RAH66 Crew Interface

7/30/2019 RAH66 Crew Interface

1/130

ARMYRESEARCH LABORATORY

AssessmentoftheRAH-66ComanchePilot-Crew StationInterfacefortheForceDevelopmentTestand Experimentation I(FDTEI)DavidB.Durbin,ThomasJ.Havir,JoshuaS .Kennedy,

andReginaA.Pomranky

ARL-TR-3027 September2003

2 0 0 3 1 1 0 30 6 0 Approved fo rpublic release;distributionisunlimited.


2/130

NOTICES Disclaimers

TheindingsinthiseportrenotoeconstruedsanfficialDepar tmentfth erm v positionunlesssodesignatedbyotherauthorizeddocuments.Citationofmanufacturers 'rradeamesoesotonstitutenfficialndorsementrapprovalofth eusethereofDE S T RUC T IONNOTICEDestroy thisreportwhenitisnolongerneeded.Donotreturnttoth eriginator.


3/130

Army ResearchLaboratory Aberdeen ProvingGround,M D1005-5425

ARL-TR-3027 eptember 2003

Assessmentof theRAH-66ComanchePilot-Crew Station InterfacefortheForceDevelopmentTestand ExperimentationI(FDTE I)

DavidB.Durbin,ThomasJ.Havir,JoshuaS .Kennedy,andReginaA.PomrankyH u m a nResearch & EngineeringDirectorate

Approvedfo rpublicrelease;distributionis unlimited.


4/130

REPORTDOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApprovedTT T-r-T-T MBNo.0704-0188Publicreportingburdenfthiscollection of informationisestimatedto average hourper response,includingthe linwfor reviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdatasourcesMtherim;andr.Z"'"%i?" .!"^""" "" " '"IT"/*""""^of i"" "i" Sendcommentsregardingthisburdenestimate or any ^7 cZ n Jamrr;.;^ rtd^n'2^;rafSy'T.'id*ot^t:;:r^^^^^^ PLEA SEDO N O T RmiRNY O U R FORM TO TH E A B O V EA D D RESS.1.E POR TDATECDD-MM-VYVV^ September 2003 REPORTDATEFinal4. ITLE AN D SUBTITLE

A sse ssm e n tof th eRA H-6 6Co m an c h e Pilot-Crew StationInterfacefo rth eForce Development T es tan dExperimentat ionI(FDTE I) 6.UTHOR(S)

Durbin ,D.B.;Havir,T.J.;Kennedy,J.S.;Po m ran ky ,R.A.(allofA R L )

7.ERFORMING ORGANIZATIONNAME(S)AN DA D D R ES S (ES )U.S.A rm y ResearchLaboratoryH u m a nResearch& EngineeringDirectorate AberdeenProvingGround,M D1005-5425

9.PONSORING/MONITORING AGENCYNAME(S)AND ADDRESS(ES)

12 .DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT Approved for public release;distributionis unlimited.

3.ATESCOVERED (From -To )5a .CONTRACTNUMBER 5b .RANT NUMBER5c.ROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 5d.PROJECT NUMBER

62716AH70 5e. TASKNUMBER 5 f.WORKUNIT NUMBER 8.ERFORMINGORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

A RL -TR-30 2 7 10 .SPONSOR/MONr rOR'S ACRONYM(S)11. SPONSOR/MONr rOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

13 .SUPPLEMENTARY OTES14 .ABSTRACT

Crew workload,crew situationalawareness ,usability characteristics of th ecrew stationcontrols,displays ,and subsys teminterface,an ds imulatorsickness w e re assessed during th e RAH-66C o m a n c h eForceD e v e lo p m e n tT es tandExperimentat ionI(FDTE I) .Pilotsw hoparticipatedin F D TE Ireported thatthey typical lyexperienced moderate levelsof workload andsituationalawareness duringmissions . h ey notedseveralproblemswithusabilityofth econtrols,displays ,andsubsysteminterface,whi chshould be resolved.ilotsexperienced very mild to moderate s imulatorsicknesssym p to m s duringmissions . he discomfort they feltdi d not significantly affect their performance .A panelof subjec tmatter expertsobservedeach missionand reported thatth epilots typically experienced moderate levels of workloadan dlo w to moderatelevelsofsituationalaw are n e ssduringmissions .

15 .SUBJECTTERMS pi lo t workload RAH-66 Co m an c h e s imulatorsickness situationawareness

6.ECURITYCLASSIFICATION OF a.EPORT

b.ABSTRACT Unclassified

c.THISPAGEUnclassified

17 .LIMITATION OFABSTRACT U L

18 .UMBER OFPAGES 1 3 0

19a.NAMEOFRESPONSIBLE PERSON DavidB.Durbin

19b .TELEPHONENUMBER ( Includearea code)334 - 255 - 20 69standard Form 29 8 (Rev.8/98)Prescr ibed b y ANSIStd.Z39 .18


5/130

Contents

ListofFigures iListof Tables iAcknowledgments ii ExecutiveSummary1 .ntroduction

1.1urpose1.2s s e s s m e n tofth e Pilot -Crew Station Interface1.3s s e s s m e n tofC r e w Workloa d

1.3.1 BedfordWorkload Rating Scale(BWRS)1.4s s e s s m e n tofCrew Situat ionA w a r e n e s s

1.4.1 SituationAwarenessRatingTechnique (SART)1.5ssessmen tofCrew Station Controls ,Disp la ys ,a n d Subsys t em Interface1.6s sessmentofSimula t orSickness

1.6.1 SimulatorSicknessQuestionnaire(SSQ)1.7DTEISimula t ion Overv iew

1.7.1 Tactical teeringCommit tee1. 8A H - 6 6C o m a n c h eSystem Descr ip t ion 01.9o m a n c h ePortableCockpit(CP C) and Engineering D e v e l o p m e n tSimulator (EDS) 0

1.9.1ystemMan agemen tDisplay( SMD)andTacticalSituationDisplay(TSD) 01.9.2eft andRightMultipurpose Displays(MPDs)1 1.9.3ollectiveandSide-arm Controller(SAC) I1.9.4ockpitInteractiveKeyboard(CIK) 21.9.5elmet-MountedDisplay( HMD) 21.9.6nvironmentalConditionsinth eCPCandEDSSimulators31.9.7EPSoftware 3

2.ethod 42.1i lots 42.1.1 Pilots'Anthropometr icMeasurements 4

2 .2a ta Collect ion F o r m s and Procedures 42 .3a ta Ana lys is 52.4imita t ions ofA s s e s s m e n t 5

11 1


6/130

3. Results ^ 3.1rew Workload 5

3.1.1ea nWorkloadRatingsfo rA TMTasks 53.1.2ea nWorkloadRatingsfo rFlying tlieAircraft73.1.3ea nWorkloadRatingsfo rOperatingth eM EP73.1 .4eakWorkloadRatingsfo rA TMTasks 83.1.5eanPeakWorkloadRatingsWhenPilotsFlewth eAircraft9 3.1 .6eanPeakWorkloadRatingsWhenPilotsOperatedth eM EP9 3.1 .7orkloadRatingsfo rPerformingMultipleA TMTasksConcurrently 9 3.1.8SCWorkload Ratings 0 3.1 .9ransferofA TMTaskstoth eOtherPilotBecauseofHighWorkload13.1 .10 ComparisonofCrewWorkloadRatingsfo rFD E1 ,FM S,andFDTEI13.2rew Situat ionA w a r e n e s s 2 3.2.1ARatingsfo rFlying th eAircraftVersusOperatingth eM EP4 3.2.2roblemsWithSAWhenPilotsFlew th eAircraft53.2.3roblemsWithSAWhenPilotsOperatedth eM EP5 3.2.4SC Ratings ofSA 63.2.5SC MissionSuccessRatingsan dCrew SA 6

3.3sability ofCrew Station Controls ,Disp la ys ,a nd Subsys t em Interface...7 3.3.1ositiveAspectsofth eCrewStationControls,Displays,andSubsystem Interface 73.3.2roblemsWithth eCrewStationControls,Displays,andSub-system Interface 73.3.3nthropometricAccommodat ionofPilots13.3.4O PPGloves 2

3.4A N P R I N TM e a s u r e sofP e r f o r m a n c e( M O P s ) 33.4.1 SwitchActuations by Crew MembersDuringFDTE 4 3.5imulatorSickness 73.5.1omparisonof SSQ Scoresfo rth eCPCVersusEDSSimulators8 3.5.2omparisonofCPCandEDSSS QScoresto OtherHelicopterSimulators8 4.ummary g4. 1re w Workload 9

4.2re w SA 0 4 .3sability of th eCrew Stat ionControls ,Displays ,a ndSubsys t em Interface0 4 .4A N P R I N TM e a s u r e sofPerforma nce( M O P s ) 14 .5imulatorSickness 2

5.ecommendat ions 26.eferences 4 IV


7/130

Appendix A.Bedford Workload RatingScale(BWRS) 7AppendixB.RAH-66ComancheAircrew TrainingM anual(A T M )Tasks9 AppendixC.ituation AwarenessRatingTechnique(SART)1 Appendix D.re wStationControls,Displays,andSubsystem Interface Questionnaire 3Appendix E. SimulatorSicknessQuestionnaire(SSQ) 3AppendixF.ummaryof PilotAnthropometricM easurements5Appendix G . edford Workload RatingScale(BWRS)Questionnaire7Appendix H.ummaryof CrewWorkload Comments 9Appendix I.ummaryofPilotRatingsand CommentsAboutUsabilityofth eCrewStationControls,Displays,and SubsystemInterface7Appendix J.ummaryof SwitchActuations 07 AppendixK .ummaryofCrewSituationAwarenessComments09 Listof Acronyms 12DistributionList 15


8/130

Listof FiguresFigure1 .omancheportableockpitFigure2.ngineer ingdevelopmentsimulatorFigure3.PCandE D Screw stat ionconf igura t ionFigure4.A H-66ollective 2 Figure5.A H - 6 6side-arm controller( S A C ) 2 Figure6.aiserProView 50 3Figure7.veral lS A R Trat ingsfo rallmiss ions 3 Figure8.SCrat ingsofmissionsuccess 6Figure9 .is tr ibutionofswi tchac tuat ionsbypi lotfunct ion 5 Figure0.ercen tageofswi tchctuationsysystemunct ion 5 Figure1.requencyofswitchactua t ionsduringmissions 6Listo f Tables Table.Table2.Table3. Table4.Table.Table6. Table.Tabl e.Table9 .Table0. Tabl e1. Table2. Tabl e3. Tabl e4. Tabl e5. T a b l e6.Tabl e7.

M A N P R I N Tme as ur e sofperformanceF D T E missionsF D T E actors ,ontrols ,ndonditionsC P CandE D Sambi e n tnoise ,light,an dtemperaturelevels3Pilotdemographics 4 M e a nworkloadrat ingsfo rA T M tasks 6S u m m a r yofmulti-tasking workloadrat ings 0S u m m a r yofcrew andT SCm ea nworkloadrat ingsfo rallmiss ions1M e a nworkloadrat ingsfo rFD E,FM S,andF D T E 2S A R T subsca lerat ings 3 S A R T subsca lerat ingsfora llmissions 4S A R Tsubsca lerat ingsfo rmissions nd2a ndmissions3an d45 T SCrat ingsofSA 6M o s timportantcrewstat iondes ignchangesr e c omme n de dbypilots8Pi lotc omme n t sa b o u tusabil i typroblemsw h entheyw o r eM O P Pgloves2Simula torsicknessquest ionna i re(S S Q )rat ings 7C o m p a r i so nofC P CandE D SSSQrat ingswithSSQrat ingsfromotherhelicopterimulators 3

V I


9/130

Ack n owledgmen ts

Theauthors expresstheir appreciationto Dr.DavidJohnson (U.S.Ar m yResearchInstitutefo rth e Behavioraland SocialSciences,FortRucker,Alabama)fo r providing helpfulinformation anddata aboutsimulator sickness.

Vll


10/130

IN TEN TIO N ALLY LEFT B L A N K

VUI


11/130

ExecutiveS u m m a r y

Crew workload,crew situationalawareness ,usability characteristicsofth ecrew stationcontrols,displays,andsubsystem interface,ands imulatorsicknesswereassessed during th eRAH-66 ComancheForceDevelopmentTestand Experimentation I(FDTE I). ilotsw ho participated in F D T E Ireported thatthey typically experiencedmoderatelevelsofworkloadand situationalawarenessduringmissions.hey notedseveralproblemswith usability of th econtrols,displays,andsubsystem interface,whichshould beresolved.ilotsexperienced very mild to moderatesimulatorsicknesssymptomsduring missions.hediscomfortthey feltdid notsignificantlyaffecttheir performance.A panelof subject matter expertsobserved each mission and reportedthatth e pilots typicallyexperienced moderate levelsofworkload and lo w to moderate levels ofsituationalawareness during missions.


