Approved for Public Release RT-T-R-16

Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove 

Operational Field Assessment Report

September 2020 
Approved for Public Release ii

The Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Operational Field Assessment Report was prepared by the National Urban 

Security Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate.

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government.

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 

favoring by the U.S. Government.

The information and statements contained herein shall not be used for the purposes of advertising, nor to 

imply the endorsement or recommendation of the U.S. Government.

With respect to documentation contained herein, neither the U.S. Government nor any of its employees make 

any warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability and fitness for 

a particular purpose. Further, neither the U.S. Government nor any of its employees assume any legal liability

or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed; nor do they represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

The images included herein were provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and 

Technology Directorate, unless otherwise noted.
Approved for Public Release iii

FOREWORD

The National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) is a federal laboratory organized within 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T). Located 

in New York City, NUSTL is the only national laboratory focused exclusively on supporting the 

capabilities of state and local first responders to address the homeland security mission. The 

laboratory provides first responders with the necessary services, products, and tools to prevent, 

protect against, mitigate, respond to and recover from homeland security threats and events. 

DHS S&T works closely with the nation’s emergency response community to identify and prioritize 

mission capability gaps, and to facilitate the rapid development of critical solutions to address 

responders’ everyday technology needs. DHS S&T gathers input from local, tribal, territorial, state 

and federal first responders, and engages them in all stages of research and development—from 

building prototypes to operational testing to transitioning tools that enhance safety and performance 

in the field—with the goal of advancing technologies that address mission capability gaps in a rapid 

time frame, and then promoting quick transition of these technologies to the commercial 

marketplace for use by the nation’s first responder community. 

As projects near completion, NUSTL conducts an operational field assessment (OFA) of the 

technology’s capabilities and operational suitability to verify and document that project goals were 

achieved. 

NUSTL’s publicly released OFA reports are available at www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/frgpublications. OFA reports deemed sensitive are available on a case-by-case basis, and can be 

requested by contacting NUSTL@hq.dhs.gov. 

Visit the DHS S&T website, www.dhs.gov\science-and-technology\first-responder-technologies, for 

information on other projects relevant to first responders. 

Visit the NUSTL website, www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/national-urban-security-technologylaboratory, for more information on NUSTL programs and projects.
Approved for Public Release iv

POINTS OF CONTACT

National Urban Security Technology Laboratory

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Science and Technology Directorate 

201 Varick Street 

New York, NY 10014 

E-mail: NUSTL@hq.dhs.gov

Website: www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/first-responder-technologies

Authors: 

Kris Dooley, Test Director, NUSTL 

Gladys Klemic, OFA Program Management, NUSTL 

Tyler Mackanin, Project Management Support, NUSTL 

Brenda Velasco-Lopez, Project Management Support, NUSTL 
Approved for Public Release v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rescue hoist gloves protect emergency responders’ hands during specialized helicopter hoist rescue 

operations. To improve the durability and performance of these gloves, the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) First Responders and Detection, 

Office of Mission Capability and Support sponsored the research and development of abrasionresistant glove materials and alternative glove designs. This effort resulted in two prototype 

fingerless glove designs. 

The two gloves, denoted Glove B and Glove C, are made from a “SuperFabric” material coated with 

resin to create abrasion-resistant dots. While both gloves use the resin-coated fabric on the palm 

and a stretchable fabric on the back, other design elements differed. Glove B incorporates a second 

layer of finer-grained material to provide additional abrasion resistance and a wear-indicator feature

on the palm, a rubber pad on the heel of the hand, and reflective fabric at the wrist cuff and 

closures. Glove C has an additional padded layer over the purlicue—the area between the thumb and 

index finger—and part of the palm region, with leather on the fingers and wrist area. Both gloves have 

Velcro straps and a loop at the wrist as well as leather finger pulls. 

DHS S&T’s National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) conducted an operational field 

assessment (OFA) where five responders from the fire services and members of the uniformed 

services evaluated the gloves at the U.S. Coast Guard’s Aviation Technical Training Center located in 

Elizabeth City, North Carolina. To replicate manual tasks typically associated with rescue missions, 

the evaluators used hoist platforms equipped with safety harnesses, rescue gurneys holding 

weighted mannequins, stationary helicopters, carabiner and various other gear. Equipment at the 

training center was able to mechanically generated wind and rain to simulate conditions 

encountered during hoist rescue operations. 

The evaluators found that the SuperFabric material used in the enhanced gloves had different 

properties than the leather in their current gloves, which effected operational activities. The 

enhanced glove material was found to have low friction, which allowed the hoist cable to glide with 

less contact, but also reduced the palm grip typically used to maneuver themselves on the helicopter 

floor. Evaluators found that excess fabric bunching in the palm of the gloves could negatively affect 

comfort and functionality. Modifications to the glove design were suggested to improve usability and 

comfort, including reduction of fabric in the palm by using a curved design that models a natural 

hand shape; reduction in the length of the cuff for improved compatibility with flight suit sleeves; 

refinement of shape and position of the rubber pad in Glove B and addition of a similar leather or 

rubber pad to Glove C; and re-location of seams from high-wear areas in the purlicue to the back of 

the hand. No significant differences were found between using the gloves in dry or wet conditions. 

Evaluators valued the gloves’ special features such as the wrist loop (both gloves), wear indicator 

(Glove B) and extra padding (Glove C), which would be particularly helpful for maintenance, 

protection and comfort, respectively. 
Approved for Public Release vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 8

1.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Participants ........................................................................................................................................ 9

1.4 Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 10

1.5 System Description ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.5.1 Glove B ...................................................................................................................................... 12

1.5.2 Glove C ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.0 Operational Field Assessment Design ............................................................................................... 13

2.1 Event Design .................................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Scope................................................................................................................................................ 13

2.3 Limitations of and Deviations from the Test Plan ......................................................................... 18

2.3.1 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 18

2.3.2 Deviations ................................................................................................................................. 18

3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 19

3.1 Comparative Analysis and Feedback For Glove B and Glove C ................................................... 19

3.1.1 Fit and Comfort ......................................................................................................................... 19

3.1.2 Functionality ............................................................................................................................. 20

3.1.3 Protection .................................................................................................................................. 21

