Skip to main content

Police protective equipment


FAQs

How do I ask a question?

At present, questions are populated by the Home Office technical partner however direct contact details may be available in the future

What is the Compliance process?

The Compliance process is the route a manufacturer must take in order to test their equipment to a Home Office PPE Standard in order to receive recognized certification

Has BAS07 been withdrawn?

Phasing out of Home Office Body Armour standard 2007 (Publication 39/07 – A/B/C) Home Office currently holds two standards: 39/07 Body Armour Standard (2007) and 012/17 Body Armour Standard 2017. It has not been possible to submit new certification to the 2007 Body Armour standard since the introduction of the 2017 standard which supersedes all previous Home Office Body Armour standards. In order for manufacturers and procurement teams to factor changes into their supply schedules, please note that from April 2023 the Home Office 2007 Body Armour standard will be removed and from this date it will no longer be possible to re-certify body armour to the 2007 standard through MQT2. With effect from 31 May 2022 Home Office will no longer recertify armour where any changes (including like-for-like material changes) are made to armour certified to the Home Office Body Armour 2007 standard. This is ahead of the completed withdrawal of the 2007 standard effective from April 2023. Furthermore, from 01 September 2022, MQT2 will only be permitted against a procurement requirement or UK Police request. Any questions should be channelled through the usual routes

How are ballistic Test Houses accredited?

01/06/2023 - there is currently a new Test House accreditation round in progress and this page will be updated accordingly

Do overalls still need to be able to protect against MIBK?

Changes to Home Office Flame Retardant Overall Standard for UK Police (Pub.89/08) The Home Office is aware that from July 2023 changes to EU/UK regulations may mean that manufacturers are no longer able to produce Flame Retardant Overalls (FROs) compliant with an element of the Home Office FRO standard, namely: “6.7 (Route 1), 7.6 (Route 2): Protection from Liquids – resistance to penetration by Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK), the solvent used in CS sprays”. After consultation, the Home Office has taken the decision to allow an exemption to this test from the standard. This change will take place with immediate effect. This will not affect FROs already procured by forces which can continue to be used in line with the manufacturer’s warranty. Please note: • Any changes to existing models with an updated construction or material (for example a change of fabric finish from C8 to C6) will require a new model number, technical file submission and full certification testing (either Route 1 or Route 2 as stated in 89/08) conducted for these garments. • Manufacturers using the British Standard BS7971-10:2014 to certify FROs should opt for all testing requirements set out within the standard, with the exception of the MIBK test, to ensure equipment is tested in line with operational requirements. If all clauses in this standard are met with the exception of protection from MIBK, then there is no requirement for further test, assessment or certification to the Home Office standard 89/08, unless contractually required by the buyer. • Any questions regarding test or certification should be set to: Declarations@dstl.gov.uk

What is the difference between Area of Coverage and Area of Full protection?

Area of Coverage is the area covered by the guard, however this may not provide sufficient protection across the entire product. The area of Full Protection is the area defined by the manufacturer as providing the level of protection required by the 20/07 Standard and is impact tested as such

Can you test XL helmets as these do not seem to be mentioned in the 21/04 Standard?

Currently assessment of XL helmets is performed on a case by case scenario however consideration is being given to increasing the head form sizes used to test against this standard.

Can I test a Portable Ballistic Shield that is smaller than the sizes shown in the Standard?

Yes- assessment and approval to test is performed on a case by case scenario however it is possible to achieve certification with a bespoke sized shield

Where can I test my Slash Resistant Material?

The Slash Resistant material test is currently suspended due to technical issues however should be resolved in the near future.

BAS17 Barrel Twist Rates

Additional Information on Test Parameters

The following barrel properties for testing to the Home Office Standards has been provided to ensure consistency in testing between test houses.

