A Milestone of Aeromedical Research 

Contributions to Civil Aviation 

Safety: The 1000th Report in the 

CARI/OAM Series

William E. Collins

Katherine Wade

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

March 2005

Final Report

DOT/FAA/AM-05/3

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest 

of information exchange. The United States Government 

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.

___________

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine 

technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute’s publications Web site: 

www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/index.cfm


Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-05/ 3 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

A Milestone of Aeromedical Research Contributions to Civil Aviation Safety: March 2005 

The 1000th Report in the CARI/OAM Series 6. Performing Organization Code 	 	 	

	 	 	

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 	 	 	

Collins WE, Wade K 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 	 	 	

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 	 	 	

P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 	 	 	

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 	 	 	

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 	 	 	

Office of Aerospace Medicine 	 	 	

Federal Aviation Administration 	 	 	

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 	 	 	

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 	 	 	

15. Supplemental Notes 	 	 	

	 	 	

16. Abstract 	 	 	

A historical, largely photographic retrospective is presented in recognition of the 1000th published report 

emanating from the FAA aeromedical research center officially established as the Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute (CARI) in August 1960. The publications include 57 CARI reports (1961-1963), 1 CARI technical 

publication (1963), and 942 reports (1964-present) under the aegis of the (now) Office of Aerospace Medicine 

(OAM). The retrospective includes an historical section on the early development of civil aeromedical research.

Additional, theme-related sections provide an indication of some of the varied research contributions and safety 

achievements of the Institute and cite some of the many individuals who contributed to the Institute’s 

accomplishments.

	 	 	

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

	 	 	

	 	 	

Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) Research 

Accomplishments, History of Civil Aeromedical Research, 

Aviation Human Factors, Aircraft Crash-Injury Protection 

And Survival, Civil Aeromedical Forensics 

Document is available to the public through the 

Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvior, VA 

22060; and the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, VA 22161 	 	 	

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 107 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

Acknowle

The authors thank the following people for their contributions in the preparation of this photographic 

J.D. Garner and Richard F. Chandler provided illuminating subject matter expertise, manuscript section 

and vintage photographs. Roni Anderson scanned and cataloged hundreds of photographs  Becky Orman prepare

numerous versions of the manuscript text  As he has with hundreds of prior reports, Mike Wayda edited and formatted this report and also provided many photographs. Bryan Dahlvang artistically arranged the several

of historical photographs  In addition, we are grateful to Drs. Dennis V. Canfield, Wallace Friedberg, E. A

Higgins, Carol A. Manning, Stanley R. Mohler, David J. Schroeder, and James E. Whinnery for their revi

sections of the manuscrip

Finally, we acknowledge the dedication and accomplishments across the decades of the CARI/CAMI resea

teams...not all of them happen to be specifically cited herein...but all have promoted aviation safety for nearly 

a century.

Further Information

All CARI/OAM reports may be accessed on the Internet at the following address

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreport

A cumulative index of reports (by author, title, and subject) is published periodically as part of the OAM 

The most recent index, as of this date, is OAM report number DOT/FAA/AAM-05-1 (200

Table of 

	 	 Page

Preface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

	 CivilAviation MedicalAdministrators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

	 CARI-CAMIDirectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

	 Support Systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

I.	 ABrief EarlyHistory ofAeromedical Research in the FAA                                                                                                                  .

II.	 The Swearingen Legacy...ContinuityandDirectApplications                                                                                                          .

III.	 CARI’s First Report ... an EnduringDirection                                                                                                                                            .

IV.	 AeromedicalCertification ...and Health                                                                                                                                                        .

V.	 Protection and Survival...Saving Lives 

VI.	 Air TrafficControllers: Stress...and Sleep                                                                                                                                                      .

VII.	 AnAgencyCrisis: Recovery...andCAMI Shines                                                                                                                                      .

A Montage of Research Highlights  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

VIII.	 Forensics: FatalAccidents...Their Toxicologyand Biochemistry                                                                                                      .

IX.	 The Flight Environment:Altitude, Temperature, Ozone...and Radiation                                                                                  .

X.	 Human Factors: Performance...DoingIt Right                                                                                                                                          .

XI.	 Aeromedical Education: SpatialDisorientation...and Technology Transfer                                                                              .

XII.	 SharingKnowledge...and Resources                                                                                                                                                                  .

References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Appendix:HistoricalVignettes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

A Milestone of Aeromedical Research Contributions to Civil Aviation Safety: 

The 1000th Report in the CARI/OAM Series

This is report #1000 in a series that began with the 

establishment of the (then) Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute (CARI). It is a celebration of the (now) Office 

of Aerospace Medicine and its Civil Aerospace Medical 

Institute (CAMI) in its 45th year – its dedicated personnel, its research accomplishments, and its contributions 

to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) safety 

mission. Like the other main components of the Institute – aerospace medical certification, education, and 

occupational health – the aerospace human factors and 

medical research divisions focus on the safety, health, and 

performance of the human element in the civil aviation 

system. That includes civil pilots of all types – private, 

airline, and other commercial – aircraft passengers, air 

traffic controllers, other FAA employees, and designated 

non-agency support personnel (e.g., aviation medical 

examiners). And the research includes assessments not 

just of human performance, but also of the personal and 

environmental conditions under which aviation-related 

work or outcomes occur so that unsafe outcomes can be 

avoided and desirable performance enhanced.

The incorporation of research on the human element 

within the Office of Aerospace Medicine (OAM) provides a venue that assures the FAA of a capability that 

will maintain a broad human focus. Within OAM, that 

focus is not territorially narrowed to the support of mainly 

internal medical issues but is broadened so that the agency 

has a resource to deal with the additional complex issues 

of how individuals and groups of humans perform and 

interact with equipment, environments, organizational 

structures, and other people, and how those interactions 

can be improved to enhance aviation safety and optimal 

performance. 

And for those research issues that most directly affect 

OAM, incorporation of the research capability in the 

Institute with the other major medical responsibilities of the FAA aeromedical program allows the most 

direct of interactions and ease of communication and 

data sharing. It also facilitates interactive support, e.g., 

occupational health (in addition to providing clinic services to thousands of Aeronautical Center employees), 

provides medical monitoring of the altitude chamber, 

physical examinations of subjects when required, medical support for any untoward event, and is a significant 

research presence on CAMI’s Institutional Review 

Board; the aeromedical education staff operates both the 

altitude and the environmental chambers and utilizes 

research data and innovations in their safety presentations and educational brochures. That co-location 

also stimulates research for – and from – the various 

medical specialty interests in aeromedical certification 

– whose physicians are also available for research and 

clinical support – while providing a structure for the 

most immediate application of medical findings. And 

the in-house nature of the vast majority of the research 

assures a strong cadre of scientific staff and thereby 

fosters knowledge, currency, and “bench” insights. It 

also permits the very rapid addressing of new, urgent 

problems as they arise. The reports that emanate from 

this paradigm meet the purpose of science – to document publicly the methodology, data, and conclusions 

of research and thereby permit scrutiny, evaluation, 

and replication. That process is designed to assure the 

transfer of accurate knowledge.

The first section of this report is an historical narrative that outlines the major milestones in the preCARI/CAMI history of civil aeromedical research. The 

remaining sections are primarily a visual celebration of 

the Institute, highlighting some of its many areas of 

research contributions and achievements and showing 

some of the many people who contributed to its productivity. In that spirit, some important achievements 

may be somewhat summarily noted (where obvious or 

documented in CARI/OAM reports) whereas for other 

contributions, not otherwise so documented, more detail 

may be provided. Thus, the main thrust is not a definitive history of CARI/CAMI research, per se, but rather 

a loosely historical presentation of selected accomplishments and unique individuals whose dedication – and 

sometimes prescience – made important and useful 

contributions to the agency, to aviation safety, and to 

the scientific community. 

And the sum total of those contributions, and their 

application, is not limited to the published, documented 

report findings. The contributions also live in thousands 

of additional scientific presentations, journal publications, consultations, analyses, memoranda, conferences, 

training sessions, lectures, and presentations to agency 

officials, professional aviation groups, and the public. 

It is all of those venues, in addition to support provided 

to the National Transportation Safety Board, to military 

and space programs, and to national and international 

organizations seeking to improve aviation safety, that 

comprise the Institute’s scientific enterprise. q

Preface







A Brief Early History of Aeromedical 

Research In the FAA

The beginnings of aeromedical research in what is now 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are sometimes 

associated with the creation of the Civil Aeromedical 

Research Institute (CARI - later CAMI) at the (Mike 

Monroney) Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City. That 

association reflects in part the relatively sudden emergence 

and size of the enterprise at that time, including the 

construction of a unique edifice, designed by researchers 

from various scientific fields, and built specifically for 

aeromedical research across multiple specialties. Indeed, 

the creation of CARI did signal a marked change in 

the FAA’s aeromedical research programs — significant 

increases in scope, funding, personnel, visibility, and 

responsibility. However, the aeromedical office of the 

FAA had a long, tortuous, and tenuous prior history 

of attempting to establish aeromedical research. That 

history, culled extensively from the work of Heber A. 

Holbrook (29), is summarized below. Underlying all of 

the sporadic early attempts to make civil aeromedical 

research a reality is the fact that aeromedical directors 

were faced with a variety of difficult medical, political, 

funding, and priority issues through the decades. Those 

various elements, not addressed here, are presented in 

detail by Holbrook (29) and Lopez (35).

Aeromedical Beginnings

In 1926, Louis H. Bauer, M.D., was appointed the 

first medical director of aeronautics within the Aeronautics Branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. That 

appointment in the Air Regulations Division followed 

the enactment of the 1926 Air Commerce Act, which 

defined the U.S. government’s responsibilities regarding civil aviation. Dr. Bauer was succeeded by Harold J. 

Cooper, M.D., in 1930, by Raymond F. Longacre, M.D. 

in 1931, and by Roy E. Whitehead, M.D., in 1933. It 

was during Dr. Whitehead’s tenure that the Aeronautical 

Branch became the Bureau of Aeronautics (1934) in the 

Department of Commerce and government sponsored 

medical research began in civil aviation. That beginning 

took the form of a research project on oxygen deprivation 

at flight altitudes up to 22,000 feet in a simulator at the 

U.S. National Bureau of Standards (NBS), conducted 

jointly by Dr. Whitehead and NBS scientist James C. 

Edgerton (29). 

The First Aeromedical Research Facility

In 1937, Eldridge S. Adams, M.D., succeeded Dr. 

Whitehead as medical director of aeronautics, serving 

until 1940. During his term, the Bureau of Commerce 

formed a new Safety and Planning Division (1937) that 

included research and development responsibilities and 

hired Wade Hampton Miller, M.D., as the government’s 

first civil aviation medical research director — a position 

independent of Dr. Adams. 

In 1938 the Medical Science Station – the first federal 

aviation medical research facility — began operation in 

Kansas City, Missouri with a main focus on Dr. Miller’s 

specialty interest – airline pilot fatigue — as well as the 

effects of hypoxia and “more applicable” physical standards for all civilian pilots. The facility included a Link 

trainer, equipment to support simulated altitude studies, 

and medical examination equipment. Also in 1938, Dr. 

Miller negotiated the first federal aviation medical research 

contracts with Harvard University (the Harvard Fatigue 

Laboratory), Dartmouth University, and the University 

of Pennsylvania (29). 

A Short Life

However, a confluence of political issues led to the 

closing of the Medical Science Station in mid 1940. Part 

of that confluence was the creation of an independent 

Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) by the 1938 Civil 

Aeronautics Act, which, among a variety of other changes, 

split medical responsibility into research and operations, with separate reporting heads. That circumstance 

lasted until 1940 when the CAA was placed back into 

the Department of Commerce as the Civil Aeronautics 

Administration (still CAA) with medical services combined under one Director – William R. Stovall, M.D., 

who replaced Dr. Adams and held the position for the 

next 17 years. The medical section (within the Certificate 

and Inspection Division of the Bureau of Safety Regulation) was nominally elevated in 1941 to the status of an 

aviation medical division, still, however, reporting to the 

director of safety regulation who reported to the CAA 

Administrator (29).



A New Research Start

In early 1941, the CAA Standardization Center – a 

training site for CAA field inspectors – opened in Houston, Texas. Seeing it as the potential site of a future CAA 

medical center, Dr. Stovall modeled a plan similar to the 

short-lived Medical Science Station in Kansas City and 

referred to it as the Houston Medical Center. Although 

the proposed medical facility seemed to gain favor with 

the CAA Administrator, the outbreak of WWII resulted 

in the conversion of the Standardization Center into 

a training facility for army ferry command pilots and 

precluded expansion of the medical concept (29).

In early February 1943, Dr. Stovall submitted a postwar 

plan to the CAA Administrator that included an aeromedical research facility at the Standardization Center 

or, alternatively, on a university campus. In anticipation 

of postwar needs, the CAA reorganized in 1945 with the 

medical function in Washington renamed as the Aviation 

Medical Service (29). Then in 1946, the CAA Standardization Center was moved from Houston to Oklahoma 

City as the CAA Aeronautical Center. 

While Holbrook (29) gives no rationale for the move 

(although he alludes to some later political fall-out), a 

1949 Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce publication 

(1) attributed the choice of location to the Aeronautical 

Center’s “central geographic location in the United States 

which serves to reduce cost and time in the movement 

of CAA personnel and equipment, ... the excellent yearround flying conditions here, and ... the availability of 

suitable facilities which were formerly a part of the Army 

Air Base located on Will Rogers field”...A 1965 organizational survey of the Aeronautical Center included a history 

section that noted: “...The CAA Standardization Center 

at Houston was compelled to give up its facilities (caused 

by the returning National Guard) and the Administrator 

sought a central location at which to build a major civil 

aeronautical base. He decided upon Will Rogers Field at 

Oklahoma City, for reasons of good flying weather, aviation environment, and an enterprising offer by Oklahoma 

City officials to construct a modern physical plant to house 

such CAA organizations as would constitute the new CAA 

Aeronautical Center” (18). With respect to the latter, an 

FAA Historical Chronology item dated March 15, 1946, 

notes the move and concludes with “... Oklahoma City 

agreed to build an administrative building and two new 

hangers for CAA use” (47). Whatever the motivations, 

the CAA Administrator defined the Aeronautical Center 

as including an aviation medical research component 

among its six entities. 

Thus, the “Aviation Medical Development Center” became part of the Aeronautical Center via CAA 

Administrative Order no. 57, August 2, 1946, but was 

unfunded and, in 1947 (until 1953), was renamed the 

Aviation Medical Branch (29). The branch was situated 

within the Aeronautical Center’s Aviation Safety Standardization Division (18). Although a part of the Aeronautical 

Center, the medical research program received its guidance 

from CAA Headquarters where physiologist Barry G. 

King, Ph.D., had been designated (in 1947) as “Research 

Executive” for the Aviation Medical Service (29).

A Tentative Foothold

In October 1947, John J. Swearingen joined the 

Aviation Medical Branch as its senior scientist (29). 

Previously, in March 1947, Dr. Stovall had informed 

Early Impact. Swearingen in early tests of seat belts and 

seat harnesses and their capability to protect during crashes.

the CAA Director of Safety Regulation of the need to 

conduct scientific research on seats, safety belts, shoulder 

harnesses, and weight loads based on structural failures 

in several recent air carrier accidents. Swearingen, with 

prior U.S. Navy experience as a biomedical human factors scientist, was brought on board to conduct this type 

of research. However, research funding was a continuing 
10

problem (both secretarial and administrative support 

were obtained from other Aeronautical Center branches) 

(28) and, although they were able to convert a former 

Army barracks building to an “Aeromedical Laboratory 

Altitude Chamber” (17), the ingenuity of the small team 

was regularly tested (allowing them to demonstrate skills 

that remained apparent in subsequent years) in their effective “make-do” solutions to research approaches. While 

the Aviation Medical Branch was defined as a research 

function, Swearingen established, within the small (2- or 

3-person) branch, a laboratory as, at least nominally, a 

separate entity. As early as 1948, in a joint publication 

with Dr. King in the Journal of Aviation Medicine (31), 

Swearingen’s affiliation was listed as the “Civil Aviation 

Medical Research Laboratories” (CAMRL). While he used 

this title quite regularly (at least once varying “Laboratory” 

with “Laboratories” [37]) to identify his organization in 

the text of formal reports (e.g., 53, 54, 55), the covers of 

those CAA reports regularly cited the origin of the work 

as the “Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Laboratory” 

at the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City (see also 

23), despite the fact that the official organizational title 

“Aviation Medical Branch” was, according to Holbrook 

You could learn a lot from a ... 

A significant early Swearingen contribution was the development and use of articulated, anthropomorphic and (later) 

instrumented dummies – his were the first (Oscar (l) in 1949 and Elmer (r) in 1950) constructed for crash injury survival 

work. Both had joint articulation, calculated body and segment weight and centers of gravity, vertebral articulation, and 

some muscle resistance. Elmer also had a flexible torso and adjustable “muscle” tension in the spine. The dummies were used 

in hundreds of tests at CAMRL, Beech Aircraft, and the Air Force, and by the Atomic Energy Commission in A-bomb testing. 

Elmer can be considered the progenitor of modern anthropomorphic dummies.

Drop Tower. Swearingen used this vertical 

deceleration device (located in the Ohio State 

University football stadium) to test the effects 

of vertical impacts on spinal compression 

(assessed by spinal cord x-rays). Swearingen 

used himself as a subject for some of these 

tests as well as for wind blast tests and rapid 

decompressions.
11

(1) John J. Swearingen, CAMRL, (2) Richard L. Meiling, M.D., Associate Dean of the College of Medicine, Director of Research and Education, Ohio State University, (3) Barry G. King, Ph.D., Research Executive, CAA Aviation Medical Service, (4) Earl T. Carter, M.D., OSU aviation medicine residency program, (5) William R. Stovall, M.D., CAA Aviation Medical Director, (6) J.D. Garner, CAMRL, (7) Ernest B. McFadden, CAMRL, (8) John G. Blethrow, CAMRL, (9) Kenneth E. Dowd, M.D., immediate past-president, Aero Medical Association, (10) Harry W. Orlady, Captain, United Airlines (first chairman of the medical committee of the Air Line Pilots Association).







 





  

Ohio State University: Annual Postgraduate Course in Aviation Medicine, 1956 (3, 7, 28, 40). 
12

(29), retained until 1953 and the Aeronautical Center’s 

Beacon magazine (51) referred to the Aviation Medical 

Branch in its reporting of research activities.

In July 1953, the CAA moved the medical research 

function to Columbus, Ohio, where (although Holbrook 

(29) mistakenly refers to the name as the Civil Aeromedical Research Laboratory) it was formally designated 

as the Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Laboratory 

– CAMRL (5, 47). That designation appears to have 

been primarily a title change in the official organizational 

chart since, prior to 1953, as noted above, the covers of 

the Aeronautical Center research reports all had used the 

CAMRL designation. 

In Ohio, CAMRL was affiliated with the Ohio State 

University Medical School as part of that university’s 

established plan for a wider-ranging “Institute of Civil 

Aviation Medicine” — a development for which Benford 

(2) assigned a primary role to Dr. Stovall. The University’s 

plan was to “conduct research and provide a program 

of aviation medical education and training for civilian 

physicians and research investigators as a long-term and 

continuing activity to develop the technical manpower 

essential for the adequate support of civil aviation.” There, 

Holbrook (29) indicates, Swearingen, J.D. Garner, Ernest 

B. McFadden, and Peter J. Sutro established a program 

comprising five research areas (sudden decompression 

effects on passengers, emergency oxygen administration, emergency aircraft evacuation, cockpit visibility 

A Strong Start. Garner began his CAA research career 

in Washington, D.C. working with John Smith, M.D., then 

head of the CAA medical standards branch, on ballistocardiographic research. That research was continued when he 

moved to Ohio State University to join CAMRL but was 

soon followed by his involvement in other projects. A seated 

Garner recorded sitting area measurements reported by Jack 

Blethrow and is shown testing the adhesive properties of an 

early model oxygen mask.

and collision avoidance, and pilot fatigue) and began a 

series of injury studies “which extending over the next 

two decades would continue to form the basis for aircraft seating configurations for emergency evacuations, 

exit and window size and design, and human tolerances 

to impact forces.” However, federal funding was very 

limited — as it had been in Oklahoma City — and 

in June 1958, “prompted by political maneuvering,” 

according to Holbrook (29), the CAA Administrator, 

James T. Pyle, moved CAMRL back to the Aeronautical 

Center in Oklahoma City (47). Lopez (35, an attorney 

in the Medical Standards Division) authored an aviation 

medicine history for the Civil Air Surgeon in 1959 and 

attributed the move (with some apparent dissatisfaction) 

to the efforts of Roy Keely, the CAA director of flight 

operations and airworthiness, who worked “incessantly” 

— and, if so, successfully — for the return of CAMRL 

to the Aeronautical Center.
1

Congress Provides a Foundation

Meanwhile, in 1956, legislation had been introduced 

in the Senate and the House to modify the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 to define “civil aviation medicine” 

(the “Civil Aviation Medical Act of 1956”). It was neither 

sponsored nor supported by the CAA — and failed. The 

bill, which would have created both an Office of Civil 

Aviation Medicine directed by a “Civil Air Surgeon” and 

a medical facility — a Civil Aeronautics Medical Institute 

(CAMI!) — was reintroduced the following year. Hearings 

were held by Oklahoma Senator Mike Monroney but 

the bill (the “Civil Aviation Medicine Bill”) languished 

in committee. Shortly thereafter, Senator Monroney 

began work on the bill that was to become, in August 

1958, the “Federal Aviation Act of 1958” — to create 

an independent federal agency. In the meantime, during 

January, Dr. Stovall had resigned for health reasons as CAA 

medical director; his deputy, John E. Smith, M.D., had 

been made acting medical director. The Federal Aviation 

Agency began operation on December 31, 1958 (29).

CARI Takes Form

As part of the organizational changes that followed the 

FAA Act of 1958, an Office of the Civil Air Surgeon was 

established (to become the Bureau of Aviation Medicine, 

independent of the CAA, in 1960; the Aviation Medical 

Service in 1961; and the Office of Aviation Medicine in 

1963). Dr. Smith served as acting Civil Air Surgeon until 

July 1959 when James L. Goddard, M.D., an officer in 

the Public Health Service, was appointed; Dr. Goddard 

named Dr. Smith as Chief of the Research Requirements 

Division (29). 

On October 31, 1959, the FAA announced plans for 

a Civil Aeromedical Research Center to be established 

at the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City (5). 

Shortly thereafter, Robert T. Clark, Ph.D., a scientist 

from the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Aerospace Medical 

Center in San Antonio, Texas, was appointed by Dr. 

Goddard as the research chief and deputy director of 

the research function; by December, he was in Oklahoma City where he joined other early staff members 

of the nascent facility (30); they were initially housed 

on the second floor of Hangar 8 at the Aeronautical 

Center (9, 30). 

Included in the new organization was the CAMRL 

contingent, that had relocated from Ohio to barracks 

buildings that had comprised the World War II Naval Air 

Technical Training Center in Norman, Oklahoma (21). 

Although Holbrook (29) indicates that here CAMRL 

took the title of “Aeromedical Research Institute (ARI),” 

it appears that the laboratory continued to be referred 

to as CAMRL (50) — or even as the Civil Aeronautical (vs. Aeronautics) Medical Research Laboratory (37) 

into early 1959, despite the change from CAA to FAA. 

Later, in a 1959 publication, McFadden, Swearingen, 

and Wheelwright (38) referred to their organization by 

the title Swearingen tended to use during his first stay at 

the Aeronautical Center — the Civil Aviation Medical 

Research Laboratory. 

In November 1959, consistent with the FAA announcement a month earlier, the Aeronautical Center’s Beacon 

publication (20) referred to the (short-lived title) Civil 

Aeromedical Research Center citing the same Aeronautical 

Center routing symbol (AC-266) as had been used previously in the Aeronautical Center’s phone directories for 

September 1958 (9) and March 1959 (19) to designate 

either the “Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Lab” or 

Swearingen’s preferred “Civil Aviation Medical Research 

Lab.” By whatever prior name, Swearingen’s protection 

and survival laboratory was the established core of the 

new Institute.

By February 1960, a group of researchers recruited from 

the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine had arrived (30); 

others soon followed. In May 1960, the growing group 

moved to Norman, Oklahoma, to the unoccupied World 

War II Navy buildings on the University of Oklahoma’s 

North Campus (22, 30). A June 1, 1960 memorandum 

from FAA Administrator Elwood P. Quesada (48) to the 

Aeronautical Center authorized the negotiation for aeromedical space to comprise 133,000 sq. ft. split between 

two buildings (the smaller one, essentially the protection 

and survival laboratory, to be located near the flight line.) 

A subsequent memorandum from Administrator Quesada 

(49), dated July 28, 1960, changed the requirement to a 

single, larger building (146,000 sq. ft.). 

Only Temporary. Swearingen’s relocated team occupied 

this large, former U.S. Navy gymnasium on the north campus 

of the University of Oklahoma until the CARI building 

opened. Similarly, other CARI recruits temporarily occupied 

adjacent barracks-type buildings.
1

Also in July, Hillard E. Estes, M.D., from the 

Lovelace Foundation, was appointed (and succeeded 

by Stanley R. Mohler, M.D., in August 1961) as director of the Oklahoma City medical facility, which 

had been renamed the Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute — CARI. That change (from “Center” to 

“Institute”) occurred no later than February 1960, 

based on references to CARI in a “projected growth 

at the Aeronautical Center” document (41) and in 

an Aeronautical Center Beacon magazine (21), both 

dated that February. The basis for the change was “to 

avoid confusion of two ‘centers’ at one location” (24). 

Despite all of this activity, remarkably, CARI was not 

formally created as an organization of the Bureau of 

Aviation Medicine until August 15, 1960, by Bureau 

of Aviation Medicine Order No. 60-2 (29).

