The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
PPE on Vehicle Accidents
I was just wondering what peoples thoughts/department SOG's were on wearing bunker gear, ambulance crew/fire crew, on the scene of vehicle accidents. In my department's SOG's it states "Bunker gear is required for personal injury accidents", yet there are some who refuse to wear it when they respond on the squad(ambulance) because they have reflective vests or jackets. Me personally I wear my bunker gear and a refective vest no matter what truck I respond in.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by kimmieflirts on
-
In nj a lot of the ambulances are run out of volunteer first aid squads and the fire departments are seperate. & atleast when i was on the the fas we where only required to carry extrication gear (light turnout coat and helmet) on the ambulance. No body had there own and it was only worn on scene with extrication.
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
on my dept its manditory for all ppe except nomax hoods to be worn when conduction work on an accident scene. we are told for winter accidents we have to wear our nomax hoods at all times
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
So, if a cop gets hit while working an MVA, is he or she going to have a lawyer go after them for not wearing turnout gear? How about a non-fire EMT or paramedics? Those folks work MVCs without any PPE other than a traffic vest and exam gloves all the time.
It's not about ridicule, it's about protecting yourself from the primary hazard. On most summer MVAs, heat stress is a much bigger problem than a potential fire.
Turnout gear is a bigger hazard to firefighters than fire for many of the MVAs most southern fire-rescue departments work in the summer.
SOPs/SOGs that require turnout gear designed for structural firefighting on all types of incidents don't make sense to me. I see structural gear being worn - inappropriately - to non-fire structural collapses, wildland fires, high-angle rope rescues, and even water rescues...all because their department has a "wear your PPE to all incidents" rule. That type of rule doesn't take into account a lot of what we do. We're supposed to be smart enough to tailor our PPE - and our strategy and tactics - to a wide variety of incidents.
Lightweight extrication gear is plenty of protection for 99% of the MVA's most of us will ever run.
Coat and pants together are less than $300 if you know where to look. Avoiding unecessary heat stress is just as important as avoiding cuts and burns.
-
-
"ANY" type of call??? You're going to wear full turnout gear and SCBA to a water rescue? A non-fire structural collapse or trench rescue? A non-fire high angle rope rescue?
At best, the gear will get in the way and cause unecessary heat stress at those types of calls.
At water rescues, turnout gear may kill you. That's why you didn't see Pam Anderson wearing turnout gear on Baywatch...well, it's one of the reasons.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
I'm wondering if some of these 'full PPE at all times ' people might be in the colder parts of the world? Not having a shot at them, but conditions determine the way we act in a lot of cases.
Full structural PPE for all calls is a bad idea here in the middle of summer, heat stress is good to avoid! For MVC's we turn out wearing structural gear, because you never know if there's fire or not until you get there, but we take our lightweight wildfire jackets with us to change into. I forgot for an MVC last New Years Day and was stuck with the thick stuff in 35C heat - not pleasant at all.
I also wonder at the need for a helemt at an MVC if you're working with casualties - our ambos don't wear them, and they're often half inside the vehicle. But you should still be wearing a jacket of some sort along with the nitrile gloves.
-
-
Tony,
I'm an advocate of lightweight extrication gear for extrication teams and patient care inside the vehicle. This is similar to wildland gear, but has some re-inforcements to pad forearms, elbows, and knees from sharp edges, and it typically has as much reflective trim as a fire coat.
As for the helmets, a lightweight USAR helmet or technical rescue helmet works just fine inside the car - and even outside. I have a Pacific Kiwi that I wear for pretty much any rescue - extrication, USAR, trench, confined space...if it's not on fire, I don't really need my fire helmet. My department issues fiberglass turtle-style fire helmets, but probably half of our guys wear leathers. Even some of our hard-core leather devotees wear USAR helmets to wrecks, though.
Our ambulances are issued regular construction hard hats. (Vehicle equipment, not personal issue.) They're not quite as comfortable as USAR helmets and the retention systems isn't as good, but they work better inside the car than do leather fire helmets.
-
-
Hi Ben,
We don't have a Rescue in my Station, and aren't trained in the use of extrication gear. We'll work on a vehicle as best we can until the Rescue arrives though. However, I don't think that specialist extrication PPE is used here (correct me if I'm wrong anyone from an RAR Brigade or Unit!) - though they do wear non-fire helmets.
PS. I love that 'turtle-style' description!
-
-
Wildland gear, water rescue suits and PFDs, and lightweight extrication gear is all PPE.
However, some states define "PPE" for firefighters as structural PPE, and most of the members who responded to this thread were talking about wearing structural gear to MVCs, because that's the only kind of PPE they have. In fact, some states used to have laws that explicitly stated that firefighters who were injured or killed in the line of duty were ineligble for LODD or worker's compensation benefits if they weren't wearing their structural PPE. So...they hopped on the engine and went to water rescue calls wearing turnouts.