Ammunition description

Standard

Protection Level

Velocity

(m·s-1)

Barrel twist rate

9 mm DM11A1B2

(9 mm NATO STANAG 4090)

BAS17

PBP 47/11

HO1

HO2

PB1

365 ± 10

430 ± 10

1:10” or 1:254 mm

9 mm P9HST1 JHP

(9 mm NATO STANAG 4090)

BAS17

HO1

HO2

365 ± 10

430 ± 10

1:10” or 1:254 mm

7.62 x 51 mm L2A2

(7.62 mm NATO STANAG 2310)

BAS17

PBP 47/11

HO3

PB2

830 ± 15

1:12” or 1:305 mm

7.62 x 39 mm Surrogate

(7.62 mm NATO STANAG 2310)

BAS17

HO3

705 ± 15

1:10” or 1:254 mm

7.62 x 39 mm PS1943

(7.62 mm Russian)

PBP 47/11

PB3

705 ± 15

1:9.45” or 1:240 mm

0.308” Barnes TSX BT

BAS17

HO4

820 ± 15

1:12” or 1:305 mm

0.357” Magnum R357M3

BAS17

Special (1)

Special (2)

390 ± 10

455 ± 10

1:18.74” or 1:476 mm

5.56 x 45 mm L15/L17 (SS109)

(5.56 mm NATO STANAG 4172)

BAS17

PBP 47/11

Special

PB3

920 ± 15

1:7” or 1:178 mm

5.56 x 45 mm Federal Tactical

(5.56 mm NATO STANAG 4172)

BAS17

PBP 47/11

Special

PB2

750 ± 15

1:7” or 1:178 mm

7.62 x 51 mm FED AE308D

(7.62 mm NATO STANAG 2310)

PBP 47/11

PB3

840 ± 15

1:12” or 1:305 mm



BAS17 Minor Amendments

Home Office Body Armour Standard 2017

(Publication 012/17)

Minor Amendments

The following minor amendments should be read in conjunction with the above standard and supersede any previous updates as of 14th Sept 2023.

BAS17 Section

Minor Amendment

3.1

Current text states:

“adhere to the PQT and, where applicable, ILM Procedures”.

This should read:

“adhere to the PQT and ILM procedures”

Thereby mandating In-Life Monitoring (ILM). ILM is no longer optional as it is beneficial to the overall process ensuring body armours continue to meet requirements.

3.4.1

The label requirements currently state:

“A label shall be securely fixed to the body side of each protective panel so that it is visible to the wearer”.

This should read:

“A label shall be securely fixed to the exterior body side surface of the protective pack and to the body side surface of the carrier such that it is clearly displayed to the user”.

This is in response to queries about armour panels that are placed in a carrier without a label & is not explicitly stated as a requirement currently.

3.4.1

Text currently reads:

“For extended coverage panels, where there is tapering in panel geometry on extended coverage panels, defined based on the criteria outlined in Section 6.10.2. The manufacturer may choose to identify an area of full protection; this area shall be marked with the text ‘AREA OF FULL PROTECTION’ on the strike face of the panel.”

This should read:

“For extended coverage panels, due to their size, the label may be displayed on a fabric tag physically secured to the body side of the panels. Where there is a tapering in panel geometry on extended coverage panels, as defined in Section 6.10.2. The manufacturer may choose to identify an area of full protection; this area shall be marked with the text ‘AREA OF FULL PROTECTION’ on the strike face of the panel”.

This change is on the basis that on some extended coverage panels, it is not possible to display all of the information directly on the panel as is done with body armour panels.

3.4.2

The addition of text that reads:

“During certification, the test facility shall take a photograph of a label for inclusion in the test report”.

This is on the basis that the label photograph provides auditable evidence of label conformance within the records held by the certifying body.

3.6

The email address for correspondence related to certification is no longer declarations@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk and is currently declarations@dstl.gov.uk.

3.6.1

An additional bullet point under “material data sheet” added so it reads “material safety data sheet”.

This provides the certifying body with information on potential hazards of the body armour materials.

3.7

At the end of the first paragraph, addition of text that reads:

“all failures during testing must be recorded and reported to the certifying body immediately”.

This adds clarity on reporting testing failures and ensures it is treated as a mandatory action.

3.9

Footnote 11 removed. The footnote currently states:

“for formed armour, this shall be given by the size range of the equivalent unformed armour”.

It is considered that the removal of this footnote ensures formed armour sizes are accurately represented as they are their own entity.

4.1

Table 1

Heading within the table reads:

“Extended Coverage (optional)”.

The text “(optional)” is incorrect as extended coverages assessments are not optional if a manufacturer submits these products for testing. Therefore the term “(optional)” is removed.

