avbug Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 You could have addressed the subject but entered into the thread to make personal insults, once again. What's wrong with you, mate? You claim to be 57 years old, but act like a child. What's your problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilot#476398 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 The headsets do very little to protect hearing, and may actually lead to hearing loss, especially by giving the illusion of protecting hearing in the first place. ANR headsets make it seem quieter. It's not. Sometimes when I'd wear my old passive DC without ear plugs underneath my ears would bother me for a bit after long flights. If ANR headsets aren't protecting my hearing that much then wouldn't I experience a similar discomfort in my ears after flying with them?,...which I haven't with my ANR Zulu. Also, if you believe they may lead to hearing loss, then why do you own several of them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avbug Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Also, if you believe they may lead to hearing loss, then why do you own several of them? Because I wear them to improve communication, not for hearing protection. I've found them especially useful in foreign locations where it's sometimes difficult to understand air traffic control and other personnel. Sometimes when I'd wear my old passive DC without ear plugs underneath my ears would bother me for a bit after long flights. If ANR headsets aren't protecting my hearing that much then wouldn't I experience a similar discomfort in my ears after flying with them?,...which I haven't with my ANR Zulu. Your ANR is effective at reducing perceived noise in a narrow frequency range. Your DC headset attenuates sound, but depending on the configuration and condition of the earseals and foam inside, and fit to your head, offers a moderate level of protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolftalonID Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Well Avbug, sound waves are percussion waves. That means that the wave is physically moving in order to even make sound. No matter the frequency range,they are all moving. ANR creates an exact out of phase wave to cancel the offending sound wave. This litterally stops the wave, ie, NO movement. This equals to no sound in that particular range. ANR works on low frequency sound waves, which are the most damaging to our ears. Being that it cancels the sound hearing is preserved not damaged more. The moderate level of protection your speaking about is what the ANR headsets can do for high frequency ranges, which is usually less than the passive cup counterparts we have all worn. The good news is with age our old ears hear less and less high frequency waves anyway, but our low frequency hearing is very valuable to protect. Early studies that tried to prove ANR was harmful were using flawed science in their approach to the study, and that has been by far debunked over the last several decades by multiple studies. All in all, ANR has its place and is helpful in a lot of flight situations, as well, it has its faults( head outside utility), and we learn where its good and where it is not. Edited February 2, 2014 by WolftalonID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) how dare you to question the almighty avbug! he will ground ALL of your aircraft (just a bit of bugspray will get the red tag off your windshield tho) Edited February 2, 2014 by pokey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avbug Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I don't think he questioned me, but he'd be right to do so. Anyone that doesn't do that in aviation (and especially on the internet) deserves that for which they fall. ANR is a great help in making communications clearer, which is why we wear headsets in the first place. If we weren't attempting to clarify communications, we'd be wearing earplugs and wouldn't have to worry about the expense and effort of clamping electronics to our heads. There is a narrow band of frequency which we were accustomed to hearing, or that we do hear, and in a small portion of that, ANR works wonders to allow us to concentrate on words spoken on the radio. Without additional protection to keep vibration from working against the bone surrounding our ear, as well as keeping all frequencies out of our ear, we're going to be exposed to noise. We feel that the noise has been reduced with ANR, but the reality is that only a small portion of it is dealt with, and even then the jury is still out on what level of protection (perceived or otherwise) it may provide. I do a lot of different kinds of flying. One of the aircraft I used to fly was a radial-engine bomber that utilized short stacks on the exhaust; that's 7 3" exhausts on each of four engines, making one hell of a racket. I once took a decibel meter to the aircraft inside at idle, on takeoff, and in cruise. I stood alongside the runway at Fresno with the same meter, when two F-16's departed in afterburner. The radial engine airplane was louder inside; it pegged out the meter, whereas the two F16's did not. And that was just at idle for the radial engine airplane. ANR headsets couldn't keep up. They did okay at idle, but as the power came up for takeoff, the noise was well beyond the threshold of pain (I can attest to that personally, as well as having used the meter), and the ANR went nuts, unable to provide protection, let alone improved communication. It settled out a bit in cruise. I've used ANR on some long flights because while it may or may not have provided any meaningful protection, it did leave me feeling