31 December 2007

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #58

5-8 November 2007

 

The 58^th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Houston, TX, hosted by NASA Johnson Space Center. The meeting was chaired by Ms. Katrina Baker, Army Research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (katrina.anne.baker@arl.army.mil). The theme of the meeting was Human Factors Applications: Successes, Failures, and How We Got There. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, NASA, FAA, DoD Laboratories, Dept of Homeland Security, Canadian DRDC, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Additional personnel representing industry and academia attended as invited speakers. Selected briefings from TAG-58 are available at the following link: http://hfetag.dtic.mil/briefs/TAG-58-briefs.html

 

Four items are attached:

·      Background of the DoD HFE TAG, attachment (1)

·      TAG-58 Theme, Attachment (2)

·      Program Summary, attachment (3)

·      DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (4)

·      TAG attendees, attachment (5)

·      DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (6)

 

Plenary Session Presentations

 

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 58^th meeting, Ms. Katrina Baker, welcomed attendees to the meeting and elaborated briefly on the meeting theme.

 

Welcome. Mr. Michael L. Coats, Director of NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) welcomed the attendees to JSC. Mr. Coats is a former Annapolis graduate and A-7E Corsair II pilot with 35 combat missions in Southeast Asia. After attending Navy Post -graduate School, he was selected to be an astronaut candidate in 1978. He was selected to become an astronaut in 1979 and flew a total of three space flights, totaling463 hours in space. Mr. Coats advocates more autonomous operations in space, especially robotic operations. He explained that the Constellation Program and Exploration Initiative provide the first clear direction for NASA in the past 30 years. Tremendous opportunities exist for interesting work at JSC, including moon suits, EVA suits, Orion capsule, several other vehicles and robotic systems. He explained that, as JSC is ramping up to take on these challenges, the human factors community is revising their handbooks and standards.

 

Robotics. Dr. Nancy Jane Currie (Colonel, US Army, retired and former astronaut) is a Senior Technical Advisor – Automation, Robotics and Simulation Division, Engineering Directorate, JSC. She explained that, years ago, NASA used to talk about humans versus robots. Now, they have realized that “humans with robots” is the way to go for future space flights. Lots of space flight challenges make it a difficult place for humans:

• Internal Environment: Isolation and confinement, acoustic noise and vibration, closed loop life support (H2O and air), waste production/elimination/recycling.
• External Environment: Gravity, vacuum, micro-meteorites, lighting, electrical charges

 

Russian vehicles are so loud, you can’t communicate. Operations include launch/ascent/reentry, EVA, robotics, payload activities, crew scheduling and workload. Space adaptation sickness is suffered by a high percentage of astronauts. Twenty percent of the plasma volume is lost in space. Neuro-vestibular effects are aggravated by fluid shifts and “disconnects” between the visual and vestibular systems. Cardio-vascular changes include de-conditioning (which occurs quickly with decreased workload, loss of fluids and increased heart rate. The human response to g-effect becomes very slow so an anti-g suit must be worn for re-entry; liquid cooling garments are also used now. Bone density loss amounts to 0.5% every 90 days in space. A three-pronged crew healthcare system is in place: Health Maintenance System (HMS); Countermeasures System (CMS); and Environmental Health System (EHS) for air and water quality. There is no zero-g posture; everybody assumes a different resting posture. Critical dimensions are maintained for certain systems to assure adequate anthropometric compatibility. Space suit modules are used – they are mixed and matched to accommodate everyone. Space suit design is extremely important so suits are matched closely to the astronauts.

 

Robotics must complement and enhance humans in space. The prevailing philosophy at NASA is to let robots do the Difficult, Dirty, Dangerous tasks, realizing that there will be tradeoffs required between performance and commonality. One emerging goal is to provide Situation Awareness for robots; this is thought to help extend human effectiveness in space. NASA would like to partner with the DoD on tele-operations. (ncurrie@nasa.gov, (281) 483-8018).

 

Human Factors in Space Exploration was presented by Dr. John Olson, PhD. Dr. Olson is the NASA Exploration Transition Manager at NASA HQ in Washington, D.C. Major goals are to develop and fly a crew exploration Vehicle by 2014, return to the moon prior to 2020, extend human presence across the solar system and beyond, and implement and sustain a supportable robotic plan. They are also interested in a commercial orbital transportation service, to carry cargo to space and bring back trash. International Space Station (ISS), Ares I, IV, Orion, Lunar Lander will serve for 30 to 50 years. Constellation will do 2,000 EVAs over 10 years. Suit development is very important. Human interfaces are critical drivers for space exploration. There are big challenges and big opportunities. Planning is the key to success but testing is also critical. New features and concepts must be reviewed by a broader community. NASA is open to new ideas.

 

HSI in the Surface Navy was presented by Dr. Dan Wallace from NAVSEA, Dahlgren, VA. HSI according to Dan includes human engineering, manpower/personnel/training, safety and health, habitability, personal survivability and maintainability. Tradeoffs are required between these domains. The overarching enabler of HSI in the surface Navy is Technical Authority. When technical authority isn’t independent, you get disasters like Columbia and the near loss of the USS Dolphin. HSI technical authority was warranted by NVSEA about four years ago. Additional warrants are being considered now for the individual domains of HSI. Technical Authority is exercised through assessments and reviews at every acquisition milestone. The HSI technical authority must sign an HSI certification at Milestone C. HSI certification is also required at IOC and FOC. For the DDG-1000, a “Sailor System Specification” was authored - and manpower is tracked for this project. Manning Key Performance Parameters (KPP) helps add ownership cost to the equation (normally only acquisition cost, schedule and performance are included). NAVSEA uses the Early Manning Assessment Capability (EMAC) tool for its assessments.

 

The focus of the training domain is whether or not the training program is executable. Every step in the training lifecycle is planned for and tracked. In the areas of Safety, health, survivability and personnel protection, hearing damage payments amounted to $2 billion alone on tinnitus. Other areas of focus include egress (secondary egress route analysis), habitability (fighting against crowding), quality of life and minimization of maintenance needs through application of Design for Maintainability (DFM).

 

HSI focus on integration means that design trades must consider HSI. The trades are not just between HSI domains! Applied research principles are used to assess implications. Lots of negotiation occurs between HSI and other design disciplines. Technical risk assessment is performed, including programmatic risk, cost risk and schedule risk. And, HSI is involved early in the design development of systems.

 

Human Factors Practitioners as Change Agents was presented by John K. Hawley, PhD, Chief of the HRED field element at Ft Bliss in El Paso, TX. Dr. Hawley discussed the role of human factors in the Patriot program after the fratricide incident during the Gulf War (two of the 11 Patriot shots were fratricides-Tornado and F/A-18). (Dr. Hawley’s presentation also appears in the Fall/Winter edition of the MANPRINT Newsletter)

 

Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DOD HFE TAG:

       

Technical Society/Industry SubTAG. The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met twice during the TAG meeting on Tuesday morning and afternoon. Dr. Jen Narkevicius, the INCOSE representative to the TAG (jnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.com), chaired both two meetings.

 

In the morning session, the following topics were discussed:

·  GEIA, G-45 Human Factors Committee Name Change: The name of the G-45 committee, and its charter, were changed at the formal business meeting in October 2006. The G-45 committee is now the Human Systems Integration Committee. The vote was unanimous. A meeting was held with the G-48 committee (systems safety) on practices and principles involved in Abort and Accident Investigations. The committee reviewed MIL-STD-XXXX, HSI for Military Systems. Rockwell-Collins was added to the G-45 membership, bringing the total number to nine companies.

·  MIL-STD-XXXX, HSI for Military Systems was authored by Dick Armstrong under Navy contract. This military standard was supposed to be a “MIL-STD-46855 for HSI.” The draft was completed in June 2006. Comments were solicited and received; comments are currently being addressed.

·  How TS/I Contributes to the DoD HFE TAG: Dr. Narkevicius suggested that it is worthwhile to periodically review how well the TS/I is supporting overall TAG goals and operations. The TAG Executive Committee (EXCOM) recently asked the TS/I to examine the utility of the current TAG website.

·  INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering): Dr. Narkevicius represents INCOSE to the TAG. INCOSE’s focus is on: defining customer needs, flowing/transitioning them into system requirements, advancing the SE state-of-the-art and building scalable approaches. INCOSE established an HSI Working Group in 2006 and it currently has 130 participants. The WG meets twice a year; the next meeting is scheduled for 26-29 January 2008 in Albuquerque, NM. For further information, please visit: http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivities/wg/hsi. The charter for the HSI WG includes:

o      Embedding HSI into SE

o      Promoting benefits of placing the proper focus on the role of people in the development and operation of systems

The definition used by the HSI WG for Human Systems Integration is: “Interdisciplinary technical and management processes for integrating human considerations within and across all system elements; an essential enabler of the systems engineering process.” To communicate with the HSI WG, please use the following email address: hsiwg-info@incose.org.

 

In the afternoon session,

·    HFES Annual Meeting: Mr. Cletis Booher (creidboo@hotmail.com) provided a report on the 51st HFES meeting, held in Baltimore MD on 1-5 October 2007. Newly elected HFES Fellows included Dr. Mary Carol Day, Dr. Frank Durso, Dr. Gerald Krueger and Dr. K. Ronald Laughery. Awards also were presented to 21 other deserving recipients. The HFES structural reorganization has been implemented in its entirety. A meeting of the new Human Factors Standardization Working Group was held on 2 October, immediately following the plenary session. The WG meeting was hosted by Mr. Al Poston and began with reports on the status of the HFES 200 and HFES 100 standards from Jim Williams and Tom Albin, respectively. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of organization and operating procedures.

·    Web site Update: Considerations include content, structure, depth of information, history, links, standards and DIDs, wiki, search, and bulletin board.

·    Strategy to support the TAG: Discussion

·    Persistent Concerns: Discussion

 

Human Factors Standardization (HFS) SubTAG: Josh Kennedy (josh-kennedy@us.army.mil) and Alan Poston (aposton86@comcast.net) chaired the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG meeting.

·    MIL-STD-1472: This military standard was first published in 1968. The “E” revision was basically cosmetic and the “F” revision moved anthropometry information to MIL-HDBK-759. With the advent of acquisition reform, the funding for revision of MIL-STD-1472 dried up. In 2005, reflecting its untenable position, the preparing activity expressed concern that MIL-STD-1472 is the best Human Engineering standard in the world and that, if it is transferred, the DoD would abandon its position as the premier HE force in the world. If transferred from the DoD, the standard would:

o      Broaden its scope to include commercial products

o      Military limits would be replaced by commercial criteria

o      It would become a copyrighted document that would cost money to purchase.

Letters have been sent from the TAG to the Defense Standardization Office and to Dr. Foster (ODUSD S&T Director of Bio-Systems), with no effect. So, it may be asked….what needs to be updated? Mr. Poston received 160 comments but no commitment to update the document. Missing areas include cognitive impacts, automation, team process, system-of-systems considerations, and graphical user interfaces (GUI).Any updates need to be based on new (last 20 years) research. The preparing activity is still Redstone Arsenal; Mr. Lee Gray is the responsible person. Mr. Gray is with the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Command (AMRDEC).

·    MIL-STD-1474: Josh Kennedy reported that the Army is still working on an update to incorporate revisions by Army Research Laboratory, including a human ear model for impulse noise. Who maintains the model is in question. Also, it is not known if there will be a “help desk” to assist with application of the model to real world problems. Once the revision to MIL-STD-1474 is complete, it will take approximately five months for publication.

·    NASA Standard 3000 Evolution: Barry Tillman reported on efforts underway at NASA to update the standard by dividing it into two parts, standards and an implementation guide. NASA Standard 3001 consists of two volumes: Volume 1 – Crew Health, and Volume 2 – Human Factors, Habitability and Environmental Health. Each program (e.g., ISS) will be responsible for its own implementation guide. A Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH), currently in development, will include design guidance and provide assistance in developing program specific requirements. It will be a companion to the standards.

·    FAA Design Standard: Ms. Vicki Ahlstrom (Vicki.ahlstrom@faa.gov) reported that they are looking for display technology criteria for new display technologies.

·    ASTM F1166 and F1337: These standards were sponsored by NAVSEA (Bob Bost and Bob Beaton). They were published in May 2007 and are available in standard format and in a better “information mapping” style. F1337 (Standard for HFE Program Requirements for Ships) is being updated to incorporate HSI (Not just HFE). Authors are currently struggling with the “integration” piece and determining the correct level of detail desired. They are attempting to address two very different constituencies: US Navy/US Coast Guard and the Commercial Shipping industry. A final draft is expected to be ready for review by February 2008; it is expected to be complete by summer of 2008. The points of contact are Chris Parker (cparker@dandp.com) and Larry Avery.

