# Skydex Blast Protection



## BKells (19 Aug 2008)

I just bought the Skydex helmet pads in advance of my deployment in the next short while. Before I install them, I was wondering if anyone had any techincal data on the blast (not ballistic) protection provided by these pads versus the issued styrofoam/leather net. Specifically, I heard someone say that air does not channel blast energy, and thus the issued paracord suspension system is superior for blast protection. Is this in any way true?


----------



## Farmboy (19 Aug 2008)

Please note this is for the Oregon Aero BLSS which is "foam" padding.  

As well the standard issue PASGT does not have the same extra styrofoam padding as in the CF issue helmet.








 Other pads on the market can be foam and some are closed air cells.  I would go with foam for blunt trama as it absorbs energy.  For example plastic bubble wrap, squeeze it to much and it will pop, squeeze foam pads and they just compact.  Put the bubble wrap against you head and hit it, the force from your hand will be the same force felt by your head.


----------



## brihard (19 Aug 2008)

Junius said:
			
		

> I just bought the Skydex helmet pads in advance of my deployment in the next short while. Before I install them, I was wondering if anyone had any techincal data on the blast (not ballistic) protection provided by these pads versus the issued styrofoam/leather net. Specifically, I heard someone say that air does not channel blast energy, and thus the issued paracord suspension system is superior for blast protection. Is this in any way true?



You don't get to laugh at me for kit anymore.  ;D

But on a serious note, you should love the skydex kit once you get it installed. If I ever have to go back to the issued suspension I may cry.


----------



## McG (19 Aug 2008)

Junius said:
			
		

> ... the issued paracord suspension system is superior for blast protection. Is this in any way true?


It is completely true.  You will have better blast protection from the issued suspension liner and less protection from a padded liner.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Aug 2008)

I'll put in a query to Skydex themselves, as they've been working quite extensively on continuous product improvement in terms of comfort and safety as it relates to blunt trauma, back face deformation, and blast wave management.


----------



## McG (19 Aug 2008)

If you are putting the question to the company, you will want to ensure they specifically answer wrt the Canadian issued helmet.  As the Canadian & US helmets are different they will behave differently & what protects in one helmet could exaggerate injury in the other.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Aug 2008)

As much as I don't want to open the debate again.  Wouldn't something that the US military adopted (and thoroughly tested I am sure) be considered as a "safe bet"?  I understand what MCG is saying about the helmet types but isn't it safe to say that a seatbelt (though there are different types in different vehicles) is better than none at all?


----------



## Farmboy (19 Aug 2008)

> It is completely true.  You will have better blast protection from the issued suspension liner and less protection from a padded liner.



 Depends on the system used.  

 If you have information showing otherwise then let let us know.  Don't give me the "it's classified" line either.  I was told tests were done but no one has said anything or shown anything to prove anything either way.



> As the Canadian & US helmets are different they will behave differently & what protects in one helmet could exaggerate injury in the other.



 They are both the same level protection of shell and same basic shape.

Again show us results good or bad.  If the aftermarket ones were bad let us know so we can take that information back to the companies to improve on.  Otherwise all you do is make more guys aware that there are other options besides the issue stuff, which I'm thankfull for, but not if it risks their life.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> ......  Don't give me the "it's classified" line either.  I was told tests were done but no one has said anything or shown anything to prove anything either way.



And "Someone who doesn't have fulltime access to the knowledge required" would know more than a person who is in the business of knowing?  Farmboy, I would say you are placing a lot on your limited knowledge.  Too much perhaps.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And a Cpl Reservist would know more than a person who is in the business of knowing?  Farmboy, I would say you are placing a lot on your limited knowledge.  Too much perhaps.



WTF does him being a Cpl reservist have to do with anything?? Go tell that to the Maj reservist I work for.. I am sure being a massage therapist (but a reservist) she must know nothing??  

That Cpl reservist has a business that sells the equipment in question and I am darn sure he wants to find out the most information he can about products he sells or recommends to customers.  Customers who trust his judgment and his choices of equipment to sell.  And they take it to WAR, where've you been lately George?  And don't give me any warnings about personal attacks.. cause I am pretty sure you deserve one as well if I earned one!!

BTW, I am Reg force and proud of but that crap has no place in here!!


