Bose QC2 w/ Ufly Mic - earbuds now required by FAA

[Sioux115]

It seems like another witch hunt by the FAA. We just got notice yesterday at QX from our friendly FAA Certification Management reminding us "that the use of a non-TSO’d headset, whether it be the headset or microphone all or in part, is not acceptable."

It goes on to state,"The FAA will begin emphasizing the inspection of headsets during routine en-route inspections to insure compliance with this policy. Each pilot must be able to show an inspector that the headset / microphone being used is TSO’d, either via suitable markings on the headset or other official documentation. Failure to show a properly approved headset may subject the user to additional action."

 

[Weasil]

Yes, that is what the FAA says about them meeting TSO requirements, but not about them meeting FAR requirements. Remember, TSO is a manufacturing standard.

This doesn't mean you can't use them, you just need to know what your company and the aircraft it operates require.

This email came from the company - It was from the Chief Pilot. They are instructing us to use only TSO'd equipment. As you say, the FAR's may not require that but the company now does. The FAA has reinterpreted their own regulations - they can do that. In fact following a recent ruling by an ALJ, the FAA can reinterpret the meaning or intent of their regulations post incident. IE: You may have thought you were complying with the letter of the law, but after you get violated they can say, yes I know we issued an interpretation stating you can use non-TSO'd headsets but we have changed our minds.

Judging by the email from QX, I'd say they are going to go after other brands that are non-TSO'd also.

 

[BigLebowski]

Here's what the FAA says [/FONT]

This was verified by a phone call to Mike (at UFM).

I am thinking about just switching to the bose x, but that thing looks big a heavy like the david clarks...

yeah used to wear the BoseX myself; overkill in the crj and very very heavy on those 3+ hour legs. I switched to the clarity aloft...works as well as the BoseX and weighs 1.2 ounces.

The only problem is the ear plugs provide such a good seal in the ear that when you have a little bit of sinus/inner ear issues it makes "equalizing" a real pain in the a**

 

[belchfire]

For me it has nothing to do with being cheap, I like them. Don't want to use anything else. They work great in the CJ-1 and I don't like Bose 10's. I also have Telex 750's and David Clark's.

That's a good enough reason...I used to use Lightspeeds-I preferred the audio on them to the big Bose. Being out of the Jball I'm using Sennheiser now. Not as expensive as the TSO'd Bose, just as good with outstanding transmit and receive audio. They even have a model you can plug your ipod or cell phone into if you want to spend an extra $150...

I wish I had never wasted the my (not trust fund as someone accused) money on those crappy Telex sets-see, I went cheap on headsets once too. Dismal audio quality. Light and cheap are the only positive qualities Telex can offer. I did get my first set of D-C's as a Christmas gift-still have them too, on the off chance I ever get to fly a little bug smasher again...

Bottom line is that you get what you pay for. You wanna save a few bucks you are going to get some kind of compromise. You'll end up better off in the long run just spending the money up front on a quality product that meets the requirements of the FAA and your GOM.

 

[ackattacker]

There is, quite simply, no regulatory requirement to use headsets at all. Only a boom microphone below 18,000 feet. And the boom microphone portion of the UFlyMike is TSO'd, not that it even matters.

The more you read about this the more ridiculous you realize it is. Individual FSDO cannot make up requirements which don't exist. There is no way to "interpret" into existence a new regulation.

 

[asapilot]

This email came from the company - It was from the Chief Pilot. They are instructing us to use only TSO'd equipment. As you say, the FAR's may not require that but the company now does. The FAA has reinterpreted their own regulations - they can do that.

I'm not sure the FAA has reinterpreted their own regulations. Without knowing, it's hard to say which came first.

1) If the company is now requiring you to use TSO'd equipment per the approved manuals, then yes, it's regulatory but it was the company's doing, not the FAA's. The FAA can't dictate what is put in your manual outside of the regulatory requirements.

2) If the FAA has told your company that they must use TSO'd headsets, then I would go to your Chief Pilot or DO and request some documentation. The FAA can't make up a rule, they have to have some basis for requiring it of the company and I'd be very surprised if the company just accepted it without requesting documentation themselves.

I do happen to know it was an inspector from the QX office that built up this issue again recently.

 

[mblackey]

It's amazing how much better educated we have become over the past two years since the headset debacle began. A few points I'd like to emphasize:

There is no FAA requirement to use a TSO'd headset or microphone.

Neither Bombardiers nor Boeings were type certified with headsets. If it were, they would be "installed" equipment, maintenance would own them, and only maintenance could install/remove them from the aircraft. Second, rampers and maintenance couldn't use non-TSO'd headsets (which they do).

