- Reaction score
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 said:And secondly, how about you fill in some of your profile info we I know who the heck you are?
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?
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.
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.