/ /

..qjjjý.,i

USAARL Report No. 76-27

IN-FLIGHT PERFORMANCE WITH NIGHT VISION GOGGLES

DURING REDUCED ILLUMINATION

BY
"Michael A. Lees

David D. Glick
Kent A. Kimball

Allen C. Snow, Jr.

August 1976
Final Report

This document has been approved for public release and

sale; its distribution is unlimited
U. S. ARMY AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Fort Rucker, Alabama 36362

5ATfS D1D9C

SIr
w N,29
 NOTICE

Qualifiu'd requesters may obt'ain copies from the Defense Documentation

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

Change of Address

Organizations receiving reports from the U. S. 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.

Distribution Statement
This document has been approved for public release and sale; its
distribution is unlimited.

Disclaimer

The finding; in this report are not to be construed as an Official

Department of the Army position unless so designated by other
authorized documents.

. . .. . .. . . ... if . .G .....................
It. ....

... .......

U iSh AILA
,I Lill

pc is /

V.:

It' p ,
 UKUZLEIELIL ___

%ECURITY CLASSIF'ICATION OF THIS PAGE (W~swnD~ti, Untersco_________________

REPORT QOCIMENTATION PAGE ___ E % ~ O

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

USAAPU 76-27__ ___ _______,

ji,~S TYPE OF RIEPORT a, PEMIOID COVI!REO

1N-t.LIGHTZERFORMANCE WITHg.IGIIT VISION GOGGLES

tZUR-ING REDUCED ILLUMINA1IOOR FT
INnaMIBERw

7. AUTIpR(S~0. CONTRACT OR GRANT I4UMBER(a)

Michael Ale ~Snowj
/ies 3
avi'd D. Gick~
TIO
NMEAN ADDRESS 10. PROGRAMjEEMNT PROJECT, TASK
AREA 6 OR UNIT NUMBERS
2."A'U. S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory
Fort Rucker, Alabama -36362 .75A
Il. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS A

U.S.i tony Med'ical R&D Command 13. NUf6ER OF PAGF-

14, MONITORING AGENCY NAMF A ADORESS(if di~fferet from, Catilrofing Offie) I16. SECURITY CL AS o;f

rTTECLASSI PICATION! DOWNGRADING

I CHEDULE

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Roport)

This document has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution
is unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the. abstract iontee~d In Block 20, If differettt fromnRoporl)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Conti... on s ide If n-copilsry lend identity by"block waitwb.)

AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles

A.- Rotary Wing Aircraft
Aviator Performance
MI~jltivarlate Analysis
Re3uced Illumination
.4 2. A~ACT (Confinue on. coe"rs. T;; If o~~w and identify by. block noumbser)

At the present time the U.S. Army is striving to attain around-the-

clock operational capability for its tactical forces. The Night Vision
~A.. Goggles have been developed to aid the Army pilot in attaining near-daytime
capability at night. Previous research at the U.S. Army Aeromedical
Research Laboratory has demonstrated the requirement for an investigation
of the effects of low illuminance levels on aviator performance while
wearing night vision goggles.,-

~ t.
 SECURITY CLAUIFICAT40N OF THIS PA~GCM LIMA MWOa3ntI,)

The current investigation examined rnan-helicoptar system perform~ance

14across several levels of reduced illumintWCIon. eutr&deitfler
were used to present six standard illumination conditions to aviators
wearing night vision goggles, and to simulate unaided eye conditions
Z to aviators wearing welder's goggles.
Significant differences in system performance were observed when
aviators wore the night vision goggles. The results of the multivariate
analysis of variance and recommendations based on observed performance
are presented in this report.

6t,

1~~ UNCLASSI FI ED
MIECU0RITY .. L.A*T.IrICAYI0I4 OPI THIS PAGE0V1h" Pato Rint.red)
 'I,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank those Fort Rucker aviators, from
the Department of Undergraduate Flight Training, who volunteered their
.. personal time to participate in this study. Special thanks go to
Captain Thomas Frezell and Mr. James LeBruyere, who served as safety
pilots for this investigation, and to Mrs. McHugh and Mrs. Dyess for
their outstanding secretarial support.

y.
.I! 1

A.

.'&:
,~,
 " 7-m

SUMMARY
At the present time the U.S. Army is striving to attain around-the-
clock operational capability for its tactical forces. The Night Vision
Goggles have been developed to aid the Army pilot in attaining near-
daytime capability at night. Previous research at the U.S. Army
Aeromedical Research Laboratory has demonstrated the requirement for
an investigation of the effects of low illuminance levels on aviator
performance while wearing niht vision goggles.
The current investigation examined man-helicopter system per-
formance across several levels of reduced illumination. Neutral density
filters were used to present six standard illumination conditions to
aviators wearing night vision goggles, and to simulate unaided eye
conditions to aviators wearing welder's goggles.
Significant differences in system performance were observed when
"aviators wore the night vision goggles. The results of the multivariate
analysis of variance and recommendations based on observed performance
are presented in this report.

7)' ~Approved:

S' Colonel, MSC

Commandi ng
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations......... .............................. iv

.'List of Tables .............................................. V

Introduction................................................1I
Method...................................................... 2
Subjects.................................................. 2
Equipment................................................. 2
Night Vision Goggles (NVG's) ............................... 3
Naked Eye Simulators (NES) ................................. 7

Aircraft.................................................. 7
Helicopter In-Flight Monitoring System (HIMS)................ 7
Procedure ....................... ........................... 7
Subject Examination and Familiarization..................... 10
'n-Flight Investigation ................................... 10
Measurement............................ ................. 12
USAARL Illumination Factor Level ........................... 12
Analyses and Results ........................................ 142

Pre-Analysis Processing ................................... 1

Variable Selection ........................................ 13

Covariates, ............................................... 18
Analyses of In-Flight Variables............................ 19
Multivariate Test for Trend................................ 19
Multivariate Test for Differences Across
Illumination Levels ...................................... 2?
 bJ..srw..ruw - -. -

LI'' 'Nj ,VN

'1 d4'I.Ni
* "
'Hi' " CONTENTS
Page
I.

Discussion..............................................25
References............................................. 27
0% It
7*
0 5 ' 4

'I

K.
4?

'xc
I""
"'A
'I St

'eN 4 W
qSl;

* ""4

54

5t'I

"5'.'

N"'''

4.,.
'5'S,'
"""A:" Hgl'
S * , 'SI
''CO Ž4',
"''ASS'!'

