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 

iii

Acknowledgments

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

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

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

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 montages 

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

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

sections of the manuscript.

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

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

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/oamtechreports/

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

The most recent index, as of this date, is OAM report number DOT/FAA/AAM-05-1 (2005).

Table of Contents 

	 	 Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

	 CivilAviation MedicalAdministrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

	 CARI-CAMIDirectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

	 Support Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

I.	 ABrief EarlyHistory ofAeromedical Research in the FAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II.	 The Swearingen Legacy...ContinuityandDirectApplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III.	 CARI’s First Report ... an EnduringDirection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

IV.	 AeromedicalCertification ...and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

V.	 Protection and Survival...Saving Lives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

VI.	 Air TrafficControllers: Stress...and Sleep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

VII.	 AnAgencyCrisis: Recovery...andCAMI Shines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A Montage of ResearchHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

VIII.	 Forensics: FatalAccidents...Their Toxicologyand Biochemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

IX.	 The Flight Environment:Altitude, Temperature, Ozone...and Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

X.	 Human Factors: Performance...DoingIt Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

XI.	 Aeromedical Education: SpatialDisorientation...and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

XII.	 SharingKnowledge...and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix:HistoricalVignettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A1

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.
13

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.
14

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.
17

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. 
18

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).
19

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.
23

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.
24

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.”
27

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.”
28

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.
29

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).
30
31

SST Escape Procedures

© 1967, The Oklahoma Publishing Company.
32

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.
33
34
35

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.
36

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.
37
38

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.
39

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
40
41

“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.
42

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. 
43

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.
44

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.
45

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. r
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. r


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.
53

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 
54
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.
57
58

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.
59

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.
63

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.
64

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

7

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.
68

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.
69

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.
70
71
72
73

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.
74

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3

	 J. RobertDilleand MarciaGrimm

TheCivilAeromedical Institute Facilityin Its 35th Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A6

	 Stanley R. MohlerandWilliamE. Collins

Origin of theJet PassengerDrop-out Oxygen Systemand theDouble Pane ProtectiveDecompressionWindows . . A9

	 WilliamE. Collinsand Stanley R. Mohler

SomeHistorical Observations ofCARI/CAMI, 1960-1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A11

	 Stanley R. Mohler,KarrollA. Hayes,andWilliamE. Collins

ABriefHistory of OAM Research Funding, Staffing,and Technical Report Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . A16

	 WilliamE. CollinsandGaleG. Dills

Some Observations on the Origins of theCivilAerospace Medical Institute: Its First Predecessor, the

CivilAeromedical Research Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A22

	 WilliamE. Collinsand Stanley R. Mohler

CivilAeromedical Research Institute, 1959-1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A23

	 MyrnaJohnson

A1960 Preludeto New FAA Medical Leadership atWashington HeadquartersandCAMI: 

Some Personal Recollections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A27

	 Stanley R. Mohler

These historicalvignettescapture different aspects of the CARI/OAM research story. They have been published

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 presence,

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 Reports

No. AM 87-1, 97-1, 98-1, 01-1 (2 vignettes), 03-1 (2 vignettes),and 05-1.

A3

BACKGROUND OF FAA AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH

Forty Years in Oklahoma City

By J.R. Dille, M.D., and Marcia Grimm

Historical Vignette
A4
A5
A6

The CARI Building and Its Mural

The building that houses the Civil Aeromedical 

Institute was dedicated and formally opened 

on a sunny, pleasant Sunday in October 1962. The 

facility was constructed as a research building and 

was initially named the Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute (CARI). In 1965, its mission expanded: CARI 

became the Aeromedical Research Branch of the Civil 

Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), and the building was 

accordingly renamed. Aeromedical certification and 

education, along with clinical and industrial hygiene 

responsibilities were and remain, the other components 

of CAMI.

Prelude

The first Civil Air Surgeon of the newly established 

Federal Aviation Agency (1958), was James L. Goddard, 

M.D., a Public Health Service officer. He reported 

directly to the first FAA administrator, General Elwood 

Quesada (USAF, Ret.), and was “seconded” to the FAA 

as an active duty Public Health Service officer. General 

Quesada had authorized the establishment of the Civil 

Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI - now the Civil 

Aeromedical Institute, or CAMI) and Dr. Goddard set 

about implementing its staffing and the construction of 

a new building for it. Detailed documentation of the 

measures that led to the establishment of the FAA, the 

The Civil Aeromedical Institute Facility

In Its 35th Year

By Stanlely R. Mohler, M.D., and William E. Collins, Ph.D.*

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 now dean of the Aerospace Medicine program at Wright State 

University School of Medicine. William E.­­ Collins, Ph.D., is the current director of the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute. He was 

also present at the dedication of the new building in 1962.
A7

Civil Air Surgeon position, and the Institute (CARI) 

are contained in the book Civil Aviation Medicine in 

the Bureaucracy (1), by Heber A. Holbrook. Some 

additional historical background by J.R. Dille, M.D. 

appears in the Preface of Office of Aviation Medicine 

Report DOT/FAA/AM/87-1 (2).

The original facility was a product of the Oklahoma 

City Airport Trust, which had started an innovative 

building program after World War II, aimed to entice 

government agencies, especially the FAA, to place organizational entitles at the Aeronautical Center (now the 

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center), located at Will 

Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City. The Trust 

program issued bonds that provided money to build 

structures necessary to house various FAA components at 

the Aeronautical Center. The FAA leased from the Trust 

the various individual facilities that were tailor-made to 

the needs of various offices and services.

The CARI Building

In 1960, while occupying temporary quarters in 

wooden barracks (built to house sailors at the nowclosed U.S. Navy base) at Westheimer Field in Norman, 

Oklahoma, on the North Campus of the University of 

Oklahoma, the scientists at CARI set to work laying 

out their individual laboratory plans in a customized 

approach. This was probably one of the few times in 

history that a group of scientists — psychologists, physiologists, anthropologists, crash-worthiness engineers, 

and other specialists —actually designed and, within 

three years, moved into, a large technical bio-medical 

research space they had planned.

The CARI building was initially to be located directly 

to the west and across the street from the Aeronautical 

Center manager’s building. The manager, Mr. Lewis 

Bayne, decided to relocate the CARI site to the south 

about a city block in distance. He felt that, since some 

animal research was projected at that time, a more 

remote location would be desirable. The change was 

accomplished without the knowledge of the medical 

personnel or of newly-appointed CARI director, Stanley 

R. Mohler, M.D., until ground breaking started. In 

the long-run, the more distant location proved ideal. 

However, in the “short” run, it led to pulling some nonresearch components (including medical certification) 

out of the building and locating them in the Airman 

Records Building (near the Center’s consolidated records 

computer facilities).

The CARI Dedication Program

On October 21,1962, an outdoor ceremony was held 

at 3 p.m. to dedicate the new Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute. On the previous day, a scientific seminar had 

been held in the auditorium of the Aeronautical Center 

manager’s building, and that night, the­­immortal Jimmy 

Doolittle gave a banquet talk in downtown Oklahoma 

City in honor of the Institute; the text of that talk appeared in the column “Aviation Medicine Heritage” 

by J.R. Dille, M.D., published in Aviation, Space and 

Environmental Medicine (3). 

The outdoor dedication ceremony was conducted 

on the north side of the Institute and was attended 

by FAA Administrator Halaby and Acting Civil Air 

Surgeon, Don Estes, M.D. (Dr. Goddard had departed 

the FAA on September 1, 1962). Speakers included 

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 FAA, 

also attended. Local Oklahoma business leaders and 

other officials participated, including one of the most 

famous military and civilian flight surgeons, Randolph 

Lovelace, II, M.D. Mr. Delos Rentzel, former head of 

the Civil Aviation Administration (predecessor of the 

FAA), served as Master of Ceremony and Mr. Halaby 

delivered the keynote dedicatory address. A 45-minute 

movie was made of the ceremony (and is available at 

the Institute).

FAA Administrator Najeeb Halaby 

speaking at the dedication ceremony.
A8

The CARI Mural

A spacious entrance to CARI was designed by 

Hudgins, Thompson, and Ball, (the “HTB” architectural firm for the Aeronautical Center). A highlight of 

the entrance was to be a large, multi-colored tile mural 

that, following the architectural designers’ rendition, 

would be prepared through a computer program by a 

subcontractor. The mural was delivered in sub-­assembled 

tile blocks, with the proper colored tiles in the proper 

places (the individual tiles are about one inch on each 

side) to be glued in strips to the wall. The mural design 

covered the west wall of the entrance lobby.

The mural that went into the rapidly evolving CARI 

building was computer designed (perhaps the first to be 

so done for a federal building) by an employee of the 

architectural firm and was of a somewhat abstract nature. 

The design had a symbolic supersonic transport with a 

shock wave and a symbolic biomedical electrical signal 

as obtained in research data collection. The four main 

aeromedical areas — research, standards, certification, 

and education/preventive medicine — were abstractly 

portrayed by caduceus renditions. Above the mural, a 

series of head-on bird silhouettes denoted airmen.

