Helmets and Gear catches fire in Tulsa

**FFFRED** · 05-08-2005, 11:06 AM

I was watching the news today and apparently the AP wire picked up a story out of Tulsa which as I find out has been having a rash of arson fires.

Well the video clip posted here that I found thanks to Google:
Tulsa firemens gear catches fire

In the video you can see two brothers with their helmets/gear on fire.

Stay safe out there.

FTM-PTB

**GeorgeWendtCFI** · 05-08-2005, 11:16 AM

I saw this on Fox last night. Wild.

I can tell you from a previous investigation that a flashover atmosphere can have a heat flux of between 20-30 kw/m2. The gear in my incident was tested to about 5 kw/m2. No gear designed today is speced to withstand a flashover atmosphere. Although, as you can see in the video, it will give you a fighting chance, if you are near an opening, to get out (remove the gear from the intense heat flux).

This gear is not fireproof, but it is darn sure more fire resistant than you are. Wear it all all the time...especially that hood.

**blancety** · 05-08-2005, 11:24 AM

Did you notice that one of the brothers airpack had burned through to a point where the bottle was hanging free from the bottom connection? Another big concern.....maintaining you air supply.

**GeorgeWendtCFI** · 05-08-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by hfd66truck
Did you notice that one of the brothers airpack had burned through to a point where the bottle was hanging free from the bottom connection? Another big concern.....maintaining you air supply.

I hadn't noticed that. Good catch.

In the incident I am referring to, the SCBA with the nylon straps burned to the point where the straps were completely consumed...nothing left except the buckles. The Nomex straps survived almost intact. It would be interesting to know if these packs had Nomex straps.

**MemphisE34a** · 05-08-2005, 12:42 PM

You guys must have watched the video with the volume off. The story states that the firefighters had spilled flammable liquids on them that were burning. Their equipment did not just catch fire. A spokesperson stated that after the incident the helmet nor the face shield were even melted or scorched.

C,mon guys. I am not saying that these guys would not have been injured had they not been wearing proper protective equipment, I am just saying that it seems you guys have been drawn in to media sensationalism like John Q.

**GeorgeWendtCFI** · 05-08-2005, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by MemphisE34a
You guys must have watched the video with the volume off. The story states that the firefighters had spilled flammable liquids on them that were burning. Their equipment did not just catch fire. A spokesperson stated that after the incident the helmet nor the face shield were even melted or scorched.

C,mon guys. I am not saying that these guys would not have been injured had they not been wearing proper protective equipment, I am just saying that it seems you guys have been drawn in to media sensationalism like John Q.

How is it media sensationalism if one is quoting scientific facts that were put together by a government agency? Brother, I know for a fact that Nomex gear does burn if it is exposed to flashover conditions. Perhaps a better explanation of your post may clear things up.

**blancety** · 05-08-2005, 01:48 PM

Jeez, the footage I saw had volume and the was no mention of flammable liquids...just that the fire was believed to be arson.

I love how everyone shoots from the freaking hip....!!!!

**erics99** · 05-08-2005, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by hfd66truck
Jeez, the footage I saw had volume and the was no mention of flammable liquids...just that the fire was believed to be arson.

I love how everyone shoots from the freaking hip....!!!!

Well then watch it again...

**BC79er_OLDDELETE** · 05-08-2005, 02:01 PM

Listen again. The reporter says what was burning was paint supplies spilled on the gear, and the 2nd FF talked to said there was no charring of the helmets or any other parts of the gear.

It doesn't minimize the facts that there were no injuries, or that gear can burn even if it didn't in this case. It just looked a whole lot worse than it really was, thank God.

At least it underscores the importance of proper PPE to the public. Maybe we all ought to use this to make sure that our municipalities give us the good stuff.

**MemphisE34a** · 05-08-2005, 03:16 PM

---------------------------------------------------------
Quote by George:

How is it media sensationalism if one is quoting scientific facts that were put together by a government agency? Brother, I know for a fact that Nomex gear does burn if it is exposed to flashover conditions. Perhaps a better explanation of your post may clear things up.
---------------------------------------------------------

George I am not disputing any of your facts. I am willing to concede that all of your information is correct. I certainly could not prove you wrong, nor would I like to. My point is that all of the information you talked about was NOT the case here. The firefighters were not in flashover conditions. They were NOT in an enviroment that caused their gear to burst into flames. They were in a structure fighting fire and were partially covered in a small amount of burning flammable liquid.

