An Overview of Human Figure Modeling for

Army Aviation Systems

by Jamison S. Hicks, David B. Durbin, and Richard W. Kozycki

ARL-TR-5154 April 2010

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

ARL-TR-5154 April 2010

An Overview of Human Figure Modeling for

Army Aviation Systems

Jamison S. Hicks, David B. Durbin, and Richard W. Kozycki

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

April 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

May 2009–August 2009

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

An Overview of Human Figure Modeling for Army Aviation Systems

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Jamison S. Hicks, David B. Durbin, and Richard W. Kozycki

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

62716AH70

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-HRM-DJ

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-5154

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

PEO Aviation

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL-HRED) conducts human figure 

modeling to design and test Army systems. The modeling has been used to assess and improve the ergonomic design and 

usability of all modernized Army Aviation systems, as well as to reduce analysis and development timelines. ARL-HRED has 

also developed a digital library of Army Aviation aircraft and equipment to assess whether or not the aircraft and equipment 

meet human factors engineering design standards. The modeling conducted by ARL-HRED has resulted in numerous system 

design improvements to meet the human factors engineering design standards. Human figure modeling will continue to play an 

increasingly important role in the future, as Army Aviation program managers work to develop effective systems, minimize 

design costs, and shorten design, development, and production timelines.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

human figure modeling, Army aviation, anthropometric, jack

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

46

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Jamison S. Hicks

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(334) 255-2206

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Modeling and Simulation ................................................................................................1

1.3 Human Figure Modeling .................................................................................................1

2. Method 2

2.1 Model Development........................................................................................................2

2.2 Digitized Clothing ...........................................................................................................3

2.2.1 Motion Capture and Marker Data .......................................................................5

2.2.2 Equipment Modeling...........................................................................................6

2.3 Model Analysis................................................................................................................6

2.4 Limitations of Human-Figure Modeling .........................................................................7

3. Results 8

3.1 Army Aviation Systems ..................................................................................................8

3.1.1 RAH-66 Comanche .............................................................................................9

3.1.2 UH-60M Blackhawk .........................................................................................15

3.1.3 Army Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S) ................................18

3.1.4 Air Warrior........................................................................................................22

3.1.5 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS)....................................................24

3.1.6 Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM)...................................26

3.1.7 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) .......................................................29

3.1.8 CH-47D Chinook ..............................................................................................30

4. Conclusions 31

4.1 Human Figure Modeling for Army Aviation ................................................................31

5. References 32

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 34

Distribution List 36
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Human figure models. .....................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Army pilot seated in a helicopter crewstation wearing an over water mission 

ensemble. .........................................................................................................................................4

Figure 3. Digitized Soldiers, clothing, and equipment. ..................................................................4

Figure 4. Pilot with reflective markers. ..........................................................................................5

Figure 5. AH-64 Apache tailboom being digitized.........................................................................7

Figure 6. 3-D model of AH-64 Apache tailboom section...............................................................7

Figure 7. Example of pilot sightlines for crewstation development. ..............................................9

Figure 8. Small female unable to reach ECL................................................................................10

Figure 9. Large male with insufficient knee clearance. ................................................................10

Figure 10. Small female positioned to view the instrument panels. .............................................11

Figure 11. Pilot knee interference.................................................................................................12

Figure 12. 3-D rendering of the HIDSS........................................................................................13

Figure 13. Human model wearing the HGU-56P and the HIDSS. ...............................................14

Figure 14. Screenshots of the rearview mirror analysis................................................................15

Figure 15. Model of a female pilot seated in the UH-60M crewstation. ......................................16

Figure 16. Field of view from the eye perspective of a small female pilot. .................................17

Figure 17. A reach shortfall and a successful reach......................................................................17

Figure 18. UH-60 helicopter with the A2C2S. .............................................................................18

Figure 19. Potential head strike during egress. .............................................................................19

Figure 20. Large male figure attempting egress through the crawlspace over the top of the 

console. ..........................................................................................................................................19

Figure 21. Large male figure attempting to crawl underneath a workstation...............................20

Figure 22. Large male egressing through the cargo door window. ..............................................20

Figure 23. Additional head space provided by rotating the monitor. ...........................................21

Figure 24. Large male egressing through space provided when workstation is folded down......22

Figure 25. Digitized Air Warrior ensemble. .................................................................................23

Figure 26. Digitized Air Warrior ensemble on a human figure model.........................................23

Figure 27. Human figure with different layers of clothing and equipment seated in an 

Apache cockpit...............................................................................................................................24

Figure 28. Different sizes of digitized clothing and models.........................................................25

Figure 29. Range of motion comparison.......................................................................................25
v

Figure 30. Field of view from the tail section and the stub wing locations..................................26

Figure 31. Large male loosening the optical coupler....................................................................27

Figure 32. Small female having difficulty reaching the fasteners of the JHCU...........................28

Figure 33. Small female reaching the JHCU after the removal of the IRJH. ..............................28

Figure 34. Troops seated in the cargo area of a C-130. ................................................................29

Figure 35. Troops exiting a C-130................................................................................................30

Figure 36. Digital model of the CH-47D cockpit. ........................................................................31

List of Tables

Table 1. Aviation systems...............................................................................................................8

Table 2. Maximum maneuverability for a range of males in the forward seating position..........13
vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1

1. Introduction 

1.1 Purpose

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate (ARLHRED) conducts human figure modeling to design and test U.S. Army systems. The modeling 

has been used to assess and improve the systems efficiency, usability, and overall ergonomic 

design. This report summarizes how human figure modeling has been used to develop and test 

Army Aviation systems. The Aviation systems were the UH-60M Blackhawk, CH-47D 

Chinook, Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH), RAH-66 Comanche, Army Airborne 

Command and Control System (A2C2S), Air Warrior, Advanced Threat Infrared 

Countermeasure System (ATIRCM), and Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) for the 

AH-64D.