12/130

IN TEN TIO N ALLY LEFT B L A N K


13/130

1 . Introduction

1 .1urpose T he reconna is sa nceattack helicopter (RAH)-66 C o m a n c h eForceD e v e l o p m e n tTes tand Exper iment a t ionI( FDTE I) w asconduc t edfrom18 February to 22 M a r c h 2 0 0 2 a tSikorsky Aircra f tC o m p a n y ,Stratford,Connecticut .he purposeofF D T E Iw asto cont inue th e d e v e l o p m e n tand valida t ion ofRAH-66 C o m a n c h etactics,techniques ,and procedures(TTP s) ,to assess th e pilot-crewstat ioninterface,and toexploreth esuitability ofth eC o m a n c h e portable cockpi t( CPC)fo ru seduring F D T E II .D T E Iw asoneofa seriesoftestspla nned to suppor tth ed e v e l o p m e n tofth e R A H - 6 6C o m a n c h e .ix addit ionaleventsare scheduledfo r th e progra m:n elect ro-opt icsubsystem user'ssurvey,F D T E II ,F D T E III,a l imited use r test,F D T E IV ,a nd an initialopera t ionaltest.T h e U.S.A r m y Operat ional TestC o m m a n d ( U S A O T C )a nd th eU.S.A r m y Training and Doctrine C o m m a n d ( T R A D O C ) System M a n a g e r - C o m a n c h e( T S M - C )conduc t edth eF D T E I.In associat ion wit h U S A O T C a nd T S M - C ,th e H u m a n Research and Engineer ingDirectora teofth e U.S.A r m y Resea rch Labora tory ( A R L )conducted an a ssessmentof th e pilot-crewstat ion interface.1 .2ssessmentofth ePilot-CrewStation Interface T o assess th eC o m a n c h epilot -crew stat ioninterface, A R L evaluated pilotinteract ionswit h th e crew stat ion displays ,contro ls ,and su b sys tem s.he cognit ivestateofth e pilots w asalso assessed to identify ins tancesin w h i c h th e pilots judgedthatth ecrew stat ion interfacei m p o s e da high work loa d orhinderedtheirsituational awareness .n evaluat ion w as performed to det e rmineif th e pilots experienced discomfor tb ecau seofs imula tor sicknessan d w h e t h e r th e discomfor tdis t ractedthem during m iss io ns .R L also assessed th eM a n p o w e r a n d Personne lIntegrat ion( M A N P R I N T )mea sures ofperforma nce( M O P s )issuesl istedin Ta ble1 .1 .3ssessmentofCrew Workload A c o m m o n definit ion ofpilotwork loa d is "theintegrated ment a land phys ica leffortrequired to satisfy th eperce ivedd e m a n d sofaspecif iedflight task"(Roscoe,1985) .tis impor t a n tto assesspilotwork loa d beca usemiss ion a ccompl ishment is related to th epilots'ment a land phys ica lcapabil i tyto effect ivelyperform theirflightand miss ion tasks.foneorboth pilotsexperience highwork loa d whi le performingflightand miss iontasks,th e tasks m ay beper fo rmedineffect ivelyorab and o ned .


14/130

Table1 .MAN PRI N T measuresof performanceM OP2-5-1.ercentof crew errorsattributable to inducedfatigueor workload.^T. il"^'-centof crew ratingsthatassessedth eCP Cinterfaceas contributingto excessiveworkloaddurmgflightan dmission tasks.San dmis^sionTalks. ' ' '"" '""''"'"''"''"'^' "''''''"''^'' ''^'''^^^"^^^^"^^^ f ^ P ^ ^ '"gM OP2-5-4.ercentof crew ratingsthatassessedth eCP Cinterfaceas inhibiting th edecision-making processduringflightan dmissiontasks.M OP2-5-5.ercentof crew ratingsthatassessedth eCP Cinterfaceas inhibiting crew an dteam situation awareness.MO P 2-5-6 .ercentof crew ratingsthatassessedth eCP Cinterfaceas inhibiting crew an dteam coordination tasks.Sl "^"^' Percentof ratingsby th eTacticalSteering Committee(TSC) thatassessed theCPC as inhibitingmissionaccomplishment.

M O P 2-5-8.ercentof designdifferences betweenth eCP Can dED Sthatsubstantially impactedtheperformanceofflightan dmission tasks.M OP 2-5-9.requencydistribution of usingswitchesinth eComanchecockpit,by mission.1.3.1Bedford Workload RatingScale( B W R S )T h eBedfordWorkload RatingScale( B W R S )(seeAppendixA )w asused to est imatecognit ivework loa d .he pilots comple t edth eB W R S immediate ly aftereach mission.hey used th e B W R S to rate th elevelofwork loa dim p o sed by each of th e41R A H - 6 6C o m a n c h eAircrew Training M a n u a l( A T M )tasks(seeAppendixB ).heA T M taskswere performed to suppor treconnaissance,securi ty,and at tackoperat ions;targetm a n a g e m e n tand firedistribution and coordma t ionm iss io ns ;and m o v e m e n tand communica t ionftinctions.orty-one A T M taskswere se lec tedfrom th ecomplete list of52A T M tasksbecause they wereest imatedto ha veth e m o s tpotent ia limpa c ton pilotwo rklo ad .T h eB W R S hasbeen extensivelyused by th emili tary,civil,and commerc ia lavia t ionc o m m u n i t i e sto est imate pilo twork loa d(Roscoeand Ellis,1990) .trequirespilots to rateth elevelofwork loa dassociated with atask,based on th ea m o u n tofsparecognit ivecapacitythey feelthey possessto perform addit ionaltasks.parecognitive capaci ty is animpor t a n tc o m m o d i t y forpilots b ecau sethey are often requiredto perform severaltasksconcurrent ly .orexa mple ,pilots m u s toften perform f l ighttasksand navigat ion tasks and moni t or radiosduring th es a m e t ime period. ission performa nceis reduced ifpilotsare tasksaturatedandhav e little ornospare capaci ty to perform othertasks.esignof th eC o m a n c h epilot -crew stat ioninterface


15/130

should help ensure tha tpilots can mainta in adequate sparework loa d capacityw h e n performing f l ighta nd miss ion tasks.1 .4ssessmentofCrew SituationAwarenessSituation a w a r e n e s s(SA)can be defined asth e pilot'sm enta lm o d e lofth ecurren tstate ofth e f l ighta n d miss ionenvironment . fo rma ldefinit ion is "the percept ion ofth e e lement sin th e e n v i r o n m e n twithin a v o l u m eoft ime a nd space ,th ecomprehens ionoftheirmea ning ,a nd th e projectionoftheirstatus in thenea rfuture"(Endsley,1988) .tis impor t a n tto assessSA beca use it ha sa directimpa c ton pilot performa nce . high levelofSA increases th e probabil i ty of t imely and accura tedecis ionsby pilots.esign ofth eC o m a n c h epilot-crew stat ion interface should ensure thatth epilots are able to ma int a inconsistently high levels ofSA .1.4.1Situation AwarenessRatingTechnique (S A RT)T heSituat ionA w a r e n e s sRat ingTechnique( S A R T )scale(seeAppendix C)w a s usedto est imate th e levelofSA tha tpilotsexperienced during missions.hepilots comple t ed th eS A R T immedia t e ly afterea ch mission.h eS A R T w asdeveloped asan evaluat iontoolfo rdes ign ofaircrewsys t ems (Taylor ,198 9) .heS A R T is composed ofthreesubscales:unders t a nd ing(U) ,d e m a n d (D),a n d supply (S).a y lorstated tha tSA dependso n th epilots'imders t a nd ing(U )(e.g.,quali ty of in forma t ionthey receive) ,an d th e differencebet ween th e d e m a n d (D )(e.g.,complex i t y ofmiss ion)o nth e pilots'resourcesand supply (S )(e.g.,ability to concentra te) .W h e n d e m a n d exceedssu p p ly ,there is a negat ive effecto n unders tanding a n d an overa llreduc t ion ofSA .hefo rmula SA =U -(D -S) is used to derive th e overa llS A R T score.h e S A R T is oneof th em o s tthoroughly tested rat ing scales fo rest imat ingS A (Endsley,2000) .1 .5ssessmentofth eCrew Station Controls ,Displays, and SubsystemInterfaceT h ecrew stat ion controls ,displays,and subsystem interface directly impa c tcrew w o r k l o a dand S A during a miss ion .ontrolsand displays tha tare designed to a u g m e n t th e cognit ive an d phys ica labilit ies ofc rews wil lminimize work loa d ,enhanceSA ,and contributeto successful miss ion performa nce .tis impor t a n t to assess th ecrew station interface to identify p r o b l e m stha tshould b e resolved. T o ident ifyany prob lems wit h usability ofth ecrew stat ioncontro ls ,displays ,orsubsys t em interface,th epilots comple t eda lengthy quest ionnaire(see AppendixD )a t th e end ofea ch week.T h e pilotsalsoassessed th eM A N P R I N T M O P s(seeTab le1)deve lopedby A R L and U S A O T C ( Depa r t ment ofth eA r m y ,2001) .heM O P s assessed th esuitability ofth e C P C crew stat ion interfacefo ruseduring FDTEII.1 .6ssessmentofSimulator SicknessSimula t ors ickness has been defined asa condit ionin w h i c h pilots sufferphys io log ica ldiscomfor tin th esimulator ,w h i c h is notexperienced whi lethey are f ly ing th e actualaircraft


16/130

( Kennedy ,Lilienthal ,Berb au m ,Baltzley,and M c C a u l e y ,1989) .tis genera llybelieved tha ts imula t ors icknessis caused by a misma t ch b e tween th esensory informat ion (e.g.,accelera t ioncues)presented by th esimulator ,and th esensory informat ion presented by th epr ima ry aircrafttha tth epilotoperates.When th esensory informat ion presentedby th es imula tor doesn o tma t ch th eaircraft ,th e pilot'snervoussystem reacts adversely to th esensory m i s m a t c hand th epilotbegins to experience discomfort .imula torsicknesss y m p t o m sinc ludenau sea ,dizziness drows iness ,and severalothers y m p t o m s(Kemiedy etal.,1989 ) .tis impor t a n tto assesss imula t ors icknessb ecau seth ediscomfor tfeltby pilots can bedistracting during missions .ilotdis t ract ionis oneofth eoperat ionalconsequencesofsimulator sicknesslisted by Crowley (1987) .ddit ionally ,th ediscomfor tcouldinfluence th elevelsofwork loa dand S A tha tth epilots perce ivedthey experiencedduring a mission.1.6.1imulatorSickness Quest ionnaire(SSQ)T heSimula t orSicknessQuest iomiaire(SSQ)(see Ap p end ixE)w asadminis tered to th epilots to est imateth eseverity of physiologica ldiscomfor ttha tthey experienced during miss ionsand to help det e rminewhet her they were beingdistracted by th ediscomfort .heSSQ (KennedyaneB e r b a u m ,andLil ienthal ,1993 )is a checklis t of16s y m p t o m s .hese s y m p t o m sarecategorized'into threesubscales:cu lomot or(e.g.,ey estrain,difficulty focusing,blurred vision) ;disorienta t ion(e.g.,dizz iness,vert igo) ;and na usea (e.g.,nau sea ,increasedsalivation, 'burping) .T h e pilots'responseson th ethreesubscales are co m b ined to produce a to talseverity score ,w h i c his anindica torof th eoveralldegree ofdiscomfort thatth epilots experienced during ' the m iss io n .1 .7 FDTEISimulationOverview T heC P C (seeFigure1)and th eengineeringdeve lopments imula tor(EDS)(seeFigure2 )wereth es imula t ion devices used to conduc tF D T E I.ilots receivedfourw e e k sofintensivet raining beforeth eF D T E I began.he t raining consistedofclassroom instruction and"hands-on"flight t raining in th eC P C and th eE DS .he pilots flew th es a m emissions (e.g.,routerecomiaissance) during t raming thatthey laterflew during th erecordtrials.he miss ionscenariow asbased on batt lefield envi romnent ssimulat ingthosedepic tedin th eC o m a n c h eopera t ionalm o d es u m m a r y and miss ionprofile ( O M S - M P ) .hescenariow asconducted with fourtypes ofmiss ions(see Ta ble2).ach successivemission increasedin difficultyin orderto imposeprogress ively greaterwork loa d onth epilots. issions and 2typical lyrequiredmodera t elevels ofwork loa d to perform,and missions 3and 4 requiredhigher levelsofwo rklo ad .ach ofth e fourmiss ionsw a sconducted nineor te n t imes during F D T E I.hepilots performedspecific A T M tasks duringeach mission.ach A T M taskhad prescribedcondit ionsand s tandardstha tboth crew m e m b e r shad to m e e tto help ensure m iss io nacco m p l i shm en t .


