24 Oct 2009 - route clearence/eod - my unit is already deployed - our pads suck hells bells.  SPC, Army

 24 Oct 2009 - The pads issued are uncomfortable if helmet is worn for long periods of time.  The pads seem to have pressure spots on them that push into the side of my head.  SFC, Army.

24 Oct 2009 - WILL BE ON PATROL / ESCORTING DIFFERENT PEOPLE AROUND IRAQ ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THE  KITS GET WORN DOWN AND WE REALLY DON'T GET A CHANCE TO CHANGE THEM OUT OR GET NEW ONES BECAUSE OF THE AREA WE ARE [IN] AT THIS TIME.  1SG, Army

22 Oct 2009 - I am having current problems with my pads. they are falling apart very badly and my 1 soldier's pads are to. thank you for all the support .  SSG, US Army

18 Oct 2009 - WE ARE A SMALL SECTION OF INFANTRYMEN WHO GO OUTSIDE THE WIRE ALMOST EVERYDAY. DUE TO BEING A PERSONAL SECURTY DETACHMENT FOR AN O-6, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO STAY IN OUR FULL KIT WHILE OUT ON MISSION. I FOUND THIS WEBSITE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO BUY A NEW SOFTER SET OF ACH HELMET PADS.  PERSONALLY MY ISSUED PADS GIVE ME HEADACHES, AND I KNOW THIS SOUNDS CRAZY BUT IT MAKES MY HEAD GO NUMB AT THE POINTS OF CONTACT. THEY ARE SO HARD AND NONFORMING I HAVE TO TAKE MY ACH OFF ALL THE TIME. I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING THAT I CAN THINK OF, AND I AM ALWAYS REARANGING THE WAY THE PADS SIT INSIDE THE HELMET, BUT NOTHING SEEMS TO WORK. I WOULD BE VERY GREATFUL IF YOU GUYS COULD HELPOUT.  SPC, US Army

12 Oct 2009: My head starts hurting soon after I put it on. I was fited at Camp Atterbury. The pads feel like their to thick. Its better than the old kevlars. But not as big an improvement as I thought it would be. I'v heard your kits make a big differance.

11 Oct 2009: Can't thank your organization enough, the soldiers in my squad noticed a major difference in comfort. Where before all they could think about during AARs was when or if they could remove their ACHs, I had to remind them to unhelmet from time to time. No headaches during long high tempo training either. With long missions just over the horizon I can already measure the benefits of the OA pads.

26 Sep 09:  Gunner, infantry: Getting bad headaches.  The pads are very hard and don't conform to my head.  Manufacturer: MSA

16 Sep 2009 - The pads I have make certain spots on my head numb, and I get headaches, because they are absolutely too firm, expecially when I'm using my NODS. My unit is scheduled to leave for Afghanistan mid-November to early-December.  Was searching for a more comfortable pad system/alternative liner for my ACH on google, and came across this site.  PFC, Army

18 Aug 2009 - Mostly the main problem is comfort. After wearing our helmets for longer than an hour the pads feel like they're digging into our skulls. I have completed one tour prior and have had problems with my pads rubbing my forehead raw. There are also problems with the helmets moving around too much over our heads. If you can save some of my guys and my self the hassles that I went through on my last tour, I would be greatly appreciative.  SPC, Army

18 Aug 2009 - Current pads are made by MSA. The main problem we are seeing is that the padding wears out or looses its shock absorbing/weight bearing properties quickly. As EOD techs, we need to be more concerned with addressing the IED threat outside the wire, not how our helmet padding is bothering us or affecting the fit of our helmet. 1LT, Army

15 Aug 2009 -Our Troop conducts recon patrols and long and short term OPs. We will be deploying late fall (not sure if I can spread exact date yet or not) and are headed for Iraq. Not all of us have problems with our pads, just most of our dismounts.  PFC, Army

11 Aug 2009 - They just hurt. I've moved them all over the place to try to make them comfortable and my head aches after every mission.

30 Jul 2009 - I have several sailors and soldiers that comp of chronic headaches and pain. 1LT, Army

24 Jul 2009 - i'm in artillery and my ach still has the same kit i got in basic training its worn and falls out all the time and leaves my skin irritated and itchy. PFC, Army

10 Jul 2009 - I have requested the helmet pads before, for my plt, now I am the company operations NCO and I am hoping to get pads for the rest of my company and Counter IED Team, here at FOB [opsec deleted], in Afghanistan.  SFC, Army

26 Jun 2009 - Military Transition Team/Combat Advisor, small team working by/ with and through Iraqi counterparts to improve the Iraqi security forces.  Using issued MSA pads and currently getting tension headaches 45min-1hr after wearing helmet. The corners of the "Pad Rect" focus pressure on one location and do not form to the head. The only relief is finishing the mission and taking the helmet off.  MAJ, Army

