Army Aviation Digest - Sep 1989

7/28/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Sep 1989

1/68


2/68

PROFESSIONAL BULLETIN1-89-8. SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989

1 Army Aviation Branch Change of Command2 AATO: Transitioning Technology to the Fighting Force,COL John E. Kempster14 Meeting the Challenge of Sand and Rain Impacts on MainRotor Blades, Mr. Donald N. Arents18 Longbow, Mr. John Shostak

20 Crashworthy Helicopters Save Lives and Equipment,Mr. Leroy T. Burrows22 Special Operations Aviation Battalion Activation23 Aviation Medicine Report: Occupational Health and ATC,MAJ Kevin T. Mason, M.D.26 Aviation Personnel Notes: Commissioned Officers' Issues;Noncommissioned Officers' Issues; Aviation WarrantOfficer Aviation Branch Insignia Survey Result30 Eagles, Wings and Other Things, CW4 Harry W. Sweezey36 Want to Get Ahead? BG Robert S. Frix38 Aviation Logistics: Today's Maintenance Manager/Maintenance Test Pilot Training, CPT Michael Neulanderand Ms. Jane Hoppen42 AVSCOM: Aircraft Component Management,

COL Gary D. Johnson45 PEARL'S46 New Helmet for Rearming and Refueling Personnel,

CPT John B. Rudi49 DES Report to the Field: Curse All These Regulations!MAJ Peter Neuhaus50 ATC Focus: Air Traffic Controllers-Airborne All the Way,LT M. Scott Andrews and SSG Roger D. Martin52 Training the Threat Trainer, CPT Paul M. Steele57 The Grafenwoehr Effect, CW2 William B. Swears60 Division Attack Helicopter Deep Operations,MAJ Rick D. Hancock65 USAASO Sez: Aviation Mapping, Charting and GeodesyIssues, Mr. Thomas J. Callahan Jr.Back Cover: U.S. Precision Helicopter Team Wins WorldHelicopter Championship

Cover: Aviation Applied TechnologyDirectorate (AA TD): TransitioningTechnology to the Fighting Force. Thedirectorate conducts vital aviationtechnology research for worldwiderotorcraft applications. Cover illustratioby Lynn Spangler, Visual, Engineeringand Graphics Branch, AATD, Ft. EustisVA.

This month theAviation Digestwelcomes the U.S.Army AviationSystemsCommand'sDirectorate forMaintenance, St. page 42Louis, MO, as a regular departmentalfeature. "Aircraft ComponentManagement," by Colonel Gary D.Johnson, Director of Maintenance,introduces this new department.

Major General Rudolph Ostovich IIICommander, U.S. Army Aviation CenterPatricia S. KitchellEditor

By order of the Secretary of the Army:Carl E. VuonoGeneral, U.S. ArmyChief of StaffOfficial:William J. Meehan IIBrigadier General, U.S. ArmyThe Adjutant General

The mission of the U.S. Army Aviation Digest profeSSional bulletin (USPS 415-350)is to provide information of an operational, functional nature conceming safety andaircraft accident prevention, air traffic control, training and doctnne, maintenance,operations, research and development, aViation medicine and other related dataInformation contained In this bulletin does not change or supersede any informationpresented in other offiCial Army publications.

Articles. photos and Items of Interest on Army Aviation are InVited. Dircommunication is authorized by writing Editor, U.S. Army AviatIon DIgest, P.O. B699, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5042, or by calling either AUTOVON 558-3178 or Commer205-255-3178. Manuscnpts retumed only upon request.

The Digest IS an offiCial Department of the Army professional bulletin publishedbn;nonthly under the supervision of the commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center. Viewsexpressed herein are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army nor theU.S. Army Aviation Center. Photos are U S Army unless otherwise specified. Useof the masculine pronoun is intended to include both genders unless otherwise stated.Matenal may be reprinted provided credit is given to the AVIation Digest and to theauthor unless otherwise indicated.

Second class postage paid at DaleVille, AL, and additional mailing offices.Active Army, Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units receive distribut

as outlined In DA Pamphlet 25-33. To complete DA Form 12-99-R, enter form num12-Q5-E. block number 0014 and quantity. Also use DA Form 12-99-R for any chanIn distribution requirements Submit to your publications control officer.

Personal copies of the Digest can be ordered from the Superintendent of DocumenU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Superintendent of Documents, UGovemment Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402


3/68

Lieutenant General Ellis D. ParkerA s I left Ft. Rucker, AL, and the U.S. Army

of the Armylt tremendous pride in all aspects of Armyam exceedingly proud of the contribuby those who pioneered Army A via

in the 1940s. I am equally proudhose who, through their imagination and hardrk, contributed continuously through the 1950sthe eventual creation of the

Branch in 1983.In the last few years, we have made giant stridesforce modernization with the fielding of the

attack helicopter and the OH-58DWe have developed and

Anny Aviation Modernizationand the Army Aviation Personnel Plan. Thehod to modernize the

Aviation Branch officer and enlistedand managed to improveand combat readiness.

We have become responsible for all Branchlogistics-with the

the U.S. Army Aviation Logisticsair traffic services-with the incorArmy Air Traffic Control Activity

the Aviation Branch. We have. updated ourand doctrine as well as tactics,

and procedures. We have reviewed ourand modified our programs of

in keeping withdemands for the training of aviators,air traffic

and flight operations specialists.I am especially proud of the outstanding mend women who served with me while I was chiefthe Aviation Branch. I am sincerely grateful

and wish each the very best astake part in the growth of their Assault!

ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

Major General Rudolph Ostovich IIIA s Army Aviation prepares to enter a newera of the nineties, it is appropriate to pause andgive tribute to Lieutenant General Ellis D. Parker

and the masterful leadership he provided theBranch during its formative years. Assuming theposition ofBranch Chief shortly after its formation,General Parker had the difficult task of pullingtogether the pieces of Anny Aviation. He did sowith a clear understanding of mission, a visionfor the future, genuine commitment and superbleadership. The development and refinement ofdoctrine, institution of officer and NCO basic andadvanced courses, and consolidation of air trafficcontrol and aviation logistics within the Branchare but a few examples of his truly magnificentaccomplishments. Together, the Parkers made Ft.Rucker a superb place to live and work. Certainlyall Branch members join me in wishing themsuccess and happiness for the future.Now that the Aviation Branch has matured forseveral years, we can look forward to a period ofeven greater contribution to the Army and to thenational defense, despite inevitable constraints onresources. Anny A viatioh has ably demonstrated"value added" to virtually all aspects of military operations representing relevant combatpower, whether performing traditional missionsas part of forward deployed forces in Europe orassisting drug interdiction efforts along oursovereign borders. We cannot, however, res t on ourlaurels.Now, more than ever before, we must build onpast successes to achieve a new dimension ofexcellence. There is work to be done in training,doctrine, leader development, force design andmateriel requirements in order to realize ArmyAviation's full potential. Together, we will succeed.

1


4/68

2

T HE JULY 1983 issue oAviation Digest devotedseveral pages to an article byColonel Emmett F. Knight, thencommander of the Anny's Applied Technology Laboratory, FtEustis, VA. With time comeschange. The organization is nowknown as the Aviation AppliedTechnology Directorate (AATD)a field activity of the U.S. AnnyAviation Systems Command(AVSCOM) St. Louis, MO. It isstill at Ft. Eustis, and still conducts vital aviation technologyresearch for worldwide rotorcrafapplications. This update articlefocuses on the AATD missionand functions, and on several keyprograms of promising technology with near-term readinessimplications and far-term airvehicle potential. The mission ofthe directorate is accomplishedthrough inhouse studies, use ofresources of academic institutions and commercial researchorganizations, close cooperationwith other Government agenciesand contracts with aerospaceindustria l firms.As for its organization, onetechnical division, which includes six technical areas; twosupport divisions; a contractingdivision; a quality assuranceoffice; and an office of counselmake up the directorate's team,which operates with a complement of about 325 military andcivilians. Two-thirds of these areengineers, technicians and otherprofessionals associated directlywith research activities. Thedirectorate is organized to handlea large, varied and continuousworkload and maintains a widedegree of flexibility to assure anability to meet unprogramedprojects. A significant inhousecapability exists for structuraland ballistics testing. Facilitiesalso are available for a numberof additional aeronautical andsystems investigations.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989


