Hans Detzholfer has mixed views on the new standard.  On the one hand he thinks that the new standard is without doubt the most rigorous firefighting helmet standard in the world, now outstripping NFPA regulations. On the other, he thinks some aspects of the standard are confusing.

“From my point of view the fact that helmets can be type A and type B will confuse people. Yes there are a lot of firefighters in countries with many forest fires, and yes there are many incidents such as RTCs where in some cases it is not necessary to have full head protection. So will people now buy two types of helmet for each firefighter, to be worn depending on the type of operation?”

Hans sees a clash between practice and theory. Where a firefighter does happen to have two helmets – one for technical rescue and one for structural firefighting for example – will the firefighter in reality always carry both with him? In safety terms, the answer should be yes. “He may attend an RTC but on the return journey he may be called to a fire inside a building, where they will need full protection. For me, only a full protection helmet is a safe helmet for the tough firefighter´s job”

Hans believes the new standard with different types of helmets has been driven by market differences within Europe.

“It is only in a few countries that people like the short-style helmets – the majority wanted a full protection helmet only. Interesting is also that a visor is an optional feature for option B helmets – another market-driven factor,” says Hans.

“In some countries it has been quite usual for helmets to be supplied without visors, and a firefighter to wear goggles supplied separately. This resulted in some companies supplying visors that had not been approved for particular helmets. Now the standard is better as regards safety, because any visor intended for use with a particular helmet has to have been tested with that helmet.”

As for chinstraps, it is another curious anomaly that they are now optional, but Hans puts this to allowing the market to choose the type of retainable system to use. “But in practice a two-point chinstrap would not pass the standard’s test, where a weight pulls on the edge of the helmet.” It seems that the three-way strap is the way to go.

But the main impact of the new standard, believes Hans, is that it makes the European firefighters’ helmet the toughest in the world. “Previously the US standard was the toughest but with EN 443 standard the tables have changed.”

Hans gives a couple of examples. The radiant heat test in the US only requires a 10kw/m2 as opposed to EN 443’s 14kw/m2. “The time of radiance is also higher under the European standard, plus if you are measuring the surface temperature after the radiance test, the NFPA test temperature is about 200 0C, while in Europe we have more than 300 0C. That is a big difference.”

EN 443’s flame engulfment test has no NFPA equivalent except for where a single Bunsen burner is applied to the edge of a helmet – which bears little resemblance to a flashover. “The next EN 443 will be a really good standard,  and with a new certified full protection type B-helmet the firefighter’s job will be much safer in the near future.”

Caption: Rosenbauer's HEROS-xtreme firefighting helmet has passed all EN 443 tests including the flame engulfment test.

Printer friendly version