Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marni Schmid on April 20, 2010 at 9:48pm

Great question - I'm going to try to get someone from the fire service involved with NFPA to answer it better than I can.

I know there was a TON of discussion about the life of the gear and how so much depends on what types of fires you're going in to and what types of exposures you have (as well as storage, cleaning and maintenance). From my perspective, as a fly on the wall, I feel like the intent was to make sure that gear that is no longer effective is no longer donned for a fire. No one wants anyone to have a false sense of security and get hurt, or worse.

I'm not sure that any part of the standard will ease tensions/relations between salespeople/manufacturers and the fire service - I don't think it can. The goal is to protect you guys as much as possible while balancing the gamut of scenarios and limits of technology. It sounds like you understand that your gear should protect you but it does have limitations, no matter who makes it.

You make some really good points, can you tell me more about what you mean by reflecting the needs vs the wants of the fire service - like, in what areas do you think the standard caters to the wants rather than the needs? And do you mean the strategy of NFPA or the strategy of each department needs to be revised?

CBRN's a whole 'nother world and you're absolutely right that you need to be encapsulated. I know some groups are working on technology to combine structural and CBRN gear - but I think everyone knows that it's a one-exposure kind of thing. That's about all I know about it though.

I don't think I've answered your question, I hope I can get someone else to do a better job than I did.

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Tutterow Jr on April 21, 2010 at 1:04pm

Retirement of PPE after 10 years: Wow--HOT TOPIC. The NFPA Technical Committee for Structural PPE struggled with this issue in the latest revision of NFPA 1851. (Disclosure: I am a member of the Technical Committee and lead person in the Fire PPE Symposium).

The committee received lots of anecdotal evidence that PPE would not last past 10 years. The fire service was looking for assistance in determining when PPE should be retired. Though outershells may look to be serviceable, it is often the liner (especially the moisture barrier) that has lost its integrity. In fact, if a fire department follows the inspection, cleaning and repair requirements of NFPA 1851, the 10 year requirement probably becomes a mute point.

Departments that have a lot of calls, primarily career departments, have indicated that they often get less than 5 years of service. On the other hand, departments that don't have a lot of responses, primarily volunteer, often claim their PPE will last longer than 10 years. I always remind firefighters who are in departments with a low number of calls, that they should be most aggressive in their training. This is essential if they are to sharpen their skills and maintain familiarization with equipment and policies. We know good training causes lots of wear and tear on PPE. This is evidenced by the condition of PPE for rookie firefighters once they have completed recruit school.

Finally, there is currently a study underway through the University of Kentucky on the durability of PPE. Phase I of the study (career firefighters) is almost complete and phase II (volunteer firefighters) will soon start. A presentation on this study will be made at the Fire PPE Symposium May 2-4 in Charlotte.

It's not an exact science. Unfortunately, we don't have wear marks, like found on tires, to indicate when its time to retire PPE. The retirement issue will be a major point of discussion with the next revision of NFPA 1851.

Permalink Reply by Brandon Sleczka on April 22, 2010 at 11:16pm

Can you please send me a link to the revised NFPA 1851 for bunker gear age?

Permalink Reply by Mark C. Oswald on April 23, 2010 at 1:58am

I do not disagree with any of your points, and I do welcome the idea that there is a study in place to see what will or won't last longer, hopefully this will prove once and for all which bunker gear is better for the Fire Department/Service to buy. I just hope that the results of this are not going to be shelved for political reasons, and that the results will be public knoweldge for all to see. Hopefully this will make some manufacturers sit up and take notice for once, instead of selling crap gear and looking at the bottom line from their stock reports.