',. "SN'

Si'
*'S' Ast 7
* PS
V'S

'4" Ill

*5'5\s

Si'

'""'5'' 5''
'5"

-'N"'.

55 AL:JS....akM 'A s,.xfl, t24s . ArŽ'zsms.asskAikLkik.t.,Mk

 LIST Of ILLUSTRATIONS

Fiure EaA t

1. Night Vision Goggles .................................. 4

2. Optical Schematic of NVý .............................. 5
3. Aviator Wearing Night Vision Goggles .................... 6
4.4. Naked Eye Simulators .................................. 8
5. Helicopter In-Fg2 oioigSse CH-IMS)............. 9
'it Moiorn Sse

~(4~' iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Sunm-ary of Pilot Experience Questionnaire ............... 3

2. Layout of Experimental Conditions ....................... 11

, 3. Experimental Light Level Conditions ..................... 13

4. Performance Measures Derived From HIMS .................. 14
5. Naked Eye Simulator Maneuvers Cluster Analysis .......... 15

6. Night Vision Goggles Maneuvers Cluster Analysis ......... 16

7. Variables Demonstrating Significant Trends Over

Illumination Levels Used During NES Maneuvers ......... 17
8. NES Variables Selected for Further Analysis..............17
9. Variables Demonstrating Significant Trends Over
• Illumination Levels Used During NVG's Maneuvers ....... 18
10. NVG's Variables Selected for Further Analysis ........... 18
11. Measures of Pilot Experience Used as Covariates ......... .19
12. Multivariate Orthogonal Polynomial Test for
"Trend in NES Maneuvers ................................ 20

13. Multivariate Orthogonal Polynomial Test

for Trend in NVG's Data ............................... ?I

14. Two-.Way Multivariate Analysis of Variance ............... 23

15. Probability Levels for Pair-Wise Comparisons
Between Illumination Levels for NVG's Maneuvers ....... 23
16. Mean Values for the Five Major Axis Variables
Across NVG's Illumination Levels ...................... 24
17. Number of Maneuvers in Wh~zh Major Errors Occurred ...... 25
 INTRODUCTION

k At the present time the US Army is striving to attain around-the-

clock operational capability for its tactical forces. The objective is
to achieve a near-daytime capability at night and during inclement
weather. One device which has been developed as an aid in achieving
ý. this goal is the night vision goggles (AN/PVS-5).

The requirement for night viewing devices has been recognized for
some time. As early as 1964, night vision goggles (NVG's) were under
review by the Army Infantry for possible use by the individual soldier.
More recently the potential applications of this device within thk. air-
borne environment have been recognized. Inasmuch as the flight
environment presents many substantial differences from the originally
designated ground application, questions have been raised regarding
system effectiveness and the impact of NVG's on aviator performance
in the tactical night environment 1 ' 2

Recognizing the major impact that the NVG's could have on Army
aircraft systems, the U. S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory
has developed an ongoing program to investigate performance charac-
teristics of aviators while using the night vision goggles. To
date, several research studies 3 ,',',5 ,', have been completed and
over 100 hours of flight experience have been obtained with the night
vision goggles. Based on this experience, it became apparent that
there was an immediat. need to systematically investigate the role of
illuminance as it affects the aviator's ability to fly with night vision
goggles. The requirement for this research is based on the fact that
below certain illuminance levels, night vision goggles produce a signal-
to-noise (S/N) ratio that substantially degrades the pilot's ability to
fly certain mancuvers.
These marginal illuminance levels impact Army Aviation in several
ways. First they represent a major safety concern for the aviator
Al,• because they limit his flying capability. Inadvertent entry into
marginal light levels may provide the aviator with unusually hazardous
*. flight conditions.

Second, the identification of illuminance levels necessary

for adequate performance is necessary for both the tactical and the
training environment. If a commander knows the light level at which
he can expect full NVG's capability, he can then approximate
the percentage of time they can be employed for any given reason,
location, and time of night. Conversely, he can also determine the
percentage of time they cannot be utilized.

The delineation of performance capabilities for various illuminance

levels is hampered by the fact that tne presence of marginal light

1',

?i;,,
4ii
''Y!
 !TV,

levels cannot always be detected by wearing the NVG's on the ground,

Thus, some other means is required to determine the presence of marginal
or inadequate light levels. Ideally, such a means would not require
additional equipment, such as photometers, but would consist of some
non-hazardous fli.ght maneuver which could be performed to determine if
iY- adequate light was available. This simple maneuver would then provide
the necessary "go" or "no go" information.

Several operational characteristics of the NVG's at low illumination

levels are particularly relevant to this investigation. These include
the signal-to-noise ratio and the gain responses at very low light
if levels. At the present time each intensifier tube in the night vision
goggles has a particular signal-to-noise ratio and a gain characteristic.
Thi.s provides the posSiBility that the responses of the two tubes in
one set of goggles might be slightly different. The current specifications
require the goggles to have a light gain of between 7,500 and 15,000.
Experience has shown that there is a general deterioration in gain as
tube life increases.

All intensifier tubes demonstrate a tendency to produce increased

noise or sparkle at low illumination levels. It has been observed
that under conditions of limited terrain definition and low light it
is often difficult to determine if one is viewing an image or noise.

The present investigation was conducted to determine the effect of

several low illumination conditions on aviator performance with NVG's,
and under simulated unaided eye conditions.

METHOD

ubjects
I•~Subjects for this investigation were six experienced A 'my
rotary wing pilots. These aviators had an average of 2300 helicopter
flight hours. Three of the pilots served as subjects in previous night
vision goggles investigations and three others had recently been actively
. .. . . . involved in the Phase I night training Lest (Night Hawk Operation)
where extensive night flying with the unaided eye was conducted.
The two safety pilots were USAARL research aviators highly experienced
in the use of night vision goggles. Table 1 summarizes pilot experience
as obtained from individual questionnaires.

This investigation utilized 40" field-of-view (FOV) night vision

goggles (NVG's). Neutral density filters were used to control the
illumination levels available to the goggles. Light-tiqht welder's
goggles with neutral density filter lens were used to control the
illumination available to the naked eye. Flight data were obtained

, ,
 %1IMiAlY o? 1110 l L 01XVR
NCI 901 1i ONNAI III

I It SU.LCV1,.
NUNiBER

I t lqhuiN k Ila lnqt In III( I A njat

Rf SIP
SI SIP IP SIP IP SIP

l.,ltolhIrý W11ny11 IgtQ1 How's 217P) 1600 2900 1900 1125 359 1760 3700

bloti Rutotry Winyl Nijlit II i~ht Itouri' ?81 1300 420 400 75 225 312 565
Io~I aI Ni imbour L,V N yit)
it I loutr V1own Un dvV
J14.tAlcai1 Condit ions 15 400 301) 200 M00 160 80 300

I otA I NI'uiwik o f N Ltlit. Hours F t own WIth No

I xtoron%1 Lig ht% 0 200 100 48 55 2 60 100
T'otal Hours flown to tho Last lhroo Months 40 15 75 75 60 67 98 30
,I 10W~ Nkt1it 1LoIVS FLOWn in thn Last Three
o h~4
% 9 3 30 13 8 5 22 25

V l.
II Nwmbuir' of flouis of ELxpurloin:Ql with Hight
VI s W11 Goyy1,% tlet'oro Inve.stigation 3 3 0 0) 2 3 50 50

4~~\44 ~Aviav- t lar~boldtt1b is subjied.s I anid 8 Se~rved As Safety Pilots.

throQ(iih the use of the Hel icopter In-*F1ight Monitoring System (NIMS).
, 4 k,5ý" Ph1YO Cal ['10) ll-ue S Of illumination were made with a Spectra Pritchard
4 Model 1980 Photoiibeter.

Nijht Vision Go gljes (NVG's)

The ntight vision goggles (AN/PVS-5, Figure 1) are a head mounted
binocular image intensification system. The NVG's are a unity magnifi-~
cation device with tile image intensification being accomplished through
i yV the use of two l8nin wafer type micro channel image intensifier tubes
(Figure 2 Obtained from DIM 11-58855-238-24'). The goggles 4qeigh 31
A,4ý ounces, use a 2.7 volt mnercury cell as a power source, and are attached
to thle aviator's SPH-4 flight helmet with two sets of straps fistened
doptrs ndcar) be manlually focused from ten inches to 'infinity.
eigt
rThe best visual acuity obtainable through the 40' FOV NVG's is 20/60
~ in Snellen notation.
The niyht vision goggles utilized in this investigation possessed two
matched image intensifier tubes, each with a signal-to-noise ratio of 5:5.
A green phosphor (Type 10-52) in the intensifica'ioo tubes, results in
the enltire 40' FOV being presented in shades of green.

51,

'iV4)

~ ~ 4 *Ox .~J4'444~Ž.kA
_______N rot.'
01v

0VA

..........

FIGURE 1. NIGHT VISION GOGGLES.

 LU

La

LU>

LL.

000

LLId

LU BL

ann.

"TA
 '-P,

W-.ýý""
p.'

~2
Z

4Ni

m,.

-K.~
 The illuminance level available to the night vision goggles was
controlled by placing tube caps over the end of the NVG's objective
lens. These tube caps contained the appropriate number of Kodak Wratten
No. 96 Neutral Density Filters.
Naked Eye Simulators (NES)

A set of light-tight welder's goggles (Figure 4) were used to

control the illuminance levels available to the unaided eye. For this
investigation, the normal smoked lens were replaced by the appropriate
number of Kodak Wratten No. 96 Neutral Density Filters. Illuminance
levels were monitored throughout the investigation, and these frequent
measures were used to establish the correct neutral density setting for
flights with both the naked eye simulators and the night vision goggles.
Aircraft

Subjects in this investigation flew an Army JUH-lH helicopter

modified to provide input to the HIMS. For all trials, the aircraft was
flown without external lights or internal cockpit lights. The inves-
tigation team was isolated by a blackout curtain in the rear of the
aircraft.
Helicopter In-Flight Monitoring System (HIMS)

The HIMS, (Figure 5) provides real time acquisition of all major

motion and control parameters. The HIMS monitors and records aircraft
movements in six degrees of freedom as well as all pilot control
movements on the cyclic, collective, pedals, and throttle. Measures
of rates and accelerations along each axis are also obtained. An
on-board radio ranging system is utilized to continuously track the
research aircraft's position within USAARL's 100 square mile test
range. The HIMS continuously records 20 channels of information using
an on-board incremental tape recorder.

Complete pr'ocessirg of the HIMS output tape provides 325 direct

or derived measures of aircraft and pilot performance. A more complete
description of this system is available in USAARL Report No. 72-11.

PROCEDURE

I Prior to the actual testing, several flight maneuvers were examined

for applicability in terms of safety and control difficulty. After
empirical investigation, it was determined that holding a stationary,
three-foot hover over a dark asphalt runway, while facing a minimally
textured grassy area, was a discriminating maneuver which became more
difficult as the illumination level was reduced. This three-foot
hover was selected as the primary test maneuver.

* , 7

'\ -v
 fCw

10~
INCHE

DIXON NO. 74

,,,~ ~ I 1.4111111

NAKED) EYE III I

SFIGURE 4. NAKED EYE

SIMULATORS.

*
4

A,ý ýkT
 r
"t: 'Nt

70"

S 'V
'V Subject Examination and Familiarization
Six experienced aviators selected as subjects visited the laboratory
immediately prior to the start of field testing. At that time, they
M, received a complete briefing concerning the objectives and procedures
that would be used during the investigation arid were examined for static
visual acuity and refractive error. During the briefing, the subjects'
flight helmets were modified for mounting the night vision goggles.

Prior to the night testing, subjects received a day's familiarization

flight which entailed a flight to the test area, 30 minutes of practice
with the night vision goggles, and 30 minutes of practice with the naked
eye simulators. During the practice sessions, the subjects were required
to perform a minimum of five 30-second stationary hovers with each device.
The remaining time was allocated for practice on any maneuver desired,
generally hover taxi work and stationary hovers.

In-Flight Investigation
SSubjects were tested during three nights over a five-day period.
Each night two subjects were flown to the USAARL research facility at
High Falls Stagefield. The first pilot to be tested wore red dark
adaptation glasses on the flight out to the test site and received
approximately 25 minutes of dark adaptation. The second pilot tested
also received 25 minutes dark adaptation prior to his test flight.

Upon arrival at High Falls, one pilot was taken to the test area
on the asphalt runway and given a viewing device, either night
vision goggles (NVG's) or naked eye simulators (NES) containing an
appropriate set of neutral density filters. The subject then performed a
series of 24 thirty-second stationary hovers under controlled illuminance
levels, after which he performed another series of 24 thirty-second
hovers with the remaining viewing device. At the conclusion of the
second series, the subject removed the viewing device and performed
two thirty-second hovers using the unaided eye.
Six standard discrete illumination level conditions were encountered
by each subject during the series of 24 hovers for each viewing device.
Each of the six levels were presented twice with the pilot performing
two successive hovers at each presentation. The six illumination levels
were initially presented to the subjects in either an ascending (darker
to lighter) or descending (lighter to darker) manner. After the first
six stages (i.e., six steps of ascending illumination levels) the manner
of presentation was reversed (i.e., six steps of descending illumination
levels). Thus, each subject performed four maneuvers (two pairs) at
each illumination level. The presentation of viewing devices (NVG
vs NES) and the initial presentation of illumination levels (ascending

10
 y!=

vs descending) were counterbalanced between subjects. A summary of

the order of presentation of viewing devices and illumination level
conditions for each subject is found in Table 2. The illumination
levels presented for flights with the night vision goggles and the
naked eye simulators are found in Table 3A. Values are presented in
USAARL factor levels, which will be discussed later.

TABLE 2
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS
Night %of M l m ec # IstHoverSerie 2 H

Night % of Moon Illuminated Subject # 1st Hover Series 2d Hover Series

Viewiny Light Viewiny Light
Device •Level Device Level
Sec_
Seq 2
70% 8 NES D-A NVO's A-D
7 NVG's D-A NES A-D
2 80% 1 NVG's D-A NES A-D
2 NES D-A NVG's A-D
3 89% 3 NVG's D-A NES D-A
5 NVG's A-D NES D-A

4 98% 4 NES A-D NVG's A-D

_ __,_ _ _ _ _6 NES A-D NVG's D-A
1NVG's = Night Vision Goggles - NES Naked Eye Simulators (Welder's Goggles)

D =Descending Light Levels (Lighter to Darker).

A = Ascending Light Levels (Darker to Lighter).

Before each maneuver, the aircraft was placed in a standard positiorn

by the safety pilot to insure that the subject had no distinct visual
cues to his immediate front. The subject then took control of the
aircraft, established what he considered to be a three-foot hover,
and then attempted to maintain a stabilized hover for a thirty-second period.
At the end of the thirty seconds, the safety pilot assumed control and
repositioned the aircraft on the runway. A standard policy regarding
termination of the maneuver was established prior to testing. This
"policy required the safety pilot to assume control of the aircraft

" II

'J {f-ip
 only when there was an immediate possibility that the aircraft would
be damaged. Thus, several of the subjects were allowed to perform skid
touchdowns during the testing period as long as the rate of movement was
' not severe enough to incur aircraft damage. If the safety pilot was
forced to assume control for all maneuvers at two successive illumination
I levels, testing at that illuminance level was terminated. However, it
was never necessary to implement this procedure.

Measurement

Subject performance during the investigation was monitored and

recorded by the HIMS. Due to a partial equipment malfunction, measures
available for this investigation were those of aircraft oitch,
roll, and heading and aircraft location on the X and Y axis of the test
area's coordinate system.

Throughout the testing period, ambient illumination levels were

monitored via the photometer and changes in light level were trans-
mitted to the investigators ovi board the aircraft.

USAARL Illumination Factor Level

The USAARL Light Level Factors were used in this investigation to

provide a convenient and uniform method of converting existing illumination
levels into a more meaningful scale. The USAARL Light Level Factor Scale
has a range of 1 to 100. On this scale, 1 represents a clear, star light
night with no moon, and 100 represents a clear, full moon night. The
calculation of the USAARL Factor is conducted in the following manner:
USAARL Illumination Factor Light Level in Ft. Candles x Transmissibility

2.0 x 10-

Transmissibility 1/antilog of the Neutral Density Filter.

Examples of USAARL Illumination Factors are found in Table 3B.
.i'.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Data analyses utilized for this investigation consisted of (1) the
pre-analysis processing of the raw data obtained from the HIMS;
(2) the selection of variables for analysis; and (3) the analysis and
testing of appropriate in-flight variables.

Pre-Analysis Processing

Three separate computer programs are necessary o convert data obtained

from the HIMS into standard units of measure. This conversion places

4•\A.
.. 12
•
 ~ TABLE 3
EXPERIMENTAL LIGHT LEVEL CONDITIONS
A.
NIGHT VISION GOGGLES NAKED EYE SIMULATORS
Propposed OUtTai Popse Obtained
Standard Values Standard Valv'es
1 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0-3.0
2 1L3 1.26-1.3 5.0 5,0
'~ ~ 3 .6 1.59-1.6 6.060
4 2.0 2.0 8.0 8.0
5 5.0 5.0 16.0 16.0-12.0
3.0 3.0 10.0 16.0-18.0

All values in table above are USAARL light level factors.

"B"X_______________________ ____

USMARL ILLUMINATION FACTOR LEVELS

Illumination USAAR -Moon Condition
AFt. Candles Factor
2.0 X 101 No moon -clear star light
5.0 X 10-3 25 1/4 moon
1.0 X 102 5O 1/2 moon
1.5 X 102 75 3/4 moon
n'~2.0 X 10' 100 Full moon

the original voltage measures into nieaningfal values such as degrees of

heading and inches of travel for aircraft controls. These engineering
units are developed for each data sample obtained during the course of
the maneuver. All sample values for each maneuver are then averaged over
-~ ~ the time span of that specific maneuver and these mean values are utilized
as the dependent measures in statistical analysis.
Variable Selection
At the initiation of the analysis phase, thirty variables were
considered as appropriate for use in the selection of a final v, ble
set. These variables are presented in Table 4.

13
MA..

N 'W
 •'Av." TABLE 4

PERFORMANCE MEASURES DERIVED FROMHIMS

1, Pitch - Mean
2. - Standard Deviation
3. - Average Absolute Error
4. - Root Mean Square Error
5. - Maxiraum Value
6. - Minimim Value

R' 7. Roll - Mean

m) 8. - Standard Deviation
9. - Average Absolute Error
10. - Root Mean Square Error
11. - Maximum Value
12. - Minimum Value

13. Heading - Mean

14. - Standard Deviation
15. - Average Absolute Error
16. - Root Mean Square Erro'-
17. - Maximum Value
18. - Minimum Value

19. X Position - Mean

20. - Standard Deviation
21. - Average Absolute Error
22. - Root Mean Square Error
23. - Maximum Value
24. - Minimum Value

25. Y Position - Mean

26. - Standard Deviation
27, - Average Absolute Error
28. - Root Mean Square Error
29. - Maximum
30. - Minimum

The first step in the variable selection process was to determine

the degree of redundancy or overlap between the variables. For this
purpose, a 30 by 30 correlation matrix was developed which contained all
pair-wise comparisons for these variables. This information was then
submitted to a simple cluster analysis. All variables that were highly
correlated were identified and grouped within a particular cluster.
The development of the correlation matrix and subsequent cluster analysis
were conducted separately for night vision goggles maneuvers and for the
naked eye simulators maneuvers. The results of the cluster analysis for
the NES maneuvers and for the NVG's maneuvers are found in Table 5A, B,
and Table 6A, B, respectively.

