DOT!FAAI&.V.:-95flS A Human Factors Evaluation of 

~"' .n:::.J...:! !\.-..:~--~·:: f 

·:-~:.:~ ,_i,k:..::.:;:-:;.-,:::;.t ~~ C.\-":J.il.:.~'l~-,; :;;.~ :h~ ?u:·<i.~ 

r~ro:~~h rb.:· :-.:2~~o:-:.1! Ted:r:!.:.1l 1:-:tfo:-rr:a:~o?: 

~en·•~::. ':'r::::~f:::U. V:r;:!n~~.: 22~r-:. 

\ i ~ r'l;:::.,-,~ ......... ,~...,,t .... -. ....:- L.h-rc.l ., .• _.~-~ 

0~ i·~a;;sp0r~2>::r 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

:.. - :: ~ -:. = ";· '"" "\ - - "-~---

19950619 087 
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under rhe sponsor~hip of 

rhe U.S. Deparrmem ofT ransponation in rhe intereS( of 

l

'nt'or·n·"fl.On ..,"' ..... h ................ ~1-\.. ..... 1 ~ ..... ;r.:...-1 ,,.....,r,. ... t-: ......... .o ............. """"""r l i ia .1 \...'\\..-S..laJ.lb'-~ J H"- L-JtJl'\..Y ·-''~~....__., ~'.1\t...JttJ~J-..Jlt. 

as~umes no liabilirv for tho: contents or use thereof 
j 1. Re~~ Nc. i DOTiFAA/A...\f-95/18 

~ 4 T.Ut- s-d Subti'te 

1 A Human Factors Evaluation of the Operational 

1 Demonstration Flight I!lspection Aircraft 

: i 7. At:rh:::-r~s' 

J M.D. Rodgers. Ph.D. (Editor) 

' 

9. Perfc·rr.~llS Orgi!lmza:1cr, Name ar.d ACdr~ss 

' I Human Resources Research Division 

1 FAA Civii Aeromedicai Institute 

· P.O. Box 250&2 

Oklahoma City, OK 73!25 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

l"echnica! Report Documentation Page 

1$. AbS.t!~C': ! 

I These repor+.s des~ribe the data collection and anal~~is efforts performed hy the Civil Aeromedical Ins;imte's ! 

Htm".an Factors Research Laboratory to assist the Of:1~e of Aviation System Standards (A V.\") in tile human ! 

I factors evaluation of the Operational Demoll5tration (Ops Demo.1 candidate flight inspection aircraft (FiA). ! 

Although there was not sufficient time to conduct an ex..~austive human. factors evaluation of the Ops Demo FlA. J I several effons v•ere undenaken to assist in rhe determination of rhe >uitability of the proposed aircraft for J 

' 

inregrarion of flight inspection equipment and performance of the flight inspection mission. These efforts inc!uJed i 

an evaluation of flight L'lSpection pilot an;: tecr:.nician preference; for certain aircraft ::haracrerist!cs. an evaluation ! 

of aircraft cab!n noise levels. an anth.rvpometTi::: fau1iliarlzation for flight inspc~tion pilo~s and tech . .:!icians 

participating i..tl the Ops Demo. and an evalua!ion of the proposed flight inspection wcrkstar:on design fer th~ 

medium-size. medium-range (MSR; ai~craft. 

' ";7. Key WcrC:--s 

: Human Factors Acvustics 

~ · C ~-s·~,~;: .. -:•c~ S:ar~"""er~ 

i Document is a\ ai!abk to t~e u~:.li;: thr,'t:"~ ;he 1 Flight Inspection 

Anthropometry 

Vt7 o:-kstation Desig:1 ! • -· 

l "'-:a!h1!~ai Tc.:h:1icallnfom1ativn Service 

j 5 pn ·r~ofi-'c' \:· .. ...,.; ; """'l6. .. ~ r .. ~ _ h~.n.a --· ! 

I 
ACK:'\OWLEDGME"T 

Th~ authors gratefully acknowledge John K. Gardosik, Office of A Yiation System Standards, Fl<:ct l\Ioderni7.ation fA V'\ -7). for his efforts coordinating the research presented in 

this report. Special thanks to Dr. :\oa! D. Y!ay, Civil Aeromedical Institute. Environmental 

Health Branch (AA\1-730). for proYiding techr1ical guidance and comments on the acoustic 

survey. 

--------

iil 

\ 
TABLE OF COi\'TENTS 

Human Factors Sun:ey of Aircraft Characteristic Preferences of Flight Inspection Pilots 

and Technicians 

Mark D. Rodgers, Ph.D .. Robert E. Blanchard, Ph.D., and 

Howard C. Ha.rris, Jr .. M.A ............................................................................................... 1 

Anthropometric Familiarization oj the Operationai IJemuh5iraiion Flighi Inspection Piluis 

tmd Technicians 

Mark D. Rodgers. Ph.D .. and Gena K. Drechsler, B.S........ ...... .................... ....... ..... G 

Acoustic Survey of the Federal At•iation Administratwn Flight Inspection Aircraft Cabin 

Environment 

:\1ark D. Rodger.;. Ph.D .. and Howard C. Harris, Jr .. M.A ............................................ i3 

Human Fa<·tors Con;iderations of the JISR Technician '.s- fVorksiuiiun 

\1ark D. Rodgers. Ph.D ................................................................................................... 17 

References ............................................................................................................................... 22 
EXECUTIVE SuMMARY 

Th~ !"epprtS describe the dall\ collection and analy· 

sis efforts perfonned by the Civ;l Aeromedical Institute's 

Human Factors Research Laboratory to assist the Office of Aviation System Standards (A VI\') in the human 

factors evaluation of the Operational Demonstration (Ops 

Demo) candidate flight inspection aircraft (FlA). Although there was not sufficient time to conduct an exhaustive human factors evaluation of tile Ops Demo FlA. 

several efforts were lli!dertaken to assist in the detennimrion of the suitability of the proposed aircraft for integration of flight inspection equipment and performance 

of the flight inspection mission. These efforts included 

an evaluation of flight inspection pilot and technician 

preferences for certain aircraft characteristics. an eYaluation of aircraft cabin noise le•;els. an anthropometric 

familiarization for f!ig.~t :~spectlvn piiots and techni~ 

cians participating in the Ops Demo. and an evaluation 

of the proposed flight inspection workstation design for 

the medium-size, medium-range 0>1SR) aircraft. 

Tne Ops Demo was conducted to allow for a quantitative and qualitative ~aluation of the performance, 

safety, and utility of each cf :he candidate aircraft. In 

addition to the evaluation of the operational utility of 

the aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FA'\) and user personnel the Ops Demo also provided 

various engineering discipiines tasked by AV~ to support the Source Evaluation Board's teclmical proposal 

evaluation an opportunity to physicatiy examine the aircraft to answer or clarity any technical questions orcor:-

cems that may arise during the technical proposal evaluation. These disciplines included, bur were not limited 

to, Human Factors, A,·ionics Engineering and :'-1aintenance, Systems and Airframe Engineering.. Flight Safety. 

and Fhght Inspection. Evaluators from these disc;plincs 

provided their own evaluation platls and data sheets, and 

provided separate reports of their findings. This report 

de+.ails the findings of the human factors evaluation conducted by the fA.Il,. Human Factors Research Laboratory(AA-\1-510). 

One of these efforts invol\'ed tiJe assessment oflhe 

preferences of fEght ir~cpection pilots and tecr.nician< 

for various characteristics of t.lle flight inspection aircrzft. These resu Its were then presented to the evaluators. allowing them to compare thei: preferences to tho;;.e 

of their peers. Ops Demo teste' ent;; were deveinped for 

those items of the survey mos: preferred by !he raters 

and not covered by other test events. Test-cards "ere 

constructed as guices for these :cs: ewm<. 

