• 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

Flight Equipment

hdr777 said:
I would be shocked, but E-2s may be easier because no need to test/implement anything extra to the helmet like NVGs or JHMCS

Hopefully it provides some better noise cancellation
Click to expand...
Are masks only for emergencies in the E-2?
 
ChuckMK23 said:
But an active noise reduction headset is mandatory these days. The reduction in fatigue is significant and I'm sure there is a significant reduction in hearing degradation.
Click to expand...

In another thread I mentioned a .mil study about the pluses and minuses of ANR. A quick review:

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).
Click to expand...

I found the link to the study, but unfortunately I can't seem to get to the file. Not sure if it's my browser or it needs a CAC cert, but here's the link: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a444679.pdf

However, here's a snippet from the study that was quoted:

The use of active headsets is appropriate when supplementary protection against low frequency noise and good communication are needed. This is typically the case for crewmembers of armored vehicles, propeller aircraft or helicopters. For other noise sources like jet engines the use of ANR earmuffs will not bring any supplementary protection. In figure 23 a typical third octave band noise close to a fighter aircraft (position of ground support during takeoff) is compared to noise inside an armored vehicle. It can be seen that the maximum level for the jet engine noise is situated at frequencies (>600 Hz) where the ANR in earmuffs is no more effective (figure 15). Worse, the ANR system amplifies the residual noise just at these frequencies (figure 16).
Click to expand...

Or to sum up, good for props, might be good for helos, but actually can cause damage in jets. I don't think the study is CUI and I think the issue is my browser, so if someone is able to post the study, that would be great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top