By October 1962, the entire mural was in place. 

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. Visitors 

were brought through for tours of the new building 

prior to the its dedication. The visitors uniformly went 

away with a very positive feeling about the Institute, 

and they were impressed with the total effect of the 

structure and interior as being very modern (and they 

liked the mural).

The Airman With a Waiver

There was an accidental misplacement of a single tile 

(it is located one tile space lower than its proper position) on the wing tip of one of the symbolic airmen (a 

bird) near the ceiling of the erected mural (the second 

bird from the left). While leading a dedication-day 

tour through the building, a guest in a crowd of visitors 

teased Dr. Mohler, pointing out the error, proclaiming 

loudly, “There’s an error in your mural.” Dr. Mohler’s 

immediate response was, “That’s no error! That’s an 

airman flying on a waiver!” 

The visitors loved it.

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 Aviation 

Medicine in the Bureaucracy. 1974. 

Bethesda, MD:Banner Publish-

ing Co. (Library of Congress 74-

82414).

2. Dille, J.R., and Grimm, M.H. Index to 

FAA Office of Aviation Medicine 

Reports: 1961 through 1986. Wash-

ington, DC: DOT/FAA; 1987. FAA 

report no. DOT/FAA/AM/87-1. 

(#ADA180281).

3. Dille, J.R. Aviation Medicine Heritage. 

Aviation, Space and Environmental 

Medicine. 1987, 58, 1036-7.
A9

Origin of the Jet Passenger Drop-out Oxygen System

and the Double Pane Protective Decompression Windows

By Stanley R. Mohler, M.D.

and William E. Collins, Ph.D.

J

ohn J. Swearingen retired from the 

Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) 

as Chief of the Protection and Survival 

research program in 1971. His many 

accomplishments in the areas of crash injury 

protection, human tolerances to abrupt 

acceleration forces, and proper restraint 

system design are widely known in the 

aerospace safety field. 

Somewhat less well known is his earlier 

work (1950s) that anticipated the need in the 

evolving generation of jet passenger aircraft 

for passenger drop-out emergency oxygen 

equipment and his passenger window designs 

that afforded protection should a window 

under pressurization forces be lost.

On October 15, 1957, John Swearingen and colleague Ernest B. McFadden 

patented an “adhesive-type oxygen mask” 

and an automatic drop-out mechanism, 

both of these for airline passenger protection in the event of a decompression 

at altitudes where passenger oxygen is 

desirable (U.S. Patent 2,809,633). Both 

Swearingen and McFadden were researchers at the Civil Aeronautics Medical 

Research Laboratory, a forerunner of the 

Civil Aeromedical Institute, located at 

various times in Columbus, Ohio, and 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The mask 

and automatic drop-out apparatus were 

first described in a presentation on April 

15, 1956, at the 27th annual meeting of 

the Aeromedical Association (now the 

Aerospace Medical Association) held in 

Chicago. The presentation was published 

(1) in the February 1957 issue of the Journal of Aviation Medicine (now Aviation, 

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 McFadden 

in developing the oxygen drop-out mechanism with a 

proposed new passenger mask were reflected in the equipment carried by the first generation of passenger jets, the 

Boeing 707, the Douglas DC-8, and the Convair 880. 

Although the adhesive mask proposed by Swearingen 

and McFadden provided a superior seal to the passenger 

masks actually installed in those early flights, industry 

concern with the shelf life of the then-available adhesive 

material precluded introduction of the adhesive mask. 

However, the presentation aspects they developed, with 

automatic deployment of the mask should the cabin of 

an airliner exceed a given altitude (12,000 - 14,000 foot 

range), are in use today.

With respect to high altitude pressurized cabin flight, 

instances of occupant ejection through a failed window of 

a pressurized aircraft began to occur with the World War 

II era. Large pressurized piston engine aircraft retained 

the large, single pane window design of unpressurized 

aircraft. As altitudes increased, window failures occurred 

for one or another reason. The rapid outflow of the air 

from within would at times bring objects in the airflow 

path through the window to the outside, including any 

hapless human who was nearby and unrestrained.

Swearingen began his airflow studies in the 1950s 

and conducted further studies through the transition of the Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Laboratory to 

the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute to CAMI. His early work revealed the utility of utilizing double pane 

windows so that, should the outer pressure-bearing window fail, orifices at the perimeter of the inner window 

would allow the airflow to escape, leaving the inner window pane intact. This double pane safety concept was 

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 profiles are 

published in the 1963 report, “Studies of Airloads on Man” (2). The report provided data for design engineers 

of aircraft with respect to specifications for windows that enhance air safety should an airliner decompress dur-

ing its flight profile.

This historical summary is prepared in recognition of the pioneering work accomplished by personnel of the 

Civil Aeromedical Institute and its predecessor organizations. Other brief historical summaries regarding the 

Institute are available elsewhere (3, 4, 5).

References

1. Swearingen, J.J. An adhesive type oxygen mask. Journal of Aviation Medicine, 1957, 28, 19-22.

2. Swearingen, J.J. and McFadden, E.B. Studies of air loads on man. Oklahoma City, OK: 1963. Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute Report. No. 63-9. NTIS #AD602207.

3. Dille, J.R. and Grimm, M.H. Index to FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 through 1986. Washington, DC: 

1987. FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AM/87-1. NTIS #ADA180281

4. Dille, J.R. Aviation Medicine Heritage. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1987, 58, 1036-7.

5. Mohler, S.R. and Collins, W.E. The Civil Aeromedical Institute facility: In its 35th year. In: Collins, W.E. and Wayda, 

M.E. Index to FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 through 1996. Washington, D.C: 1997. FAA Report 

No. DOT/FAA/AM 97-1. NTIS #ADA322331

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 of CARI/CAMI

1960-1984

By S.R. Mohler, M.D., K.A. Hayes, and W.E. Collins, Ph.D.

The Civil Aeromedical Research Center, later called 

the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI), was 

established in August 1960 to develop medical data to 

meet the problems of civil air operations as civil aviation 

moved into higher altitudes and supersonic speeds. CARI 

was placed under the executive and technical direction 

of the Research Requirements Division, Bureau of Aviation Medicine. Hilliard D. Estes, M.D., a physician 

in the U.S. Public Health Service, was appointed the 

first Medical Director of CARI, and Robert P. Clark, 

Ph.D., was appointed the first Research Director. This 

dual-directors situation resulted in some confusion 

regarding primacy of roles, but was resolved when, on 

August 7, 1961, S.R Mohler, was appointed Director 

of the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, and William E. Collins, Ph.D., was already recently onboard 

instituting vestibular and visual research. There were 

approximately 20 full-time scientists and research 

support personnel at the new institute plus additional 

administrative and secretarial staff.

CARI consisted of an Office of the Director, Audio 

Visuals Service and Research Engineering, and six 

branches specializing in the areas of biochemistry, 

biodynamics, environmental physiology, psychology, protection and survival, and neurophysiology. A 

total of 21 positions was authorized in the operations 

appropriation for CARI at that time. Researchers 

concentrated on the following types of projects: (1) 

man’s aging process and the relation to chronological 

age and pilot proficiency; (2) selection criteria for 

an environmental stress factors experienced by air 

traffic controllers; and (3) inflight fatigue affecting 

flight engineering on jet aircraft. Researchers were 

housed in several temporary wooden buildings and 

a gymnasium that were owned by the University of 

Oklahoma and located at Westheimer Field (a former 

World War II naval aviation training base) in Norman, 

Oklahoma, until the CARI Building was completed 

in October 1962.

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 and 

designed the layout for their individual laboratory space 

in the emerging new 220,000 square foot, four level (one 

level underground) medical research building at the Aeronautical Center, Will Rogers Field, Oklahoma City. This 

was said to be the first time that an enthusiastic cadre of 

scientists had a major role in the design and preparation 

of their future institute’s laboratories.

The scientists were drawn from the US Air Force at 

Randolph Field, the US Army, the University of Oklahoma Medical School, Ohio State University (the group 

of protection and survival research personnel led by John 

J. Swearingen who had previously been moved from the 

Aeronautical Center to Ohio State University by the Civil 

Aviation Administration and were now being returned by 

the FAA to Oklahoma), and other organizations.

In June 1962, the Office of the Deputy Civil Air Surgeon 

for Research and Operations and the Certification, Research, and Standards Divisions under the Civil Air Surgeon 

in FAA Headquarters were all moved to Oklahoma City. 

Also, as a part of this move, the Washington Office Clinic 

became a part of a new medical Clinical Services Division. 

The Deputy Civil Air Surgeon was established to provide 

centralized medical standards, certification, research, and 

clinic activities for the agency. The only medical operation 

retained at FAA Headquarters at that time was program 

planning and management in the immediate Office of 

the Civil Air Surgeon. The Deputy Civil Air Surgeon’s 

charge consisted of a Medical Research Division (which 

included CARI and FAA’s Clinical Research Institute in 

Georgetown), Medical Clinical Services division, Medical 

Certification Division, and Medical Standards Division. A 

total of 112 positions was allocated to this organization. 

