Active Noise Reduction Headsets

[Runaway Gun]

Does any military aircrew use ANR Headsets?

Following excellent briefings many years ago, the aviation Doctors taught me all about hearing damage, and the benefits of proper protection.

I asked then about ANR, and the reply was "They haven't been tested by the military, and besides, what if the batteries go flat?"

I have yet to see any in service, yet in civvy street they are all the rage.

[Black 'n Yellar]

RG
We were given little black ANR boxes on the Sea harrier after they worked out how much hearing damage we were getting. The figures for the back seat of the T Bird were particularly shocking. The little black box took 3 x 12v batteries and I would change them every 2 flights because when they did fail it also sounded like the engine was surging! Once the batteries failed it was even noisier than the old system. Having said that, I would never like to fly the Sea Jet without ANR once I had flown with it.
The wire from the black box was a pain as it was easy to snag. The box would usually fit into the thigh pocket with the wire attaching to a spilt in the pig tail helmet. There was talk of ANR being incorporated into the seat of the GR7 to avoid black boxes - but then again there is a lot of talk!

[mbga9pgf]

used as standard on the J. couldnt live without it on a herc front end now.

[tucumseh]

See:

http://defence-data.com/f2000/pagefa1013.htm

Used by Sea King AEW Mk2 and Mk7 aircrew since around 1999. Mk2 using battery box for power, Mk7 with full DA mod to aircraft and helmet. Developed by DERA Farnborough, helmet electronics by HISL and AMCC, aircraft mod by Westland.

[Kim Il Jong]

Sounds great, could do with a set for my bike helmet, my exhausts can smash windows!!:ok:

[propulike]

The 'J' version is powered by the aircraft intercom system, so there aren't any batteries. Should the ANR system fail/degenerate (usually just following servicing funnily enough) the headset has an ANR on/off switch to revert it back to an almost standard Atlantic headset. New H+S regs mean there is now a restriction on the number of flying hours each crew position can complete in a year without ANR functioning!
There was a trial to use a battery pack powered ANR in the K (which I remember worked very well until the back end was opened up) but it fell by the wayside after some planker decided it would be cheaper to pay deafened people compensation!

[Jucky]

Navy Lynx tested it last year on LOEU. Hopefully we might get it this year! If we're lucky!

[Onan the Clumsy]

3 x 12v batteries? :ooh:

not car batteries I hope


My Lightspeed takes two double As and if they pack up, it still works, just not in ANR mode

It also has a music input that works primo with an ipod, but that's a different story :ok:

[Green Flash]

I was on the range a couple of months ago and we were given ANR ear defenders. Worked a treat, a muffled 'chug' from the rifle but we could still hear the instructors whispered words of encouragement (cows backside/banjo, etc etc)!

[Descend to What Height?!?]

We used modified Atlantics for a number of years on a modified K out of Boscombe Down. They were excelent, apart from the batery box one and extra wire they had. One battery box lasted around 12-15 hours, so we would change them every sortie. We looked at getting a power socket added to sit next to the standard com boxes, but Boscombe's solution was too expensive.
As said above, if they ran out of juice, then you switched off the ANR function and had a standard Atlantic, all be it a we bit larger and heavier.

The only problem I had was if wearing sun glasses. Even with the wonderfull (?) issued pattern , you could not get a good seal around the ear pieces. This led to vibration induced noise feedback, that could be very bad. This is one of the reasons I think that this model was never issued to all the K fleet.

Of interest, we had a noise survey done by Boscombe in the back of our Herc, and readings over 95dBA were common at various locations. It was noticable on our medicals that over the 10 years I flew, I got a hearing gap at certain frequencies, the MO said was a direct result of flying.

[Runaway Gun]

Good point. Has anyone ever received compensation as a result of their hearing loss?

[tucumseh]

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-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000322/text/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………..

[LXXIV]

Good point. Has anyone ever received compensation as a result of their hearing loss?
Just prior to retiring, I arranged a proper (as compared to the Lyneham SSQ variety), audiology test at PM RAF Wroughton, in order to buttress my intended claim for hearing loss caused, as I thought, by 9000+ hrs in Albert, as well as 1000+ hrs in Bevs and Hastings. I had been downgraded for hearing loss for some years, but as the nice Indian chappie at CME said "When you start missing the punch line of jokes, then you should start worrying" In the meantime, "You've got the best hearing aid in the world, your aircrew headset".
Despite my history of noise exposure, the very patient retired Air Commode at Wroughton who examined me asked from which shoulder I had fired a rifle. I pointed out that it was at least thirty years or so since that happened. He persisted. I told him "right shoulder". "Typical gunshot deafness" he said, "nothing to do with the aircraft, the initial trauma is from the gunshot". Just what I wanted to hear. In answer to Runaway Gun's query, the answer is yes. After several attempts I managed to get my hearing loss upgraded to 19% (It's nearly always 19%, any more would qualify you for a permanent pension, rather than a lump sum, funny, that). This forms part of my 50% War Disablement Pension - the usual ALM knee replacements, arthritis, etc. account for the rest.
LXXIV

