Hearing loss - armed forces compensation scheme

[stablelad]

I have heard rumours of a £2k compensation if you are down graded to H2 due to you're work enviroment. Does anybody have any more info. Ta!

[Pontius Navigator]

While still serving or once you have left?

I was "lucky" a colleague who is more profoundly deaf than I am got nothing. My disabilty was defined at around 4% - that was cruical to keep me below an overall 20%.

If you are less than 20% disabled then you will be awarded a one-off sum. 20% and more you will get a pension.

If your award based on less than 20% was, say £4500, but a 20% pension was say £1500, and you were reassessed at 20% inside 3 years then you pension would become payable after that initial award was used up.

The RBL can best advise.

[Rossian]

....a long time ago.
One chap I knew heard this being discussed in the bar at lunchtime (yes, it was a long time ago) and decided that it was a really good wheeze (he was a bit mutt and Geoff anyway). So at next annual medical laid on the "EH? DOC -speak up a bit". "Ooooer" says the quack best we do a proper evaluation.
"Very sorry Fred we'll have to withdraw your aircrew med cat. Buggah!!
He lost his flying pay for his last two years of service. Double buggah!
He was wingeing in the bar later about why people had thought it was a good deal.
It had to be explained in one syllable words that you did this pantomime on the DISCHARGE MEDICAL, not before.
However, as he is no longer with us I suppose that "de mortuis nil nisi bonum" should restrain my additional comments.

The Ancient Mariner

[A2QFI]

Time was that the system seemed to set up to avoid paying out anything. Hearing loss was assessed below 2500 Hz (About Middle C on a piano) However most military induced hearing loss (whistling jets, gunfire, propeller whine etc) occurs above this frequency. My hearing graph falls like the North face of the Eiger but only above 3500 HZ!

[sharpend]

I'm as deaf as a post, but got nothing :ugh:

[stablelad]

Thank you for all replies.
I am led to believe that you can have the compensation whilst serving but it is a one off payment, so it is best to be claimed on leaving in case you're hearing gets worse whilst still serving.

SL

[Rigga]

That £2K has to be a joke!?

I am not deaf at all (in my opinion) but I got £1500 13 years ago.

Go to the Royal British Legion for advice and get the job done properly - DO NOT get messed with RAF or any other associations.

RBL has expertise in this and understands better than all others what is required for compensation cases.

Best of luck.

[tucumseh]

My advice would be to read up on this and claim.


The legal position, explained to those who have a duty of care, is that as soon as a technical solution becomes available, the clock runs on litigation. There is a brief period of grace while the project is approved. If the MoD wants to seek a waiver from the legislation, the Secretary of State must sign it. I’ve never seen one, although one may exist. The intent of the legislation is such that waivers are temporary and to meet an urgent requirement.



For aircrew who wear helmets (as opposed to headsets), the clock began running in 1997. After that date, MoD haven’t a leg to stand on. To be fair to OR branches in London, on 25.8.98 they sought advice on how to initiate a Tri-Service aircrew hearing protection project (the idea was to establish an IPT). However, the reply from MoD(PE), dated 1.9.98 and in the form of a Board Submission seeking the funding to kick off the programme, was buried as there was too much opposition from on high.



I mention this because, if pursued, MoD are likely to claim the clock runs from issue of the Defence Technology Strategy (2007, page 129). Even then, when asked at the time, the Centre said the DTS was only an initial acknowledgement there may be a problem; which was disingenuous given the technical solution (at 85dB(A)) had been in service for 11 years and upgraded to meet new legislation (75dB(A)) in 2001. As a result of the DTS, the Nimrod IPT (for example) issued an ITT in 2007 to conduct a Research and Development contract into the concept, with an aim of achieving 85dB(A). When one bidder pointed out the spec they were seeking had been obsolete since 2001, and a better solution was actually in service, the MD was bollocked and the company effectively blackballed. That’s what you’re up against.