The second phase in the selection of variables consisted of determining

the degree to which each variable showed a relationship or trend to
changes in illumination level. Measures for each variable at each
illumination level were tested for trend, using orthogonal polynomial
comparisons. Linear, quadratic, cubic, and a combination of higher
order trends were examined for each variable. Those variables that
demonstrated a significant trend, that is a change in the variable value
corresponding to a change in illumination level for NES maneuvers,
are presented in Table 7.
14

A'i
'/,,'.L ,.
 TABLE 5

NAKED EYE SIMULATOR MANEUVERS

CLUSTER ANALYSIS
A:,
A. Clustered Variables Correlations

i Cluster 1 1 2

1) Y Position - Average Absolute Error 1.00

2) Y Position - Root Mean Square Error 2 .99 1.00

Cluster 2 3 4

3) X Position - Average Mbsolute Error 30 1.00

4) X Position - Root Mean Square Error .99 1.0

Cluster 3 5 6 7

5) Roll - Standard Deviation 5 1.00

6) Roll - Average Absolute Error 6 .90 1.00
7) Roll - Root Mean Square Error 7 .93 .99 1.00

Cluster 4 8 9
81 Heading - Average Absolute Error 8 1.00
Heading - Root Mean Square Error 9 .98 1.00

Cluster 5 10 11

10) Pitch - Average Absolute Error 10 1.00

""' 11) Pitch - Root Mean Square Error 11 .95 1.00

5 Cluster 6 12 13 1i
12) Y Position - Mean 12 1.00
'13) Y Position - Maximum Value 13 .94 1.00
14) Y Position - Minimum Value 14 .95 .82 1.00

B. Unclustered Variables

15) Pitch - Mean 23) Heading - Standard Deviation

16) Pitch - Standard Deviation 24) Heading- Maximum Value
17) Pitch - Maximum Value 25) Heading - Minimum Value
18 Pitch - Minimum Value 26 X Position - Mean
19) Roll - Mean 97) X Position - Standard Deviation
20) Roll - Maximum Value 8) Y Position - Standard Deviation
J; 21 Roll - Minimum Value 29 X Position - Maximum Value
22) Heading - Mean 30) X Position - Minimum Value

,w t 15
 ![:,

TABLE 6

NIGHT VISION GOGGLES MANEUVERS

CLUSTER ANALYSIS

. A. Clustered Variables Correlations

Cluster 1 1 2

1) X Position - Average Absolute Error 1 1.00

2) X Position - Root Mean Square Error 2 .99 1.00

Cluster 2 3 4 5
3) Roll - Average Absolute Error 3 1.00
4) Roll - Root Mean Square Error 4 .99 1.00
S5) Roll- Standard Deviation .90 .92 1.00

Cluster 3 6 7

i 6) Heading - Average Absolute Error 1.00

7) Heading - Root Mean Square Error .99 1.00

Cluster 4 8 9

8) Y Position -Average Absolute Error 8 1.00

9) Y Position - Root Mean Square Error 9 .99 1.00

Cluster 5 10 11
10) Pitch - Average AbsoluLe Error I0 1 .00
11) Pitch - Root Mean Square Error 1 .98 1.00
B. Unclustered Variables

12) Pitch - Mean 22' Heading Minimum Value

13) Pitch Standard Deviation 23) X Position -Mean
14) Pitch - Maximum Value 24) X Position Standard Deviation
15) Pitch - Minimum Value 25) Y Position - Mean
16) Roll - Mean 26) Y Position - Standard Deviation
17) Roll - Maximum Value 27) X Position - Maximum Value
18) Roll - Minimum Value 28) X Position - Minimum Value
19) Heading - Mean 29) Y Position Maximum Value
20) Heading - Standard Deviation 30) Y Position - Minimum Value
21) [leading - Maximum Value

16
.. .

AV
 ;it
'ii.
IAH

1ii• VARIAILI N'. Il I0ON' 0RA1 IN; SiGN 1rI"CAN1 1RiNDS OVER ILLIUMINATION LEVELS
LISt 1) OINI1NG
1 NIS !ANU[.VI.RS

Varl•ablus Order of the Trend

Plizh 'Staadlrd D1eviatton iWnear

Pi t'ih •h Minimum Valuo Linear
3, Null tlndard Deviation Linear
4 toulI- Avwrage Ahsol ute Value Linear
Nul.lR1• Riot Nea11 Square (RMS) LrOr L Inear
0 I11o1 Maximum Value Linear
I oll MIllIlum Value Linear
-II'I hoadti •( Mean Linear
9) eIhd lrlk - Standard Deviation Linear
10I) lehadlnag - Average Atsolute Error Linear
4 11) Ilead Ilu RMS Error Linear
1 Ie.n0dlnug Mintlltmuml Va1ut1e Linear
. 1.1) X Positi bon .. RSError1 Linear (.073)
14 '4 Y PusolIon - Maximum Value Linear .059)
0'' 15) V Folion- Mean Linear (.095)

•in;
1 *[1ai 0 toli' first twelve variables pro(•loC(b a linear trend that was
S I"lit`i • at the .05 level or less, P levels for remaining variables
Lan,
I, are indicated in parenthesis.

At this poi nt, Wie individual clusters were examined and those
"variables which were highly correlated with the representative (i.e., most
highly correlated) variable frcm each cluster were eliminated. The
eleven remaining NES variables are presented in Table 8A. This final
Lay set was further reduced by selecting out one variable for each major
axis measured, to be used in the final analysis stage. This list of
five variables is presented in Table 8B.

TABLE 8
,¾;' NES VARIABLES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

A. Uncorrelated Variables-

111 Pitch Standard Deviation 7) Heading - Standard Deviation

42 •3
Pitch
Roll -
-
-Minimum

RMS Error
Value 8)
9)
rleading - RMS Error
Heading -- Minimum Value
4 Roll -. Maximum Value 10) X Position - RMS Error
5 Roll - Minimum Value 11) Y Position - Mean
6 Heading . Mean

B. _Mjor Axis Variables

" I) Pitch - Standard Deviation 4) X Position - RMS Error

" 2? Roll RMS Error 5) Y Position - Meant
'3½ Heading - RMS Error

IL',

17

I ,.4
'iL
 The variables that showed a significant trend relationship with
illumination levels during NVG's maneuvers are presented in Table 9.

