From Page 29
(2) You're right. First you want to ensure the operator's auditory safety.
Then you can determine how the speaking level is being interfered with.
In addition to the correct answer above, the question on warning
signals was also important.
We wonder how you would solve the problem
presented in Item 1.
Would you require headgear which would protect the
crew and still allow oral communication? It seems there are a variety of
ways this problem could be attacked. The solution that eventually is okayed
depends upon the costs involved and how effective the solution is in leading
to mission completion.
For example, muffling the noise source may be
costly.
However, what if that noise can also be heard by an enemy?
Sometimes noise is desirable: to scare the enemy. If, however, you don't
want the enemy to know you're around, noise becomes an enemy.
Then the
mission, as well as the crew's hearing, is in jeopardy. If the noise were
apparent only inside the cockpit, maybe protective headgear would be an
efficient, effective, and inexpensive solution.
Suppose for a moment that the SALV was an established system. After 2
years in service, you get a call one day from your division chief. You are
instructed to change a warning system within the cockpit.
The present
system has a series of flashing red lights which are activated when there is
an engine malfunction. You are going to replace that visual system with an
audio one (a beeping buzzer). What should you do?
(1) Use a low frequency bell instead of a buzzer and use a steady-state
rather than an interrupted signal. Turn to Page 48.
(2) Test the signals to be sure they are detectable and keep the visual
system with the new one in order to help people get accustomed to the audio
one. Turn to Page 23.
(3) Two of these answers are correct. Turn to Page 30.
(4) Make sure the new signal isn't the same as an existing signal used for
other purposes and use a frequency range between 500 and 3,000 Hz. Turn to
Page 75.
86
Previous Page
