• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

BCA Navadmin

Since this thread popped up again, why not jack it again?

Brett327 said:
I'm perhaps not up to speed on all the physics, but is noise cancellation applicable to hearing protection, or is it more for crew comfort and being able to hear ICS and the radio? Is phase cancellation as effective as attenuation in preventing hearing damage?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I can't find the link (again), but I recently saw another study that specifically attempted to measure the protection vs cancellation question. Bottom line, cancellation was very effective at reducing actual noise at the frequencies it excels at, specifically low frequencies. That makes sense given how much engine rumble you can reduce when you turn the system on.

But higher frequencies aren't truly defeated by cancellation and can still get through to cause damage. Something of note if flying pistons, but a much bigger deal if flying turbines. These higher freqs are better mitigated by attenuation. Unfortunately the modern NC headset is pretty weak on attenuation in an effort to save weight, so their passive hearing protection isn't great, and less than the standard DC 13.4 headset that's been around for several decades (and still work great).

All that said, am I trashing my Lightspeed and going back to my David Clark? No, but for the next headset I buy (whenever that might be), it might be worth looking at the passive attenuation more closely. I think that may be a benefit of the ANR David Clark model that used to be sold (and may still be). I might have to steal my dad's since he's not using it anymore.
 
Is there a permissive environment for GLP-1 use either deployed or shore based?
 
Gatordev said:
Since this thread popped up again, why not jack it again?



Unfortunately I can't find the link (again), but I recently saw another study that specifically attempted to measure the protection vs cancellation question. Bottom line, cancellation was very effective at reducing actual noise at the frequencies it excels at, specifically low frequencies. That makes sense given how much engine rumble you can reduce when you turn the system on.

But higher frequencies aren't truly defeated by cancellation and can still get through to cause damage. Something of note if flying pistons, but a much bigger deal if flying turbines. These higher freqs are better mitigated by attenuation. Unfortunately the modern NC headset is pretty weak on attenuation in an effort to save weight, so their passive hearing protection isn't great, and less than the standard DC 13.4 headset that's been around for several decades (and still work great).

All that said, am I trashing my Lightspeed and going back to my David Clark? No, but for the next headset I buy (whenever that might be), it might be worth looking at the passive attenuation more closely. I think that may be a benefit of the ANR David Clark model that used to be sold (and may still be). I might have to steal my dad's since he's not using it anymore.
Click to expand...
AF is all in on Bose A20 and now A30, even for crew "admin" headsets used for preflight (e.g B-1, B-2, and B-52 where crews don helmets after engine start). Or C-130/C-17/C-5 folks who only where helmets with NVG or doing low-level.

I love my A20. I don't think there is better ANR. Intercom and radio benefit in clarity. I do go through a substantial number of AA batts. I keep my flight bag stocked. The Bluetooth is especially good for listening to the occasional podcast enroute.
 
CommodoreMid said:

Somehow I don’t think this new way of calculating body fat is accurate, especially for women.
Click to expand...
Can't say I was ever real smart on BCA policy, but this newness--
1. everyone must expose their midriff and be touched by a CFL, regardless of their weight
2. No private BCA authorized
--seems odd. It seems like the policy was written by gym rats who haven't birthed a child, lost tons of weight, or got a regrettable lower back tattoo.

Maybe this is what happens when you fire the JAGs willing to say "no."

My command is pretty small. The ACFLs are all enlisted males, but I have female staff and students officers. Just strange all around. Not a fan.
 
IKE said:
Can't say I was ever real smart on BCA policy, but this newness--
1. everyone must expose their midriff and be touched by a CFL, regardless of their weight
2. No private BCA authorized
--seems odd. It seems like the policy was written by gym rats who haven't birthed a child, lost tons of weight, or got a regrettable lower back tattoo.

Maybe this is what happens when you fire the JAGs willing to say "no."

My command is pretty small. The ACFLs are all enlisted males, but I have female staff and students officers. Just strange all around. Not a fan.
Click to expand...
The new BCA standards are significantly more lenient than the previous single site circumference, despite the rhetoric.

Do the math on the max allowed bodyfat lines.
 
IKE said:
Can't say I was ever real smart on BCA policy, but this newness--
1. everyone must expose their midriff and be touched by a CFL, regardless of their weight
2. No private BCA authorized
--seems odd. It seems like the policy was written by gym rats who haven't birthed a child, lost tons of weight, or got a regrettable lower back tattoo.

Maybe this is what happens when you fire the JAGs willing to say "no."

My command is pretty small. The ACFLs are all enlisted males, but I have female staff and students officers. Just strange all around. Not a fan.
Click to expand...
Some female staff need to step up and become ACFLs.
 
I don’t have an issue getting measured by a male CFL, especially since that was never an entitlement before. I do question the body fat math behind the new charts used if you don’t pass the initial waist/height ratio and would be interested in seeing the science behind it. I have a smart scale and have done an InBody assessment recently. All have put me around 30%, but the table has me at 34%. Granted that means I pass and playing with the numbers I have some room to spare so I’m not worried about being on the margins, but I’m still skeptical of the accuracy.
 
CommodoreMid said:
I don’t have an issue getting measured by a male CFL, especially since that was never an entitlement before. I do question the body fat math behind the new charts used if you don’t pass the initial waist/height ratio and would be interested in seeing the science behind it. I have a smart scale and have done an InBody assessment recently. All have put me around 30%, but the table has me at 34%. Granted that means I pass and playing with the numbers I have some room to spare so I’m not worried about being on the margins, but I’m still skeptical of the accuracy.
Click to expand...
Not saying it doesn't exist, but I've never seen this methodology to estimate body fat on any serious fitness or medical website.

The waist to height ratio comes from a study that tried to find a better way than BMI to estimate heart risk, and that's the only thing that beat it (0.87 vs 0.90 correlation factor with risk over 25 / 0.50, respectively).

Really it proved that BMI is close enough unless you're the small percentage of people with a BMI between 25-27 and a waist to height ratio of < 0.50 ... risk skyrockets after 0.55.

From a public health and Navy policy standpoint, there's a lot less error telling people that they need to make weight than having them measure their own waists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top