Correlation of HGU-56/P Aircrew Helmet Fitting with Head Anthropometric Measurements By James E. Bruckart Kevin T. Mason T .,r. "I Samuel G. Shannon E -Biodynamics Research Divison IY 27 19s" W4=and William E. McLean Sensory Research Division and Steven P. Pacquette Harold G. Moody Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center 932 051 93-11934 February 1993 Y\ Approved for public Wc -is,., distributlon unlimited. United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory Fort Rucker, Alabama 36362-5292
Transcript
Correlation of HGU-56/P Aircrew Helmet Fitting
with Head Anthropometric Measurements
By
James E. BruckartKevin T. Mason
T .,r. "I Samuel G. ShannonE -Biodynamics Research Divison
IY 27 19s"W4 =and
William E. McLean
Sensory Research Division
and
Steven P. PacquetteHarold G. Moody
Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center
932 051 93-11934
February 1993 Y\
Approved for public Wc -is,., distributlon unlimited.
United States Army Aeromedical Research LaboratoryFort Rucker, Alabama 36362-5292
Notice
qualified reauesters
Qualified requesters may obtain copies from the Defense TechnicalInformation Center (DTIC), Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia22314. Orders will be expedited if placed through the librarianor other person designated to request documents from DTIC.
ChanQe of address
Organizations receiving reports from the U.S. Army AeromedicalResearch Laboratory on automatic mailing lists should confirmcorrect address when corresponding about laboratory reports.
Disposition
Destroy this document when it is no longer needed. Do not returnit to the originator.
Disclaimer
The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report arethose of the author(s) and should not be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless sodesignated by other official documentation. Citation of tradenames in this report does not constitute an official Departmentof the Army endorsement or approval of the use of such commercialitems.
Human use
Human subjects participated in these studies after giving theirfree and informed voluntary consent. Investigators adhered to AR70-25 and USAMRDC Reg 70-25 on Use of Volunteers in Research.
Reviewed:
;JOHN V. BARSONLTC, MC, SFSDirector, Biodynamics
Research Division
Released for publication:
W. "D., Ph.D. DAVID H. KANEYChhlrma , Scientific Colonel, MC, SFS
Review Committee Commanding
UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION oF THIS PAGE
Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704•0 188
Is. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb- RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILITY OF REPORTUnclassified Approved for public release; distribution
2b. DECLASSIFICATION I DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited
4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
USAARL Report No. 93-14
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONU.S. Army Aeromedical Research (If applicable) U.S. Army Medical Research and Development
Laboratory SGRD-UAD-IE Command6_. ADDRESS (City, Stare, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City. State. and ZIP Code)
P.O. Box 620577 Fort DetrickFort Rucker, AL 36362-0577 Frederick, MD 21702-5012
Ba. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYM6bL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION I (If applicabie)
Sc. ADDRESS (City, State, end ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.
11. TITLE (Include Security easfication) 0 7 [ II I U f 1
Correlation of HGU-56/P Aircrew Helmet Fitting with Head Anthropometric Measurements
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) James E. bruckart, Kevin T. Mason, Samuel G. Shannon, William E. McLean,Steven P. Pacquette, and Harold G. Moody
"13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year,Month, 1S. PAGE COUNTFinal FROM _ TO 1993 February! 20
"16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
17. COSATI CODES 1S. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Anthropometric, flight helmet, fitting, night vision23 04 goggles, HGU-56/P05 09 1
19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessury and identify by block number)The U.S. Army is developing an Aircrew Integrated Helmet System to replace the current flighthelmets. The HGU-56/P flight helmet is proposed in six sizes with a new fitting method basedon a nonstandard measure of the aviator head length.
Standard anthropometric head measurements and the Gentex Corporation fitting method for theHGU-56/P flight helmet are evaluated to determine the applicability of the fitting method anddistribution of helmet sizes required to fit the U.S. Army aviator population.
Two hundred forty-two volunteer aviators had standard anthropometric measurements of theirheads. Each was fitted with an HGU-56/P flight helmet in their recommended size, anda helmet one si.e larger and one size smaller than recommended. ANVIS compatibility witheach helmet was tested for a subset of the subjects.