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> WTF does him being a Cpl reservist have to do with anything?? Go tell that to the Maj reservist I work for.. I am sure being a massage therapist (but a reservist) she must know nothing??
> 
> That Cpl reservist has a business that sells the equipment in question and I am darn sure he wants to find out the most information he can about products he sells or recommends to customers.  Customers who trust his judgment and his choices of equipment to sell.  And they take it to WAR, where've you been lately George?  And don't give me any warnings about personal attacks.. cause I am pretty sure you deserve one as well if I earned one!!
> 
> BTW, I am Reg force and proud of but that crap has no place in here!!



And the guy he is "Calling out" is Regular Force and in the business to know of what he talks.  So Bzz you can fill your boots with whatever you want, but a person who doesn't have the knowledge shouldn't be confronting a person who does.................and then making comments like this:



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> ......  Don't give me the "it's classified" line either.  I was told .........



As for your current status......  :


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Aug 2008)

I will ask once again, what does him being a Reservist have anything to do with it?  I mean, couldn't you have made the comparison without bringing that into it? You could have simply said: "Farmboy, seeing as MCG has more knowledge than you shouldn't you be putting more confidence in his answer?" He wasn't calling him out, he was stating what anyone could interpret from what MCG said.  



> It is completely true.  You will have better blast protection from the issued suspension liner and less protection from a padded liner.


  He didn't offer anything to back up that statement.  It is obvious that people here are looking for the answer to the original question.  Simply saying "yes" would have been just as effective yet no one learns from it.  

"I was told....." Maybe someone in DLR told him?  Maybe it was a representative from Gallet?  Do you know who his source is? 

I dunno.. I can't seem to think straight.. that Reservist comment has me steaming...

Bzz out.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I dunno.. I can't seem to think straight.. that Reservist comment has me steaming...



Then ignore it.........I'll change it to "Someone who doesn't have fulltime access to the knowledge required".


----------



## Farmboy (20 Aug 2008)

> And a Cpl Reservist would know more than a person who is in the business of knowing?



 Not just a Cpl Resevist but one who has been out for 2 yrs and had no overseas tours.

Want to call me on my time in go for it, as anyone who has met me will say I'm the first to admit that I haven't done anything compared to 99.99% of the guys in the military.  

 However what I have done is committed myself to finding the best gear, knowing what works, getting feed back from guys who have been there as well as spent loads of my own personal money testing the gear I sell.  Have you seen pics of the $400 armour plate and $600 vest I shot up to make sure it works?  Any idea how much of the gear myself and my buddies use on our personal time at the range?

 You call me on military life all you want, but to say I don't know anything about gear is like saying Colt Canada doesn't know how to make rifles.



> And the guy he is "Calling out" is Regular Force and in the business to know of what he talks.



 I'm very certain MCG is very knowledgable on what he deals with.  Just like a weapons tech is very knowledgable on weapons the CF uses.  I have issues though with his bias towards issue gear (just like I have a bias to the gear I sell) and I have issues with the whole "it's bad, but we can't tell you why" line, and lack (that I know of -could be wrong) of knowledge on aftermarket equipement.

 What I am asking for is proof that all aftermarket helmet suspension/padding kits are bad.  And if they are, let us know what the issues are so it can be improved upon.  I have asked about this information before and been told it's classified.



> "I was told....." Maybe someone in DLR told him?



  Ding, ding , ding and the prize goes to..  ;D




> I'll change it to "Someone who doesn't have fulltime access to the knowledge required".




Really?    Maybe it's just me but the innovation shown in the TV, small pack and other items seems to suggest it's someone else that doesn't have the access to the knowledge required.

 * Please note, those in DLR who have gotten cranky with me before, it's not a personal attack against you as a person.


PS I'm sick of pulling punches at appease the system.  I want our guys to have the best.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2008)

I am very interested as well...

I use a TC2002 and people from MSA have told me the CF Gallet helmet is identical except for the shape.  FYI I was also told the styrofoam liner for the CF hemet was initally a shipping liner that the CF retained...

  Having seen people survice some pretty nasty blast injuries while wearing the Skydex and OA pads - I feel pretty confident with them in my helmet.  I am covered under DBA (US Defence Base Act) regardless of my protection level -- I just want the best.  From what I have had access to - that is not the CF helemt and issue liner.


I dont trust DLR as far as I could throw the building BTW - I have seen enough lies coming out of there to sink a very very large ship.


----------



## McG (20 Aug 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Don't give me the "it's classified" line either.


I can appreciate that you find it frustrating that CF protection thresholds are not publicized for you to compare against your products.  It makes it hard for you to you’re your goods.  The good news is that the CF does extensive testing (including of commercial PPE options) and the CF knows that it is issuing superior protective equipment.  

