Firefighters expect their helmets and boots to protect them. They also expect some weight, stiffness and inconvenience — ergonomic factors. But how much of that burden is necessary, and how much reflects designs and requirements that deserve another look?
A helmet that pulls forward when its wearer looks down or boots that bind against the legs during a crouch can make demanding work harder. These problems are easy to dismiss as the price of protection, but we believe the fire service should ask whether better design and better selection could reduce that price.
| READ MORE: Is it time to rethink the turnout ensemble?
Helmets and footwear occupy opposite ends of the ensemble, away from the body’s central mass. Their location makes them important to movement, but through different mechanisms. Understanding those differences can help departments ask better questions about the equipment they purchase.
Where the weight sits matters
Total ensemble weight is useful information, but it does not explain the whole burden. Boots must be lifted, accelerated and decelerated with every step. Helmet weight is supported by the head and neck as firefighters look upward, bend forward and turn to follow changing conditions.
Distance from the body’s center of mass alone does not determine physiological cost. The relevant joints, movement patterns and location of weight within each element also matter. A pound added to footwear cannot simply be treated as equivalent to a pound added near the torso. Nor will two helmets weighing the same necessarily impose the same demands on the neck.
NIOSH researchers demonstrated the footwear effect in a study of 50 firefighters [1]. During treadmill walking, each additional kilogram of boot weight increased oxygen consumption by approximately 5% to 6% in men and 3% to 4.5% in women. Those results describe the study conditions, not a universal prediction for every firefighter or task. They nevertheless show that boot weight deserves attention beyond its contribution to the total ensemble weight.
For helmets, balance complicates the comparison. A light or face shield mounted forward changes where the helmet’s weight acts. A higher center of gravity can increase the horizontal offset as the firefighter tilts the head. Accessories, suspension adjustments and helmet movement can therefore affect the burden even when the scale reading changes little.
Should helmet design assumptions be reconsidered?
Traditional helmet shapes are closely connected with fire service identity. Brims also serve practical purposes, including helping redirect water and debris. Shells, impact liners and suspension systems provide essential protection. Those functions deserve recognition when considering changes.
They also deserve examination. Could alternative shell and impact-system arrangements maintain protection while placing mass closer to the head? Could brim dimensions or shapes change without compromising their useful functions? Are some mounted accessories adding burden that could be reduced through integration or different placement?
A recent study by Wei and colleagues compared two firefighter helmets during sustained neck flexion and extension [2]. The lower-profile helmet generally produced lower muscle activation, slower fatigue and less discomfort, despite being heavier. The comparison supports examining mass distribution alongside weight. Because the models differed in accessories and other features, it does not establish that one helmet style is always better or identify a safe weight or center-of-gravity limit.
Even so, simply removing impact protection would not be an acceptable response. The opportunity is to ask whether equivalent protective performance can be achieved with less burden. A lower profile should earn consideration through demonstrated protection, fit and compatibility, rather than its appearance alone.
Boot height is a fitting dimension
Footwear raises a parallel question. The historical minimum protective height of approximately 10 inches provides lower-leg coverage, but the same height occupies a different proportion of each firefighter’s leg. For someone with shorter lower legs, the shaft can approach the knee and leave less room for turnout trousers to move during crouching or kneeling.
A 2019 study by Park and colleagues (including myself) found that boot height affected firefighter mobility and that a fixed height could not accommodate the range of leg lengths [3]. It provides a reason to reconsider height as part of fitting, alongside length and width.
Making height proportional to shoe size would be convenient, but foot length does not reliably establish an individual’s lower-leg dimensions. Two firefighters wearing the same nominal shoe size can have different knee heights. A larger foot should not automatically require a taller boot.
One proposal under consideration would permit certified protective heights of 200, 225 and 250 millimeters, selected independently of shoe size. These remain proposed options, not adopted requirements. A reduced-height boot would need to maintain protective overlap with the trousers throughout expected movements. Research must also distinguish certified protective height from the physical collar or shaft height that can actually cause interference.
Sizing needs similar attention. A familiar size number does not guarantee the same fit across manufacturers or models. Departments need a clear connection between measured foot dimensions and each manufacturer’s sizes and widths, whether measurements come from a Brannock device or another validated system. Calf fit, heel retention and shaft stiffness also deserve consideration.
What NFPA 1970 could require first
Questions about helmet design and boot height eventually lead to NFPA 1970: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting. The immediate opportunity there is better information. Establishing one maximum weight for all helmets or boots would overlook differences in size, construction and protective configuration. The evidence is stronger for standardized disclosure than for declaring a universal ergonomic limit.
For footwear, manufacturers could report conditioned pair weight for defined reference sizes, identifying width, sizing system and protective height. For helmets, reporting should identify shell size, the complete protective assembly and included accessories. A minimum certified configuration should be distinguished from the helmet actually supplied to the department.
Without that reporting, comparing an unadorned helmet with one carrying a light, communication equipment, shield and mounting hardware tells purchasers little about their relative designs. Similarly, comparing boots of different sizes or heights can produce a misleading weight advantage.
Center-of-gravity reporting would require additional development. Laboratories would need a common headform reference, repeatable fitting and adjustment procedures, defined accessory positions and correct subtraction of fixture contributions. Reliable physical measurement is possible, but comparable results require more than placing a helmet on an instrument.
Even then, center-of-gravity coordinates would describe a specified configuration and laboratory fit. They would not constitute an injury-risk rating or account fully for motion, comfort or interference with the hood, facepiece, coat collar and SCBA. Standards should make those limits understandable while supporting research on representative tasks.
Turning information into better purchases
Departments can begin asking more useful questions now. What does the complete helmet or pair of boots weigh in the configuration being purchased? Which components account for that weight? What measurements support the manufacturer’s fitting guidance? How does the equipment perform with the department’s existing ensemble?
A selection trial should involve firefighters with different head shapes, foot dimensions and lower-leg lengths. With properly fitted equipment and full turnout clothing, participants should walk, climb, kneel, crouch and negotiate representative obstacles under controlled conditions. Helmet evaluation should include looking overhead and crawling while looking forward with the hood, facepiece and SCBA in place.
Record where restriction occurs, whether the helmet shifts or contacts other equipment and whether the boot collar binds or the heel slips. Check protective interfaces throughout movement. Repeated observations across wearers are more useful than a quick fitting-room impression or a preference based on appearance.
Lower weight is desirable when protection and function are maintained, but the lightest product will not necessarily be the best fit. A department should use measured information to narrow its choices and functional evaluation to determine which options work for its firefighters.
Helmets and boots deserve the same scrutiny increasingly directed toward turnout garment weight, mobility and heat burden. The next revision of NFPA 1970 offers an opportunity to make their ergonomic characteristics more visible. Firefighters should have enough information to distinguish necessary protective features from avoidable burden, and enough design options to obtain equipment that protects them while allowing them to work effectively.
Selected research
[1] Turner, N. L., Chiou, S., Zwiener, J., Weaver, D., & Spahr, J. (2010). Physiological effects of boot weight and design on men and women firefighters. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 7(8), 477-482. null
[2] Wei, L. H., Paulon, G. M., Sarker, P., & Chowdhury, S. K. (2025, August 19, online publication). Sustained-till-exhaustion effects of firefighter helmets on neck muscle fatigue mechanism. Ergonomics.
[3] Park, H., Kakar, R. S., Pei, J., Tome, J. M., & Stull, J. (2019). Impact of size of fire boot and SCBA cylinder on firefighters’ mobility. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 37(2), 103-118.