(Continued on back of this sheet)
20. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION[3UNCLASSIFIEDIUNLIMITED C3 SAME AS RPT. 03 OTIC USERS Unclassified
22a. NAME OF -RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b, TELEPHONE (include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLChief, Scientific Information Center (205) 255-6907 SGRD-UAX-SI
DO Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous Witiosamu obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEUnclassified
19. ABSTRACT (continued)
Only one subject did not receive an acceptable fit with any of the six helmet sizes. The
recommended helmet size was acceptable for 84 percent of the subjects. One size larger was
acceptable for 86 percent of the subjects, and a size smaller for 38 percent. None of the
subjects exceeded the available length or width in the largest helmet. Overall, 86 percent
of the wearers could obtain full field-of-view with ANVIS while wearing the helmet. If
users choose to wear their preferred rather than recommended helmet size, more larger size
helmets will be required.
The basic fitting method was easily applied and effective. Primarily, this resulted from
excess width in the helmet shells for most subjects with a specific head length. Ninety-
three percent of the subjects bot1d he accommodated with an acccpt'. fit if cn1y three ef
the proposed sizes of the helmet are available.
Table of contents
Page
List of figures ................... ....................... 2
List of tables .................... ....................... 2
9. Distribution of tragion to top-of-head measure (cm) 12
10. Distribution of modified head length (in) ....... .. 13
11. Summary of helmets and subject acceptance ..... ... 14
12. Results of ANVIS compatibility tests among subjectswith an "acceptable" helmet fit ...... .......... .. 15
13. Percentage of each helmet size required ........ .. 17
2
Introduction
The United States Army is developing an Aircrew IntegratedHelmet System to replace the current SPH-4 and SPH-4B flighthelmets worn by U.S. Army helicopter pilots. This new helmetwill include the latest materials and advanced design features toprotect the wearer during an aircraft mishap and provide a stableplatform for head-mounted devices.
The Gentex Corporation (Gentex) is fabricating the HGU-56/P(Head Gear Unit, Model 56, Personal) as the Aircrew IntegratedHelmet System. The HGU-56/P is currently manufactured in sixdifferent sizes, using four different helmet shells, to fit thebroad range of U.S. Army pilots. The manufacturer directs thatthe helmet size is found by measuring the length of the head witha designated procedure. (Department of the Army, 1992). Gentexand the U.S. Army are currently testing the HGU-56/P in pre-production technical and user tests.
In this study, standard anthropometric head measurements andthe Gentex modified head length measurement were obtained for 242volunteer aviator subjects at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Helmet fitand acceptance were evaluated for each subject in theirrecommended HGU-56/P helmet size and in helmets one size largerand one size smaller when applicable. A subset of the subjectswas evaluated to learn if they could wear night vision goggles(NVGs) with each helmet.
The goals of the study were to assess the applicability ofthe Gentex sizing method, develop a sizing method based onstandard anthropometric measures, and to determine thedistribution of helmet sizes required by a representative groupof aviators. A sizing method based on standard anthropometricmeasures will be discussed in a follow-on report.
Background
Military significance
The aircrew helmet protects the wearer from head injuryduring an aircraft mishap, ballistic eye injury, and hearingloss. It also serves as a platform for oxygen delivery,communication, vision enhancement, weapon sighting, and laserprotection devices. The modern aircrew helmet requires a precisefit to provide optimum performance and comfort.
Earlier aircrew helmet programs encountered fitting problemsin the post-production phase. These problems were caused byincreased complexity of helmet-mounted devices, outdated aviatorhead anthropometric data, changes in helmet design, and reducedfitting tolerances. This resulted in operational limitation forsome aviators using the helmet and launched a post-production
3
development program to produce helmet modifications andadditional helmet sizes (Sippo et al., 1988). The Army can savepost-production development and modification costs if problemswith sizing and fitting the HGU-56/P are identified and solvedbefore helmet production.
Helmet design and fitting
The human engineering challenge in helmet sizing and fit isto design a product that fits the three-dimensional relationshipsfound in head and face morphology. This challenge is coupledwith the complex distribution of head and face shapes within thepopulation. Anthropometrists have noted problems when helmetdesigns rely on percentile models or single linear measurements(Robinette and McConville, 1981; Sippo, Licina, and Noehl, 1991).Natick Laboratory completed a broad anthropometric study of U.S.Army aircrew in 1988. The study includes 48 direct and derivedmeasures of the head and face (Donelson and Gordon, 1991).
In the past, Army aircrew helmets were issued in one or twosizes. Recent studies have recommended from five to nine helmetsizes to fit the wide range of head sizes found in aviatorpopulations (Sippo and Belyavin, 1988; Sippo Licina, and Noel,1991; Natick-STRNC-YBA, 1991).
