Mass Requirements for Helicopter Aircrew Helmets,

McEntire, B. J.; Shanahan, Dennis F.

doi:10.21236/ada328597

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The area between the superimposed curves represents the marginally accepted area (i.e., one standard deviation from the mean). Figure 10 should be considered as a refinement to the USAARL longitudinal CM curve identified by Butler (1992) and summarized by McEntire and Shanahan (1998). For the positive helmet loading (helmet CM in front of head and neck CM), the maximum allowable weight moment is not gender sensitive.…”

Section: Helmet Operation Limitsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Effects of Head-Supported Devices on Female Aviators During Simulated Helicopter Rides. Part I: Biomechanical Response

Barazanji¹,

Alem²

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Helmet Operation Limitsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Effects of Head-Supported Devices on Female Aviators During Simulated Helicopter Rides. Part I: Biomechanical Response

Barazanji¹,

Alem²

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In 1998, the USAARL published a set of two biodynamic curves that defined limits of acceptable longitudinal (x-axis) and vertical (z-axis) CM location as a function of head-supported weight, commonly referred to as the "USAARL curves" (Figure 5). 11 These were developed to provide HMD designers with guidance that would minimize performance degradation during typical helicopter flight scenarios, 12 as well as minimize the risk of acute neck injury during severe, but survivable, helicopter mishaps. 11 Since their publication, the USAARL curves have become the de facto standard for the design of rotary-wing aviation helmet-HMD systems.…”

Section: Crashworthiness Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 These were developed to provide HMD designers with guidance that would minimize performance degradation during typical helicopter flight scenarios, 12 as well as minimize the risk of acute neck injury during severe, but survivable, helicopter mishaps. 11 Since their publication, the USAARL curves have become the de facto standard for the design of rotary-wing aviation helmet-HMD systems. In the following sections, HSW and CM offsets will be summarized for the various U.S. Army HMD systems and programs.…”

Section: Crashworthiness Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of human factors, crashworthiness and optical performance design requirements on helmet-mounted display development from the 1970s to the present

Harding

Rash²,

McLean³

et al. 2015

SPIE Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driven by the operational needs of modern warfare, the helmet-mounted display (HMD) has matured from a revolutionary, but impractical, World War I era idea for an infantry marksman's helmet-mounted weapon delivery system to a sophisticated and ubiquitous display and targeting system that dominates current night warfighting operations. One of the most demanding applications for HMD designs has been in Army rotary-wing aviation, where HMDs offer greater direct access to visual information and increased situational awareness in an operational environment where information availability is critical on a second-to-second basis. However, over the past 40 years of extensive HMD development, a myriad of crashworthiness, optical, and human factors issues have both frustrated and challenged designers. While it may be difficult to attain a full consensus on which are the most important HMD design factors, certainly head-supported weight (HSW), exit pupil size, field-of-view, image resolution and physical eye relief have been among the most critical. A confounding factor has been the interrelationship between the many design issues, such as early attempts to use non-glass optical elements to lower HSW, but at the cost of image quality, and hence, pilot visual performance. This paper traces how the role of the demanding performance requirements placed on HMDs by the U.S. Army aviation community has impacted the progress of HMD designs towards the Holy Grail of HMD design: a wide field-of-view, high resolution, binocular, full-color, totally crashworthy system.

show abstract

Re-evaluating the Neck Injury Index (NII) Using Experimental PMHS Tests

Bass

Salzar

Lucas

et al. 2010

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By reanalyzing the NII formulation using an existing PMHS injury data set with known forces and moments and known injury outcomes, a new NII(PMHS) is developed that uses PMHS loads to predict injury. This reformulation removes the dependency of the original NII formulation on the forces and moments from motorcyclist anthropomorphic test device (MATD) experiments and simulations yet retains the advantages of the multi-axial neck injury criterion.

show abstract

Mass Requirements for Helicopter Aircrew Helmets,

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of Head-Supported Devices on Female Aviators During Simulated Helicopter Rides. Part I: Biomechanical Response

Effects of Head-Supported Devices on Female Aviators During Simulated Helicopter Rides. Part I: Biomechanical Response

The impact of human factors, crashworthiness and optical performance design requirements on helmet-mounted display development from the 1970s to the present

Re-evaluating the Neck Injury Index (NII) Using Experimental PMHS Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About