icii i - defense technical information center · ins titute report no. 445 d i s electe ......

| ! I Icii i i

INS TITUTE REPORT NO. 445 D IS ELECTE

MAY0 9 1990 LField Evaluation of Laser Protective-Eyewear

(G. Mastrolanni,Nj JD. Gunzenhauser,DA Stamper,K. Knudson

andBE. Stuck

Division of Ocular Hazards Research

L.D--,rU3'f0N IATMENT AiApproved for public r.1eas(Il

January 1990

LETTERMAN ARMY INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94129

90 05 08 144

Field Evaluation of Laser Protective Eyewear, G.R. Mastroianni, J.D. Gunzenhauser, D.A. Stamper, K.Knudson and B. E. Stuck

Reproduction of this document in whole or in part is prohibited except with the permissionof the Commander, Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco,California 94129. However, the Defense Technical Information Center is authorized toreproduce the document for United States Government purposes.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return to the originator.

Citation of trade names in this report does not constitute an official endorsement or approvalof the use of such items.

Human Subjects participated in these studies after giving their free and informed voluntaryconsent. Investigators adhered to AR 70.25 and USAMRDC Reg 50-25 on the use ofvolunteers in research.

This material has been reviewed by Letterman Army Institute of Research andthere is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions orassertions contained herein are the private views of the author(s) and are not tobe construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Department of theArmy or the Department of Defense. (AR 360-5)

DONALD G. (date)COL, MC

Commanding

This document has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution is unlimited.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-O018

Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSUNCLASSIFIED UNCLASS I FI ED

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORIT"' 3 DISTRIBUTIONIAVAILABILITY OF REPORT

2b. DECLASSIFICATIONi DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE Unlimited distribution

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

INSTITUTE REPORT NO. 445

6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 60. OF;ICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

Letterman Army Institute of (If applicable) US Army Medical Research and

Research I SGRD-ULE-OH Development Command

6r- ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)Letterman Army Institute of ResearchDivision of Ocular Hazards Frederick, MD 21701-5012Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129-6800

Ba. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PRC:UREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (If applicable)

8c. ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITELEMENT NO, NO. NO. ACCESSION NO.

61102A BSIO SI0/CF11. TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Field Evaluation of Laser Protective Eyewear

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)George R. Mastroianni, J D Gunzenhauser, D A Stamper, K Knudson And Bruce E. Stuck

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Yedr,Month,Day) 15. PAGE COUNTLaboratory Report FROM June 89O Aug 89 89, October 60

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Protection, Training, Laser, Vision, Performance.

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)

" A group of seventy soldiers at the National Training Center wereissued Ballistic and Laser Protective Spectacles (B-LPS). The soldiers weresurveyed after 90 days of B-LPS use, and again after 180 days. A pencil andpaper inventory addressing durability, compatibility, and acceptability wasadministered at both 90 and 180 days; in addition, a photographic analysisof fit was performed at the 90 day point. Results indicated good overallacceptability and excellent durability. Problem areas were identified assusceptibility to abrasion from dust, lack of protection against blowingdust, and incompatibility with the PASGT and CVC helmets. Recommendationsfor design changes are suggested. - . .

I- .o

20 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION[' UNCASSiFEDUNLIMITED E SAME AS RPT D DiC USErS UNCLASSIFIED

22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLDonald G. Corby, COL, MC (415) 561-6300 SGRD-ULE-Z

DO Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

ABSTRACT

A group of seventy soldiers at the National Training Centerwere issued Ballistic and Laser Protective Spectacles (B-LPS).The soldiers were surveyed after 90 days of B-LPS use, and againafter 180 days. A pencil and paper inventory addressing durabil-ity, compatibility, and acceptability was administered at both 90and 180 days; in addition, a photographic analysis of fit wasperformed after 90 days. Results indicated good overall accept-ability and excellent durability. Problem areas were identifiedas susceptibility to abrasion from dust, lack of protectionagainst blowing dust, and incompatibility with the PASGT and CVChelmets. Recommendations for design changes are suggested.

Accesion For

NTIS CRA&I

DrIC TAB 0

UcannotincedJustification

By

Distribution /Avadability Codes

Avail and/orDist Special

A-I

Mastroianni et al -- I

Field Evaluation of Laser Protective Eyewear

George R. Mastroianni, Jeffrey D. Gunzenhauser, DavidA. Stamper, Kathryn H.M. Knudson, and Bruce E. Stuck

Widespread recognition of the need for individualprotection against the threat of injury from battle-field laser weapons has stimulated considerable re-search and development effort in both government andindustry. The unprotected eye is most vulnerable tothe threat from existing systems. Both visible andnear-infrared lasers are capable of producing injuriesof varying severity, including temporary changes invisual acuity and permanent blindness Infrared laserscan produce painful and debilitating burns.

Research effort has been devoted to developingfilters which can be placed in the optical train ofsighting systems or worn as spectacles. Such filtersare designed to diminish the incident laser energy tosafe levels under specified exposure conditions.

Any filter represents a compromise between reject-ing enough incident light to ensure safety, but passingenough to allow adequate vision and performance. Whileresearch is underway to develop an "ideal" filter,current technology is embodied in a system which hasbeen fielded to serve as an interim solution to theproblem of providing individual laser protection. Thissystem, known as the Ballistic and Laser ProtectiveSpectacles (B-LPS), consists of a toroidal polycarbon-ate eyewrap designed to provide protection against theimpact of small projectiles. Issued in both clear andsunglass versions, the kit also includes a laser pro-tective frontsert. A full description of the B-LPSsystem can be found at Appendix A.

By early 1990, more than 100,000 sets of B-LPS will have been issued to soldiers. Systematictesting of production samples has established tiat theB-LPS meet required standards of impact resistance andoptical quality. As the B-LPS transition from a devel-opmental to an operational system, our research inter-est shifts from the basic physical characteristics ofthe device to the more complex interaction between userand system. Accordingly, we conducted a field

2 -- Hastroianni et al

evaluation of B-LPS use among some 70 soldiers assignedto the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin.

The aspects of user-system interaction that are ofgreatest importance when evaluating spectacles aredurability, compatibility, and acceptability. Durabili-ty is simply the capacity of the B-LPS to resist thedebilitating effects of normal wear and tear. Bothenvironmental (sun, dust, moisture) and user-related(cleaning method, frequency of use, care in opening andclosing temples) factors may affect our assessment ofdurability.