·    MIL-STD-2525 Update: Jacob Wetzel, PhD reported on activities in support of revision C. The symbology standards committee is scheduled to ratify the new version in June or July 2007.

o      The standard will be reorganized to include appendices for the various domains (air/space, land, maritime). Appendices will include command and control symbols and command and control tactical graphics.

o      A boundary octagon will be included within each symbol with four different information areas (top, left, right and bottom).

o      MIL-STD-2525 will be harmonized with NATO STANAG 2019 (App 6C) for space symbols. Both -2525 and App-6C will adopt white dotted frames to mean “assumed.”

o      Purple color will indicate Commercial Aircraft (COMAIR) tracks. This will aid in distinguishing them from military tracks without having to remove them from the display.

o      An optional external status bar, located beneath the symbol, will indicate operational status [green = fully operational; yellow = substantially operational; red = marginally operational; back = non-operational].

o      Symbol colors now may be modified only by varying luminance (brightness).

·    Integrating Unmanned Vehicles into the US National Airspace System: By 2015, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) will require safe access to National Airspace. Two levels of effort are currently underway:

o      Track 1 (3-5 years): Short-term expanded certificate of Authorization

o      Track 2 (20-25 years): Long-term changes in FAA policy and guidance coupled with changes in DoD standards and documents.

The types of problems being addressed include: Situation Awareness, workload, supervisory control, communications, human computer interface, training and failure recovery. The goal is to influence design, prior to system milestone B decisions.

 

 

 

Modeling and Simulation SubTAG: Not attended.

 

User-Computer Interface SubTAG: The Sub TAG is co-chaired by Nausheen Momen, LT, MSC, USNR, Ph.D. (nmomen@namrl.navy.mil) and Steve Merriman (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com. There was no meeting at this TAG; however a meeting is planned for TAG-59.

 

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. Not attended.

Design Tools and Techniques SubTAG: Not attended.

 

Workload and Stress SubTAG. The meeting was chaired by Ms. Debra Patton (dpatton@arl.army.mil). The first speaker was Dr. Elizabeth Bowman (ebowman@arl.army.mil) who spoke on Distributed Situation Awareness in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions. The purpose of these efforts is to reduce risk for the Future Combat Systems program. The work is based on exercises, or networked field experiments, conducted at Ft. Dix, NJ to examine C4ISR on the move. All displays were on the FBCB2 display. The Opposing Force (OPFOR) was scripted. There were five vehicles with FBCB2 and advanced sensor technology, 10 Soldiers, two unmanned ground vehicles (PACBOTS), unmanned ground sensors (UGS) and one UAV. The method was to evaluate SA with a survey following the SALUTE format, through observation and including documentation.

Soldiers in forward positions knew more about what was going on (FBCB2 and direct observation) as compared to Soldiers in the rear (FBCB2 only). Some lessons learned from the exercise included: PACBOTs were major contributors to SA. They weigh 40 lbs and their batteries weigh another 10 to 20 lbs (with a battery life of only two hours). The UGV controller was susceptible to glare – this was a huge issue. Also, another Soldier was required to provide cover for the PACBOT operator. The six unattended ground sensors provided about 600 images – way too many to make sense of. There were many false images triggered by rustling leaves or branches. The Army is now looking at how to better quantify the relative value of various components of SA. Some other feedback is shown below.

 

Technology                                      Communications                              Human Performance

FBCB2 screen & image clutter         Too many messages                         Workload bottlenecks

PACBOTS are great!                       Excessive system response times     Too many images

UGS worked well                            Annotated images are better             Can’t interpret sensor

                                                         Confusion when 2 Soldiers report                     images

                                                        on same event                                     

 

Personnel Selection and Classification SubTAG: Not attended.

