DIN EN 469 auf dem Prüfstand

Überarbeitung der DIN EN 469

Die derzeit gültige DIN EN 469 (Ausgabe 1/1996), Schutzkleidung für die Feuerwehr - Anforderungen und Prüfverfahren für Schutzkleidung für die Brandbekämpfung, wurde überarbeitet. Die DIN EN 469 (Ausgabe 4/2003) enthält einige Punkte die so nicht hinzunehmen sind. Z. B. wurden einige Prüfkriterien in dem Norm-Entwurf herabgesetzt (Stichwort "Wärmefenster").

Die DIN EN 469 (Norm-Entwurf), Ausgabe: 2003-04 Schutzkleidung für die Feuerwehr - Laborprüfverfahren und Leistungsanforderungen für Schutzkleidung für die Brandbekämpfung; Deutsche Fassung prEN 469:2003 kann unter www.normung.din.de (Normenausschuss Persönliche Schutzausrüstung - NPS -> Projekte) bestellt werden.

Vor Verabschiedung des Norm-Entwurfes gingen dem NPS deutliche Stellungnahmen zu. Diese fanden offenbar keine Berücksichtigung.

Aktueller Stand (22.07.2003)

Eine dritte Umfrage zu dem Papier lässt die Zustimmung der Mehrheit der abstimmungsberechtigten Länder erkennen. Es wurden aber eine Vielzahl technischer und formaler Einsprüchen gemacht, so dass ich außerstande bin, zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt eine Prognose abzugeben, welche konkreten Anforderungen letztendlich in der Norm genannt sein werden. Es wird wohl noch eine Sitzung stattfinden, bei der die Einsprüche beraten werden.

Wenn tatsächlich die dritte formale Abstimmung eine Zustimmung ergeben würde, so erwarten wir, dass wir als wesentliche Änderungen folgende Punkte haben:

Quelle: Adolf Fleck, Obmann AA 192.03


An dieser Stelle werden ab sofort Kommentare zur o. a. Problematik veröffentlicht:

Koen Desmet, Belgien

(kd) In May of this year the EN 469 (protective clothing for firefighters) was due for a revision. Contrary to most firefighters hopes no improvements were made. The proposal is nearly being voted. We were alarmed by 1st Ass. Fire Chief (OBR) U. Cimolino of the Dusseldorf firebrigade (departement for purchase and safety) and by Capt. (BA) J. Südmersen of the Osnabruck firebrigade.

The following text has implications to all firefighters.

The main problem seems to arise from different firefighting techniques used in European countries which are mainly influenced by climate differences. Instead of linking the firefighting protection level of the clothing to the most likely task ahead eg. Wildland-forest firefighting or interior fire attack as is done in the NFPA standards, a compromise was thought of allowing to lower the insulation value of firefighting clothing, as such getting an nice average of tasks which could be performed by the firefighting clothing. However no firefighter will tell you that firefighting an interior fire with room temperatures above 100°C, requires less insulation when the outdoor temperature reaches 0, 10, 20 or 40 degrees. As major problem here we can think of lower insulating (cheaper) clothing being sold as clothing complying to the EN regulations which is however not as safe as the clothing we use now. Furthermore no testing of interconnections between gloves and boots is proposed. This testing is however since long required by the NFPA. And with the increased threat of nbc terrorism is given even greater concern. In firefighting good insulation may not stop at the interconnections. This only provides the certainty of burns in that area. In relation to the thought that a fire fighter should feel the heat, the propasal includes a "hot-patch" a less insulated zone which allows the firefighter to sense the heat. If however a backdraft or smoke explosion occurs inside a fire, or when at a gas incident a gas cloud is set a light. The hot-patch will undoubtably become known as the burn-patch. The proposal doesn't make any comments on the appropriate way to wear the clothing. The proposal doesn't take into account that the clothing should withstand multiple fire-calls. The proposal also states that the lower part of the body (legs) isn't as much a concern to protect as the exposure to heat of the lower part of the body will be lower. The insulative value of the clothing is allowed to drop when manufacturing trousers. Most of you who have witnessed training burns or real flashovers however know that the fire can get down to the floor burning everyting along its path, including your legs. Even more frightening is the conclusion of the comission that injuries due to flashover or backdrafts are luckily rare. One look at the statistics or at sites as www.firetactics.com or www.atemschutzunfaelle.de is enough to tell you this is not true. And even if it were a seldom occurence the possible loss of life from a foreseeable danger cannot be ignored. If we don't act now this proposal could result in an increase of firefighter injuries and fatalities, next to a drop in the number of people saved from fires accompanied with an increase in economical damage. The added risk could mean interior firefighting would be hampered. And firefighting industrial or tunnel fires would probably become impossible using standard turn-out gear.

Please contact your EN representative and start asking serious questions!

Quelle: Koen Desmet, Belgien, www.cemac.org