Compatibility refers to the interoperability ofthe B-LPS with the many other items of equipment(helmets, small arms, binoculars) and components oflarger systems such as tank sights, aircraft gauges, orcontrol knobs that soldiers are required to use.

We think of acceptability as the enthusiasm sol-diers have for using a certain item. Use is one indi-cation of acceptability, but is also influenced bycommand pressure, availability and permissibility ofsubstitutes, and the soldier's perception of the needfor an item. While acceptability is difficult todefine and measure, questioning soldiers about theirattitudes toward an item often produces insights unob-tainable any other way. Moreover, it stimulates sol-diers to take an active interest in the equipment withwhich they are expected to be proficient.

METHOD

B-LPS were issued to more than a hundredobserver/controllers at the National Training Center atFt. Irwin, California. Key personnel (team leaders,first line supervisors) were given a class on thefitting, care and use of the B-LPS by one of the au-thors. Command guidance for the unit was that eitherthe B-LPS or one of two other forms of eye protectionmust be worn when operating or riding in tacticalvehicles; when downrange during active laser use, laserprotection (B-LPS) was required. The other forms ofacceptable eye protection were commercially availableindustrial safety goggles available locally.

Mastroianni et al -- 3

After issuing the B-LPS, we had no contact withthe soldiers until approximately 90 days later, when weconducted a comprehensive data collection effort.There were two methods of data collection: a question-naire/interview procedure and a photographic record.

The questionnaire/interview procedure was designedto elicit demographic information, use history, andsubjective evaluation of the B-LPS. Durability, com-patibility, and acceptability were specifically ad-dressed. The questionnaire completed by the soldiersis reproduced at Appendix B. After reporting to thedata collection site, soldiers were asked to sit downand complete the questionnaire. Procedural questionsfrom the soldiers were answered by one of the authors.Upon completion of the questionnaire, one of the teammembers interviewed the soldiers individually. Theinterview was used to solicit additional informationabout questionnaire responses. For example, if asoldier reported discomfort from wearing the B-LPS, theinterviewer attempted to obtain more details about thenature, duration, and possible etiology of the discom-fort. Some new information was also collected duringthe interview: whether or not nosepads and retainingstraps were being used, the compatibility of B-LPS withhelmets, and an overall assessment of the item.

A professional medical photographer photographi-cally recorded the fit of the B-LPS by taking a frontaland lateral photograph of each soldier wearing his B-LPS. After digitizing landmarks on the photographs, acomplex geometric analysis was performed to estimateeye position with respect to the design position. Afull description of the method and the positionalvariability analysis can be found in Gunzenhauser andMastroianni, 1989. (Due to the lengthy and technicalnature of this analysis, a separate institute reportwas devoted to it).

RESULTS

The demographic composition of the sample ispresented in Table I. The soldiers comprising thesample were predominantly young armored vehicle crew-men. Table II contains a summary of the respondents'estimates of the amount and adequacy of B-LPS trainingreceived. The estimate corresponds generally to the

4 -- Hastroianni et al

training provided by the author when the B-LPS wereissued. It is apparent from these data and from con-versations with the soldiers that when unfamiliar itemssuch as these are issued, members of the receiving unitare not likely to take it upon themselves to conductextensive training on these items.

Table III lists the soldiers' estimates of theamount of time they actually wore their B-LPS duringthe 90 days of the study. There was considerablevariation across members of the unit in B-LPS use,since B-LPS use was largely self-determined. Somemembers never wore them, while others wore them allday, every day while in the field. The self-reportspresented here can only be considered a crude estimateof the use history associated with the B-LPS, since nodaily records were maintained by the soldiers; theestimates were made only after the fact.

DURABILITY

Table IV contains the responses to the itemsconcerning durability of the B-LPS. The B-LPS provedto be remarkably resistant to breakage; only fiveinstances of actual breakage were documented. Two ofthe five breaks involved cracks in the laser frontsert,two involved the temple and one involved a nosepiece.Lack of reliable data precludes an accurate estimate ofthe ratio of breaks to person-hours of use.

While breakage did not prove to be a problem withthe B-LPS, the harsh desert environment caused asignificant problem for the B-LPS: abrasion. Bothwind-blown sand and debris and dust on the spectaclesduring cleaning apparently contributed to the degrada-tion of the lens surfaces. More than two-thirds of theusers reported significant scratching of the B-LPS,though relatively few noted any change in visibilityover time. Inspection of the B-LPS used in the testconfirmed that they are indeed highly susceptible toscratching. We recovered several sets and subjectedthem to laboratory analysis to document the physicaldeterioration observed. In genezal, laser protectionwas not compromised by the scratched frontserts. Anoverall decrease in transmission was noted in some ofthe highly scratched items we recovered, however,indicating a potential for degradation of visual per-


formance, particularly under low light levels. Detailsof these measurements can be found in Appendix C.

No measures of visual performance were made withthe soldiers at NTC; however, we measured visual acuityand contrast sensitivity in our laboratory usingscratched and unscratched B-LPS. We found no effectson Snellen acuity, but we did observe a slight loss ofcontrast sensitivity at the highest spatial frequen-cies. This degradation might have an impact on visualperformance requiring the perception of fine detail,but such an assessment would require further evalua-tion. A summary of the analysis can be found at Appen-dix D.

Several samples of scratched B-LPS were alsoexamined for the presence of haze. Haze levels weresignificantly higher in scratched samples than in newB-LPS. While subjective reports of visual disturbancewere not common among the troops, the presence ofmeasurable differences in haze emphasizes the need forcontinued monitoring and analysis of such eyewearsystems as they come into wider use. The analysis issummarized in Appendix E.

In addition to the scratching caused by the envi-ronment, two features of the B-LPS construction alsocaused scratching. Most soldiers used the tubularelastic retention strap provided with the B-LPS. Whenthis retention strap is not installed, the tips of thebows rub against the inside surface of the eyewrap,causing a small area of abrasion. These spots aretypically located fairly near the design eye position.

Another problem relating to the B-LPS con-struction is the scratching caused by the rim of thelens carrier (prescription insert) on the inner surfaceof the eyewrap. Since the scratching occurs outsidethe normal field of view, this problem is less seriousthan the temple-bow scratching.

