b-A12i 151 MODIFIED FACEPLATE FOR AN/PVS-5 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES 1/i

(U) ARMY AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH LAB FORT RUCKER AL

M E MCLEAN OCT 82 USRARL-83-1
UNCLASSIFIED F/G 6/17 NL

EEDEiIUEEIEEI
EhIII----fl
*ffllf~ lf END
IIND
 1111.0
-
Ih
.2
W
12.2

111111.25
AJ&.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

 - -- -- -- -- -- -- -
-. . . - .. ,_ ..

USAARL REPORT NO. 83-1

mT

V ! MODIFIED FACEPLATE FOR AN/PVS-5 NIGHT

VISION GOGBLES

By
William E. McLean

SENSORY RESEARCH DIVISION

Visual Sciences Research GrouPtT1C
< ELECTFF"

October 1982 EOOCTE2

U.S. ARMY AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

FORT RUCKER, ALABAMA 36362

II
 NOTICE'

Qualified Requesters

Qualified requesters may obtain copies from the Defense Documenta-

tion Center (DDC), Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia. Orders will
be expedited if placed through the librarian or other person designated
to request documents from DDC.

Change of Address
h

Organizations receiving reports from the US Army Aeromedical

Research Laboratory on automatic mailing lists should confirm correct
address when corresponding about laboratory reports.

Disposition

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it

to the originator.

Disclaimer

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are

those of the author and should not be construed as an official Depart-
ment of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by
other official documentation. Citation of trade names in this report
does not constitute an official Department of the Army endorsement or
approval of the use of such commercial items.

Human Use

Human subjects participated in these studies after giving their free and
informed voluntary consent. Investigators adhered to AR 70-25 and USAMRDC
Reg 70-25 on Use of Volunteers in Research.

Reviewed:

Bruce C. Leibrecht, MAJ, MSC

Director, Sensory Research Division
-, Released for Publication:

D.DLEY R.RICE
Ctirman, Scientific Review Colonel,
ommittee Commanding
 UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (nomen Data Entered)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT__ DOCUMENTATIONPAGE_ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACC SSZ!P)F 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4.
USAARL Report No. 83-1
TITLE (and Subtitle)
AM/d(I S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

MODIFIED FACEPLATE FOR AN/PVS-5 NIGHT VISION Final Report

GOGGLES 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

William E. McLean S
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK
AREA G WORK UNIT NUMBERS

US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory 6.27.77.A, 3E162777A879

Fort Rucker. AL 36362 BG, 164
ii. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

US Army Medical Research & Development Command October 1982

Fort Detrick 1. NUMBEROF PAGES
Frederick- MD 21701 6
S4. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Uncl a. i fid
ISa. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree side iI necessary and Identify by block number)

AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles, modified NVG faceplate, NVG field of view,
flight safety

12 AORTRACr (Cmtuae revmms ebb It ncese me identity by block number)

Lack of peripheral vision while flying with the AN/PVS-5 night vision
goggles (NVG) was a contributing factor in an aircraft accident. Because of
this accident, a modified faceplate (MFP) for NVG was configured to allow
pilots unaided lateral and lower vision. Twenty MFP NVG were worn during
flight by 47 NVG qualified aviators for an average of 18 hours per aviator.
The average recorded flight hours for each of the 20 MFP NVG was 43.5 hours.

WI W3 CITIONOF I OVSIISO SOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (lhen Date Entered)
 $a ,CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wh;T D.a 3at.,.d=

NVG aviators indicated that the MFP significantly enhanced intruder aircraf
detection, inside-the-cockpit vision, and comfort. Spectacles can be worn
with the MFP, and less fogging of the eyepieces occur. There were deficiencies
reported during the study which were corrected with modifications to the
mounting apparatus, thorough preflight briefings, and required familiarization
* flights.

The proposed modification is being considered for adoption by the

proper authorities.

Accession For
NTIS GRA&I
r.TIC TAB
U.:,-mnoUnced n
j:Lification

Di ,tribution/
,aiiabilitY Codes

Dist Special

UNCLASSIFIED
S5CURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEf(hfl DW0 E£ft~E)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

List of Figures ....... .... ........................... 4

Introduction ....... .... ............................. 5

Description of Faceplate Modifications ....... ................ 6
Reconfiguring the Faceplate ........ .................... 6
Mounting Faceplate to Helmet ........ ................... 6

Evaluation Procedures ....... ........................ ... 14

Results ....... .. ............................... ... 14

UH-1 Study (Lowe) ....... ......................... ... 14
OH-58 Study (Hanchey)... ....................... 16
Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization (DES) Study ..... 17
Summary Results of the Three Studies ...... ............... 17

Discussion ....... .. .............................. ... 19

Disadvantages ........ ........................... ... 19
Mounting....... .. .......................... ... 19
Dismounting ........ .......................... ... 20
Battery Container (Arctic Adapter) Inconvenient . ....... .... 20
Tubes Too Far Away ...... .......................... 20
Alignment of Goggles ....... .. ...................... 21
No Safety Cord. . . 21
IR Switch (AN/PVS-5 and SA) Difficult to Use . . . . . .. . . 21
Eye Discomfort ....... .. ......................... 21
Peripheral Vision Distractions .... ................. ... 22
Increased Weight Forward ...... ..................... .. 22
V-Strap Too Short ....... ....................... ... 22
Advantages ....... ... .. ............................ 22

Conclusions ....... .. ............................. ... 23

Recommendations ........ ........................... ... 23
Appendixes
Appendix A. Modified Faceplate Field of View .... ........... 25
Appendix B. Summary of Significant Chronological Events in
Evaluation of MFP NVG ..... ....................... 27
Appendix C. Conversion of Standard Faceplate to Modified Faceplate 29
Appendix D. Modified Faceplate (MFP) AN/PVS-5 Briefing ......... 51
Appendix E. Evaluation of Modified Faceplate for AN/PVS-5
Night Vision Goggle - Questionnaire ................ .... 55

3
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page No.

1 Standard AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles ... ............ 7

2 Rotary switch is relocated from the lower left to the upper-

center position on the faceplate. Hole for battery case
is cut in the upper right of the faceplate ... ........ 8

3 Lower portion of faceplate is cut away using template pattern 9

4 Battery case is mounted and electrically connected. Wires

are tucked, glued, and taped. Custom straps (side and
vertical) are attached and taped. Arctic adapter is
attached and binocular assembly connected ............. 10

5 Attachment of MFP NVG with surgical tubing on the sides.

Upper rear lip of MFP is positioned between helmet shell
and visor cover; NVG is secured vertically with Velcro
straps. Surgical tubing is connected to side straps of
MFP. Counterbalance weight is used as required ......... 11

6 Attachment of MFP NVG with standard side straps. A helmet

snap is placed in the back position and the quick release
tab end snaps are connected to the MFP side straps. The
extra Velcro pads are not used with the present MFP sys-
tem. Typical eye pieces of MFP NVG are located approxi-
mately 20 mm from the eye to achieve full field of view
with the NVG and maximum unaided peripheral field of view. 12

7 Standard AN/PVS-5 NVG limited the field of view of 40

degrees through the goggles with no unaided vision
possible ...... ... ......................... 13

. . ..
 INTRODUCTION

The Army recognizes that the use of night vision goggles (NVGs) for
night flight compromises certain concepts for standard safe operations. NVG
limitations include a reduced visual field (400), decreased visual resolution
(20/50), lack of color discrimination, manual focusing to adjust from far
vision to near and back, increased weight and a forward shift of the center
of gravity. The midair collision between two OH-58 aircraft at Fort Rucker
in December 1981 underscored the limitations of the standard AN/PVS-5 NVG and
stimulated positive corrective actions focusing on air traffic procedures and
*operations, stage field markings, configuration of the standard NVG and its
* attachment to the helmet, and NVG accessory equipment.

