Evaluation of an Army Aviator’s Ability to Conduct Ingress 

and Egress of the RAH-66 Comanche Crew Station 

While Wearing the Air Warrior Ensemble

by Joshua S. Kennedy, David B. Durbin, JimA. Faughn, 

Richard W. Kozycki, and Kyle J. Nebel

ARL-TR-3404 December 2004

Approved for public release; distribution 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.

DESTRUCTION NOTICEDestroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to 

the originator.
ii

Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

ARL-TR-3404 December 2004

Evaluation of an Army Aviator’s Ability to Conduct Ingress 

and Egress of the RAH-66 Comanche Crew Station 

While Wearing the Air Warrior Ensemble

Joshua S. Kennedy, David B. Durbin, Jim A. Faughn, 

and Richard W. Kozycki

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL

Kyle J. Nebel

U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center

Approved for public release; distribution 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)

 December 2004

2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 July 2003

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

 Evaluation of an Army Aviator’s Ability to Conduct Ingress and Egress of the 

 RAH-66 Comanche Crew Station While Wearing the Air Warrior Ensemble

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

 62716AH70

5e. TASK NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

 Joshua S. Kennedy, David B. Durbin, Jim A. Faughn, and Richard W. 

 Kozycki (all of ARL); Kyle J. Nebel (TARDEC)

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

 U.S. Army Research Laboratory

 Human Research and Engineering Directorate

 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-3404

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

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The RAH-66 Comanche represented the U.S. Army ’s next generation state-of-the-art armed reconnaissance helicopter. 

Likewise, the Air Warrior aviation life support ensemble worn by Army aviators represents a significant improvement in 

personal clothing and equipment. However, at the intersection of the Comanche’s crew stations and the bulkiness of the Air 

Warrior ensemble lies a potential problem: pilots have difficulty entering and leaving the crew station, especially in an 

emergency. This study evaluated an Army aviator’s ability to conduct ingress and egress of the Comanche while wearing the 

Air Warrior ensemble. Several operationally relevant combinations of aircrew anthropometry, Air Warrior ensembles, and 

ingress-egress routes were evaluated for the front and rear crew stations. Jack human-figure modeling and motion capture 

technology were also used in the evaluation. Mean emergency egress times were found to be well within published military 

specifications. However, results show that larger males will likely have a significantly more difficult time leaving the aircraft 

than smaller persons, especially when clothed in the bulkiest Air Warrior configuration. Several operational and design 

recommendations are made. In February 2004, the Department of the Army cancelled the RAH-66 Comanche program. 

However, the information contained in this report can be used for ingress and egress testing of new or modified aviation 

systems.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 pilot-vehicle interface; pilot workload; RAH-66 Comanche; ingress; emergency egress; Air Warrior 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 Joshua S. Kennedy

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

 UL

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

 85 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

 831-656-2786

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures v

List of Tables v

Acknowledgments vi

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................2

1.3 Definition of Terms.........................................................................................................3

1.3.1 Ingress..................................................................................................................3

1.3.2 Egress..................................................................................................................3

1.3.3 Normal versus Emergency Conditions................................................................3

1.3.4 Route....................................................................................................................3

1.3.5 Emergency Egress...............................................................................................3

2. Review of Relevant Literature and Research 4

2.1 Literature Review............................................................................................................4

2.2 Current Military Specifications for Ingress, Egress, and Emergency Egress..................4

2.3 The RAH-66 Comanche Crew Station – Ingress-Egress Provisions...............................5

2.4 The Air Warrior Aviation Life Support System..............................................................8

2.5 Historical Difficulties With Ingress and Egress of Helicopters ......................................9

2.6 Past Ingress and Egress Evaluations in the RAH-66 Comanche ...................................12

2.7 Expected Ingress and Egress Difficulties With Air Warrior Based on Testing ............14

3. Method 17

3.1 Participants....................................................................................................................17

3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................19

3.2.1 Procedures and Participant Scenario .............................................................................20

3.2.2 Safety Precautions.........................................................................................................23

3.3 Methods of Data Collection...........................................................................................24

3.3.1 Data-Gathering Device ..................................................................................................24

3.4 Pilot Study.....................................................................................................................25
iv

3.5 Human Figure Modeling and Motion Capture ..............................................................26

3.5.1 Human Figure Modeling ...................................................................................26

3.5.2 Motion Capture System.....................................................................................26

3.5.3 Motion Capture Equipment ...............................................................................28

3.5.4 Markers..............................................................................................................28

3.5.5 Camera Placement .............................................................................................29

3.5.6 Marker Data.......................................................................................................30

3.5.7 Collection of Pilot Anthropometric Data ..........................................................30

3.5.8 Importing Motion Capture Data Into Jack.........................................................31

3.6 Limitations of Assessment ............................................................................................31

3.6.1 Structural Test Article (STA) Limitations.........................................................31

3.6.2 Air Warrior Limitations.....................................................................................33

3.6.3 STA Crew Station Limitations ..........................................................................33

3.7 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................34

4. Results 35

4.1 Normal Ingress and Egress Trials..................................................................................35

4.2 Emergency Egress Trials...............................................................................................35

4.2.1 Learning Effects ................................................................................................37

4.3 Questionnaire Results....................................................................................................38

4.4 Jack and Motion Capture ...............................................................................................40

5. Summary 41

6. Recommendations 42

7. References 45

Appendix A. Target Subject Anthropometry 49

Appendix B. Volunteer Affidavit Agreement 51

Appendix C. Subject Actual Anthropometric Results 55

Appendix D. Questionnaire 57

Appendix E. Checklists 61

Appendix F. Summary of Pilot Ratings and Comments on Post-Evaluation 

Questionnaires 65

Appendix G. Summary of Pilot Ratings and Comments on Post-Trial Questionnaires 69
v

Acronyms 75

Distribution List 77

List of Figures

Figure 1. Tandem seating configuration of the Comanche.............................................................2

Figure 2. RAH-66 Comanche crew station diagram.......................................................................6

Figure 3. Location of canopy handles and internal jettison handles...............................................7

Figure 4. RAH-66 emergency escape system. ................................................................................8

Figure 5. Components of the air warrior block 1............................................................................9

Figure 6. Example of digitized AW ensemble on 3-D human figure model. ...............................15

Figure 7. Four participants in order of anthopometric size...........................................................18

Figure 8. Comanche structural test article (STA) mock-up..........................................................23

Figure 9. Large male wearing the motion capture body markers. ................................................29

Figure 10. Placement of the infrared motion capture cameras around the STA. ..........................30

Figure 11. Large percentile male participant conducts an emergency egress from the front 

crew station through the right window by standing on the edge of the window ....................32

Figure 12. Emergency egress means by experimental condition..................................................37

Figure 13. Emergency egress times in order of execution. ...........................................................38

Figure 14. Jack and motion capture data show problem with the LMPD and glare shield by 

the large male pilot...................................................................................................................41

List of Tables

Table 1. Pilot demographics..........................................................................................................17

Table 2. Task conditions. ..............................................................................................................19

Table 3. Normal ingress and egress times for each participant. ...................................................35

Table 4. Emergency egress times..................................................................................................36

Table 5. Emergency egress means. ...............................................................................................36

Table 6. Comparison of objective (egress time) and subjective results (questionnaire). .............38
vi

Acknowledgments

We are extreme ly grateful for the aid of many professionals during the course of this evaluation. 

From Sikorsky, thanks go to Steve Ratka, Mike D’Louhy, Dave Wickman, and John Upton. All 

three proved invaluable in the preparation and execution of the evaluation. 

From the crew at the Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, thanks go to Dennis Hash and Nick Keenan 

for excellent craftsmanship in preparing the Comanche structural test article for ingress-egress 

testing. In addition, Mike Kosinksi spent many hours converting CAD (computer-aided design) 

files and making the drawings needed to build the mock-up. We also thank to Ron Carty for his 

outstanding videographic work which will leave us a lasting record of the event.

We are grateful to our peer reviewers for their time, attention, and expertise: Dr. Mary Ann Valk 

of Sikorsky; Mr. Scott Solomon of AMCOM Aviation Engineering Directorate, and Mr. Ron 

Ferrell of the Comanche Program Manager’s Office. From Redstone Arsenal, thanks go to Tim 

Jones from the Air Warrior Program Manager’s Office for his expertise in fitting our subjects. 

Also helping was Betty Dart from Natick Labs. Both Ron Ferrell and Scott Solomon provided 

invaluable aid and expertise during the evaluation. 

Finally and most importantly, a hearty appreciation to our four participants, who shall remain 

unnamed because of scientific protocol reasons. Professional Army aviators all, they and their 

comrades are the reason that all of us work so diligently on these systems.
1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background 

The RAH1-66 Comanche was designed to be a fully integrated, lightweight, twin-engine, twopilot, advanced technology helicopter weapons system designed to project, protect, and sustain 

the Army. It was intended to gain information dominance, shape the battlespace, and conduct 

decisive operations. The Comanche ’s features included lightweight composite airframe structures; protected anti-torque systems; low-vibration, high-reliability rotor systems; reduced radar 

cross section (RCS) and infrared (IR) signatures; built-in diagnostics and-or prognostics; second 

generation target acquisition; night vision sensors; and a radar system.

The Comanche, like the AH-1 Cobra and AH-64 Apache before it, used a tandem seating 

configuration in which one aircrew member sits behind the other (see figure 1). This seating 

configuration is common among the world’s attack helicopters and most fighter aircraft that use 

two pilots. In contrast, the side-by-side seating used in many other helicopter types, both U.S.

and foreign, places pilots sitting next to one another in the crew station. This seating configuration is used mainly for troop transport and cargo aircraft and is also used for probably every 

commercial fixed wing airplane in the world. The primary reasons for the tandem seating 

arrangement are a smaller “head-on” target for enemy weapons systems and a smaller radar 

signature. The Comanche had been in development since the mid-1980s. In February 2004, the 

Department of the Army decided to cancel the RAH-66 Comanche program.

In terms of crew station ingress and egress, past experience and published literature (discussed in 

section 2) clearly demonstrate that the tandem seating configuration is by far the more difficult. 

The cramped, streamlined crew station is made to be sat in so that pilots can fight from its 

interior. The disadvantage is that it can be difficult to conduct ingress and egress of the aircraft. 

This is especially important during emergency egress situations when the two pilots must leave 

their crew station as soon as possible to save their own lives. In addition, it is a major design 

challenge to accommodate the disparate anthropometric requirements (small female to large 

male) and still meet cost and weight goals for the aircraft.

In addition to the difficulties presented by the cramped crew station design, a pilot’s personal 

clothing and equipment will have a major impact on his or her ability to conduct ingress and 

egress of the crew station. The U.S. Army is developing, in addition to the Comanche, an

aviation life support equipment (ALSE) system called the Air Warrior (AW) ensemble. Air 

Warrior is designed to replace and integrate a variety of older components of life support 

equipment and thereby enhance combat usefulness and decrease overall bulk of the ensemble. 

The AW program is being developed in three separate blocks. Block 1 focuses on integrating 

 

1RAH = reconnaissance attack helicopter.
2

current technologies into a tailorable, effective system. Blocks 2 and 3 will take advantage of 

future technology to streamline the overall system (Department of the Army, 2003). Despite its 

very thorough and inspired design, Block 1 is still relatively bulky and presents difficulties for 

the ingress and egress of a helicopter crew station.

Figure 1. Tandem seating configuration of the Comanche.

Thus, we see that at the intersection of the RAH-66 crew station and the AW ensemble lies a 

potentially significant human factors problem: can an Army aviator quickly and safely conduct 

ingress and egress of the crew station while wearing this new AW ensemble?

1.2 Purpose

In response to these concerns, researchers from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s), 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate evaluated pilot ingress and egress using a RAH-66 

Comanche airframe mock-up at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland, and human 

participants wearing the AW ensemble. The purpose of this evaluation was to 1) assess whether

the modified RAH-66 Comanche crew station design supports the requirement for safe and 

efficient crew ingress and egress during normal and emergency conditions while the crew wears

the different AW ensembles, and 2) identify potential solutions for any deficiencies that are 

encountered for the RAH-66 crew station and the AW ensemble. Several operationally relevant 

combinations of aircrew anthropometry, aircrew clothing ensembles, and ingress-egress routes 

were evaluated for the front and rear crew stations.
3

1.3 Definition of Terms

A comprehensive list of acronyms appears later in this report. However, several terms are 

defined now since they lie at the heart of the problem statement. These definitions are largely 

drawn from the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Test Operations Procedure 

(TOP) 7-3-529 (Department of the Army, 1991), which specifies procedures for testing ingress 

and emergency egress of Army aircraft. These definitions have some minor modifications that 

make them specific to the Comanche.

1.3.1 Ingress

Beginning 5 feet from the aircraft, this is the process of entering the crew station, fastening the 

restraint system, and making all preparations before the aircraft is started in accordance with 

Technical Manual 1-1520-245-10, chapter 8 (Department of the Army, in press). No specific 

time criteria are cited in guidance documents. However, emergency egress times may be used as 

a baseline to compare ingress times and possible significant differences.

1.3.2 Egress

This consists of moving from the crew station in which the participant is seated to the ground. 

When timed, this is the period from which the seated participant initiates movement out of the 

mock-up until the time at which both of the participant’s feet are in contact with the ground and 

the participant is no longer in contact with the mock-up.

1.3.3 Normal Versus Emergency Conditions

Tasks performed in “normal” conditions should be executed in a manner that emphasizes the 

smoothness of performance expected in routine situations. Tasks performed in “emergency” 

conditions should be executed in a manner that (within the boundaries of safety) emphasizes 

speed.

1.3.4 Route

This is the path by which a participant can conduct ingress and egress of the mock-up. The 

normal route is through the left side of the Comanche when the canopy door is open. The left 

and right window routes are those available in conditions when the pilot has blown the windows 

from the aircraft.

1.3.5 Emergency Egress

This consists of actions performed by a crew member to quickly and safely leave the aircraft 

during emergency conditions.
4

2. Review of Relevant Literature and Research

2.1 Literature Review

The first ingress and egress evaluation of the RAH-66 was conducted on the first prototype 

aircraft in 1996. Since then, the aircraft underwent significant modifications in the design of the 

crew station, and the user population that the aircraft must accommodate has grown to include 

female pilots. The Comanche Program Manager’s Office (PMO) at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 

realized the need to re-assess the crew station to ensure safe and efficient ingress and egress by 

aircrew members. However, a production-representative aircraft was not scheduled to be 

available for evaluation until late in 2004. Therefore, the Comanche PMO asked ARL to

conduct an ingress-egress evaluation using a mock-up that approximates the modified crew 

stations with a high degree of fidelity.

It is important to properly frame the case for conducting an ingress-egress evaluation in the 

Comanche (while the crew wears the AW ensemble) with a thorough literature review. There 

are five primary areas that we must review. First, we must discuss current Department of 

Defense (DoD) standards for ingress, egress, and emergency egress. Second is a short 

description of the RAH-66 crew station and the provisions currently designed for ingress and 

egress, along with any other egress studies performed in the aircraft since it began production in 

the mid-1990s. Third, a description of the AW system is necessary to gain an appreciation for 

the many advantages it brings, as well as the disadvantages that remain in bulk and weight. 

Fourth, we reviewed historical difficulties with ingress and egress from helicopters, particularly 

tandemseating helicopters. Finally, we reviewed several documents from the developmental and 

operational testing of AW and a similar system from the U.S. Navy to highlight expected 

difficulties in our evaluation of the Comanche.

2.2 Current Military Specifications for Ingress, Egress, and Emergency Egress

The primary document that governs ingress and egress procedures for U.S. Army helicopters is 

from the ATEC TOP 7-3-529 (Department of the Army, 1991). The TOP specifies procedures 

for testing ingress and emergency egress of Army aircraft. In particular, it specifies several test 

conditions that are important to highlight (1991):

1. The aircraft configuration to be tested shall be that which most closely resembles the 

normal operational characteristics of that particular aircraft.

2. Participants must be appropriately attired to reflect the worst case condition during a 

variety of mission scenarios.
5

3. Uniforms selected for ingress-egress testing will address the most extreme operational 

conditions, which is likely a combination of both cold weather and nuclear-biologicalchemical (NBC) protective clothing.

4. Representative personnel should be used (as test subjects), who meet the 5th percentile 

female to the 95th percentile male population (Donelson & Gordon, 1991).

Other provisions in the TOP specify definitions and maneuvers for normal ingress and egress, 

emergency egress, as well as the test facilities and equipment that must be available.

As for the time standards for ingress and egress, we looked to a series of DoD human factors 

specifications that have evolved over the past 15 years. Specifically, MIL-STD-1472D, further 

revised by MIL-STD-1472E, and carried forward to Joint Service Specification Guide (JSSG)

2010-11, states that “emergency evacuation (after crash landing) of crew members shall be 

possible within 30 seconds” (DoD, 1989, 1996, 1998). For normal ingress and egress trials, the 

military standards do not specify a time element. However, the TOP points out that times may 

be compared to emergency egress times in order to “identify existing or potential problems 

associated with ingress maneuvers” (Department of the Army, 1991).

In addition to the human factors guidance for a 30-second standard, TOP 7-3-529 also acknowledges that “in helicopter crashes with post-crash fires, the available escape time is only 7 to 16 

seconds. For a crew to survive under these conditions, they must be able to safely egress the 

aircraft within 10 seconds (30 seconds for aircraft fitted with crash-resistant fuel tanks). As a 

result of this short time factor, it becomes imperative that crew members be required to unfasten 

only their safety harness when emerging from their crew position. Any additional tasks involving 

manual disconnection from aircraft-mounted equipment shall be considered unacceptable” 

(Department of the Army, 1991). The current evaluation will focus on the 30-second standard 

listed in the DoD human factors guidelines.

2.3 The RAH-66 Comanche Crew Station – Ingress-Egress Provisions

The RAH-66 Comanche crew station was designed to be a state-of-the-art human-machine 

interface designed to allow its aircrew an unparalleled capability to locate, identify, report about, 

and if necessary, destroy the enemy. The front and rear crew stations employed a series of 

multipurpose displays in front of each seat for information display and targeting information. In 

addition, the crew station used a unique set of flight controls, different from its predecessors in 

the U.S. Army helicopter fleet. The sidearm controller (SAC) replaced the traditional cyclic. It 

is a four-axis controller, allowing a pilot full pitch, roll, and yaw authority, as well as limited 

vertical authority. A smaller-than-normal collective allows full vertical lift authority, and two 

pedals are used for wheel brakes. See figure 2 for a diagram of the crew station (courtesy of 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation).
6

Figure 2. RAH-66 Comanche crew station diagram.

