IAMFSP (International Association of Military Flight Surgeon Pilots)
AsMA PANEL 2000 PRESENTATION

CURRENT AEROMEDICAL CONCERNS IN OPERATIONAL MILITARY AIRCRAFT RE ESCAPE
AND CRASH SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS

Presentation coordinators CDR K. M. Belland, CAPT James Baker USN (Ret),
USN, Lt. Col Phil Johnson

ABSTRACTS:

Purpose of Panel: The International Association of Military Flight
Surgeon Pilots is dedicated to improving military flight safety through
combining the two areas of professional expertise including the human
factors engineering and actual flight experience in the extremely
demanding military environment.

Method:  Members of the society were polled to gather the most dynamic
and applicable areas of human research.

Results:  The topic of operational concerns reference escape and crash
survivability systems past, present and future was selected for the AsMA
2000 panel.

Conclusions:  Crash survivability / human engineering continues to be a
area of highest return potential in saved lives and saved military
assets (aircraft).  The panel will give a comprehensive view of where we
are and where we are going in the escape and crash survivability systems
world.  Goal is to improve aviation safety and mission effectiveness
through analysis of current crashworthy systems.

1.  Historic overview of escape and crash survival systems." (System
acceptance, training, anecdotal information including manual system
flight test program for US Navy U-S-3A Viking aircraft). CAPT Baker* USN
(Ret) / CAPT Dave Brown, USN NASA Astronaut

 
2.  EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, AUTOMATIC RECOVERY AND EJECTION SYSTEMS -
OVER THE HORIZON.  K. M. Belland*, CDR MC USN

Purpose:  A review was conducted to evaluate emerging technologies and
relate them to actual Naval (US Navy and US Marine Corps) aviation class
alpha (greater than one million dollars or death) mishaps. Method:  A
comprehensive review of all recorded class alpha mishaps from 1987-96
was conducted at China Lakes to include judge advocate general (JAG)
investigations, mishap investigative reports (MIR) and safety center
review.  Mishaps were classified into areas of recent technology
development.

Results:  Areas of technology development to focus on in the future are
those that were directly associated with loss of life and aircraft.
Technology areas included Emergency Task Management, Automatic Ejection
Systems (AES), Midair Collision Avoidance system (MCAS) and Automatic
Predictive Ground Collision Avoidance System (APGCAS).

Conclusions:  It is time to match up emerging technologies, advanced
computer processors and increased computer memory capacity to create a
safety buffer around all aircraft.  The development of this technology
will directly decrease mishaps and save scarce department of defense
(DOD) assets by reducing human factors related mishaps.

3. Ejection systems Presenter: Col Robert Munson*, USAF

4.  T-38 Escape System: A Technical Assessment R Billings*, L Rogers, L
Glover

Purpose:  This assessment was conducted to compare the performance of
the proprietary, second generation ejection seat installed in the
Northrop, T-38A Talon and F-5 Tiger aircraft with the third generation
ACES II ejection seat installed in numerous USAF aircraft including the
McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle and the Lockheed F-16 Falcon. Method:  A
comprehensive review of all recorded USAF T-38A ejection's from 1981 to
1995 was conducted at the Air Force Safety Center. Ejection's were
classified by injury category as either minor/none, major or fatal.
Using the sample of all ejection's since the last modification on the
T-38 ejection seat (N=48) made it possible to compare seat performance
with the ACES II seat (N=355) with respect to fatality and major injury.

Results:  The airframes hosting the respective ejection seats differ
(advanced undergraduate pilot training and fighter lead-in vs. aerial
combat and weapon delivery), but the speed regimes and ejection
situations are similar.  The study found that both the major injury and
fatality rates in the Northrop ejection seat were approximately twice
that of the ACES II seat.

Conclusions:  The ACES II ejection seat technology (vintage 1970's) has
been surpassed by later technology with a greater potential to save
lives and prevent injuries.  While the risk of ejection is low,
consideration should be given to replacing the ejection seats in the
T-38/F-5 aircraft series.

5. "USAF Ejection seat comparison" Presenter: Col Peter Mapes*, USAF,
MC, SFS Pilot-Physician.  This presentation will require two sessions
for a total of 30 minutes (abstract 4 and 5).

Purpose: This tutorial hosts presenters from the Martin-Baker, Aces II
and K-36 ejection seat programs for the purpose of informing operational
flight surgeons about seat characteristics, technologies, capabilities
and applications. This abstract requires a 30-minute presentation and
question period and is part of the IAMFSP panel session on aircrew
egress and escape. Method: Representatives from the aforementioned
ejection seat programs will provide seven to ten minute tuturials
concerning their system applications technologies and capabilities.