The there has been a similar discussion about wearing structural PPE to wildfires elsewhere in the Nation...once again because lots of firefighters don't have any PPE except for structural turnouts.
You may not be aware of this, but there have been firefighters who drowned while wearing structural PPE to water rescue incidents, some pretty recently. "Maybe they shouldn't be in the fire service" isn't much comfort to the grieving widow and orphans. The recent Midwest flooding drew news videographers like flies. Lots of that video showed firefighters wearing turnout gear wading in waist-deep to chest-deep floodwater, riding in boats, etc.
My point here is that your background and all-hazard knowledge is likely very different from many of the other posters here. When you post "wear your PPE to every call" that reads "wear your turnout gear to every call" to some people. That differing perspective may prove harmful to someone with a different interpretation of "PPE" than yours.
As for the "what if" of a fire at a wreck, I've been a firefighter for 33 years and an EMT/Paramedic for 30. In that time, I've seen exactly 8 MVCs involving fire with patients still in the vehicle. In 6 cases, the 1st-due engine extinguished the fire prior to rescue/EMS arrival. In all but one of those cases, everyone that survived the fire was't still trapped in the car when my rescue company got there. In the other two cases, the fire was an incipient engine compartment fire extinguished by EMS personnel, not the engine company. Total rescuer injuries in these incidents - zero.
So...the "what if" factor leads to one wreck with fire every 3 or 4 years, and the injured are not in close proximity to the fire for most of those. The "what if" factor leads to lots of firefighters experiencing unnecessary heat stress every time they run a MVC when it is hot.
There are other ways than PPE to prevent car fire injuries at wrecks. Engineering controls like battery disconnect procedures, plugging and absorbing fuel leaks, foaming fuel spills - all are effective, and none add heat stress to the fire-rescue folks.
The fire service has played the "what if" game for far too long while ignoring primary hazards that actually kill firefighters - heat stress being a huge factor. It doesn't make sense to me to say "We MUST engage in a behavior that we know kills firefighters because we might see something that MIGHT hurt some of us every four or five years, and then only if we really don't pay attention ."
And...if a car does ignite during an extrication, have a standby crew with a charged hoseline that puts out at least 150 gpm, plus a couple of large ABC fire extinguishers, and the fire generally will go out prior to anyone getting hurt. People with no training extinguish incipient fires without getting hurt every day in this country. Firefighters should be able to do the same.
And...if you don't have a 2nd engine or a 2nd department quickly available, and if you don't have the manpower to rotate after 5 minutes, or if your department doesn't have enough extrication specialists available or on duty to rotate without reducing rescue effectiveness...those are the "what if's" that are a much bigger problem for most fire-rescue departments than any actual car fire at a wreck. Also remember, heat stress is cumulative, and the bad effects add up over a hot summer - or a career.
And...I wear full turnout gear - to structural fires. I also wear lightweight extrication geat to wrecks, water rescue gear to water rescues, USAR gear to trench and structural collapse rescues, etc. I advocate "dress for the sport you're playing", remember?
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Elliott on
-
Man, you are really opening a can of worms. I agree with you that bunker gear should be worn on all scenes with reflective vests (at MVA) and I understand the "contamination" problem gear can have on patients. As for bunker gear, I wish we all could afford 2 sets of gear. One for structure fires and one for MVA that is light weight and not so restrictive. My Dept sop/gs , or what ever they're called this week, state we're to wear them on all scenes and on Rescue side we try to but it not always feasible as the rig is pulling up as the pt. is already out or the fire crew has them out. So, I guess it all boils down to NFPA 1971 and 1851 that require cleaning at a minimum of twice a year or as needed. Then the contamination problem wouldn't be, but just try to get some people to wash their gear. Might as well ask for a gallon of blood . Good luck with your situation
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
When the cost of turnout gear is a thousand bucks plus, I don't think that it's asking too much for the ones wearing it to clean it up once in a while. Since we all can't afford the automatic washers, a little soap and a brush will work. It adds life to the turnout gear as well.
Departments can show their pride by keeping their gear in ready state.
Gear that looks like and smells like it has been rolled around in a hog lot does little for department image.
But, if you can afford new gear every year, then I guess you can treat it like a paper napkin.
Maybe you can get momma to wash your stuff. And while you're at it, have her pack your lunch too!
Jeez.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on
-
The specialty tyes of calls are a whole different ballgame. Obviously you don't go to a gun fight carrying a knife as you wouldn't go to a water rescue with turnout and SCBA.
Well some of our members may but they will be the ones that get to pack hose.
As for Pam Anderson and Baywatch - enough said KUDOS!!
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Larson on
-
our sog states that structural fire fighting gear is worn on all mva's but officer incharge can make a call to allow wildland gear if temp. is to high but structural gear must come with to the scene incase of fire or other hazerdous condition (i have only been given that option once it was like 102 degrees and 92% humidity i wore bunker gear but changed into wild land just after we got on scene)
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