Best of luck. If you want the ANY of the above evidence, PM me.

[Pontius Navigator]

Rigga, my experience mirrors yours. However my friend's mirrors Tums.

Sometime before 1999, the compensation was generous, as the MOD could be, and given generously. Then they tightened up an tightened more.

Inititally we were told not to wear headsets on the flight line as we would not hear a shouted warning. Then we would be around jets engine running etc etc. Around 1976 on the Nimrod we had a number of audiometric scientists measuring the audio levels and trialling different types of headset. The ones we used then were simple plastic shells carrying an earpiece.

Proper audiometric testing was introduced around then too.

At the same time, when we visited Keflavik we used to cadge the USN earplugs. I even had an appointment with a USN(R) Cdr who tested my hearing and provided a set of plugs in my size. Can you imagine an RAF doc doing that?

By 1981 we had proper headsets with a level of noise attenuation.

By 1990 you could not move on the flight line without hearing protection.

This shows both an acceptance by aircrew, and a realisation by the system, going back to the early '70s.

Notwithstanding active measures taken to protect aircrew hearing (I can't speak for groundcrew) there still existed a gap in protection. For instance one place I worked had a 'noise tunnel' outside which captured the noise of jets taking off. It was not concentrated noise but sufficient to continue to exacerbate an initial problem.

As an aside, one part of my frequency loss was in a range often attributable to gunfire. I never told them that we had a full-bore shooting range at school which was in a quarry and we had no hearing protection at all.

[cliver029]

Pontius that's most enlightening but I wonder what the situation is regarding ground-crew deafness caused by working in close proximity to jet engines.

I am currently being assessed by my local ENT consultant for tinnitus and progressive deafness which they say could only be caused by extensive exposure to Jet noise.

I have not so fond memories of defective ear defenders leaking Glycerine down my collar and being told no more in stock put tissue paper in them that helps, this both in the UK and the Far East but a long way in the past now!

CDR

[Fareastdriver]

There is of course the other source of hearing damage; gunfire. Older members may recall that groundcrew were expected to be proficient in using the .303 rifle, and that has got an earshattering crack in, as most old men with hearing aids will testify, the right ear.

As PN says, in the seventies walking around helicopters without ear defenders or helmets was normal and little can beat the sound of the intakes of a Puma. I suffer from high tone deafness and tinitus to a mild degree, not ehough to effect a medical, but enough for me to have received a one off payment.

Interestingly they wrote to me a few years later and told me that as my condition had not deteriorated I was not entitled to any further payments.

How did they know?

[Shack37]

Pontius that's most enlightening but I wonder what the situation is regarding ground-crew deafness caused by working in close proximity to jet engines.


Cliver029
We are the same age and my experiences are also from a long time ago, demobbed in 1971 after nine years as groundcrew. No jets, total service life on Shacks.

In 2002 during an offshore medical I was advised to think about getting hearing aids against the probability of failing the next one. The examining doctor also asked if I had served in the RAF and spent time near engines as my deafness (high tone) was typical of that.
I decided to make a claim which was rejected. On appeal I was invited to attend a tribunal where I was represented by the RBL.

The appeal was also turned down on the grounds that my hearing loss had worsened since leaving the service therefore the MoD was not responsible for my condition. Shortly before I left the RAF all first line groundcrew at Ballykelly were given an audio test similar to that done on medicals which would have demonstrated my hearing standard on demob. We were not given a copy of the results at the time nor could the MoD produce a record of the test for the tribunal.

As someone mentioned before, get help from RBL, don't represent yourself. If you can show that your hearing now is as it was on demob it's important. The rationale is that once you are removed from the noisy environment ie engines, your hearing should not deteriorate further.

Also if you appeal a rejected claim MoD are obliged to provide you with a copy of your service medical record showing your joining and release medical examinations.

Good luck

[Pontius Navigator]

If you can show that your hearing now is as it was on demob it's important. The rationale is that once you are removed from the noisy environment ie engines, your hearing should not deteriorate further.

This is a typical 'trust me I'm a Doctor' response'. Essentially noise induced hearing loss is a on-off (they say). Any deterioration after you have been removed from that environment is due to aging (they say).

hearing loss that was probably caused by excessive noise exposure,
with superimposed age-related changes

would appear to be the basis for saying that further deterioration after removal from the noise source is not due to that historic noise.

This seems a well used reference:

http://hannaziegler.tripod.com/ent/varia/rabinowi.pdf but seems to support age-related change theory.

Here is another:

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss - Weill Cornell Department of Surgery (http://www.cornellsurgery.org/patients/health/ent_noise.html)

I wonder if there is any contrary research?

[Shack37]

This is a typical 'trust me I'm a Doctor' response'. Essentially noise induced hearing loss is a on-off (they say). Any deterioration after you have been removed from that environment is due to aging (they say).


PN
I agree with you. It was because of a doctor's comments initially that I made the claim. Unfortunately it was on the opinion of the Tribunal's doctor, a Professor no less, that my appeal was rejected for the reason mentioned. My RBL representative told me on the way out of a comment made by this Professor....."MoD 3 Claimants 0, not a very Christmassy outcome"

[tucumseh]

If I could make an observation. Most of the posts are discussing a period in time when a viable technical solution was not available, so all parties accept "**** happens" (a legal term) and a small amount of compo is paid. Akin to being wounded in the line of duty.

It is another thing altogether for a viable and cost effective solution to be available, but MoD knowingly abrogate their duty of care to save money. The line is crossed. This is made even worse when the solution is introduced into one aircraft type, but a deliberate decision made not to broaden the fit. On what basis was the lucky aircraft/crew selected? What makes it even worse is MoD owns the IPR to, probably, the best design around, yet a scattergun approach to procurement means a raft of different, and far less effective, systems are in service. Of course, it is entirely possible MoD doesn't actually realise they own the design, given the pan-MoD initiative died a death 12 years ago. Witness the Nimrod example I cited.

[Pontius Navigator]

While Tuc's comment, **** happens, is no doubt true so is the comment about the way noise was treated in different groups.

In a particular role the CoC was far more concerned with driving the chinagraph line up the graph, with meeting its tasking, with getting good taceval scores - which ever way their promotion exams were assessed.

To battle for an expensive and diversionary issue such as noise attentuation or building insulation (when efficiency and economy measures were not part of the exam) was nuggatory.

My point had been that the problem was widely recognised in aircrew trades by the mid-70s and in other trades probably earlier the most obvious solution, albeit expensive, was to remove, or reduced the exposure, of those with hearing loss from the environment.

I was downgraded in about 1980 but not told that hearing protection would mitigate against further loss or that removal from the environment would stop further loss. Instead I was posted to Shackletons.

From a personal point of view I would have preferred to remain flying but from an audiometric point or view I should have been re-roled to a quieted aircraft.

Was this a failure in duty of care as early as 1980 or simply that the issue, while increasingly recognised outside the medical profession had not reached the Air Sec's Department?

[DICKYMINT]

I went to the docs and said I had hearing problems, he said "what are the symptoms?", I said a cartoon family from America.......

seriously......MoD may be looking at a a trial for a new cure for Tinnitus very shortly a little bird shouted in my ear last week.

[November4]

In the early 1990s, I was diagnosed with tinitus which the doctor at Wroughton wrote down was due an incident when I was in a civilian aircraft which depressurised. I didn't see my notes at the time nor did I know he had written that in my notes.

I left in 2006 and due to knee trouble and having to have operations on them, I put a claim in for a war pension. On the form, I also put down that I had hearing loss and tinitus. I was tested but the claim was rejected due to the incident on a civilian aircraft and not being on duty as well as it being age related.

