sound levels and hearing loss

[Tony]

Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
using the radio, protect your hearing.

clear.

Well, for me, make that C L E A R!

(Can you hear me now?)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Tony wrote:
> Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
> can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
> level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
> worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
> headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
> evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
> using the radio, protect your hearing.
>
> clear.
>
> Well, for me, make that C L E A R!
>
> (Can you hear me now?)



Huh?

[Ross]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
>>Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
>>can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
>>level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
>>worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
>>headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
>>evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
>>using the radio, protect your hearing.
>>
>>clear.
>>
>>Well, for me, make that C L E A R!
>>
>>(Can you hear me now?)
>
>
>
>
> Huh?
>
>

My wife use to work for an ENT for years and would tell of the train
personal that don't wear hearing protection and have severe hearing
loss. I see the fire truck personnel now have DC headsets. I ought to
equip my car with ANR headsets. Notice how bad road noise is now even in
good cars.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Randy Aldous]

On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, Ross > wrote:
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > Tony wrote:
>
> >>Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
> >>can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
> >>level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
> >>worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
> >>headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
> >>evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
> >>using the radio, protect your hearing.
>
> >>clear.
>
> >>Well, for me, make that C L E A R!
>
> >>(Can you hear me now?)
>
> > Huh?
>
> My wife use to work for an ENT for years and would tell of the train
> personal that don't wear hearing protection and have severe hearing
> loss. I see the fire truck personnel now have DC headsets. I ought to
> equip my car with ANR headsets. Notice how bad road noise is now even in
> good cars.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Unfortunately, while a Good Idea(tm) it may not be practical due to
the motor vehicle laws - in Minnesota, it is illegal to have
headphones in both ears while driving. It is my understanding that it
is so that the driver is not isolated from the outside world (horns
honking, sirens, general distraction) - I am sure the law came about
before active noise cancellation headphones, though as those could
actually enhance the driver's ability to hear such things.

Cite:
Minnesota Statutes 2006
169.471 TELEVISION; HEADPHONES.

Subdivision 1. [snipped - pertains to television]

Subd. 2. Use of headphones in vehicle. (a) No person, while operating
a motor vehicle, shall
wear headphones or earphones that are used in both ears simultaneously
for purposes of receiving
or listening to broadcasts or reproductions from radios, tape decks,
or other sound-producing or
transmitting devices.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not prohibit:
(1) the use of a hearing aid device by a person who needs the device;
or
(2) the use of a communication headset by a firefighter while
operating a fire department
emergency vehicle in response to an emergency.

[Jose]

> ...for purposes of receiving
> or listening to broadcasts or reproductions from radios, tape decks,
> or other sound-producing or
> transmitting devices.

That's a key section. If you wear a noise cancelling headset which
covers both ears, but not for the purpose of listending to radio (etc),
then you're ok by that law.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 9 Feb 2007 11:10:32 -0800, "Tony" > wrote:

>Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
>can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
>level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
>worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
>headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
>evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
>using the radio, protect your hearing.

I took a Radio Shack sound meter aloft with me one day. 109 dB at chest level.

I wear an ANR, now....

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
> can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
> level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
> worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
> headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
> evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
> using the radio, protect your hearing.

Lower levels can also damage hearing over long periods. From what I've seen
of measured sound levels in GA aircraft (and some larger aircraft), many
pilots are risking significant hearing loss over the long term unless they
wear effective protection against cockpit noise.

In small aircraft, passengers should also wear ear protection.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

Mow here's a thought -- under MN law, is an airplane a 'motor
vechicle'? Maybe even if it is, runways are not highways and the state
police do not patrol them so you can get away with your DCs. Now, some
states (for personal safety reasons I am not listing my candidate
states) very will might have a cop with a radar gun along a runway.
Touch down hot and get a ticket (that of course would be a good idea
anyhow). Get another one for wearing a headset.

I think it's time for my meds.



On Feb 9, 5:16 pm, "Randy Aldous" > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, Ross > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> > > Tony wrote:
>
> > >>Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
> > >>can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
> > >>level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
> > >>worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
> > >>headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
> > >>evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
> > >>using the radio, protect your hearing.
>
> > >>clear.
>
> > >>Well, for me, make that C L E A R!
>
> > >>(Can you hear me now?)
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > My wife use to work for an ENT for years and would tell of the train
> > personal that don't wear hearing protection and have severe hearing
> > loss. I see the fire truck personnel now have DC headsets. I ought to
> > equip my car with ANR headsets. Notice how bad road noise is now even in
> > good cars.
>
> > --
>
> > Regards, Ross
> > C-172F 180HP
> > KSWI- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Unfortunately, while a Good Idea(tm) it may not be practical due to
> the motor vehicle laws - in Minnesota, it is illegal to have
> headphones in both ears while driving. It is my understanding that it
> is so that the driver is not isolated from the outside world (horns
> honking, sirens, general distraction) - I am sure the law came about
> before active noise cancellation headphones, though as those could
> actually enhance the driver's ability to hear such things.
>
> Cite:
> Minnesota Statutes 2006
> 169.471 TELEVISION; HEADPHONES.
>
> Subdivision 1. [snipped - pertains to television]
>
> Subd. 2. Use of headphones in vehicle. (a) No person, while operating
> a motor vehicle, shall
> wear headphones or earphones that are used in both ears simultaneously
> for purposes of receiving
> or listening to broadcasts or reproductions from radios, tape decks,
> or other sound-producing or
> transmitting devices.
> (b) Paragraph (a) does not prohibit:
> (1) the use of a hearing aid device by a person who needs the device;
> or
> (2) the use of a communication headset by a firefighter while
> operating a fire department
> emergency vehicle in response to an emergency.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Judah]

"Tony" > wrote in news:1171080597.882749.305500
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Mow here's a thought -- under MN law, is an airplane a 'motor
> vechicle'? Maybe even if it is, runways are not highways and the state
> police do not patrol them so you can get away with your DCs. Now, some
> states (for personal safety reasons I am not listing my candidate
> states) very will might have a cop with a radar gun along a runway.
> Touch down hot and get a ticket (that of course would be a good idea
> anyhow). Get another one for wearing a headset.