Results: After listening to this presentation, operational flight
surgeons will possess an adequate context to understand the other
presentations to be given at the IAMFSP panel.

Conclusions: Ejection seat technologies and capabilities are advancing
at a rapid pace. Manufacturers are using innovative concepts which
dramatically change the way ejection seats function. Flight surgeons and
other professionals dealing with ejection seat technologies need to stay
abreast of developments in this branch of aircrew protection.

6. "USAF Ejection seat comparison" Presenter: Col Peter Mapes*, USAF,
MC, SFS Pilot-Physician. This presentation will require two sessions for
a total of 30 minutes (abstract 4 and 5).

Purpose: This tutorial hosts presenters from the Martin-Baker, Aces II
and K-36 ejection seat programs for the purpose of informing operational
flight surgeons about seat characteristics, technologies, capabilities
and applications. This abstract requires a 30-minute presentation and
question period and is part of the IAMFSP panel session on aircrew
egress and escape. Method: Representatives from the aforementioned
ejection seat programs will provide seven to ten minute tuturials
concerning their system applications technologies and capabilities.

Results: After listening to this presentation, operational flight
surgeons will possess an adequate context to understand the other
presentations to be given at the IAMFSP panel.

Conclusions: Ejection seat technologies and capabilities are advancing
at a rapid pace. Manufacturers are using innovative concepts which
dramatically change the way ejection seats function. Flight surgeons and
other professionals dealing with ejection seat technologies need to stay
abreast of developments in this branch of aircrew protection.

7. Space shuttle airborne escape system, Jim Bagian*, MD, PE (former
NASA Astronaut)

8. Development of the International Space Station Crew Return Vehicle,
Concepts and Concerns, S.L. Johnston*, J.C. Baker*, J.F. Muratore,
Medical Operation Branch and X-38/CRV Project Office, NASA Johnson Space
Center Houston, Texas.

Introduction: The X-38 is the first NASA designed and built spacecraft
since the Mercury program. It is NASA's prototype crew escape system for
the Phase III 2005 International Space Station (ISS).  The Crew Return
Vehicle (CRV) development program was initiated in 1995 and utilizes
USAF 1963 X-24 aircraft and US Army 1987 guided parafoil delivery system
technologies. It is the first crew escape vehicle to utilize re-entry
parafoil technology.  The CRV mission is to safely return four to seven
de-conditioned crewmembers and or one incapacitated ill or injured
crewmember from the ISS.

Purpose:  This presentation will focus on the following crew escape
challenges for the operational CRV: Rapid ingress and evacuation from
the ISS, emergent stand alone medical care, medical and evacuation
mission timelines, seat and cockpit design accommodations for seven 5th
to 95th percentile crewmembers, decontamination or purge of the crew
compartment, limitations of CRV spin rates and sustained acceleration
forces during vehicle separation and re-entry, supersonic and subsonic
chute and parafoil deployments, automated and human command and control
capabilities during flight phases and critical deceleration events,
injury and survivability risks utilizing the Brinkley Dynamic Response
Model for landing impacts, physiologic re-adaptation countermeasures,
landing site characteristics, search and rescue force capabilities and
training, and deconditioned and ill or injured egress or extraction
limitations.  These and other concepts and concerns will be discussed
with future research and development activities presented.

9. Helicopter airborne escape and crash survivability systems"
Presenter: Lt. Col. Phil Johnson*

10. ASMA-A-001524-ASMA Abstract file.  HUMAN INTERACTION WITH DEPLOYING
AIR BAGS.  RD Banks* and RM Harding*. Biodynamic Research Corporation,
San Antonio, Texas.

Purpose.   Properly designed air bag restraint in aircraft will likely
enhance occupant survivability.  Air bag technology has proven effective
in preventing death and serious injury in motor vehicle accidents.
However, serious injury has been reported in occupants who were exposed
directly to the force of the deploying air bag.  Rarely, the air bag
itself has been damaged.  Aircrew who wear ancillary equipment, such as
night vision goggles or helmets, may be at increased risk of injury if
they are close to the deploying air bag. This presentation will
demonstrate how injuries might occur in such cases, using high-speed
film images of a laboratory-based air bag deployment.  A case involving
damage to an air bag will be presented. Method.  A Hybrid III mannequin
was postured in a driving posture with the head and neck positioned
close to air bag module doors.  Film recording of the deployment was
made at a rate of 4000 frames/second.

Results.  The deployment of the air bag, including interaction with the
Hybrid III mannequin, was captured on approximately 50 individual frames
of film.  Inspection of these images demonstrated interaction of the air
bag and mannequin consistent with punch out, bag slap, and membrane
mechanisms of injuries.  Conclusions.  The observations made in this
study enhanced our understanding of how injuries occur in actual cases.
In one recent case, human interaction with a deploying air bag resulted
in the teeth piercing and damaging a deploying air bag.   Protective and
ancillary equipment may expose aircrew to risk of injury during air bag
deployments in aircraft.  Damage to the air bag is also possible.

