SA Firefighter
Equipment => All Equipment discussion => Topic started by: K55 on April 13, 2008, 02:38:08 PM
-
Can you wear Bunker boots that meet or exceed the CFS/AFAC standards for structural firefighting? Getting sick of 2 sets of gear, 1 set of boots
-
I don't know where you stand if you hurt yourself, but I know of brigades what were "bunker" type boots for CFS activities.
-
At work I wear the Haix FireHunter structural boots whenever wearing my bunker gear.. Have been told that the boots wouldn't be able to be worn at CFS as they have not been approved?.. So wear my taipans for CFS..
If I had my choice, and was allowed, I would go an buy a personal set of Haix just for CFS if we were allowed to wear them..
-
Interesting. I would have thought that haix style boots exceeded the standard.
-
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it meets the standard...
-
SAMFS wear Haix, SAMFS is part of safecom like SACFS, so would there be an argument supporting the wearing of Haix?
-
Tried and denied, something about ankle support, I did remind them they are a little better than the old knee length boots we used to wear.
I also reminded them that we are all part of the same service as SAMFS wear them, so why can't I, then I was told SAMFS are having trouble with them, so I gave up trying.
-
Interesting. I would have thought that haix style boots exceeded the standard.
They do.. However, as pumprescue said, the argument was something along the lines of ankle support, and they are not standard CFS issue or something to those lines..
-
I honestly thought it was a fairly lame answer I got, but who am I to go against what CFS says :roll:
-
Yeah it can be a tough one. Between the two types of boots I have found that the Structural type zipper boots are much more supportive of the ankle compared to the Bunker style boot. This may differ between brands of bunker boot, especially with boots like the Haix Florian Pro that allege better ankle support.
-
Do we as a mainly rural based fire service ,need the bunker style boots?
Do they offer better protection?
Do they offer more comfort?
Do they offer a cost benefit,compared to what is already supplied?
What are the cost differences between the two different styles?
Are they "needed" because our paid brothers have them?
These are all genuine questions and NO slur is intended!
Cheers Jaff
-
Jaff, I think the question asked is more to do with members purchasing their own items of equipment and using them, rather than the CFS as a whole purchasing more boots.
To answer your questions though, I'd suggest that 99.9% of brigades and members would have no benefit from bunker boots.
-
Jaff, I think the question asked is more to do with members purchasing their own items of equipment and using them, rather than the CFS as a whole purchasing more boots.
To answer your questions though, I'd suggest that 99.9% of brigades and members would have no benefit from bunker boots.
SES purchase the same zip boots for all members, so a cost saving should be to the agency for the larger purchasing quantity.
The SES volunteers are being advised not to use own equipment, unless it is on the Unit's asset list. This is because if something does go wrong or your equipment failed, insurance could be a problem.
Just some reasons from another view point.
-
One major advantage of the Haix bunker boots is that they dont allow your pants to ride up and expose your skin whilst down on the floor of a building. They are pretty damn comfortable too.
-
Jaff - To answer:
Do they offer better protection? - Yes, for Structural fires definately. They offer higher leg protection, and alot more protection if the foot/leg was to go through a floor or roof. - Obviously the protection is also greater for rural jobs, but that goes into the next question, would they be more comfortable for rural incidents? Probably not. - Well, no. I wouldnt wear them for a rural incident.
Do they offer more comfort? See above.
Do they offer a cost benefit,compared to what is already supplied? Comes to the old question, does cost outweigh safety?.. - For internal/Structural firefighting, my personal opinion (based on experience), they offer excellent protection and for structural/internal firefighting, I wouldn't go past them.. In regards to what is already supplied.. Well, I guess you can only aswer that if you put your foot through a floor and suffer 3rd degree burns because your boots didnt offer any lower shin coverage.. Its a 'Tomatoes Tomato's' type debate..
What are the cost differences between the two different styles? Pick up your Taipan / blundstone / comfort wear / Redback - Then look on here http://www.code-2.com/FIRE-HUNTER-AF-p/501601.htm .. You can see the differences etc and can see why they are a far more superior piece of equipment for structural / internal fire related incidents.
