IFSJ Exclusive: Building trust in three dimensions with UL Solutions

by Breaking NewsIFSJ ExclusivesPassive
Ghaith Bakir, Lead Regulatory Engineer-MEA, Codes and Regulatory Services, UL Solutions looks benefits and safety considerations of 3D printing in construction

First developed in the 1980s and rising to prominence in the 2000s, 3D printing has become an increasingly valuable tool for design and subsequently for the construction industry. It works by creating a digital model of almost any shape or design that is required which can then be printed to the necessary scale. In the construction industry, it can be used from as little as printing specific components to printing entire buildings, paving the way for reduced waste and lowering labour costs.

Ghaith Bakir, Lead Regulatory Engineer MEA, Codes and Regulatory Services at UL Solutions explains that in construction, 3D printing is an automated process of joining materials to make building elements and systems components from 3D model data, layer upon layer.

“This innovative construction technique is rapidly moving from a conceptual and experimental stage to a viable building construction method,” he tells, suggesting to anyone who has not seen how buildings can be constructed using 3D printing to search the internet for ‘3D Printed Building Videos’ as the results may be eye-opening.

Bakir says there are many benefits of 3D printing for the construction industry: “In construction it offers a significant potential to increase efficiency in the building sector, including time reduction, waste reduction, cost-effective innovative solutions, safety, and sustainability.”

Code compliant

As with any new method of construction so come the safety need for safety and compliance checks. The main challenges for 3D printing in construction, says Bakir, is that building code authorities want assurance that the new construction technique complies with applicable building construction code requirements, many of which are prescriptive in nature.

“Builders need to demonstrate that the 3D-printed structures comply with applicable building or residential codes to gain building code authority approval for 3D-printed construction in jurisdictions,” he explains. “Code compliance presents a challenge for both a builder and code authority because building and residential codes currently lack prescriptive requirements for 3D-printed construction.

“Even code requirements for concrete construction are not directly applicable for cementitious-based 3D-printed construction since the mortar and cement-based fabrication, printed in a layer-upon-layer fashion without forming members, are not specifically covered by the concrete standards referenced in the model codes.”

As it stands, there are no prescriptive code requirements for 3D-printed construction, and so Bakir says that building code authorities must consider each project under the alternate materials and methods provisions in the code for their evaluation and approval.

“This approach allows them to approve 3D-printed building constructions, provided they are shown to comply with the intent of the code provisions and provide the code-prescribed quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and level of safety,” he says.

Tried and tested

He suggests using testing and evaluation data from standards such as UL 3401, Outline of Investigation for 3D-Printed Building Construction, which can be used to evaluate the printer, fabrication process, and materials used to verify that they consistently produce building elements with the same properties.

Bakir says: “Builders can use the document to create a report of findings, showing AHJs that their building assemblies comply with relevant codes and standards like UL 263, Standard for Fire tests of Building Construction and Materials, and NFPA 275, Standard Method of Fire Tests for the Evaluation of Thermal Barriers.

“This report provides AHJs with the technical information they need to inspect and approve 3D-printed buildings under the alternative materials and methods code provisions and will speed up the approval process.”

The future of construction

One place which has recognised the 3D-printed construction market opportunity, says Bakir, is Dubai: “The United Arab Emirates continues to incorporate innovative solutions and cutting-edge technologies, such as 3D printing, into nearly all aspects of its economy. In 2016, the Dubai government launched the “Dubai 3D Printing Strategy” to transform Dubai into a leading user, producer and exporter of global 3D printing processes, technologies, and associated services.”

Many Dubai organisations have implemented the 3D Printing Strategy, including the Dubai Municipality and Dubai Health Authority . In 2021, the Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, has issued a decree to regulate the use of 3D printing in Dubai’s construction sector and support the region’s target of ensuring 25 percent of its buildings are constructed using 3D printing technology by 2030.

“The legislation will seek to enhance efficiencies in construction projects and improve the competitiveness of Dubai’s local industry while also reducing waste in the sector and attracting leading companies to Dubai’s construction industry,” Bakir adds.

This article was originally published in the November edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

IFSJ Exclusive: Pacific Helmets talks safety without compromise

by Breaking NewsIFSJ ExclusivesPPE
Pacific Helmets’ Sales and Development Manager, Lee-Anne Glanville-Rothman, talks about Haloflex technology, helmet maintenance and the company’s international ambition

Pacific Helmets was established back in 1982 by David and Marion Bennett with the ambition of getting New Zealand Governments to mandate a safety standard for riding bicycles. David’s passion for safety drove the business forward moving from non-emergency services’ head protection into the realm of emergency services and technical rescue.

The first large scale tender which Pacific Helmets won for structure firefighting helmets was for the London Fire Brigade. This tender was the pivotal point in the company’s manufacturing evolution and the reason it continues to deliver quality products without compromising the end users’ safety.

We spoke to Lee-Anne Glanville-Rothman, Sales Development Manager, at Pacific Helmets to find out about the company’s new products and why “Safety without compromise” is the manufacturer’s mantra that it lives and breathes.

Tell me about your role at Pacific Helmets?

