*'• • ,.. -,- *-. ,, .. " _ .

km*

Le hum, J. M~ If'taml,..

T

.......

AAv

Best Avial opy

1 28 014

AWprved fOr Public r*60". dtarlbutlort unlimittd.

AIRSICKNESS DURING NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICER TRAININGs

IASIC SQUADRON VT-10

W. Carroll Hh~on, Prod E. Quo&y, kr.,

Garry L. Hoftmonu, J. Michal Lentz, a&d Iotvlok P. QContiwl

*~Nvmal Medlical ksemrch and Dove kpment CommandZF51 s524.00S-7W3

Approved by Rel.soed by

AaIwo Oroybole, M.D. Captin It. E. Mithell, MC# USNAmisitant for Scientlfic Phoorma Co~mr4I~ong Officer

8 April 1979

NAVAL AEROSPACE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORYNAVAL AIR STATION

PEKISACOLA,v FLORIDA 323)6

SUMMARY PAGE

THE PROBLEM

Airsickness In Naval FlIlht Officer (nonpllot) training sluaina can be cen.,sildered to be a significant blomtdloal risk having both direct and Indirect Influencs onthe cod of training airerew persmnnel. Motion sickness In students during flg# candegrade perfornance of assigned flight toass, often resulting In the need for the hop Iobe reflown so as to accomplish a required degree of proficiency. Dollr cash eheresult when students attrIte because of airsickness, with these od% rising mpdly whenthe attritions occur late In the training program or In the fleet prper. Cure•ty, thereare no opervtional data available to describe either the acuoal Inacioden or reowltinoaows of the ahleckms risk In thens quadons, and hue, there Is Inufftcnt In[Arm'tltn available for flight uirgeonis and medical boardh to mice declsions anourning de-pcsitlin of airsick divdkkls. In addition, validated blomedIcal esh of mation silt-nes suisceptibility to sareen and select aircrew candidates beet wited for fleet man"-ments Involving different cegreem of motion stress are not yet available.

* FINDINGS

A longitudinal study has been Initiated of airickness probleMs In the bale, ad-vanced, and type-spciflc fleet rtdiness (AG) quadrons eorlng the 1 o6 letNaval Flight Officer Trainlng ogroam. Flight performance dcta, based upon "otfInstrutor and student JJu~nts of airsickness severity, are being collected In eachsquadron an an Indivldual-student basi. In oddition, a large segment of the studypopulation has been exposed to a prototype seles of lbratory tests of motican weuWtivTty which will be related to the Wubeet flight dcta. In addition to identifyn theIncidepce and severity of airsickness In the Individual squoions, the" flight dtat willhave the potential to serve ca operitionsI.xaed validation criteria fer estoblIsh•n therelative merit of the different components of the leabratory test battery.

This report deals with the airsickness problem In Iei Training Sque"on VT-1Owhere all Naval Flight Officers begin thei flight training, The dtoa From 5,394 hopflown by 406 students Indloate that airsickness occurred on Ipproximately 16 Percent ofthe total hops flown, vomiting occurred on 7 paerent of the totfl, acn peromnce€legradation caused by arsickness rosulted on II peracnt of the fllght. Apr~m0elY74 percen of the studnts re0pord being alrick on at least one flIght, 39 percereported vmlrtlnt on one or more flights, and 59 peroent considered their flight per-.toinn ce to have been degraed by aintikness on one or more hap. The report dtlalbthe incidence of aIrstcknels by hops and by dnt, presens te results of severl briefmotion reactivity tests to which a lag segment of the populaon was ONMse andrelates the flight and test data for differen student bpopulttos.

Ii

3,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The project Investigators with to thank #k. Joel W. Norman, Peroeptal andSeIkv•oral Sciences Division, and Mr. A. N. Dennis, Jr., 3loenvIranmental EnIner-Ino Division, for their sustained contributions to the dtoa aoquhitIan ed wrafnatto, "phcsos of the study. Conrlpw-dingly, th Invostigators wish to thunk Mrs. Jock A.Min, Porcoptual and lehavioral Sciences Division, for her many and varied oontrflb-tiorm to the study Including the prepmtion of this manuscript. Appreciation Is uxtendedalso to Dr. John 0. deLatge, Ilonmdcal Sclence Dlvsion, for the many hours he setwith the first author dtscustivig alternative short- and longerm statistical approahesand mathods for analyzing the project dat". Acknowledgmenwt i made also to CaptainSteve Mugg, USMC, VT-10; Lieutenant Commonder Pon Ayer# USN# VT-1(p Ueutm-ant Commander D. K. Kirk, USN, U. S, Naval Avation Schoosk Commandsand Comd -mander A. W. Mareantonlot USN, CNET for their operatlo. In add•tion, especialaffmclation is extended to the many hundreds of tudents and their Instructors wh, con-scientlously provided the alrtokness date throughout the course of flight training InVT-10.

Patrick F. O'Connelle CAPT, MC. USN, and Garry L. Holtzman CDRO MC, USN,are with the Naval Aerovpoe Medical Istltute, Peonscola, Florida.

DOC 000"I

• ' |aI Ill l 1

il!

INTRODUCTION

This Is the firt Ina Swries of reoomrh reports dealing with a lniunlSuyoaGrsickness in Naval Flight Officer (Npo) students being traind for a variety of differ-ant nonaviotor flight asignmens In fl1e0 squadrons. The study is desine to Inwest Isofte the incidence and severity of the airsickness experienced by a suiipie of the NPOPopulaton On an in~dlvidual-sudent burg as they sequentially progress through the bosic,advmnced# and fleet readiness (comonunoly referred to a RAG squod~cns .c'sWran theNFO training syllabus. This speifc ropoirt detal.s Ow. findings fr batic Training Squad.ron VT-10 In which all NPO students receive their Initial flight training.

As a mtatter of baickgroundl, the project originateod as a result of nwnierow alirsikuin3ss problems nd questions that were directed to this activity by training command per-sonnel repnsIble for delivering qualfied NFOs to the, fleet,, by flight sureons repon'.sib le for the medical management of naval aviation airorew, and by career noval avi.-ton and flight officers esiprlencing chronic airsickness difficulties during Poe rfomaof their Roee flight dities. Trainng commnand personnel mised questions concerning theover-all cost of the airsickness risk to the NFO training program,. Specific ~WoblemsInocluded degraded flight performance of airsick studeonts,, the need to repe" hops whenPerformance was ndeutloss of personnel and training time Ame to airslickness-rolated attrition, the potental nonoptimal usage of alirsckness medication ove anextended period of the tvaInlna programs, and the -ccasional gaduatin of airsick..muscptible NFO students who were able to coomplete the training Provr. but could notpoform adequately In the flet. Concern was also expessed abou the ne-d hor someform of laboratory test battery to medically screen airsickness suseptIbles early In thetraining program to reduce the costs of mid- or late-term attrition.

Similar questions wer raised by flight surgeons who were dealing WitOh arikflight personnel. They were Interested In rowe specfic knowledg of a) the profile oforrtekness, during WFO trIning and on Into the flee, b) the basic causes of airsickness,a) the probability of eventual adaptation to flight given a particular history of motioniclkness,- d) the use of medc~lation,- especially with provocative hops.. to assist In the

aouatment period, and s) the probability of recurrence of m*otio sickness with newfleet assgnments. they also were Intereste In the availability of preflight laboratortests that mnight identfy individuals In need of early treatment and/at alter natveservice, and In additional laboratory tets that would Old In a OI10 cprenIVe evalutionof specific alirsck cases In addition, this activity wall often wotace directly byfleset airorew per-sonne Iwafferlng reeae eirsiokness difficulties who raise quetionsimilar to those Of the flight "Crgons.

These questions war most justifiable oince In military ahir Iminirv, a high percetgof students "6-8 percent) suffer some degre Of motin sickness at one time or (manohe(7,1i). e~nso (pesoal cmommunicaton with F, E9. Guo*yt 1975, advance OOPY Ofmfotion sickness chapte written for RAF Textbook of Aviation Medicine) has reprtethat almost all Student naviaors are aff*cte to so"e degree In high -Wrorrmc 4111r

c oWt n about 50 percent vomit at some, time during training, incidence of sickness

In student piloft hs loweir than In nonpilot flight officewrs but between, 10 and 30 poicentamri learly moation sick at some time (4,5,7,9,1l1). Armacos (personal commnwnmocon,

* with F. 9. (*ueciy, 1975j, questionnair, rmult on 99 Nav pilots and NPOs),, In oracer suvy, found that 77 percent observed sam*sign of sirsicknees In themivwlyafter complting boasi training. He also indicte tHat 26 percent of the W01u mdi-;ated that they regarded motion sicknes as a significant problem In novel evia# Ion,and 79 percent of these experienced mnotion sicknees the ftrs year after assignet to afleet squadron. Estimates of the number of studenits aWtIrtng during f10t training be-cause of airsickness range between 1 and 7 pemcnt (7), with some of the warietion Infigures being due to d9 Verenoe in sucb fators as suppy and demand for fligat students,criteria used In motion sickness, classifloa~tont and difflereoe In methexis vf d&t~mrmi-ing and clasifyingreaons fbor ttition.

The practical significance of motion sickness clearly dspenA Upon the 1ob Of theIndividual. Fassenger without (in impcrtant task during a flight MnY be Only inconVen-ienced and uncomfortable. On the Other 110nd, perfformcm Of individuals with &"~n-Itomana or pyicaltaWksto oarnyut in the motion environmentIs not only dlinPt~dby emeslis Wu also m.ay be prevented by prostaion. Th e s of these obvious efectsaf mnotkun sickness may be less than the cost of -or wuble side efects such asdolness1 lethargy,, and mental depiression which could Ietar prores in training byder-Ing a lertness and maorale In the performance of routine 4*is 2,an1ls0old,6

motrvoticn to romain In the aviation training program. It is well known that some Idi-vlduals recover very islowly from an airs0cknes episode so tha acadumi Prepmafor the ne)t hop will be dimin"se. Potential airticknes-rlateO costs to th Navytherefore, accrue fromn increased tirme to train (Including repeated h"p),, aWttiion, ndpsyhological and medical evaluation of alirsck oases. From the point of view of theIndividual, a potentially valuable person might suffer a failure, with on attached islamothat sould influence, his value to the Navy and his personal lise.

it is commonly believed that the problem of airsick"es eventually diMinishe Inaviation because of moon's, adaptive abilities.- There1 1s no queston that satisfactoryadaptaton occurs In many individuale who CO firs suffe sOMe dgre Of oirsiknes.Some published dfta give the impresion that airsicknes after the Initial ten or Iwelve

hop i amot nglgilebecause adaptaton salves the prolem. However, t ohe at

accrue during the Inflight adaptation process and also horn the 1-7 percet Girsickattritions. Morever, there is reason to "eut tha adaptation by itself redcst thepRuboble down to this level, especially In Navel Flight Officer 1t6et. #40g airsickness incidence sftudes heretofore have not clearly adckesse the possib~ll~ty 1hat loWeredIncidence as training progresme is partially due to absickneit a*titions Conversely,many attrliton studies have not clearly token~ Into account the fact that lwowrd motive.

tion,, morals, and even mental depression0f are known nsw-fecs fmtion sicktnes.

Curreint and project .ed Navy Research, Developmet, Te'st, OWd Evaluation rebirements which document th need for research on thes oailkneusrOblewm derive fhmteyeral sources. on a broad basis, th POM-40 Deporftmet Of vy Mamig andFNogramn Guidance Memorandum (3) st81 e the need for programs which can' inCrese

2

training efficloncy, reduce attrtion,, and Validate the effectiveness of Navy trainingprogams. In turn, five Na" Decision Cocrdnation Popert F6ee Health Sten4" (6)emiphosixes the critical requirement 1cr health and performance validate standsr orpersonal fitness during this period of limited mno~weor avalIlablty. This documeant aisorecognizes that special standordh of fitnessi must be developed for partikukr novaI cccv.pations or duty assignments, with medicalI screenIng standard for service eniryo assig--~et, and retention serving as one of the prIncIpal ftvelopment and validation *blec-

The Saience and Technology Objective Personneiledlca (STO-PN) dociument(1) provides direct and specific requirements for this project. The Biomedcal Supportsoccutpaticnal Safety and Health (STO-PN, 11-D-1, Critical hMority) Problem sloteruntephaszes the fact that envirornental W a ese such as motion pose a threat to the healtheind perfomance of personnel. The relatied Physical and Mental Fitness statemeint (Sf0.PtH, 1 1-D-2i High fticrity) notes that fleet tsks may be dugradd If ihe stes tolerncelevel of Individuals Is such that performane Is Impaired and sOate the requireiment forWohnelogi., to diagnose stress and screen susceptible.. In the Fitnes Siandsrv andScreeing (STO-PNI ll.'D-6, High Ph'orlty) statement It is recognized that the *oetandeffectiveness of both training and fleet operations are, for the mos Pt. pa111t depneton the quality of the biomnedical screeing of appli1cants.'t The problem Statement cullsf~or technologies and specialized testing devices that accurately asses the sesry,rmntal, and physiological properties required for effective performane In the fleet.

in the pwwsnnoll Redtiction In Attrition (STO-PN* 11-A-13, Critical hMority)problem statemnent a requirement Is estabilshed for soprh n hie nfomtio on thereasons why personel cn lost frm the Navy for al ass in the related UtIlizationand Am'ductivity section (S70-PM, I1I-A-9, PMoriIy) it Is itated that the Navy cannotafford to utilize military personne below their maximum productive capblity. in likesmanner, the Human-Factors Envineerning Motion [EffecOts onersnne (570-PH, 11-C-1,priority) problem statemen t not"s that motio problems continue to reduce the effective.'neg of personnel. Requiements for the boasi Incidence and coat dafta to be pneretGd bYthe project derive allo heom the Trainingi Measuring the cost and Effectiveness Of TW"frIng (STO-PNo 11-5-12p High Ptority) problem statement and the related Training Ptrec-tices section (570-PN, 11-B-1i# Critical ft'lrity).

To adcfrese the". requirements a biomtedical researh proam was desine to stUdYthe Incidence and severty of th airsickness problem during NFO training, using bothstudent and Instructo judgmnfts Of ooncomitant flight perfrmnce.O The Prlgam" diflerssignificantly from prvious airsickness studis In several respects. First, the investIv.-tIon Is based upon the longitudinal follow-up of Individuals tff4WAuhu the entire tralft-Ing Pro0r1m Instead of just within one specific squOCIfon. 5econdly through th ccpsrel-tion of Nsaval Aviation Schools Comnuua, approximaely half of the NO studyppu-tion was exposed to short tests of motion reactivity Pfior to their beginning flight ftrWIg,Although Watall ele0me-nts 0f the test battery currently In use aem aimed specflally atairsickness, the telt results, singly and In combinatlon, We expecte to givO 50m in-"light into the optimal route for Idontification Of the airsick"es sensAtvity of indiviuAl

tOudents. The flight ",ta In addition to identifyIng the magnitude of the airsicknessproblem In each NPO squadron, will also provide a direct measure of the effectivenessof the laboratory tests. This latter factor Is most significant In that there Is nat a sing:*preceding study In aviation mfedicine that provides detailed longitudinal Inflight oritus-on data for validating the potential merit of preflight motion sickness susceptibility #osfs.

PROCEDURE

Figur I Is a block diagraom o! the different pipelines followed by NFO shode"tbefore assignment to the operational 11ee0 squadrons. Bab Right training begins InSquadron VT-l 10 cd then progesses through advanoed tra ining *o t" tye-pIflofleet readiness (RAG) squadrons. The student population Is subdividesd Into two die.'Vinat VrouSe Otw group is selected for aissipwnmen to the Mother Air Force 1160 (MAP)Advanced Training Squadron. This group flie only five familiarization hMPs (PM) throughFMS - - wee Apppnilx A) in Squadron WT-lO before being assigned to MAPS I&r navloatortrot iinge after which most ore asigned to P-3 alevraft. The second W"u of studenits60;a the some fiye familiarixation hops plus thirteen additional hops,? as described InAppe'Idx A. The assigrment of this latte gvoup to a specific advanced training sUaod.ron does not occurw until completion of their flight training In Squadron VT-1O0. Thisgroup then follows one of three different adyanced training pipelines Identified aVT..86-ANN, VT-SE-RIO, and ATDS In 1iur 1. The VT46-MAN population Istrained for floee assignments Involving a variety of attack end ontisubmarine wsirire£ASW) aircraft Including the S-3, A-6, and LA-6. The VT-86RIO populiation Is trainedf~r fleet operations Involving radar intercept duties In P-4 and F-14 fighter attrcr*f. AL-nall number of students receive the ATDS assigntment end wre trained to perform Risktofficer duties In E-2 aircraft. All advanced training students receive additional type-paeftc training In RAG squadrons before beMn assigned to an Operat"iol fleet pluodron .

The longitu'linal aspect of the study wre directed at follcowing a isiotively largenumber of NPO stuiments througphout the basdc, advanced, anod RAO squadron phase ofthair training. This "pofie repor Is concerned with the airsickness problem &rlngLzssla twaining In qarn VT-lO0. Data pertaining to the total number of VY-10 utudentsIna lu ded in the study 01d th number of students assignd to each of the foW differetadvanced training squadrons following graduation fitrm VY-10 ane listed next to the op-p~cpriat blocks In Figure 1. The number of students who attrited from Squadron VT-1Ooaftr thy began flight training Is also shown*

The wIded questionnir developed to evluate t6e ishikkness problm InSqu~onVT10 s sow InFlo* j, IAthe form Rilled oot by th intdent at the top

and the form Ailled out by the Instiutor at the boftom. The stud Protocol Wes such thatone questionaire wa omplete for eah eseaehop fown. To minimize problemwith confidentiality of questionnair "da`~ta, thesuet and instrtor setions weoeprinted on opposite sides of the form, with a fold line and self-adheeive tab provided toallow the student to seal his esiponses from direct view. The student wrote hisname atths top of the instructor farm' which was thn cwopeted by the Iristructor and depasittd

into a sealed collection box.,

-~ - - . ~ ~ -4

SQUADRON VTIO*NFO BASIC TRAMJG

PREFLIGHT A TIWF~ttW*fl~T SLIUW ITRAIdINGF

I me

TRAIM aMAFB TB6-AN VT6* RIIF"D

FLIGHTUADON

NAVAL FUGHT OFFTRICENINGI IEUE

%mov "M~

lb L

'-som

~~~AWJE -MM AWMD oono________________

PLEKANI WEPTRM THE PXLLOWING BY MAWN~Ge THE APPROPRIATE A1SWER: REPLY TO EACH OUY)CIHO

"A"0wg ONE MILO 01004MATE Slalo IS(owgkii~s, woo" who pm emmIdocso I

VOIIGNONE ONCE TWfICE

PERFORNAMCE DEGRADATION&r MONE OR MIA. MILO MOMEATE YsReif a

NER~USE6ISIP~4~S~~uU4INONE MILO MODERATE MYEs 3'

toe sa" my molkellsw be oleouo Val

7-0 PLIGHTS SHOULO ALSO COMPLETit ?NE FOULS.01G

NOTS AIUOC 1191ISik INSNC

PlEASE SbrIMATE THE FOLL WIPNG NY M11ARKING THE APPfOPRIATE ANI*tR: RPLY tQ KACH OVEITHOW

AIRSICKNESS *"NONE MILO MOOClA'%I. lawnR 16

PEPWOMMANCK DGROPADATION NON f OltN MILD W)OCRAI!V UVIfE so

K-oZ;Wn-E58 OF LIGH4T NONE MILO MOOGflAI I"11E01 SO

(T ~ ~WWI gTe gig'm~ To___

NONS OR N/A '11111iUI aWS~

*1TOOSImucTORI %as" h she"i. be"s Po11 oft bo sr Sofb u4Ibsi wowpos.. ao rowMbwo its of

ow big of 61*611164610e agpollen *1411I11 b~ewv beublq. fomlet spgOWoe..6 6100WV lowwbi VOs~ ero

Sftdm (sp)OW mi~wttusu (hgeeom esJknsuek qu.s.wiIft utilime to W.100 th.$Am~ VT-IS #0.

onthe " IttIWwith 0 un hmb we.pwod Iofiw pdt 491 , PW"4bb

W- h 1~ o.5i IP

stdr, ocial security number, squadron name (VTmIO in this ocle), 'habrviete noeof thO hop (see Appendx A), Juhaon doe of the nlight,? and local tolceof ?ime. knmedi-

tudeo f afrniokness experlienced during the flight, the number of time. onItIngocurdthe rolative magnitud, of any flight performanc degrodation that wr~y hove occurred aa result of airsickness, and tOe relative amapnItude, of any nvvourws opri awomed betorZ dyrng the flight. A Fifth ItemrequestedaY or no answer reklatv to the use of air-okcncv meodication on the hop, A seon set-o quoni was asked of Wmos stdents

wheoiRswructir formn h ailthao poidd fo9 ~rced-cOceratngs ofo the satmef T-si2nssvalmftng potfenrforma Snce derdtion,-3 anwalwd ntwooes mesre mnludentsn the stbenrjouthe reaoound formathi, onperen riedunanrcy w on esably thav ocurd nipec to thihe

Insgwators were aware of t" students' experience. In oddition, the inorwuoter wasaskd to ra% t" roughness of flight In term, of turbulence w? p¶I't tfthnique. A sbdhquestin was directed at detemining the nmber of hops that 1Wd 1o be terminate beforecompltlton of training as.a result of airsickness.a Space1 was all* Provided for theInstructor to enter th alight grade issued to the student for the 91,en *-p 11a0h hIwithin the syllabus Is bated upon the completion of a s6e1i1011~4w M"IIof taskst wit anegrads (uneatisfoctory, below aqeaverage, GVeP nd above avelaq) hsuied fOW eachassigtnsd task. Since the number of tase comprising a given hk trainring a~mrIse varkfromn hop to hop,, the total number of grades Issued YMes frOmn hp to hop. hth thstudent mad instructor forms Included sims for written aommen4i on their experences.

To initiate the study, proleot investigators, gaM each newly entrin class ofNFO students thorough Wriefngs on the purpose of the resecch and the Methods to befollowed In completing the questionnaire, It Was Ooemphasizd to the stuPdents that the

proo4t was of a resarh naltur and that their questionnaire responss oldb hlIn confidnc* and In no way affect thir Own proPrs In tm~raiig - ank questonnaireand collection ban$e were then place*d in the squqdic debriefing mooms. Completedquestionnaires were lesy-punched on a singe card fOllOIAOw the oad-0uo1umn co& idea-tifleri next te each questionnaire Item listed In Figure 2. To ewmus the kdentification ofthoss response Itwms for which either the Insftrutck or 0Wudnt fole~d t0 resPOnd, th keypunch operators eintered a zero. The none, mild, no"eot a*nd severe Oratng M00oc-ote with a given response Item were thenf cM W~ w a~1~ ,~Taigsoe

At the some time a large number Of these students "s exPosed to a vatiety oflakv~tory tests undergoing eivaluation 0s potentil meamwes of airsickness .uboeptibl Ity.I href descriptions of these tetsami provided In Appendix It with related refe01Wrences thatprovid, mowe detailed Inforirtion on test techniques and procedures. The results of

I,6

ihcQ test, w-re also koy-punched on cards.

The resulting ocmd data were then entered and disk-stared In a digital computer(Hewlett-oc kord 54516). To allow the projeot Investigators to monitor and Intert with0o questionnaire data on a direct day-to-day basis, software was developed to wrify,list, group, and edit the questionnaire data on an Individual-subject basis. Th sohftwore

as designed arouncl two nwotr disk files. One contalned all of the basic student Identi-fclotion data Including the VT-O claon number, date of graduation from VT-1O, the cd-vanzed squaon assignment received, and the results of the laboratory airsickness susep!1-bflity tarts. The sewond maiter file Involved a separate record for each of the question-nalres received from the student. These questionnalra were entered sequentlally as.',caivod from the squadron.

When all of the students Included In tip VT-10 population either graduvted orottrlitd, a second mrsuet set of disk files was then structured to facilltate more thoroughCtlamyals. One file contained all of the student Identification data described previously,with tho condition that only those studinets for which at least one questlionnare had beenvoce V .4d wft. included In the new student listing. The original questionnaire datft *wrhoaluted sequentially on on Indlvidual.-student boils In a second disk fIe. The iogatiomof the b*jInnin2 and end questlonnalre disk records In this Ole we& then stored for eachaudunt in tho master wuilect Identification fit6. This approach was selected to j..-d upcho cralysls of the questionnaire results on an IndlvI4ual-subJeot baslle At this time un-vwoightod and weighted summary questionnaire Indice", to be detailhd in a lotr sectlon,.ore acalculated for each student and stored In the moster student Identiflootion file.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

8efo,- detailing the stallstleal reults of the questlonnalre data, a few cursory CO-nivnts wIll ba mode relative to the busle data collection aspects of the study. lt gMeeral,(cdlent cooperallon was obtained from the stuclent end instructor groups putiklpetlG Int0,e study. A total of 5,394 validated questionnaires Involving a total of 408 VT-10 stu'cants wwre collected during this phase of the longitudinal study. In a smell number ofcesas students did not complete a questionnaire Immediately after flying a given hop. Inthose cas it was general practice to contact the student and request that aP0041+04dquesti-nnalre be submitted for the mlsaing hop. On a studckt questlonnair se Figure 2.top) extensive data were i ocelved on all items exnept the block that related to tO theairs Ickness occurred on the T-39 aircraft. This aircraft, larg6 thae the two-wated T-2oircrm&' used to fly the majority of the hops, permitted two or more students to be succe"-slvely lrafned on different hops scheduled for a single T-39 flight. Sinc, a relatively lownumber of questionnalre (Oe than I I percent of the total) we recelved on the T-39flighN, th•e data are not adreomed In this report. Extensive data were also obtainedf.rom the Instructor questionnalmr (see FIgure 2 - bottom). In the came of the line Itemdollng with the incidence and cause of aborted or incomplete hop, the katructors Indl-cated thot only seven of the 5,394 hops flown were aborted during the course of the stud.

rhe data base of 408 stucknts was derived primarily from fifteen euceessive VT-10P. clases, beginning with Ci.. 7625 and ending with Class 7707. In addition, there were

"I,

- -- -__*.

a row studenfts from eaTrtIC taxes who laed the ir fl ight training delayed for v Iowtea o-scn3 not~ wxinent to the study. As Indicated by the tmwmicai dafta entered adjecent totho flow UPna. In the Figure I black diaprm of the NFO training pfpoline, 25 (6.1 per-ceat) of the 403 Vr-iC studonts atitited from the program after beglnniiig flight "rinino.Slaxec the project objectives centor on quantifying the atruilckness performance of the itu-

&tp~pufatlon on an Individual basis, stutlents who ostrited from 'IT-10 ' ¶befoe lsnn?nsfWtht training) were not Included In the study population. In asence, 0nly thstudentsk,- which at leat one. airsicknes questionnaire was received were Incorporated Into tA4dan boe=. As poaned out by varlous training mwanagment personnel, th~s 6.1 percenttilttion r-te was easceedingly low as compared to previous eqiuivalent sequences of ciwsii.07 tho 408 toal students, M8 (93.9 percent) graduatedo wIth 128 CMA. percet) rocolv--Ii~oi advanced training assignments to tMFB,, 144 (35.3 percent) to VT-86.AJN, 88 (21 .6pc,ýcant) to VT-S&-ftO, and 23 (5.6 percent) to ATDS.

To facilitate the over-ail Interprethati of the VT-10 airsickness qU881ionnaile data,th,3 study results a.e reported and discussed under six different subeaings. tn +he firstsctio.-n the questionnaire dama are used to define the Incidence arnd severity of airsicknessor, coch of the, 18 hops comprising the entire VT-10 flight syllabus. In the second seellor

Wasome questionnaire into are discussed In relatlon to the conribUllOn of students ScPerI-anxing airaknuiles on a repeated basis to the over-all Offsicknesa Incidenc figures In the1%1d section unweighted and weighted airsickness indices an developed to quantitatively&~fine airsickness Incidence and severity on an Individual NFO student basil!* The fourthvszatior utilizes these :ndice% to discuss, similarities and differences amngM differt sub-j,ý,ulations defined by the graduated or attrIted studets. The fifth section utilzes these

st.Indices In various combination% to both define and compare the Per10rm*":e *1 ncnývjmreptlib't student groups with highly suseptible student group within the over-all 0.9u-kdion. The lost section presents a rank correlation matrix analysis of the relationshpisfound to exist between arnd atross the different Right Indices Ond 1aboratOry test $Gores.

AJISICKNESS INCIDENCE AND SSEVEftITYt INDIVIDUAL HOP ANAMYSIS

The principal elements of t" data derived from the, airsickness questionnaires Or*tebularod In Table I for each of the 18 hapt comprising the VT-tO flight slabus. Tb.table contains separaths listings for the student and insftrutor ratings of the incidenee andmragnitude of the four Principal rsponse measurs of th sludyW 'se** airsickness, vomit-in1g, Inf light performance degradation ceuse by airsickness, and ner~uvounes Far "Ic,of these measre frur percenta vahies corresponing to clasifloetiom t " mi W~ntradarate sVera, are presented Far each of the 18hoS Each datum below a ON"m~

nA"e rapresents, the percentag of th total nusibe of hops flown of the"mfe clauuifkcotlon wvhore the denoted response, occurred. The first datm presente4 far a

1j(ven response# *ego, PAirsioknems-ftesente" Is the percentae Of' the hoPe where alrsik-nacsos * present without qualification as to the severity (mild, moderate, or severe) Of theeraqwnsa. Yhe three following value, descrbe the Percent Incidence of mild# modvaerteenrd se-ere ratinw,, respectivelY, for the denote questionnaires item.l in the 0a0e of thek~amit measure the broakd~wti is generally based t,,xn the nu-nsr of "--= the respo~seoccurred on a given flhiht. The student quetionnaire tabulation also contains a 1ine Itemdwrriirg the percent Incidence of flights where the students reported that airsickness

9

I.I

. .• . . . . .. . .. . . . . ..

u•e e..............we.........................

I Not; so. - - -

I I " ""'" ' " """ " "' """ " I

II! "~::' '" "" • ""::...~

Iii! I""Ii. .. . . .. . . .l . . ...

.ii . .... .. ... ... .... .. .. .. .4* k w l 1 L s 08 It

I III,..

SI'00

Oft Ok, 00

medication had been used. In the Instructor tabulation separate IIstIng amr ptovidod fhrflIl>ht turbulonco aid a breakdown of the grades Issued on a given hop. The data Fr*tented In the total column at the rttremm right of the table represnt the pwwt" ofthe total hops flown (5,394) whem the donxted responses we present.

As Indicoted In the Total column of Table h, oe VT-10 students reported that air-sickneos (mild, moderate, or severe) occurred on 16.2 percent of the Isops nwnj theirInstructor& estimated the Incidence to be only 10.2 percent. For *,e overt symptom ofvomiting, howover, the student and Imctrtor ratings wero more noarly In €goeoment, wwould be expectedi the pereoitaqe of the total flights when vomiting ococwoed am ormore times was reported as 6.9 by the students, and 6.6 by the Insvtmtr. Arsckrof suffiolent severity to degrade the InflIght performance of the student was Judged to beprozent on 10.7 pwrcent of the total flights by the studenms and 7.5 percent by the Insrum-tors. Student nervousness, experleod either before or dIrlng a hop, wa Indicted on35.4 percent of tlhe hops by the students and only 17.9 p•rcent by the Instructors.

To highlight the difference between these ren*nhe measures as a fumtln of thespecific hops comprising the VT-10 flight syllabus, selected elements of Table I hovebeen plotted In Figures 3 through 9. In these figures each hop to Identified with an

OE5ICA111E DISTRIWIION

Moe tf rofhls, dtlbutloa of etnIlohw qesfutcwmieo toSolvd dlIp t ae ue•M, a e ot *ie

%IW

.tsft lwtehp lhuhilee~eOeteawt m le

awbmioktd code that Is detailed In Appendix A. The loheling sMqence In s nfgurs reading from left to right follows, In general, the sequence that the students aot-u-ally flow the hops, although there were varkitiom from student to student. The extntcnd distribution of the baWie data available for analysis on an Indlviduol-hop baste am&ploted In Flgur 3 whom the number of questionnalr. colleoted for a given hop Is

cvused as the percentage of the total nun;rw (5,394) of questionnaires received. It,thold be noted that the number of questionnamres collected for each of the first fiveamiliarlzation hop. (FM1 through FM5) excee& the number collected for each of the

followlno 13 hops. This arises becmue the studentk selected for assignment to MAPO flyonly the first five familiarlzation hops, while all other 0tudents fly the entire I6 -

eyllabus. On the average,, approxImtely 400 questionnaires were co"pleted on eachof the famllolarlctlon hops, and about 260 questionnaires were obtained from eoch ofth remalnirng hoap. Variations In the lact number of questionnalm per hop are dueto Ioen than 100 percent return which was compensaotd by occaIonal repeat hope. Oftho 5,394 questionnaires received, 326 (about 6 percent) Involved students repeating ahap previously flown.

In Flguro 4 the student and Instructor ratings of airsickness Incidence ore comparedcn an Indivldual-hop basis. Figure 4A plots the Incidence of arlsickness, regordlew ofc•zgroe of severity, that occurred on a given hop exmressed as the percentaoe of the totaltimes alrsickness occurred relative to the total number of times the hop was flown. Fli-urws 481 4C, and 4D) depict the percent Incidence of hope where alrsilckne waspront to a mild, moderate, and severe degree, respectively. Those data goeerallyIndicate that both the Incidence and severity of airosiknes were greotes on FMI, thefirst famlliarimtfon flight. Of the total numbe of FMI flights, the students rndloatodthat 59.6 percent of the hops produced aireickness, 28.2 peraent resulted In vomItingano or more times (Flgure 5), and 41.6 percent caused performance dgrmdetlon due toaIrsilckno*s (Figure 6). The Incldence of nervousness, either before or during flight, wasalso oreoatst for this Initial flight (Fiure 7).

Alrokne effects were also high on the fifth famillariation hop (PMS) bvt noto the extent experilenced on FM1. The FO0 through F03 serles of hops, generallyflwn at tho very end of the flight syllabut, alto produced considerable motion stress.In torms of ths maximum severity of the airsickness symptoms (Figure 41)), the maximumntmier of times vomiting ococu d (Figure 31), and the moximum poeform ce degrada-tion (Figure 6D), hops FMI, FOPI, F02, and F03 pmrdmd the greaot strsm rotings bybath the studonts and the Instructors. Severe nervousness ratings (Figure 7D) were notpc'ticulorly pronounced, however., for this particular set of flights. However, the stu-dants rev d a relatively high Incidence of nervousness present (Figure 7A) as comparedto the three airslaknes-related response measures. The pattern of Inrlcdene by ho p-perent In Figure 7 only op"rotmatoly motche the more distinctive pattern nrtlotoebleIt Figures 4, 5, and 6.

f 12

. e

it'

wk - a ol-

AIIl(5J~rjDfgF-&4y EC(Ot( AIR3Jt9GUE2 INCJOW~t-CiLO O~CafSUMt? IkSimMnM C PAelU3SIKS3M1E

WI1 X1LarU04 Tt pro

Ko

IIL

lite

a:O

II

I.1

I ~ ~~~~camPels"e of OV&set Ond 1"hkw tee m ogfri .1 ~eft knees homen' end wYV~ty a 6 kmttlen of th

#owni Os. gWmi mskafteeen whems ther deneotolmed occanawrned. s gni h ~eeIu*uMnh of rsIkstak Ins idsee end "w~rIty vndsot.Plmet *ees previsd 1*y the stuens. hr ~~ ~ dto IndIcae tehat nwfldn 6"0" ws pospeneof en hops W.1 PMS, Ond POt tteV. PM3.

"-it13

f O~1TNZ i maIx -oM an tMW 71uE3 V m111Nc - Til

I M

A B

VDtITItN INC IDlitfi-T T~lES VOW1T IC KID -M)ElfE 0 ME I NOno. SU 111D 1114" N IIA7 NOl~ woli.0 00111111 10 h1UMr

Itsto

noI to

Lc i

f*-S

Ce w of "M uevun lmodIwtw el~ros of .*Wtkl loeweieu ae LwetImo of the hod1M" h".pThe poov rwis ons ofIuue hopm rtkV In~ hOv sheahWmtIn a wo vwsm tiom Is 0~ n hoAj the huoe Idoleo of hsp. hw~ote +4sveAmto Vomited W4, t"e, W tir vers " time. Is uiWqm In o, C, mod 0,

m~Ively. Aa with FIN. 40>, "h lowldehuto...s~eftopo wstt fil s.101 wolysuo WW PMSn M.bus rue spin, *a he". VOl tV6* rPM, vlolh #wwrehIy seuwcM sof vwy P

of01 ffho ngt fyIk#Am.

14

pu~7mtE mm~fATIoM wIrNC[m-mky OEM~fI1X1V 11WW AMhS PW1131 M&IM IKIDM(IU KmU

ao ~IL

ILlit

AB

FEW09mVEWM IO INMUM-IZU DUK WMM 1WT IXiTN -11m VCIE

11131 "a litUXT SUNUC V& lI tUm JNd

Ito Lt.

w~~~i IuiIUŽI5*UVU- ~II 15

Ces~w~aw O OWevs a Imwoww rWeflow of Inflkt pakrwmma dwII~n ..isw by, skoskg-. " 41106WONVll I'Mohfai*4 I ~hd~uIM.L

&W w* Np G t.W 110 ON 1w1TGW t. o O MFW 4FIOW

IERVOWMB INC WdcE..NLI OMU~

LAA

mlt

lat

&:I L444ULA IL,,4444

c Im imm0MM IM

*I Ous"I atwit si

mw IT w weY NIUEIUHK A*O w"A y , hwwas 0meI w k ~ inmaur~reuw faloiff" ffo 114hfIW y011Mti fA WO h V IO0

Amw byMthts OI t mas t 03

OIGCAIUcm IKIM[NX

Sto

i'adi0u' Veep 11064"d eenoldu~ly sos the few femilierhe floogNhts following *a. min 11*~fyMI %sv* ~w nallueeof lfteim wa nely 60 pwommi IM. PIVs 4A), Umge on the N@

VN wise of hop eOm fail, followd byea Oie an O Wws(O fV

Figvre 8 Is a plot of "h percent inacidence of airslcknms mediation uep asrspttsd by the students. These dafta dicoats that the use of rich medication followingtho first familiaization hop (FM1 Increased considerably on the subsequen fur famil-kiorltlon hops (PM2 *fough FMS). The use of medication an the IN end VN srles of*3 fell to arelatively low level but wee ogin on the FO sorlesothaps. Thismrpoteusj3 of medication during the lat. pha. of the training program reuire furher Investi-Onfon sinc~e this practies te" vo allow airsick susoehiles to cot"u In the proprmwUitout the nohwoal screening intended by training command eronnel. Howeer, aswillbe discussed In a later section, the tr'jmber of WFO students reporting the usage of medimCa~on composed a mnull percentage of th total Squadm VT-10 population.

Flows 91.s a uumny plot of the fturblence or rowgvos-oa F-.k data provided byth,: lnsiructor groups following sach MUiMh. As indicate by Figur e A the hl4rutorswc~dered turbulence to be poesent to a .iifoonw*et nent on th five hops prOdicing

tho prvtee airsickness aft"mi I.*., FMI#, FMS, end P01 tlwogh F03. The VN seriesofFi~ghts was alto considered to hae" tubulence provent togsome degree. The intent of

Q3element of "h quesionnaire was to obtain bockgrotnd informaton on any maIbereloionship btenfih u~ec mt t~pwecntosoWara

17

I~mM."

Cie .ILI UK PAT~E.I h I~NJ~A~dCEI~(Vt~NE-MI I~ILI

Mf LI

.L6

AI R B. . ~ii~~

A W'VSqpUW~- m

Kl ILI M 6

KILI 1LISLI

ILIILI. L

VI l I - -0 wiel" M

oa o er.Th pMmt~ ai~wn W eMum esi %nWen o" WON~ 10111 W0*1 ?WI fRmg-

kibuow qutwttomef (weeP 2Fbee This s refigeod toe0 .satinh *sWe On Wh&MIwe. eeFOr Is thee Fw~ 03~m bsew In

Incldtn®c. Howevc,, during the course of th, sudy It was found that certain Instnutorsbowd their roughness-of-air Judgments upon the over-oil mooniude of the flight forcesproduced by the hop maneuvers ossoclated with a given hop rather than simple atmo.-pherlo turbulence. Thbs Interpretotiac was due to the Inclusion of the wordso 'pilottechnique," In the roughn.ss-of-oar Item inoluded In the Instructor quetioMnnalre (?tV2 - bottom). In this context the turbulence data listed In Table I and plotted In Fiur9 awo probably highly oOmlromlsed by the level of the flight foroes produced by theteoticol maneuvers required on a given hop.

The flight grade data tabulated In Table I are plotted as a fmction of the individu-al hops In Figure 10. The quadron grading protocol was such that on Instructor Issuedom of fouW 7rods (average, above average, below overag, or unmatifactory) for eachof the flight performance tasls to be practiced on a given hop. The total number ofUmodes issued on a given hop could range from one (FMI) through ten oc more, dependngupon the complexity of the hop. The percent.• data plolted In Figure s 0 ree to thetotal rumbr of grades issued on a glven hop. The data Indloate that the dlW-!butlonof flight grades ocrows hops was relatively constant, with the eioptlon of FMI whichInvolved only one grade per student.

As me~itloned previously, the sequence In which the students flew the 16 hopacomprising the VI-l0 flight syllabus generally followed the left-right quence shownIn Figures 4 through 10. However, ther were eoceptIon, where students flow hops Indifferent sequences, partlcularly In the IN and VN series of hop. Without esweption,however, the FM flights always preceded the FO tactical maneuver hops, with a con-siderable number of IN and VN Rights flown In between these two wles of hops. Inthis repect, a first Inspection of the alrickness (Figure 4) end vomiting (Figre 5) datawouid Indicate that little adaptation to reduce arslckness ococured In the stlnt groupover the entire length of the training program. However, the FO eIeM of flght Ini-volved tactical missions that produced a hlv96 level of motion stress oompared to all hops,with the exception of FMI and FM5. For these two familliarilaton hops, as deduced*ron Interviews with dlferent Instructorsr the tactical man•uv performed on FM werconsidered to produce a much greater mo.ion stress than the maneuvers perfomen on FMI.Althouth FM5 was the greater stressor, the airlckness effect observed for thh flightwere of lees sevelty than those osciated with FMI, Indicating some degree of Initialadaptation. For eomple, on FM1 airsickness Inmence was 0.6 porwent, whloh thendecreased to 35.5 percent on FMS. Slmllarly, vomiting Inldence on FMI wo 21.2p|rcent, which then fell to 14.9 percent on FM5. The rise In arslckness effects durIngthe FO series of hops which occurred at the end of the flight syllabus emphsInze theI oint that adaptation effects cannot be deduced from a simple seent.iaI analysis offo; flown, but must, Instead, dewlve from On evaluation of the relative se level ofthe Individual hops oomprising a given flight syllabus.

AIRSICKNESS INCIDENCE AND SEVERITY: STUDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS

The go questionnaire data used to develop the Table I analysis of oirslaesmIncidence for each hop were also examined to determine the relative contribution of

P 19

'9'.'

FLO~T MMAD 3IKWUX-AWnA fiCi

3SiWIM PAla FLC CP 11IUAI MMU

me

rat ILI

ILI[

ABAV!w m - m*ON uill 1#F jm MP. -IMVill

F1.1011 MO ICW U~D-EL(M AWMD FLirf )ICIff01 O IMMIWIVACO

fVf(3 0

W o- m lilt

Pe~ent~etnseof mgs(N, Obweve a M below evego~ ft). endurnsahelewy 0)) NIV*we"h Fo he tw nfivtdue% heps. Nh p"In roe of* hosd tpow 4e3'Ig No of them w pods. tosash iask palsme on a liven hip whomrs tel tmise of teiiool. re viesh krm hep I* hop. lesAAoui pleltod in ths l igure Iaprsow* the pwoaiofs #M thes mole nsi of grews given en m livenhop 01Wv "w dened gpod. we"hw "gad Immomredp" were rebtively evenl d~obuWsa. evethe (Ught sylkabu.

Ind~vz-ajol shtudnts who wqsperincod repeated aIrsicknow. In Table I the IncIdenae datapmntwd below each hop coreq~ond, In general, to the number of students experienc-Ing abmick-wo on that hop, but these doia wer influenced by a small number of studntswho had to repea hops for one reason or another. In this wswe the ialderwe data InTable 1, when intePreed relativ, to the percentage of students who were oInIck on agiven ho, would be on the high side OF the t've percentage flgwer. In th;s -,s. total1nccIence relative to all of the hops flown doe not have a direct rei~rat~nhIP with thenumber of students e perIenoin airsickness, since ahirecknee was not evenly dlstr~utftiocrocc of"he the hops flown or, e"ualy Unportant, the student population.

to emmlne Incidence on an Indivtduui-student basis, the dafta Were aalyzd towaOrmf Ins the nuniber of students who experineced a given. r9so=s a -1t number

of tinms durn the course of the entire VT-10 training progrem. Tabie71 is atabjlo'tion of the reulti of this crowlysis for the* principl InflIght elements WWWe study. BEckdatum in this tab!. below a given co'lvu heading denotes the percntage Of the 4Mstudents who experencad a given.rsos the number of timec Indicate by the columnnheader. The total columnw at the exArwm right of each row In the tabl denote the per-centape of the total number of students Who e43Hermeoe the given response a"~ or moretin,=. Thes total data indicate tha 74.5 percent of the students were alrulac o aW MM flights during their VT -.10 training,. 39.2 percent vomited on one Or MWor hopsond 58.6 percet experienced 11erfor11nce deGadation due tO airsilakme on amone Mormorhaps. As shown by the individual colu~mn dfta in Table II,, a small percete of students who were repeately airsick modle quite significan conributions to the over-allairsicknals Inoldsmce, roe. Some students dispaye extreme perseveran"e In that oneIndividual reporte being airsick on 17 hops and sove indIVIdaMls r6Mited VWMttl onsix 0r mor hops. Table If,, like Table 1, reflects the lower rmagntude of the Instructorratinas as compared to those ofthe4 stUdenft.

To etmphaiz the multiple conitributions, of e swall nu0be Of studnts to the Over-all ainicknes Incidence data, the student- enid Instructor-based ashickess VomitiPg,

performance degradatio, end nervotwusn data of Table 11 have been plotted In cumw-lative freqency distribution form In 1ipire 11.- The least Suseti I members of theetuds* population are identifled In this "iur by the interstIcon of the distributionCurve With the, "orsnt axis. In effoct, 25.5 peren of the stUd~ents eporte that t6sýnever experienced airsickness, dwrin fraininsit 60.3 poerent reported thN* they nevevomzited,, 41.4 percent never reotd anY perflorTanc erdto du AM ain esand 11. 5 perceont Indicated that they never experienced nervousnss Aitrer ly d-fining the fost susceptible students a thos In the upper 110 percen (dectle) of theFigure I I distrIbutions1 reults In the fbllowing observation' reklatv otestdnqe-ticnnw*e dafta For the aiscIMess m4PeSMe thu 10 percent of the population with the-- eats inkidence of rep. eted airsickroess 4XIDuIence Is defined by students who wero

airsick on five or more no"ht. For, the ~oIt meomur the uppe decile Population Ismarkced by studen's who vomited on three or more flights. The* 1404 applies %r the Per-1orenc derdto measure. In essence, tests of motion sickness senitivity would

be quite useful if they coodd successully identify indlvkIdus 0omptISInG thes MMWIscpbi. subpopulations.

21

.• . ..... .,.* .- - .o .o e .o~ . ., . e . . .o . . .. .

4 IL . . . . . . . . . . . .. .o. . . . . . . . . . . .

*0fl @@0 .......... ...

.t . . . . . . ..

I *A I S

'4 ; . . ..- . . . . . . . . ..S S'.:... .... ..S.......

I 01 1!" V! . . .. . 1!0-- G4 I,. o So..,S........ONS.......... 1

... . . ....... . . . . .

II

I!i ! ~ "'"'"""" "'"

0 ail l I 4110 tl 0 00 4 0 ! 0.00 4 *00

10 • , .ON J006 00% ,th soft .4 t 00• a•• , e I

inuwm pg mn w UUW aw0i pi

- - -"SW W-"• "WW ".d

"so """

!!.it tax,!"•

ti' U19506.M Usti"': ' "''' "' "1-03SAL044 I II xI I

.,,, Mml ll l l •. .iltl ;i l ,-l , 1I IItiO / l I /III iI / / //

II I O IIII III I I OIII I Ii I•l i ,•

r 22

AIVa]cNM ISCI~-*'r OEM W' 11C jv~ua-ft DoS wl Itm

I.Wamw I::N- 0 , a#I

sac. ILI

_ _ __ _ lag

ALL~ Ir::l IL IM

A mw "1 RUA BF 3U

*2ý1 MMMTIDN ICIma* 6 mTAMMllo E

al"IW OMAIflg'ir Mt11IAA

I ILI

a IL

Anothwr set of obnrvations pernent to th fture comparIson of theus SqucuonVW-10 student firequncy dot with simlar daft derived from advarced and fle retdf-nra- s.wdoons Involves th" numer of sudents conrlbtlng to the total Incidence ofotntoknm that occurred on he hop flown. The Table I and Table II dcta acin be re-latod to sm that 50 peroest of the hops whem alrlcknem ocojred *vs acomnted forby Ion than 19 perent of the studontv 50 percent of the hom where vomiting oceurrodwm occountoid for by only 10 percent of the studentso Y) perer of the hop where per.formanom daoadotdon occurred was aocounted hr by les than 14 peroen of the Otudentand 50 pamvnt of the hopq whoere raumei s occurred was oocourted for by only 17Sr'weeont of the students.

Narmliled cumlotive frquemy dfi*rbutlom of the •a form are also pk*ftdW studant report of medication usage In Fig"r 12A and for Inotructor rutlns of turbu•lonce or roughnes of air In F119re 121. The sin ifloance of the medication Wage plotIs t1Wt only 10.8 percent of the ltudents reported using medlt dn "rIng training. Ofthis total (44 students), I1 stuents reported using medication on fiveor nmre hops. Inefkat, the Incldene of medication usage showm In Table I and plotte In Figur 8 woaccounted for, In tot part, by a very moll number of smudsnts. The turilence doteshow qt the repeated o spore to roughnes of air was more evenly dlitrlbuted over thepopulation.

tICATIM NI U IiNIWEE Pm-/fffU-nu Wmo r mo uPCsialLW =

IGO. m-----------------

ill,9

li I LUII.--- lndmn Ilia*. - Ilii1mltlI1L

Va -L PAMI iJi

A wm , M ano ~ B u vi .wl

Pipre IS

24•

i

Om notI mA

TmB111MVl

A O ilM

INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PERFORMANCEt AIRSICICIESS INDICES

To &voiop a method of comparing the performaonce of individuaI students over theeritir course of their flight trainirg in Squadron VT-10, uw weghted and weIQhted In-dl= wore calculated for the principal elements of the airoicknees questioninao-ve, usingboth ýh student and Instructor ratings. Specifically, for each student five unweightedand fivo waighted Indices of performono. were calculated, using the airsickness, vomit-Ino, arfarmtonce degradation, netvowsness, and medication usage components of thestudet questionnaires as mteasurement references. Far the Instructor data five urwtefgttdand fivo weighted Indices wersecalculatesd, using the airsicknes, vomiting, perfrmncodeamw~tiaton, nerousness, and turbulence components of the Instructor questionnaire asreft~once. These. Indices have the niminediate function of allowing t6. comparison ofdiffe~nt student groupit -wthin a given squaron. They art also Intended to sw thefuirthcr function of relating an individual's eairly perforniance with subsequent perfomrm.arnce In advanced and fleet reacilness squadrons.

The unweighted Indices for the questionnaire responses to be analyzed ropresntthe parcentage of the total number of flights flown by a given student where the denotedreesonoe occurred. For these Indices no weight Is given to the severity of the eesponeTha unweighted Index Is calculated for a given student as

1) RESPONSE INDEX (UNWEIGHTED)- Toa o.1d9Wfon 0

To ilIlustrate, If a student flew a total of 18 hops aind repote that einsicaknes sympkmnwere present to some degree (ioe., mild moderat, or severei) on 9 hops, the unwelghtedoirst.kness Index for this Individual wouid be 50.0. If a student neve ex~pemieed air-siokness, his Index would be 0.0. Correspondingly, a Mxdmum val6e Of 100.0 for thisIndwit denotes a student who was airsick on all Of the hops that he flew. This method ofcalculation of the unweighted Indices applies to each of the five student questionnairer.:ponses and to each of the five Instructor reponse as lisOe above

The weighted Indices calculated for the same ten questionnaire rsoesassign alinenr weight of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to the four magnitude ratings associatetd with all but themedication image Item.* For example, if a itqident reported that he Woo Iot airsick on ag)vc-i hop, he would have a response rating of 0.0 for this hopg students who experiencodmild, moderate, or severe airsickness symptoms would be $IVen response ratings Of too2.0, and 3.0, respectively, for the hop. These respons ratings wer summed fhr eachindividual and used to calculate a weighted Index, also ~MaMIIRed t0 hove 0 Mexi"iMvoluo, of 100, as follows:

2) RESPONSE INDEX (WEIGHTED) Toa M. f100tsf'

Accardingly, a student who was never airsick would have a weighted airsickness indexof 0.0) a student who was severely airsick on all of his flights would hove a weighted

25

Inec of 100.0j a student who was mildly airsick on 80 percent of hh hop. would have onfn~dc: of i6.71 and a studnt who was severely airsick on 50 percent of his hops wouldhavo cmn indexc of 50.0. In the case of the medication usage element of the studentquca&"nnalrs, a response rotlno of 0 was eassIgned to the Item It medication was not usedan tho flight and I If used. The weighted Index for this response was also normalized too mm-1.1mun value of 100.0, thus resulting In the unwolghted kwd weighted Indices forthis eno Item being Identical.

The resulIino roup statistics for these Individually calcufjoted response indices armtabWUkod In Table Ill. Response variables 1 through 5, and 6 through 10., In this tableda=?%a tho five unwuighted and five weighted Indices, respectivelv, defived from theituea;-it questionnaire data) variables I1I through I5 Stnd 16 through 20, orrespondequivlemorly to the unweighted and weighted Indices derived from the Instructor question-maimo eata. Although the Table Ill statistics are based upon all 408 students Included Intho tiudy,, response Indices were calculated for only thse" students who had filled outfour cz mome questionnaires. Statistioal dafta for variables 21 and 22, representing thefinal azcademiic and flight grades received by the students graduating from VT-10, werenot Irnluded In this particular table. The reason lies In the fact that the recorded Oradearoceived by the graduatina students assigned to MAF% were based upon only the five to-milla~iatlon hops (FMl through FMS), while the grades recorded for the students assinedto tho VT-%6 and ATDS squadrans were based upon the thirteen additional hops flown bythis kC-ter group.

statistical parenmeters calculated for each variable listed In Table Ill Include therUmp mean, standard deviation of the Obsevations, standaird aerro of the mean, minimum

