Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting 1883

History of Human Factors in US Navy Aircraft Cockpit Design: 1969-

2019
Stephen C. Merriman – SCMerriman Consulting LLC
Keith S. Karn, PhD – Human Factors in Context LLC

In order to preserve some important historical information and perspective, this paper
will present human factors engineering innovations and success stories in aircraft cockpit
design for the US Navy and US Marine Corps over the last 50 years. This is a story of
close collaboration between human factors professionals serving as active duty military,
civilian government employees, and contractors. We focus on what was accomplished
and how advanced technologies and processes were transitioned from laboratory to the
fleet through systems acquisition. Timely transition of user interface technologies was
critical to many of these successes. Impacts of these technology transitions are
highlighted. We will demonstrate how a combination of organization, staffing, and risk
tolerance allowed the US Navy to efficiently transition advanced crew station and other
technologies successfully to military aircraft.

PURPOSE span a combination of organization, staffing, and risk

This paper and the corresponding conference
presentation were prepared in order to highlight and
preserve information for historical purposes. Many of
the people who worked in US Naval aviation during this
time period have subsequently retired; others have
passed away. The goal of this project was to recognize
and preserve the important contributions of these human
factors professionals to US Navy and USMC aircraft.
METHODS
Copyright 2019 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1071181319631405
tolerance topics.
Sampling of US Navy/Marine Corps Successes:
Here is a small sample of achievements during this time
period, in which human factors professionals played
important roles.
• Helmet-mounted Sight (HMS)
• “Shoot” light for Air-to-Air missile launches
• Head-up Display as primary flight display (PFD)
• Integrated “Glass Cockpit”
• Hands-on-Throttle-and-Stick (HOTAS)

• Computer-based cockpit accommodation models

We conducted a series of individual, in-depth
interviews--in person, via email and telephone—and
recorded personal recollections of human factors
professionals who were directly involved in these
projects. The study covered a time period of
approximately 50 years-from 1969 to the present time.
Contributions came from human factors professionals
who served as active duty military human factors
professionals including pilots and Navy Aerospace
Experimental Psychologists (AEP), civil servants
working for the US Navy, and contractors - employees
of the companies responsible for designing and building
the aircraft.
KEY FINDINGS
We believe that advances in key areas allowed the US
Navy to rapidly transition advanced technologies
successfully from the laboratory to aircraft cockpits
many years before other defense services. These areas
• Bi-variate/multi-variate accommodation approaches
• Aircrew Systems Advisory Panels (ASAP)
• HFE Data Item Descriptions (DIDs)
• Design-for-Maintainer (DFM) guidelines
• ANVIS A/B Night Vision system specification
• High Priority Operations (HPO) Analysis
These and related success stories are discussed in more
detail below.
Requirements Specification Development
During this time period, there were major advances in
the specification of aircraft design requirements and
functional testing methods. Some of the most productive
gains provided by the human factors community revolve
around developing better system requirements and better
ways to test compliance with those requirements.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting
Our concerns included specifying and testing
performance in areas such as:
• Control operability for the target anthropometric
population
• Required external field of view in different flight
regimes
• Cockpit lighting
• Escape methods and clearances
• Expanding the eye position locus from which pilots
can view head-up displays.
Physical Accommodation of Aircrew
Increasing the range of physical sizes of aircrew
members that can be accommodated in a cockpit or crew
station will always be an important aspect of aviation
human factors. The US Navy human factors
professionals addressed this through a three-pronged
approach: specifications, digital human modeling, and
physical assessment.
Digital Modeling of the Human Form. One of
the most important techniques used to increase physical
accommodation was the development of models of
human anthropometry. In the mid-1960s, The Boeing
Company (under US Navy contract) developed “BOE-
MAN,” a mainframe computer-based human modeling
program. In the 1970s, the Navy and Boeing developed
the “Crew station Assessment of Reach (CAR) program.