3.1.4 Durability ................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Glove B Feedback ............................................................................................................................ 22

3.2.1 Fit and Comfort ......................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Functionality ............................................................................................................................. 23

3.2.3 Protection .................................................................................................................................. 23

3.2.4 Durability ................................................................................................................................... 24

3.2.5 Opportunities for Improvement–Glove B ................................................................................ 25

3.3 Glove C Feedback ............................................................................................................................ 25

3.3.1 Fit and Comfort ......................................................................................................................... 25

3.3.2 Functionality ............................................................................................................................. 26

3.3.3 Protection .................................................................................................................................. 27

3.3.4 Durability ................................................................................................................................... 27

3.3.5 Opportunities for Improvement – Glove C .............................................................................. 28

4.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 29

5.0 References ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Approved for Public Release vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Two Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Models ........................................................................... 11

Figure 1-2 Close-up of the rubber heel on Glove B. ................................................................................. 12

Figure 1-3 Close-up on additional layer of fabric on Glove C. ................................................................. 12

Figure 2-1 Evaluators examine the gloves during the technology familiarization session ................... 13

Figure 2-2 Evaluators using the gloves during activities meant to assess dexterity. ............................ 15

Figure 2-3 Evaluators wearing Glove B while performing hoist operations. .......................................... 16

Figure 2-4 Evaluators wearing Glove C while performing hoist operations. .......................................... 17

Figure 2-5 Stationary Helicopters used for Dexterity Testing .................................................................. 18

Figure 3-1 Length of Glove Cuffs B (Top) and Glove C (Bottom) ............................................................. 19

Figure 3-2 Bunched Fabric in Glove B (Left) and Glove C (Right) ........................................................... 20

Figure 3-3 Heat Transfer Protection ......................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3-4 Sample of Glove B (Left) and Glove C (Right) Following Degradation Testing ..................... 21

Figure 3-5 Glove B Fit and Comfort When Wet and Dry .......................................................................... 22

Figure 3-6 Evaluators Doffing Glove B Following Wet Testing ................................................................ 22

Figure 3-7 Glove B Wrist Loop ................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 3-8 Glove B Overall Protection Results ......................................................................................... 24

Figure 3-9 Varied Levels of Wear in the Purlicue of Glove B ................................................................... 24

Figure 3-10 Glove B Durability Results ..................................................................................................... 25

Figure 3-11 Glove C Fit and Comfort When Wet and Dry ....................................................................... 25

Figure 3-12 Length of Glove C Fingertips Surpassing First Knuckle during Dexterity Activities ........... 26

Figure 3-13 Glove C Overall Protection Results ....................................................................................... 27

Figure 3-14 Glove C Durability Results ..................................................................................................... 28

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 OFA Participants .......................................................................................................................... 9

Table 1-2 Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Requirements and Activities Matrix ...................................... 10

Table 2-1 Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove OFA Activity Descriptions ....................................................... 14
Approved for Public Release 8 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Rescue hoist gloves protect emergency responders’ hands during specialized helicopter hoist rescue 

operations, and may be worn on only one hand. Gloves may be either a full coverage style or a 

fingerless over-glove style that does not cover the fingertips. The fingerless over-glove style may be 

worn over a separate, thinner full-coverage glove that provides thermal protection and covers the 

fingertips. Responders performing these specialized rescue operations wear the hoist glove primarily 

to protect the palm side of the hand that manually guides a steel hoist cable during descents and 

ascents. Responders have found that these gloves degrade quickly due to friction with the cable. In 

addition to the loss of hand protection, fragments of material from a damaged glove—typically 

leather—can get caught between strands of the hoist cable and may shorten the useable life of the 

cable or hoist system. Other types of rescue hoist missions requiring hand protection may involve 

ropes rather than steel cables such as cave, whitewater and dive rescue operations. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) funded 

Higher Dimension Materials Inc. (HDM) and the North Carolina State University Textile Protection and 

Comfort Center (TPACC) to conduct research and development of advanced abrasion-resistant glove 

materials and alternative glove designs. HDM and TPACC worked with commercial glove 

manufacturers to produce prototype gloves using high-performance materials. The goal of this effort 

was to develop enhanced rescue hoist gloves with improved durability and longevity, while allowing 

sufficient dexterity for rescue helicopter personnel to perform requisite tasks without damaging the 

hoist cable. This research effort was managed by DHS S&T First Responders and Detection (FRD), 

Office of Mission Capability and Support (MCS). 

The research and development effort began in 2017 and resulted in two prototype glove designs, 

designated Glove B and Glove C in this document. Both are designed to be worn over an under-glove, 

and their palms are made from a SuperFabric material that is coated with resin to create abrasion 

resistant dots (called guardplates) that cover the surface. Glove B incorporates a second layer of 

finer-grained SuperFabric material under the top layer that is intended to provide additional abrasion 

resistance and is constructed of contrasting color layers that to provide a visual wear indicator as the 

glove degrades over time. Glove C uses a single type of SuperFabric with an additional layer over the 

purlicue—the area between the thumb and index finger—and part of the palm region and also 

includes leather components at the palm and on the finger pulls, which is intended to provide 

additional traction. 

On behalf of DHS S&T FRD MCS, the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) was 

tasked with conducting an operational field assessment (OFA) to evaluate the enhanced rescue hoist 

gloves’ suitability for use by emergency responders. NUSTL conducted the OFA at the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Aviation (USCG) Technical Training Center (ATTC) located in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 

This report describes the evaluators’ feedback obtained during the operational test activities that 

simulated conditions encountered during rescue missions. 

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the OFA was to assess the enhanced rescue hoist glove models for operational 

suitability for first responders in a simulated operational environment.
Approved for Public Release 9 

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The OFA assessed glove performance related to: 

• Fit and Comfort–overall fit and feel, as well as compatibility to work with other personal 

protective equipment and standard uniforms

• Functionality–ability to not interfere with operational tasks. This objective also includes: 

o Durability–ability to withstand repeated use without significant degradation in 

protection or shedding fragments that could damage hoist cables 

o Usability–ease of donning and doffing in wet and dry conditions, and availability of 

gloves in an appropriate range of sizes

• Protection–effectiveness in shielding the hand from contact with a hoist cable 

• Dexterity–adequate flexibility to allow for the full range of hand motion to enable the 

operation of typical equipment, such as radios, carabiners, harnesses and similar 

equipment. 