 

Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS) SubTAG: Dr. Tom Nesthus, CAMI, chaired the session (tom.nesthus@faa.gov). The first presenter was LT Chris Steele, MSC USN Research Psychologist, Groton CT (Christopher.steele@med.navy.mil) who spoke on Submarine Watch Standing. Human daily rhythms are driven by a circadian clock. Watch-standing is currently 12 hrs on, 6 hrs off. Three different watch-standing schedules were examined. Alternative schedules provided better circadian entrainment, better sleep and less post-watch fatigue as measured by cognitive tests, melatonin and saliva. The “FIXED 8” schedule (8 Hrs on, 16 Hrs off) received a good response. However, watch-standing cycles need to be coordinated with training and other events. The Fatigue Avoidance Scheduling Tool (FAST) (http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/ddsm/srch/ddsm0219.html) is used to assist in developing schedules.

 

The second presenter was Dr. Joshua Rubenstein (josh.rubenstein@faa.gov), Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL), who spoke on Fatigue and Attentional Shift in the X-Ray Screening Task. Sources of fatigue include: sleep loss from secondary jobs, night shift, time on task and fatigue caused by the task itself. The TSL has worked with University of Pennsylvania (Dr. David Dinges) to develop a better test for screener fatigue and fitness for duty. The focus has been on:

·      On-line monitor of slow eyelid closure (Perclos tool)

·      3-minute performance vigilance test

An experiment was conducted using 24 subjects in two groups in a simulated luggage screening test; the test was performed every two hours for 36 hours. This resulted in significant performance loss with sleep deprivation. Perclos steadily increased as time on task increased following sleep deprivation (no increase with no sleep deprivation). The three-minute PVT tracked results very closely with the standard 10 minute PVT and looked very promising. As time on task increases, speed increases and sensitivity (to screened objects) stays the same. With fatigue, sensitivity decreases.

 

The next presenter was Tom Nesthus, CAMI (405-954-6297, tom.nesthus@faa.gov), who spoke on Fatigue and Performance in Aviation. Factors affecting fatigue include: time of day (e.g., 1400-1700), acute sleep debt (< 8 Hrs in 24), cumulative sleep debt and continuous Hrs Awake (>17 Hrs awake). Symptoms of fatigue include:

·      Lapses in attention

·      Increased reaction time

·      Decreased logical reasoning and Situation Awareness

·      Low motivation

·      Slowed ability to respond to unusual events

·      Poor assessment of risk

·      Poor assessment of consequences of action

·      Inability to keep track of multiple sources of information

·      Increased moodiness

 

Some methods that may be used to reduce fatigue include:

·      Education, training, scheduling, technology and policy

·      Continued research and development on effective countermeasures

·      Incorporation of countermeasures into an integrated fatigue management program

·      Place fatigue-related materials into operational manuals

 

CAMI is now reviewing schedules for very long flights (15-20 Hrs). Carriers have hired fatigue experts and are working to develop schedules. OPSPEC now requires carriers to submit data to CAMI for analysis on aircrew and pilots. Some useful web pages include: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/info.htm and http://www.circadian.com.

 

Human Factors Test and Evaluation SubTAG: The second speaker was Mr. Bruce Hunn (bruce.hunn@us.army.mil), who spoke on Commonality of HFE Flight Test in US Army and US Air Force Environments with Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

 

 

                                Army                              USAF

                           Shadow                                Global Hawk

                           2 Operators                          2-station control station (pilot & tech)

                           1 Maintainer                         75 hours of pilot training required

                           Classic A/C indicators

                           Can be learned in 26 weeks

 

There is an order of magnitude difference in mishap rates between manned and unmanned aircraft. Mr. Hunn reviewed some of the MANPRINT/HSI areas of concern for UAV control stations.

 

                  Health Hazards                                       Soldier Survivability

        Heating/cooling of control station            Ground stations are high value targets

        Thermal comfort                                      NBC hardening implications (weight, etc)

        Noise and vibration                                 Fixed location (draws attention)

        Communication interference                    Electronic emissions

        Claustrophobia                                       Perception and reality of military value

        Limited standing height

        Limited bench height/leg room

        Physical inactivity

        Fatigue

 

Mr. Joshua S. Kennedy (josh-kennedy@us.srmy.mil) spoke on Human Factors and MANPRINT in Army Aviation Operational Testing. This past year in 2007, there were five operational tests involving the UH-60, CH-47 and UH-72A. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dave Durbin are the primary points of contact for this HF testing. AR602-2 (MANPRINT) and AR-73-1 (T&E) govern this type of testing. A test plan is prepared prior to each test. There is usually an AEC tester, an HF tester (OTC) and an SME on-board data collector. Emphasis is placed on aircrew performance versus old style design-oriented problems. Iterative T&E is strongly desired. Both DT and OT are performed. Army ARL-HRED has supported UH-60, CH-47, UH-72A programs since prior to acquisition milestone B.