In terms of the areas of the Comanche crew stations germane to ingress and egress, we turn to 

the aircraft operator’s manual (Department of the Army, in press) and figure 2. As discussed in 

section 1, the crew stations are arranged in tandem with the pilot in the forward crew station and 

the copilot in the aft crew station. Handholds and retractable steps permit the crew to conduct 

ingress and egress on the left side of the helicopter. There are hooks on which to place the 

specialized Comanche helmet optics when they are not in use. In a crash sequence, the 

retractable landing gear was designed to stroke and then petal to attenuate crash loads as fast as

11.6 meters per second (about 11 g). The crew seats were designed with energy absorbers and 

frangible2 floor panels so that the seat will stroke downward in a high-energy crash, providing an 

additional measure of aircrew survivability. Also, the crew station interactive keyboard (CIK), 

positioned between the pilot’s knees in both the front and rear crew stations, can be folded back 

underneath the instrument panel relatively quickly to help improve the ingress and egress 

pathway. So in a normal ingress or egress, both aircrew members enter and leave the crew 

station from the left side through the canopy doors after stowing the CIK.

For emergency egress of the crew station, several provisions in the crew station and procedures 

are described in the operator’s manual. For emergency situations, the crew may conduct egress 

through the canopy doors or may jettison the side windows. See figure 3 for a diagram of the 

emergency escape system (Department of the Army, in press). A grasp “D” ring handle is 

 

2Frangibility in the non-lethal community normally describes a part that can be broken easily or in a predetermined 

manner.

S

T

E

P

 R

E

L

E

A

S

E

P

A

R

K

I

N

G

B

R

A

K

E

JETT

ALL

JET

T

A

R

FI

R

L 

A

R

R 

FI

R

R 

LDG 

GEAR

WPNS 

BAY

AL

ZER T

O

ZEROIZ

H

I

D

S

S

POW

OF

O

SYMB

OLBRIG

SCE

NEBRIG

BALAN

CE

LF R

BR

DI

PAN

L

T

G

NIG

DA

BR

T

DI

CN CSL 

BR

DI

MAST EXTERNAL 

BR

DI

PNL 

BR

T

DI

GLSH

O M E

COM

M

MST

VO

X

C

O

M

M

PUSH TO MONITOR

COMM

2

COMM

1

COMM

3

COMM

4

COMM

6

P T HO

O

IC RADI

MSTR 

XMI

T 

COMM 

EMER EMCO

N

P T

COMM

5

COM

M

V

CO

MM

IGNITI

ON

OF

F

AUT

CO

NT ENG 

L

EN EN

I

D

L

E

S

T

O

P

I

D

L

E

S

T

O

P

F

L

Y

F

L

Y

R

GUS

T 

DSB

L

O

N

O

 

STBY

B

A

T

T

S

P

U

Q

U

I

E

T

L

F

E

AL

T

LBL

TG

DI BR

XPD

R

COM

M

COM

M

COM

M

COM

M

COM

M

TAS FLT

INST

SYS

CNF

SYS

STA

ENG

INST

SLA

SYM CO

BR IMA

G

NAV

CUR

HMD

MOD

FD/

APL

 

ASE

NAV

PLA

TSD

HOM

TSD

CNF

TSD

VIE

TSD

TOO

TSD

WND

TSD

OVL

SLA

SYM CO

BR

X24_CHARACTERS_PER_LINE

X

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

0

CLR DEL

H ENT

I

J K L

M

Y U O P

N SPC

TAB RCL

A

C B

D F G

Q R T

Z X V

S

W E

INS

DI

M

BRT

DISPLAY

MA

P

F H

S

GT

M

I

R

E

LO

S

 

SEL

AH

LS

T

LK

D

UNL

TAIL 

WHL

LDG 

L R

T

O

N

PKG 

U

D

N

SCAN 

MODE

RD

E

O

CONT 

CONT 

OFF

S L SCA

F X

A S D IR/GT

M

SUR

V TV/GT

IR 

AIR

T A T

M

S K

R

VE

HVL

VEL/H

VRHO FLT 

AR

CA

AF

OF

CT

RES RL

FW

DAF

PRE

SSTO 

FAI

L

L 

ENG

 FAIL

R 

ENG

 FAIL

L 

FIR

ARM

WPNS BAY 

FIR

JE

SP

FIR

ARM

R 

FIR

ARM

ROTO

O

ALT

HO

TES

T

FIRE

BOTTLE

P

RI

ON

CREW LASE

AUT

OSE

MI M A

MASTER 

ARM

R

K

G

U

M

S

A

T

R G A M

A

R

H

O

LASER 

MODE

ALT

S W

BKUP

BZLS

DIM BRT

W7 C4 A19

FUEL-420 ATK-MAN

500

STORED DATA

CWK0473

1095.8 73-1200-a NORM V-U

5

4

3

2

1CLK223

FARP1

TOC123

Z102A 83

09

30

63 FH321

45.500

59.325

225.000

25.0000N

N

L

H

L

STBY

COMBAT

MSN00:00:00UTC12:34:56

FWD:GUN-AUTO-ARM

AFT: -SEMI-SAFE

SRCH:OFF L16:OFF

GUN:LOSTOW

WBAY:CLOSED

TAS:AFT LIVE

L L

L L

2

4 3

6PD 1

R

6PD

ALT

S W

BKUP

BZLS

ALT DIM BRT

S W

BKUP

BZLS

DIM BRT

W7 C4 A19

FUEL-420 ATK-MAN

500

STORED DATA

CWK0473

1095.8 73-1200-a NORM V-U

5

4

3

2

1CLK223

FARP1

TOC123

Z102A 83

09

30

63 FH321

45.500

59.325

225.000

25.0000N

N

L

H

L

STBY

COMBAT

MSN00:00:00UTC12:34:56

FWD:GUN-AUTO-ARM

AFT: -SEMI-SAFE

SRCH:OFF L16:OFF

GUN:LOSTOW

WBAY:CLOSED

TAS:AFT LIVE

L L

L L

2

4 3

6PD 1

R

6PD

SAC

Collective

RMPD

LMPD

SMD TSD

CIK
7

mounted in front of the five-point restraint system center attaching point, below the pilot’s legs. 

The pilot pulls sharply up with a force of 30 lb or greater to activate the window jettison. When 

he or she does so, all four windows (left and right sides, front and back seats) are released from 

their frames via a pyrotechnic activator. The location of canopy opening handles and internal 

jettison equipment is shown in figure 4. The operator’s manual directs a number of steps that 

must occur during an emergency egress and recommends stowing the CIK for an improved exit 

pathway.

Figure 3. Location of canopy handles and internal jettison handles.
8

Figure 4. RAH-66 emergency escape system.

2.4 The Air Warrior Aviation Life Support System

The AW ensemble integrates state-of-the-art aircrew mission equipment with personal protective 

gear and clothing that is primarily aircrew mounted. In the 1990s, user representatives from the 

U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC) at Fort Rucker, Alabama, identified an operational 

requirement for an integrated aircrew ensemble that would reduce weight and bulk, improve 

aircrew endurance, and improve aircrew mobility compared to then-current ALSE.

As mentioned in section 1, the U.S. Army is pursuing a three-block approach in the development 

and manufacture of the AW system. Block 1 is directed toward currently available technology. 

Blocks 2 and 3 focus on the insertion of emerging technology. The AW can be “tailored to 

support operations in all geographic and environmental conditions against emerging threats. AW 

system crew-mounted or carried equipment is designed to be with the crew member and readily 

accessible for use during or immediately following egress from an aircraft that has crashed or 

executed a forced landing or ditching” (Department of the Army, 2003). The AW system will be 

fielded to all Army aviation units flying any Army helicopter (Department of the Army, 2001).
9

ATEC subjected Block 1 AW to a comprehensive testing program during the summer and fall of 

2002 and found that it is effective in most current Army helicopters. However, the RAH-66 was 

not part of the testing since it was still in very early stages of flight testing. Overall, the AW 

system provides increased personal protection and decreased weight and bulk. See figure 5 for a 

depiction of the components in Block 1 (Department of the Army, 2003). The blue text in the 

image represents new equipment in the AW ensemble. The aviator in the image is wearing the 

standard AW configuration plus the over-water equipment (flotation collar and backpack life 

raft). Also note that the helmet worn in the image is a normal HGU-56/P, not the specialized 

Helmet-Integrated Display Sighting System (HIDSS) that was being designed to be worn by 

RAH-66 aviators.

Figure 5. Components of the air warrior block 1.

AW components include a microclimate cooling system (MCS), a survival equipment

subsystem, a modular integrated helmet display system (MIHDS), an over-water survival 

subsystem, NBC protection, and aviation clothing items. The MCS includes a microclimate 

cooling garment (MCG) that is worn against the pilot’s torso, and a microclimate cooling unit 
10

(MCU) on the aircraft that chills water and pumps it through small tubes embedded in the MCG. 

The survival equipment subsystem includes a survival gear carrier with integrated extraction 

harness, ballistic protection vest, 9-mm pistol with thigh holster, hand-held emergency survival 

radios, and survival knife in ankle sheath. The MIHDS includes laser eye protection and a night 

vision goggle (NVG) mount. (Note: On the RAH-66, there was no intent to fly with an NVG on 

the HIDSS.) The over-water survival subsystem includes a low profile personal flotation device, 

an inflatable raft, and an emergency under-water breathing device. NBC protection includes a 

modified chemical protective undergarment, an M45 or M48 protective mask, gloves, and 

overboots. Aviation clothing items include the modified Aviation Battle Dress Uniform

(ABDU) and the Aircrew Cold Weather System (Department of the Army, no date).

As depicted in figure 5 and described in the preceding paragraph, one pilot must wear a lot of 

equipment on his body to conduct a combat mission. The AW system has decreased the bulk 

and weight that a pilot must wear (as compared to previous ALSE). However, there are still 

issues in Block 1 with the overall bulk and weight, particularly when a pilot is wearing the body 

armor, the over-water survival gear, and the NBC protective gear. This fact becomes important 

when pilots conduct ingress and egress of the crew station, especially if it is an emergency 

egress. 

2.5 Historical Difficulties With Ingress and Egress of Helicopters

The USAAVNC, as well as the other U.S. military services, has long been interested in ingress 

and egress, particularly emergency egress, among all types of aircraft, fixed wing and rotary

wing. The ejection seat built into fighter aircraft is a great example of our yearning to quickly 

and safely remove a pilot from an inoperable or unstable aircraft. Parachutes are another 

example of emergency egress equipment. The U.S. Army even conducted a study in 1973 to test 

a pilot’s ability to escape from an auto-rotating helicopter by parachute. Fortunately for the 

experimental parachutist performing the trials, he found that he could escape even when vertical 

descent increased to 3,500 feet per minute (Schane, 1974). All the military services have 

conducted other studies relating to emergency egress, and a review of the National Technical 

Information Service database revealed approximately 130 technical reports related to emergency 

egress from the space shuttle. However, our literature review is limited to emergency egress 

from helicopters since the early 1990s (approximately 15 to 16 reports).

Timothy Swingle (1995) of the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL) at Fort 

Rucker conducted a study to survey emergency egress mechanisms for all Army helicopters in the 

fleet at that time. Some of the items discussed on each aircraft include location and description of 

canopy jettison mechanisms, direction of opening, size of aperture, and evacuation restrictions. 

The study outlined the emergency egress measures in two helicopters with tandem seating: the 

AH-1 Cobra (recently retired from the fleet), and the AH-64A Apache. Unfortunately, the study 

does not mention possible complications with ALSE, nor does it speculate about any difficulties 

that might occur with anthropometrically different aviators.
11

In a related vein, several authors involved with the design of helmet-mounted displays (HMDs), 

which the Comanche was designed to use, have focused on emergency egress as a design 

criterion. Other researchers with USAARL listed aircraft egress as a human factors concern 

when designing HMDs (Rash, 1998; Rash et al., 1999). So we see that when designing for 

emergency egress, we should focus on the aircraft, ALSE, and helmet design.

The U.S. Navy is also concerned with the ingress and egress from its helicopter fleet. Barker and 

Bellenkes (1996), both researchers with the Naval Aerospace and Operational Medical Institute 

at Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida, conducted a review of the Naval Safety Center database 

for all U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Class A helicopter mishaps (involving 

fatalities or more than $1 million in property loss) between 1980 and 1994. They identified and 

categorized cockpit egress problems reported by pilots and described the data in terms of 

problem category, helicopter type, crash terrain, and time of day. Of the 210 survivable mishaps, 

489 egress problems were reported in 128 (of the 210) mishaps; 61% involved aircrew factors, 

16% environmental factors, 12% were related to helicopter factors, and 11% to cockpit factors. 

Barker and Bellenkes concluded that “egress hazards can be minimized by the implementation of 

more intensive under-water egress training, crashworthy fuel systems, better design of cockpit 

exits and hatches, better restraint systems, better crashworthy seats, and more streamlined 

personal equipment” (1996).

Of particular interest to us are the aircrew (personal clothing and equipment) and crew station

factors (seats, restraints, design issues) mentioned in the recommendations from Barker and 

Bellenkes. The paper discusses the Navy’s efforts to combine several current ALSE programs 

into a more integrated, streamlined ensemble. However, the Navy’s focus is on an aircrew 

surviving a water ditching—a flight profile experienced with lesser focus by the Army. The 

article confirmed the need for a streamlined ensemble by citing the Army’s similar AW effort, 

although the AW program was in its infancy at the time.

There are two areas of the Barker and Bellenkes paper that bear some scrutiny. One weakness, 

particularly in regard to the present evaluation of the RAH-66, is the lack of distinction within 

the H-1 type category. Although they did an excellent job of categorizing egress problems by 

aircraft type (H-1, H-3, H-46, H-53, etc.), they failed to take into account seating configuration 

differences in the same helicopter type. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps H-1 fleet 

consists of the AH-1 Cobra (tandem seating) and the UH-1 Huey (side-by-side seating). 

Experience and common sense show that egress from these two aircraft is very different. 

Second, for a more thorough and comprehensive review of helicopter egress difficulties, Barker 

and Bellenkes could have extended their review to the U.S. Army Safety Center’s database at 

Fort Rucker. The U.S. Army has the largest helicopter fleet in the world, and a review of Army 

mishaps would likely lead to a more comprehensive report. Likewise, the U.S. Air Force 

maintains a similar database for its fleet, of which, helicopters are a small but important subset.
12

Another set of researchers for the U.S. Navy performed a human factors safety analysis on the 

SH-60B Seahawk (Schmidt & Winsko, 1995). Their analysis examined emergency procedures, 

survival training, crew station design, and protective gear. They argued that system components 

on the SH-60B meet design and contract specifications but are not optimal or well integrated. 

“Aircrew egress difficulties include reaching exits, actuating releases, opening hatches, and 

clearing them” (1995). They also concluded that “anthropometrically extreme aircrew with full 

flight gear exceed prescribed dimensions and could have problems reaching exits, actuating 

releases, and/or clearing exits” (1995). They did not define “anthropometrically extreme,” but it 

is safe to assume they meant an avia tor near the upper end of the anthropometric range (95th 

percentile or higher). Their study also points to a limitation of the present assessment in the 

RAH-66: crew seats that absorb energy by stroking “can inadvertently hinder subsequent egress 

by modifying aircrew position” (1995). This point is discussed later in the Limitations section.

A final paper of note for past helicopter ingress-egress studies comes from Arthur D. Little, Inc., 

the firm that helped design the current Air Warrior ensemble. Pensotti, Turieo, Stokes, and 

Reeps (1998) conducted a study to investigate the feasibility of a seat pack concept as a method 

for carrying survival gear. Human participant tests were performed with the experimental seat 

pack in both the UH-60 Blackhawk and AH-64 Apache helicopters. The testing procedure 

included an assessment of normal ingress and timed emergency egress. Data collection also 

included anthropometry, photography, and questionnaires. Normal egress procedures were also 

completed in the UH-60 only. The overall configuration of the subjects’ experimental ALSE is 

fairly close to the AW Block 1. The experimental procedure used by the researchers is well

designed, and ideas from this paper were carried forward to the present evaluation in the 

RAH-66. 

For the AH-64, the average emergency egress time was 16.0 seconds with the experimental seat 

pack and 14.2 seconds with current ALSE. Researchers concluded that the most pervasive 

problem in the AH-64 was related to chest circumference. Equipment bulk, particularly in the 

chest region, interfered with reach and egress. Because the published paper was an edited 

version of a longer (and unavailable) technical report, some details about the exact crew station

setup were missing (i.e., were the armor wing panels deployed? How were the cables from the 

helmet hooked up?). The results from this paper gave us some early indicators of how the 

production AW Block 1 ensemble will perform during our ingress/egress trials in the RAH-66 

Comanche.

2.6 Past Ingress and Egress Evaluations in the RAH-66 Comanche

In the case of the ingress and egress for the Comanche, one of the confounding issues is that 

further requirements have been thrust upon the aircraft crew station since Sikorsky-Boeing began 

fabricating prototypes in the early 1990s. Originally, the Army’s requirement of the Comanche 

was that it accommodate a user population with an anthropometric range of 5th to 95th percentile 

males. However, the “total population required to be accommodated within the crew station
13

increased in 1996 after design of the existing prototype aircraft” (Chase, Copeland, & Ferrell, 

2000). The requirement was increased to include the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile 

male. In 2002, the Comanche Operational Requirements Document (2002) was modified to 

approximately accommodate the 35th percentile female through the 95th percentile male, with 

the 5th percentile female as a goal. The other emerging requirement relevant to this evaluation is 

the change in ALSE from current systems to AW. Because pilots will wear the AW ensemble 

when flying in the RAH-66, an ingress-egress evaluation that includes the AW is necessary.

There have been three ingress-egress evaluations of the Comanche crew stations since the first 

prototypes were built. The U.S. Army Aviation Technical Test Center (ATTC) conducted the 

initial assessment with the first prototype aircraft in 1996. Unfortunately, very little 

documentation exists from this evaluation, and results have been passed mainly by word of

mouth. Personnel from ARL conducted an ingress-egress evaluation in 1999; again, 

documentation from that evaluation is not available.