Are they "needed" because our paid brothers have them? No. But if we are volunteering to put our lives on the line, should we have the best out there for the job?.. Not for me to answer, but I have my opinions.
In closing, they are an excellent boot for wearing while inside structure fires / internally fighting fire. - Does every BA member need a set?.. No. - Would it be nice if every BA member had a set? Of course... - If we were allowed to wear them, would "I" buy myself a pair after wearing them already in my current profession and knowing what they offer? Definately..
Guess its up to everyone to make up their own minds.. - But at the moment, I don't think they can be worn for CFS duties, so I guess the decision is kind of already made..
-
The Haix Fire Hunter is a good boot, Lion have them in Adelaide for about $325, last time I looked. They are pretty much the best of the best when it comes to Bunker boots, and as such, you know that they will never be purchased by the CFS :wink:
I know a few people who have been purchasing the Harvaik L3 boot http://www.firetrader.com.au/prod17.htm
I've seen those retail for around $80. They are made of rubber, and to be honest I'm not a fan of those types at all. Very little ankle support and an odd fit in general.
RescueHazmat, I agree with most of what you're saying, except regarding rural fires. Perhaps its because of my hilly local area but I think that ankle support is paramount in rural firefighting boots, and its hard to compare the laced up zippers and the bunker style boots when it comes to this. I also have found that most bunker boots are a fair amount heavier than other styles of boots. Of course it all comes down to the individual experience we have with boots. Try Redbacks vs. Taipans for example, same style, world of difference.
Uniden, if your turnout pants are riding to the middle of your shin and higher, perhaps you need to have them resized? With both PBI and Nomex + liner turnout pants, I've never had them ride up above the top of my boots, there's always been a few inches overlap at the very least.
The other point would perhaps be the versatility of the boots we currently have. They are great for all fire and rescue applications and provide very good bang for their buck. Maybe the stance the CFS need to take with certain things is to approve equipment for use, but not supply it. Mind you, the CFS then have to have both the manpower and the money to test and review different items of equipment.
-
The Haix Fire Hunter is a good boot, Lion have them in Adelaide for about $325, last time I looked. They are pretty much the best of the best when it comes to Bunker boots, and as such, you know that they will never be purchased by the CFS :wink:
I know a few people who have been purchasing the Harvaik L3 boot http://www.firetrader.com.au/prod17.htm
I've seen those retail for around $80. They are made of rubber, and to be honest I'm not a fan of those types at all. Very little ankle support and an odd fit in general.
RescueHazmat, I agree with most of what you're saying, except regarding rural fires. Perhaps its because of my hilly local area but I think that ankle support is paramount in rural firefighting boots, and its hard to compare the laced up zippers and the bunker style boots when it comes to this. I also have found that most bunker boots are a fair amount heavier than other styles of boots. Of course it all comes down to the individual experience we have with boots. Try Redbacks vs. Taipans for example, same style, world of difference.
Uniden, if your turnout pants are riding to the middle of your shin and higher, perhaps you need to have them resized? With both PBI and Nomex + liner turnout pants, I've never had them ride up above the top of my boots, there's always been a few inches overlap at the very least.
The other point would perhaps be the versatility of the boots we currently have. They are great for all fire and rescue applications and provide very good bang for their buck. Maybe the stance the CFS need to take with certain things is to approve equipment for use, but not supply it. Mind you, the CFS then have to have both the manpower and the money to test and review different items of equipment.
I agree with you re: rural fires (I think).. I would prefer my lace/zip up Taipans for rural incidents.. - I think this is what you also meant?
-
have only seen these boots in CFA but they no longer issue them,there was a problem with them years ago..I guess you could always go and ask the man at the top....
-
Maybe the stance the CFS need to take with certain things is to approve equipment for use, but not supply it. Mind you, the CFS then have to have both the manpower and the money to test and review different items of equipment.
Why not simply say "Anything at or above this standard is allowed". Someone at AFAC has already spent the money and manpower developing the standards, so theoretically thats all the CFS needs...
