1. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WD6956 View Post
    That type of information is standard on most anything you buy. It's simply a way the manufacturers cover their ***. A Corvette's operators manual says to "Obey all posted speed limits" yet they make a car that goes almost 200mph and it has a 170mph speedometer.

    It's not that helmet manufacturers really give a rats *** if you paint your helmet or put a rubber band on it, but if they did NOT tell you not to do it and for whatever reason you had an issue, then you would sue them based on the fact that "They" never warned you.

    If that is your Chiefs argument for not putting things on your helmet, then show up what the tag on the inside of your turnout coat says. There is a whole list of things your not supposed to do. Including one that says

    "Do NOT use this garment if soiled, torn, abraded or worn"

    So, that means mister "By the book" Chief better get you a buch of spare gear. My gear gets soiled just walking in some places. If i spill coffe on my coat, should it pulled out of service? And worn? Define "Worn"? My gear is faded, that sounds worn to me. My gear does not in any way look new. So it's worn. I guess i technically should not be wearing it.

    Go look at any magenetic mount warning light, like a mini bar. You wll find a label that says "For stationary use only, not for use on a moving vehicle". Do you ever see anybody not putting a warning light on untill they go to the fire?

    McDonalds coffee cups have a warning on them, "Caution, coffee may be hot".

    Again, the vast majority of safety labels are completley worthless. If you followed them to the letter, you would get nothing done. They are nothing more then protection for the manufacturer.


    This is worth a read:

    http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/15/app...liability.html
    I am well aware of why the warnings are on there, I'm just giving the OP another possible reason as to why his chief won't allow additions on their helmet. As the chief, that's his perogative.

    But, to take into account your information, let's assume his chief does allow him to alter his helmet. Let's say he goes into a house and his helmet-mounted flashlight snags on some wiring and rips his helmet off. While in this mess, he stands up and knocks himself out on something because he has no helmet. Well, he's holed up in the hospital for a while and gets a visit from an attorney saying "you know, your chief allowed you to modify your helmet beyond what the manufacturer allowed, it's his and your department's fault your here." See where I'm going with this?

    Bottom line in this whole thing is something I said before, the chief is responsible for the department, the equipment, and his personnel. If he says "no" to modifying a helmet, you don't modify the helmet.

  2. #52
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Bottom line in this whole thing is something I said before, the chief is responsible for the department, the equipment, and his personnel. If he says "no" to modifying a helmet, you don't modify the helmet.
    No argument there.

    My posts show that. My only issue was if my Cheif was claiming it's an NFPA thing, point me to the rule. Not so i can argue it. But so i can have a better understanding as to why. Again, there is nothing wrong with having an understanding of a rule. No matter the rule. I am sure there are people who are simply too afraid to question anything. But you need to understand that just because you want to know why something is the way it is does not mean you are looking for an argument.

    Everybody is quick to say "Who cares why, shut up and do as your told". But i would rather know the reasons then to just simply go "OK". And ill say it again, knowing why is not so i can argue, i simply want to know for my own knowledge. Again, if your ok with blindly following anything and everything a superior tells you, that is your choice. On the fireground, ill do as i am told without hesitation. But anything i take issue with ill research later. Maybe ill bring it up with an Officer, maybe i won't. But people should know rules and regulations to have a better understanding.

  3. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    nfpa 1971 a.1.1.5

  4. #54
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onebugle View Post
    nfpa 1971 a.1.1.5
    That annwers that:

    "This standard shall not specify requirements for any accessories that could be attached to the certified product, but are not necessary for the certified product to meet the requirements of this standard"

    In other words, no NFPA regulation says anything about NOT being allowed to have a helmet band on your helmet, or a flashlight.

  5. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WD6956 View Post
    That annwers that:

    "This standard shall not specify requirements for any accessories that could be attached to the certified product, but are not necessary for the certified product to meet the requirements of this standard"

    In other words, no NFPA regulation says anything about NOT being allowed to have a helmet band on your helmet, or a flashlight.
    You got that out of NFPA 1971, a.1.1.5? I ask because I didn't find that sentence anywhere in a.1.1.5.

