Tweet
I recently received a copy of a memorandum from MSA regarding changes to NFPA 1981 "Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service". These changes are planned for promulgation in August, 2002. The change that will have the greatest impact on the fire service is the requirement for a heads up display (HUD) installed in the SCBA mask which will provide cylinder pressure information to the firefighter. My comments here do not reflect a problem directly with MSA, but with the process and the impact on the end user.
Many of us fire service veterans will remember the old days when we had 30 minute steel cylinders and a bell type audible alarm as our only warning of low air pressure. The air packs were heavy, but they were ultra-reliable, almost fireman proof. Since that time technology has improved the cylinders, now we are using carbon fiber wrapped cylinders with 45-60 minute air supplies and they are very light. Unfortunately, we have to keep bolting additional equipment, redundant low pressure alarms, redundant P.A.S.S. alarms, etc., onto these packs. The weight savings we gained with technology have been offset by the new devices that are being added. All this technology would be great if it saves firefighter lives and especially if the damn things worked!!!
This brings me, at long last, to the point I want to make. Each time the NFPA standard changes, the manufacturers upgrade their new equipment to meet the current standard. Most responsible fire department also try to keep their equipment up to the new standards by adding the necessary equipment to comply. The big question is, why are we not holding the manufacturers responsible for making sure the equipment is durable and reliable
In my department, a large suburban department serving a population of 75,000 from 3 fire stations, running almost 15,000 calls annually, we spend a great deal of time repairing and maintaining the add-on accessories to our SCBA (we have about 100 SCBA in service). The redundant alarms currently have a failure rate of about 5 per week. Confidence among the firefighters is low and our customer service from the manufacturer is lower. When redundant alarms were first required by NFPA, we rushed out and purchased enough units to equip every SCBA we had. At the tune of $550.00 each, this was an investment of $55,000.00. This first generation device has proven to be unreliable, and we are now in the process of changing them gradually to the second generation version which, so far seems more dependable. The down side is, we get no trade in value for the old, and the new investment at $800.00 each will be an additional $80,000.00. This is a lot of money no matter what kind of budget you have.
Now I am notified of a change to NFPA that, according to MSA, will be effective August, 2002. According to MSA, they have a HUD device currently under field test that will be launched in, would you believe it, August, 2002. I am curious if other MSA users have experienced similar problems to the ones I have outlined and I would also like to hear from owners of Scott and other SCBA brands. As a concientious fire department, we want to be sure that we maintain our equipment at the highest level, providing the greatest margin of safety for our firefighters. I do not like the idea of being regulated into purchasing products that may or may not work, and if they don't, buying the new and improved version a year later with no financial assistance from the manufacturer.
Years ago, when the Federal Government, through the EPA, required auto makers to install emission control devices on new motor vehicles, they protected the consumer by requiring the auto makers to provide an 8 year/80,000 mile warranty on catalytic converters, electronic ecu's, and the onboard emissions diagnostic device. This prevented the automaker from installing poor quality products and forcing the consumer to comply with emissions requirements by purchasing new devices a couple of years down the road. I think it is time to make fire service product manufacturers to step up to the plate in a similar fashion.
NFPA committees are comprised of manufacturers, end users, and other "experts" in the field. If a manufacturer can convince end users that a product is safer, they can often get a new product pushed through to be adopted by NFPA. Then, responsible fire departments trying to keep up with the new standards purchase these items to comply with the standard. If the product fails, the user is left holding the bag.
Let's all stand together and ask the NFPA and the manufacturers to provide some type of warranty that the product we are mandated to purchase will work and not bankrupt us.
Questions and comments from all are welcome.
Many of us fire service veterans will remember the old days when we had 30 minute steel cylinders and a bell type audible alarm as our only warning of low air pressure. The air packs were heavy, but they were ultra-reliable, almost fireman proof. Since that time technology has improved the cylinders, now we are using carbon fiber wrapped cylinders with 45-60 minute air supplies and they are very light. Unfortunately, we have to keep bolting additional equipment, redundant low pressure alarms, redundant P.A.S.S. alarms, etc., onto these packs. The weight savings we gained with technology have been offset by the new devices that are being added. All this technology would be great if it saves firefighter lives and especially if the damn things worked!!!
This brings me, at long last, to the point I want to make. Each time the NFPA standard changes, the manufacturers upgrade their new equipment to meet the current standard. Most responsible fire department also try to keep their equipment up to the new standards by adding the necessary equipment to comply. The big question is, why are we not holding the manufacturers responsible for making sure the equipment is durable and reliable
In my department, a large suburban department serving a population of 75,000 from 3 fire stations, running almost 15,000 calls annually, we spend a great deal of time repairing and maintaining the add-on accessories to our SCBA (we have about 100 SCBA in service). The redundant alarms currently have a failure rate of about 5 per week. Confidence among the firefighters is low and our customer service from the manufacturer is lower. When redundant alarms were first required by NFPA, we rushed out and purchased enough units to equip every SCBA we had. At the tune of $550.00 each, this was an investment of $55,000.00. This first generation device has proven to be unreliable, and we are now in the process of changing them gradually to the second generation version which, so far seems more dependable. The down side is, we get no trade in value for the old, and the new investment at $800.00 each will be an additional $80,000.00. This is a lot of money no matter what kind of budget you have.
Now I am notified of a change to NFPA that, according to MSA, will be effective August, 2002. According to MSA, they have a HUD device currently under field test that will be launched in, would you believe it, August, 2002. I am curious if other MSA users have experienced similar problems to the ones I have outlined and I would also like to hear from owners of Scott and other SCBA brands. As a concientious fire department, we want to be sure that we maintain our equipment at the highest level, providing the greatest margin of safety for our firefighters. I do not like the idea of being regulated into purchasing products that may or may not work, and if they don't, buying the new and improved version a year later with no financial assistance from the manufacturer.
Years ago, when the Federal Government, through the EPA, required auto makers to install emission control devices on new motor vehicles, they protected the consumer by requiring the auto makers to provide an 8 year/80,000 mile warranty on catalytic converters, electronic ecu's, and the onboard emissions diagnostic device. This prevented the automaker from installing poor quality products and forcing the consumer to comply with emissions requirements by purchasing new devices a couple of years down the road. I think it is time to make fire service product manufacturers to step up to the plate in a similar fashion.
NFPA committees are comprised of manufacturers, end users, and other "experts" in the field. If a manufacturer can convince end users that a product is safer, they can often get a new product pushed through to be adopted by NFPA. Then, responsible fire departments trying to keep up with the new standards purchase these items to comply with the standard. If the product fails, the user is left holding the bag.
Let's all stand together and ask the NFPA and the manufacturers to provide some type of warranty that the product we are mandated to purchase will work and not bankrupt us.
Questions and comments from all are welcome.
Comment