5/68

TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISIONAt the heart ofAATD's inhouseand development (R&D)Technical Servicesthe cornerstone of. The group is small, skillednd highly responsive to the

of Army Aviation-inof research, development,and evaluation (RDTE) prosupport and, increasingly,terms of high-priority operaThe division has a wide arrayskills and talents that can bequickly into support

and wire-strike testing,ed testing, ballistics testing,aircraft modifications,and aof other subjects. Add to

as a top notch comn; technical library;and visual aids; and aand you round out aand integrated capability.From the simple selection andof strain gauges oncrank to theand implementation of a

flight test telemetryInstrumentationis at the forefront ofin Army AviationTaking a closerbranch designs circuits;and test at the bench.1ibrates and

d instrumentation packages;data acquisition, reducand analysis; providessite test teams; and writesreports. A large pool ofhardware andis maintained. Andata translationhub of a highlyand closelyt group of electronic engineersnd technicians. Other major

r; a digital data reduction


system; a decornmutator system;a digital data control and acquisition system; a pulse codedmodulation telemetry system; aninternal calibration lab; and aninstrumentation bus and van formobility in the field.The Engineering Design andGraphics Branch is the real-worldextension of the AATD projectengineering staff. Whether it is astraightforward bracket design,or a full-blown drawing anddocumentation package for asystem procurement, the stafftransforms ideas, concepts andsketches into working designs,drawings and specificationsnecessary to fabricate hardwareend items and for practical implementation of research, development, test and evaluationobjectives. Coupled into thisgroup of aeronautical engineering technicians are the audio/visual team and the motionpicture/still/video photographyteam. The teams consist of technical illustrators, visual information specialists and scientificphotographers.The automatic data processingworld of AATD abounds with aproliferation of personal computers, computer aided design systems, dedicated minicomputersfor special applications and alarge VAX 11/780 system as theprimary tool. Routine access tolarge IBM and Computer DataCorporation mainframes andspecialized software at A VSCOMand the National Aeronauticaland Space Agency (NASA), Langley Research Center, Hampton,VA, is gained through the VAX.The Computing and InformationSystems Branch provides theplanning, acquisition, resourcesmanagement, programing andsystems design, and much of therelated services through a teamof highly motivated mathematicians and computer specialists.Although the orientation of this

group is technical, they alsoprovide full business and management information systemsupport to the directorate. Nomatter i f the job is a simpleFORTRAN program to solve anequation, or the design of a largedatabase management system,this team has the talent and thedrive to get results.The fourth branch is the Experi-mental Fabrication Branch. Last,but certainly not least, this ele-ment of AATD's inhouse supportteam works "magic" on a regularbasis. It is not an exaggerationto say that, given time andmaterials, these talented modelmakers, machinists, sheet metalmechanics, welders and otherspecialists can handle just aboutanything pointed their way. Theyare creative, experienced andtotally oriented toward gettingthe job done. While the shops arenot rich in state-of-the-art production equipment, nonetheless theymake their impact through individual abilities and adequatemachinery. Projects have variedwidely over the 38-year history ofthis organization at Ft. Eustis.The shops have built ai r cushioned vehicles, paragliders, fullscale helicopter wind tunnelmodels, shallow draft boats andthe first helicopter armor kitsused in Vietnam; test facilities,displays, major test rigs, jigs andfixtures; mockups and workingmodels of aviation equipment;aviation intermediate maintenance (AVIM) systems toolsets;armor kits for the UH-60A BlackHawk; full-scale visual modification kits for the National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, CA; and anendless list of others."Their proudattitudes and products reflect thebest traditions of AATD.

Taken collectively, the Technical Services Division provides astreamlined and capable supportteam for AATD's inhouse R&Dprogram.

3


6/68

STRUCTURESThe primary mission ofAATD's structures technical areais to direct both exploratory andadvanced development in air

frame, rotor and control systems, and landing gear structures. This mission is accomplished through- Development of structuraldesign criteria and analysis techniques, which will result inimproved material applicationsand design concepts.that providecomponents with improvedstrength; fatigue life and durability in the field. Demonstration of improvedmilitary characteristics such assafety, survivability, reliabilityand maintainability.The Structural Integrity andRotor Components Team isresponsible for- Efforts that relate to thedevelopment of improved structural design criteria, loads analysis techniques, and advancedrotor and control design concepts. R&D efforts related toimproved airframe and landinggear design.Manufacturing methods andtechnology programs are directedat the development of improvedmethods for the cost-effectiveproduction of aircraft structuralcomponents and are conductedby the Airframe and Manufactur-ing Technology Team. TheAATD Structures Laboratory isequipped to provide project support in static and fatigue testing,vibration testing and nondestructive evaluation.Recently, the Structural Integrity and Rotor Components Teamhas been involved with developing a Helicopter Structural Integrity Program (HSIP). The HSIPwill be a set of formal regulations,standards and specifications.These products of the programshould assist program managers

4

to assure that structural integrityreceives attention early in theconcept definition phase and isan integral part of the design,testing and operation of theirsystems. As such, the HSIP willlower the probability of discovering structural integrity problemslate in the .development cycle orafter the system is fielded. Tocorrect problems at that time isextremely costly and may resultin an adverse readiness impacton the fleet.Erosion of rotor blades in bothsand and rain environments hasbeen a persistent problem overthe years. To protect the rotorblades, erosion protection stripstypically are used on the outboardsection of he blade. Both metallicand nonmetallic erosion protection strips are used in servicetoday. Metallic strips provide

good protection in rain, whilnonmetallic strips provide goodprotection in a sandenvironment(See "Meeting the Challenge oSand and Rain Impacts on MainRotor Blades" on page 14.)Activities in the Airframe andManufacturing Technology Teamhave centered largely around thedeveloping and testing of theAdvanced Composite AirframeProgram (ACAP) helicoptersThe ACAP objective was todevelop and demonstrate the cosand weight advantages of applying advanced composite materials and design configurations tothe helicopter airframe structureACAP helicopters fabricated bySikorsky Aircraft and Bell Helicopter were first flown in 1984and 1985, respectively. Duringthe past 4 years, the three airframes fabricated by each con-

FIGURE 1: Sikorsky Advanced Composite A i r f r a ~ e ~ ! ' o g r a m (ACAP) helicopter aftea 38-foot-per-second vertical drop at 10 degrees pitch and roll.



7/68

FIGURE 2: Bell Advanced Composite Airframe Program (ACAP) helicopter after a 41-foot-per-second vertical drop anda 27-foot- per-second forward airspeed at 14 degrees pitch and roll.

tractor have been used for testand evaluation of a variety ofmilitary characteristics. Includedare crashworthiness, repairability, survivability, lightningstrike protection, internal acoustic noise, weapons interface andavionics compatibility. The statictest airframes were each droptested at NASA/ Langley toevaluate crashworthiness characteristics. Shown in figure 1 isthe Sikorsky ACAP after a 38-foot-per second (fps) vertical dropat 10 degrees pitch and roll. TheBell ACAP shown in figure 2 wasdrop-tested at a 41-fps verticalsink speed and a 27-fps forwardairspeed with 14 degrees pitchand roll.

As a part of the structurestechnical area's inhouse R&Defforts in airframe dynamics andvibrations, each ACAP flight testvehicle will be shake-testeddynamically. The results will becorrelated with finite elementpredictions. Figure 3 shows theBell flight test vehicle in thevibration test facility. Theseefforts will provide an increased

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

understanding of current designand analysis techniques andidentify required improvementsfor the development of compositeairframe designs with improvedvibration characteristics. Theultimate objective of the research

is to develop methodology which,when used, will result in anaircraft design with improvedvibrational characteristics. Thisdesign will reduce vibrationinduced fatigue of the structureand the occupants.

FIGURE 3: Bell flight test vehicle in the vibration test facility.

5


8/68

PROPULSIONThe propulsion technical areaencompasses extensive compo

nent and demonstrator enginetechnology. These efforts areaimed primarily at providingvalidated propulsion technologyfor future and current Army andDepartment of Defense (DOD)applications. Past major effortsinclude: the 1,500 horsepowerdemonstrator engine, which transitioned into the T700; theadvanced technology demonstrator engine, which transitionedinto the TBOO; and the ArmyNavy modem technology demonstrator engine, which transi-tioned into the Navy P7-A aircraft. Current efforts are focusedon providing advanced propulsion for the 21st century DODvehicles under the TriserviceJoint Technology Advanced GasGenerator Program and subsequent Engine 21 Program. Specific highlights of current programs are as follows:Tricommand multipurposesmall power unit (MPSPU).Based on coordination with otherArmy Materiel Command subordinate commands, it was determined that there was a potentialrequirement for a small powerunit for applications to aircraft,annored family of vehicles andvehicular environmental controlunits. The technical directors ofA VSCOM, U.S. Army TankAutomotive Command and Belvoir Research, Development andEngineering Center signed amemorandum of understandingdefining the common interests;and AATD initiated the competitive MPSPU program. The pr


9/68

speed during autorotative descent,which greatly reduces pilot workload. A laser weapons simulatorwas used on the Sikorsky 876 toevaluate the control's performance improvement for targetacquisition.Benefits with the adaptivecontrol were realized in the follow-mg areas: Engine surge avoidance andrecovery. Cooler starts. Torsional drive traindamping. Improved one-engineinoperative response. Rotor droop reduction inhigh performance maneuvers. Lower cruise fuel consumption by automatic variation ofrotor speed.

Improved weapons platformstability. Reduced pilot workload.Triservice joint turbine ad-vanced gas generator/ Engine 21.8ince the fielding of the T700engine, AATD and otherGovernmen -sponsored enginecomponent research efforts haveresulted in significant improvements'in aerothermodynamicand material capability. A newengine incorporating theseimprovements could result in a20-percent reduction in fuelconsumed, 40-percent improvement in power-to-weight, and40-percent improvement in specific power compared to thecurrent T700 series. Under atriservice program, the critical gasgenerator core technology will be

validated. This technology will beavailable for later integration intoa complete engine, "Engine 21,"for future Army and DOD applications.The program was funded by allthree services with initiation tobegin in fiscal year (FY) 1989. Theprogram is part of the DODIntegrated High PerformanceTurbine Engine Technology initiative whose objeetive is to doubleaircraft propulsion capability bythe year 2000. The Anny hasbeen designated as the selection authority for Phase I ofthe program. AATD is theagency responsible for coordination and issuance of the triservicerequest for proposal and subsequent evaluation administrativesupport.