1.3 PARTICIPANTS

Table 1-1 lists the OFA participants. Five evaluators from three different agencies participated,

along with OFA team members, the technology developer and observers. 

Role Organization

Evaluators

• North Carolina National Guard 

• San Diego Fire and Rescue (California) 

• U.S. Coast Guard (Alabama) 

Venue Host U.S. Coast Guard Aviation Technical Training Center 

Program Managers and 

Support Staff U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate 

OFA Test Director and 

Data Collectors

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, 

National Urban Security Technology Laboratory

Technology Developer Higher Dimension Materials Inc. 

Observers • U.S. Coast Guard Aviation Technical Training Center 

• U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center

Photographer and 

Videographer

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate,

Communications and Outreach Division 

Table 1-1 OFA Participants 
Approved for Public Release 10 

1.4 REQUIREMENTS

Table 1-2 summarizes requirements that the enhanced rescue hoist glove models were expected 

to meet and the manner by which those requirements were tested during the OFA. These 

requirements were drawn from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Notice of Funding 

Opportunity Protective Equipment for Responders, which described the critical capabilities and 

requirements for enhanced rescue hoist gloves. The FRD Program Manager identified the 

requirements to be addressed at the OFA. 

Category Requirement OFA Test Activities Protection/Durability

• Provide adequate protection to the hand guiding the 

cable during rescue operations. 

• Not transfer heat from friction created by a hoist 

cable to the hand.

• Provide increased durability and longevity over 

existing gloves, either as a single unit or unit with

replaceable parts.

• Evaluators dropped and guided steel hoist cables 

and pulled up a linei attached to various types of 

gurneys and carriages with various contents, such as 

a mannequin or weighted objects. 

• Evaluators guided a cable under varying 

environmental conditions, including calm air and 

mechanically generated wind and rain. 

Dexterity

• Have adequate flexibility and dexterity to allow for 

the full range of hand motion to enable normal 

operations of radios, carabiners and similar 

equipment.

• Evaluators performed intricate manual tasks such 

as: 

o Attaching and detaching self-locking carabiners 

o Adjusting buckles

o Operating helicopter doors, operation panels, 

controls or keyboards

Functionality

• Not produce fibers or other loose materials during 

use or as a result of wear. 

• Features of the glove do not interfere with 

operations (e.g., snag points, cuff, hooks, etc.), 

allowing for use when performing other duties.

• Shedding of fragments assessed after cable 

handing scenarios described in the 

Protection/Durability OFA Test Activities listed above.

• Potential interference assessed during the same 

cable handing scenarios described in the Dexterity 

OFA Test Activities listed above.

Usability

• Relative ease of donning and doffing in wet and dry 

conditions.

• Available in a range of sizes.

• Evaluators donned and doffed dry hoist gloves with:

o Dry hands and dry under-gloves (as applicable)

o Wet hands and wet under-glove 

o Wet hands and dry under-glove. 

• Evaluators donned and doffed wet hoist gloves over 

wet hands/under-gloves. 

Compatibility

• Be compatible with personal protective equipment 

and standard uniforms for rescue operations.

• Evaluators were asked to bring their current flight 

suit or uniform to verify compatibility during donning, 

doffing and the activities in each scenario. 

 

i The enhanced rescue hoist gloves are intended to withstand being used to guide steel cables, which was the primary 

focus of the OFA. However, some USCG operations may involve other types of lines or ropes, a potential alternate usecase for the hoist gloves. A trail line activity was included at the OFA for USCG evaluators; their assessment of the 

potential use of the gloves for trail line operations are reported in Appendix A. 

Table 1-2 Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Requirements and Activities Matrix
Approved for Public Release 11 

1.5 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The two prototype styles of enhanced rescue hoist gloves are shown in Figure 1-1, designated 

Glove B and Glove C. Both gloves incorporate an exterior palm layer made from a gray-colored, 

resin-coated SuperFabric material with smooth guard plates for improved abrasion resistance. 

Designated by the number 700665, the SuperFabric employs a 70/08-400 resin pattern 

imprinted on a Polyester 600 Denier guardplate construction. The 70/08 sequence represents 

measurement parameters in units of mils (thousandths of an inch), where 70 is the diameter of 

the guardplates and 08 refers to the size of the gap between the guardplates. The number 

proceeding the dash specifies the height of the guardplates as 400 microns (thousandths of a 

millimeter). Gloves B and C offer different components using different formats and materials, as 

detailed below. Figure 1-1 depicts key characteristics of the two designs. 

Glove B

Views of palm side (top) and back of hand

(bottom). The rubber heel on palm is intended to 

prevent slipping. An additional underlayer of 

abrasion resistant material (not visible) indicates 

wear, becoming visible with use.

Glove C

Views of palm side (top) and back of hand

(bottom). An additional panel of abrasionresistant material is visible on the palm side, 

covering the purlicue and extending to a region of 

the central palm along the thumb.

Figure 1-1 Two Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Models 

The small dots visible on the palm side of each model serve to resist abrasion and are called 

guardplates. Loops at the wrist and leather finger pulls aid donning and doffing and Velcro 

closures allow users to adjust the fit. 
Approved for Public Release 12 

1.5.1 GLOVE B 

Glove B was designed by HDM and produced by Lucky 

Zone Inc. HDM is based in Oakdale, Minnesota. Lucky 

Zone Inc.’s U.S. headquarters is in New York City, while its 

manufacturing facility is in China. Glove B includes an 

additional inner pad (not visible in the photos) made of 

orange-colored, resin-coated fabric (designated 700538) 

with 50/05-200 guard plates imprinted into an orange 

base material. The base material is specified according to 

a unit of measure of the fiber-thickness of individual 

threads or filaments in the material, called the “Denier” 

number, designated by an integer followed by an 

uppercase “D,” such that the higher the Denier number, the thicker the fabric. The orange 

fabric used for Glove B is 100D, which is a relatively lightweight fabric. It is then laminated to 

another 100D fabric that is coyote (brown) in color. The smaller, thinner guardplates of the 

orange fabric and the lightweight 100D fabric are intended to provide additional abrasion 

protection, while maintaining flexibility. This color and fabric combination also serves as a 

visual indicator of wear conditions. If the user sees the orange guardplates, it indicates that the 

glove can be used for up to an additional 20 lifts; however, when the brown fabric is showing, 

the user should discard and replace the glove. Glove B is also outfitted with a rubber heel on 

the palm (Figure 1-2) to prevent slippage. 