TABLE 9

VARIABLES DEMONSTRATING SIGNIFICANT YRENDS OVER ILLUMINATION LEVELS

•:Ji USED DURINC NVG's MANEUVERS

Variables* Order of the Trend

1) Pitch - Standard Deviation Quadratic

2) Pitch - Minimum Value Quadratic
3) Roll - Mean Linear, Cubic
4 Roll - Standard Deviation Linear
5) Roll - Ave!rage Absolute Error (AAE) Linear
6 Roll - Root Mean Square (PMS) Error Linear
7) Roll - Maximum Value Linear, pubic
8) Heading - Standard Deviation Linear, 5 4th
9) Heading - AAE Linear,; 4th
,10 Heading - RMS Error Linear,.- 4th
II Heading - Minimum Value Cubic, - 4th
12) X Position - RMS Error Linear (.065)
13 X Position - Standard Deviation Linear
14) Y Position - Standard Deviation Linear (.056)
*Unless indicated in parenthesis, p levels are .05 or below.

Table 1OA and B represents the variable sets used in the final analysis
of the night vision goggles maneuvers.

TABLE 10

NVG's VARIABLES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

A. Uncorrelated Variables

11 Pitch - Standard Deviation 7) Heading - RMS Error

2 Pitch - Minimum Value 8) Heading - Minimum Value
3 Roll - Mean 9) X Position - RMS Value
4 Roll - Root Mean Square (RMS) Error 10 X Position - Standard Deviation
5 Roll - Minimum Value 1I Y Position Standard Deviation
6 Heading - Standard Deviation

B. Major Axis Variables

1) Pitch Standard Deviation 41 X Position - Standard Deviation

fl Roll - PIS Error 5 Y Position - Standard Deviation
i" Heading - P1MS
Err'or

Covariates

During the analysis phase, items of information obtained from the

pilot questionnaire were developed as covariates and tested to determine
if these data were useful in predicting aviator performance.
Table 1ilpresents a list of the covariates considered during analysis
of both NES and NVG's maneuvers.

"18

iý W 0 1
q -iv
 '6

TABLE 11
MEASURES OF PILOT EXPERIEN1E USED AS COVARIATES

1) Sequence number of each maneuver over the entire test flight.

2) Results of the night vision test.

3) Total rotary wing flight hours.

. 4) Total rotary wing flight hours at night.

5) Total flight hours for the last three months.

6) Total night flight hours for the last three months.

7) Total tactical flight hours at night.

8) Total night hours flown with no external light.

9) Total number of previous hours experience witn the night vision goggles.

Analyses of In-Flight Variables

After the variable selection process was completed, two types of
analyses were conducted. First, the reduced variable sets were analyzed
using a multivariate orthogonal polynomial -test for trend. During this
phase, each covariate was examined to determine if it provided a significant
"4' reduction in the observed variance.

The second phase tested for differences in aircraft performance

across levels of illumination for both NVG's and NES maneuvers. In this
phase a test for individual subject diffe-ences was included.

K- Multivariate Test for Trend

This phase of the analysis utilized the multivariate technique of

orthogonal polynomial contrasts to determine if significant trends in
aircraft performance were present across different levels of illumination.
"This procedure served to indicate what type of trend was significant
when the entire set of appropriate variables was examined and determined
the adequacy of covariates in rLducing the sample variance. Several
analyses were conducted to determine the optimal set of covariates.
These analyses were conducted on both the set of eleven variables selected
as demonstrating individual trends over light levels, and the set of
five variables which included measures on each of the five major axes
(Tables 8 and 10).

Analyses for both the NES and NVG's data indicated that the first
six covariates provided the optimal set for the trend analyses of both
the eleven variable trend tests and the five variable trend tests.
"Indeed, it was found that three covariates, i.e., tactical night

~ 19

T,
.
 h4-d.,,j7

hours, no light night hours, and NVG's hours, were redundant with a
linear combination of the other six covariates. The summary table
obtained from the multivariate orthogonal polynomial trend tests for the
NES data is found in Table 12.

TABLE 12

MULTIVARIATE ORTHOGONAL POLYNOMIAL TEST FOR

j,';i TREND IN NES MANEUVERS

Source F-Ratio* Hypothesis Error P Canonical

df df Less Than R

A. Trend Test on 11 Variables and 6 Covariates

Within Cells
Regression 6.185 66 658 .001 .818

Quartic and
Higher Order .982 22 244 .488 .317

Cubic .747 11 122 .692 .251

Quadratic 1.233 11 122 .273 .316

Linear 3.013 11 122 .001 .462

B. Trend Test on 5 Variables and 6 Covariates

Within Cells
Regression 6.030 30 514 .001 .663

Quartic and
Higher Order .614 10 256 .802 .160

Cubic 1.037 5 128 .399 .197

Quadratic .995 5 128 .424 .193

Linear 5.626 5 128 .001 .424

S*Tests of significancc uses Wilks-Lambda criterion. Within Cells

Regression and Quartic trend tests present only the first root.

20

•..,_

li-VI~
 S..., * .•..•. ......... • ....... r f7.. ;•i.• . . • .'•• • •~ • • ••• • ~ •••• • • ••

Data presented in Table 12 indicate that aircraft performance, as

represented by these variable sets, shows a linear trend over illumi-.
nation levels. Similar suniary tables fo' the NVG's are in Table 13.

TABLE 13

MULTIVARIATE ORTHOGONAL POLYNOMIAL TEST FOR

TREND IN NVG's DATA

Source F-Ratio* Hypothesis Error P Canonical

Sdf df Less Than R

A. Trend Test on 11 Variables and 6 Covariates

Regression 7.704 66 642 .001 .865

Quartic and
Higher Order .824 22 238 .694 .291

Cubic .944 11 119 .501 .283

,Y'•i Quadratic 1.572 11 119 .116 .356

* Linear 3.488 11 119 .001 .494

B. Trend Test on 5 Variables and 6 Covariates

A.' Within Cells

'T. Regression 8.752 30 502 .001 .715

Quartic and
FHigher Order .915 10 250 .520 .216

Cubic .835 5 125 .527 .180

Quadratic 1.262 5 125 .285 .219

Linear 5,124 5 125 .001 412

*Tests of significance uses Wilks-Lambda criterion. Within Cells
Regression and Quartic trend tests present only the first root.