FIGURE 5: Multipurpose small power unit performance comparison.1.75

1.50

SPECIFIC 1 .25FUEL

CONSUMPTION(lB/HpHR)1.00

0.750.70

0.50~


MPSPU

25

EXISTINGPOWER UNITS'

UH-60T-62 APU' " KING AIR" T-20APU

50 75POWER (SHP)

CH-47DT-62 APUCH-47C 548 AH-64T-62APU GTCP36 APU

100 125

7


10/68

SAFETY AND SURVIVABILITYThis technical area conducts

programs that will increase rotorcraft combat survivability andAnny Aviation combat missioneffectiveness by: Reducing the detection ofaircraft, considering such factorsas radar, infrared, and noise orvisual signatures. Passively hardening the aircraft against directed energythreats (laser and high-poweredmicrowave) as well as nuclear,biological and chemical warfarethreats (electromagnetic pulse,blast and contamination).Emphasis is placed on achieving required protection with minimum effect on aircraft missionaccomplishment. The effectiveness of Anny Aviation also willbe improved through ballistichardening of the aircraft. This isdone by reducing the vulnerability of the crew, passengers, fuelsystem, components and structure against hits from potentialprojectiles and from warheadfragmentation. Increased mission readiness will be realized byimproving flight safety andcrashworthiness of aircraft. Thisshould decrease the number andseverity of Army Aviationmishaps. In turn, this will resultin fewer fatalities and injuries,conservation of materiel andimproved aircrew morale.Army Aviation combat sustainability and effectiveness willbe improved through the conductof vulnerability and survivabilityanalyses leading to the identification of specific vulnerabilitiesfor various threats ofcurrent fleetand conceptual aircraft systems,and subsystems, thus providingthe necessary data to support: Definition and application ofvulnerability reduction concept.

8

Development of improvedsurvivability design criteria. Proper consideration of vulnerability issues in new aircraftsystem development. Definition of the most costeffective approach to systemvulnerability reduction.To do this, the safety andsurvivability technical area- Maintains expertise in current and projected threats toAnny aircraft survivability. Defines realistic survivability design criteria for currentand future aircraft systems. Develops technology tooptimize the design and integration of aircraft survivabilitycomponents to enhance theireffectiveness while minimizingeffect on aircraft performance. Takes advantage of new andchanging technology of mate-

rials, computational techniques,fabrication methods and designmethodology.Three of the programs withinAATD's safety and survivabilitytechnical area have as an overallobjective improved helicoptersurvivability. These programsinclude applique armor, an alternate floor seating system andnonpneumatic composite wheels.The applique floor armor is akit form of protection for th ecargo space of the UH-60A. Todate, the system has been subjected to ballistic and load testingin the laboratory and is presentlybeing evaluated by a number ofmilitary units. The kits can beinstalled wi thout structural modification. Generally, this programhas three objectives: Ballistic protection fromsmall arms.

FIGURE 6: Applique floor armor kit on the UH-60.



11/68

Installed weight equal to onecombat equipped troop Relatively low cost.Over the next year, field testingand a final design will be completed (figure 6).The second of these programsis actually an extension of theapplique armor project. The alternate floor seating system is aprogram to provide ballistic floorprotection, seat belt type restraintand crash attenuation. The primary stimulus for this program isto allow the field commander theoption of carrying more combattroops in a UH-60A helicopter. FIGURE 7: Alternate floor seating equipment being installed.With the present system, 11troops are carried in seats thatweigh 19 pounds each. The objective of this a lternate seat ing is toallow up to 22 combat troops tobe transported. Over the past 18months, a system was designed,fabricated and field tested. Theresults of this effort are beingevaluated by user/developeragencies (figure 7).A helicopter wheel system thatcan replace the existing pneumatic wheels, on a one-for-onebasis, with a pneumatic systemis being investigated to improveballistic tolerance. At present, afull-scale, one-piece compositehub, rim and tire is being fabricated, which promises lightweight with increased overalltoughness. The wheel has beendesigned to duplicate existingUH-60A main tire static anddynamic properties. I t will first betested in the laboratory to provethe design concept before subjecting it to a series of flight tests(figure 8). Other approaches toincrease ballistic tolerance ofhelicopter wheels have includeda self-sealing tire lining and filledtires. FIGURE 8: Nonpneumatic wheel system.

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 9


12/68

RELIABILITY,MAINTAINABILITY,AND MISSION TECHNOLOGYThe mission of this technicalarea-besides the pursuit of technology base efforts in reliabilityand maintainabil ity diagnostics,ground support equipment andcargo handling-also includesengineering development andpre-nondevelopmental item acquisition activities in cargo handling and ground supportequipment.To reduce no-fault removalsand maintenance downtime, fora number of years, we have beenconsidering diagnostic technology advancements. The mostrecent of these has been theapplication of artificial intelligence and expert systems foraviation maintenance. Threeseparate programs have beenaccomplished. Each of themshowed extremely positive resultsfrom the standpoint of reducingoperation and support costs andimproving aircraft availability.One of these, called the "Intelligence Fault Locator," accomplished by McDonnell DouglasHelicopter Company, is going tobe continued into a battalion-leveldemonstration at Ft. Hood, TX,in the fall of 1989. The expertsystem uses a knowledge basederived from multiple sourcessuch as aircraft designers, main

tainers, operators, subsystemspecialists, etc. It provides operational maintenance personnelwith easy access to this information through an interactive process. The expert system application to maintenance is attractivefor a number of reasons. But thefact that the system is nonintrusive, it has no attachments to theaircraft and one expert system

10

can be used as support equipmentfor six to eight aircraft was theprime driver.In our ground support equipment area, we have fielded aprototype of the reshel eredAVIM nondivisional shop sets.In this prototype, a revised toollist was reviewed and upgraded,as necessary, and assembled intoan 8 by 8 by 20 foot, one-sideexpandable shelter to form eachshop.We are now initiating a similarinhouse project for the resheltering of the AVIM divisional shopsets. We have conducted aninhouse project for the design,fabrication and field evaluationof the new aircraft tool set forintroduction into the Army A viation system. This new tool set,besides upgrading the quality ofthe tools, will result in a reducednumber of tools in the inventoryas well as in the capability ofperforming an instant inventoryon the toolbox itself. It is anticipated that this tool set will be inthe field in about a year.Also, in support of the GroundSupport Equipment WeaponsSystems Manager at AVSCOM,we are undertaking the acquisition and fielding of twoprototypes of a flexible enginediagnostic system, which willreplace the current outdated teststand. It is anticipated that 26 ofthese test sets will be procured bythe Army. Our intention is tohave the first two of these unitsin the operating Army in early1990. Each test stand, with theuse of adapters, will be capableof conducting diagnostic tests onall Army Aviation engines.

WEAPONIZATIONThe weaponization technicalarea formulates and conductsArmy Aviation weapons development programs. To accomplishthis mission, weaponization technology programs have beenstructured to correct identifiedoperational deficiencies and filltechnological voids in targetacquisition, fire control, weapons,weapon system/aircraft integration and man/machine interface.Primary effort currently addresses the developlnent of aneffective air-to-air combat capability. Emphasis will be on targetacquisition/missiles for longrange encounters, 2.75-inchrocket flechette warheads formedium-range encounters andturreted weapon/fire control technology for short-range encounters (figure 9).

The multisensor fusion demonstration was recently conducted

FIGURE 9: Effective air combat capabil

DRIVERS:

DESIRED_RESULTS

TARGET ACOUISITION SYSTEM AVIONICS (Cll) WEAPONS

MISSILES ASE DETECTABllITY AIRFRAME (Dash Speed)



13/68

o determine target acquisitionerformance of an automaticarget recognizer (ATR) system.system fuses information ofultiple sensors and informationdata sources. The program wasstructured to address the criticalssues of ATR performance,search times and extent, andsystem implementation. Twomultisensor testbed systems wereevaluated in a tactically realisticenvironment to determine sensitivity to Army operational mission scenarios under variouslighting and weather conditionsas well as battlefield obscurantsand debris. The incrementaleffect of each information sourceon total system performancewas evaluated as was the current maximum achievable levelof automatic target recognizer(figure 10). This program wasconducted in close coordination

: DRIVERS:SYSTEM WEAPONS

(C31) FIXED CANNON TURRETED CANNON FIRE CONTROL AIRFRAME MIA

(Oash Speed)


p RFOAMANCEPROBABILITIES

1. 0

J PD Pc PR llPAlOAmZAT1ON fO ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _-L__ __ ~ ~ - L __ J

FALSE-ALARMRATEN

FIGURE: 10: Multlsensor fusion demonstration (MSFD)evaluation of sensor/information contribution.

Error mapping Air-ta-air fire control Body bending mapping Data time tagging Coefficient look up table Improved data coherenCy

Improved 30 mm Stiff symmetric turret Lot bias entry Tem perature sensor

FIGURE 11: Integrated alr-ta-air weapons testbed aircraft.

with the Center for Night Visionand Electro-Optics, U.S. ArmyCommunications-ElectronicsCommand, and Harry DiamondLaboratories, u.s. Army Laboratory Command.The integrated air-to-airweapon program will evaluateadvanced automatic cannon,turret-pointing technologies andappropriate advanced technologies. Evaluation will be in targettracking, air-to-air fire controland ammunition. Appropriatetechnologies will be integratedinto an AH-64 testbed aircraftand evaluated during weaponfiring flight testing during FY1991 (figure 11). The information

gained from this program willassist in improving air-toair effectiveness of both existingan d developmental aircraft.Technology insertion can beaccomplished through productimprovement programs on existing aircraft with data availableto assist the combat and materieldevelopers in defining futureair-to-air combat requirementsand weapon system capabilities.This program is being conducted in close coordination withthe U.S. Army ArmamentResearch, Development andEngineering Center, U.S. AnnyArmament, Munitions andChemical Command.