As I stated, had they not been wearing their gear would they have been burned? Certainly. Is this a situation for us to prove how important it is for us to wear full gear and how effective it can be? Yes again. Is it good for the public? Is it another example of how we are the good guys and display the dangers we can encounter on a daily basis? Absolutely. Was it as big a deal as the media made it out to be? No, it was not. Thats all.

**firenresq77** · 05-08-2005, 06:13 PM

Wow...... Glad everyone was OK........

**blancety** · 05-08-2005, 06:24 PM

Ok Eric,

So my bad for watching it on local TV and not watching the supplied link.......

In the meantime, the result is the same. They entered a structure fire and when they exited their gear was on fire. Regardless of the cause being flammable liquids being spilled on them or whatever. Their gear protected them and no one was injured. The Airpack did suffer some sort of failure, at least it appears that way as most of us do not allow the bottle to hang loose as it appears in the footage.

None of my comments where fed by anything other than the fact that these guys went in not on fire, and came out on fire. They didn't get burned and everyone went home. Did the gear burn, no. Would they have been injured if they weren't wearing all their gear...most likely.

Everyone needs to step back from the coffee pot.....

**GeorgeWendtCFI** · 05-09-2005, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by MemphisE34a
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote by George:

How is it media sensationalism if one is quoting scientific facts that were put together by a government agency? Brother, I know for a fact that Nomex gear does burn if it is exposed to flashover conditions. Perhaps a better explanation of your post may clear things up.
---------------------------------------------------------

George I am not disputing any of your facts. I am willing to concede that all of your information is correct. I certainly could not prove you wrong, nor would I like to. My point is that all of the information you talked about was NOT the case here. The firefighters were not in flashover conditions. They were NOT in an enviroment that caused their gear to burst into flames. They were in a structure fighting fire and were partially covered in a small amount of burning flammable liquid.

As I stated, had they not been wearing their gear would they have been burned? Certainly. Is this a situation for us to prove how important it is for us to wear full gear and how effective it can be? Yes again. Is it good for the public? Is it another example of how we are the good guys and display the dangers we can encounter on a daily basis? Absolutely. Was it as big a deal as the media made it out to be? No, it was not. Thats all.

Methinks that you are the one guilty of shooting from the hip here.

1. The gear was on fire. I made a comment with scientifically gathered data from an investigation that I ran that gave information about how turnout gear can burn. I didn't say it happened in this case. The information was provided to give others not as smart as you an idea of heat that structural fire fighting gear can withstand. It was also posted to let those who believe that Nomex=fireproof know that it certainly is not.

2. The point of my post was summed up in the second paragraph in which I stated:

This gear is not fireproof, but it is darn sure more fire resistant than you are. Wear it all all the time...especially that hood.

Argue with me all you want. But you should at least understand what I am saying before you do.

**Neman13** · 05-09-2005, 07:21 AM

What she said was paint from the attic, it was not a flashover that burned them.

**GeorgeWendtCFI** · 05-09-2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Neman13
What she said was paint from the attic, it was not a flashover that burned them.

IT DOESN'T MATTER! I WAS PROVIDING A REFERENCE POINT! GOOD GOD!

**MemphisE34a** · 05-09-2005, 08:24 AM

George

Who is arguing?? I never stated that you were shooting from the hip. I never disputed any of your information. You made your point and I made mine. Isn't that what the forums are all about?

**GeorgeWendtCFI** · 05-09-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by MemphisE34a
George

Who is arguing?? I never stated that you were shooting from the hip. I never disputed any of your information. You made your point and I made mine. Isn't that what the forums are all about?

It was the accusation of sensationalizing this incident that I took exception to.

You're right. We both made our points.

**EastKyFF** · 05-09-2005, 09:18 AM

The cadets shown in that news piece include FH user Silver City 4. I am not sure if you can see him, but he's in the Tulsa academy right now.

I think he's the one with his helmet on backwards...

**Smoke20286** · 05-09-2005, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

Methinks that you are the one guilty of shooting from the hip here.

1. The gear was on fire. Argue with me all you want. But you should at least understand what I am saying before you do.

Here is the error in your statment, according to the supplied link The gear WASNOT on fire. What burned was accelerent (?) that spilled from the attic. The gear was ,according to the spokeman, unharmed

**EFD840** · 05-09-2005, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by EastKyFF
The cadets shown in that news piece include FH user Silver City 4. I am not sure if you can see him, but he's in the Tulsa academy right now.

I think he's the one with his helmet on backwards...

Cool. Too bad he doesn't post too much anymore, he was great for giving guidance to underfunded FDs....

Most Popular

Thread: Helmets and Gear catches fire in Tulsa

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Helmets and Gear catches fire in Tulsa

escuchen porfavor

Re: escuchen porfavor

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions