13 November 2010

 

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #64 – San Jose, CA

25-28 October 2010

 

The 64^th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in San Jose, California and hosted by the NASA Ames Research Center. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield, US Army Research Laboratory (pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil). The theme of the meeting was Government and Industry Perspectives on Human Systems Integration: Fostering Commercialization of Space. Approximately 90 people attended the meeting, representing the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, FAA, Coast Guard, Dept of Homeland Security, academia, human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Additional personnel representing industry and academia participated as invited speakers. Selected briefings from TAG-64 will be available on the DoD HFE Tag website: http://www.hfetag.com/.

 

Five items are attached:

·    DoD HFE TAG Background, attachment (1)

·    TAG-60 Theme, Attachment (2)

·    Program Summary, attachment (3)

·    DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (4),

·    TAG attendees, attachment (5) <to be provided when available>

·    DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (6)

 

Monday 25 October 2010 Plenary Session Presentations

 

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 64^th meeting, Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield, welcomed attendees to the meeting and elaborated briefly on the meeting theme, Government and Industry Perspectives on Human Systems Integration: Fostering Commercialization of Space. She invited everyone to the combined mixer and student poster session event following the plenary session.

 

Vincent J. Michaud, M.D, MPH, USAF Detailee, Colonel MC, CFS Director, Medicine of Extreme Environments, NASA Headquarters. Col. Michaud spoke on the “Most Significant Medical and Health Risks of Long Duration Space Flight.” There is a language gap! Why do human factors and medical problems recur on programs? There is poor communication between health professionals and engineers. “Requirements” need to be used to understand and correctly communicate between health professionals and engineers. Past aircraft and spacecraft have had recurring problems. NASA-STD-3000 was used for medical standards. The NASA 3000-series was a center-level document at Johnson Space Center. NASA STD 3001 has been moved up to an agency-level document in order to increase its influence. That is a good development.

Some fairly well-known health risk examples:

·    CO2 levels: Carbon dioxide on earth represents about 0.037% of the atmosphere. Improved requirements are needed for space.

·    Muscle Strength: The standard is to retain 80% of base strength. Exercise devices have been developed to maintain strength during limited duration space travel.

 

The NASA Human Systems Risk Forum tracks approximately 75to 80 risks. Most of these risks have been known for 40 or 50 years; e.g. microgravity effects and radiation.

 

The top four risks to astronauts now appear to be:

·    Increased Intracranial Pressure: this can cause long-term vision loss

·    Elevated CO2

·    Bone Loss

·    Radiation Exposure

 

High intracranial pressure: This problem was first reported in 2008. The postulated causes were microgravity shift or physiological response to high CO² levels. New assessments were initiated in response to this finding. There have been five new cases since 2008; these cases have been associated with both long and short-term exposures to microgravity. A later survey indicated that 30%-60% of personnel complained of visual acuity problems. Most symptoms appeared about three months after launch.

 

Elevated CO² levels: The submarine community has been engaged to assist with understanding the relationships between elevated CO² and physiological effects.

 

Bone Loss: Bone loss leads to a higher incidence of fractures later in life. Bone loss does not recover quickly after returning to normal earth conditions – even 120 days later. Countermeasures include two hours of exercise per day while in space.

 

Radiation Exposure: Radiation exposure is significantly higher outside of the moon’s orbit. Radiation blows off part of the DNA; it destroys part of the cell and is not repairable. Astronauts on space station approach acceptable lifetime radiation levels after one-to-three missions. On the moon, acceptable exposure is not more than four-to seven months. Beyond the mood, the risk is exceeded for all current Mars mission designs. The impacts include cancer, severe risks to the Central Nervous System, cataracts and acute radiation sickness. Some plastics have been shown to afford some protection due to their high hydrogen content.

 

The biggest needs are:

·    Non-chemical-based propulsion

·    Control of gravity effects

·    Active shielding from radiation

 

These are the types of research areas on which President Obama wants NASA to focus! There are also psychological risks associated with long-duration spaceflight. NASA has provided assistance in this area in the recent case of the trapped Chilean minors.

 

Nigel Packman, PhD, Deputy Manager of Extravehicular Activity Office, NASA Johnson Space Center. Dr. Packman spoke on “Shuttle Crew Survivability Investigation.” Much of his presentation was derived from the “Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report, released in 2008 [NASA/SP-2008-565]. He began asking the audience: Who has heard of Valentin Bondarenko? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Bondarenko). He was a Soviet astronaut who died of a flash fire in 1961. The two major contributors to his death were: use of an oxygen environment and in-swinging capsule hatch. Unfortunately no one in the US was aware of this death or the reasons…so the event never influenced the Apollo program and that led to deaths of US astronauts many years later. (Poor communications kills

 

 

Columbia’s STS-107 mission was the 113^th Shuttle flight. The mishap occurred over Texas at mach 24.5 at an altitude of 400,000 ft at 13:14:09 GMT with the final break-up beginning at 14:00:18 GMT. The analysis depended upon several different methods:

·    Photography: All of the photography (still and movies) anchored events in time.

·    Debris analysis: This analysis was extremely complex and led investigators down numerous “rabbit holes.”

·    Ballistics analysis

·    Aerodynamic modeling: An aerodynamic model had to be built of the crew section of the shuttle. At the time of the mishap the only model was of the entire shuttle.

·    Cabin depressurization timeline: This was very crude.

·    Hypersonic Suit failure analysis: The suits failed and there were seat separation and shock wave impingement issues.

 

During the course of the investigation, five “lethal events” were identified. The analysis determined whether or not each of these events was survivable or not survivable.

1.     Depressurization event: Survivable

2.     Exposure to Dynamic rotation: Survivable

3.     Separation of Crew Module with associated forces: Not Survivable

4.     Exposure to Vacuum of space: Survivable?

5.     Impact with ground: Survivable

 

Several of the crew didn’t complete donning their gloves or helmets. Several didn’t strap-into their seat restraint system (de-orbit timeline is very busy). None of the astronauts had lowered their visors. The Advanced Crew Escape Suit, (ACES) was added after the Challenger mishap…the gloves interfered with flying the Shuttle so this presented a tradeoff decision for the crew. All three hydraulics systems on the Columbia were co-located and all of them failed simultaneously. It is recommended that future systems be designed to automatically deploy helmet visors whenever pressurization is lost. There was also inadequate restraint – the system provided restraint only in one axis and the inertia reels didn’t lock. Seats allowed excessive head motion. This led to requiring Orion seats to support the head.

 

The investigation process suffered from low priority in NASA. The final report almost did not get published six times!

 

Mr. Jim Duffy, FAA Chief Engineer, FAA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Mr. Duffy spoke on “What is the FAA Doing in Space?” The commercial Space authority is the FAA (Department of Transportation). US citizens need a launch license except for Government launches. There have been a total of 202 licenses issued to date. There are 18 commercial space ports in the US and four launches occurred in FY 2010. This launch rate is expected to increase dramatically.

 

The Shuttle program is ending. The Space X has already flown (November 18^th is the next scheduled launch). Orbital will launch the Taurus in 2011. Virgin Galactic is about 12-18 months away from flying the first paying passengers. Spaceport America is open already in New Mexico. Two other firms are already working on sub-orbital vehicles. A team of Bigelow Aerospace (http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/) and Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/) are planning on a commercial space station. The FAA doesn’t own or operate spaceflight systems. Congress has directed a “hands-off” regulatory approach. A wide range of capabilities exist in the commercial space industry.

 

So, what does the FAA anticipate? Current requirements are:

·    Passengers: Need to sign informed consent form and it is recommended that the passenger get a physical examination.

·    Flight Crew: The Flight Crew must be employees of the operator. A class 2 FAA medical certificate is required. Specific training is required on the flight vehicle and mission. Flight crew also must demonstrate the ability to withstand space flight stresses.

·    Flight System: Must account for human factors (460.15), provide a habitable cabin environment to sustain life/consciousness, provide smoke detection and fire suppression.

 

In summary:

·    The beginning of commercial spaceflight is quite near (sub-orbital)

·    Orbital systems will be following soon, pending NASA investment

·    Other markets are emerging (research now)

·    FAA regulatory environment is light and supportive – but not at the expense of public safety.

·    The next few years will be both interesting and critical.

 

Laurel Allender, PhD, Acting Director for Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate. Dr. Allender spoke on the “Human Systems

Community of Interest (COI).” The inception of the COI was when Dr. Zachery J. Lemnios (DDR&E) established Communities of Interest in 2009. Also Reliance 21supported the establishment of several communities of interest, and HSI was one of them. The purpose of the HSI COI is to structure near-, mid- and long-range Science and Technology investments. The DOD has reached to laboratories and agencies and established a web-based COI (Techipedia). The products of the COI are provided to the Defense Science and Technology Advisory Council (DSTAG). The COI identifies top issues, provides technology options to meet COCOM Gaps and provides an annual technology assessment. The following figure illustrates some of the interactions between the HSI COI and other HSI-related organizations.

 

 

 

Tuesday-Thursday, 26-28 October 2010

SubTAG 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 and Thursday morning. Approximately 16 industry and government personnel attended each meeting. The meeting was co-chaired by Ms. Barbara Palmer (Booz Allen Hamilton, barbara_palmer@bah.com) and Steve Merriman (The Boeing Company, Stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com).

 

The first discussion was led by Dr. Mary Hornsby and Steve Merriman (Boeing). The annual TechAmerica Human Systems Integration (HSI) G45 committee meeting was held in conjunction with the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society meeting in September 2010. The major topics were:

·      MIL-HDBK-46855A: This handbook is being converted back into a Military standard and will be made consistent with current DOD acquisition policy.

·      HSI Data Item Descriptions (DID): A new DID entitled “Human Systems Integration Report” was authored by the G45 committee and submitted to the DOD for consideration. It is currently in review.

·      HSI Program Plan DID: This DID was revised by the G45 committee and has been submitted to the DOD for consideration. It is currently in review.

·      MIL-STD-1472G: This version will be out for review within the next few weeks.

·      Human Engineering DIDs: The G45 committee has undertaken a review of the existing Human Engineering DIDs, which have not undergone any major technical revisions since their initial release in 1979. Consideration is being given to updating the HE Program Plan DID first, followed by the two Human Engineering Design Approach Document DIDs.

 

A new Society, the Society of Advanced Learning Technology (SALT) has joined the TS/I SubTAG. Terrance Andres will serve as the primary representative.

 

Mr. Alan Poston provided brief updates on accommodating provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 508 in DOD human engineering requirements. He reported that both the Navy and Air Force are working on “translating” the UK’s DEF STAN-250 on Human Factors Integration into draft standards for their respective services.

 

John Rice made a short presentation explaining scope of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare and its relationship to HFE/HSI.

 

USAF Major Jeff Scott expressed interest in working with TechAmerica G45 committee in updating and revising the human engineering DIDs. It was suggested that the TS/I SubTAG develop about 10 charts for presentation to the Joint HSI Working Group on TechAmerica and TS/I efforts to update the DIDs. TASC (The Aerospace Corporation) has developed assessment spreadsheets for each HE DID; it was suggested that they may want to develop assessment spreadsheets for the two new HSI DIDs.

 

It was suggested that the TS/I SubTAG approach CAPT Schmorrow (TAG Advocate) proposing a half-day workshop where service representatives explain what they are doing to develop HSI standards and/or guidelines for industry at the next DOD HFE TAGF meeting. For example, both the Navy and Air Force have current projects modifying the British DEF STRAN 250 on Human Factors Integration into guideline documents for their respective services. The Air Force effort to develop HSI contract language was a good contribution, but momentum must be maintained. Steve Merriman reminded attendees that Dr. Foster (previous TAG Advocate) requested help from the TAG in 2005 for help in providing HSI guidance to industry. This workshop and TAG presentation would be supportive of that request. The services appear to be doing a better job of getting HSI language embedded into acquisition JCIDS documents, but they are not emphasizing the translation of requirements into RFPs and contract documents (SOWs, Specifications, CWBS, etc). Requirements are inconsistent from contract to contract.

 

It was suggested that there may be interest in standing up a TAG Special Interest Group on “Improving HE/HSI Acquisition Practices.” Alternatively, maybe a presentation to the TAG on this topic might be a good idea. The goal would be to facilitate networking and information sharing on HSI acquisition requirements.

 

Mr. Poston indicated that the TS/I Membership page on the web needs updating.

 

Unmanned Systems Interest Group Part 2 and Human Factors Test and Evaluation: The session was facilitated by Mr. Ajoy Muralidhar and Ms. Cindy Ching. The first presenter was Mr. Sylvain Bruni (Aptima, sbruni@aptima.com), who spoke on “Bridging the Understanding Gap Between Humans and UAVs.” The human is the bottleneck! How should we cope with this? Answer: Transfer competency from the operator to the machine (e.g., health status monitoring, waypoint-to-waypoint navigation, auto-landing, and obstacle avoidance). However, human as supervisors introduces problems and there are lots of issues to address. The Aptima point of view is captured in a three point model:

 

 

The operator and machine need to know about each other. The vehicle needs to understand operator intent and the Operator needs understand machine intent. Current areas of research are:

·      Prediction and inference of goals and priorities from operator actions.

·      Estimation of human errors. The goal is to enable embedded automation to re-route UAVs to missed targets. The computer would learn how well operators can perform and estimates error rates. Information would be used to alert operators or re-plan missions.

·      Adjustable autonomy for dynamic function allocation. Application is between human air traffic controllers and an automated agent. Also investigating how well the interface helps the air traffic controller retain situational awareness.

·      Intuitive displays for automation-generated plans. The goal is to enhance collaboration between autonomous UAV planning systems and human planners by exploring display interface impacts on human performance.

 

The next speaker was Dr. Jill Drury (University of Massachusetts (Mitre), jdrury@cs.umi.edu or jldrury@mitre.org), who spoke on “Augmenting Video to Improve Situational Awareness in Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” (Charts were originally presented at a previous UAV workshop). The area of investigation concerns how to generate and preserve SA with regard to the relationship between the UAV and points on the earth. Real-time sensor video was augmented to add surrounding context based on available DTED imaging; this resulted in improved performance. Some of the impending issues that will influence future research:

·      US Navy focusing on long endurance UAVs

·      OSD is forcing a universal UAV ground control station

·      In civilian airspace, one controller per UAV will probably be mandated.

 

The next speaker was Lauren Reinerman-Jones, PhD (University of Central Florida, lreinerm@ist.ucf.edu), who spoke on “Key Issues in Adaptively Automated Unmanned Ground Vehicles: Invocation Method, Situation Awareness, Workload and Performance.” Should systems be autonomous, tele-operated or adaptive? What is better for SA and performance? Dr. Reinerman-Jones is investigating the effects of adaptive automation on automation of unmanned vehicles. Hypothesis: There will be differences in SA, workload and performance for each increase in the level of automation. She is also investigating using physiological measures as the invocation tool. Subjective measures include NASA TLX and MRQ for situation awareness. Objective, physiological measures were also employed. The “nearest neighbor index” or NNI was used to measure the randomness of eye fixation patterns. Eye fixations were found to become more random with higher workload, as shown in the following Figure. This has been validated against NASA TLX and P300 EEG measures. The MIX test bed (ARL ACTIVE Lab) was used in the experiments.

 

The next presenter was Elan Moritz, PhD (Navy Strategic Planner, NSWC Panama City , FL, elan.moritz@navy.mil) , who spoke on “Beyond ‘New Atlantis:’ Tightly Integrated Human-Unmanned Systems Teams.” Some current trends are:

·      Exponentially-increasing computational power (by 2050, human level computing forf less than $1,000)

·      Exponentially-increasing storage density

·      Increasing miniaturization (nanometer level)

·      Neuro-cognitive breakthroughs

·      World population to exceed 10 billion by 2050

·      Open “everything” – adversaries have the same access to new technologies

·      Heat dissipation is the emerging issue

 

Challenges:

·      More adversaries who are more challenging, with shorter reaction times and more complex

·      More requirements and increasingly limited budgets

·      Each soldier, sailor, airman and marine more valuable than before (every unit must perform faster and it is becoming increasingly desirable (useful) to use unmanned systems.

·      Navy will converge on the sailor (the cognitive) as most important

o      Anything demanding muscle power should be automated

o      Low cognitive content fatigue generators to be handed by machines

o      Force structure, mission systems and ship design must be rethought

o      Current thinking that optimizing components will lead to optimized systems must change

 

The Navy will be considering robotic sailors; experience-building shared robotic systems that are highly coordinated and that use gesture, speech and thought understanding. They will be developing bio-inspired, near-morphic machines and teams composed of both humans and robots. So it becomes important to investigate the nature of communications between humans and robots, personality traits of unmanned systems, and what new sensors and technologies will be required.

 

The next speaker was Ms. Susan Flaherty (US Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate, CA, susan.rf.flaherty@us.army.mil) , who spoke on “Designing for Unmanned Operators in Army Systems.” In the Army, the designation for unmanned system operators is “15W.” These operators are typically 19 years old, having completed a 23 week training course. Ms. Flaherty summarized some of the work going on by the Army, including:

·      Empirical studies using 6.2 RDT&E funding

·      Technical demonstrations using program manager funding

·      Army-Boeing CRADA using Scan Eagle, Shadow and Gray Eagle (demonstration in 2011)

·      US Army-Israeli Army developing quick SA building technologies

·      Traffic displays for low altitude navigation

·      Joystick evaluations leading to a new controller for the universal ground station

·      Workload reduction interventions

 

Industry Panel – Fostering Commercialization of Space: This was a special session arranged in support of the DOD HFE TAG theme. The first speaker was Air Force LTC Joseph Wirthlin, PhD from the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), who spoke on “Modeling Dynamic Relationships in DOD Weapon System Acquisition.” LTC Wirthlin began by stating that “the DOD’s acquisition system is not doing well.” Major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) are behind schedule and over budget! (Ref: GAO 06-368)

·    In the 1970s, 30% overruns, 30% schedule slips

·    In the 1980s, 39% overruns, 39% schedule slips

·    In the 1990s, 40 % overruns, 40% schedule slips

Maybe the focus is wrong! All the requirements are never captured. All of the risks are never managed. In the DOD “engine room,” they try to “break” the good programs so everyone is under the same pressure! LTC Wirthlin modeled the DOD’s acquisition system using discrete event simulation combined with Monte Carlo techniques. The “Arena” simulation package was used (http://www.arenasimulation.com/). The object was to discover all of the steps and rules associated with the acquisition system. Many acquisition professionals were interviewed in the process. The timeframe of interest was Pre-Milestone A to Milestone C [for details, see DODI 5000.02, http://www.js.pentagon.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf).] Model outputs consisted of how many systems actually make it to Milestone C and how long it takes to get to Milestone C.

 

Requirements are first approved by the Major Commands (sponsoring activities). Then the requirements are approved at the joint level and finally at the acquisition level. LTC Wirthlin interviewed people to determine the “worst case,” “best case,” and “average case” in terms of how long it takes to get through all the wickets. He also asked what the probability of program success is, given that it makes it to a given point in the process. Thousands of trials were run in order to generate results:

·    34% of systems don’t pass the “giggle” test!

·    27% request a waiting period

·    21% are sent to be worked under an existing program (of these 2.1% re-enter the process)

·    7% by-pass parts of the system

·    9% enter the formal acquisition process directly

 

Eighty percent of the programs that actually start the formal process make it to Milestone C. All in all, thirty-nine percent of programs actually go through the whole process to Milestone C. It could be that the delays are an outgrowth of “the system” and not the contractor! May people believe that “if the funding were stabile, things would be better.” To examine this, LTC Wirthlin conducted some interventions and artificially stabilized program funding – in the best case, this reduced schedule growth by 20%. With multiple interventions to help programs, results were:

·    Schedule – 10% improvement possible

·    Variance -20% reduction in variances

·    Throughput – 10% increase in the number of program terminations at major reviews

 

The bottom line is that the current acquisition process incentivizes personnel to go around the process. That is why “rapid acquisition processes” proliferate. The message from all of this work was: Of Cost, Schedule, Performance, Transparency and Flexibility, you have to pick the three you want to achieve.

The second speaker in this special session was Suzanne Dawes, PhD (The Aerospace Corporation, (Suzanne.m.dawes@aero.org), who spoke on “Try Before You Buy: Early User Involvement in Space Acquisition.” Space systems offer many HSI challenges and successful HSI programs can save lots of money. However, program experience reveals failure to consider the human has caused problems in transitioning from development into operations – this has caused redesign, delays and the need to add people to make the system function properly. An example is the OCX, the next generation GPS ground site for command and control. There were challenges to HSI program planning:

·    Template for a plan not easily found

·    Pre-coordination required to improve understanding (chief engineer, other disciplines, management and technical)

·    A team had to be developed to address all the issues

 

Lessons Learned include:

·    Have a plan for the HSI program

·    Make sure the contractors follow their plan

·    Include compliance specifications, DIDs, formal demonstrations and SOW requirements

·    Determine an effective approach to address transition and contractor interaction with operators early in the program

 

Findings:

·  You can include user requirements early in the program

·    A successful HSI program requires commitment on part of leadership, technical team and operations community

·  Addressing HSI early will support objective to reduce life cycle cost

 

User-Computer Interaction SubTAG: The first presentation was by Ms. Jennifer Pagan (Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, jennifer.pagan1@navy.mil) who spoke on “Integrated Performance Assessment Tool (IPAT) Box.” The Navy desires to automate performance assessment tools to let instructors spend all their time instructing. Performance is measured to provide the right feedback to the student at the right time. Automation reduces time for debrief and helps measure more factors then an instructor can, measure subtle events, help diagnose failures and help identify problems with simulators and networks. The IPAT includes multiple tools in a single interface; it should improve training effectiveness and mission readiness while avoiding costs. NAWCTSD is currently examining available technologies and is establishing a user review committee to help with decision making. In other words, the project is in its infancy.

 

The next presentation was by Mr. Carlos Cardillo (EyeCom Corporation, Reno, NV ccardillo@eyecomworld.com), who spoke on “Human Systems Integration Using the EyeCom Bio-Sensor Communicator and Controller.” The EyeCom is an oculometric system that offers completely “hands-free” operation. Validation is currently underway with the US Army with the objective of using the technology to screen warfighters.

 

      

 

The system also has been integrated into a Navy scuba mask for Navy SEALs for detecting fatigue; it is being correlated with trans-cranial Doppler for fatigue detection. Driving simulators have already been used to detect fatigue and drowsiness. The Veterans Administration (VA) has used the device for assistive communications and control for hands free wheelchair operations. Validation so far shows that detection of eye closure is an important predictor of falling asleep.

Two cameras stare at each eye and one camera looks ahead. The lightweight frames incorporate three microchips. EyeCom is currently working with Professor Stephen Hawking on the “Hawk-Eye” method of typing up to 16 words a minute using eye motion and blink.

 

The last presenter was Nita Lewis Shattuck, PhD (Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, nlmiller@nps.edu), who spoke on “Human Performance: Applying Fitts’ Law to the Assessment of Warfighter Performance in Dynamic Environments.” [Fitts' law is a model of human movement in human-computer interaction and ergonomics that predicts that the time required to rapidly move to a target area is a function of the distance to and the size of the target (proposed by Paul Fitts in 1954). The application is to determine if motion-induced interruptions (MII) cause performance decrement. Self-reports indicate severe motion interferes with performance, especially fine motor tasks. The challenge is to quantify the level of degradation so that comparisons can be made among systems. NPS is in the process of collecting data now. The end result is to have a task to discriminate between two different Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) designs.

 

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications: The first speaker was USAF Major Jeff Scott (SAF/HQ – AFHSIO, (703) 681-6300), who spoke on “US Air Force Human Systems Integration.” The Air Force HSI concept is shown in the following figure. The main objective of HSI in the Air Force is to achieve reductions in total life cycle costs.

 

The AFHSIO philosophy is to integrate HSI into all aspects of systems engineering, requirements development, T&E, lifecycle engineering, sustainment, etc…in other words, to get a few “shall statements” into USAF policy documents. So far, AFHSIOI has a 97% acceptance rate inserting comments into Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) documents. The AFHSIO supports the Joint HSI Steering Committee at the OUSD (AT&L) level as well as the Joint HSI Working Group. In 2010, they sponsored workshops on HSI specifications and standards, as well as on the identification of measures of effectiveness (MOE) and measures of performance (MOP). They were also instrumental in the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) adding course Number DAU CLE 062, “Awareness of HSI,” that was begun in June, 2010. AFHSIO is currently reviewing other courses at DAU for possible insertion of HSI materials. In the future, AFHSIO will be working with the System Centers on AF Form 1067 process (forms to report problems and improvements needed) and working with the Air Staff to address manpower and personnel issues with PMs earlier in the acquisition process.

 

The next presenter was Ms. Bonnie Novak (BMT Designers & Planners, bnovak@dandp.com, (703) 203-4733), who spoke on “HSI in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acquisition Policy: Management Directive 102.” The Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division falls under the Science and Technology Directorate at DHS. On September 21, 2010, the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Guide, Version 2.0 (DHS MD 102) was released, containing HSI language (eight HSI requirements). DHS acquisition Instruction Guidebook 102-01-001 Rev 1 also contains six statements requiring consideration of HSI.

 

Larry Shattuck, PhD (Naval Postgraduate School, lgshattu@nps.edu), next presented “An Analytical Approach to Tradeoff Analysis for HSI Practitioners.” He first provided a brief description of HSI offerings at the NPS, including:

·      HSI Certificate: Four courses (now in its second year) $8,000 ($8,500 for contractors)

·      MS HSI: 32 courses

·      Masters HSI: 16 courses

 

Dr. Shattuck then briefly described an analytical approach to making tradeoffs between HSI domains in both material and non-material solutions. He reinforced the notion that HSI is currently compilation of stove-piped domains, with most of the tools being within single domains. The NPS is striving to develop methods for trading off performance, ownership costs and accommodation between domains.