This included 50 positions in the operations appropriation 

and 62 in the facilities, engineering, and development 

(FE&D) appropriation.

As the scientists settled into the new CARI facility 

during the fall of 1962, and began their respective aeromedical research studies, a troubling cloud appeared in 

the form of a Congressional House of Representatives 

mandated budget ceiling on personnel and funding for 

the new institute, imposed by Mr. Albert Thomas, then 

congressman from Houston, Texas, and a powerful appropriations committee chairman. There was, at that 

time, some tension between Mr. Thomas and Oklahoma 

Senator Robert S. Kerr regarding the establishment of 

several FAA and NASA sites.

The planned institute staffing of 212 persons was 

formally cut back to 100. Recruiting activities for scientists and research support personnel were slowed and the 

number of planned projects was reduced. The time of the 

Institute’s scientists was concentrated on regrouping and 

reformulating their research plans, and the new Director 

and the branch chiefs spent much time juggling priorities. When the new institute building was dedicated in 

October 1962, Mr. Najeeb Halaby, FAA Administrator, 

invited Mr. Thomas to participate in the proceedings. 

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 in 

the dedication and the discussions at that time between 

Mr. Thomas and Senator Monroney may actually have 

been primarily responsible for saving the Institute from a 

support perspective. At the evening dedication banquet, 

the featured speaker was Jimmy Doolittle who told of the 

important role flight surgeons had performed during his 

illustrious aviation career.

A peculiar development had occurred in 1960-61 in 

that the FAA instituted the Georgetown Clinical Research 

Facility (approximately 20 persons in 1961), later renamed 

the Georgetown Clinical Research Institute (GCRI). The 

purpose of the GCRI was to study “longitudinal” pilot 

aging and look for ways to make individual exceptions to 

the 1961 FAA “age 60” mandatory retirement regulation 

for airline pilots. It developed that a similar longitudinal 

research program on airline pilots was established in 

1960 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at the 

Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with 

the help of S.R. Mohler, M.D., a Public Health Service 

officer in the Center for Aging Research at NIH, who 

was about to be offered the Directorship of CARI. It 

also developed that certain FAA headquarters personnel 

proposed closing CARI and enlarging the GCRI as they 

felt it more convenient to administer a medical research 

program in the same town as FAA headquarters rather 

than one in Oklahoma. These Washington personnel had 

to take propeller airline aircraft on their periodic trips to 

Oklahoma City, a circumstance requiring a full day and 

multiple stops at the time.

As assessment of the FAA Headquarters/Aeronautical 

Center medical structure in December 1962, resulted in 

the abolishment of the Office of the Deputy Civil Air 

Surgeon and the transfer of the Standards Division back 

to FAA Headquarters to augment the Civil Air Surgeon 

in a major realignment of the Aviation Medical Service. 
A13

The other existing medical divisions at the Aeronautical 

Center were retained and reported directly to the Civil 

Air Surgeon.

In January 1964, CARI was placed under the executive and technical direction of the new Washington-based 

Aeromedical Education and Research Division in the 

Aviation Medicine Service. At that time, under Federal 

Air Surgeon M.S. White, M.D., the Georgetown Clinical 

Research Institute became a branch of this new division 

which was established to plan and direct research activities at a national level. However, this was later changed 

in July 1965, when Administrator Halaby directed that 

the medical research program be managed directly by the 

Federal Air Surgeon.

The CARI medical certification, research, and clinic 

activities were reorganized into one division in October 

1965. At that time, the Institute was renamed the Civil 

Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) and was placed under the 

executive direction of the new Aeronautical Center Director, Mr. Lloyd Lane. Technical direction continued to be 

provided by the Federal Air Surgeon. CAMI consisted of 

four branches – Administrative and Technical Branch, 

Aeromedical Certification Branch, Aeromedical Research 

Branch, and Aeromedical Services Branch. J. Robert Dille, 

MD, was named chief of CAMI in December 1965. A 

total of 172 positions (93 operations and 79 RE&D) were 

authorized to CAMI at that time, representing what proved 

to be a one-year reduction of 21 RE&D positions.

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 duplication of 

the NIH supported Lovelace longitudinal aging study 

of pilots. The new Federal Air Surgeon, Peter Siegal, 

M.D., also had received an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee report to the effect that the GCRI was not following 

a clear statistical design relative to its study population 

and, accordingly, had made no notable progress toward 

achieving the goal for which it had been established. 

Moreover, the cost of maintaining two medical research 

facilities – one overcrowded (GCRI) and one underutilized 

due to the Congressional ceiling situations – was more 

than difficult to defend. The GCRI positions and dollars 

were moved to CAMI in 1966 restoring the CAMI level 

to 100 positions.

At that time, newly appointed FAA Administrator, 

William McKee, gave a speech to an Aerospace Medical 

Association annual meeting and stated that CARI would 

contract for a large moveable hydraulic lift platform that 

had capabilities of tilting and would raise the fuselage of 

an airline-type aircraft for passenger emergency evacuation studies. The money from GCRI was used for this 

platform and, as only one GCRI person elected to move 

to Oklahoma, the position authorizations began to be 

melded into the Institute in Oklahoma. By this time, S.R. 

Mohler, M.D., had moved to Washington and had assisted 

in preparing the Administrator’s speech. The evacuation 

simulator proposal seemed very timely as several airline 

accidents involving passenger evacuation problems had 

occurred in the relatively recent past.

In 1966, a Clinical Research Laboratory was established 

in the Aeromedical Research Branch in which to place the 

scientists from the FAA’s closed out Georgetown Clinical 

Research Institute. In August 1968, the aeromedical education function was moved from the Aviation Medical Service 

in FAA Headquarters to CAMI so that existing CAMI 

facilities (altitude chambers, etc.) could be utilized. At that 

time, the Aeromedical Education Branch was established. 

With this came the responsibility of aeromedical education 

and information programs supporting safety and promotion of civil aviation; and development of standards and 

procedures governing the selection, designation, training, 

and management of physicians appointed to conduct aviation medical examinations of civil airmen in the U.S. and 

abroad. Also in 1968, a Technical Staff and Administrative 

Staff were established to assume functions of the former 

Administrative and Technical Branch; however, these 

functions were later moved to the Aeromedical Research 

Branch and the division office in July 1979. A biostatistical 

staff was established in June 1968 but was later moved 

to the Aeromedical Research Branch in April 1975. The 

Aeromedical Services Branch was retitled Aeromedical 

Clinical Branch in June 1968. Based on the Federal Air 

Surgeon’s decision that it was his office’s lowest priority, 

the Aeromedical Clinical Branch was abolished in May 

1981 during a financial crunch. However, the Aeronautical 

Center Director reestablished and staffed it in October 

1981, under CAMI direction, in order to support the 

training aspects of the air traffic recovery program (not 

surprisingly, CAMI eventually negotiated successfully 

to re-own the clinic in the early 1990’s). CAMI was 

thus structured with an Aeromedical Research Branch, 

Aeromedical Certification Branch, Aeromedical Education 

Branch, and Aeromedical Clinical Branch.

In the late 1960’s and into the early 1970’s, a series 

of events arose in aviation that led to the vitiation of 

the earlier mentioned resource ceiling on FAA medical 

research resources. Serious labor problems with the FAA 

air traffic controllers and FAA management at the facility, 

area, regional, and Washington headquarters levels, began 

to develop throughout the National Aerospace System. 
A14

The “vacuum tube” air traffic control hardware and the 

problems with the new software along with the necessary 

shift work rotations began to escalate air traffic controller 

stress concerns. The contributions by researchers at CAMI 

and the need to properly support CAMI scientists with 

respect to air traffic controller psychological, physiological, and medical aspects were becoming apparent. Mr. 

Albert Thomas had passed away in 1966, but the funding 

ceiling for CAMI persisted through 1983 (although by 

1972 overall RE&D funding for OAM began to increase). 

Moreover, in 1973 the number of authorized research 

positions dropped from 100 to 97, a loss that was later 

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 at 

97 on the grounds that the budget document was too far 

along in the process to seek a correction. The correction 

was never made. In addition to the in-house research at 

CAMI, the FAA made available to OAM an additional 

$700,000 for a longitudinal study by Boston University’s 

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 (1974-78) 

and the physician who was assigned to help develop this 

contract and to help Dr. Rose during the four-year period 

it was in force and monitored by the Office of Aviation 

Medicine was S.R. Mohler, M.D. That influx of those 

contract funds established a higher dollar base for the 

Office of Aviation Medicine’s overall research programs. 

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 CAMI.

The Rose study reflected one of the agency’s thrusts to 

evaluate scientifically issues related to air traffic controller 

stress. Other research was being conducted at CAMI on 

related stress topics. Specifically, field studies of controller shift schedules and air traffic workload along with 

psychological assessments of anxiety, job attitudes, and 

interest patterns were completed.

