NFPA update 2009 - No more helmets in apparatus

[Doc 11]

I just saw the new NFPA regs that are going into effect for 2009! I think I've had it. I was initially going to post this in one of the serious firefighting forums, but I can't bring myself to take this seriously. Sorry. NFPA should REALLY get into the business of regulating childrens playground toys.

I know, I know; NFPA had done a tremendous amount of good making this job safer and improving firefighter safety by establishing recognized standards. But just like Nichola Tesla oversteeped his genius by getting into mind reading and weather control machines, I think the NFPA's past success has gone to it's head and is just making new regulations to sell more books.

"The following is in the new revision of NFPA 1901, effective for apparatus contracted on and after January 1, 2009.

14.1.8.4* The following statement shall be included in the operators manual: Fire helmets shall not be worn by persons riding in enclosed driving and crew areas. Fire helmets are not designed for crash protection and they will interfere with the protection provided by head rests The use of seat belts is essential to protecting fire fighters during driving.

14.1.8.4.1 A location for helmet storage shall be provided.

14.1.8.4.2 If helmets are to be stored in the driving or crew compartment, the helmets shall be secured in compliance to section 14.1.11.2. (This relates to the gforce restraints.)

14.1.8.4.3 A label stating DO NOT WEAR HELMET WHILE SEATED shall be visible from each seating position.

A.14.1.8.4 The minimum seat head height values in this standard assume that the occupants are not wearing helmets. The use of helmets puts the occupant at greater risk of neck or back injury during a rollover or during a severe road event."

SO MY QUESTION: Anybody have ideas and recommendations for proactively fullfilling the NFPA requirement that structural helmets not be worn while riding in apparatus? I'm thinking the only safe place to put them in older apparatus would be in a compartment. Or maybe, just to be extra safe, we should assure that they are transported in a separate vehicle, like a cargo van or armored car - NO - a fortified, multi-million dollar Helmet Vehicle!!! Just to be sure... That is the only way we can protect ourselves from tyranny of the deadly firefighting helmet.

I'm still waiting for the NFPA regulation that requires spotters and the buddy system for using the toilet.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Wow, that is the most rediculous regulation I think I've ever heard. I'm flabbergasted.

[IzzyEng4 427]

How about common sense? DUH! I never wear a helmet in my rig.

[grumpyff 1,159]

Not

For

Practical

Application

Seriously, though, it does make some sense relating to interfereing with the head restraints. I can also see the need to prevent helmets from flying around the cab after an accident does occur. Just store them in a compartment (in cab perhaps)or outside on older apparatus.

[crcocr1 8]

I completely agree with the NFPA regulation. If you think about the kinetics of injury, there are any number of ways that you could injury yourself, your fellow brothers and sisters, and innocent citizens if a helmet is worn or loose within the fire truck. It is preventative litigation at its best.

[Guest]

Over here in Australia all new appliances are coming out with helmet carriers, its nothing dramatic, its simply a wire bracket, then as we arrive we put our helmet on, it sounds worse than it is, you can still don your set, still get everything rigged up, then as you pull up you stick your helmet on.

But its a sad reflection on society that litigation is the reson for doing things like this.

[16fire5 693]

Unfortunatly the NFPA standards are made by way too many people who don't fight fires. Many of their standards may be well intentioned but not well thought out. In my opinion many of there well intentioned standards create their own problems. The committes are made up of many manufacturers and equipment distributers. Realize our gear is heavier and our rigs are too big because of the NFPA and the same amount of firefighters die each year going to less fires. NFPA standards benifit the manufactures more than the firefighter.

[JTF429 37]

Some of the responses make me wonder. I have not seen the stats for LODD for 2007, but I am sure that vehicle crashes are up there. Why would you were your helmet in the rig. Mabey if you are trying to be like Johnny and Roy. I guess that means cops would have to wear motorcycle helmets. Not everything we do is safe. We should be wearing our seatbelts. Loose objects should be secure. NFPA are recomendations and common sense should prevail. There are reasons why we wear seatbelts, no longer ride the rear step, and wear airpacks. As silly as some of these recomendations are, we still kill over a 100 brothers and sisters each year. Our job is dangerous and we will always have LODD. It is up to us to reduce them. :angry:

[CTFF 65]

If I am not mistaken Phoenix FD has their SCBA's in an outside compartment on the rigs. I think this was done to solve the seat belt issue, it's more comfortable/easier to buckle up with out a pack.

