Attachment 4 - Final Report - CC Signed.pdf

CUI

UNCLASSIFIED

CUI

Alter

U.S. Air Force [Pick the date]

FINAL REPORT

Operational Utility Evaluation of the First Spear Aircrew Aviation Body Armor Vest

(ABAV)

FEBRUARY 2022

AFSOC PROJECT 21-019

WARNING--This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec. 2751 et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title 50, U.S.C. App 2401 et seq. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with provisions of DOD Directive 5230.25.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE--For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

18TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEST AND EVALUATION SQUADRON

420 RED HORSE ROAD

HURLBURT FIELD, FLORIDA 32544-5829

AIR FORCE SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

DISTRIBUTION D--Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and US DOD contractors only; Critical Technology: February 2022. Other requests for this document must be referred to AFSOC/A3FT, 100 Bartley Street, Suite 153 West, Hurlburt Field, Florida 32544-5328.

Controlled by: 18 SOTES CUI Categories: CUI//SP-CTI Distribution Statement: D POC: Daniel M. Butler, TSgt/E-6, daniel.butler.10@us.af.mmil

Version July 2021

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0811), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

10-02-2022

2. REPORT TYPE

FINAL REPORT

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 29 Jun 2021 – 30 Nov 2021

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Operational Utility Evaluation of the First Spear Aircrew Aviation Body Armor Vest (ABAV), AFSOC Project 21-019

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

TEST DIRECTOR: TSgt Daniel M. Butler, 18 SOTES/TEA, 579-1973 ASST TEST DIRECTOR: Mr. Salim K. Charania , 18 SOTES/TEA, 579-2758 ASST TEST DIRECTOR: TSgt Corey A. Poley, 18 SOTES/CSS, 579-5931 TEST ANALYST: Mr. Roland A. Robaldo, 18 SOTES/DOA, 579-3626 TEST MANAGER: Mrs. Wendy B. Corey, AFSOC/A3FT, 579-3630

5d. PROJECT NUMBER AFSOC Project 21-019 5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

18TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEST AND EVALUATION SQUADRON

420 RED HORSE ROAD

HURLBURT FIELD FLORIDA 32544-5829

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

AFSOC Project 21-019

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

AFSOC/A3FT

100 BARTLEY STREET, SUITE 153 WEST

HURLBURT FIELD FLORIDA 32544-5328

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S

ACRONYM(S)

AFSOC/A3FT

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

AFSOC Project 21-019

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Distribution authorized to Department of Defense and US DOD contractors only; Critical Technology: February 2022. Other requests for this document must be referred to AFSOC/A3FT, 100 Bartley Street, Suite 153 West, Hurlburt Field, Florida 32544-5328.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The purpose of this OUE was to determine operational suitability of the First Spear ABAV for CV-22 pilots and Special Mission Aviators performing in-flight duties including; aircraft egress, human factors in the CV-22 cabin, aerial gunnery, hoist and alternate insertion/extraction operations, vehicle and cargo loading, scanning and evasion. The Eagle Combat Integrated Armor Carrier System, currently worn by CV-22 crews, may lead to preventable injury and/or loss of life. Crew members have been medically grounded from flight duty due to neck and back injuries caused from wearing the Eagle vest. Tactical profiles demand CV-22 crew members be able to make difficult decisions in dynamic operating environments. The weight and design of Eagle vest has shown to cause severe pain and numbness to wearers, contributing to loss of mission focus and situational awareness. Aircrews have reported difficulty during aircraft emergency egress due to Eagle vest component/aircraft entanglement. The test of the ABAV was conducted with support from the 8th Special Operations Squadron while conducting local tactical training lines. Training lines typically include low level profiles, low visibility landings, alternate insertion/extraction, hoist, gunnery, refueling, and normal in flight duties. Military Free Fall operations were also conducted in conjunction with the 7th Special Forces Group. The ABAV was evaluated during the entirety of the flight. During testing, 75.6 hours of flight data was collected from 46 aircrew members via surveys and test team observations. The First Spear ABAV is mission capable for CV-22 operations. The CV-22 mission can be accomplished using the ABAV, but with minor discrepancies. The 18th Special Operations Test and Evaluation Squadron recommends fielding the ABAV for use on the CV-22 with caveats.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

ABAV, ACTS, First Spear, Aircrew Body Armor

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

SAR

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF

RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Karen Spivey

a. REPORT

UNCLASSIFIED

b. ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE

UNCLASSIFIED

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

(850) 884-5667 i

CUI

Operational Utility Evaluation of the First Spear Aircrew Aviation Body Armor Vest (ABAV)

Final Report AFSOC Project 21-019

FEBRUARY 2022

Prepared by: DANIEL M. BUTLER, TSgt, USAF Test Director

Analysis by: ROLAND A. ROBALDO, GS-12, DAF Analyst

Submitted by: JONATHAN A. ZANNIS, Lt Col, USAF Operations Officer

Approved by: ___________________________ BYRON F. BATEY, Lt Col, USAF Commander

Digitally signed by

BATEY.BYRON.F.1187983572

Date: 2022.02.11 14:12:03 -06'00' ii

CUI

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

ABAV ........................................................................................................ .Aviation Body Armor Vest ACTS .............................................................................................. advanced crew tethering system AFI ........................................................................................................................... Air Force instruction AFLCMC ................................................................................ Air Force Life Cycle Management Center AFSOC ......................................................................................... air force special operations command AIE ........................................................................................................... alternate insertion/extraction

COFT ............................................................................................ cabin operational fuselage trainer COI .................................................................................................................... critical operational issue CUI .............................................................................................. controlled unclassified information