In the late 1970’s, an interesting option began to be 

considered by the FAA and the Department of Transportation, specifically there was a proposal to convert 

CAMI to a departmental function as the Transportation 

Biomedical Research Institute (TBRI). That proposal 

received considerable attention over a number of months 

and appeared to be favorably viewed at the highest levels 

of DOT. However, interest waned and the proposal was 

never acted upon.

In 1979, the FAA conducted an “early out” program 

to reduce staffing levels. A number of research staff took 

advantage of the opportunity to retire early and, as a 

result, the authorized position levels were subsequently 

reduced from 97 to 90 (although actual staffing levels 

never approached these numbers, due, in major part, to 

the insufficiency of funding). 

In the summer of 1981, a major event occurred in the 

history of the FAA and of U.S. labor law. The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) 

went on strike and refused to return to work at the order 

of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan fired 

the striking controllers and the FAA undertook a strike 

recovery program which included the unprecedented hir-

ing and basic training of over 8,000 air traffic controller 

applicants in a 2-year period. CAMI played a key role in 

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 selection and 

training were recognized by then FAA Administrator J. 

Lyn Helms. A CAMI scientist , Dr. James O. Boone, 

was appointed to the Administrator’s staff and moved 

to Washington Headquarters to assist in the strategic 

and operational recovery planning. Other scientists, led 

by Allan D. VanDeventer, took full charge of CAMI’s 

controller selection research program and provided the 

local research leadership for the FAA Academy to help 

make strike recovery work; that included changing the 

ATC Screen program to make it more efficient with respect to success in Academy training. The importance of 

CAMI’s contributions to strike recovery was underscored 

by Administrator Helms when he provided certificates 

of commendation and appreciation from Pan American 

World Airways dated May 6, 1982, to regional and center 

headquarters offices, air route traffic control centers, level 

IV and V terminals; level III flight service stations, the 

FAA Academy—and to CAMI. The certificate recognized 

the “outstanding performance of FAA employees in maintaining a high level of safety and operations following the 

controller strike.” Helms also noted in his August 2, 1982, 

memorandum that he believed that “this is the first time 

in the history of Pan American World Airways that the 

Board of Directors has authorized a commendation for 

a total organization.”

As part of the strike recovery effort, following outcomes 

from contract studies of air traffic controllers (the “Jones 

Committee Report”) and with support from CAMI psychologists, Administrator Helms requested that CAMI 
A15

scientists develop a questionnaire to assess the FAA’s organizational culture as a means of establishing a baseline 

to determine the effects of organizational interventions. 

That effort was designed to provide a base of information 

that could help to prevent the types of impasse that led to 

the air traffic controller strike and firings. The first FAA 

Employee Survey was conducted in 1984 as a census of all 

FAA employees. It was a major undertaking. All aspects 

of the survey from development of the items, to printing, 

mailing, scoring, statistical analyses, and preparation of 

reports were conducted at CAMI under the direction of 

David J. Schroeder, PhD. The scannable survey form 

comprised 66 substantive items, was distributed to about 

47,000 employees at their home addresses (a considered 

decision by agency management, reflecting some of the 

continuing concerns of that period), and yielded a 55% 

return rate. Although there had been considerable managerial anxiety about the conduct of this first agency-wide 

survey, and although the results showed a number of areas 

in need of improvement, the survey project was a highly 

successful one – it led to consideration by management 

of plans to improve aspects of the work environment, and 

identified successful policies. In support of the perceived 

value of the survey approach, the Administrator decided 

to continue use of the survey on a biennial basis.

A confluence of events during this time led to some 

later organizational changes involving both the research 

branch and the Institute as a whole. Specifically, in 1984, 

the FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards, 

Mr. Walter S. Luffsey, assigned a study of CAMI research 

to a staff member, William Smith, Ph.D., who had a 

background in physics. The so-called “Smith Report,” 

released in 1984, presented a plan for modifying the CAMI 

research structure (removing some aeromedical areas from 

a research to an operations category), introduced the rather 

cumbersome term “workplace performance optimization” 

– to cover selection, training, and survey studies - as an 

area of acceptable research along with “protection and 

survival” and “workload and performance”, emphasized 

the need for research sponsorship by an operational agency 

element, and recommended that the Institute report to 

the Assistant Administrator for Development and Logistics. The “workplace performance optimization” category 

survived for about a decade while the enhanced sponsorship recommendation was addressed and developed in 

future years. However, CAMI’s basic research structure 

stayed intact, and the Institute continued to report to 

Aviation Standards into the 1990’s. Moreover, the strike, 

the successful recovery efforts, and the successful survey 

project emphasized the need by the agency to direct more 

attention to its human resources. In that regard, CAMI 

psychologists had provided leadership and accomplishments significant enough by 1984 to lead agency executives, 

particularly the highly respected Associate Administrator 

for Administration, Mr. Gene Weithoner, to seek actively 

to assure a more prominent role for that group in the 

organization. The Aeronautical Center Director, Mr. 

Benjamin Demps, strongly supported the enhancement 

of human resources research (he had had very positive 

first-hand experience with CAMI psychologists when he 

had served as Superintendent of the FAA Academy). Mr. 

Demps developed a position paper in 1984, drafted by 

K.A. Hayes, to establish a Human Resources Research 

Institute at the Aeronautical Center by converting the 

Aviation Psychology Laboratory to that role. (A similar, 

less formalized attempt to effect the same type of result 

was generated among the human resources offices in 

Washington Headquarters in late 1988). However, the 

near-term major outcome of these suggestions was the 

1986 decision and the January 1987 conversion of the 

Aviation Psychology Laboratory within the Aeromedical 

Research Branch to its own branch status as the Human 

Resources Research Branch. In December 1988, all of the 

CAMI branches were elevated to division status with the 

Aeromedical Clinical Branch renamed the Occupational 

Health Division. These organizational changes remained 

effective through the year 2000.
A16

A Brief History of OAM Research Funding, 

Staffing, and Technical Report Production

By W.E. Collins, Ph.D. and Gale G. Dills

With the establishment of the Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI) in 1960, research staffing, funding, 

and the production of technical reports by the Office of 

Aviation Medicine (OAM) were initially centered in CARI. 

Indeed, the first two years of research publications (1961-

62) were termed CARI reports. The use of the OAM logo 

and the like change in the designation of those reports 

began in 1963. Research funding also was tied to CARI/

CAMI during the 1960s; later, Washington Headquarters 

retained funds designated as contract dollars and issued 

and monitored contracts in such areas as air traffic controller (ATC) selection, aspects of air piracy research, ATC 

color vision, aspects of aircraft maintenance, and others 

over the years. The discrepancies between CARI/CAMI 

funding and overall Office of Aviation Medicine research 

funding is largely accounted for by the allocation and 

use of contract dollars from Washington Headquarters. 

CAMI has always been primarily a hands-on conductor of 

research and had relatively little or no annually contracted 

research until the 1990s. During that decade, an expansion of the vision for CAMI research and a concomitant 

increase in resources – both personnel and dollars – led 

to an enhanced approach to contracting and, for the first 

time in 1993, to awarding research grants in support of 

internal programmatic goals.

Nevertheless, the first two contracted studies by CARI/

CAMI were initiated early in its history, at about the same 

time, and resulted in final reports in October and November 

1964. One of these, not surprisingly, dealt with air traffic 

controllers (Investigation of the Training-Performance 

Criteria for Several Federal Aviation Agency Occupational Specialties by M. Clinton Miller III, Department 

of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of 

Oklahoma Medical Center); the other (Vestibular Investigations in Mammals by R.D. Burns, Ph.D., University 

of Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Research Institute, 

June 1962-July 1964) had the added benefit of providing 

CARI/CAMI with a model RS-2 Stille-LKB rotating chair 

for vestibular stimulation. The Stille device was employed 

extensively for decades as a research tool and to demonstrate 

aspects of spatial disorientation; it later became the basis 

for commercially produced disorientation trainers, and, 

to date, is still operable and used as needed.

Figures 1 and 2 show the history of appropriations and 

authorized positions for the OAM and for CARI/CAMI, 

respectively. Because the Institute always received the 

major share of the appropriations, the time course of 

dollar support in both graphs is similar and, during the 

1960s, was veridical.

A similar situation obtains for the position allocation 

data in both curves with the exception of 1965 and 1986-

88. The former case represented a peculiar drop from 100 

to 79 as part of the agency order that changed CARI to 

CAMI; the level reverted back to 100 the following year. 

Except for 1965 and the 1986-88 period, during which 

3 positions were moved from CAMI to the Washington 

office, all the research positions were nominally located 

in Oklahoma City. The displacement of those 3 positions 

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 were 

returned to CAMI in 1990.

Aeromedical research positions moved up from 62 in 1962 

to a 100-level ceiling beginning 

in 1963, shortly after Stanley 

R. Mohler, M.D., had become 

CARI Director. The ceiling of 

100 had been set initially by Mr. 