4.3.1.4

Additional text inserted which reads:

“If the manufacturer only intends to supply a single size of extended coverage panel, then two panels shall be submitted per ammunition type being used in the assessment”.

This text is to ensure that extended coverage panels which are only provided in a single size receive sufficient testing to provide confidence in their performance.

4.3.2

Table 5

10.3.1

Table 18

11.0

Table 24

Text in all three sections currently reads:

“CPA (minimum quantity – large panels)”.

This should read:

“CPA (minimum quantity – largest unformed panels – front and back)”

As the original text does not make it explicitly clear that front and back panels should be used.

4.3.2

This should read:

“Refer to Section 10 for PQT submission requirements.”

4.3.2

Change to Footnote 12:

“All formed armour submitted for testing shall be sized in accordance with specifications in Section 0. “

This should read:

“All formed armour submitted for testing shall be sized in accordance with specifications in Section 4.3.1.2. “

4.3.2

Table 5

Add footnote against HO4 which reads:

“Numbers indicated include the plates required against the HO3 requirements.”

5.2.2

Added text:

“If the dimensions of the panel submitted vary by more than 5%, the Technical Partner should be contacted in the first instance.”

5.2.2

Changed from “0.1g.” to “1g.”

5.2.2

Added Text:

“Areal Density is to be calculated irrespective of outcome of dimensional check.”

6.1.3

A maximum of 8 shots may be taken on medium, large panels (shot rules permitting) instead of the stated 7 should there be a requirement to do so.

6.2

Table 8

The text currently states:

“HO4 – Rifle 7.62 Calibre”.

This is an incorrect specification and should read:

“HO4 – Rifle .308” Calibre”.

6.2

Footnote 19

Text currently states:

“7.62 x 39 mm surrogate round details provided in Appendix D.”

This should read:

“The 7.62 x 39 mm surrogate round is designed to be fired from a NATO 7.62 x 51 mm chambered barrel with a 1:10” (1:254 mm) twist rate. Approved suppliers can be found at Police protective equipment (ped-cast.homeoffice.gov.uk)

This is to ensure consistency in testing and bullet stability during testing.

6.2

Table 8

Text currently states:

“SG1 – Max mean BFS (mm) – 25.0; single shot BFS limit (mm) – 30.0”.

This should read:

“SG1 – Max mean BFS (mm) across two plates – 25.0; single shot BFS limit (mm) – 30.0”

6.2

Table 9

Text currently states:

“Carbine 5.56 x 45 mm NATO”.

This is an incorrect specification and should read:

“5.56 x 45 mm (Carbine)”.

6.2

Table 9

Text currently states:

“5.56 x 45 mm SS109”.

This is an incorrect designation and should read:

“5.56 x 45 mm Ball”.

6.2

Table 9

Text currently states:

“5.56 x 45 mm L17A1 or L15A1”.

Due to the L17A1 being removed from service, this text is updated to read:

“5.56 x 45 mm L15A1”.

6.2

The standard states additional ammunition can be added to the certificate. Additional test bullets will not be added to the certificate if they are not currently within the standard unless the Home Office provide specific instructions on the test parameters and bullet nature/origin.

6.3.2.2

Added text:

“The distances between barrel to armour and light gates to armour are to be periodically checked through testing to ensure the target to barrel distance has not changed.”

6.3.3

Figure 9 - the 9 is bold

6.4.2

Text currently reads:

“In addition to the standard shot patterns, a further shot shall be positioned on all medium and large panels submitted for testing at a position 55 ± 5 mm from the edge of a panel…”

This is should read:

“In addition to the standard shot patterns, one allocated 0° shot shall be positioned on all medium and large panels submitted for testing at a position 55 ± 5 mm from a single edge on the panel, as opposed to a corner…”

This additional text is to enhance consistency between test facilities in the placement of the edge shot and reduce confusion of total number of shots to be conducted on certain panels.

6.5.2 & 7.7.2

Statement added:

“The drop sphere is to be kept clean and free from corrosion or scarring that may affect the results.”

6.5.3.1

Text currently reads:

“using two 50 mm wide hook and loop fabric straps”

This should read:

“using two 50 mm wide hook and loop fabric straps. More than 2 straps may be used only if required to securely constrain panels.”

