Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Engineco913 on March 9, 2008 at 10:38pm

Hey thats a smart change to 1901. It makes sense with the rear bill of the helmet hitting the seat and your bodies kinetic energy continuing to the back when impacted. (causes more damage) I don't know much about building a storage cabinet for the helmets. I would think securing the firefighter (with a seat belt) and having them hold the helmet would be more practical, but practicality doesn't always prevail.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spanner 122 on March 9, 2008 at 11:31pm

That does make perfect sense. I know I put my helmet on when we are around the corner, it just makes sense to me to be ready when we get there, but I always have to lean forward to accomodate it. D'uh. lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ILDisasterEMT on March 10, 2008 at 4:39am

If you look at accident kinetics (I must admit as an EMT, its a bit of a nerdy specialty of mine), holding helmets is not a good idea at all. If that truck were to become involved in an accident, which is the whole push behind this new update to 1901, anything not secured inside of that cab becomes and instant projectile. When trucks role, its not at all uncommon for stuff to come lose and fly around in that cab, increasing the level of damage done to the occupants. Now add a helmet to that, especially a leather New Yorker, and you've got something that comes out of the firefighter's hands and is one more piece of FOD (foreign object debris) flying around waiting to smack into someone. Having them hold the helmet may be more practical, just as having them stand on the tail board was practical when the cab got full. But like that practice, as practical as it may be, its not safe. That helmet is either on, which we can now see as a bad idea, or its off and stowed with at least two points of contact, like the hang ring and another point, or inside a closed cabinet with doors that are mot likely to come open during an impact or rollover. Another good call from the NFPA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Hoey on March 10, 2008 at 10:03am

I know it was not safe but man I remember riding the top of the hose bed getting dressed at 60mph Now I cant wear my helmet in the truck...OK RELAX I KNOW ITS FOR THE BEST JUST LOOKING AT THE WORLD!!!

hOW IT ALL CHANGES, WHEN WILL THE STANDARD SAY 1907.45 All fire fighting must been done at least 300 feet from any burning structures.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spanner 122 on March 10, 2008 at 6:10pm

Makes me think of one of my Lt's. He said when he was a kid, the only time you wore a helmet was when you were going to try something really stupid... and if you saw a kid going somewhere with a helmet, you followed him because you wanted to know what he was going to do! lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Dumser on April 13, 2008 at 10:40am

Aw c'mon, Johnny and Roy used to wear theirs every time they responded! LOL
But seriously, the new standard makes perfect sense since fire helmets are NOT designed for crash protection. They are designed for protection from falling oblects. Stay safe!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Huw Jones on April 13, 2008 at 6:53pm

I know it makes sense,
I know of all the reasoning behind it,
But,
I wonder when we will be issued bubble wrap to dress in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kurt Umscheid on May 31, 2008 at 3:13pm

Joe:

Should:
"... shall be visible form each seating position."
read:
"... shall be visible from each seating position."
?

Kurt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Oldman on June 5, 2008 at 8:25pm

I understand the intent, I understand the issue. I appreciate the mechanics and the physics of collisions and rollovers. But.

"The minimum seat head height...." What about the minimum cab height? Or minimum cab width? With all the radios, thermal cameras, hand lights etc, the cabs are going to have to be taller to accommodate a compartment under the seat, or they will have to be wider to accommodate the brackets between the seats.

How about something really wild. Why don't we just put training wheels on the truck?

Or maybe teach operators not to drive so Willy Nilly, have the officer pay more attention to how the operator is driving, especially speed. Instead of making more rules, learn to keep ourselves in check.

And then again, I'll wake up and quit dreaming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on June 5, 2008 at 8:39pm

Probably should be "from". Hey, I just copied/pasted from Billy G.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by roy yoder on June 15, 2008 at 5:29pm

then why don't we go to a helment more to the design of rollover. like the one they use in europe. the fighter pilot style. i agree with what NFPA is trying to do and that is to keep us safe, but this is a standard and is not treated that way because of the lawyers pushing it to law. grants have helped out but still lack the money to keep up. just put in for a tanker and the 2009 standard will not allow us to purchase what we spec. out. we need to remember that although the military are always trying to make it safer for our troops to protect us the nature of the force is to overcome by whatever force is needed. they still give them guns and they train with them. we still fight fire and it is a dangerous job. i think we are trying to legislate common sense and training. if we took our training as serious as a soldier we would doo more and it would show in NFPA. they are only trying to keep stupid safe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary Dreyer on July 3, 2008 at 10:26am

All goo dcomments, the other requirement I read about was for each new apparatus to be delivered with and AED on board. I have also leared that the State EMS division has a rule, if you are part of an EMS agency, which our deparmtent is, and if you carry any medical equipment which can potentially be used for care of others, then you must carry all required medical equipment and have the vehicle licensed. This small requirement alone will cost our department an additional $2000.00 in equipment for vehicles that will never respond to medical emergencies. The EMS division also states that you cannot use Mutual Aid on EMS calls until all of you Licensed EMS Vehicles are tied up on EMS calls, therefore, the law/standard combination is trying to legislate us into not fighting fire. Currently, we have two licensed medical units and our local medical control understands the predicaments, so we have one unit on stand-by and leave the squad available for med runs. However, if this goes the way I see it happening the State EMS division will learn of the standard and use their lack of conmon sense as a money maker by fining every time we use mutual aid.
As a side note I am trying to work with our local legislatures to change the law and also interject common sense into the Divisions rules by making the requirement that key employees are to have field experience and be licensed themselves so that they have a basis for their interpretations.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion