1 / 11

MANPRINT Quarterly May 2002 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :

MANPRINT Quarterly May 2002. Contents…. The Director’s Corner. The Director’s Corner ….…………….……………………….….. 1

Related searches for MANPRINT Quarterly May 2002

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'MANPRINT Quarterly May 2002' - Mercy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg



May 2002


The Director’s Corner

The Director’s Corner ….…………….……………………….….. 1

Article: U.S. Army Health Hazard Assessment Program Supports the Army’s Transformation Plan, Robert A Gross and CPT Timothy Kluchinsky, U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine……………….……………… 2

Meetings of Interest……………………………………………..… 3

Article: Human Factors Characteristics of the AH-64D Apache Longbow Crewstations, Dave Durbin, Army Research Laboratory, Human Research & Engineering Directorate

Aviation Center Field Element………………….. ……………… 4

Article: New MANPRINT Website, the MANPRINT Directorate………………………….…………………………….... 6

MANPRINT Central Information………………………………… 7

MANPRINT Training Schedule………………………………….. 8

MANPRINT Information………………………………….…….…. 9

Reader’s Response…………………………………….………. ...10

On January 27, 2002, I had the honor of taking on the challenge of becoming the new Director for Personnel Technologies in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 (Personnel). Some of you know me from my past association with the Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the Army Research Laboratory, serving as Dr. Keesee’s Liaison to the MANPRINT Directorate in the mid-1990s. My relevant past experience includes conducting research on aircrew training with the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (now part of the Air Force Research Lab), leading technology development efforts for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Joint Project, and serving as the ARL Liaison to the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology.

These are exciting times for our community. The Army

Transformation, and in particular the development of key

Objective Force systems such as the Future Combat Systems

(FCS) and the Objective Force Warrior, poses both opportunities

and challenges for MANPRINT. We are already engaged in

support to the new PEO Soldier via the Land Warrior MANPRINT Working Group, and we are in the process of initiating a “Human Dimension” Working Group/IPT for the FCS program. The latter will be a joint government/Lead Systems Integrator effort, with Mr. Dave Harrah from ARL/HRED as the government lead.

For our office in particular, we are in the midst of a number of changes. Ms. Peggy Simmons retired recently after many years of faithful service to this office and to the MANPRINT program, and she will be sorely missed. She has been replaced by Ms. Teresa Hanson, who came from Total Army Personnel Command. LTC Lee Myers, our liaison to HQ TRADOC, has retired, and we will soon be losing our remaining military officers, LTC Rick Inman and MAJ Joe Jones, due to headquarters streamlining. Dr. Michael Drillings is now the official Deputy Director, and Ms. Marjorie Zelko remains as our “senior” analyst. We also recently moved back to the Pentagon from the Hoffman Building, a welcome change in terms of the logistics of getting to meetings here in the building. We want to thank our hosts at PERSCOM for their hospitality and support during the difficult times following the attack on the Pentagon.

In light of my desire to raise the visibility of MANPRINT and highlight the role it must play in the development of the Objective Force, I have chosen to change the name of our organization back to the MANPRINT Directorate. This does not imply any change in responsibilities, as I believe that our SORD responsibilities complement and support the MANPRINT mission. Our office symbol remains (for now) DAPE-MR. We will be having a MANPRINT Symposium this year, sometime in September. My intent is that this Symposium will involve increased participation by MANPRINT practitioners (i.e., YOU), with the opportunity for working together to explore how we can improve our own processes and working relationships. We will also be sending out invitations for nominations for the MANPRINT Practitioner Awards, so be prepared to nominate those who are making MANPRINT effective today.

I look forward to serving you in maintaining a vibrant and dynamic MANPRINT program. I plan to get out to the field over the next several months so that I can get a chance to meet with practitioners, as well as combat and materiel developers. I welcome your feedback and l need your support. Thank you.

Dr. Thomas Killion

Director for MANPRINT

Slide2 l.jpg


Robert A Gross and CPT Timothy Kluchinsky

U. S. Army Center for Health Promotion & Preventive Medicine

Army Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki and Army Secretary Louis Caldera, unveiled the Army Transformation Plan at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Conference in October 1999. The vision is to create a lighter weight force capable of deploying a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) within 96 hours; one Division within 120 hours; and five Divisions within 30 days.

The Transformation Plan includes three phases. The Army's Health Hazard Assessment Program (HHAP), located at the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, represents one of the seven Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) domains and plays a key role in supporting all three phases of the Transformation Plan. The HHAP’s significant contributions to each phase are discussed below.

PHASE I (1999-2001): The use of lighter weight surrogate vehicles on loan from other governments or systems already in the Army inventory.

Initial, surrogate, armored vehicles were provided to the Initial BCT at Fort Lewis, Washington. The surrogate vehicles included lighter weight vehicles already in the Army inventory and subjected to the Health Hazard Assessment (HHA) process. These initial vehicles will remain in use until replaced by Interim Armored Vehicles (IAVs).

PHASE II (2001-2008): The selection, production, and fielding of lighter weight, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) IAVs.

The HHA Program has supported the IAV selection process by providing:

  • Inspection of approximately 24 IAV candidates at a Platform Performance Demonstration (PPD), held at Fort Knox, KY during December 1999 and January 2000.

  • Support for the safety release for testing by Army personnel through issuing abbreviated HHA reports (HHARs), based upon lessons-learned from past experience with armored vehicles, and detailed HHARs previously completed on vehicles presented at the PPD.

  • Attendance at Tank-Automotive and Armament Command’s (TACOM) IAV document review meetings involving specifications, test plans, request for proposal, and related program documents.

  • An initial HHAR on the IAV as input to the Department of the Army's (DA's) MANPRINT Assessment for the IAV. The MANPRINT Assessment supported the Army System Acquisition Review Council's (ASARC's) Milestone I Decision Review in February 2000.

  • Representation on the IAV Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) held at TACOM and the Bid Sample Team conducting vehicle tests at Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) from June to November 2000.

Companies responding to TACOM's IAV Request for Proposal (RFP) provided a prototype of their vehicle, the basic IAV or Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV), to ATC. Test data collected by the Bid Sample MANPRINT Team was provided to the SSEB MANPRINT Team for inclusion in their evaluation submitted to the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE). The AAE announced his selection and contract award for the IAV on 16 November 2000. The offer from General Motors/General Dynamics Land Systems (GM/GDLS) was accepted. The GM/GDLS Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) III will be used for the ICV and Mobile Gun System.

Page 2

MANPRINT Quarterly

Slide3 l.jpg


vehicles. The estimated value of the Army's contract with GM/GDLS approaches $4 Billion, for

the deliver of 2,131 vehicles by 2008.

Once each variant becomes available for testing at ATC and other locations, HHA test data will be collected to support the completion of HHARs. These assessments will support future ASARC Milestone Decision Reviews.

PHASE III (2008 and beyond): The production and fielding of lighter weight objective systems, using advanced technologies, currently in the research and development technology base.

The HHA Program will routinely complete HHARs on objective vehicles, destined to replace the IAV, as they come out of the research and development technology base and proceed through the Army's materiel acquisition decision process.


The ICV is also the basic chassis for eight additional variants; mortar carrier, reconnaissance, anti-tank guided missile, fires support, engineer support,

command and control, medical evacuation, and nuclear, chemical, and biological reconnaissance

Meetings of Interest

AUSA 2002 Annual Meeting

Realizing the Army Vision

October 21-23

Washington, DC

Marriott Wardman Park Hotel

Omni Shoreham Hotel

May 2002

Page 3

Slide4 l.jpg

Human Factors Characteristics of the AH-64D Apache Longbow Crewstations

Dave Durbin

Army Research Laboratory

Human Research & Engineering Directorate

Aviation Center Field Element

Fort Rucker, AL

An assessment was conducted to evaluate the human factors characteristics of the AH-64D Apache Longbow crewstations that enhance or inhibit the performance of flight and mission tasks by pilots. The assessment was based on a survey administered to 43 Apache Longbow pilots from April – June 00 by the Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL HRED). The following items were evaluated:

mission tasks were adopted from Training Circular 1-251 (Aircrew Training Manual, Attack Helicopter, AH-64D) and Training Circular 1-210 (Aircrew Training Program, Commander's Guide To Individual And Crew Standardization). The pilots were also asked to provide workload ratings for the AH-64A so a comparison could be made between the AH-64D and AH-64A.

Situation Awareness

Situation awareness can be defined as the pilot’s mental model of the current state of the flight and mission environment. A more formal definition (Endsley, 1988) is “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future.” It is important to assess situation awareness because it has a direct impact on pilot performance. Good situation awareness increases the probability of good decisions and good performance by AH-64D pilots. To estimate the level of situation awareness that AH-64D pilots experience during missions, they compared situation awareness for the AH-64D vs. the AH-64A for several battlefield elements (e.g., location of enemy units).


Andriole and Adelman (1995) define decision-making “as higher order cognitive skills that utilize memory and attention skills for effective problem-solving under high workload conditions.” It is important to assess decision-making in the Apache Longbow because pilots need to be able to make quick and accurate decisions based on the information presented to them in the crewstation. Pilots were asked to compare the time required to make decisions in the AH-64D vs. the AH-64A when conducting flight and mission tasks.

Crewstation Interface

The pilots were asked questions regarding the usability characteristics of the multipurpose displays

  • Pilot workload

  • Situation awareness

  • Decision-making

  • Crewstation interface

The assessment provided human factors support for fielding of the AH-64D and addressed aircrew efficiency requirements listed in the AH-64D Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and MANPRINT support requirements adopted from Army Regulation 602-2 "Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) In The System Acquisition Process"

Pilot Workload

Pilot workload is defined as “the integrated mental and physical effort required to satisfy the perceived demands of a specified flight task” (Roscoe and Ellis, 1985). Pilot workload should be assessed because mission accomplishment is directly related to the mental and physical ability of the crew to effectively perform their flight and mission tasks. To estimate the level of workload that AH-64D pilots experience during missions, they provided workload ratings for twenty-one flight and mission tasks using the Bedford Workload Rating Scale. The flight and

Page 4

MANPRINT Quarterly

Slide5 l.jpg

Continued from Page 4 Crewstations

presented on the crewstation displays. The amount of information and the manner in which it is presented to the aircrew is superior to the AH-64A.

Situation Awareness Ratings

Pilots reported that the AH-64D provides greater situation awareness than the AH-64A for the following battlefield elements: location of enemy units, friendly units, non-combatants, own aircraft, other aircraft in the flight, and route information. The pilots reported in interviews that situation awareness in the AH-64D is higher because a large amount of useful information is presented on the crewstation displays. The amount of information and the manner in which it is presented to the aircrew is superior to the AH-64A.

Decision-Making Ratings

The pilots reported that their decision-making process takes less time in the AH-64D compared to the AH-64A for targeting tasks, navigation tasks, pilotage tasks, and communication tasks. The pilots commented on the survey and reported in interviews that decision-making takes less time in the AH-64D because a large amount of useful information is presented on the crewstation displays. The amount of information and the manner in which it is presented to the aircrew is superior to the AH-64A.

Crewstation Interface Ratings

The pilots reported that they have not experienced significant problems while using the majority of crewstation components (e.g., controls and displays). The Apache Longbow Program Management Office is actively working to resolve the problems that were identified by the pilots.


The pilots reported that workload is tolerable and lower in the AH-64D than in the AH-64A for the 21 flight and mission tasks that they rated. They also

(MPDs), keyboard unit (KU), mission control grip on the collective, optical relay tube (ORT) handgrips, and up front display (UFD). These are the primary components AH-64D pilots use to process data and information in the crewstation. The pilots were also asked questions regarding visual and physical access to controls and switches, labeling of items in the crewstations, stowage space in the crewstations, effectiveness of the environmental control system, canopy reflections, reliability of the FM1, FM2, and IDM radios, and reliability of the system and weapons processor.

Pilot Demographics

Forty-three (43) male Army pilots completed the survey. They represented a group of low to moderately experienced pilots with a range from 40 hours to 850 hours of flight time in the AH-64D. The pilots lacked extensive experience flying the AH-64D. Their lack of extensive experience reflects the short time the aircraft has been in the fielding process. Information and data listed in this article should be interpreted based on this limitation.

