t g - hfestg.hfes.org/sdtg/docs/sdtg_news_8-12.pdf · mil-std-2525, common warfighting symbology....
TRANSCRIPT
August, 2012
By: Dan Welch, Ph.D., Technical Program Chair
For HFES 2012, the System Development Technical Group was allocated 2
lecture/panel sessions and 2 posters. We received 20 proposal submissions: 15
lectures, 4 posters, and 1 panel discussion. Twenty-five TG members gave
generously of their time to serve as reviewers and performed yeoman-like service
under tight time constraints. I would like to publically thank them all for their
dedication and efforts.
Of the 15 lecture proposals received, 3 were inappropriate for the TG and were
transferred for consideration by other groups. Of the remaining 12 lectures, 5 (with an
average review rating of 5.5) were accepted to form the single SDTG paper session,
and one lecture (rated at 5.0) was accepted by and transferred to General Sessions.
Two of the 4 posters proposed, with a mean review rating of 5.58, were accepted, as
was the panel discussion.
The SDTG program for HFES 2012, therefore, is as follows.
Wednesday, October 24th, 8:30am – 10:00am, and 1:30pm – 3:00pm – Our 2
posters will be presented in Poster Sessions 2 and 3, respectively.
Gayle Hunt – Using Magpie Research to Resolve the
Top 10 Human Factors Issues in UAS for NATO FINAS
Elizabeth Phillips – Human-Animal Teams as an Analog for Future Human-
Robot Teams
Wednesday, October 24th, 1:30pm – 3:00pm – Panel Discussion “Widening the Net
of HSI in the Army Acquisition Process”
Chair – Pamela Savage-Knepshield
Panel – Gabriella Larkin, Lamar Garrett, Anthony Morris,
Anna Mares, Cheryl Burns, James Davis
GT
DSSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
TECHNICAL GROUP
System Development Technical Group
Special points of interest:
SDTG Chair’s message for
Summer 2012
Message from the Technical
Program Chair
Also In this Issue:
Notes from the Most Recent
DOD HFE Technical
Advisory Group Meeting in
May 2012
Message from the
Secretary-Treasurer
SDTG Trivia!
Upcoming Events
Applied Human Factors &
Ergonomics Int’l Mtg. 2012
Grow your SDTG
SDTG Chair Message
By: Ryan Urquhart, Ph.D.
By now, everyone is getting prepared for the conference in Boston. Please join us on
Tuesday, October 23rd from 5 – 6 pm for the SDTG annual meeting. During this time
we will discuss the financial outlook of our TG and what we have to do in 2013 and
beyond. Lastly, we will be introducing our new officers that will help us in moving our
TG forward.
2012 SDTG Technical Program
SDTG Officers
Chair Ryan Urquhart [email protected]
Secretary-Treasurer
Helene Maliko-Abraham
Technical Program Chair Dan Welch [email protected]
Technical Program Chair-Elect Ailer Kochan [email protected]
Newsletter Editor Steve Merriman [email protected]
Webmaster Teresa Alley [email protected]
Liaison to INCOSE
Jen Narkevicius
Liaison to DOD HFE TAG Alan Poston [email protected]
2
System Development
Technical Group August, 2012
Technical Program (Cont’d)
Thursday, October 25th, 10:30am – 12:00n – Lecture Session “System
Development Potpourri” (I know, it’s a lousy title. You try finding a common thread
among these 5 lectures.)
David Kancler – Using SMEs During Initial Development of Small UAS
Concept of Operations
Jamie Macbeth – Interface Design for Unmanned Vehicle Supervision
through Hybrid Cognitive Task Analysis
Hans Jander – Towards a Methodological Framework for HMI Readiness
Evaluation
Asaf Degani – A Team-Oriented Framework for Human-Automation
Interaction: Implications for the Design of an Advanced Cruise Control
System
Brigid Jacobs – Applying Modeling and Simulation to Predict Human Injury
due to a Blast Attack on a Shipboard Environment
While this is certainly a respectable program, I would like to encourage members
to consider submitting a proposal for next year’s conference in order to increase
SDTG’s presence at the annual meeting and to more fully present our interest and
knowledge in this important area of human factors practice. And again, I want to
thank all those who helped in the review and selection of proposals. Your help was
invaluable and professional and deeply appreciated.
Message from the Secretary-Treasurer By: Helene A. Maliko-Abraham
Hope everyone is enjoying
their summer!
Elections are well under
way for new SDTG
officers. Ballots were sent
to all 187 members of the
SDTG. All positions were
up for election this year.
Our new SDTG officers
will be announced in mid-
September, before the
annual HFES conference.
Officers that are able to
attend the conference in
Boston will be introduced
at our SDTG meeting.
SDTG Trivia! Name the first SDTG Chair and the year the TG was officially formed to win a $10
Starbucks Gift Card. E-mail your answer to our Secretary-Treasurer, Helene at:
[email protected]. First member to get the officers correct will
win. The winner and answer to the trivia will be posted to our SDTG LinkedIn Forum.
Technical Society/Industry SubTAG The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met on Tuesday morning and afternoon. The TS/I SubTAG meeting was co-chaired by Ms. Barbara Palmer (Booz Allen Hamilton) and Mr. Stephen C. Merriman. There were three presentations in the morning session.
• Human Factors and Interoperability: Dr. Steve Harris, Rational, LLC spoke on efforts currently underway in the US, UK and NATO to formally involve Human Systems Integration personnel in the development of system architectures such as the DOD Architectural Framework (DODAF) and Ministry of Defense/NATO Architectural Framework (MODAF) and the Department of Justice/Department of Homeland Security version referred to as DIEM. Dr. Harris recommended embracing this activity in order to fully integrate human factors with systems engineering activities. • Using Human Systems Integration to Enhance Biometrics Technology: Ms. Stephanie Salas-Snyder (Booz Allen Hamilton) discussed HSI testing of various biometric techniques, such as fingerprinting, hand vein pattern recognition, retinal scans, gait analysis and facial recognition. • Potential Additional Societies and Technical Groups for TS/I Affiliation: Ms. Teresa K. Alley presented results of her analysis of approximately 85 additional technical groups and societies that would profit from providing representatives to the DOD HFE TAG. She recommended several activities that TS/I members should engage in to recruit new representatives:
In the afternoon session of the TS/I SubTAG, society representatives briefly discussed relevant activities. NDIA now has two HSI groups one more R&D oriented and one aligned with systems engineering. The TS/I SubTAG would benefit from having an NDIA HSI representative. Dr. Grant McMillan agreed to ask Greg Zacharias, who leads the NSIA HSI Division. Robert North, formerly with Honeywell, is active in AAMI; Steve Harris or Jennifer Narkevicius will contact him. Al Poston will check on a representative from ASTM. Steve Merriman will check with Dr. Daniel Wallace about representing ASNE. Teresa K. Alley will contact Dr. John Lockett at ARL/HRED about obtaining a representative from SAE. John Rice will look into obtaining a representative from ISPI.
Message from the Newsletter Editor
By: Stephen C. Merriman
I attended the Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group Meeting #67 in Dayton, OH from 30 April to 03 May 2012. The theme of the meeting was “Meeting the Human Factors Challenges of Future Unmanned Systems.” More than165 people attended the meeting, representing the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, FAA, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sandia National Laboratories, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Additional personnel representing industry and academia attended the meeting as invited
speakers. Hopefully, the following excerpts from my notes capture information of interest to SDTG members.
3
Human Factors Standardization (HFS) SubTAG: The Human Factors Standardization SubTAG meeting was chaired by
Mr. Alan Poston.
Status Reports:
MIL-STD-1472, Human Engineering. Dr. Daniel Wallace reported that Mil-STD-1472G was approved on January
11, 2012 and has been posted on the ASSIST data base for all to use. Dr. Wallace noted there were a number of
topics that were beyond the time and resources available for the “G” revision; these are being deferred to the “H”
revision. These include areas that were too complex to be easily addressed, areas that required a more in-depth
review of the literature, and areas in which data are needed to fill gaps.
Dr. Wallace indicated that a SubTAG session to plan for the “H” revision is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.
The goal is to chart a path forward, identify the gaps, and seek volunteers to lead the effort in addressing open
issues.
Mr. Alan Poston indicated that he is already getting comments on the “G” version. Most of these comments point
out inconsistencies within the document as well as areas in which clarification is needed. One area that was
highlighted was the change from “should” (design guidance) to “shall” (requirement) in many of the provisions.
While the Working Group sought to tighten many of the provisions, it appears that these wholesale changes might
have a negative impact on design. Both the comments collected and the “should” –“shall” specification will be
addressed in the “H” revision.
Mr. Poston noted that many of the design criteria contained in MIL-HDBK-759, Human Engineering Design
Guidelines, were incorporated into MIL-STD-1472G. As a result, the Handbook is no longer needed. MIL-HDBK-
759 was cancelled on March 13, 2012.
MIL-STD-2525, Common Warfighting Symbology. Dr. Jake Wetzel was unable to attend the meeting, but
indicated that the final draft of MIL-STD-2525D is being prepared for formal review and comment, with the hope of
finalizing the document late summer.
But, he added, don’t hold your breath as the document has gone from fall 2010 to Spring 2011 to Winter 2011 and
now Summer 2012.
NASA-STD-3001, NASA Space Flight Human System Standard. Dr. Kritina Holden gave a brief update on
NASA-STD-3001. She indicated that a new section on System Design for Support Operations for inclusion in
NASA-STD-3001 is in development. The goal is to have this section ready for agency review by this September. In
addition, they are collecting other changes for future updates. Regarding the Human Integration Design Handbook,
they are working with subject matter experts to incorporate new research results. The plan is to have the
Handbook updated by September 2012.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Mr. Alan Poston indicated that the FAA is in the process of updating its
Human Factors Design Standard. The goal is to have an updated version published in 2014. The FAA is currently
exploring contractual mechanisms that can be used to reach the various content developers needed to achieve the
update.
Revision of Data Item Descriptions (DIDs). Mr. Steve Merriman gave an update on recent activities regarding revisions of human engineering DIDs. Mr. Merriman reported that DI-HFAC-81742A, Human Engineering Program Plan, was approved on March 13, 2012 and is available for use. Mr. Merriman noted that this revision is the first major update to the Human Engineering Program Plan DID since it was initially authored in 1978. The revised DID is consistent with current DOD acquisition policies; addresses Human Engineering in the context of Human Systems Integration; adds a new Overview section; adds a new section on Human Engineering in Requirements Development; adds detailed requirements to Human Engineering in Equipment Design; adds a new section on End-user Involvement; adds new sections on interaction with
4
System Development Technical Group
August, 2012
Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH), Personnel Survivability, and Habitability; and adds a new
section on Human Engineering Risk Management.
The next two DIDs to be updated will be DI-HFAC-80746B, Human Engineering Design Approach Document –
Operator, and DI-HFAC-80747B, Human Engineering Design Approach Document – Maintainer. Mr. Merriman
noted that these two DIDs were generated in an era of knobs and dials and may no longer be relevant in a world of
human-computer interactions. Mr. Merriman indicated that surveys were prepared to capture information on how
the results of HEDAD documents are used by the Government customers. The surveys were distributed to about
50 potential respondents.
The HEDAD-O had 14 responses and the HEDAD-M had 10 responses; most respondents are government
employees. The survey results will be used in the preparation of revised DIDs. The revised HEDAD-O will include
updates to address software user interfaces.
The next two DIDs to be updated will be DI-HFAC-80746B, Human Engineering Design Approach Document –
Operator, and DI-HFAC-80747B, Human Engineering Design Approach Document – Maintainer. Mr. Merriman
noted that these two DIDs were generated in an era of knobs and dials and may no longer be relevant in a world of
human-computer interactions. Mr. Merriman indicated that a surveys were prepared to capture information on how
the results of HEDAD documents are used by the Government customers. The surveys were distributed to about
50 potential respondents. The HEDAD-O had 14 responses and the HEDAD-M had 10 responses; most
respondents are government employees. The survey results will be used in the preparation of revised DIDs. The
revised HEDAD-O will include updates to address software user interfaces. Dr. Mary Hornsby (Boeing) is leading
the DID revision effort for TechAmerica.