Two adjustable Velcro straps on the back of the glove allow the user to fit it snugly to their 

hand. The material on the back of the hand is bright orange stretch Cordura. The color aids 

visibility, while the material’s ability to stretch—along with a wrist pull and two finger pulls—aid 

in donning and doffing. Reflective fabric is incorporated in the wrist cuff and closures, and an 

additional layer of SuperFabric 700665 is used in the purlicue for increased protection. 

Kevlar thread is used throughout the glove. 

1.5.2 GLOVE C 

Glove C was designed and produced by Hyunjin Inc., a 

Korean company, and was made in Vietnam. Glove C 

incorporates SuperFabric 700665 in the high-wear area of 

the glove’s purlicue for user protection, along with an 

additional layering of SuperFabric in the purlicue area 

(Figure 1-3), which extends to the middle of the palm. The 

material on the back of the hand is black Spandex, with 

two adjustable Velcro straps on the back of the glove, 

allowing the user to fit it snugly to their hand. White leather 

is used on the fingers and wrist area. The glove also has a 

wrist pull and leather finger pulls to aid donning and 

doffing.

Figure 1-2 Close-up of the rubber heel 

on Glove B.

Figure 1-3 Close-up on additional 

layer of fabric on Glove C.
Approved for Public Release 13 

2.0 OPERATIONAL FIELD ASSESSMENT DESIGN

2.1 EVENT DESIGN

During this OFA, five evaluators--first responders from the fire service and members of the 

uniformed services from California, North Carolina and Alabama-- assessed the gloves’ durability, 

functionality, dexterity, usability, compatibility with other equipment and the protection provided in 

simulated rescue hoist scenarios. The OFA was conducted at the USCG ATTC, located in Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina, where evaluators participated in various activities at two stationary hoist 

platforms. The prototype gloves were assessed under calm conditions, as well as with simulated 

wind and rain; and the evaluators donned and doffed the gloves when they were wet and dry. 

Degradation testing also occurred. 

Evaluators were grouped into two teams and data collectors from NUSTL were assigned to each 

team. The data collectors facilitated the test activities, recorded observations and comments 

during each activity and used a questionnaire to gather feedback from each evaluator following 

the completion of each activity station. Following the completion of all activities, additional 

feedback was solicited from the evaluators during a group debrief session. Observers from the 

USCG ATTC (North Carolina) and USCG Research and Development Center (Connecticut) watched 

the OFA activities. 

2.2 SCOPE 

The OFA consisted of the following components: 

Classroom Presentation and Technology Familiarization

The OFA began with an introductory session providing evaluators with an overview of the OFA 

process, how the capability gap was identified, planned activities for the OFA and a site safety 

briefing. HDM provided an overview of the enhanced rescue hoist gloves in the classroom, which 

included background on the development of the technology and a familiarization session. During 

this session, evaluators were able to try on the gloves while HDM guided them through the 

specifications of each model. 

 
Approved for Public Release 14 

Assessment Activities

After the familiarization session, the evaluators performed the activities listed in Figure 2-1, with 

the two teams working simultaneously throughout simulated rescue operations. After completing 

the activities for each circuit, they provided direct feedback in response to questions from NUSTL 

data collectors. NUSTL data collectors also noted any candid observations and comments from 

the evaluators during the activities. Full details of the event design are described in the Enhanced 

Rescue Hoist Glove Operational Field Assessment Plan (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), Science and Technology Directorate, December 2019). 

Activity Title Activity Description Purpose

Donning 

and Doffing

Evaluators donned and doffed dry and wet 

gloves. When donning and doffing the wet 

gloves, evaluators followed a predefined 

procedure where they would wet their bare 

(or under-gloved) hand for 10 seconds, then 

don the enhanced rescue hoist glove and 

submerge their gloved hand for two 

minutes.

These activities assessed the ease of 

donning and doffing in both dry and wet 

conditions. 

Dexterity

With dry and wet gloves, evaluators 

performed manual tasks requiring motor 

skills and/or grip (i.e., manipulating 

carabiners, opening and closing latches or 

buckles, etc.). Dry and wet gloves were used 

for this activity. 

These activities gauged dexterity and

flexibility. 

Calm Hoist 

With dry gloves, evaluators worked with a 

gurney or carriage device, where they 

lowered the equipment to just above the 

surface of the water in calm conditions, 

hoisted it back to the starting point and 

repeated as needed to assess the gloves. 

These activities gauged the usability, 

functionality, dexterity and compatibility 

with personal protective equipment and 

standard uniforms for rescue operations. 

Rain and 

Wind Hoist 

With wet gloves, evaluators worked with a 

mannequin on a gurney or in a carriage. 

With rain and wind generators turned on, 

evaluators lowered the mannequin into the 

water, hoisted it back to the starting point 

and repeated as needed to assess the 

gloves. 

These activities gauged the usability, 

functionality, dexterity and compatibility 

with personal protective equipment and 

standard uniforms for rescue operations. 

Degradation 

Testing 

All evaluators began the OFA with brand 

new gloves. Following the operational 

activities, NUSTL data collectors 

photographed the gloves B and C to track 

durability. This was followed by additional 

durability tests involving guiding a weighted 

hoist cable continuously for at least one

minute.

Continuously guiding the cable allowed the 

evaluators to assess the durability and 

functionality of the gloves. 

Table 2-1 Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove OFA Activity Descriptions
Approved for Public Release 15 

 
Approved for Public Release 16 

 
Approved for Public Release 17 

Figure 2-4 Evaluators wearing Glove C while performing hoist operations.
Approved for Public Release 18 

Debrief 

A debrief session, facilitated by the NUSTL OFA test director, was held at the conclusion of all 

activities with all OFA participants. During this session, evaluators provided comments to 

elaborate on their numerical ratings. 