CAR was a crew station accommodation program based
on a simplified BOE-MAN model that was hosted on a
PDP-11 computer (accessible to many more users). The
CAR program, combined with advances in bi-variate and
multi-variate anthropometry methods, transformed the
process of accommodating specific user populations
(e.g., Navy aviators and flight officers) in aircraft
cockpits. It provided the ability to dramatically increase
the percentage of populations that could be
accommodated. Wolf-Ulrich J. Hebenstreit (Boeing) led
most of these research and development programs. Paul
R. Chatelier (CAPT, USN, Ret) oversaw these efforts for
the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR).
Improved Specification of Cockpit Geometry.
MIL-STD-1333, Aircrew Station Geometry for Military
Aircraft, provided improved anthropometric design
guidance to the contractors, and established objective
test criteria for compliance (MIL-STD-1333, 1996). A
more current anthropometry database and improved
anthropometric measurement techniques were developed
to minimize measurement ambiguity. This included tri-
1884
service participation in evolving technologies, like
surface laser digitization.
It proved difficult, however, to remove some well-
established but flawed methods. If the cockpit
incorporates an ejection seat that can move only along a
single axis (up and aft or down and forward), short and
tall individuals cannot achieve the same eye position but
will be displaced in the horizontal plane by four to six
inches. This makes a difference to the cockpit design
engineer trying to accommodate a wide range of sizes.
Better Testing Methods. On the testing and
evaluation side, human factors professionals at the Naval
Air Test Center (NATC), Patuxent River, MD developed
the Field of View Evaluation Apparatus (FOVEA) to
measure and document external field of view from the
pilot’s perspective (Gary Loikith and Art Weaver) and
“Stick-man” for measuring functional reach to critical
flight controls (Carole Bohn and Keith Karn).
Furthermore, the Navy implemented and encouraged the
use of data about pilot eye position that was empirically
derived by measuring the actual locus of eye points
using representative human subjects. Such measurement
techniques could be used to compare results from
different seat types or even on the basis of differences in
cushion configurations.
The human factors community was able to increase the
range of physical sizes of aviators accommodated by this
combination of digital modeling of the human form,
improved ways of specifying cockpit geometry, and
developing realistic testing methods to assure that
requirements were met and that the systems were
operationally suitable.
End-User Feedback
Recognizing the importance of operational experience
and face validity from the operator's perspective was
also a factor in Navy advances. In the mid-1970s, end-
user groups were established to obtain timely feedback
on aircrew interfaces and workload as early in the
acquisition cycle as possible and to continue these
evaluations periodically throughout the system
development cycle. These were referred to as Aircrew
Systems Advisory Panels (ASAPs) and Maintainer
Advisory Panels (MAPs) and a NAVAIR instruction
was later authored to ensure that these groups became a
normal part of the aircraft acquisition process
(NAVAIRINST 5420.38, 1989). Steve Merriman (with
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting
NAVAIR) chaired the initial ASAP meetings, with Dr.
Lloyd Hitchcock from the Naval Air Development
Center serving as advisor and Richard Walchli from the
Naval Air Test Center, serving as ASAP Coordinator.
Jim Lucas, Tom Morgenfeld, Sandy Coward, John
Leslie, Dave Hoffman, and John Padgett were the initial
(outstanding) F/A-18 ASAP pilot members.
Aircraft Display Symbology.
The MIL-STD-1787 display standard was used as a
framework to develop improved human-machine
interface characteristics for head-up displays (HUDs)
and helmet-mounted displays (HMDs). The human
factors inputs came from a variety of organizations
specializing in research, development, test and
evaluation (RDT&E).
Efforts to update MIL-STD-1787 were approved by tri-
service participants, and resulted in dramatic advances in
the guidelines for symbol sets and their on-screen
behaviors (MIL-STD-1787, 2001). Highly veridical
simulations, many under the Tri-Star program at NASA
Ames with fleet pilots, provided robust data, and an
examination of the F-22 HUD will reveal that most of
the group’s recommendations were incorporated.
