# Where to buy ballistic ear protection/plugs?



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

Wondering if anyone has any links to places you can pick up some ballistic ear plugs/protection?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (23 May 2005)

If you are in the military and need them, they will be provided.  Ususally nothing fancy but they're free and will meet all the requirements.  If they break, get a new pair.

If you want a useable cheap pair try Canadian Tire or Home Hardware.

If you have some cash to spend, try a pair Peltors with the noise cancellation hardware from a safety supply company.  I think mine are Peltor 6S or something like that and I can stand next to a running APC and hear people talking 30 feet away.  Over a hundred bucks though.


----------



## Gunner (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer,

The basic ear plugs work well when they are used properly and you should always keep a pair in your kit.

While, I salute you for taking care and becoming informed of what you should be doing for hearing protection in the artillery, I am wondering if you may be a bit over cautious about this topic?  I mean, when you go to bars/concerts, do you wear ear protection while you are there?  Do you listen to loud music in your vehicle?

Cheers,


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> tannerthehammer,
> 
> The basic ear plugs work well when they are used properly and you should always keep a pair in your kit.
> 
> ...



At least in my car and at a bar with loud music I have a choice as to whether or not I have to subject myself to it....So if I am in the military and have no choice that is what worries me...My hearing is forever and the military may not be...


----------



## Inch (23 May 2005)

Yes you do have the option. Don't join. You think you've got it bad? I'm around jet engines (one of the loudest sounds on the earth) all day and in the 3 years that I've been on the flight line with jet engines running, there hasn't been a single point of my hearing range that has dropped from what it was before I hit the flight line. I'm required to have a hearing test every year. Foam earplugs do the trick when walking by aircraft running on the ramp and I wear my helmet sans earplugs while flying.

I think you're taking this a little too far.


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

Agree...you should try being outside the Aurora when the APU is running !!!!!!


----------



## Britney Spears (23 May 2005)

Are you fly-boys not supplied with peltor headsets?


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

My point is that if there is a way for me not to subject myself to unnecessary hearing damage then I am gonna do it...I have talked to alot of gunners and most if not ALL say they have some sort of hearing damage from the guns...I want to smartly avoid this if possible...

As I'm sure there are many other trades whose personel are subjected to loud sounds and they too lose their hearing such as air force or even infantry from the machine guns...Maybe its time the CF took another look at this issue and address it more effectively in my opinion...


----------



## Inch (23 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Are you fly-boys not supplied with peltor headsets?



Won't fit under my flying helmet. Our helmets are Gentex SPH-5's  (except ours are green) and they have an integrated headset in them. They're quite good. As for active noise cancellation, I don't think that's approved for use in military aircraft. Certainly not in ones that require you to wear a helmet at all times, ie helos and jets.




			
				tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> My point is that if there is a way for me not to subject myself to unnecessary hearing damage then I am gonna do it...I have talked to alot of gunners and most if not ALL say they have some sort of hearing damage from the guns...I want to smartly avoid this if possible...
> 
> As I'm sure there are many other trades whose personel are subjected to loud sounds and they too lose their hearing such as air force or even infantry from the machine guns...Maybe its time the CF took another look at this issue and address it more effectively in my opinion...



And the CF has. Earplugs are supplied by the handful if you want them, it's your choice to wear them. If you don't then too bad, they were supplied.


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

In fact, the minimum noise rating for CF ear plugs has been raised in recent years to offer better protection.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

> Maybe its time the CF took another look at this issue and address it more effectively in my opinion



I get the impression you don't think the CF takes safety very seriously at all. I assure you they do, but its up to you to bring safety infractions or concerns to your immediate supervisor so those issues can be addressed.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

As I alluded to in another post on this subject, there are a good set of plugs recommended over on Lightfighter by guys coming back from the Sandbox.   They give you the hearing protection from the loud bangs but allow you to hear the things you need to hear, like you Section Commander telling you to move your ass....

http://www.aosafety.com/aosafety.com/shooters/products/ear_03.htm

Cost about 10 bucks, but may be worth the investment when you get on ops and need total situational awareness.


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I get the impression you don't think the CF takes safety very seriously at all. I assure you they do, but its up to you to bring safety infractions or concerns to your immediate supervisor so those issues can be addressed.



He's starting to sound like one of those " the CF owes me something" kinda guys !!


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> Maybe its time the CF took another look at this issue and address it more effectively in my opinion...



Qualify that statement with some experience with problems of noise around CF vehicles or weapons - others who do the job day-in and day-out say its fine; if you're not going to listen to what they have to say, then what the hell are you posting here for?   :



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> He's starting to sound like one of those " the CF owes me something" kinda guys !!



