• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Skydex Helmet Pad Kit - LOTS of pictures

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,369
Points
1,110
And now you've spent all this money on SkyDex, your CSM and RSM are going to make you take it out and replace it with the suspension system. Just a heads up.
 

sigtech

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
They would have to look in my helmet first , and the chances of that are slim and none.  :threat:
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,369
Points
1,110
Well they just might decide to look in your helmet Sigtech, if they are doing their jobs. Don't be surprised if they do. You can fight this one if you want, but you'll lose. It's a safety issue.
 

sigtech

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Sir, how can you tell me that the current system is safer then the skydex pad system. From everything I have read they are just as safe if not safer the the leather strap system. I am just wondering what you are basing you claim on?

Hare reports that state these pads are safe (Not all that I found just a couple):
http://www.uscav.com/PressRelease.aspx?id=29
http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/justice-public-order-safety/3996104-1.html
 

Bzzliteyr

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Sigtech, I wear one, and kept wearing it even after we were told to remove them in theater on the last tour.  I was lucky.

Playing devil's advocate here.  OldSolduer is warning of potential rule enforcement as that is his job.  From what I have read of his comments on many threads here, he doesn't always agree with the orders but he must enforce them nonetheless.

Also, it's unfortunate but the Canadian Military has not tested these items for use in OUR helmets.  Therefore, they are not "safe" by our standards.  That's the unfortunate truth.  And that's where the claims are coming from.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,369
Points
1,110
If an item hasn't been tested, then we really shouldn't be using it....unless its a combat proven item.
Skydex maybe comfortable, but is it as safe?
 

DirtyDog

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
OldSolduer said:
And now you've spent all this money on SkyDex, your CSM and RSM are going to make you take it out and replace it with the suspension system. Just a heads up.
I'm not real worried.  Actually, I'm not worried at all.

I hear what your saying, but I don't see anybody looking into my helmet in the near future.
 

Sig_Des

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
OldSolduer said:
If an item hasn't been tested, then we really shouldn't be using it....unless its a combat proven item.
Skydex maybe comfortable, but is it as safe?


In your opinion, does it have to be tested by US? Or would this be acceptable to you? I'm sure Matt can provide ref sources if you ask him nicely.

Matt_Fisher said:
When I looked into which particular brand of helmet pad to carry, I did quite a bit of research, as there are 4 major companies offering pad kits:
-Oregon Aero, with the BLSS (helmet pads plus chinstrap assemlbly) and BLU (helmet pads) which supplied the original MICH contract.
-Team Wendy, (helmet pads alone) which are being used in the US Marine Corps' Lightweight Helmet (LWH) as a retrofit kit (the original helmets did not come with a pad kit).
-MSA/Gallet, (helmet pads and chinstrap assembly) which are now standard on the MICH and US Army's Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH).  They simply package their helmet pads as a standard option with the new helmets.
-Skydex, which are being used as a retrofit kit by SOCOM for their MICH helmets.

All of the above listed helmet pads have been documented to meet the non-ballistic impact protection levels as specified by the US Army for their ACH program.  All of the above are comparable in terms of comfort based on user reviews. 
 

Ecco

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Bzzliteyr said:
Also, it's unfortunate but the Canadian Military has not tested these items for use in OUR helmets.  Therefore, they are not "safe" by our standards.  That's the unfortunate truth.  And that's where the claims are coming from.

How would you know if they have been tested or not?  Before stating misinformation about CF ballistic equipment, please ask your chain of command.
 

Bzzliteyr

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Okay, you got me there.  I should have said that as far as I know these pad sets have not been tested officially in our equipment.

I can however say that I do know they are NOT officially allowed to be in our issue helmets even if they were tested.  Consider, however that an AAR as far back as 2006 states the usefulness of the BLSS kit.

Please though, inform me of what misinformation I stated about our CF ballistic equipment?  And then kindly help out with what I should be asking my chain of command, since you seem to be so wise as to where to find it.  If you are privvy to that info and can point me in it's direction, please do.  Cause as far as I know, no testing has been done unless it's recent.

And secondly, how about you fill in some of your profile info we I know who the heck you are?

*modified to clarify.
 
M

MikeL

Guest
OldSolduer said:
And now you've spent all this money on SkyDex, your CSM and RSM are going to make you take it out and replace it with the suspension system. Just a heads up.

Depends where you are. A lot of troops in my battalion have the BLSS an Spydex kit, no one in the chain of command has said anything negative about it.
 

Ecco

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Bzzliteyr said:
Okay, you got me there.  I should have said that as far as I know these pad sets have not been tested officially in our equipment.

I can however say that I do know they are NOT officially allowed to be in our issue helmets even if they were tested.  Consider, however that an AAR as far back as 2006 states the usefulness of the BLSS kit.

Please though, inform me of what misinformation I stated about our CF ballistic equipment?  And then kindly help out with what I should be asking my chain of command, since you seem to be so wise as to where to find it.  If you are privvy to that info and can point me in it's direction, please do.  Cause as far as I know, no testing has been done unless it's recent.

I will rephrase:  The answer to your question (if it's been tested or not and the results) is available to your chain of command.  Your unit supply organization staff should be able to find out /communicate with the LCMM of the helmet or the requirement officer of ballistic protection and can ask him about the tests that were performed.  This kind of ballistic information should not be available on the internet, for many excellent reasons.