This addition is to acknowledge the occasional need to use additional straps to constrain panels.

6.5.3.2

Text currently reads:

Following each shot the panel shall be removed from the backing and smoothed before replacing it in the same position so that the next shot may be taken. The surface of the Roma Plastilina® No. 1 tray shall also be smoothed without disturbing the BFS of the previous shots. All shots shall be performed before measurements are taken. Bullets trapped in the armour shall not be removed unless impeding the next shot”.

This should read:

“Following each shot the panel shall be removed from the backing material. The surface of the Roma Plastilina® No. 1/No. 1 Ballistic Testing Backing Material tray shall be smoothed prior to measurement of the BFS. The panel shall be smoothed before replacing it on the backing material for subsequent shots to be taken. Bullets trapped in the armour shall not be removed unless impeding the next shot”.

This change is to clarify a contradiction in the test methods and reflect established practice. The BFS must be measured and recorded after each shot.

6.5.3.2

Figure 12

The labels shown on the diagram for the “bullet line of flight” and the “normal to upright support” are the wrong way around.

6.5.4

6.6.4

6.7.4

Text in all three sections currently reads “after all shots have been conducted, the following information shall be recorded…”

This should read:

“after all shots have been conducted on a panel, the following information shall be recorded…” This change adds greater clarification to the records required to ensure data was recorded for each panel.

6.6.1

Added text:

“Mould release agents are not to be used as these can contaminate the Plastiline 40.”

6.6.3.2

The position of shots on formed armour are described as you are looking at the front of the panel (e.g. left bust tip).

For Formed armours, the order in which shot placement is marked and shots are conducted is not clear and can lead to errors in the correct placement/support for each shot. The following addition reads:

“Prior to testing the laser sight shall be aligned to the required location on the formed backing. Without moving the backing, or altering the alignment of the laser, the armour panel shall be placed on the formed backing and the location of the laser aim point marked on the panel. The shot shall be conducted for that location and removed to assess for perforations. The procedure shall then be repeated for the next shot location.”

6.7.2

Requirement for calibration on the rear of the male shaped torso test forms is to be removed. The torso backing materials must be taken from the same conditioning enclosure, for the same period of time, as the calibrated backing material tray on which it is been mounted.

6.8.3

Text currently reads:

“tests shall be conducted at a range of velocities into a minimum of three large protective panels”.

This should read:

“tests shall be conducted at a range of velocities into a minimum of three large protective panels, including front and back panels”.

This change provides greater clarity on the types of panels required for submissions.

6.8.3

The following text is added:

“each shot shall be conducted a minimum of 30 mm from other shot locations on the foam backing”.

This clause provides greater clarity on acceptable shot placements regarding the backing foam.

6.8.5

Text currently reads:

“Pass criteria for V01 are values of 375 m.s-1 and 440 m.s-1 for HO1 and HO2 protection levels, respectively”.

The should read:

“The lowest velocity of perforation recorded during CPA testing must be greater than 375 m.s-1 and 440 m.s-1 for HO1 and HO2 protection levels, respectively”.

6.8.5

Additional text added:

“In instances where it is not practically possible to perforate the protective panel using the test round and equipment specified, after seven consecutive non-perforations, the V50 shall be recorded as ‘Not Achieved – No Perforation at Velocities up to [Mean Value of Highest Three Non-Perforations]”.

This adds a procedure for instances where there are no perforations during CPA testing.

6.10.1.2

Text currently reads:

“hard extended coverage panels”.

This should read:

“hard extended coverage panels or plates”

This is to reflect new armour designs seen during compliance testing.

6.10.3

Additional text added at the end of the first paragraph that reads:

“If the manufacturer only supplies a single size of extended coverage panel or plate, then two panels/plates shall be assessed per ammunition type”.

This change reflects past queries regarding extended coverage panels of a single size.

7

All references for request of drawings throughout this chapter removed and drawings to be accessed through Police protective equipment (ped-cast.homeoffice.gov.uk).

7.2

Table 13

Text currently reads:

“KR1 + SP1 – SPL at E2 (mm) – KR1 = 20.0”.

