Bose Quiet Comfort 20 Headset
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: Monaco
Bose Quiet Comfort 20 Headset
Went and tried Bose' latest Quiet Comfort 20 Earphones and thought they were excellent. Which got me thinking, I could quite happily wear these for a good 5-8 hours in the aircraft and whether they would be good enough for use in a cockpit environment. If Bose can produce something this good, couldn't they adapt this headset with a ultra lightweight mike as well. It would certainly be a lot more comfortable than the Telex, DC, Sennheisers I've worn.
If anyone works with Bose or the other aviation headset manufacturers, do they have such ideas in the pipeline ?
If anyone works with Bose or the other aviation headset manufacturers, do they have such ideas in the pipeline ?
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: Monaco
this is my username, many thanks for your post. Uflymike do a kit for the quiet comfort 15's. These new in your ear earphones are the latest offerings from Bose and it would be interesting to know if they can be modified to something very similar to the Uflymike setup or even by Bose themselves ?
Joined: Jan 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,710
Likes: 37
From: UK
Joined: Jan 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,710
Likes: 37
From: UK
Here's the reference. The uflymike is certified provided its used with the Weston earbuds and the whole lot has been tested as a unit by the uflymike manufacturer. All 3 parts (the bose headset, the earbuds and the mike) should be labelled as TSO C-139 compliant.
Personal headsets may be used provided they are compliant with either:
FAA TSO C-139.
ETSO C57a.
EASA Form 1.
Additional information regarding details of certified headsets for Airbus 320 aircraft is available in the Airbus Service Information Letter (SIL) titled – Cockpit Audio equipment (Boomsets, Headsets and Microphones). Headsets in this list are known to be compliant with the certification standards listed above. The Airbus list is not necessarily exclusive.
It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that such headsets are appropriately certified.
If there is any doubt as to whether a headset is certified, the aircraft headsets must be used.
The use of headsets designed for leisure purposes is not permitted unless converted for aircraft use by an approved TSO.
FAA TSO C-139.
ETSO C57a.
EASA Form 1.
Additional information regarding details of certified headsets for Airbus 320 aircraft is available in the Airbus Service Information Letter (SIL) titled – Cockpit Audio equipment (Boomsets, Headsets and Microphones). Headsets in this list are known to be compliant with the certification standards listed above. The Airbus list is not necessarily exclusive.
It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure that such headsets are appropriately certified.
If there is any doubt as to whether a headset is certified, the aircraft headsets must be used.
The use of headsets designed for leisure purposes is not permitted unless converted for aircraft use by an approved TSO.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: Sandpit
You should do your homework airbus_driver319. You do not allow the FO to use it? I am sure that go's just nicely over with them. But hey it's not a popularity contest now is it.
TSO Process :: UFlyMike
I've used the Telex 850 on the A320 before as well as on my namesake airplane both Classic and B744. Also some company aircraft had the Sennheisers. Recently I got myself Bose A20 with Bluetooth top of the range model. Not one of the headsets come even close to the performance of the Bose. It's the best ear protection thingie I've got and I wish I've had bought it years ago.
TSO Process :: UFlyMike
I've used the Telex 850 on the A320 before as well as on my namesake airplane both Classic and B744. Also some company aircraft had the Sennheisers. Recently I got myself Bose A20 with Bluetooth top of the range model. Not one of the headsets come even close to the performance of the Bose. It's the best ear protection thingie I've got and I wish I've had bought it years ago.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Likes: 1
From: A tropical island.
Airbusdriver...
Please rethink your reason for being...
"Don't allow [people] to use it"
For anyone who cares uflymike has a good write up (cited and all that jazz) regarding the TSO vs non-TSO issue for FAA operators.
http://uflymike.com/media/documents/...ontroversy.pdf
Please rethink your reason for being...
"Don't allow [people] to use it"
For anyone who cares uflymike has a good write up (cited and all that jazz) regarding the TSO vs non-TSO issue for FAA operators.
http://uflymike.com/media/documents/...ontroversy.pdf
Last edited by aviatorhi; 12th August 2013 at 08:57.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: All over
Has anyone got experience using the Bose Quietcomfort 20 on the line?
I'm flying a jet and find the wind noise in cruise to be fatiguing. I am also mindful of hearing loss over time.