MIL-STD-1474, Noise Limits. Mr. Alan Poston reported that a working group, co-chaired by ARL-HRED and
NAVSEA, has been convened to update MIL-STD-1474. The associated DIDs will be updated as well. An initial
draft has been distributed to Working Group members for review and comment. The Working Group will meet May
8 to discuss the draft, comments received, and the way forward.
Occupant Centric Platform. Ms. Dawn Woods gave an update on the Occupant Centric Platform (OCP)
Technology Enabled Capability Demonstration (TECD) program. The goal of the OCP TECD is to formulate an
science and technology program to improve existing platforms or develop new platforms that: increases protection
from current and emerging threats; optimizes space for soldiers and gear; decreases platform weight; maintains
maneuverability; and is designed for full spectrum operations. Deliverables include: publishing an overarching
Military Standard (MIL-STD); publishing technical specifications; and updating and developing component and sub-
system Test Operations Procedures. Additionally the development of an Occupant Centric Concept Demonstrator,
which is a physical realization of the new Occupant Centric design philosophy, and Current Platform
Demonstrator(s), unique occupant protection suites of technologies specific to the platform(s) given its(their) design
constraints.
Accomplishments from 1-2Q FY12 include soldier gear ensembles: focus groups and final report; soldier gear
models prepared; digital human models created in PRO/E; seated anthropometry data collection completed
(University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute); and encumbered anthropometry data collection is about
50% complete. Current and planned activities through FY13 include completing encumbered anthropometry data
collection and analysis, developing JACK models of encumbered soldiers, ongoing subject matter expert input to
demonstrator design, and integrating ANSURII data into designs.
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). Mr. Alan Poston indicated that both HFES 100-2007, Human
factors Engineering of Computer Workstations, and HFES 200-2008, Human Factors Engineering of Software User
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
5
Interfaces, are coming up for their five-year reviews and are being revised. Writing committees have been
formed and work has begun. It is anticipated that a call for participation for the canvas committees will go out
later this year. Interested parties should check the HFES web site or for an announcement in the HFES
Bulletin.
Flight in Non-Segregated Airspace (FINAS) Working Group. Lt. Col. Anthony Tvaryanas gave an update on
the development of a NATO FINAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Human Systems Integration Guidebook.
The Working Group asked (1) Are unmanned aircraft fully benefiting from available human factors expertise and
lessons learned? (2) Are there human factors attributes that may be identified and design guidelines applied
across all, or specific classes of, UAS? and (3) Can mission effectiveness and safety benefit, and public
acceptance be enhanced, from alliance attention to this area?
Development and acquisition of UAS needs to be coordinated through a systems engineering process.
However, the systems engineering process is often constrained in scope to the technological system, which can
be overcome by incorporating Human Systems Integration (HSI) processes. HSI processes are based on an
understanding that people are the critical elements within systems, and adopting a human-centric perspective of
systems increases productivity and safety while decreasing costs.
The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence Standard 00-250, Human Factors for Designers of Systems (2008), is
a recognized exemplar of HSI policy and guidance. The approach then is to extract and synthesize, as
necessary, the key process-related elements of Def Stan 00-250 that can be applied to a generic systems
engineering approach for a UAS. The objective is to publish a draft document for FINAS that utilizes
requirements for operation of UAVs in non-segregated airspace as an input; facilitates application of human
factors principles in system design, development, and operational use; and provides a repeatable process for
success that is not referent to technology (i.e., accommodates technological change).
The end result is a guidebook which describes why HSI is so important to flight of UAS in non-segregated
airspace, activities that can help identify where the key human contributions to UAS performance and safety are
likely to occur, how to manage the HSI input into development of UAS, and techniques that can be use to apply
HSI. The guidebook is aimed at NATO and industry personnel who need to address and resource the human
issues/risks in the design of UAS.
Presentations:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC) Markings and Symbology Standard.
Dr. Jen Narkevicius gave a presentation on a standard she is drafting for the FAA. Dr. Narkevicius noted that
display and processing technology has made more information available for display to controllers. System
developers have added symbols, legends, markings and other display methods to provide this information. As a
result, evolving technologies demand display of more information to be conveyed by each symbol.
The objective of this effort is to produce a standard for the creation, use, structure, and content of symbols, icons,
markings, legends, text and any other construct conveying information on ATC displays. The scope is to address
the information conveyed by the primary ATC display used to support the primary tasks of the air traffic controller.
Display and processing technology is driving cognitive workload. Evolving technologies generate more information which each symbol must convey. The available information is also networked. Too much information and too many symbols are uncoordinated. All this can result in information overload, clutter and confusion – which impacts performance. A universal standard will help to deal with this. Information is there for a reason – so it’s really about what the user is doing with that information in those symbols. A standard for information content will mean that some symbols can be removed – but judiciously. Symbols require a reference. Future FAA systems will require that symbols work in the new way of doing business and that they are testable, hold internal consistency, exhibit reusability, remove unnecessary/unintended redundancy, and remain salient.
6
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
The approach is to survey and document the current use of markings and symbols on the main en route and terminal
displays; conduct a literature review beginning with prior FAA research and include other research and applicable
government and commercial standards; develop the requirements for the creation, use, structure, and content of
symbols, icons, markings, legends, and any other construct conveying information on current ATC displays; and
produce a draft FAA Standard for Air Traffic Control Markings and Symbology.
The thrust of the standard is to detail what makes a symbol good not “which are good symbols.” The focus is on the
reader; topics will be grouped in a way that is logically consistent for the engineer that has to develop the symbols. The
focus of the standard is what is required; not how to do it, or why or what has to be done. Rather, the standard by
which symbols are judged to be good. The focus is on symbol generation and not a catalog of symbols.
Cockpit Spatial Strategies. Dr. Fred Patterson gave a presentation on “Cockpit Spatial Strategies.” He noted that
spatial disorientation (SD) is a persistent problem for Warfighters tasked with manned or unmanned piloting of aircraft,
ships, and land vehicles. For vehicle operators, the inability to orient correctly has been documented as a primary
causal factor for aircraft mishaps, inadvertent bomb drops, and collisions at sea.
Dr. Patterson noted that despite a lack of empirical accident investigation data, previous SD research has mainly
emphasized anomalies within the vestibular system as the principal source of this cognitive threat. Consequently, most
of the existing work on this topic has focused on nuances of the vestibular system under a variety of carefully controlled
laboratory settings. Although, these efforts have generated useful methodologies for diagnosing clinical pathologies
such as Meneire’s disease or intra- vestibular trauma, directly linking past SD research results to cockpit SD solutions
requires a considerable leap of faith. As an example, ground based research that extensively investigated pilot
“inversion” illusion found that generating this sensory misperception in the laboratory, with subjects’ eyes closed and
head restricted, was relatively easy; however, in actual cockpit environments, recreating this speculative SD problem
was very difficult, if not impossible to accomplish. Recent accident statistics lend further disparity toward conventional
SD research, training, and design efforts since the rate of SD (25% -30%) has remained unchanged for decades and
current mishap trends suggest SD events are actually increasing.
Recent research has documented in-flight spatial awareness is dependent upon specific sensory spatial reflexes that
help formulate spatial strategies for control input decisions. Pilot spatial strategies can be defined as visual
interpretation of interactions between retinal images of the horizon (primary cue) and peripherally viewed
airframe/cockpit structures (secondary cues); the relationship between primary and secondary cues is critical to spatial
awareness because it provides visual feedback for interpreting effectiveness of control inputs related to aircraft attitude,
velocity, and acceleration. Both simulator and in-flight research has demonstrated that sensory spatial reflexes
modulate visual spatial information in a manner that enhances spatial interpretation. Unfortunately, compatibility with
spatial reflexes and spatial strategies is often overlooked by current human factor engineering standards.
Consequently, aircraft design environments sometimes produce sub-optimal specifications for cockpit displays and
controls, with respect to supporting spatial awareness. During extremis and high workload situations, sensory spatial
incompatibilities created by shortcomings in cockpit design have been shown to consistently trigger specific types of
spatial disorientation.
The present Naval Medical Research Unit-Dayton (NAMRU-D) approach toward improving SD training and generating
SD countermeasures is by capitalizing on emerging concepts that provide more credible explanations for causal factors
related to SD mishaps. Much of this approach is based upon recently validated neuro-ergonomic research that has
identified previously undefined in-flight sensory spatial reflexes. In addition to these new developments related to SD-
Human Systems Integration topics, NAMRU-D scientists are also pioneering unique concepts related to cognitive
processing of pilot spatial strategies. The results of these efforts have led to development of new innovative methods for
identifying SD countermeasures and proposing effective SD training solutions.
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
7
New Business:
Control of Multiple Aircraft. Lt. Col. Anthony Tvaryanas indicated that MIL-STD-1787, Aircraft Display Symbology, is
built around a single manned aircraft. It does not address control of multiple aircraft. It was suggested that a separate
chapter should be drafted for inclusion in MIL-STD-1787 to address control of unmanned aircraft systems. The
SubTAG will coordinate with the Unmanned Systems SubTAG (previously the Unmanned Systems Interest Group) on
the generation of such a chapter.
The second session of the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG was devoted to a discussion of MIL-STD-1472H,
led by Dr. Daniel Wallace (NAVSEA. In general, the following topics will be addressed in MIL-STD-1472H:
• Add an index
• Add a design verification checklist verification requirements traceability matrix (inspection, analysis
demonstration, test) as an appendix to the document
• Update graphics and figures
• Add tailoring guidance/matrix/rubric
A total of 46 different topics are under consideration for this revision, including updated anthropometry and strength
data, a section on thermal contact hazards, material on vehicle crew station design, guidance on levels of automation,
additional helmet-mounted display content, expanded alert/alarm information, an update to the section on control/input
devices, guidance on the design of hand-held devices, and expanded content on unmanned vehicles.
Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. The first speaker was
L. Kenyi (US Air Force HSI Office) who discussed the need for a Human Systems Integration series in the Office of
Personnel Management. Mr. Kenyi reviewed engineering psychology and other civil service series and argued for the
establishment of a unique HSI series that crosses boundaries with several other series.
The second speaker was LtCol Michael Luby, who spoke on “Effects-based Human Systems Integration.”
Targeting has established a doctrinal cycle with which the military is familiar. The HSI targeting cycle was portrayed as
follows:
System Capability
Assessment
AcquisitionProcess
Requirements
HSI Analysis
Decision
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
8
The last speaker was Christopher Plott (Alion Science and Technology), who spoke on “Human Systems
Integration Pathways to Affordability.” This effort grew out of white paper requested by Dr. John Lockett at the
Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate. Mr. Plott discussed the MPT domains
in terms of people costs, ESOH domains in terms of risk mitigation, and HFE/Habitability in terms of performance
feedback loops to other areas (such as user interface design and environmental system design).
System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG. The first presentation was made by Mr. Nathan Wright
who spoke on “OSD and DSOC Helicopter Seating Studies.” Five different helicopter seats were tested, SH-
60 seat, Uh-60M seat, Prototype Wolf Technical Services Seat and Prototype Glatz (all-fabric) seat. All seats
were tested against MIL-STD-85510 (AS) and compared against legacy seat testing results. All testing was
conducted at Wright-Patterson AFB. Seats were tested in three orientations: Vertical, Horizontal, and Vertical with
Pitch. Mannequins were light (107 Lb. 5% female) and heavy (245 Lb. 98% male). Accelerometers were installed
on the head, neck, chest and Lumbar area. Forces/accelerations were measured at the seat mount point and the
seat pan. There were several instances where seats broke. All seats failed a combination of criteria. The UH-60M
(baseline) seat exhibited the best structural strength. All seats performed better with the large mannequin. The
UH-60M seat performed consistently better for small and large mannequins except under high 35g condition with
the large mannequin. Recommendations include:
Seats should stay attached to the aircraft during the crash
Helmets must be worn
Restraints must be adjusted tightly
A strong seat should be considered
Airbags should be considered.
Use FSC injury criteria in the comparison and acquisition of seats.
Consider methods of better managing posture during the crash
The second presentation was made by Dr. Greg Zehner (Air Force Research Laboratory, who spoke on “An
Overview of USAF Anthropometry.” Dr. Zehner defined the JPATS anthropometry cases and maps Air force
aircraft crew stations. He is currently working in three areas:
Baseline data and methods: 3D surveys, statistics and model validation
Fit mapping and Requirements Verification: Vision, clearances, personal protective equipment, reach to controls and control authority loss
Design and Prototyping support: Equipment shaping, requirement definition and workstation layout.
