Robert Tutterow

Full disclosure: I am not a big fan of how most of the North American fire and emergency services provide personal protection from the neck up.

Specifically, this includes protection of the head during nonfire activities - which is the bulk of our responses. Eye and face protection is extremely void of any defined or standard design application for nonstructural responses. This month’s column is intended to give you and the collective fire and emergency services something to think about.

National Survey

To underscore this disclosure, a national survey (6,655 respondents) conducted earlier this year revealed that 61 percent of firefighters use eye and face protection that is not provided with their helmet. Of those 61 percent, safety glasses were used by 83 percent of those respondents. There is minimal use of face shields and/or goggles that come with helmets. How can I say that? During FDIC International, I paid particular attention to the videos of the H.O.T. training evolutions that occurred on the days before the general sessions. And, I studied the hundreds of photos that lined the walls in the long corridor between the Convention Center and the Lucas Oil Stadium. With several hundred examples, I found only one occurrence of helmet-provided eye protection being deployed. Almost without fail, firefighters had chosen to disregard the face shields, flip-downs, and goggles that come with helmets. In fact, a significant number of firefighters were wearing helmets without any eye/face protection. What were they using? Safety glasses. Safety glasses provide far superior protection over the ineffective protection provided with helmet-supplied face and eye protection. They are form fitting, may be sunglasses, and may have corrective lenses. NOTE: For structural firefighting, the self-contained breathing apparatus face piece, combined with a hood, provides excellent eye and face protection.

Are there better alternatives? Perhaps. Many fire departments have already adopted a policy of issuing two sets of turnout gear to its members. Other departments are aggressively seeking funding to do likewise. Typically, the second set consists of a turnout coat, turnout pants, a hood, and maybe a pair of gloves. Rarely is a second set of boots or a helmet issued. Since this topic is titled “From the Neck Up,” boots will not be discussed.

However, there might be a slightly different approach to issuing a second helmet. That approach is to offer only one structural helmet but then offer another multipurpose helmet. But first, why issue only one structural helmet? Because the need for a structural helmet for actual fire suppression is not nearly as high as the need for head, face, and eye protection for nonactive firefighting activities. One structural helmet should suffice if the helmet has a removable head band that could be easily cleaned or if each member were offered a second headband. Cleaning a helmet outershell is not that complicated and typically does not require any special equipment.

A Multipurpose Helmet

The thought of a multipurpose helmet occurred to me when I had a chance to participate in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services Symposium in Glasgow this past May. The sponsors of the Symposium were allotted tabletop displays. One of the tables displayed a helmet that was designed for urban search and rescue (USAR), paramedic, and water rescue. The only nonstructural application it did not cover was wildland firefighting. Perhaps it could be redesigned or modified for wildland.

Read more

• 192
• 0
• Article rating: No rating