17/130

Figure1 .o m a n ch eportablecockpit.

Figure 2.ngineering development simulator .


18/130

Table2.DTEI missions Missions Description

ConductgroundroutereconnaissanceReport enemy elementsConduct routereconnaissanceConductareareconnaissanceProvide security (screen)EngageenemywithartilleryConductsecurity operations(screen)ConductdeepreconnaissanceAttacktheaterballisticmissilesReact to missionchangeReactto inclementweatherConductzonereconnaissanceReactto missionchangeEncounterweatherReacttoaircraftmalftinctions

ObjectivesNavigation,basicmissionequipmentmanipulation,an daircraftcontrol.Complete missionundetected.Reportal lenemy forces.Navigation,advanced missionequipmentmanipulation,digitalcommunicat ions,an dcallfo rfire.Alltheaboveplusreact to missionchanges,an dexecuteproceduresfo rinadvertententry intoinstrumentmeteorologicalconditions.

Allth eaboveplusreactto missionchanges

A sou t hwes tAsia topographica ld a tab asew asused for theareaofoperat ions. fragmentary order( F R A G O )w as issuedto initiateeach mission.heF R A G O s w e r eba sedon th e C o m a n c h eO M S - M P and empha s izedcrew duties and team tacticale m p l o y m e n t techniques .h ea dva ncedtacticalc o m b a t( A T C O M )sof tware m o d u les generated threatforces.T hepilotscomple t ed39 missions duringF D T E I.o rallmissions,th e pilotw ho f lew th eair-craftw a sass igned to th ef rontseatand th e pilotw ho operatedth emiss ionequipment pa cka ge ( M E P )w a sass igned to th eba ckseat .uringth e39 missions, th epilots'seata ss ignment sw e r evaried sotha t(a )every pilo tflew with every otherpilotand (b )every pilotoccupied th ef rontandrearseatsin th eC PC and E DS .hefactors,contro ls ,andcondit ionsfo rF D T E Iare l istedin Ta ble3.T h e pilots used C o m a n c h eopera t ionalconceptsb asedon th edraf tT T P s .m p h a s i sw as on individualand crew T T P swithin th ecrew stations aswel lasteam coordinat ion efforts bet ween crew m e m b e r sopera t ingin tw oseparateaircraft.he T T P saddressed th e genera lcategoriesofteam m o v e m e n t ,ta rgetm a n a g e m e n t ,firedistribution, coordinat ion,and communica t ion techniques .


19/130

Table3 .D T E Ifactors,controls,an dconditionsFactor Control ConditionsMission Systemat ical lyvaried Routereconnaissance,area reconnaissance,deepreconnaissance andattack,security,zonereconna i ssanceFlightprofile Tactically varied N ap of th eearth,contour

Crew response Tactically varied Report ,engageSensor Tact ical lyvaried C o m a n c heradar ,infraredScanner Tactical lyvaried Continuous,m a n u a lTargets Tactical lyvaried B M P ,B R D M ,T-72,B T R ,2S6,2S1 ,SA13,cargo t ruck,individualsoldiersFriendly forces Tactical lyvaried U A V ,MlAl,M 2 - M 3 ,M 1 1 3 ,cargo truck,re-fuelH E M T T Lightcondit ions Constant N i g h tScenario Constan t Southwes tAsiaCrew Systemat ical lyvaried Maximize pilotcombinat ions Simulators Systemat ical lyvaried EDS,C PC Sea tposi t ion Systemat ical lyvaried Front,rear Doctrine and Constan t In accordancewith doctrinesupport package, T R A D O C tact ics support package,or HO CC o m a n c heT A CSO P T ea m Constant T w o R A H - 6 6C o m a n c he sorganizat ion B M P = B o y e v a y a M a s h i n a Pehoti ,aSovietmechani zedinfantry vehicle B R D M = B o y e v a y a Razuedy ua t ae l ' nay a D o z o n n a y a Mes h ina ,aSovietehicleU A V = unmanned aeria lvehicle H E M T T = heavy expandabl emobili ty tactical t ruckE O C = emer gency operat ionscenter T A CSO P= tactical standingoperat ing procedure

1.7.1TacticalSteeringCommitteeA T S C ofsubjectma t t e rexperts ( S M E s )observedeach miss ion to (a )deve lopand refineT T P sa nd (b )ratecrew work loa d ,crew SA ,a nd miss ion success.heT SC provided an independenta ssessment ofth ework loa d a nd S A levelsexperienced by th ecrew m e m b e r s .hey also helpedident ify ins tances in w h i c h excess ivework loa d and inadequateS A degraded miss ioneffect iveness .h eT S C included representa t ivesfrom th efollowing A r m y agencies:

A H - 6 6T S M - C ,FortRu cker ,A l a b a m a ( two pilots) S A O T C ,FortHo o d ,Tex as( two pilots)i rectora teofTraining,Doctrine andSimulat ion,FortRucker (onepilotand onecivilian) i rectora teofC o m b a tDevelopment s ,Threa tBranch,FortRucker(onecivilian) 1 S tCavalry Brigade,FortH o o d (onecivilian instructor pilot)

T SC m e m b e r sobservedeach miss ion using a suiteofmonitors tha ts h o w e dall crew stat ion disp la ysin th e C P C and E D S .SC m e m b e r s alsolistened to all audiocommunica t ions bet ween crew m e m b e r s ,aircraft,and th es imula ted tacticaloperat ionscenterduring th emissions . large project ion m a p provided th eT S C with a rea l- t imeindication ofth eloca t ionofth e aircraft ,fr iendly forces ,and e n e m y forces.h eT S C conducted anafter-action review ( A A R )wit h th e pilots atth eendofeach mission.uring th e A A R ,th eT SC rev iewed th eposit iveand negat ive aspectsof th emiss ion to (a )provide instruction to th e pilots and (b )develop and re fmeTTP s.


20/130

M e m b e r softh eT S C also discussed wit h pilots th ecauses and consequences ofwork loa d prob lems ,S A prob lems ,and prob lems with th epilot-crew station interface.1 .8AH -66ComancheSystemDescription T heR A H - 6 6C o m a n c h ewillbea fully in tegrated ,l ightweight ,twin engine ,two-pilot ,a dva nced t echnology helicopter w e a p o n ssys tem designed to project,protect,and sustainth eforce;to gain informat ion d o m inance ;to shap e th ebattle space;and to conduc tdecisiveoperat ions.ystem features include l igh t weigh tcompos i t eairframe structures,protectedant i- torquesys t ems ,lo w vibra t ion,high reliability rotorsys tem s,reduced radarcrosssect ion(RCS)a nd infrared (IR)s ignatures ,built-in diagnost icsand orprognost ics ,secondgenerat ion ta rgetacquis i t ion,nigh tvisionsensors,and a radarsys tem .1 .9omanchePortableCockpit(CP C)and EngineeringDevelopmentSimulator (EDS)T heC P C (seeFigure1) and E D S (see Figure2)each consistedof tw ocrew stat ions arranged in a tandem sea t ingconfigurat ion.h ef rontand rearcrew stationconfigura t ions w e r eident ical(seeFigure3), enabling each pilo tto perform all A T M tasks.hesimulators conta ined th eha rdwa re ,M E P ,a nd software tha temula ted th econtrols, flightcharacter ist ics ,and m o s tofth e fiinctionality ofth eproposed C o m a n c h eproduct ion aircraft.h epr ima rycrew stat ioncontro lsand displays were th e sys tem m a n a g e m e n tdisplay( S M D ) ,tacticalsituation display (TSD) ,cockpitinteractive keyboa rd (CIK) ,side-arm controller(SAC) ,collective,and th eKaiserProView 50*head -m o u n t e ddisplay(HMD) .heED S w asa fiallm o t io ns imula torand th eC P C w as a f ixedb ases imula tor .hemot ioncapability w asth eonly s ignif icantdifferencebet ween th esimulators .1.9.1System M a n ag em e n tDisplay(S M D )andTacticalSituationDisplay(TS D )T h eS M D is amult i-funct ion colordisplay.n onem o d e ,itprovides sensor ima gery from th e ta rgetacquis i t ionsystem (TAS) .n otherm o d e s ,it provides aircraftsubsystem controland status informat ion.he T S D is also a multi-fiinction display.tprovides a co lorm ap display wit hsuper imposed navigat ionalinformat ion and s y m b o l o g ydepic t ingth elocation of threa tand fi-iendly forces.o th th eSM D and T S D hav ea bezelincorpora t ing12 dedica tedswi tches(called m o d e selectkeys)in tw o horizonta lr o w saboveandbelow th edisplay areas.hesix m o d eselectkeyson th e upperbezelof th eSM D are usedto selectcommunica t ion f imctions,whi leth esix m o d eselectkeyson th elower bezelal low selection of th em a i n m e n uof th eS M D oraircraft andmission su b sys tem s.hes ix m o d eselectkeyson th eupper rowofth eT SD bezelare used to selectHM D fimctions.h esix m o d eselectkeyson thel o w e rT S D beze lallow ma nipu la t ionofm apm o d e sand display characteristics.witches in th ecomersofth e bezelsare used to adjustscreen brightness,s y m b o lbrightness,and contrast.hereare te n switches in tw o c o l u m n son th er ightandleftofth eSM D and T S D .hefunct ionand useofthese keysv ary ,dependingon th em o d e thath asbeenselected with th e m o d eselector keys.1 ProView SO^Misa t rademarkofKaiser Electro-optics,Inc.

10


21/130

LEFT WING PANEL RIGHTWINGP A N E L

LEFTMULT IPURPOSEDISPLAY(LMPD) RIGHT MULT IPURPOSEDISPLAY(RMPD)

Figure3 .CP CandED Screw station configuration.1.9.2Leftan dRightM ultipurposeDisplays(M PDs)TheleftM PD(LMPD)is situated outboard ofth eS M D,and th e rightM PD (RMPD)is situatedoutboard of th eTSD.helowersegmentof th e L M P D containslineaddress keysand th euppersegmentpresents th estatus of selectionsma de from th e tacticalinteractiveannunciator panel(TIAP).helower segmentofth eR M P D providesselective monitoring ofvehiclesubsystemsanddisplays th ecurrent settings(frequency, chaimelpreset,transmitter, and ciphony)of th ecommunicat ionradios.he uppersegmentof th e RM P D screen providesinformation about th eoperationalstatusand modes ofth e weapon system and mission equipment.1.9.3CollectiveandSide-armController(SAC)Thecollective(see Figure 4)is situated to th eleftof th ecrew member ' s seatand th eSAC(seeFigure5) is situatedon th e rightarmrest.heSA C allowspilots to controlth epitch,roll,andy aw of th e aircraft.talsoallows10 % authority verticalinput. hecollective permitsMlauthorityverticalinput.hecollectiveandSA Cgripscontain switches thatallow hands-oncontrolof criticalflightand missionfimctions.

1 1


22/130

NOTGTFOV/SNSRvARGETDETAILLEFT SLEW

RADIOSELECTSWITCH

RIGHT SLEWMAP/SRCE

SLEW TOOWN COLLECTIVE TRIMREL

Figure4.RAH-66collective.1.9.4CockpitInteractive Keyboard ( CIK)T he C IK ena b lescrew m e m b e r s to enter data into th ec o m p u t e rsys tem .h e data include radiofrequencies ,coordinates ,targets ,a nd textm essages .

COUPLERRELEASE ^>>^^ ,ARCS

V \ DESELECT I WEAPON i RELEASEWEAPON- MiSELECT N|B HNIGHT VISION , < iBmILOTAGE "'PS!"M SYSTEM GUARD Kw

iW ^ YA W TRIM I RELEASEw ^ Figure5 .RAH-66side-armcontroller (SAC).