I was born and raised in South Africa and moved to New Zealand in 2017. I’ve always had a knack for technical applications and had developed a good understanding of the technical world when I moved. I joined Pacific Helmets in October 2021 which has served as my introduction into the fire and safety world. It’s been a great challenge and one that I’ve really enjoyed.

My role at the company is Head of Sales, Marketing and R&D. I work with a group that I’m lucky to have in my charge because we go head-to-head with some of the biggest competitors around the globe.

What is Pacific Helmets’ current focus?

We have a new product launching in the first quarter of 2023: the F20, with Haloflex™ technology. Everything in this helmet moves away from your traditional approach of the internal padding and soft components and suspension points. Our focus was full decontamination, ease of use and weight reduction. We’ve spent countless hours reading and listening to the studies which are available and ensured that our pursuit and design addressed as many of the concerns and requirements as possible.

The F20 has a ‘quick clip-in clip-out’ comfort padding system. You can disassemble and reassemble the soft components within 60 seconds. The design focused on ‘tool-free maintenance’ with the components that need to be changed out often. This approach aimed at reducing the necessity of a repair agent servicing the helmet, and the user being without their helmet for a period.

The repair works can be brought inhouse with training provided to guarantee the helmet’s integrity is not compromised. We’ve also reduced the weight of the helmet by 100-150 grams (depending on the standard) and we look forward to hopefully reducing that more in future developments. Haloflex marks the new innovative way forward for our company. We’re wanting to make waves in the industry and we’re going to be incorporating it into more of our product range.

What other new products have you been working on?

In our structural fire range, we have the one touch eye protector (OTEP™). You don’t have to pull it down manually. You push it up and it deploys. There is a small grub screw which allows for height adjustment to suit the individual wearer. The new rescue eye protector (Rescue EP) designed for our R6 rescue range will be available in the first quarter of 2023. The methodology of modular connection provides flexibility to end users to add and replace accessories if and when required. The Rescue EP moves away from the current attachment method towards a ‘retrofit’ which end users can complete themselves or our distributors before shipping the products out. A key focus of the design was adjustability – it’s not just a stationary eye protector. You can shift it forward and back to the wearer’s face, easily accommodating many face shapes and spectacles.

What advice do you have for firefighters with regards to longevity?

It is important to make sure that the chemicals or materials you’re using to clean the helmets comply with the manufacturer’s suggestions. This is normally within a specific pH range and we have that in our user information guides (UIG). We also, depending on the material you have internally for lining, suggest you clean and disinfect your internal soft components in accordance with the UIG or manufacturers guidelines.

You recently appointed Venari Group as your UK distributor – how did that come about?

Venari’s Oliver North and John Purdy approached us to open a conversation around the potential to supply Pacific Helmets products into the UK market. John, an ex-fireman, knew of the Pacific Helmets brand and thought the partnership would be a great match. I am excited to see what we will achieve together in the Fire and technical rescue market. The aim is to be accessible and visible while rebuilding our brand recognition with Venari.

What are Pacific Helmets’ plans for the future?

Our goal is to improve our market share and presence within the US. Our brand is well recognised and asked for by name, which is a great position to be in, specifically when your aim is to gain a larger share of the market.

The digital strategy project will provide an improved presence, not only through the US but globally to our current and future end users. The aim is to improve product data availability, easy access to technical documents, increase our distributors presence and locations, and build a space that improves the positive word of mouth advertising from impressions.

Our business has grown to this point from word of mouth. We have an opportunity to reach across multiple platforms, globally, to showcase what we offer and who we are. That’s what I am aiming at: building and becoming a ‘First responders’ brand of choice’.

Finally, what sets Pacific Helmets apart from other manufacturers?

We are head protection experts. Our focus and drive are bringing the best products and innovative designs to life. This platform provides ample room to think outside the box and in a few instances, we have been first to market with our products designs.

What we deliver to the end user brings them home safely. We do not skimp on quality or cut corners when it comes to making sure that out helmets pass and exceed standards. That’s been the driving heartbeat at Pacific Helmets, and it will forever beat strongly.

This article was originally published in the November edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

IFSJ Exclusive: Machine vs manual BA mask cleaning with MEIKO

by Breaking NewsIFSJ ExclusivesPPE
TopClean M from MEIKO is designed to make the BA mask cleaning process fast, cheap and hygienic

Working by hand is not to be underestimated – but it is not the best option for cleaning BA masks or regulators. In response to the length of time it takes to effectively clean this vital piece of firefighter personal protective equipment (PPE), MEIKO has developed TopClean M: a cleaning solution that is designed to be fast, hygienic and cost effective.

The problem

When on duty, firefighters must rely completely on their colleagues and their equipment. In Germany they refer to this as the “safety chain”. The safety chain combines all actions, methods, tactics, equipment and appliances associated with the safe use of respiratory protection and, in extreme cases, makes it possible to safely rescue the wearer of respiratory protection equipment by means of respiratory protection emergency rescue.

The safety chain includes all safety philosophy associated with respiratory protection during preparation for deployment, deployment itself and post-processing. Breaking the safety chain can put the life of the person wearing respiratory protection equipment at risk.

