STATESUSAARL REPOPT NO., 85-2

EFFECTS OF XM-40 CHEMICAL PRIUTECTIVE MASK ONREAL-EAR ATTENUATION AND SPEf.,40 INTELLIGIBILITY

co ~ CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SP01-1, AlVIATOR HELMET

CO) Reproduced From DTICin) Best Available copy E CT

WIhI)ao, ft Nelson!si, T. Mozo

%JAORY RESEARCH DIVISIONILISMTRI~tON STATEMENT A.

tppwvovd kv Piublio 10;0024

Dislbfticm Unlimitod4

?e~;~ry1985

LA ~U.S. ARMY A'!RC.A~ilCAt RESEARCH LABORATOR.Y

FORT RUCKiR, ALABAMA 36362

85

A ,i , E

I.r

NOTICE

Qualified Requesters

Qualified requesters may obtain copies from the Defense TechnicalInfurination Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314. Orderswill be expedited 'if placed through the librarian or other person designa-ted to request documents from the Defense Technical Informatior Center.

Change of Address

Organizations receiving reports from the US Army.AeromedicalResearch Laboratury on automatic mailing lists should confirm correctaddress when corresponding about laboratory reports.

Disposition

Destroy this report when it is no lohger needed. Do not return itto the originator.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report arethose of the authors and should not be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, polic,, or decision, unless so designated by otherofficial documentation. Ctation of trade names in this report does notconstitute an official Department of the Army endorsement or approval ofthe use of such commercial items.

Human Use

Human subjects participated in these studies after giving free andinformed voluntary onsent. Investigators adher,- to AR 70-25 and.USAMRDC Reg 70-25 on Use of.Volunteers in Research.

Reviewed:

-RUC6 . LEIBRECHT, MhD.LTZ, MSDWrector, Sensory Research Division

Released for Publicption:

'LTC(P). MSroionel, FChairman, Scientific Review CommandingCommittee

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (uhew DOwe Ut8mod

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORMRE~~r r M ER2 OT; oSs

1. R P O R~ d U N E R £ O V T C C ES O N NO . 3. R4 ) IE N T S C A T A LO C . N U M SE IR

USAARL Report No. 85-2 A6' ft'0 f4. TITLE (40d Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

Effects 'of XM-40 Chemical Protective Mask on Real-Ear Attenuation and Speech IntelligibilityCharacteristics of the SPH-4 Aviator Helmet 6. PERFORMINGORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AU rmopR(e) 4. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBR(eo)

William R. Nelson and Ben T. Mozo

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Sensory Research Division AREA & WORK UNIT NUM@ENS

US Army, Aeromedical 'Research Laboratory 62777A, 3E16277A878, AC,Fort Rucker, AL 36362 135I,. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS '. REPORT DATE

US Army Medical Research and Development Command February 1985Fort Detrick ,13 'NuNBER OF P'."ES

Frederick, MD 21701 2414. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESS(IO dloefmA a Contmillad Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (o fle thie).

UnclassifiedISO. DECL ASSI FIC ATION/OOWNGRAOING

SCNEDULE

It. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (eeloge Rpodet)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetreoe ontmerd,,n Block 2G. IIEf fetet from tepe.v)

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WOROS (Contmue an reveree dde Edl aeceey amw d entfl by Seek numbe)

Chemical Protective Mask. Real-Ear Attenuation, Speech In-elligibtlity.Naise, 'Aviator Helmet, SPH-4, Microphone Position, Hearink Conservation,Voice ,Conmunicatlon.

26. AOSTRACT (C•em.Ur am reverse aide eee • m IitffEt' ow S•eM.k OinW ee V

See reverse.