1.9.5Helmet-M ounted Display( H M D )T h e Kaiser P r o V i e w 50(see Figure6) w a s th eH M D usedb y a ll th epilots during F D T E I.t h ad tw o liquid crys ta ldisplays with a 28 (V )x49 (H )fieldofview ( FOV)(25% binocu la roverlap) ,1024x768 resolut ion,inter-pupil la rydis tanceadjustment ,ey e reliefadjustment ,adjustable hea dba nd and strap,a n elect roniccontro lunit,and a P o l h e m u s head-t racking sensor .T h e H M D w e i g h e d1.3p o u nd s .he H M D providedth eout - t he-window ( O T W )display to th e pilots viaa synthet ic visualscene overla idwit h m o n o c h r o m e s y m b o l o g y .When used in th e nigh tvisionpilotage system m o d e ,th eH M D displayed th e fo rwa rd- look inginfrared(FLIR)scene overla idb y th em o n o c h r o m e s y m b o l o g y . hea dse tw a splaced over th eH M D to provide th e pilotswit h th ecapability fo r radioand inter-cockpitcommunica t ion .

1 2


23/130

Figure6 .KaiserProView 5 0 .1.9.6EnvironmentalConditionsin tlieCPC and ED SSimulators Ambientnoise,light,and temperaturelevelswererecorded during a sample of missions (seeTable4)to identify whetherth e environmental conditionsinterfered with pilotperformance during missions.Noise and temperature levelsin th eCPC and EDSwere moderate. ightlevelsin both simulators werelo w to aid in th e useof th e Kaiser ProView 50HM D . he pilotsreported thatth e noise,temperature,and lightlevelsdid notdistract them,make them xmcomfortable,orinterferewith th e performanceof tiieir tasksduring missions.Ambientnoisew as recordedwitha 407764sound levelmeterm a d e by Extech InstrumentsCorporation.Ambientlightw as measuredwith a Gossen Ultra Pro lightmeter.Ambienttemperature w asrecordedwith a WiBGeT w etbulbglobetemperature(WBGT) monitor m a d e by th eImagingandSensingTechnology Corporation.

Table4 .CP CandED Sambient noise,light,and temperaturelevelsSimulator NoiseLevels Light Levels TemperatureLevels

CPC 63 to 67dBa O L u x 68 to 73FED S 72 to78dBa 0to1 1L ux 70to 74F1.9.7M EPSoftwareThe M EPsoftware used during F D T E Iw as version1030.he FlightDirector-Autopilot,Navigation Update,andSystem StatusM EP functions were notmodeled in softwareversion10.3and therefore were notused during FDTE I.

1 3


24/130

2. Method

2.1 PilotsPilots w e r e eightm ale A r m y soldiers from th efo l lowing units:-lOlstand 3-lOlstAviat ion Regiment ,FortCam p b e l l ,Kentucky (five pilots) ,1-17th Cavalry andl-82ndAvia t ionRegiment ,FortBragg ,Nort h Carol ina (threepilots) .hreesoldiers were O H - 5 8 D pilots w ho held th erank'ofChiefWa rra ntOfficer(CW2).hreesoldiers w e r eAH-6 4D pilots w h o held th erank ofCW2.O nesoldierw as an AH-6 4D pilotw ho held th e rank ofFirstLieutenantand onesoldierw asan A H - 6 4 A pilotw h o held th erank ofC W2.h ey representeda group oflo w to modera t e ly experienced pilotswith totalf l ightho u rstha tranged from160 to 65 0hours.neofth e pilots h a d part ic ipa ted in th eR A H - 6 6ForceDevelopment Ex p er im en t (FDE1)(June2000)and thereforehad prev iousexperienceoperat inga C o m a n c h esimulator .n ly o neofth epilotsw o r e correct ivee y e w e a r during missions.h e relevantd em o grap hic characterist ics ofth e pilotsare listedin Ta ble5.Table5 .ilotdemographics

MeanMedianRange

Age(years)3 1 3 1 24to 34

*Excludesinitialentrytraining

DemographicCharacteristicsFlighthoursinpr ima ry aircraft

27 9 228 1 0 to 60 0

Tota lflighthoursin A r m y aircraft* 41 5415 160to 65 0

Flighthours withnightvisiondevices19 813 830 to 55 0

2.1.1 Pilots'Anthropometric M easurementsFifteen a nt hropomet r icmea surement swereobtained fo reach pilot(see AppendixF) .he m e a s u r e m e n t swere obtained in accordance wit h published proceduresfo rmea sur ing A r m y personne l( Gordon etal.,1989 ) .h eupper percentile ranksfo rm ale avia torsw e r ewel lrepresented fo r10 ofth e15anthropometric m easu rem en ts .hemea surement s were used to assessw h e t h e rany prob lemstha tth epilots experiencedw h e n using th ecrew stat ioncontrolsand displays w e r erelated to theirbody size.2.2 Data CollectionFormsand Procedures T h eB W R S ,S A R T ,SSQ andcontrols, displays,and subsystem interface quest ionnaires(see A p p e n d i c e sC,D ,E,and G )w e r edeveloped in accordance withpublished guidelines for properfo rma tand content(O'Brienand Charl ton,1996) . pre-test w as conducted to refine th e

1 4


25/130

quest ionnaires a nd to ensure thatthey could beeasily unders tood and comple t edb y pilots a nd T S C m e m b e r s .T h e pilotsa n d T SC m e m b e r scomple t edth ework loa dandsituation a wa renessquest ioimaires immedia t e ly aftereach mission.he pilots comple t ed th eSSQ beforeand afterevery ot hermission.tth e end ofeachw e e kof missions ,th e pilotscomple t edth econtrols ,displays ,a nd subsys t em interfacequest io imaire .ddit ionald a ta wereobtained from th e pilotsand T S C m e m b e r sduring post -miss ion discuss ionsa nd th e A A R conducted aftereach miss ion .Quest ioimaire results w e r eclarified wit h informat ion obta inedduringpos t -miss iondiscuss ions a nd th e daily A A R s .2 .3ata AnalysisPi lo tresponsesto th eB W R S ,S A R T ,S S Q,an d controls,displays,andsubsystem interface quest ioimaires w e r ea na lyzedwit h m e a n sand percentages.heirresponses to th eB W R S ,S A R T ,and SS Q werefurtherana lyz edwit h th eWilcoxon Signed R a n k sTes t( WSRT) to c o m p a r era t ings b e t w e e n th e pilots w h e n they flew th eaircraft versus w h e nthey opera ted th e M E P .h eW S R T w as also usedto ana lyz epilotSSQ rat ingsw h e n they flew in th e E D S versus w h e n they flew in th eC P C .ecause ofth esm al lsam p lesize(n = 8)ofpilots w ho part ic ipa ted in F D T E I,probabil i ty values w e r ecomput ed wit h Fisher'sEx ac tTest .2.4imitationsofAssessmentLimita t ions included th esm al lsam p lesize ofpilots (n =8)w ho part ic ipa tedin F D T E I, theirl imitedexperience operat ing th eC o m a n c h esimulators ,theirlack ofsubstant ia lexperience opera t ing A r m y aircraftand th e lackof100% fidelity bet ween th e simulators and th eproduc t iondesign ofth e C o m a n c h eaircraft.ddit ionally ,th eFlightDirector-Autopilot ,Navigat ion Upda t e ,and System Status M E P f imctionswere n o tmodeled in th e F D T E Isoftware and thereforew e r e notavai lablefo rth e pilots to useduring missions.nforma t ionand data listedin th eResults and S u m m a r y sect ionsofthis repor tshould beinterpreted on th e basis ofthese limitat ions.ddit ionaldata should becollected during future simulat ions and teststo a u g m e n tth e f indings listedin this report.

3. Results

3.1 Crew Workload 3.1.1M ea nWorkload Ratingsfo r A T M TasksT he meanwork loa d rat ingslisted in Tab le6w e r ederivedfrom th ework loa dra t ingsprovidedby th e pilots fo rea ch A T M task af terevery mission.heoveral lm e a nwork loa drat ing providedby th e pilotsw h e n they flew th eaircraft(frontseat)w as2.90.

15


26/130

Table6.MeanworkloadratingsforATMtasksATMTasks

Run-up,h o v e ran dbefore take-of f checksMaintain a ir spacesurveillance Radiocommunicat ions Rolling take-offVisualmeteorologicalconditions ( V M C )flightm an e u v e rsElectronically aided navigation Terrainflightnavigation Fuelm an ag e m e n tproceduresTerrainflightM askin gan dunmasking Evasivemaneuvers Actionson contac tV M C approachRoll-onlanding Inadvertentins t rumentmeteorologicalconditions( I M C)proceduresUn u su a lattituderecoveryE m e rg e n c yproceduresT SD operations Firing techniquesFiringpositionoperations Helmet- in tegrateddisplaying sightingsystem (HIDSS)operat ionsElectro-optic targetacquisitionanddesignation sys tem ( E O T A D S )sensoroperations Digitalcommunicat ions Firecontrolradar(FCR)operations Dataentry proceduresDatam an ag e m e n tproceduresEngage targetwithPointTargetWeaponSys tem (PTW S )(Hellfire)Engagetarge twith th eA WS(2 0 m m )Mult i -sh ipoperations Security missionAerialobservation Area reconnaissanceRoutereconnaissanceZone reconnaissanceDigitalartil lerymissionDigitalremote semi-activelaser( SAL)missile mission

Tran sm i ttacticalreportsIdentifym ajo rU.S.-AlliedequipmentIdentifym ajo rthreatequipmentOperateaircraft survivability equipment Operatenightvisionpilotagesystem

Overal lWorkloadRat ingsSD

MeanWorkloadFly

aircraft2.29 2.622.72 2 .74 2.872.873.042.95 2.803.563.212.612.662.90

3.362.95 2.912.85 2.772.90 2.962.93 4.053.00 2.98 3.162.712.85 2.90 2.89 3.012.952.713.002.712.51 2.58 2.60 2.71

2.90 0.29

OperateMEP2.38 5.18 2.94 2.912.89 3.153.063.20 3.073.40 3.18

3.38

2.89 3.19 3.07 3.032.97 3 . 27 3.18 2.914.24 2.83 2.963.81 2.912.89 3.00 3.02 3.153.062.67 3.252.79 2.48 2.58 2.58 2.64

3.08 0.49

PeakWorkloadFly

aircraft2.403.363.363.463.68 3.54 3.763.98 3.31 5.09 4.12 3.27 3.00 3.98

4.07 3.79 3.57 3.42 3.48 3.93

OperateMEP2.48 7.32 4.063.52 3.60 3.79 3.923.80 3.664.41 3.95

4 .3 3

3.414.29 3.85 3.79 3.41 4.59

3.67 4.75 3.40 4.016.56 6.41 3.68 3.82 3.40 3.92 3.89 4.52 3.58 3.643.36 3.52 3.58 3.78 3.60 3.73 3.89 3.75 3.88 4.02 3.04 3.19 4.80 5.50 3.36 3.662.72 2.72 3.06 3.04 3.01 2.763.29 2.87

3.65 3.92 0.68 0.92

16


27/130

T h e ra ngeofm e a n work loa d rat ingsfo rth e A T M tasks w as 2.29 to 4.05.h e overa llm e a n work loa d rat ing providedb y th e pilots w h e nthey opera ted th e M E P (backseat)w as3.08.h e ra nge ofmeanwork loa d rat ingsfor the A T M tasksw as2.38 to5.18.hedifferencein overa llm e a n work loa d ra t ingsbet ween f lying th eaircraft an d operat ingth e M E P w asstat ist ically s ignif icant( WSRT,z=-2.36, j t ? < .01).l though th edifference w asstat ist icallys ignif icant ,it l ikely d o esnotreflectan operationally s ignif icantdifference in sparecognit ivecapacity beca use both ra t ingsw e r ecloseto "3"o n th e Bedfordscale.n s u m m a r y ,th e pilots reported tha tthey

xper iencedtolerablework loa d levels w h e n they performed ea ch A T M task;id no texperiencea reduct ion in sparework loa dcapaci ty w h e n they performed m o s tA T M tasks

3.1.2M e a n W ork loadRatingsfo r Flyingth eAircraft W h e n they flew th eaircraft,th e pilots reportedtha t they typica llydid n o texperience a reduct ion in spare work loa d capacity w h e n they performed 37of39 A T M tasks(thepilotsdid n o tperform 2ofth e 41A T M tasks w h e n they flew th eaircraftduring F D T E I) .hetw o tasksfo rw h i c h they reported a reduct ion in sparework loa dcapaci ty w e r e

vasive M a n e u v e r s(m ean rat ing =3.56)ataEntry Procedures(m ean rat ing =4.05)T h e taskof performing "evasive ma neuvers"received higherra t ingsbeca useall of th e pilot'seffortw as required to evadea threa to robstac le .Addit ional ly, th eO T W view and crew stat ion displays w e r e moment a r i ly blanked (1to 2seconds) w h e n th e aircraft w ash itby gro im dfire.Blanking ofth e O T W view and th ecrew station displays w as a s imula t orart ifact thatindica tedto th ecrew m e m b e r sthatthey w e r ebeing engaged b y th ethreat. omentari ly losingth e O T W viewa nd th e crew station displays increasedth e pilots'leveloffrustrat ion a n d theirperce ivedwork loa d beca use they ha d to spend addit ionalt ime regainingS A w h e n theirO T W viewand th e displays reappeared.hetaskof"dataent ry"received higherra t ingsbeca useofusability prob lems wi th th eC IK (seeTable14).3.1.3 M ea nWorkload Ratingsfo rOperatingth eM EP W h e n opera t ing th eM E P ,th e pilots reportedthatthey typica lly did notexperience a reduct ion in sparework loa d capaci ty w h e n they performed 34of37A T M tasks(thepilots did notperform 4of th e41A T M tasksw h e n they opera ted th eM E P during F D T E I) .h e three tasks fo r w h i c h they reported areduct ion in sparework loa d capaci ty w e r e nga g ing Targets wit h th e A r e a Wea pon System (AWS)(m ean rat ing = 3 .81)a ta Entry Procedures (m ean rating =4.24)ainta iningA ir Sp aceSurvei l lance(m ean rating =5.18)T hetask of"enga g ingtargets with th e A W S "received higherra t ingsbeca usew h e n th e pilots fired th egu n ,it often h ad noeffec to n th e targets .his problem w as usually ca used b y a s imula t orma lfunc t ionand increased th e pilots'frustration and theirperceived levelofwo rklo ad .