Gentex uses a custom measurement procedure to decide thecorrect helmet size among the six available sizes proposed forthe HGU-56/P. This method does not account for non-linearvariation between the head length and other head dimensions(Natick-STRNC-YBA, 1992). In addition, the distribution ofhelmet sizes depends on a weighted mean of head measurements fromtwo anthropometric databases. This grouping may not representthe true aviator population, particularly in the largest andsmallest head sizes. (Natick-STRNC-YBA, 1991).
Methods
Subjects
Two hundred and forty-two volunteer subjects were enrolledin the study. These included pilots from the Warrant OfficerCareer College, instructor pilots, student pilots, and anoperational aviation unit at Fort Rucker, Alabama. All of thesubjects were required to have experience wearing a flight helmetin military aviation service and were appraised of the objectivesof the study. Each subject's birth date, gender, andracial/ethic group were recorded as prescribed by the Measurer'sHandbook (Clauser et al., 1988).
4
Anthropometric measurements
Each subject had body weight in stocking feet and dutyuniform, to the nearest one-tenth pound, and standing height instocking feet, to the nearest millimeter, measured. A singleanthropometrist measured the head length, head breadth, headcircumference, bitragion coronal arc, and vertical distance fromthe tragion to top of the head for all the subjects.Measurements were made to the nearest millimeter using themethods prescribed by the Measurer's Handbook (Clauser et al.,1988). An Army flight surgeon, using the method prescribed inthe Operator's and Aviation Unit Maintenance Manual for the HGU-56/P (Department of the Army, 1992), measured the head length,herein called the "modified" head length, to the nearest tenth ofan inch. The modified head length is the distance from theforehead reference point (a point in the middle of the forehead,1.5 inches above a line between the pupils) to a block placedvertically behind the upright head.
Helmet fitting
In accordance with the Gentex fitting procedure, allsubjects were assigned a "recommended" helmet size based on theirmodified head length as shown in Table 1. The helmet was fit tothe head using the basic fitting procedure from the Operator'sand Aviation Unit Maintenance Manual for the HGU-56/P (Departmentof the Army, 1992). The subject was asked to judge the overallcomfort and security of the fit as "acceptable" or "unacceptable"and the response was recorded on a data sheet. In addition, thenumber and location of fitting pads were noted. Most subjectswore the helmet for five minutes, but several subjects decided aparticular helmet fit was unacceptable after wearing the helmetfor a shorter period. A limitation of this study is the shortduration available for each subject to wear the helmet. Subjectswith experience wearing flight helmets were selected to improvethe reliability of the subjective assessment of comfort andsecurity with the short duration of actual helmet wear.
5
Table 1.Gentex correct helmet size based on modified head length.
Helmet size Maximum head length (inches)
-2 <7.11
0 7.11-7.40
2 7.41-7.70
4 7.71-8.00
6 8.01-8.30
8 >8.30
Since there were no additional prototype liners available,if the helmet was unacceptable because it was "too tight,"custom-fitting of the thermoplastic liner was not attempted.After wearing the "recommended" size helmet, subjects were fit inthe next larger and smaller helmet size following the sameprocedures.
ANVIS compatibility test
Each HGU-56/P test helmet was fitted with a centrally-positioned ANVIS visor mount. A subset of the subjects had ANVIScompatibility tests on each helmet with an "acceptable" fit(n=694). ANVIS NVGs were placed on the helmet, tilt adjusted tothe middle position, and fore/aft adjustment placed in the aftposition. Using the circ"'lar green image provided by the NVGwith attenuating translucent lens covers in normal roomillumination, the subject adjusted the interpupillary distanceand vertical height adjustment to obtain ANVIS compatibility.The subject adjusted the fore-aft adjustment forward only if thelenses touched the eyelashes. ANVIS compatibility was"acceptable" when the wearer could align the optical axis of theNVGs with his/her visual axis and obtain a full field-of-viewwith the NVG. The NVG adjustment was "unacceptable" if thesubject could not obtain a full field-of-view or align theoptical axis with the NVG. When the ANVIS was properly adjusted,the eye clearance, measured from the apex of the cornea of theeye to the NVG, and vertical adjustment of the NVG mount weremeasured. The results of eye clearance, vertical adjustment, andhead tilt measurements will be reported in a separate report.
6
Results
Subjects
The subject group included 15 enlisted soldiers, 142 warrantofficers, 79 commissioned officers, and 6 Department of the Armycivilians in the distribution presented in Figure 1. All of thesubjects were rated pilots or student pilots except 16 aircrewmembers from the operational aviation unit and the U.S. ArmyAeromedical Research Laboratory. The average age of the subjectgroup was 28.8 years with the age distribution presented inFigure 2. Table 2 shows the racial/ethnic groups represented bythe subjects.
White, not Hispanic 219 90.5Black, not Hispanic 11 4.5Hispanic 6 2.5asian Pacific 4 1.6American Indian 1 0.4Other 1 0.4
Anthropometric measurements
Tables 3 through 10 present the mean, standard deviation,maximum, minimum, and calculated percentile measures for the bodyweight, height, head length, head breadth, head circumference,bitragion coronal arc, tragion to top-of-head, and modified headlength measurements. The measures from this study are comparedwith the 1988 Natick Anthropometric Survey Pilot group whereequivalent measures were available.
Table 3.
Comparison of body weight (lbs).
1992 helmet study 1988 pilot study
Female Male Female MaleN=10 N=231 N=334 N=487
Mean 143.8 181.2 144.12 175.93SD 1Z.5 23.1 18.79 21.19
Min 127.6 137.0 102.08 125.18Max 172.8 277.3 212.74 249.92
Among the 241 subjects enrolled in the study, 696 helmetfitting trials were completed. Each subject was tested withthree helmets: a helmet of the recommended size, one sizesmaller (downsize), and one size larger (upsize). Overall, 68%of the fitting trials resulted in an "acceptable" fit. Therecommended size helmet resulted in an acceptable fit for 84% ofthe subjects. Only 38% of the helmets were judged acceptablewhen they were one size smaller than the subject's recommendedsize (downsize). If the helmet was one size larger than therecommended size, 86% of the subjects judged the fit acceptable.A summary of the number of subjects tested in each helmet and fittest results for each helmet are presented in Table 11. Thistable shows the helmet tested in the first column and therecommended helmet size for the subject wearing the helmet incolumn two. For example, a subject with the size 2 as hisrecommended size will be "downsize" when wearing the size 0helmet. Since size -2 is the smallest size helmet, none of thesubjects' recommended size could be smaller than -2 so there areno "upsize" subjects for this helmet. Likewise, there are nosubjects "downsized" to the largest helmet (size 8).
13
Table 11.
Summary of helmets and subject acceptance.
Subject Proportion
Helmet Recommended size Number of trials "Acceptable"
Among the 241 subjects enrolled in the study, 333 ANVIScompatibility tests were completed. Each subject was tested onlywith a helmet that provided an acceptable fit. This helmet couldbe a helmet of the recommended size, one size smaller (downsize),or one size larger (upsize). Overall, 86% of the ANVIScompatibility trials resulted in an "acceptable" ANVIS position.The recommended size helmet resulted in ANVIS compatibility among91% of the subjects with an acceptable helmet fit. The downsize(smaller) helmet resulted in 96% compatibility. If the helmetwas one size larger than the recommended size, 79% of thesubjects could obtain acceptable ANVIS positioning. A summary ofthe number of subjects tested in each helmet and ANVIScompatibility test results for each helmet are presented in table12. Additional findings from the ANVIS mount measurements andrecommendations for the ANVIS mount will be presented in afollow-on report.
14
Table 12.
Results of ANVIS compatibility tests among subjects with an"acceptable" helmet fit.
Subject ProportionHelmet Recommended size Number of trials "Acceptable"
The distribution of subjects enrolled in the study typifiesthe U.S. Army aviator population and the 1988 Natick study group.In most of the measures the study population is similar to theNatick 1988 population. Most important is the similarity in headlength among the two populations. This is emphasized becausehead length is the most important dimension used in choosing theinitial size of the HGU-56/P flight helmet with the recommendedprocedure.
The mean weight of male subjects is higher than the 1988Natick group. Some of the difference may be attributed to oursubjects wearing a uniform rather than only nylon shorts for the
15
Natick subjects. On data analysis, the specific data on one
subject was not included.
Helmet fitting
The recommended procedure for fitting the HGU-56/P flighthelmet uses the modified head length measured in tenths of aninch from the forehead reference point. Carpenter squaresobtained for this study were marked in 1/8" and 1/16" increments.The measure from the ruler had to be converted to tenths of aninch to obtain the recommended helmet size. The helmet sizechart should show 1/8 and 1/16 inch increments as well as metricequivalents to simplify the process of selecting the recommendedhelmet size.