As I could not remember being on a civilian aircraft, I checked through my notes and was travelling by RAF AT around that time, I was not on any civil aircraft at all. I said all that to the War Pension people and they made a note. Where the Doc got that from I have no idea at all....

I was sent to be examined by an audiologist. He determined that my hearing loss was age related and it didn't add anything to my pension for knees....I was 46 when tested!

On reflection, I should have looked at the appeals and got the RBL involved - I didn't as I was so surprised at being awarded a WP for my knees that I didn't push it.

[Pontius Navigator]

November4, good news. That you have no allowance for your hearing is quite normal.

The shysters initially graded me at 19% - hearing 4% and back at 15% - ergo a grant but no pension.

A while later I applied for a reassessment and was regraded 20% for my back this giving a total of 20%. The next grade (or degrade) would give 40%.

You can apply for a reassessment at any time. Be advised that from the time the reassessment forms are sent you have a limited time in which to gather the evidence and return them. IIRC it is 3 months (may be 6). After a successful reassessment a new award dates from the date you applied and not the date of assessment.

Another tip is to take your other half with you. You will have coped with your problems for some time and got used to modifying your behaviour such that you don't notice. Mrs OH OTOH will have noticed that you can only get up stairs one leg leading or one step rather than two. You take a lift when ever you can. You avoid certain activities etc etc.

The assessing doctor I had was completely independent and if anything biased towards me. I was also 'fortunate' to be going through a bad spell. I had a good write up from my own GP and an even better one from my Chiropractor (both free).

[November4]

Thanks for the advice PN.

I was initial classed at 30% but after the 2nd op, I updated the pension people that I had another just to keep their records straight. They sent out another Doc as "I had applied for reassessment". He then made it 40% for knees and back. Happy with that.

I have to say that the assessing Doctors (apart from the audiologist) were definitely on my side and wanted to assess me fairly. Both said they would try and get me as much as they could. 1 was ex RAMC and the other was ex-Police FME.

Well would be happier if I was not in pain so not be eligible for a war pension....

[XFTroop]

When I had my "retirement" medical in 2002 (after 34 years, 27 of them occupying a non-window seat on an Albert's flight deck), I asked the SMO about the state of my hearing. I knew that my hearing scores had been degrading just about every year for the last 12 or so annual medicals. I was also aware that 3 or 4 of my aircrew colleagues who had left (PVR'd) at various times over the previous 10 years had received lump sum payments for "knackered hearing". These chaps had spent a lot less time on the a/c than I so I was hopeful for a similar sort of settlement.
'Twas not to be however, SMO's reply was something to the effect that:
" they changed the rules a few years ago and 'tho you would have qualified then, you don't now, hard luck":(
Ah well it was worth a try I suppose. I've now got used to asking people to speak up, not being able to follow conversations in noisy pubs etc and wearing wi-fi headphones to listen to the TV so rest of family can have normal volume set.
All my fault of course, nowt to do with having worked for so long in a noisy environment:hmm:

Any way, while chatting to a mate about this situation, he mentioned that there were moves afoot to issue C130-K crews with the new ANR headset like the "shineys" on the J were using. On my final day (just before I handed in my 1250), he handed me a copy of the Minutes for a Station Flight Safety Meeting held at the "Secret Wiltshire Airbase", dated 22 Feb 2001. (He said I might find it of interest:confused:).
So for those who might find some use for it here-be the Item of interest, copied verbatum with my own highlight of info of possible interest:E:
It is Item 3--Update on Ongoing Matters--sub para 4--ANR Headsets.