The post-processing referred to includes the cleaning of respiratory protective equipment. In the same way that certain hazardous situations can only be combatted by following certain processes. These valid processes are a great help when cleaning PPE.

Valid processes are not guaranteed in manual cleaning. Like many processes that are carried out by hand, manual cleaning is prone to error: incorrect dosing of the chemicals used, insufficient wetting of products, not enough application time – or too much application time, if you get distracted by another task in the middle of manual cleaning.

This is exactly what happened at one fire service. The results: the BA masks were left in the cleaning bath much longer than they should have been. The softener in the rubber parts of the mask dissolved, causing black marks on the firefighters’ faces the next time they used them.

The solution

To ensure that firefighter masks remain robust and are not damaged during the cleaning process, MEIKO developed the TopClean M: a modular system for cleaning of respirators, full-face masks, regulators and SCBA frames.

Unlike with manual cleaning, damage to BA masks like this will not happen with the TopClean M as all the parameters associated with the cleaning process (time, chemicals, mechanics, temperature) are predefined and run reliably.

The integrated door locking ensures that the processes cannot be interrupted once the start button has been pressed.

And a built-in empty indicator ensures that cleaning cannot commence without sufficient chemicals. According to the expert opinion of Professor Walter Popp, Head of Hospital Hygiene at Essen University Hospital, following intensive testing, he said that: “TopClean M delivers good cleaning and disinfection performance. (…) As a general rule it is preferable to use a machine rather than manual methods to clean BA masks.”

User safety

If manual cleaning is not carried out under the correct conditions, users can be put at an even greater disadvantage: cleaning vapours can be inhaled, chemicals can damage the skin and contaminated PPE can even harm those it is designed to protect. By contrast, machine cleaning is completed in a closed system, i.e. inside the TopClean M. What this means above all, is more safety and security for users, as they do not come into direct contact with the cleaning chemicals.

Saving time

Another disadvantage of manual disinfection is that it takes up the valuable capacities of respiratory protective equipment technicians – in particular when they are charged with removing all traces of chemicals from the equipment they are tasked with cleaning.

If it takes an average of 4.5 hours to complete the cleaning and disinfection process manually for 4 BA masks, using TopClean can reduce this time by 60%. All the technician has to do, is to take the BA masks apart, place them into the baskets and subsequently put them back together and carry out standard checks. TopClean M does the rest, with programme cycle times of between 6 and 10 minutes.

Using the TopClean M, up to four BA masks can be cleaned and disinfected simultaneously in next to no time, or eight regulators, or four BA masks and four regulators simultaneously.

Thomas Happersberger, Commander of Lahr City Fire Service, said that the MEIKO solution was an improvement on their previous methods: “Our previous manual process was reliable, of course. But the TopClean M and machine cleaning takes things to a whole new level, by giving us a much more consistent and reliable process.”

Olaf Fernys, who together with a colleague, is responsible for cleaning 892 BA masks and 661 regulators at Leipzig’s fire rescue headquarters, summarises all of these arguments quite simply: “It is not just about saving time; the improvement in safety and hygiene delivered by the TopClean M from MEIKO is more important.”

Machine cleaning in the TopClean M also means more safety and security for respiratory protective equipment technicians, because the cleaning and disinfection process delivered by the machine is approved by leading BA mask manufacturers.

Find out more about Meiko’s TopClean M at www.meiko-uk.co.uk

This article was originally published in the November edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

IFSJ Exclusive: Setting suppression standards with Fomtec

by Breaking NewsIFSJ Exclusives
As the industry transitions towards Fluorine Free Foams, John Olav Ottesen, Managing Director and founder of Dafo Fomtec AB, examines the deficiencies in recognised design and testing standards

When the serious discussions started around 2010 about high performance Fluorine Free Foams, one of the common lines we heard from the industry was that foams without fluorochemicals were ‘nothing new’.

Since the 1960s, firefighting foams have been manufactured based on PFAS containing fluorochemicals. By 2000 these PFAS containing foams would make up more than 90% of foam sales globally. Two characteristics of the fluorochemicals made them particularly attractive to the foam manufacturers.

Firstly these chemicals were Oleophobic which basically meant that they did not want to “mix” with the hydrocarbon chemicals in the fuels, and tended to resist or repel the fuel from the outer wall of the bubbles. In firefighting terms this meant that the bubbles did not pick up the fuel when the foam was directed onto a burning fuel surface.

Secondly, the fluorosurfactants in the foams impacted what is known as the interfacial tension at the fuel/foam interface and this lead to the creation of an aqueous layer being created between the fuel and the foam bubbles. Foams that were able to create this layer became known as “Film Forming Foams”, or FFF.

With many years of development and a limited number of foam manufacturers and manufacturing foam products following a similar formulation, it is understandable that the fire performance standards and associated design standards were based on the PFAS containing foams.

Different standards

When you consider what could be called geographically based standards from UL and FM, over EN, then EN 1568 adopted a rating system and EN 13565-2 (the foam system design standard) applied correction factors on the minimum application rates depending on the fire performance rating achieved in the EN 1568 fire test.