Only one subject could not obtain an acceptable fit, for theshort period of wear, in either the recommended or an adjacentsize helmet. This suggests that the HGU-56/P will fit most ofthe aviators in the U.S. Army. None of our sub3ect's headdimensions exceeded the available width or length in the largesthelmet size. A limitation of this study is the short periodavailable for each subject to judge the acceptability of the fit.However, if "hot spots" develop in longer duration wear thencustom fitting procedures, such as heat treatment of thethermoplastic liner, might regain the acceptability of the helmetfit.
The distribution of helmet sizes required to fit the subjectpopulation with their recommended helmet size and preferredhelmet size is shown in Table 13. Many wearers of the HGU-56/Pcould be fit in more than one helmet size. When asked whichhelmet size each wearer preferred, 5% said the helmet smallerthan their recommended size, 41% responded with the recommendedsize, and 54% preferred a size larger than their recommendedsize. In this study, 84% of the subjects fit in the recommendedhelmet size while 86% fit in a helmet one size larger. Ifsubjects wear their preferred helmet size (instead of therecommended size), more large helmets will be required.
Most subjects required earcup pads to obtain an earcup sealwhile wearing the HGU-56/P. We found that an average of 0.4earcup pads were required on each side with the downsize helmet,0.9 pads each side with the recommended size, and 1.7 earcup padseach side in the upsize helmet.
Inadequate length was the most common reason for anunacceptable helmet fit. This was most frequently seen inhelmets smaller than the recommended size and was described bythe wearer as tightness in the headband area at the forehead.Most wearers had sufficient width in all sizes of the helmet.Head length is effective in selecting helmet size in the HGU-56/Pbecause it detects the smallest helmet an individual is likely totolerate. This would not be true in a helmet where inadequatewidth or height limits the acceptable fit. Subject head lengthversus width and the interior dimensions of each helmet size areplotted in Figure 3.
Individual heads vary in several dimensions, includinglength, width, and haight. Recent helmet fitting studies haverecommended several shell shapes and sizes to fit variouscombinations of head shapes and sizes. The HGU-56/P conforms todifferent head shapes in a unique way. First, each size of theHGU-56/P is wider than most subjects for a given head length.Narrow heads are constrained in the helmet with earcup pads.Different head lengths are accommodated by six helmet sizes (fourshell sizes) and an adjustable nape plate assembly. Differencesin head height are accommodated by fore/aft tilt of the helmet.The helmet is tilted to position the front edge of the helmet atthe helmet reference point. This places the eye at the properposition for the ANVIS night vision goggle mount on the helmet.The disadvantage of this fitting method is that it providesexcess width in the shell for most wearers. Technical and usertests of the helmet should compare stability with a narrow andwide helmet on the same individual and focus on whether the widerhelmet permits more movement when turning the head.
17
Figure 3 shows that there is little difference in insidedimensions among several helmet sizes. In fact, the size -2 iswider than the larger size 0 and size 2. If the nape plate andearcup pads adapt to excess length and width without compromisingstability or retention, most wearers could be fit in fewer sizesof the HGU-56/P. Specifically, if the size -2, 0, and 6 helmetswere not available, at least 93% of the subjects could still havebeen fit with an "acceptable" helmet given the basic fittingprocedures used in this study. A wider size 2 helmet wouldaccommodate most of the remaining wearers.
17
asoz a
16.5
16 Mae 4 4& 416" "Sire4 " ,So
l* 0 " 2 4: * . •
13.5 :S• • " *•
414 4
17 17.s 1e le.s 19 19.5 20 2M ~ 21 21.S 22
Figure 3. Plot of subject head length vs. breadth (width) andinterior dimensions (cm) of each helmet size.
18
Conclusions
Among 242 subjects fitted with the HGU-56/P flight helmet,only one could not obtain an "acceptable" fit with the six sizesavailable. None of our subjects exceeded the available length orwidth in the largest helmet. Most of the wearers could obtainfull field-of-view and optical alignment of night vision goggleswith the recommended helmet.
The distribution of sizes required for a typical aviatorpopulation depends on the fitting method. The distribution ofsizes is presented in Table 13. If users choose to wear theirpreferred size, more larger helmets will be required.
The basic fitting method was easily applied and will permitinitial fitting of most aviators with the flight helmet. Thetable of recommended helmet sizes should include 1/8", 1/16", andmetric equivalents.
