VinnyAces wrote:
1. We have had manufactures use this style as a selling point to eliminate the use of the balaclava.
Balaclava was added due to two concerns:
1. With just a face shield the hot gases can go "around the corner" behind the face shield.
2. You are not always going to be facing the direction of the arcing fault and may get hit at the back of the head.
That being said, I can easily see where a "parka" style hood with a button up mouth/nose protection would be identical to a balaclava.
Although 70E gives specific clothing recommendations associated with the tables, if you are using calculated incident energy values, then as explained in the annex, the PPE table goes away too. Using the table as a recommendation based on an engineering study of arc flash hazards is "backwards" and not what the table is intended for. In this case you go by the manufacturer recommendation and if they recommend a clothing system including face shield, jacket, hood, etc. that is specified for a specific cal/cm^2 rating then 70E allows this. We are seeing this now with a couple manufacturers that are manufacturing clothing with significantly lower weight cloth (oz/yard) that meets the required incident energy ratings.