21

,Th~;x
 .,.• . .q .. .,Y.- . .• .. ................ }" :.. .. . :• x • . ,,, • • •. . ,

It is interesting to note that in both the eleven variable set and the
five variable set, all higher order trends observed in the analysis
of individual variables (Tablp 9) were no longer present. Agdin, a
linear trend of aircraft performance over illumination levels is
demonstrated.
Multivariate Test for Differences Across Illumination Levels
The second analysis phase examined selected measures of aircraft
performance to determine if significant differences existed between
.V illumination levels. A multivariate two-way analysis of variance
examining an illumination level factor and a subject factor was utilized
ui for this phase of the analysis. The illumination level factor contained
six levels corresponding to the six illumination levels used for NVG's
maneuvers and for the six standard levels used for the NES maneuvers.
During analysis of the NES maneuvers, it was necessary to collapse or shift
18 of the 144 maneuvers, or 12.5% of the data, into the appropriate
standard light level categories to insure a full factorial design.
The subject factor in the multivariate two way analysis of variance
was used to accommodate the repeated measures structure of the data
acquisition process.
Stability of the multivariate analysis requires that the number of
variables be less than or equal to the number of subjects. Thus, this
phase of the analysis considered only those variables representing measures
on the five major axes.

With the inclusion of a subject factor in this phase of the analysis,

it was discovered that the contribution of the covariates representing
the individual pilot's experience was markedly reduced. In fact, it
was determined that for the NES data only two covariates, sequence
number of maneuver, and night vision test results contributed to the
reduction of observed variance. However, this contribution was not
significant and was eliminated from the analysis. For the NVG's data,
it was determined that only three covariates, maneuver number, night vision
test, and total rotary wing hours contributed to variance reduction.
Again, this contribution w - not significant and these covariates were
eliminated from further cot. ideration.

The results of the multivariate two-way analysis of variance are

presented in Table 14. It indicates that for both the NES maneuvey, and
the NVG's maneuvers there was a significant difference between subjects.
"- For the NES maneuvers there were no significant differences between
the illumination levels utilized. However, there were significant
differences in aircraft performance across illumination levels used for
the night vision goggles maneuvers. To determine where these differences
existed, pair-wise tests were conducted between each of the illumination
levels. The probability levels associated with each of these tests

22

:
:•>:'i-•"•-••!!• ! :• ;! '`!! ``i,•~ •`` `` i`•``.:• • `. ' .••••`; :.i• `,-,,•;•i>., ,. . ,•;•-•'•:.••,:,,, .- ";
 are presented in Table 15. Again, this was a multivariate analysis
which considered all five of the major axis variables simultaneously.

TABLE 14
22w. TWO-WAY MULTI VARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Ve.
Source F~ai* Hypothesis Error P-ato Canonical
_______df df Less Than R

A. Analysis of NES Data--S Criteria, 0 Covariates

Light Levels 1.318 25 79 .178 .745
Subjects 4.757 25 79 .001 .862
,,~.yx.B. Analysis of NVG Data--S Criteria, 0 Covariates
Light Levels 1.796 25 79 .026 .796
Subjects 8.452 25 79 .001 .934
*Significance test uses Wilks-Lambda criterion. Only the first root is
presented.

TABLE 15
* ~ PROBABILITY LEVELS* FOR PAIR-WISE COMPARISONS
BETWEEN ILLUMINATION LEVELS FOR NVG's MANEUVERS

I2N.
USAARL FACTOR
VALUE 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 3.0 5.0
LEVELS 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. 1 .029 .114 .261 .236 .006
1.3 2 .634 .492 .001 .001
1.6 3 .014 .001 .095
AA

2.0 4 .091 .001

3.0 5 .694
.5.0 6

*Probabiiity levels associated with single degree off freedom F-ratios.

X:

23

-21q
 :,•L ,7* l • . •';"'• • ..•,•"•
•' . *,w
. ,,•
.. ,• . . .............................. .. ............... . .. ....... • .•

The mean scores for the five major axis variables at each NVG's
illumination level are found in Table 16. This table also includes the
standardized discriminant function coefficient for each variable, which
* ~ indicates the relative contribution of these variables to the observed
significant differences. The data demonstrates that there was a significant
improvement in performance; that is to say, a reduction in error scores
between the 1.0 USAARL factor level and the 1.3 factor. Performance at
the 1.3 and 1.6 USAARL factor levels is similar, but increasing the
illumination levels to 2.0 and again to the 3.0 factor promotes significant
improvement in performance. It would appear that the increase from
3.0 to 5.0 USAARL factor does not markedly improve the aircraft system
performance. There is a significant improvement in performance (i.e.,
reduction in error) between the two lowest USAARL factor levels (.0 to
,, '.3 USAARL factor), but it takes a change of approximately .7 USAARL
factor to add any additional improvement in performance. This improvement,
4\ Ywith increases in illuminance continues until the 3.0 USAARL factor is
reached, at which time increases in illumination provide no significant
improvement in performance. The improvement of performance resulting
from increased illumination is re-emphasized in Table 17. This table
presents data showing the number of maneuvers in which major errors
occurred for each light level. These major errors included touchdown of
the aircraft or the development of a situation in which the safety pilot
had to assume control of the aircraft.

TABLE 16

MEAN VALUES FOR THE FIVE MAJOR AXIS VARIABLES

ACROSS NVG's ILLUMINATION LEVELS

Standardized
Discriminant Variable* USAARL Light Factor Value
Function
Coefficient 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 3.0 5.0

.416 Pitch-Standard Deviation 1.843 1.660 1.716 1.492 1.439 1.569

.134 RolI-RMS Error 1.453 1.372 1.429 1.293 1.287 1.181

.572 Heading-RMS Error 4.714 5.090 5.356 5.011 4.090 3.978

.509 X Position-S.D. 3.142 2.882 3.324 2.888 2.599 2,009

.416 Y Position-S.D. 5.090 3.375 3.748 3.876 2.958 3.729

*Values for Pitch, Roll, and Heading are in degrees.

Values for X and Y Position are in meters.