An. assessment cfthe extent to which the Ops Demo 

pi lots and technicians conformed to the ant.lu'opometric 

specifications of the flight inspection aircraft was also 

performed. Measures were collected on sitting height, 

eye height, leg length, arm reach, and shoulder breadth. 

These measurements were provided as info-mation to 

the evaluators, so they would k11ow how t.IJeir personal 

characteristics compared to the population of interest. 

Data indicated that the pilots and technicians selected to 

perform flightdeck and workstation evaluations were 

generally representative of the aviator populatio;:;. H0». 

ever. the military a\·iator population represented in the 

anthropometric distributions of the '!\lili!ary Standards 

is comprised of only men, and they appear to be taller 

than the FlA user population Perhaps in future F!A procurements it would be appropriate to consider using a 

population more represe:llative of the A\~ piior and 

tcci'~'lician population. rather :han L"le milituy a; iawr 

population, for setting anthropometric spocifications. 

Additionally. an acoustic a.TJaiysis ""as conducteri 

of the cabin environment< oftlll'CC currcmly used :'.·!SR 

flight insp->.cdon ait<;raft and the three Ops Demo aircraft. The King Air and Sabre Liner were the noisie,t of 

the aircraft tested. The British Aerospace Engineering 

air::raft was the quietest of the cu:Tent flight inspection 

aircraft tested. The candidate large-size, long-range 

(LSR) aircraft \\a; iO dB(A) quieter, on the a\·erage. 

thaTt either the candidate MSR aircraft or the ca.'1didate 

multi-mission (M.\.1) aircraft. It appears likely that the 

candidate LSR aircraft wc-uld meet the flight inspection 

aircraft specifications regarding noise lewls. The ]1,[\f 

a11d ;\1SR aircra.lt "ere rated acceptable; howeYer. due 

to the requ~rement for major changes in the interior configuratior.s to meet operational specifications, further and 

more detailed analyses will be required. 

Finally, an e\'aluation of L"le candidate MSR aircraft technician's workstation was performed '>ith the 

assistance of the Ops Demo technician eYaluators Sc\'-

=l points of consideration were raised before the workstation layout and cabin environinem becmne fixed. 

Thes.e suggestions 1ed t.,.., jnajor modifications L'11he h:·-

ou~ of the technicians workstation. rnese design cha..,~es 

were implen:ented imo !he contractor'> design proposal 

fo; the !...SR aircraft; hev.ever. workstalic'r design oplimi7..a.tion for~c LSR 2.ircraft cabin layout has no:: rx:~n 

proposed. It is hoped that the5e modi5cati0ns win fa- ~·J;,.t~ ............ -.. rr.~·.=.·~-d· ~"""~·:.,.. ..... ~· .~ .. 1o..l J.a ............... e .:-...I ... r.l a.n ._0r7llf'·.~r'l; ... ope. a: lor: 01 t:l.C 

flight inspec:ic;n equipr~~en. 
HUMAN FACTORS SURVEY OF AIRCRAFT 

CHARACTERISTIC PREFERENCES OF FLIGHT 

INSPECTION PILOTS AND TECHNICIA:.~S 

INTRODUCTION 

A sun·ey of the preferences of flight inspection 

pilots and t~chnicians was conducted to assess preferences for certain characteristics ofthe flight inspection aircraft. Several flight inspection pilots and technicians were recruited as subject matter experts 

(SMEs) to develop items suitable for inclusion in the 

survey. The SMEs generated lists of characteristics 

they considen:d imporia.-:t fer:~<? candidate aircraft 

to possess. From these ! ist;;, survey item~ were developed for relative we!ghting using the paired comparison scaling technique. With this technique. all possibie pairs of items are presenied and the subjects indicate which of the two items in each pair they con-

$ider to be most desirable. For ~Y iie11::;. ~\~{.1!..;·1 )-'2 comparisons are required. Separate surveys were Je, eloped for pilols a.'1d technicians. 

The information was then compiled for presentation to the Operational Demonstration (Ops Demo) 

evaluators so th"'y would know how their personal 

?references compared to those of their peers. Additionaily, the information was used to prepare test-cards 

for the Ops Ikmo aircraft evaluation. Test events were 

developed for all of the aircraft characteristics that 

were evaluated and test-cards were constructed for all 

test events. The test events deve!oped from the sucvey involved movement and access issues. a'Jd were 

included in the operability section of the test-card 

handbook (Department of Transportation. 1992). 

Other test e\·ents included handling (ground and 

flight), flight, navigation, and environmental systems. 

flight inspection operations, and emergency procedures. 

METHOD 

Subjects 

Subjects in this study consisted of 75 technicians 

and 140 pilots ~erving in flight inspection fieid offices (FIFO} in either operational, instructional o: administrative positions. From this sarnp1e .. f7 technicians and !08 pilots responded to a paioed ;:om parisons survey .on chara-:.tcristks of the air~raf: catb 

'\\.·ork environment. The res,por.::,.e rzte repre::,.e;:;::-

62.67% of the technicians and 77.!4% of tic pilots 

who were mailed sun·eys. Two pilot surveys and one 

technici:m survey were incorrectly filled out. These 

were discarded from the study, resulting in 46 technician and i06 pilot surveys appropriate for inclu,ion 

in the anaiy:o,is. 

Materials 

As sho"n in Tables 1 and 2. a total of 14 items 

related to the pilots· wvrk environu.e~t and 22 items 

relat<!d to the technicians· work envirGnment \\;;re ,;;. 

lected to be used in constructing separate paired comparisons sun··eys for the tcchllicians and pilots. The 

item pairs \vere formed using t.'"Ie stimulus preparation chart> prepared by Lawshe and Kephan (1950). 

w~kh ~ontrol for side (lcft.,'rigbt) and separation {dis· 

tance be!\\een repeated stimuli}. 

Procedure 

Individual packets were placed in envelopes addressed to each pilot cr technician. These envelopes 

were then mailed to the individ~al or the individual's 

FIFO. Subjects were asked to complete the surY~)- as 

consc1ent!ously as pos~ible and to return their f0ms 

in the envelope pro·dded. Directions fo: \'Ompieting 

The survey are shm• n in figure l . 

Surveys \~ere numbered end checked fvr errcrs 

upon re~ipt~ a.-1d were entered jnto a :data nle for 

3J'alysis. cpon completion of the da1a entry. a frequency cour:t wa:;; made on each comparison tor further analysis. 

RESt:LTS 

Separate data marric~s w~re fcrmcJ fr..;m th~ responses of t.'>e pilots and technicians. Jn t.'>csc square 

mat:iccs. the numbers above the diagona! represent 

the :JUmbe: of times the rov,.· item was selected over 

the column item; wherea' th,,se numbe:s belo~>. the 

diagn:.~ai corresponC !n the nu~ber of times t!!~ ..:olumn item \\'as s.dc~ted over the rO\'-. ii:cm. F:-cqu-en~:_. 