2.3 LIMITATIONS OF AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE TEST PLAN

2.3.1 LIMITATIONS 

Degradation assessment was limited because the one-day OFA timeframe did not allow longterm use of the prototype enhanced rescue hoist gloves over an extended period. 

Another limitation was the individual variability in hand shape, which naturally affects fit and 

glove performance. Two evaluators would have preferred a smaller size. 

Finally, simulated operations do not encompass the extreme environmental conditions that 

responders may encounter while performing their duties. 

2.3.2 DEVIATIONS 

There were minor deviations from the Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Operational Field 

Assessment Plan (2019) related to the test procedures. The ATTC is outfitted with two hoists, 

but only one is capable of generating wind and rain. As a result, the rain and wind scenarios 

were combined, and occurred at one hoist. Though not described in the assessment plan, two

stationary MH60 and MH65 helicopters were made available to the evaluators to facilitate 

additional dexterity tests. The evaluators were able to use the prototype gloves while scooting 

on the floor of helicopters, grabbing handles, buckling safety belts and using toggle 

switches/levers inside the cockpit. Finally, while the evaluators were provided with, or brought, 

their current issued hoist gloves to the OFA, assessment of current gloves is not included in the 

results analysis. 

Figure 2-5 Stationary Helicopters used for Dexterity Testing

MH60 (Left), Evaluators in the MH65 during dexterity testing (Right)
Approved for Public Release 19 

3.0 RESULTS

This section contains evaluators’ feedback gathered from questionnaires and group discussions and

includes their suggestions for enhancements to the gloves that may improve functionality. The 

section is organized into sections on fit and comfort, functionality, protection, durability and 

opportunities for improvement. Section 3.1 covers overarching feedback that pertains to and 

compares both prototypes, while sections 3.2 and 3.3 report feedback specific to Glove B and 

Glove C, respectively. 

The OFA questionnaire was structured so that, when prompted with a statement related to an activity 

they performed, evaluators selected a response of strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly 

disagree and provided comments to explain their selection. There were a few instances where a 

response of not applicable (N/A) in response to the statement were received from evaluators. 

3.1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK FOR GLOVE B AND GLOVE C 

During the assessment, there were instances where evaluators provided overarching feedback 

that pertained to and compared Gloves B and C. This information is captured below. 

3.1.1 FIT AND COMFORT

The evaluators identified two primary issues with the fit of both 

gloves. First, all of the evaluators agreed that the cuffs on Gloves 

B and C were too long (shown in Figure 3-1) and would interfere 

with their dry suits and potentially with operations. The lower 

section of Velcro on both gloves (circled in Figure 3-1) was 

viewed as unnecessary and cumbersome; one evaluator 

suggested that the cuff on either glove be shortened to the wrist 

line and should have a single Velcro strap. Another evaluator 

suggested improving the straps by narrowing the opening on 

both gloves and changing the angle at which the Velcro lays. 

Additional suggestions included considering a closed-loop strap 

design or an elastic cuff. 

Second, most evaluators determined that the overall fit and feel 

of both gloves was cumbersome due to excess fabric in the palm 

area. Three of the five evaluators noted that the fabric bunched 

up in the palm area, (Figure 3-2), which decreases their ability to 

feel the cable and extend their fingers during manual tasks, 

affecting safety during hoist operations. It was suggested that 

the gloves incorporate enhanced structure to account for the 

natural C-shape curvature of a hand. 

Another evaluator did not have a problem with fabric bunching in 

the palm area of the gloves and said both gloves had a good fit 

when worn with the under-glove. The evaluators also added that 

there needed to be a more precise and accurate sizing chart 

available to assist with ensuring an appropriate fit.

Figure 3-1 Length of Glove Cuffs B 

(Top) and Glove C (Bottom)
Approved for Public Release 20 

3.1.2 FUNCTIONALITY 

All of the evaluators pointed out the usefulness of the loops imbedded into the bottom of 

Gloves B and C. In addition to not interfering with their uniforms, evaluators anticipated that 

the loops would also be useful for hanging the hoist glove to dry. One evaluator also indicated 

that the loop was useful for donning the glove. Two evaluators stated that the pull loop on 

Glove C was better integrated and had a lower profile than that of Glove B, and would not be a 

snag hazard. 

Some evaluators felt that the fingers on Gloves B and C were too long and could potentially 

interfere with operations, noting that those of Glove B were longer than Glove C. One evaluator 

suggested that the length of the glove fingers be shortened down to the second knuckle joint to 

allow fingers full access to manipulate hooks and other equipment. In addition, multiple 

evaluators did not prefer having the finger pulls present on the gloves. One evaluator felt the 

pulls were on the wrong fingers and could be relocated to improve doffing (i.e., adding a pull on 

the thumb), while another stated they would not use the pulls for doffing, regardless. 

The evaluators also provided extensive feedback on the SuperFabric, the primary material of 

the Gloves B and C, as it differed from their current leather hoist gloves. One evaluator 

suggested that the low friction material of the SuperFabric would fundamentally change the 

way they would handle the hoist cable, noting that the material allowed for variable pressure to 

be applied without interrupting the cable run, which led to better cable control and 

management. Another evaluator agreed that controlling the cable was significantly smoother 

with Glove B and Glove C when compared to their current leather glove; after using the gloves 

the evaluator stated that the leather glove, by comparison, had a very clear drag. However, the 

lack of friction from the SuperFabric negatively affected other aspects of flight operations. All 

evaluators emphasized that Glove C did not offer sufficient grip when holding onto handles, 

door panels and maneuvering on the floor of a helicopter compared to Glove B. The slickness 

of the gloves, particularly when wet, was seen as a significant safety concern by two of the 

evaluators. They found it difficult to grip wet equipment during assessment operations and 

thought it could create dangerous conditions. 