,00 1473 ,como,,or1wvis osfstcIE

DO ,,,N 473 UNCLASSIFIEMSgCUNTq CLAI49140CAOW aw Im g P@ N (Nli 80010014

UNCLASSIFIEDSLCU'ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGIZC(3 Oa amatab

ABSTRACT:

- hemical Defense (CD) measures depend primarily on the use of protectiveclothing and equipment. Adequate protection only can be achieved if eachitem 'n the CD ensemble is compatible with every other item. The design ormoditication of each component must give consideration to its impact on theperformance of all items. This study investigated the effects of the XM-40Chemical Protective (CP) Mask on the protective functions of the SPH-4aviator helmet. Based on the results it was concluded that the XM-40 coin-promised the noise attenuation and speech communication functions of the SPH-4.

* UNcLASSIIEDSCCUM4?Y CLA5UfCAWOW OF ToIS PAC1r,.. Do*EtevKi~ed)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO.

List of Tables .............. ......................... 2

List of Figures .................... . .... ........... 2

Introduction .............. .......................... 3

Methods and Instrumentation ........... .................. 3Real-Ear Attenuation .......... ..................... 3Intelligibility ........ ............... . ........ 4

Results and Discussion ......... ...................... 7Real-Ear Attenuation ..... ........................ .. 7Speech Intelligibility ................ ................ 7

Conclusions and Recommendatio-" ...... .............. . 10

Peferences................. . .................. . .. 11

AppendixesA. Various Views of Three Prototype XM-40 CP Masks ........ 12B. List of Equipment Manufacturers .... ............. ... 18

Acc•snicn For

LC

I::LL :<t ý.o11 -

• -- !s',.:• e;.',./A or

1

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. PAGE NO.

1 Conditions Used in the Evaluation ofSpeech Intelligibility ..... .. .. .. ..... ..... ....... 6

2 Octave-band Sound Pressure Levels of theSimulated UH-60A Noise Environment. .. ... ..... ....... 7

3 Mean and Standard Deviations of Real-EarAttenuation Values Measured in dB for SPH-4Helmet with and Without the XM-40 CP Mask. .. .. ....... 8

4 Experimental Listener Conditions, Talkerwith SPH-4 Only. .. .. .. .......... .. ... ..... ....... 8

5 Experimental Talker Conditions, Listenerswith SPH-4 Only............ .. .. .. .. .. .. .....

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. PAGE NO.

I Real-Ear Attenuation Test System .. ....... .. .. .. .. ...

2

INTRODUCTION

The use of protective.equipment by today's soldier is essential toenhance and ensure his ability to perform on the battlefield. The soldier'sprotective equipment must be designed with its effect on the total systembeing a primary consideration.

This study investigated the effects of three prototype versions of theXM-40 Chemical Protective (CP) mask on the hearing protective and communicativefunctions of the SPH-4 aviator helmet. The effects oe the masks on hearingprotection were determined by a comparison of the real-ear attenuation for theSPH-4 with and without the mask. The effects o6 the masks on communicationwere assessed in terms of speech intelligibility in two modes. They were (1)a comparisorn of the listener's ability to discriminate words with and withoutthe mask when-the speaker used the standard SPH-4 with its standard boommicrophone; and (2) a comparison of the listener's ability to discriminatewords while wearing a standard SPH-4 when the speaker was wearing eazh of thethree prototype masks.. The primary difference between 'the three masks wasin the configurition of the microphone within the mask.

The request for this evaluation was initiated by the US Army AviationBoarc.

METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION

REAL-EAR ATTENUATION

The real-ear attenuation of the SPH-4 helmet, when worn in combinationwith one of "",• three CP masks, was measured using the ANSI Standard S3.19-1974. Since the principle difference between the three prototypes was themicrophone configuration inside the mask and since in this case the microphoneposition does not affect attenuation. It was deemed appropriate to testonly one mask prototype for attenuation. Ten listeners were college studentswith normal hearing. They were required to, have hearing thresholds for bothears not greater than 1.0 dB at the 250-1000 Hertz test frequencies and nohigher than 20 dB at any other'test frequency as measured on a standardaudiometry (ANSI S3..6-1969).. The same listeners were used to evaluate thereal-ear attenuation characteristic of the same SPH-4 with and without themask.