The most recent emergency egress evaluation took place in May 2003 with one of the prototype 

aircraft at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach (WPB), FL, facility (D’Louhy, 2003). This wellconducted and well-documented test evaluated a number of conflicts arising from the use of the 

Comanche-unique HIDSS. Specifically, testers needed to assess whether the HIDSS hindered a 

pilot during emergency egress and whether a pilot could clear the aircraft in the required 

30 seconds. Results from the evaluation showed that three pilots (all Comanche experiment test 

pilots) were able to conduct egress from the aircraft in an average of 12.9 seconds. Subjective 

comments were also gathered from the pilots after the emergency egress trials. One particular 

finding from the pilot commentary regarded their inability to easily move their feet and legs 

through the small area between the lower glare shield and the collective grip. This finding 

proved to be a fairly common event in the present evaluation.

The present evaluation expanded on several test conditions that did not exist for the 2003 

evaluation in West Palm Beach. First, the experimental test pilots at WPB were wearing another 

version of ALSE that is not similar to AW (specifically, the AIRSAVE3 vest). The evaluation did 

not call for a combat-configured pilot and crew station. Items in AW such as body armor, 9-mm 

pistol, leg knife, and over-water survival gear were not in use. Several items such as the side 

armor panels, water canteen, and map cases were not installed on the prototype aircraft. Emergency egress was only conducted out the normal (left) side of the aircraft, since jettisoning the 

windows would have been very costly. In contrast, the present evaluation used the AW ensemble, 

side armor panels (that must be retracted by the crew), water canteens, map cases, and other items 

that will be in the production crew stations. Furthermore, the pilots performed several emergency 

egress trials out of the right side of the aircraft—a test condition not possible in the flying 

prototypes because of excessive maintenance costs and air-worthiness considerations.

 

3AIRSAVE is the name of a commercially available product.
14

2.7 Expected Ingress and Egress Difficulties With Air Warrior Based on Testing

To gain an historical basis for difficulties in the wearing of bulky ALSE in a helicopter, we first 

turn to an ensemble tested by the U.S. Navy from 1987 to 1990. The A/P22P-9(V) Helicopter 

Air Crewman Chemical, Biological Protection Ensemble might be called a rough predecessor of

the Army’s AW. Researchers with the Naval Air Warfare Center at Patuxent River, Maryland, 

evaluated the ensemble during hot weather ground and flight testing in four USMC helicopter 

types: the AH-1, UH-1N, CH-46, and CH-53. The primary data collection was physiological 

and subjective responses from the tested crew members, both pilots and crew chiefs. Ground 

testing included ingress, egress, and emergency egress in all four aircraft types “to evaluate 

subjects’ ability to get in and out of their crew stations, easily, safely, and quickly” (Bjorn & 

Huang, 1992). Pilot ingress and egress of the AH-1 were the most challenging because of its 

“bubble canopy, climb-in, cramped cockpit” (1992). Emergency egress was also evaluated but 

apparently not timed since no results were reported or discussed. Unfortunately, the report did 

not include any description of the methodology for the ingress and egress testing. Overall, we 

see that ingress and egress from helicopters with a focus on ALSE has received emphasis and 

that a tandemseating configuration presents the biggest problem.

Other researchers from ARL modeled AW during its development to gain an understanding of 

how the ensemble would affect human performance, both cognitive and physical. Kozycki 

(1998) argued that, over time, growing burdens from a pilot’s ALSE have begun to severely 

degrade helicopter operator performance. Kozycki described an approach to assess the 

operational impact of AW using three-dimensional (3-D) graphical anthropometric human figure 

models fitted with digitized ALSE in a software program called Jack4. This method of 3-D 

human figure modeling minimizes the need for an actual aircraft or physical mock-up early in 

the design process. This is particularly important in the case of the RAH-66 since only two 

prototypes are available, and access to these is very limited. See figure 6 for a recent example of 

the AW ensemble applied to human figure model in Jack.

Another paper from researchers at ARL further describes 3-D human figure modeling with the 

AW ensemble, as well as work with a human workload model to understand the ensemble’s effect 

on aviator performance (Harrah, Kozycki, Salvi, Tauson, & Kehring, 2001). Analyses from this 

paper show that in terms of a particular AW configuration, the condition when a pilot is wearing 

chemical-biological protective and over-water survival gear simultaneously (NBC-OW) 

represents the worst case in terms of reach restriction. This provides a literature basis, in addition 

to our own common sense, for the hypothesis that certain AW configurations will degrade 

emergency egress performance. The paper also describes an early motion-capture video system 

that was used to obtain range of motion data from the subjects’ upper body for input to the human 

figure models. A newer motion-capture system from the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command 

 

4

Jack is a trademark of Unigraphics, Inc.
15

(TACOM) was employed in the present Comanche evaluation to obtain further validation of this 

new technology.

Figure 6. Example of digitized AW ensemble on 3-D human figure model.

Another paper from Pensotti, Berube, Bucher, Dart, Dunfey, and Turieo (1999) describes a 

“systems approach for designing the physical architecture” of the AW to produce acceptable 

human performance. They reasoned that an aviator’s ability to fly and fight can be “enhanced by 

integrating human performance with technical and equipment requirements” (1999). Further, 

they argued that human performance (not equipment performance) is the best measure of 

success.

Like the studies from ARL, this paper points to human anthropometric and AW conditions that 

will represent the worst case in terms of performance. In their study, the 95th percentile male 

represents the worst in terms of clearance, limited control movement, and volume associated 

with the ensemble’s interface to the aircraft. In addition, the 5th percentile female represents the 

worst case scenario in terms of available surface area to mount equipment on the AW clothing. 

Also of note are their findings regarding the AH-64 Apache. Their evaluation identified the 
16

Apache as a problem for wear and use of the AW. The Apache has a tandem seating 

configuration that is very similar to Comanche’s. So, in 1999, researchers knew that there would 

be problems with the AW in a tandemseating helicopter.

The final literature source to be considered is the 2002 ATEC system evaluation report (SER) for 

the AW Block 1 operational test conducted in 2002 by ATEC. AW was tested in four current 

Army helicopters: UH-60, OH-58D, CH-47D, and AH-64D. An important criterion in the test 

reads, “AW will not reduce or degrade the aircrew members’ movement, comfort, field of vision, 

ability to reach controls, ingress, or egress, including emergency egress, as compared with 

current mission/survival equipment” (Department of the Army, 2003).

The report found that ingress and egress were adversely affected by the bulk of the AW 

ensemble. Although pilots wearing non-combat configurations fit easily into crew stations, 

inclusion of combat equipment (e.g., body armor, pistol) presents issues of crew station

limitations and flight control interference. To avoid similar compatibility issues, current and 

future aircraft design programs must make crew stations large enough to accommodate crew

members from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male wearing the bulkiest AW 

configurations.

The results from the emergency egress testing performed on the AW are very important in 

application to the present evaluation in the Comanche but show a real contradiction in terms of 

subjects’ ability to conduct egress from an aircraft during an emergency in less than 30 seconds. 

According to the report, during early developmental testing (DT) with experimental test pilots, 

“all four aircraft demonstrated that all AW test configurations allowed...crew members to 

successfully accomplish normal ingress and emergency egress; however, armor side panels were 

not installed during DT trials” (2003) (emphasis added). All DT emergency egress trials were 

completed within 30 seconds. However, testers found that normal ingress was awkward because 

of the bulk of the system which could cause unintentional input to the flight controls. Despite 

this finding, they concluded that “Air Warrior is considered effective in aircrew ingress and 

egress” (2003).

However, in later operational testing (OT) with line Army aviators, emergency egress testing 

was only planned for the UH-60. Testers found the average time to egress was 17 seconds with 

armor side panels installed. No emergency egress trials were planned or conducted in the AH64D and OH-58D. CH-47D test subjects “expressed concerns over their ability to safely egress 

the aircraft” (2003) in the bulkier AW configurations, so a limited number of emergency egress 

trials were conducted. Half of the trials (8 of 16) confirmed that it is extremely difficult for 

subjects wearing the over-water survival gear to leave the CH-47D through the crew station

doors with the side armor panels installed. The average time to leave with the panels in place 

was 50 seconds (emphasis added). Despite these findings, testers concluded that there are “no 

significant differences in aircraft or ensemble configuration that would affect the results” (2003).
17

The conclusions reached in the AW SER in terms of emergency egress are of considerable note 

since they seem to contradict the test results of the CH-47D. Of course, it would have been 

preferable to conduct emergency egress trials in OT with a combat-configured pilot in an AH-64 

with side armor panels to ascertain how long it would take him or her to leave that aircraft during 

an emergency. However, the difference in results between DT, OT in the UH-60, and OT in the 

CH-47 tells us that a pilot in combat AW ensemble sitting in a combat-configured crew station

(especially a tandem seating crew station) may not be able to meet the 30-second standard from 

military specifications for emergency egress.

3. Method

3.1 Participants

Two male and two female pilots were recruited as participants. Each pilot was selected on the 

basis of how closely he or she approximated the anthropometric characteristics of a large male 

(approximately 95th percentile), a medium male (approximately 50th percentile), a medium 

female (approximately 50th percentile), or a small female (approximately 5th percentile). The 

reference for anthropometry is the U.S. Army’s 1988 anthropometric survey of pilots by 

Donelson and Gordon (1991). See appendix A for a table of target anthropometric values for 

each subject.

All four participants were rated Army aviators. One male participant was assigned to the 

Training and Doctrine Command System Manager–Comanche (TSM-C) office at Fort Rucker, 

and the other male participant was assigned to the TSM-C office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Both males held the rank of Chief Warrant Officer 4 and were rated as instructor pilots in the 

AH-64A and AH-64D. The medium female subject held the rank of Warrant Officer 1 and was a 

student pilot in the OH-58D track of the Army’s Flight School XXI. The small female held the 

rank of Captain and was rated as an instructor pilot in the AH-64A. The relevant demographic 

characteristics of the pilots are listed in table 1. No participant was on a temporary or physical 

medical profile, nor did any participant report any physical limitations. See figure 7 for a photo 

of the four participants.

Table 1. Pilot demographics.

Summary of demographic

characteristics Age (yrs) Total flight hours in Army aircraft

Mean

Median

Range

37

33

29-53

1698

1851

90 to 3000

The participants were briefed about the purpose of the evaluation and their volunteer rights and 

were asked to sign a volunteer agreement affidavit (appendix B) before any further processing 
18

was done. The participants were then measured by ARL personnel to determine if they approximated the anthropometric characteristics of a large or medium male or medium or small female. 

A female employee from the USAAVNC Field Element was present to observe and help 

measure potential female participants.

Figure 7. Four participants in order of anthopometric size.

The following measurements were obtained for each potential participant:

• Stature

• Weight

• Buttock-knee length

• Sitting height

• Acromion height, sitting

• Biacromial breadth

• Bideltoid breadth

• Crotch height

• Popliteal height

• Functional grip reach, extended

• Chest depth

• Hip breadth

• Shoulder circumference
19

The participants were then given a copy of the ingress-egress evaluation plan and a copy of the 

volunteer agreement affidavit. This provided them with additional information about the scope 

of the evaluation and the tasks they would be asked to perform. Once they reported for the study 

at APG, all participants completed a more thorough set of anthropometric measurements. These 

measurements were used to construct the 3-D human figure models of each participant in Jack. 

See appendix C for each participant’s actual anthropometric measurements.

3.2 Research Design

The formal evaluation was conducted during a 5-day period in July 2003. The first day (Day 0) 

was a travel day for most participants. Initial briefings, training, rehearsals, and data collection 

setup occurred on day 1. Formal trials were conducted over a 2-day period on days 2 and 3. The 

final day (day 4) was used for return travel and initial data review and reduction by the 

investigators.

The evaluation included four different independent variables (IV): aircrew anthropometry, 

emergency egress direction, AW ensemble, and crew station. The dependent variable (DV) was 

the time to complete ingress or egress of the crew station. We used a within-subjects design with 

each participant completing a total of 20 trials over a number of different conditions (see 

table 2). Eight of the trials were during normal ingress and egress; the remaining 12 were 

emergency egress trials. In addition, the evaluation was qualitative in nature as each subject was 

asked for his or her feedback about the limitations of the crew station and the AW ensembles 

during ingress and egress. See appendix D for the questionnaires that were administered.

Table 2. Task conditions.

Trial Task AW Configuration Route Condition Crew Station

1 Ingress Combat - Hot Normal (Left) Normal Front

2 Egress Combat - Hot Normal (Left) Normal Front

3 Egress Combat - Hot Normal (Left) Emergency Front

4 Egress Combat - Hot Left Window Emergency Front

5 Egress Combat - Hot Right Window Emergency Front

6 Ingress Combat - Hot Normal (Left) Normal Rear

7 Egress Combat - Hot Normal (Left) Normal Rear

8 Egress Combat - Hot Normal (Left) Emergency Rear

9 Egress Combat - Hot Left Window Emergency Rear

10 Egress Combat - Hot Right Window Emergency Rear

11 Ingress MOPP IV - OW Normal (Left) Normal Front

12 Egress MOPP IV - OW Normal (Left) Normal Front

13 Egress MOPP IV - OW Normal (Left) Emergency Front

14 Egress MOPP IV - OW Left Window Emergency Front

15 Egress MOPP IV - OW Right Window Emergency Front

16 Ingress MOPP IV - OW Normal (Left) Normal Rear

17 Egress MOPP IV - OW Normal (Left) Normal Rear

18 Egress MOPP IV - OW Normal (Left) Emergency Rear

19 Egress MOPP IV - OW Left Window Emergency Rear

20 Egress MOPP IV - OW Right Window Emergency Rear
20

MOPP = mission-oriented protective posture

As can be seen from table 2, each subject completed a normal ingress and egress of each crew 

station (front and rear) in two separate AW configurations. These trials were not during 

emergency conditions and were timed for general information about how long it takes to conduct 

a normal ingress and egress. The main results from the normal ingress-egress trials were the 

questionnaire feedback that each subject gave after the trial as well as observations from the 

investigators. In addition to the normal ingress-egress trials, each subject completed three 

emergency egress trials from each crew station (front and rear) in two separate AW configurations. A videographer was available to record video and take still photos throughout the 

evaluation, and those proved to be a valuable addition to the qualitative data.

A number of personnel associated with ARL, the Comanche PMO, the AW PMO, and Sikorsky 

Aircraft Company (among others) were present during the evaluation for specific subject matter 

expertise. An AW life support equipment specialist was present to assist in the use of the AW

equipment. From Sikorsky, the lead crew station engineer advised us about exact layout of the 

real Comanche crew station. Also from Sikorsky was the primary engineer for the Comanche 

helmet (HIDSS) for fitting expertise. Personnel from several other U.S. Army agencies 

(particularly those involved in test and evaluation) and Sikorsky Aircraft Company were onsite 

to observe the evaluation and to lend subject matter expertise as needed.

In addition to the gear already mentioned, several other items were required to conduct the 

evaluation, which included

• Video recording equipment

• Digital stopwatches

• AW ensembles (see figure 5)

• HIDSS prototype and cabling

• Large bag anthropometric measuring kit

• Cushioned mats

• CorTemp2000 ambulatory recorder

• CorTemp temperature sensors (pills)

• WiBGeT RSS-214 heat stress monitor

• Tape measure

• Maintenance platform to elevate photographic and data collection personnel

• Cushioned area for test participants to land on when conducting emergency egress 

trials

3.2.1 Procedures and Participant Scenario

On day 1, the participants received a briefing about the purpose of the evaluation and were 

allowed to see the equipment. The investigative team then administered an informal evaluation 

to ensure subjects were not limited by physical or range-of-motion difficulties. Subject matter 
21

experts (SMEs) from the AW PMO at Redstone Arsenal fitted them with the AW ensembles. 

The participants then signed a second volunteer agreement affidavit before actual participation. 

Before data collection began, participants were allowed to familiarize themselves with the layout 

of the Comanche mock-up and were trained in proper ingress and egress techniques. Practice 

periods occurred before the beginning of the evaluation trials. Practice periods also occurred 

when the participants donned a new clothing ensemble (e.g., MOPP-OW ensemble). Before and 

after each trial, the AW SMEs assisted the participants in donning and doffing the AW ensemble. 

Each participant performed the ingress and egress tasks in the manner described below. See 

appendix E for a checklist of the actions that occurred.

To standardize the seated position for each participant, investigators placed each participant on 

his or her design eye line (DEL). When placed at their DEL, participants had approximately a 

17.5-degree “look-down” angle over the glare shield. The location of each subject’s seated eye 

line was determined through the use of a Faro5 Bronze Arm, a portable coordinate measuring 

machine (CMM) with an accuracy of 0.30 mm. The Faro Bronze Arm is a 6-degree-of-freedom 

arm that can be used to locate 3-D coordinate points in space or digitize the surface of complex 

3-D curvilinear objects. It has an operating hemispheric envelope of approximately 8 feet. Each 

of the six joints on the arm has a hybrid analog-digital rotary transducer to keep track of the 

rotation at each joint as the arm is moved through space. The signals from these transducers are 

sent via serial cable to a serial controller box and from there to a computer through another serial 

line. All the information gathered from the transducers is resolved into coordinate values for the 

location of the tip of the arm, which contains a probe for measurement of objects. Participants 

sat in each crew station while the investigators adjusted their seat position to put them on their 

DEL. Those seat positions were recorded so that they could be duplicated later as the participants completed record trials. SMEs from Sikorsky assisted ARL personnel in making these 

adjustments and confirming proper location of the DEP for each subject.

Each trial began with the participant standing 5 feet from the mock-up. The primary investigator 

(P.I.) loudly announced information about the conditions of the trial (e.g., participant number, front 

or rear crew station, type of AW ensemble) and then announced the word “go”. Timing began, 

and the participant opened the canopy door, entered the mock-up, closed the canopy door, fastened 

the restraint harness, donned the flight helmet, connected the HIDSS cable, put hands and feet on 

the flight controls, completed all steps included in the ingress checklist (see appendix E), and gave 

a “thumbs-up” sign to the P.I. When the participant gave the thumbs-up sign, timing ceased. After 

timing ceased, the participants were asked to demonstrate that they could reach and view the crew 

station controls and displays and have adequate visibility over the nose of the mock-up. A posttrial questionnaire was then administered to the participants.