Meanwhile, locations at the Aeronautical Center 

had been identified in 1959 for the new facility and 

design plans had been developed with primary input 

from the early research scientists. The size and major 

facilities of the building were approved by August 

1960. However, the Airport Trust apparently constructed the building according to the plans submitted 

by the scientists. That approach resulted in a facility 

comprising 226,141 sq. ft. when completed (40, 45) 

instead of the 146,000 sq. ft. cited in Administrator 

Quesada’s authorization letter. The move from the 

Norman barracks buildings to the Aeronautical Center 

was accomplished in October 1962 when the elegant 

new CARI building opened.

A World Class Facility. The CARI building (l) when it opened in 1962 and its setting in circa 1980 (r) after its renaming 

and other Aeronautical Center developments.

The speed and efficiency with which the CARI facility 

moved from concept to operation is attributable primarily to the fact that it was privately constructed — by the 

Oklahoma City Airport Trust. The Trust rented it to the 

FAA for a 25-year period, at the end of which time the 

cost of the building was totally paid; subsequent costs 

were for maintenance and improvements.

From CARI to CAMI

More detailed information regarding early developments

within the Institute can be found in Holbrook (29)and 

in several historical vignettes published as an appendix to 

this report. For purposes of this brief history, it is necessary 

only to indicate that, in 1965, the Institute’s organizational 

scope and structure were enlarged and, on October 1 of 

that year, it was renamed the Civil Aeromedical Institute 

— CAMI (29). The organizational changes resulted in all 

of the research laboratories that originally comprised CARI 

being designated as an aeromedical research branch along 

with aeromedical certification, aeromedical education, and 

a medical clinic branch that included national industrial 

hygiene responsibilities (17). In 1987, the aviation psychology laboratory acquired separate branch status (from the 

Aeromedical Research Branch) as the Human Resources 

Research Branch and became the Human Factors Research 

Division in 2002 (all of CAMI's branches were elevated 

to division status in 1998). In 2001, CAMI’s mission was 

expanded to incorporate commercial space transportation 

and its name was changed (on May 24, 2001) to the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute (still CAMI by acronym) 

along with the change in function and name of its parent 

organization — from the Office of Aviation Medicine to 

the Office of Aerospace Medicine (25). q
15

The Swearingen Legacy ... Continuity and Direct Applications

While officially the second CARI report (the first in 

1962), the study of sitting areas and pressures by John J. 

Swearingen et al. represented one aspect of a line of safety 

research that Swearingen had been conducting for 15 

years with a small total staff of 1 to 4 associates (and an 

occasional collaborator) in his underfunded (and variously 

named) Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Laboratory. 

Some of that work from the late ‘40s to the late ‘50s 

was captured in a black-and-white motion picture film 

that was donated in year 2000 to the Smithsonian Air 

and Space Museum; a CD copy of the film is available 

from the CAMI library (52). The new CARI structure 

incorporating his protection and survival laboratory 

provided Swearingen with greater opportunities, funding, 

and support to pursue his research programs – a part of 

which came to be termed “cockpit delethalization.” In 

addition to formally published reports, Swearingen, his 

team, and their successors conducted numerous unpublished studies at the request of agency representatives and 

safety groups. They interacted closely with industry and 

the agency to define safety shortcomings and support 

safety improvements.

For the Least Able. John Swearingen, measuring the center of gravity for children.

Not Just for Comfort. Sitting pressures and 

areas on seats have an influence on seat design 

for safety, prevention of fatigue, and as a base for 

control movements.
16

Early Impact Research

Swearingen’s crash research tended to emphasize general 

aviation aircraft cockpits, although it included commercial 

cockpits and cabin interiors. That research was rooted in 

a program of accident investigation supplemented by the 

laboratory use of dashboards from crashed automobiles 

(in which the front seat passenger had been injured) and 

fuselage sections from crashed aircraft. Swearingen and 

his team subjected the dashboards to analyses based on 

the medical records of those injured in the accidents. He 

then secured undamaged dashboards from similar junked 

cars and worked at simulating the damage using instrumented dummy heads on a sled-catapult device he had 

constructed. Based on about 1,000 tests during a 3-year 

period, he determined the impact forces that could be 

tolerated by the head and face. He then sought force-absorbing materials and padding that could be used in the 

dashboards and fuselage sections to reduce injuries. 

Swearingen extended the impact work using CAMI’s 

2-rail track to include the head and face injury potential 

of then-current airline seats. He also noted that some 

passenger injuries resulted because their seats came loose 

from the floor, a circumstance that was sometimes assisted 

by the forces applied when a seat was involuntarily kicked 

by the flailing legs of a passenger seated behind it.

The use of existing data regarding injury due to impacts 

was not limited to Swearingen’s accident investigations. 

The laboratory’s Richard G. Snyder, Ph.D., collected 

reports on a national basis about people who suffered 

Damage Control. Many of Swearingen’s early tests 

used fuselages like this one to determine where (and what) 

protective materials might best be located.

Eggs-actly. This demonstration at a booth 

during a safety exposition in 1967 provided a 

directly observable indication of the importance of 

CAMI programs researching materials that would 

provide more protective surrounds in aircraft (and 

automobiles). Harry L. Gibbons, M.D., research 

branch chief, dropped fresh eggs from his position 

on the ladder, while Swearingen dropped an egg 

from shoulder height, onto a section of material 

that Swearingen was assessing in crash studies. The 

material cushioned the “blow” from the falling eggs so 

that none of them broke.

significant free fall impacts (often from both successful 

and unsuccessful suicide attempts) and analyzed those 

reports for clues to survival. In addition, in collaboration with another CAMI anthropologist, Clyde C. Snow, 

Ph.D., Snyder conducted primate studies of impact 

injuries in pregnancy, from restraint system trauma, 

and from backward vs. forward facing vs. lateral body 

orientations with a lap belt restraint to develop criteria 

for protecting aircraft occupants. Those protection and 

survival studies were conducted during the mid-1960’s 

at Holloman Air Force Base, using the U.S. Air Force’s 

Daisy Decelerator. The Holloman AFB division chief 

in charge of the conduct of those tests was Richard F. 

Chandler (8). While that occasion was Chandler’s first 

contact with CAMI, he would later join the Institute and 

subsequently succeed Swearingen.
1

Measuring Success. Anthropometric measurements 

recorded by Swearingen were important elements in his 

efforts to protect aircraft occupants.

Explosive Decompression. An early 

study by Swearingen used Elmer – and 

a doll – to assess the effects of a rapid 

decompression from a blown-out window 

in an altitude chamber. Swearingen’s 

recommendations related to window size, 

use of double panes, and an increased 

distance of the passenger from the window. 

In developing his recommendations, 

Swearingen exposed himself to a number of 

rapid decompressions.

Cutting a Wide Swath

From the start-up in the late 40s to the establishment 

of CARI, Swearingen successfully guided the tiny civil 

aeromedical research function through a trying period of 

more than a dozen years. That period involved two major 

(and one lesser) geographic moves and a consistent shortage of resources. Despite those difficulties, Swearingen and 

his small team successfully explored injury-reducing and 

life-saving solutions for general aviation and commercial 

aircraft. With the advent of CARI, he was able to build 

on that team and assembled and managed a skilled and 

productive staff dedicated to aviation safety research. 

During those periods and until his retirement in 1972, 

Swearingen’s own studies ranged from recording (and 

using) basic information on bodily centers of gravity at 

different life stages to exploring the effects of sudden 

decompressions on himself and on dummies situated 

next to various-sized windows (which led to his recommendation that windows be double-paned) in addition 

to his crash-injury investigations. He pioneered in studies 

of voluntary human tolerance to vertical impact, human 

strength requirements for operation of aircraft controls, 

and release mechanisms for emergency exits and doors, 

and in developing recommendations for reducing or 

preventing injuries from rapid decompressions. He 

designed a test device that allowed him to measure the 

range of motion for seated passengers wearing a safety 

belt, defined seat load distributions, developed maps of 

impact tolerance for the human face, and assessed the 

protective performance of instrument panels when they 

were subjected to crash loads. With collaborator Ernest 

B. McFadden, he developed and was awarded two patents 

(nos. 2,809,633, and 2,921,581) which described an 

adhesive oxygen mask and the drop-down mechanism 

to present the mask during decompression.

Successful Succession

When biologist Swearingen retired in 1972, he was 

succeeded by engineer Chandler who continued the 

established safety research thrusts as head of the protection and survival laboratory and brought to the research 

program his own special skills and perspectives. While 

Chandler is best known for impact-related work and the 

dynamic evaluation of aircraft seat and restraint systems, 

he, like his predecessor, involved himself in a variety of 

projects in other areas of research (e.g., the maximal 

control force capability of female pilots, issues related to 

the use of canes by blind passengers in aircraft cabins, 

and the development of appropriate dummies for impact 

testing). The protection and survival laboratory was in 

good hands. 
1

CARI’s First Report ... An Enduring Direction

The Beginning

CARI’s first report – the only one published in 1961 

– involved close cooperation with the FAA Academy and 

its entrants into the air traffic control specialist (ATCS) 

training program. That report began the Institute’s research programs, initiated by David K. Trites, Ph.D., on 

developing and validating tests for selecting ATCS trainees 

and on assessing Academy training and its measures as 

predictors of trainee success – an involvement that continues to date. Training–performance criteria for ATC 

students in the tower, center, and flight service options 

were also the subject of one of the first two CARI research 

contracts (the other was a vestibular investigation) with 

organizational elements of the University of Oklahoma; 

both contracts were completed in 1964 (6, 39).

Note that CARI/CAMI tests comprised the official 

Office of Personnel Management selection battery (and 

later also included a CAMI-developed Occupational 

Knowledge Test). Passing that battery was required for 

eligibility to be considered for an ATC trainee slot; the 

ranking of successful candidates depended upon their 

test scores, education, and experience.

During most of the first two decades of CARI/CAMI’s 

selection and training research, Bart B. Cobb was a driving 

force. He was frequently consulted by Washington Headquarters groups in the offices of air traffic and personnel 

for the information and special analyses of pertinent data 

that he provided by numerous letters and memoranda as 

well as his formal CARI/OAM reports.

In addition to developing new tests and scoring 

schema, effects of age, education, gender, priorexperience, 

First Hand. Bart Cobb (l) and CAMI director J. Robert. 

Dille, M.D., (r) during an air traffic control tower visit to 

directly observe ATC procedures.

Culture Changes. Recently-arrived FAA Academy 

students provided demographics and took CAMI tests of new 

items designed to improve future selection criteria. Cultural 

changes are evident in student make-up (top to bottom: ca. 

1965, 1977, ca. 1983).
1

personality, potential test bias, and others have been 

researched through the years by Cobb and his psychologist successors – Drs. Mary A. Lewis, James O. Boone, 

Alan D. VanDeventer, Carol A. Manning, Pamela S. 

Della Rocco, Dana M. Broach, and Raymond King – a 

grouping that suggests the increased size of the air traffic controller programmatic research effort. The agency 

has been provided through the decades with criteria for 

the best candidates with the best chance to succeed and 

with updated selection and training criteria that are fair, 

reliable, valid, and cost effective. Updating refers not 

only to the advances in ATC systems that might change 

aptitudes and abilities required for success, but also to 

the delivery systems for assessing skills necessary for job 

performance and to the cultural changes that affect what 

applicants bring to the job. Included in that updating is 

another area that receives CAMI attention, primarily by 

David J. Schroeder, Ph.D., – viz., the assessment of varied 

approaches to defining personality-related elements as they 

relate to success in air traffic control work (including a 

continuation of the work of Roger C. Smith, Ph.D., on 

perceived stress and on “burnout”).

The Academy’s new RTF. Boone (top) during tests of 

“ghost pilot” demands for staffing the Academy’s new Radar 

Training Facility (bottom).

The Academy. Air traffic control classes in the 1960s (l) and the 1980s (r).

Analysis. Manning reviewing air traffic student data for a 

briefing on the Academy program to Washington officials.
20

The Academy

CAMI has also provided the FAA Academy with additional scientific support. Beginning in 1976, CAMI’s 

relationship with the Academy became formalized in 

conjunction with a new pass/fail program. CAMI began to 

conduct analyses of various proposed selection and training scenarios and, at the request of the Academy, to brief 

visiting Washington officials as an “independent analyst” 

on statistical aspects of the air traffic program. And when 

support personnel were needed to operate the manual 

controller, remote, and three “ghost pilot” positions for 

each radar training sector of a new radar training facility 

constructed at the Aeronautical Center in 1980, Boone 

undertook studies to assess the training time and error 

rates of ATCS trainees, community persons, and physically 

handicapped persons. Results indicated that handicapped 

and community persons could perform effectively at the 

“ghost pilot” positions and recommendations that they 

be hired to do so were accepted. Another Boone study, 

conducted at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, 

compared over-the-shoulder vs. computer-derived measures 

of student performance on the RTF and found better 

outcomes with the computer measures.

Maintaining State of the Art

With the aim of reducing the time required to establish 

trainee success or failure (several weeks of class work followed 

by simulated air traffic control in an Academy laboratory), 

a computerized pre-training screen (PTS) was developed. 

The PTS was used for about 3 years in the early ‘90s to hire 

1800 trainees and reduced success/failure screening time 

from 9-12 weeks to five days. That screen was followed by 

development of the AT-SAT, a computerized aptitude test 

battery currently in use. The AT-SAT (Air Traffic Selection 

and Testing) battery was the product of a CAMI-AcademyAir Traffic collaboration with contractors and university 

experts; Della Rocco headed the CAMI effort that included 

participation in the validation of the battery with more 

than 1,000 en route field controllers. The AT-SAT replaces 

the written OPM test and provides a pre-training screen as 

well; testing/screening is accomplished in a single day. That 

improved efficiency (along with a retirement model prepared 

by Broach to identify future training requirements) will be 

significant in the plans and procedures being developed by 

the FAA to recruit and train a large, new group of controllers. 

The new group will be required to replace the controllers 

hired during the strike recovery period in the early 1980s, 

as the latter become eligible for retirement. Moreover, new 

technologies and procedures require constant re-evaluation 

of the defined knowledge, skills, and abilities for success 

in the air traffic controller occupation to assure safety in 

tomorrow’s national air space system. Related recent work 

has been conducted on completing job-task analyses for 

airway facility specialists and for computer specialists in 

the air traffic service. q

AT-SAT At Last. Della Rocco and Manning displayed 

the first poster announcing the new test battery for air 

traffic controllers. Both were formally acknowledged for 

contributions toward success of the 4-year project with 

special recognition of Della Rocco by the AT-SAT Executive 

Steering Committee for her service as the scientific/technical 

representative, defining test validation requirements, and 

contributing to decision making on the scientific approach.

Documenting Outcomes. Della Rocco (l) provided 

analyses of Academy student outcomes to Dallas-Ft. Worth air 

traffic manager Joseph Kisicki and Britain’s David Hopkin, 

an internationally noted expert on air traffic control work.

D.C. Discourse. Broach providing a briefing in Washington 

headquarters on conceptual relationships in air traffic 

controller selection.
21

Aeromedical Certification ... and Health

The Priority Function

The top priority of the Office of Aerospace Medicine 

and of CAMI is not research but the recurrent aeromedical 

certification of all of the country’s civilian pilots. However, 

the co-location of the research enterprise with the certification function encourages research from both entities. 

Some studies have described the performance effectiveness 

of aviation medical examiners; others defined disease 

prevalence and incidence among pilot populations; still 

others compared medical status variables among accident 

vs. nonaccident airmen. 

From the certification staff, Charles F. Booze, Ph.D., 

was pre-eminent for more than two decades in tapping the 

extensive certification database and reporting his findings 

on a variety of certification topics. Similarly, beginning 

in the mid ‘70s, Shirley J. Dark initiated a series of studies on characteristics of medically disqualified airmen in 

general and air line pilots in particular. 

Early Laboratory Research

 Very early biodynamic studies by Bruno Balke, Ph.D., 

assessed work capacity, cardiorespiratory capacity, and 

physiological aging issues. That work led to research by 

Michael T. Lategola, Ph.D., on the early identification 

of coronary heart disease and physical fitness regimens 

that would help pilots who had experienced myocardial 

infarctions to restore their cardiovascular functioning so 

that they might regain their medical certificates. Other 

work by Lategola included the near term effects on psychomotor performance and physiological functions of 

physical exertion, of crash dieting, and of blood donations 

in conjunction with simulated altitude exposures.

Vision: A Major Research Issue

Studies from the research divisions have used certification data to develop profiles of pilots with regard 

to types of visual correction (contact lens use, aphakia, 

Medical Exchange. (upper) J. Robert Dille, M.D., CAMI 

director (l), a frequent research collaborator with Booze 

(seated), discussed certification data with two Russian 

Aeroflot visitors in 1978. A.W. Davis, M.D., (r) headed 

aeromedical certification. (lower) Shirley Dark explaining 

a new certification subsystem for medical data. Federal Air 

Surgeon Jon L. Jordan, M.D., is 2nd from left.

Data, Data, Data. Charles Holmes in one 

of the many older racks of certification data 

files. A state-of-the-art electronic certification 

records system is now in place for immediate 

informational access.
22

radial keratotomy, radial keratectomy), and to develop 

tests, procedures, and data (e.g., on the x-chrom lens) to 

assist in aeromedical decision-making for pilots and air 

traffic controllers. These studies, conducted by Kenneth 

W. Welsh, O.D., and Van B. Nakagawara, O.D., have 

relevance to the fact that optimum vision is essential for 

pilots not just for detecting other airborne traffic and reading the instrument panel, but also for visual detection on 

the runway and taxiway and for reading maps and other 

printed material. Thus, Nakagawara has analyzed the 

influence on aviation safety of various types of refractive 

corrections and surgeries as well as assessing the influence 

of laser light exposure on pilots’ vision and performance. 

In further support of the certification process, Henry W. 

Mertens, Ph.D., conducted studies validating clinical tests 

of color vision in predicting responses to practical tests, 

devising updated criteria for clinical assessments of color 

vision capability, and developing improved practical tests. 

Since the ability to distinguish colors has significance 

for both pilots and air traffic controllers, color vision is 

a component of their periodic medical examinations. 

Mertens’ studies with Nelda T. Milburn, Ph.D., included 

validating cut-off scores on pseudoischromatic plate tests 

and other instruments, including the signal light gun, and 

the development of new practical tests for the air traffic 

controller occupation.

Noise and Hearing

 Studies of the hearing profiles for aviation personnel 

and of cockpit and cabin noise exposures (to assess the 

risks of hearing loss based on exposure) were conducted 

by researcher Jerry V. Tobias, Ph.D., along with preventive 

guidelines and ratings of various types of ear protection. 

Cockpit noise intensities were determined in a variety of 

Basic Support. Balke’s work capacity studies and Lategola’s tilt-table tests supported certification goals.

Seeing It All. (above) Nakagawara checking visual acuity; (r) color vision testing for a study by Mertens.
2

single and twin-engine aircraft to determine exposure-risk 

levels for hearing loss. And groups of aircrew personnel 

were tested to determine auditory profiles associated 

with their flight history. Recommendations for hearing 

conservation by use of earplugs were accompanied by 

tests and ratings of the effectiveness of a variety of ear 

protectors. 

Head Trauma

During the ‘90s a government/academia contract 

team headed by Jerry R. Hordinsky, M.D., engaged 

in a competitive developmental effort to produce a 

sensitive screening battery specific to mild cognitive 

deficiencies – deficiencies that would be sufficient 

to potentially impair skill and aviation performance. 

From the viewpoint of aeromedical certification 

such a tool could be used to ascertain damage and 

to provide an objective (and relatively inexpensive) 

assessment for determining sufficient recovery from 

head trauma or brain disease to consider reinstatement of a pilot’s withdrawn medical certificate. The 

Georgetown University model, called COGSCREEN, 

was the result of that effort. The value of the test not 

only for aeromedical certification purposes but also 

for assessments of persons in a variety of occupations 

which require highly skilled cognitive capabilities is 

attested to by the patenting and commercialization of 

the test by Georgetown University; it thus represents 

another successful transfer of technology. q

Criterion Setting. (above) Nakagawara conducted retinal sensitivity tests under 

mild hypoxia in the altitude chamber. (r) Mertens used an air traffic control tower 

signal light gun in developing medical certification criteria for color vision tests. 

Cogscreen. (r) The final touches being applied to the new 

cognitive test at CAMI. 

Noise and Speech. Tobias measured speech intelligibility and noise-based 

hearing loss © 1970, The Oklahoma Publishing Company.
2

With the establishment of the Protection and Survival 

Laboratory in CARI, John Swearingen’s small team from 

CAA days was increased and its capabilities expanded. The 

driving forces during the 1960s and ‘70s for areas other than 

the research by Swearingen were Richard F. Chandler, who 

became laboratory chief and CAMI’s researcher for crash 

injury protection, J. D. Garner, who specialized in emergency 

evacuation issues, and Ernest B. McFadden, whose forte 

became oxygen equipment and flotation devices. It would 

be difficult to overestimate the significance of the contributions of all these men. Chandler significantly extended the 

testing of child seats including the development and use 

of scientifically adequate child dummies (until then, even 

automobile crash studies used dolls). He also evaluated a 

number of seat restraint systems for general aviation aircraft 

as well as an energy absorbing steering column technology 

for possible application to aircraft controls. Garner and 

McFadden, in addition to their specialty areas, had regularly 

worked together as a team in addressing survival of flight 

crews and passengers in commercial aircraft. They had tested 

smoke hoods and had begun assessing computer simulation of emergency evacuations as early as 1970. Later, they 

conducted escape studies with blind travelers using canes 

and with passengers who had mobility handicaps; they 

conducted studies evaluating the needs and effectiveness of 

infant and child flotation devices. After their retirements, 

research on oxygen needs and equipment was continued 

by physiologist E. Arnold Higgins, Ph.D., while studies of 

passenger emergency evacuation for the past decade-plus 

have been led by G.A. McLean, Ph.D. (including a Type 

III overwing exit study that used 2,544 subjects).

Work in these various protection and survival areas 

has always been based in cooperation and coordination 

with aviation safety groups and equipment developers. 

Prime among these (oddly enough) have been the various specialty groups in the long-established Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE); now known as SAE International. Various committees within that organization’s 

(now) Aerospace Division, such as SAE-S9 (cabin safety 

provisions), SAE-A10 (aircraft oxygen equipment), SAEA20 (aircraft lighting), SAE-G10 (aerospace behavioral 

engineering technology), and the SAE Seat Committee, 

Protection and Survival ... Saving Lives

An Inside Job. Early CARI/CAMI evacuation tests were 

conducted in the high bay area. Tests using various door 

heights are shown below and at right.

Communicating. McFadden (center) discussed results 

from the latest altitude chamber testing of oxygen mask 

equipment in a 1974 meeting of the SAE-A10 (aircraft 

oxygen equipment) committee held at CAMI. Committee 

chairman Jules Duval (TWA – Kansas City) and Humphrey 

Hamlin (Normalair – Garrett, Ltd., England) were the 

interested listeners.
25

continue to be major sources of regular interaction for 

CAMI’s scientists. These interactions help to account for 

the fact that, from its CAMRL beginnings to the present, 

so much of the protection and survival research has been 

translated into rules and regulations, improved safety systems, and improved manufactured products from oxygen 

masks and restraints to emergency lighting.

Crash Injury Research

Chandler introduced a new direction in CAMI’s 

crash injury research programs. Part of that direction 

involved his upgrading of the 2-rail track that ran the 

length of CAMI’s spacious high bay area. He designed 

unique test equipment, installed new instrumentation, 

and substituted heavier duty rails for the existing ones. 

“The Track” thus had the capability for the dynamic 

evaluation of seat and restraint system performance. 

Briefly described, two precision rails (140 feet long) with 

a winch and wire brake system accommodated a sled that 

could be propelled to a high speed and then brought to 

a sudden stop (in 200 milliseconds). The sled permitted 

the attachment of various seat and restraint configurations 

as well as instrument panels and cockpit enclosures, as 

desired, along with instrumented dummies. His development and use of dummies that would provide the best 

information on injury patterns permitted the formulation 

of recommendations regarding dimensions, location, 

and tie-downs that would prevent or reduce injuries and 

death from crashes. 

Chandler also extended CAMI’s involvement with the 

military, testing prototypes of a 2-passenger helicopter 

seat for the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, 

and prototypes of energy absorbing helicopter seats for 

the U.S. Air Mobility Research and Development Laboratory, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well 

as an energy absorbing passenger seat for NASA. He also 

expanded cooperative development efforts for seats in civil 

aircraft by working with all of the major manufacturers. 

That work provided the basis for a complete revision of 

the FAA regulations for seat, restraint, and crash injury 

protection systems in aircraft. The new regulations were 

adopted in 1988 and represented the first significant 

revision since 1927.

Chandler’s personal involvement with impact issues 

and seat-and-restraint integrity was subsequently assumed 

by engineer Roy Van Gowdy who continued to add to 

Then and Now. Early approaches to documenting impact 

tests involved a set of cameras with split-second timing 

sequences. With the advent of high-speed motion picture 

(then video) technology and other electromechanical 

advances, a state-of-the-art CAMI system was kept in place.

“The (Right) Track.” CAMI’s sled tests 

used in crash impact studies conducted on 

“The Track,” viewed here from the braking 

system at the end of a run.
26

CAMI’s perceived excellence by the aviation industry and 

federal regulators through his extensive work with both 

U.S. and foreign airlines and manufacturers, with NASA, 

and as a major visiting consultant to other countries 

that were establishing their own impact test facilities. 

Those visits include his presenting classes on dynamic 

impact test procedures and FAA crash worthiness seat 

regulations at the Civil Aero Polytechnology Institute 

in Bejing, China, and to the Australian Civil Aviation 

Authority and aviation industry representatives in Sydney, 

Australia. Richard DeWeese recently succeeded Gowdy 

as head of that program.