Albert Thomas’ Congressional 

appropriations committee and 

was never exceeded. In 1965, 

the level dropped to 79 as part 

of the order when CARI was 

reorganized as CAMI, but rose back to 100 in 1966 when 

positions at the defunct Georgetown Clinical Research 

Institute were transferred to CAMI. In 1974, the level 

dropped to 97 – allegedly on the basis of an error by the 

agency budget office at Washington Headquarters that 

was never corrected. Somewhat ironically, OAM research 

funding increased at about the same time due, in part, 

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 years, 

but CAMI research dollars remained level over the same 

Dr. S.R. Mohler

(c. 1962)

Historical Vignette
A1

7

Figure 1. History of appropriations for the Office of Aviation Medicine: 1961–2000.
A1

8

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

9

Figure 3. Office of Aviation Medicine Technical Reports: By Year, 1961–2000.
A20

time period. During the 1978-83 period, the number of 

authorized positions fell on 3 occasions. The first (1980) 

was related to an “early out” program conducted by the 

agency and reduced the authorized number to 90 positions. 

Subsequent reductions occurred in 1981 (to 76 positions) 

and 1982, leveling off at 74 positions. Also, during this 

period, a change occurred in the allocation of positions. 

While previously (and subsequently) all positions were 

RE&D (i.e., Research, Engineering, and Development), 

during 1975-1983 from 58 to 77 of the positions were 

FE&D (Facilities, Equipment, and Development) slots; 

the remaining 16-20 positions were designated as RE&D. 

Those variations reflected Washington budget office decisions related to much larger FE&D and RE&D issues. 

Partly as a result of the increased emphases related to the 

controller strike, strike recovery, the Employee Attitude 

Survey, and a new look at selecting and training controllers 

(along with the diminishing amounts of research resources 

after CAMI personnel costs were deducted), some increase 

in OAM funding occurred from 1984-1986, a major part 

of which was assigned to the Institute.

J. Robert Dille, M.D., who 

had served as CAMI Director since 1965, retired at the 

end of 1987. Following several months of rotating acting 

CAMI managers, William E. 

Collins, Ph.D., was appointed 

deputy manager (the term 

“Director” was temporarily not 

used because agency officials 

had come to feel it conflicted 

with the titles of FAA regional 

and center directors – it was 

later restored) in 1988 and CAMI Director in 1989. Dur-

ing that time negotiations to return the 3 CAMI research 

positions that had been relocated to the Washington office 

in 1987 were successful; the positions were reallocated to 

CAMI in 1990. Although the Institute had 74 authorized 

research positions, by 1988 only 57 full-time permanent 

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, an 

immediate concerted effort to negotiate an improvement 

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 positions and 

dollars. Positions jumped from 74 to 83 in 1991 and then 

to 93 in 1992. Funding went from less than $4 million 

in 1987-88 to over $5 million in 1990 to more than $11 

million in 1993.

It is perhaps of some interest that these staffing increases were almost topped during the 1993 budget 

process. At that time CAMI had successfully requested 

5 more positions - uniquely the Agency was requesting 

no others - and had seen them retained during the first 

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 final 

DOT pass through by Admiral James B. Busey who had 

served as the FAA Administrator from 1989 - 1991 and 

had moved from there to a DOT position. The grounds 

reported for removing the 5 positions at that stage were 

that no new air traffic control or safety positions were 

being requested in the budget, and no funding for the 

5 CAMI positions was in the budget. The OAM-CAMI 

position level stayed at 93. 

Throughout the first three decades of CARI/CAMI 

research, budgets were submitted through the Office 

of the Federal (nee Civil) Air 

Surgeon, and funding was 

pro­vided to that office and 

distributed to the Institute. 

Aviation Medicine was a research budget line. By 1989, 

however, as part of a response 

to industry/professional organization/advisory group 

recommendations, the agency 

initiated a “human factors” 

research emphasis that included the hiring of a scientific 

and technical advisor for human factors. The appointee, 

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 and 

the new human factors thrust was assigned to Chapter 8. 

There was considerable interaction in the budget meet-

ings regarding the title for Chapter 8 – Dr. Foushee and 

some others preferred “Human Factors” as the title to 

subsume aviation medicine, aspects of research at the FAA 

Technical Center (particularly with respect to air traffic 

controllers), and Washington-based research contracts in 

various human factors areas. However, perseverance by 

aviation medicine in these budget meetings led finally 

Dr. J. Robert Dille

(c. 1963)

Dr. W.E. Collins

(c. 1965)
A21

to titling Chapter 8 as “Human Factors and Aviation 

Medicine” – an accomplishment largely attributable to the 

on-site work of William T. Shepherd, Ph.D., an OAMbased psychologist. The importance of maintaining the 

identity of aviation medicine research in this instance, and 

in a later instance regarding logos, transcends any purely 

nominal issues. Because the agency is largely geared to, 

and staffed in, regulatory, engineering, and development 

areas, the unique person-oriented research approach that 

typifies the OAM research programs needs to be imbedded in a similarly oriented office if it is to maintain its 

human-centered thrust.

The funding mechanisms subsequently changed. Dr. 

Foushee developed an office and a staff within the agency’s 

aviation research organization and by 1992 CAMI was 

being funded directly from the research budget office while 

the contract research being conducted from the office of 

Aviation Medicine was given separate funds. In 1995, the 

latter transfer of funds ceased and, while aviation medicine’s 

contract research from the Washington office continued 

with the small staff there, funding was drawn from the 

Office of Aviation Research (AAR) and not allocated to 

OAM. In 1997, a similar change was attempted for CAMI 

funding but a case was vigorously and successfully made 

to allocate immediately to CAMI each year’s funding for 

all “in-house” costs (i.e., everything except contracts and 

grants for research by outside organizations) and to follow-up during the first quarter of the year (beginning in 

FY-98) with CAMI’s contract research/grants funding. 

In 1996, the Congressional appropriation for all of FAA’s 

RE&D funding changed, without notice, from a “no-year 

appropriation” to a “3-year appropriation.” 

CAMI’s research productivity is largely defined by its 

output of technical reports. Indeed, it is probably the 

best indicator of its published (or public) research results. 

Such a measure, while of singular importance, represents 

only part of the value derived from its research program. 

CAMI researchers also publish in scientific journals, 

make scientific presentations at national and international 

meetings, give safety lectures, provide data and knowledge 

for educational purposes, and serve as agency, department, 

national, and international consultants in their areas of 

expertise. However, as is evident from Figure 3, productiv-

ity as measured by technical reports was highly variable 

irrespective of funding levels during the first two decades. 

The peak in 1978is partly attributable to some extra efforts 

to complete projects before a 1979 “early out” program 

by the agency to reduce overall staffing levels. From that 

peak, however, two clear trends emerged. Productivity 

dropped steadily from 1978 to 1988 to a low of 5 reports; 

it then increased steadily to an average of about 28 per year 

during the later half of the 1990’s. It is perhaps of some 

interest that in 1995, AAR developed a logo and initiated 

an undertaking to use that logo on OAM reports - first 

in place of the OAM logo, later along with it. Pursuit of 

both alternatives was discontinued after several months 

of intermittent discussions to insure the integrity of the 

medical programs. 

The position gains (to 93) were later tempered when 

the agency introduced a “buy out” program in 1994 (along 

with a required change in the ratio of employees to supervisors/managers – to reduce the size of the supervisory 

staff) as part of U.S. Vice President Gore’s goal to reduce 

the size of government. As a result, the agency’s overall 

research program was required to reduce its number of 

authorized positions and restrict filling the remaining 

positions by 7 positions per year for the following 3

years. CAMI was able to retain 92 authorized positions 

(an initial determination to set the level at 88, based on 

prior-year vacancies, was successfully changed), and the 

allowed employment level (staffing ceiling) settled at 89 in 

meeting these agency goals. Those levels were maintained 

through the year 2000.

Similarly, the peak funding levels achieved by CAMI 

in 1993 and 1994 were affected following the 1994

“buyout” by reductions in 1995 - 1997; a return to those 

peak levels began in 1998 and was sustained in years 1999

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 Vignette

Some Observations on the Origins of

The Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI):

Its First Predecessor,

The Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI)

By William E. Collins, Ph.D., and Stanley R. Mohler, M.D.

The following vignette was created by Myrna Johnson 

during 1966. On October 3, 1960, Ms. Johnson joined 

CAMI (then CARI) as a receptionist and later served 

as a budget analyst for Mr. Vaughan E. Choate; the 

Institute’s Administrative Officer. On her own initiative 

and based on her own sense of history (“all organizations 

have a history and it should be recorded”), Ms. Johnson 

undertook the writing of this piece during her last few 

months at the Institute. 

The special section on the Institute’s library has some 

roots in the fact that her husband, who had twice been a 

part-time employee of the Institute as an editorial clerk/

writer (June 1961-September 1962; June-September 

1963) while he attended graduate school at the University 

of Oklahoma, helped set up the library prior to the hiring 

of the first official librarian. 