-
There is nothing stopping an individual wearing a boot that meets or exceeds the current CFS standard... why? show me where it is written that you will wear "x" boot??
-
Im pretty sure it doesnt matter, as far as im aware there is no real standard for boots... just a requirment for structure boots to be fitted with steel or reinforced toe caps...
Im also pretty sure some of the boys up at STC use the Haix Boots...
-
Yeah, there is a standard, AS/NZS 4821:2006 - Firefighters Footwear, deals with the whole lot.
-
I wore a pair last night at the Wingfield dump fire, and im glad i did. Saved my socks and feet being soaked in garbage run-off. The taipan style isn't the best sealed boot.
-
Yeah, there is a standard, AS/NZS 4821:2006 - Firefighters Footwear, deals with the whole lot.
What does this standard mean in relation to International standards? Could only find the International standard when browsing the sites.
-
What ISO standards did you find? Oddly enough, nothing but the Australian standard is mentioned on any of the manufacturers pages for Aussie footwear - don't know where you were looking?
As far as other standards for boots and PPE you've got things like NFPA 1971 & 1977 standards for Structural and Wildfire PPE respectively, can't be bothered looking for the European ones at the moment.
-
I wore a pair last night at the Wingfield dump fire, and im glad i did. Saved my socks and feet being soaked in garbage run-off. The taipan style isn't the best sealed boot.
Gilly did you wear these style boots with the blessing of your group, or is this a decision that your brigade has arrived at, or an independent action by youself.
As has been posted by others, if the unforunate happened and you hadn't been approved to wear these style of boots , it would then possibly be a protracted discussion with the insurance guru's, not a pleasant prospect.
If your either your brigade or group approved their use ,without regions approval ,then the liabilitiy lies with them ,not a good situation.
The discussion as to the fit for use of this style of boot for CFS duty,probably needs to happen ,granted, but to assume that because they meet xyz standards ,CFS will automatically sign off on their approval for use is foolish, because once they approve their use ,they have opened up the purse strings,something they are loathe to do!!!!!!
-
The CFS would not get away with refusing to compensate someone who was injured wearing boots that exceed the standards of the officially supplied boots. Legally they may be well within their rights to do so, but it would raise a massive internal, and potentially public outcry. The CFS is already in enough trouble for allegedly not appreciating the volunteers as it is...
-
But if everyone starts to wear their own gear (that is better than standard), then what happens to standard PPE ??
I believe you also get back to the "bad old days" where the richer areas got more/better equipment compared to the struggling area.
If someone does have an accident & is wearing their own gear, then how much extra paperwork/enquiries/reports/etc/etc will need to be done by volunteers & paid staff because the person was wearing something different.
Yes the person injured might be paid, but it will hurt/cost the organisation in time lost from doing other more useful things.
Let alone the volunteer having to maintain their own gear.
Yes it is only a boot....but what happens when the same idea is applied to other equipment. This has occurred with Vertical Rescue equipment (eg sit harness, etc, etc).
Yes I carry some of my own gear (eg headlamp torch, pocket knife, etc), but nothing to do with safety.
** my personal opinion only **
-
I made the call. Standing around in ankle deep rubbish run-off was not the most preferred option, and posed a far greater risk to my health and safety than wearing standard compliant boots.
-
I love 'em for structural work. I have a pair of the SAMFS spec. Haix boots. I still enjoy the comforts of the Taipans for rural work.
As far as the standards are concerned, I'm happy to use it as it exceeds the required standard. If I happen to go arse over tit, and my boots are responsible, then I will happily cop whatever the CFS and the insurance company is going to dish out.
-
They are used by the SAMFS, but definately not SAMFS spec.. - They are not designed to a 'SAMFS' specification..
I will wear them at work, because we do.. - I won't wear them at CFS, because I have been told by a DGO not to.. - If i'm ever injured, and it is discovered the Haix boot could have prevented it, it will be duely(sp) noted on the injury report..