This has been identified as an incorrect specification and should read:

“KR1 + SP1 – SPL at E2 (mm) – KR1 = 30.0”

7.5.5

7.5.6

Appendix D

The Home Office is aware of issues concerning the availability of approved Home Office Engineered Knife blades and Home Office Engineered Spikes. Until further notice, the Technical Partner will issue Home Office Engineered Knives and Spikes to test houses for use in Certification, PQT and ILM testing only.

For internal batch testing conducted by manufacturers, in the interim, the Home Office has agreed that, the Home Office Engineered Knife (drawing M100598) and Home Office Engineered Spike (drawing FPE 3/019) do not have to be manufactured by HSC nor achieve a CATRA test report. All knives or spikes procured by manufacturers must however be measured to ensure their compliance with the specifications, particularly knife tip angle, cutting edge angle, thickness and hardness. Please note that this permission refers ONLY to internal batch or development testing performed by manufacturers.

7.5.8

Added text at the end of the paragraph:

“The Technical Partner will be required to approve any alternative to the height adjustable table.”

7.6.2.1

Table 15

Text currently reads:

“Medium – No. of strikes – Knife – 2 (45°, 60°, 90°)”.

This has been identified as an incorrect specification and should read:

“Medium – No. of strikes – Knife – 1 x 45°, 1 x 90°”

7.6.2.1

Text currently reads:

at a position 55 ± 5 mm from the edge of the panel”.

This should read:

“at a parallel position 55 ± 5 mm from a single edge on the panel”.

This change enhances consistency between test facilities in the placement of the edge strike.

7.6.2.3

7.10.2

Text in both sections currently reads:

“all strikes shall be aligned at a 0° angle with the long axis on the panel”.

This should read:

“all strikes shall be aligned at a 0° orientation with the long axis of the panel”.

This change removes confusion around the use of the term “angle” which had previously been used in ballistic testing to refer to the angle that the backing material was turned away from the normal of the barrel.

7.7.2

Text currently states:

“sphere diameter: 0.5 ± 0.05 mm”,

This is an incorrect specification. This should read:

“sphere diameter: 63.5 ± 0.05 mm”.

7.7.4.2

The following text added stating:

“A single sheet of PolyartTM paper shall be positioned between the backing materials and the protective panel to aid in the identification of perforations”.

This change aids identification of perforations during testing.

7.7.6

Text currently states:

“Ruler measurement for depth of penetration (where over specified limits), measured in millimetres to one decimal place”.

This should read:

“Ruler measurement for depth of penetration (where over specified limits), measured in millimetres to nearest millimetre”.

This change corrects an error as rulers cannot provide measurements to one decimal place.

7.8.2.3

Text currently states:

“Measurements for knife and spike strikes shall be conducted directly on the Plastiline® 40 shaped torso backing materials using the microscope method outlined in Section 7.7.4.1”.

This should read:

“Measurements for knife strikes shall be conducted directly on the Plastiline® 40 shaped torso backing materials using the microscope method outlined in Section 7.7.4.1. Perforation assessments for spike impacts shall be conducted on the rear of the protective panel”.

This change provides more explicit assessment criteria for assessing impacts.

8.1

Text currently reads:

“Following construction assessments, the test facility shall store the panels for a period of six months post-certification at which point they shall be returned to the manufacturer”.

This should read:

“Following construction assessments, the test facility shall store the panels for a period of six months post-certification, at which point they shall be returned to the manufacturer, unless otherwise specified by the certifying body”.

This change provides clearer specifications for test panel storage.

10.3.1

Table 19

Table amended for required panels for KR1 or KR2. Formed armour testing is on one Large panel only and not one large and one small as currently shown.

10.5.1

Table 20

Text currently reads:

“V01 (PQT) less than VTEST”.

This should read:

“Perforation recorded below VTEST”.

10.5.1:

Table 20

Text currently states:

“Immediate repeat of CPA with four additional panels. Outcome must be green. If not, batch to be held and investigation (Section 10.9) to be commenced”.

This should read:

“Immediate repeat of CPA with three additional panels. Outcome must be green. If not, batch to be held and investigation (Section 10.9) to be commenced”.

This change reflects CPA submission requirements, where the current text states the incorrect specification.

10.6.1

The following text added below the existing text:

“On large, unformed armour panels, one E1 energy level strike shall be performed at a location 55 ± 5 mm from a single edge on the panel, defined by the test facility”.

