Proper PPE for Firefighting

[Dinosaur 844]

We spend oodles of money to make sure every FF has proper structural firefighting gear.  Some departments go so far as to provide two sets to allow for cleaning, etc.

 

Why then, do we continue to wear the wrong or no PPE at all when fighting brush fires????

Am I the only one this bothers?  Isn't a couple hundred bucks worth the expense to properly protect our people?

[BFD1054 1,552]

Are you talking about structural PPE for brush fire fighting?

[ltwblazes 2]

?

 

[Dinosaur 844]

Yes. Wearing structural PPE (bunker gear) or not wearing any PPE while fighting large wind swept brush fires. 

 

[Bnechis 3,961]

13 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

We spend oodles of money to make sure every FF has proper structural firefighting gear.  Some departments go so far as to provide two sets to allow for cleaning, etc.

 

Why then, do we continue to wear the wrong or no PPE at all when fighting brush fires????

Am I the only one this bothers?  Isn't a couple hundred bucks worth the expense to properly protect our people?

Agreed, but it's approximately $650 per responder

[x635 4,066]

1 hour ago, Bnechis said:

Agreed, but it's approximately $650 per responder

 

But, what is the cost of lost firefighter productivity due to increased exhaustion of heavy and unnecessary structural turnout gear and the strains it adds to a firefighter? I believe LAFD did a study, I'm trying to find it. Most departments out West, and it's actually spreading nationwide, are equipping their firefighters with proper wildland gear. If some departments can afford a fancy brush truck, they can afford proper brush truck PPE.

[Dinosaur 844]

2 hours ago, Bnechis said:

Agreed, but it's approximately $650 per responder

 

Is it? What's that include because most of what I've seen comes in at substantially less than that. 

[dwcfireman 656]

14 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

Yes. Wearing structural PPE (bunker gear) or not wearing any PPE while fighting large wind swept brush fires. 

 

 

I know.  This is a good question.  From what I see as the norm right now is that firefighters will wear their full PPE and carry the necessary equipment deep into the woods, just to strip off the jacket because it's hot and firefighters get tired from the weight.  But, then again, we're not preparing ourselves for these large brush fires, rather the big structure fires (however, brush fires are just as common in rural and semi-subruban areas, and will become more common than structure fires as building codes and safety regulations further reduce the number of structural fires).  Should we spend more money and provide wildland PPE?  It's not a bad idea....the problem is money.

 

Regardless of cost and what we're doing now, I think, and generally speaking, a lot of trends on the west coast (firefighting wise) have eventually made their ways across the nation, i.e. bunker pants.  I would believe that at some point in the future east coast departments will at least have "universal" sets of wildland PPE for firefighters to respond to brush fires with.

[Bnechis 3,961]

7 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

 

Is it? What's that include because most of what I've seen comes in at substantially less than that. 

NFPA compliant wildland PPE: pants,coat, boots, gloves, helmet and face shield. I just added up the average costs for each from one of the equipment catalogs.

[Dinosaur 844]

9 hours ago, dwcfireman said:

 

I know.  This is a good question.  From what I see as the norm right now is that firefighters will wear their full PPE and carry the necessary equipment deep into the woods, just to strip off the jacket because it's hot and firefighters get tired from the weight.  But, then again, we're not preparing ourselves for these large brush fires, rather the big structure fires (however, brush fires are just as common in rural and semi-subruban areas, and will become more common than structure fires as building codes and safety regulations further reduce the number of structural fires).  Should we spend more money and provide wildland PPE?  It's not a bad idea....the problem is money.

 

Regardless of cost and what we're doing now, I think, and generally speaking, a lot of trends on the west coast (firefighting wise) have eventually made their ways across the nation, i.e. bunker pants.  I would believe that at some point in the future east coast departments will at least have "universal" sets of wildland PPE for firefighters to respond to brush fires with.

 

 

The problem is NOT money in most departments - at least in this area.  The problem is prioritization and management.  I could go on and on about shaving 150K from the price of a ladder that's 1.5 feet bigger than the one two houses over (cause you know, ours has to be bigger) but I won't.  I could say spend a little bit less on "extra-curricular activities" and buy the PPE your guys need. 

$50-75K would outfit 100 guys.  That's not a significant expense when you consider the fund balances a lot of these departments are sitting on (or were sitting on) and a city could budget for this over 3 years with little impact on an O&M budget.

 

It's just a matter of someone saying "we need to do this".  I'd prefer that over someone getting hurt, sick or worse because they're not wearing the right PPE or any PPE at all.

 

 

4 hours ago, Bnechis said:

NFPA compliant wildland PPE: pants,coat, boots, gloves, helmet and face shield. I just added up the average costs for each from one of the equipment catalogs.

 

You can't wear the same boots and helmet? 

Just curious.

[dwcfireman 656]

What if...stay with me on this one...departments purchased a bunch of sets of wildland gear for the department, but not for everyone?  I think it's a nominal idea that a department could at least buy 5 or 6 sets  (at a minimum) of wildland gear that would fit a majority of the personnel for brush fires.  What do the masses think about having wildland gear around for personnel to use WHEN they need to, and FOR the personnel that are there?  (Think similarly to water rescue suits)

[Capejake72 8]

grants are available from your state Forestry agency for Wildland PPE, either to purchase or to acquire from Federal stocks,

[Bnechis 3,961]

On April 22, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Dinosaur said:

 

 

The problem is NOT money in most departments - at least in this area.  The problem is prioritization and management.  I could go on and on about shaving 150K from the price of a ladder that's 1.5 feet bigger than the one two houses over (cause you know, ours has to be bigger) but I won't.  I could say spend a little bit less on "extra-curricular activities" and buy the PPE your guys need. 

$50-75K would outfit 100 guys.  That's not a significant expense when you consider the fund balances a lot of these departments are sitting on (or were sitting on) and a city could budget for this over 3 years with little impact on an O&M budget.

 

It's just a matter of someone saying "we need to do this".  I'd prefer that over someone getting hurt, sick or worse because they're not wearing the right PPE or any PPE at all.

 

 

 

You can't wear the same boots and helmet? 

Just curious.

If the boots are lace up yes, pull ups are questionable 

 

and the helmet for structural does not have a face shield for filtering smoke like a wildland one does

[x635 4,066]

Given the brush fire season we've had, we owe ourselves at least the opportunity to learn about what's out there, and how we can better perform given appropriate gear. 

[Dinosaur 844]

A new thread talks about a $2500 face mask equipped with built-in TIC and people are lining up to demo it.  I'm willing to bet there will be dozens in the Hudson Valley before the end of the year.

Meanwhile the OFPC allowed firefighters to go out in jeans and t-shirts to fight the wildfire in the Shawangunk Mountains this past week to work alongside forest rangers and parks crews wearing Nomex and carrying fire shelters.  Did the local FD crews have fire shelters?  Nope. 

We have to get our priorities straight!
 

http://www.recordonline.com/photogallery/TH/20160428/PHOTOGALLERY/428009998/PH/1