medical checks - hearing
 

AFAIK helicopter crews are allowed some latitude because we wear headsets and can crank up the volume.

G. :ok:

JAR Class 1 Hearing Standards
 

UK CAA JAA Class 1 Hearing Standards are here - Audio - JAR Class 1 Hearing Standards | Medical | Safety Regulation

Quote:

---

However the hearing of experienced pilots at re-certification can be acceptable even if worse than the levels above, as JAR-FCL 3 Appendix 16 to Subparts B and C, paragraph 2 (b) states that: ‘If satisfactory hearing in a noise field corresponding to normal flight deck working conditions during all phases of flight can be demonstrated, recertification may be considered by the AMS (Aeromedical Section)’. This will usually take the form of a flight (real or simulated) with a training captain or instructor who reports that all tasks involving hearing were performed satisfactorily.

---

I have had to perform this hearing check on a CPL(H) student after an operation on his ears, which was satisfactory

The hearing loss that I and others flying the S92A have suffered is above 3000Hz thus currently no medical restrictions.

Searching for this thread to try and find the Norwegian report, I find the link given on page one doesn't seem to take you to an actual report: Forskning

Can a Norwegian speaker help? I found an index of publications but nothing that seemed relevant.

Thanks...

Hearing Loss in Civilian Airline and Helicopter Pilots Compared to Air Traffic Control Personnel - Transport Research International Documentation - TRID

Analysis of Helicopter Sound for the Development of A New Generation Active Headset (Conference Paper by Thomas L Lagö, Sven Johansson, Per-Anders Hellström) - Electronic Research Archive @ Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH)
Any help

500e, thanks but I thought there was a specific study for the S-92 referenced, following concerns by the Norwegian pilot union.

Being an active member of the Brass Ear Trumpet Brigade.....hearing loss is no fun.

Too many hours in the cab of a Wokka with antiquated hearing protection (or none at all) doomed me early on...and now I pay the penalty.

The real problem with a loss of High Frequency hearing is the increasing problem with differeniation....all consenants sound the same...b,c,d, t, v, z's....all blend together and if they come from cute wee kiddies or attractive young women (higher pitched voices)....they really blend together.

Throw in the clatter of beer mugs on granite....tinkling of silverware.....some background music...and the chatter of the throng....and it is lip reading time.

Throw in a good dose of Tinnitus....and forget ever having some Peace and Quiet....wonder why some old Men get cranky?

If you get to where you need "special" tests to keep your medical....you should be looking more towards finding a "Special Ed" Teacher to marry rather than struggling to keep your medical.

A note for those who think cranking the volume knob up is a cure....at some point you max out on the headset volume and the audio control box volume....and you still cannot understand what is being said. If you are using more volume.....you have a hearing problem that has nothing to do with sheer volume....but rather a differeniation problem....and volume shall not cure that.

Take care of your hearing....but know when to make the decision re which is more important....retaining your ability to hear or earning a paycheck by flying for a living.

SAS, thanks for the concern but I'm not worried about hearing loss from the S-92 (I think the AS332 did a pretty good job of that on its own!) It's a purely technical interest in relation to how ANR equipment functions.

212man - Try here: Whole-Body Vibration Noise Levels In The Cockpit - Jan Ivar Kåsin, November 2008. The S-92 specific section is pp14-22.

I/C

Pardon!!!

Sorry... I had to say it.:)

212....being a dull third grader on this topic....I always wondered how the ANR system "eliminates" noise. If you are sat next to a 350db transmission (picking a number out of the air here...but suggesting really really loud)...it would seem to me the screaming din remains even if you magically do not "hear" it anymore.

Thanks Ian - just what I was after. I saw the title listed but hadn't realised it was the one!

:eek: Unlikely to be at 350 dB - it's Logarithmic in the way it goes up. every 3 dB is DOUBLE the power, so 103 dB is twice the energy of 100 dB. 350 dB would turn you into a 'Pink Mist.' Even the LRAD Acoustic Weapon has a maximum continuous volume: 162dB (you don't want to hear that!) :sad:

120 dB = Threshold of discomfort
130 dB = Threshold of Pain
140 dB = Jet Aircraft (Full Power) at 50m

Assumption: The maximum sound pressure is 194 dBSPL that cannot be exceeded because the average air pressure of 101325 Pa. L = 20 × log (101325 / 0.00002) = 194 dB. RMS value is not peak value.
A typical false statement: "No noise levels can exceed 194 dB ever". Is the end at 194 dB? In addition to this perception threshold is discussed more often a physical limit to 194 dB. Sound is nothing more than a minor disturbance of air pressure and 194 dB is theoretically the same as the disturbance itself. It must be distorted. Even louder noise is possible, but much distorted". (Chaos).

This high sound pressure will break all measurement microphones and human beings are completely torn when they are close to the center of a nuclear explosion. No hearing protection (ear muffs or ear plugs) can help you there.

These madness sound levels will never be measured but only estimated or calculated. :ouch:

But it is true. the S-92 is awesomely loud in the front office, especially with the door open in the SAR role. :uhoh:

I can recommend a flying helmet with in-ear CEPs.

Do you know if there have been any measurements with door opened and closed?

Do you know how many extra dBs with the door open?

Dear mister SM,

I read somewhere else as well that you recommended wearing safety glasses in the cockpit.I hope for all the helicopter pilots out there,that you hold a function far away from being involved into what WE should wear or use.
The 92 should be redesigned,simple as that.
SK should wake up and realize that we are living in 2011,soon 2012,and that the times of extreme vibrations and retarded amounts of noise in a helicopter should have been left in the last century

end of rant,

rotorknight

It is the employers responsibility to protect his employees from noise, not an aircraft manufacturers as there are no certification requirements on this.

Car manufacturers have a responsibility to produce safe cars that are not hazardous for the driver to drive
Why not have similar standards for the aviation industry :confused:
Imagine a buss driver wearing hearing protection ?

just my pennies worth

Pv

They are safe - this is a matter of health.

SM, that's true, BUT the operators fly the helicopters that the Oil companies fancy. see AW139, was never designed for offshore flying. and is crumbling under the unexpected pressure that continuous offshore exposure has given it. being in the industry.

one ,at times, gets the idea that the only reason companies choose a certain type. relates to the big boys toys syndrome. everyone else has this shiny new helicopter so it must be fantastic. when the opposite is often the case. version 1.0 snags. lack of spares = low availability.

back to the issue at hand, havent been so (un)fortunate to have a flight in a S92 but have been in the cockpit when avionics is on. and its unbelievable loud.

and if the Oil companies are so interested in safety. they would focus of the working environment of the people that fly them back and forth as well as the safety equipment of the helicopter.

noisy environment = fatigue = faults = accidents.

The AW139 was never designed for offhore ops? Rubbish just look at the power, windows, raft locations, high rotors etc etc

Noise and vibration reduction is biased in favour of the pax who travel in the back once or twice a month
whilst we up front we travel back and forth each day
I wonder where oil company/manufactuers priorities lie ??

S92 jockie