11


14/68

SYSTEMS INTEGRATIONThe systems integration tech

nical area ha s two major focusesin R&D: Integration of subsystems toenhance total systems Integration of advancedflight controls to improve missionperformance.Advanced technology development must deal with the integration of the research disciplinessuch as structures, aerodynamicsand propulsion, applying theirsynergistics benefits to missionrelated objectives of survivabilityand lethality. The complexities ofintegration can no longer waituntil full-scale engineering development, but must be addressedearly in the R&D cycle. The twoprogram descriptions that followindicate how AATD effortsaddress Army Aviation needs.Advanced digital! optical con-trol system (ADOCS). In N0-vember 1981, AATD awarded acontract to Boeing Vertol todesign, fabricate and flight demonstrate an ADOCS for helicopters. Digital control laws andoptical flight control hardwarewere developed to allow missiontailoring of the flight controlsystem and investigate the feasibility of fly-by-light technology.The ADOCS flight control architecture, figure 12, illustrates thetriply redundant primary flightcontrol system that providesreliable but unaugmented control. The automatic flight controlsystem augments helicopter stability and provides mission tailored flight control functions.Flight testing and multiple userdemonstrations (76 pilots) validated the feasibility of a digitaloptical control system and docu-mented the reduced pilot workload promised by the system and

12

FIGURE 12: Advanced DigitaVOptical Control System (ADOCS) demonstrator concept

FIGURE 13: ADOCS modified UH-60 "Light HaWk."

mission tailored flight controls.The ADOCS demonstrator, amodified DH-60A dubbed the"Light Hawk," figure 13, becamethe first aircraft to successfullydemonstrate a completely operational, full-authority, fly-by-lightcontrol system. The program hasshown that fiber optics, flightcontrol laws tailored for specificmission tasks and single-handed

sidearm controller configurationsare viable options for next generation helicopters.Air-to-air combat test (AACT).AATD has conducted four oneon-one AACTs during the periodApril 1983 to April 1987 (figure14). These tests evaluated variousArmy fleet helicopters, as well asother selected "state-of-the-art"helicopters, in an environment



15/68

14: Air-to-air combat tests.

at the Naval Air TestPatuxent River, MD,andissues. The tests alsoan engineering dataandgu n configured aircraft.database will permit theof general conclu-


sions as to attributes, capabilitiesand shortcomings of rotorcraft inthe air combat maneuveringenvironment. Desirable aircraftcharacteristics can then be incorporated into current and futurerotorcraft to meet the air-to-aircombat challenge.AATD ha s its roots back to thevery start of Anny Aviation. I tis developing modern tech-

nologies targeted to provide aneffective combat multiplier forAnny aircraft on future battlefields . No matter where th echallenge, the Anny and AnnyAviation will be better preparedfor operations under adverseconditions in a hostile environment because of AATD's exploratory and advanced developmentprograms. -=f13


16/68

MEETINGTHE

.: :CHALLENGE'. \ OF

AND

ARMY HEllCOPI'ERS must operate in anextremely wide range of environments throughoutthe world. Providing optimum blade erosionprotection is a difficult task. The blade leading edgemust withstand rain and sand particle impingement as well as the impact of foreign objects suchas brush or small tree branches. In addition,interface with composite blade structure andleading edge deicing must be considered. The mostdamaging effects are produced in the high-velocitytip regions of the blade leading edge.

The Aviation Applied Technology Directorate(AATD) , U.S. Army Research and TechnologyActivity, Ft. Eustis, VA, and its predecessororganizations have been addressing rotor bladeerosion since the early 1960s. Studies of the metallic

14

I/

illustration by David Osborn e

II

IMPACTS ONMA IN ROTOR BLADES

Mr. Donald N. ArentsAerospace Engineer

Aviation Applied Technology DirectorateU.S. Army Aviation Research and Techno logy Activity

Fort Eustis, VA



17/68

and nonmetallic materials then available weremade and polyurethane leading edge boots onCH-34 Choctaw rotor blades were tested. Asignificant amount of work has been done andsignificant literature is available covering variouscategories of aircraft erosion. A large number ofprograms have addressed the problem of aircrafterosion including many materials investigations.High-speed flight through rain seriously erodeswing leading edges, windshields, radomes and

WATER DROP

IMPACTING RAINDROP

CUCKREPEATED IMPACTS CAUSE CRACKING

CAVITYSUISEQUENT IMPACTS OPEN CRACK

FIGURE 1: Rain erosion process.

SURF ACEPROTRUSIDN

infrared transmitting windows. This requires theproblem of rain impingement to be addressed byother military services as well. Engine turbineblades are susceptible to erosion also.Designing for Erosion ProtectionRain droplets and sand particles each havedifferent erosion processes. Sand erosion acts likean abrasive, scraping the blade surface; it isdetrimental to hard metallic surfaces, whereas rainerosion is more detrimental to nonmetallic surfacesbecause of the larger deformations of the material

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

ZONE OF EROSION BY SAND

LOWER SURFACE

FIGURE 2: Pattern of sand erosion.

surface upon impact. The region of wear on theblade is also different for each environment. Raindamage of the nonmetallics is limited to the airfoilleading edge until debonding takes place. Sanderosion is more severe aft of the leading edge anderodes a much larger portion of the surface. Figure1 shows the rain erosion process. Figure 2 showsa typical sand erosion pattern for a rotor blade.The erosion resistance of the two major categoriesof materials is shown in figure 3.

The design of an erosion system for a rotor bladeis a compromise between protection against rainor sand erosion to obtain the best possible overallsystem. With the development of new compositerotor blades, new materials and concepts are beingdeveloped that may provide a better solution. Amultilayered system is one of the new conceptsthat looks promising. This system is beinginvestigated by AATD to provide an optimumerosion protection system. The multilayered

FIGURE 3: Erosion resistance of protection systems.EROSION PROTECTION PERFORMANCE

{ METALS- POORSANDNONMETALS" GOOD

{ METALS' GOODRAINNONMETALS" POOR

-TYPICAL METALS - ALUMINUM, STAINlESS STEEL. TITANIUM, NICKEL PLATE--TYPICAL NONMETALS - POLYURETHANE, (ESTANE, P0655, L1011, ABRASIVE -

RESISTANT PAINT/TAPE

15


18/68

OPTICAL ARRAY/ SPECTROMETER! "

FIGURE 4: Blade erosion test facility.

concept works by having a soft outer layer toabsorb the initial impact. The subsequent layersbecome progressively stiffer, dissipating internalstresses caused by the droplet impact.Previously there has been no specific designcriteria document to assist the designer of Annyhelicopters. However, a recent AATD program hasdeveloped a design document-"Design Criteria forAnny Helicopter Rotor Blade Erosion ProtectionSystems." This document defines the environmental conditions for a typical Anny rotor blade andestablishes minimum requirements for the designand wear life of erosion protection systems. A newprogram to develop a multilayered system will usethis document to determine i f he system is useful,

16

100 hp MOTOR

realistic and should be proposed as a formal designspecification.Testing Erosion Protection SystemsTesting new erosion protection systems providesanother challenge in obtaining data with operational aircraft. This challenge occurs because it isnot possible to quantify ambient rain or dustconditions in which the test aircraft is operatingand hard to find test locations where frequentnatural rainfall is available. Use of the CH-47Chinook helicopter icing spray rig provides ameasured amount of water to a helicopter in flight.Whirling arm devices are used to make comparisons between various materials and types of



19/68

erosion systems. The latest test stand developedin a recent AATD program is shown in figure 4.With the development of the design criteriadocument, a test procedure entitled "QualificationTesting of Erosion Protection Systems" wasdeveloped. This document outlines a general testprocedure that will point out the parameters ofimportance in erosion testing. A baseline is set forthfrom which a detailed test plan can be developedfor each erosion protection system being qualified.The specific details of each test plan should beestablished by mutual agreement between the enduser and supplier. This test procedure will be usedin the new multilayered program to determine itsusefulness, whether it is realistic and whether itshould be used in conjunction with the proposeddesign specification.Besides specific erosion testing, other MILSTD-810 environmental conditions, such as temperatureand humidity extremes, must be addressed.Multilayered Erosion Protection SystemA planned AATD multilayered Erosion Protec- .tion System Program wil l- Evaluate new materials. Develop a design specification for a multilayered system.

FIGURE 5: Multilayered system.

Analyze the configuration for application tothe K747 AH-IS Cobra main rotor blade.Representative specimens will be fabricated andthe specimens will be whirl tested and environmentally tested. A full blade system will bedesigned and 10 systems will be fabricated. Thesystems will be installed on blades and the bladesflight tested. Figure 5 shows a blade with amultilayered erosion protection system.Conclusions

Much work has been done in addressing rotorblade erosion by many organizations. AATD hasdeveloped a design criteria document, new testprocedures, new analytical techniques and new testequipment.Erosion guards developed for the K74 7 blade hadgood rain erosion properties but hydrolysisdeterioration occurred in hot, humid climates.