The real-ear attenuation measurement was conducted in a custom-builtTracoustics Corporation Audiometric Examination Room* measuring 1I'IX94"X616N(lXwXh) located at the Acoustical Sciences Research Group Laboratory, Sensory

*See Appendix B.

Research Division, United States Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker,Alabama. This room had been modified to give the reverberant characteristicsspecified in the standard.

The signals used in the test were generated and controlled by theinstrumentation shown in Figure 1. The noise generator (Bruel and Kjaer(B&K) Type 1405)* was set to output. white noise into the band pass filter,B&K Type 1618. The electronic switch, Grason-Stadler Type 1287B*, was pulsedwith a one Hertz symmetric square wave control signal. The rise and .falltime of the electronic switch was adjusted to 30 milliseconds to excludeaudible transients during on-off or off-on transitions of tne test signal.The spectrum shaper was used to provide an equalized output sound pressurelevel'at the listener's head position over the total frequency bandwidthof the test signals. Th. step attenuator provided the experimenter with acalibrated control of the test signal to check the subject's reliability.Also it extended the useable range of the recording attenuator. This isuseful especially for devices which have high efficiency in the lowfrequencies.

The recording attenuator was modified to -include a 0.5%*linearitypotentiome.ter with its wiper shaft position directly related to the attenua-,tor levei. This is related directly to the output level of the test signalpresented to the listener. The recording attenuator's motor direction wascontrolled by the subject with a noiseless photoelectric switch. For eachtest sound, the listenercontrolled the signal level in the fashion describedby Von Bekesy (1947) to determine the threshold of audibility. At eachreversal point of'the tracking process, the potentiometer output was inputinto the microprocessor control system where it was processed. The systemsumimed 10 reversal points, computed the average, and this output was sent toa printer. The real-ear attenuation was determined by taking the differencesbetween hearing threshold values measured under two conditions. A free-fieldreference threshold was obtained for all test signals with the listener'shead position fixed by the use of a chin rest. An attenuated thresholdmeasurement then was made under identical conditions except the listenerwore an SPH-4 with or without a CP mask. A full standard real-earattenuation test (three attenuation values for each test frequency for eachof the 10 listener.s) was run for both conditions.

INTELLIGIBILITY

Appendix A shows various views of the masks evaluated in 'this experiment.The speech inteiligibility of each prototype XM-40 mask worn in combinationwith the SPH-4 helmet was measured using phonetically balanced (PB) words.The list of words used in this experiment is described in ANSI S3.2-1960(R1971). Each list consisted of 50 PB words. A different PB word listwas assigned to each of five test conditions which are summuarized in Table I.

All speaker conditions utilized PB words recorded by'a single speakerin a simulated UH-60A aircraft noise environment shown in.Table 2. Thespeech saples used in this experiment were recorded on a Nagra Mbdel SJ*

.magnetic tape recorder. The sample lists were reproduced and-adjusted in

4

C.

LUL

I-ZUl

C'V,

z a. -

0 R 4x~P 0z. Ir XL 2oI

4-J

I 4J

L4

z 'go F;: w4to.

I'- 1 6 fa

level with a Grasori-S;-dler 1701 I)> :nostic Audiometer*. Each list waspresentod to the subjezt in the z-imulated aircraft noise environment throughthe SPH-.1 communication system :-. a level which was 10 dB above speech recep-tion threshold (SRT). The SRT was determined with a "high quality" speechsignal presented to the listener for each of the test conditions. The SRTwds used to equalize t0e speech level at the listener's ear for alltest conditions. This provides for a measure of intelligibility of eachdevice relative to the other devices in the sample at equal listener levels.The order of the five test conditions was randomized for each subject. Itmust be understood that the percentage sco.'es may not represent thoseachievable for conditions different from those tested.

Ten subjects were used in this part of the study. Each subject hadnormal hearing which is defined as no more than 10 dB hearing loss (referenceANSI S3.6-1969) for the frequencies 250, 500, and 1000 Hertz and no morethan 20 d8 hearing loss for the frequencies 2000, 3000,,4000, 6000, and8000 Hertz.