CO:!!'l-!5 were used ro ge:1erate a frequenc) mat:-lx. All 

oth~r me. trices requi~ec fc; 1he analysis v. ere :om-

:;t!kC fr~'::' th.: .::.:::= .. pv:;.Jin~ ~I-cqu~n:.::-- car:-ix. 
TABLE 1 

Rank Ordered !-stores for Items on tbe Pilot~' Survey 

l1lun 

Visibility 

Stable Flight 

Emergency Exit 

Cabin Noise 

Body Movement 

Chart & Equipment Acc;,ss 

Chart & Equipment Storage 

Emergency Equipment Access 

Routine Entry and Exit 

Clear Path 

Stand Erect 

Internal Persona\ Smrage 

Block out cabin light 

life Raft 

TABLE 2 

t-score 

71.19 

63.84 

59.27 

55.18 

52.87 

51.28 

49.85 

49.10 

46.24 

46.08 

40.12 

38.49 

38.49 

38.01 

Rank Ordered t-scmes for !terns on the Te~tmi!}!~m;;' Survey 

~ 

Seated body movement 

Emergency exit 

Access to Visual Displays 

Seat movement related to equiprr.ent 

Access to Doc & Equip in v'/orl<station 

:=mergency Equipment 

Tech VHF Radio 

Forward Facing Workstation 

Low cabin noise 

Routine Entry and Ex:t 

Documentati0;1 & Equipment storage 

Ciear Path 

life Raft 

Persona! Storage 

Lap and shoulder straps 

Visual access/fuselage v.,:ir.dov:/S 

Stand e:;rect 

Nonrestrictive headphone cables 

Adjustable lumbar support 

Visual Access to cockpit 

Ability to block out •t~indow !ight 

Approach plate holder 

2 

t-score 

66.01 

63.66 

62.52 

61.52 

59.78 

58.57 

55.22 

55.09 

54.09 

52.28 

51.47 

50.67 

49.06 

45.38 

44.24 

43.97 

~3.91 

40.42 

38.68 

38.28 

36.24 

28.84 
Reliability and internal consistency measures" ere 

computed for each of the surveys. Reliabilit) was measured using a >ariance component model oftheanal)-

sis of variance. The reliability was .92 for both the 

pilot's and technician'.; suneys \~·hich indicates a high 

level of~e!iability. 

internal consistency '"as measured using 

Kendall's (l Q48) circulartriads coefficient of consistence. This measure indicate; the consistency of a 

judge as he.\he compares the paired comparis<'n>. If 

item i is judged more important than item j, and item 

j is judged :v be mor~ important than item k. then. to 

t~ consistent. it~m i will be jt.d;cd to be more importantthan item k. 

To determine t11e presence or absci;.:c of circular 

triads. a proportion matrix was constructed hy di,iding each item en the frequency matrix by the number 

of respondents for the sur\'ey and placing a proportion of .50 on the diagonaL A circular triad matrix. 

consisting of l sand Os. is fonned from the proportion 

matrix by substituting a l for each item with a proportion equal to or greater than .50. or a 0 for each 

item with a proportion less than .50. Th~ cocfllcicnt 

of cnnsisten~c is then calculated using KendaH's formula. lhis test yielded a coefficitnt of l:on.;,istencc 

of.96 ior the p;lots suney and .92 for the technicians 

survey, which indicates a fairly high le·.-cl of intrajudge consistency. 

Tables l and 2 al,;o s.how t-scores L'lat have been 

calculated for each item to demor.strate the item's mnk 

a'11ong the other item;; compared. A 1-score is a 'tandard score that has a mean of 50 and a st.andard dc"iation 0f !O.!tshouid be noted that t.i-Je 1-score is an inter\"al 

rr.casu~. which has equal di~tanct.--s but no ahsolutc zero. 

One way to vicv.< these scores is the pcrc~ntagc oftin:e a 

particular item v .. as. s.ele:.:ted over aH other it~ms in ti:c 

lis1 lne z-:-core> were calculated from : 5<orcs generated by the SPSS De,.;riptivcs command on the tc.tal 

frequenc:, count for each item. '!he= score !0 !·score 

transforma:ion is simply [i =;;;;ore • 10) +50]. 

FIGlRE l 

Instructions to Raters 

A set of characteristics nas been identified to aid in the upcoming evaluation of flight inspection aircraft. It would be helpful in the evaluation to have an estimate of which characteristics 

were felt ic be relatively more important to pilots and technicians who w:H be manning the 

aircraft. These characteristi:::s are provided below h paired comparison form; that is, each characteristic is paired \.*:lith every other characteristic. 

Please read each pair of charaderistics ana decide which of the two is most desirable from 

your point of view. Make a check mark (-,') in front of the characteristic you have selected. 1viake 

sure that you select one and only one characteristic irom each pair. Some pairs will be more 

difficult to select between than others, but please make a selection for every pair. You may 

change your se:ections on any pair at any time. In general, it is best not to spend a great de a! of 

time on any one pair, but simply to r.oad them both, check the one that you fee! is relatively more 

desirable from your viewpoint, and move on to the next one. 

Please do not compAre your selections vv1th an:l ether rater or discuss the rating process 

before all raters have completed their ratings. it is important that only your viewpoint is represented in the ratings. An example is provided below: 

A night at the opera .i Attend a basketba!l game 

In the exampfe, the rater has seiected ''Attend a basketbali game·· as being more desirable 

than "A night at the opera." Please note that the items are paired side by side. 

Please proceed. There !s no time Hmit, but !":!OS! peop!e iln!sh the r~t:r:g ::1 :es:s !h~~ 30 

minutes. 

3 
DISCUSSION 

Each of the Ops Demo evaluators (six pilots and 

six technicians) used the test-cards as guides in e\aiuating the iest cver.ts. Separate handbooks with dis1in.:t tc>t evems wen: de,· eloped for pilots and techni-

~ian!'. Thc~e handbook:' also contained a summary 

0f the results of this survey (see Figures 2 and 3). 

This info,-rnation was provided ;o that evaluators 

would know how their persona! preferences compared 

h: tho~e of their peers. \Vi!h thi~ information a~ hanU 

4 

it wa' possible for pilots and technicians to ccmpare 

tl:teir persona! preferences for these characteristics to 

those of their peers at any time during the evaluation. 

In ::ddition to the scm mary resui!S. test-cards '"~re 

constmcted (see Figures 4 and 5) for those items of 

the survey that \vere not CO\'ered hy other preYlousiy 

developed test-cards if the item's T-score was greater 

than the mca11 (i.e. !·score> 50). Thi~ included 3 items 

for the pilots and 6 items for the technicians. 

I 
FIGURE2 

Tecbnician Prioriti~ 

Many of you participated in a recent survey conducted by the Human Factors Fesearch 

Laboratory of the Civil Aeromedical Institute. This survey was conducted to assess the preferences of flight inspection pi!ots and technicians for certain characteristics of the flight inspection 

aircraft. The survey results are presented to give you information about your peers' preferences 

for csrtain aircraft characteristics. The reliab1lity of these values was found to be very high. The 

results are presented in the :able that follows; however, a brief explanation of the result5 may 

assist in your interpretation. The values in the table represent ihe percentage of time a particv!ar 

item was selected over a!l other items in the list. For instance, the technicians preferred "Seated 

Body Movement" over a:l other items 66 percent of the time. This is in contrast to "Ease of 

Deploying Life Raft.'" which was preferred oniy 49 percent of :he time over all other items. As an 

evaluator, it is important !or you to know how your personal preferences compare to those of 

your peers. 

Seated Body Movement··----·-····-·-··--·---·---------- 56 

Access to Emergency Exit--·-·----·---·--·----·-------- 64 

Access to Vi sua! Displays ··---·---·--··---·--·--- ------- 63 

Seat Movement Relative to Equipmem ------ 62 

Access to Documents & Equip in Workstation--- 60 

Access to Emergency Equipment --·-·--------------· 59 

Separate VHF NAV!COM Radio -·-·---·---------·---- 55 

Forward Facing Wcrkstatior. ----·---------·------·--·· 55 

Lew Cabin No;se -----··--·--··--··--·-----------·----·--- 54 

Routine En!•',' & c:=x;:- ·-··-··---·----------·-·----·-·-· 52 

Document & Equt~ment Stcrage ---------------------- 51 

Clear Path through Cabin·---·-···-----··-···--·---·---·- 51 

Ease of ueploying life Raft ·---··--·--·---··--· ·-··----- 49 

Interior Personal Storage--·- ····--··--·--···--·-···-·-·- 45 

Lap & Shou!cer Straps ------·--··---··-·---·---· ·-···-··- 44 

Visual Access:Fuselage w,ndows --·-·-·---·--·------ 44 

Stand Erect in Cabin--------------------------------------- 4L:. 