This amendment is to provide greater specification to the position of strikes during PQT tests.

10.6.2

Text currently reads:

“the size of panel used for each test shall be selected at the discretion of the test facility and does not always have to be the same for subsequent PQT”.

This should read:

“the size of panel used for each test shall be selected at the discretion of the test facility but should be the same for subsequent PQT”.

This amendment allows a record to be kept for that armour panel and prevent new sizes being tested during each round of PQT.

Appendix C & D

The appendices removed and hosted online at Police protective equipment (ped-cast.homeoffice.gov.uk) under FAQ’s.

All references to these appendices replaced by the link above.

Nomenclature

The term “Technical Partner” added and defined as:

“The Technical Advisors to the Home Office providing support related to their standards.”

Nomenclature - Pencilling

Added text:

“Pencilling is not an automatic failure, but must be reported.”

Reoccurring

All mention of CAST removed from the standard. Contact details are also removed. Updated details shall be presented on the Police protective equipment (ped-cast.homeoffice.gov.uk) for ease of future amendments.

Where reference is made to CAST in relation to certification, this is replaced with ‘the Certifying Body’.

Reoccurring

The manufacturer of “Roma Plastilina® No.1”, has now changed the name of the material to be used in ballistic testing. All reference to “Roma Plastilina® No.1” is replaced by:

“Roma Plastilina® No. 1/ No. 1 Ballistic Testing Backing Material”.

Reoccurring

Armour Sizes; throughout the document, current wording convention refers to armour sizes as “small” and “large”. Due to concerns that on occasion the sizing spectrum is not adequately represented during certification testing, this is changed to “smallest” and “largest” respectively.



The description of shot locations described in 6.6.3.2 b) is different to that shown in Figure 16?

Agreed. This should actually read: b) For the top shot: Position marked 10 ± 2 mm to the right of the midpoint of the horizontal axis, and 40 ± 5 mm up vertically. For the bottom shot: Position marked 10 ± 2 mm to the left of the midpoint of the horizontal axis, and 40 ± 5 mm down vertically.

BAS17 Questions Training Houses

Questions Raised After Training Provided to Test Houses (14/09/2023)

Question

Reply

1

Is it allowed, for the angled shots, to rotate over the horizontal axis? With taking into account the impact pattern. (e.g. rotate the tray over the horizontal axis > top of tray moves backwards)

For the angle shots, the backing block is rotated around the vertical axis to the required angle of incidence the first shot on the panel must be the angled shot and through the full sequence of tests at least 1 angled shot must be directed to each edge of the panel. i.e. left, right, top, bottom, this is achieved by rotating the panel on the backing.

Rotation of the armour/backing will be around the vertical axis only. The armour will be rotated on the backing to ensure that at least one angled shot is directed to each edge of the panel (top, bottom, left & right).

2

The tray shall be re-conditioned in the heated enclosure; how long do you wait before re-calibration

Re-calibration will be carried out as soon as the re-conditioning is completed following guidance from section 6.5.1.

3

6.7.3.1 Do you have recommendations for firm mounting the torso mould to the roma No.1 tray as we see a challenge in that

Following guidance from 6.7.3.1 "If there are difficulties in adhering the male shaped forms onto the trays, additional clay material from the same enclosure may be used around the edges to enable improved adhesion" as both surfaces should be smoothed flat there should be some bonding along each corresponding surface as well.

4

After calibrating the backing material, the test should be performed within 1 hour. How long should the backing then go back into conditioning?

Following guidance in the standard section 7.7.1 the backing material should be conditioned for 12 hours.

5

Are there written copies of the amendments/corrections to the standard that are being mentioned that will be disseminated to the THs?

A full copy of the amendments will be published on the Protective Equipment Database by the Home Office before the on-site visits under FAQ’s > Body Armour,

6

Can drawings be provided for the CPA Test Rig? The assembly package for the CPA Rig does not provide enough detail.

Please refer to standard 6.8.2 drawing reference M100823, these are available on the PED under FAQ’s > Drawings.

Exact dimensions are not critical, as long as the assembly can retain the backing foam and the armour, without undue creases or tension.

7

Can you confirm the barrel that is required for the 7.62 x 39 Surrogate?