 

Human Factors Standardization (HFS) SubTAG: The Human Factors Standardization SubTAG meeting was chaired by Mr. Alan Poston (aposton86@comcast.net).

·    MIL-STD-1472: Mr. John Lockett (ARL/HRED) updated everyone on the status of MIL-STD-1472G. A total of 58 participants have assisted with this project. It was submitted to editing and publication many months ago; it is expected to be complete with that process in the near future, at which time it will be circulated by Mr. Lee Gray for military service and industry association review and comment.

·    MIL-STD-1472H: Mr. Lockett indicated that 34 topics (beyond MIL-STD-1472G) were identified for coverage in the next version, including anthropometry, thermal stress, g load tolerance, weight limits, touch displays, night vision devices, hand-held devices, noise, joysticks and color coding. The JSSG-2010 will still continue to be used for aerospace vehicles.

·    MIL-STD-2525D: Mr. Jake Wetzel at NAVSURWEPCEN Dahlgren is the primary point of contact. A committee meeting is being held in Houston this week. Symbol identification coding is being changed. The “D” draft should be released for publication in late 2010.

·    NASA Standard 3001: NASA Space Flight Human Systems Standard is current. http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov

·    FAA Standards: The FAA plans to update their Human Engineering standard by 2013.

·    MIL-STD-46855: DOD is moving ahead with converting MIL-HDBK-46855A back into MIL-STD-46855. The plan is to roll anthropometry information in DOD-HDBK-763 into the Standard and then cancel the handbook.

·    UK Defence Standard DEF STAN 00 250 Conversion to USAF Reference Document: William Kosnic (711^th HPW) reported that DEF STAN 00 250, released in May 2008 is being converted into a USAF reference document under contract to SURVIAC (Booz Allen Hamilton). Following publication, the USAF may pursue conversion to a DOD or international standard. Challenges include identifying equivalent US processes and standards. Another challenge is aligning compliance statements with authorizing documents.

·    Society Experiences in Development of Voluntary Consensus Standards: Mr.; Jeffrey Cerro reviewed trends in the use of standards in government system development programs. Pre- mid-1990, the norm was to cite government standards. From mid-1990s, acquisition reform led to professional societies inheriting government standards. Post-2003 there is a revitalization of systems engineering and the pendulum appears to be swinging back the other way. In 2007, David Finkleman (AIAA) called for more government participation in standardization. The ANSI web site contains good information on standards development http://www.ansi.org/).

·    Human Engineering Design Data Digest (Pocket Guide): Alan Poston raised the issue of updating the pocket guide. Present supplies of this document have been exhausted. Printing costs may be too high to make updating this document feasible. He is continuing to look for ideas on inexpensive printing.

·    MIL-STD-1472 Checklist: Ms. Teresa Alley (DTIC, San Diego) is looking for feedback on the current human engineering checklist tool. (http://dtic.mil/dticasd/standards.html)

 

Design Tools and Techniques SubTAG: The DTT SubTAG session was co-chaired by Mr. Steve Merriman (The Boeing Company, stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com) and Dr. Michael Feary (NASA Ames, Michael.s.feary@nasa.gov) on 28 October 2010. The meeting was attended by 20 participants. There were no changes to SubTAG leadership and there were no changes made to the SubTAG charter. Five technical presentations were made, as follows:

 

Michael Feary, PhD (Research Psychologist, AST, NASA Human – Systems Integration Division, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 262-4, P.O. Box 1, Moffett Field, CA, 94035, (650) 604-0203, Michael.S.Feary@nasa.gov) presented “Tools for Evaluation of Automation Interaction in Aerospace Applications.” The addition of automation has greatly extended humans’ capability to accomplish tasks, including those that are difficult, complex and safety critical. Most Human - Automation Interaction (HAI) in safety critical operations results in more efficient and safe operations, however unexpected automation behaviors or “automation surprises” can be frustrating and may result in injuries or the loss of life. This talk described current research into methods that help to identify Human – Automation Interaction difficulties during design.

The talk described three efforts: Work Domain Analysis, Human Performance Analysis, and Formal Verification of Human-Automation Systems. The development efforts support NASA and FAA research in both aviation and space application domains, and are intended to be used by automation designers and evaluators.

 

The second speaker was Charles Jorgensen, PhD (Chief Scientist of the Intelligent Systems Division, NASA Ames Research Center, MS 269-1, Moffett Field, CA, 94035, (650) 604-6725, Charles.jorgensen@nasa.gov), who spoke on “New methods for visualization and situational awareness of analog signal content.” This presentation described three new and highly general methods for the display of analog signals in a context of four major NASA technical problems. The problems included helicopter gearbox fault detection, visual location of abnormalities and abrasions in aircraft wiring, detection of space shuttle foam strikes, and early detection of case breach faults in launch vehicle boosters. The first method showed a quick way to convert a signal to a pattern by transforming the signal magnitudes into parameters of a graphic function such as a hyperbolic cosine or simple cosign function. This was illustrated using sst 121 accelerometer data and detected a sensor failing at a fixed value during launch.

The second method is for visual display of non-monotonic analog signals and is quite unique in that it does not depend on traditional signal sampling techniques to describe sensor information. In this method a graphic pattern is generated treating analog signals as approximate solutions to complex polynomials and permits merging multiple signal sources in a single figure to build a dynamic pattern signature of a large multi variable process.  Such a signature can be used to establish normal from abnormal operating conditions to facilitate human detection. Improving the speed of visual fault detection using this method was demonstrated using a high fidelity simulation of the Orion rocket booster with a case breach fault occurring at different times in the ascent. The method appears superior to other approaches dependant on textual display of fault conditions in ease of detection and possible resistance to visual blurring caused by heavy pilot vibration during launch.

The third method involved how to visually display monotonic and closed functions. The method also processes signals to create both symbolic and graphic representations of signal features but uses a variation of a technique developed for human handwriting analysis called circuit coding instead of polynomial theory to capture the progression of the signal in time. An example of such a monotonic data stream is visual representation of common aircraft flight paths or trajectories rather than zero crossing analog signals such as those produced by sensors.  Potential pilot cockpit uses of these methods were shown by a simulated aircraft control path management task. A hypothetical cockpit control display was created in which 64 or more sensors of the same type could be monitored in a very small area, text messages or ground communications could be transformed into unique visual patterns, and multivariable flight controller software performance could be monitored.