[DryV1]

LXXv1
You were the lucky one! After being downgraded to A2G1Z1 before leaving service due to "Hercules ear" I recently tried to claim compensation. After seeing (or was that hearing) consultant audiologist I was told "You will certainly get something for that".
Nice War Pensions people told me "Yes you have in excess of 20% hearing loss but we have decided you are 0% disabled by it therefore no money, non- appealable decision-Goodbye!"
Nice, after 16 years.

Happy flying

[country calls]

The new K intercom system is fuly fitted for ANR power, so you can imagine my total disbelief when I was told that there was going to be no funding for issuing K blokes with ANR. And yes the MOD were happy to take the compensation claims as it is cheaper, or as I suspect out of somebody elses money pot.

This blatant disregard for the right of a person to work in a safe environment is criminal negligence at the very least. I will put good money on betting that every one of us can quote some instance of HSAW gone mad, where huge amounts are spent on some trivial infringement of some obscure ruling (MOD office chairs anyone for starters?) So how come the rules can be disregarded on this matter.

Can anyone tell me where I can see this amazing policy decision in writing to accept the compo risk, as I intend enabling some young corporate lawyer to make a name for his/herself taking on a government department in a high profile compensation case, as soon as I leave Her Majesty's employ.

[The Nr Fairy]

The US Army, I seem to recall, has available earphones which go into the ear canal andsubstantially reduce the volume of outside noise reaching the ear, and also the volume of sound required on intercom/radio to hear clearly - see http://www.cep-usa.com for more details. As an example, I bought some Shure headphones of a similar design, halved the volume on my MP3 player even on the tube while still able to hear well enough to speak to other people - the results in an aviation environment I would imagine are similar.

Advantages - no batteries, passive. Disadvantages - require integration with headset / helmet, and need careful fitting to ensure comfort for long periods.

[tucumseh]

Disadvantages - require integration with headset / helmet, and need careful fitting to ensure comfort for long periods.


Trialled and rejected by MoD in early 90s for exactly the reasons you note. The UK design, if I recall, needed a mould taken of ones ear canal. I believe it was sold to Formula 1 instead, and even they with their huge budgets seem to use sticky tape. An alternative, rejected on cost grounds, was to replace the earshell transducers (cheap and nasty) with a French design (great). The problem is aircrew need to hear audio cues (warning tones etc) and they must be at the correct relative levels. And one must differentiate between ANR for aircrew and for passengers. In many cases, cockpit and cabin.

[STANDTO]

What?...........quarter past three:uhoh:

[White Noise]

be interested to know how many have suffered significant hearing loss from flying both sudden and gradual.

[GreenWings]

Good point. Has anyone ever received compensation as a result of their hearing loss?

My g/f's father is on an increased pension due to flying Pumas for too long and suffering hearing damage because of it. He left the RAF in the eighties.

GW

[27mm]

Left the service in the early 90s, having ben downgraded to A2G1Z1 with high-tone hearing loss from FJ flying. The War Pensions Dept sent an audiologist round to my home and after the test awarded me a one-off war pension payment of just over 3000 pounds. Things must have changed since then......

[Bigtop]

Noise related injury was a hot topic at a couple of mtgs/forum I attended last year.
Basic jist appeared to be that due to the annual audiogram at the aircrew medical then the docs can monitor the process of going deaf and provide the court with good evidence. Additionally the provision of helmets etc insinuate a compliance with duty of care.
Any suggestion that you have a hobby such as shooting, use a black & decker at weekends etc then best you have the missus video you in yr ear duffs - I was a bit sceptical but judging from some of the quoted cases sounds as though the legal stance is quite tough.

Having been a chippy before I joined seems like I'm stuffed!!

[tucumseh]

Bigtop

"Additionally the provision of helmets etc insinuate a compliance with duty of care"


Not so. The MoD were advised that the passive attenuation offered by the various aircrew helmets was insufficient. They accepted this, evidenced by the various endorsed requirements to reduce the noise dose of helmet wearers to 85dB(A). The important point is that, when helmets were the ONLY available protection, they were seen to be meeting Duty of Care. Since the advent of a viable system (i.e. one that can actually be engineered into a helmet) then the Duty of Care has not been met. See my previous post about notification, plus reasonable time to implement. To avoid getting bogged down in decibel notation, the concept of "allowable flying hours" was raised. That it was accepted is again evidenced by it being the justification for endorsed requirements.

Googe "anr + Farnborough" and you'll find people who know far more about it than me and will provide the necessary evidence to support you.