A final source of scratches appears to have beenthe tight fit between the cases issued with the B-LPSand the eyewrap themselves. Sliding dusty B-LPS intodusty cases caused scratches in the upper nasal quad-rant of each side of the eyewrap. Some soldiers recog-nized this problem and attempted to correct it by

6 -- Nastroianni et al

wrapping the B-LPS in rags before placing the eyewrapin the case.

An improved carrying case was issued to thesoldiers at NTC after 90 days of B-LPS use. The origi-nal case was a soft plastic case providing a somewhatsnug fit for the B-LPS and retention strap. While nosystematic attempt was made to document use of thekinds of cases, comments were solicited from users atthe 180-day data collection (after 90 days of use). Thenew carrying case, of rigid plastic construction, wasgenerally considered superior to the older, soft-plas-tic version. Most soldiers seemed to think that thenew case was a better fit for the B-LPS, and that thenew case lessened the deleterious effects of the dustyenvironment. Another advantage of the new case is thatit provides better protection against accidentalcrushing or impact damage when the spectacles arestored.

COMPATIBILITY

Table V contains the results of the questionnaireitems pertaining to compatibility. Our ability to makegeneralizations based on the information we collectedis limited by the variety of systems used in conjunc-tion with the B-LPS. The systems used included theHMMWV, the M-551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance Vehi-cle, the CUCV, the M-881 Recovery Vehicle and variousitems of individual equipment such as the PASGT (Kev-lar) helmet, the Combat Vehicle Crewman (CVC) helmet,and unit level communications and visual surveillanceequipment.

There were few reports of visual function impair-ment sufficient to impede the accomplishment of anytasks with the B-LPS. Of such reports, most related tothe scratching of the B-LPS or the failure of the B-LPSto protect the eyes against dust. Readability of dialsand gauges was not compromised by the B-LPS. Problemswere reported in two important areas: the use of opti-cal devices such as binoculars or vehicle sights, andwear of both the PASGT and CVC helmets.

The shape of the B-LPS eyewrap causes a considera-ble axial distance between the eyes and the frontsurface of the eyewrap. (The average distance appears

Nastroianni et al -- 7

to be approximately 2 cm.) This distance adds to eyerelief from optical devices, resulting in both restric-tion of the field of view and discomfort from thenosepieces pressing on the bridge of the nose. Thereduction in field of view caused by the B-LPS has beendocumented for one system (the TOW) in a separatereport. (See Campbell and Mastroianni, 1989)

This axial distance also contributes to the com-patibility problems observed with the PASGT helmet.For some soldiers, the visor of the helmet makes con-tact with the upper edge of the eyewrap as the headmoves or is jostled by vehicle movemlent, causing painas the B-LPS are driven down on the bridge of the nose.

The problems reported by some soldiers using theCVC helmet are caused by a different mechanism. Inthis case, the temple bows of the B-LPS are compressedby the CVC earcups. This leads to discomfort as thebows are pressed against the side of the head, and alsoprevents the earcup from making a good seal against thehead, thereby compromising effective hearing protec-tion.

ACCEPTABILITY

Soldier acceptability of the B-LPS was quitevariable; some liked them very much, while othersdetested them. Very few comments relating to theesthetic aspects of the design were made; either theappearance is not of importance to the soldiers, or theappearance was acceptable enough to elicit no comments.Table VI lists the responses to acceptability ques-tions. One common complaint about the B-LPS was thatin neither the sunglass version nor the laser frontsertis the tint dark enough for use in the bright desertenvironment. Some soldiers even reported wearing thelaser frontsert over the sunglass version to gainadditional sun protection.

Perhaps the most common complaint that soldiershad about the overall acceptability of the B-LPS wasthat they failed to provide any protection against theblowing sand and dust. Because of the long axialdistance, there is considerable opportunity for dust toblow in around the sides of the eyewrap. This charac-teristic was perhaps the most serious defect of the B-

8 -- Mastroianni et al

LPS in the eyes of those soldiers who were dissatisfiedwith the system.

Table VII lists the results of several ratingscales the soldiers were asked to complete giving theirevaluation of several general features of the B-LPS,such as clarity, visibility, glare and the like. Ascan be seen, these ratings were extremely positive.

Our observations seem to indicate good acceptabil-ity of the B-LPS in terms of appearance andoptical/visual characteristics. In the environmentalconditions prevailing at Ft. Irwin, however, the lackof dust protection significantly diminished the en-thusiasm of a majority of the interviewed soldiers forusing the B-LPS.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The data we gathered at the National TrainingCenter has provided significant insight into the direc-tion for development of laser protective eyewear. Itis clear that more attention must be paid to thosefeatures of the eyewear that the soldier will be evalu-ating each and every time the items are removed fromtheir case and put on - features such as fit, comfort,protection from non-laser environmental hazards (sun,dust) and even appearance.

While the complexities of photopic transmission,optical density at design wavelengths, solarizationresistance and the like are critical components of thedesign process, soldiers take for granted that theeyewear will perform its function when and if it isever exposed to a laser. If the eyewear does notsatisfy the soldier's everyday requirements for com-fort, dust protection, and the like, all the technicalexpertise devoted to the design of the laser protectionmay be wasted if the soldier chooses not to wear theitem.

We must bear in mind that the data reported hereare specific to a particular unit, mission, and loca-tion. Many of the aforementioned defects will not be aproblem in geographical areas free of the exceedinglyharsh desert conditions found at Ft. Irwin. The brightsun, dust and high winds led to a complex of problems


that are probably very different from those whichmight be reported by troops operating in a differentenvironment. Troops serving in Western Europe, forexample, might be more concerned about fogging of thelenses and compatibility with cold weather garments.

Notwithstanding the limitations of the resultsreported here, several specific recommendations aboutpossible design changes are apparent. First, we shouldensure that the coating applied to the polycarbonate toincrease resistance to scratching is the best avail-able. If the scratch resistance cannot be improved(and it probably cannot) then sufficient quantities ofB-LPS should be made available to permit periodicreplacement of worn items, based on the expected lifeof the item in each geographical area. Our data sug-gests that two or three sets per soldier per year mightbe appropriate in a desert environment.

