A
aesop081
Guest
R031button said:he was a bit miffed when we asked how we were supposed to see the enemy and return fire.
Minor detail, don't worry about it.
R031button said:he was a bit miffed when we asked how we were supposed to see the enemy and return fire.
R031button said:Last time I heard a Bioscience Officer he was telling us that our helmets aren't bulletproof so we shouldn't stick our heads up in firefights, he was a bit miffed when we asked how we were supposed to see the enemy and return fire.
R031button said:Last time I heard a Bioscience Officer he was telling us that our helmets aren't bulletproof so we shouldn't stick our heads up in firefights, he was a bit miffed when we asked how we were supposed to see the enemy and return fire.
The current issue BEW (Revision Sawfly) is aftermarket PPE. The difference being it has been tested by the bioscience dudes. Just because you can buy stuff on the market doesn't make it inferior just makes it easier for soldiers to procure, far ahead of the national procurement processCombatDoc said:Yes. Despite the LCF and flashy advertising, the other eyewear hasn't been tested to CF standards. Talk to a Bioscience Officer if you want to learn more about this. However, folks still risk their vision with aftermarket BEW.
Eye In The Sky said:Isn't there an issue with a mbr who is injured, but was not wearing approved/issued kit when it comes to how DVA might/might not cover them, etc? Lets say you are wearing aftermarket BEW, incident happens and mbr sustains an eye injury. During the course of the "what happened and how?" questions to whatever process would review the incident, its discovered mbr was wearing non-issued/approved BEW. There could be an argument made that had mbr been wearing approved (implies 'tested and met min requirements) kit, 'injury may not have happened'.
Its gets worse for the member if there was a directive "non-issued kit is strictly forbidden" at any level from the CofC.
R031button said:Last time I heard a Bioscience Officer he was telling us that our helmets aren't bulletproof so we shouldn't stick our heads up in firefights, he was a bit miffed when we asked how we were supposed to see the enemy and return fire.
Dirt Digger said:As a Bioscience Officer, I'll see if I can get some MacAdam Shield Shovels out of war stocks for use. ;D
PuckChaser said:If the non-issued eyewear conforms and exceeds the same standards that the Revision Sawfly do, where's the problem?
How can you prove conclusively that the Sawfly would have even stopped the fragments?
Agree 100%. I'm just wondering what the people who make decision on DVA/LTD/etc issues look at the issue.Our kit isn't indestructible and will fail, just like every other piece of COTS or MOTS gear.
The US Army has an approved protective eyewear list, which is designed to get more people to wear eyepro as individual soldier comfort can come into play here. I think its more important they wear something than deal with uncomfortable glasses.
EITS, I think with your example you could charge the member for disobeying a lawful command. But would you want to? He's already suffered an eye injury and probably cares more about that then the charge.
Dirt Digger said:As a Bioscience Officer, I'll see if I can get some MacAdam Shield Shovels out of war stocks for use. ;D
Eye In The Sky said:Well, I think this is where common sense comes into play. It is normal or more importantly *required* to wear PPE in the Blue Rocket? (excluding gas mask at times :-X)
-Skeletor- said:Been discussed a few times here, VAC, SISIP, etc don't care what you were wearing at the time of the injury and it has no effect on coverage/payment. I know a few people involved in IED/suicide bomber blasts(2006-2011), and they were wearing Oakleys, one had no BEW on, some had skydex/oregon aero pads in the helmets, etc and none of that had any bearing for their medical coverage, payments, etc.