Helmet Use in the News

Fire Department is a good example.  Obviously I don't have all the answers here.  The following information should be considered. 

Full turnout gear, helmet, and eye protection required by my fire chief and every other fire chief  when working an motor vehicle accident  (MVA) or fire.  MVA and fires are dangerous place even when the scene is "secure".  There is no option to wearing proper gear.   Its not about the Fire fighters  or EMTs having a good time and enjoying their freedom.   Its all about safety and everyone going home alive to their family and loved ones. 

It should be noted that the Fire Deparments have a lot more resources versus one or two Ski Patrollers that are on their own much of the time.  Huge difference.  When an interior Fire Fighter exits a burning building he/she enters a REHAB area, where EMTs check their vitals, provide fluids and ok them to go back in by changing their air tanks.  Full turnout gear is damn hot  even when the outside temp is 60F degrees.  A 90+ degree day a firemen can use up a lot of fluids to try to keep their bodies cooled down.  Even with REHAB we loose a lot of firemen every year due to heart attacks and over exertion.  Don't believe believe me look at the data in the links below.  A helmet that is required for ski patrollers at all times that are on their own with little or no resources and no REHAB "may" cause additional exertion and stress on the ski patroller. 

As of today 40 firefighters have lost their lives on duty in 2009.  17 of these firefighters died as the result of a heart attacks.  If a ski area requires a helmet be worn at all times it may result in over exertion and heart attacks when the patroller is giving his all to help save a life.  Remember its about safety and not about the feeling of freedom when patrolling on duty. 

Here are a few links. 

http://www.everyonegoeshome.com/

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/fatalities/

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/09_fatality_summary.pdf

If a 13 oz helmet causes a heart attack then that person's number was up regardless of helmet or none.
I'm having a little trouble accepting this since a helmet weighs less than a pound and we're talking about an alpine environment where heat storage might be  beneficial at times more than losing some. There's just no real comparison between these duties unless you are talking about difficulties treating your victims in a firefighters helmet. The exposures are so much different.




What about Bob's waiver ?  Why would a large resort allow it  when it might cause misunderstandings about their new rule? I think the legal entanglements would be too much to overcome for them to accept it.

If they would it's a perfect solution to Bob's wishes and their concerns.


Edited by GarryZ - 7/26/2009 at 11:51 pm GMT
Edited by GarryZ - 7/27/2009 at 12:05 am GMT

Helmet vs. no helmet regarding hearing.

Not to be smart, if you are not wearing a helmet, are you are wearing a hat (that goes over your ears)? Are you wearing goggles?
When I did an (unscientific test) comparing ambient sound wearing my (Giro Fuse) helmet (with ear flaps on) along with my goggles, I actually had better hearing than wearing a hat with goggles. The hat actually muffled more sound than the helmet due to the goggles partially covering the hat over the ears. 

By no means am I telling Patrollers how to do their jobs, I do understand that having to keep track of a helmet at an accident scene is one less thing that you want or need to deal with. If it does come to the the fact that you would be required to wear one, I would say a helmet (planted in the snow upside down) might be a good place as a "bucket"t  to keep gloves and such off the snow and dry. Just a thought. 

When I was selling cars, at one of the dealerships, I was required to wear a suit. Did wearing a suit make be a better salesman? No. It was perception that I was a professional (no comments). Could I have quite and gone some place else? Yep. I weighed the options and lived with wearing the suit and like many here, I sure as hell fought it. Will wearing a helmet make you a better (or worse) patroller? The perception is yes.  

I must admit I am a little confused with your comparison, What does ski patrol and fire have in common?

You also say "remember it's about safety" yet in the same sentence you argue for patrol not to wear helmets.

????????????????

Edit: Fire helmet  = Heavy & no vents (for good reason).
        Ski helmet = light with air vents to release heat.




Edited by Jag - 7/27/2009 at 12:14 am GMT

GaryZ, you did not answer a previous post, "Do you have any experience as a ski patroller?"

Obviously from the above post "YOU HAVE ZERO EXPERIENCE AS  A SKI PATROLLER GIVING A 110 PERCENT TRYING TO SAVE A LIFE OF A CRITICAL PATIENT?