Rob, I do wonder though is this going to start getting out of control from the NFPA standpoint as to what wearlife expectancies will be for other equipment in the Fire Stations? Once we start with turnout gear, where does it end? Trucks, filtration systems, encapsulating suits? I'm just worried that this could go a bit out of control as to what responsibility lies where, and who is going to be responsible legally should something go wrong in the future. I have and always will beleive that education is the key, we ask the firefighters of the world to become more educated daily in community educuation (they become instructors and ambassadors), learn new firefighting techniques, new rescue practices, become CBRN responders, medics. Some of the old dinosaurs in the service can find it hard, though they do manage to get it sunk in, and the younger generation seems to lap it up. So why is it so hard to come up with a course to teach these guys EXACTLY how their gear works (not what a salesman describes) and put that forward as a course to be certified by NFPA to be taught at academies. This way the responsibility lies with the wearer for his/her gear inspections, documentation lies with the user and department to be recorded and maintained, and finally the instructors and subject matter experts who are teaching this are certified to teach a course which needs to exist? I'm not saying it's a simple answer but it is a logical step, it would also eliminate these so called "experts" giving the wrong information without being accountable for what they say. Adding inspection ports in the liner system would also be a quantum leap forward, I had it added to my new set of Sperian gear, and man they make one hell of a difference when it comes to inspections myself.

I'm really concerned for the liability issue regarding should a firefighter become injured, where does the buck stop, is it a training fault, operator fault, department fault or does it lie with a governing body to be at fault for setting a wearlife policy? I'm just concerned for the committe and also that we are putting a band aid on something which needs a bit more doctoring, to keep us all in the loop as to what is happening and trends that are starting to form or disappear.

As to the CBRN gear, well... A one shot deal set of gear that costs a fortune to buy, used once (if ever) then trashed, is not my idea of money well spent for a fire department. That is why we have HazMat units, and that is why (when I was in the Army) we were issued Chemical Protective Gear and masks, we went through specialized training to understand what the threat enviroment was and then chose the correct course of action to take to neutralize the threat, or otherwise we stayed the hell away from it, not sent someone who has done a identification course into a mustard enviroment with the wrong gear. To me it's just plain silly.

Rob I'm not having a dig, I just don't want to see the NFPA or the committe back itself into a corner where there might not be any way of getting out and sacrificing a part of its reputation. I do beleive the testing is the right way to go and applaud the step forward, and the fact that it is independant away from the manufacturers, it just needs to be public owned at the end to make the results more well known and available to the Fire Departments so that they can glean the information contained within to make a more educated desicion on what is sitting infront of them.

Again just my rantings, I really do appreciate the reply, and at some point I really want to get back to the US so I can pick your brain a bit more!

Permalink Reply by Marni Schmid on April 25, 2010 at 10:14pm

I tried to get the language from the online version but there are all sorts of copyright issues that I don't want to violate.

Does someone in your station have a copy of it? Anyone who is a member of NFPA can get access to it online.

What you're looking for is in Chapter 10 - Retirement.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more help.

Permalink Reply by Mark C. Oswald on April 26, 2010 at 12:52am

Marni,

What I describe about the needs versus wants of the fire service:

From having sold turnout gear there were a few things that I used to do with customers. I would try to evaluate the number of calls, versus the respective ability of the fire department funding, to try and give them what they wanted for the right price (I was a firefighter selling bunker gear, I know how hard it was to make budget ends meet). Mostly they would ask for PBI, which in my eyes isn't a bad outer shell, but more expensive than what some really needed. There have been some wearlife concerns as well, so I'd evaluate the need of wants PBI, versus needs, longer lasting solid turnout gear. Their needs also came from the design as well, they could get a more traditional set for a cheaper amount of money, versus the newer style. In many cases I came in under budget for what they were looking for, and still lost the deal because they just wanted what they want, in doing so they blew their budget right out.