These in-ear headphones look like they could do the trick. At low levels you could wear them under a standard headset and turn the radio volume up if necessary. Communicating with your colleague on the flight deck seems like it wouldn't be an issue with the "aware" mode.
It certainly seems a lot cheaper and more convenient to carry around than the Bose A20/Lightspeed.
I'm flying a jet and find the wind noise in cruise to be fatiguing. I am also mindful of hearing loss over time.
These in-ear headphones look like they could do the trick. At low levels you could wear them under a standard headset and turn the radio volume up if necessary. Communicating with your colleague on the flight deck seems like it wouldn't be an issue with the "aware" mode.
It certainly seems a lot cheaper and more convenient to carry around than the Bose A20/Lightspeed.
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Uflymike
I used the Bose uflymike on the 75/76 for many years. Brilliant. The only drawback was the short battery life until I got some 2700mah rechargeables.
Always carried a couple of sets of spares. No problems ever.
Always carried a couple of sets of spares. No problems ever.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Canada
I've put about 3000 hours on a QC2 uflymike combo and love it. The only thing I've needed to replace has been the ear pads at about 2000 hours. I find the battery life excellent, using one AAA every 40 hours and they are the cheapest disposable batteries available. Captains like A319 are one of the biggest reasons to upgrade.
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Leftside
Quite good but...
The UflyMike is only certified as long as you stuff an earplug (supplied by UflyMike as a part of the certification) into your skull, as it will go quiet when the batteries die. Then the hardwired plug acts as a backup.
Another bug is the location of the mike, is can only be mounted on the left side of the headset, of first officers have the cable across their neck. A bit annoying for them.
The mike boom is also a bit short for the normal-faced person.
All the above applies to Bose QC-15, maybe it's been changed with the QC-20.
I went for the Bose A20 and have no regrets.
Another bug is the location of the mike, is can only be mounted on the left side of the headset, of first officers have the cable across their neck. A bit annoying for them.
The mike boom is also a bit short for the normal-faced person.
All the above applies to Bose QC-15, maybe it's been changed with the QC-20.
I went for the Bose A20 and have no regrets.
Aviator
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
From: Norveg
airbus_driver319: «Allowed» and «approved»? Seriously?!
It reduces noise, hence helps prevent tinnitus. Less noise means less chance of misunderstanding clearances. Less noise also means that I am less tired after a long day on the flight deck - it reduces fatigue. Those are three very good reasons why you should let your FOs use that headset.
It reduces noise, hence helps prevent tinnitus. Less noise means less chance of misunderstanding clearances. Less noise also means that I am less tired after a long day on the flight deck - it reduces fatigue. Those are three very good reasons why you should let your FOs use that headset.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
From: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Let's be honest here; the Uflymikes don't comply with the TSO. Not really, the whole earbud artifice is just a dodge to *circumvent* the TSO, not to *comply* with it. How many UFLYmike fans actually stick those earbuds in their ears every time they put their headset on? Based on my observations, very few. The UflyMike guys I know, don't use them, most don't even own them.
I should say at this point, if you are a uflyMike guy who actually does insert your earbuds, each and every time you put on your headset, well good for you, you may disregard this post, but I suspect that you are a member of a very small, select group. The comments here are directed at those who use the uflymikes without the earbuds but still claim that they're using a "TSO'd" headset which I would venture to say are the vast majority of UflyMike users. (I'm at least partially sympathetic, I don't care for earbuds, and I can't fathom putting them in my ears every time I put on my headset)
So, if your airline requires that pilot provided headsets be TSO'd, them's the rules, and the fact that you don't like that rule doesn't entitle you to disregard it. All the arguments about decreased fatigue, improved communications, prevented hearing loss, etc are completely moot given that there are TSO'd ANR headsets which have the same advantages.
Beyond the specific question of whether or not a TSO headset is required and whether the Uflymike complies with it, when the battery starts to give out on a uflymike, it becomes quite useless for communications. I own a Bose QC15 headset. I use it a lot. When I'm in the back, as a passenger, which is often. So I'm very familiar with it's quirks. As the battery starts to die, the power in the headset starts to cut in and out in a rapid cycle (about twice a second, estimated) Not only does that make any audio input completely unintelligible, but it also produces a loud clicking, roaring noise which drowns out other sounds. Contrary to the previously linked uflymike document, you don't get warning of the onset of this "feature", that *is* the warning. The lawyer who wrote that sort of glosses over the fact that your "warning" of communications loss, is in fact, the loss of communications. Well, he also claims that you are warned by the power LED turning red. Really? I don't know about you, but on my *best* day, my scan doesn't include things attached to my right ear. My peripheral vision just isn't that good. I doubt yours is either.