Ms. Johnson completed the manuscript in July 

1966, just prior to her leaving the Institute (August 

26, 1966) for Texas where her husband had secured a 

teaching position following completion of his Ph.D. 

degree. The text of the article, which is referenced as 

a “mimeograph” under a slightly different title (“Civil 

Aeromedical Research Institute – A Brief History, 

1959-1966”) in Heber Holbrook’s 1974 Civil Aviation 

Medicine in the Bureaucracy, is presented below exactly 

as written. What is not presented is a listing appended 

by Ms. Johnson, of every federal research employee of 

the Institute during the period covered along with their 

job titles, grades, dates they joined the Institute, and for 

those who left, a date and a one-word description of the 

reason for leaving. All of the latter data are now available 

in the CAMI Library. 

Ms. Johnson’s focus is on the original function of the 

Institute – research – and, as such, there is no detailing 

of personnel who came to occupy non-research positions (e.g., in aeromedical certification) as organizational 

changes (which she notes) took place. Also, when the 

name (and functions) of the Institute changed to the Civil 

Aeromedical Institute in late 1965, she uses the acronym 

CAI for the organization’s new title; the acronym became 

CAMI shortly after she left in 1966 and has been preserved to identify the Institute with its new name – The 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute – authorized in 2001 

to reflect the FAA’s responsibilities associated with the 

commercial space transportation program.

With Ms. Johnson’s permission, we have taken one 

liberty with her article, i.e., we have added archival 

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).
A23

Civil Aeromedical Research Institute, 1959 – 1966

By Myrna Johnson

July 1966

From its beginning in 1959 until in October 

1965, the research facility in Oklahoma City 

has been called the Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute, CARI, for short. To those who were 

CARI employees during this period of time, 

the Institute will be remembered as CARI. The 

purpose of this history is to sketch the growth 

of this institution.

The Federal Aviation Agency announced on October 

31, 1959, plans for the Civil Aeromedical Research Center, 

later called Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI), 

to be established at the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma. The purpose of the new medical research 

center was to develop medical data to meet the problems 

of civil air operations as civil aviation moved into higher 

altitudes and supersonic speeds (1).

Late in December 1959, the first CARI personnel 

arrived in Oklahoma City. John Swearingen, J.D. Garner, Ernest B. McFadden, and John Blethrow had been 

with the Civil Aeronautics Medical Research Laboratory 

(CAMRL) in Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Robert T. Clark 

arrived from the School of Aviation Medicine (SAM) 

in San Antonio, Texas, to become CARI’s Director of 

Research. The first home of CARI was the second floor, 

Hanger 8 at the Aeronautical Center. In February 1960, 

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, audio 

visual specialist; Dr. Bruno Balke, biodynamics; 

Dr. James Green, biochemist; Dr. P.C. Tang, 

neurophysiologist; Aline “Corky” Koch, secretary; 

M.C. Oviatt, engineering technician; and Claude 

Jones, administrative officer. During the spring 

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, arrived. 

Dr. Don H. Estes joined the staff in July as the Director of 

CARI. Vaughan E. Choate became the executive officer in 

July. Drs. P.F. Iampietro and L.J. O’Brien, physiologists, 

joined the staff in August. Howard Hasbrook, crash injury 

specialist, arrived in September. In the last four months 

of the first year, Dr. Wallace Friedberg, physiologist; Dr. 

William Stavinoha, pharmacologist; Dr. Richard Snyder, anthropologist; and Dr. E.E. Phillips, physiologist, 

joined the staff.

The main efforts during the first year were spent in 

setting up the laboratories and recruiting researchers and 

technicians. Several moves were accomplished during 

the first six or seven months. In May 1960, the small 

group moved form Oklahoma City to Building 604, 

North Campus, Norman. This building was part of the 

University of Oklahoma Research Institute. In August, 

the group moved again into Building 803, Building 805, 

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
A24

and a gymnasium, which were leased from the University of Oklahoma. Three more buildings were acquired 

later. The institute remained in these quarters until it 

moved into new facilities at the Aeronautical Center in 

October 1962.

The Bureau of Aviation Medicine in Washington, D.C., 

was established on March 14, 1960 – an indication of the 

growing significance of the medical program in aviation 

safety. CARI researchers concentrated on the following 

projects during the next three months:

1. Man’s aging process and the relation to chronological 

age and pilot proficiency;

2. Selection criteria for and environmental stress factors 

experienced by air traffic controllers; and 

3. Inflight fatigue affecting flight engineers on jet aircraft 

(2).

At the end of the first year, the staff consisted of a Director, Director of Research, 18 researchers, 4 secretaries, a 

receptionist, an executive officer, an administrative officer, 

a supply specialist, and 20 technicians and scientific aides. 

Each branch had several members, and the audio visual 

and engineering services were functioning.

During FY 1961 the accomplishments were threefold: 

design of the new facility, recruitment of key staff; and 

initiation of long-range research programs.

The second year was marked by several significant developments and continued growth. The first major change 

occurred in April 1961, when Drs. Estes, Clark, and Green 

and several technicians resigned or transferred. 

Dr. Hauty served as Acting Director of CARI until 

the appointment of Dr. Stanley R. Mohler as Director in 

August 1961. On September 20, 1961, the staff consisted 

of 89 members, including temporary and part-time workers. The authorized permanent staffing was 64, authorized 

temporary 18, and authorized part-time 20. Listed below 

is the staffing by branches and services:

Branch secretaries were added in 

October and November 1961.

Plans originally called for a staff 

of several hundred in five years or 

less. However, growth was limited 

by a congressional ceiling on staff-

ing. The budget prepared in June 

1960 for 1961 and 1962 requested 

61 positions for 1961, which were within the limit, and 

requested 150 additional positions over the ceiling. For 

1962, 320 positions were requested. Seventy-five positions were authorized for 1962, and this authorization 

still holds for Research and Development (FY 1966).

At the end of 1961, 18 professional researchers, 7

secretaries and clerks, and 21 technicians and scientific 

aides had joined the staff in its second year. Part-time 

employees are included in these numbers.

During FY 1962, 13 CARI reports and 45 scientific 

articles were published. Research developed methods of 

predicting success of air traffic controllers in training. 

The investigations of air crashes furnished information for improvements in air safety. Preliminary work 

was completed on toxic hazards in aerial application of 

insecticides.

In June 1962, decentralization of the Washington 

office occurred, and Certification and Standards Divisions moved to Oklahoma City. The new organization 

was headed by Dr. George Steinkamp, Deputy Civil Air 

Surgeon for Research and Operations. CARI, Georgetown Clinical Research Institute, and Research Direction 

became a part of the Aeromedical Research Division, one 

of the four divisions, and the Clinic became Aeromedical 

Clinical Services Division. The remaining two divisions 

were Aeromedical Certification Division and Aeromedical 

Standards Division. In December, the Office of the Deputy 

Civil Air Surgeon was abolished, and the 15 positions 

given to CARI and Certification. Standards Division 

moved back to Washington in November 1963.

The major event in FY 1963 was 

the move in October 1962 into the 

new $8.5 million research facility at 

the Aeronautical Center. On October 21, the building was dedicated 

by FAA Administrator N.E. Halaby 

(3).

In FY 1963, the staff reached full 

strength with 35 professional research 

scientists, 25 research scientists, 15 scientific aides, and 

20 part-time aides. In Research Direction, 11 were in the 

Mr. Halaby

Dr. Estes

1: Library

2: Animal Care

5: Research Engineering

6: Biodynamics Branch

6: Audio Visual

3: Neurophysiology 

Branch

2: Biometrics

10: Director’s Office

8: Biochemistry Branch

6: Branch Chiefs

17: Psychology Branch

2: Clinical Examination

4: Environmental 

Physiology Branch

6: Employee Health

11: Protection & Survival 

Branch
A25

Office of the Director, and there were six branch chiefs 

and six branch secretaries. During this year, CARI participated in the supersonic program and Project “Little Guy,” 

in addition to the approved projects. Thirty-five CARI 

reports and one Technical Publication were issued.

With the move into the new building completed and 

the labs set up and working, the new facility allowed new 

projects to be undertaken in FY 1964. Experiments were 

conducted in the altitude, pressure, and environmental 

chambers. Ditching, evacuation, and rescue experiments 

were conducted in the pool. Drug, alcohol, and decompression studies were made at high altitudes. Tests of 

oxygen masks were conducted. Twenty OAM reports (13

from Georgetown and seven from CARI) were published 

during this year.

The major projects were retitled in FY 1965 to more 

clearly describe the medical research program at CARI. 

Thirty-three professional research scientists, 30 research 

scientists, 12 scientific aides, and 20 part-time positions 

were abolished. Thirty-two OAM reports were issued 

during this year.

During FY 1966, the first major turnover of personnel occurred. Sixteen members of the scientific staff left 

during this year. Their vacancies were filled with scientific 

aides. Highlights of FY 1966 included 24 OAM reports, 

23 presentations by staff members at various meetings, 

and 14 papers published in open scientific literature. 

Late in FY 1966, the Federal Air Surgeon announced the 

move of [the] Georgetown [facility] to Oklahoma City. 

This added 25 more researchers and aides to the research 

program in Oklahoma.

