rj headsets again

[mblackey]

Tso 57 & 58

PBRstreetgang,

There is no FAA requirement for a headset to be TSOd under TSO 57 & 58 unless they're part of the aircraft equipment, i.e., listed on the MEL/CDL.

Your post is incorrect.

Mike
UFlyMike LLC

 

[DoinTime]

I disagree; the thing has no passive attenuation at all. None. A jet aircraft has a lot of high-frequency wind noise that ANR does nothing to attenuate.

I'm not saying the Sennheiser is perfect, but when the battery dies you at least still have some hearing protection.

I've tried the Sennheiser on a few legs and couldn't stand it. Not enough room in the ear cups for a life sized ear, ear cups are not shaped like a human ear, and they are not very quiet.

The Bose does have reasonable passive attenuation however it doesn't seem that way when the active noise cancelling kicks off. Anything will seem loud when you go from 30db of total noise reduction to 10 db. Likewise when your sennheiser drops off ANR and you go from a reduction of 20 db to 10 db it will "seem" like the sennheiser has better passive reduction when in fact it doesn't.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

PBRstreetgang,

There is no FAA requirement for a headset to be TSOd under TSO 57 & 58 unless they're part of the aircraft equipment, i.e., listed on the MEL/CDL.

Your post is incorrect.

Mike
UFlyMike LLC

Wellll Mike,
The FARs require a headset below 18000ft. The FARs listed show a requirement for headset useage. "headset" is defined by the TSO process. There is nothing "incorrect" about my post. Select reading of the FARs might give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but still leaves you just as wrong as intentional disregard.
As an airman we do not "interpret" the FARs, we comply, no more no less. My dog in this "fight" is correct FAR compliance, yours is......
PBR

 

[SBD]

The Telex 850 are great. They have a built in ANR and they were well worth the money. I'm on the CRJ so I couldn't tell how well they would work on the ERJ.

 

[mblackey]

FAR Interpretations?

Wellll Mike,
The FARs require a headset below 18000ft. The FARs listed show a requirement for headset useage. "headset" is defined by the TSO process. There is nothing "incorrect" about my post. Select reading of the FARs might give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but still leaves you just as wrong as intentional disregard.
As an airman we do not "interpret" the FARs, we comply, no more no less. My dog in this "fight" is correct FAR compliance, yours is......
PBR

PBRstreetgang,

This post is incorrect, also. There is a requirement to use a boom microphone below 18,000 not a headset.

Won't get in the mud with personal attacks, sorry.

Mike

 

[DieselDash]

Does anyone use the Telex 750 on the CRJ?

 

[veneratio]

will the bose QC2 with the UflyMike work better and cancel more noise than the bose X headset?

 

[skyaddict]

Ditto on the Bose X having some reasonable passive protection pn top of the amazing active, which certainly isn't going to be the case for the QC2 by comparison. It is very, very sweet... sweetest sounding headset I have ever tried. I only wish someone made an MP-3 adapter for regular headsets.

 

[DoinTime]

will the bose QC2 with the UflyMike work better and cancel more noise than the bose X headset?

Not even close. The active noise reduction in the Bose X is the best that money can buy.

 

[jonjuan]

I disagree; the thing has no passive attenuation at all. None. A jet aircraft has a lot of high-frequency wind noise that ANR does nothing to attenuate.

I'm not saying the Sennheiser is perfect, but when the battery dies you at least still have some hearing protection.

Or you could simply change the 2 AA batteries.

 

[Hootie9750]

Okay just got back from a four day trip in the CRJ with the bose qc2/uflymike combo.

My initial thoughts were that it definitely blocked out more of the high pitch whine than what I had anticipated. Some planes on some days at some speeds and altitudes and directions have different levels of noise. Some legs it didnt bother me and on some legs it was still tolerable until I had a chance on the climb out to throw in some earplugs. The QC2 also has a fairly high level of "hot noise" when the intercom is on compared to my clunky old headclamps.

Some pros:
--lightweight
--comfortable
--very clear mic and speaker
--it's very nice headset to listen to music
--for an aviation headset it's not too expensive

Some cons:
--not the most quiet
--the QC2 needs to be babied (feels very breakable)
--intercom "hot noise"


My opinion, is that this headset is obviously not the bose X, but I never expected it too be that. If I were in a turboprop I'd get the X, but for a jet it is overkill and too much bulk and money. The QC2 does the job (maybe needs a little help with earplugs in the rj from time to time) and it is nice to have the option to use it with the ipod. I wish it was a little quieter but I doubt the telex 850 or the sennheiser is any quieter (I really would like to have the chance to side by side compare those). I wish the mic boom had a swivel because I wonder how long before that thing breaks from all the bending from talking then having a sip of water or eating then bending back then bending away then back, etc. I plan on contacting Uflymike on how much money he will repair the boom for. Also the issue of the headset goes dead when the battery dies is non-existent. Just look at the red light before you slip it on your head. If that is too much to ask of someone then just flick the overhead speaker on when the anr cuts out and the mic will still transmit.


Hope this helps some folks with the same questions I had!

 

[JettBoii]

I prefer the company David Clarks with the delflated ear seals.

 

[JettBoii]

oopsss.deflated

 

[Flyin2low]

On a DC-9 neither a boom mike nor a headphone is required at any altitudes.

 

[PCL_128]

Do you guys actually wear these dang headclamps the entire flight? My headset comes off above FL180 on every single flight. Can't stand wearing any headset, no matter how comfortable or quiet.