Figure 3-2 Bunched Fabric in Glove B (Left) and Glove C (Right)
Approved for Public Release 21 

3.1.3 PROTECTION

The evaluators had varying opinions on the 

level of protection the gloves provided 

during hoist operations. Four evaluators 

using Glove B noticed heat transfer from 

the cable to their hand during operations, 

while only two reported heat transfer for 

Glove C. Figure 3-3 displays the number of 

responses for the statement: “The glove 

did not transfer heat from friction to the 

hand.” Four evaluators who disagreed with 

this statement reported that they could 

feel more friction transfer from the cable to 

their skin during testing while wearing 

Glove B, which was primarily attributed to 

the lack of extra padding in the palm and 

purlicue areas compared to Glove C. Some 

evaluators were also concerned that the 

purlicue coverage in both gloves was inadequate for hoist operations–three noted this for 

Glove B and two did so for Glove C. In addition, two evaluators suggested that some fingers be 

fully enclosed (i.e., the pinky and ring fingers), as they typically experience a lot of cable run up 

on their fingertips and wear down the under-glove fingertips quickly. One of the evaluators also 

stated that their hoist glove would need to be fire resistant. 

3.1.4 DURABILITY

All evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that both prototype gloves provided sufficient 

durability during the assessment activities. However, as noted in the Limitations Section 2.3.1, 

they indicated that the gloves were not tested long enough to truly gauge their long-term 

durability. One evaluator stated they would need at least three to four days of testing with 10 to 

12 hoists per day to more rigorously assess the durability of the gloves. The same evaluator 

also stated that Glove C held up better than Glove B, referencing the gloves’ condition

observed after testing, but noted that both were still usable. As shown in Figure 3-4, no 

significant degradation was observed that would require the gloves to be replaced, given the 

limited number of hoists conducted during this assessment. 

Figure 3-3 Heat Transfer Protection 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Glove C Glove B

Figure 3-4 Sample of Glove B (Left) and Glove C (Right) Following Degradation Testing
Approved for Public Release 22 

3.2 GLOVE B FEEDBACK

This section covers evaluators’ assessment of the fit, functionality, protection and durability of 

Glove B.

3.2.1 FIT AND COMFORT 

The evaluators expressed concern regarding 

the fit of Glove B, when wet and dry. After 

trying on dry gloves in the various available 

sizes (large, x-large and xx-large), two 

evaluators determined that the overall fit of 

the glove was too big and needed to be 

adjusted. After using Glove B through all 

activities, the evaluators were asked about 

glove comfort. The results (shown in Figure 

3-5) display feedback on both wet and dry 

gloves. Two evaluators strongly agreed that 

Glove B was comfortable when dry while 

three disagreed. When wet, three strongly 

agreed that Glove B was comfortable while 

two disagreed. One evaluator found Glove B 

to be more pliable when wet, therefore 

found it to be more comfortable than when dry. Those who disagreed attributed it to the length 

of the fingers as well as the length glove and where it sat on the wrist and arm, as well as fabric 

bunching occurring in the palm. Two evaluators determined the cuff of Glove B was too long 

and would get in the way of their winter dry suits. They suggested shortening the width of the 

Velcro by half, specifically keeping the top Velcro and replacing the bottom Velcro with 

neoprene or an elastic piece with a pull to tighten, and shortening the length of all fingers down 

to the first knuckle to improve operational use. The evaluators indicated that the fabric 

bunching for Glove B was minimal, but noticeable. All evaluators agreed that the overall shape 

of the glove was not compatible with the natural curvature of their hands, causing the extra 

fabric to bunch in the palm area. 

All evaluators strongly agreed that Glove B was easy to don and 

doff with and without an under-glove, and either strongly agreed 

or agreed that it was easy to don and doff wet gloves. One of the 

evaluators noted some difficulty doffing Glove B after wet testing 

(shown in Figure 3-6), as it retained water. Another evaluator 

suggested adding a finger pull to the thumb—the only finger 

without a pull—as it could assist with doffing a wet glove. 

Additionally, all evaluators reported that donning and doffing is 

not as important as having a correct fit because emergency 

responders typically have enough time to don and doff gloves 

prior to hoist operations. Figure 3-6 Evaluators Doffing 

Glove B Following Wet Testing

Figure 3-5 Glove B Fit and Comfort When Wet and Dry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Approved for Public Release 23 

3.2.2 FUNCTIONALITY 

Overall, all evaluators strongly agreed or agreed that Glove B did not interfere with operations 

and provided good functionality, but they provided comments that suggested additional 

improvements would result in an enhanced product. The evaluators pointed out that some 

issues with the fit of the glove affected functionality. For example, the evaluators who 

suggested shortening the glove’s fingers said the prototype’s fingers hindered manual tasks 

and could be an issue during operations. However, one evaluator disagreed and preferred the 

longer fingers on Glove B as it could provide increased protection. One evaluator reported that 

Glove B provided freedom of movement. 

The evaluators provided feedback on the SuperFabrics’ effect on hoist operations. Two 

evaluators determined that the SuperFabric gave them a reasonable sensation or feel of the 

cable; however, the lack of friction negatively affected three evaluators ability to grip the hoist.

Additionally, the bunching of fabric in the palm area distracted one evaluator during hoist 

operations, as it forced the cable closer to the fingers rather than the padded area of the glove. 

Two features of the glove, the wrist loop and the rubber 

heel, provided varying levels of functionality according to 

the evaluators. All evaluators agreed that the wrist loop on 

both gloves was a desirable feature, but agreed that the 

loop on Glove B needed to be secured more tightly to 

improve operational use and longevity. A lack of 

reinforcement in the wrist loop attachment was noticed by 

one of the evaluators before testing began (shown in 

Figure 3-7). All evaluators agreed that the rubber heel on 

Glove B was helpful for maneuvering about the helicopter 

floor and improved the overall grip of the glove on various 

surfaces. However, some evaluators pointed out limitations 

and design flaws of the rubber heel on the Glove B. One 

evaluator felt that the stiffness of the rubber heel limited 

dexterity and pushed the glove up the hand, thus 

interfering with operations. Another evaluator agreed, 

citing that the heel forced their grip on the cable to be 

unnatural, and limited their feel of the cable and 

equipment. These two evaluators suggested reshaping and 

relocating the rubber heel with a slimmer profile or an oval

shape to improve functionality.

3.2.3 PROTECTION

Evaluators had mixed opinions about the protectiveness provided by Glove B (shown in Figure 

3-8). The majority of evaluators felt the glove provided adequate hand protection while guiding 

cables during hoist operations; however, most evaluators also noted that more heat was 

transferred to their hand while wearing Glove B. Four evaluators reported that they could feel 

more friction transfer from the cable to their skin during testing — this was primarily attributed 

to the lack of padding in the palm and purlicue areas. 