Second, we should consider ways to reduce theaxial distance, such as redesigning the nosepiece. Atleast for emmetropes, the metal pad arms and nose padscould be completely eliminated and a universal bridgeadopted. In addition to solving some of the breakageproblems, this modification would bring the eyewrapmuch closer to the face. Such a change could improvethe dust protection offered by the B-LPS, but mightalso produce the unintended and undesired result ofcausing more lens fogging. Thorough testing obviouslyshould be a part of any redesign effort.

Third, we should redesign the temples to offer theoption of better compatibility with the CVC helmet. Aflatter temple bow could eliminate the current discom-fort experienced by CVC users. Another possibilitycould provide a substitute temple consisting of anelastic strap and appropriate attaching piece forsoldiers required to use a helmet.

Finally, we should take action to reduce thenumber of optical surfaces present to collect dust, fogor other particles. The current design requires sixsurfaces - the front and back of the frontsert, thefront and back of the eyewrap, and the front and backof the prescription lens (for those requiring a pre-scription). All six of these surfaces collect dustwith the present design. Integration of the laser

10 -- Mastroianni et al

protection into the sunglass version, for example,would eliminate the need for two of the surfaces. Thiswould also have the beneficial effect of reducing thefrequency of cleaning required, itself a significantsource of scratching. Of course, the combined sun-glass/laser protection would require adequate transmis-sion for nighttime use and adequate attenuation fordaytime, sunny use; such a configuration may be diffi-cult to achieve in practice. The desirability of theresult should impel us to explore this possibility,however.

Future studies should aim for both functional andgeographic diversity in the troop populations studied.Compatibility, especially, can only be adequatelyassessed when the widest possible range of occupations,equipment, and missions is included in the test pro-gram. Full documentation of both positive and negativedesign features will best support not only improvementof this specific product, but development of systemsfor other applications and all future protective eye-wear.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Captain Melvin Washing-ton, MS, U.S. Army National Training Center, and allthe officers and soldiers of the Operations Group fortheir assistance in conducting this test. The opinionspresented herein are solely the authors'.

L Z-LO CO

00

0 0

<l o a~ E 0_ _ _ L.

CcC)C, ct F

'0) ~ )

-r coE )7 C)

a): c: 0 EI' c:cCL D 0- -- 0

0) O4D 0) 0m CM CZ" "CZ 0 )aa4-0c&- L-Co C cc c U) z a

00 C)Z Ca)

O a0Z cco~

w w 0

< WW- O T- =cr w wO

TV - 1 TUURioaqsejj

Cl)

0

00 LO

F -I-

COC

C)C

0

CODEo o

0

Z a0-La- E

>Q c '0 C

I- _CO) z4- 4-' L.Ro-~pK

IIIr'BY

0

0 -0

IL CIOC',)

00 0 Co

z 00(21 00 a.'1)

o 't ccr.. LU 0)0z

CE a

LU ;Q

_/)

W 0)

M) a) COl C~ 0 C

>> cz C LO)

LI~ _- _8Tijais

AI a!2wZI

U) Uc 0CL C/)) N

-Co)

a) a) Co > - )

(2) m a)L.. ~ ~- a)cCzQ 0

-~ -~~ -~E 0 , '~co00

> 00CI) 0) cz 0)

0na) >1 =)0 a

a)C: >- ) a)CL za) 0a)'z 3: a co)

CO co >, - 00a) E~ ,t 0u a -- v

0 Z

0o 0 0 CO

>-) c c cw)0 aa) U) > (

>II

0

T P 4 T U lIeT O A 4S Uj( V T

A RIMV~

-0

cr (D C) C 0 0 qt 0Z )

N )0 Rt 0 m~Z N- C 1 t0 \

0 It DCDC

___ cI - 0

E E cE

>, ClO > flzz CO (n

a) >~E u olL- 0

7E) Vl - V

a)) - -

>1 .9 0 0

m ) U)_Y >U) QU ) 0~Q ~ U

0) cm m z

-- ja TULMTO14IN

0 IA aqgVl

Cf) T- N- o 11: 0) '

ZNP- 't rm- M N- CV) N

DN CV) CV) 0 N

_0

0 00E_

CL z aco Vz -00 ZLU 0 ZY 0

:3 () 0 Co Cl0 0) CL0

0 3 _j c- C/

Z) U) 0~

. 0N 0 cc

L.. E~ oo ~o 04- o 0 co C i

_0 CO >1

ct - 0 .-1 0 CoU

TR 40 TUUtMOa4SRK- 9T

(V) I JA\ lIR \:.

cio-0~0

Cl))<O(5 0 ()0) It C

-< a)

m 0 N- - - ""-

M_ 00D(

00

II

C.o oD -->~C

• C) C\ J '- C'J oD

0 0

0 0 - "

0

0_ 0~,a> 0 0D

> . 0

.a, r

LT -- 4~ a TUUPTOJISPj4

(2) hIA IY

>0 (D t 0- It

zL rl- T

0~0

C0 CO 00m

zz-0 0z mc

If I

F- z

mmml 0 N- 00

LL..

w Uw-J 0

00 CL

05' 0 0

C5

a) 4LCc CL .a)0. t 0) 0

0 ) a. o ~ >

TV43 T~flYTO~rqSI? -- 81

r ,- ,- - T-

> 0

,-t c-~ 0 C)~

00- 0 a

F -m ) CO ' --- C\j

0~ 0< z

Z Lu

U) L-t C ' 0 ~<i < N~ C'.j C'.J C'j c j 0

LUI z m-Co 0

>' .) 00

0 0.2 o. 'L

ia) > 0(!

> 0

0 C) .0 !61.. Te 4aT-'Ta4

IF LASER PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. A LASER TO ATTACH THE LENS CAriRIER TO THE BPE SOLDIER, your PROTECTIVE SPECTACLES

PROTECTIVE FRONTSERT IS PROVIDED. SLIDE THE FILLER BUTTON OiUT OF THE SLOT IN SYSTEM is the best available.

THE NOSEPIECE AND REPLACE IT WITH THE LENS

CARRIER. THE LENS CARRIER SHOULD REMAIN IN

PLACE WITHOUT FURTHER ADJUSTMENT. It is designed to give maximum field of view

with a minimum of distortion and made

of polycarbonate. Polycarbonate has

proven to be the best material to defeat

low-mid velocity fragments from exploding

munitions and is used in industrial eyeprotective spectacles and in the ballistic

class 3 and 4 lenses for the sun, wind.

and dust goggle.

Studies from Vietnam show that casualties

could have been reduzed 10-15% it eye

protective devices of this type were avail-

TO ATTACH THE FRONTSERT. SLIDE IT ONTO THE able and worn.BPU AS SHOWN. CATCHING THE CLIPS AT THE

BOTTOM OF THE BPU.

THE CARRYING CASE IS DESIGNED TO BE WORNONCE THE CLIPS ARE PROPERLY CAUGHT ON THE THE PROTECTIVE SPECTACLES SYSTEM IS MADEBPU. SNAP THE TOP TAB ONTO THE NOSEPIECE. ON THE EQUIPMENT BELT OR IN A BACK PACK. ITTOREOVE.REVESE HE POCEDRE.OF POLYCARBONATE WHICH REQUIRES SPECIALTO REMOVE. REVERSE THE PROCEDURE. WILL ACCOMMODATE BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT HAND- CARE TO MAINTAIN ITS BALLISTIC QUALITIES.

/7ED INDIVIDUALS. ALL OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE EVEWEAR SHOULD BE CLEANED WITH A SOFT.TE BDAMP CLOTH. IF WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE. STEAMTHE BALLISTIC EYE PROTECTIVE SPECTACLE THLESTYOR EAH

SHOULD BE STORED IN THE CARRYING CASE

TAKE CARE OF YOUR PROTECTIVE SPECTACLES

WHEN NOT IN USE DO NOT CLEAN WITH A DRY CLOTH'

DO NOT THROW LENS AROUND OR LEAVE ITWHERE IT MAY BE ABUSED!

DO NOT USE ANY LIQUID OTHER THAN WATER TOIF YOU DO NOT REQUIRE A CORRECTIVE LENS. A Cll

III ICLEAN THE LENS!FILLER BUTTON IS SUPPLIED ASSEMBLED TO 1 0

NOSEPIECE. USE IT - DON'T ABUSE IT!

AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORTIONPRECISION PRODUCTS BUSINESS

14 MECHANIC STREETSOUTHBRIDGE, MASSCHUSETTS

01550-9998

IF YOU REQUIRE CORRECTIVE LENSES. A LENSCARRIER WILL BE ISSUED TO YOU.

LJI- F]

,,o,C1.C

0

a. 0 U, S

• E , CC v@ 0 )

0 E

(L Z C C) C

FIELD EVALUATION

of

BALLISTIC AND LASER PROTECTIVE

SPECTACLES (B-LPS)

QUESTIONNAIRE

Division of Ocular Hazards

Letterman Army Institute of ResearchPresidio of San Francisco, CA 94129-6800

APPENDIX B

App. B - Questionnaire Field Evaluation of Laser Spectacles (B-LPS)

GENERAL:

How old are you? years

What is your date of birth?Day Month Year

What is your rank? _El E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E901 02 03 04 -05 06 07-08 09

_W01lW02 W03 W04

What is your duty MOS? example, 11A

How long have you worked in your MOS? __ yrs. mos.

How long have you worked in this unit? yrs. mos.

What are the three (3) most important duties which you performin your unit:

1)

2)

3)

Do your duties include any of the following visual tasks (checkany which is/are appropriate).

__ Looking through magnifying optics

- Reading guages

__ Reading dials

__ Searching for targets

Other:

Do you wear glasses (sectacles)? yes no

Do you wear contacts? yes __ no

If yes, which type of contacts? hard soft

2

App. -B - Questionnaire Field Evaluation of Laser Spectacles (B-LPS)

SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT the B-LPS

Who explained the use of the BLPS to you?

How many minutes of instructions did you receive on the useof BLPS? minutes

Were the instructions you received on how to assemblethe BLPS adequate? .. yes no

Were the instructions you received on how to care forthe BLPS adequate? yes no

On an average day, over the past 90 days, how many hourshave you worn the BLPS during daylight hours? hrs

On an average day, over the past 90 days, how many hourshave you worn the BLPS during the night hours? hrs

During the past 24 hrs how many hours have you worn theBLPS during daylight hours? hrs

During the past 24 hrs how many hours have you worn theBLPS during the night hours? hrs

Have you ever sustained an eye injury serious enough torequire medical attention? - yes __ no

If yes, describe:

3


COMFORT:

Are the BLPS uncomfortably hot inthe sun? yes no

Are the BLPS uncomfortably cold

in very cold weather? yes no

Do the BLPS fog easily? yes __ no

During an average 1 hr period, how oftendo you have to wipe fog from the BLPS? never seldom

often_ constantly

Was your peripheral vision unduly limitedwhile wearing the BLPS? yes _ no

Explain:

Is the sunglass tint on the BLPS dark enough? _ yes _ no

Explain:

Do the BLPS stay in place as you move around? yes no

Explain:

Do the BLPS rub your nose excessively? yes __ no

Explain:

Do the BLPS feel uncomfortable in any way? - yes - no

Explain:

4


DURABILITY:-

Did you experience any breakage, binding, slipping, or othermalfunction with any part of the BLPS? __ yes - no

If yes, explain and indicate on the diagram to the rightwhere on the BLPS the problem occurred.

Explain:

Did you find that BLPS were easily scratched? __ yes no

Explain:

Did you notice any change in visibility over the timeyou used the BLPS? __ yes no

Explain:

How frequently did you find you had to clean the BLPS?

5 or more times a day2 to 4 times a dayOnce a dayOnce every 2 or 3 daysOnce a weekLess than once a week

5


DURABILITY (cont)

What did you normally use to clean or wipe the BLPS?

Explain:

Did you lose any part of the BLPS kit duringthe time you had it? yes _ no

Explain parts lost and other remdrxs:

Were you able to use BLPS for the full 90 days? _ yes no

SYSTEM COMPATIBILITY:

Of what vehicle or weapon system are you a crew member?

Explain:

What is your crew position?

Did the BLPS interfere with your ability to read any gauge,-dial,knob, or warning indicator on your system/vehicle? _ yes _ no

If yes, specify:

Is there any task relating to the operation of your vehicle/system that you could not perform while wearing the BLPS?(Example: driving, sighting, getting in/out, etc.) _ yes no

If yes, specify:

6


Is there any task you could perform but could not do as well asusual due to the BLPS? (Example: driving, sighting, gettingin/out, etc.) yes - no

If yes, specify:

MISSION COMPATIBILITY:

What is your combat mission?