TABLE

CONDITIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY.

Test Condition Speaker's Condition Listener's Condition

1 Wearing SPH-4 Wearing SPH-4

2 Wearing SPH-4 Wearing SPH-4 withPrototype C

3 Wearing SPH-4 Wearing SPH-4with Prototype A

4 Wearing SPH-4 V'earing SPH-4with-Prototype R

5 Wearing SPH-4 Wearing SPH-4with Prototype C

Note: Prototype A was marked XM-43.Prototype B was marked 2A/C.'Prototype C was marked M15.The prototype designation was made by the US Army

Aviation Board. The abcve mentioned markings were onthe CP masks when received at USAARL.

6

TABLE 2

OCTAVE-BAND SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS OF THE SIMULATED UH-60A NOISE ENVIRONMENT.

Octave-Band Center Frequencies in Hertz

63 125 250 500 1K 2K 4K 8K 16K97 97 98 95 89 88. 82 83 80

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

REAL-EAR ATTENUATIOM

The objective of the real-ear attenuation test wa.; to assess the effectsof the XM-40 CP mask on the noise attenuation ability of the SPH-4. The meanreal-ear attenuation values by test frequency are shown in Table 3. A com-parison of the attenuation results for the SPH-4 and the SPH-4 in combinationwith the mask reveals little difference in the attenuation of the SPH-4 withand without the mask except at 2 kHz, 6.3 kHz. an' 8 kHz. Evaluation of meanattenuation data by individual T-tests with 53 degrees of freedom and - =.05indicates significant differences at 2 kHz (1=2.05), 6.3 kHz (T=4.67), and8 kHz (T=2.84). Although the effects on attenuation are less severe thanthose noted by Mozo (198ý) in a similar test of the M-24 and XM-33 CD masks,the current data indicate'that high frequency attenuation is compromisedsignificantly when the XM-40 mask is used with the SPH-4 helmet.

SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY

The intelligibility portion of the study was divided into two parts:(1) the'effects of XM-40 mnask configuration on the, listener's ability tounderstand speech and (2) the effects of the various microphone configura-tions within the mask on the talker's speech intelligibility.

Fur the first part of the intelligibility test, only one prototypemask was selected. The average listener's speech intelligibility under.the two experimental, conditions are contained in Table A.. With bothspeaker and listener wearing the SPH-4 only, the mean ittelligibility was62.4% and the standard deviation was 10.0%. When the listener, donned theXM-40 C? mask, the mean was 44.2% with a standard deviation of 11.6%. Arepeatecmeasures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) as described by Winer(1962) was done on the intelligibility scores., An a priori error rate 1o)

7

TABLE 3

MEAN AND STANDtARD DEVIATIONS OF REAL-EAR ATTENUATION VALUES MEASURED IN dBFOR SPH-4 HELMET WITH AND WITHOUT THE XM-40 CP MASK.

Test Frequencies in Hertz80 125 250 500 1K 2K 3.5K 4K 6.3K 8K

SPH-4

Mean 16.2 12.7 12.3 21.7 '19.4 30.1 42.6 47.4 49.7 48.1SSD 5.4 4.0 3 4 4.3 3.1 2.5 3.5 3.8 5.3 6.0

SPH-4 with Prototype C

Mean 1-.O 12.7 12.8 22.9 19.5 31.5 41.2 46.1 42.5 41.7s0 5.4 4.3 3.9 4.,4 2.8 2.7 3.8 4.9 6.4 5.8

T-values

0.85 0.0 0.52 1.05 0.13 2.05* 1.46 1.13 4.67* 2.84*

* p<.05, df = 58 -

TABLE 4

EXPERIMENTAL LISTENER'.; CONDITIONS, TALKER WITH SPH-4 ONLY.