11. An examination of civilian general aviation mishaps-- factors that
lead to survival-- or injury and death." Presenter: Dwight Holland*,
Ph.D./M.D. Candidate

12. ANALYSIS OF CRASHWORTHY FACTORS IN BRITISH ARMY AIR CORPS HELICOPTER
MISHAPS. Col Malcolm Braithwaite*

Purpose:  Improve aviation safety and mission effectiveness through
analysis of current crashworthy systems. Method:  A comprehensive review
of recorded British Army Air Corps mishaps was conducted to include
mishap investigative reports (MIR) and safety center reviews.

Results:  An analysis of mishaps yielded causal factors of British Army
Air Corps mishaps in the UK. Conclusions:  Key crashworthy factors have
become apparent that have directly reduced the number and extent of
mishaps in the UK, a review of current indicators and an emphasis on
high risk areas are sure to decrease the number and extent of mishaps in
the future.

13. ASMA-A-001504-ASMA.  Ejecting with NVGs: An Overview.  J.C.
Antonio*.  Naval Air Warfare Center/Aircraft Division, Patuxent River,
MD 20670

Background.  Ever since pilots of ejection seat aircraft began wearing
night vision goggles (NVGs) there has been concern about the potential
for injury should the goggle not be removed prior to ejecting.  The RAF
responded with the fielding of an automatic release system for the
NiteOp goggle that automatically detaches at the start of the ejection
sequence.  The USN instituted a similar program for the Cats Eye NVG,
but the system was never fielded.  There has been investigative work by
the USAF and the USN relative to a similar system for the F4949 variant,
but currently there is no plan to field a system.

Discussion.  The most current data concerning the potential for injury
during an ejection will be reviewed and rationale for previous decisions
regarding automatic release systems will be provided.  This will be
followed by brief overviews of all ejection's during which aircrew
failed to remove their goggles.  The overviews will include such
information as aircraft type, NVG type, ejection dynamics (e.g.,
airspeed, flight profile, etc.) and resulting injuries (if any).
Additionally, data from ground testing will be reviewed.  Next, NVG and
mount designs will be discussed relative to the various forces present
during an ejection.  Using all of the preceding information, the
ejection sequence relative to the effect on NVGs will be discussed
(e.g., initial ejection forces, windblast effects, etc.).  Finally, the
net effects of ejecting while wearing NVGs will be assessed relative to
differences in NVG/mount design, aircraft design, ejection seat design,
and ejection sequencing.

Summary.  There are many variables to consider when discussing the
potential for injury when ejecting with NVGs.  This information will
serve to review those variables and to eliminate some of the
misconceptions accumulated over the years.

14.  PASSENGER EVACUATION TRIAL ON A MILITARY TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT. PC
Bridges*, SR Brown and MD Glanfield. DERA Center for Human Sciences,
Farnborough, Hampshire, UK, GU14 0LZ.

Introduction: The UK MOD required a live passenger evacuation trial
carried out on a new transport aircraft, the Lockheed Martin C130J.
Aircraft in this category had previously not been required to
demonstrate passenger evacuation, but for this trial "worst case
scenarios" were requested.  Evacuation criteria are not rigidly
specified for transport aircraft owing to the variety of passenger,
troop and cargo configurations carried, but existing commercial and
military legislation were used as yardsticks by which to make the
assessments.  Crew procedures and safety equipment were also studied to
gain maximum information from the trial.

Methods:  Four evacuations were evaluated.  A full load of
non-combatants evacuated through: 1) a reduced number of ground level
exits; 2) the roof hatches, to simulating a sea-ditching.  A full
paratroop complement repeated this.  Safety of the participants and
observers was paramount, but damage to the aircraft also had to be
negligible as only 2 were available for trials.  Specialized
scaffolding, ramps, and padding around all identified hazards was used.
Experienced aircrew, medics, and observers monitored the evacuations,
assisted by video monitoring inside and outside the aircraft.  A
rehearsed set of signals was devised to stop the trial if necessary.

Results:  All evacuations were completed satisfactorily and without
injury.  Analysis of video recordings, participants' questionnaires, and
observations identified changes that could be made to procedures,
equipment design and seat layout to improve evacuation capability.
Conclusions:  Live evacuation trials still provide valuable information
that might improve survivability following and aircraft incident.  New
military aircraft entering service may require similar assessments, but
careful planning, using available information and expertise, can
minimize personal injuries sometimes associated with these trials.
  1