Nomestrictive Headph::>ne Cables---··--·--··--····-·· 40 

Adjustabie Lumbar St:ppcr: ·-----··---·--··--··-·-·-···- 39 

Visua! Ac::ess to Cockpit --·--·----·--···-··-·-···-·-···- 38 

Ability to Biock Ou: \.Vind~-..v Ligh: ------------------- 36 

Approach Plate Holce· --·---·----------·-----··---····--· 29 

:-
FIGURE3 

Pilot Priorities 

Many of you participated in a recent survey conducted by the Human Factors Research 

Laboratory of the Civil Aeromedical Institute. This survey was conducted to assess the preferences of flight inspection pilots and technicians for certain characteristics of the flight inspection 

aircraft. The survey results are presented to give yet. information about your peers' preferences 

for certain aircraft characteristics. The reliability of these values was found to be very high. The 

results are presented in the table that foliows; however, a brief explanation of the results may 

assist in your interpretation. The vaiues in the table represent the percentage of time a particular 

item was selected over ali other items ir. the list. For instance, the pilots preferred *Visibiiity Out 

of Cockpit" over all other items 71 percent of the time . .,.;,;sis in contrast to "Ease ot Deploying 

Life Raft," which was preferred only 38 percent '='f the time over all other items. As an evaluator, 

it ts importar~t for you to knovv hC\"! your persona! preferences compare to these of 

Visibility-----------------------------·-----·-·----------- 71 

Stable Flight ---·--·-----·---------·-------------------------- 64 

Emergency Exit---------·---·-----·-----·-··-----··-·····-·-· 59 

Cabin Noise-------·---·--··--·----·-··-···-··-·---·--···--·-· 55 

Body Movement while seated--·------·-·-·--------·-·- 53 

Chart & Equip Access-··---·--·---·-··--·---··-·----·----- 51 

Chart & Equip Storage ··------·--·--·----·-····-·--- ·--·- 50 

Emergency Equip Access ·---··--·-------·-----····----·- 49 

Routing Entry and Exit····-·--··-··---·--·-----······-·-- 46 

Clear Path through Cabin --·--·-------------·------- 46 

Stand Erect in Cabin-·------···-·------·------·-----·- 40 

Internal Personal Storage -·----··--··-···-----··--··--- 38 

Block Out Cabin Light at Night --------··--·--· ---·---- 38 

Ease of Dep!cying Life Raft -------·-·-····--·---··------ 38 
FIGI:RE4 

Pilot Muvement and Access Test Card 

I Cad ·c-.: p 

Test Conditions: 

AC 

Pi!ot 

Items to Note 

Ease of body movement while seated in cockpit 

Ease of ac;;ess to flight charts and navigat:on equipmen: 

Fl.!gh' chart a~d nav'ga•;...,.,.. ,...,;.,....me...,~ M,.....--.....,c. <"'1.'!'\ ~En.k-+rio.r~ .. . !\. If • f ,:....,1>-c::;;yu:-<pt: fl;..~i,...,IO;::!'-'•r•u•~•'-'-J .... ...,..,-. 

FIGl.RE5 

Techuieian '\1ovcmcnt and Access Test Card 

I Cad C-4 I 

Test Conditions: 

Items to Note 

Ease cf body :T'ovement while seated 

Ease of visual access to d;splays 

Ability to move seats relative to equipme;lt 

AC 

Ease of access to documents and equiprner:: f;-om v:orks:atior 

Adequate document and eqc;;prr:e:-:: stor<lge 

Clear 9ath through ca!:li;; 
ANTHROPOMETRIC FAMIUARiZA TiON OF THE 

OPERATIONAL DEMONSTRATION FLIGHT 

INSPECTION PILOTS AND TECHNICIANS 

Il'IRODUCTION 

A i:uman factors evaluation of the fligbtdeck and 

technic >n' s worksmtion of the candidate aircraft was 

perf or.> ,ed by a group of evaluators consisting of flight 

inSJ:«tion pilots :>nd electronic-s te<:hnicians from the 

Office of Aviation S.ystem Standards. To determine 

if the evaluation ream members were representative 

of the population for ,.-hich the specifications were 

rle,·eloped. anthropometric measurements were taken 

of five body dimensions for each evaluator. These 

measuremer:ts were provided as information to the 

evaluators so thcv would !--.now bow their personal 

characteristics eo~pared to the population of intercsr. In this srudy. the measurements v.=e compzred 

with those of the aviator population described in Milj_ 

tary Standard l472D (MIL-SID-1472D)todetennine 

if the evaluators were representative of the population for \\t.ich th:: system theye\'aluated "-'<IS designed. 

MlL-STD-14720. -.;;hich presents human engineering design criteria for milita.'y systems. contains 

a listing of 5th and 95th percentile anthropometric 

measurements for military aviators. Given that OO<iy 

part dimensions are distributed normally. 90% of the 

aviator population should have measurements th::t fall 

within those margins, with 5% being smailer and 5% 

being larger. Data on a\-iators in ;\1lL-STD-1 412D rcprese:-t 1482 C.S. Ann) a':iation personnel measured 

in 1970, l549CS. Ka•·y pilots measured in 196:1.and 

2420 U.S. Air force fi:ying personnel measured in 

1967.11 should b.. wted thar the milita.') avia1or population represented in the anthropometric distribl:'tions 

of~fiL-STD- J472D is comprised of only men. 

:\IETHOD 

Subjects 

The subjects of this study consisted ,,fa gr,1up d 

14 aircraft pilots and electronic6 !echnicians ( J3 mai"" 

and one female) employed by the Federal .·hiarion 

Administration Office of Aviation System Standards. 

The subjects were fully clothed -.hile being mea~ur~d. 

!\fat~rial~ 

Subjects werc seated in 2ll office chair with a hard 

seat. ~leasuring de" i-ces included a me!er stick. a 1 :-

"inch ruler~ and a seamstress tape measure. Suhject,;, 

9 

were provided with a brief description of anthropometric measurements and the 5th a.'ld 95th percentile 

Ya!ues of the aviator populatioo for the measures beingtakentofamiliarize them with anthropometric considerations in systems design (sec Figure 6). 

Procedure 

?1.1easurements were taken in ir.ches of ~;ning 

height. eye height. !eg length. arm reach. and 5houlder breadth (see Figure 7). Sitting hi!ight and eye 

height were measured with the meter stick and ruler 

while tl><e subject was seated in the chair. The meter 

stick · .1> placed on the seat of the chair beside the 

subject extending to the ropoflhe subject"s hearl. and 

the ruler was used to gauge tile top of the bead and the 

height of the eyes with the corresponding measures 

on the meter stick. functional leg length was measured with a tape measure extended frcm t.lte waist to 

the b.;,(om of the shoe while the subject was seated 

with one leg extended in front to the floor. 1\rm ~each 

was measured with a ~c measure from the plane 

paralld to the subject's back to L'>e end of the dlumb 

while the subject was seated ,_,Jt one arm extended 

to t.l1e fr<>nt ;md the fingers cuf\ed do'~ll !t>~'ard the 

thumb tip. Shoulder width "-as measured ,,vith a <ape 

measu~e from shoulder to shoulder '~nile the subject 

was seatcd with arms at !be sides. 