Figure 3-7 Glove B Wrist Loop
Approved for Public Release 24 

To improve the overall 

protection that the glove 

provides, it was suggested 

that padding be added 

horizontally to the front of 

the glove from the purlicue 

area, across the palm, to 

the base of the pinky finger. 

Two evaluators felt 

additional coverage was 

needed in the purlicue area 

on the back of the glove. 

Additionally, evaluators 

informed HDM that the 

starting section and ending section of their hoist cables are marked with orange paint, which 

may transfer to gloves. They also noted that it could be difficult to distinguish orange-colored 

wear indications from paint transfer. As such, they suggested changing the orange color of the 

glove and inner wear-indicator pad. 

3.2.4 DURABILITY 

After degradation testing, one evaluator noticed severe wear in the purlicue area, including 

worn down guard plates and torn stitching. This evaluator was not confident that the glove 

would remain intact after another five minutes of degradation testing, feeling that the glove 

would deteriorate rapidly once the guard plates flattened. 

A second evaluator also had issues 

with the durability of the glove, noting 

that the stitching in the purlicue area 

was compromised at the conclusion of 

the OFA (shown in Figure 3-9). This 

same evaluator noted that the rubber 

pad showed wear after hoist 

operations. Both evaluators 

recommended enhancing and 

relocating stitching from the purlicue 

to the back of the glove, where there is 

minimal contact with the cable. 

Evaluators had varied opinions on the 

overall durability of Glove B (shown in 

Figure 3-10). Figure 3-10 also shows that evaluators did not find a difference in durability 

between wet and dry gloves. Three evaluators strongly agreed that the glove provided sufficient 

durability throughout the assessment, while two disagreed. The primary durability concerns 

with Glove B stemmed from the apparent wear and tear of the purlicue area–a major wear 

point in hoist operations. 

Figure 3-8 Glove B Overall Protection Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-9 Varied Levels of Wear in the Purlicue of Glove B
Approved for Public Release 25 

3.2.5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT–GLOVE B 

The evaluators’ recommendations to enhance the design of Glove B are summarized here: 

• Fit–Shorten the glove to improve comfort and avoid interference; remove the second 

Velcro strap at the wrist 

• Design–Change the color to avoid conflating orange cable paint transfer with the glove 

wear indicator

• Design–Eliminate some of the Velcro and incorporate elastic around the wrist

• Design–Add a finger pull to the thumb to assist with doffing

• Durability–Move stitching to the back of the glove and away from the purlicue. 

3.3 GLOVE C FEEDBACK

This section covers assessment of the fit, 

functionality, protection and durability of Glove C.

3.3.1 FIT AND COMFORT

All evaluators reported that the size of Glove C 

had an impact on the overall fit and comfort of 

the glove when wet and dry conditions, as 

shown in Figure 3-11. Three evaluators 

disagreed that Glove C was comfortable when 

dry. When wet, three strongly agreed that Glove 

C was comfortable while two disagreed. 

Figure 3-11 Glove C Fit and Comfort 

When Wet and Dry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-10 Glove B Durability Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Approved for Public Release 26 

Those who disagreed, attributed it to several factors including the glove being too big; not being 

compatible with their standard issued uniforms and personal protective equipment due to the 

length of the glove and where it sat on the wrist and arm; and bunching of fabric in the palm.

Additionally, the evaluators who disagreed reported that the fit of the gloves was not ideal for 

operational use. In contrast, one evaluator who strongly agreed, stated that the glove felt tighter 

around the thumb, which allowed more feedback of the hoist cable in the hand. One evaluator 

found Glove C to be more pliable when wet, and therefore more comfortable than when dry. All 

evaluators agreed that the width of the bottom Velcro closure of Glove C was too thick and the 

fingers were too long. They suggested shortening the width of the Velcro by half and shortening

the length of all fingers down to the first knuckle to improve operational use. All evaluators 

agreed that the overall shape of the glove was not compatible with natural curvature of their 

hands, resulting in extra fabric bunching in the palm area. However, one evaluator appreciated 

that the extra padding in Glove C reduced the pressure of the hoist cable against the hand and 

the extended padding around the thumb, which provided additional protection during hoist 

operations. 

All evaluators stated that Glove C was easy to don and doff, with or 

without an under-glove, when dry. One evaluator stated that the finger 

pulls were useful for donning and doffing while another evaluator 

explained that the loop was more secure for donning. There was 

concern that using the finger pulls on the glove would unintendedly 

pull the inner glove off when doffing, which may not always be ideal. 

All evaluators agreed that there was no difference between donning 

and doffing wet and dry gloves. Additionally, they stated that the 

gloves felt fine and no differences were identified, after the water 

bath. One evaluator indicated that Glove C was easy to take off when 

wet. All evaluators reported that donning and doffing is not as 

important as having a correct fit because emergency responders 

typically have sufficient time to don and doff gloves prior to hoist 

operations.

3.3.2 FUNCTIONALITY

Two evaluators reported that the glove’s functionality was affected by 

the fit of the glove, referring to excess material bunching in the palm. 

Two other evaluators reported that the extra padding on Glove C 

helped counteract the weight of the cable while other evaluators 

demonstrated how the hoist cable was forced toward their fingers and 

away from the padded area of the glove. Other comments indicated 

that the length of the fingertips in Glove C affected finger flexibility 

when performing small tasks like opening and closing carabiners, 

hooks and buckles, as shown in Figure 3-12. 

While conducting hoist operations, two evaluators noted that they 

could feel friction behind the thumb and suggested extending the 

patching area for further coverage. 

Figure 3-12 Length of 

Glove C Fingertips 

Surpassing First Knuckle 

during Dexterity Activities
Approved for Public Release 27 

Another evaluator explained that bunching affects comfort and would fatigue the hand when 

operating devices such as radios and keyboards after constant use. All evaluators emphasized 

that Glove C did not have adequate traction and demonstrated that the gloves did not offer 

sufficient grip when holding on to handles, door panels and maneuvering on the floor of a 

helicopter. As such, the evaluators suggested adding patches of leather at the base of the glove 

palm to increase traction and enhance grip. 