As part of the quick-fix efforts to improve NVG flight safety until the
AN/PVS-6 (ANVIS) becomes available, a cutaway faceplate converted from the
standard AN/PVS-5 faceplate was investigated. After relocating the
electrical components, the lower portion of the standard faceplate is cut
away to enable (a) unaided vision for the lateral and lower viewing fields
(Appendix A), allowing color discrimination of aircraft and ground lights and
map reading, (b) spectacle wear, (c) reduced lens fogging, and (d) improved
comfort. The modified faceplate (MFP) is compatible with the proposed stand-
ard counterbalance system, which can provide optimum stability.

The NVG faceplates used in this study were obtained from property dis-
posal. Faceplates that were damaged in the lower portion, but were otherwise
functional, were modifed at the US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory
(USAARL). With practice, proper tools, and templates, the MFP modifications
required about .5 manhours each. The side and vertical straps were made at
the fabric shop by the Directorate of Industrial Operations (DIO).

In order to rapidly provide data on the feasibility of the MFP, a pre-

liminary field study was conducted and expanded. The purpose of the study
was to determine if the MFP offers safety and flight performance advantages
over the standard faceplate. Questionnaire techniques were used to determine
experienced NVG pilots' ratings and observations of the advantages and short-
comings of the MFP. The study involved in-flight evaluations by NVG qualified
pilots during routine training.

A summary of significant chronological events involved in the study is

provided in Appendix B. At the time the study was concluded, results had
been collected using four types of helicopters, 47 NVG qualified aviators, 20
individual MFP NVG, and included more than 850 hours of MFP use.

5
 DESCRIPTION OF FACEPLATE MODIFICATIONS

RECONFIGURING THE FACEPLATE

Figure 1 shows the AN/PVS-5 NVG with the standard faceplate. In select-
ing a cutaway configuration, several modified versions of the standard face-
plate were considered with respect to peripheral vision, battery case and
switch location, structural and electrical integrity, mounting attachments
and stability. The sequence followed during reconfiguration is shown in ab-
breviated fashion in Figures 2-4. Figure 4 shows the faceplate design used
in the initial feasibility study. The complete sequence followed in modify-
ing the faceplates is described and illustrated in Appendix C.

The rotary switch was moved from the lower left to the upper center por-
tion of the plate where the V-strap was located. The battery case was moved
from the lower right to the upper right portion of the plate, with the battery
case attachment flange on the outside. The location and alignment of the bat-
tery case are critical for visor cover and tube clearance. The lower portion
of the faceplate was removed and shaped as shown in Figure 3, and the cut
edges were smoothed. The clamp tilt knob holes were enlarged to increase
tube rearward movement. Wires were reconnected, tucked, glued, and taped.
Upper and side straps were attached to the remaining face pad snaps. The
arctic battery adapter was attached to improve battery changing ability.

The binocular assembly of the NVG was attached to the cutaway faceplate
for subsequent mounting to the helmet.

MOUNTING FACEPLATE TO HELMET

Figure 5 depicts the MFP NVG mounted to the helmet. The upper rear lip
of the faceplate is placed between the visor cover and shell, and the vertical
straps are attached to the existing Velcro pads. The short side straps are
connected to the snaps of the surgical tubing, and the tension of the surgical
tubing is adjusted to produce a secure attachment. A counterweight is usually
required on the back of the helmet to prevent forward rotation of the goggles.
An arctic adapter cord is attached with tape or Velcro to the back of the
helmet.
For hel'qets that have not been modified with surgical tubing, the existing
side straps can be attached to the modified faceplate side straps (Figure 6).
However, the quick release tabs should be forward and a helmet snap added on
each side in the rearward position. Difference between the MFP NVG mounted to
the helmet with the standard side straps and the standard AN/PVS-5 NVG mounted
4 to the helmet can be seen by comparing Figures 6 and 7.

6
U
 a,

Cl

a In

*1I

a-
 0 -
CL0
aJL

0.0

4 .)

04-

4-)

4- 0

#0 4

0 (u

cu0
o4A)
- 4.)

4-'
06

4J =
a06

*- 0.
30u

LA'
04.

C'" 4-3

"0 4-
LA. 0.0
40
4-3
cc
0L

4-)

to
4-

4-

CL
u)

to

to
C-
a.
U
-

.
 .. )

S- aJr

.EU

4-)
4) 4)
0 to

4-)
to
4)

C.) U~

rU-
Ur_
49-

L to

0. .9- -
U (A
L 4u
0 0
(U 4-

4J M

CL4

LL- (a U)

10 E
 C364-)

LL.M

o -o
S-S- (U

0-

.4-)

a -

4J U a

S-t CS

CD U-
>.

'4- --
o: > 0.
4- - 4.)

EO

4.. 4.)
U,
~4
Ln a)
r- 4-1
LLJ 0) u
cr a) 0)

- 0 0
LL .0 U
 o 41~

4-L (04
-

u4jo

0 U4-

~o00
to .- 0i

0 4-

F- "0 10
CL -)0

q r-
I-
(A im 0J
CL'

4.) U 0
En) 00C
wU s-

0) Q- ) 0)

tO 4 E

0 a
EU 4- U
IL 4) CLt

-U 0)
s'- 0*'-

+4 4-

C 0- ink

. U>4-)>
CLC ,'

En-0) -

>4---
4-.) X 0)

4- ) 4-.. 4-

4.) (A
0)
.S4- 4

., - 4C).L
~CI.>a)

ko- 4-) f

0O 0) cu
C 4A >.

6 12
[4-

0
4J
0

0I

44--

0
CL
-l

a3 M9

tv0

-)

LA- W-

13v
 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The MFP NVG evaluation was conducted in three steps. The initial evalua-
tion was by MOI NVG instructor pilots at Lowe Field, Fort Rucker, with UH-1
aircraft. The second evaluation was by NVG instructor pilots at Hanchey Field,
Fort Rucker, with OH-58 aircraft; and the third phase was.conducted by NVG
qualified aviators in the Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization (DES)
with UH-1, OH-58, AH-1, and UH-60 aircraft. As improvements in the goggle de-
sign, mounting/dismounting procedures, briefing and flight familiarization
contents were identified, they were incorporated into the evaluation. The par-
ticipants were briefed about the project, mounting and dismounting procedures,
helmet modifications and proper NVG adjustment (Appendix D), and they were
provided with questionnaires (Appendix E). Initially, the questionnaires were
completed each night during the first 20 hours of use of the MFP. Additional
questionnaires were completed as requested. An electrical or mechanical NVG
failure was to be reported immediately. As personnel changed during the
evaluation, new instructor pilots were briefed by the unit and included in
the study.
The instructor pilots used the questionnaires to subjectively evaluate
various parameters and to give an overall opinion of the MFP NVG. Opinion
ratings were numerical:

1 - superior to standard NVG

2 - slightly better than standard NVG
3 - equal or same as standard NVG
4 - slightly worse than standard NVG
5 - inferior to standard NVG
Subjects used the questionnaire to list perceived advantages and disad-
vantages, to recommend modifications, to give suggestions, to evaluate the
time it took to become comfortable with the MFP NVG, and to evaluate the
visual perceptual problems.

RESULTS

UH-1 STUDY (LOWE)

On the first night of use, 22 June 1982, three out of seven MFP NVGs had
electrical failures (two on the ground and one in flight). The problem was
identified as a poor electrical ground connection through a screw to the bat-
tery case. All seven MFP NVGs were taken back to USAARL and the ground contact
changed. The metal ground tab was bent in a 900 angle and positioned against
the battery case flange.
The following results have been obtained with the 13 participating UH-1
instructor pilots during a three month period:

14
 1. The average prior NVG experience per instructor pilot was 227 hours;
range, 10 to 600 hours.
2. The average number of flight hours per instructor pilot with the MFP
was 25; range, 3 to 50.
3. On initial use with the electrically corrected MFP NVG, the average
overall opinion score was 2.2, with a range from 1 to 4. On the last recorded
flight the overall opinion score was 1.17, with a range of 1 to 2. In a word,
all 13 instructor pilots preferred the MFP to the standard NVG after initial
adjustments.
4. Median time to adapt to the MFP goggles was 15 minutes; range 1 to 150
minutes. All 13 instructor pilots adapted within the initial night of MFP
flight.
5. Average flight time for the seven MFP goggles was 46.7 hours; range
20 to 71 hours.

6. The greatest reported difficulty with the MFP was mounting and dis-
mounting. This problem decreased with experience and the addition of quick
release tabs.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages identified by questionnaire for
the MFP NYG are listed below. The number in parentheses indicates the number
of UH-1 instructor pilots reporting this as an advanage or disadvantage.
Advantage Disadvantages
Better aircraft detection (5) Harder to mount and dismount (7)
Increased peripheral vision (9) Difficulty switching batteries (3)
Look-under capability for maps, Front V-strap too short (1)
radios, and instruments (10)
Less weight (3) Side straps difficult to adjust (2)
Can wear glasses with the NVG (3) Not as stable (2)
Reduced fogging (8) Rotary switch difficult to operate (2)
More comfortable/less fatiguing (8) Counterbalance required (1)
Peripheral vision distracting initially (2)

15

_J
 OH-58 STUDY (HANCHEY)

The following results have been obtained with the 14 participating OH-58
instructor pilots during a 2 month period:

1. The average NVG experience per instructor pilot was 276 hours; range,
60 to 600 hours.

2. The average number of flight hours per instructor pilot with the MFP
was 29.1; range, 3.0 to 60.
3. On initial use of the MFP NVG, the average overall opinion score was
3.0, with a range of 1 to 5. A value of 3 indicates that the MFP is rated equal
, to the standard NVG while a value greater than 3 indicates that the MFP is rated
lower than the standard NVG. On the last recorded flight the overall opinion
score averaged 2.14. Nine instructor pilots preferred the MFP, two rated the
MFP equal to the standard, and three preferred the standard NVG. These data
include the scores of three participants who requested not to participate after
their initial flight and rated the MFP a 5.

4. Median time to adapt to the MFP goggles was 38 minutes; three instruc-
tor pilots reported that they could not adapt to the MFP NVG.

5. Average flight time for the seven MFP goggles was 65 hours; range 40
to 90 hours.

6. The greatest reported difficulty with the MFP was mounting and dis-
mounting.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages identified by the first nine

: participants for the MFP NVG are listed below. The number in parentheses in-
dicates the number of OH-58 instructor pilots reporting this as an advantage
or disadvantage. (The last five participants reported only initial and final
rating and total time on MFP.)
Advantage Disadvantage

Increased peripheral vision (4) Mount and dismount (7)

More comfortable/less fatiguing (3) Difficulty switching batteries (5)

Less weight (2) Tubes too far away (4)

Can wear glasses with the NVG (1) Alignment of goggles (4)

Better aircraft detection (1) No safety strap (2)

Rotary switch difficult to operate (2)

Eye discomfort (2)

16
 L..

Peripheral vision distracting (2)

Increased weight forward (1)

V-straps too short (1)

fr.

DIRECTORATE OF EVALUATION AND STANDARDIZATION (DES) STUDY

Before the MFP NVG could be recommended for worldwide use, a larger
sample of aviator opinions, various aircraft and flight profiles including
weapons fire was desirable. Five pairs of MFP NVG were issued to DES. Two
previous studies identified improvements in goggle design and in the briefing.
These improvements were incorporated into this evaluation.

The following abbreviated results were obtained with 20 participants fly-

ing in UH-1, OH-58, AH-1, and UH-60 aircraft over a two-month period.

1. The average number of flight hours per aviator with the MFP was 6.9;
range 1.0 to 25.0, median 3.5.

2. On initial use of the MFP NVG, the average overall opinion score was
1.20, with a range of 1 to 2. All 20 NVG qualified aviators preferred the MFP
NVG over the standard NVG.

3. Median time to adapt to the MFP goggles was 15 minutes.

4. The greatest reported difficulty with the MFP was mounting and dis-
mounting.

Some of the advantages of the MFP not listed in the previous studies
were (1) no need to focus with blue cockpit lights, (2) superior operations
with weapons fire, and (3) ability to see copilot (UH-1, OH-58, UH-60). A
disadvantage reported was difficulty in using daylight filters.

SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE THREE STUDIES

1. A total of 47 NVG qualified aviators participated in the study using

20 individual MFP NVG in UH-1, OH-58, AH-1, and UH-60 aircraft.

2. Average number of hours per participant was 18, range 1 to 60.

3. Total sum of recorded flight hours with MFP NVG as of 1 October 1982
was 871 hours, 43.5 hours average per goggle, range 12 to 90 hours.

4. In two incidents the center terminal wire to the battery case broke
L at the contact point after approximately 15 hours and 30 hours of use,
respectively. These wires were reconnected and secured to minimize possible
recurrence of the breakage. Also, one V-strap snap pulled out after 3.7 hours.

17

17 :
 5. The average final overall opinion rating of the MFP NVG for all 47
participants was 1.46 on a 1 to 5 scale where 1 is the highest rating. Forty-
two rated the MFP higher, 2 the same, and 3 lower.

6. For the 27 participants with five or more hours of use with the MFP
NVG, the overall opinion rating was 1.15, where 25 preferred the MFP, 2 rated
* the MFP equal to the standard goggle, and none preferred the standard goggle.

7. Median time to adjust to the MFP NVG was estimated at less than 30
minutes. However, three instructor pilots reported they could not adapt to
the MFP NVG.
8. Most frequent listed advantages of the MFP NVG over the standard NVG:

a. Increased peripheral vision

b. Look-under capability for maps, radios, and instruments

c. More comfortable and less fatiguing

d. Reduced lens fogging

e. Better aircraft detection

f. Ability to judge color of lights and distance with unaided vision

g. Ability to wear glasses with NVG

9. Most frequent or significant listed disadvantages of the MFP NVG:

a. Difficult to mount and dismount

b. Difficult to use day filters

c. Difficult to switch batteries

d. Counterbalance usually required for goggle stability

e. Eye pieces further away than standard NVG

18
 DISCUSSION

It is difficult to understand why the initial overall opinion of the MFP

was so different between the UH-1 (Lowe Field) and DES aviators, on the one
hand, and the OH-58 (Hanchey Field) aviators, on the other hand. The follow-
ing possible reasons are speculative but should be considered.