“Smart” Dummies

A significant aspect of impact research involves appropriately constructed dummies. Oscar (retired in 

1963) and Elmer (built by Swearingen in 1949 and 

1950, respectively) were carefully weighted, articulated, 

and incorporated other elements that put those dummies 

in high demand for borrowing or copying by military 

and commercial laboratories. And, in perhaps one of the 

earliest substantive acknowledgements of diversity in 

Keeping It Moving. Chandler expanded on Swearingen’s impact studies 

and introduced improvements to “The Track”; he remained a widely 

sought expert on seat safety and restraint systems after his CAMI 

retirement.

NASA Needs. Impact tests 

conducted by DeWeese (l) and 

Gowdy (r) in support of the 

NASA program occurred during 

the ‘90s. A NASA flight suit (l) 

was used on the dummy in one 

set of trials.

More Is Better. With improvements in track 

materials, more seats and dummies could be 

tested at one time. Work by Chandler and Gowdy 

frequently used multiple “passengers.”
2

technical aeromedical settings, a female dummy (Sierra 

Suzie) was in use at CAMI by the early 1970s.

The development of impact research dummies that 

provided the best possible human representation was an 

ongoing effort. Designs developed at CAMI, particularly 

by anthropologists Clyde C. Snow, Ph.D., and Joseph W. 

Young, included criteria for head and face anthropometry, 

body forms for children, and an anthropometrically accurate pelvis structure, (the “golden pelvis”) – the latter 

two efforts were in support of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These advances 

were capitalized on by others (e.g. the U.S. Air Force) 

conducting crash research. An early cooperative program 

with the U.S. Air Force to determine mass distribution 

properties of the human body developed three dimensional anthropometric measurement techniques. The 

Air Force adapted that technology to computerized 

scanners and used it as the basis for Project CAESAR, 

the first world-wide survey of human body size to utilize 

three dimensional measurement. The design modeling 

of anthropomorphic test devices was a multi-decade 

CAMI effort that had applications to fields other than 

civil aviation.

Focus on Children

Proper protection of children has always been a major 

consideration. Based on identified needs, dummies representing 6-month-old, 2-year-old, and 3-year-old children 

were both designed and used extensively by CAMI and 

also by NHTSA. And, stimulated by Chandler in the 

late ‘70s with the support of NHTSA, anthropological 

measures, including biostereometric mapping, by Young 

and Snow from groups of 21⁄2 – 61⁄2 year-old children led 

Almost Real. (l) Young at work on 

the “golden pelvis.” Accurate pelvis 

representations in dummies permitted a 

more precise evaluation of injury in various 

crash scenarios. 

Like the Old Movie. (above) In a scene somewhat reminiscent of 

old black-and-white monster movies, Jack Blethrow repaired Elmer 

after a crash study. (r) Judy Anderson applied hair spray to Sierra 

Suzie – the first female model of a crash dummy used on “The Track.”
2

to the production of new 3- and 6- year-old body forms 

– NHTSA’s “golden shells.” These were not dummies in 

the usual sense but, rather, body forms to test the fit of 

restraint systems. Work to improve the information from 

the CAMI-developed dummies continued well past their 

first use. For example, in the mid-90s, DeWeese designed 

an experimental device to measure abdominal pressure 

in the 6-month-old and 2-year-old dummies in dynamic 

impact tests of child restraint devices. 

CAMI’s research with dummies on “The Track” had 

shown the hazards of a passenger holding an infant on 

her lap during an aircraft crash – the child cannot be 

held because of the G forces and becomes a projectile. 

The use of automobile restraint devices for children was 

initially thought to be an immediate solution, but CAMI 

to explore relationships between physical condition 

and performance effectiveness. Later, in the mid ‘70s, 

Snow initiated an extensive anthropometric study 

of flight attendants based on the perceived need to 

address the (then) stewardess’ work station and surrounds with base line date (e.g., for determining the 

proper size, height, load relationships, fold-up criteria, 

and other features of the various types of seats used by 

flight attendants). That study drew a press conference 

response from Senator William Proxmire, who cited 

it for one of his many “Golden Fleece” awards. The 

“awards,” which he periodically publicized for more 

than a decade, represented the senator’s view that 

certain research projects represented frivolous uses 

of taxpayer money. The senator may not have been 

aware that the research was in response to findings of 

a study reported by the Air Line Pilots Association. 

That study comprised 103 accidents/incidents involving emergency evacuations in which flight attendants 

had identified 471 problems including various issues 

related to seat construction and location, inadequate 

restraint systems, inaccessible emergency equipment, 

megaphones that were too heavy, lack of head padding, 

and others. In any event, the CAMI study provided the 

anthropometric data for use by the aviation industry. 

Remarkably, almost three decades later, an editorial in 

the prestigious weekly journal Science addressed some 

recent political ridiculing of government funding for a 

variety of research projects and cited the CAMI study 

“of the physical characteristics of flight attendants that 

ultimately led to the development of life-saving safety 

belt configurations for them” (32) as an example of how 

short-sighted such criticism can sometimes be.

Parenthetically, Snow had worked on the development 

of forensic methods for identifying human remains from 

aircraft accidents (8). As his knowledge and skill in this 

area became known, he was often called upon by state 

and local law enforcement to assist in identifying remains. 

These interests led him to provide training and encouragement to one of CAMI’s medical illustrators – Betty Pat 

Gatliff – whose avocational pursuits included proficiency 

in sculpture. Snow provided guidance and stimulated 

her to work on reconstructing facial features on skulls 

for forensic identification purposes. Gatliff became so 

skilled at the art that, following her retirement from the 

FAA, she became a nationally sought expert, lecturing 

around the country. And when Snow retired from federal 

service, he rapidly became an internationally recognized 

expert in forensic anthropology. He has been a key figure 

in major criminal cases in this country and in war crimes 

cases in other parts of the world.

research showed many of these devices to be acceptable 

for automobile use but inadequate for crash protection in 

aircraft. CAMI’s work, led by Chandler and Gowdy, led 

to the defining of criteria and development of prototypes 

for proper infant and child protection in aircraft. In 1985, 

NHTSA began approving child restraint systems for use 

in autos that were also acceptable for use in aircraft, based 

on the CAMI data from tests on "The Track."

More Anthropology

Swearingen’s somewhat circumscribed use of body 

measurements in research was extended by Richard G. 

Snyder, Ph.D., who collaborated with fellow anthropologist Snow in a mid-1960s study that involved extensive 

anthropometric measures of air traffic control specialists (ATCSs). The results were to provide a data base 

for the design of ATCS work space and equipment, a 

long-range study of the aging ATCS population, and 

Child Care. Gowdy in one of his many tests of infant seat 

protection.
2

Escape Procedures: Phoenix...and the SST

Some of the more exciting CAMI research involves 

tests related to the emergency evacuation of passengers 

from downed aircraft. During the ‘60s, much of that work 

was conducted inside, in the high bay area of the CARI 

building. One major exception was an evacuation study 

conducted with a crashed Lockheed L-1649. That study, 

in 1965, was part of an FAA crash test safety research 

program with the Flight Safety Foundation. Instrumented 

dummies, onboard during the actual crash a year earlier, 

were replaced by “passengers” who experienced a one-hour 

"flight" (including box lunches) and a “crash” simulated 

by use of artificial smoke and crashing sound effects and 

enhanced by some purposely jammed door and escape 

hatches. Motion picture cameras, remotely controlled 

both inside the aircraft and exterior to it, and precision 

timers provided much of the data. Results assessed some 

features of seat spacing and aisle widths and provided a 

planning base for future studies of evacuation procedures 

from a damaged aircraft. 

A unique series of evacuation studies involved the 

configuration of a supersonic transport (SST). When a 

government contract to build an SST prototype went to 

Boeing and, later, the U.S. opted out of the international 

supersonic transport competition, CAMI secured the 

Lockheed model – a wooden structure – and Garner 

took advantage of the opportunity, in 1967, to assess 

escape procedures in an SST configuration that would 

accommodate 280 passengers and 9 crew members. Those 

tests used exits of various dimensions and resulted in 

support for establishing the Type A exit (minimal opening 42” x 72”) for wide-body aircraft, such as the 747, 

and eliminated the Type IV exits (minimal opening 19” 

x 36”) as being too small. The model was also used for 

other outdoor evacuation tests until CAMI acquired a 

C-124 fuselage and an attitude positioner.

Emergency Evacuation: The CAMI Facility

In 1970, with the acquisition by Garner of the C-124 

Globemaster fuselage, donated by the Oklahoma Air 

National Guard, and the installation of a positioning 

system (at that time, the only one of its kind in the world 

and, currently, with features of size and flexibility still 

not duplicated anywhere), emergency escape procedures 

could be tested under conditions where the angle of the 

fuselage, the interior environment, and the complements 

of passenger load could be varied. Since then, studies 

of ground level evacuations and those using slides have 

been conducted in CAMI’s Aircraft Cabin Evacuation 

Facility (ACEF) to test various specific aircraft conditions including the dimensions of exits, aisle widths, seat 

configurations, separation of seat rows, location of seated 

passengers, location of exits, use of spiral staircases vs. a 

straight staircase with a single 180o turn in double-deck 

aircraft, role of flight attendants, presence or absence of 

smoke, and other conditions. All of these studies contributed to the validation of dimensions, configurations, and 

procedures directly pertinent to the emergency evacuation 

of aircraft. (Also relevant to safe evacuations is the work 

of CAMI’s toxicology laboratory on flammability and 

heat-induced toxicity of the materials used in aircraft 

cabin interiors.)

Useful Applications

A significant, related CAMI effort regarding emergency 

evacuation involves joint training and research agreements 

initiated by a member of the cabin safety team, Charles 

B. Chittum, with the USAF 552nd Air Control Wing, 

begun in 1989, and with the USN Strategic Communications Wing, begun in 1993. Both military groups are 

located at nearby Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma 

City. Through 1999, Chittum provided, on a monthly 

basis, intensive aircraft emergency evacuation training 

(2 classroom hours plus 1 hour of experience in both 

a clear-air and a smoke-filled cabin); for their part, the 

airmen agreed to serve as research subjects for CAMI 

evacuation studies. By the time the 2000th USAF airman had completed the course (1994), 500 of them had 

participated in three CAMI studies and another 8,000 

“students” (from groups such as the American Association of Airport Executives, aviation medical examiners, 

Airport Travelers Aid, Explorer Scouts, high school and 

college students in aviation careers, and many others) had 

completed Chittum’s program. To date more than 9,000 

military airmen have been trained in the program, which 

is now conducted by Jerry R. McDown.

They’re Called “Slides.” Not all proposals for using early 

versions of inflatable slides for emergency evacuation proved 

to be useful. CAMI research defined an ideal angle of 27o for 

safe, rapid evacuation (28).
3
3

SST Escape Procedures

© 1967, The Oklahoma Publishing Company.
3

Getting Out. CAMI’s unique Emergency Aircraft Cabin 

Evacuation Facility (ACEF) was developed with an eye 

to the future. The attitude positioner was designed to 

accommodate larger aircraft than the original Globemaster 

– i.e. wide-body jets. The first evacuation tests with the C124 are shown here.


3

Parenthetically, Chittum’s evacuation training demonstrations and clearly delineated principles of survival 

were so well crafted and presented that his presentations became a focus for news media from around the 

country (particularly during TV’s semiannual “sweeps 

week”). While CAMI’s cabin evacuation capabilities 

had a long history of generating periodic media interest, 

20 or so TV stations from various cities sent crews to 

CAMI through the ‘90s, and taped these briefings/demonstrations for showing as special evening news features 

on “surviving a plane crash.” Additional teams taped 

Chittum’s “how to survive” guidance for major network 

TV programs – Hugh Downs’ “20-20,” Peter Van Sandt’s 

“CBS World News Tonight,” Dateline, and a German 

TV news program, as well as People magazine, The 

Washington Post, and other media outlets. That safety 

information and assurance, based on CAMI research, 

reached millions of potential air passengers.

Another application from CAMI involved the 1975 

development of Cabin Safety Workshops by Donell Pollard (whose background included experience as a flight 

attendant). The workshops were begun in earnest in 1976. 

Initially they were designed as a more efficient way of 

providing to frequent visitors from the airlines the type 

of safety and survival information they regularly sought 

from CAMI, and to make available to all the airlines 

specific useful information that each might have accrued 

individually (44). The concept became immediately 

popular with both the airline industry and the flight attendant unions. Thus, what was originally proposed as 

several small group workshops per year grew to several 

(sometimes more than a dozen) very large workshops 

a year with an average of 125 attendees annually (44). 

Ultimately there was participation from every U.S. airline 

and most major foreign carriers. The 31⁄2 day sessions 

came to include the application of FAA policy, rules, 

and CAMI research. There was a structured exchange 

of information on airline emergency procedures, followed by related research findings presented by Pollard. 

(Pollard also used some of the discussion outcomes to 

suggest potential research questions to laboratory chief 

Chandler). Other topics included G-force dynamics and 

crash injury protection (restraint, bracing, and special 

needs of children), protective breathing equipment, and 

experience in the evacuation simulator (the smoke trials 

were considered particularly informative with regard 

to emergency lighting issues). These experiences were 

followed by physiological training (including altitude 

chamber runs), water survival, and presentations of other 

applicable research findings, including data from CAMI’s 

aircraft accident investigators. 

Attendees have included line flight attendants, emergency procedures instructors, pilots, crewmember union 

safety representatives, airline officers of several levels, 

FAA safety inspectors, and others with a specific interest in aviation safety. Pollard scheduled and conducted 

these workshops until 1987 when she transferred to FAA 

Washington Headquarters, but continued to participate in 

them until her retirement in 1999. Mark George, who had 

worked with her during 1984-1986, took responsibility 

for continuing the workshops, with her participation in 

selected sessions, until he joined the NTSB in 1998; he 

has been succeeded by David A. Palmerton. 

Pollard also created a Cabin Safety databank, based on 

analyses of FAA accident/incident reports. The databank 

contained information on seat failures, slide malfunctions, 

occupant injuries during turbulence, evacuation related 

injuries, and other similar material. This information was 

used in the workshops and also in other FAA activities 

including policy development and research.

Water Survival

The conditions of a crash may require additional 

survival efforts after successfully evacuating a downed 

aircraft – as when a crash occurs in water rather than on 

land. CAMI’s ditching pool provided McFadden with 

data regarding not only escape procedures, but also the 

efficiency of water survival equipment such as life rafts 

and flotation devices. Many other tests of rafts and flotation equipment were conducted in Oklahoma City area 

lakes by McFadden and his team. However, one set of 

studies was completed at Siesta Key, Florida – “laboratory” 

studies at the Mote Marine Laboratory using its captive 

sharks, and “field” studies in the See Sea, an underwater 

observation vessel of the Naval Undersea Research and 

Development Center, conducted in shark-infested wa20,000 By 1999. Chittum briefed this group of aviation 

medical examiners prior to their experience in evacuating 

a smoke-filled cabin. By 1999, when he retired, groups of 

various sizes comprising a total of more than 20,000 persons 

had been exposed to his survival training.
3

ters off the coast of Florida. One particularly interesting 

finding was that sharks were attracted to some degree to 

the bright orange underside of rafts. McFadden’s solution was to produce rafts with dark undersides and to 

replace some chrome and other reflective sections of life 

vests with black, non-reflective material.

Smoke Hoods

CAMI began developmental work on smoke hoods as 

early as 1965. This approach was designed to reduce or 

eliminate the likelihood of expiring from smoke inhalation while attempting to escape from a burning, downed 

aircraft. The specific genesis of these studies resided in 

two aircraft accidents within a one-year period in which 

a number of passengers who survived the impact died 

of smoke inhalation. A “get-me-out” device was the 

term used by McFadden to describe the purpose of this 

early work and the prototypes he designed and tested. 

In addition to providing a reasonable supply of air and 

protection from breathing smoke, the hoods would have 

to permit visibility and protect against both heat and 

fire. McFadden’s confident demonstrations of one of his 

devices with a blowtorch applying a 1,200-degree flame 

directly into the face of the translucent hood covering 

his head were breathtaking. Although the hoods were 

not adopted for use at that time, interest was regenerated 

after the 1983 Air Canada in-flight fire that resulted in 

a landing at greater Cincinnati airport with half of the 

passengers dead from smoke inhalation. Then in 1985, 

55 passengers died as the result of a fire aboard a Boeing 737 on the runway at Manchester, England. Those 

events spurred CAMI to conduct additional tests of 

more advanced designs. By the '90s, virtually all carriers 

had standard protective breathing equipment for crewmembers for fighting fires.

Water Survival. Escape and survival equipment and 

procedures tested in the CAMI ditching tank (“pool”), on a 

clear lake, and in turbulent water.

Smoke, Darkness, and Emergency Lighting

Thorough tests of lighting schemes to aid passengers in 

evacuating a downed aircraft that is dark and/or smoke-filled 

were significant CAMI contributions to improving safety. 

Around 1974, Garner and McFadden had apprised George 

Plumly, a successful Fort Worth, Texas, engineer/inventor 

with expertise in lighting, of the need for a lighting system 

that would significantly improve passenger evacuation rates 

in smoke-filled aircraft cabins (28, 34). Plumly agreed to 

explore the idea at no cost to the government and began 

an informal, intermittent working relationship with CAMI 

that lasted a decade or more. 

Because the industry seemed reluctant to mount any system on the floor (perhaps because of perceived issues related 

to maintaining system integrity), Plumly (who’s Plumly-F 

and Plumly-FX lighting systems had, by 1975, shown superiority to other systems) and CAMI (between 1979-1981) 

initially tested, in smoke-filled cabin conditions, a variety 

of spotlights, strobe lights, and self-illuminating markers, 

located at or below the cabin midpoint as well as lights in 

seat arm rests, and found them to be ineffective (43). These 

same elements and others, including strip lighting on the 

floor, were later tested at the FAA Technical Center facility using smoke from burning jet fuel in a totally gutted 

aircraft interior with an observation booth at each end of 

the cabin, including closed circuit television, and motion 

and still pictures (15). Because dense smoke in a cabin rises 

and stratifies, and its vision-restricting concentration takes 

longer to reach floor level, the foregoing sets of studies 

indicated the need for illumination in close proximity to 

the floor to aid passengers in exiting quickly and safely. 

(Parenthetically, as part of his last project before retirement 

in 1979, Garner had explored the utility of floor lighting by 

[shades of the old CAMRL!] placing flashlights along the 

aisle floor.) Then, in November 1984, Plumly conducted 

some “unofficial” smoke tests on a 20-foot functional 

prototype of his floor strip-lighting unit – the Plumly 

Advanced Egress Lighting System – in a static Boeing 707 

at the FAA Technical Center followed by three sessions at 

CAMI, two of which followed installation of a complete 

floor strip system in the cabin simulator (42). While these 

tests were not described in any government research reports, 

they were described in formal reports by Plumly Airborne 

Products, Inc., (42), and the CAMI outcomes were observed 

by a number of interested parties including representatives 

of the American Society of Illumination Engineers and an 

FAA rule-making team (8).

Prior to the CAMI sessions, the FAA rule-making team, 

headed by Henri Branting (16), had participated in one 

test of a proposed solution to the egress problem: a small 

point of light, located on the armrest of each aisle seat. 

During the test conducted in pitch darkness, the FAA team’s 

walk-through convinced them that such an arrangement 

was not effective. It provided no depth perception and gave 

the impression that each step was into a black hole (4). The 

later tests of the installed floor lighting and other lighting 

arrangements, provided to Branting on two occasions by 

Chittum and Chandler, used CAMI’s smoke evacuation 

paradigm. CAMI’s work showed that “passengers” could 

follow the floor lighting in a smoke-filled cabin and could 

recognize the exit from the aisle. 

Those practical CAMI evacuation demonstrations 

in dense smoke influenced the Branting team positively 

regarding the value of floor strip lighting and gave them 

True Believer. McFadden’s demonstrations of 

the capabilities of his smoke hoods to withstand 

heat and fire were memorable as well as 

convincing.

Floor Lighting Works. As a cabin fills with smoke, it 

stratifies from the ceiling down. Thus, upper level emergency 

lighting is obscured well before the floor-lighting “pathway” 

to an exit.
Diversity Matters. (above) Safety procedures 

for emergency evacuation of the physically challenged and equipment that accommodates the youngest and the oldest have been studied. Pictured below are McFadden with one of his flotation devices for children and Snow testing force capability for push-button seat belt releases.

 ©1971, The Oklahoma Publishing Company ©1971, The Oklahoma Publishing Company
4
4

“the confidence to proceed” with the implementation of the 

final rule (4). Floor proximity lighting became mandatory 

in 1986. But that did not end CAMI’s interest in the area; 

with advances in photochemistry, the feasibility of using 

modern photoluminescent materials as lighting sources 

was re-evaluated by McLean in 1998.

The Young, the Old, and the Handicapped

Swearingen, Chandler, and Gowdy all worked with 

children as a special-need group with regard to seat/restraint integrity and all pioneered in the development and 

use of child dummies in aircraft crash protection studies. 

However, in addition to impact and evacuation studies, 

other CAMI research has focused on small children. For 

example, McFadden’s work with flotation devices included 

special studies of the needs of infants and small children 

(air carriers did not then carry infant devices; a few now 

do). While buoyancy and stability are critical characteristics of any flotation equipment, infant flotation devices 

require reliable self-righting. McFadden’s assessment of 

then-current life preservers for children indicated adequate 

flotation and stability in the unperturbed water of a test 

pool, but relatively simple movements (such as raising 

the arms above the head) could be sufficient to change a 

small child’s center of gravity and cause the child to rotate 

and perhaps submerge its face. Another issue was water 

temperature. Compared to adults, small children exposed 

to cold water have a significantly reduced survival time 

because of their low total body weight (and, therefore, 

low body specific heat) and their large surface area per 

unit of body mass (2-3 times that of an adult).

 Thus, McFadden went about creating devices that 

would address the needs for buoyancy, stability, self-righting, and thermal protection, as well as providing ventilation, impact protection (tested by a required self-righting 

of the device containing a dummy when released in an 

inverted position from cliffs 13-21 feet above the water), 

and protection against predatory marine life. McFadden 

evaluated various types of infant flotation equipment that 

he devised using an available anthropomorphic dummy, 

representative of a 3-year-old, and dummies that he developed to represent children from 4 months to 21⁄2 years 

of age. Data from Swearingen’s studies of the centers of 

gravity of small children and of infants were central to 

this process. McFadden’s work provided a template for 

safe infant flotation designs. Later work with flotation 

equipment was headed by Gordon Funkhouser.

Evacuation studies have also dealt with small children, 

as well as the elderly and the handicapped. While elderly 

subjects have routinely been a part of the passenger age 

mix in most of CAMI’s evacuation studies, special attention to infants and small children began with Garner 

in the mid ‘60s and continued with preliminary work 

by Chittum (unpublished data presented at a national 

meeting on child safety) followed by a recent set of studies by Cynthia L. Corbett. The first of this set evaluated 

evacuations using a single lane slide from a Type I exit; 

the second assessed the safety techniques for evacuating 

an infant through a Type III overwing exit. These studies 

used dummies representing children between 2 and 24 

months of age and led to the identification of appropriate 

procedures and guidelines to recommend to passengers 

with infants.

Model Worker. Funkhouser working with one of CAMI’s 

specially constructed child dummies in assessments of the 

performance of various flotation devices for infants and 

children. In addition to performance in the water, design 

features, such as strap locations, may influence donning time 

(which would require the assistance of a parent or other 

adult) – another critical safety issue.

Tough Sliding. An FAA employee wearing a faux cast tries 

to navigate an evacuation slide.
4

CAMI’s 747. First Uses: (above) TSI training and (below) 

NASA’s turbulence study.

With respect to the handicapped, land evacuation 

studies have included the blind, with and without canes, 

and persons with a variety of other physical and mental 

conditions that might influence safe evacuations. Such 

subjects were recruited through various local organizations (e.g., the Oklahoma League for the Blind). In 

addition, various types of handicaps were simulated by 

FAA employees or other nonhandicapped subjects (e.g., 

by wearing faux arm or leg casts) and by the use of dummies that other “passengers” would have to “assist.” Issues 

related to aisle widths, seat sizes, seating arrangements, 

floor slope, grouping of passengers, and other evacuation 

features were evaluated.

New Thrusts

An additional research tool was added to the protection and survival programs in the late ‘90s. As part of an 

approved capital project headed by Jerry R. Hordinsky, 

M.D., (then head of the aeromedical research division), a 

retired Boeing 747 was procured and refurbishing begun 

under the direction of engineer Jeffrey H. Marcus who 

replaced the retired Chandler as head of the protection 

and survival laboratory. (Marcus was also overseer of the 

installation at CAMI of the United States’ first – and 

clearly most advanced – new altitude chamber in 25 

years). Refurbishing of the aircraft was completed in 2001 

with some new lines of work defined by James E. Whinnery, Ph.D., M.D., the new Aerospace Medical Research 

Division chief. One of the new directions involves the 

capability of research on cabin airflow that will permit 

the assessment of air quality (e.g., dispersion of microorganisms and of air contamination from internal and 

external sources - including acts of terrorism). 

The facility has already been used by the protection 

and survival staff (now headed by Robert Shaffstall) in 

support of a NASA contract to develop an early warning 

system for detecting air turbulence; that study determined 

times required to secure a passenger cabin following an 

air turbulence warning. The facility is also in periodic use 

as a training vehicle in support of courses conducted at 

the adjacent Transportation Safety Institute (TSI); that 

TSI training includes security personnel (dealing with 

potential hijackers and unruly passengers) and aircraft 

accident investigators. 