I’m not going to argue you on issues of kit to keep soldiers warm & to make their lives easier (things like load carriage or stealth suites).  These are things that soldiers experience daily, can (for the most part) safely experiment in and express in relatively quantifiable terms.  You are then able to speak to the soldiers and directly ascertain the requirement yourself.  The same is not true of blast and ballistic protection.  You’re going to have to trust me on this.  I know I can trust my information having seen some of the test facilities, set-ups and effects; and I think that I’ve also established a fairly decent track record showing my understanding of blast & ballistic protection trumps yours.  

There was a time you doubted me on the inferiority of many commercial BEW options: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-686690.html#msg686690
But it seems you’ve since come round: 





			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> ... The BEW looks pretty good for protection, which has made me go back to one of my suppliers and say "This needs to be improved" and ...


There was a time when you doubted my claim that a civilian police standard was not an adequate measure to determine military armour suitability: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39069/post-572231.html#msg572231 
But you seemed to have accepted when others corrected you: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39069/post-572453.html#msg572453 

When it comes to items of soldier preference, I have no doubt you are able to please more people with your products than the options available in the supply system.  When it comes to safety and protective equipment, I strongly doubt your ability to better protect our soldiers.  You seem to accept suggestions in manufacture glossy brochures at face value while assuming ineffectiveness of the CF equipment entirely.  Here is the dangerous thing: without the supporting facts (and despite having gotten the PPE thing wrong a few times), you continue making promises to your customers that your products will provide superior protection to issued CF PPE:


			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> The Oregon Aero BLSS and BLU kit provide so much more protection over the leather, paracord and foam POS stuck in the helmet it's not even funny.


I know your intentions are good, but promising things without knowing that your PPE can deliver may eventually get a soldier killed.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I dont trust DLR as far as I could throw the building ….


IN this case, you do not have to trust DLR.  The blast & ballistic testing of PPE is done by an organization which does not report to DLR … it is not even under the Land Staff (and it’s not Toronto either).



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I use a TC2002 and people from MSA have told me the CF Gallet helmet is identical except for the shape.


Shape is a rather important element in the mechanism of how a given helmet will protect and so shape alone can have an impact on the suitability of a liner.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> … I just want the best.  From what I have had access to - that is not the CF helemt and issue liner.


Maybe not the best for comfort and such related factors that are a matter of individual preference.  However you wouldn’t have had access to adequate data related to protection in order to make the definitive statement that the CF helmet and issue liner offer inferior protection to any other option.


----------



## Big Red (20 Aug 2008)

If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?


----------



## Farmboy (20 Aug 2008)

> I can appreciate that you find it frustrating that CF protection thresholds are not publicized for you to compare against your products.





> Here is the dangerous thing: without the supporting facts .....you continue making promises to your customers that your products will provide superior protection...


 
 Yes I do find it frustrating, and to have yourself say we have to believe you, when you yourself do not provide supporting facts, makes it even harder.   You yourself have retracted many statements about the protective values of the TV.



> You seem to accept suggestions in manufacture glossy brochures at face value while assuming ineffectiveness of the CF equipment entirely.



 As I already stated, I don't accept manufacturers glossy brochures at face value hense the reason I destroy products I carry to see what they will take.  



> There was a time you doubted me on the inferiority of many commercial BEW options: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-686690.html#msg686690
> But it seems you’ve since come round:
> Quote from: Farmboy on April 27, 2008, 17:11:05
> ... The BEW looks pretty good for protection, which has made me go back to one of my suppliers and say "This needs to be improved" and ...



 Correct, you and others showed that some items are tested above NIJ (body armour) and other standards.  So I go to my suppliers and tell them to increase protection, specifically eyeware. I still have doubts about the body armour but won't discuss here.

 I have never doubted the saftey of the eyewear only it's effect on most users that I have talked to, to cause migraines (myself included).  This combined with hot spots on the head from the helmet does not make for an effective soldier.  There were times I could hardly drive because of both items. 

 I have doubted the helmets blunt trama protectiveness, and still do.  Also are you refering to bump/blunt (tertiary) blast protection, or primary blast protection, which are two different animals.  Vehicle roll over compared to IED.

 Shape only effects secondary, i.e. shrapnel unless the two different shapes provide additional coverage.  Primary (overpressure) protection isnt going to be effected for the most part by internal structure, but by the coverage of the outside, i.e. if it covers the ears, it will protect from overpressure, if not, you're eardrums will rupture


----------



## brihard (20 Aug 2008)

I've been following this thread with come concern, as I've been very happy with my Skydex kit thus far.

