Company releases CSA certified Type 2 model with focus on comfort, compliance and advanced protection
Milwaukee Tool is making a bid to reshape head protection on Canadian jobsites, rolling out a new Type 2 safety helmet that the company says is built to meet tougher standards while addressing the comfort issues that often drive non‑compliance.
Entering the helmet game
The new helmet is dual‑certified to both CSA and ANSI standards as a Type 2, Class E and Class C model with a four‑point chin strap. It is Milwaukee’s first Canadian Type 2 helmet to meet CSA requirements, closing a gap that remained after the company’s earlier ANSI‑only models.
“We got into the head protection category about six years ago, and it started with type one hard hats,” said Mat Cart, group marketing manager for safety at Milwaukee Tool Canada. “Type one is just protection to the top of the head, where type two is top and lateral protection, so side and rear protection as well.”
Cart says the company essentially had to redesign the product from the inside out to meet CSA’s specific impact tests and performance thresholds. That meant re‑engineering the foam, repositioning the suspension, and changing the geometry around the ear compared with its previous ANSI‑only helmet.
Standards, testing and worker feedback
Behind the launch is a blend of lab testing and extensive field trials. Milwaukee put “hundreds of samples in the field,” gathering user feedback across a broad range of trades, from electrical, plumbing and HVAC to mining, power and utilities, and manufacturing.
“Our engineers don't just sit in a room and make a great product. We have to obviously get it certified and make it compliant, but we’ve also got to make sure people in the field want to wear it,” Cart said. “We want to make sure people who are doing their actual trade applications in their trade, they’re comfortable wearing it and will be compliant and choose to keep the helmet on their head.”
Tackling heat, weight and comfort
Milwaukee is positioning the helmet as an answer to two of the most common worker complaints: weight and heat. “The two biggest pain points there are heat and weight,” Cart said. The company evaluated alternative shell and internal materials, and Cart says the result is “the coolest operating Type 2 CSA helmet on the market.”
To address heat stress, Milwaukee is pairing the helmet with cooling PPE, including an integrated sweatband that can be soaked in water and is designed to keep workers cool for up to four hours. The company has also developed a powered “BOLT” fan that mounts to dedicated accessory slots on the helmet. A small battery pack on the front drives a fan on the back that can circulate air around the neck or into the helmet.
“You got it. It’s super low profile. It’s lightweight. It doesn’t add much to the weight of the helmet at all, and super powerful,” Cart said, noting the fan runs for several hours on a charge.
Milwaukee’s BOLT ecosystem also allows for integrated face shields, eye protection, hearing protection and sun shades.Cart hints at future developments on the system that expand beyond those needs mentioned, at the ask of the end-users.
Catching up to the real risk
Cart argues that the underlying risks on construction sites have not changed dramatically; what is changing is the industry’s willingness to recognize and address them. He draws parallels to the evolution of helmets in hockey, football and the military, where protection has steadily improved while construction has been slower to adopt similar advances.
Some of the resistance, he says, has been cultural. “People didn’t want to wear chin straps,” Cart noted, adding that many workers dismissed helmets because they believed they “don’t usually work at heights.” But the data suggests same‑level incidents are a major concern: “Sixty‑seven percent of falls are from the same level, not from heights,” he said.
Milwaukee is leaning on emerging research to make the case for Type 2 adoption. Cart points to work by Virginia Tech and others showing that about a quarter of jobsite fatalities involve traumatic brain injuries. In one study, he noted, workers wearing a traditional Type 1 hard hat who fell backward faced a 65 per cent risk of a TBI, compared with 25 per cent when wearing a Type 2 helmet with a chin strap.
“For us, the proof is in the numbers,” Cart said. “If we can bring a helmet to market that meets the latest standards, is comfortable enough that workers actually want to wear it, and demonstrably reduces the risk of brain injury, that’s where we think the industry needs to go.”