AATD-sponsored research has resulted in indications that a multilayer polyurethane systemrepresented an improved approach.Further development of a multilayered erosion

guard system that will apply directly to the K74 7blade and generally apply to other operationalblades and future aircraft, such as the lighthelicopter experimental, is planned. ~

'---__ PROGRESSIVELY STIFFER LAYERS TO DISSIPATEINTERNAL STRESSES

' --------- SOFT OUTER LAYER TO ABSORB IMPACT

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 17


20/68

Mr. John ShostakLongbow Deputy Product Manager

Aviation Applied TechnologyDirectorate

U.S. Army Aviation Researchand Technology ActivityFort Eustis, VA

L ONGBO ' NWHAT ARE Anny Aviation's warfighting defi-ciencies? To answer thisquestion Army Aviation wasdirected to conduct an annor/antiannor study to evaluate aviation force capabilities againstan annor force. The results of thisstudy highlighted Anny A viation's difficult task to detect,engage and defeat enemy targetsduring the day, night, adverseweather and through battlefieldobscurants. Currently underdevelopment for the AH-64Apache is an advanced targetacquisition system that addresses these deficiencies. TheAH-64 is the most impressiveattack helicopterin the world andwith Longbow its current capa-

18

bility for defeating an evolvingand advancing threat will be en-hanced many times over. Thefollowing is a brief description ofthe Longbow system, its characteristics and the program status.The Longbow is a helibomemillimeter wave (MMW) firecontrol radar (FCR) and radiofrequency (RF) fire-and-forgetmissile seeker for the HElLFIREmodular missile system (HMMS).Longbow is shown in the photograph above as it will be installedon the AH-64 helicopter. Longbow, formerly the airborneadverse weather weapon system(AAWWS), has been under development by Aviation AppliedTechnology Directorate (AATD)since 1981. I t is currently in the

proof-of-principle (POP) phase odevelopment under the U. SArmy streamlined acquisitionprocess.From 1981 through 1985, theAAWWS went through a seriesof preliminary studies and demonstrations performed in criticatechnology areas. The results othose demonstrations clearlyshowed that the system wasready for further development.Following the successful com-pletion of the critical technologydemonstrations, the U. S. Annyappointed the AAWWS producmanager, resident at AATD, toprepare the AAWWS for the POPprogram phase. An inprocessreview was held in August 1985for an AAWWS tactical demon-



21/68

photos courtesy of Martin Marietta Westinghouse

strator and best technicalapproach for a fully operationaltactical system. That effort wasfollowed in August 1986 with theaward of the POP contract. Theobjectives of the POP programare as follows: Successfully demonstrate theability to integrate Longbow asa brassboard configuration onthe AH-64 helicopter. Demonstrate the missionmodes of operation of the FCRand RF HEILFIRE missile. Perfonn live missile firingsat ground targets from the Longbow demonstrator AH-64 helicopter platfonn. Demonstrate that Longbowmeets the perfonnance requirements of the POP demonstratorspecification. Demonstrate development/production prove-out transitionreadiness.As a system, Longbow consistsof an MMW FCR, an integratedRF interferometer and the RFmissile seeker for the HMMS. The


Longbow is a fire controlradar and HELLFIRE missile seeker for the AH-64Apache helicopter.

Longbow will be employed byattack helicopter battalions andcavalry squadrons, using theAH-64 or light helicopter experimental (LHX) weapons systems,to engage and destroy enemyforces. Longbow offers the capability of conducting day andnight battle in adverse weatherand with battlefield obscurantspresent. In addition, Longbowoffers a fire-and-forget capabilitythat complements the semiactivelaser (SAL) HMMS. The fire-andforget capability enhances survivability by reducing exposuretime. The FCR operates inground, ai r or combined targetingmodes that allow for target detection, location and instantaneousprioritization of all targets displayed to the Longbow operator.The effectiveness of he Longbowequipped HMMS is specified tohave a probability of kill greaterthan, or equal to, that of thecurrent SAL HEILFIRE missile.These features, along with othersystem characteristics, assureincreased survivability, lethality,fightability and the ability toperfonn continuous operationsunder adverse weather and battlefield conditions.The Apache will be modified asnecessary to incorporate the

Longbow. Those modificationswill include: additional environmental cooling, an upgraded firecontrol computer, extended forward avionics bays, improvedelectrical power supplies, anotherdata bus, and an upgraded cockpit and weapons managementsystem.The current POP program isscheduled to end its technicalperiod ofperfonnance this fall. Atthat time, Longbow will enter intoa 10-week early user test andexperimentation period. Duringthis period, the combat developerwill be able to perfonn preliminary tests and experimentation toprovide a basis to formulatefuture tactical operations usingthe Longbow. The initial designphase (IDP) , development/production proveout, will transfer theLongbow from AATD and POPto full-scale development. At thattime it will be managed by thetarget acquisition and designation system/pilot night visionsensor project manager withinthe Aviation Program ExecutiveOffice with support from theHELLFIRE project manager.Although program managementwill change at the conclusion ofthe POP technical period ofperfonnance, the POP phase willbe concurrent with the commencement on the IDP effort,which started in August 1989.

On 14 July 1989, the commander of the U. S. Army Aviation Center, Ft . Rucker, AL,briefed the user requirements tothe Army Systems AcquisitionReview Council, which the ViceChiefof Staff, Army, chaired. TheVCSA approved the initial designphase for Longbow. He approveddevelopment of four prototypeaircraft to be used for testing andevaluation. In May 1990, after allinitial design data are analyzed;the VCSA will chair the nextdecision milestone that willauthorize full-scale development.

19


22/68

.."" ... - ~ . " - ....."."."--..." .""""" " tl ll " 10

1" 1---... ~ . ...., l

Mr. Leroy T. BurrowsAerospace Engineer

Aviation Applied Technology DirectorateU.S. Anny Aviation Research and Technology Activity

Fort Eustis, VA

MDERN DAY training and tacticalemployment requirements for the U. S.Army helicopter dictate that a largepercentage of operations occur in the lowspeed, low-altitude flight regime. These operationsreduce margins of safety nonnal ly associated withhigher airspeed and higher altitude operations incase of an emergency. This increased probabilityof accident occurrence, coupled with the lack ofan inflight egress capability, makes design forcrashworthiness essential for Anny helicopters.The UH-60 Black Hawk and the AH-&1 Apache,the first two U. S. Anny helicopters designed tobe crashworthy, have accumulated sufficient fieldexperience to permit an early assessment of theperfonnance of their crashworthiness designfeatures. I t can be stated without reservation thatthese design features have saved many lives andmany aircraft. Of course, one does not obtain anyincreased capability without an impact uponsystem weight and cost. A calculated projectionof life-cycle cost of design for crashworthinessshows a return on investment in 4 to 6 years duringpeacetime operations. However, it would occurquicker in wartime. This does not include theimportant humane aspect of saving lives, which

CRASHWORTHY HELICOPTERS20 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989


23/68

inand performance of aircrews who know

have protection in case of a crash. A big factorthe cost savings results from the landing gear-foot per second landing, an impact that would

Huey and OH-58 Kiowa series aircraft. Thein readiness is another imporfactor that was not priced because it is difficult

The Aviation Applied Technology DirectorateTD) is recognized as the world leader in thelation of crashworthiness design criteria for

and in the development ofthat provide crashworthiness. The

in getting crashworthiin the utility

and advancedthat led to the UH 60 and All 64, respec

of crashworthiness has had the veryt o f having this level specified inThe AATD formulated Military Standard 1290At Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft

Resistance," which is in fact, a crashworthithethat must be considered in

andthe necessary occupant protection in a

Crashworthiness of the structure assures thate structure has the proper strength and stiffnessmaintain a livable volume for the occupantsd prevents the seat attachments from breaking Retention strength assures that the high massas the transmission and engine do not

break free from their mounts and penetrateoccupied areas. Occupants ' acceleration environment providesthe necessary crash load absorption by usingcrushable structures, loadlimiting landing gears,energy-absorbing seats, etc., to keep the loads onthe occupants within human tolerance levels. Occupants' environment hazards provide thenecessary restraint systems, padding, etc., toprevent injury caused by occupants flailing.

Postcrash hazards, after the crash sequencehas ended, provide protection against flammablefluid systems and permit egress under al lconditions.The AATD is actively engaged in the development of improved components of crashworthinessthat include landing gear, structure, seats,restraints and fuel system. With the applicationof the AATD crashworthy fuel system (CWFS) toArmy helicopters, what had been the greatest killerin survivable crash impacts is no longer an issue.Since 1970, when the first CWFS retrofit occurred,the Army has not experienced a single thermalfatality in a potentially survivable accident in aCWFS-equipped aircraft.Crashworthiness design has been applied toArmy helicopters and ha s matured to a point wheretangible benefits are being realized.For crash impact conditions, which would havebeen considered nonsurvivable for older fleethelicopters, UH-60 and All-64 crashes are occurring with some occupants not even being injured,much less being killed.There should be no doubt on the positive returnon investment of the Army's decision to implementdesign for crashworthiness in its helicopters. Inaddition, the importance of developing crashworthy aircraft is also recognized by our NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization allies who haveagreed to crashworthy standardization agreements.

VE IVES AND EQUIPMENTARMY AVIATION DIGEST 21


24/68

SpecialTHE 3d Battalion of the

There was no n c r e ~ In theAnny's current end s to

Aviationfonn the new unit; required personnel were drawnfrom the SpecIaiI, Operations aviation companythat II CU'IW1IIy at HunterAnny Airfield(CompMy A. 3d Battalion, 160th SOAR) andfrom other aviation units throughout theActIve Army. The l it will fly modified ver-sions of the UH-60 Black Hawk and theCH-47 Chinook he icopters. The firstc:omnaDr of the ntlwIY activated bat-talion Is LieuIanant Dell Dailey.For adcIIIonaI . contactMalar Rick Adahs at UTOVON919-398-8384 or c . l fa InHarter at AUTOVON919-432-8005.