RESULTS 

Table 3 shows the means of subj~..:I measurements 

compared with the 5th and 95th percentiles of mea-

~uremcnts for the a\·iator pop.tlation specified in :'1-tllSTD-1472D. All of the bodJ; characteristic means :Cll 

between the 5th and 95th percentiles for ~l;c aviator 

pc,pulatio:J. Table~ represents the fu:qucncy Qf sub-

_ic::ct mca>uremer.ts '~hich occurred belm\ the 5th percenrilc. ben~·een the 5th and 951.'> !"'<.:entiles, and 

above the 95t~ percentile along ••ith the J)<."'lttntage 

of c= r.presented in each l:ategOiy. Be:v.·een 50.0%, 

and 92.9"-·6ofthe subject.~· mea<;Urement~ fell betw.:er: 

the 5:.h and 95th perce:1tiles of rhose indicated for"' iatoc> in :.11L-STD-1~-:2n. 
DISCUSSION 

Data i."ldicate that rhe subjec!S selected to perform 

fiight:ieck :md worksta!ion evaluations were generally representative of the aviator population. Hov<ever, 

2l.4% and 28.6% of the subjects had Sitting Height 

and Eye Height measures below the 5th percentile. In 

addition, 50.0% of the subjects' leg lengths were lc-erw~n the 5:h and 95th per..entiles and 50.0% were 

below the 5th percentile. However. v•itn resj)<.'Ct to 

the latter, erro:-s in measl!rement may bave occurred 

because the subjects were ft:Uy clothed 

(anthropometric measurements. are ge.nerai!y taker1 of 

subjects in underclothing),. ma.~ing it difficult to determine t.he exact location of the waistline. A po$sihility also exists that military aviators, on t..~e average, are taller than FA .. '\ pilots and techr.icia."ls. Perhaps in future FIA procuremems it would be appropriate to consider using a popuiation more representative of the A V~ pilot and technician population. 

rather tP.3n the military a\'iator popularion, for setting 

anthropometric specifications. 

FIGLRE6 

Evaluator --------

Anthropometric 

Measurements 

Design and s:z:ng of a system shoi.!ld ensure acco:nmodation, compatibility, operability, and 

maintainability by the user populst;on. Generally, design limits should be based upon a range of 

values from the 5th percentile for females to the 95th percenti:e fer males ;or critical bod¥· 

dimensions, except for instances involving special popu;ations, like the present aviator pop!.3iation. As an evaluator it is important for you to b-:ow how your persona! che,acteristics compare 

to the population of interest. 

For the boc!y dimensicn listed below, the 5ti1 percemiie vaiue indica:es :hat 5'io of the populat:on 

V".nH have values equai to or smaEer then that value. and 95~b v-.ri:; have iarger vaiues; conversely. 

the 95th percentile value indicates :hat 95% oi" the . .>pu:ation wir have values equal to or 

smalier than that vaiue and five percen~ wili have !arge• values. These vabes were se:ected to 

accol"modate the 5th through the 95th percentile of FAA c:evJ membe~s spe~if,ed as ..,aviators"' 

ir. Mll-STD-14 72D who have bee" apprcpr:ate:!y selec:ed and trahed. The va:~.;es below a'e in 

i:1ches. 

Persona! 5th 95th 

Msasurement ~nti!e Percentile 

1 .. SITTING HEIGHT 33.7 38 .. 8 

2 .. EYE HEIGHT 30.0 33.9 

3 .. LEG LENGTH 40 .. 9 47.4 

4.ARMREACH 28.8 34.3 

5. SHOULDER WIDTH 17 .. 0 20.7 

. \,..' 
FIGURE"/ 

Body Dimensiom- :-..Ieamred 

1. 2. 
TABLE3 

Means of Subject :\'leasurements Compared wit!! 5th am! 95th Per~entile of Aviator 

Population (in incbes). 

I \fean of Subject 5th Percentile of 95th Percentile of 

I 

Body Characteristic Measurements Aviators Aviators 

Sitting Height 35.3 33.7 38.8 

I Ey~ Height 'l ' .) ~.! 30.0 33.9 

Leg Length _.., J.. 40.9 47.4 

Arm Reach 29.6 38.8 0' ' )<f . .J 

Shoulder \'hdth 19.3 17.0 20.: 

TABLE4 

FrequPncy and Percentage of Subject ~teasuremeuts Occuiriug \Vithin Prreentile P~ng~ 

, of Aviator Population. 

I Bodv Characteristic 

Sitting Height 

Below 5th 5th- 95th Above 95th 

Percentile Pt:rcenti!s: ··-- Percentile 

~ 'C'l4''l .;. • /0, i j ('8 I . 6'"' -'0} 0 

4 (28.6%) 9 (64.3~0) t-: 10!> Eye Height \f. I ,·oj 

7 (50.0%) ., ~-=r, OO:\ (\ Leg Length l I,_...:V.V.-OJ v 

I (7.1%) ,, :~2.9c:;·~) ,_. {\ 

" Ann Reach 

" 1" .n..., no.: 1 ,., 1 o . .:. \ Shoulder Width v !5 \7"-.7 /Of \;.1,t.Jf 

12 

' ' I 

I 

i 

' i 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 
ACOUSTIC Sl..JRVEY OF THE FEDERAL A VIA TlON 

ADMINISTRATION FLIGHT INSPECTION AIRCRAFT 

CABIN ENVIRONMFNT 

INTRODl:CTIO~ 

.-\n acoustic sun:ey of the cabin environments of 

three cuJTent medium-si7e, medium-range (MSR) aircraft used for flight inspection of navigation aids "as 

condm:h!d 10 allow for a comparison of\h" sound \e,;el. 

in dB( A). that was present. Additionally. an acoustic 

comparisor. of the three aircraft present at the Ops 

Demo was conducted to allo" for a comparison of 

the noise present in these aircraft cabins. The three 

aircraft present at the Ops Demo were candidates for 

flight inspection aircraft. These aircrdft included an 

A TR-42. the candidate multi-mission (M.'-1) aircraft; 

a Canadair Challenger, the candidate long-range, 

large-size (LSR) aircraft; and a Lear 60, the candidate MSR aircraft. 

The noise specification for the aircraft participating in theOps Demo is a sound pressure !cvel (spl) of 

less than 85 dB during all phases of flight. Furthermore. the specifications called for aural cockpit alarms 

to be from 5 dB to l 0 dB above the ambient sound 

level. For any FAA employee working in an environment in which the SPL is not below an 8 hour time 

weighted average of S5 dB( A), enroliment in the hearing consef\·ation program is required. 

It should be pointed outthat the analysis conducted 

will not allow for a determination of the extent to 

which the aircraft meet the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration's (OSHA's) standards for exposure to sound levels. the type of soundproofing 

material that is required. speech interference characteristics, annoyance associated with the sound le,·el 

present in the cabin, or the extent to \\·hich the aircraft 

meet FIA specifications. 

Howe\'er. the analysis" ill allow for a direct comparison between aircraft in regard to :he sound level 

present during the selected phases of flight tlJat arc 

most related to hearing loss and speech inte1ferenc<.>. 

The (A) weighting appEed to the amplitud~ per frequency measure of sound pressure ( dH) takes into 

acoount the selective sensiti,ity of the human hearing 

rno::charrisrn to certain frequencies by apprcpriilld.' 

weighting those frequencies to which the human ear 

is most :;en5.iti ve at abo!.!t 55 dB spL 

A more thorough inYestigation oft he ~t.)und. k\ c~ 

present in the cabin~ ~uch a~ a :..pectral ar.alys.is. :s r:ot 

i3 

Pl •r,~e~ at- t-~.a p•osen"J.rt'!.-"' ~nl"h an o::.nnlvci~ 1\'AHJd a, 111 \.i t Ullo,. 1~ J 1 l HI .... _. ......... u .... U~u:..:•-> ••~• . .u 

allow for determination of the extent to which sou:1d 

le,·ds with anno)ance properties were presenl and 

\he type of soundprootmg material required 10 dampen 

those frequencies. for a determination of the extent 

to \\·hich the sound level ml'ets OSH.-\ standards. an 8 

hour dosimeter mt>asurement "f conditions present 

during an individual's work day would be required. 

A more thorough analysis will be conducted to assess 

the extent to which the aircraft selected for the flight 

inspection mission meets the F1A specifications. 

:\fETHOD 

Equipment 

Two dosimeters were used to assess the amplitude, in dB( A), of acoustic energy present ir. each of 

the aircraft cabins tested. The dm.imeters used in the 

proj~t were part of the db-30 l <652 ~tetro\ogger system. The db-30l.'652l\1etrolog-ging System consist' 

of the db-301 Metrologger, the db-652 \Ietroreader. 

and associated interconnecting cable. The db-301 is 

used for collecting the basic sound level data through 

an input device, such as a microphone. The microphone used in this project was a Metrologger mk301R. The dh-652 is the final processor and readout 

de"\ce \primer) of the sound le"e\ dma co\lec\ed b) 

the db-301 \1etro!ogger. After receiving the data from 

the db-30 L the db-652 processes it and prO\ ides 3 

printout on its internal printer. Before each test the 

dosimelers "ere caiibrated using a cl-302 acoustical 

calibrator. 