What is the posted speed limit on the runway?

[[email protected]]

On Feb 10, 9:13 am, Judah > wrote:

> What is the posted speed limit on the runway?

Rotation speed :-)

Allen

[James Robinson]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> "Tony" > wrote:
>
>> Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
>> can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
>> level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
>> worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
>> headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
>> evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
>> using the radio, protect your hearing.
>
> I took a Radio Shack sound meter aloft with me one day. 109 dB at
> chest level.
>
> I wear an ANR, now....

What rating scale was that measured with? It looks like dBC, which is
not representative of the effect on human hearing.

Further, don't be lulled into thinking ANR will help prevent hearing loss.
ANR has a number of issues that can give a false sense of security. The
best protection is a passive ear muff. With some designs, ANR can actually
increase sound levels.

[C J Campbell]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:15:19 -0800, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote
(in article >):

> Tony wrote:
>> Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
>> can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
>> level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
>> worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
>> headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
>> evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
>> using the radio, protect your hearing.
>>
>> clear.
>>
>> Well, for me, make that C L E A R!
>>
>> (Can you hear me now?)
>
>
>
> Huh?
>
>

Beat me to it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:40:39 -0600, James Robinson > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>> "Tony" > wrote:
>>
>>> Just a word or two of caution, folks. Sound levels in SEL airplanes
>>> can exceed 90 dB A at the pilot's ear, and prolonged exposure to that
>>> level can lead to hearing loss. I stuff a couple of thousand bucks
>>> worth of electronics in each ear now, partly because I didn't use a
>>> headset in the airplane in my younger days (lots of gun fire and some
>>> evidence of family hearing loss are also factors). Even if you're not
>>> using the radio, protect your hearing.
>>
>> I took a Radio Shack sound meter aloft with me one day. 109 dB at
>> chest level.
>>
>> I wear an ANR, now....
>
>What rating scale was that measured with? It looks like dBC, which is
>not representative of the effect on human hearing.

It may have been "C"...ISTR the reading on the other setting was about 104 dB.

>Further, don't be lulled into thinking ANR will help prevent hearing loss.
>ANR has a number of issues that can give a false sense of security. The
>best protection is a passive ear muff. With some designs, ANR can actually
>increase sound levels.

When I can, I wear foam earplugs under the ANR. However, I dislike to, as the
"as-heard" volume isn't quite high enough, and I lose sidetone. I wear the
plugs if I'm going to actually fly somewhere, fishing them out from under the
helmet when I get near the destination.

With the plugs in place, the ANR is actually moot...I can't tell the difference
with it on or off.

Ron Wanttaja

[James Robinson]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> James Robinson > wrote:
>
>> Further, don't be lulled into thinking ANR will help prevent hearing
>> loss. ANR has a number of issues that can give a false sense of
>> security. The best protection is a passive ear muff. With some
>> designs, ANR can actually increase sound levels.
>
> When I can, I wear foam earplugs under the ANR. However, I dislike
> to, as the "as-heard" volume isn't quite high enough, and I lose
> sidetone. I wear the plugs if I'm going to actually fly somewhere,
> fishing them out from under the helmet when I get near the
> destination.

That's a good practice.

The problem with ANR is that its effects are deceptive, and the value it
provides against hearing loss is limited.

ANR typically only works at the lower frequencies of the sound spectrum.
If you see graphs of the effectiveness, it is the highest at low
frequency, and it drops off as the frequency increases toward about 500
Hz. Above 500 Hz, ANR is typically ineffective.

The dBA sound curve is the closest representation of what frequencies can
be heard by humans. It drops off below 500 Hz, meaning that humans don't
hear low frequency sounds that well. The curve is also said to be
representative of the sound frequencies that will cause permanent hearing
damage. That suggests that low frequencies are not as damaging as higher
frequencies.

Putting all that together says that ANR is most effective in the
frequency ranges that have the least impact on hearing damage, and has no
effect in frequency ranges that can cause the greatest hearing damage.

When people switch ANR on and off, the effect is therefore deceiving.
They think it is doing more than it actually is.

In practical terms, I was part of a study where we looked at using ANR in
an industrial application to try to reduce long-term hearing loss claims.
After extensive study and research, the medical department determined
that while ANR could improve the clarity of things like voice
communication in high noise environments, it had so little value in
reducing hearing loss, that the extra investment wasn't justified.

Instead, ear plugs or passive muffs were considered the best protection,
with both used at the same time where the sound levels were the highest.
The company didn't prohibit the use of ANR muffs if employees wanted to
purchase their own, but the muffs still had to have a passive noise
reduction rating above a minimum amount.