1. The OH-58 instructor pilots at Hanchey may have felt that acceptance
of the MFP NVG would affect the introduction or priority of issue of ANVIS,
although they were briefed to the contrary.

2. The flight commanders at Lowe and DES liked the MFP goggles, while
the flight commanders at Hanchey stated they were not impressed with the MFP
goggles.

3. The instructor pilots at Lowe had the MFP goggles longer than the
Hanchey instructor pilots both before and during flight evaluations. Some
of the Hanchey instructor pilots had not made the necessary helmet modifications.

4. The students in the MOI NVG courst at Lowe are hightime pilots whereas
the students at Hanchey are lowtime pilots. Getting used to a new system and
teaching new pilots at the same time may be too demanding.

5. The Lowe instructor pilots had a chance to use the simulator with the
MFP goggles before flight evaluations. The Hanchey instructor pilo., did not.
The present standards for current NVG pilots to qualify with ANVIS NVG are 10 r
hours of academic instruction and at least 1 hour of familiarization flight.
The briefing covering the MFP NVG and evaluation procedures was approximately
30 minutes and a familiarization flight was recommended but not required or
utilized by Lowe or Hanchey. However, a familiarization flight was required
in the DES study.

Most of the disadvantages of the MFP NVG listed by the instructor

pilots have been corrected or improved.

DISADVANTAGES

Following is a discussion of specific disadvantages listed by the pilots

on the questionnaire. The actions taken to correct or improve the complaint
are discussed.

Mounting
i
The major problem with mounting the MFP goggles is with connecting the
snaps on the MFP side straps to the standard NVG side straps or the surgical
tubing snaps. The short MFP side straps eliminate the side stress encountered
if snaps are attached directly to the rear side of the MFP, but they increase

19
.
 the attachment difficulty. When snaps were attached directly to the side of
* an earlier MFP, cracks developed around the snap where the surrounding support
* was weakened by the cutaway process. Fiberglass around the side snap to
reinforce the MFP (1 pair) and allow direct side snap attachment increased the
MFP thickness around and above the side snap. This reinforcement increased
the difficulty in mounting between the helmet shell and visor cover, and the
quick release tabs blocked part of the side cutout portion of the MFP. The
snap on the MFP side strap is positioned behind the faceplate, and the tension
on the surgical tubing is usually not adequate unless the tubing is adjusted.
With practice, all NVG pilots found mounting the goggles less difficult. The
briefing for initial users of the MFP will require the user to mount and dis-
mount the goggles 10 times.
If the standard side straps are used, snaps on the helmet should be in
the rearward position to aid in adjusting the tension. Also, the metal quick
release tabs should be attached to the MFP side straps to move the excess
* adjusting strap from blocking the side vision.

Dismounting
*If the upper V-straps are removed first on the MFP goggles, the eye pieces
will hit the wearer in the face. The participants were briefed and warned of
this problem, but this event occurred frequently on initial use. The replacement
V-straps on the MFP were made too short for proper attachment and removal from
the Velcro pads on the helmet visor cover. To correct this problem, the V-straps
and Velcro were lengthened to accommodate variations in the location of the
visor Velcro pads. Quick release tabs are being added to the surgical tubing
snaps to improve speed and ease of disconnecting the goggles.

Battery Container (Arctic Adapter) Inconvenient

If the arctic adapter is not used with the MFP NVG, the battery would be
very difficult to change in flight. Placing the battery container of the arctic
* adapter on the back of the helmet with a Velcro loop instead of tape used in the
initial evaluation would allow easy attachment, detachment, and battery exchange.
Also, a sudden battery failure with the standard NVG could be disasterous,
*whereas the MFP allows unaided vision until the battery is changed. When the
* double battery pack becomes available, battery failure in flight will not pose
a serious safety hazard.

Tubes Too Far Away

* Rearward movement of the binocular assembly is limited by the placement of
the rotary switch. Substituting a different switch would not be expedient and
would defeat the timely fielding of a MFP NVG. Variations in the anatomical
location of the eyes and of helmet fit and size can result in less than a full
field of view through the goggles for a few individuals. Minimal field reduc-
tions can be compensated for with experience, but beyond a certain range, greater

20
 distance between the eyes and eyepieces can produce optical distortion as well
* as field loss for which experience cannot compensate. For the few aviators ex-
periencing difficulty with excessive eye relief with the MFP NVG, standard NVG
should be available.

Alignment of Goggles

Since the MFP NVG are mounted to the helmet, lateral alignment of the
goggles for each individual depends on the V-strap and side strap attachments.
The method of changing lateral positioning of the goggles will be included and
stressed in the initial briefing. Vertical alignment can be achieved with the
tilt knob or slight helmet rotation.

No Safety Cord

The first prototype MFP NVG had safety cords, but they proved to be more
K: of a nuisance by tangling with the straps, communications and arctic adapter
cords, detaching counterweights and dual battery packs. A cloth NVG bag as
installed on some AH-1 Cobras would provide safe storage of the goggles when
they are not in use in the aircraft. By placing a Velcro pad on the top of r
the helmet the goggles can be stored and secured on the visor cover during
flight when not in use. Safety cords can be added at the discretion of the
individual flight commanders.

* IR Switch (AN/PVS-5 and 5A) Difficult To Use

The occasional difficulty in operating the top-mounted rotary switch de-

creased with experience. Instead of using the goggle-mounted IR source, usin;
IR or blue pen lights/flashlights for inside-the-cockpit viewing could elimi-
nate the need to use the rotary switch. Such an alternate illumination source
might also offer greater versatility with less signature.

Eye Discomfort

With the eyepiece of the MFP NVG located slightly further from the eyes
than the standard NVG, interpupillary alignment and focusing are more critical,
and, when incorrectly adjusted, could cause eye discomfort. Also discomfort
can be caused with greater eye movement excursions and sudden luminance dif-
ferences when looking from the goggle image to the unaided peripheral fields.
Improved focusing and interpupillary adjustment techniques will be included in
MFP NVG orientation briefings and NVG academics. Increased use of the MFP NVG
should reduce eye discomfort from eye excursion and luminance changes.

21
p
Peripheral Vision Distractions
Receiving visual information from both the NVG and unaided vision could be

initially confusing but should be quickly and easily learned to maximize per-
formance. The MFP NVG will prepare the aviator to effectively use his aided and
unaided vision when the AN/PVS-6 ANVIS is available.

Increased Weight Forward

The MFP NVG are approximately 4 oz. lighter than the standard NVG. How-
ever, since the MFP NVG are mounted between the helmet shell and visor cover,
and there is no face pad support, the helmet may have a greater tendency to
rotate forward if the helmet is not properly adjusted or a counterbalance is
not utilized. Proper helmet adjustment and stability should be evaluated and
corrected before flight with the MFP NVG.

V-Strap Too Short

The V-straps have been lengthened by 1 " with a 1" increase in the Velcro
area to accommodate variations in the location of the Velcro pads on the visor
cover.

ADVANTAGES

Most of the listed advantages of the MFP compared to the standard faceplate
are self explanatory. The significance of the larger field of view with the MFP
NVG (Figure 6) can be appreciated by considering the limitations of the 400
field of view with the standard AN/PVS-5 NVG (Figure 7). Proper scanning tech-
niques used by NVG pilots can be described as one second fixations separated by
horizontal head movements of approximately 300. To scan 2700 around the air-
craft with standard NVG (excluding head movement time) would require 9 seconds,
and would include only 200 above and 200 below the horizon. Typically, the
aviator spends most of his time looking in the direction of the intended flight
path, at ground features and hazards, and aircraft instruments. With standard
NVGs, this means a very large portion of the available visual field around the
aircraft is seldom viewed adequately or frequently enough to avoid a collision
threat. The peripheral vision along with sideward and downward viewing capa-
bilities afforded by the MFP greatly enhance the NVG aviator's ability to scan
his environment.