During CARI’s existence, CARI has maintained a 

good relationship with the University of Oklahoma, the 

OU Medical School, and the communities of Norman 

and Oklahoma City. Students at OU and the medical 

schools have worked with CARI scientists, and many of 

CARI’s researchers have had faculty status at OU and 

the medical school.

Organization

When CARI was established, there were six branches 

and the Office of the Director, Audio Visual Service, and 

Research Engineering. Animal Care was added later. The 

branches and branch chiefs were 

•	 Biochemistry – Dr. James Green;

•	 Biodynamics – Dr. Bruno Balke;

•	 Environmental Physiology – Dr. P. F. Iampietro;

•	 Psychology – Dr. George T. Hauty;

•	 Protection & Survival – Mr. John Swearingen; and 

•	 Neurophysiology - Dr. Pei Chin Tang. 

As mentioned previously, the first change occurred in 

April 1961 when Dr. Estes transferred to Washington, 

and Dr. Clark and Dr. Green resigned to take academic 

appointments. The Director of Research position was 

abolished. Biochemistry Branch became PharmacologyBiochemistry, and Dr. Paul Smith became its new chief. 

In August, Dr. Mohler became CARI’s second director 

and remained in that position until December 1965, 

when he transferred to the Office of Aviation Medicine 

in Washington, D.C. 

In September 1964, Dr. Balke took an academic 

position, and Dr. Lategola became the Acting Chief 

of Biodynamics. In FY 1964, the six branches were 

changed to laboratories, and in January 1965, the 

Neurophysiology and Biodynamics Laboratories were 

dissolved and the personnel absorbed by the remaining 

four laboratories. 

In September 1965, Dr. Hauty resigned to become 

a department head at an Eastern university [and] Dr. 

William E. Collins became the new Psychology Laboratory chief.

From CARI’s beginning in 1959 to the present 

time, the Washington organization has changed from 

time to time, and consequently affected CARI’s operation and organization. From 1960 to 1962, CARI was 

under the Research Requirements Division in Wash-

ington. In June 1962, the Office of the Deputy Civil 

Air Surgeon for Research and Operations was moved 

to Oklahoma City, and CARI and Georgetown came 

under the Aeromedical Research Division in this new 

organization. Dr. Mohler, in addition to continuing as 

Director of CARI, was the Division 

Chief of the Aeromedical Research 

Division from July 8, 1962, until 

January 2, 1964. In January 1964, 

CARI came under the Aeromedical 

Education and Research Division in 

Washington. Dr. Romney Lowry 

was the new division’s chief. In 

October 1965, the medical activities at 

the Aeronautical Center (Certification, CARI, and the 

Clinic) were reorganized into one division entitled the 

Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAI). In December, Dr. J. 

Robert Dille became the new division chief. Dr. Dille 

had been Program Advisory Officer for CARI from June 

1961 until February 1965, when he was transferred to 

the Western Region as Flight Surgeon. CAI no longer has 

direct contact with Washington but is under the Director 

of the Aeronautical Center. There are four branches and 

the Office of the Division Chief in the new organization. 

Dr. Mohler
A26

how the budget would be spent for books and journals. 

In August 1962, Dr. O’Brien accepted an academic 

appointment and left CARI, and Dr. Carlton Melton 

became the new chairman.

In October 1962, the library moved into its spacious 

new home. At first, it occupied rooms 256 and 379. 

Bound periodical stacks, current periodicals, reference 

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 move 

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 the 

back part of the second floor library, and the stacks were 

moved to second floor. Finally, all the library was on a 

single floor.

In June 1965, Miss Heck retired because of poor 

health, and Mrs. Alfreda Hanna became the new librar-

ian. Mrs. Hanna resigned in February 1966 because of 

the lack of library help, and Ted Goulden became the 

third librarian.

The branches are Administrative 

and Technical Branch, Aeromedical 

Certification Branch, Aeromedical 

Research Branch (formerly CARI), 

and Aeromedical Services Branch.

The latest reorganization or 

change is the move by Georgetown to 

Oklahoma City, to be accomplished 

by September 30, 1966. In August, Dr. Harry L. Gibbons 

will become chief of the Aeromedical Research Branch.

CARI Library

A research facility needs a library and CARI was no 

exception. Early in CARI’s history, beginning steps were 

taken to obtain a library. A library committee was established, and Dr. Jess McKenzie became its first chairman. 

The original purpose of the committee was established to 

oversee the entire library functions. Dr. Larry J. O’Brien 

arrived at CARI in August 1960 and was appointed the 

committee chairman.

With the establishment of the library committee, the 

first step was taken. At first, the incoming subscriptions 

were passed from desk to desk. The receptionist checked 

in the journals and books as they arrived in the mail. 

In June 1961, Bobby H. Johnson, a part-time editorial 

clerk, handled the library materials and set up an efficient 

operating library. Two rooms of Building 803 became 

the first library.

In March 1962, Miss Lilah B. 

Heck, medical librarian at the University of Oklahoma Medical School, 

became the first CARI librarian. At 

this time, the library moved into 

Building 802 and occupied four 

rooms (1,175 sq. ft.). With the additional space, there was a library 

office, a current journals and general reference room, a 

room for bound periodicals and book stacks, and a photo 

duplication room. New shelving, reading tables, reading 

carrels, and duplicating equipment were added.

In FY 1962, the funding responsibility for the librarian, 

furnishings, and physical appointments was given to the 

Aeronautical Center library, but the books, subscriptions, 

and other needs came from medical funds. The function 

of the committee was changed because of this policy. 

Instead of overseeing all functions of the library, the 

committee became representatives of the staff to decide 

Miss Heck

Dr. Dille

The present library committee is comprised of Drs. 

Melton, Crane, Tobias, McKenzie, Fiorica, Davis, John 

Ice, and Ted Goulden.

The main problem of the library at the present time 

is to stay within the assigned library space. The library is 

growing at the rate of 30 shelf-inches a week. The library 

budget is another problem. An equipment ceiling in the 

past couple of years has held the purchase of books and 

back issue journals to a minimum.

Footnotes

1. “Federal Aviation Agency Historical Fact Book: A 

Chronology, 1926-1963,” P. 45, 1966.

2. Ibid., p. 47.

3. Ibid., p. 60.

Ms. Hanna Mr. Goulden
A27

Historical Vignette

A 1960 Prelude to New FAA Medical Leadership at Washington

Headquarters and CAMI: Some Personal Recollections

By Stanley R. Mohler, M.D.

Preludes

General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected the 34th

President of the United States in November 1956. On 

August 23, 1958, he signed the Federal Aviation Act that 

included the creation of the Federal Aviation Agency 

(FAA). On November 1, 1958, he selected Elwood 

“Pete” Quesada, Lt. Gen. USAF (Ret.) to become the 

first Administrator of the newly established Federal 

Aviation Agency. General Quesada arranged for James 

L. Goddard, M.D., a career U.S. Public Health Service 

officer, to become on July 12, 1959, the FAA’s initial 

Civil Air Surgeon (Holbrook, 1974), a new title for the 

enhanced top FAA medical position that was elevated 

to report directly to the Administrator (who reported 

to the President).

In collaboration with William F. Ashe, M.D., Chair 

of the Department of Preventive Medicine, Ohio State 

University School of Medicine, Dr. Goddard convened 

on September 15, 1960, his first FAA formal assemblage 

of aviation medical examiners (AMEs). This was in conjunction with the 7th Annual Postgraduate Course in 

Aviation Medicine that Dr. Ashe had been conducting 

for several years. A group of selected interested physicians and aviation professionals comprised speakers for 

this prototypical AME seminar, held in the fall of 1960, 

that has grown to become today’s outstanding seminar 

presentations by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

(CAMI). At the conclusion of the course, Dr. Goddard 

announced that he intended to initiate FAA seminars 

of this type for AMEs before the end of the year. And 

he did so. Mr. James L. Harris organized the first one 

in December of 1960. CAMI AME seminars are now 

provided nationally and internationally and continue to 

achieve Dr. Goddard’s objective to upgrade the aviation 

medical certification practice of AMEs.

Those attending the historic 1960 gathering included 

the following:

•Charles I. Barron, M.D., Medical Director of the 

Lockheed Aircraft Company, speaker

• George P. Kidera, M.D., Medical Director, United 

Airlines, speaker

• Peter V. Siegel, M.D., Smithton, Missouri, AME

• Stanley R. Mohler, M.D., Medical Officer, Center 

for Aging Research, NIH, speaker

• Philip B. Phillips, M.D., Psychiatrist, U.S. Navy, 

speaker

•Richard G. Snyder, Ph.D., Crash Injury Researcher, 

Phoenix, Arizona, speaker

•Ralph F. Nelson, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Bethesda, Maryland, speaker

• Duane A. Catterson, M.D., Student/resident, aerospace medicine, OSU

•Charles E. Billings, M.D., Student/resident, aerospace 

medicine, OSU

•Richard L. Wick, M.D., Student/resident, aerospace 

medicine, OSU

• Luis A. Amezcua, M.D., International AME

• Bert D. Dinman, M.D., Occupational medicine 

facility, OSU

In addition to Dr. Goddard, other attending FAA 

medical personnel included:

•William R. Albers, M.D., Assistant Eastern Region 

Flight Surgeon, New York

•James L. Harris, M.Ed., tasked to organize the first 

AME seminar, Washington, DC

•John E. Smith, M.D., Chief, FAA Research Requirements Division, Washington, DC

• Arthur E. Wentz, M.D., Head, FAA Georgetown 

Clinical Research Branch, Washington, DC

•Carl E. Wilbur, M.D., USN, Assigned to FAA, 

Accident Investigation, Washington, DC

Developments

By the summer of 1961, Dr. Goddard had asked Dr. 