Procedure 

Two expcrimemers collected the data from L'le 

three current aircraft: a single experimenter collected 

the data from the three operationa! demons!ration aircraft. Calibra;i,1n of the dosimeters took place before 

each tc~·t. The t\<·eathcr '~·as clear with smooth air for 

aH test fllghts. Lpon e;nry ]nro the aircraft, th~ make 

and mcdcl of aircraft was recorded. One of the 

dvsimc:cr·s. micrcphones was attached to the hc:adre:.t oftht! ki..hn:cian' s seat or the s.eat r.carcst to :he 

p: ... lposcd ;0-:ation. The other dosi:neter·~ mit..:n.,ph(me 
wa' attached to the head.-est of the pilot's scat. The 

microphones were an ached to the seats with a clothing clip (ms-206). The serial number of the dosimeter 

was recorded, along with its location. The dosimeters 

were turned on, and the time was recorded a• the engines were 'tarted. The various activities of the ensuing flight "ere recorded for their later correlation to 

the acoustic data. Data collection continued until the 

engines were shut down on the ramp. When the data 

collection was complete. the dosimeters were set to 

standby mode. The data were then downloaded to the 

db-65:C \-l:etroreader for proce;sing and printing. 

RESULTS 

The db-652 :Vletroreader tape output was annotated with the phase of flight that was occurring at 

that time. Table 5 details the findings for the three 

current MSR :.ircraft and the three ()pb Demo aircraft. 

The data in this table represent the maximum integrated sound level occurring during the phases of flight 

indicated. The MM landing data appear to be out of 

range. It is possible that the microphone was bumped 

or covered momentarily, causing an aberrant reading. 

DISCL'SSIO~ 

The King Air (K.-'1.) and Sabre Liner (SL). both 

current 2\1SR aircraft, "ere the noisiest of the aircraft 

tested (Mean= 87 dB( A}). The British Aerospace Engineering (BA£) was the quietest of the current flight 

inspection aircraft tested (~lean= &0 dB( A)); however, the candidate LSR aircrafl \\as qui~ter (Mean= 

i5 dB( A)). The candidate MM and \.!SR aircraft a\-

craged 85 dB( A). These values are the maximum integrated sound le\·el in dB( A) occurring across ail 

phases of flight. They are given for comparison purposes only. The actual noise levels differed by phase 

of flight, as shown in Table 5. It should be noted that 

the interior configurations differed from aircraft to 

aircraft, as did the speeds at which the various maneuvers were performed. Since these maneuver;, were 

selected for their pOtential to cause a higher sound 

\eve\, and sincethev we.re all weighted evenlv in these - - - averages. it is likely that these values arc highi:r than 

one would experience in a typical work d&y. 

The KA. SL, and BAE were all con figured with 

operational flight inspection interiors. The candidate 

LSR aircraft was configured with an executive interior and the candidate M\.1 aircraft was configured 

with a commercia! airline interior. The candidate ~-1SR 

aircraft was unpainted. with three regular seats and a 

jumpseat in the cabin area. This aircraft WI!S "i:hou! 

an interior tube liner and had its interior insulation 

exposed. 

It appears !ikc!y that the candidate LSR aircraft 

would meet the flight Inspection Aircraft noise level 

specifi<:ations. On the basis of observed levels, the 

LSR aircraft was rated excellent. with high contidenc~ 

in meeting the specifications in an operational con· 

figuration. Tne \fM and .lv1SR aircraft were rat~d acceptable, however, this is with lo\\ to moderate confidence due to th" borderline noise lew] results \i.e. 85 

dB( A)) and the requirement for major changes in the 

interior configuration> to meet opcratio::al specifications. 
TAIU,E 5 

t•cak Acon~lic Energy in diJ(A) for Various l'hases of l<'li~ht 

.~ .. ---·-~·~·~---. -·· ....... -- -~~.. --·----------··.. ---·-·--·-~---·----------·· 

TRANS MAX LOW- LANDING 

fYI'~ STAAl TAKE TO CRUISE SPEED STEEP QUICK LEVEl GEAR StiUT 

0!' /'.f~~- S~~T.~Ol!.._ ___ llf_ _____ .. _1:_1~~1 OFF CRUISE SPEED BAAKF Fl AI'S APflCH _DE~CS.!'J.!__ FLIGH_I DOWN LANDING DOW~I 

. -----· ..... ·-- ................ -------- ·------..2.':E~!IONAL DF.MONSTR!\_!ION AII,.;.~C~'R.:..A.;.;F..;T _______ _ 

LHII I'II.OT 73 l2 'I() IJO 78 63 7:l NIA 75 73 77 '14 75 

TFCH 73 78 7!i 00 70 70 74 NIA 73 72 78 70 76 

MM PiLOT !l9 Ill !Hi !J2 85 Nil\ 87 83 S!J Bfi 85 1 08' 65 

Tr.CH 73 '11 06 8!i (13 NiA 82 85 84 80 85 81 82 

MSI1 rtLOT 76 '/U 79 Bli 92 !J2 8'1 84 65 80 95 82 76 

TFCH 'If! 114 ll'l 05 !J1 91 87. O!i !-12 68 94 65 85 

···-~- ~-,···--" -~~---·--·· ~- ~ ........ ~~-~ ... --£~·-· -·~~~--~--~ ..... ,_,_ -~---........... ·- --~·--·-·- ~--.. -- ----·-·· ···-··--·------~---·-----~- --·----------- CUflflENT MSR AIRCRAFT . -. ... ·-~ .............. ~~-~--- ····~··~···~-----~-·-·~·-· ----~~·--·~---·----

1!111' PIIO'I 73 70 'Ill 131 B7 Hfi so 61 a1 B5 n 

<JI HCH fl<J '11 B? 82 86 04 82 81 76 81 77 

KIN(, Pfl(J'f l't6 Ofl U? 81 111 Nil\ 86 89 IJ6 89 96 87 

1\111 ILCH 03 ll!l B~ ll!i 00 Nil\ 83 06 82 90 86 88 

:>I\IJUI Pit OT lJ(l n BB 110 \13 99 91 BB 97 91 72 

IINLII l'fCII !<) ll:l 90 91 rt3 !l9 90 OB 87 8'/ 83 

· Mfiti :Modi,-itrd'iiili11 (l, ·Mediurrt Size--- · -· ·· ... 

I.Sfl · L.onn Rnnoo. Lorge Size 

MM · MultiMission 

----·-·"""·---···-·-·-----.. ---- -·----------

' TlliJ MM Iandino data appear to I.Je out of range. It is possiblo that tho rnicrophono was bumped or covered momentarily, 

causing an aberrant reading. 
HUMA~ FACTORS C01'\SIDER.4 TIONS OF THE ~1SR 

TECIL~ICIAN'S WORKSTATION 

J~TRODIXTION 

A hi.!mim fact>.Jn- e\'a1uation of the ca.qd~date \1SR 

zir .:raf! technician "'s workstatio:1 \'taS performed w:th 

the a.;;~ista.~~X of t.~e: 0!)s Dc~o techr:.ida:.~. These 

evaluations wereperfom1ed in a mtx:k-up of the 11igb 

!ns?e\.::io:t \>:rOrks:atio~ i.:onta:~t!d v. 1t!lin a mo.::t fuse!age of the ca."ldidatc ~iSR aircraft. Sc-..-er.=i po~nts 

Of COJ;.tenti\l!l \\.er<;:' rai::.ed for !"i.!n.herc,,n;')idcra!!on before the v.od;station ia;\.!;,;1 and cabin .:n .... ·in.·mmer..t 

became :fixed. ;vtany ufrhcsc aiso app!y to the czr.Cidate M_'.f a~d LSR aircraft. 