less exhausted, and it had music input, which was also more relaxing, and aided in alertness over the course of many hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmfish Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I don't think he questioned me, but he'd be right to do so. Anyone that doesn't do that in aviation (and especially on the internet) deserves that for which they fall. ANR is a great help in making communications clearer, which is why we wear headsets in the first place. If we weren't attempting to clarify communications, we'd be wearing earplugs and wouldn't have to worry about the expense and effort of clamping electronics to our heads. There is a narrow band of frequency which we were accustomed to hearing, or that we do hear, and in a small portion of that, ANR works wonders to allow us to concentrate on words spoken on the radio. Without additional protection to keep vibration from working against the bone surrounding our ear, as well as keeping all frequencies out of our ear, we're going to be exposed to noise. We feel that the noise has been reduced with ANR, but the reality is that only a small portion of it is dealt with, and even then the jury is still out on what level of protection (perceived or otherwise) it may provide. I do a lot of different kinds of flying. One of the aircraft I used to fly was a radial-engine bomber that utilized short stacks on the exhaust; that's 7 3" exhausts on each of four engines, making one hell of a racket. I once took a decibel meter to the aircraft inside at idle, on takeoff, and in cruise. I stood alongside the runway at Fresno with the same meter, when two F-16's departed in afterburner. The radial engine airplane was louder inside; it pegged out the meter, whereas the two F16's did not. And that was just at idle for the radial engine airplane. ANR headsets couldn't keep up. They did okay at idle, but as the power came up for takeoff, the noise was well beyond the threshold of pain (I can attest to that personally, as well as having used the meter), and the ANR went nuts, unable to provide protection, let alone improved communication. It settled out a bit in cruise. I've used ANR on some long flights because while it may or may not have provided any meaningful protection, it did leave me feeling less exhausted, and it had music input, which was also more relaxing, and aided in alertness over the course of many hours. The cancelling wave created by ANR heasets is generated by measuring the incoming noise with a microphone and emitting the out of phase noise from a speaker inside the earcup. The amplifier and speaker used to generate the cancelling wave are limited by the constraints of the headset - size of the speaker, maximum power of the amplifier, etc. Any noise exceeding 120 dB or so is going to push/exceed the capabilities of the ANR system. This is not a problem for the vast majority of airplanes and helicopters being flown for private and commercial operations. But anyone entertaining the notion that a 40mm speaker driven by a 200 mW amplifier can generate the SPL of a radial engine bomber needs to do a little more research before dropping $1000 on their next heaset. Every piece of gear in your flight bag should be chosen based on its applicability to the job at hand. Choosing your headset/helmet is no exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChris Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) All in all, ANR has its place and is helpful in a lot of flight situations, as well, it has its faults( head outside utility), and we learn where its good and where it is not. ANR hearing protectors are without doubt helpful in many situations; however, for some situations, like utility work, not very helpful. If you’re working with your head out the window all day, don’t let them sell you an ANR equipped helmet, Go CEP. If you’re just flying light helicopters around from A-B or flight training, an ANR headset is adequate. However, tests show a headset with CEP performs better than an ANR headset. Test have also shown, ANR headsets are far more suitable for propeller driven airplanes than for helicopters. The presently available ANR hearing protectors are without any doubt helpful in many situations. When military personnel are exposed to noise with high levels having a very strong low frequency component (helicopters, propeller driven airplanes) ANR headsets are a good choice as personnel hearing protector. With the help of the ANR system (complementary to the passive protection of the headset by itself) the efficiency of the soldier is increased. In the frequency range below 500 Hz an ANR headset has an insertion loss that is about 15-20 dB better than a standard hearing protection. This improvement leads to - Longer acceptable exposure times. This means longer and more representative training scenarios. - Better intelligibility at the same speech level. This leads to a better success rate for missions. - Lower noise exposure levels that will induce less fatigue and therefore lead to a better performance of the soldier. Ref: nato rto Edited February 3, 2014 by iChris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilot#476398 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I've always thought (hoped) that if my ears don't hurt/ring afterwards then my hearing isn't being damaged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avbug Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I've always thought (hoped) that if my ears don't hurt/ring afterwards then my hearing isn't being damaged? A lot of people mistakenly think that, and its not remotely true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.