New Kent Project PPE Causing Burns?

[Lummox]

Firstly in no way am I questioning the company that is producing the new kit being rolled out across the country. Rumour mill doing its thing and I’ve heard there have been some reports of burns to the forearms in a couple of occasions along with failures to the stitching on the tunic arm.

Anyone who has had it issued experienced the above? Eventually we will be issued with it here in hants to replace the old Bristol’s and sand cosalt. 

[Crog]

Issue with kit that Kent uses? 

If so, it’s news to me. It’s pretty decent kit and does the job it’s designed for. Our contract is expiring soon I believe and we are going to Bristol for the next lot.

[Bgjm21]

Definitely some real issues with the new kit, especially with regards to the tunic and leggings getting ripped, caught and snagged and catching fire.. the gloves are even worse, with some people going through several pairs already.

[Lummox]

Yeh sorry should clarify.

Question is about the new layered kit being  adopted by many brigades. Mine included.

Yellow colour with grid pattern, comes with a separate rescue tunic.

Rumour I’ve heard is there is multiple reports of burns on the forearms and fragility. 

[Bgjm21]

is this the Kent consortium kit that London, Scotland etc have bought into? 

[Carl]

5 hours ago, Lummox said:

Rumour mill doing its thing

 

34 minutes ago, Lummox said:

Rumour I’ve heard

Mmmmm, I would tread carefully unless there is substance to this.

The title suggests that the kit is causing burns, when in fact I think you mean the lack of protection it affords is causing the burns? There is a difference?

[Lummox]

22 minutes ago, Carl said:

Mmmmm, I would tread carefully unless there is substance to this. 

Purely asking if anyone has any ACTUAL knowledge as I find it hard to believe after the supposed trials and tender process there could be such failings- and as an end user I want to know what we’ll be issued and it’s pros cons from actual users.

Nothing ive heard has been substantiated especially to a ‘ground floor’ type such as me. 

I have my own view on the maintenance standards of kit but will keep that to myself.

22 minutes ago, Bgjm21 said:

is this the Kent consortium kit that London, Scotland etc have bought into? 

I believe so, has developed from the ‘Kent’ trial and now seems to be the basis for brigades to buy into. Hampshire being one.

[OscarTango]

Which Kent trial is this? As Crog said first I've heard of it. We're using the same Cosalt Ballycare stuff as Surrey and Sussex and going over to the Bristol soonish together with LFB I believe. 

[Lummox]

Known to us as the ‘Kent’ trial

Edited August 27, 2018 by Carl
Link and Quote formatted as per Guidelines

[OscarTango]

Thanks, you jogged my memory, I had seen this mentioned yes. However I thought it was just an administrative deal looking at what was required and different PPE packages. No one one has actually gone on the run with any if the gear to my knowledge.

[Bgjm21]

They have mate, Scotlands new recruits are wearing it now.

[OscarTango]

Sorry meant on the run here. Is Scotland where these rumours have appeared from then?

[Lummox]

Long way from Scotland to Hampshire, jungle drums turned up to 11 ?

[Luminoki]

Hereford and Worcester already wearing it ( although theyve only had the tunic, leggings and rescue jacket ) and have been for a while

[Percy]

Probably worth pointing out for legal reasons... radiant heat is causing the burns not the PPE. I appreciate the point you’re making, i.e there are numerous anecdotal examples of the protection (or alleged lack of) provided by the clothing possibly not being adequate for the conditions but to suggest they are causing the burns or even contributing to them is libellous and has probably got Carl’s balloon knot clenching tighter than a choke hold. 

[Noddy]

What’s been worn as a base layer can have a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of firefighting ppe.  

[Carl]

9 hours ago, Percy said:

is libellous and has probably got Carl’s balloon knot clenching tighter than a choke hold. 

Not at all. Its my job to point things out. As with all my posts they can be taken on board or ignored.

Forum Guidelines, Section 5, which all members have agreed to upon registration

Quote

5.     Legal Obligations

• Members remain legally responsible for any messages they may post.

 

[Lummox]

10 hours ago, Percy said:

Probably worth pointing out for legal reasons... radiant heat is causing the burns not the PPE. I appreciate the point you’re making, i.e there are numerous anecdotal examples of the protection (or alleged lack of) provided by the clothing possibly not being adequate for the conditions but to suggest they are causing the burns or even contributing to them is libellous and has probably got Carl’s balloon knot clenching tighter than a choke hold. 