Another new thrust deals with the establishment of 

bioinformatics research in which computer databases 

and models are being developed for the simulation of 

crash dynamics, cabin evacuation, cabin air flow, and 

the reconstruction of aircraft accidents and aerospace 

incidents. (The latter approach has similarities to that 

of CAMI’s SATORI, used in investigating air traffic 

control operational errors and incidents.) An additional 

bioinformatics effort is the development of methods for 

analysis of large data sets – an approach that will have 

application to aeromedical certification in addition to 

protection and survival areas.

Another particularly timely area of new work was the 

assessment of the effects of laser lights on pilot vision and 

control of aircraft. Van Nakagawara, O.D., has examined 

both the clinical aspects of laser light exposure as well 

as the subjective effects of exposures (below levels that 

might cause tissue damage) on vision and operational 

performance in the Aeronautical Center’s Boeing 727-

200, Level C, full motion flight simulator. Nakagawara’s 

work with issues related to laser lights beamed from the 

ground into cockpits during night-time flight operations 

was undertaken based on the accumulation of some initial 

reports and well before such dangerous events attracted 

national media attention. As a result of identifying the 

magnitude of the problem early, timely CAMI information and suggestions were available to the FAA and the 

Department of Transportation. Levels of laser light that 

would be unacceptable at different stages of flight were 

defined to assist in developing safety precautions. 
Air Traffic Controllers: Stress ... and Sleep

The Issue Was Job Stress

During the ‘70s, concerns regarding passenger safety, 

perceived work stress associated with the air traffic control occupation, and controllers’ mental states became a 

media focus (“Sweaty Palms in the Control Tower” was 

the title of one such article during that time) and a major 

labor issue (11, 36). A team of CAMI physiologists, led 

by Carlton E. Melton, Ph.D., and a CAMI psychologist, 

Roger C. Smith, Ph.D., combined to perform an array 

of on-site studies that ultimately included a total of 402 

air traffic control specialists (ATCSs). The studies embraced different types of air traffic facilities and permitted 

comparisons between them and between different shift 

schedules, different traffic volumes, and the effects of 

introducing ARTS-III. 

Physiological tests were extensive and complemented 

by psychological assessments of job attitudes and of 

perceived stress. Data obtained included ambulatory 

electrocardiograms (ECGs), urine samples analyzed for 

17-ketogenic steroids, epinephrine, norepinephrin, 

and creatinine, fatigue check lists, and questionnaires 

regarding medication usage, physical complaints, and 

sleep reports. Physiological results showed clear stress 

effects related to periods of increased traffic volume (i.e. 

increased workload) both within and between facilities, 

but no pervasive or unacceptable levels of general “stressinduced” outcomes. 

The psychological tests resulted in profiles that showed 

controllers to be particularly well-suited to their occupation; their work preferences tended to be for moderate-to-heavy traffic rather than for lighter levels. They 

liked the difficulty of the work and the constant traffic 

change. They did not like light traffic, night shifts, and 

management. The research effort was wide-ranging. It 

included field studies at 22 air traffic facilities including the O’Hare air traffic control tower and facilities in 

Measuring Stress. (above) Air traffic controllers 

were monitored for stress while performing their daily 

jobs; the device worn by this tower controller provided 

electrocardiographic information. (below) Melton with 

physiological data recordings and (below, l) Smith during 

analyses of job attitude and stress survey data.
Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, Oakland, Roswell, Oklahoma City, and others. 

The sum of these studies documented anticipated 

physiological differences both within and between facilities related to variations in workload (e.g. by traffic 

count and radio transmission time). These differences 

appeared to be related more to general work activities 

than to excessive levels of stress associated with air traffic 

control work in particular.

Sleep, Performance, and Work Schedules

Intimately imbedded in the stress issue was the question of shift schedules and sleep. This relationship is 

particularly pertinent to the air traffic occupation since 

enroute and terminal facilities frequently use a 2-2-1 shift 

(2 afternoons, 2 early mornings, and 1 midnight shift), a 

2-1-2 shift (without a midnight shift), or a combination 

of both. These shifts are characterized as being “rapid 

turn-around” counter-clockwise shifts that make unlikely, 

if not unattainable, a full 8 hours of sleep before at least 

one shift a week (usually the midnight shift). It should be 

noted that, while most experts on work schedules consider 

the 2-2-1 shift to be undesirable, controllers given the 

choice of shift patterns often select the 2-2-1 because it 

provides the equivalent of 3 days off per week. However, in 

addition to health and stress issues, the rapid turn-around 

shift schedule involves circadian periodicity and begs the 

question of quality of performance and safety. 

Early CAMI laboratory studies had examined the effects on sleep itself of exposure to simulated sonic booms 

... And “Away”. FAA air traffic controllers from the Miami 

Center and U.S. Army and U.S. Coast Guard subjects 

worked with Della Rocco on the field studies of rotating shift 

effects and the introduction of scheduled napping.

At “Home”.... Studies in CAMI’s laboratories 

assessed performance with the Multiple Task 

Performance Battery and the sleep effects of 

counterclockwise rotating shift schedules.

and the “jet lag” type performance effects of shifting sleep 

periods, while still others measured the performanceeffects 

of depriving individuals of a night’s sleep or more. Sleep 

deprivation of this sort had clear negative effects on the 

performance of laboratory tasks.
4

However, in the ‘90s, Pamela S. Della Rocco, Ph.D., 

initiated a set of laboratory and field studies to evaluate 

the potential need for and utility of fatigue countermeasures in air traffic control shift scheduling. The laboratory 

studies included assessments of performance, sleep, core 

body temperature, and neuroendocrine measures for 

conditions simulating counter-clockwise rotating shifts. 

The field studies were collaborations with the U.S. Army 

Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL); testing 

was conducted at the Miami Air Route Traffic Control 

Center using FAA air traffic controllers, at USAARL 

using Army air traffic controllers, and later, in assessing 

duty-rest issues at Cape May, New Jersey, using volunteer 

Coast Guard pilots as subjects. 

One feature of those studies was an assessment of some 

ways to counter potential fatigue effects from reduced 

sleep times, viz., the separate effects of structured napping (20 minutes, 45 minutes, and 2 hours) and of mild 

exercise. While the latter had no beneficial effects (perhaps 

the exercise was too mild), napping had some positive 

consequences. However, the napping also induced "sleep 

interia" in some subjects, i.e., a period of grogginess for 

a while after waking. An appropriate waiting time between waking and working remains to be determined. 

From the study with FAA controllers, subjective reports 

indicated that controllers were the most sleepy during 

the drive home following the midnight shift. Lab and 

field data indicated that the least sleep occurred prior to 

the midnight shift. 

Congressional interest in controller fatigue led to special funding for the conduct of a shift work and fatigue 

survey of the controller workforce plus a laboratory study 

and field research. With input from a scientific panel 

and an FAA/NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers 

Association) work group, CAMI researchers developed 

an extensive shift work and fatigue survey that was distributed to all controllers in 1999. 

The survey effort used a modified version of the 

Standard Shiftwork Index, an established, comprehensive 

survey that encompassed shift work history, sleep and 

fatigue, health and well-being, social and domestic situation, coping strategies, circadian type, and demographics. 

The Index was modified by CAMI to incorporate current 

ATC shift-scheduling practices and to facilitate distribution to the entire ATCS workforce. Feedback to each 

controller included summary results and a multimedia 

CD ROM, entitled Shiftwork Coping Strategies (10), 

developed under the guidance of Della Rocco, along 

with Thomas E. Nesthus, Ph.D., and Crystal Cruz. 

The CD provided information concerning the effects 

on fatigue and performance of working a rotating shift 

schedule and identified ways to improve adaptation and 

reduce the amount of fatigue associated with working 

such schedules. 

The field study, dubbed the Air Traffic Shiftwork and 

Fatigue Evaluation (AT-SAFE), was designed to provide 

empirical data regarding the effects of shift work and shift 

scheduling on ATCSs and to corroborate the results of 

the Shiftwork Survey. Data from a Tower/TRACON and 

an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) included: 

entries into the daily logbooks by the volunteers throughout 

the 21-day study period (sleep duration, quality of sleep, 

subjective mood, and sleepiness); measures from wrist 

activity monitors worn by the volunteers 24 hrs a day to 

provide corroborative data of sleep duration; and cognitive 

performance (via CogScreen – Aeromedical Edition). 

The laboratory study, headed by Cruz and Nesthus, 

evaluated clockwise and counter-clockwise rapidly rotating (2-2-1) shift schedules. A direct comparison of the 2 

different rotations resulted in reports indicating that the 

direction of rotation did not affect performance when 

it came to working the last shift of the week (i.e., the 

midnight shift). Thus, CAMI’s circadian studies have 

contributed information from both laboratory and field 

studies, clockwise vs. counter clockwise shift rotations, and 

effects of scheduled napping and other countermeasures 

on subjective alertness and measured performance...and 

provided controllers with coping strategies. 
46

An Agency Crisis: Recovery ... And CAMI Shines

The Strike

In 1981, an historic labor-management and labor 

law crisis hit the agency – the illegal strike by more than 

11,000 air traffic controllers, who were subsequently 

fired by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. “Strike recovery” 

imposed immediate, severe, operational requirements 

(despite curtailment in the amount of traffic) that included the very demanding daily handling of air traffic 

by a much smaller than needed contingent of controllers supplemented with supervisory and managerial air 

traffic personnel who went back to the “boards” ... 

and by some military controllers. It also required major 

infrastructure changes under intensive time pressures 

– viz., selecting, training, and hiring thousands of new 

controllers at a significantly faster pace than ever before 

while maintaining aviation safety. And CAMI played a 

key role by increasing its existing partnership with the 

FAA Academy via the selection and training research 

psychologists who had succeeded Bart Cobb. One of those 

researchers, James O. Boone, Ed.D., was recognized as 

pre-eminent by the FAA Administrator, was assigned to 

his staff (as FAA-1B), and moved to Washington, D.C., 

where he participated in the hiring plans and provided 

statistical projections for decision-making regarding ATC 

applicants and their training; he later became involved 

in new agency approaches to management training and 

ultimately participated in a variety of other high level 

agency policy groups. 

Into the Breach. Only hours after the air traffic 

controller strike began, military controllers joined with FAA 

supervisors, non-striking controllers, and retired controllers 

who volunteered to return to duty, at air traffic facilities 

including JFK International (top) and Chicago O’Hare Tower 

(lower). Ultimately, 850 military controllers participated in 

maintaining air traffic safety in 13 major cities (46).
47

During early 1981, ATCS student loads at the Academy 

were low. Following the strike, both the Academy – and 

CAMI – were pressed to respond to greatly increased 

student inputs and, ultimately for the Academy, a 3/

shifts/day training schedule to meet a goal of providing 7,000 Academy graduates to the field by December 

1983. Outstanding direct local support on a daily basis 

was provided by CAMI to the Academy, first by Alan 

D. VanDeventer, Ph.D., and subsequently by Carol A. 

Manning, Ph.D. That support included close monitoring 

of the subjective ratings of Academy laboratory performance, predicting the proportions of ATC applicants who 

would pass selection tests at various score cut-offs, the 

proportions that would subsequently pass the Academy 

pass-fail training, and predicting pass-fail consequences 

of modifying the curriculum. CAMI quickly established 

itself as a major contributor by predicting almost exactly 

the failure rate for the first post-strike classes (for which 

the immediate need required selecting many candidates 

from old hiring registers that held a reduced range of 

qualifying scores).

Another area of psychological contribution by CAMI 

was related to congressional, other governmental, and press 

concerns about the potential impact of the new “stress 

problem” in air traffic control (in the late ‘60s and early 

‘70s, the problem was the well-publicized notion of a 

uniquely stressful nature of the occupation itself and its 

alleged psychiatric implications – a concern that CAMI’s 

psychological and physiological research findings helped 

to dispel). In the context of the extended work hours and 

work weeks required of controllers for strike recovery, 

concerns for safety were expressed about fatigue and 

“burnout.” As a partial response to these concerns, CAMI 

introduced and conducted stress management lectures 

at the FAA Academy for all incoming developmental 

ATCSs from mid-1982 to mid-1986. The lectures were 

also video taped by the Air Traffic Service for use at field 

facilities around the country.

The safety issues and governmental significance of the 

recovery process, along with concerns for gender and racial 

fairness, led the Academy to be subjected to additional 

considerable pressures and scrutiny by congressional as 

well as agency groups and the media – and the CAMI 

researchers provided many of the statistical, data-based 

briefings to those groups. The strike recovery effort was 

eminently successful and CAMI’s significant contributions received notable recognition.

Telling It Like It Is

But that effort was only part of the impact CAMI’s 

work would have on the FAA and its organization. 

Investigative groups that looked into the causes of the 

strike recommended strongly that the agency have better 

information about its employees, their needs, and their 

views. In a contracted study of the air traffic control occupation conducted prior to the strike recovery period, 

the so-called Rose Report had concluded, among other 

findings, that the ATCS job was not “uniquely stressful” and that what was significant was not so much the 

job (i.e., controlling traffic) but, rather, the context in 

which the job was done. Some related findings by the 

“Jones Committee” (an out-of-agency panel of consulting 

experts appointed subsequent to the strike) led agency 

management to look more closely at how management 

was interacting with its employees.

Thus, in the early spring of 1984, FAA Associate Administrator Charles Weithoner approached William E. 

Collins, Ph.D., then head of CAMI’s psychology laboratory, for help in developing, administering, and reporting 

results of an Employee Attitude Survey under conditions 

of significant time pressure, funding limitations, and organizational tension. The entire agency workforce – then 

Contributing. Boone (l) leading a strategy session and VanDeventer (r) providing 

data-based direction to Washington staffers.
48

An FAA Turning Point. CAMI’s start-to-finish role in the first in-depth Employee Attitude Survey of the entire FAA work force began (above) with developmental consultation with Saul B. Sells, Ph.D., (a noted survey specialist) and the sending and receiving of survey forms; scoring and collating (l), reading and coding comments (r); and (below) analyses of data, report preparation, and presentations at Washington Headquarters. The success of that effort was regarded as an “organizational turning point” for the agency.
49

47,097 employees - was to be surveyed. The laboratory 

focus was redirected in support of that goal. 

Under David J. Schroeder, Ph.D., a CAMI team (and, 

on some occasions, the entire laboratory) responded by 

not only developing, refining, and pre-testing an extensive questionnaire, but also arranging for its printing and 

mailing through Aeronautical Center services, receiving 

completed forms, scoring them, analyzing results across 

a variety of groupings and categories, and preparing final 

printed reports for the overall agency and for each FAA 

region independently – with complete confidentiality 

of respondents and in what the agency lauded as record 

time. The survey included a comments section and 66 

direct ratings of satisfaction with various aspects of the 

job, the agency and its policies, and various levels of 

management ... as well as “burnout” – a contentious 

issue at that time. 

In November of 1984, Collins was designated as the 

scientist to report and interpret the findings to the Administrator and his management team and (during two 

sessions on the next day) to FAA Washington employees 

(26). Because of the extraordinary tensions within the 

agency, those were the first occasions that anyone outside 

of the CAMI survey team was made aware of any survey 

result. Later, invited presentations were made to regions 

(comparing regional and national results) and at national 

meetings (e.g., of air traffic managers). Also, every employee received a copy of the survey results. While the 

employee ratings and comments were not all that agency 

managers had hoped they would be – and some had initial 

difficulty in accepting the data – the agency developed 

plans (and updated them with each subsequent survey) 

to improve aspects of the organization and of work 

environments based on the results. That included steps 

to improve “the context” in which the air traffic control 

and other jobs were done in the agency by establishing 

an office for an activist associate administrator for human 

resource management, encouraging employee participation groups, taking other actions designed to improve the 

work environment and the management of employees 

(e.g., revamped management training – to which Boone, 

and later VanDeventer, contributed), and effectively 

institutionalizing the employee attitude survey.

The confidence of agency management in this CAMI 

survey product and its interpretation is reflected in the 

continuation of the survey process approximately bi-annually to date (e.g., 27) - and the continuation of CAMI 

as the focal point for survey development and analysis. 

Although made available to all employees in numerous 

reports, survey data were not published in the OAM 

series until 2004; Carla Hackworth, Ph.D., now heads 

that work. For the past decade or more, survey results 

have been used as one of the agency’s prime indicators 

of its degree of success in meeting its organizational 

goals within the Department of Transportation. And 

that confidence in the performance of CAMI psychologists, from the strike through the recovery, helped lead 

to the selection of VanDeventer and Deborah Clough, 

Ph.D., (in addition to Boone) to positions in Washington 

Headquarters. Moreover, it was a major factor in the 

encouragement from the agency’s associate administrator 

level that contributed to making the psychology laboratory a separate research branch (now the Human Factors 

Research Division) in the Institute. It also stimulated the 

subsequent recruitment of additional Ph.D. psychologists 

by Washington offices, most prominently in the area of 

human resources.

Skyjacking and Terrorism

Significant contributions to other national aviation 

crises were also made by CAMI and Office of Aviation 

Medicine psychologists. During the late 1970s, when a 

worldwide rash of aircraft “skyjackings” occurred, John 

T. Dailey, Ph.D., at Washington headquarters, was primary in the development of a behavioral profile to assist 

the airlines in identifying potential hijackers. CAMI’s 

contribution to the skyjacking issue came when Roger 

C. Smith, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, was tapped to 

provide some of the initial screening, at Fort Dix, New 

Jersey, for the newly organized Federal Air Marshal Service. Subsequent to the 2001 terrorist attack in New York 

City, CAMI’s current clinical psychologist, Raymond 

King, Ph.D., along with Schroeder and Edna Fiedler, 

Ph.D., were involved during 2002 in the psychological 

screening of the post-9/11 air marshal applicants, at 

facilities near Atlantic City, New Jersey. 


52

Forensics: Fatal Accidents ... Their Toxicology and Biochemistry

An initial focus of CARI’s aviation toxicology laboratory centered on exposure to pesticides and safety concerns 

for crop duster pilots. Strong support was provided by 

the aviation physiology laboratory through a number 

of studies documenting the bodily effects of exposure 

to those pesticides in major use. Paul W. Smith, Ph.D., 

original head of the toxicology laboratory, took the lead 

in defining the hazards of various substances used by 

such pilots and in promoting guidelines and providing 

lectures to groups of agricultural pilots. 

A later, more enduring research focus was a shift 

to an emphasis on assessing aircraft cabin and cockpit 

materials (e.g., panel or seat coverings), for the potential toxic effects of thermal degradation of the materials 

due to fire. The inhalation toxicity of flame-retardant 

materials when subjected to fire and heat was an early 

research thrust led by Charles R. Crane, Ph.D.; with 

new materials being generated quite regularly, that line 

of research has continued to date. The subsequent work 

by Arvind K. Chaturvedi, Ph.D., and Donald Sanders 

has involved experiments with recently developed, unique 

sets of combustion assemblies and exposure chambers to 

determine the combustion toxicity of the newer polymeric 

materials now used in some aircraft and of other materials 

proposed for such use.

Accident Research 

When the small accident research team that went onsite to general aviation accidents from the Protection and 

Survival Laboratory was moved to the Aviation Toxicology 

Laboratory, a more direct, wider-scope involvement with 

fatal accidents began. That involvement came to include 

participation by William R. Kirkham, M.D., who succeeded Smith as head of the toxicology laboratory and 

earned from the local media a nickname of “Quincy” (the 

title character in a popular TV series on medical forensics). 

At first, accident research teams made trips to general 

aviation accident sites. Later, the NTSB invited CAMI 

researchers, such as Stephen J.H. Veronneau, M.D., to 

participate in some on-site investigations of commercial 

accidents. CAMI scientists, led by Charles A. DeJohn, 

M.D., now maintain full records and accounting of major 

fatal accidents and explore the data to define medical and 

toxicological areas of potential concern.

CARI/CAMI’s toxicology laboratory has long conducted analyses of blood and tissue samples from fatal 

general aviation accidents; the major early interest was 

with respect to the involvement of alcohol. Samples were 

provided from around the country via the well-known 

Making a Living. Based on their exposure to pesticides, 

aerial application (crop duster) pilots were a major CARI 

interest .

Fire and Smoke. Crane determined inhalation toxicity of 

various aircraft cabin materials.
5

CARI/CAMI “tox boxes” provided by the Institute to all 

Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs). The FSDO, in 

addition to a variety of responsibilities including pilot and 

aircraft certification issues, investigates general aviation 

accidents and is sometimes assisted by FAA-designated 

aviation medical examiners (all of whom perform pilot 

physical examinations and some of whom voluntarily go 

to local accidents to help obtain data).

Forensic Quality

CAMI’s current aeromedical research in forensic toxicology runs the gamut from highly technical but pragmatic 

work under Russell T. Lewis, Ph.D., on analyzing human 

GA Accidents. Early CARI on-site accident research teams 

participated only in general aviation aircraft accidents.

Accidents and the “Tox Box”. CARI/CAMI’s famous 

“tox box” kits at Flight Standards District Offices contain 

instructions and materials to obtain samples from a fatal 

aircraft accident to be packed and shipped to CAMI for 

analyses. Precise documentation of all evidence received by 

CAMI is carried out in a modern accessioning laboratory.

blood and tissue samples from fatal aviation accidents 

for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

to the development of DNA techniques to differentiate 

ingested alcohol from alcohol that naturally develops from 

the putrefaction of human tissues, to methodologies for 

detecting a variety of drugs. CAMI’s continued contracted 

designation by the NTSB as its primary laboratory for 

performing state-of-the-art toxicological analyses of fatal 

aviation accidents (dating from 1986) and of fatal surface 

accidents (dating from 1998) attests to the quality of 

the laboratory. That quality is further validated by the 

laboratory’s successful renewals of accreditations by the 

American Board of Forensic Toxicology and by theCollege 
5
55

NTSB Calls. During the 1990s CAMI scientists were 

invited by the NTSB to participate in their accident 

investigations. Three CAMI employees (Gale Braden in 1976, 

Mark George, above, in 1998, and Jeffrey Marcus in 1999) 

have moved from the Institute to positions with the NTSB.

Quality Assurance. Chaturvedi prepares proficiency 

testing specimens for use both in CAMI’s quality assurance 

programs and for the national program he manages. In 

1995, he organized a successful International Colloquium on 

Advances in Combustion Toxicology hosted at CAMI. The 

proceedings were published in the journal Toxicology. 

Building Excellence. Canfield, architect and head of the 

Bioaeronautical Sciences Research Laboratory.

of American Pathologists – the only laboratory in the 

world accredited by both organizations. The accreditation 

program is managed by John W. Soper, Ph.D. 

As another means of assuring excellence in quality 

control, CAMI houses the nation’s only proficiency 

testing program in the field of postmortem forensic 

toxicology. More than 30 forensic toxicology laboratories 

around the country regularly participate in this unique 

CAMI program (initiated and managed by Chaturvedi) 

that checks the proficiency of analyses of postmortem 

biological samples.

World Class Capability

The toxicology laboratory was redesigned beginning 

in 1989 and updated to its present state-of-the-art level 

by Dennis V. Canfield, Ph.D., culminating in the present 

major forensic thrust of the (renamed) Bioaeronautical 

Sciences Research Laboratory. Its world-renowned capabilities in blood and tissue analysis for the NTSB include 

precision tests for a myriad of drugs as well as alcohol. 

Blood tests at CAMI can help determine whether aircraft 

occupants died from an exhaust leak producing carbon 

monoxide or whether the plane had an in-flight fire prior 

to crashing. Basic research to improve drug detection and 

to distinguish, via DNA, ingested alcohol vs. postmortem 

alcohol has been led by Chaturvedi.

And a more recent investigative initiative involved the 

formation of a functional genomics team that conducts 

gene expression research. This team combines analyses 

of genetic information with computational methods to 

assess networks of environmentally responsive genes that 

signal physiological fatigue and performance impairment 

following exposure to aeromedically significant stressors. 

Such stressors include hypoxia, alcohol, drugs, and jet-lag 

fatigue. Research applications include aeromedical certification as well as post-crash accident investigations.

The laboratory’s work not only contributes significantly 

to NTSB determinations of the causes of (or factors associated with) fatal accidents, but also has sometimes 

absolved an accused, deceased pilot and, on other occasions, has reduced or eliminated the liability of the agency 

in complex legal cases. Moreover, CAMI’s toxicological 

analyses also serve as a partial test of the integrity of the 

aeromedical certification system, specifically with respect 

to drugs and medical conditions. q
56

The Flight Environment: Altitude, Temperature, Ozone ... and Radiation

Altitude

Studies on altitude and oxygen masks were undertaken 

by John Swearingen and his small team prior to the opening of CARI. They were continued by Ernest McFadden 

and, later, by E. Arnold Higgins, Ph.D. The continuation 

of that important line of work resides in the periodic 

development of new oxygen masks and types of delivery 

systems. The work comprises evaluating any safety issues 

in accessing and using those devices, assessing the effects 

of their use on emergency evacuation times, and testing 

the integrity of the masks in the aviation environment. 

The latter includes research regarding the fit of masks on 

bearded men and on the smaller face structure of women 

and children.

Temperature

Research on temperature as an aviation stressor was 

conducted primarily by P. F. Iampietro, Ph.D., (original 

head of the physiology laboratory) and by Carlton E. 

Melton, Ph.D., (who later succeeded Iampietro), in 

the ‘60s and early ‘70s. Melton’s work was closely associated with his studies on assessing stress issues in the 

training of general aviation pilots. In those studies, the 

effects of high cockpit temperatures on flight simulator 

performance and pilot physiology were studied for their 

training implications and for application to crop duster 

pilots. In 1968, during the developmental stages of the 

supersonic transport (SST), Higgins examined complex 

performance in temperatures up to 140° F over a time 

period required to get an SST down from cruising flight 

altitudes in the event of an in-flight air compressor failure. (Other CAMI studies assessed emergency passenger 

evacuation in an SST model.)