The Navy employed ASAP groups of experienced US
Navy and Marine aviators to periodically assess cockpit
display and control concepts by “flying” simulated
missions and providing feedback. Such iterative design
and evaluation cycles focused on display symbology
could be conducted in low-fidelity simulation in the
course of hours or in high-fidelity simulators over the
course of days. Rapid design and testing provided
opportunities for rich collaboration between the
government representatives (active duty military and
civilians in both development and testing roles) and
contractors in design roles. Such collaboration was
common throughout research, engineering design,
development, test, and evaluation.
Display & Control Technology
In the late 1960s, the US Navy and McDonnell Aircraft
Company incorporated a helmet-mounted sight (HMS)
system into the Block 45 F-4J fighter aircraft known as
the Visual Target Acquisition System (VTAS), built by
Honeywell, Inc. VTAS was used to aim air-to-air
missiles such as the AIM-7 “Sparrow” and AIM-9
“Sidewinder” in an off-bore-sight mode (i.e., with the
firing aircraft not pointing at the target). A “shoot” light
was also used to cue the pilot when missile launch
1885
parameters were satisfied. Julian P. Moore and Ed
Rosenmayer (McDonnell Aircraft Company) contributed
substantially to the VTAS design.
In the early 1970s, breakthrough research led by the
Office of Naval Research, Joint Army Navy Aircraft
Instrumentation Research (JANAIR) program headed by
Lt. CDR, Frank Cundari and Lt. CDR Hylan B. Lyon
identified advanced cockpit technologies that were
quickly and effectively transitioned to the F/A-18 Hornet
and AV-8B Harrier aircraft at that time and subsequently
into other tactical aircraft in the form of a “glass
cockpit,” incorporating multi-purpose displays rather
than round dial instruments (Hitchcock, et al, 1982,
Merriman, et al, 1984). Organization, staffing and risk
tolerance were all critical to making this successful. The
F/A-18 aircraft was one of the first Navy/USMC aircraft
to use the HUD as a primary flight display. The F/A-18
also employed electronic map displays (the precursor to
modern GPS maps on civilian mobile phones) and the
hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) concept for the
first time. The HOTAS concept located all of the
controls necessary for combat on the throttle and stick,
thereby allowing the pilot to stay focused on the target’
it also facilitated expansion of the mission to include air-
to-ground navigation and weapons delivery.
In parallel, the Navy anti-submarine warfare group
updated the navigator/communicator station on the P-3C
airplane with large plasma, touch-screen displays - an
amazing new technology at that time. Adding new
communication and navigation systems, each with its
own display and control head, literally required crew
members to unbuckle their restraint systems in order to
reach controls added to the top of the rack. The concept
was to replace control heads with multi-function, menu-
driven touch screens (Vollman, et al, 1982).
In the late 1980s, the Navy’s Advanced Technology
Crew Station program assessed emergent cockpit
technologies and made investment recommendations to
NAVAIR (Snyder, et al, 1994). Steve Merriman led the
McDonnell-Douglas ATCS team and Dr. Rich Edwards
led the Boeing ATCS team. Dr. Norm Warner and Joe
Notaro led the NAVAIR team.
Cockpit Lighting
Recognizing that the pilot’s unaided vision was no
longer the ultimate target detection system, cockpit
lighting changed from red to unfiltered white in the early
1980s, beginning with the F/A-18. This change also led
to other benefits such as an increased capability for
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting
color-coding of indicators, etc. During this time, high
fidelity mockups of cockpit lighting systems became a
requirement for new aircraft. Such mockups would
undergo both pilot evaluation and careful lighting
measurements to ensure reflections in the canopy were
minimized, all controls and displays were uniformly lit
throughout their adjustment range, and later—to ensure
night vision goggle compatibility. Also in the early
1980s, the Naval Air Development Center established a
night vision lighting laboratory where the first ANVIS
A/B Night Vision system specification was developed.