UL and FM adopted a pass/fail approach but tied the fire performance test into foam qualities (expansion ratio and 25% drain time) achieved with real world discharge devices. UL and FM also had specific test criteria for foam sprinklers whereas EN just stated that foam agents needed IA, IB or IC rating to be used in non-aspirated sprinklers.

Foam manufacturers, end users and the standards bodies had 50 years of experience and the knowledge that manufacturers were basically following the same basic recipe when formulating their foams. PFAS containing foams were regarded as forgiving and with good tolerances for different fuels and different discharge devices.

Where strict adherence to a UL or FM system was not required it was commonplace to see suppliers and consultants accepting hardware and foam that was not necessarily tested and approved together. Under EN 13565-2 this was not a necessary requirement as the standard was based on the assumption that one foam with a top side performance rating would perform the same as another foam with the same top side performance rating.

The transition to fluorine free

Unlike PFAS containing foams, manufacturers are not currently following the same basic recipe. Current commercialised synthetic fluorine free foams (SFFFs) are based on each manufacturers’ formulations of chemicals, have different physiochemical properties, and exhibit very different performance across different fuels and with different application techniques. As SFFFs started to be marketed there was a lot negative marketing that went beyond questioning the difference in performance to actually questioning whether or not SFFF’s ‘actually worked’. 

This has led to end users, specifiers and consultants questioning the ability of the foam for their application. At Fomtec we welcome these questions as this allows us to discuss the holistic approach to the transition away from PFA containing foams, whereby the foam concentrate is part of the solution and needs to have been tested and approved with the foam proportioning and discharge devices.

Pass the test

Whether a new requirement or planning the transition away from PFAS containing foams the end user is looking for answers on what foam to purchase/specify based on specification, suitability for their mission and of course price and availability.

Test standards are mostly written around the knowledge of the performance of PFAS containing foams. Although in their infancy, we see that SFFF’s currently exhibit more sensitivity to different fuels, to the type of water used to create the foam solution, to the foam qualities generated by the discharge devices, and to the type of discharge device.

We see that end users and consultants are now asking whether the approvals on the foam they are now being offered are relevant for their real-world applications. For Fomtec we believe that the tolerances with SFFF’s are currently smaller than we saw with PFAS containing foams and this is part of the reason that the Enviro Programme includes more than 1500 fire performance tests (so far).

Applying the right standards

Sometimes when deciding which standard to apply when choosing an SFFF, the end user is not going to be given a choice because of the legal or insurance requirements of the location or the mission/application.

In general the ideal situation is to apply and request the test standard that most closely mimics the real world application of the end user. It is completely impractical to expect all applications to be covered but we can look at some areas that are covered in some of the common test standards.

Fuel type

Most standards currently work on a grouping system or have a set fuel that is used in the fire testing. When we look at hydrocarbons this is most commonly heptane, although under ICAO it is Jet A-1 or Kerosene, and currently for Mil Spec it is Gasoline (Under the proposals for a new fluorine free Mil Spec for land based facilities two fire tests will be carried out on Gasoline and Jet A-1).

When water miscible fuels are considered the usual fuels used to represent the fuel groups are IPA (for alcohols) and Acetone (for ketones), although under UL and FM it is quite common to see additional fuels being added by different manufacturers.

Application type

For a topside device such as hoselines, monitors and foam makers, water immiscible (hydrocarbons) always start their test programmes with a direct (forceful) Type III application, whereas for water miscible (polar solvents) the programmes use an indirect (gentle) Type II application.

For EN 1568-3, ICAO and IMO the nozzle is fixed for the duration of the application, whereas for UL and FM once 90% control is achieved an operator is allowed to pick up the nozzle and to move around 2 sides of the test pan. For the DOD Mil Spec the operator manual fights the fire immediately and is allowed to move all the way around the circular test pan. For the water miscible fuel fires under all the fire performance test standards the application uses a fixed nozzle and the foam is directed at a backboard on the test pan and allowed to slide down the board onto the fuel surface.

Standard (non-aspirated) and foam/water sprinklers (aspirated) test protocols such as UL 162, FM 5130 and VdS require that a grid is arranged over the test pan and the test protocols define nozzle spacing, elevations and flow rates per nozzle.

Test standard deficiencies

Performance on different fuels with SFFF’s is a major issue as even on hydrocarbons the question of just allowing heptane as a representative fuel is being asked by the standard bodies. The latest FM 5130 standard (May 2021) already states under 4.2.2.3: “When testing SFFF concentrate, Heptane is considered representative of hydrocarbon liquids with the following characteristics: Flash point equal to, or greater than, heptane, Vapor pressure equal to, or less than, heptane, Pure liquids (i.e. not blended such as gasoline/alcohol combinations)”.

Data from the testing at Fomtec would indicate that grouping of the polar solvents and working with the reference fuels of IPA, for alcohols, and Acetone, for ketones is just as problematic.

Finished foam qualities of expansion ratio and 25% drain time are important with SFFF’s but many of the test protocols use a set nozzle and pressure as part of their approval that variations in foam qualities are not taken into consideration. UL and FM for their top side approval testing do require that foam qualities used in successful fire performance testing are matched to foam discharge devices.

