Download Report

Anthropometric
Flight Safety
Federal Aviation
Administration
Body Dimensions
Paquette S, Gordon C, Bradtmiller B, (2009). Anthropometric Survey (ANSUR) II
Pilot Study: Methods And Summary Statistics Final Report June 2006 – September
2008. NATICK/TR-09/014.
Robert. E. “Buck” Joslin, Ph.D.
Chief Scientific & Technical Advisor
Flight Deck Technology Integration
HAI-RSC, March 2015
Gould, B. A. (1869). Investigations in the military and anthropological statistics of
American soldiers (Vol. 2). US sanitary commission.
The helicopter lost power while in cruise flight at 1000' AGL
and the student pilot landed hard collapsing the landing skids
of the helicopter. It was determined the a/c lost rotor speed
due to the fact that the female occupant slipped her left arm
out of her shoulder strap to be able to reach forward to make
a GPS range adjustment. as she slipped her arm out of the
left shoulder strap, the strap caught the idler pulley/clutch Thandle (located between the two seats at shoulder height)
when she leaned forward this caused the rotor to become
disengaged by pulling the T-handle forward. thus
disengaging the clutch.
(Rpt#20050924021629I, 24 September 2005)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
2
Regulations
(Part 27/29-Helicopters)
CAR 7.353(b) Controls.(Aug 1, 1956-Rotorcraft Airworthiness)
(c) The controls shall be so located and arranged with respect to the
pilots' seats that there exists full and unrestricted movement of each
control without interference from either the cockpit structure or the
pilots' clothing when seated. This shall be demonstrated for
individuals ranging from 5' 2" to 6' 0" in height.
Recodified as 14 CFR §27/29.777(c)
CAR: Civil Air Regulations (re-codified to FAR in 1965)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
3
HISTORICAL
REGULATIONS
Regulations
(Part 25-Airplanes)
CAR 4b.353(c) Controls.
(Nov 1, 1953-Airplane Airworthiness-Transport Category)
(c) The controls shall be so located and arranged with respect
to the pilots' seats that there exists full and unrestricted
movement of each control without interference from either the
cockpit structure or the pilots' clothing when seated with the
seat belt fastened. This shall be demonstrated for individuals
ranging from 5' 2" to 6' 0" in height.
Recodified as 14 CFR 25.777(c)
Amdt 25-46 increased stature from 6’0” to 6’3”, 10/30/1978
CAR: Civil Air Regulations (re-codified to FAR in 1965)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
4
*NPRM-1975
Regulations
(Part 25-Airplanes)
Explanation. The flight stations of modern transport category
airplanes have been designed for the 5th to 95th percentiles
of pilot stature. Because the average human height continues
to increase, the proposed change to Sec. 25.777(c) would
increase the maximum flight crewmember height to be
considered from 6'0" to 6'3" for the design of cockpit
controls.
Ref. Airworthiness Review Program, 40 Federal Register 112 (10 June 1975), p. 24808
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
5
Percentile of Pilot Stature
Percentiles
95th percentile in height(stature) means that 95% of the
“population” is shorter than you
PERCENTILE
5th
95th
5th percentile in height (stature) means that 5% of the
“population” is shorter than you
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
6
Regulations
HISTORICAL REGUL
(Europe-Part 27/29)
EASA CS 27/29.777 Cockpit controls
(b) Located and arranged with respect to the pilot’s seats so
that there is full and unrestricted movement of each control
without interference from the cockpit structure or the
pilot’s clothing when pilots from 1.57 m (5ft 2in) to 1.8 m
(6ft) in height are seated.
•
Ref: European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications For Large Rotorcraft CS-29/Small Rotorcraft CS-27
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
7
Regulations
HISTORICAL REGUL
(Europe-Part 25)
EASA CS 25.777 Cockpit controls
(c) The controls must be located and arranged, with respect to
the pilots' seats, so that there is full and unrestricted
movement of each control without interference from the
cockpit structure or the clothing of the minimum flight crew
(established under CS 25.1523) when any member of this
flight crew from 1.58 m (5’ 2“) to 1·91 m (6’ 3”) in height, is
seated with the seat belt and shoulder harness (if provided)
fastened.