On the standards line I think it would be impossible for NFPA to meet the needs of every fire department in design strategy, there are just too many varialbes to factor in on the design. Tradition is the hardest one to break in the fire service, and it is one of the largest problems we face in trying to bring out new sets of gear on the market. I feel it is up to the Fire Department to make an educated (this term I'm using loosely as there isn't alot of education out there in regards to gear and how it really works) desicion about what gear to buy. I personally have my favorite, but that is because I have worn 8 different manufacturers gear, and most outer shell designs as well. My choice would reflect differently from others due to my being a firefighter on the East Coast, and then moving to Australia which favors weather conditions like Florida and Southern California. From there I would have a relative design in my head, then would put together a weartest program based around the best design for the department. Needs versus tradition (wants) would drive my way to getting new gear for my firefighters.

Its a sticky subject, but again I have always felt education is the merit by which we make our informed choices. If someone is just going by what we did 20 years ago, well we'd still be pulling horse drawn steam engines to fires, just due to the tradition factor, not by merit of education and safety. I'm pretty passionate about the education of firefighters, in this case there needs to be a course for them to understand properly how their gear protects them. I know this would piss off quite a few manufacturers, but really I'm not concerned about their needs, I'm more concerned about the fire service and my brothers and sisters. Again just my two cents. You also did well with the reply, it's just nice to get one on a subject that most would go, "whoa too hard, in the out box."

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Tutterow Jr on April 26, 2010 at 1:02pm

Mark,
The issue of retirement is a catch-22. Another part of this discussion is that the NFPA committee was hearing from the fire service that they needed something to help them convince the "bean counters" that they needed to replace equipment. Many years ago, there was an insurance document floating around about a 20 year rule for fire apparatus. That is no longer being mentioned. However, the NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Apparatus published Annex D of the 1901 standard that gave guidance on when to replace or refurbish apparatus. Again, this was something the fire service requested.

As an update, I just returned from FDIC and noted that W.L. Gore is now offering warranties on a couple of their moisture barriers. You may want to go to their website for additional info. The retirement of PPE is definitely an on-going issue and get considerable discussion at the next revision.

Permalink Reply by Mark C. Oswald on April 27, 2010 at 2:22am

Nice would love to be a fly on the wall for that one. Thanks Bob, I was really curious to see where this all started and where the middle and end state would be. It's just really had me a bit concerned, as alot of other countries seem to follow suit as well with this. Right now Australia is tackling these issues and some related ones as well, though I think they have the idea of what is trying to be accomplished askew. Still want to pick your brain though!!!

Permalink Reply by Tommy Lewis on April 28, 2010 at 3:17pm

Rob,

I would gladly help the NFPA with any studies being conducted. If you need anything from our department just let me know.

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Tutterow Jr on April 28, 2010 at 7:47pm

Hey, Thanks for the offer. I'll pass this along to the panel that's working on it. Best wishes to you and your department!

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Tutterow Jr on April 29, 2010 at 10:53am

Chief Lewis,

The durability/retirement study is being conducted through the University of Kentucky. They have a resource panel with representatives from Dupont, Fire-Dex, Lion Apparel, and Globe Firesuits. They are looking for used volunteer gear and each of the panelists is responsible for connecting with their customers to obtain used gear. I am of the assumption that this is destructive testing and the gear will not be returned. If you have gear that you are willing to donate, is it either Fire-Dex, Lion, or Globe?

Permalink Reply by Marni Schmid on June 6, 2010 at 10:39pm

Hi Mark,

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I've been sort of out of touch the last few weeks - hoping to get back in to it now.

Your points are all well taken - and right on. Education is super important and that's what we're trying to provide with the PPE symposium. It is truly led by the fire service and the intent is to teach end-users and others involved in purchasing/spec-ing PPE everything we can about PPE - weighing the different factors of protection and meeting the needs of your individual department.

It sounds like you did all of that when you were selling PPE and that you have lots of experience with different types of gear.

I tend to wear rose-colored glasses, but my hope is that there are more out there like you who do weigh the needs of the department against all of the options available.

I know the committee will continue to debate the retirement issue through the revision process and they welcome comments and proposals - while I know Robert has read your comments, if you want to submit comments or a proposal, I think you can do that through the NFPA website.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page