This should not be a big issue at all. As long as you can secure your helmet in the rig (to the NFPA standard) you can throw it on as you are leaving the rig.

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

After 35 years of driving fire engines I have never worn my helmet while in route, I have it the first compartment next to the pump panel.

[Doc 11]

Good. I'm glad to hear that sanity IS ruling the day and people understand the REAL practical nature of this "exciting new standard" for common sense. However, I still do wonder how those helmets sitting on the doghouse / in the lap are secured for an impact. I know I see it all the time. Is EVERY crew member stashing a helmet in a compartment? Seems most just jump on the rig with helmet in hand and stash them on the doghouse, dashboard, wedge them behind the seat, between the knees, etc... where it ISN'T secure by NFPA's measure. So, what IS the prevailing policy? What is everyone using to secure their helmets? I was being a bit facetious in my initial post because: COME ON!?

A. People need to be TOLD not to bring projectiles into the cab of an apparatus after all the hubub about straps on mounted SCBA and tools?

B. Do we need warning labels on EVERYTHING for EVERY eventuality? or are people REALLY that thoughtless? I could go either way on this.

C. What tool mount manufacturer who's on the NFPA committee will offer the first $99.00 NFPA compliant helmet bracket?

D. Has EVERYBODY really thought about this?

It does seem like a joke at face value but this is actually a valid issue when you think about it. The other thing people seem to miss are those portable radios in drop chargers - without retention straps. Yeah, the radios are smaller, but that doesn't mean I want one launched in my face if we stop short or roll.

It's food for thought.

[ny10570 745]

Sadly DOC, yes people need to be forced to secure things in the cab. Radios and their mounts don't fit the requirements, so have the manufacturer deliver w/out radios and we'll mount them ourselves. Many members still don't feel it necessary to buckle up, so we're a little bit behind securing everything in the cab.

[RES20CUE 40]

I completly agree with the standard. I have never worn a helmet riding in an apparatus, in fact I have written SOP's prohibiting the wearing of helmets in apparatus. It is one of the dumbest things anyone can do in a cab other than not wearing a seat belt.

When I was in Virginia, an engine had to stop short while responding and a firefighter wearing a helmet, snapped his neck when the brim of the helmet hit the glass separating the jumps from the driver/officer. He never returned to work- permanently disabled!!!

As far as securing the helmets, look at the requirements for g-force restraints. It usually doesn't require a separate compartment. There are numerous manufacturers out there that make NFPA compliant mouting brackets for tools and equipment. It may not be as hard as you think to secure them to meet the requirement.

As far as portable radio restraints- if you look at the newer ones, they are equipped with some form of a securing strap.

Edited March 6, 2008 by RES20CUE

[res6cue 67]

I agree 100% with this standard.

Wearing a helmet in the rig IS dangerous, for all the reasons already stated in the standard itself, as well as by several members here who are clearly not blinded by their cynicism towards the NFPA enough to ignore basic common sense.

[RWC130 594]

OH BOY...

Someone better call Squad 51 to let Johnny and Roy know about this!

I also agree! Fire Helmets should NOT be worn in the Apparatus.

Everything inside the cab should be secured. SAFETY FIRST!

[TRUCK6018 50]

Unfortunatly the NFPA standards are made by way too many people who don't fight fires. Many of their standards may be well intentioned but not well thought out. In my opinion many of there well intentioned standards create their own problems.

NFPA standards aren't written because the writers have nothing better to do. They aren't written because the writers are trying to figure out how things can be made safer. These standards are written to prevent an injury from happening again!

Of course most of us have never seen that FF Joe Schmo was injured from his helmet, but, when there are apparatus accidents data is collected as to how the occupants are injured and the direct MOI being an helmet must be on the list. If there's an apparatus crash and a firefighter is wearing his helmet be assured that the back of the seat is going to stop the brim of the helmet before it stops his neck and spine.