At the other end of the scale the current EN design standard for foam systems EN 13565-2 has the statement when considering non aspirated discharge devices: ‘Consult manufacturer’. It is certainly arguable that the foam manufacturer should be able to provide good advice, but there are no standards or test protocols mentioned.

The future of foam

Anything we say here is an opinion, but we would like to say it as a ‘considered opinion’. Expect standards and testing that expands the hydrocarbon fuel testing required, and potentially some more fuels as test fuels in the water miscible.

The EN 1568-3 committee is looking at adding some variation in expansion ratio into the test protocol. We hope they will also consider the importance of 25% drain time and replace the ‘consult manufacturer’ guidance is with an internationally recognised test.

Here at Fomtec the development programme we named the ‘Enviro Programme’ continues and we are well over 1500 fire tests now as we add data for different fuels, different foam qualities, different discharge devices and operational techniques. When a client asks questions about SFFF our responses will be based on data not opinion.

This article was originally published in the November edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

IFSJ Exclusive: Put your best boot forward with HAIX

by Breaking NewsIFSJ ExclusivesPPE
Simon Ash, UK & Ireland Sales Manager at global footwear specialist HAIX, talks innovation, the Fire Eagle 2.0, and firefighting boot maintenance and longevity

What is HAIX working on just now?

For fire specifically, we’ve recently launched the Fire Eagle 2.0. The original Fire Eagle has been our hero product for the last five to six years. During research and development, we looked at the changing role of the firefighter, considering that as fewer house fires break out, more firefighters are supporting with wildfires and road traffic accidents and need footwear that can handle the evolving demands of the job. We also wanted to respond to customers who were looking for a structural fire boot and a moorland fire boot and asked if we have anything that does both.

We launched the original Fire Eagle in 2015 at INTERSCHUTZ, the world’s leading trade fair for the fire and rescue services, civil protection, safety and security solutions. We wanted the entire typical safety features one would expect in a HAIX boot combined with less weight, more flexibility and greater comfort. The boot has seen recognition worldwide, with the Bavarian fire service among the first to test the boot and compare it to “a comfortable sports shoe”.

The most critical difference between the original boot and its successor, the Fire Eagle 2.0, is an updated design and a new, innovative quick-fit fastener system which is a world first. The RAPIDfit system gives firefighters the quickest way to pull a boot on and fits to the individual foot in just one movement, critical when a call comes in and every second counts. 

We’ve also just launched a wildfire boot, the Missoula 2.0. With wildfire firefighting, firefighters are on their feet for a long time. Walking miles and miles across moorlands and challenging terrain requires footwear that feels like a hiking boot. While a lot of wildfire firefighters wear the Fire Eagle because it is comfy, our wildfire boot is best for all terrains and offers a classic lacing system.

HAIX footwear is a premium product, how do you overcome the cost barrier?

There may be cheaper boots out there, but HAIX boots will last longer HAIX footwear also offers advanced postural support, meaning less time off sick. And ultimately, a happier firefighter.

We understand that budgets are tight in all industries, and we will be as competitive as we can. But not all PPE is created equal, and we cannot fall into the false economy of buy cheap, buy twice. Firefighters deserve more than uncomfortable boots that could leak and need replacing after a year.  This is particularly an issue when departments only do a tender every five to seven years, and boots aren’t replaced unless they have become contaminated or need to be issued to new recruits.

Long-lasting quality has been the HAIX ethos since its founding in 1948 by Xaver Haimerl. Xaver’s son, Ewald, had risen to the rank of deputy chief of Mainburg fire service while working as a certified master shoemaker in his father’s factory. In 1992, when finding that he and his colleagues weren’t satisfied with the rubber boots they had to wear on duty at the time, Ewald decided to design a collection of functional leather firefighting boots for his colleagues that would set new standards of functionality, protection and comfort. The boots were so well regarded that HAIX began selling them, expanding into developing footwear for rescue workers and the police the following year.

Do you have any tips for boot maintenance?

Decontamination is key. Fires produce a cocktail of toxic, irritant and carcinogenic chemicals in the form of aerosols, dusts, fibres, smoke and fumes or gases and vapours, thereby increasing cancer risks and lung deterioration. Decontamination and cleaning procedures enroute to, during and after a fire can reduce, minimise or eliminate exposure hazards.

Wearers exposed to hazardous chemicals and pathogens need to follow the relevant cleaning and decontamination precautions in line with legal regulations to limit exposure and risk of harm to themselves and others. Anyone involved in the handling, sorting, bagging, transporting and laundering of contaminated footwear must wear utility gloves and appropriate PPE to prevent exposure.

We work with The Boot Repair Company to support our customers with proper decontamination or replace the boot in part or in whole. Regularly inspecting safety boots is particularly important for emergency service workers to avoid unnecessary injury. However, while a sole is vulnerable to wear and tear, a nicely broken-in upper can escape virtually unscathed and have tons of life left in it. We’ve found that HAIX boots can be re-soled around three times because the thick upper leather is so strong.

