 Read more
- 276
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: Apr 4, 2017
By Alan M. Petrillo
Gloves are a major element in a firefighter’s personal protective equipment (PPE) envelope, and PPE manufacturers have evolved firefighting gloves into specialty areas of operations, from structural to rescue to wildland to specialty rescue.
Structural Firefighting Gloves
Karen Lehtonen, vice president of innovation and product management for Lion, says Lion makes six types of structural firefighting gloves, primarily made of leather with CrossTech barriers and various types of thermal protection. “Our most dexterous glove is the Lion Primus, a leather glove made with a combination of cow and sheep leather,” Lehtonen says. “It’s a 3-D glove pattern with a forchette area in between the fingers, made from sheep grain leather, which is softer and more flexible. It has a gauntlet-style cuff and is offered in regular and cadet sizes and in two extra-small and four extra-large versions. The Primus gives a better fit to the firefighter’s hand, which means better mobility.”
 |
| 1 Lion’s Primus structural firefighting gloves have a 3-D pattern with a forchette area on the fingers and a gauntlet-style cuff and are made from more flexible sheep grain leather. (Photos 1-4 courtesy of Lion.) |
Lion also makes the Lion Commander and Commander Ace structural firefighting gloves, Lehtonen points out. “The Commander is a long-standing model we offer where we enhanced the cut of the glove in three pieces for where the fingers and hand bend to give the glove more flexibility and dexterity. It’s offered in both wristlet and gauntlet style.”
Lehtonen adds, “The Commander Ace has the Commander’s design and performance but shortens the cuff to interface better with a turnout coat sleeve. It also has extra thermal protection on the back of the hand.”
 |
| 2 Lion’s Commander structural firefighting gloves are crafted so that the fingers and hand bend to give the glove more flexibility and dexterity. |
Tony Moore, regional sales manager for Fire-Dex, says his company makes the Dex-Pro structural firefighting glove, which, he notes, “the market is calling a driver’s glove because it has excellent dexterity.” Moore says the Dex-Pro has an ergonomic thumb pattern sewn separately into the palm of the glove to give it a 360° range of motion and maximum flexibility.
“This 3-D glove’s palm back and sides allow for a proper grip with the firefighter’s thumb,” Moore says. “And the dropped position of the pinky finger reflects its actual location on the firefighter’s hand. The palm is rolled back over the finger to eliminate the seam at the end of the finger, and the forchettes, which are the side panels, are precurved for each finger, giving them a natural form.”
Read more
- 217
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: Apr 4, 2017
By now most of you have heard, and hopefully read, the recently released Wingspread VI report.
The report contains 14 “Statements of National Significance to the United States Fire and Emergency Services.” If you have not read it, please do. It is the output of a diverse group of approximately 40 people from the American fire service who looked at the industry’s challenges and opportunities. I was fortunate enough to be a recorder for this event and hope to provide some perspective beyond the report.
About the Report
The Wingspread report gets its name from the Wingspread Conference Center located in Racine, Wisconsin. The center was developed around the former home of the Johnson Wax family designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The self-contained campus includes a small hotel-type facility to house participants. This report marked the 50-year anniversary of the first report. It has been published once every 10 years since it started in 1966. The conference started at the same conference center, hence its name, and was held there in 1966, 1976, and 1986. In 1996, the conference was in Dothan, Alabama, and in 2006, it was in Atlanta, Georgia.
The previous five conferences received very little publicity except for a short time after each report was released. For the most part, they were very general in nature and without any controversy. However, the 2016 report is a radical departure from the previous reports. It was put together by a larger group. It has the capacity to be distributed through multiple outlets, thanks to electronic and social media. But more importantly, it was decided that if the report was to have any impact, it must address key issues that are potentially controversial.
Another major departure of this report from previous reports is that it contains an action plan for each statement. Each plan identifies who is responsible for taking the action steps to address the challenges and opportunities. This could be a national group or several national groups. It could be a state or regional group. It could be each local fire and emergency service. Or, it could be each member of a fire and emergency service organization.
Tough Topics
Most of us are familiar with how difficult it is to reach consensus about “thorny” issues we face in this business. The U.S. fire and emergency services have always been very fragmented. There is no single governing or leading organization. They are services that rely on volunteers as well as people who choose the profession as a career. You can imagine the angst that ensued from some of the participants as the report was developed. For example, in this column I am using the term “fire and emergency services.” There was general, if not unanimous, consensus that the term “fire service” was no longer adequate to address the service level provided in most jurisdictions, nor was it a term that will adequately address the service into the future. After several possible terms and votes through a process of elimination, the group decided that “fire and emergency services” was the most appropriate term to use.
Another issue that remained contentious until the final draft of the document was whether to use the word “should” or “must” in the action plan. In the end, mainly because there is no enforcement authority, the group decided that “should” was the better word to use. But this was not a unanimous decision.