1.2 Modeling and Simulation

Modeling and simulation (M&S) play an important role in the engineering development of 

modern military systems and will play an even greater role in the future. The use of human 

factors engineering (HFE) M&S techniques allows scientists, engineers, and program managers 

to assess the accommodation of the intended user population by the system design early and 

continuously throughout the system lifecycle. This can help to reduce the time and costs 

required for successful acquisition of military systems, and help reduce the risk of not meeting 

requirements for human system integration (HSI). M&S is used to assess a variety of system 

requirements including design, performance, risk, and cost. In the case of HFE, M&S is used to 

assess ergonomic design requirements, mental and physical workload, manpower requirements, 

and other areas related to HSI.

1.3 Human Figure Modeling

As part of the M&S process, ARL-HRED uses the Jack*

 *Jack is a registered trademark of Siemens.

human figure modeling software to 

assess the ergonomic design of military systems. Jack is an interactive tool for modeling, 

manipulating, and analyzing human and other 3-dimensional (3-D) articulated geometric figures 

(Badler, Phillips, and Webber, 1993). The software also contains a utility for importing 

anthropometric data that can be used to build and size the human figure models. This allows the 

human factors analyst to develop the models to represent a specific user population for whom the 

equipment is targeted.
2

Computer-based graphical human figure models have been used to perform ergonomic analyses 

of workplace designs since the late 1960s (Das and Sengupta, 1995). This method has gained 

widespread acceptance over the past two decades, as designers have migrated from traditional 

paper drafting methods to the use of computer-aided design (CAD) software. These human 

figure modeling programs have proven to be an effective tool for evaluating the physical 

interaction between the human and the equipment.

2. Method

2.1 Model Development

A typical human figure modeling analysis consists of several components that are integrated into 

the 3-D graphical modeling environment. These components include data such as the 3-D 

surface geometrical representation of the system to be analyzed; human figure models and 

associated anthropometry data for the target population to be accommodated; clothing and 

equipment models; posture data; and possibly motion capture data, as well. There are several 

ways to obtain and input data for simulation and modeling purposes in the Jack software 

environment. For example, the model of the system to be analyzed can be developed through the 

use of CAD files obtained from the system developer and imported into Jack, or, if CAD files do 

not exist or cannot be obtained, the surface geometry of the system can be digitized and also 

imported. Jack also contains some basic model building utilities that allow the user to work with 

dimensional data to construct a model of the system design. After the CAD files are generated in 

the Jack software environment, the human figure models are developed using anthropometry 

data, which capture the target user population. 

Some human figure models that lie on a statistical boundary representation of a target population 

are shown in figure 1. In the past, uniform body dimensions or univariate models, such as 5th 

percentile female and 95th percentile male dimensions, were specified to assess most of the 

equipment designs. For Army Aviation systems, these dimensions are derived from the U.S. 

Army 1988 Anthropometric Survey (Gordon, Bradtmiller, Churchhill, Clauser, McConville, 

Tebbetts, and Walker, 1989). However, for design analyses that are multivariate in nature, the 

use of uniform body dimensions, such as 5th through 95th, may result in designs that actually 

accommodate far less than 90% that would seem to be implied (Bittner, 1974). For this reason, a 

multivariate statistical approach can be used to generate boundary forms representing the target 

population. These boundary forms represent “worst case” extremes of body size and body 

proportions that must be accommodated in order to capture the desired percentage of users. One 

such technique, the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) method, can be used to identify 

important “large-small” body dimension combinations. PCA reduces the dimensionality of the 

accommodation envelope from n-space (where n is the number of body dimensions that are 

critical for the design accommodation) to a smaller number of dimensions that account for a
3

large proportion of the original variation by using linear combinations of the original 

measurements. The resulting combinations provide more realistic human figure models. More 

information on the PCA method and applications can be found in (Kozycki and Gordon, 2002).

Figure 1. Human figure models.

2.2 Digitized Clothing

Frequently, analyses using human figure models are performed with unclothed body models. 