Normal egress trials began with the participant seated in the mock-up and the restraint harness 

fastened. The HIDSS cable and MCU cable were connected and the participants placed their 

 

5Faro Technologies (www.faro.com)
22

hands on the flight controls and their feet on the pedals. The CIK was in the deployed (nonstowed) position and the canopy door closed. At the start signal (“go” plus hand signal), timing 

began and the participant unfastened the restraint harness and the HIDSS cable, stowed the CIK, 

and exited the mock-up at a comfortable pace. Timing ceased when the participant reached the 

ground and was no longer in contact with the mock-up. A post-trial questionnaire was then 

administered to the participants.

Emergency egress trials also began with the participant seated in the mock-up and the restraint 

harness fastened. The HIDSS cable was connected and the participants placed their hands on the 

flight controls and their feet on the pedals. The CIK was in the deployed (non-stowed) position 

and the canopy door closed. At the start signal (“go” plus hand signal), timing began and the 

participant unfastened the restraint harness and the HIDSS cable and exited the mock-up as 

quickly as possible in accordance with the checklist in appendix E. Timing ceased when the 

participant reached the ground and was no longer in contact with the mock-up. Again, a posttrial questionnaire was administered.

If participants or evaluation personnel noted a problem in the performance of any task, adequate 

time was taken to closely examine the problem and determine potential corrective design or 

procedural measures. In one case, a corrective procedural measure was identified and an 

additional trial performed. If the participant encountered a safety problem for any reason during 

the trial, that trial was halted immediately to ensure safety of the participant. If necessary, the 

trial was repeated.

To minimize fatigue, after each emergency egress trial, the participants were given an 

opportunity to sit, rest, and drink water if desired. For ingress-egress tasks that required the 

participants to be attired in the MOPP-OW configuration, each participant performed only one 

ingress-egress task sequence before taking a break. As a minimum, participants took rest breaks 

every 30 minutes. The rest breaks typically lasted 5 to 10 minutes. Additional rest breaks were 

taken when deemed necessary by the P.I. and associate investigators or at the request of 

participants.

Videotaping equipment was used throughout the evaluation to obtain a permanent record. 

Ambient temperature readings were monitored continuously and recorded on the post-trial 

questionnaire for each trial. The P.I. and associate investigators recorded any problems 

experienced by participants during the trials on the post-trial questionnaire. Comments made 

by participants during the trials were also documented on the post-trial questionnaires. After 

the completion of trials for each clothing ensemble (Combat-Hot, MOPP-OW), participants 

completed an end-of-phase questionnaire to obtain additional recommendation, comments and 

feedback (see appendix D).
23

3.2.2 Safety Precautions

Although ecological and external validity were key aspects of this evaluation, there was also a 

considerable safety emphasis to ensure the health and welfare of the four participants. No 

evaluation is worth an injured participant. Conducting an emergency egress from the aircraft 

(especially the rear crew station) involves a considerable drop to the ground with the possibility 

of cables or clothing getting caught on the airframe, possibly causing serious injury to the 

aviator. Accordingly, in some trials, we sacrificed ecological validity for safety in instances 

when doing so ensured the health and welfare of the participants.

Several safety measures were in place during the conduct of the evaluation. First and foremost, 

at least two (sometimes three) spotters were next to the aircraft during all trials to assist, even 

support, the participants if necessary for safety reasons. However, the spotters did not support 

the weight of a participant unless injury was imminent. Mats were placed around the mock-up to 

minimize injuries to participants if they fell during the trials. A 12- by 10-foot mass of foam 

blocks, enclosed in a Tyvek6 protective cover, was positioned underneath the appropriate side for 

emergency egress trials. See figure 8 for an image of some of the safety matting used.

Figure 8. Comanche structural test article (STA) mock-up. (Note the foam mats and 

Tyvek bag for safety.)

Heat stress was also a concern since the evaluation was conducted during the middle of summer. 

There were two fully functioning air conditioning units in the open bay where the evaluation took 

place. These air conditioners kept the ambient air temperature well below 75 °F at all times. The 

temperature ranged from 61.9 °F to 70.4 °F, with a mean of 64.5 °F. A heavy duty fan was used 

in the facility during the trials to provide cooling for participants. A WiBGeT RSS-214 heat stress 

monitor continuously recorded ambient temperatures during the entire evaluation. If the ambient 

 

6Tyvek is a registered trademark of DuPont (www.tyvek.com).
24

temperature heat index had equaled or exceeded 85 °F (29.4 °C) during trials when participants 

were wearing the combat-hot configuration, the evaluation would have been halted. The evaluation would not have resumed until the heat index fell below 85 °F (29.4 °C). If the ambient 

temperature heat index had equaled or exceeded 75 °F (23.8 °C) during trials when participants 

were wearing the MOPP-OW configuration, the evaluation would have been halted. The 

evaluation would not have resumed until the heat index fell below 75 °F (23.8 °C). None of the 

participants volunteered to participate in an additional individual monitoring precaution, which 

was to swallow a disposable CorTemp7 telemetry sensor. Core body temperature would have 

been monitored every 5 minutes. If any participant had exceeded a core body temperature of 

102.7 °F (39.3 °C), he or she would have been immediately removed from the evaluation for the 

day. Fluids in the form of water and Gatorade8 were available at all times for the participants to 

drink. They were encouraged to drink to satisfaction to prevent dehydration.

3.3 Methods of Data Collection

There were three sources of data collection for the evaluation. First, each trial was timed via 

digital stopwatch. Second, the questionnaires (see appendix D) provided subjective and expert 

observational data to complement the timed data. Finally, the ARL videographer recorded the 

entire evaluation on video and still photography (both film and digital). The video and 

photographic record of the evaluation provided valuable backup material to underscore any 

major observations or findings from the participants or investigators.

3.3.1 Data-Gathering Device

The evaluation was conducted with a refurbished RAH-66 Comanche STA mock-up at APG. 

The STA mock-up is an actual airframe built by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation at their 

Bridgeport, Connecticut, facility—one of three fabricated in the early 1990s. Two became the 

flying prototypes that conducted flight testing at the Sikorsky facility near West Palm Beach. 

The other went to APG for live fire and environmental testing. The U.S. Army Aviation 

Logistics Schools (USAALS) took possession of the airframe after it completed testing. 

USAALS then loaned the airframe to ARL for the purpose of conducting the ingress-egress 

evaluation. The STA mock-up is simply an airframe: no engines, rotor blades, avionics, tail 

boom, landing gear or tail rotor. ARL refurbished the interior with crew seats, replicated flight 

controls, display panels, and interior stowage compartments to make the crew station as 

production-representative as possible. The Faro arm provided accurate locations for the 

components and equipment that were installed in the mock-up. The Faro arm was also used as a 

quality assurance device to maintain adherence to location tolerances of all interior components 

and equipment. See figure 8 for a photograph of the STA mockup.

 

7CorTemp is a registered trademark of HQ, Inc. (www.hqinc.net).

8Gatorade is a registered trademark of the Gatorade Company.
25

As mentioned previously, we used a pair of post-trial and post-evaluation questionnaires to gain 

expert feedback and comments from the participants as the evaluation progressed. These 

questionnaire instruments were developed in accordance with published guidelines for proper 

format and content (O’Brien & Charlton, 1996; Babbitt & Nystrom, 1989a, 1989b). A pre-test 

was conducted to refine the questionnaires and to ensure that they could be easily understood and 

completed by the participants.

3.4 Pilot Study

The investigative team conducted a pilot study in the STA on 4 and 5 June 2003 at APG, with 

the first and second authors acting as participants (not the actual aviators from the record 

evaluation). Over the course of 2 days, the team completed a lengthy series of ingress and egress 

trials. The trials were conducted during normal and emergency conditions, with multiple 

variations of the AW ensembles, from both front and rear crew stations, and out both sides of the 

aircraft. The ARL videographer was also present to take still and video images of all trials for 

historical and references purposes, as well as rehearse for the record evaluation.

The investigative team put into place and rehearsed all planned safety measures for the 

evaluation. Representatives from the Comanche PMO and Sikorsky were present to observe and 

comment on the mock-up and evaluation plan. Especially important was the presence of the lead 

crew station engineer from Sikorsky to validate the fabrication of all crew station components 

and ensure that the mock-up was production representative.

The investigative team used the initial trials for training and familiarization with the Comanche 

and the AW ensembles. Trials were generally timed for informational purposes to give us an 

idea of the length of time necessary to conduct normal ingress and egress. As might be expected 

with a cramped crew station such as the Comanche, each aviator has to go through a learning 

phase to find the most efficient way of entering and leaving the aircraft safely and efficiently. 

Lessons learned in this area were explained to the participants before record trials. For example, 

we found it more efficient to rest the flight helmet on top of the sidearm controller while getting 

in and out. Also, during emergency egress from either side, we found it faster to leave the 

aircraft face out (torso away from the aircraft) instead of the face-in direction used for normal 

ingress and egress.

The investigative team developed detailed checklists for ingress, egress, and emergency egress 

before conducting the pilot study. Steps in these checklists represented all the individual steps 

that the investigators and pilots accomplished during the trials. These checklists were further 

refined and amplified from the results of the pre-trials, and the versions used in the record 

evaluation are given in appendix E.
26

3.5 Human Figure Modeling and Motion Capture

3.5.1 Human Figure Modeling

The use of human figure modeling has gained widespread acceptance over the past two decades, 

particularly in the application of workplace design. It has proved to be an effective tool for 

evaluating the human-in-the-loop interaction between the operator and the crew station. In fact,

Comanche has used human figure modeling software to examine several aspects of the program 

(Kozycki, 2002). Some of these past uses include evaluating the crew station design to 

determine the extent of modifications needed to meet the population accommodation 

requirement as well as to examine pilot body postures that could produce helmet strikes to the 

adjacent canopy frame structure when the HIDSS is worn. Other uses include exploring 

placement of added crew station components and simulating over-the-nose vision for the pilot.

Jack was also used for this study to help examine pilot ingress and egress. The Jack software is 

an interactive tool for modeling, manipulating, and analyzing human and other 3-D articulated 

geometric figures (Badler, Phillips, & Webber 1993). The software contains a utility for 

importing anthropometric data that are used to build and size the human figure models. This 

aspect of the software allows the human factors analyst to tailor the models to represent a 

specific user population for whom the equipment design is targeted.

Video and still photography cameras were employed for this study in order to help document 

the results and spot problems. However, in order to further augment this study, it was decided 

that human figure modeling combined with motion capture data could help to analyze the biomechanics of the pilots performing ingress and egress of the Comanche crew stations. The 

motion capture equipment used for this study was owned and operated by the U.S. Army TankAutomotive Command (TACOM).

3.5.2 Motion Capture System

Motion capture is a combined hardware and software environment focused specifically on 

capturing complex motion (i.e., human) and then generating digital traces or paths that can then 

be used to animate digital avatars or humans for the purpose of analysis, simulation, and training. 

The system used by TACOM is a Viconoptical motion capture system, with the following 

capabilities:

• 16 camera system (10 large infrared cameras for large areas, and 6 lipstick-miniature 

infrared cameras for small or enclosed volumes)

• Capture rate of 60 Hz or 60 frames per second

• Tracking capability for as many as 100 independent optical markers

• 64-channel analog capture board
27

• Real-time motion capture engine (capability to animate a digital avatar 

simultaneously with the motion capture session)

• Suite of software tools used to post-process and animate the motion data.

Motion capture work was previously done and developed for the entertainment industry where 

complex or impossible scenes were developed digitally with high-powered computers and 

graphic engines. The reason for using motion capture was that complex human motions when 

developed by a programmer or animator for computer-generated characters had an unnatural or 

unrealistic appearance. In order to “sell” the audience on the story, other approaches had to be 

developed to generate human motion. Most of today’s feature length computer-generated 

animated movies as well as gaming software with computer-generated characters now routinely 

incorporate motion capture data to make the movements of the character appear very life-like. 

TACOM began investigating motion capture technology in 1997 as a tool that could be used in 

the field of human factors and ergonomics. A shared collaboration between the TACOM and the 

former General Motors (GM) Delphi (now Delphi Automotive Systems) proved that human 

motion data could be captured and could prove valuable in the analysis, simulation, and 

improved training development for new and existing systems.

The benefit of using motion capture equipment is that it provides the ability to capture the action 

or activity and view the motion from an infinite number of angles. The human factors engineer 

can then select the ideal perspective that best conveys or represents the problem he or she is 

trying to analyze as opposed to traditional video or still image photography where the motion can 

only be viewed from only one angle. The motion capture data, when combined with human 

figure modeling, represent the actual posture and procedure used by a human subject performing 

the task and not some subjective motion sequence developed by a programmer or animator 

sitting at a keyboard. The thought here is that you are evaluating the actual human performance 

and not an idealistic animation of that human figure model.

This capability also provides a couple of inherent benefits not apparent to the target audience. 

For example, if the participant is an expert in the task being accomplished, you are actually 

capturing this expert’s approach and technique in accomplishing the task. Individuals can then 

play the animation developed from these data for training purposes or compare techniques to 

achieve optimal performance such as professional and olympic athletes. Another benefit that

results from the accuracy of the data is that you can evaluate posture over time to determine 

detrimental changes in posture (i.e., slouching, changes in approach and technique), which can 

be used to evaluate fatigue levels. This can also be used to determine recovery time through the 

reversal of this process.

The combination of the videotape and motion capture records has other possible analytical uses 

in the future if time and need dictate. These include (personal communication, Dr. Mary Ann 

Valk, March 2004)
28

• Enables one to view system’s processes repeatedly;

• Provides a permanent and broadly distributed data record;

• Can be easily stopped, started, and reversed for repeated observation in slow, normal, 

and fast motion;

• Provides a built-in process for recording time tags along with the video;

• Serves as a training aid that can be methodically evaluated;

• Shows excessive task times for ingress and egress, revealing human errors and 

identifying improper procedures.

3.5.3 Motion Capture Equipment

The following equipment and software was used in the Comanche ingress-egress study:

• 10 standard infrared cameras for large volumes, 640- by 480-pixel resolution, and six

lipstick-miniature cameras, 320- by 237-pixel resolution for small or enclosed volumes.

• One data station for synchronizing all the camera data, which sends these data to the 

motion capture workstation for processing.

• One workstation, 2.5-MHz Pentium 4 processor, used to convert the two-dimensional

TVD data into 3-D virtual space.

• Software: Vicon Workstation for motion capturing and Vicon Bodybuilder for motion 

editing and animation.

3.5.4 Markers

In general, three optical markers were placed on each limb of the subject at the proximal, distal, 

and middle locations of each limb with a focus on eliminating symmetry. Four markers were used 

on each subject’s head, with two attached to the anterior side and two on the posterior side. For 

the upper torso, markers were attached at the seventh cervical vertebrae and tenth thoracic vertebrae locations as well as above the right and left acromion, the clavical, and the suprasternale 

body landmarks. Four markers were used on the pelvis, with two on the anterior side and two on 

the posterior side. Markers were placed on the legs in similar fashion to those placed on the arms, 

again focusing on eliminating symmetry. Each foot has markers on the ankle, heel, toe, and at the 

fifth metatarsophatangeal joint location. On average, 38 to 44 markers are required to capture the 

full motion of a human subject. For this evaluation, 39 markers were used on each subject. See 

figure 9 for an example of the large male (95th percentile) wearing the markers.

For most applications, a motion capture is usually performed with a subject wearing a thin 

spandex-type body suit so that the markers can be attached as closely as possible to the body 

surface landmarks. However, a key element of this evaluation was the AW ensemble. The 

bulky ensemble made attachment of the markers difficult. To compensate for the clothing, the 
29

markers were attached to the participants with tape and elastic bands to keep them as close to the 

body as possible. The foot markers had to be taped onto the boots near the foot landmarks. For 

the head, the markers had to be attached to the HIDSS instead. Another problem encountered 

with markers was that some of them frequently became dislodged from their attachment points as 

the participants came into contact with crew station components or canopy frame structure 

during trials (especially emergency egress trials).

Figure 9. Large male wearing the motion capture body markers.

3.5.5 Camera Placement

Cameras were placed to provide as much double coverage of a region as possible since the 

motion capture system requires two cameras to see a marker before it will calculate a position in 

space. Having more cameras that can see a marker improve s the accuracy of the data from a 

standpoint of position and labeling.

The most challenging problem with collecting motion capture data for this evalua tion was the 

obscuration of the markers to the cameras. Most motion capture applications usually take place 

in an open, unobstructed environment. For this evaluation, the Comanche crew station 

components, canopy frame structure, safety spotters, and even the safety mats often obscured the 

markers from the cameras, especially those markers on the lower extremities. The standard 

infrared cameras were set up on tripod mounts elevated approximately 10 feet off the ground in 

order to gain optimal exposure to the markers (see figure 10).
30

Figure 10. Placement of the infrared motion capture cameras around the STA.

3.5.6 Marker Data

Before the marker data could be imported into the Jack software, a “scrub” of the raw data had to 

be performed because of several problems encountered. The first problem with the data appeared

in the form of “ghost” markers. These were false marker data points that were produced from 

initial and secondary reflections from the canopy windscreens. These ghost marker data points 

had to be identified and separated from the actual marker data points. In most cases, these points 

could be identified because of the stationary position of the marker points; however, some of these 

points were attributable to secondary reflections from the markers themselves and therefore were 

more difficult to sort. Another problem came in the form of data “drop-outs” that were attributable to (a) obscuration of a marker so that it was not visible to at least two cameras at some point 

in the motion capture sequence or (b) the marker which had become dislodged from its mounting 

point. “Virtual” marker data points could in many cases be developed to replace the actual marker 

data points lost to drop-outs if data from two adjacent marker points were available at that 

instance in time. This adjustment of the marker data proved to be a slow and time-consuming 

stage of the motion capture process.

3.5.7 Collection of Pilot Anthropometric Data

In order for the human figure models to play the motion capture data correctly, a human figure 

model for each of the four participants had to be created and sized to accurately reflect each 
31

subject’s body anthropometry. This required 53 additional body measurements to be taken on 

each participant for the purpose of creating each human figure model. The specific body 

measurements taken, which are listed in appendix C, were obtained with a standard 

anthropometry kit and were taken in accordance with the methods and body landmarks described 

in Gordon et al. (1989).