valuo obsered, maximum value observed, group median, the Kolmogorov-Smlrnov devi-ation statistic,0 and the total number of observations Included In the data base- The un-weigkted, student-based Indices Indicate that for this population, the mean or averageshudrt experienced airsickness amon ~prxinuttely 18 percent of th hops flown, vomitedone or more times on 7.6 percent of týhe oe, expeiened minlight perfomanc degrada-tion due to airsickness on 12 percent of the hops, and reported the Presence Of nervusness " over 40 percent of the hops. The equivalent unweighted Indices calculated frmthe Inmtructot data Indicate considerabl y lower Mean values for the sme Indices, withthe a =aption of the vomit variab~le .The same relationship applies to the weightedIndiccc presented in Table Ill. The mean value of apridmately 3),5Wfo the medicationusage Index denotes a relativelY low utilization of airsickness medication for the goup.Th* moon unweiGhted turbulenwce index indicates that the Instructors Gonsidere 20 Per-cent of the hops Involved roiughness of air (turbuene and stressfl flight 'Wcrw).

Th. Intepretation of the mean vaukes of these 20 ftresone IrIies as nuMbers dee-crlblna th. response of an %oVerage student' h hiighly limited since the dittributions ofthe rcezponse Indioos for the group are Generally skewed toward the lower values. Th's isdemniotrated by the median values shown in Table Ill which consistently fMll beow themeana Th* non-Gaussian nature Of the resonse '"dCe. 1s confirmed by the devkatlonstatistic presen,,ed next to the medlan column in Table Ill. A Kolmoprorv-Smlriiov one.

KIMPlo test of goodness of fit (10) wc. appiled to the data whlere the normalized cumultiv

lb

TObM* III

Si.?aistica listirg of the flight response Indlices end laboratory Ntest orn for. the Sqve&.n VT-l0 stodpczýwkctlon. The fIII& Indicest (see toad) for "h W~I~dVIwI sutdents wase oeklouted an t" bassk ofallf(ahts flow. dining trelning. Deft promened for each reponse varmloe Inolude "h mean, slendwd4cviations stitndod erwoo of t6 pmepn mInfmump meximum, med"# eOd total wmber of students. biv--t ton, tho davlefio"n-stetic euseehtW with ihorqwpom*Io Kclauvorov-SmIrnov .no-duflPle testof Goo1ws of fit of0 dithe ylbutton of One observed Agoe to Ow dtsft*Ien of en equlvalent thwokktlelcounkan populatlon Is blsed at the fight.

... ..... ... .. .. . .. .* . O . * * * * w e a C..a. *iC.

RESPONSE VARIASLE STATISTICAL PARAOMING,11. ISCRIP1TIOW flAM $.DIV. .131.k. "IN NAN 1111141N DIVS

I -AIRSICKNESS RWOIK1-Vv so.$ 81.3 .9 .6 Is%.$ £M. So1 .1301SS-VORIT1WS iWDNax-uW 7.3 11.4 .6 .0 so.6 .6 331 .346

~35PDSAA3N1143111-9v 13.8 13.9 .1 .6 101.6 5.9 398 .1304 S-MINVIUSNS69 1N33W'UU 43.1 33.1 1.6 .9 1064.6 33.3 3o1 .1355~ S-11E8IATION INsEN-UM 3.3 Me. .7 .8 106,6$ .6 331 .3356 I.AINSICK"11U 11IWDI-1 V. 6 10.4 .8 .0 66.10 I.? SO8 a 70v 3-VONITIWS INDEX-V 4.1 Y.3I .4 .1 11.3 .6 Sol .160

0 s.P.312MOMON61 1141W-V 6.6 3.7 .4 .6 Me. 3.6 8931 .3lit9 S-NERVoUSuts1 1311W-V 17.3 1.1 .6 .6 91.7 13.1 131 .160

10 S.NgMzCAtION 8131K-v 3.3 IS.3 .? .9 893.0 .0 Vol .330

It I-AINSRC11110,IS 1431-N M3. 14.3 .7 .6 131.0 3.9 391 .130

12 1-V6NITIWU 14199-UV 7.1 11.2 .0 .6 6Me .6 331 .316

1Is 1-.ERUT3NKIN .3 83. .6 .6 6M. .9 S38 .360

to 1-MIRVOUS11lS 184K- 36.7 10.3 8.0 .0 3.1. 1t.6 al1 .it0

to I-AIRSICNEO0s 1111111691 21.1 M?6 .4 1$ So.6 as.$ 31 .311

to 1-TURULNSCK11 IN1wUEU 16.1 83.7 .4 .8 go.$ 3.6 31lo .860

IV 1-YONITIOeIO 14384V 3.3 F1. .4 .0 44.7 .6 3ei .311

tojp~IRAAO 1111911-11 3.6 6.1 .3 .6 43.1 .23013 .1 1

19 1-WCRVIOUSNESS 111831-11 6.1 7.9 .4 .6 41.1 a.? 338 too0

to 8-TSULNINCI 1112111- 16.1 0.8 .4 .6 3313.3 9.a338 .030

33 T11201-111 NISTORIYPARI 1 3.3 11.1 .6 .6 34.0 6.6 its .166

fl4 114663-N1 1111TORY.PART 3 6.9 0.1 .3 .4 $666 4.5 373 lose

to T"663-1-N N13TMNYIUN 16.3 33.3 8.31 .6 1111.3 £6.1 M1 .180

is TOW-T3AIN01T 1.1 IS.$ 1.3 We We6.6 6. 3.0 163 .1?0

1? ITW-RATANIV9.3.3 6.4 .6 3W. 36.6 33.0 104 .10

go TIYIT-SY3T Tim4 or say 3.3 1.1 .8 ?1? 1s.6 3.6 M1 .230

39 TOY3U-3VIT RATER 14.6 6.6 .3 6.6 041. It.? M7 .100

ja 18VIII-V11V OLF-PATIWS 14.3 6.7 .3 S 316 34.0 13.1 174 .111

It TIVIP-I1VUI POSIT.ATIW6 6.4 11.9 .9 .6 M.@e .9 Wea .346

32 rvvSpI-VYIT BY*Y1C-RIONT 135.$ 0.3 .3 64.9611 133 1 31.6 111 .11633 VY&P3-VVIT STATIC-URONG 3.1 13. .3 .6 13.01 4.6 Ill .104

34 TVVIP3-VVIT STATIC-911IT 3.6 5.7 .3 .6 33.6 .0 all .38435 TYVpIPIVYIT 3vmAMN1CREOwT 66.1 13.4 it.F 3.6 139.1 63.1 13e .11

16 1?VDPR-VVIT synANlIC-Ious .3. 6.3 .6 .0 36.3 9.6 l33 .13

37 T9Vs3P3VVIT 3NVONIC-ON1T 53.6 11.3 3.0 .6 Ill.$ I7.* Its .96

V Y1-V1I RATER 1S. 1 1.8 .J 1.1 se.l 16.3 I3l .166

180 TYWISVY11VIT IRLF-14A104 17.4 6.3 .6 1.0 13.1 16.3 8US .46

40 TYVIP-VYIT POST-PATIWS 18.3 19.1 8.7 .6 1s$.0 4.0 I31 .210

41 TYVIT-VYITr TIMS or say 86.6 3.1 .3 ?.8 1s.? 86.31 lot .41#- .. ***~** ....................... ... .a* a* .. .......as U .a...C.

8 *STUEI4 OIPOWE DTAvV UN0VIIBNIED 19PINSI INDEX

I a INGTRUCTON RESPONSE DNATAO * MIGERSTK 0ESPONSE IW3NK

s SIGWtIfCANT 8EVOND THE .1 LEVEL

a SIGNIFICANT gEY@NI THE .01 LEVEL

27

d1~trTIbuIon of the observed data was compared to an equivalent theoretical Gaussian8~trfbluton with the same moan and itandord deviation as the observed dota. A tftalof 49 hloopm bins wwr used to construct thes two dlh*uwtions equally spaced abouttha momn and eftendinq to four standinrd deviations to either side of the mean. Themaximum absolute deviation of the two dlisributions was then determilned, as listed InTablo Ill. These data Indicate that a null hypothesis based upon the asNUmpton thw OhedfatrIbution of the observed data Is the mane as a normal distrbuton =w b rejec ted atthe .01 significance leve or Wedae for all 20 of the Indices. Pos f th nomliecumnulative frequency dIstributions of the observed unweighted and weighted Indices$along with equivalent theoretical Gaussian distributions wre Presented In Figures CIthreough CS of Appendix C for both the student'm and Inetructor-derived data.

Table Ill also contains a ooerespondlnip sttIstIcal tabuletion of the test scam.fi-am saverl reactivit tests that were adainitrdw to a large s.~ment of this particulardudent population. ~Theme datan pow prsned at this time for the primary Of p seao cvablishIng both 9"u and Individual baseline references that eon be related on a longi-tudinal basis to student performance during the advanced and flee readiness phases ofthe NFO training progrm. It Is expected that twoe combination of the laborsiory testswIll evolve from the longitudinal study that will Improve the Identification of the rela-try. amatiot siclmess scusoptNbllity of the student NPO population.

A short drAorlp0on of each test score Item lI sted In Table Ill Is preented InAppondIx 9, along with references that describe the test watehiqus nd procedures Inlull detail. In brief, TMSQ1, TMSQ2, and YM$Q3 (variable numbers 23j, 24, and 251respectively) pertain to a motion sickness hIstory TSANX and TTANX (variables 36 and27) to a state/tAut anxiety questionnaire; 79VDTO, TSVDR# TIVDS# and TIVDP (vari-ables 28 through 31) to a kief Vestibutar Dtoorientaton Test (BVDTk TVVSP1, TWSP2#and TMVP3 (variables 32 through 34) to the static Performance element of a Visua-Vestibular interaction Test (WIT); TWDP1, r VVD?2, and TWDP3 (varla~les 33 throug%37) to the dynamic perfWormae element of the WIT; and TWIRj, TWIS# TWIP# aindTWIT (variables 38 through 41) to the motion sickness rating elemtent of the WIT.

Plot% of the norma limed cumulative frequency distribution of the individual swaresrecoirded for these tests, along with a theoretical Gaussian distribution having the sanemoan and standard deviation as the observed test soemu, are presenited In Floures C6through CI I In Appendix C. The Kolmcoprov-Smlrnov one-samle devation statisticslisted In TdA*l Ill Indicate non-Gaussian distributions for all test orse except thoseassociated with the tralt/anxlety questionnaire (varlable 27)l the three dynmic per-fornanct WIT scores (variables 35-37), and the WIT self-rating swore (variable 39).

COMPARISON OF STUDENT SUBPOftJLATIONS BASEDUPON ADVANCED TRAINING ASSIGNMENIT1 ~Upon completion of basic training In VT-10# the graduated students follow one offowf different advanced training piplines to the fleet) I.e., MAPSI, VT4)6-AJNt

28

V?-8&.RI, o AIDS. The actual pipeline. folloed are determined to $wme degreecOYJudnt choice,, but Graded performance and I'MneeC of the service,, are c•hdewton.which om1timea force a tudent Into a pipelin, not of his •ho"Ing.

A aopomcds of the arslickness Indloes mamsured for te four different studentvuP ilfrng thekr Vr-10 training must take Into account the two differoe pipeline.rAthin the squadron popeq . T)t it, the MAFP Droup flie only five he" (FM1 throuW hFMS) G•h€e GaMIng, while the tim remaining groups fly the same five hops plus%rtnn aditiOnal hops. SIMS two of the five famlloritI0lon haps Involve relativelyhig moton stre% (FMI and FMS), while onl thre. (F01, F02, and F03) of the emaoIn-CnS hops pre t equivalent or greatr stress Ieble I), It would be expeoted that thercaponse Indlais for the MAFB group would be greeter than those of the three other groupsif all Ihp flown by a given student wwee used to calouklt these Indiaes.

To allow a better ooparlson, a Usepte sot of response Indices hosed upon onlytýo queatlonnre dot* derived Aom the five famlioriotion hops was osloulated for•oh of the four different student groups. Iecoua of the non-Oosslan neture of both

Ch 2 0mreo Index measures and *9 maowrity of the lborwtory test scoe, a nonW-nt~lo statistical approach was utilized to dweermne If the students within the MAF6,T4-86-AJN0 VT-6-RIO, andATOS classifeoflm ownome frm the same population. A

*KskaiWalll one-wy analysis of vror'.ear by mrni test (10) wa applied to the date,vMth the prinalpol results presne In Table IV. Far each Infllght rnpo de hndx andfz each labmrtry test soore, a tabulation Is mode of the Kruskol-WoilIs H g•tI*loc€recte(i for tie socroi the totol nue" of students Inluded In the analyeili end# forcmh of the four studemi groups, the men, standard devition of the observations, the

ndard error of the meang, ard the nuAber of studnts Inaluded In the group. To dis-prove the null hypothesis that the four stdent g p come r•m the same or an Identioclppulatioq requires that the f statIstic equal or exceed 11.34 at the .01 sgnlflooncelcvel end 16.27 at the .001 signifloance level, auumIng thut H Is dIshibute like chiqua'd with thmee deoree of keedom. (in Tale IV, and in Ill followin tabl es,Fzobability of .01 was selected the minimum cmeptble doer of stat*ioel 6lnlfl-conce, thus dtrengtheing the positive dentlffoation of ral dferenof s at the expense

overlooking real differencoe that 0 exist Ic lee sIgnIfliant levels.) Of the twentyqstlmnosl Indices# the n, hypothesis wa diwrve only fw variable 14,tht Ietruator-bmed unweighted nervousness Index. For this Wex the moan Inoldenoeof wvausness was lowe*t in the VT-86.RIO student poplat ion. The tes also showvtfot there were no differences In the four student populaton relative to the 19 kabor-tory test sore (variables 23 through 41) Included In the pemsent eu*.

Since one element of the longitudfnal study Involves the later follow-up of thev..l0 students m niged to both the AJN end RIO compoents of Advanced TMriIngSquadron VT-86, a similar statistical conmarlon Is provided In Table V for then twogtudent groups. The ATDS group Is not Incoluded because of the relatively low numbero a, udemts receiving Atis assilriet. In oohtredistfnctlon to Table IV, the Olnkknessndex dato in Table V were aeloulated on the basis of the entire 16 hos compWrisng thecomplete V1-I0ving ths yllabus. for theo dota thd•s lo to TWallle Hstftle basce

N.

s141 I;1;4 144444Jei . ; *fe ; s;siwq

go 08 .4 s

4"0. 01. wo~bob6 6 g~ s . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. .

111 41 to2 so

1~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ews "ee u...e::::..w:: p U.S9pop"""

gig'd4 44 I jid"jg;i jld

jI go a o oOfir'II eeN b WasU as "gos". oseso aflem. wsl ~bw

I~~~ I.0 !.6n..~ ~j~ .:u~uuuiS~~iU~luUsit~

'iii I~e~rne~e..desb~u...rne::~es:wu:~oil

fll q1 PH la30

Toei V

W~ wm cdWdW to Ademd Tthml VT*-AJN withfb iv 4* ,depss sab I m ssOWWOO40 to dma V*U3iO. ha ew4Wsdhh m sohe 9. IV, ft I**lo~ fale tM Shbo OW3 GOd .33 k3IwV ism"l wsCUMdond~ tie hall. of O IV*I~ fewn by a"e W%1dMd ***No.

* * * * C .. . * C ... .f l .........

MICSIsatisti 091313 C11111.e. 6.111. N Iran $.mP. 1.181. a

I -*1151C80133 tSN33-V 3.4? 13.6 13.6 1.8 144 13.3 11.1 1.4 148 -16NITIN 1lu362.UU 8.32 ?.1 11.16 .3 364 3.3 3.4 1.3 isO -P.11ieaameTSW0 INNmu-IN 3.43 9.0 it.? 1.1 144 7.6 13.1 1.1 toS4 9AO"e gNIVsUI 33NUM 4.39384.3 86.5 8.8 144 a?. a 16.1 a.. SO

I3-91131GO5136.N 3333-v .13 3.3 7.3 J1 144 3.3 $.1 .P ofo -AIaticnate3 3N31HU~ 1.80 P.? 0.4 J1 144 3.3 4.3 .? DOS -VS131316 lINK-U' &.43 3.F 6.1 .1 344 3.6 3.4 .0 to

* *-.tSNeIOU 3K-0 8.36 3.6 7.6 .6 144 3.6 3.3 .0 so3 1.-qg92"ONgIfs IlhIHU, 3.34 14.6 11.1 .8 344 It.3 a3t$1.3 .8 6it I*3133chl1d1111l1M.1e .13 3.3 7.3 .1034 3.3 1 6.1 .3 60

it I-otesictes1*1 3IIKV .14 3.4 33.4 1.0 144 1.3 10.3' 1.1 so

is I-VIM31336 3U36MNSO 8.60 S.? Is. 1 .3 144 4.3 I.s 3.3 Is2 .. 33813N 33W161.1v .01 7.1 Me. .0 344 9.1 3.2 .8 0

14 3I4MMOVIA1118 INSINK31 0,101 37.2 £4.1 1.1 144 11.0 12-6 1.2 Of113 -TIPOWLIUCt 3NIN4UJ1 1.01F 11.3 53.0 3.3 344 33.3 3.31 .3. is

34 -012114:11169 1311K-U .13 4.4 6.4 .3 44 3.3 3.8 .106

Al 1VINITING 551W-v 33 1.39 2. .S3 .4 4 3.4 4.7 .306IS 3. 61616001160 1331W- .01 3.3 3.1 .4 344 3.3 1 .3 .4 DOI3 3.klSoy~~sse 1313K-U ?.631 6.3 3.0 .3 344 4.? 3 .1 .6 30

&C -1V10gL1UC1 IN3W-4 .81 33.01 6.3 .6 144 303 6. 3 11 .380S11 *ualloy ICASIIII Where3 1P.640 33.3 4.1 .4 344 03.7 4.3 .1 Is13 1UAIIIN PIIO? 120498 33.190 8.6 .8 .1 344 3.0 .6 .0 06

23 11333-US MISTOMARYP3 1 .41 3.3 30.3 1.3 In8 C.1 18.313.8234 74#61-44 1193IO~PAR 8 .13 6.4 3.4 .6 138 3.1 ?.1 .3 9go Tl838106 l10?NY.OU .1 53.8 517.3 1.1 138 14.3 53.6 1.0 T0

U IIO i3W-GTG01lfAux.I t1:1 .03 231.1 3.3 3.4 ItIt3 11.3334 1.3 It401sx~aII*UIC3 3 Me. 3.3 1.1 at 87.3 6.3 1.1 34

28 7V31.6Y31 1131 OF DAY .61 181.0 1.3 .3 133 3.? 1.? .8 7mi-e9 N336V3 IN11 .61 33.6 6.5 .6 I3N 1t.a 4.3 .? TO

3uTIV14*6331 111L7-I*Y36 4.4? 13.1 6.3 .6 331 310 .3 .7 toT1 1VIO-4V)1 pCooteal'Ift .16 6.1 33.6 1.3 I36n . 10.3 3.3 It

38TvyVIp-YY31 SAT2@-1607 .. . 3181.8 1.0 1.2 0 38. 6.10 3.1 Do33 TIVIP1-mY13 Ml*?lC3006 Js0 3.10 3.0 3.3 to 4.4 4.1) .3 If;4 TVY0.v vI-YI St*TIC.44I3 .0 3.4 L.O .3 to 8, 1.43. .6 S033 19Y391-VYfl M&S56C-133141 .23 or.?193.3 3.6 a0 64.6 to.? 3.6 8a# TWV3#8-v'3t 0"681c,"9114 8.33 10.0 9.3 1. t 803.4 71. 1.4 8

3? 11V391-Y,3¶ 31u163C..OPIT It? 36.1 13.8 0.3 30 so,. I83.? 6.6 IS

36 TIVII-evif sell@ .36 I3.$ 7.3 1.4 It so.31 0.0 1.3 at

So JIVIS-YVII 1110-16T136 .30 37.3 7.1 1.4 to 56.3 3.0 3.3 to43T V3PI, po01-314331 .14 1.6 31.1 3.1 t0 11.4 01.0 4.1 90

441 ITYIVT-fvYit in3 or off It? Is.? 3.2 .4 of MI. t-01 .3 3

.. . . . ........................ .....................

I I Oru6N OF3N 31 10U - 400091111`13 613P3001 3N131I ai3I3IKIN 11110US 119 DaaU a WR1139 11lo3e IEPIOI 11* aSi~flItiy 31pel3 INS .01 L9VIL

* a 19W73C4V 6163 16.01 CVII

u~w am~ dW of fifismt rwquire to equal or oeiwed 6.64 at the .01 signlftosnofVIor 10.83 CO the M00 level io disprove the null hypothelis thet the VT-46-AJN

Q-4 YT46410 Studens~j calm frmi the som or etn Iuntkoel population. Again, thereem no ulgniflount difftrence aimn the populatlions for any of the response Indices,

V~hth mqinof the wsmwefitd end Ie~ nstructsor wmeasue of student rnsr-omw (aribls 4 enW 19). mhean mm o Indices Were lewes 1br the VT-

CW-91O luflon. Table V also howsn a significaont diffe~rene For the over- li 000mmw-to and ft 1M grad;Z (varlables 21 and 22) of Ath two groups. Mwes date ame IcludeIn this paslicular tab0le inces the gradi fervent har these two popkkulain was Identical.)fid donated by the mean grade doata the students amlgne60 Vr.S-8"IO had thebotter ao&cad~ and (ligh grede purbrrmuoe. Again, there wire no signIficant dlffw-encvs at the .01 level at greater fhr any of the laboratory test sores,

A third comparison Involves those students who grodiuated frm the sque~on end0me who attirted for any reawu whatsoever. The results of applying the am. Krwskel-Via~lt one-*vy enmlysh of vorianc to then, siudmnt groups we summarized In I"bl V1.The eihsahhess Indices In this eas wer calculated on the bob~ .1 elI folgt flown byflisoudsnes. The ofbtotfvewwuof the eWkal-Wallls teoo In this particuler cowpalmsoIs mresaited by the relatively low numbe of attrbt d sudents (N a 25) present at thisp1== of t" stud. Once qogin, the only significat dIffrew Identified In the twoppu lotions Involves the mwwoighted and weightd nervousness Indices that were greater6w the attrift group. The anolysis showed no significant dfiference to the lkabretoryfast swores fa the two groups.

COMNAMRION OF STUDENT SUSPOPULATIONS LASEDUPON #*NIftSICKNESS SENSIT IVRTY

mV populatdiofrnce thatmyeiost baetweeon tudent with high Ind exvoo mores~n (susoo t-am* f 4 student w th o, hIdn sorfest "eofonssepb) eaven bethsen rl pli-es. of the lont -

Tofoed byiut the aisckns uoniaronal lo n of the repnevrales eriefrom airsick endhiy irsl stodentvtelo owin calassofiatn s a vwere barttrerfy t detfind bingth aep

t~le andartslokne Indeatdote d"**e , fr t the stdentvaluestio n%*''nar(veral I) Ther,,roncbk populwa tatio maldeny eithoset students w1ho wire Ineve irsim (aftdthus hd

vwzighted airsickness Index doe 04dTeraivsc ouato n ed only thos student q~onl*(wbs )Th

who had 4 welhtled as i M"es *0ez tha"0q1le or esaeds the 9Othmcentll ref.I ~ ~ ~Vnce establishe byt the Worrnflze cumulative frequency distriutkon hlr this partlou-Jcar index. The distrbutin daft pentdIn Figue C 1-11 Indca~te that at the 90th-C~antile point, the meighted eirufcknoss Index soewos approximately 24.0. Thus, all

32

Table V1

... .*;a ...........ee * .*.............. a......