While clothing bulk and encumbrances may be safely disregarded for some types of workplace 

analyses, they are an important factor in applications such as an aircraft crewstation, where space 

is at a premium (Kozycki, 1998). Helicopter piloting is one example in which clothing and 

equipment have an impact on operator performance. Figure 2 shows an example of a pilot 

wearing an over-water mission ensemble. Recent advances in aircraft operational demands and 

capabilities have necessitated additional protective equipment, resulting in an increasing burden 

on the aircrew. In addition to the traditional flight gear and life support equipment for altitude, 

acceleration, and hearing protection, aircrews are now being laden with systems for nuclear, 

biological, and chemical (NBC) warfare; enhanced acceleration protection; passive anti-drown 

capability; helmet-mounted electro-optical devices; and laser/flash blindness protection. The 

current ensemble of protective clothing and equipment is bulky; it also causes rapid build-up of 

heat stress, limits field of view (FOV), and degrades aviator performance (Wright, Hanson, and

Couch, 1996). Over the past several years, ARL-HRED has built a library of digitized Soldier 

clothing and equipment items, such as helmets, vests, packs and individual Soldier weapons. 

The models are segmented at the shoulders, elbows, waist, hips, and knees. 
4

Figure 2. Army pilot seated in a helicopter crewstation wearing an over water 

mission ensemble.

This procedure allows for real-time movement of the human figure when it is fitted with the 

clothing models, and the clothing can also be scaled to fit a range of body sizes. Figure 3 is an 

example of digitized human figure models in various clothing and equipment. 

Figure 3. Digitized Soldiers, clothing, and equipment.
5

2.2.1 Motion Capture and Marker Data

Motion capture technology focuses specifically on capturing complex human motion by using a 

combined hardware and software environment. The motion capture process is conducted by 

attaching reflective markers to a human subject. Figure 4 shows a pilot with the reflective 

markers attached to his equipment and clothing (Kennedy, Durbin, Faughn, Kozycki, and Nebel, 

2004). These markers allow cameras to capture the complex movements performed by the 

subject. Once the motion has been captured, digital traces or paths are generated that can be 

used to animate digital human figure models for the purpose of analysis, simulation, and training.

Figure 4. Pilot with reflective markers.

A problem with incorporating human motion into a model is that complex human motions that 

were developed by a programmer or animator for computer-generated figures typically have an 

unnatural or unrealistic appearance. Motion capture equipment provides the ability to capture 

the normal human action or activity and view the captured motion from virtually any desired 

angle. The motion capture data, when combined with human figure modeling, represents the 

actual posture and procedure used by a human subject performing the task, and not a subjective 

motion sequence developed by a programmer or animator.
6

In order to use motion capture data in Jack, human figure models must first be created and sized 

accurately to reflect each subject’s body anthropometry. Once these models are formed, the 

motion capture data can be imported into the Jack software and used to control the movements of 

the human figure body segments and reproduce the motions of the subject for whom the motion 

capture data is collected. In order to develop more realistic models and accurately replicate 

human motion, motion capture technology must continue to be incorporated into the modeling 

and simulation techniques performed by human factors engineers.

In order to validate the data collection and modeling, the motion is also recorded on video, and 

the playback of the motion capture using the Jack figure can be compared to the video footage. 

Additionally, the figure is built to match the body dimensions of the subjects that participate in 

the exercise. The construction of the figure must be very precise in order for the motion capture 

to play back correctly. This requires not only that the anthropometry match the subject, but that 

the placement of the markers must match, as well.

2.2.2 Equipment Modeling

The Jack software is capable of importing various types of CAD models to develop system and 

equipment models in the modeling environment. In some cases, the manufacturer’s drawings 

can be used as a direct import into the Jack software for manipulation. However, due to limited 

software release stipulations and occasional problems with software interpretation, ARL-HRED 

is making an independent effort to develop a digital library of the primary Army Aviation 

aircraft and associated equipment models. The development of these models requires precise 

measurement tools, such as laser scanning equipment or portable Coordinate Measuring 

Machines (CMM), to collect the surface geometry data. Figure 5 shows an AH-64 Apache 

tailboom being prepared for digitization.

After the digitization process, the model is developed and checked for accuracy and errors. 

When the model is complete, articulation of moveable parts—e.g., seats and flight controls—is 

added so that these components can simulate the movement or adjustment that would be found in 

the actual equipment. The final product is then available for importation into various modeling 

environments for manipulation and further analysis. The modeled AH-64 tailboom section is 

shown in figure 6.

2.3 Model Analysis

The Jack model is used to perform human factors engineering analyses by comparing the 

generated model information to several different measures. These measures are typically 

dependent on the specific application, but usually include equipment design criteria (e.g., visual 

access to displays), human factors engineering standards (e.g., MIL-STD-1472), and subject 

matter expert (SME) observation. The analyst will use a combination of these criteria to evaluate 

the model and generate appropriate results.
7

Figure 5. AH-64 Apache tailboom being digitized.

Figure 6. 3-D model of AH-64 Apache tailboom section.

2.4 Limitations of Human-Figure Modeling

As the Jack model is a simplified representation of the human body, there are limitations as to 

how accurately Jack can dynamically model body movement. Newer technologies are being 

developed and refined, including 3-D whole body scanning. 3-D whole body scanning is being 

used to develop higher fidelity human-figure models that can be used for ergonomic analysis. 
8

However, these higher fidelity models present challenges with segmentation and gaps that 

develop when trying to incorporate body joints and an upper body torso that must bend, twist, 

and flex.