MCG, can you tell us whether anything suggests that the Skydex kits are a liability in the event of a blast? Given that they've become tacitly accepted most places I've seen, I'd like to know if I'm doing myself a disfavour by using it.


----------



## Fusaki (20 Aug 2008)

> MCG, can you tell us whether anything suggests that the Skydex kits are a liability in the event of a blast? Given that they've become tacitly accepted most places I've seen, I'd like to know if I'm doing myself a disfavour by using it.



Good question.

Given that the issued suspension provides adequate protection, is there a significant difference between that and the protection provided by a skydex suspension package?


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Aug 2008)

Big Red said:
			
		

> If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?



BULLSEYE!


----------



## Fusaki (20 Aug 2008)

> If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?



I doubt it.

But that does not necessarily mean that skydex provides better protection. It could mean that skydex provides _almost as good_ protection in a much, much, more comfortable package.

At least for me, personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice _some_ protection if the comfort gains were drastic enough. While physical protection is good, uncomfortable gear will wear you out mentally - especially given the amount of time we spend wearing helmets.


----------



## McG (20 Aug 2008)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> You yourself have retracted many statements about the protective values of the TV.


You are mistaken.  For one thing, the TV is load carriage & not PPE.  That aside, I have only ever made one claim on the protective value of the TV & I to stand by it:  The TV has been shown to have a characteristic which improves the blast protection of the amour when the two are worn together.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> As I already stated, I don't accept manufacturers glossy brochures at face value hense the reason I destroy products I carry to see what they will take.


Sounds like the Troy Hurtubise approach.  DND has done extensive blast & ballistic protection of in-service & commercial PPE employing scientific method and statistically relevant sample sizes.  You've taken a couple things out back and "destroyed" them.  



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Yes I do find it frustrating, and to have yourself say we have to believe you, when you yourself do not provide supporting facts, makes it even harder.


The cynic might point out that only one of us financially benefits from profits relating to selling goods through promising soldiers they will be better protected.  Others might also point out that I've at least demonstrated evidence that DND has done extensive testing of a broad spectrum of products in large sample sizes.  You have "destroyed" a handful of products out back (maybe enough for an anecdotal argument ... but have you covered all the threats?  ballistics?  blast?), and you have not tested CF equipment.  Your promise of better protection is based on a manufacturer's glossies combined with your own biases & assumptions.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> .... are you refering to bump/blunt (tertiary) blast protection, or primary blast protection, which are two different animals.
> 
> Shape only effects secondary, i.e. shrapnel unless the two different shapes provide additional coverage.  Primary (overpressure) protection isnt going to be effected for the most part by internal structure, but by the coverage of the outside, i.e. if it covers the ears, it will protect from overpressure, if not, you're eardrums will rupture


Yes.  There is a lot that happens in a blast event and that places different requirements on the helmet.  Shape (internal & external) is always a factor of how the helmet protects and that will affect the requirements placed on the suspension of padding.  You are correct that it is ballistic impacts in which helmet shape will place the most specific demands on the pads.  At the same time, you also know the official statement: there is no known pad system which provides equivalent or close ballistic protection compared to the issued suspension system.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> MCG, can you tell us whether anything suggests that the Skydex kits are a liability in the event of a blast? Given that they've become tacitly accepted most places I've seen, I'd like to know if I'm doing myself a disfavour by using it.


I do not have the specific information by brand name (and I don't need it) but if it were available to me, it would be protected information that I could not release.  Read what I have above in this post & take it for what it is worth.



			
				Big Red said:
			
		

> If the CF helmet suspension offers superior protection,have the CF units that have been issued other helmets (TC2001, TC2002, etc) retrofitted them with CF style suspension?


It offers superior protection in the helmet for which it is issued.  Those units with different helmets would have to determine if (based on the characteristics of their helmets) the suspension is a better option in those helmets.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> At least for me, personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice _some_ protection if the comfort gains were drastic enough. While physical protection is good, uncomfortable gear will wear you out mentally - especially given the amount of time we spend wearing helmets.


Not just some protection. For ballistic (bullets & frag) the loss of protection is leaves you with something that is not close to the issued suspension.


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2008)

MCG - I know full where the tests are done, and for whom,I visited Valcatraz once myself  
  My point is that while I dont doubt the Lethality Lab and other elements at DREV  testing, I have an inside source that leads me to beleive some of the testing may not be as realistic as they should be, that source has also worked for the Aussies, and the US Gov.