3.5.8 Importing Motion Capture Data Into Jack

Once the motion capture data were imported into the Jack software, each marker location could 

then be constrained to the corresponding location on the matching human figure model for that 

participant. The marker locations were revised every 1/60th of a second throughout the entire 

motion sequence, except for data drop-outs because of marker obscurations or lost markers. 

These data points thus controlled the movements of the human figure body segments and 

reproduced the motions of the subject for whom the motion capture data were collected.

3.6 Limitations of Assessment

3.6.1 STA Limitations

The Comanche mock-up that we used for this evaluation currently cannot be rolled onto its side 

or inverted for any emergency egress trials. We do not currently possess the equipment to make 

this possible without irreparably damaging the mock-up. We had already identified this 

limitation early in the preparations for the evaluation and planned to acquire the proper 

equipment to safely roll and invert the mock-up for future studies. TOP 7-3-529 recognizes this 

limitation as normal and directs evaluators to obtain a subjective evaluation from each 

participant, based on their experiences during the evaluation. One portion of the post-evaluation 

questionnaire addresses this limitation.

The STA mock-up lacks nearly every normal subsystem that would typically be installed on a 

helicopter. In particular, there is no rotor blade system, and the lack of one became especially 

highlighted during the pilot study conducted in early June 2003. During the pilot study and 

formal trials, several people conducted emergency egress trials out the right window by actually 

standing up on the edge of the right window (instead of simply swinging their legs over and 

sitting) before jumping out and to the safety mats below. As they stood up to almost full height, 

each became aware that his or her head would have almost certainly come into contact (probably 

fatally) with the still-spinning rotor system, even if it had little kinetic angular velocity and 

energy remaining as it wound down (see figure 11). For this evaluation, subjects were briefed 

about the lack of a rotor system and to be cognizant of where the tip-path plane of the rotor 

blades would likely be during an emergency egress.
32

Figure 11. Large percentile male participant conducts an emergency egress from 

the front crew station through the right window by standing on the edge

of the window. (If the participants had stood to full height, the rotor 

system on a real aircraft would have likely contacted his head. This 

situation would have been exacerbated by an egress from the rear crew

station.)

This evaluation assessed Block 1 of the AW ensemble. For chemical-biological (CB) protection, 

Block 1 uses the central processing unit worn underneath the ABDU. AW Block 1 will likely be 

used for further developmental testing, limited user testing, and some operational testing in the 

Comanche over the next 4 to 5 years. In contrast, AW Blocks 2 and 3 will employ the Joint 

Protective Aircrew Ensemble (JPACE), a lightweight, CB protective ensemble worn as a substitute for current flight suits in a CB environment. It will be combined with CB head-eyerespiratory equipment to provide an integrated, modular CB protection system for flight and 

ground operations. The JPACE ensemble will likely be used by the units first equipped with the 

Comanche around the 2009 time frame.
33

3.6.2 Air Warrior Limitations

One component of the AW ensemble that was worn during the eva luation was the MCG. 

However, the Comanche mock-up does not have a working MCU to actually pump the water 

through the vest and cool the pilot. Thus, the subjects did not experience the cooling effect of 

the garment. 

3.6.3 STA Crew Station Limitations

Another limitation of this evaluation to be discussed concerns the crashworthy seats in the 

Comanche. As previously discussed, the crew seats were designed with energy absorbers and 

frangible floor panels so that the seat will “stroke” downward in a high energy crash, providing 

an additional measure of aircrew survivability. This characteristic is true of most U.S. military 

helicopters, particularly those with tandem seating configurations. However, it is important to 

note that the seats will actually stroke through the bottom of crew station fuselage. Our mock-up 

was not able to simulate this seat stroking since it would have irreparably damaged the mock-up. 

A fully stroked seat will likely present a more difficult egress situation for a wide anthropome tric 

range of pilots. In addition, it is very likely that the instrument panel will dislodge and crash 

downward into the pilot’s lower body, causing an even more difficult egress situation.

During the conduct of the evaluation, several more limitations became apparent. First, the quickdisconnect cable (QDC) did not work on several occasions during the practice period before the 

formal trials. This presented a significant safety hazard since a participant’s head could be 

jerked violently if the QDC failed while the participant jumped from the aircraft. Manual 

disconnect of the QDC was not a desirable option since it would not be a required step during 

emergency egress (i.e., the QDC should perform automatically without pilot intervention). 

Instead, we decided to route the plug end of the HIDSS QDC into the AW vest near the pilot’s 

torso during the trials, thereby eliminating the safety hazard.

Similar to the HIDSS cable, the participants did not have a location to plug the MCG cable into 

the MCU. The result was about 1 to 2 inches of cable and connector protruding from the MCG 

and ABDU. Thus, we were not able to test the pilot’s ability to connect the MCG cable during 

normal ingress, disconnect it during normal egress, or evaluate the QDC during emergency 

egress.

RAH-66 seats had not yet been manufactured. Therefore, the seats used in the evaluation were 

UH-60 Blackhawk seats. Likewise, the restraint harness system was slightly different. This 

caused several instances of pilots having trouble fastening their restraint harness. However, the 

steps required for emergency egress (i.e., disconnecting the restraint harness) were no different 

from the production model RAH-66, so we feel this limitation had negligible impact on 

performance. 

The SAC used during the evaluation was a wooden replication with a 3-inch pin running through 

the center to connect to the SAC box. It broke away twice during the evaluation during egress 
34

trials through the right window. The production model SAC had the following breakaway 

forces, depending on the axis of force (personal communication, Steven Ratka, 30 October 

2003):

• Longitudinal - 1334N (300 lb)

• Lateral - 667N (150 lb)

• Directional (yaw) - 23N-M (200 in.-lb)

• Up-Down – 667N (150 lb)

We do not know how similar or dissimilar the breakaway strengths on our mock-up were 

compared with the production SAC.

Finally, 32 of the trials involved emergency egress through the left or right window after a 

simulated ignition of the window jettison system via the D-ring grasp handle between the pilot’s 

legs. Our mock-up used Plexiglas9 screens to replicate the canopy windows, which we simply 

removed before emergency egress trials involving exits through the windows. After the pilot 

jettisons the windows in a real aircraft with the pyrotechnic charge, there will certainly be glass 

shards around the edges of the windows over which a pilot must crawl to leave the crew station. 

These shards may slow emergency egress and probably cause minor laceration injuries to the 

pilot.

3.7 Data Analysis

The data from the evaluation are in two main sections. The first section is the objective data 

taken by the timing of each of the ingress-egress trials. The second section of data are the 

subjective ratings and expert observations from the participants.

The times from the normal ingress and egress trials are simply reported with no descriptive 

statistics calculated. The reason was that subjects were under no time pressure to complete these 

trials, and they were instructed to complete them at a normal pace. We were more interested in 

capturing comments on movement difficulties, potential safety problems, volume-of-space 

issues, and physical layout of the AW equipment against the crew station structure. We also 

used the motion capture equipment to acquire data about their natural movements and then later 

incorporated those onto 3-D human figure models.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine if the overall average emergency egress time 

was less than 30 seconds. The data were further separated and analyzed to assess other comparisons between subjects, crew station, AW ensembles, and egress routes. Exploratory data 

analysis showed that we could not assume a normal distribution in most cases. Therefore, we 

performed data analysis of the emergency egress times with nonparametric statistics.

 

9Plexiglas is a registered trademark of Roehm.
35

The second section body of data were the subjective ratings taken via questionnaire at the end of 

each trial and at the conclusion of the evaluation. The “yes-no” questions were analyzed with 

binomial tests and bar charts. The comments were analyzed and grouped into themes. For the 

second questionnaire, the answers to the questions used a Likert-type scale; thus, they required 

nonparametric tests. As with the emergency egress times, we compared responses for front 

versus rear crew station, AW configuration, and left versus right egress route. We used the 

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (WSRT) for these three comparisons. To compare subjective 

ratings among the four anthropometric sizes of the subjects, the Kruskal-Wallis Test was used, 

a nonparametric equivalent of the analysis of variance (ANOVA). A post hoc analysis was 

completed with Mann-Whitney U10. Because of the small sample size, Fisher’s Exact Test was 

used in all pairwise comparisons. In addition, results of the comparison were graphed on bar 

charts. The results of the egress times were compared to the subjective ratings to see how the 

participants’ perceptions of the ease or difficulty of egress compared to their times to actually 

egress.

4. Results

4.1 Normal Ingress and Egress Trials

Times from the 32 normal ingress and egress trials (eight per participant) are shown in table 3. 

The smaller participants (females) generally completed the trials faster than larger males.

Table 3. Norma l ingress and egress times for each participant.

Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Task Clothing Crew Station Large Male Small Female Medium Male Medium Female

Ingress Combat-Hot Front 03:51.0 02:47.0 03:15.0 02:06.0

Egress Combat-Hot Front 00:56.0 00:48.0 01:18.0 00:32.9

Ingress Combat-Hot Rear 03:45.0 03:28.1 03:48.0 03:05.0

Egress Combat-Hot Rear 01:11.0 00:32.0 01:39.0 00:59.8

Ingress MOPP IV - OW Front 05:29.0 05:20.0 11:16.0 05:05.0

Egress MOPP IV - OW Front 01:43.0 00:37.0 01:12.0 01:07.0

Ingress MOPP IV - OW Rear 08:10.0 06:26.0 07:50.0 09:17.0

Egress MOPP IV - OW Rear 02:23.0 00:19.0 01:19.5 00:52.0

4.2 Emergency Egress Trials

Times from the 48 emergency egress trials (12 per participant) are shown in table 4. Overall 

mean time to conduct emergency egress was 16.6 seconds, well within the 30-second standard in 

MIL-STD-1472 and JSSG 2010-11. There were two instances when a participant did not meet 

the 30-second standard; both were from the large male. Average emergency egress times are 

 

10The test involves the calculation of a statistic, usually called U, whose distribution under the null hypothesis is 

known.
36

further categorized by crew station, egress route, and participant in table 5 and shown graphically 

in figure 12.

Table 4. Emergency egress times.

Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 Clothing Route Crew station Large Male Small Female Medium Male Medium Female

Combat-Hot Normal Front 00:39.4 00:09.8 00:11.1 00:06.6

Combat-Hot Left Window Front 00:24.6 00:07.8 00:10.3 00:05.6

Combat-Hot Right Window Front 00:25.7 00:09.1 00:16.5 00:08.6

Combat-Hot Normal Rear 00:21.4 00:12.8 00:15.0 00:27.2

Combat-Hot Left Window Rear 00:14.4 00:10.1 00:15.6 00:10.2

Combat-Hot Right Window Rear 00:18.9 00:13.9 00:16.7 00:12.5

MOPP - OW Normal Front 00:27.0 00:14.4 00:14.4 00:09.8

MOPP - OW Left Window Front 00:15.2 00:11.9 00:13.5 00:07.7

MOPP - OW Right Window Front 00:15.5 00:14.8 00:25.5 00:16.8

MOPP - OW Normal Rear 00:25.0 00:16.8 00:17.1 00:17.0

MOPP - OW Left Window Rear 00:17.4 00:19.2 00:28.6 00:09.7

MOPP - OW Right Window Rear 00:36.2 00:23.3 00:25.1 00:13.5

Table 5. Emergency egress means.

Average emergency egress time

00:16.6

Average emergency egress time per seat

Back 00:18.2

Front 00:15.1

Average emergency egress time per exit route

Left door 00:17.8

Left window 00:13.9

Right window 00:18.3

Average emergency egress time per subject

Small female 00:13.7

Medium female 00:12.1

Medium male 00:17.4

Large male 00:23.4

Average emergency egress time per ensemble

Combat-hot 00:15.2

MOPP-OW 00:18.1

The difference in emergency egress times between front and back crew stations was statistically 

significant (WSRT, T = -2.186, p = .029). Similarly, the difference between the two AW 

configurations was statistically significant (WSRT, T = -1.929, p = .05). When we look at the 

three egress routes, the Kruskal-Wallis Test shows that the differences in mean egress times were 

not statistically significant (K-W, H = 1.75, p > .05). However, there was a significant 

difference in times between subjects (K-W, H = 17.622, p = .001). A post hoc analysis via 

Mann-Whitney U showed a significant difference between the medium female and medium male 

(M-W, U = 29.5 p =.014); the medium female and large male (M-W, U = 16.0, p = .001); and the 

small female and medium male (U = 15.5, p = .001).
37

Back Seat

Front Seat

Right Window

Left Door

Small Female Left Window

Medium Female

Medium Male

Large Male

Combat-Hot

MOPP-OW

00:10

00:15

00:20

00:25

Experimental Conditions

Emergency Egress Time (sec)

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Seat

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Exit Route

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Subject

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Ensemble

00:30

30-sec time standard per MIL-STD-1472 and JSSG 2010-11

Overall Average 

Emergency Egress Time: 

16.6 seconds

Back Seat

Front Seat

Right Window

Left Door

Small Female Left Window

Medium Female

Medium Male

Large Male

Combat-Hot

MOPP-OW

00:10

00:15

00:20

00:25

Experimental Conditions

Emergency Egress Time (sec)

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Seat

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Exit Route

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Subject

Average Emergency Egress Time

per Ensemble

00:30

30-sec time standard per MIL-STD-1472 and JSSG 2010-11

Overall Average 

Emergency Egress Time: 

16.6 seconds

Figure 12. Emergency egress means by experimental condition.

4.2.1 Learning Effects

Times from each emergency egress trial were graphed by participant in the order that the trials 

were executed without regard for AW configuration (combat-hot [C-H] or MOPP-OW) or crew 

station position (front or rear). Each participant completed 12 emergency egress trials that, in 

accordance with table 2, were executed in groups of three: left door, left window, right window. 

Figure 13 displays the emergency egress times in order of execution.

We performed a split-half analysis on each participant’s group of trials, comparing the first half 

of trials against the second half with a simple t-test. A comparison of all four participants’ first 

six trials (mean time of 18.7 seconds) against the second half of trials (mean time 14.6 seconds) 

showed that the second half was significantly faster (t = 3.06, p < .005).

When we compared the first half of trials to the second half for each participant, the average of 

their second half was always faster than the first. However, only the small female showed a 

significantly faster egress time (t = 4.358, p < .005). The other three subjects performed the 

second half faster, but the difference was not statistically significant. Therefore, we conclude 

there was a mild training effect.
38

Emergency Egress Times in Order of Execution

00:00.0

00:05.0

00:10.0

00:15.0

00:20.0

00:25.0

00:30.0

00:35.0

00:40.0

00:45.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Trial

Time (seconds)

Small Female Medium Female Medium Male Large Male

Figure 13. Emergency egress times in order of execution.

4.3 Questionnaire Results

A nonparametric analysis of the questionnaire results generally mirrors the results from the emergency egress times (see table 6 for comparison). See appendix F for a graphical analysis of the 

questionnaire results and listing of the comments taken on post-event questionnaires. Analysis 

shows a statistically significant difference in subjective ratings between the two AW configurations 

(WSRT, T = -3.922, p = .000), meaning that the subjects felt emergency egress was markedly more 

difficult in the MOPP-OW configuration than C-H. Likewise, they felt it was more difficult to 

conduct egress through the right side versus the left side of the aircraft, and the difference was 

statistically significant (WSRT, T = -2.739, p = .006). However, the difference in overall ratings 

between the front and rear crew station were not statistically significant (WSRT, T = -.577, p > .05).

Table 6. Comparison of objective (egress time) and subjective results (questionnaire).

Independent Variable

Objective Results

(egress times)

Subjective Results

(questionnaire results)

AW configuration C-H faster C-H easier

Front versus rear crew station Front faster No statistical difference

Anthropometric size Smaller participants 

(females) faster

Egress easier for smaller participants 

(females) than larger participants (males)

Egress route (left versus right) Left side faster Left side easier
39

When we compared the subjective ratings among the four anthropometric sizes (each pilot), there 

was a statistically significant difference (K-W, H = 29.719, p = .000). A post hoc analysis by 

Mann-Whitney U showed significant differences between small female and medium male, small 

female and large male, medium female and medium male, and medium female and large male.

Pilots reported problems with ingress or egress in 66 of 80 trials (see appendix G for graphical 

analysis and listing of the comments taken on the post-trial questionnaire). The following major 

comments were reported:

• Significant foot entrapment or obstruction below the left multipurpose display 

(LMPD) or right multipurpose panel display (RMPD) (30 of 80 trials);

• Kicked glare shield or displays (30 of 80 trials);

• Three of four pilots (small female, medium male, large male) not able to reach 

canopy door to close it;

• SAC broken off (twice) and significant contact with SAC (four times) in 16 egress 

trials through right window;

• Helmet and body contact with canopy and structure (31 of 80 trials);

• Equipment (AW, cords) and seatbelt entanglements (5 of 48 emergency egress trials);

• Participants had difficulties reaching and seeing crew station controls or stepping up 

and down from aircraft while wearing MOPP-OW configuration (four occurrences).

The following safety and damage problems were observed:

• HIDSS anchor cable snapped apart once and QDC did not work.

• Pilots’ AW equipment caught on window sill several times, causing a fall to the 

ground (subject was supported by spotters).

• In one emergency egress trial, pilot wedged helmet between seat head rest and right 

armor wing panel upon egress. Pilot had a more “laid back” position to get feet out left window. 

As helmet wedged tight, pilot pulled forward to conduct egress, pulling head out of helmet. 

Head not allowed to move farther because he was caught on mask and hood straps and seat belt. 

Likely the subject would not have been able to free himself and conduct egress from the aircraft

during an emergency. Trial halted at 13 seconds and repeated.

• Numerous contacts between helmet and front seat windscreen, helmet tracker, and 

mirrors while in the front seat.

• Occasional contact between shoulders and back with door left and right windows,

causing excessive scratching.

• When the aircraft retained unit (ARU) was stowed on the hooks in the front and back 

crew stations, the participants frequently struck the ARU with their heads when they entered the 
40

crew stations. Because of the likelihood of the ARU striking the participant’s eyes during 

ingress, the P.I. decided that the ARU would not be stowed on the hooks during ingress.

