If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve House"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: 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 OK, that's a good start. but my -understanding of what TSO means is that 1: the product was type accepted, Nope. It means the manufacturer tested the unit in accordance with the Technical Service Order and it met some arbitrary specification. Look up the TSO for audio panels some day. There are still vestiges of vacuum tube terminology. -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, Nope. That's the installer/approver's job. 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. Nope. That's PMA. 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. And how many airplanes did you say you have owned or paid the maintenance bill on? -If my understanding of the QA issues regarding TSO is correct, this would -certainly increase the price of the product because testing of each and -every unit coming off the line is certainly going to be more expensive than -testing randomly selected samples. Even if the FAA approved testing procedure calls for random sampling? Not hardly. Because of the unforgiving nature of -aviation, uncertainty of product quality where safety of flight is concerned -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, -even if they're carried enclosed in fire resistant pouches. Did anybody say anything about bursting into flame? Sydney said the damn thing got hot to the point of softening the plastic case. Don't build hysteria with wild-ass projections. And, if you are so worried about product quality, then build 'em yourself. That way you have 100% control over the product and performance. www.rstengineering.com {;-) Jim Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor http://www.rst-engr.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
And, if you are so worried about product quality, then build 'em yourself.
That way you have 100% control over the product and performance. Hey Jim -- why don't you guys build us some GOOD ANR headsets? I'd buy 'em! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sydney,
ah, a voice of reason. Thanks! "What comes to light now..." Jeeze! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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$) * ************************************************** *********************** |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RG Battery Charger by Jim Weir in Kitplanes | Kevin O'Brien | Home Built | 4 | January 6th 05 01:19 AM |
Handheld battery question | RobsSanta | General Aviation | 8 | September 19th 04 03:07 PM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |
Plane with no stall warning device? | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 23 | February 17th 04 03:23 AM |
Lightspeed -- Was:Oshkosh 2003 Redux | Jack McAdams | Home Built | 8 | August 14th 03 03:19 PM |