22 Jun 2009 - xxxth Eng CO is already deployed and active in Afghanistan. I am asking for the pads because this platoon has already had 3 hits, the last being pretty severe. SSG xxx and 3 other men are dealing with a possible TBI, I was researching TBI and found this website.  SSG, Army

8 Jun 2009 - The pads are hard and I can't get them positioned right so my helmet is either too loose or too tight. I already get migraines it just makes it worse. Most personnel have various problems with their helmets all causing headaches. It doesn't have the manufacturer on the pad, just says "Unit Pad, Crown Size 6, W911QY-05-D-0001, NSN 8470-01-548-9415, 9U425, LOT 2127-2.  SPC, Army

4 Jun 2009 - we are operating outside the wire pulling EOD response for a great area, most of us only have the basic issue and they are either already broken or falling apart .  PFC, Army

1 Jun 2009 - I have had the same pads since my first deployment in 2005, we spent 13 months in iraq and then we came back and did our stateside training and deployed again to Afghanistan for 15 months and now we are prepping to go to iraq again. I will be a medic.  SGT, Army

26 May 2009 - I'm not sure who made my current pads but when I wash them they come apart at the seam, I have to glue them back together, I try to clean them every few weeks, I hate having dirty pads.  SFC, Army

16 May 2009 - Most of my guys have been deployed before and have not recieved replacement pads from the last deployment and are hard as heck. You guys are awesome and I hope to get new and improved pads for my guys ASAP. I have a few guys that could have been better served with them already. Thank you so much.  SGT, Army

11 May 2009 - My platoon runs resupply missions to 4 different JSS in support of our line companies. We are on the road a minimum of four hours at a time and that's our short mission. I am in the front gun truck and the issued pads give me a tension headache from hell.  The only thing on the back of our pads is Unit Pad with NSN # and Lot #. They are extremely stiff and have no give. About an hour and a half in or so I start getting a tension headache from hell. We also run our missions at night so we have NODs mounted and that doesn't help. I feel like my head is surrounded by bricks.  CPL, Army

8 May 2009 - My soldiers and I are grateful for everything that you are doing for us and the rest of our brothers and sisters in arms. I'm not requesting pads for myself or the guys that don't go out the wire much, but I am ordering them for the soldiers that are out everyday and are having problems with their current kits. We conduct route clearance operations and they spend hours and days on end out looking for IEDs and people that are putting them in. Luckily, we have only sustained minor injuries to include a few concussions, so we understand the value of adequate equipment. We have placed several orders to get them replaced, but are continuously denied for one reason or another. If there is anything that you can do to assist my Sappers, I would be eternally grateful...In any case, keep doing what you are doing. We appreciate your efforts as I'm sure every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine do as well. God bless you and all that you do. CPT, Army

7 May 2009 - Sapper company with 4 platoons conducting route clearance; we've conducted nearly 650 missions in 12 months. The pads you provide are of better quality, last longer and are softer.  CPT, Army

28 Apr 2009 - We are a combat advisor team working directly with Iraqi units on a daily basis, so we are basically in our full battle rattle all the time. We also conduct mounted and dismounted combat patrols everyday.  We were issued the Wendy pads which cause considerable pain, headaches and discomfort after wearing them. I'm interested in emailing PEO Soldier with my teams comments so they hear our feedback and make some changes to get us the best gear possible that is both functional and comfortable. I think these pads will reduce the number of complaints I receive from team members who have difficulty with their helmet pads. Appreciate everyone who is supporting this program!  CPT, Army

Below is a certificate that was recommended by a Soldier in Iraq whose medical unit Operation Helmet has equipped with top-of-the-line helmet pads. We appreciate their way of saying 'thanks' to all who pitch in and help us help our troops.

Operation Helmet Executive Summary of Meeting with PEO Soldier and Mr. Tolleson of the House Armed Services Committee Staff, 9 December 2008 at the House Armed Services Committee’s hearing room, Washington, DC.

Points discussed, answered, comments

1. What are the top concerns of Operation Helmet related to the current GI pads?
   Blunt force protection,
   Stability
   Comfort
   Flammability
   Blast wave protection
    
2. Reminder: Operation Helmet has no financial relationship with Oregon Aero other than purchasing what we consider the top-of-the-line helmet pads from them.
3. The emails we receive were presented without identifying information at the request of senders. Spontaneous emails from Soldiers represent the best User Evaluation data available, coming directly from participants using helmet pads under real-life combat environments for months at a time.. Combat use will reveal flaws undetected in limited evaluations. Helmets only work when worn.
   a.  Ans: PEO Soldier has not received ONE complaint about the helmet ‘system’ from a single soldier in the field or during post-deployment debriefings.
   b.  Comment: Hard to reconcile that with the emails that stream into us spontaneously. The question as to why the difference rightly belongs to PEO Soldier’s division monitoring system comments/debriefing.
    