Consequently, the ARU was mounted to the helmet (by the pilots) before they entered the crew 

stations.

Pilots reported the following major comments and recommendations on post-event questionnaires 

(see appendix F):

• Provide a method to close canopy doors, which is at the top of the door hinge (so all 

can reach it; too far to reach currently).

• Recommend some design where SAC has a breakaway or is collapsible during egress 

to the right side.

• Glare shield over console should have breakaway sections on the sides. Foot could 

get trapped upon egress.

• AW 9-mm holster in standard position on right thigh does not work in the Comanche, 

especially in the front seat. Must shift personal weapon to calf of either leg.

• Most tasks with AW and MOPP are blind. Could not see the key border right panels 

without major shifting on the seat.

• AH-64D has markings to help pilots follow down to steps; that would help on 

Comanche.

• Do not rest on the edge of the window during (emergency) exit; push away from 

aircraft with foot so not to get caught on the window pull handle.

4.4 Jack and Motion Capture

Even with the difficulties encountered in collecting motion capture data, a replay of the motion 

capture from various viewing angles with the Jack software helped us to detect some of the 

problems encountered by the large male pilot during the early trial exercises. In particular, 

during egress of the forward crew station, the motion capture clearly shows how the large male 

pilot had some difficulty clearing the knee and foot past the outboard edge of the glare shield on 

the left-hand side of the instrument panel (see figure 14). This analysis graphically confirms 

observations from the participants and authors during multiple trials.

Results show that the combination of human figure models and motion capture data can prove to 

be a useful tool in analyzing the complex biomechanical motions required for crew station 

ingress and egress.
41

Figure 14. Jack and motion capture data show problem with the LMPD and glare shield by the large male pilot.

5. Summary

Following is a summary of the results from the ingress-egress evaluation. The average emergency 

egress of 16.6 seconds was well under the 30-second time standard. During 80 trials, none of the 

participants were injured. Of the 48 emergency egress trials, all but two (both performed by the 

large male) were completed within 30 seconds. A statistical analysis shows that the egress times 

were significantly faster from the rear crew station than the front and significantly faster in the 

C-H AW configuration than the MOPP-OW configuration. Emergency egress times were faster 

out the left side than the right side, but the difference was not statistically significant. Emergency 

egress times generally increased as anthropometric size increased, with significant differences 

between medium female-medium male.

Results from the subjective questionnaires generally mirror the objective data (see table 7). 

Subjective ratings showed that participants felt that egress was more difficult in the MOPP-OW 

ensemble (statistically significant), and the egress to the right side was more difficult than the left 

side (statistically significant). Subjective ratings did not reveal a feeling that egress was more 

difficult from the front seat than the back seat. However, commentary from these participants 
42

(particularly the two males) shows that they feel egress is much more difficult from the front seat 

because ofthe lower volume of space as compared to the rear seat. A comparison of subjective 

ratings between anthropometric sizes (all four subjects) showed a general increase in difficulty as 

anthropometric size grew, with significant differences occurring between small female and 

medium male, small female and large male, medium female and medium male, and medium 

female and large male.

Analysis for a training effect shows that subjects were generally faster in performing their second 

half of emergency egress trials than their first half. As a group, this difference was statistically 

significant. As individuals, each person performed faster in the second half, but only the small 

female showed a statistically significant difference.

Pilots reported problems with ingress or egress in 66 of 80 trials. There was significant foot 

entrapment or obstruction below LMPD or RMPD plus kicking of the glare shield or displays. 

The Jack and motion capture data clearly show how the larger pilots had difficulty clearing the 

knee and foot past the outboard edge of the glare shield on the left-hand side of the instrument 

panel.

6. Recommendations

To enhance ingress and egress performance in the RAH-66 with the AW ensemble, the following 

recommendations were made:

1. Examine methods to reduce or eliminate the foot entrapment and kicking problems 

associated with the glare shields and map cases, as well as the LMPD and RMPD.

2. Ensure that the SAC breaks away or folds down to aid emergency egress through the 

right window.

3. Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the HIDSS, ICS, and MCG cables and where the 

QDC anchors will be routed on the AW vest and crew station. The Jack anthropometric 

model used by ARL can be employed to assist this evaluation.

4. The location of the stowage hooks for the ARU in both front and rear crew stations led to 

frequent contact between the participants’ heads and the ARU during normal ingress and 

egress. Examine possibilities to relocate the ARU stowage hooks to alleviate the contact 

and possible damage to the ARU.

5. Three of the four subjects could not reach the canopy handle to close the canopy door in 

either crew station when they wore either AW configuration. Recommend a method or 

device that allows pilots to easily close the canopy door.
43

6. There were numerous instances of contact between the helmet and canopy screens and 

helmet tracker. The windscreens were scratched (particularly the front windscreen). This 

is a good indication that pilots will damage the windscreens more often than predicted;

thus, the windscreens will require replacing more often. Likewise, the helmet trackers 

are likely to have an increased unscheduled maintenance requirement because of

inadvertent contact with the helmet.

7. The standard location for the personal sidearm (currently M9 pistol) and survival knife 

may need to be altered by larger aviators in the Comanche crew station. Our subjects 

began to move the sidearm to behind the right calf, and the survival knife was generally 

worn on the left leg.

8. The results of the training effect analysis argue that the only way to leave the RAH-66 

Comanche faster when the AW is worn is for participants to regularly practice and train 

to leave the crew station while wearing AW. We recommend that emergency egress be 

added to the RAH-66 Aircrew Training Manual and that a certain number of emergency 

egress task iterations be included on each aviator’s commander’s task list, whether 

quarterly, semiannually, or annually. The frequency will likely depend on unit training 

schedule and current maintenance status.

The Comanche STA at APG offers the opportunity for a number of ensuing evaluations over the 

next several years. First, there is development testing equipment with other organizations at

APG, which would allow us to safe ly turn the Comanche STA on its side or even upside down 

and conduct further emergency egress tests in various AW configurations.

In addition, there is the need to conduct an emergency extraction evaluation. In this case, a 

group of emergency or rescue personnel would be required to physically remove an unconscious 

or severely injured pilot (simulated) from either crew station wearing various AW configurations. Similar tests were performed in a Comanche prototype aircraft by Sikorsky in May 2003 

at West Palm Beach (D’Louhy, 2003).

Another piece of emergency egress equipment available in the crew station is the crew member 

“breakout ” knife. If the canopy jettison does not occur when the jettison system is actuated (via 

D-ring), the breakout knife should be used to score and then fracture the canopy panel and permit 

egress. Also, there may be instances when it would be unwise to detonate the jettison explosives 

because of pooled jet fuel or other petroleum products near the aircraft. In this case, the breakout 

knife should be used. Subsequent egress evaluations can check the position of the knife in both 

crew stations to see that it can be reached and used by a wide anthropometric range of pilots 

wearing various AW configurations.

Block II of AW will be ready for testing in fiscal year 2005 or 2006. The present evaluation can 

be repeated in the next version of AW with a similar purpose: to determine if ingress and egress 

can be performed safely and within prescribed time standard (30 seconds), to identify and 

document any problems, and to make design recommendations as appropriate.
44

Several recommendations can be made to improve the motion capture process for any future 

Comanche ingress and egress evaluations. This evaluation was the first attempt at capturing 

motion in and around a structure of this size and volume where a significant portion of the 

marker data was occluded. One of the possible solutions to improve the percentage of marker 

data captured would be to mount the cameras on an overhead boom so that the cameras are 

looking down into the crew stations. Secondly, additional cameras should be used to provide 

more marker coverage. A third suggestion would be to investigate placement of the small 

lipstick cameras inside the crew station at a location that would not interfere with the ingress or 

egress of the subjects and where the cameras would not be kicked or bumped.

The problem of ghost markers could be eliminated by the removal of the windscreens from the 

canopy frame if possible or if this is not an option, by the covering of the windscreens with a 

transparent, non-reflective film. Another suggestion might be to substitute a non-reflective black 

wire mesh that would still allow the markers to be seen from outside the crew stations.

Another problem not previously mentioned could be traced to a split capture volume. The design 

of this study required the participants to conduct ingress and egress from both sides of the 

aircraft. This, in turn, required cameras to be set up on both sides of the airframe, which 

basically split the motion capture volume in two and made calibration of the system difficult. A 

solution to this problem would be to set up the cameras on just one side of the airframe and then 

capture all ingress and egress trials on that side, and when those trials are completed, to move the 

cameras to the opposite side and capture the trials performed from that side of the airframe. This 

would require additional setup and calibration time but would eliminate the problems stemming 

from the split capture volume.
45

7. References

Babbitt, B. A.; Nystrom, C. O. Questionnaire Construction Manual; ARI Research Product 89-

20; U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, 

Virginia, (ADA212365), 1989a.

Babbitt, B. A.; Nystrom, C. O. Questionnaire Construction Manual Annex: Literature Survey 

and Bibliography; ARI Research Product 89-21; U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, Virginia, (ADA213255), 1989b.

Badler, N.; Phillips, C.; Webber, B. (1993). Simulating humans: Computer graphics, animation, 

and control. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barker, C.O.; Bellenkes, A.H. U.S. Naval helicopter mishaps: Cockpit and egress problems. 

Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 1996, 67, 480-485.

Bjorn, V. S.; Huang, D. Physiological and subjective responses to wearing the A/P22-P-9(V) 

helicopter aircrewman chemical, biological protection ensemble; Report NAWC/AD-SY62R-91; Patuxent River Naval Air Station: U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft 

Division, Retrieved 29 June 2003 from http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADB164986, 1992.

Chase, D. J.; Copeland, R. R.; Ferrell, R. J. Comanche crew station development: Mockpit let 

Comanche fly in simulation long before actual aircraft production. Program Manager, 29

(5), 58-60. Retrieved July 6, 2003 from http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/pmpdf00/Chass-o.pdf.

Department of the Army. Ingress, emergency egress, and emergency evacuation testing of Army 

aircraft: Test operations procedure (TOP) 7-3-529. ATEC: Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD (ADA246398), 1991.

Department of the Army. System Training Plan (STRAP) for the Air Warrior. U.S. Army 

Aviation Center: Fort Rucker, AL, 2001.

Department of the Army. System Training Plan (STRAP) for the Joint Protective Aircrew 

Ensemble (JPACE). U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center: Fort Leonard Wood, MO, 2002.

Department of the Army. System Evaluation Report for the Air Warrior Block 1. U.S. Army 

Test and Evaluation Command: Alexandria, VA, 2003.

Department of the Army. Product Manager Air Warrior [Data file], Retrieved 16 June 2003 

from PM Air Warrior Web site, http://peosoldier.army.mil, no date available.

Department of the Army. Operator’s Manual for the RAH-66 Comanche (Draft); TM 1-1520-

245-10; U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command: Redstone Arsenal, AL, in press.
46

Department of Defense. Military standard: Human engineering design criteria for military 

systems, equipment, and facilities; MIL-STD-1472D; Defense Technical Information Center: 

Virginia, Retrieved July 3, 2003 from 

http://assist1.daps.dla.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=36903, 1989.

Department of Defense. Design criteria standard: Human engineering; MIL-STD-1472E; 

Defense Technical Information Center: Virginia, Retrieved July 3, 2003 from 

http://assist1.daps.dla.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=36903, 1996.

Department of Defense. Joint service specification guide: Crew systems; JSSG 2010; Defense 

Technical Information Center: Virginia. Retrieved July 3, 2003 from 

http://assist1.daps.dla.mil/eAccess/index.cfm?ident_number=205105, 1998.

D’Louhy, M. (2003). EMD HDU Emergency Egress Test Report. Bridgeport, CT: Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation.

Donelson, S. M.; Gordon, C. C. Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Pilot Summary 

Statistics, 1988; Technical Report Natick/TR-91/040; U.S. Army Natick Research, 

Development, and Engineering Center: Natick, MA. (ADA241952), Retrieved 30 June 

2003 from http://handle.dtic.mil/ 100.2/ADA241952, 1991.

Gordon, C.; Brandtmiller, B.; Churchill, T.; Clauser, C.; McConville, J.; Tebbetts, I.; Walker, R. 

Anthropometric 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, (ADA225094), Retrieved 11 February 2004 from 

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA225094, 1989.

Harrah, D. M.; Kozycki, R.; Salvi, L.; Tauson, R.; Kehring, K. Modeling the air warrior 

ensemble. Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society, 57, Vol II, 1755-1764, 2001.

Kozycki, R. Developing a modeling and simulation paradigm for assessing the encumbrance of 

helicopter aircrew clothing and equipment. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the 

SAFE Association, 36, 271-279, 1998.

Kozycki, R. Applying human figure modeling tools to the RAH-66 Comanche crew station

design. Proceedings of the SAE Digital Human Modeling Conference, 2002.

O’Brien, T. G.; Charleton, S. G. Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 81-100, 1996.

Pensotti, L.; Berube, J.; Bucher, B.; Dart, B.; Dunfey, P.; Turieo, M. Designing the air warrior 

system for optimized human performance. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the 

SAFE Association, 37, 49-54, 1999.

Pensotti, L.; Turieo, M.; Stokes, J.; Reeps, S. Feasibility study for a helicopter survival seat 

pack. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium of the SAFE Association, 36, 371-386, 1998.
47

Rash, C. E. Helmet-Mounted Displays: Design Issues for Rotary Wing Aviators. U.S. Army 

Aeromedical Research Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, 1998.

Rash, C. E.; McLean, W. E.; Mozo, B. T.; Licina, J. R.; McEntire, B. J. Human Factors and 

Performance Concerns for the Design of Helmet-Mounted Displays; USSARL Report No. 

99-08; US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, Retrieved 14 June 

2003 from http://www.usaarl.army.mil/ TechReports/99-8.PDF, 1999.

Schane, W. P. Parachute Escape from Helicopters; USAARL Report No. 74-4; U.S. Army 

Aeromedical Research Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, Retrieved 30 June 2003 from 

http://www.usaarl.army.mil/TechReports/74-4.PDF, 1974.

Schmidt, J.K.; Winsko, S.J. SH-60B human factors systems safety analysis. Proceedings of the 

Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology,1995; Vol. II, pp 1168-1171.

Swingle, T. R. U.S. Army rotary-wing emergency egress study; USAARL Report No. 95-23;

U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory: Fort Rucker, AL, Retrieved 2 July 2003 from 

http://www.usaarl.army.mil/TechReports/95-23.PDF, 1995. 
48

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
49

Appendix A. Target Subject Anthropometry

Female Male Measurement

5% 50% 50% 95%

Weight

52.64 kg

(115.81 lb)

64.74 kg

(142.43 lb)

79.29 kg

(174.44 lb)

97.17 kg

(213.77 lb)

Height 161.17 cm 

(63.45 in)

167.10 cm 

(66.00 in)

177.11 cm 

(69.73 in)

187.75 cm 

(73.92 in)

Span 164.55 cm 

(64.66 in)

169.80 cm 

(66.85 in)

182.71 cm 

(71.93 in)

195.61 cm 

(77.01 in)

Buttock-Knee 

Length

56.80 cm

(22.36 in)

59.91 cm

(23.59 in)

61.69 cm

(24.29 in)

66.52 cm

(26.19 in)

Sitting Height 83.58 cm

(32.90 in)

88.32 cm

(34.77 in)

93.09 cm

(36.65 in)

98.18 cm

(38.66 in)

Acromion Height, 

Sitting

53.97 cm

(21.25 in)

57.81 cm

(22.76 in)

61.31 cm

(24.14 in)

65.65 cm

(25.85 in)

Biacromial 

Breadth

34.42 cm

(13.55 in)

36.99 cm

(14.56 in)

40.11 cm

(15.79 in)

42.85 cm

(16.87 in)

Bideltoid Breadth 40.38 cm

(15.90 in)

43.83 cm

(17.26 in)

49.49 cm

(19.48 in)

53.87 cm

(21.05 in)

Crotch Height 75.54 cm

(29.74 in)

78.60 cm

(30.94 in)

83.97 cm

(33.06 in)

91.51 cm

(36.03 in)

Popliteal Height 37.60 cm

(14.80 in)

39.97 cm

(15.73 in)

43.03 cm

(16.94 in)

47.33 cm

(18.63 in)

Functional Grip 

Reach, Extended

72.27 cm

(28.45 in)

76.10 cm

(29.96 in)

80.55 cm

(31.71 in)

86.93 cm

(34.22 in)

Chest Depth 20.67 cm

(8.14 in)

24.17 cm

(9.52 in)

25.01 cm

(9.85 in)

28.25 cm

(11.12 in)

Hip Breadth 31.97 cm

(12.59 in)

35.60 cm

(14.02 in)

34.79 cm

(13.70 in)

38.09 cm

(15.00 in)

Shoulder 

Circumference

96.13 cm

(37.85 in)

103.80 cm 

(40.86 in)

117.24 cm 

(46.16 in)

126.75 cm 

(49.90 in)
50

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
51

Appendix B. Volunteer Affidavit Agreement

VOLUNTEER AGREEMENT AFFIDAVIT:

ARL-HRED Local Adaptation of DA Form 5303-R. For use of this form, see AR 70-25 or AR 40-38

The proponent fo r this research is: U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Human Research and Engineering Directorate

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, 10 USC 3013, 44 USC 3101, and 10 USC 1071-1087

Principal purpose:

To document voluntary participation in the Research program. Social 

Security number (SSN) and home address will be used for identification and 

locating purposes.

Routine Uses:

The SSN and home address will be used for identification and locating 

purposes. Information derived from the study will be used to document the 

study; implementation of medical programs; adjudication of claims; and for 

the mandatory reporting of medical conditions as required by law. 

Information may be furnished to Federal, State, and local agencies.

Disclosure:

The furnishing of your SSN and home address is mandatory and necessary to 

provide identification and to contact you if future information indicates that 

your health may be adversely affected. Failure to provide the information 

may preclude your voluntary participation in this data collection.

Part A • Volunteer agreement affidavit for subjects in approved Department of Army research projects

Note: Volunteers are authorized all necessary medical care for injury or disease that is the proximate result of

their participation in such studies under the provisions of AR 40-38 and AR 70-25.