Please don't comment on something where you have no experience.

I was not talking about helmet weight.  I was talking about body heat.  Yes when your giving a 110 percent you get damn hot even when its cold out.  Getting rid of excess heat through your head is the most efficient way to get rid of excess heat.  For example, hauling a 280lb man in a toboggan on flat ground and up hill can generate a lot of body heat.  Obviusly you have never been in the handles of a toboggan. 

BTW - ski patrollers go up hill as well as down hill to perform patient care.   Patrollers  also dig and probe after an Avalanche.

Is JHMR going to require the patroller to wear a helmet while he is digging his a$$ off trying to get me some oxygen  while I am buried in snow gasping for air.    If so I want to know that before I go skiing their next year as a customer.  Yes a patroller could easily have a heart attack working him/her self to the limit trying to dig out multiple avalanche victim(s). Throw in high altitude thin air and yes ski patrollers could easily over exert themselves which may result in numerous medical problems. 





Edited by catskills - 7/27/2009 at 12:44 am GMT
Edited by catskills - 7/27/2009 at 01:21 am GMT

I know it's fun for you guys to rant that ' nobody knows what I know  crap ' but your analogy seemed very confusing.
I work with patrollers often enough to understand much of their demands and don't care if you wear a helmet or not.  I think , like many of us, the resistance is more from habit than real issues that can't be overcome.

Bob,
I don't know the situation at JHMR, the relationship between managment and patrollers etc, but I would think patrollers could/should have communication with management and input into the policies enacted. SImilarly, if there's legislation being discussed or state regs proposed by the dept of empolyment or other state agencies, you and your brethren get the ears of some state legislators and present the pertinant arguments and convince them.
Don't know enough about Wyoming law, employment law or workers comp, but if you are an informed consenting adult, why not, so long as its not illegal?  However if you were able to sign such a waiver would you be willing to give a blanket waiver that you or your family wouldn't make any claim?  How would you carve out the helmet related incidents from other potential situations? (Out of control skier/boarder nails you, chairlift catastrophe, other accidents, slip and fall or someone knocks you over in dining room, bathroom etc)  That part gets a little complicated and you certainly wouldn't want to give that right away  in its entirety. Just my .02.

There's no inuendo, I was just noting that you don't understand the hazards presented by various types of terrain well enough to advise others on them; the further statement that your patrol inevitably is in a better position than you to evaluate just about everything except the "marketing angle" which you also think should count should be pretty obvious. 

The fact that you think it's worth mentioning, in a discussion about whether patrols should be required to wear helmets by rules imposed from the outside, that your resort gets a lot of snow and even "heli-bombs," kind of reinforces that point. 

I just note again that patrols and patrollers have all sorts of safety gear.  Take a climbing harness.  Should patrollers in all cases be required to wear a climbing harness, even on the bunny hill, because of the "knife-edge" ridges that you're concerned about?  They're in a pretty good position to evaluate whether those harnesses,  and maybe some rope (and what type of rope) are needed, or not.  You are not.  No offense but both internet discussions and well-intended people looking in from the outside are pretty reliable in getting those judgments wrong.

Does a climbing harness combined with a few other facts being in place help you if you are on a loaded slope that slides?  Yes.  Can a "chest" harness help more than the standard type of climbing harness alone?  Sometimes, yes.  Should people say that patrollers should all be swaddled in the equivalent of a "kids" harness, even when on the bunny hill?  

Well, I'm losing a number of readers (but porbalby not Spindrift) even by saying kids harness.   These are technical issues that most people don't even have a basic grounding in, nor should they feel the need to.   The answer about the kids harness should obviously be, No, that would be a pain in the ass and interfere with many aspects of a patroller's performance.  But a patrol (or individual patroller) may in some cases use a harness in their discretion. 

Now, as magical as some people seem to think helmets are, helmets, just like harnesses, are only gear.  As already noted many if not most patrollers will have, and use, several different types of helmets.  They may not use them as a Martha-Stewart style glove and daisy holder as so helpfully suggested by another poster in this thread; and there's a reason why most people wouldn't want them to get their technical info or trianing on the web.