Physiology for Escape & Life Support
Developments in the area of human physiological
response to acceleration (particularly G-induced loss of
consciousness, “G-LOC”) and aircrew survival in flight
and before, during, and after a crash were also
substantial during this period.
Acceleration and G-LOC recognition and prevention
included centrifuge training methods, improved anti-G
equipment improvements, more effective training
methods, loss-of-consciousness detection technology,
and anti-g straining techniques.
An outstanding example of this work is the 1984 work at
the Naval Air Development Center (Warminster, PA)
using the human centrifuge/dynamic flight simulator to
develop effective flat spin recovery procedures for the F-
14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. Richard J. (Dick) Crosbie
(who passed away in March 2019) and Jack Eyth served
as program engineers.
Other significant developments to enhance human
physiological tolerance and enhance aircrew members’
survival included:
• Form-fit helmets with better retention and energy
absorption.
• Steerable parachutes in ejection seats—a passion of
Harvey Gregoire.
• Water activated parachute divestment known as
“SEAWARS.”
• Night vision and synthetic vision RDT&E,
especially in regard to the limitations of their safe
and effective use.
• On-board oxygen generating systems (known as
“OBOGS” – pioneered by Don Harris and Gary
Loikith).
• Zero-zero ejection seats (so called because an
aircrew member could survive an ejection at zero
feet of elevation and with zero airspeed—
1886
championed by Gerry Stark, Barry Shope, and Jim
Martin).
• Energy-absorbing seats and structural crush zones
for helicopters.
• Effective laser eye protection and chemical agent
defense
Intensive human factors participation in the design and
development of these and other systems helped to
maintain human and war-fighting capabilities that are
still critical today.
Navy Organizational Strategy
In our opinion, one of the most influential factors in
rapid technology transfer is related to how NAVAIR
assigned duties to the people responsible for authoring
aircraft requirements and overseeing aircraft
development programs. Part of their duties required
them to monitor progress with exploratory and advanced
human factors and cockpit technology research and
development programs. Armed with intimate and timely
knowledge of emergent technologies, these program
managers were in a position to quickly select and
incorporate new technologies and features into aircraft
requirements. These personnel were responsible for
both human factors engineering and crew station design.
The other military services tended to segregate
research/development and acquisition functions into
separate organizations. Additionally, they tend to
segregate crew station design engineering and human
factors. The Navy’s approach greatly facilitated timely
technology transition.
Improved Maintainability
In the mid-1970s, NAVAIR developed (on contract with
McDonnell Aircraft Company) “design for maintainer”
(DFM) guidelines that were first applied to the F/A-18
aircraft. Implementation of these guidelines reduced
mean-time-to-repair and increased aircraft operational
availability relative to previous aircraft. Compared to the
F-14A Tomcat, the number of maintenance man-hours
per flight hour for the F/A-18 was reduced by about
80%, saving countless maintenance hours and dollars
over the more than 35 years that the F/A-18 has been in
service. This guideline is currently being updated for
issuance of an industry standard. These enhanced DFM
techniques were later applied to the AV-8B Harrier and
many other aircraft. Ed Kane and Daniel Baerthel
(McDonnell Aircraft Company) contributed heavily to
development of this guideline. Dale Mahar, from the
Navy’s Pacific Missile Test Center, served as a Navy
maintenance subject matter expert.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting
Deliverable Data Items (DID)
In the late 1970s, Steve Merriman (NAVAIR) led a tri-
service team to create new Department of Defense
(DoD) Data Item Descriptions (DID) for ten new human
factors plans, technical reports and progress reports.
William Moroney (CAPT, USN, Ret.) and John Miles
(Army Research Institute) contributed substantially to
authoring these new requirements.
The DIDs have been cited extensively in Army, Navy
and Air Force systems acquisition contracts over the past
40+ years. They have provided DoD customers
(procuring agencies) with enhanced information
regarding the implementation of human factors
principles and design criteria. These DIDs provided
better visibility into the effectiveness of human factors
programs. They also highlighted human factors issues
and risks in time for the service to define and implement
effective corrective actions. The DIDs have been
updated over the past 10 years to reflect the expanded
role of software-based user interfaces in new systems.
Focus on Mission- and Time-Critical Tasks
In the mid-1990s, the Navy accepted High Priority
Operations (HPO) analysis in lieu of Critical Task
Analysis (normally imposed by MIL-STD-46855A,
2011) on two high priority acquisition programs that
were contracted to the Boeing Company. HPO analysis
focuses increased human factors attention on mission-
critical and time-critical operations. Customer end-users
(current Navy aircrew) were employed to validate the
list of HPOs. The employment of HPO analysis ensured
that selected operations could be accomplished with an
enforced minimum number of user interactions. HPO
analysis has proven to be extremely effective in
increasing operational suitability ratings. Steve
Merriman and Christian Rossi were instrumental in
developing and effectively implementing this improved
approach to “critical task analysis.”
Current Direction
More recently, efforts have focused on refining the
human factors engineering processes to more closely fit
into the system acquisition guidance and to achieve
timely/effective impact on the graphical user interface of
all the new glass cockpits and unmanned aerial vehicle
control stations. Navy human factors professionals also
continue to rely on cockpit mockups and hardware
prototyping to improve crashworthiness, flight
equipment integration, lighting, and design for
1887
maintainability. As with many human factors roles, the
challenge is often convincing program managers that
human factors engineering is a distinct and legitimate
discipline that provides real value and is in the best
position to lead the design process
SUMMARY
Over the past 50 years, the US Navy implemented agile
processes, organizational strategies, and advanced
technologies that have resulted in the rapid incorporation
of improved human interfaces. These advancements
have significantly improved the operational suitability of
US Navy and US Marine Corps aircraft.
REFERENCES
Hitchcock, L., Merriman, S., Moore, J. and Field, P., F-18 Human
Engineering Program - A Retrospective View, in Proceedings of the
Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting, 25-29 October 1982.
Merriman, S. and Moore, J., The F-18 - A New Era for Human
Factors, in NATO AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 371, Human
Factors Considerations in High Performance Aircraft, 30 April-2
May 1984.
Military Standard 1333B, Aircrew Station Geometry for Military
Aircraft, May 1996.
Military Standard 1787C, Aircraft Display Symbology, January 2001.
Military Standard 46855A, Human Engineering Requirements for
Military Systems, Equipment, and Facilities, May 2011.
Naval Air Systems Command Instruction 5420.38, Aircrew Systems
Advisory Panels and Maintainer Advisory Panels in Aeronautical
Systems, AIR-5313, 10 August 1989.
Snyder, D.M, Winkler, E.R, Scholes, M.P, Merriman, S.C, Advanced
Technology Crew Station (ATCS) Program McDonnell Douglas
Initiatives, Proceedings of the Annual Symposium-SAFE
Association, 31, 122-126, 31st Annual Symposium, 1994.
Vollman, T., Bohn, C. & Karn, K., A human factors based crew
station simulation. Proceedings of the Conference on Simulation for
Aircraft Test and Evaluation. 132. Patuxent River, MD, 1982.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many of our peers provided helpful inputs to this article.
We gratefully acknowledge Dick Walchli, Bill Moroney,
Christopher Arbak, Robert “Hawkeye” Hughes, Barry
Shope, Mike Fineberg, and Bob Portillo. We also
acknowledge the work of many other human factors
professionals who contributed to the success of US Navy
and Marine aviation over the past 50 years. A special
call-out goes to F/A-18 program leaders “Corky”
Lennox, John Lockhard and Bill Bowes for their
tremendous support.