Title of Research Project: RAH-66 Comanche Ingress-Egress Evaluation

Human Use Protocol Log Number: ARL-20098-02005

Principal Investigator(s): David B. Durbin Phone: (334) 255-2069

Associate Investigator(s) Richard Kozycki 

Jim Faughn

Phone: (410) 278-5880

Phone: (410) 278-2573

Location of Research: Building 463, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

Dates of Participation: February 2002 to July 2003

I do hereby volunteer to participate in the research project described in the table above. I have full capacity to 

consent and have attained my 18th birthday. The implications of my voluntary participation, duration, and 

purpose of the research stud y, the methods and means by which it is to be conducted, and the inconveniences and 

hazards that may reasonably be expected have been explained to me. I have been given an opportunity to ask 

questions concerning this research project. Any such questions were answered to my full and complete 

satisfaction. Should any further questions arise concerning my rights or study related injury, I may contact the 

ARL-HRED Human Use Committee Chairperson at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA by telephone at 

410-278-0612 or DSN 298-0612. I understand that any published data will not reveal my identity. If I choose 

not to participate, or later wish to withdraw from any portion of it, I may do so without penalty. I understand 

that military personnel are not subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for choosing not 

to take part as human subjects and that no administrative sanctions can be given me for choosing not to 

participate. I may at any time during the course of the project revoke my consent and withdraw without penalty 

or loss of benefits. However, I may be required (military volunteer) or requested (civilian volunteer) to undergo 

certain examinations if, in the opinion of an attending physician, such examinations are necessary for my health 

and well being. 
52

Part B • To be completed by the Principal Investigator

Note: Instruction for elements of the informed consent provided as detailed explanation in accordance with

Appendix C, AR 40-38 or AR 70-25.

Purpose of the Research

This evaluation is investigating the degree to which a Comanche crew station mock-up supports safe and 

efficient personnel ingress and egress, to include performance under normal and emergency conditions 

and using appropriate clothing and equipment. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the 

Comanche Ingress-Egress Evaluation Plan. Your participation in the evaluation is expected to last 

between one and two days. You will be asked to ingress and egress the Comanche mockup 

approximately 30 to 40 times, including practice and official trials. During approximately 10 of these 

trials, you will be asked to wear the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Mission-Oriented 

Protective Posture (MOPP) IV ensemble. During 10 of these trials, you will be asked to wear the Air 

Warrior ensemble with the Over-water vest and raft. During the remainder of trials, you will be asked to 

wear the standard Air Warrior ensemble. Your performance on official trials will be timed. During and 

after the evaluation, you will be asked to provide both verbal and written feedback on your experiences 

and opinions.

Benefits

You will receive no benefits from participating in the study, other than the personal satisfaction of 

supporting the design of the Comanche helicopter.

Risks

This project presents minimal risk to your health and well-being. As performance of trials will be timed, 

you may become physically fatigued during the trials. You may also experience some discomfort due to 

heat, especially when wearing the MOPP IV equipment. Regular rest periods will be provided, and you 

may stop and rest at any point you choose. There is also the potential for falls, slips, and other mishaps as 

you ingress and egress the Comanche mockup. Mats will be placed around the mock-up and you will be 

instructed to perform trials at a safe speed. Spotters will be used to help keep you from falling off the 

mock-up.

Confidentiality

All data and information obtained about you will be considered privileged and held in confidence. 

Photographic or video images of you taken during this data collection will not be identified with any of 

your personal information (name, rank, or status). Complete confidentiality cannot be promised, 

particularly if you are a military service member, because information bearing on your health may be 

required to be reported to appropriate medical or command authorities. In addition, applicable regulations 

note the possibility that the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC-RCQ) 

officials may inspect the records.
53

Disposition of Volunteer Agreement Affidavit

The Principal Investigator will retain the original signed Volunteer Agreement Affidavit and forward a 

photocopy of it to the Chair of the Human Use Committee after the data collection. The project 

administrator will provide a copy to you.

Contacts for Additional Assistance

If you have questions concerning your rights on research-related injury, or if you have any complaints 

about your treatment while participating in this research, you can contact

Chair, Human Use Committee OR Office of the Chief Counsel

U.S. Army Research Laboratory U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Human Research and Engineering Directorate 2800 Powder Mill Road

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 Adelphi, MD 20783-1197

(410) 278-0612 or (DSN) 298-0612 (301) 394-1070 or (DSN) 290-1070

Obtaining of ASVAB Records

If you are enlisted military, we would like to obtain your Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 

Battery (ASVAB) scores for use in possible future data analyses. The ASVAB scores will be used 

strictly for research purposes. The results of any such analyses will be presented for the group of 

participants as a whole, and no names will be used. With your permission, we will obtain these 

scores by sending a copy of this signed consent form along with your Social Security Number to 

the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) in Arlington, VA where ASVAB scores may be 

obtained from their databases in Arlington, VA or Seaside. CA. If you do not wish your ASVAB 

scores to be released to the principal investigator, you will still be allowed to participate in the 

research. 

If you would like to participate in this research, please sign one of the following statements, and 

then complete the information requested at the end of this form:

I AUTHORIZE you to obtain my ASVAB scores. ___________________________

 (Your Signature)

I DO NOT AUTHORIZE you to obtain my ASVAB scores. _______________________

 (Your Signature)
54

Your signature below indicates that you: (1) are at least 18 years of age, (2) have read the 

information on this form, (3) have been given the opportunity to ask questions and they have been 

answered to your satisfaction, and (4) have decided to participate based on the information 

provided on this form.

Printed Name of Volunteer (First, MI., Last)

Social Security Number 

(SSN)

Date of Birth

 (Month, Day, Year)

Permanent Address of Volunteer

Today’s Date 

(Month, Day, Year)

Signature of Volunteer

Signature of Administrator
55

Appendix C. Subject Actual Anthropometric Results 

Small Female MediumFemale Medium Male Large Male

Measurement Raw Percen

-tile

Raw Percen

-tile

Raw Percen

-tile

Raw Percen

-tile

Chest Depth (cm) 22.4 22 20.9 7 30.4 99 29.9 99+

Waist Depth (cm) 18.6 24 18.8 27 27.1 94 27.0 93

Buttock Depth (cm) 23.1 61 24.6 80 28.1 96 31.6 99+

Biacromial Breadth (cm) 29 <1 28.5 <1 45.7 99+ 41.5 80

Chest Breadth (cm) 27.6 28 27.2 22 35.7 87 37.9 98

Waist Breadth (cm) 24.5 1 28.2 28 36.8 96 37.7 98

Hip Breadth (cm) 30.8 1 34.1 25 38.0 94 36.4 79

Stature (cm) 152.2 <1 163.4 14 166.7 6 179.8 66

Cervical Height (cm) 125.8 <1 139.0 5 144.7 8 154.1 56

Tenth Rib Height (cm) 95.8 <1 103.6 13 110.5 37 115.7 77

Iliocristale Height (cm) 87.2 <1 96.8 3 98.6 3 113.7 88

Bideltoid Breadth (cm) 41.1 10 41.0 9 51.8 83 53.1 93

Waist Front Length (Omphalion) (cm) 31.9 <1 35.4 <1 33.2 <1 41.5 42

Waist Height (cm) 90.5 <1 96.5 3 101.6 16 108.0 63

Gluteal Furrow Height (cm) 65.2 <1 73.1 10 76.6 13 86.0 86

Thigh Circumference (cm) 56.2 30 58.5 50 62.7 78 65.5 92

Calf Circumference (cm) 35.7 47 39.1 92 41.3 93 40.0 83

Lateral Femoral Epicondyle (cm) 42.2 <1 44.8 5 48.5 22 54.1 93

Trochanteric Height (cm) 78.7 <1 84.1 5 92.5 55 96.2 81

Knee Height, Midpatella (cm) 40.2 <1 44.9 7 48.3 22 55.3 97

Knee Circumference (cm) 34.5 14 38.0 67 39.2 61 41.5 90

Foot Length (cm) 22.7 <1 23.3 5 24.7 3 29.2 97

Ball of Foot Length (cm) 16 <1 17.3 10 16.7 <1 21.0 90

Foot Breadth (cm) 9.5 85 9.0 50 10.0 50 10.8 95

Lateral Malleolus Height (cm) 4.5 <1 6.3 45 6.2 8 5.9 2

Knee Width Sitting (cm) 9.3 N/A 11.4 N/A 10.5 N/A 12.1 N/A

Popliteal Height (cm) 35.8 <1 38.1 10 40.2 9 46.0 87

Crotch Height (cm) 68.2 <1 73.1 <1 76.2 2 88.4 83

Biceps Circumference, Flexed (cm) 28.5 57 28.1 50 36.0 86 30.6 10

Forearm Circumference, Flexed (cm) 24.4 24 24.2 20 30.0 52 30.3 60

Acromion-Radiale Length (cm) 28.7 <1 29.6 <1 34.2 47 33.6 34

Radiale-Stylion Length (cm) 21.5 <1 24.1 27 25.2 11 27.0 55

Hand Length (cm) 16.5 <1 16.8 1 18.6 15 23.3 99+

Palm Length - St to Web (cm) 9.3 N/A 9.6 N/A 11.1 N/A 13.1 N/A

Palm Length - St to Knuckle (cm) 7.3 N/A 7.7 N/A 8.1 N/A 9.8 N/A

Hand Breadth (cm) 7.2 <1 7.4 2 9.3 76 10.3 99+

Hand Circumference (cm) 18.7 45 19.1 65 20.7 21 24.5 99+

Wrist-Center of Grip Length (cm) 5.2 <1 5.7 1 7.4 90 8.7 99+

Head Length (cm) 18.5 30 19.0 60 19.1 10 21.0 96

Head Breadth (cm) 14.2 25 14.6 60 15.1 35 15.5 65

Menton-Top of Head (cm) 20.5 5 19.6 <1 21.2 1 24.3 94

Tragion-Top of Head (cm) 12.2 30 12.5 55 12.4 12 13.9 94

Neck Circumference (cm) 32.3 67 33.1 82 40.2 87 44.0 99+

Sitting Height (cm) 81.0 <1 89.1 61 85.6 2 89.9 18

Cervicale Height, Sitting (cm) 56.4 <1 65.0 43 63.9 4 64.7 7

Thigh Clearance (cm) 13.7 2 15.1 25 16.7 47 18.0 96
56

Buttock-Knee Length (cm) 54.0 <1 57.1 8 60.7 35 62.6 63

Eye Height, Sitting (cm) 69.8 <1 77.6 60 73.5 2 76.7 9

Acromial Height, Sitting (cm) 52.5 2 61.5 93 58.3 15 59.8 30

Hip Breadth, Sitting (cm) 39.9 54 42.4 82 43.9 99+ 42.6 99+

Functional Grip Reach (cm) 61.0 <1 68.0 20 71.8 18 76.4 64

Functional Grip Reach, Extended (cm) 75.9 46 78.0 77 85.2 89 86.4 93

Stylion-Stylion Span (cm) 117.3 N/A 127.8 N/A 137.4 N/A ---- ----

Weight (lb) 118 7 130 23 180 60 204 89
57

Appendix D. Questionnaire

Soldier Demographic/Anthropometric Data

1. Personal Identification Number (PIN): ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (Last name initial + Last Four)

2. Date of Birth: 3. Rank: 4. Date of Rank: 

 (DD/MMM/YY) (DD/MMM/YY)

5. Basic Service Entry Date: ______________ 

(DD/MMM/YY)

6. Current Unit: 7. Current Job Title:

8. Primary Military Occupational Specialty (PMOS): 

9. How long in this PMOS? 

 

10. What is your primary aircraft? 11. Secondary aircraft?

12. Total Flight Hours: ________________

13. Flight activity category (FAC): 1 2 3 14. Readiness Level (RL): 1 2 3

15. Sight Correction while flying (check if yes):

16. Correction type: Glasses Contacts NA

17. PULHES: _______________

18. Are you on a temporary or permanent P2/P3 profile? _____________________________

19. Place a check mark by the aircraft you are qualified to fly and annotate approximate flight 

hours for each aircraft.

Qualified

Aircraft

Yes No

Total

Hours

AH-64A (Apache)

AH-64D (Apache Longbow)

AH-1(Cobra)

AH-6/OH-6 (Cayuse)

OH-58A/C (Kiowa)

OH-58D (Kiowa Warrior)

UH-1 (Iroquis)

UH-60 (Blackhawk)

CH-47 (Chinook)

Other:
58

Ingress-Egress Trial Questionnaire (Observer)

Pin # ________________ Date: _______________

Trial #: ___________________ Temperature: ________F

Time it took to ingress / egress (circle one) ____________ seconds

1. Any ingress-egress problems observed or reported during trial? Yes ____ No ____

2. Any safety problems observed or reported during trial? Yes _____ No _____

3. Any damage to the mock-up? Yes _____ No _____

Description of any 1) ingress-egress problems, 2) safety problems, 3) damage to mock-up 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
59

Ingress-Egress End-of-Phase Questionnaire (Participant)

Pin # ________________ Date: _______________

Clothing ensemble worn during the trials you just completed: (Circle one)

 MOPP IV & Overwater / Combat Standard Gear 

1. Rate how easy or difficult it was to ingress and egress the front and rear crew stations with the 

clothing ensemble you wore during the last set of trials. 

Task

Very

Easy

Somewhat

Easy Borderline

Somewhat 

Difficult

Very

Difficult

Ingress front crew station via canopy door 

(normal)

Egress front crew station via canopy door 

(normal)

Ingress rear crew station via canopy door 

(normal)

Egress rear crew station via canopy door 

(normal)

Egress front crew station via left window

Egress front crew station via right window

Egress rear crew station via left window

Egress rear crew station via right window
60

2. Are there any improvements that could be made to the crew stations that would enhance 

ingress and egress? 

Yes _____ No _____

If yes, describe the improvements that could be made to the crew station(s):

3. Do you have any suggestions for improving the method of ingress and egress that you used 

during this phase? 

 Yes _____ No _____

If yes, describe the improvements that could be made to the method that you used:

* One limitation of this study was that the mockup could not be laid on its side or be inverted. 

Given your experiences during the conduct of this study, please judge your ability to reach and 

open the exits and make an emergency egress under those possible conditions

1 2 3 4 5

________________________________________________________________________

Very Easy Somewhat Easy Borderline Somewhat Very

Difficult Difficult
61

Appendix E. Checklists

GENERAL CHECKLIST PRIOR TO EACH TRIAL

ÿ Ensure seating position already dialed in for subject (will require pre-check and 

marking for each subject)

ÿ AW personnel check AW fitting on subject

ÿ For MOPP IV-OW condition, take out seat back cushion to allow for life raft.

ÿ Instruct subject to stop the trial if they are endangering themselves or if they 

damage the mock-up.

ÿ Ensure safety devices (mats and tyvek foam bed) are in position

ÿ Remove windows (both sides) for emergency egress tria ls

ÿ Water / Gatorade on hand

ÿ Box fans on hand and running

ÿ Ensure motion capture cameras in correct locations (front/rear seat)

ÿ Set up placards for HIDSS motion capture trials
62

INGRESS CHECKLIST

ÿ Subject stands at 5 foot line from crew station (depending on seat being tested), 

with kneeboard and helmet in hand. Crew station seat will be adjusted for each 

subject prior to each trial. 

ÿ PI ensures safety personnel are in position.

ÿ Videographer posts new trial data on mockup. 

ÿ PI cues video recording to begin, then announces description of trial (trial #, 

date, ingress, front/rear seat, subject # by PIN, AW ensemble condition).

ÿ PI announces ‘Go’, PI and AI begin digital stopwatches.

ÿ Subject approaches crew station, simulates using lever to open door, lifts up 

door, and begins ingress to the seat. The following steps should occur, but the 

order in which they occur is at the discretion of the subject:

o Fasten restraint harness

o Don helmet

o Don ARU

o Connect HIDSS cable

o Simulate connecting MCU cable

o Deploy CIK

o Deploy armor wing panels

o Strap on kneeboard

o Reaches up to close and latch door (simulate latching)

o Velcro the handholds into stowed position

o Place hands and feet on flight controls

ÿ Signals PI to stop trial either verbally or by thumbs-up hand signal.

ÿ PI announces elapsed time of trial for the video recording system, but video 

capture continues.

ÿ PI asks participants a series of questions from the end-of-trial questionnaire, 

including asking the subject to demonstrate that they can reach and view the 

crew station controls and displays, and have adequate visibility over-the-nose of 

the mock-up.

ÿ AI records responses from subject on questionnaire form.

ÿ PI announces end of trial and directs video capture to pause.

ÿ Note1: For MOPP/OW trials, remove the seatback cushion from the front and 

rear crew station seats prior to ingress.

ÿ Note2: Pilots need to perform scan pattern for HIDSS/head movement analysis.
63

NORMAL EGRESS CHECKLIST

ÿ Participant seated in mockup in the same condition as the end of an ingress trial.

ÿ PI ensures safety personnel and equipment are in position.

ÿ PI cues video and motion capture recording to begin, then announces description 

of trial (trial #, date, normal egress, front/rear seat, subject #, AW ensemble 

condition)

ÿ PI announces ‘Go’, PI and AI begin digital stopwatches.

ÿ Subject egresses normally from the crew station per the following steps (in the 

order they deem most appropriate):

o Release restraint harness

o Stow CIK

o Retract armor wing panels

o Manually detach HIDSS and MCU cables (simulated)

o Doff helmet

o Doff ARU

o Release door latch (simulated) and push on door to raise it

o Unstrap kneeboard (optional)

o Unvelcro handholds

ÿ Subject raises torso and legs, then egresses the aircraft.

ÿ PI/AI stops time when subject has both feet on the ground or safety mats; AI 

announces elapsed time, motion capture and video capture stops.

ÿ AI asks subjects a series from the end-of-trial questionnaire, AI records 

responses from subject on the questionnaire form.

ÿ PI announces end of trial.

ÿ Note: For MOPP trials, pilots need to don the M-45 mask in the crew station.
64

EMERGENCY EGRESS CHECKLIST

ÿ Participant seated in mockup in the same condition as the end of an ingress trial.

ÿ PI ensures safety personnel and equipment are in position.

ÿ Remove windows from mockup.

ÿ PI cues video recording to begin, then announces description of trial (trial #, 

date, emergency egress, front/rear seat, egress direction, subject #, AW ensemble 

condition).

ÿ PI announces ‘Go’ and PI/AI begin digital stopwatches.

