FDNY's New Helmet Policy

[NOZ45ZLE 42]

http://www.firehouse.com/news/10815270/new-helmet-policy-angers-some-fdny-firefighters?utm_source=FH+Newsday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CPS121011003

[M' Ave 1,466]

This whole issue is preposterous....just another way the NFPA helps line the pockets of Morning Pride and all the other gear manufacturers. The city pays about $225 for a helmet. Over a 10 year period they're going to buy about 1,000 helmets a year. That's almost a quarter of a million dollars a year on helmets...what a complete waste of money.

Now....as for making guys pay $100 bucks to keep it; that B.S. too. I think we all DO get a little attached to our helmet and why shouldn't we be able to keep it? All the job is going to do with it is throw it in the garbage. Why bang a guy over the the head for $100?

[x129K 1,393]

I can ebay flooded with "authentic, seasoned, FDNY fire helmet" via NYC.gov................................

*see ebay flooded.

[Bnechis 3,961]

This whole issue is preposterous....just another way the NFPA helps line the pockets of Morning Pride and all the other gear manufacturers. The city pays about $225 for a helmet. Over a 10 year period they're going to buy about 1,000 helmets a year. That's almost a quarter of a million dollars a year on helmets...what a complete waste of money.

Having sat on an NFPA committee, I can tell you that NFPA does not make these rules, the committees do and while the manufacturers are well represented, so are the depts., chiefs and IAFF. When the NFPA came up with the 1983 standard (rope) it was all based on an FDNY LODD (x2) incident. FDNY demanded that the standard included that rope must be destroyed after 1 use. Every manufacturer voted against that, but it past because of the fire service out voted them.

I do not know if the 10 year issue of material breakdown is real when it comes to helmets. But I watched the testing of ropes that were stored in ideal conditions (kept on spools in a climate controled closet) and at the 10 year mark they lost 10% of their strength (because the air is slightly acidic). At what point does material breakdown pose a risk?

Now....as for making guys pay $100 bucks to keep it; that B.S. too. I think we all DO get a little attached to our helmet and why shouldn't we be able to keep it? All the job is going to do with it is throw it in the garbage. Why bang a guy over the the head for $100?

You are correct, they can not keep them, so why not let the members keep them. Its just a nasty little game to make some money off the member.

[nycmedic 65]

The helmet belongs to the city not the member. I agree with the city. If you want to keep the city owned helmet then you should pay for it.

[x129K 1,393]

Barry - do you feel that 10 years is too short of a life span for a helmet? I agree with the bunker gear, but the leather helmet I wear is a 1987 vintage, I have worn it for 20. It is well worn and "salty", but with the impact cap and NO wire showing or cracks, it is still in good shape.

25 years MAY be pushing the envelope a bit, but is it unreasonable to expect say...15 years of service from a lid? Maybe 20 for a composite like the Ben 2?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Barry - do you feel that 10 years is too short of a life span for a helmet? I agree with the bunker gear, but the leather helmet I wear is a 1987 vintage, I have worn it for 20. It is well worn and "salty", but with the impact cap and NO wire showing or cracks, it is still in good shape.

25 years MAY be pushing the envelope a bit, but is it unreasonable to expect say...15 years of service from a lid? Maybe 20 for a composite like the Ben 2?

I agree with what you are saying and I do not know what it should be.

But, While they still look good, is there strength loss from exposure & use that we do not know about?

Do you know that motor cycle helmets have a 5 year standard.

[x129K 1,393]

I did not..good point. Thanks

[PEMO3 523]

Interesting. If the manufacturer recommended the helmets should be considered for replacement starting every 5 years and the city said they were safe by their standards at a 10 year cycle the union and the membership would be up in arms demanding that they replace them every 4 years and 364 days and that the old "unsafe" helmets be destroyed so no one would use them and get hurt.

[nfd2004 750]

Today I have my UnApproved NFPA/OSHA Leather helmet that I was wearing when I decided to fly like a bird off a ladder from the second story window. I landed in about a 3 foot wide alley and my head apparently struck a three foot high concrete wall. Came down with airpack and helmet on. Apparently, my head hit that wall when I came down. Thank God for that helmet I was wearing. But at the time it was NOT approved and had no inner shell molding. I ended up with a few injuries from the fall, but NO Head Injuries. That helmet had been about 15 years old at the time. Even though it was an UNapproved helmet according to the NFPA and OSHA, "it did its job well".

I still have that busted up "Battled helmet" to remind me of what a good job a 1970s leather helmet did for me.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Having sat on an NFPA committee, I can tell you that NFPA does not make these rules, the committees do and while the manufacturers are well represented, so are the depts., chiefs and IAFF.

I understand that multiple agencies are represented, but It would be nice then to have the reasoning shared. I know that the FDNY offered to fund and conduct testing of helmets at 15 and 20 years to demonstrate the continued effectiveness. This NFPA mandate effectively doubles the income from helmet sales for the manufactures. Perhaps triple it in some cases.

The strength of a helmet, important is it is, cannot protect your body from blows to the head that may do damage to the spine, ect. So again, I'd be curious to hear the reasoning. Is it thermal breakdown? Does the internal suspension breakdown? Does it's actual ability to absorb impact become reduced? It would be nice to hear a bit of an expanded explaination.

Edited October 20, 2012 by M' Ave

[SECTMB 612]

The helmet belongs to the city not the member. I agree with the city. If you want to keep the city owned helmet then you should pay for it.

Fine, so charge $1.00 That takes care of the obligation, just as the Mayor must take $1.00 in pay rather than work for free.

[everybodygoes 331]

It is a joke. First off the only thing our helmets do besides protect from heat is to attempt to prevent penetrating injuries from objects. Our helmets contain very little to reduce the loads from impacts. Motorcycle helmets have a 5 year rating because the helmet contains foam that is designed to slow your head down when involved in a crash to prevent your brain from being shocked from the sudden stop. Foam breaks down over time because of its chemical structure. This whole thing is complete BS, show me a guy with a head injury and I will show a kinesiologist who can show that the helmet did nothing to prevent it, because practically all of our head injuries are to the spine from the load.

[M' Ave 1,466]

The helmet belongs to the city not the member. I agree with the city. If you want to keep the city owned helmet then you should pay for it.

It has no value. When you turn in ANY gear at the quartermaster, it goes from your hands to the clerks hands and into the garbage. How can you sell something that, apparently, has no value.

Up until now, used helmets ended up at The Rock. They are used in the flash-over simulator, members do not wear their own helmets in there. However, if the helmet is no longer fit for use in the field, surely it can't be fit to be used in that simulator. Again, it has not value.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

It has no value. When you turn in ANY gear at the quartermaster, it goes from your hands to the clerks hands and into the garbage. How can you sell something that, apparently, has no value.

Up until now, used helmets ended up at The Rock. They are used in the flash-over simulator, members do not wear their own helmets in there. However, if the helmet is no longer fit for use in the field, surely it can't be fit to be used in that simulator. Again, it has not value.

Ironically, I just finished a discussion in my Fire Service Instructor 1 course about how gear that isn't fit for operations should not be okay for training.

[grumpyff 1,159]

Interesting how the city takes different positions with different agencies under its control. On the PD side our bullet resistant vests are guaranteed for 5 years after that the vest is not under any coverage. However, that vest is the officer's for their entire career, unless you replace it on your own using your uniform allowance (which you would have to save for 2 years to pay for it). I think some bean counter figured out they could sell an authenticFDNY helmet to some wacker and make some money for the emporer to use on some anti soda campaign

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Wow, now keeping a vest more than 5 years is a BIG no-no. The liability protection you lose after that time is significant.

[nycmedic 65]

It has no value. When you turn in ANY gear at the quartermaster, it goes from your hands to the clerks hands and into the garbage. How can you sell something that, apparently, has no value.

Up until now, used helmets ended up at The Rock. They are used in the flash-over simulator, members do not wear their own helmets in there. However, if the helmet is no longer fit for use in the field, surely it can't be fit to be used in that simulator. Again, it has not value.

It has no value. When you turn in ANY gear at the quartermaster, it goes from your hands to the clerks hands and into the garbage. How can you sell something that, apparently, has no value.