FAA POIs are not authorized to interpret TSO Authorizations.

FAA CMOs are not authorized to evaluate operational policies of air carriers.

The ONLY valid verification that an article is TSO'd is the FAA Authorization Letter and/or FAA database (which is miserably inaccurate). The sticker on a TSO'd article is NOT a valid verification.

Components/parts of a TSO'd article do not require separate TSO Authorizations or TSO stickers.

Requiring pilots to provide proof of TSO Authorization is unprecedented. If it's that important, headsets should belong to maintenance, and there should be proper documentation and inspections conducted.

TSO Authorizations are not standardized; which criteria are met by a manufacturer and which are required by the FAA to grant a TSO Authorization is totally random.

TSO test criteria are not public domain, i.e., they are not available to 99.9% of us, including the FAA.

If TSO'd only headsets are required, then 3rd party non-TSO'd modifications to TSO'd headsets are also longer authorized. Examples: custom earmolds, ANR inserts for DCs, any repair done on any headset that was not done by a certified facility and accompanied by an FAA Form 8130-3.

As far as the UFlyMike:

The TSO'd configuration is the UFM with earbud and a headband.

The earbud we sell is the only authorized earbud, since it was TSO tested. Any earbud with a 2.5mm plug will work. If you already own a UFM or purchase a new one, we sell the earbud at our cost ($79 separate, $75 with a UFM).

If you use a QC2 as a headband, it doesn't matter if it's on or off. The QC2 passed TSO test requirements powered on, even though we only list it as a mechanical headband in our TSO.

THE ONLY WAY TO CORRECT THIS FIASCO OVER HEADSETS IS TO CONFRONT THE IGNORANT. IF YOU KNOW OF SOMEONE IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY WHO NEEDS TO BE CONFRONTED, LET US KNOW, PLEASE.

Mike
UFlyMike LLC

 

[DoinTime]

It's amazing how much better educated we have become over the past two years since the headset debacle began. A few points I'd like to emphasize:

There is no FAA requirement to use a TSO'd headset or microphone.

Neither Bombardiers nor Boeings were type certified with headsets. If it were, they would be "installed" equipment, maintenance would own them, and only maintenance could install/remove them from the aircraft. Second, rampers and maintenance couldn't use non-TSO'd headsets (which they do).

FAA POIs are not authorized to interpret TSO Authorizations.

FAA CMOs are not authorized to evaluate operational policies of air carriers.

The ONLY valid verification that an article is TSO'd is the FAA Authorization Letter and/or FAA database (which is miserably inaccurate). The sticker on a TSO'd article is NOT a valid verification.

Components/parts of a TSO'd article do not require separate TSO Authorizations or TSO stickers.

Requiring pilots to provide proof of TSO Authorization is unprecedented. If it's that important, headsets should belong to maintenance, and there should be proper documentation and inspections conducted.

TSO Authorizations are not standardized; which criteria are met by a manufacturer and which are required by the FAA to grant a TSO Authorization is totally random.

TSO test criteria are not public domain, i.e., they are not available to 99.9% of us, including the FAA.

If TSO'd only headsets are required, then 3rd party non-TSO'd modifications to TSO'd headsets are also longer authorized. Examples: custom earmolds, ANR inserts for DCs, any repair done on any headset that was not done by a certified facility and accompanied by an FAA Form 8130-3.

As far as the UFlyMike:

The TSO'd configuration is the UFM with earbud and a headband.

The earbud we sell is the only authorized earbud, since it was TSO tested. Any earbud with a 2.5mm plug will work. If you already own a UFM or purchase a new one, we sell the earbud at our cost ($79 separate, $75 with a UFM).

If you use a QC2 as a headband, it doesn't matter if it's on or off. The QC2 passed TSO test requirements powered on, even though we only list it as a mechanical headband in our TSO.

THE ONLY WAY TO CORRECT THIS FIASCO OVER HEADSETS IS TO CONFRONT THE IGNORANT. IF YOU KNOW OF SOMEONE IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY WHO NEEDS TO BE CONFRONTED, LET US KNOW, PLEASE.

Mike
UFlyMike LLC

I think most people would prefer it if you spent your time making a fail safe product rather than trying to justify the deficiencies of your current product.

 

[mblackey]

I forgot to mention: TSO's have nothing to do with reliability, safety or performance.

 

[goodgig]

So do you have to have the buds available, or do you have to use them constantly?

 

[mblackey]

So do you have to have the buds available, or do you have to use them constantly?

goodgig,

Constantly. All you need is to be able to hear that audio is coming out of them, so just putting one/both in an earcup works. Much like having overhead speaker on as a confirmation that QC2 audio is working. This meets the "pass through" requirement for ANR headsets.