The Delmia V5 human model is being used at WPAFB – it is a good design tool but not a good evaluation tool.
Dr. Zehner believes that the 1980s crew station geometry requirements need to be updated. Surveys need to be
accomplished more frequently. People are getting “thicker” based on trends. Recent/planned surveys include:
(2010-11 ANSUR II survey, 2011 USAF Aircrew Sizing survey, 2012 Navy survey (planned). Recent USAF
applications of data were to the T-6 and F-35 aircraft. Human and model reach results for arm and leg reach are
very different. Clothed reach is shorter than nude reach, with a 4 inch difference at the extremes of reach.
When mapping an aircraft cockpit, the following process is followed:
Establish requirements (vision, reach, etc.)
Measure 25 subjects
Analyze data to find size limits and accommodation ranges
Identify problem areas
9
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
10
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
The next presenter was Mr. Chris Perry (senior biomedical engineer at WPAFB, 711 HPW, who spoke on
“Assessment of Cockpit Integration of the Joint Service Aircrew Mask (JSAM).” Vertical and horizontal impact
tests were conducted in an attempt to answer the question: “How does JSAM affect the bio-dynamics of ejection?” The
configuration included a JSAM/JHMCS quick disconnect (QD) with the AIRSAVE vest. Testing was to assess ejection
from F-16 fighter and B52 bomber aircraft.
Vertical testing was conducted using a 60 ft. Drop tower with a water brake. Neck loads were measured JHMCS,
PLZT, and F4949 helmet mounted systems were used in the various tests. Small and large mannequins were used
(LOIS and LARD, respectively). Impacts were approximately 10g. Eight tests were conducted and NIJ (neck injury
criteria) were used (Nij=<0,5). LOIS averaged between 0.21 and 0.28. LARD averaged between 0.11 and 0.18. All
results were under the test criterion of 0.5.
Horizontal testing focused on ensuring that the disconnects were working properly. Oxygen disconnect from aircraft,
JHMCS QD from AIRSAVE vest. A 240ft. track was used with a 4’x8’ sled, propelled by gas pressure and pneumatic
braking. Disconnect loads were expected in the 20-30 Lb range for the Oxygen disconnect, based on results of static
testing. Results were approximately 90 Lbs for the Oxygen and JHMCS disconnects, using the LOIS mannequin.
Results for the LARD mannequin were 60 Lbs for the Oxygen disconnect and 300 Lbs for the JHMCS QD (physical
interference problem was discovered with the QG dropping and contacting the ejection seat). A lanyard was
developed running from the harness to the QD in order to prevent physical contact with the seat and reduce disconnect
loads.
The next presentation was by Dr. John Plaga, AFRL) who made a presentation on “The SAFE Association.” Dr.
Plaga covered the purpose of SAFE, its history, goals, activities, chapters and membership, annual symposium and
awards. The goals and objectives of the SAFE Association include:
Stimulate the advancement of sciences and technologies to improve safety devices, life support systems, protective equipment, and human-machine interfaces
Provide a forum to promote new concepts and products, exchange technical information, and discuss special interest issues
Enable members to have greater opportunities for professional development, achievement, and recognition
Educate the public, industry, and government to improve human effectiveness and safety in systems design and operations
Increase the influence of the Association to implement its primary goals
Continuously improve the Association’s value to its members and the community
Design Tools and Techniques SubTAG: The DTT SubTAG meeting was co-chaired by Mr. Stephen Merriman (The
Boeing Company) and Dr. Michael Feary (NASA Ames) on 02 May 2012. The meeting was attended by 15
participants. There were no changes to SubTAG leadership and there were no changes made to the SubTAG charter.
The first presentation was by Dr. Laura Reinerman-Jones (Univ. of Central Florida) and Dr. Svyatoslav Guznov (Univ. of Central Florida,) who spoke on “Tool for Assessing Metrics Applicable for Evaluating Nuclear Power Plant Design.” Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) are composed of complex systems, one of which is the Main Control Room (MCR). This is the primary location of Human-System Interface (HSI), where the system design must reflect the status of the NPP and meet the needs of the operator to perform his job effectively. NPP operators are highly trained individuals and their tasks are “routinized” and procedure-based. Even when a new NPP is proposed by an applicant, the operator is fully licensed on that full-scale MCR simulator at the stage at which the HSI is evaluated - Verification and Validation (V&V). However, the application for the new NPP must specify the measures intended for assessing Workload (WL) and Situation Awareness (SA) with regard to the proposed HSI.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewers use the review elements discussed in NUREG-0711 for determining
if those metrics are adequate at evaluating the given constructs. To further assist reviewers, the Generic Metrics
Catalog (GMC) was created. Many metrics exist for WL and SA, but not all hold the same psychometric properties or
relevance across domains. The GMC is a tool for providing reviewers with synthesized and organized information for a
vast range of metrics. In other words, a reviewer can locate the metric within the GMC proposed by an applicant for
assessing WL (e.g. NASA-TLX, ISA, ATWIT) of a person for a MCR design and have an understanding of the proper
implementation for that metric. The same is the case for SA. This tool alone is helpful for reviewers to have a more
comprehensive knowledge base to solicit clarification from applicants to meet safety standards. However, even more
useful is the GMC Decision Making Wizard, which is an expert system tool that utilizes expert knowledge of reviewers
and the GMC to provide recommendations about a metric chosen by an applicant. Both tools are easy to use and
require minimal training, but enable the reviewer to maintain an integral role in the final output distributed to an
applicant. The GMC and the GMC Decision Making Wizard will be discussed in more detail and demoed in
presentation. The application for such tools is not limited to the nuclear domain and could extend to that of unmanned
systems.