The interesting thing is that the onset of cycling of the power due to a low battery (which effectively precludes communications) is more likely to happen at higher noise levels. (Without knowing details of the electronics, it makes sense that increased volume of ambient noise requires the headset to produce increased levels of "anti-noise" placing a higher demand on a low battery.) So the first time your headset "warns" you of the low battery by becoming useless for communications is when the noise level increases. When does noise level increase? Like when you power up for takeoff, hmmm? In fact this exact thing happened to me on a flight yesterday, I had turned on the headset (no flashing red LED) and it worked normally during taxi, then as the power (and noise) came up on the takeoff roll, right then was when the headset went into it's clicking on and off rapidly routine. This is not the first time I've experienced this same sequence of events, battery is fine on startup and taxi, fails as the power comes up for takeoff. As a passenger, it wasn't much of a problem to remove the headset and replace the battery, it might be a little more complicated as an operating crew member. (Incidentally, it did the same thing, 9 hours later on landing, as the engines went into reverse, on the subsequent battery.) Now maybe it's just me, but right on takeoff roll (or on the landing roll) seems like a pretty poor time to lose a crew member out of the communications loop.
So, lets say you experience just that. You're the PF and the PNF is wearing his UflyMike (without the earbuds, of course because they're an uncomfortable nuisance) You're taking off, it's a busy place with a complex departure that requires vectors and heading changes and lots of communication with ATC . The PNF's headset gives him the old "I'm warning you of a impending failure by failing" routine, so you're flying the airplane, and instead of talking to ATC, setting the heading bug, coordinating with you, he's got his headset in his lap and is fumbling around in his flight bag for a battery to pop into his headset, so he can become a contributing member of the crew again. Bear in mind, we're not speculating about some ridiculously improbable scenario, I've had it happen to me more than once. While riding in the back, not needing to hear ATC and my fellow crewmember.
OK, so you're now single pilot; flying the airplane, talking to ATC, and adjusting your own heading bug, (the search for the new battery isn't going well, apparently) Just for grins let's toss in an Emergency. I dunno which one, a good one, something that might crash the airplane, one that requires crew coordination and activation of something you can't reach from your seat.
Oh, good news, the PNF found the battery, and now he's got it in the headset and the headset is beck on his head. Oops, not good news, headset still isn't working. Maybe that wasn't a good battery, it was a dead one that didn't get thrown out, or did the PF put the battery in backwards? (I don't know how many times I've done this, AAA batteries can be tough to tell one end from the other unless you're looking carefully)
Let me ask you, is this situation exacerbated or improved by having to shout at the PNF that "hey, we've has an XXX failure, stop rummaging around in your flight bag and lets run the checklist"
Is crew coordination going to be improved or degraded by you having to slide your headset half off so you can hear the PNF's responses over the cockpit noise? Is this going to make ATC communications better or worse?
Or did you completely miss the cockpit indication that would alert you to that Emergency because ATC had just given you a heading change, altitude change, and frequency change all at once and you were a little task saturated while turning, climbing, responding to ATC and tuning the radios?
The UflyMike lawyer whitewash piece glibly glosses over the effects of a communication loss, by saying that the corrective action is to just slide the headset off one ear and listen to ATC on the cockpit speaker.
Which is misleading (intentionally, I suspect) on several levels. 1) a TSO'd headset (or any other aviation headset I've encountered) doesn't fail when the battery fails. 2) It overlooks the fact that the headset doesn't merely switch off. As I pointed out earlier, it goes into a mode of cycling on and off rapidity which produced a loud noise which pretty much precludes hearing anything else. Additionally, on the airplane I fly, the control for the cockpit speaker can't be reached from my seat, so if I'm the guy with the headset failure, turning it on and adjusting the volume is going to require me communicating that to another person, and having them do that for me. Did I mention we're got some other stuff going on, too? Sub optimal design? Perhaps, but there it is. I don't know if other planes are configured similarly. Perhaps not. But lets say that we're dealing with a best case scenario: The guy with the Uflymike lash-up is able to turn on the cockpit speaker so that ATC is audible. And he has the presence of mind to turn off the headset to get rid of the distracting noise that it's still blaring in his left ear (not a given, when things start to go badly, sometimes details like that get overlooked, that's how aircrews miss gear warning horns), and he's alerted you to the fact that his headset is kaput and you need to shout to him to be heard, and you are. So at the very best, he's listening to ATC on an area speaker over the cockpit noise, and you two are communicating (at least in one direction) by shouting and listening over the cockpit noise.