Bzzliteyr said:
And secondly, how about you fill in some of your profile info we I know who the heck you are?
Information about ballistic capabilities gleaned from the internet and army.ca profiles have one thing in common:  They should not be trusted.  It is too easy to misinform.  Ask your chain of command for the former, they have to give you a professional, legal-binding information.
 

Bzzliteyr

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Okay, I am just looking at the credibility of an "unknown" with 22 posts on the internet.

I understand you write well and have sound advice, but you give me nothing to work with that convinces me to accept you for anything more than a four letter nickname with a really cool CADPAT TW icon besides his name, no doubt downloaded from the CTS website.
 

sigtech

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
You know it comes down to this , I will wear them until someone yells at me and tells me not to, sort of like my old American Rain Jacket that I wore for years until RSM Irvine flip his wig and tore me a new hole for wearing it.  ;D

Safe or not here is the way I look at it , if I am comfortable I will be more aware of what is going on around me , i.e. I won't be worrying about my pounding headache.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,369
Points
1,110
Once again sigtech et al, may I remind you that the removal of the skydex paraphenalia, will be a DIRECTIVE (read an order). That means if you are caught with it, you could be charged for disobeying a lawful command, AND possibly for modifying kit WITHOUT authorization. Just a point. Also, if you are injured and the investigation concludes that the Skydex pads were a contributing factor, what pension implications does that have?
Now for my little rant.
Far too many soldiers (and I'm referring to Army) are too fond of picking and choosing what directives to obey. In reality, you don't have a choice. You are paid to do what you're told to do. I've heard too many soldiers state they don't use issue safety equipment because its uncomfortable etc. I realize that some directives are utterly ridiculous (ie blousing pants, TacVest vs chest rigs on real life ops etc), but if the CoC states its a safety concern, then you better pay attention. One young solider didn't wear his BEW (as we are ordered to do) and almost had his eyes injured. He was damn lucky. That young soldier is my son, and yes I gave him hell when he told me he wasn't wearing his BEW.
If you think that for one minute that the enforcement of directives that concern your safety aren't my responsibility (and other Sergeants Major), then you better think again. That's what we're paid to do and if your CoC is not paying attention, then they are doing you a disservice.
 

RCR Grunt

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
OldSolduer said:
Once again sigtech et al, may I remind you that the removal of the skydex paraphenalia, will be a DIRECTIVE (read an order).... if you are injured and the investigation concludes that the Skydex pads were a contributing factor, what pension implications does that have?

There will be no pension ramifications, as has already been stated.  SISIP covers you civvy side as well as CF side, and no one wears their BEW or Issued helmet suspension while driving down the 401, so your covered.  VAC is only concerned about injuries sustained in the line of duty, not with what you were wearing.  You could take rounds wearing a pretty pink tu-tu in the middle of the Arghandab river, as long as you were injured in the line of duty, you are covered.

OldSolduer said:
Now for my little rant.
Far too many soldiers (and I'm referring to Army) are too fond of picking and choosing what directives to obey. In reality, you don't have a choice. You are paid to do what you're told to do. I've heard too many soldiers state they don't use issue safety equipment because its uncomfortable etc. I realize that some directives are utterly ridiculous (ie blousing pants, TacVest vs chest rigs on real life ops etc), but if the CoC states its a safety concern, then you better pay attention....If you think that for one minute that the enforcement of directives that concern your safety aren't my responsibility (and other Sergeants Major), then you better think again. That's what we're paid to do and if your CoC is not paying attention, then they are doing you a disservice.

My chain of command knows a ridiculous directive when one comes across their desks, and they choose how they will enforce it.  The Skydex pads have been tried and tested and proven safe by the US Army, and is issued to American soldiers.  My head is shaped the same, and is relatively the same thickness and density.  The pads are safe, the directive is flawed.
 

Nfld Sapper

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
14
Points
580
Before this becomes a pissing contest may I remind all involved about this quote:

Bzzliteyr said:
Playing devil's advocate here.  OldSolduer is warning of potential rule enforcement as that is his job.  From what I have read of his comments on many threads here, he doesn't always agree with the orders but he must enforce them nonetheless.

Also, it's unfortunate but the Canadian Military has not tested these items for use in OUR helmets.  Therefore, they are not "safe" by our standards.  That's the unfortunate truth.  And that's where the claims are coming from.

 

sigtech

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Good point NFLD but do we follow policy blindly, it takes only one voice to change a policy that is made with out being fully informed. If the Infantry want to use these we need to look into this do you not think
 

Nfld Sapper

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
14
Points
580
That we do, squeaky wheel gets the oil (eventually). Start passing the ideas up the COC and see what happens.  8)
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,369
Points
1,110
I agree with the Sapper. Use the chain of comad.
I know, from experience, that kit we purchase is often better than what we are issued. NOW I'm saying that if you are ordered to remove or not use a non issue item and you are caught, then be prepared to pay the price. I did in the form of seven days "corrective training" for wearing boots that were not issue.
I realize that most younger soldiers today are very informed on weapons and kit, but not so well informed of responsibilities of their superiors. One of mine is to ensure that directives are followed. Yes I will voice my opinion, but once the CO and RSM say...."get on with it"....I have to.
Now, maybe the directive is flawed, but it is an ORDER none the less. Myabe the Skydex is safer, but like Sapper posted, we haven't tested them. Just because the US Army uses something is not a reason to adopt it.
 
Top