The third speaker was Oded Flascher, PhD, (Vice President, Director of Special Programs

Alion Science and Technology, 35353 Spring Hill Rd, Farmington Hills, MI 48331, oflascher@alionscience.com), who spoke on “The Use of Modeling in Requirements Derivation - Lessons from FCS-MGV Program.” This presentation described the methods used to derive Human Systems Integration requirements on the very complex US Army Future Combat Systems, specifically on the Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV) team. HSI credibility on the FCS program depended highly upon the ability to produce credible and valid quantitative data to support design trade-offs. Several different techniques were used to analyze physical and cognitive human-system integration in the context of nine different MGVs. For example, the effectiveness of different sized crews in the Mounted Combat System was studied using the Army IMPRINT model. Capabilities of Command and Control Vehicle crews were analyzed on a limited basis using IMPRINT and C3TRACE tools. Modeling was not conducted in all cases where quantitative data were needed, primarily because of limitations of the small HSI team and the fast pace of the program.

 

Physical accommodation of the MGV crews was assessed using the Jack model. However, it was difficult to update IMPRINT and other models to reflect the myriad design changes that occurred over the development cycle so the HSI teams couldn’t effectively “keep up” with their analyses. It was also difficult to reflect the impacts of design changes on Soldier performance since the task analysis and physical space claim computer aided design (CAD) models were not integrated. Even with major interfacing problems, many of the HSI analyses had significant impact on design and contributed positively to the FCS program.

 

Computer-based modeling proved to be the second best source of quantitative accommodation and performance data, after human-in-the-loop testing. Human based testing is generally very expensive and requires many different personnel to accomplish. As a result, human modeling tends to be the approach of choice in most instances. The use of modeling by the HSI community falls directly in line with the Honorable Mr. Carter’s affordability initiative –since manpower, personnel and training are key drivers of life cycle cost for most systems.

The next presenter was Ms. Dawn M. Gray (US Coast Guard (CG-1B3) 6014 Martins Landing Lane, Burke, VA 22015, (202) 475-5102, dawn.m.gray2@uscg.mil), who spoke on “USCG SENTINEL Class Design Validation: Pilothouse, Galley and Mess Deck.” The USCG SENTINEL Class Patrol Boat project is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Level 1 Investment and USCG Major Systems Acquisition project. The primary objective of the acquisition is to quickly procure patrol boats to reduce or eliminate the USCG’s patrol boat capability gaps. The SENTINEL will use a Non-Developmental Item (NDI) hull form that will be modified as needed to accommodate Coast Guard missions. The assumption is that the 154-foot cutter must support a crew of two (3) officers and twenty (20) enlisted personnel in accordance with the preliminary manning estimate conducted by USCG Human Systems Integration for Acquisitions Division (CG-1B3).

 

 

 

In order to validate operational suitability and assess how well HFE has been addressed in aspects of the design, the SENTINEL Project Management (PM) requested that CG-1B3, the USCG Office for HSI in Acquisitions, provide the required personnel to perform an assessment of the pilothouse, galley, and mess deck spaces utilizing full-scale mock-ups. The HFE assessment of the spaces was performed by collecting data through heuristic HFE assessments using HFE design standards and “best practices”, usability assessments by having representative crews demonstrate scenarios, and link analysis. All data were documented as “issues and observations”, but not necessarily negative as the goal is also to highlight areas where the design supports the required tasks. Identified issues were then tied to specific FRC requirements. This traceability was the key in providing the HFE Team with a means to achieve the goal of determining the ability for the FRC to meet its human performance and safety goals along with potential recommendations for enhancing the design.

 

This effort was publicized in CG-9’s (Acquisition Directorate) July edition of “Delivering the Goods” newsletter in an article titled US Coast Guard Embraces Human Factors Engineering. Due to the working relationship between the FRC Sponsor’s Office, the FRC Project Office, and CG-1B3, the vast majority of these items have already been addressed with many more currently being worked for mitigation. The first boat in the fleet will be delivered during the third quarter of 2011 to Coast Guard District 7 in Miami, and will vital migrant and contraband interdiction missions conducted throughout the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico.

 

The last speaker was Ms. Teresa K. Alley (Defense Technical Information Center San Diego, 530 J Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118, (619) 545-7384, talley@dticam.dtic.mil), who spoke on “A Couple of Months in the Laboratory Can Save a Couple of Hours in the Library.” This presentation described some of the research tools available to Human Factors Engineering and Human Systems Integration personnel through the Defense Technical Information Center and their web site - http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd. DTIC San Diego has provided support to the DOD HFE TAG for more than 30 years.

 

Human Factors in Training SubTAG: Not attended.

Controls and Displays SubTAG: Not attended.

Personnel Selection and Classification SubTAG: Not attended.

Human Modeling and Simulation SubTAG: Not attended.

Human Factors in Extreme Environments SubTAG: Not attended.

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG: Not attended.

Workload and Stress SubTAG: Not attended.

Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS) SubTAG: Did not meet.

Thursday, 28 October 2010

DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

 

Old Business:

·      Proponent Tasking: Three tasks have been completed and one is outstanding. A new memorandum is neede3d to replace the one that established the DOD HFE TAG in 1976. There has been no action to date. This would be signed by Mr. Lemnios.

·      DOD HFE TAG Name:

o      It was proposed to change the name from Human Factors Engineering to Human Systems Integration. It was decided to leave it as HFE.

o      It was proposed to change from the DOD TAG to the Federal TAG. It was decided to leave it as DOD.

 

Service caucuses and SubTAGs briefed their attendance numbers, charter changes, leadership changes and significant issues.

           

Caucus Reports:

            DHS: Eight attendees. DHS web site was the biggest topic of discussion.

            USAF: Seven attendees. The community of practice was discussed

USN: 17 attendees. TAG-66 will be near DC. The theme will focus on Soldier protection before, during and after combat.

Army: Ms. Dawn Woods is the new Army service representative. TAG-65 will be at the Natick MA Soldier Systems Center.

NASA: Discussed HF policy and requirements at NASA

TS/I: 15attendees; no leadership changes, no charter changes. TS/I and professional organization support to the TAG were discussed.

 

SubTAG Reports:

            Controls and Displays: No report.

Design: Tools and Techniques: 20 attendees, no changes in charter. No changes in leadership.

            HFE/HSI: 40 attendees.

            Extreme Environments: Four presentations and 23 attendees.

            HF Standardization: Lots of activity, two new DIDs.

Modeling and Simulation: 19 attendees, 5 speakers. Emphasis was on synthetic environments.

T&E: No separate meeting this time.

Training: 29 attendees.

            Modeling and Simulation: 15 attendees, five presentations. Co-chair John Rice added.

Personnel Selection: 28 attendees, great session!