Ozone

Higgins and Melton, along with Michael T. Lategola, 

Ph.D., also led the work on ozone assessments. Ozone 

level exposures had been raised as a subject of concern by 

aviation industry employees in the late ‘70s (and again in 

the late ‘80s, stimulated as an off-shoot of concerns over 

urban environments). CAMI’s research was conducted 

with an emphasis on pulmonary function. That work 

assured that no harmful ozone effects were present in the 

aviation environment. An updated review of ozone findings was provided in a 1989 CAMI report by Melton.

Chamber Flight. Higgins preparing for an altitude run 

and oxygen mask testing.

High Temperature. Some early temperature research 

involved performance in a Link trainer.

Ozone Concerns. Treadmill, spirometer, visual, and shortterm memory tests, along with symptom questionnaires, were 

used to assess potential effects of exposure to ozone in the 

laboratory.
5
5

Radiation

One of the less well-known areas of research contribution by CAMI may be that of radiation levels and their 

effects on aircraft crew members, passengers, and fetuses. 

Studies by Wallace Friedberg, Ph.D., have included the 

levels of radioactive materials sometimes transported by 

civilian aircraft with regard to meeting safety criteria. A 

series of reports by his radiobiology research team provided recommendations for placement of packages of 

radioactive material in cargo areas of passenger-carrying 

aircraft so that radiation exposure of passengers would 

not exceed limits specified by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation.

Other radiobiological studies have focused on cosmic 

radiation exposure at various altitudes (it increases with 

altitude), latitudes, and during periods of solar particle 

events (solar flares or coronal mass ejections). Air travelers are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation at higher 

dose rates than normally received by the general population at ground level; the principal ionizing radiation is 

galactic cosmic radiation. With regard to altitude issues, 

Friedberg’s work has led to advisories and to airline company guidelines limiting exposure of crewmembers based 

upon the altitudes, duration, and frequency of various 

flight schedules. Risk ratios for potential development 

of radiation-induced cancers continue to be calculated 

to assure travelers and flight crews of the safety of air 

travel; guidelines for pregnant crewmembers have been 

established to assure protection of developing fetuses. 

Radiation levels are calculated based on the date of 

the flight (to tap the effects on galactic radiation levels 

in the atmosphere due to changes both in solar activity 

and in the earth's magnetic field) and the variation in 

altitude and geographic location during the course of a 

given flight. Exposure levels are determined and plotted in 

Friedberg’s laboratory for every U.S. airline flight profile by 

a regularly updated, proprietary computer program called 

“CARI” (as a purely historical whim). That program has 

been made freely available, can be run (with MS-DOS) 

on most personal computers, is used by countries around 

the world, and has been the model for those countries 

that have developed their own programs. 

A second CAMI radiation program deals with solar 

flares. These occasional disturbances in the sun lead 

to a large flux of solar protons with sufficient energy 

to penetrate the earth’s magnetic field, enter the 

atmosphere, and increase ionizing radiation levels at 

aircraft flight altitudes. A solar radiation alert system 

has been developed by CAMI's Friedberg and Kyle 

Copeland in a collaborative effort with CIRES-University of Colorado and National Geophysical Data 

Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) located in Boulder, Colorado. Radiation measurements from instruments on 

a GOES geosynchronous satellite are collected and 

provided by NOAA's Space Environment Service 

Center facility from where they are accessed by 

CAMI. The CAMI system provides for the continuous 

evaluation of proton measurements and the issuing 

of timely alerts to the aviation community through 

NOAA's Weather Wire Service if the measurements 

indicate the likelihood of a substantial elevation of 

ionizing radiation levels at aircraft flight altitudes. 

In the case of an issued alert, the entire process takes 

only a few minutes...another unique and ongoing 

aviation contribution by CAMI. 

High Fliers. Friedberg addressed a joint 

meeting of the Air Transport Association's 

medical panel and cabin operations panel held 

at CAMI in 1991. He provided descriptions 

of the cosmic radiation environments at 

air carrier flight altitudes and addressed 

concerns related to possible associated health 

risks. Demonstrations were provided of his 

early CARI computer program (then called 

CARRIER) for estimating the amount of 

radiation received on individual flights. 

Friedberg also organized a successful 

international scientific symposium entitled 

"Cosmic Radiation Exposure of Air Carrier 

Crewmembers," held at CAMI in 1990.
5

Human Factors: Performance ... Doing It Right

Many of the CAMI research projects on human performance in aviation-related tasks have involved the effects of 

various stressors on complex performance (more recently 

referred to as time sharing performance or multi-tasking). The range of types of performance studies extends 

from laboratory task consoles (e.g., the Multiple Task 

Performance Battery) to flight (or radar) simulators, to 

in-flight (or on-site) observations. Stressors evaluated for 

their effects on performance — and often on physiological 

responses — have included simulated altitude exposure, 

alcohol, sleep loss, various drugs and medications, temperature, startle, smoking, motion vs. static environments, 

and others, singly and in combination. 

Other research has investigated the effects on performance of color-coded targets, flash rates for target detection, peripheral visual cues, various visual approach slope 

indicators, communication methods, situational awareness, and other conditions affecting safe performance. 

Sensing It

Some research during the ‘60s used both simulators 

and the CARI single-engine aircraft. A highly experienced 

pilot and former aircraft accident investigator, A. Howard 

Hasbrook, in addition to exploring the potential safety 

increments of using cockpit systems he devised for instrument approaches, also assessed ways to enhance peripheral 

vision cues. Other vision research involved a series of 

studies on depth perception issues by Walter C. Gogel, 

Ph.D., and the extension of those concepts by Henry W. 

Mertens, Ph.D., and Mark F. Lewis, Ph.D., to the influence on glide slope angle of perceived depth, distance, and 

size and on the effectiveness of various models of visual 

approach slope indicators (VASI systems). 

Indeed, with the exception of the air traffic controller selection and training research program, the psychologically 

based research during the decade of the ‘60s was largely 

sensory-based. In addition to the vision work, auditory 

research by Jerry V. Tobias, Ph.D., who also edited two 

books on auditory theory (57), and vestibular research by 

William E. Collins, Ph.D., were prominent and included 

such foci as cockpit noise and speech intelligibility and 

studies of adaptation to vestibular stimulation (stimulation 

associated with spatial disorientation or pilot’s vertigo). 

With respect to the latter, considerable scientific attention 

was generated by studies of professional figure skaters 

In the Air and on the Ground. (l) Stanley R. Mohler, 

M.D., CARI director (top) and Hasbrook (lower) used the 

CARI single-engine aircraft to collect performance data. 

(above) Hasbrook also engaged in laboratory research on 

piloting skills.
60

Sound, Sight, and Position. (clockwise) Tobias 

researched cockpit noise levels and hearing loss; Mertens 

(2nd from r) in “The Alley” described laboratory procedures 

on glideslope/depth perception laboratory research to the 

executive secretary and 2 members of the National Academy 

of Sciences/National Research Council Committee on Vision; 

vestibular research by Collins involved motion and position 

sensing, performance measures, and eye movement recordings 

to define motion effects.

Workload and Performance. (l) The original Multiple 

Task Performance Battery (MTPB) used by Chiles in studies 

of pilot workload; (lower l) the updated MTPB assessed both 

individual and group performance as a function of workload 

demands; (below) air traffic control laboratory tasks 

provided information regarding vigilance, distraction, and 

various potential aids to maintaining performance levels.
61

who appear to have trained themselves to be impervious 

to vertigo and disorientation (13, 14). Results showed 

the importance of the visual system and visual reference 

to objects (e.g., the audience) fixed relative to the earth. 

The set of studies on figure skaters was partially documented by film of their laboratory and on-ice responses 

to vestibular stimulation, including telemetered eye movements during their spins – the first such use in vestibular 

research; the film was widely shown (and purchased) on 

an international basis (including the BBC) and came to 

be regarded as a scientific classic.

The differential effects of motion (dynamic vs. static 

environments) on glide slope tracking performance was 

assessed for a variety of conditions that included alcohol 

and hangover effects, sleep loss effects, use of anti-motion 

sickness drugs, and others. The addition of motion exacerbates any performance decrements produced by these 

conditions in a non-motion (static) environment. 

Complex Performance

CAMI’s programmatic laboratory research in complex human performance initially used a testing device 

developed by the Lockheed-Marietta Corporation for 

assessing time-sharing skills of importance to piloting 

aircraft. It was brought from a U.S. Air Force laboratory in 1968 by W. Dean Chiles, Ph.D., when he joined 

CAMI. The equipment was upgraded over the years with 

advances in technology to provide improved control of 

informational stimuli and recording of responses, along 

with the capability of obtaining team-based as well as 

individual performance measures. This unique device 

— the Multiple Task Performance Battery — was used in 

a variety of settings to assess stressor effects on the kinds 

of performance required of aircraft pilots. Moreover, its 

so-called “synthetic” tasks tap such basic skills that, by 

arraying the tasks differently, they can provide tests of 

performance that relate to the demands on air traffic 

controllers.

Perceptual-motor responses, physiological effects, 

and performance recovery on tasks requiring sustained 

attention such as in radar monitoring, were assessed by 

Richard I. Thackray, Ph.D., under conditions in which 

distracting auditory stimuli or startle occurred; boredom 

and monotony effects were evaluated and described as were 

the presence or absence of a sweep line or of computer 

aiding, the use of bifocals, gender and age differences, 

and other factors. Subsequent work on blink rates and 

saccades during monitoring was conducted in a joint 

project with Russian scientists, university researchers, 

and CAMI’s David J. Schroeder, Ph.D., (now head of 

the Aerospace Human Factors Research Division). Such 

complex visual monitoring is basic to work in both the 

cockpit and air traffic control.

Visual monitoring tasks involving tracking behavior 

were also used in a series of laboratory studies of the 

performance effects of simulated sonic booms. (Those 

Booms. International interest in supersonic aircraft in the 

1960s led to CAMI research on the effects of sonic booms 

on performance and sleep. Thackray (above l) engaged in 

several laboratory studies of physiological and performance 

effects using CAMI’s sonic boom simulator developed by the 

Stanford Research Institute. The “boomer” was also used in 

sleep studies conducted by Collins and P.F. Iampietro, Ph.D.
62

studies led to the invited participation of Thackray in 

field studies of sonic booms conducted in Sweden). One 

issue was the potential startle effect of a boom that might 

result in a decline in visual-motor efficiency. Instead, the 

booms produced an alerting (or orienting) response and 

performance efficiency was improved for about one minute along with a decrease (rather than a startle-produced 

increase) in heart rate. (The boom simulation was also used 

to assess effects on sleep using electroencephalographic 

and other physiological recordings.) 

Other more recent studies by Thomas E. Nesthus, 

Ph.D., have used complex performance measures to determine effects of mild hypoxia, up to 34 hours of sleep 

loss, and smoking vs. non-smoking effects on subsequent 

performance at simulated altitude.

Computer Capability: State-of-the-Art

Basic to a world class research facility is a state-of-the-art 

computer capability. From the late ‘60s throughout the 

‘70s, Lewis, in addition to his vision research, provided 

the depth of knowledge and ingenuity necessary for the 

early development of what quickly became, and continues 

to be, an outstanding computer resource that serves not 

only research and rapid complex data analysis but also the 

administrative needs of the Institute. Parenthetically, in 

1972, Lewis also organized the world’s first symposium 

on the aeromedical aspects of marijuana when use of the 

illegal drug had become widespread. The CAMI symposium included major researchers and authorities in drug 

behavior and stimulated some university research projects 

relevant to aeromedical issues. A book on the proceedings 

was published by Academic Press in 1972 (33).

Advanced Aviation Systems: New Research 

Approaches

The Systematic Air Traffic Operations Research Initiative (SATORI) developed by Mark D. Rodgers, Ph.D., 

was designed to permit an analysis of the dynamics associated with ATC operational errors and incidents. (In fact, 

before its expanded utility was recognized, it was called 

Situation Assessment Through Re-creation of Incidents.) 

Data from air route traffic control centers’ magnetic and 

audio tapes are integrated on a sophisticated graphics 

display to re-create ATC incidents. Its success was attested 

to by its almost immediate installation in Washington 

Headquarters as well as at the Atlanta En Route Center 

where it was first tested. Since then, SATORI has been 

incorporated in all enroute centers in the country, not 

Computer 

Excellence. 

Lewis’ knowledge 

and skills 

established a 

foundation 

of computer 

excellence for 

CAMI.

Non-Smoking and Non-Sleeping. (above) Nesthus assessed 

smoking/non-smoking effects on complex performance at 

simulated altitude and (pictured right assisting with electrode 

placement) measured effects of extended sleep loss.
6

only to investigate operational errors and accidents but 

also to present operational error briefings and improve 

simulation training and training management. Other 

potential uses of SATORI have been proposed to help 

assess system designs and traffic management. CAMI’s 

POWER project, initiated by Carol A. Manning, Ph.D., 

is one such application, evaluating objective indices of 

air traffic (such as aircraft mix) and their association with 

subjective workload assessments.

Human factors problems specific to general aviation 

received increased attention with the development by 

Dennis B. Beringer, Ph.D., of a sophisticated PC-based 

Basic General Aviation Research Simulator (BGARS) 

that permits rapid, low-cost performance assessments 

using various types of instrument enhancements. Almost 

simultaneously, more complex studies became feasible 

using the unique capabilities of CAMI’s elegant Advanced 

General Aviation Research Simulator (AGARS), a device 

that is reconfigurable into four different aircraft types, the 

development of which was expertly guided by Robert E. 

Blanchard, Ph.D. AGARS reconfigurability extends to 

the capability of testing innovative display concepts and 

has also been used by Beringer to study effects on pilot 

behavior of loss of some instrument capability and to 

assess the decision-making of pilots using the NEXRAD 

weather display. The latest addition to this array of general 

aviation research simulators is VGARS – a vertical-flight 

simulator developed by Beringer that can represent a 

variety of helicopters. VGARS can be configured with 

various kinds of head-down instrumentation as well as 

being interfaced with other types of cutting-edge displays (e.g., Electronic Flight Instrumentation System, 

head-mounted displays). Its out-the-window view depicts features of the “outside world” (buildings, terrain, 

weather) with realism. And, most recently, an Air Traffic 

Control Advanced Research Simulator (ATCARS) has 

been developed under the guidance of Dennis Rester 

to permit laboratory testing of the effects of new ATC 

equipment and programs on controller workload, situation awareness, and performance. 

Technology Applied. Rodgers created SATORI in the CAMI 

laboratories; it was field-tested (and kept) in the Atlanta 

Center. All Centers and Washington Headquarters now have the 

technology.

AGARS. The high fidelity, realistic 

150° field-of-view simulator 

and Beringer (seated) at its 

communication and control center.
6

Kevin W. Williams, Ph.D., has employed BGARS 

to assess ground position systems, to conduct part of 

the Capstone Project (an Alaska Region safety office 

project to assess new displays outfitted in 200 aircraft to 

increase awareness in Alaskan pilots of terrain, traffic, and 

weather in an effort to reduce the high accident rates in 

Alaska). Currently, he has begun to assess the requirements (medical as well as skill and training) for ground 

“pilots” of unmanned aircraft; some applications of these 

unmanned vehicles include crop dusting, fire fighting, 

and border patrol. 

Still other work, by O. Veronica Prinzo, Ph.D., has 

focused on pilot/controller communications and has 

provided evaluations and recommendations regarding 

the Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) and 

the controller-pilot data link communication (CPDLC) 

systems in studies conducted both in the laboratory 

and using data from the Dallas-Fort Worth Tracon. 

Meanwhile, Lawrence L. Bailey, Ph.D., has explored 

communication between controllers (e.g., ground and 

local control at low-volume airports) and team work 

BY GAR. The BGARS “cockpit” shown here as used in 

the CAPSTONE project faces a large display screen with 

programmable flight scenarios. 

VGARS – a vertical flight simulator - is a very recent 

Beringer-developed addition to CAMI’s general aviation 

flight research capability.

ATCARS. This innovative capability developed by Dennis 

Rester provides a means of testing new air traffic control 

equipment and procedures and their effects on workload, 

performance, and situation awareness.

Communicating. Prinzo’s laboratory (l) and field studies 

(above) of communication between pilots and air traffic 

controllers included the effects of data-link communication 

on operational communication. The Dallas-Fort Worth 

Tracon was the site of the field monitoring of audio and video 

transmissions during system assessment.
65

among controllers in general. Carol Manning’s ATC 

work extends to researching situation awareness issues 

and exploring the role of flight progress strips in advanced 

system air traffic control. The latter work has included 

on-site data collection at 10 towers, the Atlanta Center, 

and the Minneapolis Center. 

An innovative approach by Scott A. Shappell, Ph.D., 

to aircraft accident investigation — the Human Factors 

Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) —is leading 

to new, more complete ways of examining potential causation issues in civil aircraft accidents. The HFACS provides 

a comprehensive four-level analysis (with subdivisions): 

human error or conscious rule violation, preconditions 

(operators and practices) for unsafe acts, unsafe or inadequate supervision, and organizational factors. 

That approach is being extended to air traffic control 

by CAMI’s Julia Pounds, Ph.D., in a joint effort with Eurocontrol where it is being used as part of an operational 

incident investigation process called JANUS. Pilots, air 

traffic controllers, and, more recently, aviation maintenance groups (with whom more than a decade of human 

factors work was also conducted and reported by William 

T. Shepherd, Ph.D., and Jean Watson in the Office of 

Aviation Medicine in Washington, D.C.) have been the 

main focus of these HFACS studies. Moreover, HFACS 

has also been applied to the computer-based re-creation 

of flight situations (the SATORI approach) to help assess 

the causes of incidents or operational errors. q

The Flight Strips Issue. Manning’s studies of the 

changing role of flight strips in advanced air traffic control 

systems included field observations at Payne Tower (WA) 

(above), Atlanta Center (top r), and the Minneapolis 

Center (lower r) (note the reduced size of flight strips in the 

Minneapolis study).

HFACS → JANUS. A controller is interviewed 

for the JANUS project.
66

Aeromedical Education: Spatial Disorientation ... and Technology Transfer

R&E Interactions

Interactions between CAMI’s research and educational 

activities have been considerable. They include joint efforts 

with the hypobaric (altitude) and environmental chambers and with the ditching tank, use of researchers in the 

presentation of specialty lectures during the training of 

aviation medical examiners, and use of research findings 

in physiological and other safety training of pilots by the 

education staff. But perhaps the most visible and most 

widely applicable interaction is that related to familiarizing 

general aviation pilots with spatial disorientation.

Spatial Disorientation

Throughout the ‘60s, spatial disorientation (SD) 

– sometimes called “pilot’s vertigo” – was a significant 

factor in fatal general aviation accidents – a persistent 16% 

annually. The physical locus for SD – that is, an incorrect 

perception of one’s position, attitude, and motion relative 

to the earth – is in the vestibular (motion and gravity sensing) system of the inner ear. To provide a demonstration 

of false-motion sensing, CAMI’s aeromedical education 

staff used a manually rotatable stool and equipped the 

student with blinder goggles (which presented two stationary points of light) and a “joystick” (which was used 

to signal direction of motion). Strong sensations of false 

motion could be elicited in this manner. 

To improve this educational experience, CAMI scientists developed a stimulus profile in the early 1960s using 

a precision angular accelerator — an elegant Stille-Werner 

RS-3 rotation device that was primarily used for motion 

research — to enhance practical demonstrations of SD to 

aviation medical examiners and groups of visiting pilots. 

Initially, the chair was fitted with a partial metal surround, 

the interior of which was coated with luminescent paint 

so that observers could watch the motion in otherwise 

total darkness and the “rider” could see only the interior 

of the surround that, like the cockpit of an aircraft, 

moved with him and eliminated breeze cues to motion. 

By the mid ‘60s, CAMI’s engineering support branch had 

fabricated a sleek cockpit-like enclosure for the rotator 

that had eye appeal as well as providing capability for 

expanded motion research.

Developing an Application. Stages 

in the development of CAMI’s angular 

accelerator for vestibular research and 

laboratory demonstrations of spatial 

disorientation.

Medic Updates. CAMI researchers regularly provide the 

latest data in their fields to new aviation medical examiners 

during their week of basic training.
6

Research and Education. (Above) The 1969 Vertigon and a replica of the stickers issued to "pilot" riders at safety education events. Harry L. Gibbons, 

M.D., then-head of the aeromedical research branch, Dr. William E. Collins, scientist and then-head of the psychology laboratory (seated), and Lou Zigler, 

engineer/­president of Flight Products, Inc., are pictured during delivery of the first Vertigon

(Below) An advanced design of the Vertigon, a Gyro I, and a more recent GAT II spatial disorientation demonstrators.
6

The Vertigon

The laboratory demonstrations were designed to 

show how powerful the SD experiences could be in the 

absence of visual references fixed to the earth and as a 

result of simple head movements during angular motion. 

That protocol was designed to induce incorrect but vivid 

sensations of pitching, climbing, rolling, the absence of 

experienced movement during real motion, movement 

in a direction opposite that of real motion, and angular 

movement in the absence of real motion. The stated 

lesson was the powerful misperceptions of position and 

of direction of motion that could occur in flight, and 

the need to obtain an instrument rating and maintain 

instrument proficiency. 

That compelling demonstration, made one day to 

a visiting aviation engineering group, led to the joint 

commercial development of the Vertigon – a portable, 

enclosed, programmed SD demonstrator. CAMI’s technical and procedural specifications and fidelity testing were 

freely provided in the interest of enhancing aviation safety 

education. Flight Products, Inc., engineers developed a 

programmable rotating base that was capable of smoothly 

accelerating at a predetermined rate to a desired constant 

velocity and, when decelerated, smoothly coming to a 

stop. An enclosure was constructed with a rudimentary 

cockpit interior (including a screen) attached to the 

base. Projection onto the interior (windscreen) of a motion picture of a flight sequence was added along with 

sound track directions to the rotating “flyer” to scan the 

windscreen, search for a map or notebook, or jot down 

“air traffic” guidance resulting in head movements that 

would induce compelling vestibular stimulation (including so-called coriolis effects) during the various depicted 

“flight” maneuvers from take-off to landing. The critical 

lesson of this experience – the importance of an instrument rating and instrument proficiency - was always a 

concluding statement. 

The first Vertigon was completed in 1969, and its 

portability and ease of operation resulted its regular use 

by CAMI’s James L. Harris and his aeromedical education 

staff at numerous airshows and training courses around 

the country. The Vertigon provided an excellent familiarization for pilots and others regarding the power and 

degree of misleading information that can characterize 

spatial disorientation. In fact, CAMI’s education staff 

developed circular red stickers that announced “Wow! 

I flew the Vertigon” – “riders” at air shows and related 

safety events wore them proudly. 

Advanced Models

A later version of the Vertigon (Vista) in the 80s, two 

versions (I and II) of the Gyro demonstrators in the 90s, 

and the GAT II in the 2000s were sleeker in appearance 

and kept pace with technology advances in electromechanics and the presentation of the “flight,” but the basic 

simulation and procedural paradigms have remained (12). 

However, just before the start of the new century, a novel 

approach was suggested to the manufacturer by Melchor 

J. Antuñano, M.D., then-head of CAMI’s aeromedical 

education staff. That approach incorporated virtual reality 

technology and an external computer screen to monitor 

the “flight.” The device – the Virtual Reality Spatial Disorientation Demonstrator – was manufactured and CAMI 

immediately put it into use – the first of its kind.

A Useful Tool Internationally

CAMI’s aeromedical education specialists have used 

the Vertigon and its successors at air shows and seminars 

around the country with great success, as have numerous 

other aviation safety programs around the world. Tens of 

thousands of U.S. pilots have “flown” the device over the 

years. The proportion of private pilots with an instrument rating has climbed slowly, but regularly, along with 

a small but steady reduction in the proportion of fatal 

general aviation accidents ascribed to SD – outcomes that 

appear at least partly attributable to this unique form of 

educational experience. q

Virtual Reality. The latest concept in spatial disorientation familiarization was the direct result of ideas from 

Antuñano when he headed aeromedical education.
6

SharingKnowledge...and Resources

CAMI’s research outcomes and their by-products have immediate conduits to the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, NASA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the military, and the aviation and 

aerospace industries. And there are regularly scheduled exchanges with scientific and professional groups. All of 

these conduits tend to involve regular, intensive, and largely formal interactions...many of which are evident in the 

preceding sections of this report. But CAMI’s contributions and free sharing of knowledge and resources extend to 

other entities and involve the development and modification of formats at CAMI for providing special opportunities for special groups. For example, many local junior college, college, and university students have gained research 

experience as summer aides or part-time aides through special student programs or via the participation of CAMI 

researchers on university faculties. Some other types of opportunities are depicted in this section. They comprise 

important elements in the conduct, scope, and meaningfulness of CAMI’s scientific enterprise...all in support of 

improving aviation and aerospace safety.
7
7
7
References

1) Aviation Committee, Know your civil aviation 

activities. Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, 

Oklahoma, 1949.

2) Benford, Robert J. Doctors in the sky. Springfield, 

Illinois: Thomas, 1955.

3) Billings, Charles E. (NASA-AMES; Ohio State 

University), personal communication, 2005.

4) Branting, Henri, personal communication, 2005.

5) Briddon, Arnold E., Ellmore A. Champie, and 

Peter A. Marraine. FAA historical fact book (A 

chronology, 1926-1971). FAA Office of Information Services, 1974, p 74 & 85.

6) Burns, Robert D. Vestibular investigations in mammals. Final Report: FAA Contract No. FA-3039, 

University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 

1964.

7) Carter, Earl T., personal communication, 2005.

8) Chandler, Richard F., personal communication, 

2005.

9) Civil Aeronautics Administration Aeronautical 

Center. Telephone directory. Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, September 1958.

10) Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Shiftwork coping 

strategies. Key Multimedia Solutions, 2001.

11) Collier, B. In his own words an Atlanta psychiatrist 

worries over air traffic controllers who crack under 

the strain. An interview with Dr. Morton Berger. 

People, 8, 54-58, 1977.

12) Collins, William E. Effective approaches to disorientation familiarization for aviation personnel. 