4. Drop testing should be done within reasonable temperature parameters, not the artificial hot and cold temperatures as presently done. This ignores heat transfer between the head and helmet liner pads. Specifications for future pad testing and acquisitions should include wearability (comfort) standards as well as protection at temperatures representing ‘real life’ wear. We presented independent lab studies showing the helmet pads’ temperature migrate rapidly towards skin temperature rather than staying at artificially low/high temperatures. Thus, the current standard tests at 14 and 130 degrees F are meaningless. I asked for clarification of just when the tests are to be done and if that data will be used to change the non-ballistic impact test temperatures.
   a.  Ans: No changes to test temperature testing requirements, ‘there have to be SOME standards set’. Studies to verify OpHelm’s position on realistic temperatures ‘are planned’ sometime in the future.
   b.  Comment: By whom and why were those artificial temperatures chosen? Why weren’t those studies on realistic temperature test requirements done before the independent lab testing? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time is the definition of insanity. No Answer. Independent laboratory testing showing helmet/pad systems quickly assume temperatures near body level even in extreme temperatures were presented; the Army claims never to have seen them although they were presented to them in 2007.
    
5. The USAARL testing done in 2006 was not done as mandated by DOD and Congress. Independent lab testing by outside sources should be done.
   a.  Ans: Three civilian labs (Southern Impact Research Center, InterTek, and Dynamic Research Institute) are undertaking the impact tests on helmet pads from 5 vendors (Team Wendy, MSA, Skydex, Oregon Aero, Riddell, and Pacific Safety Products((a Canadian company)) and should be reported by early 2009. These tests will use a higher g-force level of impact (14.1 and 17.3 fps) and require that the pads meet the 150g protection level. Results will be released after Army analysis.
   b.  Comment: If the tests simply replicate the unrealistic temperature parameters of the current test, the information will not reflect combat use for the troops. See #2. above. Why not release the raw data to interested parties for independent analysis instead of only the Army’s interpretation/analysis.
    
6. USAARL tests demonstrate wide ‘outliers’ in test results, well beyond that expected in such a series of tests. Those improbable results skew data at random and should be discarded. Also, testing on Oregon Aero pads done over three years ago were presented as if done contemporaneously with other vendors.
   a.   Ans: Agree; civilian lab results will be examined at length.
   b.  Comment: Given the original tests were faulty, why was this data used for procurement decisions by both the Army and the Marines. No answer.
    
7. Erratic results may reflect deficiencies in the head-forms used by USAARL that have no biosimilar chin/nape strap attachment points nor do they simulate the human skin covering the skull. This has the potential to allow slippage of the helmet and result in imprecise impact points during testing with erratic results.
   a.  Ans: Agree.
   b.  Comment: If the civilian labs also have no biosimilar head-forms, the erratic results will continue unless carefully monitored by the testing scientist. ‘Outlying’ test results from slippage should be discarded according to PEO Soldier’s own scientists, but were included in USAARL’s report of testing done in 2006, skewing results.
    
8. A lack of uniformity in the thickness of pads tested by USAARL was noted on pages 50-53 of the test report. The Team Wendy pads when dissected turned out to be over one inch thick while all others were ¾” in thickness.
   a.  Ans: This was not noticed by Army reviewers.
   b.  Comment: All pads tested should have representative sectioning and measurements to assure valid comparison of equal thickness. Pads should be carefully identified as to vendor and source of acquisition for testing and retained in a chain of custody following tests.
    
9. G-forces higher than 10 fps in pad tests should be required from all vendors.
   a.  Ans: Testing at 14.1, 17.3 and higher fps is now incorporated in the independent lab tests to be reported in 2009. The five vendor-supplied pads for the testing are required to meet the higher impact forces. (later data shows NONE of the pads passed the more stringent tests).
   b.  Comment: If the same extremes of temperature are used as in the earlier tests, the same worthless data will be forthcoming
    
10. Transfer of ‘blast wave’ forces directly to the skull via too-firm pads should be evaluated.
    a.  Ans: The blast ‘wave’ is still an unknown entity in the causation of TBI, but shock-tube studies are anticipated in 2009.
    b.  Comment: Our communications with Aris Makris and the recent study from Lawrence Livermore national research lab headed by Dr. Mott were presented. Researchers feel that too-firm helmet pads may be harmful rather than protective.
     