Up until now, used helmets ended up at The Rock. They are used in the flash-over simulator, members do not wear their own helmets in there. However, if the helmet is no longer fit for use in the field, surely it can't be fit to be used in that simulator. Again, it has not value.

The fact that some many firefighters are in a uproar that they have to pay the city in order to keep the city owned helmet proves that it has a monetary value.

* so many

[SageVigiles 1,194]

The fact that some many firefighters are in a uproar that they have to pay the city in order to keep the city owned helmet proves that it has a monetary value.

* so many

Right, but the value isn't to the city, its too the firefighters. If the city takes them back just to throw them out, why not just give them away? You're going to pay to have them disposed of, etc.

[M' Ave 1,466]

The fact that some many firefighters are in a uproar that they have to pay the city in order to keep the city owned helmet proves that it has a monetary value.

* so many

Sage is right. It has SENTIMENTAL value, not monetary value.

Are you EMS or in privates?

[TEN30 5]

The fact that some many firefighters are in a uproar that they have to pay the city in order to keep the city owned helmet proves that it has a monetary value.

* so many

Why does this even matter to you? The $100 per helmet the city extorts will never materially benefit you. Nor will it hurt the FF who pays up. It just shows the pettiness of some employers towards there employees. The resulting profit will never overcome the loss in empoyee moral. nycmedic, if you really looked at this in an objective manner, you would see how childish it is. In other words, take the FF out of it, and insert another livelihood that you have respect for.

[BIGRED1 71]

I see no reason why the helmet can't be juist given to the guy who wore it. It is a object. The object had a value when it was new. After being used and as time past it depriciated. Now it is not of any value casue it is A) used and is "out of NFPA compliance" I would like to keep my helmet when i retire someday.

[Mac8146 61]

Problem with allowing members to keep helmet is they will still use it, the quartermaster tags the helmet and you are required to have notarized document stating that you will not use helmet again if you purchase it. Leather is out of FDNY as it is no longer listed in official publication as authourized gear. Only the morning pride ben II and the updated benII are helmets allowed. For the record last leather helmets issued by quartermaster was in 1995. Those that opted to purchase one on their own will now have to retire it and return the issued helmet most likely in pristine shape for a new helmet.

[CBX4627 114]

FYI: This $100 supposedly goes to the "FDNY Foundation".............................To me, it's just the city extorting money from me.............I'm waiting till my next paycheck to go get fleeced the $100, and get my new P.O.S. Ben II..............

[grumpyff 1,159]

The helmet belongs to the city not the member. I agree with the city. If you want to keep the city owned helmet then you should pay for it.

Does the helmet really belong to the city? Up until the mid 1990's the city gave members a uniform allowance to purchase gear. At some point it switched to a quartermaster system some time around the introduction of bunker gear to the FDNY. Maybe someone can correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the quartermaster system funded by what would have been the members uniform allowance? What happens to a members pants, boots, coats, etc when a member retires? Does it get returned to the quartermaster for inspection and re-issue? member takes it with them? gives it to other members of the company? The city is just looking to make a buck on the backs of firefighters. The helmet has no value to them.

[nycemt728 49]

Does the helmet really belong to the city? Up until the mid 1990's the city gave members a uniform allowance to purchase gear. At some point it switched to a quartermaster system some time around the introduction of bunker gear to the FDNY. Maybe someone can correct me if am wrong, but wasn't the quartermaster system funded by what would have been the members uniform allowance? What happens to a members pants, boots, coats, etc when a member retires? Does it get returned to the quartermaster for inspection and re-issue? member takes it with them? gives it to other members of the company? The city is just looking to make a buck on the backs of firefighters. The helmet has no value to them.

Now that's the first logical, non emotion driven response to this whole situatation. If this argument is correct, then members would have more of an arugment for keeping the helmets. If not, then clearly no one here has a grasp of economics. If we take that 5 year estimate on the low end, it costs money to do that, more so then if the department waits a few more years to implement a replacement cycle. If the department argument is that the 5 year mark is for member safety, then they pay a premium for that safety by replacing them so often. That being said, even though the department took the the responsibility of issuing uniform/equipment and therefore owns what it issues, it needs to be able to recoup some of the money associated with its chosen replacement timeline. Would it be nice if they were to give the old helmets to members when they replace them, the city is by no means obligated to do so. Members simply expecting to take what they want just because it was assigned to them is just as insulting to me tax payer as the their being insulted that the city wants them to pay for it.

A side note about uniform allowances: Definitely not a perfect system! I am sick of all public service agencies with allowances not enforcing proper uniform replacement rules. There should be no reason I should see veteran memebers with worn leather, gunked up boots, or ill fitting shirts on a regular basis. I realize uniform allowances are seen as a perk, but there must be a middle ground between a little extra cash every year and looking professional.

[nycmedic 65]

It does not matter what profession it is. If the city provided you with the helmet or if they gavr you a allowance to.buy the helmet. It still belongs to the city. If they want to charge you to keep the city.owned equipment then it is their right to do so. If the money goes towards the city's budget that is even better. It was mentioned that the $100 goes to the fdny foundation which is a nonprofit organization that benefits you and your job. Some woild think you would be proud tl support a organization that supports your livelihood and safety.

[Mac8146 61]

Upon retirement all gear is returned to quartermaster, it is used at proby school and burn simulator for training purposes. Also the quartermaster is a separate contract with city to provide supplies, all members get a uniform allowance albeit less than what we got prior to quartermaster. That is used for maintainence of equipment and so on. All members have an issued helmet from the quartermaster, I do not believe that anyone has a helmet they paid for prior to quartermaster issueing the approved helmets in the early 90's. If there are some i am sure they can keep what they paid for because there is no records of helmet being issued to them by quartermaster.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Mac8146

[16fire5 693]

I for one agree with retirement after 10 years. I find it hard to justify keeping a helmet more than 10 years in the environment we work in. Numerous times my helmet had been struck by falling objects and been exposed to significant heat. If you compare how long we are keeping our head protection compared to any other industry it shows how we still refuse to accept the facts on some issues. Too many people think their helmet reflects their experience. It doesn’t and there are way to many ways people artificially age their helmet (I refuse to even mention the ludicrous methods I have witnessed and heard about because I'm sure some will attempt them). It should also be noted that plenty of members have gone to change out their helmets and serious defects have been found that would have necessitated retirement of the helmet regardless of age.

As for the NFPA I agree with the sediment I'm sure manufactures are heavily represented and frequently recommend retirement goals that benefit their industry. The NFPA has a hard time getting good fire service representatives so part of it is the fault of the fire service. My biggest beef is what they usually call standards are not that. They are utopian goals. If 1% of the fire service has any chance of obtaining the standard it's not a standard. This has already been seen in 2010 South Carolina DOL issued violation to North Charleston based on what they read in NFPA standards. What followed is how numerous fire service leaders had to write letters to support North Charleston basically admitting that no one completely complies with NFPA 1500.

[grumpyff 1,159]

It does not matter what profession it is. If the city provided you with the helmet or if they gavr you a allowance to.buy the helmet. It still belongs to the city. If they want to charge you to keep the city.owned equipment then it is their right to do so. If the money goes towards the city's budget that is even better. It was mentioned that the $100 goes to the fdny foundation which is a nonprofit organization that benefits you and your job. Some woild think you would be proud tl support a organization that supports your livelihood and safety.

If the member was given an allowance, then the helmet is theirs to keep. I know I get a $1000 yearly allowance that is lumped into a regular paycheck and taxed. Out of the $1000 I take home about $560 to be used to purchase uniforms and equipment and maintain it thru the year. That money is spent very quickly...cargo pants run about $60, sweaters $60 to 80,shirts etc are not cheap. That equipment is mine to keep if I leave or retire. The only things I have to return are shield, id card, patrol guide and millenium mask. After getting a firearms permit, I even keep my service weapon at no cost.( the city does not purchase weapons for new hires, IIRC they are supplied by the PBA)

As for the 5 year time span mentioned in the article, the way I read it was that all existing helmets would be replaced in a 5 year time span, and then have 10 lifespan. Also why the slidung scale on price based on a members years of service? Does the helmet suddenly have less value if the member has more than 20 years on the job?

Edited October 21, 2012 by grumpyff