Pretty sure at no point I’ve said the kit IS causing burns, more asked for any first hand experience of users of the kit. 

I’m not really sure why we’re now suggesting that I’m trying to name and shame or brand a company, think it’s quite obvious what the question is. But to reiterate.

Does anyone have first hand experience or knowledge of issues of heat transmission to the forearms with this new kit?

I’m assuming as several posters services are currently using this kit, the trials process appeared to be very thorough and robust and no one else has come forward that this is as most things in the fire service - rumour mill doing its job. 

[Percy]

2 hours ago, Lummox said:

Pretty sure at no point I’ve said the kit IS causing burns...

New Kent Project PPE Causing Burns?

? 

[Lummox]

And the ? At the end

[BurtMacklin]

Didn’t London have this when the current gear came on the run and it was discovered to be poor branch handling allowing water to enter at the cuff and then turning to steam? 

[Messyshaw]

Maybe Kent should return to the one piece boil-in-the-bag PPE they had in the 90s when the hideous tunic and leggings were connected like an insulated adult baby grow!! 

Perhaps equal to ERF pumping appliances for the most useless firefighting equipment ever introduced, now there's a title for a thread!!!

[BEB1966]

As the technical lead for this project I would like to set the record straight on some of the “rumours” being quoted on this forum and provide some first-hand information on the kit and project. Firstly it is actually a national Collaborative PPE project, so though a few people have called it the “kent project” that really is not the case. 

 As a 30 year fire officer with 18 years first-hand experience of procuring and managing firefighting PPE I can assure the whole fire service community that there are no reports of burns to the forearms or failures to the stitching in the arms. None of the agencies involved – collaboration lead (KFRS), the supplier, or the FRSs using this kit - have any knowledge of burns occurring as reported here.

Equally, we have no reports of garments ‘catching fire’.  As the outer material, a fabric called Titan 1260, is inherently fire resistant it would be extremely unlikely this phenomenon occurred.  The garments (tunic and trouser) comply fully with and in many performance requirements exceed, BS EN 469, Level 2.  To add more evidence, the garments were exposed to a full flame engulfment test (optional requirement in BS EN 469) and exposed to an 8 second burn at 84kW/m2 in both female and male sizes, where it was recorded that “no after flame was apparent”.

I can also clarify that Hereford and Worcester are not wearing this kit currently. 

As some posters have rightly pointed out it would be heat transfer (radiant or direct flame) that would cause an injury to any wearer exposed to these extreme conditions and I can reassure the community that the heat transfer values in these garments far exceed those required within the British and European standard and when we set these values were very conscious of performance of existing PPE across the country and we have not come away from those values in the new kit.  What we have done is ensured that the garments are more breathable and ergonomic to wear to reduce the physiological impact of wearing the PPE.

In addition we have provided options within the framework to allow services the choice of structural jacket (compliant to EN 469, level 2), Rescue Jacket (compliant to both Hi-Viz, Class 3 and wildland firefighting standards) and a layered jacket which comprises of a rescue jacket (compliant as previously mentioned) and a specific outer layer that when worn in combination meets the requirements of EN 469, level 2.  NB.  The outer layer cannot be worn in isolation.  Similar to that currently being worn within Greater Manchester.

Firefighters structural PPE is ‘stand-alone’ protection and as such the protection afforded to the wearer is not dependent on the clothes worn underneath.  However, it is worthy to note that garments worn beneath can increase protection (more layers more thermal protection) and also prevent garments from working effectively in terms of moisture management/breathability.

And finally from me, let’s remember PPE is the last in a hierarchy of control measures designed to mitigate the risks faced by our firefighters and that all PPE has limitations.  As stated this kit was extensively trialled by both female and male firefighters from across the country. A video of the process can be viewed here - Collaborative PPE

[Luminoki]

6 hours ago, BEB1966 said:

I can also clarify that Hereford and Worcester are not wearing this kit currently.

My mistake, i thought this kit ( apart from the helmet ) was the PPE in question

[BEB1966]

Hi Luminoki

It looks like the kit worn by Herford and Worcester is part of the Central PPE and Clothing Contract (CPPC) and not the Collaborative PPE.  Although extremely similar (same outer material and xflex styling) the thermal lining is different and therefore the overall performance characteristics will be different.

Hope this helps.