 

Generally, the same set of tests (“playbook”) is used for tabletop simulator, flight simulator, DT and OT:

·      Bedford Workload Rating Scale (BWRS)

·      Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART)

·      Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) SME evaluation (against Army performance standards)

·      For Simulator only

o      Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ)

o      Eye-tracking and audio/video collection

o      Switch actuation counts

Other areas of testing are indicated, based on prior assessments. For the SH-60, anthropometry evaluations were made due to the new gunner’s seat. Night vision system evaluations were made to assess blooming severity. For the UH-72A (a COTS aircraft), a temperature evaluation was conducted to determine if the ambient temperature was too high to maintain safe/comfortable performance.

A Panel session was conducted on The Challenge of Human Centered Testing and Evaluation in/for Real-World Environments. Panel participants included:

·      Dr. Elizabeth Bowman, C4ISR on-the-move experiment experience (ebowman@arl.army.mil)

·      Dan Wallace, NAVSEA (Daniel.wallace@navy.mil)

·      John Schultz NSWC Dahlgren and formerly Special Forces(john.l.schultz1@navy.mil)

·      Bruce Hunn, lead forF-22 USAF and Army Counter-IED testing (bruce.hunn@us.army.mil)

Two primary areas were discussed:

o      How to “sell” a field test over a lab test: investment now reduces schedule risk later; Soldier buy-in for more realistic testing; modeling and simulation identify reduced number of areas to examine.

o      How filed test differs from Lab test: less control over variables often results in the test becoming a “field demo”; data collection must be automated as much as possible, much better face validity for field testing.

 

Human Factors in Training SubTAG: Not held.

 

Controls and Displays SubTAG: The first presenter was LCDR Grayson Morgan, Naval Network Warfare Command (grayson.morgan@navy.mil) who spoke on Pre-cognitive Framing of the Decision Environment: A Data Flow Model of Indirect Observation. LCRD Morgan has a BS in Control System Engineering, an MA in Government (IT Policy) and a PhD in IT from George Mason University. He is working on a modification to Dr. Mica Endsley’s naturalistic decision making model, primarily in the pre-cognitive domain –focusing on information availability and quality. According to Ensley, 76% of errors occur at level 1 (perception) because (for example) relevant data are not available, memory loss, and misperception.

 

Joint publication 3-13 (Information Operation) contains information quality criteria: accuracy, relevance, timeliness, usability, completeness, brevity and security. The state of the environment may be assessed either directly or indirectly (e.g., via a sensor or other device to enhance observation). In the absence of direct observation, Endsley’s SA data flow model doesn’t maintain an alternative process to validate task-based information quality criteria. As such, current display practices have us (the users) using interfaces into which errors go – and they are represented as real data. Morgan is asking if there is an alternative process to validate quality criteria.

 

The low-voltage chirping of a smoke alarm is an example of a feed-forward control device – not represented in Endsley’s data flow. Training is a feed-forward control example too – letting students know what to expect. The idea is to monitor data and, if quality criteria are not met, inform the interface to tell the operator that there are problems with an aspect of the data. Typically, our systems assume perfect data.

 

The second presenter was Dr. Joseph Coyne (coyne@itd.nrl.navy.mil) who discussed The Impact of Motion Coupling and Adaptation on Motion Sickness. The primary theory behind motion sickness (Reason, 1978) is a “disconnect” between the visual and vestibular system inputs. The focus of Dr. Coyne’s work is on motion sickness in the command and control environments. The British are doing work exploring the relationship between motion sickness and the field of view of visual scenes. MOCOVE senses ship motion with accelerometers and adjusts the display to compensate for motion. An experiment was performed at West Point using the APTS cognitive test battery with a Ford Explorer traveling at an average of 20 mph with the subject viewing a display in the back seat or front seat. A motion sickness assessment questionnaire (MSAP) was used. There was a significant main effect for time on motion sickness. Impact of MOCOVE on motion sickness was suggestive but non-significant. Task performance was significantly better on day two. Cognitive performance tests were insensitive – training was still occurring on day 2. Two draw-backs of MOCOVE are: it is not compatible with touch screens and the periphery of the display must be sacrificed to allow for display motion relative to the monitor.

 

The next presenter was Dr. Joshua Rubinstein (josh.rubenstein@faa.gov), Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL), who spoke on Apparent Motion in X-Ray Screening. Current image coding for TSA security screeners are Metal = Blue, Plastic = Green and Organics = Brown. Display control includes: black/white, contrast, low penetration (emphasizes organics)/high penetration (emphasizes dense materials), zoom, organic only and metal only. Perceptual psychologists were not consulted on how to display the imagery for TSA screeners. Psychologists know that motion is a very powerful cue; it provides perceptual clues. An apparent motion x-ray (KDE x-ray) system was developed which used the current Rapiscan x-ray, added more sensors, allowed replay of images to create motion effects of the bags and contents. Some of the reasons why this alternative is attractive:

·      Same x-ray source

·      Same belt speed

·      Same footprint of system

·      Increased object ID

·      Separates obscured/overlapping objects

·      Moving color effects

·      Cost is close to existing system

A pilot experiment was conducted with the new system using 10 subjects. In summary, comparative results between the existing and new systems were:

·      Existing: 28% hit rate, 12% false alarm rate

·      New: 45% hit rate, 10% false alarm rate

A second study was conducted with 22 subjects; the same sorts of results were obtained. Currently a prototype machine is being developed for a future test at the TSL and a field test with TSA screeners.

 

The next presenter was Mr. Christopher Voorheis, ARINC Panama City, FL (cvoorhei@arinc.com), who spoke on The Littoral Combat Ship C2 Systems: Common Look and Feel Efforts. Common look and feel references for the LCS included: ASTM1166-95a, MIL-STD-1472, COE UIS (DISA), CPL (Common Presentation Layer), LCS Style Guide and NUREG-0700. The standards and user requirements (functional requirements – e.g., “operator shall be able to XXX”) were first reviewed. Interface inspections were then conducted with the developers and the operator manuals were inspected (funding limitations prevented full assessment of systems). Findings: systems complied with standards BUT… common look and feel did not exist in the following areas:

·      Window design

·      Menus and toolbar design

·      Text display formats

·      Tactical graphics

·      Symbology

·      Information coding (e.g., color)

·      Alarms and alerts

Recommendations included the following:

·      HFE/HSI involvement when authoring the requirements

·      Document hazards in standard format

·      Include an HFE on program configuration control boards

·      Standard revisions and updates (e.g., MIL-STD-2525)

·      Publish DoD and Service policy requirements

·      Publish HSI DIDs

 

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG. Not held.

 

DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

 

1.     TAG Reports: SubTAG chairs reported the numbers of presentations, charter changes and other items of interest.

2.     Service Reports:

·    Army: 12 attendees. Persistent issues had to do with MIL-STD-1472.

·    Navy: 10 attendees. It was suggested that presentations focus more on basic research.

·    Air Force: 7 attendees. USAF will host the next meeting (TAG-59) at Eglin AFB (Destin FL) in Spring, 2008.

3.     Dr. Foster Initiative: A white paper and accompanying charts were prepared on the “HSI Guidance to Industry” issue by Steve Merriman. Ms Katrina Baker met with Dr. Foster in August 2007 to follow up on initiatives. Dr. Foster would like the TAG to take on more advisory duties. He suggested setting up a wiki and updating the TAG website. He indicated that J-PRINT would take on the HSI standard/handbook issue.

4.     Persistent HFE Concerns: Dr. Foster would like the TAG to identify “persistent HFE candidates. The EXCOM will sort through them.

5.     Next TAG meetings:

·      TAG-60 (November 2008) will possibly be in the Washington DC area.

·      TAG-61(May 2009) may be in Natick, Mass.

 

Submitted by:

Stephen C. Merriman

DoD HFE TAG, TS/I Credentialed Representative of EIA, SAFE, AsMA

FCS MANPRINT Systems Engineer

3001 E. George Bush Highway, Suite 225

Richardson, TX 75082-2777

972-705-8219 (Office)     214-316-7071 (Cellular)

972-705-8098 (FAX)               stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com
ATTACHMENT (1)

 

DOD HFE TAG Background

 

The DoD HFE TAG was begun via memorandum of agreement signed by the Service Secretaries in November 1976. Goals of the TAG were established as follows:

 

• Provide a mechanism for exchange of technical information in the development and application of human factors engineering.