Test Condition Mean ' . Standard Deviation

SPH-4 62.40 10.10

SPH-4 with 44.20 11.56,Prototype C

8

of .05 was selected. The result of this analysis indicates the XM-40CD mask significantly degrddes a'listener's ability to understand speech whencompared with the SPH-4 alone (F(l,9) = 21.99,-p<.001).

As noted, when the talker used the boom microphone under theseexperimental conditions, mean speech intelligibility was 62.4%. Table 5contains the mean talker speech intelligibility and standard deviation (SD)for the SPH-4 alone and in combination with the three prototypeCC masks. When the talkers donned the XM,40 mask identified as prototype A,average talker speech intelligibility was reduced to 46.4% with SD = 7.59.Prototype B yielded a mean of 52.4% discrimination and a SD = 8.2., The maskidentified as prototype C resulted in a mean of 49.0% and a SD = 9.1. Todetermine the significance of differences in speech intelligibility forthe various masks, the data were analyzed using a repeated measure one-wayANOVA model with a priori rate (a) of .05. The results indicated that themain effect for microphone configuration is significant (F(3,27) = 11.40,p< .001). Examination of the results in Table 5 suggest that this-significanteffect of microphone is a result of the degradation of intelligibility ofprototype A and C compared to the SPH-4.

TABLE 5

EXPFRIMENTAL TALKER'S CONDITIONS, LISTENERS'WITH SPH-4 ONLY.

Test Condition Mean Standard Deviaion

SPH-4 62.4C 10.10

SPH-4 with 4.6.40 7,59Prototype A

SPH-4 with 52.40 8.15Prototype B

SPI.-4 with 49.00 9.06Prototype C

It is important to remember the' experimental conditions created, avery difficult listening situation in order to maqnify the differences in

• • performance of the different prototype microphone configurations ascompared with the SPH-4 alone. Better results would be expected fromall four devices under more optimal listening conditions.

9-,9

b1

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this study, it is concluded that wearing theXM-40 CP mask with the SPH-4 aviator helmet compromnises noise attenuationat 2 kHz, 6.3 kHz, and 8 kHz, but that the compromise of attenuation is lessthan that experienced with the M-24 and XM-33 CP masks. It was further con-cluded that wearing the XM-40 mask significantly decreased the ability of alistener to understand speech communication received via an SPH-4 helmet.

With regard to talker intelligibility, the independent variabl3 wasmicrophone configuration within the mask. None of the microphone placementsresulted in performance as good as the SPH-4 boom microphone, but of theconfigurations considered, the prototype identified as 'B" was best duringthe present study.

It is recommended that further efforts be made to improve CP maskcompatibility with the SPH-4 helmet. It is further recommended that careful

attention be given to microphone placement within the mask. The microphoneshould never be placed outside the mask.

10

REFERENCES

American National Standards Institute. 1974. Acoustical Society ofAilierica. Standa.r Method -or the Measuremert o" P.a P--ar ProtectionoI Hearing Potectors and Physical Attenuation of Ear . Sffa. S3.19-1974.

i American National Standards Jnstitute. (R 1971) TSA Starzrd metk:od fM.easurement of Monosylabic Word .ntelZiqibiiZit.' S3.2-i960.

American National Standards Institute. -.Imericar "" andSrecifi 'ications for Azudiometers. S3.6-1969 (R1973).

Mozo, B. T. 1984. E~"ects of Chý'icaZ Protective and Cxrgen bsýss onw "ttenuaticn and TrtelZigibiZi:y When Worn with the SH-4 HeZmet.

USAARL Report No. 84-5.

Tukey, J. W. 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance.'-*o-etrics, 5:99-114.

a Von Bekesy, Georg. 1947. A new audiometer. ARta OtoZarzyngoogica,35:411-422.

Winer, B. J. 1962. .7tc.tisticaZ principZes in experi'mentaL design.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pi

..

APPENDIX A

Various Views of Three Prototype XM-40 CP Masks.

12

an

cu

CL.

4 1

2-C

Ck.

41~

c.

13,

CL4.

41)

41-

a-4-

CL4A

443.

4-)

145

4-A

0.