Our partner, The Boot Repair Company, can repair, stitch and welt each boot by hand using original HAIX components, which are 100% manufactured in Europe to meet socially responsible guidelines. A full resole offers renewed grip and posture and can double the life expectancy of HAIX footwear.

From a boot care perspective – wearers should use proper polish, wash them down, keep the leather nourished, and avoid over-drying them by exposing them to prolonged heat as the leather might crack.

Why should firefighters invest in their footwear?

Selecting safety footwear should be taken seriously, considering both the long-term benefits and potential impacts incorrect choices can have. From a financial perspective, buying quality items saves money – even if the initial expense is higher.  But you can’t put a price on health and safety. Ill-fitting or poor-quality footwear can leave firefighters vulnerable to developing or worsening musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Research has shown that at least 50% of workers are exposed to the risk of MSDs due to spending prolonged hours standing at work.

Firefighters can reduce the risk by choosing footwear designed with superior cushioning technology and constructed from smarter materials. Modern materials used in the interior lining of boots can help prevent blisters and soft-tissue injury by reducing friction and pressure. Discomfort, whether from ill-fitting footwear or from friction injuries such as blisters, can lead to changes in natural body posture while standing or walking.

When suffering such injuries, we may tend to ‘favour’ weight bearing on a non-injured foot (limping, for example), or standing in an unnatural position to avoid pain or discomfort. This can lead to strain or injury in turn, or if left uncorrected longer term can potentially lead to more serious musculoskeletal disorders. It is important to invest in boots with a climatic control system that regulates temperatures within the boot because damp feet are more likely to experience friction injuries. Quality is also vital to ensure longevity.

Every outside component of a HAIX firefighter boot must survive ten seconds of flame treatment without damage or burning and be able to withstand 250°C for 40 minutes without major damage to the sole. Although laboratory testing and development is a foundation of any high-quality product, HAIX’s commitment to wearer trials takes things a step further.

Testers are equipped with boots for months at a time to use during their day-to-day routine activities to ensure boots are built to last. Ultimately, investing in high-quality footwear provides a long-term investment that supports wearer health as well as safety.

This article was originally published in the November edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.

DECON campaign makes significant progress

by Breaking News

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has announced significant progress in Scotland on the the ground-breaking DECON campaign, which aims to protect firefighters from toxic contaminants and the deadly illnesses they can cause.

The campaign shares steps firefighters can take to protect themselves and by campaigning fire services to take steps to protect firefighters. Its initial findings revealed that surveyed firefighters were than four times more likely to have been diagnosed with cancer than the general public and it is thought that fire contaminants are at least in part responsible here.

A series of meetings were held in Scotland involving the FBU, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and Professor Anna Stec, who is leading on the DECON research at the University of Central Lancashire.

After the week of meetings FBU Scotland released a joint statement with the service: “We will never completely eliminate the risk faced by firefighters but we must act now to increase awareness, minimise exposure, and implement early and regular health screening. This is a journey that will take time but steps must be taken now to help protect firefighters.

“The FBU welcomes the SFRS committing to support further research by Professor Stec and to work jointly with the FBU to implement DECON, focus the work of the SFRS contaminants group to implement urgent changes, and where required enforcement to ensure firefighters are supported to adopt safe behaviours.

“This commitment to work jointly goes further, with SFRS confirming their desire to join the FBU in making the political case for the legislative changes required and for health screening to be offered to firefighters to promote early detection of cancers and diseases in firefighters which is proven to dramatically increase survivability following a cancer diagnosis.”

Barry Johnstone, FBU Scotland Health and Safety rep said: “After speaking to Anna directly and hearing all about the research carried out, I thought it was vitally important that the Service meet Anna and got a full understanding of the magnitude of what is a stake, and the need for action to be taken now in order to prevent staff from becoming sick from attending incidents.

“Having time to reflect on what hopefully will turn out to be a very constructive week, I feel the meetings we had with the SFRS went really well.

“The research carried out by world-renowned Professor Anna Stec and her team at Uclan show clearly that firefighters are at risk of being contaminated at incidents whilst carrying out their work. It is simply unacceptable for people to go to their place of work and potentially be at risk when action can be taken to mitigate that risk.”

Next steps

Following the week of meetings, which included meetings with MSPs, MSPs have taken up the fight in Scottish Parliament. Maggie Chapman MSP both brought a motion to Scottish Parliament on the issue of fire contaminants and the DECON campaign, and raised the issue at First Minister’s Questions.

The motion, which is supported by 17 other MSPs, recognised the DECON campaign, acknowledged the WHO announcement that firefighting is a carcinogenic profession, and wished the FBU and its partners “every success in improving the lives of firefighters”.

In Scottish Parliament Chapman said “We have a responsibility to ensure that our firefighters are safe”, and raised the issues of decontamination equipment and routine health screening.

About DECON

Following the success of the FBU visit to the EPSU conference in Brussels earlier this year that was attended by Scottish Regional Health and Safety rep Barry Johnstone and the announcement from the World Health Organisation’s IARC that firefighting is a carcinogenic (cancer-causing) profession, officials in Scotland arranged for Professor Stec to visit Scotland for a series of engagements to promote the DECON campaign.