• Enhance working level coordination among Government agencies involved in HFE technology research, development and application.

• Identify human factors engineering technical issues and technology gaps.

• Encourage and sponsor in-depth technical interaction, including subgroups as required in selected topical areas.

• Assist as required in the preparation and coordination of Tri-Service documents such as Technology Coordinating Papers and Topical Reviews.

 

The TAG addresses research and technologies designed to impact man-machine system development and operation throughout the complete system life cycle. Topics include:

 

• Procedures for use by HFE specialists, system analysts and design engineers in providing HFE support during system development and modification

• Methodologies to identify and solve operator/maintainer problems related to equipment design, operation and cost/effectiveness

• Mechanisms for applying HFE technologies, including formal and informal approaches to validation and implementation, and the determination of time windows for application.

 

The TAG comprises technical representatives from Government agencies with research and development responsibilities in the topical areas mentioned above. Additional representatives from activities with allied interests affiliate with the TAG as appropriate. Technical experts in special topic areas may augment attendance at specific meetings. Also participating in the TAG are official representatives of technical societies (e.g., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, SAFE Association) and industrial associations (e.g., Electronics Industry Alliance) with a stated interest in HFE. These representatives may attend subgroup and general plenary sessions and they must be credentialed by the TAG prior to attending any meetings.

 

To facilitate detailed technical information exchange, the TAG is composed of committees and subgroups, or “Sub TAGs.” Committees are established to address specific issues or problems and are disestablished upon completion of their tasks. Sub TAGs address problems of a general or continuing nature within a specific field of HFE technology. Membership in Sub TAGs and committees may include non-government personnel involved in research, development and application. Attendance by non-government individuals is possible if the person is either sponsored by a government agency or if accepted by the TAG chair prior to the meeting. Chairing of the various subgroups and committees is typically rotated among the Services and in some cases, NASA, as provided in individual charters.

 

The current sub-groups typically meeting at the HFE TAG meeting were as follows.

 

Sub-TAGs:

• Controls and Displays/Voice Interactive Systems
• Design: Tools and Techniques
• HFE/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications
• Human Factors in Extreme Environments
• Human Factors in Training
• Human Factors Standardization
• Human Factors Test and Evaluation
• Human Modeling and Simulation
• Personnel Selection and Classification
• Sustained/Continuous Operations Core Competencies
• System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability Core Competencies
• Technical Society/Industry
• User-Computer Interaction
• Workload and Stress

 

Affiliated Groups:

·  Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

·  Human Robotic Interaction Interfaces Special Interest Group

·  Craft Bio-dynamics Special Interest Group

 

ATTACHMENT (2) Meeting Theme

 

Human Factors Applications: Successes, Failures, and How We Got There

 

This HFE DoD TAG will focus on the human interface of systems in use. Specifically, places where human factors engineering participated in the system design and development process. What were the successes and where did we miss the boat? What lessons can we learn? How did we incorporate research results and recommendations into system design and development? Some might even want to discuss how other domains of Human Systems Interface impacted human factors results. For instance, what was the relationship between training and a workstation design? How does system design impact crew selection? What is the true impact of reductions in crew size on system performance and cost?

 

ATTACHMENT (3)

PROGRAM SUMMARY

 

Monday 5 November 2007

0800 - 1000 Executive Committee meeting

1000 - 1100 New member orientation

1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break

1300 - 1700 Plenary Session

1800 - 2000 TAG Mixer

Tuesday 6 November 2007

0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry

0830 - 1100 Human Factors Standardization

0830 - 1100 Personnel Selection and Classification

1000 - 1030 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Design: Tools and Techniques

1230 - 1430 Workload and Stress

1230 - 1430 Human Factors Test and Evaluation

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Human Factors in Extreme Environments

1500 - 1700 Human Factors Test and Evaluation (continued)

1715 - 1830 Service Caucuses & TS/I Meetings

Wednesday 7 November 2007

0830 - 1100 System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability cancelled

0830 - 1100 Controls and Displays

1000 - 1030 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications

1230 - 1430 User-Computer Interaction cancelled

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Sustained/Continuous Operations