I gather that answering 4 or 5 simple one line questions pertinent to  points made in this thread- or alternatively explaining why each is irrelevant - is beyond you? Or perhaps beneath you?


BTW - how did harnesses come into this thread? Why don't you start a new thread for what appears to be your pet topic? ;)

Harnesses are gear used by patrollers, on occasion.  They are not in routine use.  Very analogous to helmets, which also are gear used by patrollers on occasion. Therefore very relevant.  The main point of difference is that harnesses aren't chic.

As for answering questions, my prior post should make clear that, just as I think a climbing harness can help you on occasion, so can helmets if you're going to defnitely get hit on the head.  I doubt you wear a "safety helmet" in the shower though, and just as I'm happy to let you make your own risk assessment there, there are all sorts of reasons to let patrollers make their own gear decisions.  Most importantly they'll do a better job doing so. 

The stats are pretty clear that helmets actually aren't the magical safety devices people hold them out to be, but I have no issue at all with someone choosing to use one.  I also own several, including a few different ones for snowsports, and use them when I think I need to. 

Just a thought.....

Comparing to Fire Services/Building Sites/Climbing is all well and good, however in these situations the helmets are designed to protect the user from an unknown risk... i.e. a falling beam, a dropped spanner or a loose rock.... something beyond the control of the user, that is of such a risk (i.e. regular occurrence and/or serious consequence) that helmet usage is mandatory.

I'm not aware of a high occurrence of such risks when on snow..... OK another rider crashing into you maybe, but a snow-helmet is not designed for that anyway??

IIRC, Earlier you stated that regulation and workman's compensation are two separate concerns.( I could have interpreted incorrectly)
Would an "iron clad" waiver by the employee protect the corporation from employment regulation, or implied employment regulation, from(in this case) The Wyoming Dept of Employment?

On a similar note. Do any of you "experts" know why OSHA doesn't regulate ski area employees? I can't for the life of me figure out why they wouldn't. They regulate everything else. Seems like they would have safety regulations up the yingyang for snow makers, lifties and just about everyone else.

This being the case, I really can't see how any area could be fined for not demanding helmet use for the patrol when there were no regulations describing their use.

 I'm guessing because they don't regulate the "service" industry. 

My construction guys wear orange vests and hard hats, while my service employees are not required to do so.

Trekchick, with respect to waivers for OSHA or Dept of Employment, I am not sure.  My guess would be no as this gives employers an opportunity to force employees to sign "waivers" releasing them from liability. However, I am not sure.

I do know that employees of health care facilities can waive getting Hepatitis vaccines even though OSHA requires health care facilities to offer the vaccines to employees at no cost.
 

Just speculating... if I were going to guess about waiving vaccines, I'd suspect the roots of the ability to do that go back to freedom of religion. Just crossed paths with this the other day looking at a college medical form that allows a student to bail on std vaccinations by claiming vaccination would conflict with their religious beliefs. It is hard to imagine many folks  swinging that one for helmet use. 

I would agree that vaccines are a different matter.

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, but I think I get the gist of the matter.  OSHA must make determinations of a violation of its regulatory codes in order to issue a citation.  With regard to head protection, OSHA regulates employers under 29 CFR 1910.135.  The code specifically requires employers to ensure employees are protected from overhead hazards and electrical hazards where these exist. 


Helmets used as personal protective equipment must meet certain ANSI Z89.1-1986 standards, which are not applicable to recreational ski helmets, but are available in the form of helmets designed for rescue use, for example these from Patroller Supply.   As far as I know, no recreational ski helmet is certified to ANSI 89.1, but instead use other standsards like ASTM F-2040 or European standard CE-1077, neither one of which would be defensible against an OSHA citation.