What initially began with an intention to engage SFRS managers and Scottish members on DECON grew into a much larger piece of work. Stec, Johnson, FBU National Officer Riccardo la Torre and FBU executive council member for Scotland Colin Brown attended, spoke and answered questions at multiple meetings across four days.

These included a meeting of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Contaminants Group, a livestream for members, meetings with Members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs), and a meeting of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Senior Leadership team. These resulted in various commitments including MSPs promising to progress work through the parliament and the service committing to allow future research led by Professor Stec to be conducted.

UK firefighters vote to reject pay offer in consultative ballot

by Breaking News

Firefighters and control staff have voted to reject a 5% pay offer in a result that the Fire Brigades Union leadership said displays “remarkable strength of feeling”. 79% voted to reject the 5% offer, with 78% of eligible members voting in the ballot.

The ballot was a consultative ballot of union members on the 5% pay offer and not a ballot for strike action. Next steps will now be decided by the Executive Council, but the union will be moving to a ballot on strike action.

Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, said: “FBU members have spoken. This result, on a two week turnaround, shows that there is remarkable strength of feeling amongst firefighters and control staff on this derisory pay offer. The ball is in the employers’ and government’s court. There is still an opportunity to resolve this dispute and we will be writing to Fire Ministers and government departments across the UK requesting urgent meetings.

“We have firefighters using foodbanks. Our members worked through the pandemic to help protect their communities, taking on extra duties to do so. A further real-terms pay cuts is an absolutely disgusting way to thank them. Whilst strike action is always a last resort, our members simply can’t go on like this.”

Number of firefighters in US drops 4%

by Breaking News

According to the new US Fire Department Profile report from NFPA, there were approximately 1,041,200 career and volunteer firefighters in the US in 2020.  

Each year, NFPA® provides an overview of fire departments in the United States with analysis including firefighters, fire departments, apparatus, and stations. The results are based on data collected by two NFPA annual surveys, the US fire experience survey, and the fire service inventory survey.

This total is down 4 percent from the previous year and is the lowest total since 1991.  A decrease of volunteer firefighters played a role in this trend. 

There were 364,300 career firefighters in 2020, representing an increase of 2 percent from the previous year. In addition, there were 676,900 volunteer firefighters, a decrease of 6 percent from the previous year, and the lowest number of volunteer firefighters reported over the years.

In 2020 there were 89,600 female firefighters—17,200 career and 72,400 volunteer.

There are an estimated 29,452 fire departments in the United States, with the majority (82%) of the fire departments being all or mostly volunteer. These are the departments that protected almost one third of the US population.  Fire departments categorized as all-career or mostly career represent one-sixth (18%) of all the fire departments in the US and protect more than two-thirds of the US population.

The estimates of the number of apparatus and fire stations in the US during 2018–2020 indicate that there were 68,800 pumpers; 7,400 aerial apparatuses; 76,300 other suppression vehicles (e.g., pumpers less than 1,000 gpm, brush vehicles, tankers); 48,800 other vehicles (e.g., rescue, lighting, and ambulance vehicles); and 54,600 stations.

Nationwide, 37 percent of fire departments provided no emergency medical services, 46 percent provided basic life support (BLS), and 17 percent provided advanced life support (ALS).

Read the report in full here.

Manchester Arena Inquiry: Fire chief calls FRS’s response ‘wholly inadequate’

by Breaking News

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) Chief Fire Officer, Dave Russel, has issued a response to the Manchester Arena Inquiry Report Volume 2 calling the GMFRS’s response to the tragedy ‘wholly inadequate’.

Russel said: “The Manchester Arena Inquiry volume two report has made for very difficult reading for me, as Chief Fire Officer of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, and my colleagues.

“I want to start by wholeheartedly apologising to the families of the 22 innocent people who lost their lives on that tragic night of 22 May 2017, and to the survivors whose lives are changed forever.

“Our response that night was wholly inadequate and totally ineffective, and that will forever be a matter of deep regret for our Service. We let the families and the public down in their time of need and for that I am truly sorry.

“I know that no apology will take away the pain and suffering of the families who lost loved ones and of the survivors. But I want them to know that I fully accept the Inquiry’s criticisms of our Service and I accept the recommendations in full.

“I also want to thank Sir John Saunders for his work throughout the inquiry and in producing this report.

“The inquiry process has been one of the most challenging times in our Service’s history and today is a very difficult day for many, especially those who so desperately wanted to help that night.

“Every firefighter who joins Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service wants to do their best. The best job they can – to help, to support, to assist the public and to save lives. Those that were eventually deployed to the incident that night did the best they could – albeit it was far too late.

“While we have already made significant changes to address the failings in how we responded on the night, the Inquiry’s recommendations provide a critically important framework for ensuring we take all the necessary steps to always be ready and able to respond to a terrorist attack anywhere in our city-region.

“The report is long and complex – it will take time to digest the recommendations fully, to cross-reference them against improvements which we have already put in place and to consider whether any gaps remain.  I do however want to address a few issues the report raises.