Report No. DOT/FAA/AM 70-17, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, 1970.

13) Collins, William E. Problems in spatial orientation: Vestibular studies of figure skaters. 16 mm 

color film. (converted to videotape): 28 minutes. 

FAA/CARI, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1964.

14) Collins, William E. Vestibular adaptation and 

figure skaters: Finding obtained during skating 

performances. 16 mm color film (converted to 

videotape): 15 minutes. FAA/CARI, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, 1964.

15) Demaree, James. Examination of aircraft interior 

emergency lighting in a postcrash fire environment. 

Report No. DOT/FAA/CT 82-55, Atlantic City 

Airport, New Jersey, December 1980.

16) Department of Transportation, FAA. 14 CFR Parts 

25 and 121. Floor proximity escape path marking. 

Notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Register, 

48 (No. 197), October 11, 1983.

17) Dille, J. Robert and Marcia Grimm. Background 

of FAA aeromedical research: Forty years in Oklahoma City. In Dille, J.R. and M. Grimm Index to 

FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 

through 1986. DOT/FAA Report No. AM-87-1, 

iii-vi, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1987.

18) FAA Aeronautical Center. Survey of organization of 

Aeronautical Center. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

1965.

19) FAA Aeronautical Center. Telephone directory. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 1959.

20) FAA Aeronautical Center, Public Affairs. Aeromedical research center studies vertical deceleration. 

Beacon, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, November 

1959.

21) FAA Aeronautical Center, Public Affairs. (1) Medical research center. (2) CARI publishes research. 

Beacon. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, February 

1960.

22) FAA Aeronautical Center, Public Affairs. (1) CARI 

gets new director. (2) CARI moves to Norman. 

Beacon. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, September 

1960.

23) FAA Aviation Medical Library. Aviation medical 

papers and reports: A bibliography. Report No. 

FAA/AM 64-20, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

1964.

24) FAA Bureau of Aviation Medicine. Dr. Robert T. 

Clark heads agency’s CARI. Medical Newsletter, 

Washington, D.C., 1 (No. 4), 1960.

25) FAA Office of Aviation Medicine. National Directive No. N1100.271, Washington, D.C., May 24, 

2001.

26) FAA Office of Public Affairs. (first) FAA Employee 

Attitude Survey results: Agency-wide and Washington Headquarters. Washington, D.C., VHS, 

1984.

27) FAA Office of Public Affairs. (third) FAA Employee 

Attitude Survey results: Directors Management 

Team meeting. Virginia, VHS, 1988.

28) Garner, J.D., personal communication, 2005.

29) Holbrook, Heber A. Civil aviation medicine in 

the bureaucracy. Banner Publishing Co., Bethesda, 

Maryland, 1974.
30) Johnson, Myrna. Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute, 1959-1966. ln Collins, W.E. and M.E. 

Wayda. Index to FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Reports: 1961 through 2000. DOT/FAA Report 

No. AM-03-1, v-viii, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

2003.

31) King, Barry G. and John J. Swearingen. Some biological factors in the design of civil aircraft. Journal 

of Aviation Medicine., 1948, 19, 414-419, 441.

32) Leshner, Alan I. Don’t let ideology trump science. 

Science, 2003, 302, (28 November), 1479.

33) Lewis, Mark F. Current research in marijuana. New 

York: Academic Press, 1972.

34) Lindsey, David. Developing an effective floor proximity escape path lighting system for commercial 

aircraft: a technical and historical perspective. 

Plumly Industries, Inc. Report, Fort Worth, Texas, 

May 31, 1985.

35) Lopez, Cornelio O. Development of civil aviation 

in the FAA. Office of Civil Air Surgeon, FAA, Mimeographed Report, Washington, D.C., 1959.

36) Martindale, D. Sweaty palms in the control tower. 

Psychology Today, 1977, 10, 73-75.

37) McFadden, Ernest B. and John J. Swearingen. Forces 

that may be exerted by man in the operation of 

aircraft door handles. Human Factors 1958-1959, 

1(1), 16-22.

38) McFadden, Ernest B., John J. Swearingen, and 

C.D. Wheelwright. The magnitude and direction 

of forces that man can exert in operating aircraft 

emergency exits. Human Factors, 1958-1959, l (4), 

16-28.

39) Miller, M. Clinton III. Investigation of the training-performance criteria for several Federal Aviation 

Agency occupational specialties. Final Report: FAA 

Contract No. FA/AC-4-730, University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

1964.

40) Mohler, Stanley R., personal communication, 

2005.

41) Olson, Enar B. Projected growth of the Aeronautical 

Center. FAA Memorandum for the Record. FAA 

Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 

February 29, 1960.

42) Plumly Airborne Products. Preliminary design approach: advanced egress lighting system for compliance with DOT, FAA 14 CFR parts 25 and 121 

floor proximity emergency escape path marking 

and Final Rule. Plumly Industries, Inc. Report, 

Fort Worth, Texas. January 1985.

43) Plumly Airborne Products. Plumly Airborne Products advanced incandescent egress lighting systems. 

Plumly Industries, Inc. Report, Fort Worth, Texas, 

March 29, 1985.

44) Pollard, Donell, personal communication, 2005.

45) Pritchett, Becky (Aeronautical Center, Office of 

Facility Management, Architecture and Engineering 

Division), personal communication, 2005.

46) Prochorff, A. Military controllers jumped into the 

breach. FAA World, 1982, 12 (1), 14-17. (Excerpted 

from “A towering effort” in Airman Magazine, 

November 1981).

47) Preston, Edmund (Ed). FAA historical chronology 

(civil aviation and the federal government, 1926-

1996). FAA Office of Public Affairs Publication, 

Washington, D.C., 1998, p. 49.

48) Quesada, E.R. Authorization of medical research 

buildings. FAA Memorandum from the Administrator to the Director, Aeronautical Center. June 

1, 1960.

49) Quesada, E.R. Supplemental authorization for the 

medical research building. FAA Memorandum 

from the Administrator to the Acting Manager, 

Aeronautical Center. July 28, 1960.

50) Smith, John E. The organizations and functions of the 

Office of Civil Air Surgeon, Federal Aviation Agency. 

Aerospace Medicine. 1959, 30 (7), 471-475.

51) Smith, Warren W. What’s new in aviation safety. 

In: CAA Aero. Center “Beacon,” Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, May 3, 1950 (vol. 1, no. 2).

52) Swearingen, John J. A ten-year history of human 

factors research: 1948-1958. CD, 35 min.

53) Swearingen, John J. Design and construction of a 

crash dummy for testing shoulder harness and safety 

belts. CAMRL preliminary report. CAA Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, April 1951.

54) Swearingen, John J. Design and construction of an 

adjustable cockpit mockup. CAMRL Report No. 1 

(Project No. Biotechnology 2-48). CAA Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, July 1949.

55) Swearingen, John J. Determination of the most 

comfortable knee angle for pilots. CAMRL Report 

No. 1 (Project No. Biotechnology 3-48). CAA 

Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, May 1949.

56) Teal, M. Improved interior emergency lighting 

study. Report No. DOT/FAA/CT 83-31. Atlantic 

City Airport, New Jersey, (Sept.) 1983.

57) Tobias, Jerry V. (Ed.). Foundations of modern auditory theory. Vol. I and II. New York: Academic 

Press, 1970 and 1972.
A1

Appendix

Historical Vignettes

Background of FAAAeromedical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .

	 J. RobertDilleand MarciaGri

TheCivilAeromedical Institute Facilityin Its 35th Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

	 Stanley R. MohlerandWilliamE. Col

Origin of theJet PassengerDrop-out Oxygen Systemand theDouble Pane ProtectiveDecompressionWindows  

	 WilliamE. Collinsand Stanley R. Mo

SomeHistorical Observations ofCARI/CAMI, 1960-1984    

	 Stanley R. Mohler,KarrollA. Hayes,andWilliamE. C

ABriefHistory of OAM Research Funding, Staffing,and Technical Report Production    

	 WilliamE. CollinsandGaleG. D

Some Observations on the Origins of theCivilAerospace Medical Institute: Its First Predecessor, t

CivilAeromedical Research Institute 

	 WilliamE. Collinsand Stanley R. Mo

CivilAeromedical Research Institute, 1959-1966 

	 MyrnaJohnson

A1960 Preludeto New FAA Medical Leadership atWashington HeadquartersandCAMI:

Some Personal Recollections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 

	 Stanley R. Mohl

These historicalvignettescapture different aspects of the CARI/OAM research story. They have been publish

previouslyin the OAM series as prefaces to some of the periodicallyissued cumulativeindexes of OAM research

reportsasameans of preserving historical perspectives. Becausethatcontext tends not to highlight their presenc

thevignettes arereproduced herein theinterest of incorporatingin a single document theadditional history they

provide. Thevignettesare presented in the order in which theyappeared in theIndexissues,viz., in OAM Repo

No. AM 87-1, 97-1, 98-1, 01-1 (2 vignettes), 03-1 (2 vignettes),and 05

A

BACKGROUND OF FAA AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH

Forty Years in Oklahoma City

By J.R. Dille, M.D., and Marcia Grimm

Historical Vignette
A
A5
A6

The CARI Building and Its Mur

The building that houses the Civil Aeromed

Institute was dedicated and formally opene

on a sunny, pleasant Sunday in October 1962. Th

facility was constructed as a research building 

was initially named the Civil Aeromedical Res

Institute (CARI). In 1965, its mission expanded: 

became the Aeromedical Research Branch of the Civ

Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), and the building 

accordingly renamed. Aeromedical certification 

education, along with clinical and industrial h

responsibilities were and remain, the other compon

of CAMI.

Prelude

The first Civil Air Surgeon of the newly establis

Federal Aviation Agency (1958), was James L. Godda

M.D., a Public Health Service officer. He reporte

directly to the first FAA administrator, General Elwo

Quesada (USAF, Ret.), and was “seconded” to the FAA 

as an active duty Public Health Service officer. Gener

Quesada had authorized the establishment of the Ci

Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI - now the Ci

Aeromedical Institute, or CAMI) and Dr. Goddard se

about implementing its staffing and the construction

a new building for it. Detailed documentation of

measures that led to the establishment of the FAA, the

The Civil Aeromedical Institute F

In Its 35th 

By Stanlely R. Mohler, M.D., and William E. Colli

The CARI Building during construction in 1961. The barracks buildings in the background are 

remnants of the Will Rogers Army Air Base, built during World War II.

Historical Vignette

*Stanley R. Mohler, M.D., served as the first CARI director. He is ow  dean of the Aerospace Medicine program at Wright

University School of Medicine. William E.­­ Collins, Ph.D., is the current director of the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute.

also present at the dedication of the new building in 1962.
A

Civil Air Surgeon position, and the Institute (

are contained in the book Civil Aviation Med

the Bureaucracy (1), by Heber A. Holbrook. Some 

additional historical background by J.R. Dille, 

appears in the Preface of Office of Aviation Medi

Report DOT/FAA/AM/87-1 (2

The original facility was a product of the Oklah

City Airport Trust, which had started an innova

building program after World War II, aimed to ent

government agencies, especially the FAA, to place organizational entitles at the Aeronautical Center (no

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center), located at Wi

Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City. The Tru

program issued bonds that provided money to bui

structures necessary to house various FAA components at

the Aeronautical Center. The FAA leased from the Trust

the various individual facilities that were tailor-

the needs of various offices and service

The CARI Buildin

In 1960, while occupying temporary quarters

wooden barracks (built to house sailors at the nowclosed U.S. Navy base) at Westheimer Field in Nor

Oklahoma, on the North Campus of the University o

Oklahoma, the scientists at CARI set to work layi

out their individual laboratory plans in a custo

approach. This was probably one of the few times 

history that a group of scientists — psychologists, physiologists, anthropologists, crash-worthiness en

and other specialists —actually designed and, wi

three years, moved into, a large technical bio-medi

research space they had planned.

The CARI building was initially to be located dir

to the west and across the street from the Aeronautical

Center manager’s building. The manager, Mr. Lew

Bayne, decided to relocate the CARI site to the sout

about a city block in distance. He felt that, since s

animal research was projected at that time, a mor

remote location would be desirable. The change wa

accomplished without the knowledge of the medic

personnel or of newly-appointed CARI director, Stanle

R. Mohler, M.D., until ground breaking started. I

the long-run, the more distant location proved idea

However, in the “short” run, it led to pulling some nonresearch components (including medical certifi

out of the building and locating them in the Ai

Records Building (near the Center’s consolidated recor

computer facilitie

The CARI Dedication Progra

On October 21,1962, an outdoor ceremony was held

at  p.m. to dedicate the new Civil Aeromedical Rese

Institute. On the previous day, a scientific seminar

been held in the auditorium of the Aeronautical Cen

manager’s building, and that night, the­­immorta

Doolittle gave a banquet talk in downtown Oklahom

City in honor of the Institute; the text of that talk appeared in the column “Aviation Medicine H

by J.R. Dille, M.D., published in Aviation, Space

Environmental Medicine (

The outdoor dedication ceremony was conducte

on the north side of the Institute and was attende

by FAA Administrator Halaby and Acting Civi

Surgeon, Don Estes, M.D. (Dr. Goddard had departed 

the FAA on September 1, 1962). Speakers include

Oklahoma Senator Mike Monroney and Congressmen

Tom Steed and Jon Jarman. Texan Albert Thomas, the 

powerful Chairman of the House Independent Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee covering the

also attended. Local Oklahoma business leaders and

other officials participated, including one of the 

famous military and civilian flight surgeons, Ran

Lovelace, II, M.D. Mr. Delos Rentzel, former head of 

the Civil Aviation Administration (predecessor 

FAA), served as Master of Ceremony and Mr. Halaby 

delivered the keynote dedicatory address. A 45-min

movie was made of the ceremony (and is available 

the Institute)

FAA Administrator Najeeb Halaby 

speaking at the dedication ceremony.
A

The CARI Mura

A spacious entrance to CARI was designed b

Hudgins, Thompson, and Ball, (the “HTB” architectural firm for the Aeronautical Center). A highligh

the entrance was to be a large, multi-colored tile mura

that, following the architectural designers’ rendit

would be prepared through a computer program by a 

subcontractor. The mural was delivered in sub-­assemb

tile blocks, with the proper colored tiles in the pro

places (the individual tiles are about one inch on 

side) to be glued in strips to the wall. The mural des

covered the west wall of the entrance lobby.

The mural that went into the rapidly evolving CA

building was computer designed (perhaps the first to 

so done for a federal building) by an employee of th

architectural firm and was of a somewhat abstract nature.

The design had a symbolic supersonic transport wit

shock wave and a symbolic biomedical electrical si

as obtained in research data collection. The four m

aeromedical areas — research, standards, certificatio

and education/preventive medicine — were abstrac

portrayed by caduceus renditions. Above the mural, 

series of head-on bird silhouettes denoted air

By October 1962, the entire mural was in plac

It drew many favorable comments. Dr. Mohler had 

clocks put around the upper margins of the lobby

walls to show the various world time zones. Visit

were brought through for tours of the new buildin

prior to the its dedication. The visitors uniforml

away with a very positive feeling about the Instit

and they were impressed with the total effect of th

structure and interior as being very modern (and th

liked the mural)

The Airman With a Waiv

There was an accidental misplacement of a single t

(it is located one tile space lower than its proper position) on the wing tip of one of the symbolic 

bird) near the ceiling of the erected mural (the seco

bird from the left). While leading a dedication

tour through the building, a guest in a crowd of visi

teased Dr. Mohler, pointing out the error, proclaim

loudly, “There’s an error in your mural.” Dr. Mohler’s

immediate response was, “That’s no error! That’s a

airman flying on a waiver

The visitors loved 

A portion of the CAMI lobby with the 

tile mural. (The "airman on a waiver" 

is in the upper left corner.)

The CARI mural (reproduced from the original drawing).

1. Holbrook, Heber A. Civil Aviat

Medicine in the Bureaucracy. 

Bethesda, MD:Banner Publish

ing Co. (Library of Congress

8241

2. Dille, J.R., and Grimm, M.H. Index t

FAA Office of Aviation Medi

Reports: 1961 through 1986. Wa

ington, DC: DOT/FAA; 1987. 

report no. DOT/FAA/AM/87-1

(#ADA180281

3. Dille, J.R. Aviation Medicine Her

Aviation, Space and Environment

Medicine. 1987, 58, 
A

Origin of the Jet Passenger Drop-out Oxygen 

and the Double Pane Protective Decompression 

By Stanley R. Mohler, M.D.

and William E. Collins, Ph

J

ohn J. Swearingen retired from the

Civil Aeromedical Institute (CA

as Chief of the Protection and Surviv

research program in 1971. His m

accomplishments in the areas of crash inju

protection, human tolerances to abrupt

acceleration forces, and proper restrain

system design are widely known in t

aerospace safety field. 

Somewhat less well known is his earli

work (1950s) that anticipated the need in 

evolving generation of jet passenger aircra

for passenger drop-out emergency oxygen 

equipment and his passenger window desi

that afforded protection should a windo

under pressurization forces be los

On October 15, 1957, John Swearingen and colleague Ernest B. McFadd

patented an “adhesive-type oxygen mask”

and an automatic drop-out mechanism

both of these for airline passenger protection in the event of a decompres

at altitudes where passenger oxygen i

desirable (U.S. Patent 2,809,633). 

Swearingen and McFadden were researchers at the Civil Aeronautics Med

Research Laboratory, a forerunner of the 

Civil Aeromedical Institute, located

various times in Columbus, Ohio, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The mask

and automatic drop-out apparatus were

first described in a presentation on Ap

15, 1956, at the 27th annual meeting 

the Aeromedical Association (now t

Aerospace Medical Association) held

Chicago. The presentation was publish

(1) in the February 1957 issue of the Journal of Aviation Medicine (now Aviati

Space, and Environmental Medicine).

Figure 1. A replica of part of the Swearingen-McFadden 

original patent. The patent covers the total passenger 

emergency oxygen system, including the automatic dropdown mechanism triggered by altitude and the associated 

adhesive oxygen mask. The descriptive emphasis was 

on improving protection of the passenger, rather than on 

the release mechanism.

Historical Vignette
A10

The accomplishments by Swearingen and McFadde

in developing the oxygen drop-out mechanism wit

proposed new passenger mask were reflected in the equipment carried by the first generation of passenger jets, 

Boeing 707, the Douglas DC-8, and the Convai

Although the adhesive mask proposed by Swearinge

and McFadden provided a superior seal to the passenge

masks actually installed in those early flights, indus

concern with the shelf life of the then-available adhes

material precluded introduction of the adhesive ma

However, the presentation aspects they developed, wit

automatic deployment of the mask should the cabin o

an airliner exceed a given altitude (12,000 - 14,000 

range), are in use today

With respect to high altitude pressurized cabin fl

instances of occupant ejection through a failed window

a pressurized aircraft began to occur with the World W

II era. Large pressurized piston engine aircraft reta

the large, single pane window design of unpressuri

aircraft. As altitudes increased, window failures occu

for one or another reason. The rapid outflow of the ai

from within would at times bring objects in the ai

path through the window to the outside, including 

hapless human who was nearby and unrestrained

Swearingen began his airflow studies in the 

and conducted further studies through the transition of the Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Laborat

the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute to CAMI. His early work revealed the utility of utilizing do

windows so that, should the outer pressure-bearing window fail, orifices at the perimeter of the inner

would allow the airflow to escape, leaving the inner window pane intact. This double pane safety concep

introduced in the first generation of jet passenger aircraft. Swearingen worked out a series of profiles that illustrated the safe distance of a passenger from a lost single pane window of various diameters. These p

published in the 1963 report, “Studies of Airloads on Man” (2). The report provided data for design e

of aircraft with respect to specifications for windows that enhance air safety should an airliner decompr

ing its flight profi

This historical summary is prepared in recognition of the pioneering work accomplished by personn

Civil Aeromedical Institute and its predecessor organizations. Other brief historical summaries re

Institute are available elsewhere (3, 4,

References

1. Swearingen, J.J. An adhesive type oxygen mask. Journal of Aviation Medicine, 1957, 28, 1

2. Swearingen, J.J. and McFadden, E.B. Studies of air loads on man. Oklahoma City, OK: 1963. Civil Aeromedical 

Institute Report. No. 63-9. NTIS #AD602

3. Dille, J.R. and Grimm, M.H. Index to FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 through 1986. Wash

1987. FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AM/87-1. NTIS #AD

4. Dille, J.R. Aviation Medicine Heritage. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1987,

5. Mohler, S.R. and Collins, W.E. The Civil Aeromedical Institute facility: In its 35th year. In: Collins, W.E. a

M.E. Index to FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 through 1996. Washington, D.C: 1997.

No. DOT/FAA/AM 97-1. NTIS #ADA3

Figure 2. A typical work-setting photo 

of John Swearingen in CAMI’s “high bay” 

area during 1963. Long-time associate J.D. 

Garner stands in the background.
A11

Some Historical Observations 

1960-1984

By S.R. Mohler, M.D., K.A. Hayes, and W.E. Collin

The Civil Aeromedical Research Center, later call

the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI), 

established in August 1960 to develop medical data

meet the problems of civil air operations as civil a

moved into higher altitudes and supersonic speeds. C

was placed under the executive and technical direct

of the Research Requirements Division, Bureau of Aviation Medicine. Hilliard D. Estes, M.D., 

in the U.S. Public Health Service, was appointed 

first Medical Director of CARI, and Robert P. Clark

Ph.D., was appointed the first Research Director. Th

dual-directors situation resulted in some confu

regarding primacy of roles, but was resolved when, o

August 7, 1961, S.R Mohler, was appointed Direc

of the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, and William E. Collins, Ph.D., was already recently o

instituting vestibular and visual research. There 

approximately 20 full-time scientists and resea

support personnel at the new institute plus additio

administrative and secretarial st

CARI consisted of an Office of the Director, Aud

Visuals Service and Research Engineering, and

branches specializing in the areas of biochemi

biodynamics, environmental physiology, psychology, protection and survival, and neurophysiol

total of 21 positions was authorized in the operat

appropriation for CARI at that time. Researche

concentrated on the following types of projects: (1)

man’s aging process and the relation to chronologic

age and pilot proficiency; (2) selection criteria

an environmental stress factors experienced by a

traffic controllers; and (3) inflight fatigue affec

flight engineering on jet aircraft. Researchers w

housed in several temporary wooden buildings a

a gymnasium that were owned by the University 

Oklahoma and located at Westheimer Field (a forme

World War II naval aviation training base) in Nor

Oklahoma, until the CARI Building was complet

in October 196

Completed in 1962, the Civil Aeromedical Institute is the 

home of aeromedical research, certification, education, 

and occupational health programs (photo circa 1985).

