Turnouts burnthrough protection: feedback please

[firecrow]

This is a burnthrough from a new set of Globe GXtreme set of turnouts. The fire was contained to a closet and the exposure was from embers when the fire was hit with water. Exposure in the structure in total was minor and around 8 to 10 minutes. The gear is 1986 revision NFPA 1971 compliant, but we were surprised at the damage to the out layer. See photos.
(http://www.acsl.com/burnthrough)

Does anyone have any experience with this? Is this reasonable? I'm obviously concerned, thinking if it was a much bigger fire with a greater degree of exposure by time or intensity, would it have failed catastrophically? Is the outerlayer potentially defective?

The older gear we have which is much heavier seems to stand up much better. Obviously the gear is going in for repair and inspection but I was wondering if anyone here had any experience with this as well.

[snowball]

We have had problems with outer shell failure. It was determined that UV rays from being exposed to too much sunlight was the main cause followed closely by improper laundering. The problems have disappeared.

[firecrow]

We have had problems with outer shell failure. It was determined that UV rays from being exposed to too much sunlight was the main cause followed closely by improper laundering. The problems have disappeared.

This is brand new gear we bought, its a month old! Literally out of the package and onto the rack!

[FyredUp]

I have had similar problems with turnout gear. Especially the stuff i use teaching. In fact a brand new pair of black PBI bunker pants were ruined stoking the fire in the tower. I was standing by the fire throwing pallets on and when I came outside I noticed that all the color was gone from te front of both legs, they had faded to red and that the bottoms of the pants were charred. Now before anyone goes crazy on me I had been doing the same exact thing for 5 years in my previous turnouts and never did the damage that was done to these pants. They were made out of Nomex Delta T.

I am admittedly hard on gear but the failure of my new set seems quite disturbing to me.

I have experienced pin size burn throughs and charring on my "regular" FD gear also.

[Halligan84]

NFPA 1971 1986 edition was superceded in 1991. Is it really brand new or used? The current version is 2007

[Dickey]

Yup, have seen that before.

If it is "old" gear, you really should update to the 2007 version. If they are "brand new, a month old" then your supplier should stand behind it and replace it.

Gear, no matter how new, old or what it's made out of, if an ember is left to continue to burn in direct contact with the material it will eventually burn a hole in it.

[nameless]

i'm confused about the 1986 revision part. why would they make gear to a 22 yr old standard

[firecrow]

It is brand new, I looked up the specs on the Globe website for the model but I could be wrong... dunno. I do know these are fresh from the manufacturer. Its the Globe GXtreme series, inside the jacket NFPA 1971, 2007 Edition. Outer shell says 07-NOMEX/DEFENDER 750 TAN, Thermal Layer 82-ARMALITE NP Moisture Barrier 4-CROSSTECH TYPE 2C.

[Halligan84]

That makes sense now. Used to see the burn through with Nomex, not really good against burning materials pressed up on them. The dyed PBI tends to turn red from radiant heat, never saw the charring though.

[Station2Capt]

I am by no means an expert on turnouts, but by just looking at the pictures you provided it is appearent that some type of burning material was in direct contact with the turnouts long enough to cause the burns. It should be noted that the outter shell does or should provide protection from direct flame contact, but in general it is only rated for so many seconds. If a larger ember lands on your coat and sits there for a minute or so, yes burns of this nature can easily occur. From the looks of it these burns are fairly small and may be able to be "patched" by a certified facitity. If this is possible it would be less expensive than a total replacement, an option your department may want to look into. You stated that the gear was "brand new" but the gear is only designed for a specific level of exposure and you may have exceeded this level of protection if an ember was in direct contact for more than the rated time of exposure. Of course I would look into talking to your sales rep for advise on this situation. If the gear has to be replaced, it has to be replaced. As my Chief has said when we have something like this occur "It's the cost of doing business". I would recommend you or anyone else interested in how turnouts are designed and tested to go to Globe's or any other manufacture's website. You can find some very interesting information regarding materials and how they are tested to meet NPFA requirements.

[firecrow]

The gear has gone in for repair, and I expect it back in a week or so. I'm sure the higher-ups have looked at it. We too thought that it was exposure to landed embers, but I did expect the outer shell to hold up better than that. The old Starfield stuff we have kicking around the station is a much heavier material and weave but it seems to tolerate exposure much better.

Its hard to tell what to expect, which is why I posted here to see if anyone else had a similar experience. I am sure the vendor has been contacted for an opinion on it, but I am shocked at the lack of protection the outer shell provides. I have a pair of Nomex flight gloves I use camping and have routinely use them to move embers to put pots or food into the fire and they never have a mark on them - I expect something labeled 'Nomex' to work better than that...