[DeputyMarshal]

There are other non-voting members.

FWIW, non-voting members are typically liaisons from other interested organizations/agencies. For instance, you sometimes see OSHA representatives coordinating between standards and related regulations.

I understand they don't have a majority and I'm sure that they have valuable input, but again... why do they have to vote?

As I said before, why shouldn't they? You can't create a "consensus" standard by excluding a whole class of stakeholders.

Not in the cards for me.

That's a shame, there's always a need for alternative perspectives.

[PaladinKnight]

It could cut both ways...

A mfg might try to protect interest, like changes in materials that may require retooling, at the same time trying to evaluate the reasonable life of product. There is no doubt they are a stakeholder.

I can understand if this were the case. I do have a hard time grasping how they would regulate themselves, except I know they do indeed try to do that very thing in PPE. The industrial sector is very self critical.

It is cheaper to do it right the first time than defend the lawsuit down the road.

Now where did I read that story?

I don't have a problem with mfg sector being involved. They do bring the specialized knowledge to the table as to the materials, the mfg process, and to some degree product testing. I do think they have something to contribute.

DM, we agreed again. We're slipping a bit here. I'll have to find something else to talk about now.

[DeputyMarshal]

DM, we agreed again. We're slipping a bit here. I'll have to find something else to talk about now.

Tastes great or less filling?

[HuntPA]

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.)

Our department has a yearly budget <$35,000 a year. That is for utilities, building maintenance, equipment maintenance, new equipment, and any other cost that comes up. We consider ourselves fortunate as there are other departments close to us that do not have this much.

We received the AFG grant for a 2008 pumper / tanker. This is the first NFPA compliant piece of apparatus that we have owned. It replaced a '76 Ford with bad transmission, motor problems, and several other maladies. Last year we got the grant for air packs. The newest pack that it replaced was 14 years old that was donated to us 3 years ago. Most were first generation MSA MMR's. It is not that we don't want to be compliant, but we can not afford it.

We are obviously a completely volunteer department. We serve an area of 72 sq. miles and a population of close to 1500. 1/3 of the population are Amish. There may be 3 or 4 families that could afford an increase in taxes. Does that mean that the rest of our coverage area does not deserve fire coverage?

Some of us have full sets of compliant gear (top responders), some have compliant coats, pants, or boots based on what is available that fits them. To the last member, we are there to help out our family and neighbors. We understand that we will not have the latest and greatest, but we are still going to do whatever we can to help out those in our communities. We maintain everything ourselves (we can't afford to send it out) and we are pretty proud of how well we can function.

How can you come on here and say that we should not be helping out our neighbors because neither us, nor our communities can afford the newest equipment to meet standards that have not been tested in our conditions?!?!?!?

Gear is kept in a room with one window with no direct sunlight. It is to be checked every other month thoroughly by the member and an officer. It is to be cleaned after every use. Full gear is used on average 3 times a year for a fire, 10 times for an accident, and 20-30 times for training and drills. I invite you to come and look at the gear we have that is over 10 years old and show me why it is not in good, serviceable condition.

I apologize for the direct tone of this post, but I get upset when I am told that because we don't have more money, we shouldn't be trying to help. I would also like to know how my helmet that is 12 years old (660) is not functional. It has been stored out of the sun, climate controlled, and comparatively little used. Please be as technical as you would like. I am an engineer and work with plastics, fiberglass, and composites so anything that goes over my head, I can get clarified for me at work

[DeputyMarshal]

It is not that we don't want to be compliant, but we can not afford it.

Part of what matters is that you're aggressively working to obtain and maintain compliance.

Some of us have full sets of compliant gear (top responders), some have compliant coats, pants, or boots based on what is available that fits them. To the last member, we are there to help out our family and neighbors. We understand that we will not have the latest and greatest, but we are still going to do whatever we can to help out those in our communities.

What this means is that you might have to limit your operations according to your equipment. If you're limited on compliant PPE, you might also be limited on interior firefighting -- that's not a budget issue.

How can you come on here and say that we should not be helping out our neighbors

I haven't. What I've said is that you may me limited by economic necessity to the functions that you can afford to provide. It sounds like you're making every effort to maximize the service you provide given the budget that you have. Nobody can ask for more than that.

I apologize for the direct tone of this post,

No worries. You haven't said anything disagreeable. It sounds like you're making the best of things that you can.

I would also like to know how my helmet that is 12 years old (660) is not functional.