1 7


28/130

T hetask of"dataentry procedures"receivedhigherrat ingsbecause ofusability prob lems wit h th e CIK.h e pilotsstated thatth eC IK w asdifficultand t ime co nsu m ing to use ,kepttheirhea dsd o w n in th ecrew station fo rextendedperiodsof t ime,and forcedthem to loseSA .h etask of"mainta ining air spacesurveil lance"receivedhigherra t ingsb ecau seth e pilots opera t ingth e M E P did notha ve a n ightvisiondevicethatenabled them to seeoutsideth ecrew stat ion a tnigh twhi leconduct ing a scan with th eT A S .ilots often conducted continuous scanswit h th eT A S ,w h i c h prevent edthem from seeing outsideth ecrew station fo rextendedperiodsof t ime.his 'taskw asrated asa "10"(o nth eBedford Scale) 20 t imes by th epilotsbecause they simply could n ot perform th e task during long periods ofth emission.hus,th e m e a n work loa drat ing fo rthis taskis nota validm easu re ofwo rklo ad thatth epilotsexperienced.ather ,th e m e a nwork loa d rat ing represents th epilots'intentto em p has iz etha tthey werefrustratedby th elack ofe q u i p m e n tneeded to perform this task.heproduct iondesign of th eC o m a n c h edoesn o tincludeprovis ions fo ra n ightvision deviceto allow pilotsto seeoutsideth ecrew station a tn ightwhi lethey areconduct ing a scan with th eT A S .T h epilotw h o opera tedth e M E P in th e back seatofth eE D Sw asalso designated asth e A ir Miss ionC o m m a n d e r( A M C )fo rallexceptone m iss io nduring F D T E I.heA M C performed addit ionaltasks(e.g.,providedmiss ionrevisionsto th e tacticaloperat ionscenter)besides opera t ing th eM E P .o wev er ,there w as nodifference in overallm e a n work loa dra t ingsprovidedby th e pilots w h e n they operated th eM EP and performedA M C tasks in th eE D S versus w h e n they opera tedth eM EP in th eC PC .heoveral lm e a n work loa drating fo r pilots w h e n they opera ted th eM E P and performedA M C tasksin th eEDSw as3.07.heoveral lm e a n work loa d rat ing fo r pilotsw h e n they operated th e M E P in th eC P C w as3.09.h is differencein work loa d ra t ingsw a snotstatistically signif icant(WSRT,z=-.650, p>.05).h is w assurpr isingbecause T SC and A R L personnel observed that th e A M C usual ly experiencedhigherwork loa dand h ad lessspare work loa dcapacity during m iss io nsthanth epilotw hooperated th eM E P m th eC PC .When th epilotswere asked to explain w h y they did notratewo rklo adhigher fo r th eA M C ,m o s tstated tha ttherew asnotasignif icantdifference in wo rklo ad w h e nthey performedindiv idualA T M tasksand A M C tasksin th eE D S versusw h e n they performedindiv idualA T M tasksin th e C P C .owever ,th e pilotsnotedthatthey typical ly experiencedhigheroveral llevels ofwork loa d w h e nthey were th e A M C b ecau sethey had to perform m o re A T M tasksconcurrent ly.Beca useth e pilots provided wo rklo adrat ingsfo rindividualA T M tasks,th era t ingsdid notreflectth e higheroveral lwo rklo ad tha tth epilotsexperiencedw h e n they were th e A M C and performed severalA T M tasks concurrent ly.o assess th ewo rklo ad thatth epilotsexperienced w h e nthey performedseveralA T M tasks concurrent ly,they provided th ework loa dra t ingslisted in Sect ion3.1.7.3.1.4Peak Workload Ratingsfo r A T M TasksT he pilots providedpeak wo rklo adrat ingsto identify any A T M tasks thatrequireda peak work loa d rating of6.5orhigher(o n th eB W R S )to perform. pea kwo rklo adrating of6. 5orhighero n th eB W R Sindicatedthatth epilotsexperiencedinstancesw h e nth ework loa dfor the

18


29/130

taskw as"nottolerable".asksthatha d m e a n pea kwork loa drat ingsof6.5o r higherprovide further justificationforimprovement s tha tshould bem a d ein th ecrew stat iondes igna n d o raircraftopera t ing proceduresto decreasework loa dfor the tasks.slistedin Ta ble6, th eovera llm e a n peakwork loa d rat ing provided b y th e pilots w h e n they flew th eaircraft w a s3.65.h e ra ngeofm e a n peakwork loa d ra t ingsw as2.40 to 6.56.heoveral lm e a n peakwork loa d rat ing provided b y th e pilots w h e n they opera ted th eM E P w as3.92.h e rangeofm e a n peakwork loa d ra t ingsw as2.48 to 7.32.hedifferencein m e a n pea k work loa d ra t ingsbet ween f ly ing th e aircraftand opera t ing th eM E P w asstatistically s ignif icant(WSRT,z=-2.10, p< .05).H o w e v e r ,th e pract ica ldifferencebet ween th e rat ingsis m i n i m a lbeca useboth ra t ingsare clus tereda round "4"o n th e Bedfordscale.n s u m m a r y ,th epilots reported thatthey experienced severalins tances ofhigh work loa dthatwere "nottolerable"fo roneA T M taskw h e n they flew th eaircraftan d fo rone A T M taskw h e n they operated th e M E P .3.1.5 M e a n PeakWorkload RatingsW h e n PilotsFlew th eAircraftT he pilotsreported thatthey experienced severalinstancesofwork loa d tha tw e r e"nottolerable"w h e n they performed

a ta Entry Procedures( mea n pea k rat ing =6.56)T h e pilotsra tedthis taskas"nottolerable"because ofusability prob lems wi th th eC IK (see Ta ble14).3.1.6M ea nPeakWorkload RatingsW h e n PilotsOperated th eM E P T h e pilotsreported thatthey experienced severalinstancesofwork loa d thatw e r e "nottolerable"w h e n they performed

ainta ining Airspace Survei l lance(m ean pea k rating = 7.32)T h e pilotsreported thatthey experienced severalinstancesduringmiss ionsw h e n they could notmaintain air sp acesurveil lancebeca usetherew as no nigh tvis iondevice in th e ba ck seat.spreviously stated,this taskw asrated asa "10"20 t imes by th e pilots because they simply could n o tperform th e taskfo rlong per iodsduringth e mission.Not e thatth em e a n pea k work loa d rat ingfo r"dataentry procedures"(m ean pea k ra t ing =6.41)w as very closeto being rated "nottolerable". rat ingof6.41indicated thatth epilotsexper iencedseveralinstancesw h e n th e work loa d forperformingthis taskw asn o ttolerablebeca useofusability prob lems wit h th eCIK.3.1.7W ork load Ratingsfo rPerforming M ultipleA T M TasksConcurrentlyT h e work loa d ra t ingsprovided by th e pilots helped to identify ins tancesofhigh work loa d w h e n they performed indiv idualA T M tasks.ohelpassessth e levels ofwork loa d thatthey experienced w h e n they performedseveralA T M tasksconcurrent ly,th e pilots provided B W R S

19


30/130

rat ingsfo rperiods w h e nthey had to "muhi- t a sk"(seeTable 7) .hedefinit ion ofmult i- tasking providedto th e pilotsby A R L w as"periodsw h e n y o u p er fo rm edseveralA T M tasksconcurrent ly during missions".he pilotsoften experiencedperiodsw h e nthey h ad to perform severaltasksconcurrent ly within abrieft ime interval.h ey provided B W R Sra t ingsfo reach ofth efourmiss ion types to help assess mult i - taskingform o d era teand high intensity missions .he differencein m e a n rat ingsb e tweenflying th e aircraft and operat ingth eM E Pw asstat ist icallys ignif icantfo rall m iss io ns(WSRT,z=-4.31,/;


31/130

oftenuna ble to consistently perform severaltasksconcurrent ly(mult i - task)during missions .T S C and A R L personne lobserved tha tth e pilotsoften dwel ledo n one task fo ra per iod oft ime w h e n they should ha veperformed severaltasks duringth e period oft ime.T h einability to consis tent ly perform severaltasksconcurrent ly w as probably attributable to th e l imited opera t ional experienceof th e pilotsand th e l imitedt ime tha tthey h ad been opera t ing th e C o m a n c h e simulators .owever ,th ecapabil i tyto consistent lymult i- taskis impor t a n tfo rC o m a n c h e pilotsand should beclosely moni t oredand carefiiUy assessedduring futures imula t ions and tests.ny asp ec tofth ecrew station design tha tinducesper iodsofhigh work loa d a nd reducesth e mult i- taskingcapabil i tyofpilotsshould beidentified and im p ro v ed .

Table8 .ummary o f crew an d TSC mean workload ratingsfo ral lmissionsWorkloadRatings Flyingth eAircraft SD Operating th eM E P SD Crew M e a n Workload Ratings

Crew PeakWorkload RatingsCrew Mult i -Task ing RatingsT SC M e a n Workload Ratings

2.90 3.65 3.653.79

0.29 0.68 1.120.42

3.08 3.924.67 4.19

0.49 0.921.370.28

3.1.9 TransferofA T M Tasksto th eOtherPilotBecauseofHigh Workload During mostmissions ,th e pilot w ho opera ted th eM E P experienced periods ofhigh work loa d and a skedth e pilotw h oflew th eaircraftto assisthim in performingA T M tasks(seeA p p e n d i xH).h e pilotw ho opera tedth e M E P typical ly t ransferred5% to10% oftasks to th epilotw h o flew th e aircraftduring missions and 2,10%to 20 % oftasksduring miss ion 3,and15% to 2 5 % oftasks duringmiss ion4.ixty-six percentof th e tasks t ransferredto th e pilotw h oflew th e aircraftw e r ecommunica t ion tasks.hesetasks included reading and sending digital m e s s a g e s(e.g.,spotreports ,battle d a m a g ea ssessmentreports) .went y -n inepercent of th e taskst ransferred to th e pilotw ho flew th eaircraft were sensoropera t ion tasks(e.g.,opera t ing th e E O T A D S ) .iv e percentofth etasks t ransferredto th epilotw ho flew th eaircraftw e r e ta rgete n g a g e m e n t tasks(e.g.,engage targets wit h th e gun) .3.1.10omparison ofCrew Workload Ratingsfo rFD E1 ,FM S1 ,and FDTEIA s imula t ion exerciseis a single eventtha ttypica llydoes notfully represent th ework loa d tha tcrew m e m b e r swil lexperiencew h e n they opera teth eaircraft in th efield.ariablessu chasth e n u m b e r ofpilots w h o part ic ipa tedin th esimulat ion,theirexperiencelevels,th e quantity and quali tyofth et raining they received,and differencesin th efianctionality of th es imula tors versus th eaircraftcan m a k eit difficultto pred ic t th e work loa d tha tcrew m e m b e r s wil lexperience w h e n they opera teth eaircraft in th efield.herefore,it is instructive to co m p are work loa d results obta ined during severals imula t ionexercises.f th e work loa drat ingsobta ined during severa lsuch exercisesare similar ,th elevelofconfidence thatth e work loa d rat ingsare reliable is