The next presentation was by Mr. Scott Sheff (HF Designworks, Inc, Boulder, CO), who spoke on “iWarrior, A Prototype Web-based Tool for Supporting Mission Planning and Awareness of the Battlespace.” As part of a Phase 2 DARPA SBIR, HF Designworks, together with subcontractor Alion Science and Technology developed a prototype web-based tool for supporting mission planning and awareness of the battle space. iWarrior offers map-based visualizations of geographic area and Soldier and vehicle tracks (developed by collecting historical GPS coordinates), and TiVo style animations of movement along those routes. In addition, iWarrior provides a set of capabilities for analyzing data regarding these routes. One set of capabilities, density and heat maps, allows users to see the relative traffic in geographic regions either through density “dots” or by converting GPS tracks into a “heat map” suitable for export into Google Earth. This is useful both for providing awareness of areas that have not been patrolled, as well as areas that have been heavily patrolled and may therefore be a more likely target for ambush. iWarrior provides statistical information on tracks, including frequency of travel through selected areas, and time to conduct past missions. iWarrior includes a Combat Power feature, so in addition to providing commanders with map-based information to help them plan a mission, iWarrior provides actual “mission readiness” data. Finally, iWarrior includes “pins,” or notes that users can place on the map to indicate specific geographic locations. Pins are used to identify enemy sightings, suspected or confirmed IEDs, and other tactical information.
The next presentation was by Mr. Ryan Meyer (Tier1 Performance Solutions) who spoke on “Human Factors
Analysis Support Tool (H-FAST).” This development grew from a NASA SBIR, Phase 2 project. Large-scale
systems engineering projects, such as those conducted at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), involve multiple teams
of engineers working in parallel. These projects typically include numerous human factors challenges, many of which
first become evident during the integration stage. To help solve this problem, TiER1 Performance Solutions and Alion
Science and Technology are developing H-FAST (Human Factors Analysis Support Tool). H-FAST is an on-going
research and development effort to provide inputs to engineers and program managers to help them identify and avoid
potential human factors problems early in the design process. It also will provide detailed guidance regarding human
factors evaluations, and it will store data and provide feedback on the results of these evaluations. Human factors
evaluations are essential in gathering human performance data and analyzing the usability of new design concepts.
These evaluations are generally carried out by human factors experts due to the level of expertise required. However,
in some cases, it would both save time and cost if a tool is available for non-human factors engineers to carry out a
standardized evaluation procedure to obtain the needed data and with comparable quality. H-FAST will improve the
engineering design process by providing engineers with easy access to detailed human factors methods, relevant
research, and subject matter expert contact information. This will empower engineers to create more usable systems,
thus reducing the number of design iterations and resulting in higher-quality products.
11
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
12
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
In this presentation, we describe the development strategy for H-FAST and how the tool will enable NASA engineers
to perform some relevant, formative human factors evaluations earlier in the design process. As part of the
development process, our team will create prototype versions of the tool and gather user feedback to improve the
design, and conduct a field study with a functioning prototype to determine the usefulness of the tool and how it
improves the human factors design process at NASA. This field study will be conducted on a real design project
where metrics can be collected to estimate the value of the tool for improving the design process. The schedule for
this project is as follows:
System Build: 2nd
-3rd
quarters of 2012
Field Evaluation: 4th quarter 2012
Final Report: 2nd
quarter 2013
The next presentation was by Shelly Scott-Nash (Angelia Seebok, Alion Science and Technology) who spoke on the
“MANPRINT Enterprise Tracker Organizer Tool (META).” META, developed for the Army MANPRINT G1 office
together with Alion Science and Technology, provides a comprehensive and integrated knowledge management and
analysis capability for the entire MANPRINT workforce and ultimately, acquisition system program managers and
other stakeholders. META, a web application, is a repository of both structured and unstructured data that provides
situational awareness of MANPRINT activities by program life cycle, acquisition type and PEO. User workflows
accommodate different type users which differing levels of data access and goals. User workflows can focus on
analysis, high level overview reports (SA), collaboration with other practitioners and/or the MANPRINT office such
as sharing points of contact, HSI issues and assessments. Recent META work is focused on improving the
MANPRINT impact analytics. These include weighted activity scores by program and life cycle phase. The META
team is currently exploring analytics concerning HSI issues.
The last presentation was by Mr. George Bearden (WPAFB, 711 HPW/RHCI) and Dr. Terry Stanard (WPAFB, 711
HPW HPW/RHCI) who spoke on “Low Fidelity Table Top Exercise to Collect Requirements for an RPA
Resource Allocation Assistant: Work in Progress.” This presentation was restricted to DOD employees and
DOD contractor personnel. The Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness and Air Vehicles Directorates
are collaborating on basic research (6.1) sponsored by AFOSR to construct an automated resource allocation
assistant for semi-autonomous remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). The resource allocation assistant will present options
to a human operator for assigning RPAs to tasks in a dynamic operational scenario while trying to ensure optimal
decisions are made. Ideally, the assistant will create resource allocation recommendations based on contextualized
understanding of the current situation and best expert practices. To fuel the expert model of the automated
assistant, we conducted a Cognitive Task Analysis with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) within a low-fidelity table-top
scenario. SMEs role-played an RPA operator and made decisions on assignment and employment of RPAs
providing surveillance and reconnaissance for a VIP security convoy. A large printed map presented possible VIP
routes of travel and the surrounding area, with plastic icons representing the RPAs, VIP vehicle, and other important
entities. SMEs were given an objective of escorting the VIP from point A to B, a set of standing reconnaissance and
surveillance tasks, task priorities, capability descriptions for four heterogeneous RPAs, and RPA engagement rules.
The scenario had six event stages culminating in an attempted attack on the VIP. During each event stage, SMEs
were presented with intelligence about ground activity, and RPA status updates. SMEs verbalized their thinking and
decisions on RPA assignments to standing and emerging tasks. Results gathered thus far through individual
sessions with SMEs have shown consistency in how RPA tasks are nominated, prioritized, and capabilities matched
to the task requirements. SMEs also showed consistency in how they employed RPAs to fulfill each task. When the
Cognitive Task Analysis is completed, an expert model reflecting the decision rules of SMEs will be embodied in
propositions based on linear temporal logic. The allocation assistant will then use these propositions to validate
operator decisions during mission planning and execution.