Do you think the BLPS interefered with your ability toaccomplish the your mission? yes no

If so, how did they interfere with your mission?

Did you ever miss a target because you werewearing the BLPS? yes no

Explain:

Did you ever become a casualty because you werewearing the BLPS? yes no

Explain:

7


Can you imagine any circumstances which you may not haveexperienced where the BLPS would interfere with yourability to accomplish the mission? - yes - no

Explain:

Did you ever use BLPS in conjunction with binoculars,vision blocks, optical sights, etc.? - yes __ no

If yes, did you experience any difficulty inusing these items because of the BLPS? - yes no

Explain:

8


EFFECTS ON*VISION (Subjective

Very good = allowed you to function normally withoutdiscomfort

Good = permitted normal function with minor discomfortBorderline = caused some interference with normal function

or moderate discomfortPoor = caused considerable interference of normal

function or sense discomfortVery Poor = caused considerable interference with normal

function and severe discomfort

Ballistic Spectacles (clear eyepieces):

General Visibility (check one)

- very good _ good borderline - poor very poor

Depth Perception

- very good __ good __ borderline - poor very poor

Peripheral Vision

- very good __ good __ borderline - poor very poor

Clarity

- very good __ good borderline - poor very poor

Glare

- very good __ good borderline poor very poor

Colors of Objects

very good __ good _ borderline __ poor very poor

App. B Questionnaire Field Evaluation of Laser Spectacles (B-LPS)

.Laser Spectacles (green frontserts)

General Visibility

-_ very good - good borderline - poor - very poor

Depth Perception

- very good - good __ borderline poor - very poor

Peripheral Vision

very good - good borderline poor very poor

Clarity

very good - good borderline __ poor very poor

Glare

- very good - good borderline poor - very poor

Color of Objects


Sunglasses (brown eyepieces)


Depth Perception

very good - good borderline - poor very poor

Peripheral Vision


Clarity

very good - good borderline - poor very poor

Glare

very good good borderline __ poor very poor

Color of Objects

very good good borderline spoor very poor

10

APPENDIX C

Samples of severely scratched B-LPS were retrievedfrom NTC and examined in our laboratory. Only the B-LPSthat were most severely damaged were used, so themeasurements reported here are a "worst-case" analysis.

Two measurements were performed in our laboratory.First, a scratched laser frontsert was evaluated forretention of laser protective characteristics. Figure 1shows the optical density of scratched frontserts as afunction of the amount of Lambda 2 laser energy towhich they were exposed. All of the frontserts testedretained sufficient density at the design wavelength tomeet specifications, despite the damage they had suf-fered.

The second test we used measured luminous trans-mission as a function of wavelength from 300-1300 nm.The frontserts showed a decrease in transmission overthe visible spectrum in the scratched area. (See Figure2) This is apparently due to the reflection and refrac-tion caused by the surface scratches. There was anincrease in transmission in the infrared portion of thelaser frontsert luminous efficiency function, perhapscaused by loss of the laser protective coating in thescratched areas.

The tinted B-LPS, which have no laser protectivecoating, showed a general decrease in transmissionthroughout the 300-1300 nm region in the scratchedareas. (See Figure 3) This result is similar to thatobserved for clear (untinted) B-LPS.

I ~'~TA - 9 ddV

~0

w1

a cmCCOO

c66

w-I Cti L U

z0LLaI

a aa * #

1-

-- ddV

10CO< 0

co 00- -1

z E0

rcoLL- m 30

COCJ oW

0C 0

0

00000 0000 0

I-~(Z0-00-O

£ O~~TA - :) ddV

10

'0

LLIJLUI

CO ~0 0

(E9J IU o

0co0

c10LU0Ir- ~0

CO'

<0000 00000

0e0~Q 0q~C)

IL4(Z0in00O

APPENDIX D

Brief Studies of Visual Performance Wearing Scratched and

Unscratched B-LPS

Study 1

As part of the study of the use of theBallistic/Laser Protective Spectacles B-LPS), fivesubjects were asked to read the Snellen Eye Chart(similar to that shown in Example 1) and to read theVISTECH Test of Contrast Sensitivity (similar to thatshown in Example 2) under six conditions. The sixconditions were: 1) Clear, unscratched B-LPS lenses, 2)Clear, scratched B-LPS lenses, 3) Brown, unscratched B-LPS lenses, 4) Brown, scratched B-LPS lenses, 5) Clear,unscratched B-LPS lenses plus the green (laser) un-scratched B-LPS lenses, 6) Clear, scratched B-LPS lensesplus the green (laser) scratched B-LPS lenses. Theconditions were presented to the subjects in a randomorder.

The scratched lenses were obtained from the sol-diers at Ft. Irwin whose B-LPS had become scratched inthe desert environment and were no longer usable by thesoldiers.

The subjects were members of the Letterman ArmyInstitute of Research who did not wear spectacles andwho had at least 20/20 vision.

Table I shows the scores on the Snellen for eachsubject under each condition. Overall, there were fivesubjects who showed changes when the wear of the un-scratched lenses were compared to the wear of thescratched lenses of a similar type.

One subject showed an improvement from 20/15 to20/10 in the unscratched clear versus scratched clearcondition. Three subjects went from 20/15 to 20/20 inthe unscratched brown versus scratched brown condition.One subject went from 20/15 to 20/20 in the unscratchedgreen plus unscratched clear versus scratched green plusscratched clear condition. Clinically, there is littlereason to believe that these changes would have anysignificant effect on soldiers' ability to continuetheir mission in an operational environment.

1

APP D

Table II shows the scores of each subject undereach condition for the Contrast Sensitivity Test, line A(wider lines with larger blank areas between the lines).The average to above average range of scores in thisarea is 5 to 8. All subjects under all conditionsscored in this range. There were changes between cer-tain unscratched versus scratched condition; howeverhalf were in the positive direction and half were in thenegative direction. We are unclear how to interpretthese findings; however, for field performance wheremost visual targets are fairly large, soldiers shouldhave few problems if they were required to use scratchedB-LPS.

Table III shows the scores of each subject undereach condition for the Contrast Sensitivity Test, line B(lines are not as wide as line A and there are smallerblank areas between the lines than line A). As in lineA, the average to above average range of scores is 5 to8. All subjects under all conditions fell into thisrange. Subjects showed the following changes betweenthe unscratched versus scratched condition: In goingfrom the clear B-LPS to the scratched clear B-LPS threeof the subjects scored one point less in the scratchedcondition than they had in the clear condition. Ingoing from the clear brown condition to the scratchedbrown condition, two subjects improved (one by twopoints and one by one point) and one subject dropped twopoints in the scratched brown condition compared to theclear brown condition. In going from the laser/clearcondition to the scratched laser/clear condition, twosubjects improved (one by one point and one by twopoints) while the other subjects had the same scoresunder both conditions. Since all scores remained in thenormal range, there is little reason to believe thatthese changes would affect soldiers' performance.

Tables IV, V, and VI show some problems with B-LPSuse which at this point is difficult to interpret interms of wear of B-LPS in operational settings. LinesC, D, and E in the Contrast Sensitivity Test have stimu-li that have lines progressively smaller and closertogether. With these stimuli soldiers start having moreand more scores in both the scratched and unscratchedconditions falling below the average range of scores.The VISTECH test literature cautions that depressedcontrast sensitivity scores may be due to normal varia-

2

APP D

tion and are not necessary indicative of visual prob-lems. Further research may be warranted, however, todetermine if there are operational environments whichrequire the ability to read the kinds of stimuli such asthose presented in lines C, D, and E of the VISTECHtest. If there are such environments, then perhaps ourdata showing more below average scores for these linesfor both the scratched and unscratched conditions andthe lower scores with the scratched conditions in mostcases will be of some importance. For now it remainsunclear if these scores are a problem.

Study 2

A second study was done to look at a comparison ofthe VISTECH test of contrast sensitivity under twoconditions, one of which was not present in the firststudy: Wearing the clear B-LPS and not wearing the B-LPS (this second condition was the one not in the firststudy).

Seven members of the Letterman Army Institute ofResearch who did not wear spectacles participated in thestudy. Only the VISTECH test of contrast sensitivitywas administered to them under the two conditions of noB-LPS and clear B-LPS.

Table VII shows the scores of each subject undereach of the two conditions for the Contrast SensitivityTest, line A. All subjects scored in the normal rangefor this test under both conditions. Four of the sub-jects had higher scores for this test when they wore theclear B-LPS while the other three subjects had the samescore for each condition.

Table VIII shows the scores of each subject underthe two conditions for line B of the VISTECH test. Allsubjects were in the normal range under both conditions.Three subjects scored higher while wearing the clear B-LPS than they did with no B-LPS.

Table IX shows the scores of each subject under thetwo conditions for line C of the Contrast SensitivityTest. Three subjects were in the below average rangefor the no B-LPS condition and four were in the belowaverage range for the with B-LPS condition. Threesubjects scored lower by one point in going from the noB-LPS to clear B-LPS condition. Two subjects scored

3

APP D

higher in the with B-LPS condition (one of the subjectswas two points higher in this condition). Two subjectsscored the same under each condition.

Table X shows the scores of each subject under thetwo conditions for line D. All scores except one in theno B-LPS condition fall in the below average range. Thescores also remain constant under the two conditions,except for one subject who gains one point in going fromthe no B-LPS to clear B-LPS condition.

Table XI shows the scores of each subject under thetwo conditions for line E. Four scores in the no B-LPScondition are in the average range while only two scoresin the clear B-LPS condition are in the average ig, .Three subjects have lower scores in the clear B-LPScondition as compared to the no B-LPS condition (onescore goes from 4 to 0, another from 3 to 2, and anotherfrom 2 to 1). Two subjects have scores of zero underboth conditons, and another subject has a score of 2under both conditions.

Overall, while under some of the portions of theVISTECH contrast sensitivity test subjects have higherscores with clear B-LPS and under other portions sub-jects have lower scores, there appear to be no majorproblems in the wear of the B-LPS. This is essentiallysimilar to the findings of Study 1. The VISTECH testalso cautions that, in many cases, depressed contrastsensitivity is strictly due to normal variation and isnot indicative of visual problems.

4

APP DTable I

Snellen Eye Chart

Subject Clear BLPS Scratched Clear BLPS Change

1 20/15 20/152 20/15 20/153 20/15 20/154 20/15 20/155 20/15 20/--0 +

Subject Clear Brown Scratched Brown Change

1 20/20 20/202 20/15 20/203 20/15 20/154 20/15 20/205 20/15 20/20

Subject Laser/Clear Scratched Laser/Clear Change

1 20/15 20/152 20/15 20/203 20/15 20/154 20/15 20/155 20/15 20/15

APP D

Table II

Contrast Sensitivity, Line A

(Average Score Range is 5 to 7)


1 7 62 6 63 8 84 7 65 7 6


1 6 8 +2 5 53 8 84 7 55 6 7 +


1 7 72 5 53 6 8 +4 6 8 +5 6 6

Table IIIAPP D

Contrast Sensitivity, Line B



1 8 82 7 63 8 64 7 75 8 7


1 7 8 +2 6 53 8 84 7 65 7 6


1 7 8 +2 7 53 8 64 7 65 7 7

APP D Table IV

Contrast Sensitivity, Line C



1 7 62 4 43 6 54 6 55 7 6

Subiect Clear Brown Scratched Brown Chanae

1 6 52 4 43 5 34 4 45 4 4

Subject Laser/Clear Scratched Laser/Clear Chancge

1 6 62 4 43 4 24 5 45 5 4

Table VAPP D

Contrast Sensitivity, Line D

(Average Range is 4 to 7)

Subject Clear BLPS Scratched Clear BLPS Chanqe

1 3 4 +2 3 33 3 34 3 15 6 4


1 3 4 +2 2 23 2 24 2 25 3 2


1 4 32 2 23 3 34 3 25 4 2

APP D Table VI

Contrast Sensitivity, Line E


Subject Clear BLPS Scratched BLPS Change

1 1 12 0 03 1 04 0 05 3 3


1 1 12 0 03 0 04 0 05 1 0

Subiect Laser/Clear Scratched Laser/Clear Change

1 1 12 0 1 +3 0 04 1 05 2 0

APP D

Table VII

Contrast Sensitivity, Line A


Subject No BLPS Clear BLPS Change

1 5 6 +2 5 6 +3 6 64 5 6 +5 6 66 5 57 6 7 +

Table VIII

Contrast Sensitivity, Line B


Subiect No BLPS Clear BLPS Change

1 6 7 +2 6 7 +3 7 74 6 65 6 66 6 7 +7 7 7

APP D Table IX

Contrast Sensitivity, Line C



1 5 42 5 43 4 6 +4 3 35 5 46 5 57 6 7 +

Table X

Contrast Sensitivity, Line D



1 3 32 2 23 3 34 2 25 3 36 3 37 3 4 +

Table XI

Contrast Sensitivity, Line E

(Average Score Range is 2-6)


1 2 12 4 03 0 04 0 05 2 26 1 17 3 2

APPENDIX E

NOTE: The following analysis was performed by Dr.James Sheehy of the Vision Laboratory, Naval Air Devel-opment Center, Warminster, PA as a courtesy to theauthors. This appendix was written by Dr. Sheehy. Wewish to thank Dr. Sheehy for his timely assistance incompleting these tests.

All haze measurements were performed using aGardner model XL 211 Hazeguard system. Haze is definedas the percentage of light which deviates from theincident beam by forward scattering when passingthrough a sample. Light flux deviating by more than 2.5degrees from the incident beam is considered to be haze(ASTM D 1003). Haze is caused by small particles,scratches, and impurities in a sample which cause lightto be refracted or reflected. After passing through thesample the light enters an integrating sphere monitoredby a high sensitivity photodetector. If haze is notpresent in the sample the light will pass through andexit the sphere without scattering.

All samples were placed at the entrance port ofthe sensing unit. The .75 inch diameter of the incidentlight beam defines the maximum area that haze is as-sessed over during a single measurement. Each lens wasplaced in the measuring beam so that a point 32 mm(based on an average IPD of 64 mm) from the center ofthe nose piece was in the center of the beam. Thisinsured that the percentage of haze reported was notinflated by assessing areas where scratching and abra-sion were maximal (typically by the nose piece or thetemporal edge of the lens where the fasteners arelocated.) Haze measurements are listed in Table 1.

The values listed in Table 1 represent the percentof haze a user with an IPD of 64 mm would see whenlooking directly ahead. The estimate will vary if theirgaze deviates to a portion of the lens where haze ismaximal. For example, the clear eyewear labeled #57 has5.3% and 8.3% haze for the right and left lens respec-tively. It thc user deviates his gaze upward haze atthat point is 25.5% and 37.5% for the right and leftlens. These values are in contrast to those measuredfor #63, which is a new clear lens: representing asignificant increase in haze in the scratched #57.

APP E

TABLE 1

Sample Percent Haze

Right Lens Left Lens

FT 01 7.08 12.02

FT 03 3.60 2.97

FT 04 1.07 .88

FT 05 2.22 4.40

SNG 01 1.40 1.50

SNG 02 3.70 3.70

SNG 03 7.70 19.90

SNG 58 13.40 7.70

CLR 31 2.00 1.50

CLR 69 2.60 2.70

CLR 57 5.30 8.30

CLR 58A 8.00 6.60

CLR 58B 5.70 2.70

CLR 63 .20 .10

CLR 44 1.40 1.20

OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTTON LIST

Commander CommanderUSAMRDC HQ, USAMMDAATTN:SGRD-PLC/MG Russell ATTN: SCRD-UMA/ChanningATTN:SGRD-PLC/COL Lam Fort Detrick

SGRD-RMS/Ms. Madigan Frederick, MD 21701-5012Fort Detrick, MD 21701-5000

Director CommanderDefense Technical Information ATTN:AFAMRL/HEF/'R. SusnikATTN:DTIC-DDA (2 copies) Wright Patterson AFBCameron Station Ohio 45433Alexandria, VA 22314

Commander HeadquartersUS Army SMO Department of th ArmyATTN:AMXCM-EO/MAJ Dedmond ATTN: DASG-TLO2800 Powder Mill Road Washington, DC 20310Adelphi, MD 20783

Commander CommanderUSAMSAA CACDA/ATZL-OPS-SEATTN: DRXSY-CSD/P. Baers ATTN: MAJ J.C. JohnsonATTN: DRXST-GWD/F. Campbell Fort LeavenworthAberdeen Proving Ground Kansas 66027Maryland 21010

Commander DirectorATTN: AFWAL/MLPJ/G. Kepple NADCWright Patterson AFB ATTN: Code 601B/Dr. ChisumOhio 45433 Warminster, PA 18974-5000

Commander CommanderUS AEHA NMRDCATTN: HSHB-RL/D. Sliney ATTN: Code 43Aberdeen Proving Ground National Naval Med CenterMaryland 21010 Bethesda, MD 20814

Dr. John Ewen CommanderPO Box 1925 USAF SAMWashington, DC 20013 ATTN: RZW/Dr. Farrer

ATTN: RZW/LTC CartledgeBrooks AFB, Texas 78235

Official Distribution List, cont.

Director DirectorAMSAA US Army AVMRCATTN: AMXSY-CR/r. Brand ATTN: AVXMR-O/FitzpatrickAberdeen Proving Ground Watertown, MA 02172-0001Maryland 21005

Commander DirectorUSA Aviation Systems Command Armed Forces MedicalATTN: AMCPM-ALSE/H. Lee Intelligence Center4300 Goodfellow Blvd ATTN: AFMIC-SA/MIAJ DownsSt. Louis, MO 63120 Fort Detrick

Maryland 21701-5004

Director DirectorDefense Intelligence Agency LTD DirectorateATTN: DT-5A/Hal Hock ATTN: EOGWCM-CCM/KasparekPentagon White Sands Missile RangeWashington, DC 20301 New Mexico 88002-5519

Commander CommanderUSA Aeromedical Research Lab HQ TRADOCATTN: COL La Mothe ATTN: ATCD-MfL/J. GrayFt. Rucker, AL 36330-5000 Ft. Monroe, VA 23651-5000

Director CommanderEWL/RSTA Center LAIRATTN: AMSEL-EW-C/J. Allen ATTN: SGRD-ULZ (1 copy)Ft Monmouth, NJ 07703-5303 SGRD-IR (10 copies)

PSF, CA 94129-6800

DirectorUSA HELATTN: AMXHE-IS/D. GiordanoAberdeen Proving GroundMaryland 21005-5001

icii i - defense technical information center · ins titute report no. 445 d i s electe ......

Documents