Re- Compensation
MoD sought advice on this. While never tested (to my knowledge), it went something like – having been advised of the legal noise dose limit of 85dB(A) they have a “reasonable time” to implement protective measures. (A lower limit of 75dB(A) was being mooted but I don’t know if it’s been accepted). In practice, they would have to conduct noise surveys in each aircraft Type and Mark, design an ANR solution (the simple broadband ANR used in e.g. Warrior is unsafe in an aircraft as it masks aural cues, and that used in a Lynx would be no use in a Harrier), testing, trials, aircraft installation etc etc. And, of course, the all important funding. The clock would run at notification + three years. About 1986 I believe but willing to be proved wrong.
In practice, MoD chose to largely ignore the problem. Propulike is not wrong – it’s cheaper to pay compensation and hope that few seek it. I don’t agree with this approach but who am I……. Some DEC officers (mainly deaf aircrew!) ignored the wrath of beancounters by including it in the odd requirement. One or two DPA PMs chose to make it a requirement because that is how they interpreted their Duty of Care obligation.
Read this link::
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/00322w07.htm
The best way of getting ANR is to have the chairman of your aircraft’s Constraints Working Group tag excessive noise dose as a Health and Safety Constraint, then DEC MUST address it. That way, it’s a matter of record and if they don’t supply it and you go deaf, litigation is made easier. If you have to make a case, in addition to quoting noise dose / H&S, quote the operational effectiveness benefits arising from improved speech intelligibility (say again) and reduced fatigue; and, for you ASW guys, the increased sonar detection range (as a good Obs listens and hears before the he sees it on the display). But there again, that would make a Wessex 3 with ANR better than a Merlin………..