4J

a-

CL0.

4J

2o

15.

4J

0

41

4-,

S-U.3

M

4-0

I..-

C'

0A

4 J)

V'UI41.

'\U

'4-

0 c

0 -c

> 4,

W41cc

16.

-44

4.'

04.'

4-

C0r

C,

44~

06

00

o0.

41~

50

#A

0-*1 a

APPENDIX B

List of Manufacturers

Altec Lansing Corporation1515 S. Manchester AvenueAnaheim, California 92803

Bruel and Kjaer Instruments !ncorporated185 Forest StreetMarlborough, Massachusetts 01752

DatelSystems Incorporated1020 Turnpike StreetCanton, Massachusetts 02021

Grason-Stadler56 Winthrop StreetConcord, Massachusetts 01742

Nagra Magnetic Recorders Incorporated19 West 44th Street, Room 715New York, New York 10036

Pro Log Corporation2411 Garden RoadMonterey, California 93940

Tracoustics IncorporatedP.O. Box-3610Austin, Texas 78764

18

-tm

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION

Commander CommanderUS Army Natick Research & Man-Machine Integration System (Code 602)

Development Center Naval Air Development CenterATTN: Documents Librarian Warminster, PA 18974Natick, MA 01760

Naval Air Development Center'Commander Technical Information DivisionUS Army Research Institute of Technical Support Detachment -

Environmental Medicine Warminster, PA 18974Natick, MA 01760

CommanderNaval Submarine Medical Research Naval Air Development Center

Laboratory ATTN: Code 6021 (Mr. Brindle)Medical Library, Naval Submarine Base Warminster, PA 18974Box '900Groton, CT 05340 Dr. E. Hendler

Human FactorsApplications, Inc.US Army Avionics Research & 295 West Street Road

Development Activity Warminster, PA 18974ATTN: SAVAA-P-TPFort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5401 Uniformed Services University

of the Health SciencesCommander/Director 4301 Jones Bridge-RoadUS Army Combat Surveillance & Bethesda, MD 20014

Target Acquisition LaboratoryATTN: DELCS-D Commanding OfficerFort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5304 Naval Medical Research &

Development CommandUS Army Research & Development National Naval Medical Center

Support Activity Bethesda, MD 20014Fort Monmouth. NJ 07703

Under Secretary of Defense forCommander Research & Engineering10th Medical Laboratory ATTN: Mil 4 tary Assistant forATTN: Audiologist' Meoucal and Life SciencesAPO New York 09180 Washington, DC 20301

Chief DirectorBenet Weapons Laboratory Army Audiology & Speech CenterLCWSL, USA ARRADCOM Walter Reed Army Medical CenterATTN: DRDAR-LCB-TL Washington, DC 20307-5001Watervliet ArsenalWatervliet, NY 12189 COL Franklin H. Top, Jr., MD

Walter Reed Army Institute

Commander of ResearchNaval Air Development Center Washington, DC 20307-5100Biophysics Laboratory (ATTN: G. Kydd)Code 60B1 CommanderWarminster, PA 18974 US Army Institute of Dental Research

Walter Reed Army Medical Center -

Washington, DC 20307-5300

19"

Naval Air Systems Command CommanderTechnical Library Air 950D US Army Medical Research InstituteRm 278, Jefferson Plaza II of Chemical DefenseDepartment of the Navy ATTN: SGRD-UV-AOWashington, DC 20361 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5425

Naval Research Laboratory Library Technical LibraryCode 1433 Chemical Research & Development CenterWashington, DC 20375 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2101U-5423

Naval Research Laboratory Library CommanderShock & Vibration Information Center US Army Medical Research &Code 5804 Development CommandWashington, DC 20375 ATTN: SGRD-RMS (Mrs. Madigan)

Fort Detrick, MD 21701-5012Harry Diamond LaboratoriesATTN: Technical Information Branch Commander2800 Powder Mill Road US Army Medical Research InstituteAdelphi, MD 20783-1197 of Infectious Diseases

Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21701Director -

US Army Human Engineering Laboratory CommanderATTN: Techni.cal Library US Army Medical Bioengineering ResearchAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5001 & Development Laboratory

ATTN: SGRD-UBZ-IUS Army Materiel Systems Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21701

Analysis AgencyATTN: Reports Processing Dr. R. NewburghAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5017 Director of Biological Sciences Division

Office of Naval Re3earchCommander 600 North Quincy StreetUS Army Test & Evaluation Command Arlington, VA 22217ATTN: AMSTE-AD-HAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5055 Defense Technical Information Ceater

Cameron StationUS Army Ordnance Center & Alexandria, VA 22314

School LibraryBldg 3071 US Army Materiel Development &Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5201 Readiness Cotmand

5001 Eisenhower AvenueDirector Alexandria, VA 22333.US Army Ballistic Research LaboratoryATTN: DRXBR-OD-ST '(Technical Reports) US Army Foreign Science &Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 Technology Canter

ATTN: M4TZUS Army Environmental Hygiene 220 7th Street, NE

Agency Library Charlottesville, VA 22901-5396Bldg E2100Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010

20

Commandant CommanderUS Army.Aviatiort Logistics School US Army Aviation Center &ATTN: AT:--TDN Fort RuckerFort Eusis, VA 23604. ATTN: ArZQ-CDR

Fort Rucker, AL 36362DirectorApplied Technology Laboratory DirectorUSARTL-AVSCOM Directorate of Combat DevelopmentsATTN: Library, Bldg 401, Bldg 507Fort Eustis, VA 23604 Fort Rucker, AL 36362

US Army Training D Doctrine Command DirectorATTN: ATCD-ZX Directorate of Training DevelopmentFort Monroe, VA 23651 Bldg 502

Fort Rucker, AL 36362CommanderUS Army Training'& Doctrine Command ChiefATTN: Surgeon Army ResearchInstitute Field UnitFort Monroe, VA 23651-5000 Fort Rucker, AL 36362

Structures Laboratory Library CommanderUSARTL-AVSCOM US ArmySafety CenterNASA Langley Research Center Fort Rucker, AL 36362Mail Stop 266Hampton, VA 23665. Commander

US Army Aviation Center &Naval Aerospace Medical Fort Rucker

Institute Library A=TN: ATZQ-T-ATLBldg 1953, Code 102 Fort Rucker, AL 36362Pensacola, FL 32508

CommanderUS Air Force Armament Development US Army Aircraft Development -

& Test Center Test ActivityEglin Air Force Base, FL 32542 ATTN: STEBG-MP-.QA

Cairns AAFCommand Surgeon Ft Rucker, AL 36362US Central CommzndMacDill AFB, FL 33608 President

US Army Aviation BoardUS Army Missile Command Cairns AAF-Redstone Scientific Information Center Fort Rucker, AL 36362ATTN: Document Section'Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5241 US Army Research & Technology

Laboratories (AVSCOM'Air UniversityLibrary Propulsion LaboratoryMS 302-2 1(AUL/LSE) NASA Lewis Research CenterMaxwell AFB, AL 36112 Cleveland, OR 44135

-Commander AFAMRL/HEXUS Arm) Aeromedical Center Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433"Fort Rucker, AL 36362

21-

US Air Force Institute of Federal Aviation Administration

Technology (AFIT/LDEE) Civil Aeromedical Institute

Bldg 640, Area B CAMI Library AAC 64DIWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 P.O. Box 25082'

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

John A. Dellinger, MS, ATPUniversity of Illinois - Willard Airport US Arm, Field Artillery School

Savoy, IL 61874 ATTN: LibrarySnow Hall, Room 14

.Henry L. Taylor !ort. Sill, OK 73503

DirectorInstitute of Aviation Commander

University of Illinois - Willard Airport US Army Academy of Health Sciences

Savoy, IL 61874 ATTI: LibraryFort Sam Houston, TX 78234

CommanderUS Army Aviation Systems Command Commander

ATTN: DRSAV-WS US Army Health Services Command

4300 Goodfellcw Boulevard ATTN: HSOP-SO

St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6000

Project Officer CommanderAviation Life Support Equipment US Army Institute of Surgical Research