Survey Results

Workload Ratings

The pilots reported that workload was tolerable when performing all twenty-one flight and mission tasks in the AH-64D and AH-64A. The pilots rated workload in the AH-64D as lower than in the AH-64A for all 21 flight and mission tasks. Additionally, the pilots reported that they typically have sufficient spare workload capacity (for attention to additional tasks) when performing 18 of the 21 (86%) flight and mission tasks in the AH-64D. Conversely, they reported that they typically have sufficient spare workload capacity when performing only 3 of the 21 (14%) flight and mission tasks in the AH-64A.

The pilots commented on the survey and reported in interviews that workload is lower in the AH-64D because a large amount of useful information is

May 2002

Page 5

Slide6 l.jpg

Continued from Page 5 Crewstations

For additional information about this report, please contact


Andriole, S. and Adelman, L. (1995). Cognitive Systems Engineering for User-Computer Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.

Endsley, M.R. (1988). Design and Evaluation for Situation Awareness Enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97-101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Roscoe, A.H. (1985). The Airline Pilots View of Flight Deck Workload: A Preliminary Study Using a Questionnaire. Technical Memorandum No. FS (B) 465, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford, UK.

reported that they have greater situation awareness and are able to make decisions more quickly in the AH-64D vs. the AH-64A. Lastly, they reported that they have not experienced significant problems while using most of the crewstation components. Their responses indicate that the AH-64D is meeting the ORD requirements of 1) imposing less workload on aircrews than the AH-64A, and 2) increasing aircrew efficiency by increasing their situation awareness and decreasing the time they require to make decisions when compared to the AH-64A. This is encouraging and helps validate the effort that is being invested in the AH-64D MANPRINT program. As pilots gain more experience with the AH-64D, additional data should be collected to determine any changes in their perceptions about workload, situation awareness, decision-making, and the crewstation interface.

and promotional items can be found within the site. Download files are available for publications, quarterlies, briefings, speeches, and award information.

With the current name change of the PERTEC Directorate back to the MANPRINT Directorate, more updates are forthcoming. Look for valuable new additions within the next year. The MANPRINT Website can be found at

The New MANPRINT Website

The MANPRINT Directorate

If you haven’t noticed, the MANPRINT Website has a new look and feel to it. This new website has been under development for quite some time and finally went live on the Internet the first of February. The same beneficial information found on the previous site is still available but the site has been revised, revamped and presented with a user-friendly approach and a distinct U.S. Army appearance.

Ease of navigation and the use of drop-down menus were key considerations in the development of the site. Pertinent graphics have been used for the seven domains and throughout the site to show the essential relationship between MANPRINT and the  soldier. The site is currently organized in three main branches: PERTEC, MANPRINT, and SORD, each having their own home page and drop-down and side-bar menus relating to each branch. Current MANPRINT training, publications, events,

Page 6

MANPRINT Quarterly

Slide7 l.jpg

MANPRINT Central Information Crewstations




Dr. Thomas Killion

Dr. Michael Drillings

LTC Rick Inman

Ms. Teresa Hanson

MAJ Joe Jones

Mrs. Marjorie Zelko













Page 7

May 2002

Slide8 l.jpg

MANPRINT Training Schedule Crewstations



2002-704 04 Jun 2002 13 Jun 2002 Ft Leonard Wood, MO

2002-002 05 Aug 2002 15 Aug 2002 ALMC, Fort Lee, VA

2003-701 22 Oct 2002 31 Oct 2002 Ft. Leonard Wood, MO

2003-001 27 Jan 2003 06 Feb 2003 ALMC, Ft. Lee, VA

2003-702 25 Feb 2003 06 Mar 2003 Fort Bragg, NC

2003-703 24 Mar 2003 03 Apr 2003 Houston, TX

2003-704 06 May 2003 15 May 2003 Huntsville, AL

2003-705 03 Jun 2003 12 Jun 2003 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

2003-002 18 Aug 2003 28 Aug 2003 ALMC, Ft. Lee, VA



2002-702 30 Apr 2002 02 May 2002 Fort Rucker, AL

2002-704 25 Jun 2002 27 Jun 2002 Rock Island, IL

2002-703 20 Aug 2002 22 Aug 2002 Warren, MI

2002-705 10 Sep 2002 12 Sep 2002 Huntsville, AL

2002-706 24 Sep 2002 26 Sep 2002 Dover, NJ

2003-701 07 Oct 2002 10 Oct 2002 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