The existence of a line of protective head gear specifically for conducting rescue work in extreme environments may complicate a defense claim that no compliant equipment exists or is manufactured that would satisfy current OSHA regulatory requirements for this work.  Also it will be hard to claim that the nature of the hazards anticipated by the personal protective equipment standards under the purview of OSHA (overhead hazards) are not a prevalent risk in resort workers and rescue personnel who work in the outdoors.  This could be refuted since skiers, and patrollers in particular, are exposed to the same hazard from falling objects (branches, ice, rock) as other occupations such as forestry and mining where head protection is univerally required.   It is problematic that the specific injuries (death) for which the ski area is being cited in this case are derived from a fall which could have been fatal regardless of the use of head protection.  Head protection against falls is not an enforceable OSHA standard.  Helmets are not really designed to mitigate injury falls onto rock at high speed or from significant height. 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  If OSHA can make the citation stick, the finding will affect every resort in the U.S. where any potential for overhead hazard may exist.  The fact the enforcement is derived from a fatal fall rather than an overhead hazard may prove fatal to the OSAH prosecution of its case.  I think all ski patrols would be well advised to review risks, and determine environments where personal protection in the form of safety helmets should be mandatory for employees.  In my opinion this may not include situations where the employee is skiing or performing other tasks in an area not reasonably anticipated to have overhead hazards, and would not be required to anticipate the occurrence of an injury from falls. But when you really look at this issue, and realize it may include employees that are subject to potential objects falling from trees, roofs, lifts and cliffs, or even impacts with moving chairs and stationary objects like branches and trees, you realize that risks from overhead objects (as interpreted and regulated by OSHA)  is really very prevalent at most ski areas.

Edited by Cirquerider - 7/28/2009 at 05:13 pm GMT

 Cirque, the citation was from the Wyoming Dept of Employment, not OSHA.  
I doubt that they can make it stick, but this can encourage Jackson Hole to change employee requirements.

It really makes no difference since the Department of Employment essentially implements OSHA regulations for the State.  The description of the hazards and standards for protection are nearly identical   Here is a link


I was trying to respond to Bob's original post from the perspective of regulatory compliance, without regard to the side-issues of helmet use by the skiing public.  There are certainly foreseeable overhead hazards at most ski areas, including equipment and objects falling from lifts and natural hazards like falling ice, snow, branches and rock.  My concern was that the head protection standards do not extend to protection against collisions and falls in the any general industry, and should not be applied that way in the skiing business.  There are simply some hazards that exist, but cannot be mitigated by engineering or protective equipment without causing additional hazards.  Ski patrollers rely on training and experience to recognize and assess hazards and must use personal judgement whether the hazard exceeds their ability to mitigate it.  They have access to a lot of safety gear, but ultimately they bear the responsibility to either assume a risk or find another way to deal with a situation.

Edited by Cirquerider - 7/28/2009 at 06:41 pm GMT

I brought up the OSHA question as it is a viable concern for ski resort employees in the future. Especially if resorts are going to be cited for disreguard for safety of their employees as well as their visitors.

I predict mandatory helmet use in the future and you're going to see helmets that meet higher standards as such that will be in compliance with OSHA.

Thanks for the info Cirque.

Are you talking staff only or customers too? IMO, I see a requirement that the staff wear helmets as greasing the slippery slope leading to them being required for everyone.

As much as I hate to say it, I think within 3 years, insurance regulations will require all skiers and riders, both employees and customers, will be wearing a helmet. And I also think we will be seeing helmets with higher crash standards.

I'm not for that.

OSHA actually already cited Mammoth a couple years back as one example when Mammoth had some patroller fatalities.  I don't know whether that citation held up though, because it was even more mind-blowing than this one imo.  How they should regulate is a different question.

OSHA standards aren't "higher" for helmets (or other related stuff), btw.    

 

I agree about the slippery slope points raised. 
 

I'm guessing that means more expensive. I'll have to offset the cost by putting a pair of my old Solly 505's on my next new pair of skis.

 'Lead by example'

The NHL made it mandatory for all players to wear a helmet so kids mimicking them would wear them.

Taking the stance of 'I don't have to' or 'you can't make me' is ridiculous, how foolish would it seem today saying to your kids "put your seat belt on - but I'm not going to".

NEVER!

Standard helmet thread helmet=stupid uniform, but you still hae to wear it reply