No kidding - not even in and he's making demands....


----------



## Britney Spears (23 May 2005)

Inch, aesop:

Excuse my ignorance, but I am under the impression that the noise isn't so bad inside the aircraft, and the noise was an issue when you're milling around outside the plane, and also for ground crews.  If so, active noise cancellation seems to make sense.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Qualify that statement with some experience with problems of noise around CF vehicles or weapons - others who do the job day-in and day-out say its fine; if you're not going to listen to what they have to say, then what the heck are you posting here for?   :
> 
> No kidding - not even in and he's making demands....



Some people just think they know better then those that work with it everyday.  :


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Inch, aesop:
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but I am under the impression that the noise isn't so bad inside the aircraft, and the noise was an issue when you're milling around outside the plane, and also for ground crews.   If so, active noise cancellation seems to make sense.



I cant speak for the sea king..but inside the aurora, its still very noisy.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

PS: I forgot to include the link to this thread (which you may have to sign-up to read) - very informative overview of tactical hearing protection:

http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/9046084761/m/9541006711/r/3231013811#3231013811


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 May 2005)

I rodded around in AEV and AVLB for a few (okay, quite a few) years.  The worst noise threat came not from the power pack, but the white noise of the ICS.  At the end of a trace, my head would be ringing for hours. Those little foamy earplugs helped with that.  Off topic, but I just felt like jumping in  ;D

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Inch (23 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Inch, aesop:
> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but I am under the impression that the noise isn't so bad inside the aircraft, and the noise was an issue when you're milling around outside the plane, and also for ground crews.   If so, active noise cancellation seems to make sense.



It depends on the aircraft and where you are in relation to the engines. In the Sea King we sit right below them and we have windows all around us, the two side ones can open so there's not a whole lot of difference between standing beside the window or sitting inside the cockpit. We do hot fuels (refuelling with the engines running and rotor turning) and we also do hot crew changes prior to or after refuelling. Walking by the aircraft is probably worse since you're walking by the exhaust and that's where most of the noise comes from, if you could even say that since the entire helicopter is pretty loud.

You're required to wear a helmet when walking to and from a running aircraft with visor down or goggles on for the ground guys. So we're stuck with the helmets, and to be honest, they're quite good and I've heard of only one hearing problem since I've been flying for the CF.


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

I remember when i was on OJT at 403 sqn, standing outside the griffon to do external checks with the FE and found that the helmet did a good job at reducing the noise from the engines.   For some reason though, i find that even with my headset on, the APU on the aurora is insanely noisy.


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No kidding - not even in and he's making demands....



For your information I am "in" the artillery in the reserves
Secondly, have a look at this:

Remember, noise-induced hearing loss is 100 percent preventable by properly using earplugs and/or earmuffs regularly. A rule of thumb is that when noise is loud enough that you need to 'raise your voice' to be heard at a distance of three feet or less, you are risking long-term hearing damage. It is recommended that hearing protection be used when the noise level around you meets or exceeds 85 dBA. 

Type of Gun and Peak Sound Pressure Level 

.44 Revolver 170 dB 
45 Automatic 165 dB 
M-16 160 dB 
.357 Revolver  160 dB 
12 Gauge Shotgun 155 dB 
.38 Revolver 150 dB 
.22 Rifle 145 dB 

Clearly you can see that these simple things are all over 85db....even a car backfiring is over 85db...ANYTHING OVER 85DB CAN RESULT IN PERMANENT HEARING DAMAGE...


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> For your information I am "in" the artillery in the reserves
> Secondly, have a look at this:
> 
> Remember, noise-induced hearing loss is 100 percent preventable by properly using earplugs and/or earmuffs regularly. A rule of thumb is that when noise is loud enough that you need to 'raise your voice' to be heard at a distance of three feet or less, you are risking long-term hearing damage. It is recommended that hearing protection be used when the noise level around you meets or exceeds 85 dBA.
> ...



I see you are still missing the point  :


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

As you are missing mine :boring:  All I am saying is why give someone hearing protection that is 75% safe when you can give them protection that makes hearing loss 100% preventable?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

If you are that worried I would advise forgoing the CF and find a nice quiet job. A library might be a good choice....


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> If you are that worried I would advise forgoing the CF and find a nice quiet job. A library might be a good choice....



So are you saying that you are opposed to the CF re-evaluating policy with the possibility to make the lives of its soldiers safer and better?


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> For your information I am "in" the artillery in the reserves



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29912.0.html

Considering you "Got the Call" about a month ago, then you are just a civvie with green clothes (unless they somehow found a BMQ for you and launched you through it in a month).



> Secondly, have a look at this:



As I said before, the people here work day-in and day-out with this stuff; if there was a genuine problem, they would tell you about it.