2003-702 19 Nov 2002 21 Nov 2002 Fort Bliss, TX

2003-703 11 Mar 2003 13 Mar 2003 Fort Rucker, AL

2003-704 15 Apr 2003 18 Apr 2003 Warren, MI

2003-001 28 Apr 2003 30 Apr 2003 ALMC, Ft. Lee, VA

2003-705 24 Jun 2003 26 Jun 2003 National Capitol Region

2003-706 05 Aug 2003 08 Aug 2003 Warren, MI

2003-707 23 Sep 2003 25 Sep 2003 Huntsville, AL

(POC: Mr. Len Girling, COM (804) 765-4361, DSN 539-4361)

Page 8

MANPRINT Quarterly

Slide9 l.jpg


Articles, comments, and suggestions are welcomed. Submit to: MANPRINT Quarterly, HQDA (DAPE-MR), 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300; DSN 221-2526, COM (703) 325-2526, FAX (703) 325-0657, E-mail:


POLICY: Department of the Army, ODCSPER, ATTN: DAPE-MR, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300, DSN 221-2526, COM (703) 325-2526.

DIRECTORY OF DESIGN SUPPORT METHODS: Defense Technical Information Center–MATRIS Office, DTIC-AM, NAS NI Bldg, 1482, Box 357011, San Diego, CA 92135-7011, DSN 735-9414, COM (619) 545-9414, E-mail:, and web site:



Mr. D. J. Imbs or Ms. Denise McCauley, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, ATTN: TAPC-PLC-M, Alexandria, VA 22332-0406, DSN 221-2024 or 221-6489, COM (703) 325-2024 or 325-6489, FAX: (703) 325-0657, E-mail: or

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING: Dr. Linda Pierce, Acting Chief, Human Factors Integration Division, HRED, Army Research Laboratory, ATTN: AMSRL-HR-MV, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425, DSN 298-5817, COM (410) 278-5817, FAX: 298-8823, E-mail:

SYSTEM SAFETY: Col. Kim Welliver or Mr. Jim Patton, Office of the Chief of Staff, Army Safety Office, ATTN: DACS-SF, Crystal Plaza 5, Rm 980, 2100 S. Clark Street, Arlington, VA 22202, COM (703) 601-2405, Email:,

HEALTH HAZARDS: Mr. Bob Gross or Maj. Carl Hover, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), ATTN: MCHB-TS-OHH, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5422, DSN 584-2925, COM (410) 436-2925, FAX: 436-1016, E-mail: or

SOLDIER SURVIVABILITY: Mr. Richard Zigler, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, ATTN: AMSRL-SL-BE, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068, DSN 298-8625, COM (410) 278-8625, FAX: 278-9337, E-mail:

Dr. Thomas Killion

Director for MANPRINT

The MANPRINT Quarterly is an official bulletin of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER), Department of the Army. The Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program (AR 602-2) is a comprehensive management and technical initiative to enhance human performance and reliability during weapons system and equipment design, development and production. MANPRINT encompasses the seven domains of personnel capabilities: manpower, training, human factors engineering, system safety, health hazards and soldier survivability. The focus of MANPRINT is to integrate technology, people and force structure to meet mission objectives under all environmental conditions at the lowest possible life-cycle cost. Information contained in this bulletin covers policies, procedures, and other items of interest concerning the MANPRINT Program. Statements and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army. This bulletin is prepared quarterly under contract for the MANPRINT Directorate, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel under the provisions of AR 25-30 as a functional bulletin.

May 2002

Page 9

Slide10 l.jpg


Use this space to record changes, additions or deletions. Send your information by Fax (703) 325-0657 or

Mail (fold on designated line and close (do not staple) with the MANPRINT Quarterly address on the

Outside). If you are a MANPRINT POC for your organization, please check the MANPRINT POC block.




Phone FAX


E-mail Address










Fold Here



MANPRINT Quarterly


300 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0300

Page 10

MANPRINT Quarterly

Slide11 l.jpg



300 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0300