21


32/130

increasedand m ay approximate th ewo rklo ad thatpilotswillexperiencew h e n opera t ing th e aircraftin th efield.M e a n overa llwork loa drat ingsfrom th eForce Dev e lo p m en tExper iment (FDE1) (Durbin ,2001) ,th eSikorsky FullMiss io nStudy (FMS1)(Cross ,2001)and th eFDTEIw e r e compa red (seeTab le9 ).h e m e a n overal lwo rklo ad rat ingswere obtainedfo r35A T M tasksduring FD E 1,41A T M tasksduring F D T E I,and5miss iontasksduring FM S1 .sTab le9 depic ts ,th e m e a n overal lwork loa d rat ingsforpilots w h e n they flew th eaircraftwere s imilaracross s im u -lat ion exercises.h e m e a n overal lwo rklo ad rat ingsfo r pilots w h e nthey opera ted th eM E P were also s imi la racross simulat ions.herat ingswere similarevent hough therew e r es ignif icantdifferencesin th eoperat ionalexperiencelevelsof th e pilotsw ho participated in th e simulat ions.A sa gro u p ,th eeightpilotsw ho participated in F D T E I had relatively lo w opera t ionalexperience,th e six pilotsw ho participated in FD E h ad moderate operat ionalexperience,and th efivepilotsw h o part ic ipa tedin FM S h ad high levelsofoperat ionalexperienceandsubstantial familiarity with th e designofth eC o m a n c h ecrew stations.herewere also differencesin th emet hod by w h i c h th edatawerecollected and differencesin th et ypes ofmissions tha twere conduc t edduring FD E andF D T E IversusFM S1 .he wo rklo ad rat ingsfo rFD E and F D T E I wereobta ined immediate ly af tereach mission.he wo rklo ad rat ingsfo rFM S were obta ined a tseveral"stop"pointsduringeach mission.ddit ional ly,th edesign of th eC o m a n c h ecrew stat ion interface evolved from FD E to F D T E I.In spiteof th edifferencesin crew experience ,data collection m etho d o lo gy ,t ypes ofmissions ,and maturi ty ofth ecrew station design,th em e a n wo rklo ad rat ingsweres imilaracross s imula t ions .h em e a n work loa drat ingsfo rth esimulat ionswereclustered around "3"on th eB W R S . rat ing of"3"indicatesthatth epilots perceived thatthey typica llyexperienced modera t ework loa dlevels during th esimulat ions in w h i c hthey participated.uringfiitures imula t ions and tests,wo rklo addatashould becollected and co m p ared to FD E M S nd F D T E I.

Table9.Meanworkloadratingsfo r FD E1 ,FM S1 ,an dFDTEI

SimulationEvent

ForceDevelopmentExperimentFullMissionStudyForceDevelopmentTestan dExperimentation

MeanWorkloadRating WhenPilotsFlew Aircraft3.18 2.482.90

M e a nWorkload Rating When PilotsOperated M E P 3.432.98 3.08

3.2 CrewSituationAwarenessT heoveral lS A R T rat ings(seeFigure7)indicatedtha tth epilotsperceived tha tthey experienced modera t e levels ofSA w h e n they flew th eaircraft andw h e n they operated th eM E P .

22


33/130

OverallSARTRatings

FlyingThe Aircraft

21.86

Operat ingThe MEP

Figure 7.Overa l lS A R T ratings fo r all missions. Table10 .A R T subscale rat ings

HighSA

LowSA

'Demand'During Miss ionsM e a n Rating When Flying Aircraf t14.03

L ow 1135-^1791 HighM e a n RatingWhen Operat ing M EP 14.62

'Supply'During Miss ions M e a n Rating When Flying Aircraf t20 .99 Low 103691^"-247 High

M e a n Rating When Operat ing M EP 20.43

'Unders tanding 'During Miss ionsL ow 11- M e a nRatingWh en Flying Aircraf t 15.4435 17-A--191 High

M e a n Rating When Operat ing M E P 16.05

23


34/130

Corresponding ly ,th e subscalerat ings(seeTab le10 )indicated thatth e pilots typica lly experienced modera t eto high levelsof"dema nd,""supply ," and "unders tanding" w h e nthey flew th eaircraftandw h e n they operated th eM E P .ngeneral ,th erat ingssu gges ttha tth e pilots fehtha tthey h ad an adequate supply ofcognit iveresourcesto perform th eA T M tasks,th e cognit ived e m a n d so n them werenoto v erwhe lm ing ,and they had adequate unders tanding ofbatt lefield e lement s(e.g.,location of threat,statusof"ownsh ip")during missions.3.2.1 SA Ratingsfo rFlying th eAircraft VersusOperating th eM EP T hedifference in th eoveral lS A R T rat ingsb e tween flying th eaircraft and operat ingth eM E P fo rall miss ionsw as n otstatistically significantly (WSRT,z=-.700,p> .05)(see Tab le11).h edifferencesin overal lS A R T rat ingsfor thepilotsw h e nthey f lew theaircraft versus w h e n they opera ted th eM E P (seeTab le12)fo rmoderate intensity m iss io ns(missions and 2)and higherintensity miss ions(missions3and 4)werenotstatisticallysignificantly (miss ions and 2,W S R T ,z =-.720, p>.05,m iss io ns3and 4,W S R T ,z =-.280,/? >.05).owever ,th edifferencein ra t ingsfo rth e pilots w h e n they f lew theaircraft during m o d era teintensity miss ionsversus higherintensity miss ionsw asstatistically signif icant(WSRT,z=-2.52, p< .01).he differencein ra t ingsfo r th e pilotsw h e n they operated th eM E P during m o d era teintensity miss ionsversus higherintensity m iss io nsw asalsostatistically signif icant(WSRT,z =-2 .24, ;?


35/130

Table12 .A R T subscale ra t ingsfo r missions and2andmissions3and4M issions1 & 2 M issions3& 4

S A R T Subscales Fly aircraft OperateM EP Fly aircraft OperateM E P Demand 12.22 12.46 15.95 16.86

Instability ofSituation 4.22 4.27 5.48 5.81 Variabi l i ty ofSituation 4.30 4.15 5.39 5.57Complexity ofSituation 3.70 4.04 5.08 5.48 Supply 21.15 20.38 20.90 20.56Arousal 5.28 5.21 5.38 5.48 SpareM en t a lCapaci ty 5.42 5.12 5.05 4.74 Concentrat ion 5.42 5.20 5.32 5.25Division ofAttention 5.03 4.85 5.15 5.09 Understanding 15.77 16.00 15.06 16.14Information Quant i ty 5.04 5.23 4 .9 3 5.45 Informat ionQual i ty 5.10 5.07 4.93 5.25 Famil iari ty 5.63 5.70 5.20 5.44

M e a nS A R TScores 24.70 23.9 3 20.01 19.84SD 3.98 4.68 3.82 4.01

T o understandw hy th epilots provideds imilarS A rat ings w h e n they flew th e aircrafta nd w h e n they opera ted th eM E P ,they w e r easked to expla in th erat ings during pos t -miss iondiscuss ions withA R L personne l .uring thesediscuss ions ,m o s t pilots stated tha tw h e n they opera ted th e M E P ,they ha d immedia t e access to informat ion on thecrew stat ion displays ,whichga vethemhighe rSA of batt lefield elements thanw h e n they flew th eaircraft.owever ,they repor tedtha twork loa d w ass o m e w h a t higherw h e n they operated th eM E P versus w h e n they f lew th eaircraft.Thesetw o factors(m o reimmedia t e lyaccess ibleinformat ion b ut higher work loa d w h e n opera t ing th eM E P )contributed to s imilar SA rat ings.3.2.2ProblemsW ith SA W h e nPilotsFlew th eAircraftDuring pos t -miss iondiscuss ions ,th e pilots reportedtha tth e pr ima ry factors thatl imited theirSA w h e n they flew th eaircraftw e r e(a )th el imitedFO V ofth eKaiserP ro V i e w 50H M D ,(b )th e lackofhighresolut ion t opogra phy( w h e n v i e w e d t h rough th eH M D ) ,(c )th el imitedarea ofcovera gew h e n th e7.2 m ap scalew asused o n th eT S D ,and (d )being enga ged by th ethreat .3.2.3ProblemsWith SA W h e n PilotsOperated th eM E P During post-mission discuss ions ,th epilots reportedtha tth e pr ima ry factors thatl imited theirSA w h e n they opera ted th eM E P were (a )th e p o o r usability characterist ics of th e CIK,(b )th e l imited area ofcovera gew h e n they used th e 7.2 m ap scaleo n th eT S D ,and (c )lack ofa n ima ge intensif ica t ion(12)device to moni t or th eair space a round th eaircraft.

25


36/130

3.2.4T SC RatingsofSA T h em e a n SA rat ing providedb y T SC m e m b e r s(see Ta ble13)indica ted thatSA fo rcrew m e m b e r s"needed improvement " and "lackofSA hads o m e negat ive effecto n th esuccess ofth e miss ion ."Duringdiscuss ions ,T SC m e m b e r sstated tha tth e l imited opera t ional experience ofth e pilots w as th e pr ima ry reason thatth epilots w e r euna bleto ma int a m highlevelsofSA .SC m e m b e r salso statedtha tth e pilots'l imited opera t ionalexperience oftenle d to lack ofcoordinat ion be tween aircraft a nd lack of contro lof th emiss ion b y th e A M C .Table1 3 .SC ratingsof SA

1 2

TSCSA RatingsTeam w as totally awareof al lentitieson th ebattlefield.Team w as awareof thebattlefieldwithminororinsignificantvariationbetween perceptionan dreality.Team w as awareof th ebattlefield.Variationbetweenreality an dperceptiondid not significantlyimpactmissionsuccess.4A needsimprovement. ack of SA had somenegativeeffecton th esuccessof the mission.5ac kof SA causedmission failure. MeanRat ing 3 . 64 (SD= 1 .06)

3.2.5T SC M iss ionSuccessRatingsand Crew SA A t th e en d ofeach miss ion ,T SC m e m b e r sra tedw h e t h e rth e miss ion w asasuccesso r failure.T h ecriteria tha tth e T S C used to ratemiss ionsuccess orfailure w a s whetherth e team comple t edth emiss ion requ i rement sand d id n otgetsho td o w n orcrash.he T S C rated30 ofth e39 ( 7 7 % )miss ionsas"successful"(seeFigure8).hey rated9 ofth e 39 ( 2 3 % )miss ions as "fa i led."La ck of adequate SA w ascited asone of th e rea sonsforfa i lureofm o s toftheninem iss io ns .

TSCRatingsofSuccessfulvs.FailedMissions

Successfu lMissions Failed MissionsFigure8 .SC ratingsof mission success.

26


37/130

3.3 Usability ofCrew StationControls ,Displays, and Subsystem Interface 3.3.1 Positive Aspectsofth eCrew StationControls ,Displays, and Subsystem InterfaceT h epilots reported th e following posit iveaspectsab o u t th e usability ofth ecrew stat ion controls ,displays ,a nd subsystem interface (seeAppendix I) :

hey could typica llyuse th e T S D ,S M D ,FLIR a nd day te levis ion( D T V )in a quicka n d efficientm anner .hey couldquickly navigatet h rough th eT S D ,S M D ,mult i-purpose display,and T I A P m e n u screens.hey rarely forgot h o w to navigatet h rough th e m e n ustructure on theT S D ,S M D ,mult i-purpose displays,and TIAP .hey did n o tha veprob lems using th eswitches o nth eside-arm controllerwhi le wea r ing s tandard flightgloves.

3.3.2ProblemsWith th eCrew Station Controls ,Displays,and Subsystem InterfaceT h e pr imary prob lems reportedb y th e pilotswith th ecrew station interface are now summa r ized and listed in Tab le14 .A ll th epilotsreported tha tth e usability characterist ics ofth eC IK were very poor .hey stated tha tthey experienced high work loa dw h e n using th eCIK;it took them an excess ivea m o i m toft ime to perform severaltasks(e.g.,sending freetext m essages) ,and it decreased theirSA .s ing th eC IK decrea sed thehSA beca useit w as laborin tensiveto operatea nd forced them to stay "hea dsd o w n "in thecrew stat ion fo rextended periods oft ime.A ll th e pilots emphat ica l ly stated tha tth e M E P operatorneed sa nigh tvis ion device so tha thecould seeouts ideth eaircraft atnight .uring F D T E I,th e air c rewsfrequent lyconduc t edcont inuousscanswit h th e T A S ,w h i c h prevented th e M E P opera torfrom ha ving a sensor to seeouts ideth eaircraftatnigh tfo rlong periodsoft ime.herefore ,th e M E P opera torcould n o thelp maintain a ir spacesurveil lanceand localsecurity around th eaircraft.hepilots reported during post-missiondiscuss ions thatlackofa nigh tvis iondeviceforth eM E P opera tor w o u l d reduceth e probabil i ty ofaircraftsurvivability during t raining and c o m b a tmissions beca useth e M E P opera t orcouldn o thelpmainta in air spacesurvei l lance .A ll th epilots reported that th eheading tapeon th e H M D should bescreenstabilized andshould n o tm o v e ,ba sed o n aircraft m o v e m e n t .h ey reported tha tth e hea dingtape w asunreadable and distracting whenit m o v e d in theirF O V .hreepilots also reported tha tthey occasionally exper iencedspat ia ldisorientation beca useofth em o v ing heading tape.

27


38/130

Tab le14 . os timportantcrew stationdesignchangesrecommendedby pilots ComponentorFunction

C IK

H M D (HIDSS)

"N o Target"Function

Collect ive

POls

T I A P

FuelSystem

Required DesignChangesIncorporate"T A B "function.Keyboardlayoutshould bea"Q W E RT Y "configurat ion.N e e dtolocate C IK higherin crew stationso thatpilots caneasily shif tgazefrom C IK to MF D s and outside th ecrew station.Need additionaldefaul tdataentries(e.g.,gridzone identifier)to decreaset ime required to enterdatainto textfields.N e e dslew hook,laser,trigger,andscanfunctioncontrolsonCIK. hiswouldprovideacentralized locationin th ecrew stationfo r performing taskswith th eslew hook,laser,t r iggerand scanfunctions.N e e dto havetextappearonth eSM D asitistypedusing theC IK (a l lowspilotsto keeptheirheadsup and help mainta inSA).Pilotin backseatneedsto havecapability(12)to se eoutside aircraft atnightto help mainta inair spacesurveillance Heading tapeneedsto bescreenstabilizedto enhancereadabi l i ty .T o increase pilotsituationawarenessofbattlefieldelements,needth ecapability to dropanoverlayiconin th eH M D visualscene.Need th ecapability to reacquirea targetafterithas been "n o targeted"("RecycleBin"or"Undo"capability).T heradio selectswitchactuat ionfeelsth es a m ein eachaxisthatitismoved .Thismakesitdifficultto determinewhether y ou ar eselecting radiosorfrequencies.Need moredistinctiveshapecoding of th eswitch.T he"N o Targe t"buttonand"DetailsButton"are to oeasy toinadvertent lyactuatebecause they are closetogetherandsimilarlyshaped.N e e dto shapecode,spacefurtherapart,orplaceasmal lbarrierbetween th eswitches to helpth epiloteasily differentiate betweenth etw o switches .T heradiofrequencyswitchand slew-to-own button needto beseparatedfurtherapar t .heyare to oclosetogether andcausedinadvertentchangingofradiosand frequenciesseveralt imesduringFDTE I .T odecreaset imerequired fo rartillery engagement ,need th ecapability to drop artillery on aPOLT o decreaset imerequiredfo rartil leryengagement ,needto haveth etargetnumber appearonth eT I A P fo ral lartillery missions.his wouldallow th epilotto quicklymatch missionswith targets when conduct ing mult iplemissions.Need to haveth eaircraftM EP automat ical lycalcula teth efuelb u m - o u tt ime.Thiscapability w asnotmodeledduring FDTE I.Needan alarm thattellsth epilotthatheha s"XX"minutesto "bingo". he"bingo"alarmneedsto beassocia tedwith arouteto th eF A R P (o rotherappropria terefuel inglocation),andnot astraightlinedistanceto agrid.Need a"ground t rackdisplay"functiononth eT S D .his funct ionwouldassistpilotsduring reconmissionsby showingthemexactlywhereth e aircrafthasf lown.twouldel iminateconfusionaboutwhich areasth eaircrafthascovered

28


39/130

T S D during th ereconmission.o decrease th et imerequiredto plan a routewith gridssentvia a d igi ta lmessage ,th epilotneeds to beableto view adigitalm e s s a g eand th eT SD "Locate" funct iona tth es a m et ime.N otbeingableto view a digitalm e s s a g eandth eT SD "Locate" funct ionatth e s a m e t ime forces th e pilot to writed o w n th e grid coordinateshereceivesvia th e digitalmessage ,closeth edigitalm e s s a g e ,

open theT SD "Locate"screenandthen enter th egridsintoT SD "Locate".eed to havea set ofpresetmessages to choosefrom on the T SD (e.g.,spo treports). his would decrease th et imerequired to constructmessages .Scan Information

T o helpidentifyareasthatanother Comanche hasscannedand thereby reduce th e t ime requiredfor reconnaissance,th e aircraft need to beable to sha rescaninformat ion.orexample,pilotsneed to beableto t ransmi t"Retain Scan"informat ion to otheraircraft.A SE A S E auditory warningshouldgive clockposition ofthreatinsteadofmagnet icdegreesheading.his wouldhelp pilotsto reactquicker to th rea tifA SE warning w asclock position (i.e.,"laser2o"clock").tillneed to haveth e

magnet i cheading visually displayedon th e T S D .Rem o t e Hellfire Function

T he"show-on-map"funct ionshouldslew theT A Sonto th e target . h is would reduce th et ime requiredto engagea target with a Hellfiremissile.l so ,th e30 and60 safety fansshould bedynamicandm o v ewith theaircraft .A T D - C N eed capability to changealabelthathasbeenincorrectly assigned by th eA T D -C.

Weapon 's B ay Doors N eed avisualindication that th eweaponsbay doorsa re open.h is wil lhelp prevent th epilotfrom inadvertently leaving thew e a p o n sbaydoors open.T A S eed aswitchon th esidearm controller to bring up T A SB U P S withonly onebutton pushin caseofanemergency .

he radara nd T A Sfunct ionsshould beseparateso thatth epilotscan operateth e sensorsindependent ly .Battle D a m a g e A ssessm en t When a targetis destroyed,a symbolneedsto appea rnextto th e targeticon to show thatit is destroyed.

EOTADS T hepilotsreported thatitw asverydifficuU to manua l ly t rackobjectswith th eE O T A D S w he n th e aircraft wasmoving because th e rateofth eslew hook switchw asto osensitive.hey requested that th eratesensitivity ofth e slew hookbedecreased.

Severalt imesduringFDTE I,th e pilotsaccidentally"n otargeted"icons(e.g.,wingman)on theirdisplays.Becausetherew as nocapability fo rpilots to reacquireiconsthatthey "n otargeted,"they lostSA of where th eicon(e.g.,wingman)w assituated.When actuating th eradioselectswitch on th ecollective,th epilotscould noteasily determinewhether they selected adifferentradio orselected a pre-setradiofrequency.heproblem w as

29


40/130

tha tth e radioselectswitch posit ionfeh th esam e in eachaxisforradio selectand fo r radio frequency select.h is caused confusion,f requenterrors,and increasedwork loa dw h e n they intendedto se lec ta differentradioand inadvertent lyselected aradio f requency instead (o r viceversa) .Severalt imesduringF D T E I,th e pilotsinadvertent lypressedth e"n o ta rget"but tonw h e n they w e r et ry ingto press th e"details"button (and vice versa).hey reportedthatth e prob lem w asattributable to th eswi tchesbeing to oclosetogetherand similar lyshaped.he pilotsalso reportedtha tth e radiof requency switch w asto o closeto th e "s lew- t o-own"button.h ey occasionally pressedth eradiof requencyswitch w h e n t ry ingto presss lew- t o-ownbutton.T heF D T E Isof tware did notallow th e pilots to perform an artillery "callfo rfire"directly o n a poin tof interest(POI).hepilotsstated thatthey needed to hav e thiscapability in order to minimize th e t imerequiredto drop artilleryon atarget.hey alsostated thatth eta rgetn u m b e r fo ran art illery miss ionshould a ppea ro n th e TIAP .his w o u l dhelp them keept rackofw h a tta rgetth eartilleryis engagingduringmult ip lemissions.T heF D T E Isoftware did notautomatical ly calculateth efuelb u m - o u t t ime.he pilotsstated tha tthey need fiielburn-ou tt imecalculated because it wo u ld help them know approximately h ow long they ha vebefore needing to return to b aseorfl y to a forward area rearm and refiielpoint .he pilots alsostated thatthey need an audioalarm thatletsthem know h ow m u c h t ime beforethey willbeat"b ingo"fuel.T he pilots stated thatplanning a routewith grids thatweresentto them v ia a digi ta lmessa gew asvery t imeconsuming b ecau seitoften tookalong t ime to findth egrids o n th eT S D o ruse th e "locate"funct ion.lso,they couldnothav e th edigitalm e s s a g edisplayed and perform a "locate"funct iono n th e mult ifunct iondisplays atth es a m et ime.They requestedthata quickermet hod bedeve lopedfo r planning aroute with grids sentv ia a digitalm essage .odecrease th et ime requiredto const ructm essages ,th epilotsstated thatthere should bea setofpre-se tmessa ges availableto cho o sefrom on th eT SD (e.g.,spotreports) .T he pilots occasionally b ecam e confused aboutw h i c hareason th ebatt lefieldthey h ad reconnoitered during a mission.h ey r e c o m m e n d e dthata ground t rack display fijnctionbeimplement ed on th eT S D.hegro u ndtrack funct ionwo u ld sho w thepilots exactly w h e r eth e aircrafthadf lown and w o u l dm in im iz econfiasionasto which areasthey h ad reconnoitered during th emission.T he pilotswerenotableto sharesensorscan information b e tween th esimulators .his inhibited th e performa nceoftheirteam coordinat iontaskssuchasproviding localsecurity fo rth eotheraircraftand conduct ing overlapping scans during reconnaissance.h epilots r e c o m m e n d e dtha tth eaircraftbecapable ofshar ingsensorscaninformation with otheraircraft.

30


41/130

T oallow pilotsto rea c tm o r equickly to aircraft survivability equipment(ASE)auditory threa twa rnings ,th e pilots r e c o m m e n d e d that th eclock posit ion(e.g.,2o'clock)ofth e threat be a nnounced to th e a ircrew instead ofma gnet icdegrees heading.T o reduceth et ime required to engagea threa twit ha missi le ,th e pilots r e c o m m e n d e d thatth e "show-on-map"funct ion should slew th e T A Sonto th e target.oreduce th eprobabil i ty offratricide o rcolla tera ld am age ,th e pilots r e c o m m e n d e dtha tth e30and60safety fansshould m o v e wi th th e aircraft.T he aided ta rgetdetect ion-class if ica t ion( A T D - C )system occasional ly ass igned an incorrectlabelto a target .h e pilots stated thatthey neededth ecapability to changelabelsthatare incorrect lyass igned b y th e A T D - C .DuringF D T E I, th e pilotsinadvertent lyleft the weapon'sb ay doorsin the "open"posi t ionsevera lt imes.eaving th e weapon'sb ay doors "open"increasedth e ra da rcrosssect iona nd drag of th eaircraft.he pilots r e c o m m e n d e d thata v isualindica t ionb e providedon th eHIDSS to cu e th e pilotsthatth e weapon'sbay dooris in th e "open"posi t ion .T h e pilotsr e c o m m e n d e d thata swi t ch b eprovidedin th ecrew stations w h i c h enables themto quickly display th e T A S back-up pilotagesys tem (BUP S)wit honly one but ton pushduring an emergency . T h e pilotsreported tha ti t w as very difficult to m anu al ly t rack wit h th eelectro-optic ta rgetacquis i t ion and designat ion system ( E O T A D S )w h e n th eaircraft w asmoving beca useth e rateofth e slew h o o k switch w asto o sensitive.h ey r e c o m m e n d e d tha t th e ratesensit ivity of th eslew h o o kswi t ch be reduced.T o enha ncecrew SA and helpthem perform batt led a m a g eassessm en t ,th e pilotsr e c o m m e n d e d thata s y m b o la ppea rnextto th e target ,indicat ingtha ti t hasbeen destroyed.3.3.3 AnthropometricAccommodat ion ofPilotsO ne problemwit h anthropometric a ccommoda t ion of th e pilotsin theC P C and E D S crew stat ions w as noted during F D T E I.h e pilotwit h th elargestbut tock-kneelength (83rd percent i le ma le soldier) and la rgestcrotch heigh t(90th percent i lem alesold ier)mea surement s reported thath is r ightkneeoccasionally b u m p e d th eside-arm controllerduring flight.W h e nhe b u m p e d th e s ide-arm controller, it ca usedinadvertentcontro linput.h e prob lem occurred w h e n th e pilotplaced his feetflato n th ef loorof th ecrew station with h is l o w e rle g a tan approximate 9 0 angle to th efloor.e did n otexperiencea problem w h e n his feetwere pla cedon th e footrests.h e prob lem w as w o r s ew h e n th eavia torwo rea kneeboa rdon h is r ightknee.ven thoughth e dimens ionsofth eC P C and E D S crew stationswere notident icalto th eant icipa teddesign ofth e product ion C o m a n c h eaircraft,this issue shouldbeevaluated viah u m a n f iguremodel ing to determine if itwil lbea prob lem with largeaviatorsin the produc t ionaircraft.

3 1


42/130

3.3.4MOPPGlovesEachpilotworemission-orientedprotectiveposture(MOPP)gloveswithinsertsduringonemission.Allpilotsreportedthatitwassignificantlymoredifficulttoactuatecrewstationswitches,buttons,andthetriggerguardontheSACwiththeMOPPglovesversusstandardflightgloves.ilotswithsmallerhandshadaboutthesamelevelof difficultyaspilotswithlargerhands.hecommentsthatthepilotsmadeaboutthedifficultytheyexperiencedwhilewearingtheMOPPglovesarelistedinTable5.Note:nepilothadtoreturn tohisunitbeforetheendof FDTEIanddidnotwearMOPPgloves.Tab le15 .ilotcomments abou tusabili typroblemsw he nthey woreM O P P glovesPilotHandM easurements

PilotHandBread th60th % HandLength87th % HandCircumference80th %

Pilot2HandBreadth 45th % Hand Length87th % HandCircumference69th %

Pilot3 HandBreadth14th% Hand Length87th % HandCircumference66th%

Pilot4HandBreadth1 9 t h% HandLength13th% HandCircumference5th % Pilot5 HandBreadth 2nd % HandLength71st% HandCircumference45th % Pilot6HandBreadth80th % HandLength80th % HandCircumference9 0 th% Pilot7Hand Breadth67th% HandLength 44th% HandCircumference74th%

PilotComments C IK w ashard to manipula tewithnuclear,biological,chemica l( N B C )glovesalongwith th ehands-on grip( H O G )andSA C switches.Unab leto rapidly engagetargets.riggerguard w asinaccessiblewithglovesT hewarning,caution andadvisory( W C A )ands l ew- to -ownbuttons weredifficultto use withgloves.Automatedflightcontrolsystem(AFCS)trim and polarityswitches(o nSAC)weredifficultto use with gloves.T helong leveratth ebase ofth eSA Cm a d ehandm o v em en tcumbersome.T i m eto ensurethatth er ightbutton w asselected w asdoubled withN B Cgloves.ouldnotknow if th ecorrectbuttonw asselectedbv feel.Trying to raisetrigger guardisdifficultdueto th ebulkinessofth eglove.When t ry ingto selectgun from th eside-arm controller,th e bulkiness ofth eglovepushed th eselectswitcht owardth emissile.N o targetanddetailsswitchare pretty m u c himpossibleto feelth edifference (between th e switches)w he nwearing th egloves.N B Cglovesmadeitimpossibleto feelbuttons.hadto visually searchfo rswitchesan dbuttons. adeal ltaskss lower andm o r et ime consuming.Difficulttoinputfreetextvia CIK.M a d eitdifficultto selectonlygun.Accidenta l lyselected missile whiletrying toselectgun.KeptpressingFind Target 'buttonw he nt ryingto press'NoTarget 'buttononhands-ongrip.Gloves causedm a n y difficultieswithmostal l"switchology". I hadsignif icantdifficulty withslew hookswitches,targetfind,m apscale,zoom,no-targetdetail,weaponsselect,etc.

32


43/130

3.4 M A N P R IN T M easu resofPerformance( M O P s )Fol lowing is a s u m m a r y ofth epilotresponses to th eM A N P R I N T M O P sobta ined during post - miss iondiscuss ions a nd A A R s :MOP 2-5-1.ercentofcrew errorsattributabletoinducedfatigueor workloadT h e pilotsreported tha t nocrew errors w e r eattributableto fatigue a nd a pproxima t e ly30% ofcrew errorsw e r e attributable to high wo rklo ad .hepilots and A R L personne ldef inedcrew errorsasmis t a kesm a d e w h e n they performed th eA T M tasks(e.g.,misident if ica t ion of threa tvehicle ,fratricide).h e pilotsstated thatm o s tcrew errors caused b y high work loa d occurredw h e n they enga ged or imexpectedly encountered a threa t vehic le .MOP -5-2. Percentofcrewatingshatassessedth eCPCnterfacescontributingoexcessiveworkloadduring flightandmissiontasksT h e pilotsreported thatth eC P C interface contributedto periods ofexcess ivework loa d during 100% of th em iss io ns .h e pilots stated tha tusability prob lems wit h th eC IK and th e radio selectswitch o n th e collect ivewere th ebigges tcontributorsto periods ofexcess ivework loa d in th e C P C .Note thatth e pilots experienced th es a m e usability prob lems wit h th e C IK and radio selectswitch o n th ecollect ivein th eE D S .MOP2-5-3.ercentofcrewratingsthatassessed theCPCinterfaceas lessthanadequate forperformingflightandmissiontasksT h e pilots reported tha tth eoveral lC P C interface w asadequate fo r performing f l ightand miss ion tasks.o w e v e r ,they stated tha tall th e c o m p o n e n tand funct iondesign changes they r e c o m m e n d e d(seeTa ble14)should bem a d eto increaseth eeffect ivenessofth eC P C interface a nd productionaircraft.MOP2-5-4.ercent ofcrewratingsthat assessedtheCPC interface asinhibiting th edecision-makingprocessduringflightandmissiontasksT he pilots reported thatth eoveral lC PC interface did n o tsignificantly inhibitth e decis ion-m a k i n g processduring flightand miss ion tasks.h e pilots aga in reiterated thatallth e co m p o n e n ta n d f imctiondesign cha ngesthey r e c o m m e n d e d(see Tab le14)need to bem a d eto reducework loa d and increaseth e t imethey need to m a k e decis ionsduring miss ions .MOP2-5-5. Percentof crewratingsthatassessedtheCPCinterfaceasinhibitingcrewandteamsituationawarenessT h epilotsreported tha tth eC P C interface modera tely inhibited crew and team SA approximately 30% to 5 0% ofth e t ime during m iss io ns .h epilotsstated tha t th e pr ima ry rea sonsw e r elackofan 12device to m o n i t o rth ea ir space a round th eaircraftw h e n they opera ted th eM EP and th e usabil i ty p r o b l e m swit h th eCIK.h eC IK l imitedtheirSA beca useit w aslaborintensiveto opera te a n d forcedthem to stay "heads d o w n "in th ecrew stat ionfo rextended per iodsoft ime.

33


44/130

Not e tha tth epilots experienced th es a m eprob lemswith th eC IK and lack ofa n 1 2 device in th e E D S .MOP2-5-6. PercentofcrewratingsthatassessedtheCPCinterfaceasinhibitingcrewandteam coordinationtasksT he pilotsreportedthatth eC PC interface inhibited crew andteam coordinat iontasksa pproxima t e ly2 0% to 30% ofth et ime duringmissions.hepilotsstated tha tth epr ima ry rea sonsw e r elack ofan1 2 deviceto moni t or th ea ir spacearo u ndth eaircraftw h e n they opera ted th eM E P and usability prob lemswith th eCIK.h eC IK l imited theircrew and team coordinat ion beca useh caused excessivewo rklo ad ,which decreased th e t im eavailableto perform crew and team coordinat ion tasks.ote thatth e pilotsexperiencedth es a m eprob lems wit hth eC IK a nd lack ofan 1 2 devicein th eE DS .MOP-5-7.ercentofratingsyheSChatassessedth eCPCasnhibitingmissionaccomplishmentT he pilots reportedtha tth eC PC did notsignificantly inhib i tmission a ccompl ishment .owever ,they stated tha tall th ec o m p o n e n tandfunction design changesthey r e c o m m e n d e d(seeTa ble14)need to bem a d eto increaseth eeffect ivenessof th eC P C andproduct ion aircraft.MOP -5-8.ercentof designdifferencesbetweenheCPCandEDShatsubstantiallyimpactedthe performanceofflightandmissiontasksT hepilots reportedthatth edesign differencesb e tweenth eC PC and E D Swere m i n i m a land d id no tsubstantially impa c tth eperforma nceofflightandmission tasks.heonly s ignif icantdifferencethatth epilotsreported bet ween th eC P C and E D Sw asth eactuat ion ofth eradioselectswi tcho n th ecollective.he radiose lec tswitch w asoriented differently on th eC P C versusED Scollective.hepilots often had t roubleremember ing which direction to actuate th eswi tchw h e nrotat ing from ones imula tor to th eother.MOP 2-5-9.requencydistributionofusingswitchesintheComanchecockpit,by missionT hefrequency distribution ofswitch actuat ionsare su m m ar iz ed in Section3.3.5anddepicted in Figures9 t h rough1 1and AppendixJ.3.4.1SwitchActuations byCrew M e m b er sDuringFDTEIBefore F D T E I,th eC PC andE D Swereinstrumented to record all crew stat ionswi tchactuat ionsm a d e by each pilotduringeach mission. totalof254,981switch actuat ionswere m a d eduring th e39 miss ions(see Appendix J) .ixty-three percent(6 3%)ofth eswitch actuat ionswere m a d e by th epilotsw h e nthey operated th eM E P ,and 37% ofth eswitchactuat ionsw e r em a d eby th e pilots w h e n theyflew th eaircraft(seeFigure9).ighty-e ight percent( 8 8 % )ofth eswitches tha tw e r eactuatedwereassociated withth ecommunica t ion su b sys tem (6 6 %)and th eT A S( 2 2 % )(seeFigure10).h e pilots actuated th e" X M I T "(Transmit) m u c h m o re frequent lythanany ot herswitch.heX M I T switch w asactuated124,055 t imeswhich accounted fo r4 9 % ofall

34


45/130

swi t ch actuat ions .h e X M I T swi t ch w assituated o n thef loorof th e s imula tors ( footswi tch)a nd w a s usedfortalking wit h th eot herpilotin th e aircraft ,thecrew in th eot herC o m a n c h e ,th e T O C ,a nd theground forcesc o m m a n d e r .

Distributiono fSwitch ActuationsbyPilotFunction

Flyingthe Aircraft Operatingthe MEPFigure9 .istribution ofswitch actuat ionsby pilot funct ion.

Percentage o fSwitchActuations B ySystem Function.Weapons2%

Other2% Communica t ionSystem 66 %

Figure10 .ercentage of switchactuat ionsby system function. 3 5


46/130

T o accura tely identify howm a n y swi t ch actuat ionsw e r em a d eby ea ch pilotduring ea ch miss ion ,it w as necessary to reduceb y 50% th e n u m b e rof switch actuat ionsfo r t ransmit on-off,slaveon-off ,laser on-offand h e l m e tt racking sys tem (HTS)slaveon-offW h e n th e pilotdepressed theseswi tchesto act ivatea funct ion,oneswitch actuat ionw a srecorded.When th e pilotlifted h is f inger offth eswi tch ,a not herswitch actuat ion w as recorded even though he released it wit h ina very shortperiod of t ime.o r th e purpose ofident ifying howm a n y switch actuat ionsth e pilotsm a d e to activate a funct ion,th e totaln u m b e rofswitch actuat ions w a s190,372, not2 5 4 , 9 8 1 .Duringea ch miss ion ,th epilotopera t ing th e M E P m a d ea n a vera geof1,538swi t ch actuat ions,and th e pilotf lying th eaircraft m a d ean average 9 03switch actuat ions.ince mostmiss ionslasted approximately 9 0 minutes ,th e pilotopera t ing th e M EP typica lly m

Documents

RAH66 Crew Interface