ÿ Subject egresses the crew station in the fastest manner possible while ensuring 

safety. The following steps must occur, but the exact order remains at the 

discretion of the subject (Comanche -10):

o Helmet visor-down

o Release restraint harness

o Retract armor wing panels

o Stow CIK (optional)

o Turn ECLs ‘off’ (simulated)

o Turn SPU ‘off’ (simulated)’

o Turn Battery ‘off’ (simulated)

o Pull emergency egress D-ring between legs that blows the windows 

(simulated) (-or-) Release door latch (simulated) and push on door to raise 

it (depends on egress path).

o Unvelcro handholds

o DO NOT manually detach HIDSS or MCU cables

o DO NOT doff helmet

ÿ Egresses through the directed window (left or right) or canopy door; step will not 

be available on the left side.

ÿ AI announces elapsed time in 5 second increments; stops time when subject has 

reached the ground or safety mats; announces final time for the video capture; 

motion capture stops.

ÿ AI asks subjects a series of questions from the end-of-trial questionnaire; AI 

records responses from subject on the questionnaire form.

ÿ PI announces end of trial.
65

Appendix F. Summary of Pilot Ratings and Comments on Post-Evaluation 

Questionnaires

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Very Easy

Somewhat 

Easy

Borderline

Somewhat 

Difficult

Very Difficult

Ease of Entering or Difficulty in Leaving in the Two AW Configurations

MOPP-OW Combat-Hot

1. Rate how easy or difficult it was to conduct ingress and egress fromthe front and rear crew 

stations with the clothing ensemble you wore during the last set of trials (either C-H or MOPPOW).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Very Easy

Somewhat Easy

Borderline

Somewhat Difficult

Very Difficult

Ease or Difficulty to Ingress-Egress Between the Front and Back Crewstations

Back Front

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Very Easy

Somewhat 

Easy

Borderline

Somewhat 

Difficult

Very Difficult

Ease of Entering or Difficulty in Leaving the Front and Back Crew Stations

Back Front
66

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Very Easy

Somewhat 

Easy

Borderline

Somewhat 

Difficult

Very 

Difficult

Ease of Entering or Difficulty in Leaving the Left and Right Sides

Left Right

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Very Easy

Somewhat 

Easy

Borderline

Somewhat 

Difficult

Very 

Difficult

Ease of Entering or Difficulty in Leaving, Depending on Anthropometric Size (subjects)

Small Female

Medium Female

Medium Male

Large Male

NOTE: Comments are coded by subject since the comments were largely driven by anthropometric 

size. SF = Small Female, MF = Medium Female, MM = Medium Male, and LM = Large Male

2. Are there any improvements that could be made in the crew station, which would 

enhance ingress and egress?

• (SF) Door open/close mechanism that all can reach (i.e., at top of door hinge) like the AH64
67

• (SF) No door “tab” to get gear caught on

• (SF) Provide a method to open/close canopy doors that is at the top of the door hinge (so all 

can reach it – too far of a reach currently)

• (MF) Have no obstacles when egressing [to] the right [side]. Move the SAC further 

forward or lower it.

• (MF) Removing the door handle or locating it on the side of the window

• (MM) During front crew station right egress, SAC was broken [off]. Recommend some 

design where it has a breakaway or is collapsible during egress to the right side

• (MM) Glare shield over console should have breakaway sections on the sides. Foot could 

get trapped on egress.

• (MM) Same comments as for C-H ensemble. Most tasks with Air Warrior and MOPP are 

blind. Couldn’t see the key border right panels without major shifting on the seat. Longbow 

Apache has markings to help pilots follow down to steps—that would help on Comanche.

• (LM) Front seat would require a redesign to accommodate larger pilots and equipment. 

CIK limits leg space and movement. 

• (LM) SAC interferes with exiting through right window. 

• (LM) To put on helmet, canopy windshield is in constant contact; screens will be damaged. 

• (LM) Crew station design appears to be fine for pilots that are not in combat or without 

combat equipment. Air Warrior 9m holster and Comanche do not work together in the front 

seat.

• (LM) More equipment is less crew station space. With the M45 mask, flight would be 

impossible. Mask filter restricts head movement. Combat flying in front seat requires more 

crew station space.

3. Do you have any suggestions for improving the method of ingress and egress, which you 

used during this phase?

• (SF) Provide a method to open/close canopy doors that is at the top of the door hinge (so 

all can reach it – too far of a reach currently)

• (MF) Do not rest on the edge of the window when [emergency] exiting, push away from 

aircraft with foot so not to get caught on the window pull handle.

• (MM) Under current door design, close door before putting on seatbelt. During emergency 

egress, most trials I had to go out feet first.

• (MM) Front crew station right side egress, couldn’t go out feet first.

• (LM) Only the above suggestion [redesign the front crew station to accommodate larger 

pilots and equipment]. With this amount of equipment Comanche ingress/egress is extremely 

limited.

• (LM) Engineer front seat for combat equipment. Possibly design overwater raft as 

permanent part of seat and aircraft as airlines do.

4. One limitation of this study was that the mock-up could not be laid on its side or be 

inverted. Given your experiences during the conduct of this study, please judge your 

ability to reach and open the exits and make an emergency egress during those possible 

conditions.

• (SF) Borderline due to far reach to open/close door
68

• (MM) Couldn’t reach the door handles when seated with the seat belts on. Recommend 

some type of release handle at the top of the window to release the door from the open 

position.

• (MM) Front crew station is too cramped. Helmet often contacts front window when 

putting on the helmet.

• (MM) Couldn’t reach door handle from seat in either crew station.

• (MM) Comanche front crew station is not big enough for this [MOPP-OW] 

configuration. I was constantly shifting my body and moving items to do tasks (put on

helmet, mask).

• (LM) Pulling the extra 80 lb up [MOPP-OW] and over would be more difficult.
69

Appendix G. Summary of Pilot Ratings and Comments on Post-Trial 

Questionnaires

Yes 

 66

No 

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Trials

Were Any Ingress-Egress Problems Experienced or 

Reported During the Trial?

Foot Entrapment/Obstruction

• During normal ingress, pilot’s foot entrapped or obstructed by lower left glare shield/map 

case (below LMPD) - 4 instances in 16 trials

• During normal egress, pilot’s foot entrapped or obstructed by lower left glare shield/map case 

(below LMPD) – 6 occurrences in 16 trials

• During emergency egress, pilot’s foot entrapped or obstructed by lower left or right glare

shield/map case (below LMPD or RMPD) – 20 occurrences out of 48 trials

• Foot actually raised collective about 2 in.; then his foot got caught behind collective and seat 

for a moment

• Significant foot rub upon ingress over window sill, then ECL and SPU/Batt panel

Kicking Glare Shield or Displays During Egress

• During normal egress, kicked left glare shield/map case – 2 occurrences in 16 trials

• During emergency egress, kicked left or right glare shield/map case – 28 occurrences in 48 

trials

• Subject forgot to fold CIK back since he couldn’t see it; just climbed over it. Major foot 

contact with CIK, LMPD, and glare shield

• Major foot and leg contact (including knife and pistol) on LMPD, glare shield, left map case, 

and collective. Had to sit on collective head to complete egress.

• Left foot contact between RMPD, glare shield, SAC, map case; caused ~5-sec delay
70

Pilot Could Not Reach Canopy Door Handle

• Small Female could not reach door handle to close canopy door in either AW configuration 

(C-H or MOPP-OW) or crew station (front and rear)

• Medium Male could not reach door handle to close canopy door in either AW configuration 

(C-H or MOPP-OW) or crew station (front and rear)

• Large Male could not reach door handle while in the rear crew station (both AW 

configurations)

SAC – Right Side Egress

• SAC broke off during emergency egress through the right window (2 instances in 16 trials)

• Foot and leg contact with SAC, very difficult to cross over SAC upon egress (4 instances in 

16 trials)

• Small Female able to lift legs right over SAC and climb out relatively easily

Difficulties Caused by Personal Weapons

• (Large Male) Pistol gets shifted around to back of calf by SAC, but still accessible.

• (Large Male) Had to rotate pistol counterclockwise to side of right calf to leave; cannot wear 

pistol on right thigh

• (Large Male) Pistol caught upon SAC; recommend moving weapon to right calf for large 

males

Helmet and Body Contact with Canopy and Structure

• Helmet contact with front canopy (16 occurrences)

• Helmet contact with top canopy and helmet tracker (5 occurrences)

• Helmet contact with left and right canopy, support struts, or mirrors (8 occurrences)

• When pilot donned helmet in crew station, contact with right mirror and front windscreen. 

Even with a pilot this small [medium female], significant helmet contact with windscreen

Equipment and Seatbelt Entanglements

• Restraint harness belts entangled with AW vest and M45 mask hood during emergency 

egress, typically delaying egress (5 occurrences in 48 trials)

• Right shoulder belt wrapped around straps for the hood; spotters had to free the belts prior to 

subject falling to the ground

HIDSS cable caught on door handle during egress, caused approx. 4-second delay while spotters 

freed the cable; subject probably could not have done it. Subject supported weight herself, not 

by spotters.

Other Comments

• Considerable difficulty in stepping up to or down from rear crew station; reach down to step 

is blind (6 occurrences)

• New technique for shorter pilots: place mask in helmet, then D-ring the setup to front of AW 

PSGC. Steps up to back seat, unhooks gear and places in seat, then climbs into the rear crew 

station.

• “This is stupid; you can’t do anything” – Medium Female wearing MOPP-OW in front crew 

station
71

• Emergency egress steps per -10 are all blind (ECLs – off, SPU – off, BATT – off, etc). Just 

cannot see the switches while wearing the mask. Reported by Medium and Large Males in 

MOPP-OW.

• Serious difficulties fastening helmet chin strap due to MOPP gloves (2 occurrences)

• Dropped kneeboard to floor but could not reach down to pick up; had to grab between feet 

and lift it up to hands

• Monocles on HIDSS often did not fit down over eyepieces on the M45 mask (8 occurrences)

• Small Female forgot to push back left armor panel but able to get out anyway

Yes 

10

No 

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Trials

Were Any Safety Problems Reported During the Trial?

Pilot Comments

• (LM, Front, C-H) HIDSS anchor cable on QDC snapped apart during egress—QDC did 

not work. Pilot actually manually pulled on cable, but did not quick disconnect. 

• (LM, Front, C-H) Boot soles (ridges) hooked on window sill ledge

• (SF, C-H, Rear) Body armor/vest caught on handle and snagged; pilot could not make 

egress safely without help from spotters

• (MF, C-H, Rear) MCG cable got stuck in between seat and SAC box, caused approximately 

10-second delay; cable was hanging free in trial, not anchored to the QDC.

• (LM, MOPP-OW, Rear) Caught raft on window sill, caused subject to fall straight onto 

knees in padding

• (LM, MOPP-OW, Rear) Seam of trousers and AW straps in crotch area caught upon 

canopy door handle; weight of ensemble didn’t allow me to push up and over handle while 

sliding over side of aircraft; spotters had to catch me as I fell

• (SF, MOPP-OW, Rear) Spotters had to catch subject for safety reasons; she would have 

hurt herself otherwise

• (SF, MOPP-OW, Rear) 6-ft drop to the floor was dangerous but survivable in the MOPPOW configuration; spotters had to catch me.
72

• (MM, MOPP-OW, Rear) Safety: Left shoulder belt caught between hood and LPFC; 

spotters had to free it during egress for safety reasons

• (MM, MOPP-OW, Rear) Seat belts hung up, delaying egress. Spotters had to support.

• (LM, MOPP-OW, Front) Spotters had to support subject upon egress for safety reasons

• (MM, C-H, Front) Landed on top of cross-strut beam

• (MM, MOPP-OW, Front) - Safety. First attempt of trial, subject wedged helmet between 

seat head rest and right armor wing panel on egress. Pilot had a more laid-back position to 

get feet out of left window. As helmet wedged in tight, pilot pulled forward to leave, pulling 

head out of helmet. Head not allowed to move farther as he hung up on mask/hood straps 

and seat belt. Likely the subject would not have been able to free himself and leave the 

aircraft during an emergency. Trial halted at 13 seconds and repeated.

Yes

7

No

73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Trials

Was There Any Damage to the Mock-up During the Trial?

Pilot Comments

• (LM, Front, C-H) HIDSS anchor cable on QDC snapped apart during egress—QDC did not 

work. Pilot actually manually pulled on cable, but did not quick disconnect

• (LM, Back, C-H) Helmet drove pretty hard into top canopy and helmet tracker (emergency 

egress)

• (LM, MOPP-OW, Rear) - Right canopy suffered slight contact from helmet

• (MF, MOPP-OW, Rear) - Broke off SAC

• (LM, MOPP-OW, Front) - Major foot contact with LMPD, glare shield, ECLs, and 

collective head causing slight damage to mock-up and significantly delaying egress

• (LM, MOPP-OW, Front) Helmet struck left canopy support and left mirror

• (MM, C-H, Front) Noticed that toggle switches on front seat RWP and LWP have been 

broken off some time in the past few trials
73

• (MM, C-H, Front) Canopy grab straps must be designed for two-handed use and to support 

body weight (up to 300 lb), plus a significant jerking force applied to them

• MM, C-H, Rear) SAC broke off during egress

• (MM, MOPP-OW, Front) Major foot and leg contact (including knife and pistol) on 

LMPD, glare shield, left map case, and collective. Had to sit on collective head to complete 

egress.
74

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
75

Acronyms

ABDU Aviation Battle Dress Uniform

ALSE Aviation Life Support Equipment

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

APG Aberdeen Proving Ground

ARI Army Research Institute

ARL Army Research Laboratory

ATEC Army Test and Evaluation Command

ATTC Aviation Technical Test Center

AW Air Warrior

CB Chemical Biological

C-H Combat-Hot configuration

CH Cargo Helicopter

CIK Crew station Interactive Keyboard

CMM Coordinate Measuring Machine

DEP Design Eye Point

DoD Department of Defense

DT Developmental Testing

EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development

HDU Helmet Display Unit

HMD Helmet Mounted Displays

HRED Human Research and Engineering Directorate

IR Infrared

IV Independent Variable

JPACE Joint Protective Aircrew Ensemble

JSSG Joint Service Specification Guide

K-W Kruskal-Wallis test

LM Large Male

LMPD Left Mounted Panel Display

MA Massachusetts

MCG Microclimate Cooling Garment

MCS Microclimate Cooling System

MCU Microclimate Cooling Unit

MD Maryland

MF Medium Female

MIHDS Modular Integrated Helmet Display System

MM Medium Male

MOPP Mission-Oriented Protective Posture

MOPP-OW MOPP-Overwater configuration

M-W Mann-Whitney U test

NAS Naval Air Station

NAWC Naval Air Warfare Center

NBC Nuclear Biological Chemical

OT Operational Testing

OW Overwater

P.I. Primary Investigator
76

PM Program Manager

PMO Program Manager’s Office

RCS Radar Cross Section

RMPD Right Mounted Panel Display

SAC Sidearm Controller

SER System Evaluation Report

SF Small Female

SH Seahawk

STA Structural Test Article

STD Standard

STRAP System Training Plan

TACOM Tank Automotive Command

TM Technical Manual

TOC Table of Contents

TOP Test Operations Procedure

TR Technical Report

USAARL US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory

USAAVNC United States Army Aviation Center

USMC United States Marine Coprs

WSRT Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
77

NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

* ADMINISTRATOR

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CTR

ATTN DTIC OCA

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

*pdf file only

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN IMNE ALC IMS MAIL & REC MGMT

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TL TECH LIB

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 ARL HRED AVNC FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN

BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107

FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

1 ARL HRED AMCOM AVN FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MI 

BLDG 5464 RM 202 J MINNINGER

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290

1 ARL HRED AMCOM MSL FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MO T COOK

BLDG 5400 RM C242

REDSTONE ARS AL 35898-7290

1 ARL HRED USAADASCH FLD ELMT 

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME A MARES

ATTN ATSA CD

5800 CARTER ROAD

FORT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

1 ARL HRED ARDEC FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE

BUILDING 333

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000

1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS

BLDG 1002 ROOM 117

1ST CAVALRY REGIMENT RD

FT KNOX KY 40121

NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 ARL HRED CECOM FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN

MYER CENTER RM 2D311

FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5630

1 ARL HRED FT BELVOIR FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK J REINHART

10125 KINGMAN RD

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828

1 ARL HRED FT HOOD FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR S MIDDLEBROOKS

MV HQ USAOTC

91012 STATION AVE ROOM 111

FT HOOD TX 76544-5073

1 ARL HRED FT HUACHUCA FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES

2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005

FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069

1 ARL HRED FLW FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MZ A DAVISON

320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 166

FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473-8929

1 ARL HRED NATICK FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER

NATICK SOLDIER CTR BLDG 3 

AMSRD ARL NSC SE E

NATICK MA 01760-5020

1 ARL HRED SC&FG FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS C MANASCO

SIGNAL TOWERS RM 303A

FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233

1 ARL HRED STRICOM FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT C CHEN

12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY

ORLANDO FL 32826-3276

1 ARL HRED TACOM FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE

6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284

BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 ARL HRED USAFAS FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MF C HERNANDEZ

BLDG 3040 RM 220

FORT SILL OK 73503-5600
78

NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 ARL HRED USAIC FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN

BLDG 4 ROOM 332

FT BENNING GA 31905-5400

1 ARL HRED USASOC FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER

DCSFDI HF

HQ USASOC BLDG E2929

FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000

1 ARL HRED FT LEAVENWORTH FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP 

D UNGVARSKY

BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB

415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3

FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326

1 ARL HRED AMEDD FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM V RICE

BLDG 4011 RM 217

1750 GREELEY RD

FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5094

1 ARL HRED SPO

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M M STRUB

6359 WALKER LAND STE 100

ALEXANDRIA VA 22310

1 ARL HRED JFCOM FLD ELMT

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJF D BARNETTE

JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9

JOINT FUTURES LAB

115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B

SUFFOLK VA 23535

1 US ARMY SAFETY CTR 

ATTN CSSC SE 

FORT RUCKER AL 36362

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK (TECH LIB)

BLDG 4600 

1 US ATEC 

RYAN BLDG

APG-AA

NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO

BLDG 459 

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MB J NAWLEY

BLDG 459

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M F PARAGALLO

BLDG 459

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRD ARL HR SE S HILL

BLDG 459