Obviously, you don't want to hear what they have to say, so you may as well quit posting questions and statements on the topic.   Since you are a recruit now, why don't you write a letter with all your problems and send it here:

_Office of the Ombudsman
100 Metcalfe Street
12th floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5M1_


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> As you are missing mine :boring:



Listen kid, as misguided as it is, i see your point.   What you are missing is that the current ear protection provided by the CF is adequate and that if you are ordered to use only the issued equipment you are legaly bound to obey it regardless of your personal " not warm and fuzzy" on the subject.

Someone issues a legal order = you doing it.......end


----------



## Inch (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> As you are missing mine :boring:   All I am saying is why give someone hearing protection that is 75% safe when you can give them protection that makes hearing loss 100% preventable?



And you're going to hear the words of command how? You don't wear intercoms. If you block out all the gun noise, you're blocking out the words of command too. Pretty counter productive to getting things done. It's a necessary evil, you're going to be subject to some noise in order to hear and understand orders that are given to you. It's a trade off just like everything else. You could be better protected from gun fire with thicker ballistic plates but the extra weight makes moving almost impossible. See my point?

Look on the bright side, a gun blast is momentary, try listening to a pair of screaming jet engines for 3 hours straight.


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29912.0.html
> 
> Considering you "Got the Call" about a month ago, then you are just a civvie with green clothes (unless they somehow found a BMQ for you and launched you through it in a month).



Funny, i was just thinking that   ;D   I guess getting the call gives you just enough knowledge to be able to make stupid statements.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> So are you saying that you are opposed to the CF re-evaluating policy with the possibility to make the lives of its soldiers safer and better?



Not sure where you got that as I have never even implied that. I was suggesting you forego a career in the CF as this is a serious hang up for you. As I said in another post the CF does take safety seriously, what we are saying is just not getting through to you.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

Well, considering that the question has been answered and a link to good information has been provided, I think we can lock this one up as well, lest we recieve another earful (ack, I need hearing protection) of Mr. TannertheHammer's lectures....

Ex-Dragoon, you want the honours?


----------



## tannerthehammer (23 May 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Listen kid, as misguided as it is, i see your point.   What you are missing is that the current ear protection provided by the CF is adequate and that if you are ordered to use only the issued equipment you are legaly bound to obey it regardless of your personal " not warm and fuzzy" on the subject.
> 
> Someone issues a legal order = you doing it.......end



First of all I'm not a kid considering I'm 25, 2ndly I don't believe that just because the army says something is "adequate" that it can't/shouldn't be improved on if possible...This program was done in 1976 surely it could be re-evaluated considering its 30 years old...

CFAO 34-22 -- HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM



PURPOSE
1.       This order introduces the Hearing Conservation Program.   This program
is given comprehensive treatment and technical amplification in CFMO 40-01
and CFP 119.

GENERAL
2.       The conservation of hearing is a common objective to all members of
the Canadian Forces.   The work environment of the Canadian Forces contains
many areas of high noise hazards such as weapons systems, aircraft and
military vehicle engines and industrial workshops.   Exposure to high
intensity noise may not only render permanent damage to the hearing, but
produce other physical and psychological effects.
3.       There is no method available for predicting an individual's
susceptibility to hearing loss induced by high-intensity noise.   Since such
hearing loss is irremediable and irreversible, hearing conservation is of
paramount importance.
4.       The Hearing Conservation Program is designed to protect hearing in the
work environment of bases, ships or units by the following methods:
       a.    reduction of noise levels of equipment either by change of
               location or by engine modification;

       b.    identification and marking of areas in which hazardous noises
               occur;

       c.    periodic audiometry and identification of personnel susceptible
               or at risk, and prevention of further hearing loss;

       d.    provision of adequate hearing protection devices to personnel
               exposed to high-intensity noises; and

       e.    a continuing educational program dealing with the aims and
               endeavours of the Hearing Conservation Program.

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM5.       SURGEON GENERAL.   The Surgeon General is responsible for policy
concerning all aspects of the program, as outlined in CFMO 40-01.
6.       COMMAND SURGEON.   The command surgeon coordinates medical aspects of
the program within his region of responsibility, as outlined in CFMO 40-01.
7.       BASE COMMANDER.   The base commander is responsible for implementing
the Base Hearing Conservation Program.   For this purpose, he will establish
a base hearing conservation committee, which may be a sub-committee of the
Base General Safety Committee.
8.       BASE HEARING CONSERVATION COMMITTEE.   This committee could be chaired
by the base technical services officer, and must include a medical officer,
unit or section representative, and the senior base hygiene technician.
Its terms of reference shall include:
       a.    identifying areas and sources of potential noise hazard;

       b.    arranging for an initial sound survey as required;

       c.    requesting other sound surveys as required;

       d.    receiving the recommendations arising from sound surveys, and
               ensuring that the recommendations are carried out wherever
               possible;

       e.    ensuring that all areas in which hazardous noises occur are
               properly marked and that their existence is known to all
               concerned;

       f.    promoting an education program on the base to ensure that
               protective measures are applied; and

       g.    ensuring that hearing conservation measures are continually in
               force.

9.       BASE SURGEON.   The base surgeon assumes ultimate responsibility for
the medical responsibilities of the Base Hearing Conservation Committee as
well as the responsibilities outlined in CFMO 40-01.

10.      PROJECT MANAGERS.   The NDHQ project manager is responsible for
requesting the opinion of the Surgeon General/DPM on any aspects of hearing
conservation relative to the purchase, installation or maintenance of new
equipment, as outlined in CFP 119.


(C)                                                       1605-34-22 (DPM)

Issued 9 Jul 76

Supersedes pages 1 to 6 of order in AL 16/68, pages 7 and 8 of order in AL
35/68, and Annexes A, B, C and D in AL 16/68.

INDEXHearing
Medical


----------



## aesop081 (23 May 2005)

Tannerthehammer:

I see 3 words in your future...........failiure to adapt


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> First of all I'm not a kid considering I'm 25, 2ndly I don't believe that just because the army says something is "adequate" that it can't/shouldn't be improved on if possible...



WHAT'S THAT?!?  CAN'T HEAR YOU - BEEN TO THE RANGE TOO MANY TIMES....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

you are the weakest link bye bye!!


----------



## Rebel_RN (23 May 2005)

Tanner, 
    According to a medical journal published recently( last month ) in ProQuest Nursing Journals hearing loss associated with "loud Noise" is acceptably prevented by wearing foam ear plugs, I won't go into the inner workings of the ear because it would take far too much time, but the amount of force/noise to permantly cause damage to the tympanic membrane, cochlea, and minute hairs that detect vibration is extremly high. You may experience some hearing loss with the noise of loud guns sure, but the majority of that hearing loss is caused by the hairs in your ear laying down and it takes a little while for them to stand erect again. In order to permantly cause them to refrain from growth you would have to be subjected to that same noise repeatedly for quite some time without a break. That does not happen as the CF has done adequate research into this issue and has come up with a solution of handing out ear plugs for you to protect yourself with. If you choose not to wear them, as was already stated in this post, then it is on you and not the CF. Furthermore, if you do feel that you are unable to cope with what has already been deemed appropriate and acceptable recourse to this issue perhaps you should field your energies to another area. As per a whole this issue has been taken care of by the CF and the others who have responded to this post. you have been given links on where to go to find other protection. You can lead a horse to water........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

So let me get this straight. You say we are not medically qualified to answer your questions yet we use this equipment day in and day out, have safety training up the ying yang but you feel you are more qualified then us to know what is safe and what is not??   :

Oie!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 May 2005)

Rebel_RN said:
			
		

> Tanner,
> According to a medical journal published recently( last month ) in ProQuest Nursing Journals hearing loss associated with "loud Noise" is acceptably prevented by wearing foam ear plugs, I won't go into the inner workings of the ear because it would take far too much time, but the amount of force/noise to permantly cause damage to the tympanic membrane, cochlea, and minute hairs that detect vibration is extremly high. You may experience some hearing loss with the noise of loud guns sure, but the majority of that hearing loss is caused by the hairs in your ear laying down and it takes a little while for them to stand erect again. In order to permantly cause them to refrain from growth you would have to be subjected to that same noise repeatedly for quite some time without a break. That does not happen as the CF has done adequate research into this issue and has come up with a solution of handing out ear plugs for you to protect yourself with. If you choose not to wear them, as was already stated in this post, then it is on you and not the CF. Furthermore, if you do feel that you are unable to cope with what has already been deemed appropriate and acceptable recourse to this issue perhaps you should field your energies to another area. As per a whole this issue has been taken care of by the CF and the others who have responded to this post. you have been given links on where to go to find other protection. You can lead a horse to water........


Thank you RN...hopefully Tanner will feel you are qualified as you basically conformed what we have been trying to tell him.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2005)

Rebel_RN said:
			
		

> Furthermore, if you do feel that you are unable to cope with what has already been deemed appropriate and acceptable recourse to this issue perhaps you should field your energies to another area. As per a whole this issue has been taken care of by the CF and the others who have responded to this post. you have been given links on where to go to find other protection. You can lead a horse to water........



That says it all - thank you RN.

Infanteer Out.


----------

