Retrospective Assessment of U.S. Army Aviator Anthropometric Screening Process

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The current U.S. Army aviator anthropometric screening process for rotary-wing cockpit compatibility was codified over 30 yr ago. Critical to the process are the anthropometric standards that define what is acceptable for U.S. Army flight school applicants. The purpose of this study was to assess and optimize the efficiency of the standards in screening for anthropometric cockpit compatibility while maintaining safety.METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed. Anthropometry and disposition data of flight school applicants from 2005 to 2014 were taken from the Aeromedical Electronic Resource Office database to determine efficiency of the process. Data on mishaps from 1972 to 2017 were retrieved from the Risk Management Information System database to determine the safety benchmark of the existing process, to which adjusted standards would be held. Adjustments to standards were modeled that would more efficiently pass applicants over the period studied without exceeding the established acceptable safety level.RESULTS: There were 40,136 (98.28%) applicants who passed the standards, while 702 (1.72%) failed. Most (98.52%) applicants who failed the standards and applied for an anthropometry exception to policy (ETP) received one. The models would pass up to 396 (99.25%) applicants who received ETPs without exceeding the established number of mishaps attributable to the anthropometry standards, which was found to be zero.DISCUSSION: The screening process is efficient and effective, but could be improved. Adjusting the standards could increase process efficiency by passing more applicants during their flight physical and widening the applicant pool, while maintaining the current level of safety.Moczynski AN, Weisenbach CA, McGhee JS. Retrospective assessment of U.S. Army aviator anthropometric screening process. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(9):725731.

Sex comparisons in physiological and cognitive performance during hypoxic challenge

“…Women comprise approximately 10% of all pilots and the proportion is in the single digits within the tactical aviation community ( Air Force Personnel Center, 2022 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ). Though women represent a growing force essential to flight-mission success, several unique challenges faced by women act as barriers to entering the aviation community, such as meeting current anthropometric standards for the cockpit and gear fit ( da Silva et al, 2018 ; Marintseva et al, 2022 ; Moczynski et al, 2020 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ). For example, prospective female aviators’ typically smaller stature and weight can create challenges in securely sitting in the cockpit and wearing issued flight attire, which may disqualify them from continuing with advanced training more so than male aviators ( da Silva et al, 2018 ; Marintseva et al, 2022 ; Moczynski et al, 2020 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ).…”

“…Though women represent a growing force essential to flight-mission success, several unique challenges faced by women act as barriers to entering the aviation community, such as meeting current anthropometric standards for the cockpit and gear fit ( da Silva et al, 2018 ; Marintseva et al, 2022 ; Moczynski et al, 2020 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ). For example, prospective female aviators’ typically smaller stature and weight can create challenges in securely sitting in the cockpit and wearing issued flight attire, which may disqualify them from continuing with advanced training more so than male aviators ( da Silva et al, 2018 ; Marintseva et al, 2022 ; Moczynski et al, 2020 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ). Additional recruitment (e.g., no visibility and limited access to aviation), training (e.g., perceptions of tokenism and hegemonic masculine culture), and retention (e.g., restricted family planning policies and lack of promotion opportunities) blockades avert women from joining or further advancing with aviation careers ( Ferla and Graham, 2019 ; Gorlin and Bridges, 2021 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ).…”

“…In addition to these barriers that impede women from entering and completing the military aviation training pipeline, human performance research lags in considering potential psychophysiological differences between male and female aviators due to little inclusion of females during the design and development of aircraft systems, contributing to their difficulties in meeting initial aviation program requirements ( Bustamante-Sánchez et al, 2019 ; Hormeño-Holgado and Clemente-Suárez, 2019 ; Moczynski et al, 2020 ; Marintseva et al, 2022 ; Women in Aviation Advisory Board, 2022 ). Thus, a poor understanding of how male and female aviators differ in aircraft human performance results in unknown potential sex differences on aeromedically-relevant environmental stressors, perchance leading to suboptimal performance, safety, and health guidelines towards servicewomen, negatively impacting their duties ( Braun et al, 2015 ; Eichler, 2021 ).…”