It solves a non-problem that never existed.

Mike

 

[CA1900]

I think most people would prefer it if you spent your time making a fail safe product rather than trying to justify the deficiencies of your current product.

I've had exactly two headset failures, and both have been with TSO'd units. (One lost audio in the earcups, and the other snapped in half an fell around my neck.)

How exactly did the TSO help make them "fail safe"?

 

[mblackey]

I've had exactly two headset failures, and both have been with TSO'd units. (One lost audio in the earcups, and the other snapped in half an fell around my neck.)

How exactly did the TSO help make them "fail safe"?

CA1900,

Good point. The audio from the earbuds is independent of the QC2 and comes directly off the comm panel. Is it "fail safe?" No. But, it's the only headset on the market that now has redundant audio.

Nothing is, but there's a faction that have an unfounded fear of a battery powered headset. To me, monitoring a battery is no different than monitoring the fuel, oil and oxygen in the aircraft... well, almost. If your headset quits you don't normally fall out of the air....

Mike

 

[DoinTime]

There is big difference between an unplanned mechanical or electrical failure and a product that is engineered to be unserviceable when something like a battery dies. I'm not saying the TSO certification is the holy grail either. TSO or not something like an aviation headset should at least be engineered for the environment it was intended for. In the case of the QC2, it was never meant for the flight deck.

 

[mblackey]

There is big difference between an unplanned mechanical or electrical failure and a product that is engineered to be unserviceable when something like a battery dies. I'm not saying the TSO certification is the holy grail either. TSO or not something like an aviation headset should at least be engineered for the environment it was intended for. In the case of the QC2, it was never meant for the flight deck.

DoinTime,

The QC2 passed the same TSO specs as the Bose X. Ever listen to the so-called "pass through" on some ANR headsets? Some are unusable; other ANR headsets go dead when the battery dies... you have to turn the power switch off to regain any audio. They all have shortcomings.

 

[goodgig]

never meant for the flight deck.

Neither are a few pilots that I know.

There are a LOT of el cheapo headsets out there. I don't see this solution as exceptionally bad. I'm going in!

 

[asapilot]

FAA CMOs are not authorized to evaluate operational policies of air carriers.

I'm afraid you're completely incorrect on that one. While operational policy outside of regulatory requirements does not need to be approved, the CMO does have the authority and certainly does evaluate that policy. Whether the carrier chooses to implement recommendations from the CMO is their choice. There is no question that the CMO does and should evaluate all aspects of a carrier's operational policy.

 

[belchfire]

How exactly did the TSO help make them "fail safe"?

To answer your question in specific-should the ANR portion of your headset fail or power be lost to the ANR portion of the system you would still be able to hear ATC at some level determined to be acceptable.

To answer your question in general, nothing...the PMA/TSO'd manufacturers just have to pay more in liability insurance and meet various requirements in their manufacturing facilities.

The bottom line is that as a professional pilot you need to meet the requirements of your GOM and other company publications and the FAA.

This leaves you with two choices. You can use the sheitearse D-C or Telex headvices or inaudible crappy devices your company provides or you can go out and pay for some honest to God FAA PMA/TSO'd aviation headsets with or without the ANR and with or without the cellphone/ipod input connections.

You're the one that wants to be a professional pilot...guess you need to live within the rules.

Sorry that your union didn't negotiate you a better deal!

 

[gcaflyer]

I am sure someone here will have no problem correcting me if I am wrong, but last I heard the Telex 750's are not TSO'd. Does that mean that we cannot use them going forward? If so, I'll add the earbuds to my QC2/UFM, I only carry the Telex as a spare anyway since I got the QC2/UFM.

 

[CA1900]

To answer your question in specific-should the ANR portion of your headset fail or power be lost to the ANR portion of the system you would still be able to hear ATC at some level determined to be acceptable.

The TSO'd headsets both gave out with no warning. Should the same thing happen with the QC2 setup, the solution is the same: turn up the speaker knob.

The bottom line is that as a professional pilot you need to meet the requirements of your GOM and other company publications and the FAA.

And that's exactly what I do. My GOM says nothing about using a TSO'd headset. Nor do any of the FAR parts under which I currently operate (135, 91, 91k), or part 121 for that matter.

This leaves you with two choices.

Three, actually. A non-TSO'd headset is completely legal. Please show me where the FARs requires a TSO'd headset.

You're the one that wants to be a professional pilot...guess you need to live within the rules.

Please see above.

Sorry that your union didn't negotiate you a better deal!

I'm completely happy with the deal my union negotiated. What does that have to do with this?