4. ANR Headset. The DERA report on the C130-K ANR trial had shown that the current noise levels, with correctly fitting headsets, were in the range 76-83db. These levels were below the first mandatory action level, as laid out by the Health and Safety Executive, of 85db. Indeed, ANR technology would only reduce these noise levels by between 4 and 20db. However, speech intelligibility would be improved and noise induced fatigue would be reduced. Aircrews who were flying C130-J with ANR headsets had expressed a noticeable improvement on speech intelligibility and reduced fatigue on long flights. Furthermore, the cost of an ANR headset for the C130-K was estimated at £800 compared with £350 for the Atlantic headset. It was noted that cheaper smaller devices were now available in the USA, but they had not been evaluated for RAF use. Even after consideration of the MOD “Spend to Save “doctrine, given the evidence currently available, litigation would probably not exceed the £350,000 cost to equip all C130- aircrew. Therefore, ANR headsets were unlikely to find budgetary support.
a. Decision. With current evidence, ANR headsets on the C130-K were unlikely to be approved. FS action closed, unsuccessfully.

Ho-Hum:*
XFT

[Pontius Navigator]

XFT, your SMO stuffed you. Whether you were qualified or not was nothing to do with him at all. As we have said, and it bears repeating, you apply to the Veterans and Pensions Agency and are well advised to do so through the RBL.

The RBL send you a release authority so that they can access your Service medical records. You are given a POC and they take it from there.

Now given that you hearing due to noise induced hearing loss has not deteriorated further (by definition) a hearing test today would give a value of NIHL plus 10 years of age-related hearing loss.

Now, supposing the new test was close to the old results shown in your notes then you have a prima facie case for NIHL compensation. If there is a further significant loss then a second medical opinion might clarify whether it is purely age-related or a combination.

Contact the RBL,

[Pontius Navigator]

I was fortunate to fly Emirates business class. We were given larger headsets than in cattle and they reduced the cabin noise. When switched on however there was a further significant reduction in noise. Rather than listen to the film I simply used the headset for ANR and sleep.

I bet there are effective, but lower cost, ANR devices out there.

[tucumseh]

XFTroop

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/exploringtheblue/C130noise.jpg

"Figure 3-4 compares the cockpit noise environment for
the 4-bladed propeller driven Hercules C130K and the 6-bladed propeller driven C130J. The plot shows how
the blade passing frequency (68 Hz and 102 Hz for the C130K and C130J respectively) dominates the whole
cockpit noise spectrum. Similarly, passengers transported in the cargo compartment of this type of aircraft
will also be exposed to high noise levels. In the C130J, noise levels of up to 118 dB are experienced in the
forward cargo compartment just forward of the propeller plane".


The quoted passage from the station meeting minutes is largely meaningless for quite detailed mathematical reasons, but put simply the length of time C130 crews are continuously exposed is a significant factor. Elsewhere in this NATO report the plight of the C130 ground crews is dicussed - their noise dose is even higher. The comment about "only" 4-20dB reduction is disingenuous. 4dB is a huge amount and 20dB astronomical, in this context. A 4dB reduction would increase the allowable flying hours per year by hundreds of hours in most applications.

As PN says, a finance driven decision. The solution has always been to have excessive noise dose inserted as a H&S constraint in the aircraft Constraints Document. Watch the financiers run.

[XFTroop]

PN, thanks for that; I'll try your RBL plot. Being of your vintage and as an aging member of SODCAT, widowered and with not a lot to do apart from e-mail the sons now flown the nest and walking faithful dog, I will now embark on this with relish. I'm not desperate for extra income so I pledge any advantage to the H4H fund (my no. 2 son currently at Bastion doing helio front seat stuff).

SP I totally agree; there are too many of the services highly paid ilk looking after their their own futures for those lower down the ladder to benefit.:\

ps, if anyone can guess the significance of my label, maybe the smilie will give a hint:E

XFT:cool::cool:

[XFTroop]

Tuc-- thanks for that. Normally when I'm presented with a graph, my eyes glaze over:sad:.
I think I've got it on this one, but could you paraphrase it:confused:, just in case.

It would be nice if some current C130-K operator can confirm if they now operate with ANR headsets ( or maybe I should repeat my request----CAN ANY CUURRENT C130-K CREW CONFIRM THAT THEY NOW USE ANR HEADSETS ----:E.)