Hopefully it's a 660c. 660's turned out to be trash the day they were made. As for a 660c, there's no way to determine if it still meets spec short of destructive testing. Hopefully you're aggressively trying to replace older equipment as soon as practically possible.

I am an engineer and work with plastics, fiberglass, and composites

Then you're aware that they degrade with age and have a finite shelf life. It sounds like you're doing all the right things to assure that shelf life is maximized but, as an engineer, you know that they won't last forever.

[PaladinKnight]

limited by economic necessity

Now watch it there DM... you're beginning to sound like me there. That's 3.




I cannot deny....

Taste great.... and it is less filling.

[slackjawedyokel]

FNG - I did some un scientific testing on a couple of 15 year old composite helmets. They slid when I tried to drive the dullies over them , so I took a 9 lb sledge to them - 10 swings - no cracks - granted they tended to slide as I hit them - still , I hit them hard enough to break any one neck.

[Rescue101]

Our department has a yearly budget <$35,000 a year. That is for utilities, building maintenance, equipment maintenance, new equipment, and any other cost that comes up. We consider ourselves fortunate as there are other departments close to us that do not have this much.

We received the AFG grant for a 2008 pumper / tanker. This is the first NFPA compliant piece of apparatus that we have owned. It replaced a '76 Ford with bad transmission, motor problems, and several other maladies. Last year we got the grant for air packs. The newest pack that it replaced was 14 years old that was donated to us 3 years ago. Most were first generation MSA MMR's. It is not that we don't want to be compliant, but we can not afford it.

We are obviously a completely volunteer department. We serve an area of 72 sq. miles and a population of close to 1500. 1/3 of the population are Amish. There may be 3 or 4 families that could afford an increase in taxes. Does that mean that the rest of our coverage area does not deserve fire coverage?

Some of us have full sets of compliant gear (top responders), some have compliant coats, pants, or boots based on what is available that fits them. To the last member, we are there to help out our family and neighbors. We understand that we will not have the latest and greatest, but we are still going to do whatever we can to help out those in our communities. We maintain everything ourselves (we can't afford to send it out) and we are pretty proud of how well we can function.

How can you come on here and say that we should not be helping out our neighbors because neither us, nor our communities can afford the newest equipment to meet standards that have not been tested in our conditions?!?!?!?

Gear is kept in a room with one window with no direct sunlight. It is to be checked every other month thoroughly by the member and an officer. It is to be cleaned after every use. Full gear is used on average 3 times a year for a fire, 10 times for an accident, and 20-30 times for training and drills. I invite you to come and look at the gear we have that is over 10 years old and show me why it is not in good, serviceable condition.

I apologize for the direct tone of this post, but I get upset when I am told that because we don't have more money, we shouldn't be trying to help. I would also like to know how my helmet that is 12 years old (660) is not functional. It has been stored out of the sun, climate controlled, and comparatively little used. Please be as technical as you would like. I am an engineer and work with plastics, fiberglass, and composites so anything that goes over my head, I can get clarified for me at work

MIGHT want to rethink your washing policy. Too much washing can be as bad as not enough. You can get SUGGESTED procedures from any of the gear mfgs by merely asking. Don't know whose gear you use so I can't directly address the proper cycles. T.C.

[HuntPA]

We use Globe as the new gear (GX7). Some of the older stuff is a mix.

We use an old maytag ringer washer to wash the gear when it is very dirty with gear cleaning solution (I don't have the jug to see what the actual name is). After most calls, "wash" consists of hosing it off for any mud or dirt that may have gotten on it. We require a full wash after going in on a fire or when there is a build up of dirt.

[Rescue101]

We use Globe as the new gear (GX7). Some of the older stuff is a mix.

We use an old maytag ringer washer to wash the gear when it is very dirty with gear cleaning solution (I don't have the jug to see what the actual name is). After most calls, "wash" consists of hosing it off for any mud or dirt that may have gotten on it. We require a full wash after going in on a fire or when there is a build up of dirt.

That's OK.I just HAPPENED to take the Globe factory tour recently and part of that tour is CARING and repairing for your gear. And washing it too often is one of those items. Each Mfg will have specific requirements. Sounds like you are on the right track,just thought I'd throw that out there. T.C.

[DeputyMarshal]

We use Globe as the new gear (GX7). Some of the older stuff is a mix.

FYI, Globe recommends a front loader -- not a wringer.

Here's their Basic Care and Cleaning page:

http://globefiresuits.com/globe/tech...-cleaning.aspx