-
As a few people have said that they would and do wear non standard PPE that hasnt been approved by CFS . Their call or is it ? Does the officer in charge of the appliance, bare some responsibility for ensuring that "correct" PPE is worn by the crew under his direction ? Yes, it may meet or exceed CFS standards, but is it fair to put the officer in charge of the appliance / incident controller in a position ,where they could be compromised by your actions if things go tits up and its found that the non CFS approved PPE is a contributing factor !
As a Captain or Group Officer would you knowingly let your brigade/s use non standard, unapproved equipment, PBI gold it can be argued is the best possible protection against radiant heat in a bushfire ,it certainly exceeds the standard of level 1 clothing, but to use it for extended periods, could be putting yourself at risk.
The point I am trying badly to make is that, assuming that because non approved PPE/EQUIPMENT exceed a given standard, they are automatically suitable for any incident that you perceive to be, below the risk factors associated with that incident. God forbid it ever ends up in a court with some limp dic k lawyer questioning you about your qualifications in dynamic PPE risk assesment for non approved items, is it worth the heart ache?.
If its needed , go through the right channels, seek its approval, argue the case , seek clarification , dont put other people in compromising situations.
Cheers Jaff
-
They are used by the SAMFS, but definately not SAMFS spec.. - They are not designed to a 'SAMFS' specification..
Yes I understand that. I was merely pointing out that I use the same Haix boots as are used by SAMFS, but for the moment I had forgotten the trade name.
If its needed , go through the right channels, seek its approval, argue the case , seek clarification , dont put other people in compromising situations.
It's a valid point. It seems odd that we sit here and happily wear no standard footwear, when I don't think any of us would even begin to think about buying our own Turnout gear or helmet...
-
NP.
-
Something that would slip on easily like the haix would be nice for rural jobs had they been supportive and enduring enough, nothing annoys me more than time wasted messing around trying to do up the zip on the taipans and the resulting effects on your fingers once you successfully pull up the zip. Im lucky enough to have a foot halfway between an 8 and a 9 so I wear two pairs of woolen socks to keep my feet snug in the boots. On KI I made the mistake of wearing just 1 pair and I've never had sorer feet before in my life. In addition the taipans weigh a ton. How much do the Haix ones weigh?
-
Haix are twice the weight of a Taipan. - I would NEVER wear my Haix for a rural job! (Just to make that point clear).. Its hard enough if for some reason you have to drive the truck in them!
-
Haix are no harder to drive in than steel cap work boots, I find.
-
You might like to consider these?
http://www.oliver.com.au/asp/show_products.asp?safety=S
scroll down till you find STYLE 25-356 firemans waterproof top boot 10
-
For the above boots:
Meets AS/NZS4821 Firefighting Footwear Standard
Surely thats the cfs standard.......
-
Regarding the Oliver boots, I use the zipper style ones for work and find them to be very good boots. Good support and no issues with the zipper. Dare I say a little more comfy than the Taipans.
Jacob, sizing can be a pain especially if you do fall into the gap between sizes like I used to. As far as having issues with the zip goes, have you got the boot laced correctly? I've never had issues with boots since we moved on from the Redback, which had a shitty zipper but that was kept in check with a bit of chain lube.
There is a difference between the National standard and what is actually approved for use, and supplied by different agencies. I would also imagine that you could get away with using the same style boot from a different manufacturer, but not a different style completely. Its much like elastic sided boots are a no-no these days due to the ankle support and flammability issues, but both Redback and Taipan style boots are still in use...
-
Haix are no harder to drive in than steel cap work boots, I find.
I find the work boots have alot more flexibility in the ankle and just allow general pivotting of the foot alot easier..
-You can still drive just as safely, but personally I find it slightly easier in the work boots compared to my Haix (bunker) boots.
-
Normal zip up boots for L1 gear and bunker boots for PBI (at own expense).... At the end of the day if people want to spend their own money of getting their own gear (that doesn't compromise safety) then go for it.... It's what people have been doing with flash hoods and helmet torches for years....
-
Lets not start the helmet torch safety issue...