Lightspeed Battery Box Warning

Steve House wrote:
Assuming the problems reported are legit

In other words, maybe I'm an idiot or making this up? Good start....


, this seems to indicate a quality
assurance issue with the manufacturer.

No argument there.

I was just looking over the
Lightspeed web site and didn't see any indication that their headsets were
TSO'd.

True. Neither are any of the other ANR headsets AFAIK

Now I will be the first to admit I'm a newby so I my impressions may
be in error and as such take anything I say with a grain of salt but my
understanding of what TSO means is that 1: the product was type accepted,
passed testing to insure that it did what it was supposed to and was
compatible with and did not interact negatively with the other aircraft
systems, and 2: that the manufacturer has quality assurance programs in
effect that would insure all products coming off the line met the same
performance standards as the samples submitted for approval.

Negative. What TSO'd means is that the product met the "type
standards order" the FAA has produced for that type of product.

The TSO for a given product may literally be decades old, and a
product which meets it may (of necessity) be inferior to a product
which does not.

The TSO says nothing about testing/compatibility with other
aircraft systems.

The TSO says nothing about quality assurance. It simply says that
the product, as designed and evaluated, met the standards of the order.
QA is what a "PMA" is supposed to be about.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me to be foolish to buy non-TSO'ed
equipment for permanent aircraft installation or for use by the
PIC or FO if there is one.

We-eeeel, when you're making your purchasing and maintenance decisions,
you're entitled to chose according to your convictions.

Just remember this: Bernoulli not Marconi makes the plane fly.

And here's another little tidbit for you: I've been in the
clag with a TSO'd transponder which was emitting smoke and the
charming odure of frying electronics. So I wouldn't bet the
rent on the TSO quality thing.

is something I personally can't afford at any price and battery packs that
spontaneously burst into flame certainly seem to me to be a safety issue,

Who on earth talked about "battery packs that spontaneously burst
into flame?"

Jay (who has not experienced this problem) wondered if this could
happen, and I explained: no.

The thing did get durned hot, and could conceivably have melted
low-temperature plastic on which it was placed. It was not hot
enough to ignite either paper or plastic and was unlikely to become
so, because the plastic deformed and ended the short circuit
long before that point.

HTH,
Sydney

Personally, I'm giving up on them. When they are fixed, I'll sell them
but I guess I'd better give an MBG

Mike

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in message ...
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

Sniffer traced to 30-3G battery box, which had been left
lying across the yoke.

Batteries were almost too hot to touch. Hot enough to
have melted the plastic of the battery box. Holy S***.

Lightspeed is sending replacement UPS red. But. This is
a known (though infrequent) problem. Caveat Lightspeed
User; don't leave your **** battery box lying on anything
expensive or any plastic part of the plane it would be a
PITA to replace.

Just a follow-up: to Lightspeed's credit, having called
them after 4 pm yesterday, I already have the replacement
headset in hand before 10 am today.

So they definately try to make good when there's a problem.

I just wish they built a headset with fewer problems!!!!

Cheers,
Sydney

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:

Just a follow-up: to Lightspeed's credit, having called
them after 4 pm yesterday, I already have the replacement
headset in hand before 10 am today.

So they definately try to make good when there's a problem.

I just wish they built a headset with fewer problems!!!!

So do I. Their commitment to making good is impressive. Every time my
old Lightspeeds were sent in for repair, they came back with amazing
speed. Unfortunately, the quality control is simply not there.

There are customers out there who have no problems with Lightspeed
products. I have no doubt about that. There are also many who seem to
have nothing but problems. Lightspeed's 15, 20, and 25 series is the
only line of headsets I've ever seen removed from the stock of one of
the largest pilot shops in the United States. I know the explicit
reason for this because said pilot shop is in my home FBO, and I know
the pilot shop manager. Reason for removal: too many returns. The shop
has (had?) a commendable policy of handling the shipping costs on any
defective units sold via their shop. Whenever I had a problem, I'd stop
in and drop off the headset and say "Bernie, send 'em in again." I
personally utilized this service approximately 8 times on two separate
Lightspeed 25XL headsets before the shop offered to take them back
permanently and apply the new purchase price towards two pair of Bose
Xs. I accepted their offer and have been extremely happy with the Bose
X for the last two years. One pair went back one time for the sheepskin
headband coming loose, and... that was it. Bose repaired the headset
free, as expected. (BTW, yes, the Bose X are good enough to be worthy
of the 4-digit price tag. I would *never* have bought them under
different circumstances, but it's clear to me now that they are indeed
worth it!)

I can see the perspective of happy Lightspeed customers who appear to
have essentially lucked out with a good pair. I say, good for them, and
they have no reason to do anything differently. When the product
doesn't break, it's damn good. The price is right, it's comfortable,
and the ANR is good enough for the money. But I think we have to be
realistic and recognize that Lightspeed does have a problem on their
hands here. You just don't hear these complaints about other headsets
in this (and in many cases, below!) price range. For these issues to
come up consistently, there has to be a problem. It's not isolated to a
few bad headsets.

-Ryan
CFI-ASE-AME, CFI-RH, CP-ASMEL-IA, CP-RH, AGI

Ryan Ferguson wrote:
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
Just a follow-up: to Lightspeed's credit, having called
them after 4 pm yesterday, I already have the replacement
headset in hand before 10 am today.

So they definately try to make good when there's a problem.

I just wish they built a headset with fewer problems!!!!

So do I. Their commitment to making good is impressive. Every time my
old Lightspeeds were sent in for repair, they came back with amazing
speed. Unfortunately, the quality control is simply not there.

Yep. I think that sums it up.

Cheers,
Sydney

Sydney,

ah, a voice of reason. Thanks!

"What comes to light now..." Jeeze!
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Check again - DC says all theirs are. Haven't looked at Bose and Sennheiser
lately.


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Steve House wrote:

I was just looking over the
Lightspeed web site and didn't see any indication that their headsets
were
TSO'd.

Well, I just checked out the Bose, Sennheiser, and David Clark web sites,
and it seems that none of their ANR headsets are TSO'd either.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

In rec.aviation.owning Mike Long wrote:
: Personally, I'm giving up on them. When they are fixed, I'll sell them
: but I guess I'd better give an MBG

: Mike

Slightly off topic, but I was wondering if anyone's got any
thoughts on Lightspeed's Solo and Cross-country headsets. Different form
factor, and not as active. They seem pretty flimsy by the pictures, but
the passive on the X-C (along with mild active) seems like a winner to me.
Anyone used these?

I'm not really excited about buying any of the 15/20/25/30 K,XL,G
series because they seems pretty flimsy, have extraordinarily lousy
passive attenuation (read: LOUD out of active cancellation above 300 Hz),
and artificually boost the radio's voice frequencies to an uncomfortable
level. I'm sure the boosting is for "clarify" of old ears that are
already fried from 40 years of naked flying, but I'm trying to keep mine
good.

'Nuff ranting on the popular Lightspeed models.

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Nope - does not mean I'm either an idiot OR making it up. It means I'm
aware that my knowledge is incomplete. Sheesh, from the sounds of your and
Jim's posts, anyone with less experience than an airline captain or a
military flight instructor who also hold advanced engineering degrees should
just keep their mouths shut in the presence of their betters. Now where was
that cotton you needed pickin'?



"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
Steve House wrote:
Assuming the problems reported are legit

In other words, maybe I'm an idiot or making this up? Good start....


, this seems to indicate a quality
assurance issue with the manufacturer.

No argument there.

I was just looking over the
Lightspeed web site and didn't see any indication that their headsets
were
TSO'd.

True. Neither are any of the other ANR headsets AFAIK

Now I will be the first to admit I'm a newby so I my impressions may
be in error and as such take anything I say with a grain of salt but my
understanding of what TSO means is that 1: the product was type
accepted,
passed testing to insure that it did what it was supposed to and was
compatible with and did not interact negatively with the other aircraft
systems, and 2: that the manufacturer has quality assurance programs in
effect that would insure all products coming off the line met the same
performance standards as the samples submitted for approval.

Negative. What TSO'd means is that the product met the "type
standards order" the FAA has produced for that type of product.

The TSO for a given product may literally be decades old, and a
product which meets it may (of necessity) be inferior to a product
which does not.

The TSO says nothing about testing/compatibility with other
aircraft systems.

The TSO says nothing about quality assurance. It simply says that
the product, as designed and evaluated, met the standards of the order.
QA is what a "PMA" is supposed to be about.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me to be foolish to buy non-TSO'ed
equipment for permanent aircraft installation or for use by the
PIC or FO if there is one.

We-eeeel, when you're making your purchasing and maintenance decisions,
you're entitled to chose according to your convictions.

Just remember this: Bernoulli not Marconi makes the plane fly.

And here's another little tidbit for you: I've been in the
clag with a TSO'd transponder which was emitting smoke and the
charming odure of frying electronics. So I wouldn't bet the
rent on the TSO quality thing.

is something I personally can't afford at any price and battery packs
that
spontaneously burst into flame certainly seem to me to be a safety
issue,

Who on earth talked about "battery packs that spontaneously burst
into flame?"

Jay (who has not experienced this problem) wondered if this could
happen, and I explained: no.

The thing did get durned hot, and could conceivably have melted
low-temperature plastic on which it was placed. It was not hot
enough to ignite either paper or plastic and was unlikely to become
so, because the plastic deformed and ended the short circuit
long before that point.

HTH,
Sydney

Steve House wrote:
Right - the accusation that I'm an idiot is "demonstrating expertise"

Where did anyone accuse you of being an idiot?

Quote carefully, now --- it's all on Google, go on, have a good look...

Just
because it's the internet does not mean that the normal practices of polite
human interaction are somehow suspended.

Exactly my point. Do you begin "polite human interaction" by
responding to someone's information with "assuming this is legit..."?

That's damned rude in my book, and won't make you welcome in the
conversations I've experienced.

I'm an old hand at the Net and Usenet, having used it daily since about
1980.

Without improving your ability to read accurately and communicate
precisely, it would appear.

Personally when I seek information, I start out with questions.

"Is it important to purchase only a TSO'd headset? What does TSO really
mean? Do pilots find that TSO'd headsets are more reliable than
non-TSO'd headsets?" not by making a buttload of assertions including
a total fabrication about battery boxes bursting into flame.

The latter will get you a faster response for sure, but evidently
not of the kind you find enjoyable.

How can someone who asserts he's been on USENET for more than a decade
not know this? Beats me.

Cheers,
Sydney

wrote:
I'm not really excited about buying any of the 15/20/25/30 K,XL,G
series because they seems pretty flimsy, have extraordinarily lousy
passive attenuation (read: LOUD out of active cancellation above 300 Hz),
and artificually boost the radio's voice frequencies to an uncomfortable
level. I'm sure the boosting is for "clarify" of old ears that are
already fried from 40 years of naked flying, but I'm trying to keep mine
good.

Cory,

I'm afraid I don't follow your critique of the K/XL/G series.
The radio's voice frequencies can be adjusted to any level you
like with the volume control. I have very good ears and the
level is not uncomfortable, in fact it is too low on the
minimum volume setting in our plane. If something was uncomfortable,
and turning down the volume on the headsets didn't fix it, then
perhaps the radio volume was turned up too high? We are able
to combine most headsets in our plane and find suitable settings
of intercom/radio/headset volume, but it does take a little
tweaking when a new headset comes into the mix. I'm a little
puzzled because surely you must have tried this.

You're correct about the poorer Lightspeed passive attenuation.
It's a direct function of the attraction for Lightspeed owners,
the comfort. As you probably know, good passive attenuation in
muff-style headsets is a function of ear seal, and ear seal is
a function to some degree of clamping force.

I don't find the K/XL/G series flimsy except at the poorly-
designed plug/battery box configuration. However, if you do,
I believe you would find the same to be true of the QFR series.
My previous headset was a Flightcom Eclipse, regarded by many
as flimsy, and it served me well so I think there's an issue
of how gentle one is on equipment.

If you want good passive attenuation and sturdiness, perhaps
you would prefer a set of Dave Clamps?

Best,
Sydney