During the study, four instructor pilots reported avoiding a possible mid-
air situation by detecting an intruding aircraft with their unaided peripheral
vision while wearing the MFP NVG. One of these incidents was verified by the
investigator, who was riding as a passenger. A description of this incident
follows: At a stage field with four parallel runways, NVG training was being
conducted in OH-58 aircraft. At approximately 2 hours into the training period,
two aircraft on adjacent runways requested permission to take off at about the

22

- - - - - - - - - -
 A
same time. The tower operator instructed the two aircraft to hold for spacing,
but then corrected himself and responded "clear for take off" without identify-
ing which aircraft. Both aircraft took off, thinking they had been cleared by
the tower. Just before reaching traffic pattern altitude, the instructor pilot
in the aircraft to the left detected the parallel aircraft to his right and
rapidly decelerated to fall into a trailing position with the other aircraft.
Within a few seconds the aircraft on the right turned left to enter the crosswind
leg. In questioning the instructor pilot who had detected the other aircraft and
avoided a midair collision, he stated that he had first detected the red posi-
tion light of the other aircraft with his side vision which was provided with
the MFP NVGs he was wearing.

CONCLUSIONS

1. NVG aviators indicate that the MFP significantly enhances intruder

aircraft detection, inside-the-cockpit vision, and comfort. These findings
suggest that the MFP NVG will improve flight safety and increase NVG flight
capabilities over the standard AN/PVS-5 until the AN/PVS-6 ANVIS are available.

2. Spectacles can be worn with the MFP, and less fogging of the eye-
pieces occurs.

3. Primary deficiencies with the MFP appear to be initial mounting and

dismounting difficulties, goggle alignment problems, battery container incon-
venience, perceptual adjustment difficulties, and difficulty in using daylight
filters. Most of the reported deficiencies have been corrected with modifica-
tions to the mounting apparatus, thorough preflight briefings, and required
familiarization flight.

4. Thorough academic and flight familiarization is essential to successful

adjustment to the MFP NVG.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. These results and conclusions should be considered in efforts to

establish a MFP NVG program worldwide for Army aviators.

2. If MFP NVG are adopted for training and/or operations, thorough

* academic and flight familiarization must be provided to Army aviators.
3. A certain quantity of the standard AN/PVS-5 NVG faceplates should
be retained to permit day filter NVG training and to accommodate the few
aviators who are not able to effectively use the MFP NVG. The actual number
of MFP and standard faceplates should be determined by operational authorities.

23
1

APPENDIX A

MODIFIED FACEPLATE FIELD OF VIEW

25
p
 20. 10. 350 310, 380*

820 3W/
2

00

*0

U 0. / / 80t

5 70* 10

150. 16 10 16 90 20

2626
110
1!

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHRONOLOGICAL

EVENTS IN EVALUATION OF MFP NVG

27
p
 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHRONOLOGICAL
EVENTS IN EVALUATION OF MFP NVG

1. March 1982 - Initial prototype MFP made at the US Army Aeromedical

Research Laboratory (USAARL).

2. May 1982 - Telephonic flight release obtained fromUS Army Aviation

Research and Development Command (AVRADCOM) for MFP feasibility study.

3. June 1982 - Protocol for MFP feasibility study approved; seven MFP
NVG issued to Lowe, MOI NVG UH-1 instructor pilots for evaluation. Initial re-
sults very favorable.

4. July 1982 - Seven MFP NVG evaluated at Hanchey by NVG OH-58 instruc-
tor pilots. Initial results mixed.

5. August 1982 - US Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC), Directorate of Train-

ing and Doctrine (DOTD), and USAARL reviewed preliminary findings. Recommenda-
tions were to continue and expand the study, incorporate minor modifications
and improvements in MFP design, and improve participant's briefing and famil-
iarization. Department of Evaluation and Standardization (DES) was issued five
MFP NVG for evaluation in UH-1, OH-58, AH-1, and UH-60 aircraft.

6. September 1982 - Meeting by Directorate of Combat Developments (DCD),

Test Board, Directorate of Training Developments (DTD), DOTD, USAARL, and
USAAVNC to determine means to implement MFP NVG if evaluation results favorable.
I-

7. October 1982 - MFP study results evaluated and found very favorable.
Study included 47 NVG qualified aviators, four types of helicopter aircraft,
20 MFP NVG, and more than 850 hours of MFP use.

28
 APPENDIX C

CONVERSION OF STANDARD FACEPLATE TO

MODIFIED FACEPLATE

29

p
 7.

CONVERSION OF STANDARD FACEPLATE TO

MODIFIED FACEPLATE

No special skills are required to make the conversion; however, a machin-

ist is recommnended.
Basic supplies and equipment used: Phillips screwdriver, pliers, small
hand drill with metal rotary file, circular stone, and drill bits, clear
silicon rubber glue, soldering iron, and high-speed (duct) tape. Straps can
be made by the fabric shop.
Initially a couple of discarded or damaged faceplates should be used to
develop the skills and techniques to produce a quality cut-out faceplate.
Plastic templates help to standardize the battery container and side cut-out
patterns.
Faceplates to be used for the conversion should have no damage in the
upper plastic portion, and the electrical system should be checked with NVG
tube assembly. After the conversion, the cut-out faceplate should be checked
again with the NVG tube assembly and mounted on a helmet to check for battery
case clearance. The serial number plate is removed from the cut-out faceplate.
Serial numbers can be engraved in the plastic cut-out faceplate or the NVG can
be inventoried by the numbers on the tubes.
The following photographs show the sequence to convert the standard
AN/PVS-5 faceplates to cut-out NVG. Figures C18 and C19 show the template
designs, and Figure C20 shows the dimensions and components of the side and
* vertical straps.

30
 4

*1 §3
EU
L
* U,
4~i

a)
E
U
EU

L
r
0
.4-)
EU

EU

C
EU r
-o
EU
0.
a)
U
EU

-C

3
a)
4-)
EU
0.
a)
(-I
EU
4-

*0
S..
EU
C
EU
U,

4- *1
3
a)

4.'
fr- C
o
L
LL

L)
a)
L

I
La..

31
w
 to
.4<

4--
0

41

4)

.0
co
01

u)

'4-

32,
44

(A

4-
0

S-

33-
 ..- 0)

S-S

0-

CL)

0)
4-) eD

(D

.4-(

CL

r) 'C4-)

343
 w.-
A 0) ()r

C 4-) CU
() 4-)
o 4-- ru
o) -
o o
4-' J0

(3) E~ 0

4- 0)

(U 4-C) 1

>>
_0- 0 0
0OwO0E
U . a)
c- a) V

0) (U 4-)
S- S- CL~

U U _0 V,
A-) 4-) CL) I

U, U, 0) 0i

-~>) >)r-
C S-~ -0

4-) m~ 0
0) S-V
(T U,

o 4. 0-

a)0

A'U4-) .
WS.-

4-~ S- - 3

o 0 )
S- L
4-0) S-)

4J 0. 0)

U-. U A-) S.-

35
 )
0~ c
CA (LI

0) 0J
04-

EU

r_0)4

41~
0-
4f1 0i
4-

4J

4a)
24-) r4-
L 4) 0

I4-) 0(

(Aa)

CO
4-)
4-) -0

1.. 0

M 4-0
u

3C0

S'- 42 S-
-)

36C
 4-~

0
-

to

L0

4
-3

0 cm

4J )
'O4-3

-CLt

4-4

0
0

a)J 0)

-a)

37.