It's unfortunate but apparatus accidents never seem to go away but if you look at the evolution of the fire vehicle, every standard that has been written has made a difference in preventing additional injuries. From banning tail boarding to the totally enclosed cab to air horns and sirens being mounted in front of the cab. These are all improvements that have been made to the vehicles of yesteryear that have caused injuries.

I personally don't see what the problem is things being safer is.

[IzzyEng4 427]

After 35 years of driving fire engines I have never worn my helmet while in route, I have it the first compartment next to the pump panel.

Same here and I go one step further, I never wear my coat when I'm the apparatus driver also. Why you may ask? Simple, a bulky turnout coat restricts your up body motion, think about when you wear a winter coat and you have layers underneath (t-shirt, sweatshirt, ect.) to keep warm. When driving apparatus of any type you should have a full upper range of motion to steer and also turn and move your body when you need to look out a window. If your wearing your turnout coat and have to make an evasive maneuver, it becomes harder to move that if not restricted with less bulky clothing. There is nothing wrong in my opinion for a drive not to wear turnout or just wear turnout pants. It only takes a few second for a driver to put the rest of his gear on after setting up the truck.

Usually when I drive I'll either be in my street clothes (this depending how fast I get to my vollie station) or I'll wear my turnout pants only (both vollie and at work). My helmet and coat are either stored in the Driver's compartment of my truck or in the passenger section of the cab (depending on how many riders there are).

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

For a young guy you are pretty smart. same as helmet my coat is next to it in first compartment, and wearing my turnout pants and leather boots while driving.

[IzzyEng4 427]

For a young guy you are pretty smart. same as helmet my coat is next to it in first compartment, and wearing my turnout pants and leather boots while driving.

I just play it off very well.... I'm coolage edumecated!!! LOL

(yes its supposed to be misspelled)

[Bnechis 3,961]

Unfortunatly the NFPA standards are made by way too many people who don't fight fires. Many of their standards may be well intentioned but not well thought out. In my opinion many of there well intentioned standards create their own problems. The committes are made up of many manufacturers and equipment distributers. Realize our gear is heavier and our rigs are too big because of the NFPA and there been mount of firefighters die each year going to less fires. NFPA standards benifit the manufactures more than the firefighter.

Having been an NFPA committee member I see that too many ff's want nothing to do with the process. Since everyone has the ability to comment on what the committee is developing, if you dont comment then whose falt is it?

Can you explain how "Our rigs are too big because of NFPA"? Other than forcing everyone of the back step into an inclosed cab like many rigs were in the 1930 - 40's or during the 60's in inner cities that had to protect the members from rocks.

what makes our rigs so big is depts that ride with 2 ff's but buy 10 man cabs so they can get a trophy at the parade.

The single biggest killer of firefighters is cardiac and prevention is addressed in NFPA 1500 which has been out for over 10 years, how many FD's follow it?

2nd biggest killer is responding/returning from calls. 2 issues here 1st not wearing seat belts is #1, NFPA requires it maybe if more depts followed it there would be less LODD. 2nd issue is rigs that were modified or remain in service beyond there save life (also an NFPA issue).

[Guest]

Same here and I go one step further, I never wear my coat when I'm the apparatus driver also. Why you may ask? Simple, a bulky turnout coat restricts your up body motion, think about when you wear a winter coat and you have layers underneath (t-shirt, sweatshirt, ect.) to keep warm. When driving apparatus of any type you should have a full upper range of motion to steer and also turn and move your body when you need to look out a window. If your wearing your turnout coat and have to make an evasive maneuver, it becomes harder to move that if not restricted with less bulky clothing. There is nothing wrong in my opinion for a drive not to wear turnout or just wear turnout pants. It only takes a few second for a driver to put the rest of his gear on after setting up the truck.

Usually when I drive I'll either be in my street clothes (this depending how fast I get to my vollie station) or I'll wear my turnout pants only (both vollie and at work). My helmet and coat are either stored in the Driver's compartment of my truck or in the passenger section of the cab (depending on how many riders there are).