Is this safety going to enhanced or degraded on a busy departure with lots of ATC comm ? (oh yeah and our abnormal to take care of, lets not forget that.)
The issue of whether the TSO for audio equipment extends to pilot supplied headsets kind of misses the point. Apparently, it doesn't, in a strict interpretation. But it does apply to the installed audio equipment. It seems reasonable to me to require that the audio equipment in an airliner not be disabled by the failure of a single dry cell. So given that that is a reasonable, common sense requirement for the communications system to not depend on a single battery, it seems to me that it follows that even if it's not explicitly prohibited by the same regulation, it's a bad idea to select a piece of equipment which results in just that: failure of the communications system (or one side of it anyway) resulting from the failure of one single battery.
So, isn't the overall philosophy of airline safety centered on anticipating potential problems, and avoiding them through equipment design, system redundancy and operational procedures which eliminate or reduce the likelihood of that problem? Why then select a piece of equipment that introduces a potential problem which doesn't otherwise exist?
I should say at this point, if you are a uflyMike guy who actually does insert your earbuds, each and every time you put on your headset, well good for you, you may disregard this post, but I suspect that you are a member of a very small, select group. The comments here are directed at those who use the uflymikes without the earbuds but still claim that they're using a "TSO'd" headset which I would venture to say are the vast majority of UflyMike users. (I'm at least partially sympathetic, I don't care for earbuds, and I can't fathom putting them in my ears every time I put on my headset)
So, if your airline requires that pilot provided headsets be TSO'd, them's the rules, and the fact that you don't like that rule doesn't entitle you to disregard it. All the arguments about decreased fatigue, improved communications, prevented hearing loss, etc are completely moot given that there are TSO'd ANR headsets which have the same advantages.
Beyond the specific question of whether or not a TSO headset is required and whether the Uflymike complies with it, when the battery starts to give out on a uflymike, it becomes quite useless for communications. I own a Bose QC15 headset. I use it a lot. When I'm in the back, as a passenger, which is often. So I'm very familiar with it's quirks. As the battery starts to die, the power in the headset starts to cut in and out in a rapid cycle (about twice a second, estimated) Not only does that make any audio input completely unintelligible, but it also produces a loud clicking, roaring noise which drowns out other sounds. Contrary to the previously linked uflymike document, you don't get warning of the onset of this "feature", that *is* the warning. The lawyer who wrote that sort of glosses over the fact that your "warning" of communications loss, is in fact, the loss of communications. Well, he also claims that you are warned by the power LED turning red. Really? I don't know about you, but on my *best* day, my scan doesn't include things attached to my right ear. My peripheral vision just isn't that good. I doubt yours is either.
The interesting thing is that the onset of cycling of the power due to a low battery (which effectively precludes communications) is more likely to happen at higher noise levels. (Without knowing details of the electronics, it makes sense that increased volume of ambient noise requires the headset to produce increased levels of "anti-noise" placing a higher demand on a low battery.) So the first time your headset "warns" you of the low battery by becoming useless for communications is when the noise level increases. When does noise level increase? Like when you power up for takeoff, hmmm? In fact this exact thing happened to me on a flight yesterday, I had turned on the headset (no flashing red LED) and it worked normally during taxi, then as the power (and noise) came up on the takeoff roll, right then was when the headset went into it's clicking on and off rapidly routine. This is not the first time I've experienced this same sequence of events, battery is fine on startup and taxi, fails as the power comes up for takeoff. As a passenger, it wasn't much of a problem to remove the headset and replace the battery, it might be a little more complicated as an operating crew member. (Incidentally, it did the same thing, 9 hours later on landing, as the engines went into reverse, on the subsequent battery.) Now maybe it's just me, but right on takeoff roll (or on the landing roll) seems like a pretty poor time to lose a crew member out of the communications loop.