0. ....
 4

to
4-)
-)

0 3
-)
uD

LE

380
4-L

a)

(3)
u0

.0
3L

-a 4.W
c Q)

00

=00

00

30-

CLC

-
-no

39
 S-S

=0 S

>0 0 0

.-E EC

4-SE
4-0
0
0)00

a). 41
OS-0

4J 0 S-
-3 04-
0

0 4-1
l) 4-0 8U
=C 0 5.-
4--)
Cn 4J
4- C U
0-'--

r0 a)
S-- 0
0 airm
4J 0

Q) S-. 4-3

14-
41 -

0 4Jl
m0

C L
r_. 00

43 4--

0: 0
0.) -C

cu 0

'A a
O C Vo
00)(
0) 0)
:. 3 c5to

Ui- 4- (V

40
44

010
4-

-c Cj

4-J

4.
.- 04)
34

L)c

0 0)

to 0

0c D
0

4-1
 0l) 4-'
0C)

0u
4) -0 4-)
01) S- CU
-o - -lid fo
*-3C Q 4-
0) 4-) 0
.C - a)
4-) S~-

4-) -0 V)*s

0)0)
C0 30)
0- -
0 -c )
L 4-) 6
- 0 4-) .

4- ) U'4Jr
41 4-)
*_ - - r_
0.- Co
Ui 300t
fo LS A c

Lito
4-)8
o ) ) U
to -) (fnt

Lito t

-)S - 3
I-0) C0)
q- ) 4 U')
4-) 4.- 0
4-)4) S-4

S- ) (0)
a) - S-E
4J- 0) 0. W'

.0 - LA 4- )
U 4J

4) *)L:

0o)
0) ) C0)
0- 4-')

* 0
> 0 CU

04-)

o L
CU 0

U- 4- )

42
 CL

(A4-
)0~

o 0

ua)

CL
S-

4-) E
S-S
(04-
U
4
(A

-0 o

4~-

4C)

S-S

LL- to

434-
 "a 0

c3.c

~CA

4-) 4J

0)C

4J
0 a;

4z
C 4J
to
J

S-om
,'
Ub

>C-,
C-,l
4,-4-)

0 u0

C )

=~ -0

o.-oIn

444 (L) (A -C

44) 5r-4)
-~S I $a

n i m i llan
... , am ime m... m . .
 W

'n a
0 -)
-

-c
04-)L
Ln

to a
-0 4-)
LW

LA 0

4-)

(3) (a

ea CL
C(

V4)
a-v
00

0 V

-43
V0
S-V

toto 0

453
 0
4-
a) 4
4.1
0 4

S- 4J

C -o -"

S,- En
:31 0

0 l
*.- r- 0
0m

)~ U

4.0-4)
0 rG

C0-

0)
LUc-)
°5- S-'-
I*
4

o M

aC)
4 ° U

4-) 0
r .-: '4
0 E4-)
4-
) 0

0-4

U.0.
Id -- 4-
LL. 0.

46~
 EUL

4-)

L.

4 )
CL

0 t
U 4

47.
 I

TOP VIEW

" ' Alignment Points

for Template

0.1
0. 1699R

r 0.56"R \

1.87"

1.06 2.62"

0.1 9"R (TYP.____

0.87' 3.56"R
~~2.25"..

= ~4.87" .

I "

FIGURE C18. Template design.

48

- - r ' I'- I Ii 111 ll I ~i li m Ill illl~ i lllli l i l I I -

 ILI
uif

-. -4

1L-

0 40 C

cii

494
 co 0

'006

S.

0 06

a L o *0
c 'U

U. .

C4-

CCU

C 0

m CL
Q 0

500
515
 MODIFIED FACEPLATE (MFP) AN/PVS-5 BRIEFING

EACH AVIATOR TO HAVE HELMET, GLOVES, AND MODIFIED FACEPLATE GOGGLE

0

1. Background and History: Originally the AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles (NVG)
were designed for ground use by armor, mechanized, and infantry units. The
AN/PVS-5 NVG were used as an expedient until a version could be developed spe-
cifically for aviation. The Army recognizes that the use of NVGs for night
flight compromises certain concepts for standard safe operations. NVG limita-
tions include a reduced visual field (400), decreased visual resolution (20/50),
lack of color discrimination, manual focusing to adjust from far vision to near
and back, increased weight on the head and a forward shift of the center of
gravity. The midair collision between two OH-58 aircraft at Fort Rucker in
December 1981 underscored the limitations of the standard AN/PVS-5 NVG and
stimulated positive corrective actions focusing on air traffic procedures and
operations, stage field markings, configuration of the standard NVG and its
attachment to the helmet, and NVG accessory equipment.

As part of the quick-fix efforts to improve NVG flight safety until the
AN/PVS-6 (ANVIS) becomes available, a cutaway faceplate converted from the
standard AN/PVS-5 faceplate was developed. After relocating the electrical
components, the lower portion of the standard faceplate was cut away, to en-
able (a) unaided vision for the lateral and lower viewing fields, allowing
color discrimination of aircraft and ground lights, map reading, and spectacle
wear, (b) reduced weight, (c) less fatigue with improved comfort, and (d) re-
duced lens fogging. The modified faceplate (MFP) is compatible with the pro-
posed standard counterbalance system, which can provide optimum stability.

The side cutaway portion of the faceplate provides approximately 300

vertical and 200 lateral unaided peripheral vision for each side. The cutouts
on the sides are located approximately 450 to the right and left.

The MFP NVG is not a replacement for ANVIS, but an interim measure until
ANVIS is available.

2. Inspect helmets for modifications as required including standardized

counterbalance system with quick release tabs when available. Standard side-
strap helmet snap should be in rearward position if surgical tubing arrange-
ment not present. With standard side straps, the quick release tabs should
be connected to the MFP side straps,
3. Switch operation, arctic adapter requirement and location: The rotary
switch is located on the top of the faceplate. When viewed from the top, the
movement from off to on is clockwise. If the MFP has the AN/PVS-5A switch, the
IR position requires the switch to be lifted and turned.

The arctic adapter is required to improve battery changing ability until

the double battery pack is available. A male Velcro loop will allow the arctic
adapter to be attached to the back of the helmet. Other options are tape or
tucking the adapter under the surgical tubing.