“As I’ve said, and the Inquiry notes, we were simply too late in our response. But five years on from the attack, I want the public to know that this will never happen again.

“Today’s Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service is better prepared, better equipped, better trained, better exercised and more resilient.

“The Kerslake Review, set up by the Mayor of Greater Manchester after the attack, identified a number of recommendations which we have already put in place to improve and drive meaningful change within our Service. And these changes have been tested during the multi-agency response to many major incidents and in recent years. 

“We knew immediately after the Arena attack that there had been a complete failure in multi-agency working. The Inquiry’s report makes that clear, and this has been a major focus for us since the attack.

“There has been a substantial shift in the leadership and culture of our Service, recognised positively by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

“We have undertaken a major overhaul of our policies and procedures in relation to a terrorist incident – revising and simplifying our mobilising arrangements which ensure an automatic response to the scene.

“A dedicated radio channel is now established, which guarantees immediate contact 24/7 between blue light services and our control rooms.

“In addition to this, a National Inter Agency Liaison Officer is now co-located with GM’Ps Force Duty Officer during working hours, with a dedicated emergency phone line for all other times.

“There is greater investment in training, multi-agency exercising and increased emphasis on decision making autonomy, meaning Incident Commanders can confidently make decisions with discretion.

“Wholesale changes have been made to organisational learning and our debrief processes, as well as major improvements in how we communicate and work together with our partner agencies before, during and after incidents in conjunction with North West Fire Control and importantly within the wider Greater Manchester Resilience Forum.

“We have also established a more resilient Marauding Terrorist Attack capability for Greater Manchester, by increasing our capacity and capability, which sees every firefighter being fully trained and every fire appliance better equipped to respond to all forms of terrorist or mass casualty incident.

“I know the spotlight today is rightly on what our Service got wrong on the night of the attack and I want to reiterate my deepest apologies to the families and survivors. I want the public to know the same mistakes would not be made today – and have confidence that, never again, will we fall short of what the public should rightly expect of their fire and rescue service.

“I hope that the public will recognise that Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service is a very different organisation today to what it was in 2017, and that the improvements we’ve made – and continue to make – will provide confidence that we are prepared and able to respond to support the people of Greater Manchester when its fire and rescue services are needed.”

Grenfell disaster a ‘direct consequence of government policies’ – FBU

by Breaking NewsSafety

As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry drew to a close, the Fire Brigades Union’s lawyer told the Inquiry that the disaster was: “a direct consequence of a generation of government policies which combined to create a death trap for the residents of Grenfell Tower”.

The comments came in the closing submissions for Phase 2, which covers the run-up to the night of the fire. 

Martin Seaward, speaking to the Inquiry on behalf of the union, said that whilst: “The private sector companies involved in the refurbishment [of Grenfell] bear a heavy responsibility… it would be wholly wrong and provide no justice to victims to leave the blame there”.

He continued: “They were encouraged to act by 40 years of political decisions in the service of an ideology [deregulation] based on the prioritisation of commercial interests and profit above all else, including public safety”.

He asserted that the “real culprits” of the disaster were those in power at the top, such as ministers following their “deregulatory agenda” to the detriment of fire safety, and the directors of industry on which they depended for sponsorship and party funding.

Seaward added that deregulation: “Has become synonymous with central government abandoning responsibility for… building regulations, building control, testing and certification, fire and rescue services and fire safety”. He said deregulation policies “tragically came together on 14 June 2017 to create the worst residential fire since 2017” and these policies meant that Grenfell “was a disaster to waiting to happen”.

Seaward described deregulation as part of a set of ideas that drives for a “largely unfettered” free market and a role for the state that “limited to… supporting the free market”, and “prioritises… entrepreneurial freedoms and private business interests”. 

He highlighted how ministers pursing this agenda had “deliberately and irresponsibly undermined” a “culture of health and safety”. Regulations were “repeatedly depicted as pointless, time-wasting administrative bureaucracy”. He noted that already-deregulated legislation “has not been effectively enforced” with effective enforcement “instead progressively weakened by successive governments”.

Seaward also highlighted the role of the individual organisations involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell, including the refurbishment that covered Grenfell in cladding that had a flammability which some have compared to petrol.

He said that: “The key players [in the refurbishment] amply demonstrate the widespread disregard of fire safety”. He pointed to cladding manufacturer dishonesty and manipulation, and several agencies including the architects and the design and build contractor failing to complete the fire risk strategy.

Finally, Seaward highlighted the structure of the Inquiry, which first involved a close analysis of the emergency response and then returning to discuss the run-up to the disaster in phase two. He stated that the Inquiry: “Risks distracting from the real causes of the disaster and creating a scapegoat that would allow those truly responsible, including senior politicians and company directors, to evade responsibility”.

He added that “Firefighters risked their lives going into the blazing inferno to try and rescue residents and extinguish the fire. They and the control staff did their duty professionally, bravely and to the best of their abilities in the face of a rapidly developing fire that was beyond anything any of them had ever experienced or trained for. They followed their procedures and applied their training as much as the extreme conditions allowed”.

After this set of submissions there will be a pause whilst the Inquiry prepares its final report, which is likely to be published next year.