Lives May Depend on It
During the 1970s when I was conducting prescribed fires with a land management agency in the midwestern United States, we wore leather boots if we had them, cotton jeans and shirts, and usually a ball cap as protection from flames and embers — nothing that would remotely qualify as personal protective equipment for wildland fire use today. When I look back at those times, I am amazed that we came away from all of the burning we accomplished with no serious injuries. That was not always the case — in some places people did die, not just from poor planning and changing weather, but also from a lack of PPE that might have made a difference.
| Related Articles | ||||||
|
When I moved west to work on wildland fire, I was quickly introduced to PPE. I became a believer in the use of hard hats, eye protection, Nomex shirts and trousers, gloves, good sturdy boots, and even an early version of the fire shelter. When I arrived, the old orange cotton-fabric shirts were occasionally still being worn, but the shift was definitely on to complete Nomex shirts and pants.
The Missoula Technology Development Center had been experimenting with and developing a variety of PPE since the late 1950s. But unless you were in wildland fire full-time, this level of light, fire-protective clothing generally was unavailable, even though the National Fire Protection Association had adopted wildland PPE standards with minimum performance levels in 1977 (revised in 2005). I remember during the early 1980s watching rural structure firefighters trying to climb uphill to catch grass fires while wearing heavy turnout gear and boots. Not a pretty sight, which was of course accompanied by heat stress and associated injuries.
Times change. The rules governing PPE for anyone working wildland fire in the United States have been tightened up and generally are well-enforced, especially if you work for a government agency or are working on an agency fire. Around the world, many countries have adopted wildland fire PPE standards, and PPE use is strongly encouraged if not mandatory. Structural fire departments are continuing to make a strong shift to fighting wildland fire with wildland fire PPE, saving wear and tear on their turnouts. States even have initiated grant programs using targeted funds from the U.S. National Fire Plan to help rural and volunteer firefighters purchase wildland PPE because few of these small fire departments have the money to do so.
Of course, you still see wildland firefighters with incomplete or improperly worn PPE despite all of their training. I occasionally see pictures of prescribed fire crews — frequently from our institutions of higher learning that are “training” students in the use of fire — that are no better PPE-equipped than I was 40 years ago. Sorry, professors and university safety officers — no excuses will be accepted. And nearly every year I hear of private citizens who are killed or injured while conducting their own burning, partially due to a lack of knowledge and proper PPE.
We need to encourage the use of PPE at all levels, even if it's ultimately a personal decision to own and wear the safety equipment. Although wildland fire suppression and prescribed fire activities are conducted worldwide, many still do not have rudimentary PPE. From my experience, this is primarily due to insufficient funds. Some people are finding ways to recycle used wildland PPE and tools, distributing them where there are strong needs. Don't throw that old, still-usable PPE away. Some of your gear might save someone a lot of pain or a family grief — it's worth the effort. Let me know if you are interested in helping make our global wildland fire community a safer place.
International Assn. of Wildland Fire
3416 Primm Ln. Birmingham, AL 35216
ph: 205-824-7614
iawf@iawfonline.org
To join the IAWF, visit www.iawfonline.org
Send them to:
Wildfire Magazine
Attn: Kevin Daniels
kevindaniels@earthlink.net
Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus
