# New ballistic eyewear



## slayer/raptor (12 Jun 2012)

Anyone hear anything about new ballistic glasses?  We were told to go to base clothing tomorrow to get our new pair issued.  Its the first I hear about it, I'm wondering what the improvement or changes are.


----------



## REDinstaller (12 Jun 2012)

There are new balistic goggles. Revision brand


----------



## R031button (12 Jun 2012)

Revision Desert Locust in Flat Dark Earth (colour) with two lenses.


----------



## Ludoc (12 Jun 2012)

They have an insert so you can remove your inserts from your ballistics and place them in the goggles. Better than the previous system of trying to wedge your glasses under the old snow/sand/dust goggles.


----------



## brihard (12 Jun 2012)

What's the scale of issue going to be?


----------



## slayer/raptor (12 Jun 2012)

So no new glasses, just the goggles?  They're good goggles we got those overseas.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jun 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> What's the scale of issue going to be?



Hopefully we get some for those of us deployed, first. Then again, I could add it to the book of stuff we haven't gotten on ADREPs here...


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jun 2012)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> There are new balistic goggles. Revision brand



First I've heard of it.

Then again I'm in the "Molisha" ........ :


----------



## brihard (12 Jun 2012)

About bloody time. I remember several guys in my platoon trialled these on 3-08.


----------



## REDinstaller (13 Jun 2012)

We trialed googles on 1-07 as well.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2012)

Puckchaser, I just don't see that happening - trying to get stuff has been such a gong show.

I got myself a pair of Wiley-X XL-1s with transition lenses. They look a little silly for normal wear, but the transition lens thing is awesome, no screwing around trying to change lenses. And I always found on Revision Sawflys that for some reason the clear lenses always fog regardless of what I did to them. I used the stuff issued, I even tried Cat Crap (which is made for ski goggles primarily) and it didn't work either. Another nice thing about the XL-1s is they have a foam gasket you can put in that makes them more like googles in dusty environments.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Another nice thing about the XL-1s is they have a foam gasket you can put in that makes them more like googles in dusty environments.



The foam gasket melts to your face, unless they have a different type of foam than the Wiley-X ones in 2007. There were banned specifically by TSO in Kandahar.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The foam gasket melts to your face, unless they have a different type of foam than the Wiley-X ones in 2007. There were banned specifically by TSO in Kandahar.



Interesting. Didn't know that - I'll have to read more into it!


----------



## captloadie (13 Jun 2012)

Wouldn't ballistic eyewear be one of those pieces of PPE that shouldn't be allowed to be individually bought and used on deployment?


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Jun 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I got myself a pair of Wiley-X XL-1s with transition lenses.



How good are these at blocking light, and then returning to clear once it gets dark out? I'm looking for something to use as riding glasses that I don't have to take off every time I get off my bike when we stop for a break.


----------



## dogger1936 (13 Jun 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Wouldn't ballistic eyewear be one of those pieces of PPE that shouldn't be allowed to be individually bought and used on deployment?



Many guys (myself included) done a lot of experimenting with different brands. Our OC finally came out and said if we were gonna wear something different; we had to provide the specifics of the brand and ensure it met our CF standard.

I found eyewear was much like boot's...not a one style suited all people in all occupations.

We trialed IIRC 4 pairs in total back in 08-09. I honestly preferred the ballistic eyewear with yellow lens over everything else.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jun 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Wouldn't ballistic eyewear be one of those pieces of PPE that shouldn't be allowed to be individually bought and used on deployment?



There is, as I understand it, several acceptable brands/models out there - Oakley, Revision, ESS, and Wiley-X all make acceptable product. The big thing that's in the US version of Safety Digest is to make sure you get them from a reputable source, not the local bazaar, so you're getting the genuine article.

ModlrMike, they're brilliant, the transition's quick like you see in the ads. My main reason for getting them was for riding, not so much for here.


----------



## CombatDoc (13 Jun 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Wouldn't ballistic eyewear be one of those pieces of PPE that shouldn't be allowed to be individually bought and used on deployment?


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.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Jun 2012)

CombatDoc 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.


 PPE.

Fixed that for you.


----------



## R031button (13 Jun 2012)

CombatDoc 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.



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.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jun 2012)

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.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jun 2012)

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.



I find that a maroon beret is more effective anyways 8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jun 2012)

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.



Well, I am surprised he didn't know the _obvious_ solution to this problem;  see pic below.

 ;D


----------



## R031button (13 Jun 2012)

Oh jesus, please don't let DLR see that


----------



## DirtyDog (13 Jun 2012)

The new googles were massed issued in Pet, along with a Gerber belt cutter.

On 1-10 were given a choice of 3 different googles to wear (at least crews and back-up crews anyway).  They were given to us outright as far as I know.


----------



## brihard (13 Jun 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFZh92MUOY


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (13 Jun 2012)

CombatDoc 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.


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 process


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jun 2012)

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.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jun 2012)

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.



What if I'm in the training area (or deployed) using a blue rocket and an accident happens (ha, no really) and I'm injured.
I'm not wearing my frag vest or BEWs, would I still be covered?
Or if I'm sleeping, eating, took my glasses off to clean them.
Driving while on leave from deployment.

This was the feedback from sisip when some of us asked about the rumor (on tour) about them not covering us if we get injured wearing oakleys.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jun 2012)

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)

Your examples, while realistic, don't incoporate the aspect "was mbr required to/supposed to be wearing "item A" during the incident?  If the answer is no, then non-issue.

Lets use a more realistic example, wearing non-issued BEW on the range.  Mbr sustains eye injury.  Now what?  Is the mbr at fault for wearing non-issued/approved/tested kit?  What if the range orders stated "no non-issued BEW shall be worn"?  During the range safety brief, Range OIC states "only issued kit is to be worn".  All normal stuff, IMO.  Mbr, despite this, wears his/her aftermarket kit that is not approved.

What was the feedback from SISIP?  What is the DVA policy for "mrb was injured on duty, but was not wearing approved kit which may have prevented injury"?

Things to consider, IMO.  

*I am not advocating that the issued kit is better, or worse, simply that it is issued and approved and the mbr would have sustained injury while wearing it.  To me, mbr exercisd due diligence and should not be held at fault for the kit not doing its job.  I'd be curious to see DVA/SISIP policy on what they think of 'injury during service, mbr was wearing unauthorized PPE/kit".


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jun 2012)

If the non-issued eyewear conforms and exceeds the same standards that the Revision Sawfly do, where's the problem? It opens up a can of worms. How can you prove conclusively that the Sawfly would have even stopped the fragments? 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 (14 Jun 2012)

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.



As a Bioscience Officer, I'll see if I can get some MacAdam Shield Shovels out of war stocks for use.   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jun 2012)

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



While you're at it get out the Ross Rifle as well, would ya?

All joking aside, I also wonder what VAC  would say if the investigation revealed the member was wearing non issued BEW.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jun 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If the non-issued eyewear conforms and exceeds the same standards that the Revision Sawfly do, where's the problem?



First off, as I said, I am not advocating they are or aren't just as good or even better pieces of kit, I am just questioning how it may affect things like DVA, LTD, etc benefits/coverage.  

The difference would be simply that the non-issued kit was not 'approved by the CF' for use.  This is not related to if it conforms to/exceeds the standard, just that it is not issued.   



> How can you prove conclusively that the Sawfly would have even stopped the fragments?



Well, I can't.  If its not tested by CF authorities and approved for use, it remains 'officically' underdetermined if it is 'to standard' [IAW CF definition/standards).  I don't know the procedure and policy on how kit is tested/approved, so am not even going to stray into that lane.  



> Our kit isn't indestructible and will fail, just like every other piece of COTS or MOTS gear.


  Agree 100%.  I'm just wondering what the people who make decision on DVA/LTD/etc issues look at the issue.



> 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.



This makes alot of sense and should also be applied to things like boots, IMO.  I recall a thread on boots where, IIRC, Vern spoke about the issue of it being tied to PWGSC/Industry Canada type issues as to why this will not happen.  AFAIK, isn't Revision based in Qc? (aka a Cdn product).  



> 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.



Someone probably could, if they wanted to, charge the mbr.  Personally I'd probably be in mindset you are (would you want to) but considering the 'deterrent effect' that is factored in to charges, who can say others would be of a different mindset?  

Just looking at the non-issued kit discussion from a different angle; maybe there is nothing to it, but who knows what DVA and others think on the issue.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jun 2012)

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



As a SME, even if in general terms, what 'risks' are involved with non-issue kit, specifically PPE?  Any input would add value to our 'spec fire' on the topic.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jun 2012)

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)



I believe in some cases people think along these lines. On training we had a CSM that had us sleeping in full FFO (Frag vest, tacvest, BEWs, gloves, helmet on our heads but chin strap undone, kinda tilted back) because "that's how they did it overseas".

It's not at all unrealistic to suggest the chain of command may very well issue an order that members WILL wear BEWs and frag vests while in blue rockets.
Again stranger things have happened right?

There's an easy fix for this. Contact SISIP and ask them.
if I take a stick in the eye while wearing no BEWs or non-issued BEWs will I still be covered?

It was 2006 last time I was in a group that got a hold of them and asked (WRT BEWs and aftermarket body armor and plates) about coverage. They said insurance is insurance whether we're in Afghanistan or in Canada, wearing our gear or not. Killed with an IED or a drunk driver.

But don't quote me, give them a shout and confirm. Would be interesting to hear the results.


----------



## MikeL (14 Jun 2012)

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.


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Jun 2012)

-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.



I'm going to echo this if only to put this rumor to rest.

I've personally made the calls to both agencies:

VAC covers your injuries in a special duty area and while on duty in Canada.  They don't care if you are wearing all your PPE in a blue rocket, on a fighting patrol in the in a pink tu-tu or flying over Libya wearing nothing but a thin coat of CLP and a smile.  A service injury is a service injury is a service injury.  They don't see "Bloggins sustained an eye injury while wearing non-issue PPE" they see "Bloggins sustained an eye injury."

SISIP covers you on civvy side as well as while on duty, and you don't wear your issued BEW's while you go about your daily routine, do you?

The specter of losing benefits due to  non-issue kit is one that's been trotted out before and it holds no weight.

As for charges for disobeying a lawful command, that is plausible.  However depending on the severity of the injury the CoC could use the injured pers as an example.  "See?  That's what happens when you don't wear proper kit!" or something along those lines.  Arguably just as effective as charging the one eyed guilty bastard.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jun 2012)

It's using deceit to trick soldiers into following an order.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Jun 2012)

Yup, I called my troop leader out on that on in theater in 2010.  I told him not to use the "if you don't wear our stuff you'll die and your family blah blah no coverage..." on the troops.  The next day he elaborated.  It was one of the only times he ever took my experience into consideration.. (sniff sniff).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jun 2012)

Nice to have an answer and ones that makes sense at that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jun 2012)

The SISIP guy at the scam I recently attended said that we were covered 24/7 here and at home, period.  Of course if my dependants are put into a situation to put that to the test, I personally won't  be giving a damn.


----------



## Dirt Digger (18 Jun 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As a SME, even if in general terms, what 'risks' are involved with non-issue kit, specifically PPE?  Any input would add value to our 'spec fire' on the topic.



I'm not one of the Human Factors types within the trade (I do Industiral Hygiene), so I'm limited to my own personal experiences providing assistance on some of the projects when I was at DRDC-T.

A lot of the concerns are due to the thermal capabilities of the item....foam gaskets around the lenses on Wiley X's and polyester fablic blends in UnderArmour products come immediately to mind.  Having them melt to your skin makes a bad situation worse for the medical folks (and for you!).    This was an issue with aircrew wearing those US-issue polypro long johns (those shiney brown ones), as they go up like a roman candle if they get anywhere near a heat source.  Saw it happen when I was working at CFSSAT and a guy on a SERE course was trying to dry a pair over a fire...instant pile of goo.  

Remember as well that just because someone is willing to go out and buy brand-name products from reliable retailers, doesn't mean that everyone does.  You'd think that people would know better than buy knockoff products, but you still see people buying genuine $20.00 "Oakeys" in the markets that offer zero UV protection.  Caveat emptor just isn't good enough when it comes to PPE.

The other question about medical and pension coverage has already been discussed.  What I can add is that any incorrectly worn, modified or non-issue item would be documented during the PPE recovery process.  I was involved with several of those and the purpose is not in any way, shape, or form towards laying blame - it's about seeing how the gear failed and making it better.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jun 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This makes alot of sense and should also be applied to things like boots, IMO.  I recall a thread on boots where, IIRC, Vern spoke about the issue of it being tied to PWGSC/Industry Canada type issues as to why this will not happen.  AFAIK, isn't Revision based in Qc? (aka a Cdn product).



Never underestimate the power that lobbying groups hold.  I am certain the higher ups would love nothing more than to go out and give every Canadian Soldier a 100$ to go buy their own boots; however, the political ramifications of such a move would be a untenable.  The textile industry in Canada is an incredibly powerful lobbying group and if the CF were to do something of this nature the PMO would have loud angry people knocking on there door if something like this were to happen.  

Our present boot situation is IMO a disaster at the moment.  I walk around the unit and am hard pressed to find anyone wearing issued boots.  The fact that if I blow out a boot it can take upwards of 3 months to get a replacement is laughable.  I personally haven't worn issued boots in over 2 years.  Mind you I do love the Mark IIIs with Vibrams, blew my last pair out unfortunately and have not been able to find a replacement pair.

On the issue of insurance coverage for soldiers not wearing issued equipment.  Fact is, soldiers have been modifying their kit since the beginning of time and this is not suddenly going to magically change.  I always got a kick out of hearing people say you wouldn't be covered if you didn't wear XXX.  All it would take would be one nastygram from Bloggins Mom to the local MP and a quick media conference and the situation would rectify itself.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (18 Jun 2012)

I have the ESS NVG version in Tan I used on 1-10 doing hel-ops - It was the only way to see the choppers coming in to pick up their sling loads.  They worked really well.


----------