    The very first sentence of that section pretty much sums up the rest of what it says; "Fire and emergency response organizations are cautioned that accessories are nto a part of the certified product but could be attached to the certified product by means not engineered, manufactured, or authorized by the manufacturer."

    In short, if it's not on it when it left the manufacturer, or not authorized by the manufacturer as an approved add-on, it's not recommended to be added to your PPE.

  6. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WD6956 View Post
    That annwers that:

    "This standard shall not specify requirements for any accessories that could be attached to the certified product, but are not necessary for the certified product to meet the requirements of this standard"

    In other words, no NFPA regulation says anything about NOT being allowed to have a helmet band on your helmet, or a flashlight.
    You need to read the appendix as well, A.1.1.5, which puts more stipulations and requirements on such modifications. Hence the * after 1.1.5.

  7. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    You got that out of NFPA 1971, a.1.1.5? I ask because I didn't find that sentence anywhere in a.1.1.5.

    The very first sentence of that section pretty much sums up the rest of what it says; "Fire and emergency response organizations are cautioned that accessories are nto a part of the certified product but could be attached to the certified product by means not engineered, manufactured, or authorized by the manufacturer."

    In short, if it's not on it when it left the manufacturer, or not authorized by the manufacturer as an approved add-on, it's not recommended to be added to your PPE.
    He didn't...it was 1.1.5 with that sentence along with the * for more info in the appendix.

  8. #58
    B Shifter
    rjtoc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    My first sense is this guy has a major fear of liability. I'd be scared working for someone with that much fear of such an insignificant issue.
    I am not sure if "fear" is the correct word... maybe a healthy dose of respect. The Fire Chief bears the ultimate responsibility for the operation of the FD. His perspective is likely to be broader than a tailboard firefighter. If you are scared of your boss, you may need to go to Plan "B".

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I would disobey the order...
    I'd be careful with that one. Depending on where you work and your rank, the consequences of insubordination include progressive discipline up to, and including, termination. You could also be subjected to both civil action and/or criminal charges based on your actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Rule #1 Pick your battles. Is it really that important?
    That is excellent advice.
    Last edited by rjtoc2; 02-17-2010 at 09:39 PM.
    rjtoc2

    career Fire Captain
    IAFF member
    Native Texan (by way of New Orleans)


    ***The above post (s) is/are MY opinion and do/does not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or opinions of neither my employer nor my IAFF Local.***

    Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter accusations.

    A lack of planning on your behalf does NOT create an emergency on my behalf.

    When all is said and done, alot more is said than done

  9. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onebugle View Post
    He didn't...it was 1.1.5 with that sentence along with the * for more info in the appendix.
    That explains it. I went directly to the appendix.

  10. #60
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjtoc2 View Post
    "I would disobey that order"


    I'd be careful with that one. Depending on where you work and your rank, the consequences of insubordination include progressive discipline up to, and including, termination. You could also be subjected to both civil and criminal charges based on your actions.


    My bad, I left out the n't. While I wouldn't like it, I'd always concede to fulfilling the wishes of a superior and fight the battle via the Union or other solution. Short of out and out endangerment, I wouldn't support disobeying, there's usually a better time and place.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Leather Vs. Plastic Vs. Kevlar Vs. Fiber Glass, The....
    By SamsonFCDES in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-11-2004, 12:12 PM
  2. Helmet and NFPA
    By MGWENG2 in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2002, 03:55 PM
  3. Civilian Fire Fatalities
    By DCFF in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-08-2002, 08:18 AM
  4. NFPA & IAFC -- dissension in the ranks?? I hope not!
    By Jolly Roger in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2001, 12:21 AM
  5. Helmet Color and NFPA
    By phyrngn in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-17-2000, 06:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register