No single human figure modeling tool can be used to perform all types of anthropometric 

analyses. There are many different types of human figure modeling software. Some are well 

suited to perform space reach and vision analyses, while others are used to examine 

biomechanics or strength issues, for example. Still other human figure modeling software is 

geared to the analysis of cognitive issues. The analyst must know the limitations of that tool and 

choose the best one suited for the human performance issues to be examined.

3. Results

3.1 Army Aviation Systems

The Jack modeling software has been used by ARL-HRED in the development and testing of 

eight Army Aviation systems. The modeling was funded by Aviation program managers, and 

the results supported analyses by the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), Training 

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Capabilities Managers (TCM), Aviation and Missile 

Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Boeing, Bell Helicopter, Sikorsky, 

BAE Systems, and ARL-HRED. Table 1 lists the Aviation systems for which Jack has been 

used to assess and improve the ergonomic design and system capabilities.

Table 1. Aviation systems.

System Evaluation

RAH-66 Comanche

- Ingress/Egress Analysis

- Crewstation Design

- Rearview Mirror Location

- Helmet Integrated Display Sight System 

(HIDSS) Analysis

UH-60M Blackhawk - Crewstation Design

- Anthropometric Design Analysis

Army Airborne Command and Control System 

(A2C2S) - Egress Analysis

Air Warrior - Anthropometric Design Analysis

Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) for the 

AH-64D - AH-64D CMWS Sensor Field of View

Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure 

(ATIRCM) - Maintenance Analysis

Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) - Transportability Analysis

- Anthropometric Design Analysis

CH-47D Chinook - Anthropometric Design Analysis
9

3.1.1 RAH-66 Comanche

The RAH-66 Comanche was a tandem-seated configuration reconnaissance and attack 

helicopter. We used Jack to help conduct crewstation design, assess anthropometric 

requirements for female and male aviators, evaluate volume of space requirements for pilots 

wearing the helmet, assess pilot emergency egress (Kennedy, Durbin, Faughn, Kozycki, Nebel, 

2004), and determine the optimal location for the rearview mirror based on sightlines available to 

the pilots seated in the crewstations (figure 7).

Figure 7. Example of pilot sightlines for crewstation development.

In the early 1990s, the U.S. Army changed its policy to allow women aviators to fly combat 

missions, which meant that the Comanche helicopter needed to meet crewstation requirements to 

accommodate female aviators. During this requirement change, new aviation life support 

equipment (ALSE) was also entering the inventory system. The change in ALSE and the 

requirement change meant that Army aviators who were significantly larger or smaller than 

average might not be fully accommodated by the Comanche crewstation. We used Jack to assess 

whether large males and small female aviators would be accommodated by the Comanche 

crewstation design while wearing the new ALSE (Kozycki, Gordon, 2002).

Results of the Jack analysis indicated that the crewstation design accommodated most aviators. 

However, the design did not fully accommodate the target population, especially for both the 

small female and large male pilots. For example, figure 8 shows a small female unable to reach 

the engine control levers (ECLs) located on the side console panel. Figure 9 shows a large male 

with insufficient knee clearance at the lower section of the instrument panel.
10

Figure 8. Small female unable to reach ECL.

Figure 9. Large male with insufficient knee clearance.
11

The Jack analysis also identified that the crewstation design did not allow small pilots to reach 

the pedals and instrument panels. Small females were unable to view the instrument panels 

when seated, unless they removed their hands from the collective and moved to their left (figure 

10).

Figure 10. Small female positioned to view the instrument panels.

Results of the Jack analysis led to modifications to the Comanche crewstation to improve 

physical accommodation for large male and small female aviators. These modifications included 

canting of the side console panel to improve visual access and reach to the ECLs; improved seat 

adjustment to allow access to the pedals and front instrument panels for small female aviators;

and increased volume of space for large males to improve knee clearance around the lower 

section of the instrument panel.

The anthropometric and motion capture data collected during the egress testing for RAH-66 

Comanche was used to identify potential problem areas during the egress trial exercises. 

Figure 11 shows a problem with knee clearance for large male pilots that was identified during 

the egress trials. Modifications to the lower front console panel to improve knee clearance were 

being implemented prior to program termination.
12

Figure 11. Pilot knee interference.

Jack was also used to evaluate upper torso and head movement by large males and small females 

inside the Comanche cockpit while wearing the HGU-56P helmet, which was equipped with the 

Helmet Integrated Display Sight System (HIDSS). The HIDSS included a helmet-mounted 

display consisting of a right and a left display, a helmet tracking system, a boresight reticle unit, 

and associated electronics. The system was cumbersome and inhibited the maneuverability of 

pilots inside the cockpit. Jack was used to examine the limits of lateral and forward upper-body 

movements, in combination with rotational head movement, required to produce a helmet strike 

with the adjacent canopy frame structure or windscreens that made up the Comanche cockpit. A 

range of 3-D human figure model sizes was incorporated into the modeling application to 

investigate the limitations. Figure 12 shows a 3-D rendering of the HIDSS. 

The HIDSS analysis was conducted for both male and female models in the forward and aft 

crewstation positions to investigate the helmet strike interference that could occur when using 

the HIDSS and to identify possible solutions (Kozycki, 2002). As an example from the study, 

table 2 shows the data results collected from the Jack software that measured the maximum 

maneuverability by male pilots with 95th, 75th, and 50th percentile seated heights in the forward 

crewstation position. Figure 13 shows a human model wearing the HGU-56P helmet and HIDSS 

while seated in the cockpit.
13

Figure 12. 3-D rendering of the HIDSS.