Points of Consideration 

1. The rec.)rder v.:a' positinned in a rna.~ i1at wC'uh: 

make it diffic<llt ':0 w:ite on its assc.;:ia"led pr.n:m:t. 

lt was positioned on the left of the aircraft. requiring righ.t-~'1d'i!d tedmicia.fl'- K~ :each 3Cr0s..' their 

bvdie:> to ann-ota:e the prlntour when facin2 tt~ 

plasma di;;play _ -

1 .. 

... 

The spectrum anaiyzcr is JX."'Si!ioJ~ed !c Use IO\\C;-

lefr ofth~ foN-·ard-facing tcchn~cian ~s scat. it ~s. p.J.isible to position the displ<n :0. til is unit at a hiciler 

fe;ei on one C\ftht= t\\.0 in.sL'1imt:ol oar.d:) fv:~'3er 

view~ng. ·rne control unj: can be i~ted r~otc;;. _ 

:Ko pr01.is:on fo> storage space for equ:;::mc::t a.~j 

dxu~t::lb. was i!:Ji;;cted in t.he e-~o~k-Jp. The ':'.pt!i:-

trum :me!yze:- positicc. ifflt"..ed -..n_:, a door. "cdd 

p:nvidc arl~.Ja!c st~ge-. Th~s optiot: C-~--nds c.n 

ili.~ '\-~C~m an21):tzr disp~2) ar!~ i:tl!:hl)j U!:it b~­

ing moved. as suggested abo\·e in poin!. 2. 

The even: marker should he placO:. d~;ser :t) ~he 

surface. i.'JS".ead of above the plasm" dispby .. so th~ 

am.·1tand has a pla::e to r~s:. 

5. Tne cup holder lo-~a:ion ;,h0~ld be r.-.:·•·ed 10 ;;!!,'" 

for more ;"",Titin£ space (m the ~r:~e di:e,:;J .. ir, 

froor of the f'-~,..~~\1 facing tcchnicia~. If mo\-~ ir 

should flO! be placed "h= 1hc ;c;:0fdCr Prin:cU1 IS 

a.'L~ouned_ · 

6. Tne cor.::ers of !he wcrkstati.:m *-eh-es anc odlc-:.n 

'*titicg surfaces ~"todd ~ ro:.:r:ded to rerl~c..: tbe 

!ikeli.'lOOO of irJury 

? . There \va--, no indi:.a!:on of i;~e he26oh~ m~ :~:..: IWsitico i.'1 the mock-::p. It s!:ouki be pOsiti;,~ed ;c: zs 

not :o interfere \\'i::h ted"a:-tician m~Yerr::c::t 

8. V,tL~dO\'S are CO! prcposed for ~1s:aEa:io:J 0:1 :.;..~.:: 

righr ~ide ofilie a?n:raii ~in at !he re-chr:!cte...~· ~ 

worlutation. lt wcu!.: be be~1eficial 10 pr.::vide :b:: 

Iech..1.ic!a."1 \\ T'Jl !h:se w!r:dvtt. s.. 

9. Tne ,~, orkstation s..r,.ouid: be PD!.!t:oned 01J the upr;........._ 

site-siCeofthe ai!-... Taft t0 avoid the prt'b~em d~~i~ i..l'] p0i.~1 1. T.:11!~ v. c-t.:.Jd require the speclfi..:a1ioi1 \:{ 

t~~ ri~id ..:i.1nta!ner to be chang-ed. Tr:e ri2.:d i:0n~ 

tainz; shc:.:ld n0t dri' e !he desi"2r:: ar.d lavo"U: vf the 

tec!1r1idan · s workstatZon. - · 

10. If:.~e recorder is moved bcio\\' t..'J.:- p!asr:I~ display. 

which ~$ nvt rec~rr:e:r:.de-d.. n must be done so as 

fu.)i to cause the n!z.sn:.a d!~la\ :o h;; rai~ed :\.; a."1. 

un;>.)mfvr"'..ahk: '\-:-ewing angie. -

· ' The =t1nscle ce:J:.ai.-linf! :he p!:!Sm2 .:iisnhY ~h .. _"l:Ji.:i - ' . !x> r.:duc.:..; ;n ;...c;cr.t ""J a'It;w f~r f:..,rv a·d ,.;~\,.; .... (" - • • .. =--· ~' • ~ '1. ~-· "' " .... ···-=· ~..., Ahbi.•U£h t~"!t: re\ 1:,td c~i2n. i~ Cf'C:!-1rlcr:!b~\ im~ 

pr..:·ve~ : ..... ,crthc \."ri2ina: Jc;ii!i~ .. i: shc:Jt:I no!#'3-en~ 

;,_;;a standard fer o±er FlA s-.::-re:-::s i;lS!alled ;n a::--

cr:!ft ilia! ano"v for a tru1v t~·ar:d facing wor.::..- s~a­

!lon .. Tr~ c~rrem Cesi~ ha...;,. 2 forv.ard ~:ed C{)nsok .. a cor.1p:om.ise !o the specification to aBo\'-. fer 

the c ... m:.,!deration of smaHer aircraf:. "Ibis .:les:c: v.~ 

a resu!tofthe decrease t.:~ f!oors~ace asxr.:iz.:.;d \'- j:_h 

re\ isions ~n !he spe::ifications. 

3ased o!1 the at~:~\·e CPn~1dera:.i,";5the ..: 0<1!r.a~;.•Jr 

m.::diilc.d :;;e dr..""Sign !hs! bad or:gl:laH: been pr0posed 

r, .. r ir.tegr:a!ing the i1ig:h~ inspe-.::ion v.orksm'!ion into 

:..t:e air~ran. Each of the- above po!n:s W.l5 ::.ddressed 

i~ the redesi!!n cftb~ reYised \\:DrkS:3ticn. Draw~n;::s 

ofth~ .\":igir:al cic~ig~ and. the de;,igr. a~cep::ed hy the ;~ge::;:\ are presented fur cor.:p2:rison tfigt:.res 8 

~hf'-"""U£h \ : ). f:g~re~ 8 a."lri Q de~ail i.ht: ~._\fi4in:1i 3\:-

traft cab:n a:-:.j !cd:~icia:::·s ~\~r~s:at!vn h'~:.!!~ F:gurr::- 10 and ! 1 d~t.a!! ~he C=s!gn ~~epto:i Dy the o;!gen;y 

fer i::s:a!la:ion :n !he Lear 6(1 \fSR H:\. 

The ma:n differ~n;e berv .. ·ecn th..:- !'\;.·._: laycu:s is 

the :-!:de oi the ai:-;.:raft 0:1: v. !l:.:h !hr ;; i.."~rk~!a~i..):l js, 

pv;:60~.::d .. Th~ o:igjna: d~:-.ign pn'J)\':o-3.1..:~1kd fort he 

~·::-rks:::uion 10 be p.::siti.vncd 0n t!-~c h:f: s~ic .. Jf t':!c 

zi:.:ra:1~ req,::i:ing right·h~,d~ te~hniciai'..S ::0 rca~h 

a.::r~~!ii:". the!:- f.....X:~ tc a.~:;.ctate the re~order n:ir.!O:!!. 