The HGU-56/P has adequate width in most sizes for almost allwearers at a given head length. Most wearers will use at leastone earcup pad to obtain an earcup seal. Technical and usertests of the helmet should look for rotation of the helmet withhead turning. There are only small differences between sizes inseveral of the helmets. Most of the subjects from this studywould be accommodated if only the size 2, 4, and 8 helmets wereavailable.
19
References
Clauser, C., Tebbetts, I., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J., andGordon, C. C. 1988. Measurer's handbook: U.S. Armyanthropometric survey 1987-1988. Technical ReportNATICK/TR-88/043 (AD-A202 721). U.S. Army Natick Research,Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA.
Department of the Army. 1992. Preliminary technical manual;Operator's and aviation unit maintenance manual, includingrepair parts and special tools list for Helmet, HGU-56P,Aircrew Integrated. Washington: Technical Manual. TM 1-8415-216-12&P.
Donelson, S. M., and Gordon, C. C. 1991. 1988 Anthropometricsurvey of U.S. Army personnel: pilot summary statistics.Technical Report NATICK/TR-91/040. U.S. Army NatickResearch, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA.
Groves, R. M. 1989. Survey errors and survey costs. New York:John Wiley and Sons.
Natick-STRNC-YBA. 1991. Memorandum for record. Subject:Anthropology review of Crew Systems Corporation aircrewintegrated helmet system data and methodology.
Natick-STRNC-YBA. 1992. Memorandum for Mr. Harold Moody,Mechanical engineer, Individual Protection Directorate, U.S.Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center.Subject: Cost estimates for anthropometric support of theaircrew integrated helmet system program.
Robinette, K. M., and McConville, J. T. 1981. An alternative topercentile models. Society of Automotive EngineersTechnical Papers Series Report 810217. Society ofAutomotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA.
Sippo, A. C., Licina, J. R., and Noehl, M. J. 1988.Anthropometric consideration of the U.S. Army integratedhelmet and display sighting system. Letter Report USAARLLR-88-10-4-6. U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory,Fort Rucker, AL.
Sippo, A. C., and Belyavin, B. A. 1991. Determining aircrewhelmet size design requirements using statistical analysisof anthropometric data. Aviation. space, and environmentalmedicine. 62: 67-74.
20
Initial distribution
Commander, U.S. Army Natick Research, LibraryDevelopment and Engineering Center Naval Submarine Medical Research Lab
CommanderCommander/Director Man-Machine Integration SystemU.S. Army Combat Surveillance Code 602
and Target Acquisition Lab Naval Air Development CenterATTN: DELCS-D Warminster, PA 18974Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5304
CommanderCommander Naval Air Development Center10th Medical Laboratory ATTN: Code 602-B (Mr. Brindle)ATTN: Audiologist Warminster, PA 18974APO New York 09180
Commanding OfficerNaval Air Development Center Armstrong LaboratoryTechnical Information Division Wtight-PattersonTechnical Support Detachment Air Force Base, OH 45433-6573Warminster, PA 18974
DirectorCommanding Officer, Naval Medical Army Audiology and Speech Center
Research and Development Command Walter Reed Army Medical CenterNational Naval Medical Center Washington, DC 20307-5001Bethesda, MD 20814-5044
Commander, U.S. Army InstituteDeputy Director, Defense Research of Dental Research
and Engineering ATTN: Jean A. Setterstrom, Ph. D.ATTN: Military Assistant Walter Reed Army Medical Center
for Medical and Life Sciences Washington, DC 203)7-5300Washington, DC 20301-3080
Commander, U.S. Army TestCommander, U.S. Army Research and Evaluation Command
Institute of Environmental Medicine ATTN: AMSTE-AD-HNatick, MA 01760 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
21
Naval Air Systems Command U.S. Army Ordnance CenterTechnical Air Library 950D and School LibraryRoom 278, Jefferson Plaza II Simpson Hall, Building 3071Department of the Navy Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005Washington, DC 20361
U.S. Army EnvironmentalDirector Hygiene AgencyU.S. Army Ballistic Building E2100
Research Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010ATTN: DRXBR-OD-ST Tech ReportsAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 Technical Library Chemical Research
and Development CenterCommander Aberdeen Provihig Ground, MDU.S. Army Medical Research 21010--5423
Institute of Chemical DefenseATT'N: SGRD-UV-AO CommanderAberdeen Proving Gruw1 id, U.S. Army Medical ResearchMD 21010-5425 Institute of Infectious Disease
SGRD-UIZ-CCommander, U.S. Army Medical Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702Research and Development CommandATTN: SGRD-RMS (Ms. Madigan) Director, BiologicalFort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012 Sciences Division
Office of Naval ResearchDirector 600 North Quincy StreetWalter Reed Army Institute of Research Arlington, VA 22217Washington, DC 20307-5100
CommanderHQ DA (DASG-PSP-O) U.S. Army Materiel Command5109 Leesburg Pike ATTN: AMCDE-XSFalls Church, VA 22041-3258 5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333Harry Diamond LaboratoriesATTN: Technical Information Branch Commandant2800 Powder Mill Road U.S. Army AviationAdelphi, MD 20783-1197 Logistics School ATTN: ATSQ-TDN
Fort Eustis, VA 23604U.S. Army Materiel Systems
Analysis Agency Headquarters (ATMD)ATTN: AMXSY-PA (Reports Processing) U.S. Army TrainingAberdeen Proving Ground and Doctrine CommandMD 21005-5071 ATTN: ATBO-M
Fort Monroe, VA 23651
22
Structures Laboratory Library U.S. Army Aviation Systems CommandUSARTL-AVSCOM Library and Information Center BranchNASA Langley Research Center ATTN: AMSAV-DILMail Stop 266 4300 Goodfellow BoulevardHampton, VA 23665 St. Louis, MO 63120
Naval Aerospace Medical Federal Aviation AdministrationInstitute Library Civil Aeromedical Institute
Oklahoma City, OK 73125Command SurgeonHQ USCENTCOM (CCSG) CommanderU.S. Central Command U.S. Army AcademyMacDill Air Force Base FL 33608 of Health Sciences
ATTN: LibraryAir University Library Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234(AUL/LSE)Maxwell Air Fore Base, AL 36112 Commander
U.S. Army Institute of Surgical ResearchU.S. Air Force Institute AT-N: SGRD-USM (Jan Duke)
of Technology (AFIT/LDEE) Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6200Building 640, Area BWright-Patterson AAMRL/HEXAir Force Base, OH 45433 Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, OH 45433Henry L. TaylorDirector, Institute of Aviation John A. Dellinger,University of Illinois-Willard Airport Southwest Research InstituteSavoy, IL 61874 P. 0. Box 28510
San Antonio, TX 78284Chief, National Guard BureauATI'N: NGB-ARS (COL Urbauer) Product ManagerRoom 410, Park Center 4 Aviation Life Support Equipment4501 Ford Avenue ATTN: AMCPM-ALSEAlexandria, VA 22302-1451 4300 Goodfellow Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63120-1798CommanderU.S. Army Aviation Systems Command CommanderATTN: SGRD-UAX-AL (LTC Gillette) U.S. Army Aviation4300 Goodfellow Blvd., Building 105 Systems CommandSt. Louis, MO 63120 ATTN: AMSAV-ED
4300 Goodfellow BoulevardSt. Louis, MO 63120
23
Commanding Officer CommanderNaval Biodynamics Laboratory U.S. Army Aeromedical CenterP.O. Box 24907 Fort Rucker, AL 36362New Orleans, LA 70189-0407
U.S. Air Force SchoolAssistant Commandant of Aerospace MedicineU.S. Army Field Artillery School Strughold Aeromedical Library TechnicalATI'N: Morris Swott Technical Library Reports Section (TSKD)Fort Sill, OK 73503-0312 Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5301
Commander Dr. Diane DamosU.S. Army Health Services Command Department of Human FactorsATTN: HSOP-SO ISSM, USCFort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6000 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0021
U.S. Army White SandsMissile Range
AT'TN: STEWS-IM-STU.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002Technical Library, Building 5330Dugway, UT 84022 U.S. Army Aviation Engineering
Flight ActivityU.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground ATTN: SAVTE-M (Tech Lib) Stop 217Technical Library Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93523-5000Yuma, AZ 85364
Ms. Sandra G. HartAFFTC Technical Library Ames Research Center6510 TW/TSTL MS 262-3Edwards Air Force Base, Moffett Field, CA 94035CA 93523-5000