Table 2. Maximum maneuverability for a range of males in the forward seating position.

Human Figure - Forward Male 95th

(°)

Male 75th

(°)

Male 50th

(°)

Lateral body lean without rotational head 

movement

12 14 15

Lateral body lean with 40° rotational 

head movement

8 10 11

Forward body lean 21 21 22
14

Figure 13. Human model wearing the HGU-56P and the HIDSS.

The figures and tables presented provide both visual and empirical data that illustrated the 

maximum amount of maneuverability available inside the cockpit when the pilots were wearing 

the HIDSS. The results of this analysis led to recommendations that included adjusting the pilot 

seat position to minimize the potential for a helmet strike during missions, as well as changes to 

training material to advise pilots about the potential for helmet contact with the crewstation 

canopy.

Jack was used to develop an analysis of rearview mirror placements for the Comanche. The 

human figure models were placed in the cockpit, and visual angles were generated to provide 

line of sight lines from the model eyes to the mirrors and then reflected through space. This 

analysis was used to determine appropriate mirror placement for the Comanche cockpit. Figure 

14 shows screenshots generated for the assessment.
15

Figure 14. Screenshots of the rearview mirror analysis.

3.1.2 UH-60M Blackhawk

Jack was used to assess the anthropometric characteristics of the UH-60M Blackhawk 

crewstation. The UH-60M is an upgrade from the UH-60A/L model and includes several multifunctional displays that present flight, navigation, and communication information to the aircrew. 

Jack was used to determine the level of anthropometric accommodation of small female aviators 
16

for reach and accessibility to all emergency and flight critical controls, and to identify any reach 

and visibility shortfalls for small female aviators in the crewstation. The goal was to establish 

the UH-60M accommodation cutoff for the U.S. Army female pilot population. Figure 15 shows 

a human figure model of a small female pilot seated in the UH-60M crewstation. This figure 

also shows the eye line for the aviator. In this example, the eye line collides with a portion of the 

dash, limiting the pilot field of view.

Figure 15. Model of a female pilot seated in the UH-60M crewstation.

Figure 16 shows an example of the field of view from the eye perspective for small female pilots 

at a 30-ft hover, with a large male figure 65 ft away. This analysis helped determine the field of 

view for small female pilots, and ensured that they could adequately view ground movement 

control (GMC) personnel.

The modeling results also showed that 11% of the female aviator population could not reach the 

emergency fire t-handle in the cockpit. Figure 17 shows the reach shortfall and a successful 

reach.
17

Figure 16. Field of view from the eye perspective of a small female pilot.

Figure 17. A reach shortfall and a successful reach.
18

The results of this analysis were briefed by ARL-HRED at the UH-60M critical design review 

(CDR); recommendations were made to improve over-the-nose vision for female and small male 

aviators and enhance access to the engine emergency fire T-handles for small female aviators 

(Kozycki, 2002). The recommendations were used to justify a smaller forward instrument panel 

in the crewstation and to improve external visibility (out of the crewstation) for small female 

aviators.

3.1.3 Army Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S)

The A2C2S is a command and control system that is hosted inside of a UH-60 Blackhawk 

helicopter. The A2C2S consists of five seats with monitors and keyboards at each location. 

When the A2C2S system is manned and in use, there is restricted space inside the aircraft to 

perform egress procedures. An A2C2S emergency egress test was performed and documented 

by ARL-HRED, and analysis and test results were documented in a ARL-HRED technical report 

(Havir, Kozycki, 2005). Jack was used to complement the emergency egress test and provide 

recommendations. The purpose of the emergency egress testing was to verify current emergency 

egress procedures and improve the procedures, if necessary; specifically, the tests were 

performed on an aircraft with the A2C2S system installed to document problems that occur 

during egress from the aircraft, and to determine the optimal routes for exit. The egress tests 

were performed under several different scenarios, such as blocked exits and windows, and with 

personnel of different body sizes. The Jack analysis was used to make recommendations about 

egress routes and design changes that would improve safety and egress. Figure 18 shows a 

depiction of the UH-60 helicopter and the installed A2C2S system.

Figure 18. UH-60 helicopter with the A2C2S.
19

Jack illustrated (figure 19) that large males could potentially strike their heads against the upper 

left-hand corner of the flat screen monitor just before exiting the left cargo door opening.

Figure 19. Potential head strike during egress.

Participants in the front workstation positions were required to exit by either going over or under 

the workstation platforms, and then exiting out of the front of the aircraft. Figure 20 shows an 

operator attempting to egress by the crawlspace over the top of the console.

Figure 20. Large male figure attempting egress through the crawlspace over the top of the console.

Figure 21 shows a large male figure attempting to crawl underneath a workstation. This analysis 

identified the obstructions and difficulty that could occur while crawling through the crawl space 

and negotiating around the chair.
20

Figure 21. Large male figure attempting to crawl underneath a workstation.

Egress procedures from the front cargo doors were also conducted during this evaluation. 

Figure 22 shows the modeling screen shot that was used for analysis of this procedure.

