Hearing loss - armed forces compensation scheme
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 51.5N 2W ish
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two pennies worth?
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
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
).
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
:
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
'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
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
).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
: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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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,
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,
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
I bet there are effective, but lower cost, ANR devices out there.
XFTroop
"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.
"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.
Last edited by tucumseh; 25th Jun 2012 at 19:53.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 51.5N 2W ish
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
XFT
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
XFT
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 51.5N 2W ish
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc-- thanks for that. Normally when I'm presented with a graph, my eyes glaze over
.
I think I've got it on this one, but could you paraphrase it, 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 ----.)
XFT
.I think I've got it on this one, but could you paraphrase it
, 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 ----
.)XFT
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ps, if anyone can guess the significance of my label, maybe the smilie will give a hint
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!).
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!).
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.
"about the same" The MO replied.
I'll have a look at this.
Last edited by AR1; 3rd Jul 2012 at 04:58.