11111Pi " U~L 11241. UoNSIto O1131113

jn s aiesceupass mnewasya m.um IFJ 1.0 u.9 1? 1111A Itew su. F t

1 -91611111 lh1061911 1.13 ?.1 Is4 . 305.? 14.6 3.6 Is11 1.Pa69142 u5l 35K5-IU 6.19 ill.@ MIV It. P7 53 1 4.6 8s

4 11.113Y"11NE43 1533X.Vo 3.67 30.4 31.6 1.6 ITS 17.3 41.3 80.6 Oft 11-i113CATtI lawn-IVU to 3.4 13.8 J7 M7 3. ba"I 1.3 81d 3.itesicflssS 331ar-U 3.70 1.9 16.4 .617 IVI I. 11.1 3.9 toY, 11-1101116 umtex-u 1.13 4.1 V. 1 .4 Mv 5n.9 s.0 a.1 ts

9 .113VS 3363M-1 1.91 6.s 0. .4 art 0.7 *.1 1.4toaC-1909911114g14 I~lawu 1.1 34.9 111-4 .6 3104 111.19 34,? 6.4 to

Iv 1:11AuwAevGm uagu- .36 3.4 81.3 . ?# 3 . a, 11.1 3.3 is83 3atmeigcugs m3813.3 .66 11.4 84.3 .J 376 M. It.0 11 .14 3312 1161110%1TISPON363* 1.01 1'.3 It.1 .6 3161 It,. F I.$ 4.6 111lz I-P.0 11MATIOSI 336-1VS 8.43 9.1 88.6 .0 3M £5.9 so.5 I . 35 i14. a-stavouulss "$to-Vo 10.116 so.$ 1114 .9 111,1 19.7 to.@ V. 4 isit t-111114LuCIE 3N -1363-3 .13 16.4 86.7 .0 8761,1I.6 8 4.4 3.11 toto 8-4e01OSaIugS 1111011-u 9.01 9.4 ?. 9 .4 IT$ 9,4 83.9 1.3 As

I?33T 1030111-11 8.10 3.0 6.7 .1 1111' P. 1 0.4 3.9 35343PUEIS1133KI-U 8.63 3.6 1.6 .331 , 81' .0i.3 .9. Is

to 1-110"1011391 10181111 6.146 ?1. Y.s .6 Mv 16.a 111.61 3.3 IsIt 1-tIO1161161 336411114 .44 311.3 3.1 .4 376O 6.61 ?.1 1.9 iEAt T13303-US ol13TU.po 1 .41 9.3 al.31 .6 a33 I.5 1 5.3 1.0 33l94 TflM386 $Mbly$ V761It .*1 6.5 1.61 .0 11111 6.9 Is.9 1 3.3 ato TOO003- 10 UISTy.sev .03 36.6 19. 1.9 top 39.9 11.8 3.9 U14 T6flif611.Et. 1.0711 11.6 160.7 1.1 by 36.0 1.1 3.8 1111 ITAM111414TAt1'*U.6UE6T. .3 39. 1.51 .1 DO op. 4 .7 8.7 I30to 3.0D 1336 IF pay 1.39 9.9 1.7 .8 3 49 39.1 5.7 .4 alto TIVO-11VaI RATHU .11 34.8 6.4 .4 334 13.9 1.8 1.9It3it T9V99'4ID? SILF04*TIN 1.18 54.46 .6 .4 333 let .1 3. .1 to31 191131VIT 104141-241101 .63 6.6 16.3 .1 $111 4.3 10.3 6.11 9t33 1yV571.Y331 1TetO*16-11N .64 Its.# 6.7F .6 1183 .1 6.0 3.6 933 TVVIP3.VWIT S1013C0R0NIS .13 1.4 $.4 .3 81 6.3 4.6 3.3 934 ?5V1113-VVIT I1*?IG-OIIT .36 1.6 6.6 .9 I83 1.4 3.3 I.E 931 TVVI#I-531T 311m6l-pOUvI .09 63.6 No.$ .1 Its F13.3 It.? P.3 a 913 tVYspt-vy~ V11 YUIt-VsON 8.36 9.1 6.7 A6 13 83.6 9.1 3.3 9;7 ?VVIPS.VYIT 11116111001131 .61 64.0 31.4 .1. Its 44.3 it.? 9.3 1so TqVI1-VUIT Naval .66 35.3 6.3 .6 all 37.0 I.E 9.3 9st ?VV36-VVIT 111076#13" AN3 81.4 6.9 J7 333 87.4 6.3 ~.16 940 YVV3PsVVIT 9ot-064*1336 .4 1 . 1#9t.1 1.6 al3 I.0 I3I.$ 4.3 143 1V13?-VVIrTo of 6 Dal 3.13 l10. A.31 .3 M8 83.31 8.6 .6 1

11'1TftW0TON11168 SAY$E 361 a * 1101113 119P06MIC MUN1* *IASIFICOAT maEVo ID 1 .63 LIVEL

* a 6I'IIZCA¶ EVOID 100 .401 LEVEL

I3

OW w ih Gn Indax 847M equal to or greo thtn this level were datcned as theair,-tick populatin for this wsodon. Thie dlerlholon dcat also Indicate that the nonairOnk grwp IncludAd pproxImotly 26 percent of the total squadon population. (ThevoiC).dW arln1luan Index for each student was •aloulated on the basis of .ll hope flown.)

Mm two crltorla were wed to define the sueptible and ousoopbl. popula-tIfon, and c Krushol-Wall cmo-sway analysis of valance wa perfarmd on each of thercqpv= varicbles, the results of which are tabulated In Table VII. With one degrwe off-don the H otl'stla mu* equal or e*oeod 6.64 to eatablish at the .01 sgniflc•amImwl that ch aick d nonalnick studet are nat from the m•m "pulatlon end equalo7 e-xemd 10.63 at the .001 sIgniflo se level. A IndleaWd In Table VII, all twvty ofOA q Iwsmtonntmr Inctlno am sIgnifoantly different or the two populatlons. This would6 expected fr the unwtlghted and weghtod alrlckneas, voniting, perflorne deg-d•tt~m, and medicotlon Indlces since these Itwe we all elslcknwe-eloted, and the air-s.tknez Index proper srved to establkh the two popuknlons being oenred. As Indl-wti sby val Was 4, 9, 14, end 19, the studn nrvoums Index also derived fromtv dlffrent popuklonis. The same applies to the Insm tor rating of turbulence. For'all twerny of the questilonnare Indlces, the mean for the arhick group was greater thanO me=n for the noneirsick group.

For most of the laboratory tests (variables 23 through 41) the differnm betweonpopuktlonsm w not so pronoued a for the queolonaroi lndl. Hovever, oll thre

hem of the motion sickness questionnaire, the sate anx"ety queostnnalre, and the SVDTmter, self-ratIng, and poomlf"*hig tom, had lInhfloar* H statlstlos. No sinlfl-cent differenes were Sound for the trait anxiety quwsionire or coy of the VVAT mss.

Table VIII provides a similar comparhon between slud&n with a high (uper doo-lie) weglhted vomlt Index ard studfen who never vomited on their training flights.ThI. letter 1 oup, represnting Vlmey 61 peroent of the total student population,includes the Table VII 4udents who were never ahlnik and thus never vomitedg, cs wellas those sdent, who a-elened airsckness but new vomited. The uppor dealle Oarrhe rsoaptlble group ws mrke by a weighted vomit Index more of 14.4, a derivedfiom the Figure C24 distrution data. Aain, all twaey Index mores for the rmoae-tole group were reter than the relat scores for the nonueptHble group. The lab-eomtory tt waores aho generally followed the Table VII potitn, with significant differ-aces prosent In the three motio sickness questlonnoaire sIcr, the state anxiety ques-tionnaore, and the three SVDT roafng emore. In addition, the VVIT self-ratIng endP It-slf-kating com (varlabls 39 and 40) showed significant dfmee In the twoPicioations.

The same comparative analysis was p•rfmed, utilizing the weighted performancedogct•lon Index to define susceptible and nonsuMeptible pmwpu lons. A welghtedpwarf nce degradlon Index score of 16.0 or greater marked the upper &110 susaep-tible group as dewlved from the Figure C3-1 distribution data. The ionisuscptblle rouIncluded 1pp.roimately 42 percent of the total population. TU results of the Kiwkal-Wallis or0 way anolysis of vurlome for theme populatlorw we surmmrlied ..In Table IX.

34I1

L'N .. . ... .

wowa .1.y st vakW ~S 1~ eimpwu' orissflwh "M ISM" asrewed .fnmk60%V fltht kIv6nk wmt 00Anes WOOOM aod mioiwly moh kW~ds of ouiekuws. Yheho .aw shtno psp

Mi" thaa *vda,* woth a Wu104" SW3oAgM bwai (maIle 6 6"e "i iv*&o &klaere~ ) "M t~s0.0, repomuted tWW~ftOeh0y 30 puisvent tin ftft. *s.*v pmpmahlhn TIM *uiek oresp abiftttoy e*a dto mast gsnsl*" 10 pinenu ofc Owudrnl, was ~defn a Nw hdm#Aks wuh a wowsd *Ant 1ebaw.h.*q*.I it w Mreme hm~ 24.0 wbweh 1 =at$ the mp irnil. Fv thim memw.

..............** e... A*fb.**10

33O. S@C110 TATISMI 3313 3.36W. 6.9;41. a $11o 1.14Y. 0.333.

a *W61136he-u aa. . .6 .6 . IN6 so. v 14.3 1.1 363 -. IN14113K%-3M 31.1114 .7 3.6 .3 163 46.4 14. 1 3.3 34* -N3OUNUS153-vo 49.10 24.6 31.3 3.6 16 15a7.4 33.4 3.9 3U

*6-161410S13 1116W-of 39.460 In 3. .1633.3 33.3 5.4 36£ -a113161N313 1131WN-U M3.W1 .In . 6 34.3 0.6 1.4 341 -oito S-V6I N 36-0 t19.040 In. . 6 16.4 9.1 1.0 34* -e.8crouAuaMs uuSX-11 tarsus4 .3S U.? W$ is s 3. .6

3 -U3YU3h3 133-U 46.66' 11.1 13.9 1.8 1to I3.$ 34.3 3.4 so£66136TS INIK-9 39.460 .3 3.6 .4 163 Be.3 a33.1. 3.4 Ofi -363h 1089231-04 104.494 .4 3.3 .316 lot .6. 3F. 4 3.9 to

101-uatlm aig-00 lit-W .6 .6 .6 lot to.1p 16.6 4.6 so83 I-P.334S16ATt63 3336K-3M 94-W3 .9 3.3 .4 1ll 39.4 W6? A.1 as

14 -N3W315 1611U 6.30 3. 3,3 .616 41.9 31.6 3.3 3533 -TVASIL3UE 1M S 31.430 16. 34.9 1.3 got 33. 1 16.4 3.4 3oS -611813615116 3101086.1196 .1 .6 . 161 o 36.6 31.3 3.6 3311 -MITl116 IMUN-U i13.W6 .3 .0 .6 Its 11.3 86.4 0.6 3o

6 -P9eU4t IX1M-U "96.70 .3 1.3 .1 lot 34.7 0.3 1.6 is3 -1V310 1419111 to.66 6.3 1.1 J1 1ot to.1 6.? 3.3 so36316LU I 5133- 16.688 6.3 ?.1 .6 16t 14.1 06. 1.6 3113T6t4 !161Y. VPUIT 1 44.630 4.3 6.4 .9 94 33.4 m$. I.3 to

34 70668-No 11676Y.PUTm 11 01.140 1.6 9.3 .3 94 16.3 13.3 3.3 isas 13563-US 014616Y.Svo 34.966 1.1 33.3 1.31 94 81.0 36.1 4.4 36It6 TeMS3UgATgAuNX.80E6T. 14.360 31.6 7.4 3.6 3it 41.6 11.6 3.1 33at Ttt3I-TRAS1'raU.8VIS1. 3.33 36.6 6.9 1.3 it 31.9 3.4 11.31 to3o 16961-evs? 1136 or 3ay 4.3S 13.6 1.1 .1 113 9.6 3.6 .3 34Is T1I6936-66T RATIO 14.310 It.6 4.4 .1 H4 19.3 6.0 1.3 313s TlIWN-OYS? seL7-14?513 39.666 36.713.1 .3 94 Ma. 1.6 *1.39131 T6SUP-MyS 11611T.41106 31.330 1.1 3.1 .8 IS SF.4 04. 4.6 3632 tWWSFI-WVIT 0T3119601611 3.m 336.6 11.4 3.6 3s 113.3 4.3 3.3 16

33 ?99SP-VWIT I613136 1316 1.44 .4 6.3 1. a 33 4.6 4.6 3.4 36

31 IVV9CI.YIT 11143NC-11IN? .46 63.6 14.1 4.0 31 36.6 so.?16.9 36

of V vwtF-cAI ssom DV INMIC 14 46 P 1. of .3 .8 .0 t

or VV3-vl DNAIC91T 16 9g. 1.9 1. 1 6.1441 6.5I

isp Tvt-vl _e .0 I. .4 18 Is0. 00 87 I

Tabl Vill

Acruhs of a IKruikl-VW.Is cwe-w-ey omlyul. of vorlonme owmpainn of lowdsf who move oreeled wea.*h dwrimtraining with sou4.nts who roepotd 9 rowslvoly high IMe Idnef of %wmhhim. eno-vmtgpdloos6 .slude"N with 0 Wilghtd vomit kadem (variable 7 firom the Oudwn quoste".'1ofr dame) oquel to 0.0 O md ns~muo k

* q~~~~WIproalmey 61 pvmoeof the My popuistlen. The vmtppw aie steeovn M oovarmit Indu Oqual toeor grPOO thou 14.4 which~ marked the Lppe doollo 1W Noi mevsew.

.................................-...........................................

ID ~ ~ ~ ~ .11110 TI~I EN 1.7 lv 1 31 46. 1?U3.E. .13. N

2 11-vollitili 11111f-tUv 11`1.930 . .$ 6 316 23.9 Ill.$ 1.9 393 -014P DSAITION INSEN.UU 103 490 S I M0. . 1 Ms uI1 51.1 2.9329

4 -1309V0U61 INII ER01-lil 14 436 13.9 31.1 A ..2311 14.6 10.9 4.3 911 0U3ICATION 11111111.Ull M6.26 .3 .1. 1 126 299 30.7 4.031198 -Oi61ICEKiI11 11"111-W 206.101 4.6 S.4 ..2 all Is.? I6.? 1.7 39

7 -VOMITW INS 11111 93111.044 .6 .0 .0a 130 MY, 6.4 2.0 It*0* DEOI2141481011 IrhdEK*V1 209.160 1.3 4.4 .3 *16 31.3 11.2 2.0 299 g-uguVIsIN11g 1110111-10 11.to 25.1 11.3 1.# 16 34.6 I1. 1 8.6 ISto *-0thICA? 10111911-01 106.344 .313.1 .1 139 29.9 20.7 4.0 21It i-AI*0ICK11,6 mao100 I its 530 0 4.2 0.0 .3 Sir 29.1 to's 3.2 30

23I-YOUR? 36 NG, -U 320.109 . 1.9 .231 13 1.2. 18.4 1.? 2o13 I-P-1116134DAION IN6CK-UV 229.6414 . 8 96.4 .4 13? 20.? I3.$ 3.0 3914 I-N94VO9UIMISB 1112111-Mi 16. 1. 9 My. 177 .1 ar312.0 31.93.1. 2tt13 -1919OLINCE INSSX-UM 69.3*14. 26154.1 .3 327 31.3 11-0.0 1.9 291-6 2-4SICK14160 tulcy-U 234.3 1. 2. 3 1 3 133 12.9 3.5 1.3 331? -YOUITING 11312-U1 129.100 .1 .J .6 13 13.911 Y. 1.7 .319I20 F 1-P 6CRADAY1601 INSIEU- 131.119 1 1 8.6 .8 li' 111.6 0.? 2.4 to

I i I-1ci3vousNIIS INSIX-U1 14.02. 10.1, P.7 .1 1311 I13.1 9.5 2.61916 2I-IJRSVLINCEINI 1111-10 139.11* 0 4 ?.39 .313 23Y11.11 3.7 1.6 39

*2 11101-111 M116101Y.Pal? I WH.36 . 1 6.2 S9 .6 tit 114.11 1111.11 6.5 3484 704,61-ASNOB 01 1421.162 2 46.00. 3.9 6.1 .4 M3 I I - 113.51 .1 3dIs 71160-18NO 12610 SUN 31.320 is 6 22.4 .3 2l1 26.? 132.6 1.9 308 62-TAIANOl?7.620 3ip.1 6.6 .1 6l6a IT.6 661.2 8.0 to37 TIAUN-11AIT'ANX fully .40 13.1 6.3 .9 of 801.11 6.8 2.6 of

to V6IIOT-oVal 1`1116 of oaf 1.40 I6.5 1.0 .1 3ip 9.7 Iij .3 31At MOV3-31val 00911 10.013 I3 4 3.21 .232 20.8el 6.7 2.4 3d26 VIV00-OY3? 6gP1,114TNI 86.64e 13.1 1.? .4 sit aso. a 6.6 1.1 IIt lIoVDP-ovol poll-RATING 30 7 .2 9.0 .6 163 13.6 83.9 4.60 231 IYVOFI-VVIT STA?2C1-AIOT 1.36 5190.61 0.6 1.3 go 234. .9 1. 5. I 2tSS TVVSIP-VYIT STA?2-M601144 8.29 6.2 11.7 .? 66 3.2 .2. .0 to

24 79v81;-VVIT STATIC-04SY 1.'s 3.3 ?12 .9 6 .0 5.0 .316 Io3$ Tvv3PS-YvIt orIIC-3161411 .04 66.4 13.9 3.1 46 68.6 31.6 91.11 513? IVVP3F-YYIT 3YMANIC-SNIT .21 $0.237. M 3.1-1 66 143. 41,.6 20.6 11is yvvlo-IvI? RATER 4.63 23.3 .8. so 60 3.4 22.? 1.0 Is

39 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 66I-VltLFOTN 'M 84 6o 811.1 ?.1. RA to4 v~vZp-fvVE P@0?-6IiTNO ?.d60 P.? 22.6 fly. s 665.8 to.? 6.1 to

6 &IGN[IiCON1 11`0166 tHE 11 LEVILslam66ilrICAMT WOOD6 INE 061 LEVEL

t 36

T"bI Ix

q ~ .r. 0411n of .. ouivwe e r er e Adento who nevws f npow d peaplowwir W.-

sue ~we~hn.Thel *"O.ffsye peep defined N theeMl dnwts wth. we IgkedW is-me dpd.SaI~(we-4.ble ~ ~ ~ ~ "" to ~. h dn ueonfede).ul0.0' repeeene epprk~e 4 poweem .4 1w dypep-A0w1.. The elikeetd " Wes wa pt afnd Owns sleden with, a wotigtmd POd~mN e lide equl to W p a"" 00"

16-0 Wfash 6&0ine lbe waw *mile le thho mmmmn.

........................ *0 ........ .............. e0..............118338 V4414BLE N No 3.ERBv6 NuN PiC.1331to, 11SCSIP136w statistic of&* I.5Ev. S.i1m. N IEAN $.6V. I M0 I

8 -eaylfi3TIN Y t uw~vv 1. .9 4.6 .4 163 10.9 it.8 g 3.4 393 S-9NNeesa:A 1".~u ,.see . 1 .0 .6 I 6M 41.9 19.1 a I 3I

4 -U31V6u51153 INIUx-uv 49.69* 19.1 R9.4 8.3 Its W6. 8I so 4. 39O -313l611@ ION 31N.4vi 331.103 .1 3. 3 335.1 1.1 It3t p3. to 39

I -AIUSlcupall I133K-6 162.43. 1.4 4.0 .3 163 10.0 It 6 3.1 317 *YeN373NG 1MU-V 14.13. ?o .3 I . M1 M a. 0.$ -11 39

$4.896061A011661 INUK-9 366.610 .0 .IS6$6 16.0 16.3 3.6 itI IHU6UU I CK~u-U 46.963 Il3.3 339 .6 lot 31.1 11.1 3.4 39

566~61At@ NIEN-3 33.930 . I.$ Is. 36 361. 13 1.0 39It I-A346ICINCIS IN3IN*Uo 169.140 3. .3 . 64 So.3 a36.6 3.6 3It 5.V611Y110 INUN-Wiv 31.3056 .1 4.3 .3 364 36.6 31.$ a 4 3013 s-P.3.14114116 SNvIm-wv 343.164 3. 1. 6 . .3 164 10.1 13.1 1.3 tot4 i-IEIUVIUNIGS 111119-111 al.3640 Is.3 19.9 3.t 64l 316.3 IS.* 3.1 3116 I-TUIRULINCE l11314-VV 13.130 16.9 132. 3.3 144 31.6 16.3 3.6 n1of 1-41413CIN916 1WPIN-U 334.666 5. 9.6 .31434 59.6 10 4 3.7 36I? 3-VantTIN6 SNUEN-v 346.43' . .6 .1 164 1?. r 33.1 3.1 11to 3-P-6l113944v3O f"UM.V0 343.60p .3 3.8 .1 364 14.9 06. 1.4 n19 I-millvevswgg, unlirm-1 1.1ge 4.1 P. 1 .5 164 34.6 6.0 3.4 3116 5-TU4INLKIltC 3131N.U 11.66 7.9 71. .6 166 34.1 9.3 1.6 3513 t10611-N N36T031 PAll 1 48.990 1.3 3.61 .614 M 1139 1. .1 34. . N14 11961-11 NIISEY.PAP? 3 34.036 4.3 7.4 .6 334 10.1 14.0 1 31Ia3 INGO3-00 N367031.3J 431.16* 9-3 31.4 5.3 506 14.4 17.6 4 1 36as1413A~dAN63Y 14.346 83.4 36.6 5 .6 46 40.3 31.6 1.3 331? 3.N.TA3.W.S I1.3 36.9 6.1 5.6 46 111.3 4.6 .3. to

is rival-Im9 TINC of vAY .1.5 9.9 3.1 .1 318 6.6 8.6 .1 IS39 TIV34-IY31 MAlEM 16.630 38l.6 4.0 .4 334 36.4 3.9 5.0 3886 YIV§4-IV31 9ELF-RAIING 84.960 It.? 0.6 .3 504 39.6 1 1 3.5 3135 llV39-Ivll PIS¶-RATSNI 39.43. 3.1 6.5 .3 343 301.6 811.11 4.6 31as 33IvSPIYVVIT ITAT3C3ISNI4 31.6 119.4 30.4 1.1 46 384.6 31. .9 351 TqVSPU-VVIY SIATIC*336010 3.36 3.6 3.3 .9 46 1.4 8.1 .J 36

IL34 IYvS*1-vvlY S1A13-411IT 81.4 3.6 6.3 1.8 46 .8 1.1 .4 3631 16VVSI-VVIY IYNANIt-pISwl .63 46.6 86,8 6.1 46 60.4 37,1. 9,1 3636 ?WV*3#-YV5T byNANSt-VION4 4.81 I6.$ P.4 3.3 46 O's 1.6 5.6 t617 tWvvs#-vvlT lyNApiC-6N11 3.63 409. 13.6 4.1 46 Of.1 46.8130 1 16is 7Yv3l-YYil RATIO 3.38 so.? 6.6 3.6 46 8o.?11.3. 1.6 to19 1Vv35-VVSI SELF-RATSNO 14,150 14.1 6.6 It 46 33.3 t 6.7 1.? i646 tvvIp-vYSI plov-1111tING 6.36 F.3131.1 8.8 46 I3.* 3s.3 I.6 I649 IvYI1VVYIT? INC or NOV .36 36.4 1. 6 .3 46 k3.l 3.% .3 Is

I slubENT RESPONstIFA40 I UNIUEI6NTEIS PONSI 3331Kx3*INITRUCTS 76 939solk Doti 111ml # 16? 9 AEPmSI6 INIEN

* *6IBIFICAPT SEY146 THI 631 LIVEL

37

A~oIn, the oaw pattern of respons diffoerece exists for thoe. data that wore descrbedIn relation to 7able VIII, with the ore excoeption that the difference. In Vhe V I post-self-rating bores were not statistically significant for the two populations.

Toble X( preswrts a carr~aupndIng analysis based upon the weighteod neirvownssIndex scare calculated from the student questionnaire, data. The upper dec 16 wsed toIdentify the highly nervous population was marked by a weighted ermvousne Index scereof 40.5 or greater* as derived fr~om the Figure C44 distribution data. The non-nervousgrouip, I~e., the students who Indicated that they neve exurienooed nervousness during4 ~flight training, was defined by only I1I percent of the total population. The Table Xdata Wfdoote that, with the exceptlon of the medication usag Index &nd the turbukmenIndex, the quesitionnoaire respoonose derived bwo the two populations differ signiflocantly.However, the differences In temeoms Sor ths two groups ame, In geoneral, smnaller thanthose found with the three previous analyses. In the ase of the laboratory toso scores,population difference were found only for the SVDl isif-ratino sore and the WNI past-test self-rating lcore.

The results of I he Wou student group oomparhaos described by Tables VII thr'oughX in~ldict that certain elements of the laboratory test battery hav the potential, evenat this early phase of the longitudinal stuy,, to separately distinguish between susep-tible and nonsusceptibie pou lations, using the Right data proper as a oritarlon. Asemphasized earlIer, the forweighted indices used to define te usepible and non-suse~ptible, I.e., high reactors or low reactors, In thse tables were xtted from the

student element of the questionnaire. For some of the laboratory tests Included In the4 current analysis, it could be argued that the differense, noted In the populations reflect

the method or philosophy utilized by Individual students to roe or score their Infiglotairsickness symptoms. For eixuipi., with the OVOT self-rating waeoe (variable 30) thestudent is required to ouign a relative degree of severity to different symp~toms he *Awli-snoed during the test. HIS evaIluation of the olrsickneui synpoms experienced an a 91"nflight also oalls for a rating of over-all severity. In this context, It could be argued tha.one would expect that an individual who highly rated his symptoms during the 6VDTwould also highly rate his alirsckneoss experisnoes.

If, however, one utiliztes the lnstructor'mdsrived dota to estAlish high end lowreactor groups, the diffeences In laboratory test scores for the tw o ro"p still exit, andas a matter of fact, the statistical confldence Improves. This Is deostWe by TeWOXI which tabulates the results of a IOUSWa-Wallls one-way analysis of varlance boseupon a population subdivIoion derived frorn the weighted airoiolmoess inex scorms pro-vided by the Instructors. In this table, the upper deuile for the weighted airsicknessindex to marked by a twor of 16.5 or greater, as derived from the Figure Cl-D distribu-tion data. The related population dlefined by the corsodng tudent-besed ersolcknesIndex (Table VI1) had a high.' sowe of approximately 24.0. TIU low susceptIbilitygroup for the Instructor-based populatioo subdivision included approximately 43 percentof the total students, as oo'r.p"red to oly 26 poerent as defined by the students prper.As Indicatod by the H 001,11a I~n Table XI, all twenty qluestionnaire indices Wrei **drifro- different populations. As with the Tabl VII student-based data, heinOPat~ruc ba0d