XFT

[Shack37]

ps, if anyone can guess the significance of my label, maybe the smilie will give a hinthttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


Could it be 206 Sqn at Kinloss before joining Albert? They were nicknamed F Troop back then (after the US Cavalry series on TV)

[tucumseh]

XFTroop

What this NATO report of 2010 is saying is that both the pilots, and anyone in the rear, of the C130 variants in the RAF suffer excessive noise dose - in varying degrees. The point is it seems to contradict the information you were given some years ago.

To the figures shown in the graph you must add the noise from intercom, which in C130 is very high (according to the same report), exceeded only by the likes of HS125. The noise must be measured at the operator's ear; not simply in the cockpit/cabin space (which would not include intercom noise).
It is not unusual for crew in different seats to be exposed to different levels of noise, at different frequencies. Furthermore, what this graph illustrates is that the dominant frequencies in a C130 are quite low compared to, for example, helicopters where they tend to be related to transmission components nearer 1kHz.

This means the solution must target specific frequencies to be effective. It must also let the subject hear certain audio cues, which differ from aircraft to aircraft. For this reason, a broadband ANR system, similar to those used by troops in the back of APVs, is more often than not useless (and dangerous) in an aircraft. Most commercial ANR systems fall into this category. This is why MoD developed their own. (Yet from various PMs I've received it seems some aircrew have been given simplistic broadband systems).

There are two basic ways around this. First, you design a raft of analog systems, each designed for a particular application; which brings major logistic problems and expense. Or, you have a digital, programmable system in which the EPROM in the headset/helmet is "blown" if you change environments. (Meaning, in the main, changing between aircraft types, but retaining your own, properly fitted, helmet; which is a major factor in all this. How many have a laser mapped/cut helmet shell? It adds a few pounds to the cost, but makes the system infinitely more effective. This has been on offer at MoD's supplier since about 1996, but seldom if ever used. The biggest expense is actually sending the aircrew to the factory for a half day to be fitted).

The former (analog) was used in what was effectively the Technology Demonstrator Programme in MoD, for one aircraft fleet. This was rendered obsolescent in 2000 following successful trials of the latter. Thereafter, it was a "simple" case of conducting noise surveys in each aircraft and modifying the basic software accordingly.

It was at this point (2000) the job could no longer be progressed by the lead project team, as they only had control over their own aircraft. It needed a higher level, pan-MoD requirement to be endorsed. As I said above, this had been anticipated and the Board Submission prepared in 1998, so that the wider programme could follow-on seamlessly. But work ceased, or at least slowed down to a crawl, because the practical problem in MoD is that such programmes need a "champion", and that usually means a technical expert/Staff Officer who can both articulate the requirement and staff it through the disbelievers. And has time to do it. The MoD system militates against this. Hence, the scattergun, uncoordinated approach we see.


The main problem faced by project teams in MoD is the failure to integrate the R&D work (in this case, Applied Research Packages) and the application of the technology (Development, Production, In-Service). The APRs would deliver the theory, but there was no practical means of PTs knowing what this had produced, so a lot of wheel reinventing went on.

AbbeyWood has (had?) an outfit called FBG who were meant to coordinate things like this. A database was planned in the late 90s - you type in a key word like "noise" and up popped a list of ARPs, endorsed requirements, contracts, who uses what, points of contact etc. That this didn't materialise is obvious, witness (again) the Nimrod example from 2007 when they sought to repeat (unwittingly at first, then deliberately) R&D from the 70s and 80s; when all it need was to walk next door and ask for a floppy disk of the work finished years ago by their neighbouring IPT.

Hope this helps. (You did ask!).

[AR1]

Mosat interesting thread. I asked on depature what was the difference in my hearing between joining and leaving.
"about the same" The MO replied.

I'll have a look at this.