Active Noise Reduction Headsets
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tamil Nadu
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
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.
"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.