BaHa ion Activatio

22 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989


25/68

AVIATION MEDICINE REPORTOffice of the Aviation Medicine Consultant

O c c u ~ a t i o n a lHealthandATCMajor Kevin T. Mason, M.D.Director, U.S. Army Aeromedical ActivityU.S. Army Aeromedical CenterFort Rucker, AL

THE ISSUESAll- traffic control (ATC), as an occupation, andits effects on health have been under study forthe last 20 years. Millions of dollars have beenspent in this research effort. There has been muchroaring and howling from two comers of opposition. One claims that ATC duties place thecontroller at risk for a large assortment of illnesses.The most commonly quoted effects have beendiabetes, ulcers, hypertension, psychiatric illness

a n ~ stress disorders. The other viewpoint has beencountering with claims that ATC duties have noeffect on health. The media has certainly provideda fair amount of coverage, especially during theProfessional All- Traffic Controllers' Organization(pATCO) strike in the early 1980s. This publicitypopularized the concept that ATC duties areassociated with certain illnesses, therefore placingthe safety of air traffic in jeopardy.With my "retrospecto-scope," I have reviewedthese 20 years of study and sorted out apparentvalid information. I have had time to study thestrengths and weaknesses of the landmark studiesthat have survived the tincture of time. Theoutcome of this review is not what I expected.


COMPARING POPULATIONSMost of the problems with interpreting theresults of studies come from the problem ofcomparing populations. This problem directlyinfluences our interpretation of the conclusionsdrawn by various researchers studying how ATCaffects health.

For example, my wife recently read to me claimsfrom a nutrition article that eating pumpkin seedswill reduce one's chances of getting prostate cancer.All of this was based on the fact there is very littleprostate cancer in Transylvania and the localinhabitants there eat more pumpkin seeds percapita than any other region of the world. I wouldsay that there is a weak argument for anyrelationships between the cause (eating pumpkinseeds) and the effect (protection from prostatecancer). What if all of the pumpkin seed eatersin this culture were women? They do not have aprostate gland. What needs to be done is to comparethe risk of developing prostate cancer in Transylvanians between male pumpkin seed eaters andmale nonpumpkin seed eaters. If there is adifference, then it is a little easier to believe thatmaybe there is a protective effect.

23


26/68

Occupational Health and ATe

When reviewing the cause and effect relationshipof diseases, one has to be careful with whom onecompares air traffic controllers. This individualalso ha s to be on guard to eliminate any sourceof biases that may distort statistical conclusions.

For example, I read one study that stated airtraffic controllers ha d significantly more hypertension than commercial pilots. The problem is thatwe are not comparing two similar populations.Thisstudy was based on the review of who had waiversfor hypertension. The study, however, did notadjust for the fact that in the 1970s most pilotswith hypertension were permanently grounded.During that time, most ai r traffic controllers withhypertension received a waiver. So already thereis a built-in bias, artificially elevating the numbersof air traffic controllers with hypertension whencompared to hypertension of pilots. The risk forhypertension also increases with age. This studydid not adjust for the fact that the average airtraffic controller was older than the average pilot.This study again artificially elevated the numberswhen comparing these two populations. So the realquestion not answered by this study: Are air trafficcontrollers at increased risk for developing a newcase of hypertension than pilots of a similar age?DIABETESFortunately, air traffic controllers do not developdiabetes (high blood sugar) any more than otheraverage professional workers in the United States.I f an ai r traffic controller should develop diabetes,the chances for getting a waiver for this conditionare good. Individuals can reduce risk for developingdiabetes by eating well-balanced diets to maintain

24

weight within 10 percent of the desirable weightfor their build and age and participating in regularaerobic exercise for 20 minutes three times a week.ULCERSAir traffic controllers are at slightly higher risks

than aviators for developing peptic ulcer diseaseof the stomach and small intestine. The highestrisk occurs in young ai r traffic controllers at highvolume traffic centers. But the chance of an airtraffic controller developing peptic ulcer disease isstill about the same as the general population. Also,the risk for developing peptic ulcers seems morestrongly correlated with the controller's personalhabits; excess consumption of nicotine and alcohol;and whether the controller is experiencingfinancial or marital difficulties.There have been a few epidemics of ulcers notedin groups ofai r traffic controllers during controller/management disputes: "sick-outs" in the early1970s and the PATCO strike in the early 1980s.Similar epidemics have been seen in other groups,such as coal miners and steel workers, duringsimilar walkouts and strikes when the patient'sentire life was disorganized.

The risk for developing ulcers can drop byabstinence from nicotine products and alcohol;prudent use of aspirin and aspirin-like products,such as Motrin (Advil, ibuprofen); and by takingpositive steps to reduce or avoid conflicts with jobmanagement and the pressures of family orfinancial difficulties.HYPERTENSIONHypertension (high blood pressure) is a commonmalady of our society, and it has been said thathypertension is a major health problem among airtraffic controllers. Television and movies certainlyhave portrayed the intense air traffic controllerhunched over a console, madly puffing oncigarettes. As the weather turns rotten, theindividual reaches for the bottle of antihypertension medications.Actually, ai r traffic controllers, far less likely todevelop hypertension than the average American,are no more likely to develop hypertension thanaviators. I t is true that the average air trafficcontroller with hypertension is slightly youngerthan the average aviator with hypertension. Airtraffic controllers who do develop hypertension aremore likely to be cigarette smokers or overweight.



27/68

The risk for developing hypertension can bereduced by not adding salt to food; absta ining fromnicotine products; eating a well-balanced diet tomaintain weight within 10 percent of the desirableindividual weight and age; and participating inregular, aerobic exercise for 20 minutes three timesa week. Air traffic controllers with hypertensioncan have their condition controlled by takingmedications and modifying lifestyles. Mostcontrollers will continue to work with waivers.STRESS AND PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESSThe casual visitor at an air traffic control facilityis impressed by what seems to be an overwhelmingtask. Controllers quickly flash their cursor all overthe screen; type smartly on the console keys;coordinate with other controllers; and talkfrequently on the radio with both hands free toaccomplish other simultaneous tasks. Again,movies and television have exaggerated thisimpression.Air traffic control work could be classified asstressful, because it demands concentration andprecision and is accompanied by shif t work. Thereis no universal definition of occupational stress.But since the tasks of ATC are quantifiable, ATCas a profession is amenable to studying the effectsof occupational stress. One can count the numberand types of traffic handled in a given period under"X, Y, Z" conditions. Of course, the researchershould not overlook other sources of stress notrelated to job tasks, such as administration,medications, and family and monetary stability.

The psychological and biochemical responses ofair traffic controllers on the job have been studiedextensively. I t is documented that an air trafficcontroller's adrenaline blood level increases as thevolume of traffic increases. But this is a naturalresponse and not necessarily harmful. Long termair traffic controllers have no different alterationsin their body responses than other professionalshift workers. The amount of occupational stressvaries from one ATC facility to the next. Butoverall, air traffic controllers are no more likelyto develop stress-related psychological dysfunctionas a result of their jobs than any t h ~ r professionalgroup. The degree of anxiety on the job correlatesmore strongly with the degree of unresolved

personal conflicts at home or with managementthan with the volume of traffic handled. Certainlythere always will be air traffic controllers whodevelop a fear of handling traffic, become overlyanxious at the console or get "burned-out." But thisis no more likely to happen doing ATC tasks thanany other average professional job. The risk forleaving the ATC field because of stress-relatedpsychological disorders is more strongly correlatedwith the controller's skill, aptitude, experience andpersonality than with the volume of traffichandled.

The challenge is what most air traffic controllerslike about their job. They usually dislike routinepaperwork and administration. Tasks presumedstressful and anxiety provoking by the onlookerare instead a source of considerable challenge andprofessional satisfaction among controllers. Amajority of air traffic controllers find that the fastpaced, instant decisions overcoming the pressuresand adversities of the weather actually preventboredom. They also find efficient management oftraffic as enjoyable and rewarding. My ownobservations in ATC facilities have convinced meof his phenomenon, where a sudden burst of heavytraffic turns a room full of bored-looking controllersinto an interacting, smiling group as they skillfullyhandle the situation.More than half of the air traffic controllers whodevelop serious psychological problems can returnto their duties with counseling and time. Successfuloccupational stress reduction programs have beendeveloped and can be applied to the ATC field aspart of an overall preventive medicine program.SUMMARYOverall, the air traffic controllers, like theaviatprs, are healthier than the average person.After careful study, most of the myths about howair traffic control affects health have beendisproved. Air traffic controllers who do developchronic illness are more likely to have unhealthylifestyles. Any individual can significantly reducethe risk for developing many chronic diseases byabstaining from nicotine products, alcohol andother harmful substances; maintaining a sensibleweight through proper nutrition; and maintainingaerobic fitness. . . ."I

The Aviation Medicine Report Is a monthly report from the Aviation Medicine Consultant of TSG. Please forward subject matterof cunentaeromecIlcallmporlance for editorial consideration to U.S. Anny Aeromedical Center, ATTN: HSXY-ADJ, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5333.

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 25


28/68

AVIATION PERSONNEL NOTES

Commissioned Officers' IssuesThe Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel(DCSPER) recently decided to return the Armycaptain promotion board from twice a year to anannual board. As a result, the September 1989board was cancelled. The next board is scheduledfor March 1990.As a result, about 850 first lieutenants in yeargroup , YG) 87 could complete their active dutyservice obligation (ADSO). They could do thiswithout being considered for captain and withoutbeing selected for conditional voluntary indefinite(CVI) status. Officers in the category are YG 87,other than Regular Anny, first lieutenants withan initial ADSO (obligated volunteer) of 3 yearsand a date of rank between I April 1988 and 31March 1989.

