Author Topic: The Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP)  (Read 66621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slack and Idle

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 104
  • Nisker
The Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP)
« on: February 25, 2008, 18:54:22 »
Hey all, did a search but I can't find anything on it.

What is the current eyewear policy (or whatever guys are wearing) in Afghanistan. What are guys wearing? I see things on the news (mostly Americans) wearing ski goggles. Others wearing Oakleys, and more wearing issued ballistic eyewear.

I was mainly wondering because of a rumor I heard saying that certain color eyeglasses can improve your sight etc, which is why ski goggles are orange/yellow etc.

Does current policy overseas allow soldiers to wear ski goggles, etc, different colored sunglasses, issue colored inserts?

Thanks,
-J
Giacamo, Jester of Kings and King of Jesters, Get it? Got it, Good.

MikeL

  • Guest
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2008, 18:56:50 »
Aslong as its ballastic an the goggles are like black, tan, etc than its good to go.

I wear Oakley M Frames(got an orange lense with them) and Revision Desert Locust goggles(got a yellow lense with them).


http://tacticaltailor.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=289
https://dstactical.com/product_info.php?cPath=29_87_191&products_id=897
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 19:55:04 by -Skeletor- »

Offline Beadwindow 7

  • Life is cruel, and I am but a small slice of life
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 44,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,137
  • ZBM2
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2008, 18:57:15 »
Yeah. I'd avoid ski goggles...  8)
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline NL_engineer

  • CHIMO
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,096
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2008, 19:35:47 »
Hey all, did a search but I can't find anything on it.

What is the current eyewear policy (or whatever guys are wearing) in Afghanistan. What are guys wearing? I see things on the news (mostly Americans) wearing ski goggles. Others wearing Oakleys, and more wearing issued ballistic eyewear.

I was mainly wondering because of a rumor I heard saying that certain color eyeglasses can improve your sight etc, which is why ski goggles are orange/yellow etc.

Does current policy overseas allow soldiers to wear ski goggles, etc, different colored sunglasses, issue colored inserts?

Thanks,
-J

Do you mean goggles like these, these are not ski goggles.
Note to any Taliban and AQ personnel on the Form:  ALL SUICIDE VESTS AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICES MUST BE TESTED TO INSURE THEY WORK BEFORE GOING AFTER A TARGET.

This is a measure to save any embarrassment that may occur when your explosive device, does not function as it is intended to.

It has come to my attention that these measures are not being followed, so for all Taliban; please refer to the above.

Thank you for your cooperation

Offline ParaMedTech

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 35
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 833
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2008, 23:00:37 »
Wiley X goggles are specifically banned, as they reportedly do not meet impact protection requirements.
Carter, hand me my thinking grenades.

Offline WB

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,273
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2008, 23:48:20 »
Quote
What is the current eyewear policy (or whatever guys are wearing) in Afghanistan. What are guys wearing? I see things on the news (mostly Americans) wearing ski goggles. Others wearing Oakleys, and more wearing issued ballistic eyewear.

Any old ski goggle and any old pair of sunglasses just don't cut it.

Mililtary goggles and glasses should be rated to the ANSI Z87.1 standard. What exactly does ANSI Z87.1 mean? To be honest, I'm not quite sure, but I think its a (NATO?) standardized system to rate how well the lenses will protect you from sharp flying metal objects. I'm sure someone here will elaborate.

I wore ESS Profile Goggles in the LAV turret, but found that in the hottest months they tended to fog up. If I could do it again I might have gone for the Turbofan version. I know other guys who swore by the ESS V12 goggles. Our issued Revision Sawfly glasses apparently perform very well, but some consider them to be uncomfortable under helmets and can cause headaches. Both ESS and Revision are brands that I personally trust.

Check out this link:
http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm
Both the Oakley A Frames and Wiley X XL-1 failed failed to stop penetrations... :-\

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 274,331
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,978
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2008, 23:54:08 »
ANSI is the acronym for the American National Standards Institute, a nonprofit organization that serves as administrator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system. The primary objective of ANSI is to promote and facilitate voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems. ANSI does not have authority to enforce such standards, but their standards are used by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to be sure that certain safety devices, such as eyewear, provide adequate protection for workers.

The ANSI Z87.1 standard sets forth requirements for the design, construction, testing, and use of eye protection devices, including standards for impact and penetration resistance. All safety glasses, goggles, and face shields used by employees under OSHA jurisdiction must meet the ANSI Z87.1 standard. The eyewear standard includes the following minimum requirements:


Provide adequate protection against the hazards for which they are designed
Be reasonably comfortable
Fit securely, without interfering with movement or vision
Be capable of being disinfected if necessary, and be easy to clean
Be durable
Fit over, or incorporate, prescription eyewear
Many manufacturers of sports eyewear and other protective eyewear not used in a work environment also comply with the ANSI Z87.1 standard. If you need protective eyewear of any kind, look for products that comply with the ANSI standard or consult with an optometrist, ophthalmologist, or optician before purchasing.


Info take from here

CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 274,331
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,978
  • CFSME STAFF
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2008, 00:14:49 »
And for what the standard is:

The New ANSI Z87.1-2003 Standard


We are pleased to inform you that the new ANSI Z87.1-2003 Standard is approved. It took several years for the ANSI committee of industry experts to come to an agreement on the new Practice for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protective Devices. The new Standard is called ANSI Z87.1-2003 (Z87+).

Because we understand that many questions will arise as a result of this new Standard, we have prepared this informational page to help you better understand the significance of the standard.

Scope and Purpose
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
This Standard shall apply to those occupational and educational operations or processes where eye and face hazards exist. These include, but are not limited to, machining operations, material welding and cutting, chemical handling, and assembly operations. The objective of this Standard is to provide minimum requirements for eye and face protective devices and guidance for the selection, use, and maintenance of these devices. The requirements of this Standard apply to protectors when they are first placed in service.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
Section 2 has been expanded to clarify the intent of the Standard. emphasizes the types of hazards that the protectors meeting the Standard will address, while continuing to except specialized areas of radiation protection, sports and bloodborne pathogens. Users are cautioned in selecting eyewear where other standards may apply or where no definitive performance standards exist. If marked Z87, the entire device must meet all the requirements of the Standard. The user is cautioned to use extreme care in selecting replacement components to ensure ongoing compliance.
 
 
Frame Tests
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Frames, housings or headgear assemblies meant to hold removable lenses are fitted with test lenses and subjected to:

High Mass Test - A 500 gm pointed projectile is dropped from a height of 130 cm (51.2 in). No parts or fragments of the protector shall contact the eye of the headform. Four samples are tested - all must pass.

High Velocity Tests - A 6.35 mm (.25 in) steel ball is propelled at a speed appropriate to the projector type. No contact with the headform is allowed, nor shall any parts or fragments be ejected. 20 samples are tested - one failure is allowed.

Products with non-removable lenses are tested as complete devices using the same tests.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
As in the current Standard the frame, body, housing or headgear components are tested by installing "test" lenses that are strong enough to allow high mass and high velocity tests to be conducted. These components must have the integrity to comply with the tests regardless of the actual lens that will be in the model. The high velocity and high mass test methods are carried over from the 1989 Standard, but in the high velocity test, no failures are allowed. Spectacle frames intended to house prescription lenses shall meet the same criteria. Lateral coverage requirements have been increased to provide expanded rearward protection which primarily affects spectacles.
 
 
Frame Marking
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
All major frame or housing components shall bear the manufacturer's trademark and shall be marked "Z87" to indicate compliance with the Standard. Frames intended for prescription lenses shall meet the marking requirements of ANSI Z80.5-1986.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
All spectacle frames and temples, goggle bodies or housings, faceshield headgear and welding helmet components shall carry a permanent and legible mark or logo identifying the manufacturer. In addition, they are to be marked "Z87". Spectacle frames intended to hold prescription lenses are to be marked "Z87-2", and shall meet the requirements of Z80.5- 1997. For those products classified as having non-removable lenses, the product need carry only one marking. For spectacles, the Z87 (basic impact level) or Z87+ (high impact level) mark may be placed on the frame or temple. For goggles, faceshields or welding helmets, the Z87 or Z87+ mark may be applied to any component including the lens.
 