The barrel to be used is a 1:10 inch (1:305 mm) twist 7.62 x 51mm NATO barrel.

8

Is it a minimum of 10 minutes between drops (Stab Testing)?

It is a minimum of 5 minutes between each strike. 10mins between conducting the calibration drops and the commencement of the testing.

9

Drawing ref: M101089 and M101090 are not on the PED. Will these be provided?

These were added to the PED and are available under FAQ’s > Drawings.

10

Likewise M101091 M101092 M101093 M101094

These were added to the PED and are available under FAQ’s > Drawings.

11

Is it possible to share the training slides?

Not at present. This would have to be approved by the Home Office but may be available in the future.

12

On the CPA rig, how much pressure is required for mounting the samples?

Following guidance from the standard details are given in section 6.5.3.1, they state: "The straps shall be secured by hand, such that the panel is secure but not deformed". Therefore it should be sufficient to hold the armour in place, but no more.

13

PBP: For 5.6.1: what is the total amount of shots? Same for 5.6.2.

The total amount of shots for 5.6.1 will be the same as for 5.6.2. and is 6 shots.

14

PBP: what does the "+23-0" mean in paragraph 5.6.2 mean?

This means that the conditioning is to be between 1hr and 24hrs.

15

PED?

https://ped-cast.homeoffice.gov.uk/index.php/search/search_equipment/n/

16

Shot position on shaped armour: Description of the shot position during training is different to what is written in the standard. Reads 40mm laterally, 10 vertically

The positioning described in the standard is correct. See section 6.6.3.2 (b).

17

The shot order is left right up down. Is the left as you view the armour, or with respect to the armour?

As you view the armour.

18

The standard mentions: 'Mean velocity from all shots in test series, recorded in m.s-1 to one decimal place', but you mentioned 'rounded to the nearest integer'?

This has subsequently been considered – at present please continue to record mean velocity in m.s-1 to one decimal place.

19

What is the turn round time of a test house requesting additional shots (due to a perceived weakness) and getting approval from the Technical Partner?

There is no specific time line at present - if the Technical Partner is notified as soon as the area of perceived weakness is found, then guidance will be provided as soon as possible in order not to delay the Test House for completing the assessment. Photographs should be sent to the Technical Partner in order to expedite this decision

20

Which parties can be the technical partner?

Currently this is Dstl.

21

Doppler Radar is a stated allowable method of velocity measurement within the standard (section 6.3.2.2.). Can velocity measurement be taken using Doppler at point of impact, rather that the 2m specified distance?

Correct. Use of Doppler radar is permitted as a method of measuring velocity. Measurement of velocity at point of impact with Doppler radar is allowed.

22

Use of SMART Sheets to record results'. We use a software program, all data is stored at a server. This fulfils I presume, please confirm.

The SMART sheets will be provided by the technical partner. These shall be used for recording of all results however a test facility may use additional software for maintaining their own records.

23

Do you have the example drawing of the PBP rig for me? What do you want to check with the 'method of securing'?

The standard states: "PBP will be mounted on the test rig using any handles provided, in conjunction with the manufacturer’s guidance, to ensure it is tested in the same way it is intended to be used."

This means that the manner in which a PBP is held must replicate the manner in which it would be used. If it is free standing, it must be erected as a free standing armour, as per the manufacturer’s instructions. If it is a shield to be held, it must be secured to a frame only using the handles and straps as if being held by a user. In the assessment, the assessors will be looking for demonstration of a frame that is capable of being adjusted to hold a shield as per its intended use.

As shields will vary in size and design, the requirements for mounting the shield will be specific to each individual shield and a universal design has not been created for the standard for that reason.

24

Which size of formed armour panels for which female torso bust will you send for Test house accreditation?

A small and large formed armour panel will be provided for the small and large busts respectively. See section 4.3.1.2.

25

Is there a known supplier for the Torso Mould support blocks? (Drawings: M100883, M100895, M100893, M100888.) And the PBP simulant backing (Drawing number B100294)?

There are no suppliers for the Torso Mould supports. These would need to be manufactured / acquired by the test house. The support is needed to prevent the mould being damaged or tipping when being filled. It is at the discretion of the test house how they should best achieve this.