The DCSPER decision could affect some officers,bu t should not affect any aviators because theyincurred an ADSO of 5 years for their flighttraining. They should all understand two boardswill no longer meet for competitive categorypromotion to captain and for CVI. Instead, theboard will meet annually.Officers who are not aviators and fall in thiscategory will get short-term extensions unti.l31 July1990 so they may be considered for captain/CVI.

Noncommissioned Officers' IssuesA recently approved change to AR 611-201,Enlisted Career Management Fields and MilitaryOccupational Specialties, announced the elimination of the 66-series military occupational specialty(MOS). The Basic Noncommissioned Officer

26

Course (BNCOC) now incorporates technical inspector (TI) training. Implementation begins inOctober 1989. According to a recent message fromthe assistant commandant, U.S. Anny AviationLogistics School, Ft. Eustis, VA, soldiers holdingthe 66-series MOS get credit for BNCOC training.Soldiers must have attended TI training betweenOctober 1983 and January 1990.On 3 May 1989, the DCSPER approved anextension of the time line for conversion of MOS93H, Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Operator

and 93J, ATe Radar Controller to 93C, ATeOperator. Additionally, the U.S. Total ArmyPersonnel Command (pERSCOM) has providedfurther reclassification guidance. Under theprovisions of this extension, soldiers who holdMOS 93H or 93J must complete the conversionby 23 March 1990. Military occupational specialty93C will be awarded to controllers in the followingcategories: Those who have completed advanced individual training (AIT) for MOS 93C. Dual-rated controllers (tower and radar). Those who entered in a unit cross-trainingprogram that results in a dual rating. Those who completed AIT for former ATeMOS 93B and 93K. Soldiers in grade sergeant first class(p) orabove holding MOS 93H or 93J.All other soldiers holding MOS 93H or 93J mustcomplete transition training before reclassification.Individuals may request transition trainingpackets from the following address: Commander,U.S. Anny Training Support Center, ATIN: ATICIPC (Ms. Newbill), Ft. Eustis, VA 23604-5166,AUTOVON 927-5410. Soldiers not reclassified by



29/68

1990 will be identified and reclassified toAnny needs.The commander, PERSCOM, recently sent

Aircraft Crewman Badge: Allof

that leads to the award of an MOS inagement field (CMF) 67 will receive theand award of the MOS.applies also to soldiers holding MOS 35K,

35R. The 35-series MOSs have beeneMF 67.

Warrant Officer AviationResultsThe Office of Personnel Systems, Directorate ofFt. Rucker, AL, conductedinformal poll in the March 1989 issue of theabout warrant officers (WOs)of WO corps

insignia. Historically, this is not a new concept.In the early 1900s, warrant officers in the MinePlanter Service, Quartermaster Corps and Transportation Corps all wore branch-affiliated insignia.Tank Corps WOs were the exception in that theywore an eagle standing on a bundle of arrowsenclosed in a wreath. When the Anny decided toappoint all WOs at-large, the Anny adopted theTank Corps insignia for wear by all WOs.

WO appointments in the 1950s once againtended to be affiliated with a particular branchof the Anny. Branches were queried as to whetheror not WOs should again wear branch-affiliatedinsignia. All branches seemed to agree WOs shouldbe affiliated with a branch; however, since manyWOs were still appointed at-large, the proposal forWOs to wear branch insignia was dropped.The issue ofWOs' wearing branch insignia cameup again in the 1960s. The Warrant Officer CareerProgram Study Report in 1966 stated that branchaffiliated insignia for WOs were desirable. Thestudy concluded that WO skills should be asso-

I O I ~ RESPONSE=1,561FORT RUCKEROFF/WO200

FIELDRESPONSE

924

S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

WOCANDIDATES

437

27


30/68

Aviation PelSonnel Notesciated with branches of the Army. Again therecommendation was not implemented primarilybecause the largest segment of WOs (ArmyAviation) did not have a branch with which toaffiliate.The Aviation Branch was formed in 1983. Today,all WOs are appointed to a branch of the Army.Inevitably, the subject of WOs' wearing branchinsignia came up again during the Total WarrantOfficer Study (TWOS) in 1984. The Chief of Staff,Army chartered TWOS to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the Army WO's role to includeutilization, professional development an d management. Part of the analysis included a survey ofActive and Reserve WOs' examining the currentand future role of the Army WOo One of the surveyquestions addressed the wearing of branchinsignia by WOs. About 56 percent of the Army

100P 80ERCE 60NTA 40GE

20

0YES NO

RESPONDENTS

Aviation WOs (AWOs) and 32 percent of thetechnical service WOs were in favor of wearingbranch-affiliated insignia. The Army did nopursue the issue.The Office of Personnel Systems wanted todetermine if the desire to wear branch-insignia has

increased or decreased in the last 5 years. The polclearly revealed an increase. The majority, in alcategories, favored the wear of branch-affiliatedinsignia for Army Aviation and non-ArmyAviation WOs. Most felt the Army should approvethe wear of branch insignia for all WOs or noat all. As a result, the Aviation Center isconsidering a proposal to the Army for the weaof branch insignia by all WOs.The following summarizes the results of the pollThe graphs portray the demographics of those whotook the time to respond. .. 04

Should AWOs wear AviationBranch insignia?

YES 85.7%NO 14.3%

I - WOC fLZ1 RUCKER 0 FIELD I28 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989


31/68

100P 80ERCE 60

Should all WOs wear their NTbranch insignia? A 40GEYES 87.7% 20NO 12.3% 0 YES NO

RESPONDENTSI - woc m RUCKER 0 FIELD t

100P 80ERCE 60Should insignia wear be left NTto branch chiefs? A 40GEYES 32% 20

NO 68% 0YES NO

RESPONDENTSI - woc 0 RUCKER 0 FIELD t

RESPONDENTSI - woc 0 RUCKER 0 FIELD IU.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 29


32/68

~MONTHLYWRITINGAWARD

With the Wings of an EagleThe wings of an eagleWill bear me up one dayAs I stand above the valleyOf doubt on some high hill.Too long I've been bound earthwardBy trivial, comrrwn thingsBut now I'll soar upwardsWith the wings of an eagle.The strength of the eagleIs in me now andMy spirit firm and true,The cloud of doubt is goneReplaced by the flight of freedomIn the light that rrwrning brings.As onward and upward I flyWith the wings of an eagle.

~ T H E LEGENDARYtale of Icarus and Daedalus,ancient Greek mythology tells usabout mankind's preoccupation30

with flying. As you may recall,Daedalus and his son, Icarus,offended the King of Crete andwere imprisoned. Icarus told hisfather that they were like birdsin a cage. Daedalus told his sonthat i f hey were birds they couldflyaway. With that in mind,Daedalus made two sets of wingsof wax and feathers. With thewings tied to their arms, Daeda-lus and Icarus made their escapeattempt. According to the legend,the father's flight was successful,but the son's wasn't. Icarus flewso high that the sun melted thewax, destroying his wings, andhe plunged into the sea to hisdeath.This Greek myth illustratesmankind's desire to escape the

bounds of earth and to soar likea bird. Man encountered manyfrustrations in his attempts toimitate birds, yet the conquest offlight became a continual chal-lenge. He could not rest until itwas achieved.In man's early attempts toimitate the flight of birds, he builtan assortment of wings andstrange mechanical things. Fool-hardy men jumped from cliffs,towers and high buildings in vainhopes to fly; inevitably, theirattempts met with disaster. How-ever, after centuries of failure,man was finally airborne. Thatfirst flight marked the beginningof a new era. The first mannedflight startled the citizens ofParis, France. On 21 November



33/68

1783, the age-old dream of flyingbecame a reality. On that datetwo Frenchmen made the firstsuccessfully manned flight in ahot air balloon.The first successfully poweredairplane flight was made on thewind-swept dunes at Kitty Hawk,NC. On 17 December 1903, theWright brothers marked a turning point in aviation history. Intheir flimsy wood and fabricairplane with its small gasolineengine, Orville Wright achievedman's first powered flight byflying his airplane about 100 feet.On the same day he completedthree other flights; the longestwas 852 feet.The U.S. Army Signal Corpsoriginally was responsible formilitary aviation. The extent ofmilitary aviation, at the time,consisted of spotting and sendingtelegraph messages from balloonbaskets. However, because ofrecent aviation accomplish-ments, the. chief Signal officerestablished an Aeronautical Division under the Signal Office on

CW4 Harry W. SweezeyDirectorate of Aviation ProponencyU.S. Anny Aviation CenterFort Rucker, AL

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST

1 August 1907. The purpose of theAeronautical Division was tostudy flying machines and thepossibility of adapting them formilitary purposes.The Army purchased its firstilirigible airship for $6,700 andsolicited bids for a gasoline-powered airplane. The Armyreceived several bids from whichto choose. However, the Wrightbrothers' bid won the first U.S.Army airplane contract on 10February 1908.The specificationsstipulated that the aircraft had tocarry two men at a minimum of40 miles per hour for a I-hourflight. The first Army aircraftwas purchased for $30,000 on 2

August 1908. The aircraft was a"Flyer Type-A" and was named"U.S. Army Aeroplane No. 1."One of the contracting officersasked Wilbur Wright why somepeople are so fascinated withflying. Wilbur replied,"I think thedesire to fly after the fashion ofbirds is an idea handed down tous by our ancestors who, in theirgrueling travels across trackless

lands in prehistoric times, lookedenviously at the birds soaringfreely through space, at full speedabove all obstacles on the infinitehighway of the air."I t became obvious that militarymen had that same desire but

with the additional desire toachieve a tactical advantage overthe enemy.Aviator BadgesThe Army was serious aboutflying and wanted recognition forthose daring men in their flyingmachines. The chief Signalofficer suggested that a badge bedesigned to show qualification inthe air. The badge should represent skill, bravery and the SignalCorps as well. The eagle wassuggested because the bird haslong stood for strength, skill andbravery. Indians used eaglefeathers in their war bonnets asa symbol of power and authority.Eagles, like the Indians, wereconsidered skilled and cotirageous hunters. All the attributes ofthe eagle were fitting for themilitary aviator. If mankind'sdesire was to imitate the flight ofbirds, why not then use thelargest and most majestic of allthe birds of prey for the design?

Introductory planning for apilot certificate led to the recommendation for both a certificateand a badge design. As a result,a memorandum from the chiefSignal officer to the Chiefof Staff,Army was submitted on 17 April

31


34/68

1913. The Military Aviator Badgewas approved for wear on 27 May1913 (figure 1). The badge had adecorative top bar with the words"MIUTARY AVIATOR" in capita l letters. Below the bar, suspended by two outboard links,was a detailed American BaldEagle. The eagle's wings wereoutspread in a diving position,and two crossed Signal Corpsflags were clutched in its talons.The badge originally wasdesigned to be made in white orsilver metal bu t was produced in14-karat gold instead. More thanone company produced badges.As a result, the badges worn bythe recipients varied slightly. Oneof the requirements for earningthe badge was for the individualto attain an altitude of at least2,500 feet above the ground.

On 18 July 1914, Congressauthorized the formation of theAviation Section of the Anny'sSignal Corps. The former chief ofthe Aeronautical Division, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Reber,was placed in charge of the newAviation Section. The aviationsection was comprised of 60officers and 260 enlisted men.However, the section was

32

FIGURE 1: Military Aviator Badge27 MAY 1913

expected to grow over the nextfew years. The growth wouldobviously qualify more aviatorsfor the Golden Eagle Award. Thecost of the gold badge became avalid concern to the Army. As aresult, a recommendation wasmade to change the design andmaterial to reduce the cost. Theapproved design consisted of twohalf eagle wings displayed infull-spread position. Centeredbetween the wings was a shieldtaken from the 1782 U.S. shield.In the center of the shield werethe letters "U.S." taken from theofficer's collar device establishedby General Order No. 22 in 1895.The wings and shield wereembroidered in silver bullion; theletters were embroidered in goldbullion, on a dark blue clothbackground (figure 2). Eachbadge had to be individuallyhand embroidered. As a result,the badges varied in style and

FIGURE 2: Pilot Badge15 AUGUST 1917

FIGURE 3: Enlisted Pilot Badge15 AUGUST 1917

shape. The badges were authorized for wear on 15 August 1917.Enlisted pilots were not authorized to wear the Anny PilotBadge on their chest. Instead,they wore a badge on their sleeve.The badge consisted of two halfwings with a fourbladed propellerin the center. The wings and propwere embroidered in white silk ona dark blue felt background(figure 3). These badges wereauthorized for wear on 15 August1917. Flight mechanics wore afour-bladed prop in the center ofa circle without wings. All other



35/68

aviation enlisted personnel worethe four-bladed prop on the sleevewithout the wings or the circle.The third style Military A viator Badge was approved on 27October 1917, only a few monthsafter the second style badge wasapproved. The third style badgewas exactly th e same as thesecond, with the addition of a fivepoin ed star cen ered directlyabove the shield. On 21 December1918, the fourth style badge wasauthorized. This badge wasexactly like th e second badgeexcept it was made in oxidizedsilver and had a pin on the backto attach the badge to theuniform.Until 1919, there were no standard military specifications for

the production of aviator badges.As a result, badges varied widely,depending on the manufacturer.At the end of World War I, theArmy directed a standardizationprogram for th e design andproduction of badges. Accordingly, the Army approved thefifth style aviator badge. HerbertAdams designed the standardized appearance. The badge wasmade of oxidized silver. I t wassimilar to the fourth style withslight variations in design: Thestars and "U.S." letters wereremoved from the shield; the tipof the wings was broader; and thetip of the wings had a slightupsweep. The badge was authorized for on 25 January 1919(figure 4). On 14 October 1921, thedesignation was changed to "airplane pilot." The title changedagain on 10 November 1941 to"pilot badge."Collar InsigniaThe National Security Act of1947 disestablished the Army Air

FIGURE 4: Anny Pilot Badge(Airplane Pilot Badge/Pilot Badge)

25 JANUARY 1919

Forces and created the U.S. AirForce (USAF) as an equal partnerwith the Army and Navy. TheUSAF designed new uniformsand insignia for its militarypersonnel; however, the ArmyPilot Badge was retained withoutchange. Army aviators continuedto wear the same pilot badge untila new design was approved forwear on 2 August 1950 (figure 5).The Army required another setof wings in 1983. These wings,however, would not be worn asa qualification badge over theuniform pocket. Instead, theywould be worn as a collar insigniafor members of he newest branchof the Army. Aviation warrantofficers were not authorized towear the new insignia , however.The Secretary of the Armyapproved Army Aviation as abranch on 13 April 1983. As aresult, a branch insignia wasneeded. The Institute of Heraldryprepared five designs and submitted them to the U.S. Army Train-ing and Doctrine Command(TRADOC) for consideration.TRADOC was responsible for theAviation Branch Implementa-tion Plan and forwarded a recommendation to Headquarters,Department of the Army forapproval of the design. The Chief

FIGURE 5: Anny Aviator Badge2 AUGUST 1950

U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST 33


36/68

FIGURE 6: Aviation Branch Collar Insignia7 AUGUST 1983

FIGURE 7: NCO Pilot Cap Insignia1908

of Staff, Army approved the newAviation Branch insignia on 7August 1983 (figure 6).The Aviation Branch insigniahave roots that predate the ArmyAir Corps insignia and closelyresemble the original design of1908. The first prop and wingdesign was made of blackenedbronze material and the prop andwings were enclosed by a wreath(figure 7). The insignia wereprescribed as the cap device forthe noncommissioned officer(NCO) pilots of the AeronauticalDivision and Aviation Section ofthe Signal Corps. In 1917 theArmy rescinded the cap deviceand redesigned it for use as acollar insignia for the proposedAir Service Branch of the SignalCorps. Many NCOs continued towear the old style prop and wingdevice on their hats even thoughthe device was unauthorized forwear. The hat device wasremoved in most cases when thenew style prop and wing devicewas produced as a collar device.

34

A proposal to establish theAviation Section as the Air Service Branch was approved on 20May 1918. The Air ServiceBranch, along with its newlyadopted insignia design, becameeffective on 17 July 1918 (figure8). The wreath had been removed,and the color was brass ratherthan blackened bronze. Enlistedmembers wore the insignia on adisc, and officers wore the insignia without a disc. The AirService Branch was designatedthe Army Air Corps on 2 July1926, and the prop and wingdesign remained unchanged. TheArmy Air Corps became theArmy Air Forces in June 1941,and the insignia were changedslightly; the new design consistedof wider and thicker wing tipsand a larger shoulder. The newinsignia were approved by ArmyRegulation 600-35 on 10 November 1941. The new design was

FIGURE 8: Air ServiceBranch Insignia17 JULY 1918

based on the 1919 pilot badge andthe Aviation Cadet insignia thatwere approved for wear on 22August 1933 (figure 9).With the threat of war, theArmy Air Forces expanded theirpilot strength and proposed a.change to make enlisted pilotsequal in status to warrant officers. As a result, in 1942 Congresspassed the Flight Officer Act,which authorized all enlistedpilots of the Army Air Forces tobe established in rank precedenceabove that of the most seniorenlisted grade but below that ofa second lieutenant. Flight offic-



37/68

ers received the rank, pay andallowances provided for warrantofficer junior grade. Flight officers wore the prop and winginsignia and warrant officerjunior grade bar. The brown onthe warrant officer bar waspainted blue until a blue and goldba r could be produced sometimelater.Flight officers were not offi-cially considered warrant officers. However, they are the rootsoftoday's warrant officer aviator.Warrant officers during thatperiod of ime usually were supplyor administrative personnel.They gained their expertise bybecoming senior NCOs and werebasically rewarded with a war-

FIGURE 9: Army AirCorps/Forces InSignia10 NOVEMBER 1941

rant for a job well done. Whereas,the flight officer came fromvarious enlisted career fields,selected in different enlistedgrades or even from the civiliancommunity. Flight officers weretrained in their pilot specialtyfield and were awarded their barat the completion of flight training. Both the warrant officers andthe flight officers wore the warrant officer eagle as a cap device.The warrant officer eagle originally was designed for the TankCorps warrant officer. However,because of branch immaterialdesign, it was recommended forwear by all warrant officers whenthe Army decided no longer toappoint warrant officers inbranches. The device wasapproved for wear in 1920; in 1921warrant officers of the TankCorps received the warrantofficer eagle. The device laterspread to all warrant officers. Thedevice consisted of an eagle

FIGURE 10: Warrant Officer Insignia1920

standing on a bundle of arrows,all enclosed in a wreath (figure10). In 1926, the enlisted capdevice came off, and the warrantofficer's enlarged eagle devicereplaced the enlisted cap device.The Mine Planter warrantofficers were not required to wearthe adopted warrant officer insignia. The Mine Planter warrantofficers were considered "branchspecific" and were authorized tocon in ue wearin

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aviationspace-history-library
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times