Some evaluators identified a difference when using wet gloves on wet equipment. All evaluators 

agreed that there were no differences between operating dry hoist equipment or when opening 

and closing carabineers or buckles with dry or wet gloves. 

3.3.3 PROTECTION 

All evaluators strongly agreed or 

agreed that Glove C offered 

adequate protection of the hand 

during hoist operations and cable 

guiding (in Figure 3-13). 

Evaluators stated that the extra 

material and padding provided 

additional protection, but could 

affect operational use as extra 

padding and material could 

prevent the user from finding and 

feeling deformities in the hoist 

cable. In addition, one evaluator

stated that the simulated rain 

and wind caused the cable to 

push towards the pinky and 

affected finger protection. Two evaluators suggested changing the direction and area coverage 

of the padding to include coverage around pinky and ring finger, as well as expanding the 

padding coverage behind the thumb for enhanced protection. Two evaluators stated that the 

pull loop was well integrated, and had a low profile; therefore, it would not present as a snag 

hazard. 

3.3.4 DURABILITY 

Overall, the evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that Glove C provided sufficient 

durability overall (as shown in Figure 3-14). There were varied responses regarding increased 

durability during degradation testing compared to their current hoist glove: three evaluators 

either agreed or strongly agreed while two disagreed. 

One of the evaluators who disagreed stated that the degradation testing would need to be 

more extensive (additional time and/or cable distance) to truly gauge the level of durability, but

stated that Glove C held up reasonably well, referencing the condition of the leather after 

testing. 

Figure 3-13 Glove C Overall Protection Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Approved for Public Release 28 

3.3.5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT – GLOVE C 

The evaluators’ recommendations to enhance the design of Glove C are summarized here: 

• Fit–Shorten the length of fingers to the first knuckle and reduce the cuff size by half 

• Functionality–Add patches of leather at the base of the palm to increase traction and 

enhance grip 

• Functionality–Reconfigure the padding near the palm to reduce bunching 

• Protection–Expand padding behind thumb and increase the size of patching areas to 

include more coverage for ring and pinky fingers. 

Figure 3-14 Glove C Durability Results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Approved for Public Release 29 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the OFA was to obtain feedback from first responder evaluators on the fit, comfort, 

functionality, protection and durability of each enhanced rescue hoist glove prototype. Throughout 

the OFA, evaluators suggested opportunities for improvements for each enhanced rescue hoist glove 

prototype to make them more suitable for use in the field. 

Overall, the evaluators found that neither glove negatively affected dexterity or flexibility while 

performing hoist operations; although at least one evaluator found that both gloves affected their 

ability to complete intricate manual tasks. This was attributed to the length of the gloves’ fingertips 

extending beyond the first knuckle of their finger. 

When evaluators tested the functionality by maneuvering on helicopter flooring, they found that 

Glove C did not have adequate traction. This was attributed to the SuperFabric’s slick palm surface 

area, which resulted in a limited grip. As a result, evaluators suggested adding patches of leather on 

the base of the palm to increase traction. Varied feedback was received for the rubber heel on Glove 

B: three evaluators found that the rubber heel allowed for more control while maneuvering; the other 

two evaluators noted it assisted with grip, but had the undesirable effect of adding pressure on the 

glove, which resulted in bunching and minimized sensitivity for feeling equipment in the hand. 

Evaluators also noted that the shape, size and placement of the rubber heel could be refined by 

using a shorter piece of rubber or rubber with a slimmer profile, modifying it to an oval shape, 

positioning it lower at the bone area of the hand or using leather in place of rubber. 

Throughout the OFA, evaluators assessed the fit and comfort of the enhanced rescue hoist gloves. 

Evaluators varied in their feedback on fit and comfort. Three evaluators either strongly agreed or 

agreed that both Glove B and C were snug and fit well, but two strongly disagreed. Those who 

strongly disagreed cited the width of the Velcro closures, length of the cuffs and lack of a natural 

curve to the glove. Additionally, all evaluators strongly agreed or agreed that both Glove B and C were 

easy to don and doff when wet and dry, some noting that the finger pulls were of assistance. 
Approved for Public Release 30 

5.0 REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate Compliance 

Assurance Program Office. (2020, December). Regulatory Compliance Assessment: (HSR-19-

048) Operational Field Assessment of Enhanced Rescue Hoist Gloves". 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate. (December 

2019). Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Operational Field Assessment Plan. National Urban 

Security Technology Laboratory. New York, NY: DHS Science and Technology Directorate. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate. (November 

2019). Enhanced Rescue Hoist Glove Operational Field Assessment Test Protocol. New York, 

NY: DHS Science and Technology Directorate. 
Approved for Public Release 31 

Appendix A. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD – TRAIL LINE CONSIDERATIONS

The enhanced rescue hoist gloves were designed for use with steel cables, which was the primary 

focus of the OFA. However, some operations involve other types of lines or ropes, presenting a 

potential alternate use-case for these gloves. Trail lines are used to stabilize or guide equipment or 

to deliver rescue devices and emergency supplies. 

After hoist-specific OFA activities were completed, a trail line was set-up using a five-pound bag 

attached to one end of the line. Evaluators who frequently use trail lines operationally used both 

Glove B and C with the trail line. Activities included guiding the trail line down to the water level to 

gauge momentum, as well as lifting the trail line back to the platform and grabbing and then 

releasing the trail line every few feet to gauge grip. 

Their feedback on the potential use of the enhanced rescue hoist gloves for trail line operations is 

summarized here: 

• The material/guard plates’ coefficient of friction makes it difficult to stop the trail line

• It was found necessary to manipulate the hand in a certain way (turn over wrist) to stop the

trail line, and typically they would not have to do so with leather gloves

• The trail line was reported to have a different feel than the cable hoist with the glove

• The trail line slid through both glove prototypes, even while exerting a strong grip.

o They have better grip on the trail line with their current leather glove and note that

typically the trail line would not wear down a leather glove

Overall, the evaluators found that they would much prefer leather gloves for trail line operations 

because they successfully grab the polyethylene trail line and arrest its momentum. 

Trail Line Activities

Preparing to lower trail line using Glove C (left), close up of Glove B gripping trail line (center), lifting trail line using Glove B (right)