ATTN: AMCPO-ALSE ATTN: buRD-USM (Jan Duke)4300 Goodfellow Boulevard Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6200

St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 Director of Professional Services -

Commander AFMSC/GSP

US Army Aviation Systems Command Brooks Air Force Base, TX 7S235

ATTN: SGRD-UAX-AL (MAJ Lacy)Bldg 105, 4300 Goodfellow Boulevard US Air Force School of

St. Louis, MO 63120 Aerospace Medicine.St•ughold Aeromedical Library

Commander Documents Section, USAFSAM/TSK-4

US Army Aviation Systems Command Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235.

ATTN: DRSAV-ED4300 Goodfellow Boulevard US. Army Dugway Proving Ground

St. Louis, MO 63120 Technical LibraryBldg 5330

US Army Aviation Systems Command Dugvay, UT 84022

Library & Information Center BranchATTN: DRSAV-DIL Dr. Diane Damos

4300 Goodfellow Boulevard .Psychology DepartmentSt. Louis, MO 63120 Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287

Commanding OfficerNaval Biodynamics Labo atory US Army Yuma Proving Ground

P.O. Box 24907 Technical Library

New Orleans, LA 70139 Yuma, AZ 85364

22 "

US Army White Sands Missile RangeTechnical Library DivisionWhite Sands Missile RangeNew Mexico, 88002

US Air Force Flight Test CenterTechnical Library, Stop 238Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93523

US Army Aviation EngineeringFlight Activity

ATTN: SAVTE-M (Tech Library) Stop 217Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93523-5000

,CommanderCode 3431Naval Weapons CenterChina Lake, CA 93555

US Army Combat DevelopmentsExperimental Center

Technical Information CenterBldg 2925

Fort Ord, CA 93941-5000

Aeromechanics LaboratoryUS Army Research &

Technical LaboratoriesAmes Research Center, M/S 215-1

"" Moffett Field, CA 94035

CoimnanderLettermah Army Institute of ResearchATTN: M dical Research LibraryPresidio of San Francisco, CA 94129

Sixth US ArmyATTN: SPresidio of San Francisco, CA 94129

DirectorNaval Bi sciences LaboratoryNaval Supply Center, Bldg 844Oakland, CA 94625

23

.. ** *

o

Col G. Stebping Canadian Army Liaison OfficeUSDAO-AMLO, US Embassy Bldg 602"Box 36 Fort Rucker, AL 36362

S~FPO New York 09510O NNetherlands

Army Liaison OfficeStaff Officer, Aerospace Medicine Bldg 602RAF Staff, British Embassy Fort Rucker, AL 36362"3100 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20008 German Army Liaison Office

Bldg 602Canadian Society of Aviation Medicine Fort Rucker, AL 36362c/o Academy of Medicine, TorontoATTN:, Ms. Carmen King British Army Liaison Office288 Bloor Street West Bldg 602Toronto, Ontario M55 IV8 Fort Rucker, AL 36362

Canadian Air Line Pilot's Association French Army Liaison OfficeMAJ J. Soutendam (Retired) Bldg 6021300 Steeles Avenue East Fort Rucker, AL 36362Brampton, Ontario, L6T 1A2

Canadian Forces Medical Liaison OfficerCanadian Defence Liaison Staff2450 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20008

Commý.nding Officerd 404 Squadron CFB Greenwood"* Greenwood, Nova Scotia BOP iNO

Officer CommandingSchool of Operational &

Aerospace MedicineDCILM, P.O. Box 20001133 Sheppard Avenue WestDownsview, Ontario M3M 3B9

National Defence Headquarters[ ~101 tolonel.,By Drive

ATTN: DPMOttowa, Ontario KIA0OK2

24

I *FILMED..

6-85-

DTI