            Sustained/Continuous Ops: No meeting this time

            Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability: 21 attendees, three presentations.

            UCI: 23attendees.

            Workload and Stress: 30 participants and five presentations.

 

Interest Group Reports:

Cognitive Readiness Interest Group: (US Government closed session) Eight attendees and three call-ins. CAPT Schmorrow will be asking for help from the TAG shortly. There will be SBIR briefings at the next TAG meeting (19 topics in HSI)

Mission Performance Interest Group: This interest group may be combined with the Workload SubTAG.

Unmanned Systems Interest Group: There were two sessions, with 25 and 40 attendees, respectively. The group is still working on the charter.

 

Other comments:

·      TAG Minutes Process: Please submit minutes to Stephanie within two weeks of the SubTAG meeting.

·      Membership: Is limited to Government personnel and credentialed TS/I personnel.

·      Web Site: Still waiting for help.

·      TAG-65: (Army host/Natick) will be at the Crown Plaza Hotel. Theme will be “Soldier as a System.” Tour will be at the Natick Soldier System Center.

·      TAG-66: (Navy Host. Washington, DC area), tentative dates are 31 Oct-3 Nov.

·      TAG-67: (DHS/FAA host/Atlantic City) Tour will be of the FAA Technical Center.

·      TAG-68: (USAF host/Dayton, OH)

·      Poster Session at the TAG meeting: This was good, combined with the social.

 

 

Submitted by:

 

Stephen C. Merriman

DOD HFE TAG TS/I Credentialed Representative of TechAmerica, SAFE and AsMA/HFA

Co-Chair of the DTT SubTAG and the TS/I SubTAG

 

The Boeing Company

Special Projects Dallas

972-344-2017 (office)            

214-533-9052 (cellular)

stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com (office)

scmerriman@tx.rr.com (home)

scmerriman@att.blackberry.net (Blackberry)

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., Government Electronics and Information Technology Association) 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 “SubTAGs.” Committees are established to address specific issues or problems and are disestablished upon completion of their tasks. SubTAGs address problems of a general or continuing nature within a specific field of HFE technology. Membership in SubTAGs 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 rotated among the Services, NASA, FAA, DHS and TS/I members, 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

· Unmanned Systems Interest Group

· Cognitive Readiness Interest Group

ATTACHMENT (2) Meeting Theme

 

 

Government and Industry Perspectives on Human Systems Integration: Fostering Commercialization of Space

 

The United States is actively fostering commercialization of space transportation that will eventually result in the integration of air and space transportation and will provide the foundation for routine and affordable access to space. This commercialization has the potential to impact National Air Space (NAS) operations, Homeland Security, and other Government agency aviation and space activities.

 

Many of the existing Human Systems Integration (HSI) domain tools, metrics, and methods are applicable to both the Government and commercial aviation and space activities. Additionally, current HSI research and operational activities may be applicable and transferable to this industry. These activities include, but are not limited to, human-centered automation, distributed decision making, command and control research and applications, information management and display design, personnel selection, training, human performance assessment, survivability, human error analysis, human-rating certification, and human factors in accident investigation.
ATTACHMENT (3)

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

Meeting #64: 25-28 October 2010, San Jose, CA

 

Monday, 25 October

0830 – 1000 Executive Committee meeting

1000 - 1100 New member orientation

1130 - 1300 Luncheon break

1300 - 1700 Plenary Session – Government Panel to address NASA Theme

1800 - 2000 Mixer

1800 - 2000 Student Poster Session

 

Tuesday, 26 October

0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry

0730 - 0830 Unmanned Systems Interest Group, Part 1

0830 - 1100 Commercial Panel to address NASA theme

0830 - 1100 Personnel Selection and Classification

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 User-Computer Interaction

1230 - 1430 Human Factors in Training

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Controls and Displays

1500 - 1700 HFE/HSI: Management and Applications

1715 - 1830 Service Caucuses

 

Wednesday, 27 October

0730 - 1100 Unmanned Systems Interest Group, Part 2 and Human Factors Test and Evaluation

0830 - 1100 Workload and Stress and Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1200 Luncheon Break

1215 - 1700 Tour of NASA Ames Research Center

1800 - TBD Social

 

Thursday, 28 October

0730 -0830 Cognitive Readiness Interest Group

0730 - 1100 Human Modeling and Simulation

0830 - 1100 Human Factors in Extreme Environments

0830 - 1100 Human Factors Standardization

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Design: Tools and Techniques

1230 - 1430 System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Operating Board Meeting

 

* The Sustained/Continuous Operations SubTAG did not meet at TAG-64.
ATTACHMENT (4)     

Operating Board Information

Executive Committee

Proponent:

CAPT Dylan Schmorrow, MSC, USN, Ph.D.
Acting Director, BioSystems
OSD, DDR&E
1777 N. Kent Street, Suite 9030
Rosslyn, VA 22209

Dylan.Schmorrow@osd.mil

 

Current Chair

(Army)
Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield
ARL-HRED; Human Factors Integration Division
Attn: RDRL-HRM
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425
(410) 278-5916 DSN 298-5916

pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil

Vice Chair

(Navy)
CAPT Dylan Schmorrow, MSC, USN, Ph.D.
Acting Director, BioSystems
OSD, DDR&E
1777 N. Kent Street, Suite 9030
Rosslyn, VA 22209

Dylan.Schmorrow@osd.mil

Immediate Past Chair

(Air Force)
Mr. Darren Cole
411FLTS/EN
Building 1874, Room 121
375 North Flightline Road
Edwards AFB, CA 93524
(661) 275-3994 FAX (661) 277-5766

darren.cole@edwards.af.mil

Army Representative

Dr. John Warner
300 Army Pentagon, Rm 2C453
Washington, DC 20453
(703) 695-5820 DSN 225; FAX (703) 695-6997

john.warner1@us.army.mil

 

 

Navy Representative

LCDR Jefferson Grubb, MSC, USN
NAVAIR Orlando TSD,
12350 Research Parkway,
Orlando, FL 32826-3275
(407) 380-4243; Cell: (850) 206-2396

jeff.grubb@navy.mil

 

Air Force Representative

Dr. Bill Kosnik
711 HPW/HPO
2485 Gillingham Dr., B170
Brooks City-Base, TX 78235-5105
210-536-8033

william.kosnik@brooks.af.mil

 

FAA Representative

Dr. Thomas McCloy
FAA; ATO- P R&D, Rm. 932
800 Independence Ave., S. W.
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267 7167; FAX (202) 267 5797

tom.mccloy@faa.gov

 