Commander, Letterman Army InstituteCommander of ResearchCode 3431 ATT'N: Medical Research LibraryNaval Weapons Center Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129China Lake, CA 93555
CommanderAeromechanics Laboratory U.S. Army Medical MaterielU.S. Army Research and Technical Labs Development ActivityAmes Research Center, M/S 215-1 Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5009Moffett Field, CA 94035
CommanderSixth U.S. Army U.S. Army Aviation CenterATTN: SMA Directorate of Combat DevelopmentsPresidio of San Francisco, CA 94129 Building 507
Fort Rucker, AL 36362
24
U. S. Army Research Institute Commander U.S. Army Aviation CenterAviation R&D Activity and Fort RuckerATTN: PERI-IR ATTN: ATZQ-CGFort Rucker, AL 36362 Fort Rucker, AL 36362
Commander ChiefU.S. Army Safety Center Test & Evaluation Coordinating BoardFort Rucker, AL 36362 Cairns Army Air Field
Fort Rucker, AL 36362U.S. Army Aircraft Development
Test Activity MAJ Terry NewmanATTN: STEBG-MP-P Canadian Army Liaison OfficeCairns Army Air Field Building 602Fort Rucker, AL 36362 Fort Rucker, AL 36362
Commander U.S. Army Medical Research German Army Liaison Officeand Development Command Building 602
ATTIN: SGRD-PLC (COL Schnakenberg) Fort Rucker, AL 36362Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702
LTC Patrice CottebruneMAJ John Wilson French Army Liaison OfficeTRADOC Aviation LO USAAVNC (Building 602)Embassy of the United States Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5021APO New York 09777
Australian Army Liaison OfficeNetherlands Army Liaison Office Building 602Building 602 Fort Rucker, AL 36362Fort Rucker, AL 36362
Dr. Garrison RapmundBritish Army Liaison Office 6 Burning Tree CourtBuilding 602 Bethesda, MD 20817Fort Rucker, Al. 36362
Commandant, Royal Air ForceItalian Army Liaison Office Institute of Aviation MedicineBuilding 602 Farmborough Hampshire GU14 6SZ UKFort Rucker, AL 36362
CommanderDirectorate of Training Development U.S. Army Biomedical ResearchBuilding 502 and Development LaboratoryFort Rucker, AL 36362 ATTN: SGRD-UBZ-I
Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702ChiefUSAHEL/USAAVNC Field Office Defense Technical InformationP.O. Box 716 Cameron Station, Building 5Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5349 Alexandra, VA 22304-6145
25
Commander, U.S. Army Foreign Science Dr. Eugene S. Channingand Technology Center 7985 Schooner Court
USAMRDC Liaison at AcademyDirector, of Health SciencesApplied Technology Laboratory ATTN: HSHA-ZAC-FUSARTL-AVSCOM Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234ATITN: Library, Building 401Fort Eustis, VA 23604 Aviation Medicine Clinic
TMC #22, SAAFCommander, U.S. Air Force Fort Bragg, NC 28305
Development Test Center101 West D Avenue, Suite 117 Dr. A. Kornfield, PresidentEglin Air Force Base, FL 32542-5495 Biosearch Company
3016 Revere RoadCommander, U.S. Army Missile Drexel Hill, PA 29026
CommandRedstone Scientific Information Center NVEODATlTN: AMSMI-RD-CS-R AMSEL-RD-ASID
/ILL Documents (Attn: Trang Bui)Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Fort Belvior, VA 22060
Dr. H. Dix Christensen CA Av MedBio-Medical Science Building, Room 753 HQ DAACPost Office Box 26901 Middle WallopOklahoma City, OK 73190 Stockbridge Hants S020 8DY UK
Director Commander and DirectorArmy Personnel Research Establishment USAE Waterways Experiment StationFarnborough, Hants GU14 6SZ UK ATTN: CEWES-IM-MI-R
Alfrieda S. Clark, CD Dept.U.S. Army Research and Technology 3909 Halls Ferry Road
Laboratories (AVSCOM) Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199Propulsion Laboratory MS 302-2NASA Lewis Research Center Mr. Peter SeibCleveland, OH 44135 Human Engineering Crew Station
Box 266Col. Otto Schramm Filho Westland Helicopters Limitedc/o Brazilian Army Commission Yeovil, Somerset BA202YB UK
Office-CEBW4632 Wisconsin Avenue NW Dr. Christine SchlichtingWashington, DC 20016 Behavioral Sciences Department
Box 900, NAVUBASE NLONGroton, CT 06349-5900
26
COL C. Fred Tyner COL John F. GlennU.S. Army Medical Research U.S. Army Medical Research
& Development Command & Development CommandSGRD-ZB SGRD-ZCFort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012 Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012