 
Lens Tests
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Removable plano lenses, as well as prescription lenses, shall be capable of resisting the impact of a 25.4 mm (1 in) steel ball dropped 127 cm (50 in). For spectacles where the removable lens is less than 3mm thick, they shall be capable of meeting the High Velocity Impact Test. Products with non-removable lenses are to be tested as complete devices, and be capable of passing both the High Mass and High Velocity Tests.

Plastic lenses are required to resist the impact of a weighted (44 gm) needle dropped from 127 cm (50 in). The lens may neither fracture nor be penetrated.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
Personal eye protectors will now be classified, based on performance, as either basic or high impact models. They are to be tested as complete products as they will be offered to the user, and there is no distinction made based on whether the product has removable or nonremovable lenses. Basic impact models shall be capable of passing the 1 inch drop ball test and high impact models shall comply with high mass and high velocity impact criteria. The basic vs. high level impact requirements now fully apply to prescription spectacles. The penetration test continues to apply to plano plastic lenses, for all protectors, whether they are of the basic impact or high impact type.
 
 
Lens Thickness
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Minimum Thickness of Plano Lenses - All removable plano (non-prescription) spectacle lenses shall be not less than 3.0 mm (.118 in) thick, except lenses which are capable of withstanding a 45.7 mps (150 fps) impact of 6.35 mm (1/4 in) steel ball, when tested in accordance with Section 15.1. Such lenses shall not be less than 2.0 mm (.079 in) thick.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
Lens thickness requirements for goggle lenses, faceshield windows and welding filters are unchanged. Basic impact lenses in these product categories must be at least 3.0 mm thick.

The most significant change relates to spectacle lenses. High impact plano spectacles that are tested as complete products have no minimum thickness requirement. Basic impact spectacle lenses must be at least 3 mm thick. High impact lenses that will be installed in prescription frames must be no thinner than 2.0 mm.
 
 
Lens Marking
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Each lens shall be distinctly marked in a permanent and legible manner with the manufacturer's monogram. If other than clear or special purpose, each lens shall be marked with the applicable shade designation. Special purpose lenses shall be marked with an S or in the case photochromic lenses, marked with a V.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
Removable lenses must be marked in a permanent and legible manner. All lenses must bear a mark or logo identifying the manufacturer. For spectacles with removable lenses, basic impact lenses require no additional mark related to Z87, but high impact lenses require a "+" mark indicating the elevated impact performance. For all other product categories, non-removable lenses, windows or filters require the manufacturer's mark or logo. The product need carry only one marking. Basic impact lenses shall be marked with "Z87" and high impact lenses shall be marked "Z87+". Special purpose lenses and photochromic lenses continue to carry "S" and "V" markings respectively. A product marking chart is provided in a new Annex G.
 
 
Optical Requirements
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Optical requirements for plano spectacles are specified in the areas of refractive power, prismatic power and definition. Haze for lens components shall not exceed 3%. Transmittance requirements are specified for clear, tinted and shaded filter lenses and windows. Table 1 lists the requirements for general purpose filters.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
The optical performance values are largely unchanged in the new addition including the upper limit for haze which continues at 3%. Table 1 for shaded filter requirements is unchanged, and a new table, Table 2 has been added to clarify transmittance ranges for special purpose lenses. Another new table, Table 3 has been added to specify switching index times for Auto Darkening Filters (ADFs) that are a relatively new technology in welding eye protection.
 
 
Sideshields
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
The use of protectors providing side protection should be encouraged wherever practical.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
There is no change in this recommendation, and it should be part of the overall hazard assessment to determine those areas in which side protection should be worn.
 
 
Corrosion
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Metal parts are boiled in a 10% aqueous solution of sodium chloride for 15 minutes. Then immersed in the same solution at room temperature, removed and allowed to dry for 24 hours. The metal parts are then rinsed in lukewarm water and allowed to dry. The function of the spectacles shall not be impaired by the corrosion.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
No change in test method or pass/fail criteria.
 
 
Flammability
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
Protector components or representative test plaques are tested for flammability per Federal Test Standard No 406, Method 2021.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
A new test method, ASTM D635- 1998 has been designated, but the pass/fail criteria is unchanged.
 
 
Respirators
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
The 1989 edition did not address respiratory products.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
Full facepiece and loose fitting NIOSH approved respirators are now covered by the Z87.1 Standard. These devices contain lenses or windows and are subject to complete product requirements including optics, impact resistance and markings.
 
 
Enforcement
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989
OSHA under Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1910.132 regulates the enforcement of Personal Protective Equipment. Safety Spectacles are considered Personal Protective Equipment.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
OSHA continues to enforce use of protective equipment under Regulation 29CFR 1910.132. Section 1910.133 addresses Eye and Face Protection specifically, and ANSI Z87.1-1989 is still incorporated by reference, subject to change at a later date.
 

CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline Slack and Idle

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 104
  • Nisker
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2008, 02:11:17 »
Awesome answers everyone, thank you, cleared it up perfectly.
Do you mean goggles like these, these are not ski goggles.
I did mean goggles like those, and I used ski goggles for lack of a better term.
I wear Oakley M Frames(got an orange lense with them) and Revision Desert Locust goggles(got a yellow lense with them).
Do the different color lenses make a difference?

edit:
Wouldn't the whole "you can wear anything you want as long as it meets the basic standards and is black, tan or green" thing go against the "no non issue kit overseas"? I realize the rules change when you leave the wire and bullets start flying, but for instance, if you took some shrapnel or w/e in the eye, and were wearing Oakley's would the CF cover that?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 02:15:04 by Joonrooj »
Giacamo, Jester of Kings and King of Jesters, Get it? Got it, Good.

Offline Breacher41

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 17,601
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,080
  • Per Pietas et Virtus
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2008, 02:12:35 »
Do the different color lenses make a difference?

Sure, it's all about the LCF  8)

The different shades help block out the varying degrees of sunlight... just like normal glasses do.
هناك [هس تو] كنت يستعصي طريق

MikeL

  • Guest
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2008, 09:31:18 »
Awesome answers everyone, thank you, cleared it up perfectly.I did mean goggles like those, and I used ski goggles for lack of a better term.Do the different color lenses make a difference?

edit:
Wouldn't the whole "you can wear anything you want as long as it meets the basic standards and is black, tan or green" thing go against the "no non issue kit overseas"? I realize the rules change when you leave the wire and bullets start flying, but for instance, if you took some shrapnel or w/e in the eye, and were wearing Oakley's would the CF cover that?


Like Medtech said different colour lenses block out different types of light.  Check out the Oakley website, it shows you what its like looking through each of their lenses.

Search around the site, its been mentioned a few times that you are covered no matter what you are wearing.



Offline paraflare

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2008, 07:28:40 »
I tried the persimmon lenses for my M Frames. It made me feel like I was in a furnace cause everythings bright orange. The iridium lenses amplify details pretty well.

Offline Ecco

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 378
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2008, 18:56:45 »
High Velocity Tests - A 6.35 mm (.25 in) steel ball is propelled at a speed appropriate to the projector type. No contact with the headform is allowed, nor shall any parts or fragments be ejected. 20 samples are tested - one failure is allowed.

Products with non-removable lenses are tested as complete devices using the same tests.
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
(...)The high velocity and high mass test methods are carried over from the 1989 Standard, but in the high velocity test, no failures are allowed. Spectacle frames intended to house prescription lenses shall meet the same criteria. (...)

Is this a joke?  So that ANSI Z87 means that the lens will protect from specific steel ball coming at a speed determined and chosen by the manufacturer when he buys a projector.

I am quite sure I can reliably create a steel ball projector, using only two of my fingers.  This projector can probably propel balls at more than 10 feet per second.  And I am sure I can design lenses that protect from that projector.  Standard is met.

I am happy that Canada does not use that standard to accept goggles for use, because I guess Johnny Taliban does not register his projector type with authorities when he puts ball bearings in his IED...

MIL-V-43511C at least specifies a V50 speed (way too slow, but still).
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 19:16:27 by Ecco »

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services pai
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 266,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,198
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2008, 19:15:51 »
Is this a joke?  So that ANSI Z87 means that the lens will protect from specific steel ball coming at a speed determined and chosen by the manufacturer when he buys a projector.

I am quite sure I can reliably create a steel ball projector, using only two of my fingers.  This projector can probably propel balls at more than 10 feet per second.  And I am sure I can design lenses that protect from that projector.  Standard is met.

I am happy that Canada does not use that standard to accept goggles for use, because I guess Johnny Taliban does not register his projector type with authorities when he puts ball bearings in his IED...

Hey, don't hold back there Sparky. No need to sugar coat it. Tell us exactly how you feel. 8)
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,707
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2008, 21:54:01 »
Canada has tested, against battlefield threats, several types of ballistic eye wear that were claimed to have met ANSI &/or Mil Std requirements.  Many of these (including popular brand names) failed catastrophically under our testing.  Knowing this, do you want to gamble with your eyes?  There is, however, a problem in that ballistic eye wear (in its various issued types) does not cooperate well with the MNVG.  If by this point in time we (the CF) have not found effective BEW that is MNVG compatible, then perhapses it is time to get an effective MNVG that is BEW compatible.

Beyond the brand name, most soldiers don't really know what they are buying when they select a particular BEW (take Wonderbread's example above in which he would have selected something different).  For leadership in theater, this introduces a bit of a challenge: how do you ensure your troops' eyes are properly looked after by day & by night?  Generally (though not always) something is better than nothing, so do you go with a policy of issue only in daylight & after-market acceptable in night/low-light? 

Offline WB

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,273
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2008, 23:29:18 »
Quote
Canada has tested, against battlefield threats, several types of ballistic eye wear that were claimed to have met ANSI &/or Mil Std requirements.  Many of these (including popular brand names) failed catastrophically under our testing. 

This seems to be confirmed by the independant test I linked earlier:

http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm

Our Issued Revision Sawfly BEW performed the best with ESS coming in second, while the Oakley A Frames and Wiley-X XL-1 both showed penetrations.  I'm sure someone can come up with a more scientific test than this guy did, but I think he did a pretty good comparison.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 908,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,915
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2008, 00:27:05 »
Check out this link:
http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm
Both the Oakley A Frames and Wiley X XL-1 failed failed to stop penetrations... :-\

WB, that's a fantastic link, thank you. I'll definately be passing that onto my guys who are considering COTS eyewear.

MCG: Appreciate you hilighting the link, didn't notice it sneak it there before.

Offline PatrickO

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 420
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2008, 17:33:33 »
Thanks for that link. Although i already found Revision's video to be impressive, that independant link was a very informative read. thank you again for posting it.
Sharpe: "Give me your pick-lock, Cooper."
Cooper: "Will I get it back, sir?"
Sharpe: "Trust me."
Cooper: "It's very hard to trust a man who wants a pick-lock, sir."

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,707
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2008, 17:13:36 »
I'd just like to add that there is an obvious flaw in any BEW standard which allows lenses to be removed from the frames prior to conducting penetration tests.  If the interface between lens and frame is the weak link, you will not know until too late.  Military users will also want BEW that has been tested for blast performance.  I do not know if there is much they glasses or goggles can to to protect eyes from the shock-wave & overpressure.  I do know that if they are not fit for a blast threat, then they may become the object which removes your eyes in a situation which otherwise would not have caused serious eye injury.

Offline NL_engineer

  • CHIMO
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,096
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2008, 17:52:11 »
This seems to be confirmed by the independant test I linked earlier:

http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm

Our Issued Revision Sawfly BEW performed the best with ESS coming in second, while the Oakley A Frames and Wiley-X XL-1 both showed penetrations.  I'm sure someone can come up with a more scientific test than this guy did, but I think he did a pretty good comparison.

Are those Oakley goggles form the standard issue line? as they look like the ones here.  If this was a real test, they would have used the ones from the US standard issue program.

A friend of mine uses a set of A frames (civi type) to keep dust and dirt out of his eyes at work etc (driving through Gagetown); then compare them to a set of land ops that are designed to protect the eyes from projectiles is comparing apples to oranges.

just my 2 cents
Note to any Taliban and AQ personnel on the Form:  ALL SUICIDE VESTS AND EXPLOSIVE DEVICES MUST BE TESTED TO INSURE THEY WORK BEFORE GOING AFTER A TARGET.

This is a measure to save any embarrassment that may occur when your explosive device, does not function as it is intended to.

It has come to my attention that these measures are not being followed, so for all Taliban; please refer to the above.

Thank you for your cooperation

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,146
  • Former Marine
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2008, 08:17:29 »
IMO a major issue in regard to CF spec'd ballistic eyewear is the closed nature of the objecive performance specifications.  Several companies have expressed frustration in regard to DRDC Valcartier/DSSPM being so tight lipped about what their performance objectives are, it's difficult for them (the eyewear manufacturers) to work on engineering a solution to meet the Canadian requirements as they don't really know what objective they're having to build to.

I don't have any issue with the CFs having their own standard (provided that it's superior to what is already established as ANSI/CSA/Mil ratings) for PPE performance, but what I think is fair is that industry is given a fair opportunity to participate in developing equipment that can meet the spec, is validated by DND sanctioned testing programs (whether they're run through DRDC Valcartier or outsourced to an independent facility), even if it is the commercial interest that has to foot the bill for the testing, provided that if the product meets or exceeds the objective standard it is allowed for personal procurement, i.e. US Army Approved Protective Eyewear List.

What is frustrating is that given the CFs strong concern for PPE, the glacial speed procurement for a goggle solution for operational use.  On the one hand we're giving doom & gloom messages to the troops about not deviating from the issued BEW, as "SISIP/VAC won't cover you if you're not wearing them..." "No Wiley X's because I was just told you can't wear them..." yet we're still issuing 'Sun/Wind/Dust Goggles' NSN 8465-01-004-2893 which aren't designed to interface with the MNVG (Goggles are a slightly updated version of the 1940's era 'Type 1021 Polaroid Goggle' ) and have less than stellar ballistic performance (I'm quite confident in assuming that they would NOT meet the current CF spec for ballstic performance).

There is, however, a problem in that ballistic eye wear (in its various issued types) does not cooperate well with the MNVG.  If by this point in time we (the CF) have not found effective BEW that is MNVG compatible, then perhapses it is time to get an effective MNVG that is BEW compatible.

There are several COTS ballistic glasses and goggles that are designed to work with the AN/PVS-14.  Whether they meet Canadian specs or not?  I know that two of the ESS models (V-12 and Profile NVG) were tested by DRDC Valcartier in 2006/2007 and found to be acceptable enough that there was a MR 'Try & Buy' for TF 1-07 to use operationally.  If you look at the cost and timeframes involved in engineering a MNVG that's BEW compatible, I think that is NOT the solution, unless we're looking at incorporating all our optical (both image intensification and PPE) as well the communication headset/microphone into some sort of integrated helmet. 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 13:41:55 by Matt_Fisher »

Offline Breacher41

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 17,601
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,080
  • Per Pietas et Virtus
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2008, 13:53:16 »
Matt,

   You and I BOTH know that it'll take an eternity before what you're suggesting (an integrated helmet system) *gasp* a Canadian version of the FFW program to EVER be implemented. It'll just be like every other CF equipment and contract ever given out. It'll take forever and a day to tender and it'll all be shrouded in mystery, and when we finally get the packages to DO something about it, some company in QC's gotten theirs done and submitted weeks ahead of us, and we've only got 2 weeks left to source the fabric, work out the designs and build the damn thing...


« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 14:05:22 by MedTech »
هناك [هس تو] كنت يستعصي طريق

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 26,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,644
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2008, 13:57:43 »
Medtech.....
relax on the QC bashing.
The other provinces have done & are doing the same now...

Pls give it a rest.
Chimo!

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,378
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,815
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2008, 14:08:29 »
Re: BEW and MNVG,
Being a V3, I need to wear the inserts with my BEW. I have gained a bit of experience in using the MNVG in all weather with the BEW. The only difficulty I have experienced with that set up is when weather is cool, fog tends to build up between the insert and ballistic lens. I have had no problems with BEW and MNVGs while wearing contacts and not the inserts.

I do though, take to cup off the user end of the NVG so that there is airflow at the risk of others seeing the glow on my face.
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline Breacher41

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 17,601
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,080
  • Per Pietas et Virtus
Re: Eyewear in Afghanistan
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2008, 14:13:00 »
Medtech.....
relax on the QC bashing.
The other provinces have done & are doing the same now...

Pls give it a rest.

Oh no no no Geo I'm not bashing QC mate, I'm just stating a fact of life in the textile industry and Government contracts.

I personally don't have hard feelings towards QC ;D
هناك [هس تو] كنت يستعصي طريق