11. Flammability specs for helmet pads should meet that of the Kevlar shell; ideally should at least meet specs for NASCAR helmet linings.
    a.  Ans: In the 700 burn cases reviewed by the Army Surgical Research team at BAMC, none of the burns could be related to the possibility of causation by burning helmet pads.
    b.  Comment: In later discussions, they backed off this statement somewhat. They stick to the “no conclusive evidence exists”. It is difficult to determine the exact source of a burn. Our position: if the pads are highly flammable, require the vendor to render them self-extinguishing. Use flammability standards similar to that required of the ACH helmet shell (Kevlar) itself. If all else fails, use the same standards set for NASCAR racing driver helmets.
     
12. At present, only Team Wendy and MSA pads are the vendors from whom pads are purchased by the Army. Why?
    a.  Ans: NIB is tasked to ‘produce’ pads that meet Army specifications. NIB in turn negotiates with vendors who produce pads with a certain amount of the work to be done by the blind. Only MSA and Team Wendy pads meet Army specifications and are ‘approved’ by NIB as co-vendors.
    b.  Comment: The Army used Oregon Aero (OA) pads for the first 500,000 MICH/ACH helmets and the OA pads met those same specifications according to Natick Soldiers Lab. The USAARL report indicates that ALL pads tested, including Oregon Aero, met Army specifications for 10 fps impact g-forces. None met the 150-g limit on impact tests done at 14.14 fps.
          i.  According to Oregon Aero, they have attempted to work with NIB but have been rebuffed at every turn. In late 2007, the Northwest NIB office completed site surveys and made a determination of which parts of the pads could be produced by the blind. The NIB National offices turned this effort off with no explanation.
     
13. Does the Army have a list of ‘approved vendors’ for helmet pads?
    a.   Ans: No such list exists. However, PEO-S states Oregon Aero did not submit pads for ‘new testing’ so is not included in the current vendor list vetted by NIB for co-production of pad sets. A list of approved vendors will be developed following the 3-lab independent testing at higher g-forces next year. Once that is done, the Army will issue a ‘seal of approval’ that vendors can use.
    b.   Comment: If there is no list, where does NIB get the ‘non-existent’ list to open discussion with ONLY Team Wendy and MSA to co-produce helmet pads? This makes no sense. See #10 above; Oregon Aero pads in fact meet all current specifications as do MSA and Team Wendy, so should be included in competitive negotiations. Something else is at work here! The claim that Oregon Aero did not submit pads for testing is puzzling, given that Oregon Aero was the only supplier for the first 500,000 ACH helmets fielded by the Army.
     
14. Where was the Army Limited User Evaluation (LUE) conducted?
    a.   Ans. Ft Benning GA sometime between Aug-Oct 2008.
    b.   Comment: No results were provided. Combat User Evaluations (as reflected in spontaneous emails to Operation Helmet) are far superior to short-term Stateside Limited User Evaluation was reemphasized.
     
15. How many sets of pads does each soldier draw for their helmet?
    a.   Ans: Each helmet comes with one set of pads preinstalled by the helmet manufacturer and soldiers are given a second set of pads purchased by the Army.
    b.   Comment: The emails we get indicate the Team Wendy/MSA pads fall apart quickly and the helmet becomes unstable, while Oregon Aero pads last a full deployment.
         i.   There is no saving when the unit price is lower for TW/MSA but double or triple the number of pads must be purchased to sustain a soldier for their tour of duty. No answer given
     
16. Are Soldiers permitted to use the Oregon Aero pads that Operation Helmet sends in response to their requests?
    a.   Ans: Yes.
    b.   Comment: Still seems strange we get so many complaints from warriors about their GI (TW/MSA) pads, requesting Oregon Aero pads.
    PEO Soldier claims NO complaints have been received from troops in the field or in post-deployment briefing. We simply do not think this is so.
     
17. When did NIB get selected to provide the pads?
    a.   Ans: July 2005 NIB was selected as a “directed source”
    b.   Follow up questions: Is the pad system a piece of combat equipment? No real answer – it is part of the helmet which is a combat system. Are there other combat systems made by NIB? Yes: some (?)
     
18. Once the latest civilian lab independent testing is done, what will the certification do? (Following the three-lab independent civilian lab tests, the Army will ‘certify’ which pads they will accept doing business with/through NIB for future procurement. These tests are complete but results are being withheld pending ‘analysis’)
    a.   Ans: Each approved manufacturer will be listed on the certification list and receive the Army certified seal. 5% of a certain amount of profits will go to MWR.
    
    NIB = National Industries for the Blind (JAWOD law)
    TW = Team Wendy, helmet pad manufacturer
    MSA = Mine Safety Appliances, helmet and helmet pad manufacturer
    OA = Oregon Aero, helmet pad manufacturer among other military items.
    NRL = Naval Research Laboratory
    MWR = Morale, Welfare & Recreation

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome each time. PEO Soldier should insist that meaningful temperature tests be made the norm rather than the baked/frozen helmet system/headform standards used in past and future planned tests.