Unmanned Systems Interest Group: Special Session on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Selection,
Approaches, Training Technologies, and Interface Design. This session was chaired by Mr. A. J. Muralidhar
(Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA) and CDR Joseph Cohn (Office of Naval Research). Operator
interfaces for UAVs has moved from direct and physical to indirect and cognitive. Currently 50% of UAV mishaps
are directly attributable to human systems integration issues (primarily, HFE, selection, and training). A new Navy
program will be initiated in FY14 for $14-15 million to explore selection of UAV operators based on KSAs rather than
by designator. If aviators are not used, there is a potential savings of $400 million (flight training cost avoidance).
The first presenter was Ms. Jennifer Pagan (Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando) who
spoke on “Unmanned Aerial System Selection.” Lately, budgets have been lower and expectations have been
higher for UAS operations. There is a need to improve selection of UAS operators. Current procedures are not
standardized. Some platforms are operated by officers and some by enlisted personnel. There is no validated
selection tool (USAF has TBAS for manned aviation). Challenges include operation with reduced cues and pressure
to control multiple UAVs. Options include development of a new selection tool and modification of an existing tool
used for manned aviation selection. NAWC-TSD is investigating the ability to generalize the existing performance-
based measure (PBM) tool for application to UAV platforms. Starting with PBMs is smart because they are good
predictors of success. There is a large overlap between the Computer-based Performance Test (CBPT) and PBM.
PBM also overlaps with the USAF selection tool (TBAS). Starting with PBM should save about $ 5million over
creating a new tool. Some of the issues associated with UAS operations are:
Cue deprivation: Loss of SA as compared to flying manned aircraft
Resilience: Home to family less than an hour after controlling UAV
Vigilance: Much longer UAS missions than manned systems like F/A-18
The next presenter was Dr. John Stewart (US Army Research Institute, who spoke on “Perspectives on Army
Manned-Unmanned Teaming: The Changing Role of the Unmanned Aircraft System.” The emphasis in US
Army UAS operations is moving from ISR to Scout Reconnaissance (SR). UAS operators received minimal SR
training at the schoolhouse. SR missions require coordination and communications between UAS and manned
aircraft crews. All Army UAS operators are enlisted, E4-E6. ASVAB is a major selection tool (nothing specific to
aviation). A survey was conducted to explore the following questions:
1) What are present and future tactical capabilities for UAS? 2) What are most appropriate missions for manned and unmanned teaming (MUM-T)
The survey was conducted with 34 helicopter pilots (Warrant Officers and Commissioned Officers) and 31 UAS
operators (Enlisted grades E4-E6). The respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of UAS in SR missions
and identify what missions are appropriate to UAS or MUM-T. Manned aviators were pessimistic about expanded
mission roles for UAVs in the future. But UAS operators are 50-70% sure that UAS will take over additional mission
responsibilities.
The next presenter was Dr. Thomas Carretta (Air Force Research Laboratory, 711 HPW HPW/RHCI), who spoke on
“USAF Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Personnel Selection and Skills, Abilities and Other Characteristics
(SAOC) Review.” The demand for UAS operations is increasing and will continue. USAF has created RPA career
field (18X) and has established the Undergraduate Remote Piloted Vehicle (URT) training course. Current selection
methods are very similar to pilot selection methods:
Aviation Physical
AFOQT (similar to Navy PBM)
TBAS (Test of Basic Aviation Skills)
PCSM (Pilot Candidate Selection Method)
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
13
The HumRRO (Human Resources Research Organization) compiled a list of 10 skills, 25 abilities and 12 other
characteristics. SMEs boiled them down to a total of 22. In addition to these 22, work context factors were
identified via literature review. TAPAS (Tailored Adaptive Personality Assessment System), a web-based
assessment technology to measure normal personality, was also used. Recommendations for UAS operator
selection include:
Oral comprehension and expression
Working memory
Task prioritization, time-sharing and selective attention
Pattern recognition
Situation awareness
Critical thinking
Judgment, decision-making and teamwork
Person-environment (P-E) fit
Multi-tasking test (MTT)
Mental counters
Work interest test
Situation judgment test
The next speakers were Dr. Richard Arnold (Naval Medical Research Unit, WPAFB), Dr. Henry Williams (Naval
Medical Research Unit, WPAFB), and Dr. Dennis Vincenzi (Naval air Warfare Center-TSD), who spoke on
“Identification of Crew Task and Skill Requirements Across Multiple Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” A
survey was developed and then edited by SMEs. It consists of 256 task items with four dimension rating scales per
item [importance, learning difficulty, frequency and level of mastery], plus 67 rated KSAs. The focus was on the
following UAS (MAMS-D, Firescout, Shadow, Scan Eagle and RQ-7). The survey was administered between
March and June 2011 to subject matter experts (good inter-rater agreement). Importance ratings were high across
all tasks (at least 4 out of a possible 5). Frequency was judged as 2 to 5 (with ISR the highest). Key cross-platform
tasks included shipboard handling ISR, awareness of air traffic.
The next presenter was Dr. Nathan Schurr (Aptima, Inc.) who spoke on “Improving UAS Performance by
Understanding the Operator.” The entire technical-social system was looked at operator, ground station, UAS,
training, interfaces, mission environment and operator modeling. The LEAP (Learning Estimates of Aggregate
Performance) project at AFRL focused on operator error. A machine l earning approach was followed. Next, they
will explore integration with the Vigilant Spirit ground station and then move into flight test. An RPA game-based
training system will be developed at the Gaming Research for Integrated Learning Laboratory (GRILL).
The next presenter was Mr. Matthew Stand (WPAFB, 77 HPW), who spoke on “AFRL Unmanned Aerial
Systems Training Research Program.” The DOD will spend $26 billion over the next 12 years training operators
to fly and operate UAVs. Missions include persistent surveillance, communications relay (LOS and SATCOM),
munitions employment and specialized sensors (e.g., SAR, IR, etc.). There is a growing civilian interest from law
enforcement, homeland security, agricultural, cargo and transport. Some of the greatest needs include:
UAS National Airspace System Integration
Small UAV detection techniques
Sensor integration
Lightweight materials
Noise reduction
Some of the near and mid-term goals include autonomous operations, multiple UAV operations by one person,
more combat air patrols. A major challenge is the optimization of war-fighter training effectiveness. The 7llth HPW
is now working with operational and National Guard units to improve training.