Figure 22. Large male egressing through the cargo door window.
21

Jack provided graphical representation of improvements that could aid Soldiers during 

emergency egress. For example, headroom for tall males was identified as an egress hazard, as 

the space was relatively tight for taller Soldiers attempting to egress from the rear workstation 

positions. In order to remedy this problem, the monitor was rotated 20° back, in the model, to 

provide more head room. Figure 23 shows the improved space, where the A2C2S monitor is 

tilted at an angle of 20° to preclude inadvertent contact. 

Figure 23. Additional head space provided by rotating the monitor.

Another recommendation as a result of the Jack analysis involved egress from either the front 

left or right workstation positions. Standard procedure was that the Soldier crawled over or 

under the workstation platform. Jack showed that if the workstation platform could be collapsed 

and folded down, the need to crawl over or under the platform could be eliminated. This design 

provided ample space for large male Soldiers to use it as an egress path, and it proved safer and 

quicker than having to climb over or crawl underneath the workstation. Figure 24 shows a large 

male figure attempting to egress through the space provided when the workstation was folded 

down.
22

Figure 24. Large male egressing through space provided when workstation is folded down.

The human figure modeling analysis identified and provided many of the same recommendations 

made by Soldiers during the actual A2C2S egress evaluation. This highlights the benefit and 

importance of conducting modeling and simulation early in the design stages of an acquisition 

program to identify and resolve issues.

3.1.4 Air Warrior

Air Warrior is an integrated ALSE system for Army aircrews. The ensemble can be tailored for 

specific missions and is designed to improve mission performance in the areas of aircraft 

interface, comfort, safety, and survivability. Figure 25 shows a digitized Air Warrior ensemble 

and figure 26 shows the ensemble placed on a human figure model.

ARL-HRED digitized the Air Warrior ensemble to enhance anthropometric assessments of Army 

Aviation systems. The digitized Air Warrior clothing and equipment provided modelers and 

analysts more realistic results when using the ensemble in aviation applications. The accuracy of 

the analysis greatly improves when the human figures are fitted with models of the same clothing 

and equipment that the actual aircrews wear. For example, if the human figure model in figure 

27 was not attired in the Air Warrior ensemble, the analysis would indicate that the pilot had 

much more usable cockpit space than would be the case in the actual aircraft.
23

Figure 25. Digitized Air Warrior ensemble.

Figure 26. Digitized Air Warrior ensemble on a human 

figure model.
24

Figure 27. Human figure with different layers of clothing and equipment 

seated in an Apache cockpit.

To validate the use of the digitized Air Warrior ensemble during anthropometric analyses, a 

range of motion analysis was conducted. The analysis included a digitized human figure (attired 

in the Air Warrior ensemble) range of motion study, followed by a live subject range of motion 

study while the subject was wearing the Air Warrior ensemble. The analysis verified that the 

range of motion of the human figure model (attired in the Air Warrior ensemble) was very 

similar to the range of motion of an actual pilot when attired in the Air Warrior ensemble. 

Figures 28 and 29 show the digitized clothing scaled to different sizes and the comparison of the 

range of motion from the digitized equipment and the live test subject, respectively. The range 

of motion comparison showed that only slight differences occurred between the human figuregenerated reach data (wireframe region) and the motion capture data (shaded area) from the live 

test subject. This analysis provided evidence that the digitized Air Warrior ensemble could be 

used on human figure models to provide an accurate representation of ALSE worn in the cockpit. 

The Air Warrior and range of motion analysis used for this summary can be reviewed in detail in 

the publication (Kozycki, 1998).

3.1.5 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS)

The Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) is a passive detection system used on Army 

Aviation systems to defeat infrared missiles. The CMWS sensors’ field of view was modeled for 

an AH-64D Apache helicopter to compare the original sensor mounting location on the tail of the 

aircraft to the relocation of the sensor mounting to the stub wing of the aircraft. The comparison 

was conducted to determine if mounting the CMWS sensors on the stub wings would increase 

their field of view. In order for this comparison to take place, the Apache helicopter was 

digitized by ARL-HRED in two separate parts. The tail section was a detailed 3-D model 
25

Figure 28. Different sizes of digitized clothing and models.

Figure 29. Range of motion comparison.

constructed using digitization, while the front section was a low-resolution commercially 

available model. Once the helicopter was digitized, field of view cones for the CMWS sensors 

were constructed in the modeling software. Figure 30 shows the field of view from the tail 

section of the aircraft where the CMWS rear sensors were originally located and the proposed 

improved sensor locations. The field of view from the original location was inhibited by the tail 

rotor and provided significantly less coverage than the location on the stub wing.

The modeling provided developers with information for optimal placement of the CMWS 

sensors. The results of this analysis were used to help justify a proposal that the CMWS sensors 

be moved to the stub wing locations to improve missile detection (Wittges, 2005). A design 

change was then implemented, and the sensors were moved to the stub wings.
26

Figure 30. Field of view from the tail section and the stub wing locations.

3.1.6 Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure (ATIRCM)

The ATIRCM is a countermeasure system for aviation platforms that uses infrared jamming 

techniques to defeat infrared missile threats encountered during flight. A Jack modeling analysis 

was performed to assess the primary maintenance tasks for the ATIRCM Quick Reaction 

Capability (QRC) program in order to analyze potential maintainer interface problems and 

validate anthropometric requirements. The ATIRCM QRC system will be used on the CH-47 

aircraft that are employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CH-47 and ATIRCM models were 

provided by the contractor (BAE systems) to ARL-HRED for the Jack analysis. The models 

were imported into Jack, and the analysis was conducted. Results of the Jack analysis were 

briefed by ARL-HRED personnel during the ATIRCM/CH-47D CDR. 
27

One of the maintenance tasks identified as a concern (prior to the Jack analysis) was the removal 

of the optical coupler. Figure 31 shows a large male wearing cold weather clothing attempting to 

loosen the optical coupler, which connects the infrared jam head (IRJH) to the multi-band laser 

(MBL). The modeling results showed that a large male would be able to operate tools effectively 

in the available space to accomplish the task. Therefore, the need for further engineering

analysis and a potential design change to the system was avoided. 

Figure 31. Large male loosening the optical coupler.

Another maintenance task that was identified as a concern was the removal/replacement of the 

jam head control unit (JHCU) by a small female. Figure 32 illustrates that a small female would 

have difficulty reaching the fasteners for the JHCU while the IRJH was installed. The 

recommendation for this task was to remove the IRJH prior to removal of the JHCU, as 

removing the IRJH provided improved access to the JHCU and minimized potential damage to 

the IRJH while conducting remove/replace tasks to the JHCU, as indicated in figure 33. The 

ATIRCM Technical Manual, “B-Kit Field Maintenance Manual,” was rewritten to incorporate 

the recommendation that was identified through the Jack analysis of removing the IRJH prior to 

removal of the JHCU.
28

Figure 32. Small female having difficulty reaching the fasteners of the JHCU.

Figure 33. Small female reaching the JHCU after the 

removal of the IRJH.
29

3.1.7 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH)

The ARH was a reconnaissance/scout helicopter designed to replace the OH-58D Kiowa 

Warrior. The ARH program was based on the Bell 407 commercial helicopter and was designed 

so that two ARH helicopters could be deployed aboard a C-130 cargo aircraft. A Jack analysis 

was performed for the Army Test and Evaluation Command to analyze whether two ARHs could 

be emplaced on a C-130, if there was sufficient volume of space for the pilots, crew chiefs, and 

loadmasters, and if there were suitable egress paths for personnel.

Figure 34 shows troops seated in the cargo area of the C-130, and figure 35 shows troops exiting 

the C-130 while attempting to avoid hazardous contact with the two ARH helicopters. The Jack 

analysis showed that two ARHs could, in fact, be emplaced in a C-130, and that there was 

sufficient volume of space for the pilots, crew chiefs, and loadmasters. It also determined that 

there were suitable egress paths for personnel. The results of this model were used to help 

conduct an emergency egress test with actual pilots, crew chiefs, and loadmasters (i.e., the Jack 

model results were used to assign seat locations for personnel and help them safely exit the C130). 

Figure 34. Troops seated in the cargo area of a C-130.
30

Figure 35. Troops exiting a C-130.

3.1.8 CH-47D Chinook

The Chinook is a heavy-lift helicopter used for troop, artillery, and supply transportation. ARLHRED is currently conducting a human figure modeling assessment of the CH-47D Chinook to 

assess anthropometric requirements for pilots wearing the Air Warrior ensemble. ARL-HRED 

digitized the CH-47D helicopter at Fort Rucker, AL, using a coordinate measuring machine. The 

digitized helicopter model will be used to identify optimal locations in the CH-47D crewstation 

to stow pilot gear that is required to support operations in Southwest Asia, and to assess 

modifications to ALSE. Figure 36 shows a model of the CH-47D cockpit that will be used 

during the accommodation analysis. The digitized CH-47D will add to the library of aircraft 

models that ARL-HRED uses to assess and improve crewstation design, and enhance pilot 

performance.
31

Figure 36. Digital model of the CH-47D cockpit.

4. Conclusions

4.1 Human Figure Modeling for Army Aviation

ARL-HRED has used human figure modeling to develop and test Army Aviation systems. The 

modeling results have been used by government and industry to improve the ergonomic design 

and system functionality of the systems, assess anthropometric requirements, and reduce analysis 

timelines. Human figure modeling will continue to be used to develop and assess new and 

upgraded Aviation systems. This will include development of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

and UAS ground control stations. Modeling will continue to play an increasingly important role 

in the future, as Army Aviation program managers work to reduce system design costs and 

shorten design, development, and production times.
32

5. References

Badler, N.; Phillips, C.; Webber B. Simulating Humans, Computer Graphics Animation Control;

Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1993.

Bittner, A. C., Jr. Reduction in User Population as the Result of Imposed Anthropometric 

Limits: Monte Carlo Estimation; TP-74-6; Naval Missle Center: Point Mugu, CA, 1974.

Das, B.; Sengupta, A. Computer-Aided Human Modeling Programs for Workplace Design.

Ergonomics 1995, 38 (9), 1958–1972.

Gordon, C.; Bradtmiller, B.; Churchhill, T.; Clauser, C.; McConville, J.; Tebbetts, I.;

Walker, R. 1988 Anthropometry Survey of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and Summary 

Statistics; Technical Report Natick/TR-89/044; U.S. Army Natick Research, Development 

and Engineering Center: Natick, MA, 1989.

Havir, T.; Kozycki, R. Assessment of the Emergency Egress Characteristics of the Army 

Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S); ARL-MR-0635; U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, 2005.

Hicks, J.; Kozycki, R. ATIRCM A-Kit HFE Evaluation. Presented at ATIRCM QRC A-Kit 

Critical Design Review, 2008.

Kennedy, J.; Durbin, D.; Faughn, J.; Kozycki, R.; Nebel, K. Evaluation of an Army Aviator’s 

Ability to Ingress and Egress the RAH-66 Comanche While Wearing the Air Warrior 

Ensemble; ARL-TR-3404; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, 2004.

Kozycki, R.; Gordon, C. C. Applying Human Figure Modeling Tools to the RAH-66 Comanche 

Crewstation Design. Proceedings of the 2002 SAE Digital Human Modeling Conference,

Society of Automotive Engineers: Warrendale, PA, 2002.

Kozycki, R. Developing a Modeling and Simulation Paradigm for Assessing the Encumbrance 

of Helicopter Aircrew Clothing and Equipment. Proceedings of the 1998 SAFE Symposium,

SAFE Association: Phoenix, AZ, 1998.

Kozycki, R. UH-60M Female Pilot Accommodation Analysis. Presented at UH-60M Critical 

Design Review, 2002.

Kozycki, R. Updated HIDSS Human Figure Modeling Analysis. Presentation, 2002.
33

Wittges, C. AH-64D Quick Reaction Testing of the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) 

& Improved Countermeasure Dispenser (ICMD). Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC) 

Presentation, 2005.

Wright, R.; Hanson, R.; Couch, M. Air Warrior Baseline Evaluation, Volume I, Summary, 1996.
34

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

3-D Three-Dimensional

A2C2S Army Airborne Command and Control System

ALSE Aviation Life Support Equipment

AMRDEC Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center

ARH Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter

ARL U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATEC Army Test and Evaluation Command

ATIRCM Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure System

CAD Computer-Aided Design

CDR Critical Design Review

CMM Coordinate Measuring Machine

CMWS Common Missile Warning System

ECL Engine Control Lever

FOV Field of View

GMC Ground Movement Control

HFE Human Factors Engineering

HGU Headgear Unit

HIDSS Helmet Integrated Display Sight System

HRED Human Research and Engineering Directorate

HSI Human System Integration

IRJH Infrared Jam Head

JHCU Jam Head Control Unit

M&S Modeling and Simulation

MBL Multi-band Laser
35

MFD Multi-function Display

NBC Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical

PCA Principal Components Analysis

QRC Quick Reaction Capability

SME Subject Matter Expert

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

TCM TRADOC Capabilities Manager

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

36

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF INFORMATION CTR

only) DTIC OCA

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD

STE 0944

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

IMNE ALC HRR

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIM L

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIM P

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM A J MARTIN

MYER CENTER BLDG 2700 RM 2D311

FORT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM C A DAVISON

320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 115

FORT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM DI T DAVIS

BLDG 5400 RM C242

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRS EA DR V J RICE

BLDG 4011 RM 217

1750 GREELEY RD

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5002

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM DG R SPINE

BLDG 333

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

ARMC FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM CH C BURNS

THIRD AVE BLDG 1467B RM 336

FORT KNOX KY 40121

10 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

AWC FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM DJ D DURBIN

(10 COPIES)

BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107

FORT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM CK J REINHART

10125 KINGMAN RD

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM AY M BARNES

2520 HEALY AVE 

STE 1172 BLDG 51005

FORT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM AP D UNGVARSKY

POPE HALL BLDG 4709 

BCBL 806 HARRISON DR

FORT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2302

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM AJ J HANSBERGER

JFCOM FE

115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B

SUFFOLK VA 23435

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM DQ M R FLETCHER

NATICK SOLDIER CTR

AMSRD NSC WS E BLDG 3 RM 343

NATICK MA 01760-5020

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM AT J CHEN

12423 RESEARCH PKWY

ORLANDO FL 32826

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

RDRL HRM AT C KORTENHAUS

12350 RESEARCH PKWY

ORLANDO FL 32826
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

37

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS 

 BLDG 29808A RM 303 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM CU 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MS 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 FIRES CTR OF EXCELLENCE 

 FIELD ELEMENT 

 RDRL HRM AF C HERNANDEZ 

 3040 AUSTIN RD RM 221 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-9043 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM AV S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE RM 348 

 FORT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM DW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 CL 60 

 FORT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED 

 RDRL HRM CN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARMY G1 

 (CD DAPE MR B KNAPP 

 only) 300 ARMY PENTAGON RM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 6 DIR USARL 

 RDRL CIM G 

 S FOPPIANO 

 RDRL HR 

 T LETOWSKI 

 RDRL HRM B 

 J LOCKETT 

 RDRL HRM D 

 D HARRAH 

 RDRL HRS 

 L ALLENDER 

 RDRL HRS D 

 B AMREIN 
38

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK