SECTION 5 CHAPTER 2

AERONAUTICAL LIFE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (ALSE)

INTRODUCTION

2.1.    DASR ORO.40 prescribes the requirements for Military Air Operator (MAO) approval for the carriage and use of Aeronautical Life Support Equipment (ALSE). Under DASR ORO.40, MAO approval of ALSE is supported by a technical assessment that establishes the level of compliance of the ALSE with prescribed design requirements. Compliance may be demonstrated by either the ALSE having been certified as part of the aircraft type design, or by a technical assessment conducted in accordance with the provisions of the regulation. 

2.2.    The design of ALSE and the interface and interaction between the ALSE and the host aircraft must be comprehensively assessed during Defence aircraft acquisition and/or design changes. Failure to do so can result in ALSE that is not fully compatible with the aircrew/aircraft, or provides an inadequate level of aircrew protection.

2.3.    Role of Aeronautical Life Support Logistics Management Unit (ALSLMU). ALSLMU is the Defence Subject Matter Expert (SME) for ALSE with respect to all Defence aircraft. The ALSLMU Deputy Senior Design Engineer (DSDE) may be appointed as a Delegate of the Safety Authority as ALSE ‘Standards- DoSA (ALSE)’ with scope to prescribe, revise and interpret design requirements for ALSE. ALSLMU should be engaged at the earliest opportunity during a new platform procurement, ALSE replacement or design change program to ensure that adequate advice is available to support application of these design requirements during the requirements definition phase and ensure suitability of an ALSE solution as the program matures.

Scope

2.4.    This chapter presents the Authority prescribed design requirements, including aircraft integration requirements where applicable, for ALSE. The design and integration requirements provide MAO and CASG System Program Office teams with a basis for establishing that ALSE related risks to safety have been eliminated or otherwise minimised ‘So Far as is Reasonably Practicable’ (SFARP). The chapter also presents guidance on the technical evaluation of ALSE to support compliance with the prescribed requirements and operational commander decisions on approvals, where required.

DEFINITIONS

2.5.    The following definitions are relevant to this chapter: 

ALSE. ALSE is equipment that supports Defence capability and aircrew in the performance of their duties throughout aircraft operations, including the time during and following a survivable aircraft accident and evacuation. The ALSE may form part of an ensemble or may be fitted as an aircraft store. 

ALSE can be considered as Safety ALSE (providing aircrew and passengers protection from environmental hazards during flight, survivable accident or incident, evacuation and post evacuation survival) and/or Mission ALSE (providing improved physical performance or functions necessary to support the achievement of an aircrew role). A frequent implementation of ALSE classified as both Mission and Safety is the helmet, which serves as safety equipment in the event of a crash while serving as mission equipment when supporting hearing and eye protection components, Night Vision Goggles (NVG), Lighting and other accessories. The categorisation of ALSE as Safety or Mission does not impact the applicability of standards prescribed within this chapter.

ALSE Ensemble. An ALSE Ensemble consists of compatible equipment components that form an integrated ALSE solution that is worn by aircrew or passengers whilst performing duties primarily on-board the aircraft. 

2.6.    ALSE Domains. To support prescription of design requirements for the various types of ALSE, ALSLMU has defined 17 ALSE Domains. The Domains are defined to group similar types of equipment that are divided into 6 overarching categories. The following ALSE Domains are used:

Head Protection

Helmets

Eye and Face Protection

Inflatables

Life Preservers

Anti-G Suits

Life Rafts

Load Carriage and Restraint

Carriers and Ensemble Integration

Hoisting Equipment

Out of Seat Restraint Systems

Ballistic Protection

Post Evacuation Survival

Survival Aids

Thermal / Immersion Protection

Survival Kits and Rescue Packs

Respiration

Oxygen / Smoke and Fumes Masks

Underwater Emergency Breathing

Sensory Protection

Hearing Protection

Night Vision Systems

Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Protection.

CERTIFICATION OF ALSE

2.7.    As discussed above, Defence manages ALSE within a construct of ‘ALSE domains’. To facilitate the technical assessment of ALSE required under ORO.40, these ‘domains’ have been used to establish which ALSE should be considered under the aircraft’s type certification and which should not. 

2.8.    Note that before approval for use, all ALSE must be subject to technical evaluation to confirm that it meets relevant design requirements and, where applicable, integration requirements, regardless of whether the ALSE is certified as part of the aircraft’s type design or not. 

2.9.    Certification of ALSE can often be a complex undertaking and, therefore, advice on the application of and compliance with design requirements is to be sought from ALSLMU as early as possible within the project lifecycle.

ALSE included within the aircraft’s certified type design 

2.10.    Certification of this ALSE will occur via design approval conducted in accordance with the requirements of DASR 21, to demonstrate that the ALSE complies with the design requirements in this chapter and in other applicable sections of the DASDRM. Relevant ALSE design requirements will be documented in the aircraft’s Type Certification Basis (TCB).

2.11.    The ALSE domains that are included in the aircraft’s certified type design are:

life preservers

life rafts

survival aids

respiratory

night vision systems (integration requirements only)

chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) protection (integration requirements only).

ALSE not included in the aircraft’s certified type design

2.12.    While only four of the seventeen ALSE domains are included within a Defence aircraft’s certified type design (plus the two domains where integration requirements are included), equipment within the remaining domains must still be subject to a robust evaluation of its technical and operational capabilities to ensure that it can safely perform its function when required. Consequently, the Authority also prescribes design requirements for these ALSE domains.

2.13.    For ALSE not forming part of the aircraft’s certified type design, formal confirmation that the ALSE meets the relevant design requirements in this chapter is required to support ALSE approval per ORO.40.

2.14.    The ALSE domains that are generally not included in the aircraft’s certified type design are:

helmets

eye and face protection

anti-G suits

carriers and ensemble integration

hoisting equipment

out of seat restraint systems

ballistic protection

thermal/immersion protection

underwater emergency breathing

hearing protection

night vision systems (equipment design requirements only)

CBRN protection (equipment/clothing design requirements only).

EXEMPTIONS

2.15.    Flying Clothing. ALSE has a maintenance policy and requires regular servicing by qualified personnel. Hence flying clothing is not considered ALSE. For information regarding Flying Clothing, contact the Program Manager – Combat Clothing (position number 00460959)

2.16.    Parachute Systems. The Standards DoSA-ALSE does not hold a delegation for parachutes. The ADF Parachute School should be contacted in the first instance for the design requirements of parachutes.

2.17.    Pyrotechnics. ALSE Ensembles or survival kits routinely contain pyrotechnic signalling devices. Explosive Materiel Branch (EMB) are the SMEs for this type of equipment. For requirements for pyrotechnic signalling devices refer to the eDEOP101 – Department of Defence Explosives Regulations. For guidance or advice on this topic contact EMB via their group inbox; casglsdembcoordination@dpe.protected.mil.au.

2.18.    Oxygen Systems. ALSLMU are the SME for oxygen masks, which interface with the aircrew and aircraft oxygen systems, these are covered within this chapter. However, this chapter does not cover aircraft oxygen systems forming part of a particular aircraft design, refer Section 3 Chapter 6 for further guidance.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.19.    ALSLMU is the SME for the scope of ALSE only; aircraft MAOs are responsible for ALSE integration with Defence aircraft. Each Defence aircraft type has been designed to comply with different standards and the integration of ALSE must be undertaken with cognisance of the suite of standards applicable to that type. The following paragraphs provide guidance to MAOs, CAMOs and SPOs on generic considerations for applying the prescribed ALSE design requirements in this chapter, to ensure that the extant aircraft design requirements are not compromised: 

Configuration, Role and operating Environment (CRE). Changes to a Defence aircraft’s CRE can significantly influence the type of ALSE required and the design standards associated with the equipment. The standards prescribed within this chapter need to be applied with caution and tailored to suit the CRE of a particular platform. If any doubt exists the Standards DoSA-ALSE should be consulted for assistance with tailoring the application of standards.

Crash Protection. When assessing the suitability of crew-mounted ALSE, evidence of the head and body extremity strike envelopes within the crew stations/cockpits of the aircraft must be sourced. Within these envelopes, the aircraft’s design must also identify where suitable energy absorbing padding materials, frangible breakaway panels, smooth contoured surfaces, or ductile materials should or have been used. These intrinsic aircraft design features, if incorporated, provide additional protection to aircrew members in the event of an accident, and may reduce the need to source ALSE designed to further reduce the risk of injury. In cases where a shortfall in the crash protection of a platform is determined, additional ALSE requirements may be defined to treat this shortfall. The ADF aircraft crash protection requirements are prescribed in DASR ARO.40 Aircraft Crash Protection. This requires at AMC ARO.40.A.3.c that ALSE carried by personnel should be risk assessed and treated in the context of Crash Protection (For example: is ALSE adequately restrained under crash loads to prevent it coming lose and injuring aircraft occupants? Does the ALSE impact crashworthy seat restraint systems?). The ADF Contemporary Crash Protection Design Requirements are detailed at Section 2 Chapter 6.

Evacuation. The addition/modification of ALSE can influence the ability of survivors to effectively evacuate aircraft and survive post-evacuation. Therefore, when assessing changes to any ALSE ensemble, the effect on both evacuation and survival must be considered. Generally an aircraft’s type certification basis will include requirements for emergency evacuation (e.g. FAR25.803) and ALSE should not impact compliance with these requirements.

ALSE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

2.20.    Design requirements for ALSE comprise of Standards and ADF unique requirements. ALSE standards rarely match the context of the proposed design and, consequently, simple compliance with a standard may not be adequate for Defence’s intended use of the ALSE. The Defence aircraft’s CRE must therefore be considered when evaluating ALSE for suitability and acceptability, as discussed at paragraph 2.19a. The following sections provide for General Requirements and considerations applicable to ALSE as well as Integration Requirements for the integration of ALSE components to form an ALSE Ensemble and the integration of an ALSE ensemble to an aircraft. All ALSE should be assessed against the General and Integration Requirements as well as the specific domain and any other requirements that are relevant from other domains.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

2.21.    In the use of ALSE for Defence service the following requirements and considerations are to be applied:

2.22.    Design Requirement (Essential). The maintenance inspection requirements and serviceability limits must be identified and published in relevant maintenance instructions

2.23.    Key Consideration. The design and fit of ALSE should consider and meet the needs of the anthropometric measurements of all aviators including females.

Material Properties

2.24.    Design Requirement (Essential). Materials used in Carriers or other ensemble components used to secure ALSE in the ensemble (i.e. pouches and straps) must be made of UV light resistant materials. This requirement shall be verified by test of residual strength of materials following accelerated exposure to UV light equivalent to its expected service life.

Guidance Material. Load bearing harness standards have particular requirements related to UV light resistance for primary load bearing webbing, refer to the related Hoisting Equipment or Out of Seat Restraint Systems domains for details. For other materials engage ALSLMU for guidance on the use of an appropriate standard for UV exposure testing. 

2.25.    Design Requirement (Essential). ALSE that is worn or stowed within an aircraft must be at least flame resistant.

Guidance Material. Where ALSE components have a similar form to components identified in FAR 25.853 and Appendix F to FAR Part 25 (e.g. ALSE harness or restraint webbing is similar to seat belts and shoulder harnesses) the relevant requirements must be applied. Where components are more similar to aircrew clothing a related standard for flame resistance testing for clothing, such as ISO 15025:2016, may be considered appropriate.

2.26.    Design Requirement (Essential). All materials used in the manufacture of ALSE must not allow a build-up of static electricity or electrical charge.

Tailoring Advice. The 'Material requirements' portion of BS EN 1149-5:2008 - Protective clothing-Electrostatic properties Part 5: Material performance and design requirements (or similar) can be used as guidance for testing if required.

Restraint Requirements

2.27.    Design Requirement (Essential). All ALSE components, or their means of restraint (e.g. pouch) to the carrier (or other means of attachment to the wearer) must be of sufficient strength to restrain the component under crashworthiness loads defined in the relevant aircraft(s) type certification basis or derived from the Section 2 Chapter 6 Contemporary Crash Protection Requirements.

2.28.    Design Requirements (Essential). ALSE Ensemble components must remain securely restrained when subject to rotor wash and/or airstream associated with doors open operations.

Guidance Material. It may be suitable to adapt DEF STAN 05-134 Test 19 to apply relevant air blasts equivalent to rotor wash for rotary wing aircraft.

INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS

2.29.    In the production of ALSE designs suitable for Defence service, the equipment must be suitably integrated with the person, the aircraft and the remainder of the aircrew ensemble. ALSLMU are available to provide guidance on the suitability of ALSE and aircrew ensemble integration. The following requirements and considerations are to be applied:

2.30.    Design Requirement (Essential). ALSE must be integrated in accordance with DEF STAN 05-134.

2.31.    Design Requirement (Essential). An ALSE Ensemble must be assessed using the test procedures of DEF STAN 05-134 Section 10 as applicable to the aircraft type.

Tailoring Advice. Where an ALSE Ensemble is not intended to be worn for the duration of the flight the assessment of DEF STAN 05-134 para 10.3.1, Test 1: Dressing and Undressing should also be made during flight to ensure the Ensemble can be efficiently donned / doffed during flight.

Guidance Material. Other sections of DEF STAN 05-134 are very specific to the UK MoD organisation and should not be applied.

2.32.    Key Consideration. The ALSE integration testing requirements of DEF STAN 05-134 Issue 1 Paragraph 10 will ensure that the ensemble suitably integrates together and with the aircraft on which it is being used. To ensure a successful outcome it is important that the purpose and assessment criteria of the various testing is understood and applied during the design of the ALSE Ensemble.

2.33.    Key Consideration. During the assessment of an ALSE Ensemble using the testing program of DEF STAN 05-134 the risk assessment worksheet for Hazardous Manual Tasks from the Workplace Health and Safety (Hazardous Manual Tasks) Code of Practice 2015 should be used to identify any issues where the ALSE Ensemble may contribute to Musculoskeletal Disorders that will need to be managed. This may include identifying changes in design of the ALSE Ensemble to eliminate or mitigate such issues SFARP during its development. 

2.34.    Key Consideration. An ALSE Ensemble should have the ability to adjust the configuration to suit the operational role and environment to balance the hazards associated with weight and bulk of equipment during wear against the threats that the ALSE provides protection against during or following an emergency landing / ditching or crash.

2.35.    Key Consideration. An ALSE Ensemble and Carrier design should provide for tactile feel for the identification and operation of securing hardware to allow for access to components that are located out of line of sight or in reduced light / visibility environments.

2.36.    Key Consideration. Prior to ALSE being introduced to service, it should be assessed on each platform for snagging hazards which may cause the wearer to become trapped inside a sinking or burning aircraft. Assessments should consider emergency egress in any direction to and from an emergency exit, as Rotary Wing Aircraft in particular have a tendency to roll inverted following a ditching.

DOMAIN REQUIREMENTS

2.37.    The following Sections present the prescribed ALSE requirements and Standards for each ALSE Domain.

HEAD PROTECTION DOMAINS

Helmets Domain

2.38.    A helmet is usually a safety device to protect the head of aircrew and passengers from dangerous impacts during a potentially survivable crash. The helmet’s function is achieved with a combination of materials to both prevent penetration and absorb energy in such a way as to reduce damage from excessive accelerations caused by impacts to the head. Helmets also lower the risk of head injury during ejection and provide protection against windblast, rotor wash and debris in an aircraft during operations. Helmets may also be used as a platform for hearing protection, eye protection, communications equipment and other mission equipment.

2.39.    The use of helmets and the selection of impact protection requirements must be done holistically within the aircraft design. Elimination or minimisation of risks so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP) by means other than a helmet, should be assessed prior to selecting a helmet for use. For example, modification may be possible to the aircraft to prevent head injuries. It should be noted that many fixed and rotary wing aircraft are certified for use without helmets so mission function may be the driving factor in helmet selection.

2.40.    A requirement to wear an aviation helmet might conflict with requirements to wear head protection to address different hazards, such as a ground combat ballistic helmet. In such circumstances a decision regarding the wearing of a helmet compliant with the requirements in this chapter, or an alternate helmet, must be guided by the principle of eliminating or otherwise minimising hazards to personnel SFARP.

2.41.    The decision to use helmets and the selection of a helmet must be steered by the crash protection properties of the aircraft in which it is employed and the nature of the duties of the wearer. There will always be a trade off with the desirable properties of a helmet. For example, a lightweight helmet is always desired to reduce musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries; however, increased impact or ballistic protection will be accompanied by an increase in helmet mass.

Note

2.42.    The requirements in this chapter are applicable to crash helmets only. Currently there are no applicable standards for lower impact head protection. Guidance material for lower impact head protection are mentioned at the end of this document. As of 2021, ALSLMU are investigating requirements of aviation helmets for use as a multi-fit passenger type helmet in collaboration with 5 eye nation’s. For additional information contact the ALSLMU head protection SME.

2.43.    The helmet section is to be read in conjunction with the General requirements, eye and face protection and Sensory domain’s (Hearing protection).

General requirements that apply to all helmets

2.44.    Design Requirement (Essential). The helmet must meet the requirements of AS/NZS 1698:2006, or ECE 22.06.

2.45.    Tailoring advice. Amend requirement 5.8 (visors) to read ‘eye and face protection section of this DASDRM chapter’ in lieu of ‘AS 1609’.

2.46.    Tailoring advice. Requirement 7.1 (test sequence) solvent conditioning must be carried out.

2.47.    Tailoring advice. Requirement 7.5 (resistance to penetration) test is only required when deemed necessary by the platform MAO.

2.48.    Tailoring advice. Requirements 8 and 9 (marking and instructions for use and care) must be tailored in conjunction with the acquisition agency prior to introduction to service through the OEM.

2.49.    Design Requirement (Essential). The helmet must limit the peak head-form acceleration to 190G when tested IAW AS/NZS 1698:2006 using a flat anvil impact with the centre of the ear cup.
2.50.    Design Requirement (Essential). The helmet must limit the average head-form acceleration to 175G when tested IAW AS/NZS 1698:2006 using a flat anvil impact with the centre of the ear cup.

2.51.    Guidance Material. The previous two requirements are in addition to the testing in section 7.4 of AS/NZS 1698:2006, however the same methodology should be followed.

2.52.    Design Requirement (Essential) – one handed doffing. The fitting and retention system of a helmet must be designed such that a wearer can doff the helmet with one hand.

2.53.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The mass of the helmet should be limited to 2.27 kg (5 lb).

2.54.    Guidance Material. Helmet weight is a contributing factor to fatigue and MSK injuries. Excessive weight can also increase neck loading and the impact energy of a head impact in a crash event. Care should be taken not to over specify other helmet attributes such as impact protection. A helmet should be selected to be as light as possible while providing the required level of protection. The target maximum mass includes the visors, sound attenuation and communication equipment, NVG’s and any accessory to be mounted to the helmet. Consideration should also be given to the frequency and magnitude of high acceleration flight.

2.55.    Guidance Material. A helmet which is optimised to protect a wearer from an impact of a magnitude which would be expected to cause a concussion or Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) must be selected to protect the user from the higher magnitude of potential impacts. Consideration should be given to the CRE and the potential impacts that the helmet is to protect against. Consideration should be given to the member remaining conscious to survive post-crash events (e.g. smoke, fire, sinking aircraft, enemy action), which may occur some distance from emergency services and rescue.

2.56.    Key Consideration – centre of gravity (CoG). The centre of gravity of a head and helmet is a more significant factor to aircrew fatigue and in flight performance, as well as being a key contributor to neck and back MSK injuries, than helmet weight. The helmet CoG should be as close to the top of the wearer’s spine as possible and should be considered in the context of the aircraft’s CRE. For example, the frequency and duration of high G loads or personnel moving around the aft of a helicopter while leaning over.

2.57.    Key Consideration – rigid protrusions and accessories. Helmets with rigid protrusions or mounted accessories can impart an angular acceleration to the head in the case of a head impact, increasing the chance of traumatic brain injuries. A large or oddly shaped helmet can also impede emergency egress. Helmets should be as small and as form fitting to the head as can be achieved whilst fulfilling their function. A helmet with a long radius of gyration can also contribute to neck injury, especially during an ejection. Consideration should also be given to external accessories mounted on a helmet causing a force concentration on the helmet during a crash event, with the increased pressure causing the accessory to penetrate the helmet.

2.58.    Key Consideration – helmet penetration and tearing. An assessment of the crashworthiness of the aircraft and the role of the aircrew within it should be carried out to determine if there is a risk of helmet penetration or tearing during a survivable crash.

2.59.    Key Consideration – environmental qualification. The operating environment of the aircraft should be used when considering the environmental qualification of the helmet. Consideration should be given to (but not limited to) temperature, humidity, ultraviolet radiation as well as exposure to fresh and salt water, dust and sand. Exposure to variations in environmental conditions may have a significant bearing on the life expectancy and level of protection the helmet affords. The selected temperature ranges should influence the hot and/or cold soaking requirements during testing, as these temperatures may alter the energy attenuation properties of the helmet materials.

2.60.    Key Consideration – helmet coverage and field of view. The requirement for protection for the entirety of the head, including the face, should be considered when selecting a helmet. The amount of coverage should be balanced with any restrictions to the field of view, which may result in reduced crew situational awareness and increased workload. Restrictions to the field of view are undesirable.

2.61.    Key Consideration – human thermal performance. The effect of ambient atmospheric conditions on the person wearing the helmet should be considered. This includes the effect of hot and cold injuries through ambient temperature and wind chill e.g. for example flying with open doors.

2.62.    Key Consideration – mission equipment. Helmets may require incorporation of other features to enhance mission performance. These features should not degrade the crash protection of the helmet unless a safety case shows that a feature of the helmet that impacts crash protection attributes reduces a more serious risk SFARP. Such mission features include a ‘hear through’ function for communicating with persons not connected to communications system e.g. passengers prior to boarding the aircraft or night vision equipment.

2.63.    Key Consideration – ballistic protection. Consideration should be given to whether the helmet is required to provide ballistic protection. This requirement should be balanced with the risk of MSK injuries from a heavier armoured helmet.

2.64.    Key Consideration – evaluation of aircrew helmets. Air Standard ASMG 4041 Evaluation Procedures for Flight Helmets provides information on the type of data that should be collected when evaluating candidate aircrew helmets. This may be of use to acquisition projects.

2.65.    Key Consideration – durability. A helmet which is used in an environment where it is likely to be subjected to many low velocity impacts (minor head knocks or bumps), such as a mobile aircrew’s helmet used in a platform where the wearer is required to stoop to move around a cabin or cargo, should be sufficiently resistant to these impacts to maintain its impact protection properties and/or reduce the mission capabilities of the helmet e.g. damage visors or accessory mounts.

2.66.    Key Consideration – crash Protection. The crashworthiness and inherent crash protection of the aircraft should be considered when identifying head protection to be used. The intrinsic aircraft design features, if incorporated, provide additional protection to aircrew members in the event of an accident, and may reduce the need to source ALSE designed to further reduce the risk of injury.

Additional Fixed Wing Ejection Seat Requirements

2.67.    Design Requirement (Essential). The helmet must be capable of maintaining facial and head protection during the ejection sequence.

2.68.    Design Requirement (Essential). The helmet must be tested with all possible equipment configurations, i.e. all accessories/mounted equipment installed.

2.69.    Guidance Material. Air Standard ASMG 4041 Evaluation Procedures for Flight Helmets provides guidance on how to conduct ejection seat windblast testing. The velocity of the windblast should be selected based on the operating envelope of the aircraft. Consideration should be applied to unplanned ejections at abnormal e.g. high velocities, not just the aircraft’s certified ejection velocities. Facial protection includes protection from windblast and debris produced during the ejection sequence.

Additional Fixed Wing Non-Ejection Seat Mobile Aircrew Considerations

2.70.    Key Consideration. Consideration should be given in the helmet design for these aircrew to receive low velocity head impacts caused from moving around the aircraft and cargo while in flight. These aircrew may also experience multi axis impacts during survivable crash sequences due to the crew not always being secured in a crashworthy seat.

Additional Rotary Wing Considerations (all helicopter occupants)

2.71.    Key Consideration. Consideration should be given in the helmet design for occupants to receive low velocity head impacts caused from moving around the aircraft and cargo while in flight. Occupants may also experience multi axis impacts during survivable crash sequences due to the occupants not always being secured in a crashworthy seat. They may also be required to rapidly escape a sinking helicopter.

Utility style Head Protection

2.72.    These helmets are typically designed to protect the wearer from non-crash loads e.g. low velocity impacts with cargo and airframe components, while enabling other mission functions e.g. ability to swim or treat patients. These style helmets may be desired when operational risks and functions outweigh the requirement for crash protection. This assessment should be made when holistically assessing the risks associated with the platform and mission e.g. there may be a mission risk that requires minimisation ahead of a more remote risk of aircraft crash. It should be noted that some aircraft are certified to not require helmets for crash protection. In these cases this style of helmet may be sufficient to eliminate or otherwise minimise other mission related risks SFARP.

2.73.    Key Considerations. The platform CRE must be considered for the application of the passenger helmet to be used. For example, a safety helmet chosen for operations on rotary wing ‘down the wire’ may be made to a higher specification than a Kevlar/bump style helmet used on fixed wing transportation flights.

2.74.    Guidance Material. Children may be required to fly on board during Defence assistance to the civil community tasking or ‘family day’ tasking. Head protection sizes should accommodate children.

Eye and Face Protection Domain

2.75.    General Eye Protection. Eye and Face Protection provides aircrew with protection from windblast, high light intensity, UV, spall resulting from canopy or windscreen failure, ballistic / fragmentation threats, and dust and debris from rotor or jet wash. The following requirements have been identified as general requirements which are to be applied to all eye and face protection equipment as applicable.

2.76.    Design Requirement (Essential). AIR STD ASMG 4079 “The Optical And Material Requirements for Aircrew Helmet Visors” must be met for all visor systems

2.77.    Design Requirement (Essential). AIR STD 61/113/14A “The Optical And Material Requirements for Aircrew Plano Sunglasses” must be met for all glasses.

2.78.    Guidance Material. Spectral transmittance requirements may be difficult to meet, particularly in untinted lenses. Lenses must meet the target values as closely as possible to minimise the chance of eye damage in the long term. 

2.79.    Guidance Material. Impact resistance requirements for “Extra High Impact Resistance” protection contained in AS/NZS AS/NZS 1337.1:2010 may be used in lieu of the requirements outlined in the AIR STDs. 

2.80.    Design Requirement (Essential) Section 3 of AS/NZS 1337.1:2010 including Amendments 1 and 2, relating to assembled eye and face protectors must be applied to all eye and face protectors.

Guidance material. Special performance requirements as per section 3.3 are to be applied as required dependent on the use case of the protector in question.

Guidance material. Where requirements are included in both AS/NZS 1337.1:2010 and the applicable AIR STD, the more stringent of the two must be applied.

2.81.    Key Considerations The following considerations should be taken into account when assessing any eye and face protection equipment.

Applicable considerations from AS/NZS 1336:2014 should be applied. Particularly advice relating to the management of fogging and perspiration 

Various shades of tint are available for both visors and sunglasses, appropriate levels should be assessed where possible in order to maximise user comfort and visibility. 

Dual visor systems should be easily switched between a clear and tinted visor with one hand in order to manage changing conditions.

2.82.    Laser Protection. Laser energy is highly focussed and designed to traverse long distances, and is therefore potentially hazardous to the human eye; more so when emitted at a wavelength invisible to the eye, rendering the eye unable to react normally. Laser protection should be tailored to the application and expected laser threats. Threats range from dazzling through to permanent damage of the eye. The method of eye protection chosen against laser light should not degrade or impact upon the function of other eye related systems therefore all general requirements must be met.

2.83.    Design Requirement (Essential). Laser eye protection must limit exposure to known threats to within the Maximum Permitted Exposure limits defined in AS 2211.9:2002 (R2014) for wavelengths between 300nm and 3000nm. 

2.84.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Requirements 3.1 through 3.3 of AS 1337.4:2011 should be applied to the maximum possible extent. 

2.85.    Key Considerations. The following considerations should be taken into account when assessing laser eye protection

Section 6 of AS/NZS 1336:2014 outlines considerations that must be made in order to minimise the risk of laser radiation

Laser protection will generally reduce visible light for the wearer, this may be an issue particularly at night.

Filters designed for protection against laser threats are generally designed in such a way that they only cater to a very narrow selection of wavelengths. These must be selected based on risk analysis of known and probable threats. 

2.86.    Face Protection. Protection for the lower face is also available in the form of a shield that reduces wind on the face and provides impact protection. 

2.87.    Design Requirement (Essential). The requirements pertaining to “Extra High Impact Resistance” protection contained in AS/NZS 1337.1:2010 must be applied as a minimum to any face shield.

2.88.    Key Considerations. The following considerations should be taken into account when assessing face protection:

Face protection should not allow breathing gasses to escape in a manner that causes fogging of any visor or spectacles that are used in conjunction with the face protection.

Face protection must be rapidly removable to allow the use of underwater emergency breathing devices and other safety systems that cover the mouth and face.

Anti-G Suits

2.89.    Anti-G Suits are designed to counteract the effects of acceleration on aircrew, which can impact on their survival or ability to perform tasks. The pressurised abdominal and leg bladders aim to support an adequate blood supply to the upper body and head when a person is subject to positive G forces. This counteracts the pooling of the blood from the head and chest into the lower part of the body under high positive G forces which will help preserve circulation, visual acuity and mental alertness until level flight is resumed. 

2.90.    Some contemporary Anti-G suits incorporate features to assist the wearer in breathing high pressure gasses or to provide protection against exposure to very low air pressure environments. Such features are beyond the scope of this section. Advice should be sought from ALSLMU prior to using such equipment on ADF aircraft. 

2.91.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Anti-G suits should be subjected to scheduled fit checks on the assigned wearer, by a suitably qualified person. 

2.92.    Design Requirements (Recommended). Anti-G suits should be subjected to pre-flight functional and/or leak checks. 

Guidance Material. The preferred method of compliance is to conduct a functional check which can be conducted in an aircraft with the wearer of the suit strapped in such that the suit is integrated to the aircraft. If a pre-flight check in a carrying aircraft is not feasible, then a functional and/or leak check should be conducted when the suit is donned. 

2.93.    Key Considerations. The following key considerations should be made when introducing Anti-G suits to ADF service: 

An Anti-G suit with greater coverage of the wearer will tend to offer superior protection against G forces, whilst an Anti-G suit with a larger total bladder volume will inflate more slowly. High coverage and rapid inflation are both desirable properties of an Anti-G. These characteristics should be considered and optimised for the intended configuration, role and environment of the user. 

The use of ‘pull away’ quick release connectors for the interface between an aircraft and an Anti-G suit are considered desirable for the purpose of rapid emergency egress, but an inadvertent disconnection in flight could contribute to a G Induced Loss of Consciousness (G-LOC) event. The selection of an interface connector should consider both emergency egress and the security of the connection. 

The wearer of an Anti-G suit should conduct activities such as the Anti-G Straining Manoeuvre (AGSM) to resist the effects of G forces. Different Anti-G suit designs afford varying levels of protection against G forces and caution should be applied when transitioning from a design with a high level of protection to one with lesser protection. The wearers AGSM activities should be matched to the assistance provided by the suit. Effective conduct of an AGSM with a particular Anti-G suit design requires substantial practice and conditioning. For this reason, care should be taken when considering any finding of equivalence between the function and performance level of different Anti-G suit designs. 

The failure of an Anti-G suit could contribute to a G Induced Loss of Consciousness (G-LOC) event. The reliability of an Anti-G suit should be considered in terms of the suit making up part of the carrying aircraft’s Anti-G system. 

Life Preservers

2.94.    Life preservers provide individuals with floatation support whilst in the water following a survivable aircraft ditching. They have inflatable buoyancy chambers to minimise bulk during normal operations and may incorporate survival aid stowage as part of the assembly. The type of life preserver used is highly dependent on the CRE of the host aircraft and the personnel that it is intended for including aircrew and passengers (combat/noncombat).

Constant wear life preservers

2.95.    Design Requirement (Essential). Constant wear life preservers must comply with the requirements of DEF(AUST) 9202.

Tailoring advice. Replace the second sentence of paragraph 2i of AIR STD ASM 4065 Ed1v3 as follows: “The life preserver must accommodate the full anthropometric range of the user population wearing standard flight clothing and applicable personal survival equipment”.

Non-constant wear life preservers

2.96.    Design Requirement (Essential). Non-constant wear life preservers must comply with the requirements of TSO-C13g.

General life preserver requirements applicable to all life preservers

2.97.    Design Requirement (Essential). Life Preservers for Rotary Wing aircraft applications must only use manually activated inflation devices and be inflated by the wearer following egress from the aircraft so that the buoyancy of an inflated life preserver does not trap them within a sinking aircraft.

2.98.    Design Requirement (Essential). Life Preservers for ejection seat aircraft must use automatically activated inflation devices that automatically inflate once in the water to account for the possibility of unconsciousness following the ejection sequence.

2.99.    Design Requirement (Essential). The life preserver must be fitted with a pea-less whistle unless the life preserver is for an infant. The whistle must be secured by a cord to the life preserver.

2.100.    Design Requirement (Essential). The life preserver in the inflated mode must not hamper ingress to single or multi-seat life rafts.

2.101.    Design Requirement (Essential). All inflatable life preservers must use dual chamber buoyancy systems to provide redundancy for damage or failure of one chamber.

2.102.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The buoyancy afforded by a life preserver should consider the additional equipment weight carried by the wearer (e.g. fully loaded combat passengers).

2.103.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Life preservers should be protected against inadvertent inflation.

2.104.    Design Requirement (Recommended). A life line and toggle should be fitted to the life preserver. Where fitted, the life line must have a minimum breaking strain of 45 kg and be approximately 1 metre in length. The life line and toggle are to be stowed within easy reach of the wearer.

Guidance Material. This requirement provides a means for survivors to tether themselves together if they are in the water and do not have a life raft (e.g. survivors could not remove the life raft from a sinking helicopter).

2.105.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The life preserver should be compatible with helicopter rescue hoisting operations.

2.106.    Key Consideration. DASDRM Section 2 Chapter 6 Annex A should be referenced for guidance on life preserver stowage on aircraft and quantity of life preservers required.

2.107.    Key Consideration. The requirement for infant and child life preservers should be assessed during the procurement process based on the expected role of the aircraft.

2.108.    Key Consideration. The MAO should consider if subsurface buoyancy is required for the life preserver application.

2.109.    Key Consideration. Civilian passengers may not be fluent in English language and/or may not be able to read English which may cause difficulties for the passengers accessing and using the life preserver.

Life Rafts

2.110.    Life Rafts provide for survivability of one or more people after an aircraft evacuation over water, or dropping from an aircraft to survivors in the water during Search and Rescue operation. Once boarded, life rafts increase survivability by isolating survivors from the water and providing shelter from the environment. Life raft designs must cater for Defence’s survivability needs ranging from hours to days of life support, incorporating communication and rescue aids, rations and water treatment systems where warranted. 

2.111.    Life Rafts and their components must comply with ALSE General Requirements as well as the following standards as relevant to the specific Defence aircraft installation, considering recommended requirements and guidance material listed. 

Life Raft Equipment 

2.112.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The following life raft specific survival aids are strongly recommended as inclusions with all life rafts.

at least one buoyant bailer. 

a pair of buoyant paddles (note: not appropriate for larger life rafts). 

an efficient radar reflector or a radar transponder. 

anti-nausea medication and sick bags for all on board the life raft. 

Multi-seat life rafts 

2.113.    Design Requirement (Essential). Life rafts must comply with TSO-C70b. 

2.114.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Life rafts should consider fitment/use of the following recommended features: 

Life Raft lights should have batteries (or battery and Light units) that are replaceable without the use of adhesives. 

Attachments should be provided to keep the entrance covers open (the life raft should be packed in this position if a self-erecting canopy is fitted). 

The total seating space should be insulated by an inflatable floor. When a removable mattress type is supplied, tie down points to attach the mattress to the life raft floor should be added. 

The floor should be fitted with Inflate/Deflate valves that are compatible with the Life Raft Topping-up valves and the Life Raft Hand pump. When a mattress type inflatable floor is supplied, the upper side centre of the floor (when installed) should be stencilled with 40 mm high lettering ‘INFLATABLE FLOOR’. 

The life raft should provide sufficient air for the occupants at all times, even with the entrances closed. 

The life raft should contain a viewing port. 

Where the life raft has multiple entrances, best practice is to have at least one entrance provided with a ‘boarding ramp’, with other entrances using a ‘boarding ladder’ style boarding aid. The boarding ramp should not cause life raft deflation if it becomes damaged and the lowest step of the boarding ladder should be .4 m below the life rafts waterline. 

Have an automatically deploying sea anchor or a labelled reminder for the occupant to deploy the sea anchor. 

2.115.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Life rafts which can be externally mounted and deployed remotely should be used in preference to internally installed life rafts which require physical effort to deploy. Internally installed life rafts should have unobstructed access from the inside of the aircraft and that of the ditched position. 

Guidance Material. Life rafts should be deployable from three locations being in reach of the flight crew, occupants of the passenger cabin and survivors in the water with the aircraft floating in the ditched/capsized position. 

2.116.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Life rafts should be equipped with two retaining lines to be used for securing the life raft to the aircraft, one short line and one long. 

Guidance Material. A short line holding the life raft close enough for occupants to enter the life raft directly without entering the water which is then cut leaving the life raft attached to the aircraft by the longer retaining line which should allow the life raft to float at a safe distance away from the aircraft. 

2.117.    Guidance Material. Aircraft should have a minimum of two life rafts with sufficient overload capacity to account for the loss of the largest life raft. 

2.118.    Guidance Material. Consideration should be given to whether additional capacity within the life rafts is required to account for operationally kitted aircrew. 

2.119.    Guidance Material. Weight and space permitting, consideration should be given to increasing the puncture resistance of the life raft if it is located in close proximity to an area of the aircraft which is likely to have jagged edges following a water landing/ditching. 

2.120.    Guidance Material. Consideration should be given to whether there are entanglement possibilities from lines/boarding ladders which could trap a person while righting the life raft during a new life rafts introduction to service. 

Multi-seat life raft compressed cylinders 

2.121.    Design Requirement (Essential). Compressed cylinders which have been discharged, immersed in water, visually appear corroded, out of limits or damaged and will (or have) exceeded the 5 years since hydrostatic test must be returned for inspection, testing and refilling. Facilities conducting the work must satisfy the requirements of AS 2337.1 for Gas Cylinder Test Stations, Part 1: General Requirements, Inspection and Tests–Gas Cylinders. 

2.122.    Design Requirement (Essential). Recharging and reconditioning, internal and external inspection and testing of Inflation System Compressed Cylinders must comply with AS 2337.1. 

2.123.    Design Requirement (Essential). Each cylinder must be charged with the required weight of CO2 and N2 as applicable by the type of cylinder, to within the limits as specified by the manufacturer. CO2 used must conform to BB–C–101, Grade B. Where additional pressure to expel CO2 at lower temperatures is required, cylinders must have added Dry N2 conforming to A–A–59503, Type I, Grade B, Class 1. 

2.124.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Painting of the compressed cylinder should be done in accordance with MIL-STD-1411A. The threaded portion of the neck of the cylinder should not be painted. 

2.125.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Cylinders fitted with syphon tubes should have the type of syphon tube clearly stencilled in 12 mm lettering, in Black Cellulose Lacquer conforming to A–A–3165, longitudinally on the body of the cylinder, as applicable. 
Single seat life rafts 

2.126.    Design Requirement (Essential). Life rafts must comply with DEF(AUST) 9203. 

2.127.    Design Requirement (Essential). Inflation compressed cylinders must comply with MIL-PRF-25369D(1). 

LOAD CARRIAGE AND RESTRAINT DOMAINS

Carriers

2.128.    Carriers form the basis of an ALSE Ensemble in that they provide a platform to which various ALSE can be attached. Carriers take two forms a vest (for non-load bearing applications) or harness (for load bearing applications for restraint / hoisting). Selection of a carrier requires consideration of the requirements of the wider ensemble and the need for restraint/ hoisting capability.

2.129.    Design Requirement (Essential). A carrier must be designed to restrain the load of any ALSE component or combination of components intended to be attached to it simultaneously under relevant crashworthiness loads defined in the relevant aircraft(s) type certification basis or derived from the Section 2 Chapter 6 Contemporary Crash Protection Requirements.

Guidance Material. Where a Harness is required any relevant Out of Seat Restraint or Hoisting Equipment requirements should be applied from the respective Domains.

Hoisting Equipment

2.130.    Hoisting Equipment is considered as any equipment that is connected to a rotary wing aircraft’s hoist for the purposes of deploying and recovering personnel to/from the aircraft during flight.  This ALSE domain includes but is not limited to harnesses, strops, baskets, seats and stretchers. This ALSE domain does not include the aircraft hoist, cable or hoist hook.

2.131.    Design Requirement (Essential). Harnesses must meet the requirements of ATSO-C1003 or TSO-C167 as tailored below:

Para 3 (1) of ATSO-C1003 should refer to AS/NZS 1891.1:2020 and use the applicable sections for Full Body Harness.

Para 3 (3) of ATSO-C1003 shall refer to Section 2.2.3 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2020 instead of 4.2.3 of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995.

Para 3 (4) of ATSO-C1003 shall refer to Section 5.1 paragraphs c, f, g, h of AS/NZS 1891.1:2020 instead of 5.1 of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995.

Para 3 (5) of ATSO-C1003 provides dispensation from permanently marking harnesses with a maximum allowable free fall as required by AS/NZS 1891.1:1995. This dispensation still applies to harnesses; however, AS/NZS 1891:2020 does not include this requirement.

Para 3 (6) of ATSO-C1003 refers to Static Tests for Lanyards. These tests are not applicable to harnesses. 

Dynamic testing of harnesses must be performed as per AS/NZS 1891.1:2007 Appendix D.

2.132.    Guidance Material. ATSO-C1003 is no longer a stand-alone document. It was moved to CASR Part 21 Manual of Standards (MOS). Latest revision of MOS is dated 30 Nov 17.

2.133.    Design Requirement (Essential). Rescue Strops must meet the requirements of ATSO-C1003 as tailored below:

In reference to Para 3 (2) of ATSO-C1003, use the applicable sections in the AS/NZS 1891.1:1995 standard for "Retrieval Strap" testing. General, webbing and attachment hardware requirements used in the Strop shall be as required for harnesses in AS/NZS 1891.1:2020.

Para 3 (3) of ATSO-C1003 shall refer to Section 2.2.3 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2020 instead of 4.2.3 of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995.

Para 3 (4) of ATSO-C1003 shall refer to Section 5.1 paragraphs c, f, g, h of AS/NZS 1891.1:2020 instead of 5.1 of AS/NZS 1891.1: 1995.

Para 3 (5) of ATSO-C1003 shall refer to Section 5.2 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2020 instead of 5.2 of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995.

Para 3 (6) of ATSO-C1003 refers to Static Tests for Lanyards. These tests are not applicable to rescue strops.

2.134.    Guidance Material. ATSO-C1003 is no longer a stand-alone document. It was moved to CASR Part 21 Manual of Standards (MOS). Latest revision of MOS is dated 30 Nov 2017.

2.135.    Design Requirement (Essential). Hoisting equipment other than rescue harness/strops must meet the applicable requirements of NFPA 1983:2017 and ATSO-C1003 Paragraphs 3(8) and 3(9).

2.136.    Design Requirement (Essential). A Rescue Strop must be buoyant for maritime operations.

2.137.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The Rescue Strop should be a bright colour to enhance conspicuity during rescue.

2.138.    Tailoring Advice. This requirement is deemed recommended since there may be cases where a strop is required for Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) operations where bright colours are not suitable.

2.139.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Where likely to be used for hoisting of hypothermic patients a Rescue Strop should incorporate a Hypothermia strap (a secondary strap placed under the knees of the hoistee for a semi-recumbent position).

2.140.    The current version of FAR 29.865 is Amendment 29-43. Advisory Circular AC29-2C contains detailed guidance at AC29-865B. Within FAR 29.865 Harnesses, Rescue Strops (along with other Personnel carrying devices) are collectively referred to as Personnel Carrying Device Systems (PCDS). The following sections are considered applicable to PCDS:

FAR 29.865(a) The requirement for PCDS to be shown by analysis, test or both to withstand limit static load to a load factor of 3.5 or some lower factor not less than 2.5. AC29.865B provides guidance at paragraph d.(6) and in particular d.(6)(ii)(B) for Human External Cargo. Sub-Para (1) provides for a static analysis to show compliance if a safety factor of 3.0 is applied. Sub-Para (2) identifies use of a conservative load factor of 3.5g or substantiated lower factor not less than 2.5g and Sub-Para (3) identifies the use of a 101kg person as the minimum weight however a note indicates additional equipment weight should be included. In the ADF context it is not uncommon for Aircrewmen with equipment and wet to weigh 150kg. Using these values gives a static load of 150 kg x 9.81 m/s2 x 3.0 x 3.5 = 15.5kN. Given that it is not expected that the helicopter would intentionally operate anywhere near the conservative 3.5g load factor during hoisting operations it is calculated that a load factor of 3.39 (equating to 15kN) would suffice. It is therefore considered that the static load testing of the Harness or Rescue Strop to AS/NZS1891.1 requirement of 15kN will satisfy this requirement.

FAR 29.865(c) (2), these requirements are considered to be satisfied by a Harness or Rescue Strop that meets the tailored requirements of ATSO-C1003 or TSO-C167.

FAR 29.865(c)(3), these requirements for placards/markings for operating, ingress and egress instructions are likely to have been met by requirements of either ATSO-C1003 and AS 1891.1:2007 or TSO-C167 and its reference standards.

FAR 29.865(f), this requirement is for fatigue evaluation in accordance with FAR29.571 to be applied to the PCDS. Guidance at AC29.865B paragraph d.(6)(vi)(B) indicates analysing the PCDS component by component to determine fatigue critical components to be subject to analysis or test to determine fatigue life limits. As it is difficult to analyse the fatigue response of webbing and material type harnesses and strops one approach considered suitable by the Standards DoSA-ALSE would be to conduct cycle testing of the entire PCDS system based on the critical load factors (excluding the safety factor used for ultimate load) and make a determination of the number of hoisting cycles likely to be experienced by the PCDS during its life. Using a weight of 150kg and conservative load factor of 3.5g the fatigue cycle load to be used would be 150kg x 9.81 m/s2 x 3.5) = 5150N. Generally Harnesses and Rescue Strops are have a service life of 10 years (unless otherwise substantiated) so using this and the number of hoisting cycles the equipment is expected to be used (under load) a number of cycles can be determined for testing.

2.141.    Key Considerations. The following key considerations should be made when introducing hoisting equipment:

Rescue Strops are designed for ease of donning whilst in the water but do not provide the safest option for restraint during hoisting. Strops require the hoistee to hold their arms down to maintain restraint. It is possible if the arms are lifted that the hoistee may fall from the restraint which is known to have occurred in the event of a hoistee becoming unconscious (refer ATSB Aviation Occurrence Investigation Report AO-2013-136). Prior to a Rescue Strop being used the following considerations should be made:

whether life is at imminent risk

the state of the person to be winched, particularly whether the winchee will remain conscious and coherent during the winch process

the potential for the person to remain compliant with winching brief

alternative methods and devices to recover the person

whether the risk of falling from the device would not result in further serious injury or death.

Rescue Strop design or operating procedures should prevent a survivor from slipping through the rescue strop during winching. It should be considered if any additional design features for a Rescue Strop such as arm straps (to help hold arms down over the strop), crotch straps, self-securing systems and anti-slip materials to prevent slipping from the Rescue Strop are suitable for the application’s Configuration, Role and Environment.

Use of a Rescue Strop with hypothermic strap is considered a safer option compared to a single under arm strop, especially with heavier winchee’s or those who may have pre-existing heart-related medical conditions, or suffering hypothermia.

Rescue Strops should be chosen as a ‘last resort’, in favour of using extraction devices which will not allow the winchee to fall out. Additionally, best practice is using strops only over water.

A Rescue Strop should be sufficiently long to fit around the chest of a survivor carrying full aircrew clothing and accoutrements (additional equipment) after immersion in water.

The option of an emergency quick release device fitted between the harness and hoist hook should be considered as part of a safety argument that supports the determination that associated risks have been eliminated or otherwise minimised SFARP. If a quick release is to be used the ATSO-C1003 paragraph 3(7) requirements are considered essential design requirements.

The strop or harness should be adequately comfortable and suitable for the wearer as to not injure the wearer during a lift.

The weight of a rescue strop should be selected to limit flail of an empty strop when attached to a hoist hook and hoisted in the aircraft’s rotor wash and this should be assessed by flight test. The weight will need to be balanced with buoyancy of the strop to ensure it floats on the water for ease of use during a water hoisting operation. Alternatively the use of a separate weight attached to the hoist hook to weight the cable and limit movement of an empty strop in the rotor wash could be considered.

Where a Harness is to also be used for restraint whilst out of seat within an aircraft the requirements prescribed for Out of Seat Restraint Systems will also need to be considered and applied to the design.

To prevent a rescue device from spinning, the use of an integrated tagline or litter drag chute should be used to assist in stabilising the equipment and patients during the hoist.

Selection of hoisting equipment should be considered in the context of an SFARP solution for the application, configuration, role and environment.

Out of Seat Restraint Systems

2.142.    A fall restraint system consist of an anchor point, connectors, full body harness and may include a lanyard, lifeline, or suitable combinations of these. The entire system must be capable of withstanding the impact forces involved in stopping or arresting a fall. When operating out of seat a restraint strap does not provide crashworthy restraint and personnel will be subject to flailing within the extent of the restraint length. When not operationally required to be out of a seat personnel should return to a seat restraint as required by DASR ORO.70(b).

2.143.    Restraint systems shall primarily be designed to keep personnel within the designated safe bounds of the aircraft at all times. There may be particular cases however where personnel need a length of restraint to achieve a required positioning where the restraint length could place the personnel at a fall risk position. (For example a helicopter Aircrewman conducting clearances by lying on their stomach to look out the door and underneath an aircraft. In this example when moving from lying to standing position the restraint length could allow the standing Aircrewman to exit the door).

2.144.    Design Requirement (Essential). Out of Seat Restraint systems must meet the requirements of the following standards:

ATSO-C1001, Dispatcher’s Restraint Strap. With the following tailoring:

Para 3(1) should read: Subject to subclauses (2) to (6), the dispatchers restraint strap must meet the requirements mentioned in AS/NZS 1891.1:2007 relating to lanyards

Para 3(2) should refer to clause 2.2.1 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007 instead of 3.2.4 of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995. It is noted that designs incorporating a three ring disconnect include a small eyelet in the load bearing webbing, this may be accepted so long as strength and wear requirements are met

Para 3(2)b shall refer to the requirements 4.4.1 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007, tested in accordance with Appendix G of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007

Para 3(3) should refer to clause 2.3 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007

Para 3(6) should refer to the test at Appendix G of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007 instead of Appendix D of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995

Para 6 should refer to AS/NZS 1891.1:2007 instead of AS/NZS 1891.1:1995

The ATSO required quick release strap may be optionally omitted for platforms which would not gain significant advantage from the implementation of a quick release device. This is to be determined by the MAO, it is anticipated that all rotorcraft will incorporate a quick release device, whereas large fixed wing aircraft will likely forgo this requirement.

AS/NZS 1891.1:2007 Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices – Harnesses and Ancillary Equipment; (As tailored by ATSO-C1001)

All requirements relating to the use of personal energy absorbers shall also be removed from AS/NZS 1891.1:2007.

The requirements relating to the adjustment of a pole strap found at clause 4.3.2 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007are deemed as essential, and shall be applied to the lanyard assembly used. The lanyard length must be conveniently adjusted with self-locking connectors that do not cause damage to the lanyard. The release of these connecters must require consecutive deliberate actions in accordance with clause 5.2.1 of AS/NZS 1891.1:2007.

2.145.    Design Requirement (Recommended). All parts of the restraint should be flame resistant in accordance with the general requirements for life support equipment section 2.19 of the DASDRM, therefore the out of seat restraint system should be FAA Part 25.853 compliant.

2.146.    Key Considerations. The following key considerations should be made when introducing out of seat restraint equipment:

Platform specific variation will occur. Consideration of the platform specific environment when applying the working at heights code of practice and related standards should be undertaken in each case.

Where working at height standards are used they must be appropriately tailored to an aviation context as aircraft are dynamic platforms and falls can occur in multiple directions and in succession.

A crew member should be able to easily move about the cabin and access all required equipment for their duties, but movement should be restricted beyond the required range of motion to avoid injury under extreme flight conditions or in a crash/hard landing.

Cargo, role equipment and personnel should be appropriately spaced to minimise the likelihood and severity of potential impact should adverse flight conditions be encountered while a user is reliant on out of seat restraints. Consideration should also take place to ensure that adverse reactions such as rubbing and snagging on obstacles so as to avoid minor injuries to personnel or damage to the restraint system. Additionally users operating out of seat should be aware of their surroundings and should have the ability to secure themselves by using hand holds or other means in the event of unexpected turbulence being encountered.

Crew should be able to adjust their lanyards quickly and efficiently, this will assure that they will adjust their lanyards constantly and keep them correctly set as they move about the airframe and conduct varying roles. These mechanisms should not be prone to inadvertent length adjustment. The restraint system should be designed in such a way that it prevents a user from gaining excessive momentum in the event the aircraft accelerates rapidly. This must be balanced with the need to move about the cabin.

As recommended by CASA Airworthiness bulletin 25-007, Restraint straps and harnesses should remain connected to an approved hard point at all times during flight. The use of hard points that are located at height either on a wall or overhead is preferred over the use of a floor based point.

As recommended by the Canada National Defence Airworthiness Design Standards Manual more stringent civilian type “full body’ harnesses incorporating leg and shoulder straps should be used wherever operationally possible as opposed to belt or lower body harnesses.

Ballistic Protection

2.147.    Aircrew ballistic protection includes protection of crewmembers from weapons such as firearm projectiles, fragmentation, shotgun pellets and sharp edges such as knives and spears. This protection is provided through ballistic armour worn by the crewmember. While the Soldier Modernisation SPO (SMSPO) provides guidance on ballistic protection standards, ALSLMU provides guidance specifically relating to the integration of ballistic protection ALSE within Defence aircraft.

2.148.    Design Requirement (Essential). If the ballistic protection ALSE design relies upon rapid removal to assist emergency egress, mitigate negative buoyancy in water, or for Helicopter Under Water Escape (HUET), the rapid removal mechanism must be capable of being activated with one hand.

2.149.    Design Requirement (Essential). The material used for the outer layer of a ballistic protection ALSE garment must comply with the ‘Material requirements’ portion of BS EN 1149-5:2008 - Protective clothing - Electrostatic properties Part 5: Material performance and design requirements. Pre-test conditioning of the test specimen must be conducted by cleaning the specimen five times in accordance with the manufacturer’s cleaning instructions.

Tailoring Advice. The purpose of this design requirement is to ensure that ballistic protection ALSE does not pose a hazard in an aviation environment due to electrical arcing caused by static electricity. An alternate standard may be used if it can be shown to prevent the ballistic protection ALSE from posing a hazard due to static electricity build up or discharge. ALSLMU advice must be sought prior to use of an alternate standard.

2.150.    Key Considerations. The following key considerations apply when introducing ballistic protection ALSE:

Ballistic protection ALSE tends to be heavy, affect the posture of the wearer and restrict the mobility of the wearer. It should therefore be considered to be a hazard to the wearer and only be used for the purpose of mitigating hazards which are more severe than the hazard it poses.

Requirements for the level and type of protection of ballistic protection ALSE should be based upon assessment of an identified threat such as a defined set of weapon systems and engagement ranges. Such a threat assessment should also consider any protection offered by an aircraft’s structure. Land Division of the Defence Science and Technology Group can be engaged to assist in the conduct of such threat assessments.

Soldier Modernisation Systems Program Office (SMSPO) should be consulted regarding the effectiveness of any proposed ballistic protection ALSE system.

POST EVACUATION SURVIVAL DOMAINS

Survival Aids

2.151.    Survival aids are required to support the four priorities of survival; Protection (from environment, enemy, propagation of injuries etc.), Location (signalling equipment, locator beacons, radios etc.), Water and Food. Survival aids can be carried in aircrew or passenger ALSE ensembles, within life rafts or specific survival aid packs carried separately on an aircraft. The type and quantity of survival aids required will depend on the CRE for a particular aircraft and may vary from operation to operation depending upon the potential survival environment and expected recovery times. 

2.152.    Five survival environments, identified as Sea, Coastal, Arid, Jungle and Extreme Cold, are taught by Combat Survival Training School and addressed in the Professional ADF Aviators Reference Manual (PAARM) Volume 08 Combat Survival. Where necessary, the survival aid requirements are tailored to each of these environments.

2.153.    Limitations. The following limitations apply to this Survival Aids section:

The requirements of this section may not need to be applied to ADF transport aircraft that operate similarly to an equivalent civil aircraft type. In such cases DASR AMC ORO.70.A ‘Compliance Examples’ allow the quantity and type of available survival equipment to meet an acceptable civil standard consistent with a similar aircraft type. When not operated similarly to an equivalent civil aircraft type these requirements will need to be applied to ensure survival equipment appropriate to the task or mission is carried. 

Life Raft specific equipment such as pumps to inflate rafts, repair kits, patches, bailing buckets, oars/paddles are not considered within this Domain as it is expected that these will be a defined requirement in the design of a life raft and therefore covered in the Life Raft domain.

First Aid is only considered within scope of this Domain where it is provided within an ALSE ensemble or Survival Kit for the purposes of use following an aircraft emergency landing, ditching or crash. First Aid kits supplied in an aircraft for use in a medical emergency during flight are considered out of scope.

2.154.    National Aviation Authorities prescribe operational requirements for operators to have a means for determining suitable survival aids are selected for their particular operations and related environments. As such an exact and standard set of Survival Aids is not be prescribed here. Instead the types of survival aids that are considered essential and recommended for various environments are identified to allow systems project/program offices to work with operators to determine a tailored solution for a particular platform CRE.

2.155.    This may be achieved with a standard survival aid suite that is applicable to all aspects of the CRE with supplemental survival aid configurations identified for particular environments/operations that are added or removed as required. 

2.156.    The selection and quantity of survival aids should be appropriate for the period of time anticipated between an emergency landing or ditching and the location and provision of support or rescue of survivors.

2.157.    Tailoring of the survival aid solution to particular environments/operations and expected rescue time may assist in minimising the size and weight of survival aids.

2.158.    The use of multi-functioning equipment may assist with the minimisation of size and weight of survival aids.

2.159.    Design Requirement. For each of the five key survival environments the following table identifies the minimum Essential (E) and Recommended (R) survival aids to be available in some capacity on the platform. Items that must be carried on the person (aircrew) are identified with an asterisk (*) others may only need to be in a survival kit or life raft. This table does not identify the exact type or quantity of the survival aid that is required, this must be determined on a case by case basis for a particular platform and the intended type of operation and environment and be suitably justified as part of a safety argument that supports a determination that associated risks have been eliminated or otherwise minimised SFARP. There may be a need for multiple configurations for various operational circumstances. 

Table 2‑1: Required Survival Aids

Notes:

(a)    Dependent on threat environment distress beacons and radios may be either unclassified (for Peace-time Search and Rescue (PSAR)) or encrypted (for Combat Search and Rescue CSAR). Note the current operational solution (PRC-112G) contains both radio and beacon capability along with GPS capability.

(b)    IR Glint patch for CSAR applications only

(c)    Alternative portable water purification devices may be used however these need to be verified to provide a suitable quality of water.

2.160.    Survival Aid General Requirements and Considerations: The following General requirements and considerations apply to survival aids.

Design Requirement (Essential). Survival Aids that are prone to damage or degradation by water must be contained in waterproof packaging.

Design Requirement (Essential). Survival Aids with sharp edges must be packaged to prevent injury to personnel or damage to inflatable ALSE which it is packaged with. 

Design Requirement (Essential). Survival Aids must have a means of preventing loss such as a lanyard connecting them to an ALSE Ensemble, life raft or survival kit as applicable.

Design Requirement (Essential). Where it is not immediately obvious survival aids must be marked for identification and method of operation.

Design Requirement (Essential). Survival Aid packaging must be able to be opened with chilled and/or gloved hands. This must be demonstrated by the Chilled Hands and Gloved Hands tests of SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP1282 Rev B Survival Kit, Life Rafts and Slide Rafts.

Design Requirement (Recommended). Metallic survival aid components should be resistant to salt-water corrosion.

Key Consideration. The packaging for Survival Aids needs to be suitably designed to cater for the demands of storage, delivery method and intended use. 

Key Consideration. Survival Aid documentation should include instructions on the safe use, maintenance and storage of the survival aids. This is particularly important for pyrotechnic devices and bright strobe lights.

Key Consideration. When new survival aids are introduced into service, aircrew should be appropriately trained for familiarisation with the equipment and instruction on its’ safe use. This is particularly important for pyrotechnic devices, bright strobe lights and the Tourniquet and QuikClot bandage first aid items.

Guidance Maerial.

Australian Army Land Warfare Procedures – General LWP-G-7-7-6 Environmental Survival identifies general considerations for the development of a survival kit at Chapter 2 paragraphs 2.24 for characteristics of a good survival kit and 2.25 for considerations for optimising the limited space and weight available for survival equipment.

In an operational environment it may be necessary to ensure that survival aids are easily concealable. 

CSTS COMSURV Training identifies the need for carriage of a personal survival kit. ALSE will provide a basic kit. Selection of personal survival kit contents should not duplicate what is provided as ALSE but may supplement it to provide some of the recommended items if they are not able to be accommodated within the ALSE.

2.161.    Integration Requirements and Considerations. The following Integration requirements and considerations apply.

Survival aids will generally be either carried on the person (aircrew ALSE Ensemble), carried within a life raft or separate survival kit. Some items are critical to the highest priorities of survival and are important to be readily available on the person, the method of carriage will be dependent on the aircraft type, its CRE and the type of operations conducted, and may also be limited by the available space on the platform.

Design Requirement (Essential). Where survival aids are integrated into an ALSE Ensemble, the size and weight of the survival aids must be suitable for accommodation by the ensemble.

Where survival aids are integrated into an ALSE Ensemble: 

Guidance Material. Tailoring of the survival aid solution to particular environments/operations and expected rescue time may assist in minimising the size and weight of survival aids.

Guidance Material. Refer to Carriers and Ensemble Integration domain for further requirements and key considerations related to integration with seat and restraint harness systems, the impact on flight controls movement and compatibility with other aspects of the aircraft cockpit and/or cabin.

Guidance Material. Where survival aids are integrated into a Survival Kit refer to the Survival Kit and Rescue Pack Domain for further requirements related to the integration into the Survival Kit and to the aircraft.

Guidance Material. Where survival aids are stowed in a Survival Kit or life raft, items with limited life or inspection/servicing requirements should be packaged so they are easily accessible for replacement or inspection/servicing. 

Guidance Material. To limit weight and bulk of survival equipment, duplication across survival aid sources (i.e. carried, survival kit, ditching kit life raft) should be minimised unless deemed necessary for expected survival scenarios.

2.162.    Item Specific Requirements and Considerations. For a number survival aid types there are some key standards or requirements that must be applied. Where applicable these are prescribed below:

First Aid

Guidance Material. First Aid items should be selected with consideration for injuries that may be sustained from an aviation emergency ditching, landing or crash and the expected survival environment. This should include some combination of bandages, dressings, padding and adhesive tapes. Advice should be sought from Joint Health Command to guide the selection of suitable first aid for a particular application.

Pyrotechnic Signalling Devices

Design Requirement (Essential). Laser flares must not be used as a substitute for conventional pyrotechnic flares.

Guidance Material. Laser flares cannot be considered equivalent to conventional orange smoke flares which provide omnidirectional signalling of location during day conditions. They can be considered as supplemental to pyrotechnic flares only.

Guidance Material. ALSLMU are not the SME for pyrotechnic signalling devices. For advice contact the Explosive Materiel Branch via casglsdembcoordination@dpe.protected.mil.au group inbox. For safety requirements applicable to pyrotechnic signalling devices refer to the eDEOP101 – Department of Defence Explosives Regulations.

Light Marker Distress (Strobe Light)

Design Requirement (Essential). Where a light marker distress (Strobe Light) is to be integrated with an ALSE Ensemble its intended position during operation must not be in close proximity to the survivor’s eye to ensure the bright light does not impact their vision.

Distress Beacons

When interpreting Distress Beacon standards and technology, different terminology can be used to describe the type of distress beacon required. A Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) is generally a small, non-buoyant beacon that is easily carried on the person. An Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) is a buoyant beacon generally used on boats and life rafts and designed to float in the water. Distress beacons are sometimes referred to as Electronic Location Transmitters (ELT), this is generally associated with those fitted to an aircraft however it is also sometimes used to include all types. Care should be taken in the selection of each device as the terminology and intended use can often vary from country to country.

Design Requirement (Essential). All beacons used by Defence must be 406.025 MHz COSPAS–SARSAT capable unless approved by HQJOC AOC.

Design Requirement (Essential). Distress Beacons for PSAR applications must comply with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) Radio communications (406 MHz Satellite Distress Beacons) Standard 2014 and the referenced requirements of AS/NZS 4280.1: 2017 (for EPIRBs) or AS/NZS 4280.2:2017 (For PLBs).

Design Requirement (Recommended). Distress Beacons for PSAR applications should comply with the remaining aspects of either AS/NZS 4280.1: 2017 (for EPIRBs) or AS/NZS 4280.2:2017 (For PLBs).

Guidance Material. FAA TSO-C126a or TSO-C126b approved distress beacons are common. These comply with requirements from RTCA DO-204A or RTCA DO-204B respectively. These standards have not yet been assessed for equivalency with the ACMA standard or AS/NZS standards. As such if a TSO approved beacon is proposed to be used it should be assessed against the essential ACMA standard. 

Guidance Material. TSO-C126 refers to distress beacons as Emergency Locator Transmitters of various types. The applicable types are Survival Class A (Buoyant) which is equivalent to an EPIRB and Survival Class B (Non-Buoyant) which is equivalent to a PLB. Other types relate to those ELTs that are installed to the aircraft itself.

Guidance Material. Distress Beacons must be registered through Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) Air and Space Operations Centre (AOC) on the ADF Search and Rescue Beacon Database.

Compass

Most compasses are designed to operate in either the Southern or Northern Hemisphere. They do not function correctly in the opposite hemisphere due to an imbalance in the needle from alignment of the earth’s magnetic field. As such it is important that a compass is selected suitable for the hemisphere of operation. 

Design Requirement (Recommended). Where operations span both hemispheres, or aircraft are routinely expected to operate in either hemisphere, a Dual hemisphere compass should be used.

Sunscreen

Design Requirement (Essential). Sunscreen provided as a survival aid must be at least SPF 45+ in accordance with AS/NZS 2604:2012 Sunscreen products – Evaluation and Classification.

Water

Design Requirement (Essential). Water used in packaged water must meet the requirements of the FSANZ standard 2.6.2 – Non-Alcoholic Beverages and Brewed Soft Drinks.

Design Requirement (Essential). Packaged water must meet the requirements FSANZ standard 1.6.1 (Microbiological Requirements for Food). Testing for E.coli should be conducted following the procedure listed in AS/NZS 4276.22.

Design Requirement (Recommended). Once filled, the air above the water level in packaged water should be totally displaced.

Design Requirement (Recommended). Packaged water should have the date of filling stamped after the words Date Filled.

Design Requirement (Recommended). Packaged water should have the batch numbers stamped after the words Bag Batch No.

Key Consideration. The packaging for water needs to be suitably designed to cater for the demands of storage, delivery method and intended use for the water. For example water carried in a deployable rescue pack may be carried external to the aircraft cabin and be subject to altitude pressure variations, freezing at low temperatures (noting expansion of water on freezing) and being dropped from altitude.

Food

Design Requirement (Essential). Food sources provided as survival aids must meet the minimum ADF standard for Combat Rations which is prescribed in DEF(AUST) 10374 Food Safety Standard for Manufacturers and Suppliers of Combat Rations and their Components Standard, Issue 1.

Guidance Material. One example of suitable food provisions is the Emergency Flying Ration which is a standardised ration in accordance with DEF(AUST) 10655 that can be included in survival kits or life rafts.

Knives

Design Requirement (Recommended). The considerations of Australian Army Land Warfare Procedures – General LWP-G-7-7-6 Environmental Survival Chapter 2 Section 2-1 should be applied to the selection of pocket and survival knives as applicable.

Electronic equipment

Design Requirement (Essential). Any electronic survival aids must be evaluated for safe carriage and use in accordance with the requirements for portable electronic devices in DASDRM Section 5 Chapter 6 Role Equipment and Portable Electronic Devices (including Annex A). This will ensure safety of the electrical design in an aviation environment (including batteries) as well as for Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility (EMI/C).

Key Consideration. For battery powered devices where spare batteries are provided they should be compatible with the OEM recommended battery type to ensure performance.

Other. Requirements for some survival aid items have not yet been developed. Contact ALSLMU for further information and advice on requirements for other items.

Thermal / Immersion Protection

2.163.    The main objective of immersion protective clothing is to limit the rate of heat loss of a survivor in water to avoid death from hypothermia before rescue. This objective is achieved by the provision of thermal insulation, generally provided through insulated undergarments, and outer water resistant layers to ensure the insulation continues to perform satisfactorily post submersion in cold water. 

2.164.    Two major types of immersion suit exist, quick don and constant wear. Both are used in the ADF in order to ensure that all use cases are catered for. Generally, constant wear suits are used in circumstances where there is inadequate space or time to react in an emergency, while quick don suits may be used on larger aircraft where there may be adequate warning prior to a ditching event. 

2.165.    Design Requirement (Essential). Constant wear immersion suits must comply with ISO 15027-1:2012.

Tailoring. The requirements listed at 4.5 relating to conspicuity are deemed non-essential as a less conspicuous suit may be required for operational reasons or to minimise distracting reflections within the flight deck.

2.166.    Design Requirement (Essential). Quick don immersion suits must comply with 
ISO 15027-2:2012.

Tailoring. The requirements listed at 4.5 relating to conspicuity are deemed non-essential as a less conspicuous suit may be required for operational reasons or to minimise distracting reflections within the flight deck
2.167.    Design Requirement (Essential). All immersion suits must be tested to 
ISO 15027-3:2012.

Guidance Material. The standard gender breakdown for testing assumes 6 personnel of which at least one but no more than three are female. It is recommended that testing be conducted with an equal gender balance where possible.

2.168.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Quick don immersion suits should also comply with the illumination resistance requirements outlined at 4.12.2 of ISO 15027-1:2012.

Guidance Material. Properly stored quick don immersion suits are not expected to be significantly exposed to light, but it is possible that some may become exposed therefore some resistance to degradation is desired.

2.169.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Immersion suits should have an attached sprayhood as per ETSO-2C502 requirement 10 – breathing protection. 

Guidance Material. A spray hood can minimise the risk of secondary drowning in rough water. Should a spray hood be impractical other means of limiting secondary drowning should be implemented.

2.170.    Key Considerations. The following key considerations should be taken into account when introducing immersion suits to service.

There exists several classes of immersion suit, each rated for varied temperatures and durations of immersion. It is important the appropriate class of immersion suit is selected based in the water temperature, likely response time in an emergency and the ambient air temperature. A solution with excessive insulation may lead to heat related injury, insufficient insulation may lead to hypothermia.

Integration of Immersion suits with other ALSE and confined cockpits must be completed to ensure that the immersion suit does not significantly impede the wearer or their equipment

Survival Kits and Rescue Packs

2.171.    Survival Kits and Rescue Packs provide a means of holding a range of survival aids for use either following an aircraft emergency or for delivery to survivors as part of a Search and Rescue operation. Guidance relating to the internal contents (life rafts and survival aids) of survival kits and rescue packs can be found separately in the domain in which they belong. 

2.172.    Survival Kits and Rescue Packs are categorised by the following definitions:

Survival Kit. A kit installed or carried on to an aircraft containing survival aids to assist crew and passengers in the event of an emergency landing, ditching or crash.

Rescue Pack. An air droppable pack designed to provide assistance to survivors on the land or at sea. This may include survival aids, first aid, medical or other equipment and life rafts as required by the intended application.

2.173.    Design Requirement (Essential). When fitted to an aircraft survival kits must be stored in a marked location that is rapidly accessible and does not hinder evacuation.

2.174.    Design Requirement (Essential). Survival kits must meet the fire resistance requirements of Part I of Appendix F to FAR 25 as applicable.

2.175.    Design Requirement (Essential). Battery operated equipment must have sufficient battery capacity available to allow for operation throughout the intended survival duration of the survival kit or rescue pack in which the equipment is contained.

Key Consideration. This requirement may be met though a single large capacity battery, multiple interchangeable batteries or a means to reliably recharge the battery in the field.

2.176.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The battery charge at which battery operated equipment will cease to function correctly should be established.

2.177.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Rescue Packs should meet the fire resistance requirements of part I of Appendix F to FAR 25 as applicable.

2.178.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Battery expiration dates of included equipment should be marked on the exterior of a survival kit or rescue pack.

2.179.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Survival kits and rescue packs should be designed in a manner such that the probability of any error in configuration of its contents is limited.

2.180.     Design Requirement (Recommended). Survival Kits and Rescue packs should not become damaged in a manner that reduces its function by temperature cycles, pressure cycles, forces or exposure to other environmental conditions placed upon it both during flight and when not in use but fitted to the aircraft on the ground.

2.181.    Key Considerations.  In addition to the standards and requirements identified the following key considerations should be taken into account in the design of Survival Kits and Rescue Packs.

Components of Survival Kits and Rescue Packs should be generally resistant to wear and tear.

Weight and balance of the rescue pack should be understood and suitably communicated to operators.

Survival Kits and Rescue Packs should be packed in such a manner to minimise the likelihood of damaging survival aids.

Further guidance and test methods are contained in MIL-HDBK-1763 Aircraft Stores Compatibility.

AMTDU’s Aerial Delivery Development personnel are the SME’s and certifier for load clearance and should be contacted for advice on how to attain and maintain load clearances.

Continuing Airworthiness Requirements

2.182.    To ensure that Survival Kit and Rescue Pack functions are not compromised through inadequate continuing airworthiness management systems, the following continuing airworthiness requirements and key considerations apply.

2.183.    Continuing Airworthiness Requirement (Essential). All components of Survival Kits and Rescue Packs must be regularly inspected and maintained in accordance with approved Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness. This includes ensuring that batteries are inspected, charged and replaced as required.

2.184.    Continuing Airworthiness Requirement (Essential). Life Support equipment must be inspected, repaired and packed in an approved maintenance facility IAW AAP 7220.001-99 Aeronautical Life Support Instructions.

2.185.    Continuing Airworthiness Requirement (Essential). Crew and maintainers must be trained in the correct procedures for manual handling for the purposes of loading and deploying Survival Kits and Rescue Packs.

2.186.    Continuing Airworthiness Requirement (Recommended). Battery operated equipment should have batteries replaced or recharged once the charge drops below the minimum required for correct functioning.

RESPIRATION DOMAINS

Oxygen / Smoke and Fumes Masks

2.187.    DASDRM Section 3 Chapter 6 includes requirements for Aircraft Oxygen Systems. Some of the requirements of that chapter may be considered applicable to oxygen masks as a subset of the oxygen system and should therefore also be considered in addition to the requirements of this section.

2.188.    Design Requirement (Essential). Materials used in oxygen / smoke and fumes masks must be assessed as suitably fire resistant, at the intended temperature ranges, and oxygen concentration levels to which the mask will be exposed by applying relevant materials standards and requirements prescribed within S3C6.

2.189.    Ejection Seat Aircraft. For ejection seat aircraft the following requirements must be applied for oxygen / smoke and fumes masks. 

Design Requirement (Essential). The requirements of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4068 – Physiological Requirements for Aircrew Oxygen Masks for Use at High Breathing Pressures Ed2 v2. 

Design Requirement (Essential). The mask related requirements in Air Force Space Interoperability Council Air Standard ASMG 4039 – Minimum Physiological Requirements for Aircrew Demand Breathing Systems Ed1 v2. 

Design Requirement (Essential). Inwards relief features, such as an anti-suffocation valve, must be incorporated into oxygen / smoke and fumes masks unless it can be demonstrated that a failure of the breathing air system, that induces suffocation, meets the associated failure probability objective for a catastrophic failure condition. Analysis is one way of demonstrating this compliance.

2.190.    Non-Ejection Aircraft. For Non-Ejection aircraft the following requirements apply: 

Design Requirement (Essential). For aircraft with type certification based on civilian airworthiness codes the following civilian based requirements of oxygen and smoke and fumes masks must be applied:

Pilot/Co-Pilot/Other Sedentary Aircrew masks must be of the Quick-Don type and meet the requirements of:

TSO-C99a Flight Deck (Sedentary) Crewmember Protective Breathing Equipment, of 05 Jun 08, or

ETSO-C99a Flight Deck (Sedentary) Crewmember Protective Breathing Equipment, of 05 Aug 16. 

Mobile Aircrew masks must meet the requirements of:

TSO-C116a Crewmember Portable Protective Breathing Equipment, of 30 Jul 09,or

ETSO-C116a Crewmember Portable Protective Breathing Equipment, of 05 Aug 16. 

Passengers masks must meet the requirements of:

TSO-C64b Federal Aviation Administration Technical Standard Order: Passenger Oxygen Mask Assembly, Continuous Flow, of 21 May 08, or

ETSO-C64b European Technical Standard Order: Oxygen Mask Assembly, Continuous Flow, Passenger, of 19 Dec 16. 

Demand Oxygen Masks must meet the requirements of:

TSO-C78a Crewmember Demand Oxygen Masks, of 27 May 08, or

ETSO-C78a Crewmember Demand Oxygen Masks, of 21 Feb 18.

Tailoring Advice. The standards referenced by the TSO documents prescribe particular microphone standards. In the event that the microphone standards are not suitable for integration with the aircraft then alternative microphones may be permitted. In such cases it must be shown that the microphones are safe to operate in the oxygen rich environment with an equivalent level of safety. 

Key Consideration. Oxygen Masks designed under the prescribed Ejection Seat Aircraft requirements can be utilized in Non-Ejection aircraft if the design is deemed suitable to the CRE.

Design Requirement (Essential). For other ADF aircraft the requirements identified above for civil based aircraft at sub-para a must be applied with the following additional considerations: 

Use during periods of intended cabin depressurisation, not just for emergency, must be accounted for. This includes the need to allow the wearer to occlude their nostrils in order to perform the Frenzel and/or Valsalva manoeuvre whilst wearing the mask. 

Operating altitude / cabin altitude requirements for defence aircraft may exceed the requirements of the prescribed standards. In such cases the relevant standard must be tailored to cater for the higher altitudes of a specific aircraft’s CRE. 

In some aircraft CRE, passengers may require additional smoke and fumes protection of the eyes. In these cases TSO-C64b / ETSO-C64b will not be suitable. SAE AS8048 Performance Standard for Passenger Smoke and Toxic Fumes Respiratory Protective Equipment or standards for aircrew protective breathing equipment must be applied for passenger applications where protection of the eyes from smoke and fumes is required. 

Where only smoke and fumes protection is required (for example on aircraft operating below the altitudes at which supplementary oxygen is required such as rotary wing aircraft) the following standard may be applied: 

Design Requirement (Recommended). Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4066 Ed 1v4 Smoke Protection Breathing Equipment Used by Mobile Aircrew in Non-Ejection Seat Aircraft at Pressure Altitudes up to 10,000ft. 

Design Requirement (Recommended). In addition to ASM 4066 Ed 1v4 requirements the mask should allow the wearer to occlude their nostrils in order to perform the Frenzel and/or Valsalva manoeuvre whilst wearing the mask. 

Design Requirement (Recommended) Inwards relief features, such as an anti-suffocation valve, should be incorporated into oxygen / smoke and fumes masks unless analysis demonstrates that a failure of the breathing air system, that induces suffocation, meets the associated failure probability objective for a catastrophic failure condition. 

2.191.    Key Considerations. In addition to the standards and requirements identified the following key considerations should be taken into account in the design of an Oxygen / Smoke and Fumes mask: 

Materials should not contaminate breathing gases so as not to irritate the respiratory system or pose long term safety hazards. 

Parts of the mask which come into contact with the skin of the head and neck should be made of soft, pliable materials which are non-irritating, non-allergenic, and non-toxic to wet and dry skin. 

Masks should not impart an offensive smell or taste to the wearer.

Underwater Emergency Breathing

2.192.    Underwater Emergency Breathing Devices (UEBD) consist of a means of storing pressurised air and a regulated delivery system. UEBD are designed for use in rotary wing aircraft to extend the available escape duration should it be rapidly sinking.

2.193.    Design Requirement (Essential). The UEBD must meet all requirements of ACS 4043 of 27 Feb 02.

2.194.    Design Requirement (Essential). The UEBD must meet the following requirements from UK CAA draft technical standard CAP 1034 “Development of a Technical Standard for Emergency Breathing Systems” of May 2013.

Be simple to deploy and capable of being operated with either hand. The number of deployment actions must be minimised, ideally, with no more than one action being required to activate the system on submersion.

Potential snagging hazards must be reduced to a minimum. Any part of the UEBD that might pose a snagging hazard during flight, emergency evacuation, escape or must be suitably covered, protected or restrained.The UEBD design and materials used in its construction must be chosen to have no features which would have a detrimental effect on the performance or operation of other equipment, impair the performance of the seat harness or hinder harness release. UEBD must not impede or prevent escape from a submerged helicopter.

2.195.    Design Requirement (Essential). Requirements 5.7.1 a to f of EN 250:2014 relating to demand regulator performance; work of breathing and respiratory pressure must be met in order to maximise ease of breathing and to minimise the risk of barotrauma.

2.196.    Design Requirement (Essential). Pressure cylinders must meet the requirements of AS 2030.1-2009.
2.197.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The mouthpiece,  with the hose and general assembly should withstand a minimum of 1000N as per BS EN 250:2014 requirement 5.8.1 relating to external force on the hose assembly.

2.198.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Head movement should not have any negative effects on the air supply pressure or volume at the mouthpiece.

2.199.    Key considerations. The following are key considerations that should be considered when introducing underwater emergency breathing devices. 

UEBDs are designed to assist with proven existing egress procedures, they are not the only consideration in helicopter underwater escape.

The intent of a UEBD is not as a SCUBA device, UEBD is intended for escape only, users should not attempt to re-enter the aircraft once they have successfully egressed.

Extensive HUET training is required for all users of UEBD, regular training in proper use of the system is required in order to extract maximum benefit from the system should it be required in an emergency.

Breathing air that meets the minimum standards prescribed at paragraph 4.4.2 of AS/NZS 2299.1:2015 should be used to fill the cylinder.

Table 2‑2: Breathing air gas composition per 4.4.2 AS/NZS 2299.1:2015

The available quantity of breathing air should be maximised while maintaining a form factor with minimal impacts on other ALSE and mobility. For example a 4500psi system is preferred over a comparable 3000psi system.

Integration of UEBDs with clothing should consider the placement of all other equipment. The best overall solution which ensures that the UEBD is readily accessible while providing minimal impact on other equipment should be sought. Placement of the UEBD should also consider the forces of a crash and the potential for injury.

As with any high pressure vessel, dangerous goods considerations are required when transporting UEBDs. This is managed through existing procedures for managing dangerous goods relating to scuba tanks.

Filling procedures should be compliant with AS 2030.5-2009. 

Moisture content should be minimised and ideally be less than 100mg/m3 as recommended in AS/NZS 2299.1:2015 paragraph 4.2.4.

SENSORY PROTECTION DOMAINS

Hearing Protection

2.200.    Noise is a workplace hazard regulated by the WHS Regulations 2011 at Chapter 4, Part 4.1. Regulations 56, 57, 58 and 59. Importantly Regulation 56 defines the exposure standard for noise.

2.201.    ADF policy is presented in SafetyMan Noise Management Procedure 04 – Noise Identification Assessment and Monitoring, which identifies that specialist advice is available to support noise assessments.

2.202.    CASsafe Requirements for Managing Regulated Hazards, Regulated Hazard 2 - Noise provides relevant CASG policy and identifies that specialist advice is also available from the CASG directorate of Work Health and Safety.

2.203.    Hearing protection includes both passive and Active Noise Reduction (ANR) and in some cases includes helmet design as a major contributing design factor. The aircraft platform cockpit and cabin noise profile is required when determining the type of hearing protection necessary. Different hearing protection configurations may be required for each individual aircraft platform. Alternate configurations may also be required to satisfy comfort requirements of individual aircrew and passengers.

2.204.    Aircrew hearing protection generally needs to cater for communications and situational awareness of aircraft noises and warning signals. In many cases, Aircrew hearing protection will need to be integrated with a flight helmet. In some cases, passengers may need similar hearing protection solutions to aircrew, in others general Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) type hearing protection may be suitable. Regardless, the process of assessing noise hazards for passengers requires the same level of rigour as for aircrew to ensure adequate protection is provided.

IMPORTANT NOTE 

The focus of this section is the identification of standards and requirements for hearing protection equipment selection. Selection of hearing protection lies within the identification of risk control measures phase of a risk assessment process and is considered PPE, the lowest level of control in the hierarchy of controls. Selection of hearing protection can only occur once the sources of noise are identified, the risks associated with the noise are assessed and understood (i.e. noise levels are measured) and the higher controls of elimination, substitution, engineering and administration have been considered and applied where reasonably practicable.

2.205.    Key Considerations. for this process are provided along with the prescription of standards and requirements for hearing protection due to the importance of first understanding the noise hazard and managing it with a wider application of the hierarchy of controls.

Understanding Noise Hazards

2.206.    Key Consideration. The Work Health and Safety (WHS) (Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work) Code of Practice 2015 should be applied to the assessment of aircraft noise hazards. (This is an approved code of practice under section 274 of the WHS A) AS/NZS 1269.0:2005(R2016) Occupational Noise Management - Part 0: Overview and General Requirements also provides guidance on adopting an integrated approach to noise management and outlines how the AS/NZS 1269 series of standards can be applied.

2.207.    Key Consideration. The first phase of managing noise is identifying the noise hazards and assessing the risk. This can be achieved by conducting noise surveys to measure and understand the noise aircrew and passengers on aircraft are exposed to. This should include consideration of pre and post-flight noise of the airfield that is routinely encountered. AS/NZS 1269.1:2005 (R2016) Occupational Noise Management – Measurement and Assessment of Noise Immission and Exposure provides suitable requirements and guidance on the types of noise assessment that may be required, the general objectives of an assessment and the instrumentation and procedures needed to carry it out. Of particular interest is Section 6.3 identifying noise assessments required for hearing protector programs and Section 8.5 detailing the measurement procedures required for selecting hearing protectors. Within Defence the following support is available:

The Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM) may be engaged to support the conduct of noise surveys for ADF aircraft.

Environmental Health Officers (ENVHOs) may be engaged to support the conduct of noise assessments. 

CASG Directorate of Work Health and Safety may provide Occupational Medicine and Hygiene specialist advice.

2.208.    Key Consideration. Once the noise risks are understood, WHS Regulations require them to be eliminated or otherwise minimised SFARP using the hierarchy of controls. AS/NZS 1269.2:2005(R2016) – Occupational Noise Management Part 2 Noise Control Management provides requirements and guidance on the management of noise controls and may be a useful reference for the consideration of higher order risk controls before applying hearing protection as PPE.

2.209.    Key Consideration. All considerations of Section 5.6 of the WHS (Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work) Code of Practice 2015 are applicable to the selection of hearing protectors.

Hearing Protector Selection Requirements

2.210.    Design Requirement (Essential). Where higher order risk controls cannot reduce noise exposure below the exposure standard (LAeq,8h of 85 dB(A), or LC peak of 140 dB(C), WHS Regulation 56) hearing protection solutions must be selected in accordance with AS/NZS 1269.3:2005 (R2016) Occupational Noise Management – Hearing Protector Program Section 6 and appendices A and B. The following ADF policy in SafetyMan must be applied:

Both the Classification Method and then Octave-Band Method must be applied for all Red, Black and Extreme hearing protection zones (i.e. continuous noise levels exceed 100 dB(A)).

For Earplugs and Earmuffs worn in combination for use in Black and Extreme hearing protection zones (i.e. continuous noise levels exceeding 115 dB(A)) the combined attenuation is calculated by adding 3 dB to the highest noise reduction level of the two personal hearing protectors. This must be considered as information from the relevant authority for the purposes of AS/NZS 1269.3:2005 (R2016) paragraph 6.2.5. At lower noise levels, manufacturer information on combined attenuation is to be used.

2.211.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The exposure standard applied for the selection of hearing protection should be reduced (from the regulated LAeq,8h of 85 dB(A) or LC,peak of 140 dB(C)) to an LAeq,8h of 80 dB(A) or LC,peak of 135dB(C) to account for the potential exposure of aircrew to ototoxic chemicals present in aviation fuel as recommended in the WHS (Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work) Code of Practice 2015 and SafetyMan Noise Management Procedure 04.

2.212.    Design Requirement (Recommended). The exposure standard applied for the selection of hearing protection should be reduced (from the regulated LAeq,8h of 85 dB(A) or LC,peak of 140 dB(C)) to an LAeq,8h of 80 dB(A) or LC,peak of 135dB(C) for children. For the purpose of this requirement a ‘child’ is a person under the age of 17, who is too physically small to be fitted with hearing protection which would otherwise be available for use by adults.
2.213.    Design Requirement (Recommended). Efforts should be made to reduce noise exposure below the exposure standard SFARP, cognisant of the following (where applicable):

Where routine work that requires speed or attentiveness, or where it is important to carry on conversations, the exposure should be kept to LAeq,8h of 70 dB(A) as identified by the WHS (Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work) Code of Practice 2015.

Where sortie durations exceed 10 hours, exposure should be adjusted to account for increased risk of hearing loss in accordance with WHS (Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work) Code of Practice 2015 and SafetyMan Noise Management Procedure 04.

Where aircrew fly more than 5 days a week or more than 8 hours per day, exposure standards should be adjusted as described in SafetyMan Noise Management Procedure 04.

Hearing Protector Design and Performance Requirements

2.214.    Design Requirement (Essential). Hearing protectors must comply with the requirements of AS/NZS 1270:2002 (R2014) Acoustics - Hearing Protectors, tailored as follows:

The majority of requirements and testing are designed for conventional hearing protectors such as Ear Muffs and Ear Plugs and may not be directly applicable to hearing protection solutions required for aircrew and passengers (e.g. those integrated with aircrew helmets). The contribution of the helmet to attenuation of sound should be considered as part of the hearing protection solution. Such solutions should be considered ‘Other Devices’ as identified at Section 5, and the clauses for complying with Section 2 general requirements as far as possible and applying testing of Sections 3 and 4 in a way that meaningful comparisons can be made with more conventional hearing protectors, should be applied as in the following examples:

The low temperature drop test for helmet-mounted earmuffs should not be applied to aircrew helmets where the hearing protectors are contained within the helmet and are unlikely to be damaged by situations that this test represents.

Aircrew helmets usually achieve fitment of the hearing protector to the ear by custom fitting of the helmet. As such, headband-flexing test would not be applicable. In such cases, an analytical assessment of the hearing protection elements of the helmet to ensure sufficient retention and sealing around the wearers ear can be achieved by the means of fitting and adjustment provided with the helmet.

ANR Hearing Protectors are considered ‘Specialist Devices’ in accordance with clause 1.4.12 and should be treated in accordance with Section 5. Further consideration of ANR and other applicable requirements is provided in a dedicated section below.

Hearing protection solutions may be assessed/tested to international standards. To cater for these solutions this requirement may, where not deemed reasonably practicable to have the solution tested to this AS/NZS 1270:2002(R2014), be met by suitable analysis to determine that the international standard provides an equivalent level of attenuation. 

Active Noise Reduction Requirements

2.215.    ANR technology provides improved attenuation at low frequencies (up to 1000 Hz) and negligible attenuation (and in some cases slightly negative attenuation) at higher frequencies (above 1000 Hz). Any selection of ANR will require detailed understanding of the platform noise profile and the specific performance details of the ANR technology being considered to ensure it provides suitable noise attenuation and its effect on intelligibility of communications is understood. When ANR hearing protection is to be used, the following requirements and considerations apply:

Key Consideration. ANR hearing protectors are considered ‘Specialist Devices’ and should be tested as passive devices in accordance with AS/NZS 1270:2002(R2014), as identified above, for the purposes of a baseline comparison to conventional protectors. This will also provide an assessment of the minimum protection afforded in the event of ANR failure.

Design Requirement (Recommended). Active noise reduction systems used in helmets and headsets should be evaluated in accordance with Advisory Publication (ADV PUB) ASMG 4092 Ed 1 (v1, v2 or v3) – The Evaluation of Active Noise Reduction (ANR) in Flight Helmets and Headsets with the following considerations:

The Measurement of Sound Pressure Levels at the Ear Canal method should be used as the preferred laboratory method noting it is suitable for ear cup type protectors.

Other laboratory methods presented in ADV PUB ASMG 4092 Ed 1 (v1, v2 or v3) for assessing attenuation should be considered for the evaluation of in-ear ANR devices where the measurement by microphone is not possible.

The laboratory method for assessing signal detection presented in ADV PUB ASMG 4092 Ed 1 (v1, v2 or v3) should be used.

The subjective Modified Rhyme Test method presented in ADV PUB ASMG 4092 Ed 1 (v1, v2 or v3) should be used to assess speech intelligibility.

The field assessment of attenuation inflight by measuring the Ear Canal sound pressures by microphone and comparing with measurements outside of the helmet/headset should also be used noting this is limited to assessment of ear cup type protectors. Where used in combination with earplugs or for in-ear ANR systems, additional assessment is required. Subjective assessment via questionnaire is also identified and considered suitable to form part of an evaluation of ANR systems.

The method of field assessment for improvement in signal detection by introducing tones through the ICS during flight/operating profiles and comparing the volume settings required with ANR OFF and ON to provide a measure of improved signal detection should be applied.

Subjective Field Speech intelligibility assessment methods should be used to evaluate ANR improvements in speech intelligibly.

Some international standards for Active Noise Reduction have been identified by ALSLMU but are yet to be fully considered. Contact ALSLMU to discuss ANR requirements.

General requirements and considerations for hearing protection solutions

2.216.    Design Requirement (Essential). Aircraft warning tones and annunciations must remain audible to aircrew whilst wearing the hearing protection.

2.217.    Design Requirement (Essential). Speech communications over radio and intercommunications systems must remain audible and intelligible to aircrew whilst wearing the hearing protection. 

2.218.    Key Consideration. The effect of hearing protection on direct voice communications should be evaluated where required. The safety of personnel will need to be prioritised to ensure exposure standards are not exceeded. This may necessitate additional communications equipment where such communication is deemed essential and cannot be achieved directly with necessary hearing protection in place.

2.219.    Design Requirement (Essential). Where rapid altitude pressure changes are possible (e.g. fast jet applications) hearing protectors that effectively seal the ear canal must allow for equalisation of pressure across the protector between the inner ear and surrounding environment to prevent ear damage. E.g. when an individually moulded Communication Earplug (CEP) is used a vented CEP transducer is required.

2.220.    Key Considerations. Hearing protection to be used with aviation helmets should not adversely impact other requirements of the helmet, particularly the provision of impact, penetration and/or ballistic protection. This is especially important when fitting new hearing protection to an existing helmet, and less so when being considered as an integrated part of the helmet design. The following should be considered as applicable:

When fitting new hearing protection to an existing helmet the impact on the compliance of a helmet to its specification should be assessed. 

When implementing a new integrated helmet and hearing protection solution the impact of the hearing protection elements on the requirements prescribed for the Helmet Domain in this chapter of the DASDRM should be considered.
2.221.    Key Consideration. Where moulded Earplug or CEP are used the application of lubricant can achieve increased attenuation along with improved ease of insertion and comfort. If lubricant is required to achieve improved attenuation, assessment should consider whether the lubricant will persist in the ear for the duration of noise exposure.

2.222.    Key Consideration. Where hearing protection solutions allow use of ancillary connected devices (such as Bluetooth connected mobile phones and media players) the sound levels of ancillary audio media play back will contribute to the noise exposure and will need to be considered in noise assessments. Guidance on appropriate use of ancillary devices and the contribution to noise levels should be provided in associated Orders, Instructions and Procedures (OIP).

Related considerations

2.223.    When introducing hearing protection solutions the following related key considerations apply:

Key Consideration. Hearing protectors should be adequately managed and supported by a hearing protector program to ensure their full effectiveness is achieved. AS/NZS 1269.3:2005 (R2016) Occupational Noise Management Part 3 Hearing Protector Program Section 4 identifies necessary Management Responsibilities whilst Sections 7 through 13 provide guidance that will support the development of a robust program that supports issue, fitting, cleaning, maintenance, training and effective use of hearing protectors.

Key Consideration. When providing hearing protection solutions the provision of suitable instructions and training in the OEM’s recommended use of the protection to users is essential. The level of protection provided can be significantly reduced if not used correctly for the entire duration of noise exposure, leading to hearing loss or tinnitus. This is particularly important for foam earplug type protection which can provide little to none of the intended attenuation if not inserted correctly. SafetyMan Noise Management Procedure 07 Education, Training and Instruction provides ADF policy on Noise training and provision of promulgation of instructions in OIP.

Key Consideration. The WHS (Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work) Code of Practice 2015 and SafetyMan Noise Management Procedure 04 provides guidance on the ongoing monitoring of noise hazards and reviewing control.

Key Consideration. Whilst the purpose of hearing protection ALSE is to eliminate or reduce the exposure of personnel to aircraft noise, crew being able to hear the operation of aircraft systems contributes to situational awareness. Crew being able to hear the functioning or malfunctioning or aircraft systems at moderate sound levels through hearing protection is considered desirable.

Night Vision Systems

2.224.    Aviation Night Vision Imaging Systems (ANVIS) are helmet mounted goggle assemblies that provide aircrew with night vision capabilities to support the conduct of flying operations at night. The goggles come in a binocular configuration and are powered by battery. There are currently two types of ANVIS goggles approved for Defence use: the AN/AVS-6 and AN/AVS-9. Within these types, there are different configurations that relate to the type of objective lens and type of Image Intensifier Tube (IIT). RTCA DO-275 contains the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for aviation night vision imaging systems (NVIS). 

2.225.    Design Requirement (Essential). NVG technologies must comply with STANAG-7042 ED.2 Image Intensifying Night Vision Devices for Aircraft. 

2.226.    Key Considerations. When introducing new NVG technologies or modifying extant configurations the following considerations apply: 

Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM) should be engaged to assess physiological effects of significant changes to NVG technologies, such as change in phosphor colour (white vs green) or large changes in performance levels compared with in service NVGs.

Ground based assessment of NVGs should be made prior to progressing to flight testing. (Defence Science and Technology Group have NVG test facilities available). 

NVGs should be assessed for compatibility with Aircraft Lighting (additional information and standards for Aircraft Lighting and Night Vision Imaging Systems can be found in Section 3 Chapter 7).

NVGs should be assessed for compatibility with Aircraft Head Up Display (HUD) systems where applicable.

NVGs should be assessed for compatibility with aerodrome lighting and obstacle lighting, Noting there are known issues with LED based obstacle lighting not being visible through NVGs,  the risk associated with any non-compatibility should be identified and eliminated or otherwise minimised SFARP. 

CBRN Protection

2.227.    CBRN protection ALSE consists of body covering garments, masks, and equipment to supply uncontaminated breathing air. The body covering garments can be worn under, over, or in lieu of other ALSE or flying clothing. Masks can be half face oronasal types, or full face masks which can also be incorporated in a hood.

2.228.    Design Requirement (Essential). An assessment of the effectiveness of a CBRN ALSE countermeasure in a CBRN threat environment for which it is intended to be used must be conducted in consultation with applicable subject matter experts.

Guidance Material. Subject matter experts should belong to the Department of Defence, or be otherwise endorsed by applicable agencies in the Department of Defence. As an example the Chemical Biological Defence Branch of the Defence Science and Technology Group would be suitable for consultation regarding chemical or biological threat environments.

2.229.    Design Requirement (Essential). Any part of CBRN ALSE which covers the face must facilitate one handed doffing.

2.230.    Design Requirements (Essential). CBRN ALSE must facilitate the wearer drinking without compromising CBRN protection.

2.231.    Design Requirement (Essential). CBRN ALSE must protect the wearer from hypoxia as per paragraph 4c of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.232.    Design Requirement (Essential). A CBRN ALSE mask must allow the wearer to eliminate mucus and vomitus from the mask as per paragraph 4i of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.233.    Design Requirement (Essential). CBRN ALSE must facilitate donning and doffing contaminated CRBN ALSE as per paragraph 9 of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.234.    Design Requirement (Essential). CBRN ALSE which incorporates an oronasal mask must seal per paragraph 12a of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.235.    Design Requirement (Essential). A CBRN ALSE mask must facilitate the equalisation of inner ear pressure as per paragraph 13 of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.236.    Design Requirement (Essential). A CBRN ALSE mask which incorporates optical transparencies must incorporate anti-mist/anti-fogging features as per paragraph 17 of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.237.    Design Requirement (Essential). If CBRN ALSE displaces eye and face protection ALSE, the CBRN ALSE must be assessed for suitability as eye and face protection as per the eye and face protection domain portion of this chapter.

2.238.    Design Requirement (Essential). The material used for any item of CBRN ALSE which is worn as the outer layer of clothing must comply with the ‘Material requirements’ portion of BS EN 1149-5:2008 - Protective clothing - Electrostatic properties Part 5: Material performance and design requirements. Pre-test conditioning of the test specimen by laundering is not required.

Tailoring Advice. The purpose of this design requirement it to ensure that CBRN ALSE does not pose a hazard in an aviation environment due to electrical arcing caused by static electricity. An alternate standard may be used if it can be shown to prevent the CBRN ALSE from posing a hazard due to static electricity build up or discharge.

2.239.    Design Requirement (Essential). The material making up the outer layer of CBRN ALSE which is worn as the outer layer of clothing must be subject to Test Procedure A – Surface Ignition of ISO 15025:2016. Pre-test conditioning of the test specimen by laundering is not required. Adherence to the following criteria must be assessed for a material or garment passing this test:

No specimen shall give flaming to the top or either side edge.

No specimen shall give hole formation.

No specimen shall give molten or flaming debris.

The mean value of the after flame time shall be equal to or less than 2 seconds.

The mean value of the afterglow time shall be equal to or less than 2 seconds.

2.240.    Design Requirement (Essential). The material making up the outer layer of CBRN ALSE which is worn as the outer layer of clothing must be subject to Test Procedure B – Bottom Edge Ignition of ISO 15025:2016. Pre-test conditioning of the test specimen by laundering is not required. Adherence to the following criteria must be assessed for a material or garment passing this test:

No specimen shall give flaming to the top or either side edge.

No specimen shall give hole formation.

No specimen shall give molten or flaming debris.

The mean value of the after flame time shall be equal to or less than 2 seconds.

The mean value of the afterglow time shall be equal to or less than 2 seconds.

2.241.    Design Requirement (Essential). The weight, size and materials of a CBRN ALSE mask must comply with paragraph 8 of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.242.    Design Requirement (Essential). Integration of CBRN ALSE must be conducted in accordance with the instructions contained in Air and Space Interoperability Council - ADV PUB ASM 4084 Methodology for Integration Testing of Aircrew Clothing and Equipment.

Tailoring Advice. ADV PUB ASM 4084 uses non proscriptive language such as ‘should’ rather than terms such as ‘must’ or ‘shall’. This design requirement mandates that all portions of ADV PUB ASM 4084 must be considered, but compliance findings of ‘not applicable’ can be assessed as acceptable.

2.243.    Design Requirement (Essential). CBRN ALSE must facilitate the elimination of bodily waste.

Tailoring Advice. CBRN ALSE intended for short term wear must facilitate urination. Failing to do so is likely to result in wearers self-restricting fluid intake which could lead to dehydration. CBRN ALSE intended for longer term wear must accommodate defecation and the management of menstrual blood flow.

Guidance Material. Management of diet and use of medication, both under the supervision of an aviation medical officer, can assist in managing the requirement for defecation and managing menstrual blood flow.

2.244.    Design Requirement (Essential). CBRN ALSE masks must either interface with existing ICS equipment or contain ICS equipment with an equivalent level of performance.

2.245.    Design Requirement (Essential). If a CBRN mask is to be used with supplemental oxygen, materials used in the mask must be assessed as suitably fire resistant, at the intended temperature ranges, and oxygen concentration levels to which the mask will be exposed by applying relevant materials standards and requirements prescribed within Section 3 Chapter 6.

2.246.    Design Requirement (Recommended). CBRN ALSE should incorporate anti-suffocation and anti-drown protection as described by paragraph 11e of Air Force Interoperability Council Air Standard ASM 4067 Ed1 v2.

2.247.    Key Considerations. The following key considerations should be taken into account when introducing CBRN ALSE to ADF service:

CBRN ALSE forms part of a CBRN protection capability. It cannot be effective without other elements of such a capability such as decontamination.

CBRN ALSE can be used in a ‘quick don’ configuration. This could be used in the use cases of don prior to emergency egress from a CBRN protected platform, don for only part of a mission, or don in response to a detected CBRN threat. In the use case of don for part of a mission, a capability to confirm the absence of contamination prior to doffing is required. In the use case don in response to a detected CBRN threat, a CBRN threat warning mechanism is required.

The user of CBRN ALSE intended for use in a ‘quick don’ role will require the ability to rapidly don and doff the equipment without assistance in the intended use environment. CBRN ALSE intended for permanent wear during missions can reasonably require the assistance of ALSE tradesmen or other crew members for donning and doffing.

Exposure to foreign object contamination such as dust, sea spray, water or large amounts of sweat can reduce the effectiveness or useful life of CBRN ALSE.

Unaided speech communications with ground crew or passengers is expected to be difficult in some aviation environments. The use of CBRN ALSE can further hinder such communication. Features in a CBRN ALSE system to aid the ability of wearers to participate in unaided voice communications are desirable.

ADDITIONAL ALSE GUIDANCE

2.248.    ALSLMU review and amend the ALSE Standards prescribed in this chapter on an ongoing basis with the aim to maintain contemporary and traceable design requirements for each ALSE Domain. Before applying ALSE standards prescribed in this chapter, ALSLMU must be engaged for the latest advice as published requirements may become obsolete as a result of these reviews.

2.249.    Contact ALSLMU for advice or assistance in accessing referenced standards via ALSLMU.DeskOfficer@defence.gov.au.