52
 4. Mounting and aligning the MFP NVG: The upper lip of the MIFP is cen-
tered and placed between the visor cover and the helmet shell. With one hand
holding the goggle, the vertical straps are attached to the Velcro pads orn the
visor cover. The side straps are snapped either to the standard side straps
on the quick release tab end or the surgical tubing snaps. If the goggle tubes
are not centered before the eyes, they can be moved laterally after disconnect-
ing the vertical strap opposite the direction of movement. That is, to move
the goggles to the right, disconnect the left vertical strap. When properly
aligned, secure the vertical straps and snug the side straps. Minor lateral
alignment can be adjusted with the tilt clamp knob by moving one tube closer
to the eye.
*5. Storing the MFP goggles in flight: By placing a Velcro pad on the top
* of the helmet and using the surgical tubing for MFP side attachment, the goggle
can be placed on the visor cover and secured with one of the vertical straps.
-q A safety cord can be attached if desired, or a NVG cloth bag as used in the
AH-1 Cobra is functional.
6. Dismounting the goggle: Remove the side straps first! If the vertical
straps are removed first, the goggle will hit you in the face. The quick-
disconnect tabs are a must for rapid removal of the goggles. After the side
snaps are disconnected, tilt the goggle up and pull forward and up with one
motion to complete removal. With a safety cord, you may have to remove the
vertical straps individually. To complete the dismount the battery container
* of the arctic adapter is disconnected from the back of the helmet.
* 7. Determining if a counterbalance is needed and how much: Before flying
with the MFP goggle, adjust your helmet and mount the MFP goggle. Place the
microphone against your lips. Tilt your head down about 450 and rotate your
* head from side to side. If you feel the microphone moving (on your lips) in
* the opposite direction of head movement, you need a counterweight to stabilize
the goggles. Add just enough weight, not to exceed 22 ounces, to prevent move-
ment of the mcirophone on th'e lips. Check up and down movement of the head.
With excessive weight, rotation of the helmet on the head is exaggerated.

8. Spectacle Wearers: Corrective lenses can be worn with the MFP goggle,
but not with the standard goggle. The eye pieces of the goggle could bounce
on the spectacle lenses and create an eye hazard, even though the corrective
lenses have been hardened. The present recommendation is to order a set of
aviator spectacles requesting plastic lenses for flying with NVG. Different
lense materials are being investigated to improve the lense strength. If bifocal
lenses are used, the segment height should be small to fall outside the eye
piece viewing area of the NVG.
9. Adjusti~. the interpupillary distance of the NVG: The eye pieces of
the MFP NVG are usually located further from the eyes than the standard NVG.
Therefore, proper optical dlignment is more critical and sensitive for optimum
visual resolution. Forming a single circle from the images of the two NVG tubes,
as previously taught, usually results in the tubes being too close together.
Loosen the interpupillary clamp, look at a distant object, and slide the tubes
back and forth until the edges of the images are clear. If the outside edges
are blurred, the tubes are too close together. If the inside edges are blurred,

53
the tubes are too far apart. When the edges are clear, the two circles may not
appear to perfectly coincide. If the top or bottom edges are blurred, the
goggles need to be tilted with the clamp knob.

10. Flight techniques to maximize MFP use:

a. Limitations of unaided dark adaptation with MFP NVG: The intensity
of light from the NVG will keep the eyes from fully dark adapting. Therefore,
the information obtained from the side and lower unaided visual fields will be
less than the fully dark adapted eye.
b. Scanning between the aided and unaided vision: Primary source of
detailed information will be obtained through the goggles. Illuminated sources
when viewed through the goggles may not be accurately interpreted as to their
intensity, distance away, or color. The unaided vision can provide this addi-
tional information. Practice and experience with the MFP are needed to obtain
maximum information from both aided and unaided vision. Initially, unaided
peripheral vision may be distracting until you can utilize this additional in-
formation.
c. Illumination considerations: The brighter the ambient light, the
more difficulty will be experienced in seeing and detecting dim lights such as
chemical sticks with unaided vision. The increase in the goggle gain will pro-
duce more of the brown or pink afterimage vision which can slightly alter the
apparent color of lights or objects.
d. Map reading: With the MFP goggle standard maps can be read with
unaided vision. Using a blue-green filter over the flash light, only slight
alterations of the map colors occur without shutting down the goggles. A
common filter used is the green position light lens from an OH-58 aircraft.
e. Blue light cockpit illumination: Blue cockpit lighting in air-
craft allows the instruments to be viewed with unaided vision without having
to focus the goggles, thereby decreasing the time required for instrument
monitoring.
11. Check-out procedure for MFP NVG: At the end of the briefing, the
aviator will mount and dismount the MFP NVG ten times, and change batteries
five times while wearing gloves. Approximately 1.0 hour familiarization flight
with a qualified NVG pilot is required to include:
a. Take off to a hover
b. Hovering turns
c. Landing from a hover
d. Normal take off
e. Traffic pattern flightp
f. Normal approach
g. Low-level autorotation
h. Hovering autorotation
i. Slopes
j. Emergency procedure for simulated goggle failure

54
 >7- -
,0

APPENDIX E
EVALUATION OF MODIFIED FACEPLATE
FOR AN/PVS-5 NIGHT VISION GOGGLE

QUESTIONNAIRE

55

___-WI
 EVALUATION OF MODIFIED FACE PLATE
FOR AN/PVS-5 NIGHT VISION GOGGLE

QUESTIONNAIRE

Coded Identification MFP Goggle # Date

Moon Rise Moon Set % Illumination

1. How many hours have you flown with the Modified Face Plate (MFP) NVG? _

2. What type cockpit illumination used?

cockpit illumination Blue-Green lights

3. On the following maneuvers (if flown), rate the modified face plate NVG

with the standard NVG (AN/PVS-5) using the following scale:

1- superior to standard NVG

2- slightly better than standard NVG

3- equal or same as standard NVG

4- slightly worse than standard NVG

5- inferior to standard NVG

+ difficult with initial attempt

++ dangerous with initial attempt

EXAMPLE: 3+ running landing - this means "same as standard NVG" after initial

adjustment.

Maneuvers: Write in maneuvers if not listed

T/O mask & unmask slopes
3 ft. hover weapons fire navigation

__normal landing reading instruments tuning radios

running landing 3 ft autorotation confined areas

low level autorotation traffic pattern out of ground effect
hover
NOE flight contour flight deceleration
mounting to helmet dismounting from helmet

4. Overall opinion of this type MFP NVG on this flight. (Mark for each
night)

56
5. How long did it take you to become comfortable with this type modified

face plate (MFP) NVG?

_minutes couldn't adjust to this type

6. Any mechanical or electrical failures?

If yes, describe.
LS

7. The MFP NVG tubes are usually located higher and farther from the eyes.

Did this cause any perceptual problems or eye discomfort? yes no.

If yes, please explain.

8. Did you detect any objects with your unaided peripheral vision while

looking through the tubes with the MFP NVG? yes -no

If yes, estimate how often per hour. (_ times/hour) and list a few

examples:
S

O
9. List the advantages and disadvantages you found with the MFP NVG compared

to the standard NVG.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

1P

57
S.
 I
10. What recommendations would you make to improve the design without increas-

ing complexity or cost significantly? Any major modifications will delay field j
use.

11. Comments, suggestions, etc.

12. The following 4 questions are required only for your initial evaluation

of a MFP NVG. On subsequent flights, these questions can be omitted.

a. Estimate your total hours of rotor wing flight, hours

b. Estimate your total hours of Night Hawk RW flight, hours

c. Estimate number of hours of AN/PVS-5 NVG time. hours

d. What type aircraft are you using for testing the MFP NVG and number

of hours in this type aircraft? aircraft hours

58
 i .