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
14
Member Highlight
Helene, our Secretary-Treasurer has taken on a new hobby. This month of August marks her 14th month of her
involvement in Golf! She has created a Facebook page (Women’s Golf Initiatives) where you can follow her initiatives
as well as a blog (blog.newjerseyacademyofgolf.com).
Their mission: The Women's Golf Initiative has been formed to provide women golfers in the South Jersey area the
opportunity to pursue the sport in a friendly and supportive environment that fosters female camaraderie.
Do you have a hobby, business venture, volunteering initiative or anything at all that you would like to share with our
members? Send a note to our Newsletter Editor, Steve Merriman ([email protected]) and he will be sure to
showcase it in the next Newsletter! We would like to know what our Members are up to!
15
The next presenter was Dr. Wayne Chappelle (USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, WPAFB), who spoke on
“Psychological Testing of Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Pilots Predictive of Training Performance.” Dr.
Wayne Chappelle is the senior clinical consultant at USAF-SAM and researcher, emphasizing selection. USAF SAM
writes medical policy. Dr. Chappelle consults to the MAJCOMS, conducts training and research on, for example, what
cognitive and neuropsychological qualities are required for UAV pilots. Initial UAV pilots were rated pilots who were re-
tasked to be UAV pilots; they were rated pilots and UPT graduates….they felt like “losers.” So the USAF started
searching other sources, such as security, logistics and research, other flight personnel (like navigators) and putting
the candidates through rigorous screening. Later, the USAF expanded its sources to relatively inexperienced
personnel. Screening ends up being critical. A combination of AFOQT, MFS and prior flight hours (plus cognitive and
character traits such as adaptability and motivation) can identify 70% of failures and 89% of successes. Using these
selection tools, attrition has fallen to less than 10%. Prior to implementing these screening tools, attrition was 30-50%.
Dr. Chappelle continues to refine UAV pilot/operator screening methods. <<>>
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics International Meeting 2012
By: Helene A. Malik-Abraham
I had the pleasure of attending the AHFE in San Francisco this July. San Francisco is always one of my favorite cities to
visit. The conference was attended by over 1,500 participants and more than half of those participants were from outside
the US.
The key note address was delivered by Dr. Jim Spohrer of IBM. His presentation on service engineering was both
informative and thought provoking.
The conference was jam packed with interesting paper and poster session. I presented a poster based on a recently
completed project that I worked on. The systems that I work on are surface surveillance systems that are installed at
airports across the country. We developed a computer demonstration
We developed a computer demonstration to display images of illuminated light arrays by varying the number of illuminated
lights in a set of images to try and determine the minimum number of illuminated lights that would be required for
identification.
These images were displayed for a finite amount of time, and participants had to decide if they saw an illuminated light in
the array by pressing the space bar. The computer program was designed to collect user responses. Signal detection
theory was used to analyze the responses.
What we found was that a successful experiment using a demonstration model requires that participants fully understand
instructions in order for the results to be valid. Developing proper written and verbal instructions is as important as
developing a valid computer model.
The initial set of instructions we developed, had to be evaluated and modified through each execution of the model until a
valid set of instructions was obtained in order to successfully conduct the experiment.
A picture of the poster presentation is below. I also had a lap top with the program on a loop so that conference
participants could see the test that we developed. The conference proved to be informational. I had the opportunity to
meet a lot of different individuals from all over the world and to learn about some of the research they have conducted.
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
16
Grow your Technical Group. Sponsor a new member!
The growth of an organization does not happen on its own. It happens when we share about the organization’s vision, ideals and
values. Likewise, our SDTG need your support to continue its growth. Our Technical Group growth has been stagnant for the past
few years and this is a good time to help it growth. Think about those you come in contact with that are not a part of the SDTG, talk
to them about our TG and offer to sponsor their membership for one year (ONLY $5!!!). But do not stop there! Once you have
signed them up follow up with them. Ask if they are receiving the TG Newsletter – if not forward them our last edition. Ask if they
have any ideas they would like to share with the TG and to consider volunteering for the TG’s activities. Further, once you sign
someone up be sure they are in LinkedIn, make sure they join the LinkedIn forum and introduce them to the rest of the SDTG
community via LinkedIn – make them feel welcomed!
Got something to say?
If you have a job announcement or are looking for a job, need some ideas on something you may be working on or need to think
out loud…post it to the SDTG LinkedIn Forum (http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Systems-Development-TG-SDTGHFES-
1770218?trk=myg_ugrp_ovr)! Be sure to use our resources. There are people looking for job, needing to hire someone, waiting to
help someone with their projects or just join-in a conversation. If you need wider audiences contact your SDTG officers and they
will broadcast your questions/comments/announcements using the SDTG membership roster.
Upcoming Events
August 2012
August 2, Oakland, CA: 25th Annual Occupational Safety and Health Institute University of California Center for
Occupational and Environmental Health: Evidence-based Ergonomics in Computer Use: https://www.coehce.org/CourseStatus.awp?&course=12ERGO802.
August 19-22, Stockholm, Sweden: 44th Annual Conference of the Nordic Ergonomics and Human Factors Society:
http://www.nes2012.se.
August 27-30, Blacksburg, VA: Third International Symposium on Naturalistic Driving Research: http://www.vtti.vt.edu/vtti-
conferences.php.
October 2012 October 10-12, Pau, France: Materials and Sensations 2012: http://www.2psm.fr/ms2012/.
October 17-19, Portsmouth, New Hampshire: 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and
Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI'12): http://www.auto-ui.org.
November 2012
November 2-4, Arlington, Virginia: AAAI 2012: http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~mlewis/Swarms.htm.
November 5-6, Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Experiencing Light 2012: http://www.experiencinglight.nl.
November 22-23, Taupo: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of New Zealand Conference 2012 "Getting it Right - The role of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Sustainability: http://www.ergonomics.org.nz/conferencenzes2012.aspx.
January 2013 January 9-12, Naples, FL: American Association for Hand Surgery 2013 Annual Meeting:
http://meeting.handsurgery.org/. March 2013
March 11-13, 2013, Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel, Baltimore, MD: 2013 Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care: Advancing the Cause
July 2013
July 21-26, Las Vegas, NV: HCI International 2013: http://www.hcii2013.org/.
System Development Technical Group
August 2012
17
See you in Boston!!!