Historical Vignette
A12

The scientists noted above had drawn up their respective aeromedical research projects and had planned

designed the layout for their individual laboratory s

in the emerging new 220,000 square foot, four level (on

level underground) medical research building at the Aeronautical Center, Will Rogers Field, Oklahoma Cit

was said to be the first time that an enthusiastic cadre

scientists had a major role in the design and prepara

of their future institute’s laborator

The scientists were drawn from the US Air Force 

Randolph Field, the US Army, the University of Oklahoma Medical School, Ohio State University (the

of protection and survival research personnel led by Joh

J. Swearingen who had previously been moved from th

Aeronautical Center to Ohio State University by the 

Aviation Administration and were now being return

the FAA to Oklahoma), and other organization

In June 1962, the Office of the Deputy Civil Air Surg

for Research and Operations and the Certification, Research, and Standards Divisions under the Civil Air

in FAA Headquarters were all moved to Oklahoma City

Also, as a part of this move, the Washington Office Cli

became a part of a new medical Clinical Services Div

The Deputy Civil Air Surgeon was established to pro

centralized medical standards, certification, research, 

clinic activities for the agency. The only medical ope

retained at FAA Headquarters at that time was progra

planning and management in the immediate Office

the Civil Air Surgeon. The Deputy Civil Air Surg

charge consisted of a Medical Research Division (

included CARI and FAA’s Clinical Research Institut

Georgetown), Medical Clinical Services division, 

Certification Division, and Medical Standards Div

total of 112 positions was allocated to this organizat

This included 50 positions in the operations approp

and 62 in the facilities, engineering, and develo

(FE&D) appropriatio

As the scientists settled into the new CARI faci

during the fall of 1962, and began their respective aeromedical research studies, a troubling cloud appe

the form of a Congressional House of Representative

mandated budget ceiling on personnel and funding f

the new institute, imposed by Mr. Albert Thomas, th

congressman from Houston, Texas, and a powerful appropriations committee chairman. There was, at t

time, some tension between Mr. Thomas and Oklahom

Senator Robert S. Kerr regarding the establishment o

several FAA and NASA sites

The planned institute staffing of 212 persons wa

formally cut back to 100. Recruiting activities for scientists and research support personnel were slowed a

number of planned projects was reduced. The time of the

Institute’s scientists was concentrated on regrouping 

reformulating their research plans, and the new Direct

and the branch chiefs spent much time juggling priorities. When the new institute building was d

October 1962, Mr. Najeeb Halaby, FAA Administrato

invited Mr. Thomas to participate in the proceed

Senator Kerr had passed away by this time, but Mr

Thomas’ concerns did not seem to have been relieved

Senator Mike Monroney of Oklahoma participated

the dedication and the discussions at that time bet

Mr. Thomas and Senator Monroney may actually have 

been primarily responsible for saving the Institute fr

support perspective. At the evening dedication banqu

the featured speaker was Jimmy Doolittle who told of th

important role flight surgeons had performed during 

illustrious aviation car

A peculiar development had occurred in 1960-61

that the FAA instituted the Georgetown Clinical Resea

Facility (approximately 20 persons in 1961), later ren

the Georgetown Clinical Research Institute (GCRI). T

purpose of the GCRI was to study “longitudinal” pil

aging and look for ways to make individual exception

the 1961 FAA “age 60” mandatory retirement regulati

for airline pilots. It developed that a similar longit

research program on airline pilots was establishe

1960 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at t

Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, wi

the help of S.R. Mohler, M.D., a Public Health Servic

officer in the Center for Aging Research at NIH, wh

was about to be offered the Directorship of CARI. I

also developed that certain FAA headquarters personnel

proposed closing CARI and enlarging the GCRI as the

felt it more convenient to administer a medical rese

program in the same town as FAA headquarters rather

than one in Oklahoma. These Washington personnel ha

to take propeller airline aircraft on their periodic tr

Oklahoma City, a circumstance requiring a full day 

multiple stops at the tim

As assessment of the FAA Headquarters/Aeronautical

Center medical structure in December 1962, resulted

the abolishment of the Office of the Deputy Civil 

Surgeon and the transfer of the Standards Division ba

to FAA Headquarters to augment the Civil Air Surge

in a major realignment of the Aviation Medical Ser
A1

The other existing medical divisions at the Aerona

Center were retained and reported directly to the Ci

Air Surgeon

In January 1964, CARI was placed under the executive and technical direction of the new Washington

Aeromedical Education and Research Division i

Aviation Medicine Service. At that time, under Fe

Air Surgeon M.S. White, M.D., the Georgetown Clini

Research Institute became a branch of this new divi

which was established to plan and direct research activities at a national level. However, this was later 

in July 1965, when Administrator Halaby directed 

the medical research program be managed directly by th

Federal Air Surgeon

The CARI medical certification, research, and cl

activities were reorganized into one division in

1965. At that time, the Institute was renamed the C

Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) and was placed under th

executive direction of the new Aeronautical Center Director, Mr. Lloyd Lane. Technical direction continu

provided by the Federal Air Surgeon. CAMI consisted 

four branches – Administrative and Technical Bran

Aeromedical Certification Branch, Aeromedical Resea

Branch, and Aeromedical Services Branch. J. Robert Dill

MD, was named chief of CAMI in December 1965.

total of 172 positions (93 operation and 79 RE&

authorized to CAMI at that time, representing what prov

to be a one-year reduction of 21 RE&D positio

The issue of CARI versus GCRI was settled by the

Government Accounting Office in a report that recommended closing GCRI due in part to its duplicat

the NIH supported Lovelace longitudinal aging stu

of pilots. The new Federal Air Surgeon, Peter Siega

M.D., also had received an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee report to the effect that the GCRI was not follow

a clear statistical design relative to its study popul

and, accordingly, had made no notable progress toward

achieving the goal for which it had been establis

Moreover, the cost of maintaining two medical resea

facilities – one overcrowded (GCRI) and one underutil

due to the Congressional ceiling situations – was 

than difficult to defend. The GCRI positions and dolla

were moved to CAMI in 1966 restoring the CAMI lev

to 100 position

At that time, newly appointed FAA Administrat

William McKee, gave a speech to an Aerospace Medic

Association annual meeting and stated that CARI wou

contract for a large moveable hydraulic lift platform tha

had capabilities of tilting and would raise the fusela

an airline-type aircraft for passenger emergency evacuation studies. The money from GCRI was used for

platform and, as only one GCRI person elected to move 

to Oklahoma, the position authorizations began to

melded into the Institute in Oklahoma. By this time, 

Mohler, M.D., had moved to Washington and had assiste

in preparing the Administrator’s speech. The evacua

simulator proposal seemed very timely as several airl

accidents involving passenger evacuation problems 

occurred in the relatively recent pas

In 1966, a Clinical Research Laboratory was establis

in the Aeromedical Research Branch in which to place 

scientists from the FAA’s closed out Georgetown Clini

Research Institute. In August 1968, the aeromedical education function was moved from the Aviation Medica

in FAA Headquarters to CAMI so that existing CA

facilities (altitude chambers, etc.) could be utilized. At

time, the Aeromedical Education Branch was establish

With this came the responsibility of aeromedical edu

and information programs supporting safety and promotion of civil aviation; and development of standa

procedures governing the selection, designation, trai

and management of physicians appointed to conduct aviation medical examinations of civil airmen in t

abroad. Also in 1968, a Technical Staff and Administ

Staff were established to assume functions of the forme

Administrative and Technical Branch; however, th

functions were later moved to the Aeromedical Researc

Branch and the division office in July 1979. A biost

staff was established in June 1968 but was later mo

to the Aeromedical Research Branch in April 1975.

Aeromedical Services Branch was retitled Aeromedi

Clinical Branch in June 1968. Based on the Federa

Surgeon’s decision that it was his office’s lowest prio

the Aeromedical Clinical Branch was abolished in

1981 during a financial crunch. However, the Aeronaut

Center Director reestablished and staffed it in Octo

1981, under CAMI direction, in order to support

training aspects of the air traffic recovery program (n

surprisingly, CAMI eventually negotiated successful

to re-own the clinic in the early 1990’s). CAMI

thus structured with an Aeromedical Research Branch

Aeromedical Certification Branch, Aeromedical Educa

Branch, and Aeromedical Clinical Bran

In the late 1960’s and into the early 1970’s, a se

of events arose in aviation that led to the vitiati

the earlier mentioned resource ceiling on FAA med

research resources. Serious labor problems with the FA

air traffic controllers and FAA management at the facilit

area, regional, and Washington headquarters levels, bega

to develop throughout the National Aerospace System.
A1

The “vacuum tube” air traffic control hardware and the

problems with the new software along with the necessar

shift work rotations began to escalate air traffic controll

stress concerns. The contributions by researchers at CAM

and the need to properly support CAMI scientists wi

respect to air traffic controller psychological, physiological, and medical aspects were becoming apparent

Albert Thomas had passed away in 1966, but the fundi

ceiling for CAMI persisted through 1983 (althou

1972 overall RE&D funding for OAM began to increas

Moreover, in 1973 the number of authorized rese

positions dropped from 100 to 97, a loss that was la

attributed to an error on the part of the FAA budget

office. When the loss was called to the attention of the

budget office, a decision was allegedly made to leave it 

97 on the grounds that the budget document was too fa

along in the process to seek a correction. The correcti

was never made. In addition to the in-house research 

CAMI, the FAA made available to OAM an addition

$700,000 for a longitudinal study by Boston Universi

Dr. Robert Rose on controller stress and illness. The FAA

designated a Headquarters medical officer to help Dr

Rose to develop the contract for the proposed landmark 

study during the subsequent four-year period (19

and the physician who was assigned to help develop t

contract and to help Dr. Rose during the four-year perio

it was in force and monitored by the Office of Avia

Medicine was S.R. Mohler, M.D. That influx of tho

contract funds established a higher dollar base for th

Office of Aviation Medicine’s overall research progra

It also established the use of those types of funds by the

Washington office so that some research projects came to

be funded and monitored outside of CAM

The Rose study reflected one of the agency’s thrusts to 

evaluate scientifically issues related to air traffic control

stress. Other research was being conducted at CAMI on

related stress topics. Specifically, field studies of controller shift schedules and air traffic workload along

psychological assessments of anxiety, job attitudes, a

interest patterns were completed

In the late 1970’s, an interesting option began t

considered by the FAA and the Department of Transportation, specifically there was a proposal to conve

CAMI to a departmental function as the Transportatio

Biomedical Research Institute (TBRI). That propos

received considerable attention over a number of mont

and appeared to be favorably viewed at the highest level

of DOT. However, interest waned and the proposal was

never acted upon.

In 1979, the FAA conducted an “early out” progr

to reduce staffing levels. A number of research staff took 

advantage of the opportunity to retire early and, as 

result, the authorized position levels were subsequent

reduced from 7 to 90 (although actual staffing leve

never approached these numbers, due, in major part, to

the insufficiency of funding

In the summer of 1981, a major event occurred in t

history of the FAA and of U.S. labor law. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PA

went on strike and refused to return to work at the order

of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan fire

the striking controllers and the FAA undertook a stri

recovery program which included the unprecedented h

ing and basic training of over 8,000 air traffic contr

applicants in a 2-year period. CAMI played a key role

the recovery program.

As the need for an FAA recovery plan developed, the 

significant skills of CAMI scientists and their considerable knowledge about air traffic controller selec

training were recognized by then FAA Administrato

Lyn Helms. A CAMI scientist , Dr. James O. Boone

was appointed to the Administrator’s staff and mov

to Washington Headquarters to assist in the strate

and operational recovery planning. Other scientists, 

by Allan D. VanDeventer, took full charge of CAMI’s 

controller selection research program and provided th

local research leadership for the FAA Academy to help

make strike recovery work; that included changing t

ATC Screen program to make it more efficient with respect to success in Academy training. The importa

CAMI’s contributions to strike recovery was underscor

by Administrator Helms when he provided certifica

of commendation and appreciation from Pan Ameri

World Airways dated May 6, 1982, to regional and cen

headquarters offices, air route traffic control centers, level

IV and V terminals; level III flight service stations, 

FAA Academy—and to CAMI. The certificate recognize

the “outstanding performance of FAA employees in maintaining a high level of safety and operations follow

controller strike.” Helms also noted in his August 2, 1

memorandum that he believed that “this is the first t

in the history of Pan American World Airways that 

Board of Directors has authorized a commendation f

a total organization

As part of the strike recovery effort, following outcome

from contract studies of air traffic controllers (the “Jone

Committee Report”) and with support from CAMI psychologists, Administrator Helms requested that 
A15

scientists develop a questionnaire to assess the FAA’s organizational culture as a means of establishing a 

to determine the effects of organizational interventi

That effort was designed to provide a base of informat

that could help to prevent the types of impasse that led to

the air traffic controller strike and firings. The first F

Employee Survey was conducted in 1984 as a census of 

FAA employees. It was a major undertaking. All aspects

of the survey from development of the items, to printin

mailing, scoring, statistical analyses, and preparati

reports were conducted at CAMI under the direction o

David J. Schroeder, PhD. The scannable survey form

comprised 66 substantive items, was distributed to a

47,000 employees at their home addresses (a conside

decision by agency management, reflecting some of t

continuing concerns of that period), and yielded a 

return rate. Although there had been considerable managerial anxiety about the conduct of this first agency-

survey, and although the results showed a number of areas 

in need of improvement, the survey project was a high

successful one – it led to consideration by manageme

of plans to improve aspects of the work environment, an

identified successful policies. In support of the perce

value of the survey approach, the Administrator decid

to continue use of the survey on a biennial ba

A confluence of events during this time led to so

later organizational changes involving both the resea

branch and the Institute as a whole. Specifically, in 

the FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Standa

Mr. Walter S. Luffsey, assigned a study of CAMI research

to a staff member, William Smith, Ph.D., who had

background in physics. The so-called “Smith Report

released in 1984, presented a plan for modifying the

research structure (removing some aeromedical areas fro

a research to an operations category), introduced the rathe

cumbersome term “workplace performance optimizatio

– to cover selection, training, and survey studies - as

area of acceptable research along with “protection an

survival” and “workload and performance”, emphasize

the need for research sponsorship by an operational agenc

element, and recommended that the Institute report to

the Assistant Administrator for Development and Logistics. The “workplace performance optimization” c

survived for about a decade while the enhanced sponsorship recommendation was addressed and develope

future years. However, CAMI’s basic research structure

stayed intact, and the Institute continued to report 

Aviation Standards into the 1990’s. Moreover, the st

the successful recovery efforts, and the successful survey 

project emphasized the need by the agency to direct mor

attention to its human resources. In that regard, CAM

psychologists had provided leadership and accomplishments significant enough by 1984 to lead agency ex

particularly the highly respected Associate Administr

for Administration, Mr. Gene Weithoner, to seek acti

to assure a more prominent role for that group in th

organization. The Aeronautical Center Director, 

Benjamin Demps, strongly supported the enhancement

of human resources research (he had had very positiv

first-hand experience with CAMI psychologists when 

had served as Superintendent of the FAA Academy). Mr.

Demps developed a position paper in 1984, draft

K.A. Hayes, to establish a Human Resources Research

Institute at the Aeronautical Center by converting t

Aviation Psychology Laboratory to that role. (A simil

less formalized attempt to effect the same type of result

was generated among the human resources offices in

Washington Headquarters in late 1988). However,

near-term major outcome of these suggestions was the

1986 decision and the January 1987 conversion

Aviation Psychology Laboratory within the Aeromed

Research Branch to its own branch status as the Human

Resources Research Branch. In December 1988, all of t

CAMI branches were elevated to division status with 

Aeromedical Clinical Branch renamed the Occupatio

Health Division. These organizational changes rem

effective through the year 2000
A16

A Brief History ofOAM Research Fu

Staffing, and Technical Report Produ

By W.E. Collins, Ph.D. and Gale G. Dills

With the establishment of the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI) in 1960, research staffing, 

and the production of technical reports by the Office o

Aviation Medicine (OAM) were initially centered i

Indeed, the first two years of research publications (19

62) were termed CARI reports. The use of the OAM logo 

and the like change in the designation of those repo

began in 1963. Research funding also was tied to 

CAMI during the 1960s; later, Washington Headquarte

retained funds designated as contract dollars and issu

and monitored contracts in such areas as air traffic controller (ATC) selection, aspects of air piracy research

color vision, aspects of aircraft maintenance, and oth

over the years. The discrepancies between CARI/CAM

funding and overall Office of Aviation Medicine rese

funding is largely accounted for by the allocation a

use of contract dollars from Washington Headquarters.

CAMI has always been primarily a hands-on conductor o

research and had relatively little or no annually contracte

research until the 1990s. During that decade, an expansion of the vision for CAMI research and a conc

increase in resources – both personnel and dollars – le

to an enhanced approach to contracting and, for the first

time in 1993, to awarding research grants in supp

internal programmatic goal

Nevertheless, the first two contracted studies by CARI

CAMI were initiated early in its history, at about the

time, and resulted in final reports in October and Novemb

1964. One of these, not surprisingly, dealt with air tr

controllers (Investigation of the Training-Performa

Criteria for Several Federal Aviation Agency Occupational Specialties by M. Clinton Miller III, De

of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universi

Oklahoma Medical Center); the other (Vestibular Investigations in Mammals by R.D. Burns, Ph.D., Univ

of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Research Institut

June 1962-July 1964) had the added benefit of provi

CARI/CAMI with a model RS-2 Stille-LKB rotating ch

for vestibular stimulation. The Stille device was empl

extensively for decades as a research tool and to demonstrate

aspects of spatial disorientation; it later became the 

for commercially produced disorientation trainers, 

to date, is still operable and used as neede

Figures 1 and 2 show the history of appropriations 

authorized positions for the OAM and for CARI/CAM

respectively. Because the Institute always received t

major share of the appropriations, the time course 

dollar support in both graphs is similar and, during

1960s, was veridic

A similar situation obtains for the position all

data in both curves with the exception of 1965 and

88. The former case represented a peculiar drop from 1

to 9 as part of the agency order that changed CARI t

CAMI; the level reverted back to 100 the following year.

Except for 1965 and the 1986-88 period, durin

3 positions were moved from CAMI to the Washing

office, all the research positions were nominally locat

in Oklahoma City. The displacement of thoe 3 posi

was effected by Federal Air Surgeon Frank Austin, M.D.

who used them to support the Headquarters OAM staff 

that was monitoring contract research. The positions w

returned to CAMI in 19

Aeromedical research positions moved up from 62 in 

to a 100-level ceiling beginn

in 1963, shortly after Stanl

R. Mohler, M.D., had become 

CARI Director. The ceiling 

100 had been set initially by M

Albert Thomas’ Congressional

appropriations committee a

was never exceeded. In 1965,

the level dropped to 9 as par

of the order when CARI was 

reorganized as CAMI, but rose back to 100 in 1966 wh

positions at the defunct Georgetown Clinical Resea

Institute were transferred to CAMI. In 1974, the le

dropped to 7 – allegedly on the basis of an error by t

agency budget office at Washington Headquarters that

was never corrected. Somewhat ironically, OAM researc

funding increased at about the same time due, in pa

to agency support of the so-called “Rose Study” of air

traffic controllers. 

Overall OAM funding showed a modest linear increase from 1970-1978 and then leveled off for 5

but CAMI research dollars remained level over the same

Dr. S.R. Mohler

(c. 1962)

Historical Vignette
A1

Figure 1. History of appropriations for the Office of Aviation Medicine: 1961–2000.
A1

Figure 2. History of appropriations for the Civil Aeromedical Institute: 1961–2000.

Civil Aeromedical Institute Research (1961-2000)

9.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0

13.012.011.010.0

19611963196519671969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999

Years

Appropriations (Millions of Dollars)

120100806040200

Authorized Positions

Dollars Positions
A1

Figure 3. Office of Aviation Medicine Technical Reports: By Year, 1961–2000.
A20

time period. During the 1978-83 period, the n

authorized positions fell n 3 occasions. The first 

was related to an “early out” program conducted by the 

agency and reduced the authorized number to 90 positio

Subsequent reductions occurred in 1981 (to 76 posi

and 1982, leveling off t 74 positions. Also, dur

period, a change occurred in the allocation of positi

While previously (and subsequently) all positions w

RE&D (i.e., Research, Engineering, and Development

during 1975-1983 from58 to 77 of the posi

FE&D (Facilities, Equipment, and Development) slo

the remaining 16-20 positions were designated as R

Those variations reflected Washington budget office decisions related to much larger FE&D and RE&D is

Partly as a result of the increased emphases related to the

controller strike, strike recovery, the Employee Attitu

Survey, and a new look at selecting and training controlle

(along with the diminishing amounts of research resou

after CAMI personnel costs were deducted), some increase

in OAM funding occurred from 1984-1986, a majo

of which was assigned to the Institu

J. Robert Dille, M.D., who

had served as CAMI Director since 1965, retired at 

end of 1987. Following several months of rotating a

CAMI managers, William E

Collins, Ph.D., was appointe

deputy manager (the term 

“Director” was temporarily no

used because agency officials

had come to feel it conflicte

with the titles of FAA region

and center directors – it wa

later restored) in 1988 and CAMI Director in 1

ing that time negotiations to return he 3 CAMI rese

positions that had been relocated to the Washington offi

in 1987 were successful; the positions were reallocat

CAMI in 1990. Although the Institute ad 74 auth

research positions, by 1988 only 57 full-time per

personnel were on board and CAMI’s research funding

was not adequate for a larger base of personnel. Given the

approximate 2-year lag in the normal budget process, a

immediate concerted effort to negotiate an improvem

in resources was needed at every level (Agency, Department, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and

the Congress). Those efforts were successfully undertaken 

and resulted in significant increases in both positio

dollars. Positions jumped fro 74to 83 in 1991 

to 3 in 1992. Funding went from less than $4

in 1987-88 to over $5 million in 1990 to mor

million in

It is perhaps of some interest that these staffing increases were almost topped during the 1993 

process. At that time CAMI had successfully requested

5 more positions - uniquely the Agency was request

no others - and had seen them retained during the firs

FAA-DOT-OMB pass through of the budget (although 

no new funding was being requested). The positions survived the final FAA cut but were dropped during the 

DOT pass through by Admiral James B. Busey who had

served as the FAA Administrator from 1989 - 19

had moved from there to a DOT position. The ground

reported for removing the 5 positions at that stage we

that no new air traffic control or safety positions we

being requested in the budget, and no funding for t

5 CAMI positions was in the budget. The OAM-CA

position level stayed at 

Throughout the first three decades of CARI/CAMI 

research, budgets were submitted through the Offic

of the Federal (nee Civil) A

Surgeon, and funding was

pro­vided to that office a

distributed to the Institut

Aviation Medicine was a research budget line. B

however, as part of a response 

to industry/professional organization/advisory g

recommendations, the agency

initiated a “human factor

research emphasis that included the hiring of a scien

and technical advisor for human factors. The appointe

Clay Foushee, Ph.D., began to develop a human factors 

research plan and to work with the agency budget officials

The agency research budget was divided into chapters a

the new human factors thrust was assigned to Chapter 8

There was considerable interaction in the budget m

ings regarding the title for Chaptr 8 – Dr. Foushee 

some others preferred “Human Factors” as the title to

subsume aviation medicine, aspects of research at the 

Technical Center (particularly with respect to air traf

controllers), and Washington-based research contracts i

various human factors areas. However, perseverance by

aviation medicine in these budget meetings led fi

Dr. J. Robert Dille

(c. 1963)

Dr. W.E. Collins

(c. 1965)
A21

to titling Chapte 8 as “Human Factors and Avia

Medicine” – an accomplishment largely attributable to 

on-site work of William T. Shepherd, Ph.D., an OAMbased psychologist. The importance of maintain

identity of aviation medicine research in this insta

in a later instance regarding logos, transcends any pure

nominal issues. Because the agency is largely geared t

and staffed in, regulatory, engineering, and developme

areas, the unique person-oriented research approach tha

typifies the OAM research programs needs to be imbedded in a similarly oriented office if it is to m

human-centered thrust.

The funding mechanisms subsequently changed. Dr

Foushee developed an office and a staff within the agency’

aviation research organization and by 1992 CAM

being funded directly from the research budget office whi

the contract research being conducted from the office of

Aviation Medicine was given separate funds. In 199

latter transfer of funds ceased and, while aviation medici

contract research from the Washington office continue

with the small staff there, funding was drawn from th

Office of Aviation Research (AAR) and not allocated t

OAM. In 1997, a similar change was attempted for 

funding but a case was vigorously and successfully mad

to allocate immediately to CAMI each year’s funding f

all “in-house” costs (i.e., everything except contracts a

grants for research by outside organizations) and to follow-up during the first quarter of the year (beginn

FY-98) with CAMI’s contract research/grants fundi

In 1996, the Congressional appropriation for all of F

RE&D funding changed, without notice, from a “no-ye

appropriation” to a “3-year appropriati

CAMI’s research productivity is largely defined by 

output of technical reports. Indeed, it is probably t

best indicator of its published (or public) research resu

Such a measure, while of singular importance, represen

only part of the value derived from its research program

CAMI researchers also publish in scientific journa

make scientific presentations at national and internat

meetings, give safety lectures, provide data and knowled

for educational purposes, and serve as agency, department,

national, and international consultants in their area

expertise. However, as is evident from Figure 3, prod

ity as measured by technical reports was highly varia

irrespective of funding levels during the first two decad

The peak in 1978is partly attributable to some extra ef

to complete projects before a 1979 “early out” progr

by the agency to reduce overall staffing levels. From that 

peak, however, two clear trends emerged. Productivit

dropped steadily from 1978 to 1988 to a low of 5 re

it then increased steadily to an average of about 28 per y

during the later half of the 1990’s. It is perhaps of s

interest that in 1995, AAR developed a logo and ini

an undertaking to use that logo on OAM reports - first

in place of the OAM logo, later along with it. Pursuit

both alternatives was discontinued after several mont

of intermittent discussions to insure the integrity 

medical programs.

The position gains (to 93) were later tempered 

the agency introduced a “buy out” program in 1994 (a

with a required change in the ratio of employees to supervisors/managers – to reduce the size of the super

staff) as part of U.S. Vice President Gore’s goal to reduc

the size of government. As a result, the agency’s overall

research program was required to reduce its number o

authorized positions and restrict filling the rem

positions b 7 positions per year for the foll

years. CAMI was able to retain 92 authorized posit

(an initial determination to set the level at 88, ba

prior-year vacancies, was successfully changed), and th

allowed employment level (staffing ceiling) settled a 8

meeting these agency goals. Those levels were maintain

through the year 2000.

Similarly, the peak funding levels achieved by C

in 1993 and 1994 were affected followi

“buyout” by reductions in 1995 - 1997; a return to

peak levels began in 1998 and was sustained in y

and 2000.

The data in this report were derived from analyses and resolution of budgetary documents and 

memoranda initiated at the Aeronautical Center, OAM, and CARI/CAMI. 
A22

Historical Vignet

Some Observations on the Orig

The Civil Aerospace Medical Insti

Its First Predecesso

The Civil Aeromedical Research Inst

By William E. Collins, Ph.D., and Stanley R. Mohler, M

The following vignette was created by Myrna Johnso

during 1966. On October 3, 1960, Ms. Johnson jo

CAMI (then CARI) as a receptionist and later serve

as a budget analyst for Mr. Vaughan E. Choate; the 

Institute’s Administrative Officer. On her own ini

and based on her own sense of history (“all organizatio

have a history and it should be recorded”), Ms. Johnso

undertook the writing of this piece during her last

months at the Institute.

The special section on the Institute’s library has s

roots in the fact that her husband, who had twice been 

part-time employee of the Institute as an editorial cl

writer (June 1961-September 1962; June-Septemb

1963) while he attended graduate school at the Univer

of Oklahoma, helped set up the library prior to the hir

of the first official libraria

Ms. Johnson completed the manuscript in Jul

1966, just prior to her leaving the Institute (Aug

26, 1966) for Texas where her husband had secured a

teaching position following completion of his 

degree. The text of the article, which is referenced 

a “mimeograph” under a slightly different title (“

Aeromedical Research Institute – A Brief Histo

1959-1966”) in Heber Holbrook’s 1974 Civil Av

Medicine in the Bureaucracy, is presented below exactly

as written. What is not presented is a listing appe

by Ms. Johnson, of every federal research employee of 

the Institute during the period covered along with t

job titles, grades, dates they joined the Institute, and f

those who left, a date and a one-word description of th

reason for leaving. All of the latter data are now availabl

in the CAMI Library

Ms. Johnson’s focus is on the original function of 

Institute – research – and, as such, there is no detail

of personnel who came to occupy non-research positions (e.g., in aeromedical certification) as organiz

changes (which she notes) took place. Also, when the

name (and functions) of the Institute changed to the Ci

Aeromedical Institute in late 1965, she uses the acro

CAI for the organization’s new title; the acronym beca

CAMI shortly after she left in 1966 and has been preserved to identify the Institute with its new name

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute – authorized in

to reflect the FAA’s responsibilities associated wit

commercial space transportation progra

With Ms. Johnson’s permission, we have taken o

liberty with her article, i.e., we have added arch

photographs that supplement the text.

