Is ANR worth it in the DHC-8?
 

Yes, it makes a difference, especially if the NVS is deferred (Q-200). I use the Bose QC2 with the UflyMike. It's less than half the cost of the Bose and twice as better IMO.

Doesn't the headset die if it runs out of batteries? If this is the case what happens when you realize "whoops, I guess I dont have any batteries in my bag."

you turn on the overhead speaker, and buy a AAA in the terminal

In that case suck it up then use the headset that should be provided to you by the company... I know Piedmont provides Telex headsets for the dhc 100 & 300.

There's a kit you can get to convert a set of DC's to ANR.

a few years in the dash, ANR not necessary, maybe 5% of guys on our fleet used them.

If you are flying in west where you might get up into the twenties you can even go off headsets and use the speakers in cruise...

ANR is worth it in any airplane you fly...it certainly has been for me from a C172, a Cirrus SR22, a King Air, Beechjet, CRJ or straight-wing Citation way up at FL450 where wind noise is almost nil.

Helping save your hearing is worth every penny IMO.

Outside the box idea....

I flew the shorts, very loud. I bought the Halo from Quiet Technologies, then got custom ear molds (for shooting ranges) drilled a hole them, and put the speaker tube into it. I did this because it was more comfortable than using foam ear plugs, especially for long flights. But then I wondered after a few years if Bose was better, so i bought the Bose X. Brought both on the flight, tried them one after another, side by side, did this for a few flights, and the Halo with the plugs was just as quiet, no differences in the sound cancellation. 1/4 the cost, and way more comfortable. This is in agreement with reviews I've read about he halo vs. the bose on different forum threads. So I sold the bose. Also wore the telex 850 in the citation, couldn't stand how loud it was at lower altitudes, brought in my halo the next day. You could also do this with any in-ear headset.

Didn't when I was there. They provided those Plantronics ear plug worthless crap thingies that sucked. Everyone provided their own Telex 750s.

I've never liked using a company headset anywhere I've flown. Nothing like spending 7 hours sitting 1/64 of an inch from someone else's used crewmeal. There aren't enough Sanicoms in the world to remove that grunge.

been using lightspeed ANR for the last 6 yrs in the dash. right now I have the Zulu series and they are the best I have ever had.

Maybe they are plantations, I don't know I never had to use them.. I use Telex 850s myself seem to work fine.

Point is, they do provide headsets.

I have been using the Uflymike in the Dash for 5 years. It works great. You can now get the Uflymike with a battery dead backup earpiece. This keeps you TSO legal. Also, get the QC 15's. They are twice as good as the QC-2's. They have double the ANR(a mike inside and outside the cup).

You can carry a pair of ipod earphones. There is a jack on the uflymike that makes it tso approved. I've used the qc2/uflymike on the q400 for three years now and it works great. A lot of guys use them on the q and like them.

Thanks everyone for the great input! Question to the uflymike guys... Some GA guy did a youtube review saying it popped out of the headphones once while flying. Can someone explain the mating process of the uflymike to the headphones? Is it just a simple stereo jack plug, or does it lock in somehow? Does the uflymike with QC2 or QC15 have "ANY" major disadvantages? It must be pretty durable if everyone likes it so much, right? Thanks so much.

I haven't had a problem with mine in the last 4 years. The jack just plugs into the QC's, there's a rubber ring around the uflymike and I assume that it just gets held in somehow that way. Every time I plug mine in, it fits pretty snug. Plus when you are deadheading, the QC2/15 is a killer set of headphones.

The QC's come with a hardshell case and the uflymike wraps up neatly inside with the headphones so you can throw the thing in your flight bag and not worry about them getting damaged.

Telex 750s with foam ear plugs your cheapest and best bet. Comfortable, no batteries. Good hearing. Flying the Dash for 16 years and perfect hearing.

To answer you in the shortest way possible, yes, ANR is worth it in the DH8.

I've used a few different headsets and currently have a Bose, and would never want to go back to a non-ANR product in this aircraft.

MS260

thats what i used in the Dash worked pretty well.

Telex 850 works for me in the Dash...ANR with no batteries needed; it just gets its power through the jack. It helps for those radio calls that come in right when you're putting the props back after landing, or while on takeoff (because it can get a bit loud sometimes)

ANR is definitly worth it. After 10 years in the airplane and the wife shouting at me, I've lost some hearing. I recently broke down and got a good pair of ANR and only wish i did it sooner. the airplane is not as quite as some in the company (PDT) think it is.

YES......need your hearing to qualify for your job, right??? That should answer the question right there.

ANR is the way to go....many choices out there, just choose one. I personally use the Sennheiser HMEC 26's. Love 'em. But, there are many other manufacturers and I highly, highly recommend using ANR when you fly.

Well I drove out to the Bose store today to put on a set of Q15’s. I have to say I was somewhat disappointed. I'm not sure what I was expecting, never put ANR on my head in my life until today, but I guess I thought they would be amazing or something. Granted I was in the Bose showroom floor and not the cockpit, but they didn't seem to reduce anymore noise than my Flightcom clamps (non ANR) - Obviously they are immensely more comfortable I'll grant you, but I could still hear a lot of sounds coming from the outside: I could hear my kids laughing, whining, crying, and people chatting 10 feet away. They even had a simulated jet noise that came on in the store periodically and I wasn't that impressed with the reduction in that sound either. (And yes, they were turned on) I mean wow, they were cool, and the ANR was remarkable, but when I got home I put on my clamps to compare and my kids sounded about the same as under the Q15s. I'm not looking to upgrade for comfort only at this point; I’m looking to cut out the deep low roar of the prop while climbing out at 900 Np. Will the Q-15's do that or are they just a more comfortable way of achieving an 'equal' degree of noise suppression as the old tried and true "clamp and seal" David Clark style method?

Just for the record, ANR isn't made to reduce the sound of kids whining, etc. It's made to reduce repetitive low-frequency noise by analyzing a sample of the noise and generating the same waveform 180 degrees out of phase, so that noises like kids whining, etc, comes through clearer while the repetitive low-frequency (do you like how I did that?) noise is phase-cancelled out.

That said, there has been recent research that suggests, and I believe there's a possibility, that ANR doesn't itself prevent hearing damage. The passive noise reduction value of the headset still does, of course. I don't have a reference, so don't take that as a fact without looking it up yourself. (But the first part is)

~Foxy

I'm in the Dash as well and have been looking at the new Beyerdynamic 600's. I know they are a very good microphone company but they are new to the aviation market. Has anybody tried these yet?

That tells me your 'clamps' are no better than the QC-15 with the ANR off - aka, not very good.

As 'Foxy' said, ANR samples the sound and creates an out of phase sound to cancel it. If anything, your kids should be louder with the QC-15's than they are with the 'clamps'. The 'clamps' reduce all sound equally. The QC-15's (and all ANR) reduce all sound equally the same way the 'clamps' do, passively (though usually not very much), and then reduce 'constant' noise through the ANR as a 'bonus', if you will.

Since no one has independently tested the various headsets (Bose won't put a NRR on any of their headsets) against each other, it's hard to prove one way or the other. If you go to UFlyMike's website you can see they have a pilot survey of various headsets. Now, maybe the data is skewed b/c this survey was likely done by UFlyMike users, but it captures the sentiments of most pilots pretty well. The 'clamps' are unsafe b/c they are uncomfortable, the fancy Bose headset is super expensive, and any non-over the ear headset lets in too much noise, whether it's got ANR or not. Most every pilot who has tried the UFlyMike prefers it to any other set-up.

The biggest downside of the UFM is that you have to turn your overhead speaker on if the battery dies and you don't have a spare, as the headphones stop putting out audio entirely if the battery dies (see the paragraph below for a detailed TSO discussion). The 'low battery' light blinks to tell you it is low about 5 hours before it dies, so you really have to be an idiot or penny pincher to let it die. As UFM points out, airplanes run off batteries and fuel, which are both expendable power sources. As a pilot, it is your job to monitor expendable energy sources already, so you can handle the battery issue.

For the TSO'd forum nerds (if you don't know what I'm talking about, skip this paragraph): No discussion of the UFlyMike would be complete without the question - is it TSO'd? The FAA does not require you to use a TSO'd headset, only some airlines do. All TSO'd headsets require that you be able to hear ATC passively, and the Bose QC2 and QC15 don't do this (that's why Bose makes you pay over $1000 for their 'aviation' headset, so that it makes noise when the battery dies, and why Bose pushed the TSO angle, as UFM undercut their huge profit machine). If you fly for an airline that demands TSO approved headsets, you must also use the Westone UM1 earbuds (you can't just use any iPod ear buds, you have to use Westone UM1 earbuds, as they were the ones used for the TSO certification). So you have to buy the UFM A100T (the microphone), the Westone UM1 earbuds, and a QC2 (the QC-15 is not yet TSO approved with the UFM as of this writing). That's $225 for the UFM, $5 for shipping, $79 for the ear buds, and $299.95 for the Bose (or whatever the price is for the QC2, since Bose doesn't sell them anymore). You also have to get a special sticker put on your QC2's and UFM. Yes, seriously. All this is to have a TSO'd headset b/c a certain airline in the 'southwest' get a burr under their saddle about all their pilots using non-TSO'd headsets, and then it spread like wildfire. Of course, if you have modified your headset at all (custom ear molds, new mic muff, added ANR, ANYTHING but totally, 100% stock) your headset isn't TSO'd either - it has to be in the same EXACT configuration that it got certified as TSO'd in. So, essentially, 95% of guys don't bother with all this, and 5% of guys have the fancy ear buds and stickers so that when their Chief Pilot or FAA POI mouths off to them about their non-TSO'd headset, they can put them in their place.

It's not coincidence that the new Bose QC15's came out, and then the Bose A20 aviation headset came out. Both claim to have better ANR than their predecessors (the QC2 and X) b/c they have a second microphone on the exterior of the ear cup and redesigned ear cushions. As far as your ears are concerned, they're the exact same . . . except one of them costs $796 more than the other one b/c it has a microphone and still lets the sound come through after the battery dies, but is unusable as a non-aviation headset.

I just tried to find this research. Reference please? Sound waves, like all waves, cancel each other out if 180 degrees out of phase. In the same way that you can make water flat by canceling out waves by creating 'opposite waves' (try it in a sink or bathtub), you can make sound 'flat' - ie, quiet. If ANR doesn't reduce sound amplitude (what leads to hearing loss), than that would possibly have major implications in many areas of physics, not just ear phones.

--
Sorry for the length.

Good write up in Plane & Pilot on ANR vs PNR in the Nov. issue. ANR does nothing for the high frequency noise like wind and jet engines! Double protection is the best way to go, wish I had doubled up earlier because I wouldn't have this dam ringing in my ears now.

lack of source for key finding
 

That article is suspect.

The article cites no sources (or even states "studies have shown") in the section where it identifies jet flight deck noise as "higher frequency noise". It uses general terms, like "most ANR headsets". Which ones are included in 'most', which ones aren't? What data is this statement based on?

Boeing did a study to reduce flight deck noise in the 737NG, the results of which were discussed in May 2004. At the "pilots right ear" @ 35,000 ft and .78 M, the loudest noise was @ the 225 Hz frequency, and the greatest noise was between the 150 - 300 Hz Frequency range. Incidentally, these are around the same frequencies that Plane and Pilot identifies as the ones ANR works best at. Furthermore, the loudest noise in a 737 flight deck in the study was from the "ECS" (Environmental Control System). While the "Turb. Boundary Layer" is the highest contributor to noise @ 600 Hz and above, the overall noise is almost 20 dB than @ the 225 Hz peak. In short, the loud noise is where ANR works best at making loud noise go away.

As the US Navy has found:
There is simply not an objective way to evaluate ANR headsets right now against each other.

However, the results of the 45th Navy Occupational Health & Preventive Medicine Conference Audiology Session are clear; the only noise reduction method to achieve the highest level of noise reduction is "Active Noise Reduction".

If you double up (earplugs inside your headset) it'll work better, ANR or not. That's a better option for hearing protection, but often won't work in a non-hot mic environment. The best option is wearing a "custom deep insert ear plug" (goes beyond the second bend in the ear canal) under your headset, and is the option Navy recommends on Aircraft Carriers (except for the LSO, b/c he needs to be able to communicate aurally, as well as hear the changes in thrust of landing aircraft).