38

TOWS. X

k Xfg f mitaI-Wellk ce-w@Y 4`00Y811 Of VWrhOe oompIcn Of shin~i who vvor roedwt m~elknuhhwvmne 6.7.,.Of diving flight with "risrd .w ~ erlevl high lrieldeor othawvowune. Themnamrm grUp, define! es these studnis whh a welpitd mervowuw,. hide (ve"Ato I *g 96u themomti qvs.-tttm~fst "w) e04001I0 0.0, f*Praelntd OpPrMImW.1)Y I IPijeet Of tIhe *u* P000u £ajft The neeyew Iimvp wu"niodo thaw sudent, with a weighted nevuwww Indeac equa so or oroatw then~ 1,0.5 which dleffned th.,9 6a,deg ile IV #his moomm..

RESPONSE VAR IALE II "am-utlyout HER V0tvdNo. K SIOCI P T IaN 11ATOT3It 314WA i.0sv. 1.1um, N HER" 1. Dv. 1.mgt. m

1 1-vaITItcNgu INIEK.UW 1063.4 1.6 8.1 1.1 43 34.1 1,4.6: 4.7 313 *-P.ICIRVA4341 1111111410U 34.140 3,. 3. .9 43 36.4 31.3 4.0 314 5-NIIVous16NO tweuw-uW 6031 1110 . 43 06.96 104 1-11 311 11-1101CATION 113W-WV slot 111 .6 .6 41 3.3 i0.61 I.? It6 $-A liost 09119 INIRM-11 36.60 311 Ill .6 43 111.6 9 4.4 3.0 311 1-YONITtW0 IHW-U. 1 6464 1.4 3.3 .0 43 6.6 9.$ 1.0 311 -. 3R3?O 1111111-11 14,60 1.6 3.6 .4 43 St. 1£1.0 1.? 11I 1-NEIVoU6NICOO INDIN-9 44.310 .0 .9 .6 43 01.4 10.6 1.0 It

t0 1-N1£CAlT@ION 11111-v slot .6 .6 .6 43 1.3 36.61 3.p 3£It 1-01131CKNIII INDIW91-UW 12.106 4.6 10.3 1.6 43 1t.? 10.0 3.1 ItIt£ I-YONIT:14 1011411-111 9.016 3.4 . 1.1I. 43 11.3 14.?13.6 3113 I-P.3EO01emAtIaw 1111E1-010 111.460 3.164.3 .0 43 13.6 £4.0 3.6 31£4 I-094YgOwSNoO1 IWSIEK-11 3190 .6 6.0 1.6 43 3M. 36.3 3.? 31it1t-701141.10C9 INSIM-UW4 3.43 11.11 13.3 1.6 43 1.3 1 F1.0 3.1 31It I-AIRSIC11111111 1IN.UN11 13.41' 1.6 4.1 .6 43 0.2 1.1 1.? 31I? 1-VONITING 1INDE-11 06.066 1.6 3.1 .1 43 0.7 0 .6 1.4 it10 1.P.6E01GRAD1101 IN3NI-11 16.110 .8 4.1 .3 43 6.0 F.4 1.3 31It 1-111914-10 tNlg*U 3.93 1.0 11.4 e~ 41 13.1 0.0 1.6 3120 1-TURIUWLENCE 11111-11 3.60 4.1 1F.I 1.1 43 16.6 1 0.1 1.4 3133 tfo3 -s101-N 8NTONYPOI? I .1.3 3.0 4.6 .6 so 0.3 £1 t$ .11 3034 1"11O1-116 NIIIORY.PART a 3.63 3.0 4.3 .1 is 4.3 It.? 3.0 311Its 1111el-11I HISTORY-1up 4044 6.6 0.01 1.3 30 14.3 ".1 3.0 It1Ad AW-Y*EN OUKIS 3 10 84.0 4.3 I 3 IS 30.4 %4.11 4.4 toZ1 1TAHN-TPAIIIANN OUIST 3.34 31. r.4 3 .1 13 31.3.0 S 1 6 I' 0I20 TIVIT.OVIT timlE oP DAY .30 0.6 I.l .1 39 10.3 3.1 .4 isto loyal-1-VAT ARM1 4.30 13,0 3 6 .4 30 16.3 .1. 1.3 2110 7I1V6-1VIV 61£.F-1ATlO C0,111 140.1 6.6 .6 30 £3.6I P.?18.4 it31 IIVIP-MV? 910?-11ATIIN 4.41 3.4 £1.3 1.0 35 6.4 11.3 3.3 ItJ13 IYVVSI-VVII 0ISC-4 RON? .1116.ts- 16.4 4,6 Is I3s.? I.l 1.6 It33 IVYIPI-VYII 27111IC-40ONS .61 4.0 3.1 1.4 13 4.1 3.4 1.0 It14 TVVIPS-VVIT S1*?IC-GNhT .14 ?.11 £4.4 4.6 IS 3.3 4.0 1.3 It35 VVvop£-YgII MANmIt-m13Nt1 1.10 MI, Mo. 6.6 to 33.4 W64 £6.01 is3.3 IVYIP3-VVII by"NAIC-114014 3.40 10.6 4.6 1.3 £1 6. 1 3.0 1.1 itI? IVVDP3.vvIT 'NUAIIC.-OeIT 1.36 46.5 it.? 6.3 13 611.31 10.611 .15 ll 3I36 TVVIA.YVIT 0411l 3.14 £6.3 3.0 1.1 13 33.0 11,3 31. 11J11 1VvII.V%'T 11ILF-RAVINO 85 11.6 4.4 £ .1 Is 31.6 I' 6 .3 Is46 Ivvlp-yvII Post-RATING 13.00s 3.3 C.? .1 1s 36.1 361,? 0.y 141 TYVIT-VVIT T1111 oF DAY .43 10.?1. 1. .6 Is 110.1 1.3 . Is

S TIVVNT 19900,I 401 S4 U11 a vNWIIONE3 31010943 INDEXIM*t~ITUCT00R MW094$1000 pVt aD 111116V11 ES tsOwr INDEX

110HIfCIICANI UEMNO 1941 .01 LEVELM * I:4£IrA17II ECYDN IMC 401 itvEL

t3

TWOi X1

Kt~h 1alrgsimi-WAII one-wmy uelpasb ef woranes seeperheei of odenue Identied by the Rliot Iewhvtmas f.evw being elrelh With ouderd 146011144 br the how"~Imq al Wfq a relatively high Inoeldene of *uWOW**(a*e Tabln VII hr an uqu~vlsooh semtben buse vpen Mudene kodpwnls). The -nmn-SAh grepefiedathetvdanh *%t a welrhd ehiIhmw. Inde (vwlebl 16 bw. hehstue quealefothee diew equel to 0,0, teprewoie eppreadmes y 43 pereee . te itelh4popv~l~tsTesnespep~ dfnd hg hdswt

an weighted ei,8.kknou Index eqoal toee, prow" tha 16.1 ktih esrtad thea sapwe deee Apr this ameerer.~~~~ .*~t~ S~pg.. ..... ..... 0a a *.8s.. .......a .... abl. .666.a*..

01111PIN11 NUAtI*IK M H-4111101 AIRSICKto. stgCRIP,:.u SAvTISTIC ORAN *,uv. 6.161. N 09AN $.DIV. 1.111. N............ b****................... .. a......1 1-a14*1990111 IS.wv 3io0 6.8 11.1 .0 860 44.7 16.0 8. 5 481 181:io iutuw sa.111 .1 a.l .1 M6 31.0 It.0 1 8.0 483 6P360186IN5IN-V 111'.400 31.10 1.6 .9 866 331.81 80.0 3.3 4114311olVels16Ilf l-U 14.46. 31.3 t 18. 0.4 860 60.1310.8 4.7r 41o s-1118leI~ON 8N3UN-ww 41-le .1 .3 .1 S 80 10.0 38.6 4.1 411* s-411181twillo 112111-1 1031.714 3.6 6.6 .3 111 17.8 01.0 1.1 417 -MOITINS, 1141111-1 181.11 .1 1,0 .8 866 80.3 0.3 1.3 41

*lP05AtlNINStIM-1 1112.9e 5.3 3.3 .4 Its 80.6 80.0 8? 680 -8V3NE6ll 4-41`6 13.9 13.5 1.1 8630 16.1 14.6 3.3 48

15s-~sea Iou Ill-U Vl 8 . .1 M6 16.0 81.0 4.3 41as -4a1as11mces hutI-11 110111e .6 .8 .6 8s$ 48.8 it.3a 1.0 41

to 1-VOINIINS INIEN-UW lOV -?g .0 .6 .6 M6 se.l 81.61 8.0 4813 1-40.911141141191 1111111-111 171.90e .1, 1.4 .3 860 31.6 81.3 3 .0 41ic 1-011"11111464 11111111-11 W pie 13.3 863 .1 1 86 34 7.3 111.1 1.3 4113 l-TVIS3LENCE INNI-U0 111,1111 16.8 816. 8.3 864 34.3 W0. 3.0 48to I-Ahmuteiw"911 14191-11 an,44e .6 to .6 860 33.3 P. 4 1.2 48IF 1-VINIT ING INSEX.U O".16M .6 .6 .660 lo 86.6 6.6 8.3 d8to8P06I0~@ INUM~-U1 IT11.11 .3 1.3 .1 160 86.7 6.6 1.1 4111It NIO5I6 141111-9 11.68 6.1 P.3a .4 860$ 84.6 6.6 8.3 48if I-TVIS6LINC11 1NSIN&V 84.07. 6 3 0.3 .6 I6O 86.6 3.4 8.3 4113 MN16-All 1111"V01.4111 1 31.3.01 6.0 1. 1 .1, l3t 83.4 83.7y 3.1 3084 TNUOS-46 11IITOAIYP41 1 3P.464 1.3 3.6 .4 lot I1.6 83.4 1.6 10IS THI36-NO 911310MO.UN 19.600 0.a 83.3 8.6 0 lo 71.6 13.3 . 3,6 19Is TIAWNX-6TiTVAWNX. MIT. 9.416 33.6 9.6 1.4 39 36.4 86.3 3.9 13IF 110111T1AN SES. .89 38.6 6.8 8 .6 to 14.0 4.6 1.4 In1o MaYl-INY5Y TINE IF $0* 1.70 6.a 1.. .1 W3 9.s a.. .3 34it Toylo-OVIT NA116 93.4ps 11.8 4.0 .4 130 16.1 U.S 1 .3 336 TIVIS-11VIT ICLP-IAIN1 38.340I. . 13. , .3 lot 19.1 6.0 1.1 So31 TSY3P-6YSY POIT-44Ia M41 Ms@ 1i .6 1.3a .4 14?7 S 1, 136. 4.4 17is TYVVIp-VYIT ISATIC-1I6NT 7,1476 86, 86.4 8,6 43 0340f 1.7 .0 to33 ?VVSIP-YVIT SAYIC-U10ING 6.63 6.7 3.6 .0 41 3.8 3.6 .6 8614 TYVI~p-VYI? STATIC-401T 1.64 4.1 41.3 8.1 43 8.1 .8 . 3 41 6t31 TVVOP1-VVIT VAI 3YNNIC-UIIT 1.84 66.L111.03 3.9 43 36.4 13.3 1.6 to16 TVV3PI-YYIT 11"MUZ-WRON11 1.46 16.4 7.4 8.1 421. 7.0 1.3 8.7 toI? TVYIP3.vYII 3?NANIC-041Y 8.63 it.$ 16. 6 4.8 43 64.6 34.?S 6.? Is34 TVVIR-938T &AME 6.6068 3.063.6 .0 41 213,4 8t.6 1 .6 ItSO VVVII-OVYT 160F-3141N6 81.640 84.0 6.3 Ill 43 113.1 6.1, 5.6 864e IVvIP-vVIT POST*114YI141 1*1344 6.t 36.$3.1. 41 86.0 111.1 4.1 IS41 YVVII-VV8T TINE OF BAY Is6 86.7 0.6 .1 41 80,0 1.1 .3 i6

*MTUCO grumiwiG *ssNIi *1 Vi a WIONTED 111641PONIE 831a 116INIFICANY ORIYNI tINl 41 LrVgL

6'4* 1 I0WiANT 01VIlNN THE .661 LjVgL

40

.................................

mom index score for the high-reator were all greater without exception than tho low-reactor .roup. Aain, the thre, motion sickress history sores, the taWtmiAiety test,and the tre. I8VD rating tess show signiflont difforenoes in the two populatio. Inoadition, the three WIT rating tests now statistloally distlnguish between populations.With even this ouory exomrintion, It would appear that certain of the ikboratory scoreswill be Independent of student bias or approach In completing the flight questioniaires.In addition, it may be possible to utilize ineruotmr-based measures of airsickness toestablish validation oritoria fa future evaluation of elected laboratory toot combina-

FUOHT AND LAAORATORY DATA CORRELATIONS

To gain som inigMht Into the relatohips that may exist among the response vrlo-obWe at this phae of the study, the da were - to a Spearmn rank correlationanalysis corrected for tied observations. The aonolis Insiludted the total Squadron VT-10population with the unwe*Ihtod and weighted response indioes oaloulated on the basis ofthe total numbe of hops flown by a given student. The results of thW rank correlationanalysis are presented in matrix form In Table XII the total number of date pair amoal-oted with a given correlation ceofflclent within this matrix Is tobulated In similar formin Table XIII. Table XII olso Ilih the unity vlue oorrlation ofa variable with Itselfso as to establish the total number of obsrvatio avallable for analysis. As before,correlations betweem the acadmlo oand flight grade (varlebl. 21 and 22) are notIncluded In this table becaue of the diffment grads referec used by the MARS ftu-dents who flew only the first five fakmlloriuMtlon hops of the Squonw VT-1O 6ightsylla6b. To esbli the stathtical signifloance of the rank oorrelation coeffMcinh,a t statistic was calculoted for each relonship ad a. stndrd twa-ailed Stdent t.tattani evaluation made. Those cormlatlons which the t.W evaluation identified asbelng statistically signifloant at the .01 and .001 levels or oreat• re identified accord-ingly In Table XU1.

A cursory exm natlon of the Table XII rank correlation oeffiolents for the twentyquestlonnake-derived response Indiaes shows a condderable number of signifloant l•tsercorrelations, as would be expected. FPr enple, the unwelg tod end weighted Indlefor thestudent-bsed dto are all ooelated to the .9 ovel or reaelr. Themapplies for the Instructor-based indices. Considerlne the three respoe variables thatare, by definition, directly related to i',otlon sickness, i.e., alriknoess vomitinq, alndperfomance degradation due to aihlknm, it an be observed in Table XII that the cor-respoding student and Inruotor rotlns are corM t to the .7 level or g"reaer. Thisholds for bot the unwelghted and weighted Indice. The highest correlation betlweth. student and insthutor responses fo thme three variables Is .93 for the vomit indexwhlih, due to the overt nate of this Ymton, Is not at oll Wrprisin. A fither oh-srvaton concerns the sme ity of the alrsokness lenced as meoaurd by the weight-ed airsickness Indic*s assigned by the student (van rele 6) nd the i toW (vraeble 16).Them oasliknes Indices were correlated with the weighted vonit Index (severity mea-ured by the numbor of times vomiting occued) to the .73 level for the stude dat"ond to the .81 level for the Instrvuctor dcts. In effect, the judgment of ai•Ickne"

41

.ssvrity was highly correlated with the nm~be of times vomiting occurred. There wasalso a high correlation between the severity of performance degradation caused by air-sickness and the severity of the airsickness and vomit experience.

The correlations between the nervousness Indiae" and any of the three motion sick-nms-relaftd Indiaes, though staistically signIficant In most case, wer marked by con-siderably lower correlation coefficients. For the weighted indices, the largest correlo'.tion For the student nervousness Index was .53, and this occurred relative to the relatedinstructor Judgmet of neirvousness. The same trend of statistically significant # butIowar, crorlation coefficients was observed for the medication usage Index. The cor-rotation coefficient between this variable and any of the three weighted motion sicknessmeasures was In the .33 to .38 range fr both the student and instmucor defta. TheInstructor-fiarnIshed thobuIence or roughness-ofmair data also displayed low correlationcoefficients In relation to the same thre motion sickness related Indican. The turlyu-lance Index hod correlation coefficients of .28, .33, and .28 relative to theweighted airsickness, vomiting, anid performnc degradation indices, respectively,based upon the student data, and coefficients of .31, .33, and .37* repcively,for the some Indices derived fromn the Instructor data.

The Table XII correltion matr ix also permits a preliminary evaluation of therelationships that exist at this phase of the longitudinal study between the Infilght air-siknmess measures (variables I throuh 20) and the Individual laborato- test (variables23 through 41) undergoing evaluation. Lasboratory tests that show Istatitially significantcorrelations with all three weighted airsickness, vomiting,, and perfoMac degraatioindices derived from both the student and Instructor data Include the raotion Jsics case

* history (variables 23,. 24, and 28), the AVOT rotor scare, (variable 29), the 6VDT self-rating soe(variable 30), and the 1VDT past-test self-rating score (variable 31). TheWIT self-rating score (variable 39) shwow significant correlations with all three of thestudent-based weighted Indices and two of the three instructor-based weighted Indican.In the case of the WIT rotor score (variable 38)0 statistically significant correlationoexist between th student-Woed vomit Index and the instructor-based airsickness Index.Statei/anxiety mores (variable 26) also showed statistically sllignficant ccrelatlnos withall three of the student-based airsickness Indices and two of the corepndn InstrCtrbased Indices. None of the other test owne showed any statilstic~al ly sgfiat rela-fionship with any of the Indices, weighted or unweighte.

The correlation matrix also provides a cursory look at the intro-correltions thatWnit amiong certain or the laboratory tests. For example, the SVDT rater more Is via-nificontly correlated with the related uelf~ratIng and post-test self-rating 1YDT moren,as well as the WIT rater self-rating, and post-test self-ratng score, tOe three motionsickness case history scoae, and the statte/anxiety questionnaire score. A small ngtivecorrelation exists between this mcore and the dynamic performance WIT swre. It shuldI ~be observed that for the majority of the laboratory tests, a high score or rating dexnoseither "reate susceptibility to disorientation or motion sickness, or poorer perfornmaneon an assigned task. The exceptions to this rule Include the first mcore listed fit theWIT static performance test (variable 32) and the first more listed for the WIT dynamic

Correlat ion mt. tw OV the ftuadron VT1O flL~ht v

..... ...... ones.....f

RUPSU, ftALNo. mocatpyI0M I a 3 4 3 a v I I is it t3

3 -VUVITINS INIIN-uW .6601.64I 0-P.9101DAAT10N 11651.33 .770 .640.140

4 I-ma3t"101630 INSIN-W .430 .144 .4301.603 I-ME3NO130N 11KM-IN .310 .36* .340 .1801. N6 *.-*IU31C91E00 INSIX-U .974 .730 :100 .430 .1341.807. -V.UITtG MUaU-9 .600 .99. .670 .340 .360 .7?301. So

*.oPugaa t.~ ux1-U v.78 60 .900 .114s .42 .34s . 7Us 1N9 *01-1112tIS8303 KIN1X-U .42* .15 3. *430 He .0 III .43a .133s .420.8* 6If 6.-1112COT1SU 31101-9 .310 .360 .340 .13I. " .334 .300 .360 .1511. Soit 1-mostenc1e0 tWICN-1U .644 .770 .:U0 .310 .3U0 .030 . 766 .730 .326 .3601.01all tWOINKITI INUMUX.. .670 .330 .610 .140 . 360 .730 .910 .600gg .160 NO , MI13 :PaI*V I NK%-SO .610 .700 .710 130* .360 .7110 .719 .746 .30s .360 - TOO14 I-.UJppVe6 teI03NUN-00 -3F0 .364 .300 .933 .110 .390 Us6 .60* ISS0 .190 .300 IIs I-3 00ISLUCE IUNKN-U .1111 .300 .30s .146 At*0 .304 .370 .310 .140 .370 .340 3

Is 1-SI1S1C90968 31138I-V .00$ .79W .780 .330 .300 .640 .79 PIP 60l .3130 .310 - "a .81it? o I-0t Joe KN)I1*U .070 .930 .660 .340 .37* .?1$P~ .030 a .330 a?* .70o*910 I-P.11 641041@U IKUN-1 .0s .7?I$ .?Is .30*e .36s .71* .7It0 ."s* .31s .36s . T00 1Is10 :0z"3911928 341N-U .34* .230 .36* .813' .133 .360 .340 .840 .330 .111 .33s30I 3-*LUmCE 1011W-0 .3270 340 .161 IP7. .130 .300 .33o .310 13?$ .133 .30033 110-U tIT0? PM? 1 . 4.0 310 .396 .11 . *190 .430 .806.81 .130*70 .100 . 400

14 TU@N3.130160?sWV.P#AT 1 Me~ .41* .310 .160 .1130 .440 .430 .360 .13, .330 .49011 "004-011 #I2T01? SUN .40s.*440 .41a .11s Ile0 .406 .440 .410 .160 .130 .440 .4to36 l O0W-T0TKIAU.4119S?. . 300 .330 .300 . 17 :130 * 400 .340 .34s .1 .0 .S*34037 TWt0Ut.AtTPAvxI0313T. .34 .64 .30 .13 -.00 .311 .03 .1IF .14 -. So .1330 T&93?-S1VOT .TIK.VOS3 -.1It -.1It -. 64 -. 03 -. It -.It -. It . 4 -.0It -.1I1 -.1 I .3W6 T&933-IV33.161111 .360 .360 .18s .111 .141 .36e .366 .33* .16 .140 .330

31 TDV33:0VSYT 8X.-314ING .430 .300 .410 .160 .170 .490 .330 .410 190* .373 .3y0I1 TDVW-SDT#3 1903?-I&A11 .390 .30s .310 .13 .13 .340 .10. .306 .130 *is . no .4131 TVV.tP%-VYI1 S?*TIC-416NT .0of .14 .11 .86 .. 02 .12 .&1 .11 .09 .U .33 .183 TVY9P3¶.VVIT uSOM-41fhus -.83 -. 113 -.07 -. 04 a.61 -.It -.13 .08? -. 06 -. It -.10-.34 TVYSP3-VVIT S3AIlt~-SNhT -.93 -.It -. 14 -.07 .84 -.06 -.13 -.3it -. 67 .90 -.13 .8

36 VW1-Vk1 .14 .14 .If.01 .11 .14 -.14 .311 -. 33 -.% I

if tVV3P-VV T 3?UIIIC-SP3T .47 .13 .19 .10. .94 .09 .1At .60 .00 .04 .10 .613 IVVIR-V9¶IIT 1 A1 .300 .300 .360 .10 .13 .310e .33s .3At .09 .13 .330 .330 TVVIO-VVU T*EL;-RATtNG .310 -It* .340 233 .0IS .330 .34$ .310 .33 .69 .36$ .446 TVVIP-Vv1? POV.64 6 lW10 .33 .1,01 .3?1 .31 .31 .13 .366 u3 .33 .11 .333 .341 T9V1T-VVIT TIll IF 8A1 .33 .1? .00 -. 09 .1 u 3 u .0? .46 .369 .03 -.6u .4- -- - --- - .ese --- - -- -mee.- t.. Me Mo. 0-0.00 wan0 WeflO*- n - -a-S-WO an --. -" 00.ft- -

sIVWV IIBIUUCTW BATSI A 1W 0 U310ST98 RRIP0111 11511

0 INWIFCANT 89YSN1 THE .83 LEVEL* USINIVICAUT IV THE~ .@f st LEVEL

,4n4 3ao1to=7 dota 14d upm the "anx renk occtolation 0ootffoIOit .diup.d fo tied r6*8.

13 VW~ ARIADLIIt 14 14 1 I 14 It £6 131 0 3 4 21t3 :1? 10 it 34 31 •s 31

6.- nfl ......... .... a 0f al am l n 000-* n b a & O .

ISO0 .3601.60

.030 .610 .3?. R Bie* .?v s .1?, . .364 0303.06

I*l .1 .360 .4t0 no .?F41.44Oie -.WO .go .3110 .390 Are .3601.

.34. As .21t .010 .316 .330 .37* .100.06"s .340 .61 .09 .43. .346 .3p1 .06 -I .

;:go .33s .09 .09 .430 ASO 444 .19 .01 .1001.06410 .Aso .0o .09 .44o .410 .400 .e4 .so .p1i .6403 O

p290 .330 .14 .01? .30 .31 3 .Sold . .8| .641 .111 .11910.010

jO .i1 .14 _.." .13 .A? .3 .10 .G? .l3 .13 .33 .4411l.M

3 to -.06 ..3 -.02 -.1- -.11 -. 06 .03 . .O ? -. 11 .0) 1.06

310 .30o .141 .0? .340 .810 .900 .1I .04 .30. .1.0 .to* .60 .11 .0I 1..6

eo .VS* .136 .10I .39o .300 . 34 .141 .I1 .23s .1fe .36o .$iso.312 uI .1 01.0

1140 .110 .6.0 110 .114 .81 -.03 .31 . 310 . 830 .I1 .? . 400 111 . 114.1

1t At .04 .it .14 .t1 .ve .O4 .14 .0e -.14 -. 1 .lst .l0 .i't .14 '.A .1 1 1.IO

11 -. 14 -. 04 -. 6? -.21 -. 14 -.13 -.0 -.13 -.05 .13 .41 -.19 .?0 13 -.10 -.90".00,1