Siegel to join the Headquarters Certification Division 

and Dr. Mohler to become the Director of the emerging 

Civil Aeromedical Research Institute (CARI) at the FAA 

Aeronautical Center, Will Rogers Airport, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma. Both accepted. In 1962, Dr. Goddard 

moved the Headquarters Certification Division plus the 

Standards Division to facilities in the new Institute. Dr. 

Albers was asked to be the new Standards Division Chief 

and he quickly accepted. Dr. Siegel was asked to be the 
A2

8

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. Kidera, 

9. Dr. Ashe, 10. Dr. Catterson, 11. Dr. Wick, 12. Dr. Billings, 13. Dr. Barron, 14. Dr. Wentz, 15. Dr. Albers, 16. Mr. Harris, 

17. Dr. Snyder, 18. Dr. Phillips, 19. Dr. Wilbur. Others are primarily AMEs.
A29

Chief of the Certification Division and he accepted. Mr. 

Harris transitioned to the Institute to manage aviation 

medical examiner and airman education programs.

The Research Requirements Division remained in 

Washington, DC. When Dr. Smith retired, Dr. Mohler 

was appointed to head the Washington-located Division, 

giving him both an Oklahoma base and a Washington 

Headquarters base. He could write a memo to Wash-

ington as CARI head and send himself an answer as 

Washington Division head. This was a very efficient arrangement. Support for a soon-to-be-famous and widely 

quoted decompression study (Barron and Cook, 1965) 

by Dr. Charles Barron of Lockheed (Barron and Mohler 

had become acquainted at the 1960 OSU meeting) was 

requested by “the CARI Dr. Mohler” and subsequently 

approved by “the Division Chief Dr. Mohler.” 

Drs. Albers, Siegel, and Mohler obtained homes in 

Norman, Oklahoma, and often rode back and forth to 

the Institute together, providing useful opportunities for 

program coordination. Their “triad” formed an interlocking, synergistic, and functional exchange mechanism 

that benefited their periodic briefings for national and 

international aviation executives. A new FAA “National 

Aviation System Course,” monthly five-day seminars 

for aviation industry executives, and engineering and 

operational professionals (including airline pilots), was 

introduced in 1963 by General Quesada’s successor, Mr. 

Najeeb E. Halaby. The course made heavy use of the three 

physicians for several years as regular presenters. A guided 

tour through the Institute was a highlight for the “student” 

visitors and gave the three medical programs considerable 

visibility throughout the aviation industry.

The Aviation Medical Service programs became 

increasingly known and consulted. Dr. Siegel oversaw 

the computerization of the FAA medical records certification process for airmen. He moved the Class One 

airman ECG reception point address from Georgetown 

University to his Division in Oklahoma where the responsibility for assessment and action lay. Dr. Albers, 

with Charles R. Harper, M.D., made the first definitive 

study of the number of fatal alcohol-associated general 

aviation accidents. Dr. Mohler assisted the researchers 

to expeditiously prepare, communicate, and publish 

their aeromedical safety findings for use by the aviation 

community, including manufacturers, airmen, and FAA 

flight standards and air traffic personnel.

In September 1965, Dr. Siegel was asked by the new 

FAA Administrator, General William F. McKee, USAF, 

to be the Federal Air Surgeon (the position that was 

originally entitled Civil Air Surgeon). Dr. Siegel asked 

Dr. Mohler to accompany him to headquarters as Chief 

of the new Aeromedical Applications Division (research 

planning branch, accident investigation branch, and 

bioengineering branch). Both moved to Washington. 

Dr. Albers was now with United Airlines, Washington, 

DC, and subsequently became Medical Director of the 

Atomic Energy Commission.

In order to consolidate and more efficiently conduct 

the FAA medical research, Dr. Mohler suggested, Dr. 

Siegel concurred, and General McKee agreed, that the 

FAA Georgetown clinical research activity (set up to 

study pilot aging) be amalgamated with the now Civil 

Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City. The 

move was facilitated by a Government Accounting Office 

(GAO) report suggesting that similar research was being 

accomplished at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. Some of the Georgetown resources were 

applied to construct a large-scale emergency evacuation 

research facility adjacent to CAMI (Mohler, Hays, and 

Collins, 2001). Longitudinal pilot aging studies at the 

Lovelace Foundation continued to provide the FAA with 

data on the topic after the FAA Georgetown activity 

ended. While at the Center for Aging Research, National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), prior to joining the FAA, Dr. 

Mohler had assisted Lovelace scientists to obtain large-scale 

support to study airline pilot aging. In fact, the invitation 

by Dr. Goddard to Dr. Mohler to attend the 1960 OSU 

seminar was for the latter to give a presentation on the 

latest developments from the NIH perspective in the 

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.
A30

Dr. Siegel retired from the FAA in 1976. Dr. Mohler 

retired in 1978, becoming Professor and Director of 

the new Aerospace Medicine Residency Program being 

established by National Aeronautics and Space Admin-

istration (NASA) at the new School of Medicine, Wright 

State University, Dayton, Ohio. With the departure of 

its key faculty, Ohio State University had just closed out 

its aerospace medicine residency program.

CARI/CAMI

With regard to CARI, in October 1965, just prior 

to Dr. Mohler’s December move to Washington, DC, 

Administrator McKee gave the Aeronautical Center Director, Mr. W. Lloyd Lane, managerial authority over all 

Center activities. As part of the general reorganization 

of the Aeronautical Center, CARI, the Medical Certification Division, and an Aeromedical Services Branch 

that included a medical clinic were combined into one 

new division and CARI became CAMI – the Civil Aeromedical Institute. Succeeding Dr. Mohler was J.R. Dille, 

M.D., who had served as Program Advisory Officer to 

Dr. Mohler from 1961-1964 before spending a year as 

Regional Flight Surgeon, Western Region, Los Angeles, 

California. Dr. Dille directed CAMI from December 

1965 until his retirement in December 1987. He was 

succeeded by William E. Collins, Ph.D., a psychologist 

who had been jointly selected in December 1965 by Dr. 

Mohler, Dr. Dille, and Mr. Lane to head CAMI’s Aviation 

Psychology Laboratory. Dr. Collins was acting CAMI 

Director during 1988 and served as Director from 1989

until his retirement in 2001. Melchor J. Antuñano, M.D., 

who had been hired by Dr. Collins in 1992 to head the 

Aeromedical Education Division, was appointed the new 

Director of CAMI in 2001.

In the continuation of historical linkages, Dr.Antuñano 

was a former aerospace medicine resident with Dr. Mohler 

at Wright State University, graduating in 1987. Dr. Antuñano, a native of Mexico, had been recommended to 

Dr. Mohler for the residency program by none other than 

Dr. Luis Amezcua, who had risen to the top in Mexico’s 

civil aviation medicine programs. It will be recalled 

that at the 1960 meeting at Ohio State University, Dr. 

Mohler and Dr. Amezcua had become acquainted and 

evolved a lasting professional friendship! Dr. Amezcua’s 

recommendation of Dr. Antuñano thus received a high 

weighting, a fully justified decision as subsequent events 

have so well demonstrated.

After Word

In late 2001, CAMI was given "commercial space 

flight” responsibilities and enters the 21st century with 

the same acronym but an updated name: the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute. Under Dr. Antuñano’s 

guidance, the personnel at the Institute are looking 

forward to the completion of a large-scale renovation 

of the Institute building, currently in progress, as they 

continue their national and international aerospace medical and human factors research, medical certification, 

aeromedical education, and medical standards safety 

work and contributions.

References

Barron, C. and Cook, T. (1965). Effects of variable decompressions to 45,000 feet. Aerospace Medicine, 

36(5): 425-430.

Holbrook, H.A. Civil Aviation Medicine in the Bureaucracy. Banner Publishing Company, Inc. Bethesda, 

MD. 1974. pp 1-347.

Mohler, S.R. (1961). Aging and pilot performance – current related research and research needs. Geriatrics, 

16(2):82-88.

Mohler, S.R., Hayes, K.A., and Collins, W.E. Some historical observations of CARI/CAMI: 1960-1984. 

In Collins, W.E. and Wayda, M.E. Index of Office 

of Aviation Medicine Reports: 1961 through 2000. 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute. DOT/FAA/AM01-1. pp iii-vii.

Dr. Stanley R. Mohler is Professor Emeritus of Aerospace 

Medicine at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.