We’re trying something new here at Firegeezer today. One of our readers, Matt B. wants to debate the pro’s and con’s of helmet styles. So he’s going to kick this off with his opinion and we’d like to hear yours, too. Write down your rebuttal, or agreement, in the Comments following Matt’s statement. Tell us what you think. Ok, here’s Matt:
First off, just so you know, I wear a Cairns 1010 at my station and keep a Cairns 360 Structural in the trunk of my car. My volunteer fire department issued me the 1010, but as happens with a lot of volunteers I picked up an additional one on my own dime. I bought the 360 because it was inexpensive, it was lightweight, and it’d afford some protection if I were helping out at a rescue on the side of the road.
Cairns 360
A lot of guys I know, however, drop up to $600 for specialty leather helmets like the Sam Houston to supplant their standard department-issued helmet. As far as I can tell, this happens for three reasons: 1) they’re more comfortable, which I can understand, 2) they look really cool, and 3) they’re a reflection of a fire service tradition. Never mind the fact that they don’t afford any additional protection, that wearing self-purchased equipment can raise liability questions, or that it’s very difficult to decontaminate a leather helmet.
Cairns 1044
I don’t want to get into the “leather forever” debate, and I recognize that these helmets are a reflection of an esprit de corps that is important to fire service morale. But it’s not just the leather component- Americans consciously choose fire helmets whose entire design is an anachronism. We force manufacturers to juggle protective capabilities against cosmetic features like oversized brims and high-profile shield holders, instead of holding them accountable for building the safest possible helmet, period.
Wildland firefighters, as well as our foreign brothers in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Japan, long ago embraced helmets solely designed for protection, not “tradition” or fashion. But when I’ve mentioned this at the dinner table in my station, most responses tend to center around how silly “other” helmets look, and how American-style helmets are the best fit for, and I quote, “real” firefighting.
Asian helmet
I’ve been involved with fire departments in four states, all on the East Coast, and in seven years have seen a grand total of two jet-style helmets in front-line use. Both were purchased by their wearers, and not by the department. (If someone else has seen them in action in the US, please let me know.)
I found it interesting that their buddies were quietly jealous at the comfort, protection and durability of the jet-style helmets, and even acknowledged they were probably safer. But these guys couldn’t make the leap to ask their leadership to purchase a few, let alone shell out their own cash, because they were universally afraid of being mocked for wearing something new, different or “unfashionable.” Where else in our protective ensemble or equipment lockers would we admit to letting tradition take precedence over safety? Our fire apparatus? Our medical gear?
UK helmet
I’m not saying that jet-style helmets are the answer to everything. But do we have any practical reasons for continuing to place such a premium on history and tradition in the design of a piece of gear that’s built to keep our heads safe? And if not, what will it take to get the American fire service to start demanding protective equipment that puts function first, and fashion last? Because if we want it, they’ll make it.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Update, April 7, 3:00 pm:
As a point of information, Firegeezer reader Carl S. has sent along this photo of the MSA helmet being used by the Quebec City FD.
You can see several more fireground shots illustrating the helmet “in action” HERE. (Fire photo fans, be sure to click on it.)
The Helmet Debate – Jump In
32 commentsWe’re trying something new here at Firegeezer today. One of our readers, Matt B. wants to debate the pro’s and con’s of helmet styles. So he’s going to kick this off with his opinion and we’d like to hear yours, too. Write down your rebuttal, or agreement, in the Comments following Matt’s statement. Tell us what you think. Ok, here’s Matt:
First off, just so you know, I wear a Cairns 1010 at my station and keep a Cairns 360 Structural in the trunk of my car. My volunteer fire department issued me the 1010, but as happens with a lot of volunteers I picked up an additional one on my own dime. I bought the 360 because it was inexpensive, it was lightweight, and it’d afford some protection if I were helping out at a rescue on the side of the road.
Cairns 360
A lot of guys I know, however, drop up to $600 for specialty leather helmets like the Sam Houston to supplant their standard department-issued helmet. As far as I can tell, this happens for three reasons: 1) they’re more comfortable, which I can understand, 2) they look really cool, and 3) they’re a reflection of a fire service tradition. Never mind the fact that they don’t afford any additional protection, that wearing self-purchased equipment can raise liability questions, or that it’s very difficult to decontaminate a leather helmet.
Cairns 1044
I don’t want to get into the “leather forever” debate, and I recognize that these helmets are a reflection of an esprit de corps that is important to fire service morale. But it’s not just the leather component- Americans consciously choose fire helmets whose entire design is an anachronism. We force manufacturers to juggle protective capabilities against cosmetic features like oversized brims and high-profile shield holders, instead of holding them accountable for building the safest possible helmet, period.
Wildland firefighters, as well as our foreign brothers in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and Japan, long ago embraced helmets solely designed for protection, not “tradition” or fashion. But when I’ve mentioned this at the dinner table in my station, most responses tend to center around how silly “other” helmets look, and how American-style helmets are the best fit for, and I quote, “real” firefighting.
Asian helmet
I’ve been involved with fire departments in four states, all on the East Coast, and in seven years have seen a grand total of two jet-style helmets in front-line use. Both were purchased by their wearers, and not by the department. (If someone else has seen them in action in the US, please let me know.)
I found it interesting that their buddies were quietly jealous at the comfort, protection and durability of the jet-style helmets, and even acknowledged they were probably safer. But these guys couldn’t make the leap to ask their leadership to purchase a few, let alone shell out their own cash, because they were universally afraid of being mocked for wearing something new, different or “unfashionable.” Where else in our protective ensemble or equipment lockers would we admit to letting tradition take precedence over safety? Our fire apparatus? Our medical gear?
UK helmet
I’m not saying that jet-style helmets are the answer to everything. But do we have any practical reasons for continuing to place such a premium on history and tradition in the design of a piece of gear that’s built to keep our heads safe? And if not, what will it take to get the American fire service to start demanding protective equipment that puts function first, and fashion last? Because if we want it, they’ll make it.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Update, April 7, 3:00 pm:
As a point of information, Firegeezer reader Carl S. has sent along this photo of the MSA helmet being used by the Quebec City FD.
You can see several more fireground shots illustrating the helmet “in action” HERE. (Fire photo fans, be sure to click on it.)