Th~ cuor::a~!or initially d~ci nvt sugge': a r~i!hi-hanJed :". '·-r ...... i'.-..- .... ':'f., - .,. ,....,·.......... ·- ..... ... • - \\LTK~~-~·'-'·· .. :::m ... e .... e s1z ... reql.OlrC'.:!lcn..:::- fo.:. the nr!ld 

c .. J::.Iaffi:!:- re~cric~-.!.d ~ts ~ia,em<nt ~nth=- -:ll: ......... .,.n- ··ab-l·n • ~'"' .. h_ .......... -~ ... ·-

lt n .as s~gges:cd. :o A VX &.a: the :'i~id con~ine:- ~h:-.~dd 

n0: Drive :he design a~O iayout of the tcchnlcian ·, 

Y.r-rks.l.311-.:-::. T:t..: rig!d cn~:.:liner s~cj:::catio:1 \\.35 

rr:.od~fic-C tc. a1lo"v for the ;-~pc.s!~i-."):: .. bg ~..,ffr.e ,.H1rk-

··•::.··c-. 't \ .;.. .... _; ~h· · · .. ,., · · ....... · =----· ·. .. .• ~ ··~"" • ·'§: J. SHle c .. .::e .:Z:.n:r;.. 1. ne st:gg.c£tlon 

!t• m~~\ ~ !I:..: \'*<t.":-~~t::lr-.:1 t·~ ~h~ ri~!1: ~id~ of the alr-
FIGURES 

Proposed Cabin Lay!i!!!t 

<Q 

......... 
Auxiliary Rack 

FIGURE9 

Proposed Workstation Layout 

Trainee Seat 

Fl Coosole 
FIGURE 10 

Accepted CabiD Layout 

Fl Rack 

20 
r-~· 

I 

FIGUR.Ell 

Aceepted WorlatstioJJ Layaut 

Am!iuy .Equipcem Raci:: 

Spectrum~ 

Fihcl: 
craft was incorporated bto the desig~ accepted by 

the agem:) It was contented that s:nce the workstar:on had to be either right- c>r ief!-handed, 't should 

accommotia!e the majority of the t:s~r population. 

The only alternative to a right- or !dt-handed 

workstation "as a design that incorporated rhe recorderfprinier into the display console beio\;· the 

plasma display. Placing the recorder.'prc\1ter bdow 

:b: plasm<: d:sp!ay \\0.~ not acceptable for three reasen'. F~rsL :nc papc: would spiH into the technician ~s 

Jcp ~)ver the .keyboard~ making operar5i"m of the flig.h! 

ln_.;.pection equ;pment difficult. Se~ond. tile plasmz 

n:~pia: woufd need tv be raised_ pott::!i!aBy to an unct.xnfon:c.ble vle"""ir.g :mg!e. Th!rd_ it would not be 

possi~li.! te reduce the height of the console containirlg the p~asma disp1a) :o allo\\ i~)r iC.n-..ard 'l.·it:wing. 

The acc.eptt;d desi~:: :!!10\\"5 for ftln.vard \·icwing due 

tc the rcdu~oo height of the dispoay .:onsolt:. 

The revised design places tb~ ::tpe~rrum analy7..cr 

ix'1 the t1ight msp~ctic~ :a~l. wh~re !1 can be easily 

\'i(!wed. The e\'Cnt marker was mo\ ed tt) a 1o\ver pc·-

sit;on near the keyboard so thar !he arrn:band has a 

place to rc5t. A pro\ i:.ion was made in the d!sp]ay 

console for do~ument storage. Jne cup holCer was 

mo\·eC so :hat it docs not reduce \~Titing space. The 

edges of the \\·orkst3tion sheive~ and pul1flut wTi~ing 

surfaces v.ere rom,jed to r<O:l:.tce the likelihood of inj!:f}·. The headphone jacks \\.·ere pn:;irinncd ro ilit! right 

side of Lqe technician~ s \\·orks~tion. A.n usa~ie v.-indolvs (these no: .:overed t.y fl]ght ir:spe-ctio:1 ~:.iipmcnt) were added. 

Three additional i5sue:-. \vcre raised. Fi:sL iliumina!ion prc,·ided by !he p:oposed :;ghting fixture~ v.as 

Cetl:!rmi!1ed ~be icsuffident for meeting rbe ~pec;ficar:onsderzikdon page l6~ sc-cti<'n 3.3.2.2.2.4 ofrhe 

FIA Specifi~ticn Doct~men! .. -\dditivnaHy~ lhc iigining was insuffi~iem:_ a.ct..:.::>td5ng tn :he :\1JL-STDJ .r;:m. The pmposd ligh<ing pro\·id~ ::1inimal readir.g.1ight fo: commer:ial aircra~. Subst!quen!1)~ the 

contractor upgraded the bghti ng fixtures tc: meet the 

requiremc~:ts of rhc FlA. 

Second. t:-le nritir:g ~uri30! b:b\\ ilit: n!onc: rFjgu:-o! 11) d:d nvt prv\ ide st:f:cient \\ riting spa,:e for 

rhe ~ccZ...nician. The contract,'-r in.:reased :he si7c ;:-;f 

u.l;e ~Tit:ng spa:;c from thzt sho~.vn by the so~id 31ne:s 

"'<hat shown by th.- d.:>rred lines. 

Thi:d. ~he in:"otri1.zne:1t pedestai bet\v~en the ccc;:-

pi: sea:s ?:-v\·~dcs H\) p:otecticn forth~ ~uip:nent anJ 

p~rsunncJ d:z.ring r~~~:i;--:e :ng.r::~!'- and ~gres.; of th..: 

coc.kpjL .-\c~o!".::m:e !;.) !!1t: spe..:-~rlca!;on ofti:e Fl.-\ c:: 

page 23, Sec!ioP. 3.3.3. !he cockp:t shaH be Ce:;igned 

using !vfiL-STD- }..:172D .::sa guide. 1n that document. 

Section 5.14.3 (Person11el!ngress and Egress) part .2 

{Handhold;; and Fomholds}. it specifics .. suitable 

handholds and foothoids shall be suppiied ''here necessary." Additionally. ill the General Requirements 

'edion 4.4 of\-1IL-STD-l472D it specifies: 4.4.i.; 

~safe and ade<:juate passageways. hatches, ladder:.. 

stairways. platforms. inclines. and other provisions for 

ingress a!Jd egress. and passage under normal. adverse. 

and emergency conditions., shall be pro\·ided.ln Section 4.5 it specifies: "'A fail safe design sl:ail be provided in those areas \Yhere ti!iiure can ca!!se catastrophe thcough damag" to equipment. injury to personnei or inad\·crtcnt operation of critic~d equipm~r.t. ·~ It 

\Va5 suggested to A\~ that a prDtectivc:- co\ er be pn.1-

vided tor the cuckpil pedestal. The ccmtractor \\a;; th<:n 

directed b) A v~ to design and insta11 a pr0tCC!i\\~ 

coyer :or the coc!,;pit pede,tal. 

REFF.RE~CF.S 

KendalL ~1. G. (1948). Rank Correlc!iu:; .H~:h::d>. 

London: Griffin. 

Lawshe. C. H. & Kephart. ~. C. (1 950). Persmmei 

Compari;.on -~"1.5·len: .\fa,~ual. \Vest Lafayctte.1~: 

~=1rdue Unh·ersity. 

U.S. De~artm-=at ofDcf~nsc. { l989}. Human Engir:eering Dt?~-.igr: Criteria for .Jfitl;ar_v 5_~·5[.f!n1S. 

Equipment. and Facilities (~HL-STD-!472D). 

P.hiJadd?hh~ P.A: Defense Prin:i::g Sen·ic~. 

L:. S. Departnent 0f Defense. ( 1989). So,azd Pres-

.•uN !.nels in Aircraft (~1lL-STD-l789AJ. Ph:Jadc~phJa PA: Defense Printing SePoice. 

L S. Dcpar .. ment of Defense. \ 19"'0) Sound Pr~;­

.su.,.e let:·els i.~ A.ircrofJ. Gt'J'k'>r~!Spe.:;~fi::alior.sfur 

;"\·flL-S-8806Bj. Philadelphia. ?A: Defense PrintIng Scrv!o:e. 

!J S. D-.:part:Jlen! ofT rans?Qr"'~tion, Fe-dern~ -\ ,. iatit~n 

Ad!ninis~ratio:l. \ 199:). Opera!i":Jnal Demonsrra-

!io.'i Fhghz J~~pc:.:uon Air~r;.?fr fD:FAOl-9:-R-

~63D2).