Not an audiologist but willing to suggest solutions to a problem you don’t properly understand.
You’re making a lot of noise and providing solutions that you know openly won’t actually be viable but because it’s the internet you keep just taking the simple approach.
How does anyone know what effect a rifle firing will have on a HAT that has been developed to resolve a particular hearing deficiency for a particular person? And then on top of that how does the attenuation of any hearing defence over the top affect that, not just from a pressure perspective but frequency modulation etc
even more so thinking about the clever RCOs who would mix it up by requesting a left leg was raised, touch your nose or other instruction to work out who was paying attention (when they themselves raised their right hand)
A quick google is that .177 low power air rifle is around 70db. Minimum limit before review is 80db with 85db being actionable.
I would suggest that where muzzle noise does not exceed the 80db limit then there isn’t an issue as this is normal background noise.
Above 80db & 85db needs review & assessment.
If it’s concern on orders then you can restrict to no fire & manoeuvres (either live or blank) & 1-2-1 supervision when on range. This would be a reasonable adjustment.
Causing extra damage (or trying to work out the proportion live firing has caused to an individual) is trickier but as cadets hearing is still developing (which is why you weren’t meant to uses the squidgy ear defenders in under 15) you can’t factor that in.
Careful using db numbers so freely. A key part of noise readings is distance. A measurement taken 1m away will be very different to one taken right next to the moving parts, ie where someones ear is. Or where the muzzle is may make a difference too. Likewise a measurement take 10m away, ie what an RCO might get, will be very different again.
Just saying a .177 rifle is about 85db can be very misleading.
There’s an interesting study here after a quick google which has a table, taking into account distance too.
Plus, why are we debating about the noise levels at all. The problem stated is the possible inability for people on the range to hear safety orders. The problem isn’t potential hearing loss.
I don’t know if they won’t be viable - I’m not an audiologist. I doubt if anyone has asked for the specialist advice - but I bet you that there have been numerous inputs relating to the on-going military claims for loss of hearing, including from MOD medical experts.
I have quoted one specific example of a friend with bone implants that work very well (.308 fullbore rifles) using ear defenders with no degradation or loss of ability to hear range commands. How many cadets in RAFAC with such severe hearing conditions or who use other forms of HAT? Less than 50? Do we actually know? I doubt it. Assess the problem, then come up with a viable solution, using specialist advice.
If a behind the ear / or in-ear hearing aid works with ear defenders, then why is this a potential problem? Ask an audiologist.
I mentioned a supervisory option previously, 1:1 if necessary.
I noted that originally, but I do (cynically) suspect that the ongoing claims from military personnel concerning loss of hearing will have been considered. Use HAT = no shoot = stops any potential claims.
I was told that this was removed as it was not seen as inclusive.
Also, the issue with air rifles is the high pitched noise of the round hitting the bullet catcher and its cumulative effect of short very high pitched noise. here is also talk of maximum number of rounds per day for AR RCOs.
Indeed, but since they are claiming the issue is related to the inability to hear range orders it has no relevance, unless yehy aren’t being honest with us.
If the issue is as described, the logical, sensible and inclusive solution is to have an additional non-hearing impaired person with the firer at the firing point.
Stopping anyone who has a hearing impairment from shooting because of this is not a proportionate means to achieve a reduction in risk and excludes people who are already vulnerable.
participation in live or blank firing by those using HAT cannot be risk-assessed to the standard of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) and tolerable levels
suggesting even with a safety supervisor that is not low enough risk…?
this