OH and S issues notwithstanding, positioning the crew rest in such an exposed area would make the fight crew more vunerable to anyone looking for opportunities to disable/hyjack an aircraft.

Ok, I'll bite...So, you've overwhelmed the crew in the rest area, how does that mean you control the aircraft when, I believe, there's another capable individual (at least) sitting in the cockpit behind a secure door?

:confused:

Ok I'll reply then. Taking the commander of the aircraft hostage, may or may not give a hostile person/group enough leverage to convince junior crew to open the door. There are no absolutes here Hyman, only risk assesments.

It's called risk assessment, Ron & Edna. They honestly believe they've put a system in place where nothing will go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...

Let's not go near the "mandatory use of the highest level of automation at all times" debate.

To me this should be approached as a security issue. Any time a crew member has to open the cockpit door, it creates a security vulnerability, which can be exploited if planned for.

At my last airline, the crewrest was positioned behind the bullet proof cockpit door to keep cockpit door openings to an absolute minimum.

Out of site out of mind. The flight crew were never visible unless absolutely necessary.

If the media were to discover the increased risk to security with the EK crew rest configuration, I think there could be a rethink on EK's part.

Not knowing if there is an EK pilots group, these types of organisations are what bring issues like this to managemants attention.

Umm, on a probability basis, an in-flight technical emergency is far more likely than an attempt to take over the flight deck! Or have we truly let emotion take over when we think the security aspects of all this are more important than off-duty crew proximity to the flight-deck?!

On ships they don't put Captains' wardrooms in the engine-room, for some good reason...!

R and E, your assumptions maybe correct.

But if you are looking for a way to convince managemant to reverse a decision or change direction, security concerns will give you more bang for your buck, especially when it comes to news headlines and the paying passenger.

The following headline "Emirates Vulnerable to Attack", on international news systems would certainly get managements attention.

How would you explain that you are the only airline with this configeration, and on what basis was it selected. The media would have a field day.

Solution
 

Interesting problem with a simple solution. Earplugs. Or if you want to get real cute, we can design a noise cancellation system by nulling out the audio frequency's below say..16KHz. How do we accomplish this? By generating a audio signals of equal amplitude and opposite phase. :oh:

intelligent idea!

Such a system has been installed on the Saab2000. The big props had some vibrations that were uncomfortable. The sound system to counteract worked for the passengers, however it gave the standing cabin crew headaches.
So what, it's only crew.....

One more question: How do you confine the noise generation to the CRC? Why not just tear some insulation out of the 380, it's too heavy anyway.

Simple...have the system confined in the CRC. In other words mic and speaker in crew rest facility. The most difficult part of this project would be the signal processing but it's do able (and has been done in other applications...). I'll let airbus figure out the rest. Got the sytsem blocks in my head right now but that's airbus's job. Not mine:=

PS In my system set up, cabin crew members and pax would not be affected.

I've been told by an "expert" that Noise cancelling headsets that create white noise can cause permanent damage to your Ears if you use them too much?

So I guess the SAAB 2000 and Q system on the Dash could also cause damage over time????

Anyone else heard this info?

Aren't we 'canceling/reducing' audio levels here with NC headphones? I don't believe damage is done to the human ear If you reduce sound waves to relatively low db levels. Am I wrong?

However, if one were exposed to 'white noise' by itself (@ reasonable db levels...), then, I could see where possible damage may occur..

noise cancellation
 

Not a pilot, am a retired electrical engineer, and a serious amateur audio guy.

If you amplified the white noise NC headsets produce high enough, of course it could damage your hearing. Also true if you amplified the sound of a baby breathing high enough.

But that white noise is not the way they cancel noise, but a result of imperfections in the the implementation. The moderate amounts I've heard are likely no more harmful at equal level than cabin noise from the engines. And, as in fact lower level, less harmful.

You badly need a new expert.

Get what?

Perhaps their training may or may not be a factor here. Besides, get some RC equipment in the cockpit & it's a moot point really....

Ok, let's try this again.

Problem
EK crew members are experiencing random noise due to location of CRC. Mistake is already made. So, we learn from it and correct it. No? What I am trying to do hear is come up with solutions.

Possible Solutions
1. Insulate room (Already ruled out...)
2. Move CRC (Not practical at this stage)
3. Earplugs, Headsets etc...(Simple and effective)
4. Noise cancelling audio system (More elaborate but effective)

Here's how it (4) would work (from an engineering point of view):

Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) - Block Diagrams, Reference Designs and Recommended Products

With this system audio levels will be reduced (LOW db levels). You won't be HEARING anything! The idea isn't farcical or ridiculous. It's the engineering/scientific solution to the problem.

Regards,
Bradda G (Engineer/Rec. Pilot) aka the imbecile one :ok:

it's not too late
 

perhaps EK could modify their order for the next 45+ A380's they have on order and ask for the crew rest to be in the usual position directly behind the cockpit? Since other airlines have it here the engineering issues would be minor, and I wouldn't have thought having a "mixed" fleet would cause any training/SOP issues etc etc......

could finally show the lose face mentality has gone.....

Of course, having crew rest at the far end of the plane does force the flightdeck to mix with the stewardesses and customers, which might be a good thing. The worst thing in customer service is to never go face to face with the people you are serving, think of call centers... totally remote..

G

Yes and No. I have a fix for that already:ok:. Don't wanna give away my ideas tho' without some compensation:= :). Airbus gotta figure it out.

As for the spatial and source capture issue, I have my own creative approaches but again I will leave it up to airbus.

Have a good one...:ok:

I would have thought that at the levels we're talking about, noise as such does not really cause fatigue.
If anything, a bit of low-level, expected and familiar noise will help you to go to sleep.

When you're asleep, you're not totally unconscious.... Sudden unexpected noises, or even the sudden stopping of a familiar noise (dare I mention engine noise?) are quite capable of waking you up.

Active noise cancelling becomes relevant when the noise level is such, that it actually causes fatigue, or otherwise interferes with the work you're doing.
It seems to make little sense in a CRC.

I would far prefer the iPod idea, with an under-pillow loudspeaker so you're not bothered by the earpieces or the wire.
Put on something you like, something relaxing you enjoy. Listening to it will then drown out your perception of other noises, and should send you to sleep in no time.

Maybe I am underestimating the problem, since I rarely have trouble going to sleep? At one time, a few years ago, I did, so I just listened to one or the other of my favourite cassettes.... I never heard them to the end.

CJ

if airlines can link their entertainment to their PA to override IFE audio with announcements, presumably it wouldn't be too much harder to rig the noise reduction system with a similar override.

as for senior fd crew being used as leverage by bad guys - surely the principle should be that once the cabin has been compromised the door should not open until the aircraft is on the ground on any pretext? Even if not, if the relief crew can't handle a situation of this kind adequately it calls the use of such crew into question except in situations where crew rest is in the secure area and thus the commander remains available to take charge.