Izzy,

I couldn't agree with you more. I NEVER wear my gear when I'm driving the apparatus. Anyone who thinks they can handle a 20+ ton piece of fire equipment just as well wearing a turn-out coat as without should not even be allowed to drive (just my opinion). All of our apparatus has room in some compartment on the drivers side where I can stow it safely, and get it on when we arrive.

[FFD941 20]

OH BOY...

Someone better call Squad 51 to let Johnny and Roy know about this!

Ha Ha You Totally Stole My Post LOL :lol:

Edited March 6, 2008 by FFD941

[Guest ECAFD3]

If you cant opperate a piece of fire apparatus with a jacket you shouldnt be operating it at all.

[ny10570 745]

If you cant opperate a piece of fire apparatus with a jacket you shouldnt be operating it at all.

Grow up and drop the ego. One of the biggest features touted by any PPE manufacturer is the range of motion improvements over the previous design. Thats because no matter well its designed, the jackets are bulky and restrict your movement. Dump your jacket in the back or even better in a compartment so you can move freely and react fully in case something happens.

[x635 4,066]

If you cant opperate a piece of fire apparatus with a jacket you shouldnt be operating it at all.

How much experience do you have driving fire apparatus?

I believe, like others have said, that PPE actually impedes driving, and the helmet lowers visibilty and is actually dangerous. Before my injury, when I was assinged as an apparatus operator, I'd find that most of my role didn't require PPE and I resented having to wear it while responding. It defenietly impeded driving due to it being so cumbersome, as NY1070 referred to.

Here's what LA City does with their helmets while in transit (you're looking at the cieling of the cab):

(Photo by me)

[Bnechis 3,961]

Here's what LA City does with their helmets while in transit (you're looking at the cieling of the cab):

At the FDSOA vehicle seminar in January, This was a major topic (many members of the NFPA committee were there) one of the speakers (he was from FDNY) spoke about the LA City Helmets, but he called them "Flower Pots"......

[LCFD968 10]

X635... are those helmets just sitting on the track or are they secured? It seems they are unsecured and if so they can still be hazard if they were involved in an accident. just curious

[x635 4,066]

X635... are those helmets just sitting on the track or are they secured? It seems they are unsecured and if so they can still be hazard if they were involved in an accident. just curious

They fit snugly into the bracket, and are further secured via an elastic strap. Here are two more photos. I don't know if this is a commercially made bracket, all I know is that it is an LA City FD spec, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. It is delivered from Pierce in Wisconsin with the bracket installed. From experience, the helmets don't move no matter how much the engine moves!!! And, the helmets are very lightweight (yet durable), so they aren't much of a dangerous projectile.

And for the record, I love the Phenix Helmets! MUCH more comfortable then the tradtional helmets!

-Seth

Photos by me.

[Oswegowind 17]

I am not a firefighter nor chauffeur, but why in the world would you need to wear your gear while driving to the scene of the fire? I mean come on, what time does it save? You either get dressed, get into the truck (excuse me), and then go to the scene OR you get in the truck, go to the scene, and then get dressed... If safety is what we are talking then I would rather see you do the latter and not make the million dollar handling machine any harder to drive than needed!!!!

[ny10570 745]

While I have yet to read about any fatalities coming from projectiles within the cab, I have ready several reports that attribute some very significant injuries and near misses to in cab projectiles. Since everything agencies like NFPA and OSHA do is cost benefit based this is a cheap fix for a real problem.

Fatal accidents are usually the result of operator error. While speed usually plays a factor, its not because they're going 60 or 70 miles an hour. Its because they go through intersections at 40 mph or catch a soft shoulder on a winding rural road. So should they all be governed at 25 mph? You make the trucks idiot proof and we'll just build a better idiot. I every accident where some survived and others did not the difference I saw was seatbelt use.

Air bags are beginning to make their way into fire apparatus. Its not as simple as installing them in cars. There is significantly more area to cover. The first effective solution was found with the side curtain airbags that are finding their way into more and more cars.

Ambulances are even further behind because there really hasn't been much attention placed on them. The tools and equipment to safely secure everything in the back of an ambulance is there and has been for a while. The problem is just like the seatbelt issue, getting people to use the tools that are available.