NASA Representative

Ms. Faith Chandler
NASA Headquarters
300 E St., SW
Washington, DC 20546
(202) 358-0411; FAX (202) 358-3104

tom.mccloy@faa.gov

 

DHS Representatives

Dr. Janae Lockett-Reynolds
Department of Homeland Security
S&T Directorate/Human Factors Division
Washington, DC 20528
(202) 254-6611; FAX (202) 254-6739

janae.lockett-reynolds@dhs.gov

Darren P. Wilson, CHFEP
Department of Homeland Security
S&T Directorate/ Human Factors Division
Washington, DC 20528
(202) 254-6657; FAX (202) 254-6739

darren.wilson@dhs.gov

TAG Coordinator:

Ms. Sheryl Cosing
Booz Allen Hamilton
10822 Crippen Vale Court
Reston, VA 20194
(703) 925-9791; FAX (703) 925-9694

cosing_sheryl@bah.com

 

Conference Coordinator:

Ms. Janet Malone
Booz Allen Hamilton
1900 Founders Dr., Suite 300
Dayton, OH 45420
(937) 781-2826; FAX (937) 781-2888

malone_janet@bah.com

 

Ex Officio Members - SubTAG Chairs

 

Controls and Displays

Co-Chairs:

Ms. Marianne Paulsen
Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems
Division Code 4.6.5.2 12350 Research Pkwy.
Orlando, FL 32826
(407) 380-4743; FAX (407) 381-8738

marianne.paulsen@navy.mil

Mr. Chris Kijora
9200 Half Street SW
Washington, DC 20593
(202) 475-5092

christian.a.kijora@uscg.mil

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT (5) DoD HFE TAG Attendees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< Will be provided when available >

                                                                                      

ATTACHMENT (6)

 

DoD HFE TAG Policies

 

1.   Membership (General membership policies are outlined in the Operating Structure, under "Group Composition.")

 

            1.1 Individuals who are not affiliated with Government agencies (but who are associated with technical societies or industrial associations with a stated interest in human factors engineering) wishing to affiliate with the TAG may contact the current Technical Society/Industry SubTAG Chair to ascertain eligibility under the TAG Operating Structure. Once eligibility has been ascertained, the individual should submit a letter on the organization's letterhead, confirming his/her status as the organization's representative, to the current Chair of the Technical Society/Industry SubTAG.

 

            1.2 Emeritus Membership may be approved by the Executive Committee on a case-by-case basis for a former TAG member who is retired from government service or defense industry. Emeritus Membership is automatically deactivated during any period or re-employment with the government or defense industry.

 

2.   Meeting Sites (Sites are recommended by the service caucus whose turn it is to host the TAG with a view toward a balance in geographic location and meeting facilities.)

 

            2.1 TAG members are encouraged to recommend potential meeting sites.

 

            2.2 Organizations who wish to host the TAG should contact their Service Representative or the current TAG Chair.

 

3.   Agenda (The agenda is determined approximately three months before the scheduled meeting. The Chair Select selects the topics from those recommended by the Service Representatives, hosting agency and the TAG Coordinator.)

 

            3.1 TAG members are encouraged to suggest potential agenda topics or topics suitable for tutorial sessions to their Service Representative, the current TAG Chair, or the TAG Coordinator.

 

4.   Registration (Registration fees and the date of the close of registration are announced in an information letter sent approximately two months before the scheduled meeting.)

 

            4.1 All attendees are expected to pre-register and prepay by the announced close of registration.

 

            4.2 Only individuals receiving late travel approvals may pre-register on-site. Payments made at the meeting site must be in cash.

 

5.   Minutes (The Minutes of each meeting serve as the principal mechanism for the reporting of TAG activities. The Minutes will be published as a draft document on the website.)

 

            5.1 Individuals or agencies desiring to be included on the distribution list for a specific meeting should contact the TAG Coordinator.

     

6.   SubTAGs and Committees (See the Operating Structure, section entitled "TAG SubTAGs," for specific information regarding the purposes and operating procedures of SubTAGs and committees.)

 

            6.1 All SubTAGs and committees are encouraged to meet in conjunction with the TAG at least once each calendar year.

 

            6.2 All SubTAGs and committees meeting in conjunction with the TAG are required to provide a chairperson for the specific meeting.

 

            6.3 All SubTAG and committee chairpersons are to submit a brief report of each meeting to be included in the set of TAG Minutes covering the SubTAG/committee meeting time frame.

 

            6.4 All SubTAGs and committees are required to provide the TAG Coordinator with an up-to-date list of their membership for use in the distribution of TAG announcements.

 

            6.5 All SubTAGs are required to submit to the Executive Committee a Charter including, but not limited to, statements regarding:

 

·    objectives         ·    membership policies          ·    meeting schedule

·    scope                ·    chair selection/tenure

 

     6.6  Committees are required to submit to the Executive Committee a document including, but not limited to, brief statements regarding:

 

·    objectives

            ·    membership policies

            ·    chair selection/tenure

 

      6.7 Rotation of the chair position is determined by SubTAG charter. If the position cannot be filled by the appropriate service at the election meeting, the SubTAG may progress to the next service willing to chair the SubTAG

 

7.   SubTAG Establishment

 

      7.1 Groups interested in addressing technical areas not covered by existing SubTAGs may request the TAG Chair to provide meeting time.

 

            7.2 Formal SubTAGs and committees may be established by recommendation of the Executive Committee.

 

8.   Chair/Representative Selection (General selection procedures are outlined in the Operating Structure under "Conduct of Business.")

 

8.1  A Service caucus may be called by the TAG Chair or the current Service Representative.

 

            8.2 Methods of determining the Chair Select and Service Representatives are Service dependent.

 

      8.3 Unexpired terms of office will be filled by appointment by the Executive Committee, until a caucus of the Service can be called at the next regularly scheduled TAG meeting.

 

9.   Funding The funding required for the organization, conduct, franking, and documentation of all TAG meetings shall be done jointly by the three Services and other selected agencies. The specific mechanisms to obtain and allocate funding from the Services/agencies shall be arranged by the Current Chair, Chair Select, and Immediate Past Chair.

 

10.  Policy Changes

 

10.1 Additions to or amendments of the above policies may be recommended by submitting the suggested change(s) in writing to the TAG Chair.

 

      10.2 Policies may be amended by a majority vote of those Operating Board members in attendance at the Operating Board meeting at which amendments have been proposed.

 

                  Amended 14 November 1989 at TG-23, Killeen, Texas.

 

                  Amended 3 May 1994 at TAG-32, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

 

                  Amended 8 May 1996 at TAG-36, Houston, Texas.

 

                  Amended 7 November 2002 at TAG-48, Alexandria, Virginia.