15 -.A1 .01 -.11 0.14 -.. i1 -.1? .03 -. 1t -. 11 .13 .61 -.11 .64 '-94I-13-* - .'S .11 .36,tit -. I2 .03 -.10 -.l? m.10 -.It .0 -..? -.12 -.111 -.13 -... 1.16 .. 16. -.29. 1 -

S-.13 -.$1 .18 -.1 m.31 -. 14 -. 11 .8 -. 14 -.1$ -. 14 -.. 01 -.. , -. I? -.1 -.13 .no

13 .14 -. 00 .09 .0 .II .I3 .6I . " .13 .1 ... .''-9"i* .39 ..13.33 .11.

"23I .all.1 .19 .340 .30 .1.I .I? .16 .350 .410 .413 .13 1.I1 .II .41 .. .t .o13 - .

1 .?. .6 .I .39I .380 .oi .11 .3I0 .44 .43: .:3.4: 1 .03 .41 .440 .440 .13 -. 3

336 .3?* .69 .1 36.2.7.6.4 .3 30.3300 .33 113 -.04 3130 .340 4661 .9323 A? .00 I" .11 .2 A? of .04 .111 .I It .31 31 13

64 -.0?0g .83 -.00 .84 .0? -.17 .63 -. 63 .6? .33 .933 0 30.6.6 . 1 .

....-..- -................. . .

it _

0~ a ma t 0. p.a .

34 3 -3 31 39 39 0 41

01.66A.1 9.6's

.9S -.41s.-tee .46 1.0

.63 -16-16.64 3 0.41

-. no63 .l t.o .63 .14.1 g.6-. e..............C n

.. .. .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ......

c.3 . 111SCRIPTIOW I I a 4 6 6 F S I to......... a... Wt..............

L' G-VON1TIU6 16MUN-SW 391 291

4 I-141111UNmse 91NIN.I1g 111 391 391 391c G-1111CAvsIM :sUN-59 391 391 391 391 lot6 2-6116IKutesS Sol3V 9 391 Sol 391 391 391V 3-VOilITHIM 139S11- 391 311 391 391 391 391 3MO S.DlA tIM* UN~-V 193 351 391 319 391 201 391 351V *-WINYOU011111i IWDIX*31 151 391 391, 393 391 391 got 303 lot

10 8-029135TtN 33KIW114 391 191 391 391 391 391 813 391 391 311

%I~ I-voIRGzwe9 INSIX-99 369 309 3" 0939 389 389 ass 3ss 3s as sU~ 1-P.316135I 111@N136-111 259 lot 389 159 349 3519 389 349 359 Soo

14 R-WEEVOU81116IND 11S111V 259 189 350 300 ISP 389 359 355 319 369IS I-TIMUVLINCI 3331N-4V 349 330 155 359 309 359 359 355 390 390Ic I-4AIIRCKNEIt tN111-V 340 350 310. 35t 349 3"9 359 359 219 30017 1-VONI3TIW IN11EN1-0 35510 34 15 319 319 339 355 359 310 309*0to P3S*AZ 33313.3 269 IS9 109 134 369 300 359 355 319 355isi -mcvusa inuux ioi-t 3ss a09 3ss ass 3ss 1"~ 3ss ass 3ss us.20 112OUIUt 2113-6 209 359 333 359 355 353 169 Set ass 35982 TotlS-*$ u1s1sOYPANT 1 326 162 391 362 362 341 Ms ai1 as1 M6a 4 TNISS-19 1111TIMlPART 3 426 361 363 6 6 361 3613& 361391 162 3612z 61063-08 ISISTSIY.6tIN 361 363 361 368 361 363 362 361 316 litJoe 10~3AU*N .U5. 33 153 103 103 103 103 153 103 13 163IF TTAUX-TI*KINL6UvIsT. lot let lot lot lot lot al! lot lot 1otno Tos93T-vefT1123 or sk i 3 35se 11 t 360 356 See 359 33 336 33 15810 M8V5-over 1*711 363 362 13 3 63 3 63 3 63 363 31 63 363 1362o ?5V3O-eVvy $WL-RATING 26 13 36 2 363 36 2 363 343 263 38 63 13331 r3VV3-6IVT PSty-NATlNO 346 346 3483416 340 343 346 241 a3n 34122 1'VIYSI-VVI? STATIC-NKSH? 119 11t 31519 lit Ito 1it litIt 119 uitso lVVSPR-VVI ISTATRC-411011 l1t 119 lit lit lit for It 3 19 lit35 124 1VVSF3-VYIT ITATIC-ON3T lit 31p 1it lit lit 1it lip its lit Itsso3 TqVVPIVVT DYN111C-NION1 lit lit 139 lit lit. lit litli 1 519 Its36 TVVDPII-YVIT lit161M3 lit lit 119 l19 1 it lit lit Ito lit53IV T~VV3P-VVIT IV15116-cott lit Ito lit 119o lip lit l1t lit lit lit38 TYVIB-VYIlET 601411 lit Ito 1ts 119 lit lit lot lit58 Itsli30 TVVIS-VW31 SPol-167tIN lit 119 lit lit 319 lit Ito Ito lit Ito41 TVVIP-VVIV PST-I FIAN lit lit 1i9 lit lit lit 11l 11t 119 lit

*IcNIUICkNT IIVOND H 6 I

II

'Table XlXX

km;'O Of dte-Pal•'a usad in tht 0ea0lsM•AoD Ofe Th* Tle X11 kpesmI r eea remlatioe seeffiodent-,

Sil IA 13 14 98 IS IVII I| Re | 14 l I t 0 |SH.... • ~~~t t mioele e e Q•i•p m emw•• mo• its is 148 to ts to to as 3

mo~~0 00o .0 0o wl e e 0 .a osenm p o 0. owen 0. sp e•ook

321391 391391 391 391

I 231 191 391 MI291 391 391 M9l 3913 213 391 391 3I1 391 39130! 393|I l l1 391 Ul 391 3 31393 331 391 301 391 391 391 39139t 391 391 Z91 391 391 391 391 39310 9331 391 391 t If Ot 39 1 31 1 33 291 391NOR5 363 3411 361 363 361 301 383 363 382 370*141 363 303 32 3 83 361 36 3 361 36 3 16136 376 373126 361 363 361 361 362 393 I 353 26 361 M7 ITS M7

S583 163 103 1I M Ill I6 Ill 163 1ON 1II 161 IN A"

ItIll Ill t$ 109168 • 16 1 Ill IU if Ill 1414 14 14

h54 311 3" 361 3531"3 3" 5 363 3 I3 394 3494 36I 1" 04 31362 163 303 158 1.1 103 163 368 363 393 184 184 184 1 N 4 64 3163 363 363 343 383 363 353 353 363 3183 3?3 213 373 01 S 64 35t 3?4 374341 340 340 340 341 346 346 346 346 141 361 333 331 94 93 347 1102 331 362113 IIt 11 l3 I£ 11 lit lit lip lit Its I 1 In I 4 lit lit lit I81M 119 1it lit, 11t 11t Ito l1 lit 1 it Its Io It 3 I 01 4 1it lit 1it I" AL139 itlt i 119 lit1, 3 13 t li t Its 139 Ito Its Its 111 1 65 4 1it lit 1ll see ctit l1t 119 lit lit lit lit$ lit 1.19 lit. 13s It 133 310 1 684 1to 3it M3 161 1lit I1s It9 139 £to l1t 1t9 l1t lit ItsIts lit Its M3 3 6 4 319 I1s 11 I"1 131 1it all 3it its # 33 139 119 319 l 1t lit 130 9116 363 1 6 4 lit lit 13t 161 L.1it lit £1o Ito its lit I1o lit l19 139 1ts 1ts 1i0 M 04 339 119 1 1" 11.Its Its lit lit 11 t It1 li t1 i 13 9 3 19 313 1" 0 1. 0 . 1*$ 84 13i lit 1it Ie Ilit Itis 13 IIip li£ lit li ti9 li3 1it li9 M lit 9 1 6 4 119 t li3 1 I01 &Il its it jig li It li lit lit 1 it39 Il 1t0 1 10 136 1 6 4 104 li3 1 1 11 $1....... * *.* .......... .. .........

S•o o in

" 1',, ""

T#~.1 ......

~t~-~i~u~d itz CQo1G"io10 Of The tebla X11 SPOArmn wmk oowz'oation W41fioc&efte

Is i 4 t e I? i? as i1,O o of as ts £6 1? 85 @9 31..aa cb a C O * . ............. e w ww ot o sa 00 000

1€•, to d •III i l It IS I

3" 15 0 13ll]IO ~ . i'lI o

A 391 191 391A 31 Sol Sol iSol~

S1• M Itso~t apt loti3 ,,lt19 i 0410

391 3vt 3 923t 391 391 39 1

A M~ 393 391 391 331 its 391 set1 3M 368I e 36 1 So8 l 336 368 36i 0ll2 312 36ft 364 161 340 3641 361 31 370 lIn2 362 362 361 348 363 318 361 312 373 ITS 371

1 Ill l 103 163 1 a3 lox Il0 I IS Inl 3 I Il ll I3 I"3 l2- lso 3II 30 It| 3o U 3W IMss 3 I9 369 369 101 I4 373 3 33 363 3II 263 36 l 363 363 363 374 374 3V4 111 04 310 371I NO) 363 3 363 343 353 363 363 373 SIS 73F 373 A" 1 4 365 374 374

23410*4 340 $41 S 349 340 348 140 311 351 391 94 93 347 I58 351 M5

l it Its i Its lit litlitli Its Its Itsl II 1"l I4 litlitli I"I &l1 Ito Ito Ito Its lt i l I3s Ito 3 IO 31" O II 04 litli l I3 1 Llit 3 lit 11 li lit Ito Il 1t9 Its Ito Its 0lo 04 Ito Its tit I"li it III Ito lit It3 13 li3 1ie Is* Its 101 04 lit lit 115 106 1

Ito Ito Itslot+ Ile litlit it' Ile Its lit Is11 4 litlit I lit InlIla M1 3 1 it II3 I 3 lit li 5 3• li 180 111 111 303 04 lit lit lit In 1"lit1It 119 31 g lit Ito lit lit Its tag Its lei 1 of tip fig lit3 131 1,

135 litS tie lip l3t I3s 1it 119 Its its its 3ot 104 its lit 1to I"t Ilit lit Ito 110 l1t l1t lit Ito li3 II5 11 1310 4 119 315 1it 101 1,119 all l1t Ito lit lit li9 lit 3ts Ile Its l0g 04 119 3it 115 S131 14..................... c. . .. ane...........assa waaaaq

fIf

.. .. . . . .. . . .

32 34 13 2 0 39 40 41... .. ... .. ... .. .. .... 5s 5 Cc *

laga lag INSa Its Its m2 Its its all Itsas• 8 its tst tII Its18

I la its lag tits M its,& Ill II IIll Ilt III Is# Its

f118 it I taq I I le It III let III IIa iII its its ill Its Its Its III its, i o m e m....m m...m m ..m m. m. ..

p3• 33¶co tid (variablo 35). In thm oaws, @a explained In Appendx t, a highso= dwan god p (the number of correct responme). This negative corre.L2tion would then that powr perfera•no (a high sore) on the, VDT rot testwould be cccomn~oled by poor pewd me (a low more) oan the WIT dynamic perform-CrAG tea,.

Ather test Intrw relotion of Interest Involves the time of day th*a the BVDTand WIT were glvw to the students (variales 21 and 41, repectlvely). Thee data

tre ontcd Into the analysi, to Investgate an poWttil diurnal ef•fect on the mo -n1u•e of the rcspons evked by these two tesits. During the conduct of the teststudn s Wart exposed to the related stiull at time ranging km early In the n inguntil lt in the afternoon. In generel, mot of the tuft were given during the monInghours. The que.$o of Interest Involved thes potential ohenge In vestibular sensitivityca a ftiIm of the time of day. The Table Al det Indicate thet there were no slgnlfl-cant corletions betwom the time that the SVDT woo given and ony of the three rekatedSVDT rew& sree. The mne applles fo the time that the WIT was giv•. In efroct,OWcttlol evidence to show diural efets on either of these teft was not preseet ovrthe d•ned t~me period.

In concigon, It to emphoslied tha final dsclisln on the merit evaluation of thecwfr~t laboratory tests Ima uded In the* mstd vt await completion of the longitudinalgludy of this popuiatton. puture reports will deal with the proogres of thi secif stu-.znt ploq tion through advanced haining Into the fleet redlnes Muufron.. In add-

tion, cm a recult of a chaong In the flit syllabs for Squadon VT-1O, a second groupof stu&nts will be follot-ed through the same pipeline, providing futher Insigt Into

Wh NPO ahuiciaeu problem during balsi training.

45

REFERE NCES

1. AMzno, Sc.ac and Technolcgy Objective Nn~onn.I4Aclca (STO-PN),, Section11, P~NoV;wlMadlcal Operationl hablenss, 10OJuly 1W7.

2. tNurwo, J, M., Samcslcems in a destroyer eacor .quofon. U~.S Armed Forces Mad.

3. Clayt"orW GI.0. POM.40 Department of the avPonnlng ond PhogammingGut&?.ý (DNPO) Mwwauoronui Wasnhington,, DC, Department of the ayOffiz of the Secretary, 29 November 1977.

4. Dobio, T.ý G., Airsickness in aistcrw. AGAAD AO.177. Landon: TochnicalEd~t~ng wnd Repvductlon, Ltd.# 1974.

5, Hemingwzy, A., and Green# E. L., Airoickness A.wino ely flying training. J.Avlat,. MWd., 16,409-416t 1945.

6. liland, R., G.t andl Nelson P. D., Navy Decision Coordinating N'bpers FleetHealth Standw", NDCP 4Ai 96PW, Fhopom Ekmnwt 63706. DeBoedo, MDtNow I M~dical I Wearh and Deveilopment Commead, 22 Felruory IV"7.

7. Money, K. E., Motiton sickness. , !i Rwev., 139, 19M0.

a. ReAsn, J. T. , Motio Sickness - som" thoretcal consdratdowns. J!3t, J. MonesMach. Stud., 1h21-38, 1969.

9. Ryback, As. Set RuddR Est.. Matz, 0. Jet and Jennings, C. Let Motion sicknessin LXAI flyIng persnnl. 6.m e e~ 411672-677, 1970.

10. Sitege S3' trcSaitc o the kh!.ara Science. New York:

I I TucI~e, G. J. , Hand, D. J. , Godhey, A. L., t nd Ralnhar', A. F., Alrickness

46

APPENDIX A

kIof Dosuriptkcn of IndlvlhioI Hop. Comprisng the Ph.-1976Irnic Training Squofrcen VT-10 Hligh# Syllabvs

HOP HOPCode DowIption

FMI Initial famfliirl-atioa hop demi- strtling ackarct . rfor, ma.. GenealIndoctrination Involving Yankee dcarture, stall wiAer ur I @"ttitlud,WCld), ClmnAbs, turns, angle of attack, and gyo operation.

FM2 FamIllarizatlor hops Involv4n high-altitudle nevigotilon, h'Imlfy straightFM3 and level flight with no acrobatics.FM4

FM5 Frrorinzation hop demontrating aircraft peformance and acrobatics.Maneuvern Include stalls, w 'lmum radlus turns, SAM break, aileron roll,wing-over, barmel- roll, loop, one-hair Zuban eight, Immelman, and spilt S.

(NI High-level Ihnstruat navigation training generally Involving stmragh andIN2 level flght. kwtnmer* hood nwmcdoey o I1NS with IN6 serving as checkIN3 flight.IN4INSIN6

VNI Lwmftltude, high-sposd viual navigton training goewally InvolvingVN2 saight and level flight with posibillty of buftting according to atmosphericVN3 conditions. Hop VN4 mev as check Mlig&.VN4

fOI Bailc netion FomaIon training Involving parade turn, crom-nder, break-upard rendezvous, free arube., lead change, tactical wing, comb•t qmread,In-place turn, h6rd turn, called turn, uncalled turn.

F02 &wsic section formaion and bol flighter memuver training Involving piumightF03 tracking, abeam attack, defense against high yo-yo attack, low yo-yo elt.ck,

displioe•ant roll, end no flap touch and go.

The principal aircraft uwed during training was the T-2. A msery eircraft, theT-WD, wa used on some hope but never for hops Involving ecrobatics or formtlion.flight. The averaaq duation of each hop woa moppoilmately 1.3 hours.

A-I

APPENDIX 8

Brfef Description of Laloatory Tests Comprising the 1977-1978Prototype Motion Slckne. Sensitivity Test Battery

Vatlable Symbol

23 TMSQ1 Tw*-part m"Ion sicknew histry form dowcrbing motion sicknes24 TMSQ2 Inwideeme and e~oswn level.* TMSQ1 sunwurim~ the hisory25 TMSQ3 before the ageof 12 and hase minimum value of0.0 denotin

no problems and.a maximum value of 160 denoting highI uxoept-blIlty. TMSQ12 perftoin to motion sickness esspsieme Followingage 12 with tHe sum minimum andl mwadmum values TMSQ3 Isthe numerical sum of the TMSQI arnd TMSQ2 scomes For &Mebitssee keason J, T.j, An Inveseigation lofown Wootr contributingto Indlvidvul variation In motion sickness "Mseplblty. PFRCCommittee Repor 1277. Lonebn, MWsr .fthfns,196

26 TSANX This Siate-rait Mdstety Invertory Is osnirised4 of two Self-27 TTANX report scales. The State Anxiety sol. (ISA X) requires the

IndIvldual to repor how he hoel at that particular moment Intime, while the Trait Anxiety scale MIANX) reqhuie the mIP-Vidval to repwr how he generaly l*eek Seth $WIes have aminimumn score of 20, denoting minlersim anxity end a MOmaimuscamofe .0 denoting meximum, anxiety. FM details, weeSplelbersr, C. D.,, Gorsuh, It. Lot and Lushen., A@. EsoSlAI Maniwel for the State-rrait Anxitwy Inven-tory. Poo Alto,

20 TIVOT *We Vestiblar Disorientation Tost (SVDT) Involving aros-29 TIVOR coupled angular acceleration stimuli prodvoed by paced head30 TIVDS motions on a rotating chair., TSVDT donote the time of day the31 T1VDP teso was given hod on a 24-how deoimol clock. TIVDA Is the

test score givari by the rafti pawel and he. aminimm VOlUe Of6 denoting no motion 2YM0ptoe1 OWd 0 VMesMM vslue 0#60 de-noting a maximal moIon sicknes reactiaon I~mmeditel follow-Ing the SVDT,, each %MOOec rated his Own reaCtian to the tootcoded asTWO$ with e mninimum snore of? Indicatoing no reactionand a maximum score of 49 denotIng high reestlon. A reort ofaftereffets was obtelned frcm the subject 24 hiours later andcoded ag 1IVDP with a minimum soore of 0 denoting no after-effects and a maximum score of 160 dwenting a high level ofafter effects. For deteils, Se Lornt,~, J. Mo.. Hotman, 0Go L.lMbmonp W. Coo and Oue*yp F. E., Nuormaive deft for twoshort tests of motion reactivity. NAMAL-1243# Mwsnsolas, FL,N~aval Aerospae Medical Researh Laboratoy, 197?.

Vyrakbldz Symbol

32 TWVSP1 hs seem pertain to the tmk w pa wno elemet of the33 TWVSP2 VIguA1,4eetbula Iinteaction Toot (WIT). The talts involve34 TVVSP3 the v~sual soon, soquhitlon end Identl&Ifctn of a oon~pex

mamlieal imploy. Lkdwa stetl ondltlonse TWVSP denotesthe mutmbor of owmest reponoee, TVVSP2 the number of Inoor-rest Wfsipns, &nW TWISF the nunme of omitted Noqoflm.

35 TWOPI Thve 4nemw S peromm e too more TYVODi, TWDF2, and36 TWVPD2 TWVDPI desarib One se tempome scme reorded whle the37 TWVDP3 abject wundergoes ive sbws.Ide rotaton. For both the

utatl end dynem to pe AJmeome fests, the minimum OWd MAi-am moes witin a liven reepouwe .etqery wer 0 en 129praeqietively, with tfle #Aetw omWdiin thae sum of the sonotrotIncorrect, OWd e01itted OWNe W~ W91 129. For deta~l. meLanui, Jo Met Holuiamm 0.O L., Hbnn We Coo and aweay,F. to, Nomilve dta for two sOwl tests of mellon reetivity.NAMAL-1243. Poeo le, FL, Nmel Aerosee MedOselResearch Laboratory, 1977.

38 TWIA These mare pertn to th. notion siolasm symptom ating39 IWItS element of" th se Vu -Vst~bulor blu'stlo TesO (VV1T).40 TWVIP TVYIR lIsthe testý mere given by the rlng penel &nd hes a41 TWVIT minimum value of 6 dtbiq no mellon 9iknemVP sypt' end

a maxmum volue of 60 denoting a rmaduesi ot $onskesootion. bamauiedlely folqwin the WVIT, eaech subject ratedhi. own reaotion to the Wte, wuhih we. edod as TWIS# with'a minimum s"we of 7 denoftngo re metien end u munrdumu morof 7o denoting high reaction, A repor of eftmrffeots was .6l-taimed *me the subject e-Audeey 24 hours late eOd codedas TVVIP with a miniwm more of 0dntn oatrfetand wmuxiwm more of 160 deoting a hig9h level of aftsieffects.TVVIT dnotes ithe wofdoythe test w edenlst basedupon ao24.hcua doesha clck Fr deftalks, Lefftz J - M.,rHoltixomnr 0. L., Hbaaon, W. C., end Oueduyo F. E. Norma-tive dot@ for two short left, of Notion reastivftY. NAMRL-1243.P. oele, F~U Nuavol Aerospae Medical Research Laboratory,m97.

APP!NOIX C

Nrwmailsd Cumulatt. hrqueicy DistrIlzwtloe of Flight lndlonend Lcboratory Test Score for the Squin"o VT-10 Populctlon

(FINAM97 Flight Syltsbius)

ILzi ~IL

lat ILI

4 4 4 4 a IL If RV.5 I I LI

-as-

SIP UAM m um Wil 1111011ow M m Ow "am RIOuM"I@ st "llW

Anip 11 ig lal-mlcm Iw~ I=-xm aGSIALI SWM MILM Fl~k UMMOIRV::amILI~ILI

ILI!its. bILI was

All ra I 8

4 u 'm ua -a WA mywaa1= i ML"ias sa M in A

Rogwe Cl

k.me~shleehOW No. #wo' yaoe doe 9. 6uhphelosi # w~vml of fia osdwerghd (ew(knpwiw ewwo) Ow i "W6*uuvn. Geumis dbiV~ 6wM*a) vIrm te"m, mew emessd

e..~ dmIetee als b~wd ow. Talh weilled S6weh Sa WWW h. wmpheow 6,panR .)ed r~vaoswsbI* Oodles w 0.01sewdso t paapuhaw.

C-1

I:M IMC =?M*SO

oill ILI-

us ILI

I:: In: -t ILIlg rr II

ILI so

4 A 4 m ni e a ael "I I 4LAU4S JC V~hA EIW0__j

"ITIK O-iMIM ()-ATA# W-CMDHAcA

NMzsI=vdcu~hl UAqMes "NM I rhhw .1a veetft ud eI "et w 9ee.kUlwfnIS h. gi C he. Th egs jeIis( dhe'tqedm .')ete .te

Its~ us. yuymtdfb ILI.Mq.Te wes S he iswuwdas: etm eawt. ap .Ie wpOfsd~hwt egee e ~e qls

VO~e th~ ).4 ee ~bI VII .ut~l.)

ISOC V

ALI ALIim~~G3'

%I atMU~E E~~

I 13s of

MmO

.. 0 4.1.L

I84 n a *4 .4 0 .4 1 1

A om i n- N vim " a

Furi:a MWMlx-imlow~ U-0.m PW MWIM8T =IE-axmI Oa-TNa~I~ ~. Mv m3C aumm so INna Uo ROA Rme msma

lat.

its

al IISb g ILIe ~

fC.3

-AI a#.-.-.,w

IL ILI . .. b*-

ILIcsZIXWGT! -AAILI uiwm i a

ILL WAM LI

.0 .

~VU55NIM-IGMI fl-0tTM wa -l4f IDTWWI= MRAM mciw 110"m WJL MLATM uin11V180011

4L .4 4 o I I .I S

ILIN~rnt~mdwm~.hi h. dilhuhg gIaeweghm G RA wlmd s mu e.. bI0Mw.

l~Nog ptililIy4. e~e the Rp 1vpmit h vh* o dit I.Week* forthe mai paertfu uIdms of . Tabl X

C-4

JVICAT!IC '-'i NEZ-MMM1 SI-ATAWWL~fM OXY4 SOW m1iTU

ILIlul ALLMNI41.1M"IR: 11"t~its

M a 3 3Viwai a-MTN

MUa~~M mu mo mur "TV WOMUATM Fm wW13

ILIa.ILI

FAG.

4m * MW IL V GO I44 .g 4 6B mai* ~'um ~ *~ c ma a asuastLwgt

ILI.C

CS5

I RL k1M SAN 1Yý 8U3NI

ILI

ILII

ILI

A. mi

I ILII:WWI I:U

ILI M

B1 VTilWA cvem

C6

Wftxza mong iNm.t uimwxmRIL

ILIL

IOM ILILI

I n .4 4 6 a

tTMV-1AT,4gNWJM SESTIOSN

IL