Ref: European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications For Large Aeroplanes CS-25
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
8
HISTORICAL
REGULATIONS
Regulations
(Part 23-Airplanes)
• … 14CFR 23.777(b) addresses the capability to
• operate a control through its full range of motion, considering
potential interference from clothing and cockpit structures. It is
important that evaluations be conducted using individuals
representing a range of potential user physical dimensions and
includes tests with users wearing different apparel, such as long
sleeved shirts, jackets and gloves.
Ref: FAA Public Statement Number PSACE100-2001-004 on Guidance for Reviewing Certification Plans to Address Human Factors for
Certification of Part 23 Small Airplanes
• ”. (Part 23 does not specify a pilot population.) To show compliance
with this aspect of the regulation (14CFR 2X.777), show that all
positions of the control fall within the reach envelopes of the intended
pilot population.
Ref: FAA Advisory Circular 20-175- Controls for Flight Deck Systems§2.2(c). Appropriate Representation of Pilot Population.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
9
HISTORICAL
Target REGULATIONS
Population
(Regulations)
Design Requirements
Aircraft
Minimum
Stature
Maximum
Stature
Transport Airplanes
5 ft. 2 in.
6 ft. 3 in.
(1.58 m)
(1.91 m)
Intended Users
Intended Users
5 ft. 2 in.
6 ft. 0 in.
(1.57 m)
(1.80 m)
Small Airplanes
Helicopters
14CFR §25.777; §29.777; §27.777; EASA CS §25.777
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
10
Randall, F. E., Damon, A., Benton, R. S., & Patt, D. I. (1946). Human body size in military aircraft and personal equipment (No. AMC-AF-TR-5501). AIR MATERIEL COMMAND WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH.
Relevant Body Measurements
(Stature?)
Randall, F. E., Damon, A., Benton, R. S., & Patt, D. I. (1946). Human body size in military aircraft and personal equipment (No. AMC-AF-TR-5501). AIR MATERIEL COMMAND WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
11
Relevant Body Measurements
(Stature?)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
12
Relevant Body Measurements
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
13
Relevant Body Measurements
Ref: Dod Hdbk 743A-Anthropometry of U.S Military personnel, 13 Feb 1991
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
14
Relevant Body Measurements
Those that directly affect the
operator’s ability to:
-See/Read aircraft instruments
-View the world outside the cockpit
- Manipulate switches and knobs
- Move the aircraft flight controls.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
15
Relevant Body Measurements
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
16
Relevant Body Measurements
(Design Eye Reference Point)
Good: Typically achieved by adjusting the cockpit seat position (vertically and horizontally) to
set a common “sitting eye height” for all operators in order to fulfill regulatory field of view
requirements for primary/secondary instruments and external view.
“Not so Good” Does not provide any design assurance for the ability of the operator’s arms or
legs to effectively reach and operate cockpit controls and switches
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
17
Relevant Body Measurements
(Sitting Eye Height)
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T.
(1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics 1988. Anthropology Research Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
18
Relevant Body Measurements
(Sitting-Eye Height)
….. The altitude reminder/warning system did not give the aural horn when went
through 29300+/- 100 and the warning light was located just under the glareshield
out of my 6' 1" tall view.
(ASRS-ACN 147677)
Captain reported mistakenly selecting Flaps 10 when Flaps 5 were called for,
leading to an overspeed. I cannot see gate settings from Captain’s seat and
must have moved the handle too far into the gate for Flaps 10, when Flaps 5
was called for.
(ASRS ACN 1097211)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
19
Relevant Body Measurements
(Thumb-tip Reach)
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T.
(1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics 1988. Anthropology Research Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
20
Relevant Body Measurements
(Thumb-Tip Reach)
The helicopter lost power while in cruise flight at 1000' AGL and the
student pilot landed hard collapsing the landing skids of the helicopter. It
was determined the a/c lost rotor speed due to the fact that the female
occupant slipped her left arm out of her shoulder strap to be able to
reach forward to make a GPS range adjustment. as she slipped her arm
out of the left shoulder strap, the strap caught the idler pulley/clutch Thandle (located between the two seats at shoulder height) when she
leaned forward this caused the rotor to become disengaged by pulling the
T-handle forward. thus disengaging the clutch.
(Rpt#20050924021629I, 24 September 2005)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
21
Relevant Body Measurements
(Buttock-Knee Length)
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T.
(1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics 1988. Anthropology Research Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
22
Relevant Body Measurements
(Buttock-Knee Length)
….the student's knee touched the gear handle while he was operating the rudder
pedals. The gear handle switched into the up position…… If the pilot is tall enough,
the right knee could easily touch the gear handle from below.
(ASRS-ACN 1109789)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
23
Relevant Body Measurements
(Sitting Eye Height & Buttock-Knee Length)
In the far aft and down [seat] position, his eyes were level with the top of the
windows and he could not see one third of the engine instrument gauges. Also,
he had to spread his knees apart to keep the control yoke from hitting them
during full aileron deflection. His eye line was above the Design Eye Reference
Point (DERP) sight line and he could not get it to go lower. The problem exists
among most pilots who are 5 feet 9 inches or taller.
(ASRS-ACN 999078/999052)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
24
Relevant Body Measurements
(Functional Leg Length)
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T.
(1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics 1988. Anthropology Research Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
25
Relevant Body Measurements
(Sitting Height)
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T.
(1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics 1988. Anthropology Research Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
26
Relevant Body Measurements
(Hand Measurements)
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T.
(1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics 1988. Anthropology Research Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
27
Percentiles
5th Percentile Female (in)
95th Percentile Male (in)
ANSUR I
(1988)
ANSUR I
(1988)
Stature
60.15
(≈ 5 ft)
73.48
(≈ 6 ft 1.5 in)
Sitting-Eye Height
24.95
33.39
Thumb-Tip Reach
26.64
34.14
Buttock-Knee Length
21.34
26.28
Functional Leg Length 34.71
46.02
Body Dimension
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T. (1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary statistics 1988. Anthropology Research
Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
Gordon, C. C., Blackewell, C. L., Bradtmiller, B., Parham, J.L., Barrientos, P., Paquette, S. P.,…Kristensen, S. (2014). 2012 Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics . Anthrotech.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
28
Multivariate Anthropometry
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
29
Multivariate Anthropometry
(e.g. 90% of target population contained within the ellipse)
Thumb Tip Reach
Boundary Cases
Sitting Eye Height
Aeronautical Systems Center-Crew Systems Bulletin (2009). Aircrew Accommodation Requirements/Verification (ENFC-CSB-08-01-Chg 1). (2009). ASC/ENFC:
WPAFB, OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
30
Multivariate Anthropometry
2 body measurements = ellipse
3 body measurements = ellipsoid
>3 body measurements = hyper-ellipsoid
Use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) statistical
techniques to combine related measurements into a smaller set
of factors, or components, based on correlation or covariance
Zehner, G. F., Meindl, R. S., & Hudson, J. A. (1993). A multivariate anthropometric
method for crew station design. Kent State University, OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
31
Multivariate Anthropometry
In a three-component example, the extreme individuals are positioned
exactly at the mid-surfaces of each of the eight octants of each
accommodation ellipsoid . Therefore, a cockpit design, which is
compatible with these extreme individuals should also accommodate
all of the individuals who are closer to the multivariate mean.
Meindl, R.M., G.F. Zehner, and J.A. Hudson. A Multivariate Anthropometric Method for Crew Station Design, Technical Report AL-TR-1993-0054, Crew
Systems Directorate, Human Engineering Division, Armstrong Laboratory, Wright Patterson AFB, OH, 1993
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
.
Federal Aviation
Administration
32
Multivariate Anthropometry
(F22-Aeronautical Systems Center-Crew Systems Bulleting (2009). Aircrew Accommodation Requirements/Verification (ENFC-CSB-08-01-Chg 1). (2009). ASC/ENFC: WPAFB, OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
33
Multivariate Anthropometry
(JPATS-Aeronautical Systems Center-Crew Systems Bulleting (2009). Aircrew Accommodation Requirements/Verification (ENFC-CSB-08-01-Chg 1). (2009). ASC/ENFC: WPAFB, OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
34
Multivariate Anthropometry
(JSF)-Aeronautical Systems Center-Crew Systems Bulleting (2009). Aircrew Accommodation Requirements/Verification (ENFC-CSB-08-01-Chg 1). (2009). ASC/ENFC: WPAFB, OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
35
Multivariate Anthropometry
(Draft) Aircrew Sizing Survey 2011 711th Human Performance Wing, Human Systems
Integration, Wright-Patterson AFB Ohio
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
36
Multivariate Anthropometry
(Digital Human Modeling)
. The applicant may choose to use analytical methods,
such as computer modeling of the flight deck and the
pilots, for early risk reduction and to supplement
certification evaluations using human subjects. Computer
modeling allows for more control over the dimensions of
the pilot model, and thus, may allow the assessment of
otherwise unavailable combinations of body dimensions.
PS-ANM111-1999-99-2 Guidance for Reviewing Certification Plans to Address Human Factors for Certification of Transport Airplane Flight Decks 9/29/99
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
37
Multivariate Anthropometry
Digital Human Modeling
May
•
•
•
•
not effectively account for :
Posture (slouch)
Soft Tissue Characteristics
Seat compression
Range of Motion when wearing required
clothing/equipment
Aeronautical Systems Center (2008). Aircrew Accommodation Requirements/Verification
(ENFC-CSB-08-01). (2008). ASC/ENFC: WPAFB, OH.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
38
Anthropometric Databases
(Examples)
Database
Aircraft
Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry
Resource Project (CAESAR)
Part 25-Transport
Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry
Resource Project (CAESAR)
Military Fighter Jet
1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel (ANSUR) Part 25-Business Jet
1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel (ANSUR) Part 29-Helicopter
1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel (ANSUR) Part 29-Helicopter
1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel (ANSUR) Military Trainer
Sample of Anthropometric Databases used in recent aircraft designs
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
39
Recent Aircraft Design
(ANSUR)
(Stature)
5’0”
5’2”
6’1½”
6’3”
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
40
Recent Aircraft
Designs
Anthropometric
Databases
(Stature)
(U.S.
Army)
1988 U.S. Army
Anthropometric
Survey
(1988)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
US Army
Anthropometric
Survey Database:
Downsizing,
Demographic Change
& Validity of the
1988 Data in 1996
(1996)
Anthropometric
Survey (ANSUR) II
Pilot Study: Methods
And Summary
Statistics Final
Report June 2006 –
September 2008
(2009)
Federal Aviation
Administration
41
MIL-STD-1472D
Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard:
Human Engineering
• 3.1.1.1.1 Anthropometry – Reach, Clearance and Vision
• The design of operator consoles will provide adequate reach to controls,
appropriate clearances, and visual access by the operator, for the full
range of required anthropometric personnel attired in all required personal
and protective, clothing and equipment and for all necessary body
postures in accordance with MIL-STD-1472G and with Chapter 3.2 of
this document.
MIL-STD-1472D was promulgated in March 1989, and updated in 1992 (Notice 2-1992) with anthropometric body dimension data
using the 1988 U.S. Army Survey.