"4,
'AIW

24 FT R()CKFAR 106235

41_ _ _ . ~5~ *5 ,
 TABLE 17

NUMBER OF MANEUVERS IN WHICH MAJOR ERRORS OCCURRED

NVG's NES

USAARL Factor Number of Major USAARL Factor Number of Major

S• Level Errors Level Errors

1.0 3 4.0 6
1.3 4 5.0 9
1.6 3 6.0 7
2.0 4 8.0 4
3.0 0 10-.3 5
5.0 2 10.18 3
•z 16 or 8.5% of 34 or 17.7% of
total number of total number of
_,____ maneuvers maneuvers
DISCUSSION

The present investigation has provided performance related information

relative to the use of night vision goggles during low illumination
levels. However, there are several practical aspects to be considered in
arriving at conclusions from these data. First, there are several
characteristics of the night vision goggles that impact total system
A performance. These aspects, as previously mentioned, are primarily
related to the signal-to-noise ratio and gain characteristics of each
individual set of goggles. Presently there is considerable variation
in the measured signal-to-noise ratio for each intensifier tube. The
set of goggles used in this study contained a closely matched pair of
int.nsifier tubes and provided better resolution than had been previously
observed in any other set of goggles used by USAARL.

The range of light gain for the goggles, varying from 7,500 to
15,000, and gain deterioration as tube life increases, also provides for
wide variance in the performance between different sets of night
vision goggles.

This investigation intentionally examined man-helicopter system

performance at the low side of NVG's capability. Since the work was
conducted at the extreme end of the NVG's performance curve and becaiise
of the considerable variability between sets of goggles, some caution

25

3 . -

' .5'
'47k'

¾ i!•-
 must be used in generalizing these data to all sets of night vision
goggles under all light conditions.

The second area which impacts the interpretation of this data

concerns the type of measurement used. Due to an equipment malfunction,
the only measures available for analysis were related to changes
in the airframe. The sensitive measures of pilot control input were
not available. However, since significant differences were obtained
from the available measures, it would seem clear that the entire
oman.-helicopter system is affected by changes in illumination during
generally ,ow light situations, Measures of this system performance
indicate that there is not a successive intrease in performance
•. corresponding to all small increases in illumination. Significant
improvement in system performance is evident when changing from a
USAARL factor level of 1.0 to 1.3. Within the 1.3 to 2.0 level there
are no significant changes in performance, but increasing the illumination
from 2.0 USAARL factor establishes another significant improvement in
performance. The lack of performance changes from the 3.0 to 5.0 USAARL
factor levels indicates that sufficient illumination is available and that
this increase in illumination did not markedly improve the man-helicopter
system output.

Although further investigation may provide a more precise demonstration

of ex.,ctly what level of illumination is required for optimal system
performance, data obtained from this investigation indicate that use of
. the night vision goggles when the illumination level is below a USAARL
Factor of 2.0 will result in significant decreases in operational capability
ar.d mission effectiveness.

144.

N1 :'

26

(i''7l_-
 REFERENCES

1. Message, from Cdr, USAAVNC, Ft Rucker to Cdr, USAMC, subj:

Ev.'Iuation of the AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles (NVG's) for
Aviation Application, 1974.

2. Ltr dated Jan 74, requesting Night Vision Goggles be provided

USAARL for studies on airborne application with results reported
to LLNO Steering Committee.

3. Wiley, R. W. and Holly, F. F. Vision with the AN/PVS-5 Night

Vision Goggles, AGARD Presentation, April 1976, U. S. Army
Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Ft Rucker, AL.

4. Sanders, M. G., Kimball, K. A., Frezell, T. L. and Hofmann, M. A.

Helicopter flight performance with th'a AN/PVS-5 Night Vision
Goggles. Paper presented at the Aerospace Medical Panel Meeting,
AGARD/NATO, October 1975, Ankara, Turkey.

5. Glick, D. D. and Moser, C. E. Afterimages associated with using

the AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles. LISAARL Letter Report 75-1-7-1,
August 1975, U. S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort
Rucker, AL.

6. Glick, D. D. and Wiley, R. W. A visual comparison of standard and

experimental maps using the AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles. USAARL
Letter Report 75-26-7-6, March 1975, U. S. Army Aeromedical Research
Laboratory, Fort Rucker, AL.
7. Glick, 0. D., Wiley, R. W., Moser, C. E., and Park, C. K.
* Dark adaptation changes associated with the use of the AN/PVS-5
Night Vision Goggles. USAARL Letter Report 75-2-7-2, August 1974,
U. S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker, AL.

8. Sanders, M. G., Kimball, K. A., Frezell, Thomas L., and Hofmann,

M. A. Aviator performance measurement during low altitude rotary
.iing flight with the AN/PVS-5 Night Vision Goggles. USAARL
Report No. 76-10, December 1975, U, S. Army Aeromedica Research
Laboratory, Fort Rucker, AL.

9. U. S. Army E-ectronics Command, Night Vision Laboratory. Night

Vision Goggles AN/PVS-5 ()(V). Organizational, Direct Support,
and General Support Maintenance Manual (DTM 11-5855-238-24),
Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

10. Huffman, h. W., Hofmann, M. A. and Sleeter, M. R. Helicopter

in-flight monitoring system. USAARL Report No. 72-11, March 1972,
U. S. Army Aeromedical Researcn-Laboratory, Fort Rucker, AL.

27

I's

gy. .
 DISTRIBUTION LIST OF USMARL REPORTS

Project No. 3A762758A819 Army Aviation Medicine

No. of
Copies
5 U, S. Army Medical Research & Development Conurand
Washington, D. C. 20314
12 Defense Documentation Center
R Alexandria, Virginia 22314
1 U. S. Army Logistics Center
ATN: Medical Sciences Agency
Fort Sam Houston, Texas 78234

P
 1111MA11 11I'

,, A '4

a an

-A-4
Id.dM111

ýK'~i IN~ Ss.~

2-~ 8 1-
U444 MIA Q44

IthI I
itm4

As Ilk

25-G is

-QU yujogyflux.

'&
SA 2 3i 4 .Ht-
44
~ 1122M H
I"K
vi K 4
44"'
'a
6,-a
4 4 4
_442PO
W a'
-6

WA'a aC- 4 ,~4

aa~~~~~~ isa" 0
4".,cg 1s S
!-Am p~'Ga'~4,
a 44 a

'a'-4-'• ~x~"' 'ahist a,,- n~~,a

--- all

"Nil'~ pi s a~~aa G.
&Vo

6",~'~
q~.

loansL'G YN1MM0.V
I~ P/G 'G too Wa
a L I
2' I= i'

A Cot.at2 N

li't,~'i
i

................
a