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION

Defense Technical Information Center Aeromechanics Laboratory

Cameron Station US Army Research & Technology Labs
Alexandria, VA 22314 (12) Ames Research Center, M/S 215-1
Moffett Field, CA 94035 (1)
Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering Sixth United States Army
ATTN: Military Assistant for ATTN: SMA
Medical and Life Sciences Presidio of San Francisco,
Washington, DC 20301 (1) California 94129 (1)

Uniformed Services University Director

of the Health Sciences Army Audiology & Speech Center
4301 Jones Bridge Road Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Bethesda, MD 20014 (1) Forest Glen Section, Bldg 156
Washington, DC 20012 (1)
Commander
US Army Medical Research and Harry Diamond Laboratories
Development Command Scientific & Technical Information
ATTN: SGRD-RMS/Ms. Madigan Offices
Fort Detrick 2800 Powder Mill Road
Frederick, MD 21701 (5) Adelphi, MD 20783 (1)

Redstone Scientific Information US Army Ordnance Center & School

Center Library, Bldg 3071
ATTN: DRDMI-TBD ATTN: ATSL-DOSL
US Army' Missile R&D Command. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Redstone Arsenal, AL 35809 (1) 21005 (1)

US Army Yuma Proving Ground US Army Environmental Hygiene

Technical Library Agency Library, Bldg E2100
Yuma, AZ 85364 (1) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010 (1)
US Army Aviation Engineering
Flight Activity Technical Library
ATTN: DAVTE-M (Technical Library) Chemical Systems Laboratory
Edwards AFB, CA 93523 (1) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010 (I)
US Army Combat Developments
Experimentation Command US Army Materiel Systems
Technical Library Analysis Agency
HQ, USACDEC ATTN: Reports Distribution
Box 22 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Fort Ord, CA 93941 (1) 21005 (1)

59
S
Commander US Army Field Artillery School
US Army Medical Research Institute Library Snow Hall, Room 16
of Chemical Defense Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21010 (1) US Army Dugway Proving Ground
Technical Library
Commander Bldg 5330
Naval Air Development Center Dugway, UT 84022 (1)
ATTN: Code 6022 (Mr. Brindle)
Warminster, PA 18974 (1) US Army Materiel Development &
Readiness Command
Director ATTN: DRCSG
Ballistic Research Laboratory 5001 Eisenhower Avenue
ATTN: DRDAR-TSB-S (STINFO) Alexandria, VA 22333 (1)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21005 (2) US Army Foreign Science &
Technology Center
US Army Research & Development ATTN: DRXST-IS1
Technical Support Activity 220 7th St., NE
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703 (1) Charlottesville, VA 22901 (1)

Commander/Director Commander
US Army Combat Surveillance & US Army Training and Doctrine Command
Target Acquisition Laboratory ATTN: ATCD
ATTN: DELCS-D Fort Monroe, VA 23651 (2)
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703 (1)
Commander
US Army Avionics R&D Activity US Army Training and Doctrine Command
ATTN: DAVAA-O ATTN: Surgeon
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703 (1) Fort Monroe, VA 23651 (1)

US Army White Sands Missile Range US Army Research & Technology Labs
Technical Library Division Structures Laboratory Library
White Sands Missile Range NASA Langley Research Center
New Mexico 88002 (1) Mail Stop 266
Hampton, VA 23665 (1)
Chief
Benet Weapons Laboratory Commander
LCWSL, USA ARRADCOM 10th Medical Laboratory
ATTN: DRDAR-LCB-TL ATTN: DEHE (Audiologist)
Watervliet Arsenal APO New York 09180 (1)
Watervliet, NY 12189 (1)
Commander
US Army Research & Technology Labs US Army Natick R&D Laboratories
Propulsion Laboratory MS 77-5 ATTN: Technical Librarian
NASA Lewis Research Center Natick, MA 01760 (1)
Cleveland, OH 44135 (1)

60
 iF

Commander US Air Force Armament Development

US Army Troop Support & Aviation & Test Center
Materiel Readiness Command Technical Library
ATTN: DRSTS-W Eglin AFB, FL 32542 (1)
St. Louis, MO 63102 (1)
US Air Force Institute of Technology
Commander (AFIT/LDE)
US Army Aviation R&D Command Bldg 640, Area B
ATTN: DRDAV-E Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 (1)
4300 Goodfellow Blvd
St. Louis, MO 63166 (1) US Air Force Aerospace Medical
Division
Director School of Aerospace Medicine
US Army Human Engineering Laboratory Aeromedical Library/TSK-4
ATTN: Technical Library Brooks AFB, TX 78235 (1)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
21005 (1) Director of Professional Services
Office of The Surgeon General
Commander Department of the Air Force
US Army Aviation R&D Command Washington, DC 20314 (1)
ATTN: Library
4300 Goodfellow Blvd Human Engineering Division
St. Louis, MO 63166 (1) Air Force Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory
Commander ATTN: Technical Librarian
US Army Health Services Command Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 (1)
ATTN: Library
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 (1) US Navy
Naval Weapons Center
Commandant Technical Library Division
US Army Academy of Health Sciences Code 2333
ATTN: Library China Lake, CA 93555 (1)
Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 (1)
US Navy
Commander Naval Aerospace Medical Institute
US Army Airmobility Laboratory Library
ATTN: Library Bldg 1953, Code 012
Fort Eustis, VA 23604 (1) Pensacola, FL 32508 (1)

Air University Library (AUL/LSE) US Navy

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112 (1) Naval Submarine Medical Research Lab
Medical Library, Naval Submarine Base
US Air Force Flight Test Center Box 900
Technical Library, Stop 238 Groton, CT 06340 (1)
Edwards AFB, CA 93523 (1)
Staff Officer, Aerospace Medicine
Command Surgeon RAF Staff
Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force British Embassy
MacDill AFB, FL 33608 (1) 3100 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20008 (1)

61

.rj - . U
 Director Commanding Officer
Naval Biosciences Laboratory Naval Biodynamics Laboratory
Naval Supply Center, Bldg 844 P.O. Box 29407
Oakland, CA 94625 (1) New Orleans, LA 70189 (1)

Naval Air Systems Command FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute

Technical Library AIR 950D ATTN: Library
RM 278 Jefferson Plaza II Box 25082
Department of the Navy Oklahoma City, OK 73125 (1)
Washington, DC 20361 (1)
Department of Defence
US Navy R.A.N. Research Laboratory
Naval Research Laboratory Library P.O. Box 706
Code 1433 Darlinghurst, N.S.W. 2010
Washington, DC 20375 (1) Australia (1)

US Navy Canadian Society of Avn Med

Naval Air Development Center c/o Academy of Medicine, Toronto
Technical Information Division ATTN: Ms. Carmen King
Technical Support Department 288 Bloor Street West
* Warminster, PA 18974 (1) Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1V8 (1)
Division
Human Factors Engineering
Aircraft & Crew Systems Technology COL F. Cadigan
Directorate DAO-AMLOUS B
Naval Air Development Center Box 36, US Embassy
Warminster, PA 18974 (1) FPO New York 09510 (1)

US Navy DCIEM/SOAM
Naval Research Laboratory Library MAJ J. Soutendam (Ret.)
Shock & Vibration Information Center 1133 Sheppard Avenue West
Code 8404 P.O. Box 2000
Washington, DC 20375 (1) Downsview, Ontario
M3M 3B9 (1)
Director of Biological & Medical
Sciences Division Dr. E. Hendler
Office of Naval Research Code 6003
800 N. Quincy Street Naval Air Development Center
0 Arlington, VA 22217 (1) Warminster, PA 18974 (1)

Commanding Officer Commander

Naval Medical R&D Command US Army Transportation School
National Naval Medical Center ATTN: ATSP-TD-ST
Bethesda, MD 20014 (1) Fort Eustis, VA 23604 (1)
0

62