MIL-STD-1472G (2012). Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard: Human Engineering
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
42
Recent Aircraft Designs
1998-2001 Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource
(CAESAR)
4,431 subjects
characterizing NATO
countries as a whole for
ages 18-65. (U.S. only
report matched to
NHANES survey)
100 measurements (40 1-D
and 60 extracted from 3-D
body scanning). 3-D scans
of three postures & 3-D
coordinated for 73 prespecified landmarks
“CAESAR” like follow-on for an expanded demographic, sponsored by a consortium
(Asian/Australian/European)
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
43
Determine if demographic matched U.S. population
Recent Aircraft Designs
5000 subjects-National
Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey
(NHANES) conducted
every 2 years; 8
measurements (1-D)
NHANES
U.S.Census
(All ethnicities/races)
Validate
Match
CAESAR
(NATO)
CAESAR
(all U.S.
ethnicities/races?)
Robinette K, Blackwell S, Daanen H, Boehmer M, Fleming S, Brill T, Hoeferlin D, and Burnsides D (2002). Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource (CAESAR), Final Report,
Volume I: Summary. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2002-0169.
Robinette, K. M., Daanen, H., & Paquet, E. (1999). The CAESAR project: a 3-D surface anthropometry survey. In 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 1999. Proceedings. Second International Conference
on (pp. 380-386).
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
44
Recent Aircraft Design
(CAESAR)
(Stature)
5’0”
5’2”
6’3”
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
45
Recent Anthropometric Surveys
2008-2013 USAF Aircrew Sizing Survey (ACSS)
700 subjects (640 male
of which 625 were
Caucasian)
Representative of the
2011 age/weight/stature
USAF Personnel Center
at Randolph AFB.
60 traditional body
dimensions measured
, along with 3-D body
shape scans
ACSS designed to replace 1967 USAF Anthropometric Survey, however there were
insufficient female and non-Caucasian subjects in this survey. Additional survey in 2015?
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
46
Recent Anthropometric Surveys
2010 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Marine Corps Personnel
1,921 subjects representative
of the USMC Defense
Manpower Data Center
census counts from 31 March
2010
94 measurements (1-D)
+ 41 derived
measurements + 3-D
head, foot, & wholebody scans
2010 USMC ANSUR replaced 1988 U.S. Army ANSUR I
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
47
Recent Anthropometric Surveys
2010-2012 U.S. Army Anthropometric Survey (ANSUR) II
12,000 subjects that matched
the component, sex, age, and
racial/ethnic group of the Army
demographics as of March
2012
94 measurements (1-D)
and 3-D head, foot, &
whole-body scans
ANSUR II replaces 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
48
Percentiles
5th Percentile Female (in)
95th Percentile Male (in)
ANSUR I
(1988)
ANSUR II
(2012)
ANSUR I
(1988)
ANSUR II
(2012)
Stature
60.15
(≈ 5 ft)
60.04
73.48
(≈ 6 ft 1.5 in)
73.62
Sitting-Eye Height
24.95
27.48
33.39
33.86
Thumb-Tip Reach
26.64
26.54
34.14
34.88
Buttock-Knee Length
21.34
21.30
26.28
26.34
Functional Leg Length 34.71
37.80
46.02
48.19
Body Dimension
Gordon, C. C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C. E., Bradtmiller, B., & McConville, J. T. (1989). Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary statistics 1988. Anthropology Research
Proj.-Yellow Springs OH
Gordon, C. C., Blackewell, C. L., Bradtmiller, B., Parham, J.L., Barrientos, P., Paquette, S. P.,…Kristensen, S. (2014). 2012 Anthropometric survey of U.S. army personnel: methods and summary
statistics . Anthrotech.-Yellow Springs OH
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
49
Good News!
World Engineering Anthropometry Resource
(W.E.A.R.)
http://www.bodysizeshape.com
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
50
W.E.A.R.
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
http://www.bodysizeshape.com
Federal Aviation
Administration
51
W.E.A.R.
http://www.bodysizeshape.com
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
52
Fatigue
Valid Anthropometric Data for Aircraft Design
Contributes to Aviation Safety
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
53
HAI-Rotor Safety Challenge
Orlando FL, March 2015
Federal Aviation
Administration
54