 Any vest system that keeps the PPE tight to the body and does not allow it to be ripped off in an event will increase its protective qualities -- saying that the TV does it - is like saying that rain is wet.  That is one of the design flaws of the CF PPE system - as opposed to the IOTV etc the US Army issues - or the Paraclete systems issued to DHTC.

One point on the OA etc system in the CF helmet - they really need to installed using the proper holes - and for that they need either the PVS-14 mounting plate hole or the NORTOS plate holes water drilled into the helmet prior to curing.
   There are a number of MSA etc folks over at Ligthfighter and the discussion on plate mouting and drilling have been very interesting.  Installing the suspension system without the fourth anchor point may give a comfortable ride - but it does not really off suitable stability in the event of an impact from SAF or blast effects.  IF the CF helemt was secured properly with the suspension system and pads - I suspect   that the results from the LL testing would be utterly different.

Just my 0.02 from the peanut gallery


----------



## Mortar guy (21 Aug 2008)

I hate to do this but I have to chime in here.

McG - I have access to many of the sources you are talking about and I have found no evidence whatsoever of trials or tests that show that the in-service suspension system provides better blast and blunt force protection than any alternative. That doesn't mean they don't exist - I just can't find anything anywhere in ADM S&T files, LFTEU, DLR, or anything like it.

I also find it extremely hard to believe that the leather and styrofoam system in our helmet, which was not designed to deal with blast1, is in some way superior to Skydex's closed-cell padding. The US Army has done a lot of studies regarding blast and head injuries and they seem to have no problem with Skydex pads. 

Also, can everyone please drop the BS about "the shape of the helmet" being a major factor in blast protection. True, if our helmets were square and everyone else's were rounded, it may be a factor. But the difference in shape between our CG 634 and the MICH, for example, are not relevant when discussing blast protection.

MG

1. Our CG 634 was purchased based on its ability to protect the soldier from fragments/bullets and blunt force.


----------



## Ecco (21 Aug 2008)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> McG - I have access to many of the sources you are talking about and I have found no evidence whatsoever of trials or tests that show that the in-service suspension system provides better blast and blunt force protection than any alternative. That doesn't mean they don't exist - I just can't find anything anywhere in ADM S&T files, LFTEU, DLR, or anything like it.



(Unfortunately), CASPEAN routinely has to post-analyze the performance of all personal protective equipment after ballistic/blunt/blast injuries.  
Unclass results are briefed at OPCIEWG and many other relevant venues, if you have any interest, it's very easy to get invited.  
You (seem to) claim having access to DLR shared drive...  Search for OPCIEWG under DLR 5 and take the time to read.  Or come have a chat with the ballistic guys at DLR/DSSPM/DREV, etc.
There are a huge numbers of high-ranking generals who spend a lot of time making sure we deliver the best "force protection".  If there was a better solution out there, they would force its quick procurement, as they have done for now countless items in the last years.


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2008)

MG -- a number of troops have installed the OA suspension without a 4th (front) mounting point - as such the helmet and suspension are not anchored around the head like on a MICH/ACH.
  I have seen a few use a small 'zap' strap to secure it to itself -- that in my non science guy viewpoint will cause problems if and when the helmet is tested on someones pumpkin.

Ecco - thoughts?


----------



## Mortar guy (21 Aug 2008)

Ecco,

Yup, checked OPCIEWG. Haven't yet seen anything that says Skydex pads don't offer the same or better protection. I'm not saying that OPCIEWG is saying our current leather/styrofoam solution isn't working, I'm just saying that I can't find any evidence of anyone saying formally that the Skydex pads don't cut the mustard. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

MG


----------



## McG (21 Aug 2008)

Surfing the DWAN you will not find anything that states brand names.


----------



## Mortar guy (21 Aug 2008)

Who said anything about surfing the DWAN? Try "surfing the K: drive"...


----------



## BKells (21 Aug 2008)

Thank you for the informative discussion. I haven't installed it yet... but debating now whether or not to do so. I'll follow this with close attention..


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (25 Aug 2008)

Interesting and relevant article found in the Aug edition of Popular Science - "Shock to the System

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-%2526-space/article/2008-08/shock-system

According to the author, blast waves may cause microscopic damage to the brain via blast waves moving through the body and blood. If true, anyone caught in a blast wave from IEDs or whatever may have more things to worry about than what padding system is in their helmet.

Also in the same PopSci - an interesting article about the US Army looking into helmet padding systems, some developed by football helmet manufacturers. Foam and air pads were mentioned.


----------