A rare grouping of key figures in the CARI 

story. Pictured in the northeast corner of the 

CARI lobby in 1963 are (l to r) Heber Holbrook (Administrative Officer in Aeromedical 

Certification and later author of “Civil Aviation 

Medicine in the Bureaucracy”), J. Robert Dille, 

M.D. (CARI Program Advisory Officer – next 

CARI Director), Peter V. Siegel, M.D. (Chief 

of Aeromedical Certification – the next Federal 

Air Surgeon), M.S. White, M.D. (Federal Air 

Surgeon, September 1963-September 1965 and 

the first to hold that title – it had previously 

been “Civil Air Surgeon”), Stanley R. Mohler, 

M.D. (CARI Director), and Vaughan E. Choate 

(CARI Administrative Officer).
A2

Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, 1959 

By Myrna Johnson

July 196

From its beginning in 1959 until in 

1965, the research facility in Oklahoma 

has been called the Civil Aeromedical Resear

Institute, CARI, for short. To those who were

CARI employees during this period of ti

the Institute will be remembered as CARI. Th

purpose of this history is to sketch the grow

of this institut

The Federal Aviation Agency announced on Octobe

31, 1959, plans for the Civil Aeromedical Research Ce

later called Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CAR

to be established at the Aeronautical Center in Oklaho

City, Oklahoma. The purpose of the new medical researc

center was to develop medical data to meet the problems

of civil air operations as civil aviation moved in

altitudes and supersonic speeds (1

Late in December 1959, the first CARI personn

arrived in Oklahoma City. John Swearingen, J.D. Garner, Ernest B. McFadden, and John Blethrow had b

with the Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Labora

(CAMRL) in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Robert T. Clar

arrived from the School of Aviation Medicine (

in San Antonio, Texas, to become CARI’s Director 

Research. The first home of CARI was the second floor, 

Hanger  at the Aeronautical Center. In February 196

a group of researchers and other staff members arrived

at CARI from SAM. This group was comprised of Dr

Jess McKenzie, physiologist; J.D. Allred, au

visual specialist; Dr. Bruno Balke, biodynam

Dr. James Green, biochemist; Dr. P.C. Tang

neurophysiologist; Aline “Corky” Koch, secretar

M.C. Oviatt, engineering technician; and Cl

Jones, administrative officer. During the sp

and summer, staff members continued to arrive

Dr. George Hauty, Rollo Beebe, and Bart Cobb, 

all in psychology, came from SAM.

In April, Dr. Michael T. Lategola, physiologist, arri

Dr. Don H. Estes joined the staff in July as the Director 

CARI. Vaughan E. Choate became the executive officer i

July. Drs. P.F. Iampietro and L.J. O’Brien, physiologis

joined the staff in August. Howard Hasbrook, crash inju

specialist, arrived in September. In the last four mon

of the first year, Dr. Wallace Friedberg, physiologist; D

William Stavinoha, pharmacologist; Dr. Richard Snyder, anthropologist; and Dr. E.E. Phillips, phys

joined the staff

The main efforts during the first year were spent 

setting up the laboratories and recruiting researchers 

technicians. Several moves were accomplished dur

the first six or seven months. In May 1960, the smal

group moved form Oklahoma City to Building 6

North Campus, Norman. This building was part of t

University of Oklahoma Research Institute. In Augus

the group moved again into Building 803, Build

Ms. Johnson

The “gym” on the North Campus of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Okla., housed biodynamics and related research by CARI scientists in 1960-1962. The several buildings 

occupied by CARI personnel had been temporary U.S. Navy buildings during World War II.

Historical Vignette
A2

and a gymnasium, which were leased from the University of Oklahoma. Three more buildings were ac

later. The institute remained in these quarters unt

moved into new facilities at the Aeronautical Cent

October 1962

The Bureau of Aviation Medicine in Washington, 

was established on March 14, 1960 – an indication o

growing significance of the medical program in av

safety. CARI researchers concentrated on the following

projects during the next three months

1. Man’s aging process and the relation to chronologic

age and pilot proficienc

2. Selection criteria for and environmental stress fact

experienced by air traffic controllers; an

3. Inflight fatigue affecting flight engineers on jet ai

(2).

At the end of the first year, the staff consisted of a Director, Director of Research, 18 researches, 4 secretari

receptionist, an executive officer, an administrative off

a supply specialist, and 20 technicians and scientific 

Each branch had several members, and the audio visua

and engineering services were functio

During FY 1961 the accomplishments were threefol

design of the new facility, recruitment of key staff; 

initiation of long-range research progr

The second year was marked by several significant developments and continued growth. The first major chan

occurred in April 1961, when Drs. Estes, Clark, and Gre

and several technicians resigned or transferre

Dr. Hauty served as Acting Director of CARI unt

the appointment of Dr. Stanley R. Mohler as Director 

August 1961. On September 20, 1961, the staff consist

of 9 members, including temporary and part-time workers. The authorized permanent staffing was 64, aut

temporary 18, and authorized part-time 20. Listed be

is the staffing by branches and service

Branch secretaries were added i

October and November 1961

Plans originally called for a staf

of several hundred in five years or

less. However, growth was limite

by a congressional ceiling on sta

ing. The budget prepared in Jun

1960 for 1961 and 1962 request

61 positions for 1961, which were within the lim

requested 150 additional positions over the ceiling

1962, 320 positions were requested. Seventy-five positions were authorized for 1962, and this aut

still holds for Research and Development (FY 1966

At the end of 1961, 18 professional researcher

secretaries and clerks, and 21 technicians and scient

aides had joined the staff in its second year. Part-

employees are included in these number

During FY 1962, 13 CARI reports and 45 scien

articles were published. Research developed methods o

predicting success of air traffic controllers in trai

The investigations of air crashes furnished information for improvements in air safety. Preli

was completed on toxic hazards in aerial applicatio

insecticid

In June 1962, decentralization of the Washing

office occurred, and Certification and Standards Divisions moved to Oklahoma City. The new organ

was headed by Dr. George Steinkamp, Deputy Civil 

Surgeon for Research and Operations. CARI, Georgetown Clinical Research Institute, and Research Dire

became a part of the Aeromedical Research Division, 

of the four divisions, and the Clinic became Aerome

Clinical Services Division. The remaining two

were Aeromedical Certification Division and Aerom

Standards Division. In December, the Office of the Depu

Civil Air Surgeon was abolished, and the 15 posi

given to CARI and Certification. Standards Div

moved back to Washington in November 1

The major event in FY 1963 w

the move in October 1962 into t

new $8.5 million research facilit

the Aeronautical Center. On October 21, the building was dedica

by FAA Administrator N.E. Halab

(3)

In FY 1963, the staff reached ful

strength with 35 professional resear

scientists, 25 research scientists, 15 scientific aide

20 part-time aides. In Research Direction, 11 were in

Mr. Halaby

Dr. Estes

1: Librar

2: Animal Car

5: Research Engineeri

6: Biodynamics Bran

6: Audio Visu

3: Neurophysiolog

Branch

2: Biometri

10: Director’s Offic

8: Biochemistry Bra

6: Branch Chief

17: Psychology Branc

2: Clinical Examina

4: Environmenta

Physiology Branc

6: Employee Health

11: Protection & Surviva

Branch
A25

Office of the Director, and there were six branch chie

and six branch secretaries. During this year, CARI participated in the supersonic program and Project “Litt

in addition to the approved projects. Thirty-five C

reports and one Technical Publication were iss

With the move into the new building completed 

the labs set up and working, the new facility allowed n

projects to be undertaken in FY 1964. Experiments w

conducted in the altitude, pressure, and environment

chambers. Ditching, evacuation, and rescue experime

were conducted in the pool. Drug, alcohol, and decompression studies were made at high altitudes. Test

oxygen masks were conducted. Twenty OAM reports (1

from Georgetown and seven from CARI) were published

during this yea

The major projects were retitled in FY 1965 to mo

clearly describe the medical research program at CARI

Thirty-three professional research scientists, 30 rese

scientists, 12 scientific aides, and 20 part-time po

were abolished. Thirty-two OAM reports were issu

during this yea

During FY 1966, the first major turnover of personnel occurred. Sixteen members of the scientific staff 

during this year. Their vacancies were filled with scie

aides. Highlights of FY 1966 included 24 OAM rep

23 presentations by staff members at various meetin

and 14 papers published in open scientific litera

Late in FY 1966, the Federal Air Surgeon announced t

move of [the] Georgetown [facility] to Oklahoma Cit

This added 25 more researchers and aides to the researc

program in Oklahoma

During CARI’s existence, CARI has maintaine

good relationship with the University of Oklahoma,

OU Medical School, and the communities of Norm

and Oklahoma City. Students at OU and the medica

schools have worked with CARI scientists, and many 

CARI’s researchers have had faculty status at OU and 

the medical school

Organization

When CARI was established, there were six branche

and the Office of the Director, Audio Visual Service, 

Research Engineering. Animal Care was added later. T

branches and branch chiefs were

•	 Biochemistry – Dr. James Gree

•	 Biodynamics – Dr. Bruno Balk

•	 Environmental Physiology – Dr. P. F. Iampiet

•	 Psychology – Dr. George T. Hauty;

•	 Protection & Survival – Mr. John Swearingen; a

•	 Neurophysiology - Dr. Pei Chin Tan

As mentioned previously, the first change occurred 

April 1961 when Dr. Estes transferred to Washingto

and Dr. Clark and Dr. Green resigned to take academi

appointments. The Director of Research position 

abolished. Biochemistry Branch became PharmacologyBiochemistry, and Dr. Paul Smith became its new

In August, Dr. Mohler became CARI’s second director

and remained in that position until December 

when he transferred to the Office of Aviation Medic

in Washington, D.C

In September 1964, Dr. Balke took an academ

position, and Dr. Lategola became the Acting Ch

of Biodynamics. In FY 1964, the six branches 

changed to laboratories, and in January 1965, t

Neurophysiology and Biodynamics Laboratories w

dissolved and the personnel absorbed by the remaini

four laboratories.

In September 1965, Dr. Hauty resigned to becom

a department head at an Eastern university [and] Dr

William E. Collins became the new Psychology Laboratory ch

From CARI’s beginning in 1959 to the pre

time, the Washington organization has changed f

time to time, and consequently affected CARI’s operation and organization. From 1960 to 1962, CA

under the Research Requirements Division in 

ington. In June 1962, the Office of the Deputy Ci

Air Surgeon for Research and Operations was move

to Oklahoma City, and CARI and Georgetown came

under the Aeromedical Research Division in thi

organization. Dr. Mohler, in addition to continu

Director of CARI, was the Divis

Chief of the Aeromedical Researc

Division from July 8, 1962, 

January 2, 1964. In January 19

CARI came under the Aeromedical

Education and Research Divisio

Washington. Dr. Romney Lowry

was the new division’s chief.

October 1965, the medical activitie

the Aeronautical Center (Certification, CARI, and t

Clinic) were reorganized into one division entit

Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAI). In December, Dr.

Robert Dille became the new division chief. Dr. 

had been Program Advisory Officer for CARI from June

1961 until February 1965, when he was transferred 

the Western Region as Flight Surgeon. CAI no longer ha

direct contact with Washington but is under the Dire

of the Aeronautical Center. There are four branches and

the Office of the Division Chief in the new organiz

Dr. Mohler
A26

how the budget would be spent for books and journals. 

In August 1962, Dr. O’Brien accepted an academ

appointment and left CARI, and Dr. Carlton Melton

became the new chairman

In October 1962, the library moved into its spac

new home. At first, it occupied rooms 256 and 

Bound periodical stacks, current periodicals, refere

books, patron’s work space, and charge desks were on 

[the] second floor. The book stacks, card catalog, and the 

library staff’s workroom were on [the] third. This mo

was not final by any means. Office space was required

on [the] third floor, so the book stacks were moved to

the basement. Later, partitions were removed form th

back part of the second floor library, and the stacks were

moved to second floor. Finally, all the library was on 

single floor

In June 1965, Miss Heck retired because of po

health, and Mrs. Alfreda Hanna became the new librar

ian. Mrs. Hanna resigned in February 1966 because

the lack of library help, and Ted Goulden became the

third librari

The branches are Administrati

and Technical Branch, Aeromedica

Certification Branch, Aeromedic

Research Branch (formerly CARI), 

and Aeromedical Services Branc

The latest reorganization o

change is the move by Georgetown to

Oklahoma City, to be accomplishe

by September 30, 1966. In August, Dr. Harry L. Gibbo

will become chief of the Aeromedical Research Bran

CARI Librar

A research facility needs a library and CARI was 

exception. Early in CARI’s history, beginning steps 

taken to obtain a library. A library committee was established, and Dr. Jess McKenzie became its first ch

The original purpose of the committee was established

oversee the entire library functions. Dr. Larry J. O’Br

arrived at CARI in August 1960 and was appointed 

committee chairma

With the establishment of the library committee, 

first step was taken. At first, the incoming subscripti

were passed from desk to desk. The receptionist checke

in the journals and books as they arrived in the ma

In June 1961, Bobby H. Johnson, a part-time editor

clerk, handled the library materials and set up an efficie

operating library. Two rooms of Building 803 b

the first library

In March 1962, Miss Lilah 

Heck, medical librarian at the University of Oklahoma Medical Sc

became the first CARI librarian. A

this time, the library moved i

Building 802 and occupied f

rooms (1,175 sq. ft.). With the additional space, there was a lib

office, a current journals and general reference room, a 

room for bound periodicals and book stacks, and a phot

duplication room. New shelving, reading tables, rea

carrels, and duplicating equipment were add

In FY 1962, the funding responsibility for the libr

furnishings, and physical appointments was given to

Aeronautical Center library, but the books, subscriptio

and other needs came from medical funds. The functio

of the committee was changed because of this polic

Instead of overseeing all functions of the library, t

committee became representatives of the staff to deci

Miss Heck

Dr. Dille

The present library committee is comprised of D

Melton, Crane, Tobias, McKenzie, Fiorica, Davis, 

Ice, and Ted Goulden.

The main problem of the library at the present ti

is to stay within the assigned library space. The libr

growing at the rate of 30 shelf-inches a week. The libr

budget is another problem. An equipment ceiling in

past couple of years has held the purchase of books and 

back issue journals to a minim

Footnotes

1. “Federal Aviation Agency Historical Fact Book

Chronology, 1926-1963,” P. 45, 

2. Ibid., p. 4

3. Ibid., p. 60

Ms. Hanna Mr. Goulden
A2

Historical Vignette

A 1960 Prelude to Nw FAA Medical Leadership at

Headquarters and CAMI: Some Personal Recolle

By Stanley R. Mohler, M.D.

Preludes

General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected the 

President of the United States in November 1956.

August 23, 1958, he signed the Federal Aviation Act

included the creation of the Federal Aviation Age

(FAA). On November 1, 1958, he selected Elwoo

“Pete” Quesada, Lt. Gen. USAF (Ret.) to become the 

first Administrator of the newly established Feder

Aviation Agency. General Quesada arranged for Jame

L. Goddard, M.D., a career U.S. Public Health Servic

officer, to become on July 12, 1959, the FAA’s ini

Civil Air Surgeon (Holbrook, 1974), a new title f

enhanced top FAA medical position that was elevat

to report directly to the Administrator (who report

to the President)

In collaboration with William F. Ashe, M.D., C

of the Department of Preventive Medicine, Ohio St

University School of Medicine, Dr. Goddard conve

on September 15, 1960, his first FAA formal assemblag

of aviation medical examiners (AMEs). This was in conjunction with the 7th Annual Postgraduate 

Aviation Medicine that Dr. Ashe had been conduc

for several years. A group of selected interested physicians and aviation professionals comprised speake

this prototypical AME seminar, held in the fall of 1

that has grown to become today’s outstanding semina

presentations by the Civil Aerospace Medical Insti

(CAMI). At the conclusion of the course, Dr. Goddard

announced that he intended to initiate FAA semi

of this type for AMEs before the end of the year. And

he did so. Mr. James L. Harris organized the first o

in December of 1960. CAMI AME seminars are n

provided nationally and internationally and continu

achieve Dr. Goddard’s objective to upgrade the aviat

medical certification practice of A

Those attending the historic 1960 gathering inc

the following

•Charles I. Barron, M.D., Medical Director of th

Lockheed Aircraft Company, speake

• George P. Kidera, M.D., Medical Director, Uni

Airlines, speak

• Peter V. Siegel, M.D., Smithton, Missouri,

• Stanley R. Mohler, M.D., Medical Officer, Center

for Aging Research, NIH, speake

• Philip B. Phillips, M.D., Psychiatrist, U.S. 

speaker

•Richard G. Snyder, Ph.D., Crash Injury Researcher,

Phoenix, Arizona, speak

•Ralph F. Nelson, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Bethesda, Maryland, spe

• Duane A. Catterson, M.D., Student/resident, aerospace medicine, 

•Charles E. Billings, M.D., Student/resident, aerospa

medicine, O

•Richard L. Wick, M.D., Student/resident, aerospa

medicine, O

• Luis A. Amezcua, M.D., International A

• Bert D. Dinman, M.D., Occupational medic

facility, O

In addition to Dr. Goddard, other attending F

medical personnel include

•William R. Albers, M.D., Assistant Eastern Reg

Flight Surgeon, New Yor

•James L. Harris, M.Ed., tasked to organize the firs

AME seminar, Washington, 

•John E. Smith, M.D., Chief, FAA Research Requirements Division, Washing

• Arthur E. Wentz, M.D., Head, FAA Georgetown 

Clinical Research Branch, Washington,

•Carl E. Wilbur, M.D., USN, Assigned to FAA

Accident Investigation, Washington

Development

By the summer of 1961, Dr. Goddard had asked Dr.

Siegel to join the Headquarters Certification Di

and Dr. Mohler to become the Director of the emergin

Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI) at the 

Aeronautical Center, Will Rogers Airport, Oklaho

City, Oklahoma. Both accepted. In 1962, Dr. Goddar

moved the Headquarters Certification Division plus

Standards Division to facilities in the new Institu

Albers was asked to be the new Standards Division Ch

and he quickly accepted. Dr. Siegel was asked to be th
A2

Participants in Dr. Ashe’s 7th Annual Postgraduate Course in Aviation Medicine, Ohio State University, 1960. 

1. Dr. Mohler, 2. Dr. Siegel, 3. Dr. Dinman, 4. Dr. Smith, 5. Mr. Nelson, 6. Dr. Amezcua, 7. Dr. Goddard, 8. Dr. 9. Dr. Ashe, 10. Dr. Catterson, 11. Dr. Wick, 12. Dr. Billings, 13. Dr. Barron, 14. Dr. Wentz, 15. Dr. Albers, 16. Mr. H17. Dr. Snyder, 18. Dr. Phillips, 19. Dr. Wilbur. Others are primari
A2

Chief of the Certification Division and he accepted

Harris transitioned to the Institute to manage avi

medical examiner and airman education progr

The Research Requirements Division remain

Washington, DC. When Dr. Smith retired, Dr. Mohl

was appointed to head the Washington-located Divis

giving him both an Oklahoma base and a Washing

Headquarters base. He could write a memo to Wash

ington as CARI head and send himself an answer a

Washington Division head. This was a very efficient arrangement. Support for a soon-to-be-famous and 

quoted decompression study (Barron and Cook, 1965

by Dr. Charles Barron of Lockheed (Barron and Mohler 

had become acquainted at the 1960 OSU meeting) w

requested by “the CARI Dr. Mohler” and subsequently 

approved by “the Division Chief Dr. Mohle

Drs. Albers, Siegel, and Mohler obtained homes 

Norman, Oklahoma, and often rode back and forth to 

the Institute together, providing useful opportunities

program coordination. Their “triad” formed an interlocking, synergistic, and functional exchange 

that benefited their periodic briefings for national

international aviation executives. A new FAA “Nat

Aviation System Course,” monthly five-day semina

for aviation industry executives, and engineerin

operational professionals (including airline pilots

introduced in 1963 by General Quesada’s successor, 

Najeeb E. Halaby. The course made heavy use of the three 

physicians for several years as regular presenters. A guid

tour through the Institute was a highlight for the “studen

visitors and gave the three medical programs considera

visibility throughout the aviation in

The Aviation Medical Service programs bec

increasingly known and consulted. Dr. Siegel overs

the computerization of the FAA medical records certification process for airmen. He moved the Clas

airman ECG reception point address from Georgeto

University to his Division in Oklahoma where the responsibility for assessment and action lay. D

with Charles R. Harper, M.D., made the first definiti

study of the number of fatal alcohol-associated general

aviation accidents. Dr. Mohler assisted the research

to expeditiously prepare, communicate, and publ

their aeromedical safety findings for use by the avia

community, including manufacturers, airmen, and 

flight standards and air traffic personne

In September 1965, Dr. Siegel was asked by the ne

FAA Administrator, General William F. McKee, US

to be the Federal Air Surgeon (the position that w

originally entitled Civil Air Surgeon). Dr. Siegel

Dr. Mohler to accompany him to headquarters as Chie

of the new Aeromedical Applications Division (res

planning branch, accident investigation branch,

bioengineering branch). Both moved to Washingt

Dr. Albers was now with United Airlines, Washing

DC, and subsequently became Medical Director of th

Atomic Energy Commissi

In order to consolidate and more efficiently conduc

the FAA medical research, Dr. Mohler suggested, Dr.

Siegel concurred, and General McKee agreed, that the

FAA Georgetown clinical research activity (set up

study pilot aging) be amalgamated with the now C

Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City. 

move was facilitated by a Government Accounting Offi

(GAO) report suggesting that similar research was be

accomplished at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque

New Mexico. Some of the Georgetown resources were

applied to construct a large-scale emergency evacuatio

research facility adjacent to CAMI (Mohler, Hays, an

Collins, 2001). Longitudinal pilot aging studies a

Lovelace Foundation continued to provide the FAA w

data on the topic after the FAA Georgetown activi

ended. While at the Center for Aging Research, Nation

Institutes of Health (NIH), prior to joining the FAA, 

Mohler had assisted Lovelace scientists to obtain large-sc

support to study airline pilot aging. In fact, the invi

by Dr. Goddard to Dr. Mohler to attend the 1960 OSU

seminar was for the latter to give a presentation on t

latest developments from the NIH perspective in th

field of research in aging (Mohler, 1961

Replica of a certificate, signed by Drs. Ashe and 

Goddard, documenting participation in the 7th

Annual Postgraduate Course in AviationMedicine, 

1960.
A3

Dr. Siegel retired from the FAA in 1976. Dr. Mo

retired in 1978, becoming Professor and Direc

the new Aerospace Medicine Residency Program be

established by National Aeronautics and Space Ad

istration (NASA) at the new School of Medicine, Wr

State University, Dayton, Ohio. With the departure

its key faculty, Ohio State University had just closed 

its aerospace medicine residency prog

CARI/CAM

With regard to CARI, in October 1965, just pr

to Dr. Mohler’s December move to Washington, DC,

Administrator McKee gave the Aeronautical Center Director, Mr. W. Lloyd Lane, managerial authority ove

Center activities. As part of the general reorganiza

of the Aeronautical Center, CARI, the Medical Certification Division, and an Aeromedical Service

that included a medical clinic were combined int

new division and CARI became CAMI – the Civil Aeromedical Institute. Succeeding Dr. Mohler was J.R

M.D., who had served as Program Advisory Officer to

Dr. Mohler from 1961-1964 before spending a year

Regional Flight Surgeon, Western Region, Los Angele

California. Dr. Dille directed CAMI from Decem

1965 until his retirement in December 1987.

succeeded by William E. Collins, Ph.D., a psycholog

who had been jointly selected in December 1965 by D

Mohler, Dr. Dille, and Mr. Lane to head CAMI’s Aviati

Psychology Laboratory. Dr. Collins was acting CAM

Director during 1988 and served as Director 

until his retirement in 2001. Melchor J. Antuñano, M.

who had been hired by Dr. Collins in 1992 to head

Aeromedical Education Division, was appointed th

Director of CAMI in 200

In the continuation of historical linkages, Dr.Antu

was a former aerospace medicine resident with Dr. Moh

at Wright State University, graduating in 1987. Dr. Antuñano, a native of Mexico, had been recom

Dr. Mohler for the residency program by none other than

Dr. Luis Amezcua, who had risen to the top in Mexic

civil aviation medicine programs. It will be re

that at the 1960 meeting at Ohio State University,

Mohler and Dr. Amezcua had become acquainted and

evolved a lasting professional friendship! Dr. Amezcu

recommendation of Dr. Antuñano thus received a hi

weighting, a fully justified decision as subsequent ev

have so well demonstrated.

After Wor

In late 2001, CAMI was given "commercial spac

flight” responsibilities and enters the 21st century

the same acronym but an updated name: the Civi

Aerospace Medical Institute. Under Dr. Antuñano’

guidance, the personnel at the Institute are looki

forward to the completion of a large-scale renovatio

of the Institute building, currently in progress, as t

continue their national and international aerospace medical and human factors research, medical certif

aeromedical education, and medical standards safe

work and contribution

References

Barron, C. and Cook, T. (1965). Effects of variable decompressions to 45,000 feet. Aerospace Medi

36(5): 425-

Holbrook, H.A. Civil Aviation Medicine in the Bureaucracy. Banner Publishing Company, Inc. B

MD. 1974. pp 

Mohler, S.R. (1961). Aging and pilot performance – current related research and research needs. Geriatr

16(2):82-

Mohler, S.R., Hayes, K.A., and Collins, W.E. Some historical observations of CARI/CAMI: 196

In Collins, W.E. and Wayda, M.E. Index of Office

of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 through 2

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute. DOT/FAA/AM01-1. pp

Dr. Stanley R. Mohler is Professor Emeritus of Aerospace 

Medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.