~~~T W. am LU i

-f .4 .4 I INoP nIU wnB~

C-7

TFZ*- WAT IV PATEN ,Jsm-f TEST i S8iAIT PIC

fi: ILIma i a.

as a

A Raw- S? wwm

TWo-w T!37 I pw TES IELF-wAYIHC MO-N TEST I IN OF W I

ILI: Ial16 14 ILI

ILI- MIIS A0VE I

IM ic

its l~d wmle .inydjbhIe 1sekS i~bts h~ne~AFe(O)sr

OVAu~ cw46 Ie~ quwntIbwlldfluhs~~e iw 9Ous~ pdtcww* ~- 0 n .4 8i 1giw v i i i 4 -1 . I IIa.

an K in ý Iro" awo "nim~fC EU10

"T-Wf)v IEST ( STATIC PEWVMwc 1)WIIM VMAtId NMcy MWAIaM

as.

fog

ILILI

riWfM-WI TEST ISTATIC PffWWC! b1 WI"-WI TEST I 11ATIC MOUW= aIIMaIK =WAUU llE¶ UWI OWM8 ULATM FYIIIN PSImU

asIL

ILI~3 I I so 0 i

-4 -4 .- 4 * i a a a4 .

smIiI~ wsv~ CA c IIIINI9I WA

t~~ni.Iled ~ pepuIlsti.' &v wy iIth uthe. aofti. wasoakprormwim. lok~intmeat( ef~pI aew

ThyWI-W TEST I Df%"I) PW(WON 1)

gog

mmi

Ar sio -uno wu~.yg

Aw UWAX mu owwWA

ILI

all

MIR a am4

Its:

B CI

NwI-,o esw~gmdtlv* L-wueeyd *a"s f0wOe dpwuk w~ *ehmn elmNW (wp"Plorctwvco) m~oIwk.d with the VsuuI.eeilblei Wwneme Tell (VYWT) eod ow roww. tbeemg"eI dowtoford 9otwt gum ef .1Ofw.I powhowns with the u meu .mom k" $ftd WSyHhN. ol theseof wIiw tet o r.

C-1 0

F - twi"-YI TEST I RATER ~ ITW)S-WI 7EST I %VL-AATZc igift,= OW3LTIN ,mcI 01iaR~lm "KIM OAtM FUESEY 1110111

ILI ILIS

ILI. ILI.6l II I EIPluLpIa3Y'7

.4 4 4-1j

A SA T IOI jA nvTIalWA

TWIP-WI TOST POST TEST W3L-4IATING I TWIT-WI TEY I TIR WF DAY)WWI=u C6MI 14mw 1M3ElhMMIOtl inLN1W CJUATII PUMVE 3iS1RIMN

ULas

soIL

ILI IL.I

po ~ ~ OI loton wit th. ISm MY.i L tndde~a ths ftels vs

SGCUi'v CL&MII~CA'hWTi Ai "8eUin

will "T -DOMIMNTATlom pAGE!

AAMrIouWe dwk Naval iI*Ofloer Training: *.h

Wl Caeroll aso., Me~dEoel r Jerch Gabrary Ln. N

NvDIP Aeroepeos u Medc , Mith aeutos&

WA Air Station, Iesecl, Floida 32WZOi.40073

N~t eiclResearch end Development CommandA11IMNMonaI Novel Medical Center OF PAO hEU

w M*0 !odg 20014 6

IMSMNU 1091ard GUMUNT Mt Iwo, Nvwj

Ap-;ovod for public releasel distribution vnlimited.

Mr. DtSUxuI@ S7YSN Drs . bSmgI and s Lent am witha dNm l -- MeiclReeac

Navl aviation, Aviation medicine; Naval Flight Offou, We. trainoing; Alrorewperibormanc) Attrition) Ak c~o~e Motlon sloknes* Slomedlloal test,

thoi airsickness ocourred on approxIinmoly 16 peroent of the totw hops Plown, vanmIttrqoccurred an 7 percent of the total, and perlonisance degradation cause by auirsiknweioccurred on I1I percent of the flights. Approximately 74 pwacnt 6f the stodents ted 7beira airsick onoat leaot one fli&Ll 39ntip d vomitin on one atmore ft t

DD 14Y 4~ S99 I4.,f I IO 611 00666

PI1o? P a s PA46IS"pa

a .- 4 59 pwaont accmfdsr their 0 V ighi wc to have beow *dVWWd by gfrsiolmeun anoroaermre hope Therepor detdb ilknecof elruknms by hop. end by sludonstppsromcts the reuItz of aawrol hael "oton Nmotivity twto to which a larg agomen of thepefA*Iation was Lend & relte the fligh and tot dot. for diffeent studon f bpopule-

IRZUMIYY CLAPt4IVICATIMN OF V11d1 PAssiii" r.- NNM e

KI

4) . r¶

,~~al II,;_!i

e~CL

i f 'VIIijii

itifi

LIP,

J.A

! ''iI j 1111 " I IIWI 3