So, lets say you experience just that. You're the PF and the PNF is wearing his UflyMike (without the earbuds, of course because they're an uncomfortable nuisance) You're taking off, it's a busy place with a complex departure that requires vectors and heading changes and lots of communication with ATC . The PNF's headset gives him the old "I'm warning you of a impending failure by failing" routine, so you're flying the airplane, and instead of talking to ATC, setting the heading bug, coordinating with you, he's got his headset in his lap and is fumbling around in his flight bag for a battery to pop into his headset, so he can become a contributing member of the crew again. Bear in mind, we're not speculating about some ridiculously improbable scenario, I've had it happen to me more than once. While riding in the back, not needing to hear ATC and my fellow crewmember.
OK, so you're now single pilot; flying the airplane, talking to ATC, and adjusting your own heading bug, (the search for the new battery isn't going well, apparently) Just for grins let's toss in an Emergency. I dunno which one, a good one, something that might crash the airplane, one that requires crew coordination and activation of something you can't reach from your seat.
Oh, good news, the PNF found the battery, and now he's got it in the headset and the headset is beck on his head. Oops, not good news, headset still isn't working. Maybe that wasn't a good battery, it was a dead one that didn't get thrown out, or did the PF put the battery in backwards? (I don't know how many times I've done this, AAA batteries can be tough to tell one end from the other unless you're looking carefully)
Let me ask you, is this situation exacerbated or improved by having to shout at the PNF that "hey, we've has an XXX failure, stop rummaging around in your flight bag and lets run the checklist"
Is crew coordination going to be improved or degraded by you having to slide your headset half off so you can hear the PNF's responses over the cockpit noise? Is this going to make ATC communications better or worse?
Or did you completely miss the cockpit indication that would alert you to that Emergency because ATC had just given you a heading change, altitude change, and frequency change all at once and you were a little task saturated while turning, climbing, responding to ATC and tuning the radios?
The UflyMike lawyer whitewash piece glibly glosses over the effects of a communication loss, by saying that the corrective action is to just slide the headset off one ear and listen to ATC on the cockpit speaker.
Finally, should the earcup circuit open, the pilot maintains
communication by turning up the cockpit speaker and pulling back one earcup just as he would with any other headset-earpiece failure.
communication by turning up the cockpit speaker and pulling back one earcup just as he would with any other headset-earpiece failure.
Is this safety going to enhanced or degraded on a busy departure with lots of ATC comm ? (oh yeah and our abnormal to take care of, lets not forget that.)
The issue of whether the TSO for audio equipment extends to pilot supplied headsets kind of misses the point. Apparently, it doesn't, in a strict interpretation. But it does apply to the installed audio equipment. It seems reasonable to me to require that the audio equipment in an airliner not be disabled by the failure of a single dry cell. So given that that is a reasonable, common sense requirement for the communications system to not depend on a single battery, it seems to me that it follows that even if it's not explicitly prohibited by the same regulation, it's a bad idea to select a piece of equipment which results in just that: failure of the communications system (or one side of it anyway) resulting from the failure of one single battery.
So, isn't the overall philosophy of airline safety centered on anticipating potential problems, and avoiding them through equipment design, system redundancy and operational procedures which eliminate or reduce the likelihood of that problem? Why then select a piece of equipment that introduces a potential problem which doesn't otherwise exist?
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
To be honest, all the guys i fly with switch the battery at the first sight of a green blinking light, not a red one. And yes, there is more than five hours of use going from green to red. AAA batteries are cheap, so it is easy to always have enough, the used ones get thrown in the trash bag the cleaners take after each flight. But then, we are not required to use TSO headsets, and we have around 4 or 5 sets of spare sennheiser headsets on each plane to begin with, two of them ANR ones (HMEC 26).
Anyway, the QC20 can be used with an adapter as earphones only, however you would have to use the handmike only, which is quite possible of course, but not allowed under EU OPS regulations below 10.000ft if i remember correctly.
Anyway, the QC20 can be used with an adapter as earphones only, however you would have to use the handmike only, which is quite possible of course, but not allowed under EU OPS regulations below 10.000ft if i remember correctly.
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Singapore
I spent the entire day looking for the publication "Airbus Service Information Letter (SIL) titled – Cockpit Audio equipment (Boomsets, Headsets and Microphones)" but i couldn't find it. I'm hoping there is an updated SIL that included the Bose A20 into the list.
My question is, where can I find Airbus's SIL publications?