![1 Wingspread participants. [Photo by Chief Steve Hansen, Racine (WI) Fire Department.]](/content/dam/fa/print-articles/volume-22/issue-4/072116-Wingspread-VI-Group2.jpg) |
1
Read more
- 252
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: Apr 4, 2017
By now most of you have heard, and hopefully read, the recently released Wingspread VI report.
The report contains 14 “Statements of National Significance to the United States Fire and Emergency Services.” If you have not read it, please do. It is the output of a diverse group of approximately 40 people from the American fire service who looked at the industry’s challenges and opportunities. I was fortunate enough to be a recorder for this event and hope to provide some perspective beyond the report.
About the Report
The Wingspread report gets its name from the Wingspread Conference Center located in Racine, Wisconsin. The center was developed around the former home of the Johnson Wax family designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The self-contained campus includes a small hotel-type facility to house participants. This report marked the 50-year anniversary of the first report. It has been published once every 10 years since it started in 1966. The conference started at the same conference center, hence its name, and was held there in 1966, 1976, and 1986. In 1996, the conference was in Dothan, Alabama, and in 2006, it was in Atlanta, Georgia.
The previous five conferences received very little publicity except for a short time after each report was released. For the most part, they were very general in nature and without any controversy. However, the 2016 report is a radical departure from the previous reports. It was put together by a larger group. It has the capacity to be distributed through multiple outlets, thanks to electronic and social media. But more importantly, it was decided that if the report was to have any impact, it must address key issues that are potentially controversial.
Another major departure of this report from previous reports is that it contains an action plan for each statement. Each plan identifies who is responsible for taking the action steps to address the challenges and opportunities. This could be a national group or several national groups. It could be a state or regional group. It could be each local fire and emergency service. Or, it could be each member of a fire and emergency service organization.
Tough Topics
Most of us are familiar with how difficult it is to reach consensus about “thorny” issues we face in this business. The U.S. fire and emergency services have always been very fragmented. There is no single governing or leading organization. They are services that rely on volunteers as well as people who choose the profession as a career. You can imagine the angst that ensued from some of the participants as the report was developed. For example, in this column I am using the term “fire and emergency services.” There was general, if not unanimous, consensus that the term “fire service” was no longer adequate to address the service level provided in most jurisdictions, nor was it a term that will adequately address the service into the future. After several possible terms and votes through a process of elimination, the group decided that “fire and emergency services” was the most appropriate term to use.
Another issue that remained contentious until the final draft of the document was whether to use the word “should” or “must” in the action plan. In the end, mainly because there is no enforcement authority, the group decided that “should” was the better word to use. But this was not a unanimous decision.
|
1
Read more
- 269
- Article rating: No rating
Posted: Apr 4, 2017
By now most of you have heard, and hopefully read, the recently released Wingspread VI report.
The report contains 14 “Statements of National Significance to the United States Fire and Emergency Services.” If you have not read it, please do. It is the output of a diverse group of approximately 40 people from the American fire service who looked at the industry’s challenges and opportunities. I was fortunate enough to be a recorder for this event and hope to provide some perspective beyond the report.
About the Report
The Wingspread report gets its name from the Wingspread Conference Center located in Racine, Wisconsin. The center was developed around the former home of the Johnson Wax family designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The self-contained campus includes a small hotel-type facility to house participants. This report marked the 50-year anniversary of the first report. It has been published once every 10 years since it started in 1966. The conference started at the same conference center, hence its name, and was held there in 1966, 1976, and 1986. In 1996, the conference was in Dothan, Alabama, and in 2006, it was in Atlanta, Georgia.
The previous five conferences received very little publicity except for a short time after each report was released. For the most part, they were very general in nature and without any controversy. However, the 2016 report is a radical departure from the previous reports. It was put together by a larger group. It has the capacity to be distributed through multiple outlets, thanks to electronic and social media. But more importantly, it was decided that if the report was to have any impact, it must address key issues that are potentially controversial.
Another major departure of this report from previous reports is that it contains an action plan for each statement. Each plan identifies who is responsible for taking the action steps to address the challenges and opportunities. This could be a national group or several national groups. It could be a state or regional group. It could be each local fire and emergency service. Or, it could be each member of a fire and emergency service organization.
Tough Topics
Most of us are familiar with how difficult it is to reach consensus about “thorny” issues we face in this business. The U.S. fire and emergency services have always been very fragmented. There is no single governing or leading organization. They are services that rely on volunteers as well as people who choose the profession as a career. You can imagine the angst that ensued from some of the participants as the report was developed. For example, in this column I am using the term “fire and emergency services.” There was general, if not unanimous, consensus that the term “fire service” was no longer adequate to address the service level provided in most jurisdictions, nor was it a term that will adequately address the service into the future. After several possible terms and votes through a process of elimination, the group decided that “fire and emergency services” was the most appropriate term to use.
Another issue that remained contentious until the final draft of the document was whether to use the word “should” or “must” in the action plan. In the end, mainly because there is no enforcement authority, the group decided that “should” was the better word to use. But this was not a unanimous decision.
| | | |