EC ............................................................................................................................... evaluation criteria

IS ................................................................................................................................ identified standard

MOE ................................................................................................................ measure of effectiveness MOS ...................................................................................................................... measure of suitability

OPR......................................................................................................... office of primary responsibility OUE ........................................................................................................... operational utility evaluation

SAPI ..................................................................................................... small arms protective inserts SOTES ........................................................................ special operations test and evaluation squadron iii

CUI

Executive Summary

Purpose. The purpose of this operational utility evaluation was to determine operational suitability of the First Spear Aviation Body Armor Vest for CV-22 pilots and Special Mission Aviators performing in-flight duties including: aircraft egress, human factors in the CV-22 cabin, aerial gunnery, hoist and alternate insertion/extraction operations, vehicle and cargo loading, scanning, and evasion.

Background. The Eagle Combat Integrated Armor Carrier System, currently worn by CV-22 crews, may lead to preventable injury and/or loss of life. Crew members have been medically grounded from flight duty due to neck and back injuries caused from wearing the Eagle vest.

Tactical profiles demand CV-22 crew members be able to make difficult decisions in dynamic operating environments. The weight and design of Eagle vest has shown to cause severe pain and numbness to wearers, contributing to loss of mission focus and situational awareness.

Aircrews have reported difficulty during aircraft emergency egress due to Eagle vest component/aircraft entanglement. The test of the Aviation Body Armor Vest was conducted with support from the 8th Special Operations Squadron while conducting local tactical training lines. Training lines typically include low level profiles, low visibility landings, alternate insertion/extraction, hoist, gunnery, refueling, and normal in-flight duties. Military Free Fall operations were also conducted in conjunction with the 7th Special Forces Group. The Aviation Body Armor Vest was evaluated during the entirety of the flight. During testing, 75.6 hours of flight data was collected from 46 aircrew members via surveys and test team observations.

Conclusions and Recommendations. The First Spear Aviation Body Armor Vest is mission capable for CV-22 operations. The CV-22 mission can be accomplished using the Aviation Body Armor Vest, but with minor discrepancies. The 18th Special Operations Test and Evaluation Squadron recommends fielding the Aviation Body Armor Vest for use on the CV-22 with caveats.

SECTION I – OVERVIEW

1.1. Purpose. The purpose of this operational utility evaluation (OUE) was to determine operational suitability of the First Spear ABAV for CV-22 pilots and Special Mission Aviators (SMA) performing in-flight duties including: aircraft egress, human factors in the CV-22 cabin, aerial gunnery, hoist and alternate insertion/extraction (AIE) operations, vehicle and cargo loading, scanning, and evasion.

1.2. Authorizing Directive. The authorizing directive is Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) of the First Spear Aircrew Aviation Body Armor Vest (ABAV) test order, 27 May 2021, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) project number 21-019. An OUE, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation, may be used to support operational decisions or acquisition-related decisions when appropriate throughout the system life cycle.

1.3. Description of the System Tested. The First Spear Aircrew ABAV (figure 1-1) is designed to increase aircrew survivability aboard rotary/fixed-wing aircraft by integrating ballistic armor protection with survival component storage. The ABAV is low-profile and includes an adjustable back panel and optional land or maritime integrated life preserver unit cummerbund (figure 1-2). The current system, the Eagle Combat Integrated Armor Carrier System, worn by CV-22 crews and has been attributed to injuries; crew members have been medically grounded from flight duties due to injured necks and backs. The current system may also cause loss of life. The ABAV is a lightweight and breathable system which enables aircrew members to withstand lengthy operations while wearing it; its profile is minimal to allow CV-22 pilots full range of motion over flight control movements and flight engineers freedom of movement throughout the aircraft cabin.

Figure 1-1. First Spear Aircrew ABAV

Figure 1-2. Integrated Life Preserver Unit Cummerbund

1.4. Operational Concept. The primary mission of the CV-22 is to conduct covert/clandestine infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special operations forces over a wide range of environmental conditions. They also conduct a wide variety of other missions including:

shipboard operations, evacuations operations, and personnel recovery. CV-22 pilots and flight engineers will wear the ABAV while performing CV-22 combat operations and training. The ABAV’s primary purpose is to provide aircrew with small arms ballistic and fragmentation protection. The ABAV provides mounting points for helicopter emergency egress device bottle, evasion kit, survival kit, small arms ammunition, and flotation equipment in the event of a water egress. The ABAV also serves as the ground ensemble in place of the Interceptor Multi- Threat Body Armor System for deployed aircrew.

1.5. Tactics Considerations. This OUE did not evaluate tactical considerations. Evaluated enhancements did not affect the survivability, vulnerability, or threats to the system.

1.6. Maintenance Concept. First Spear ABAV will be maintained by Aircrew Flight Equipment (AFE) as part of required inspections and procedures set for in Technical Orders developed in conjunction with Headquarters Aircrew Flight Equipment (AFSOC/A3OZ).

1.7. Training Concept. AFE personnel will train aircrew members in accordance with AFI 11-301V1, Aircrew Flight Equipment (AFE) Program, paragraphs 2.9.16 and 2.11. AFE personnel will ensure basic familiarization and hazards of the system are discussed during training. Aircrew members and AFE personnel will abide by all requirements listed in the Interim Safe-to-Fly (iStF) for Aircrew Body Armor Vest (ABAV) memorandum, 19 January 2021, which was approved by the Human Systems Program Office, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC/WNU).

1.8. References and Source Documents (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1. References and Source Documents

Type Title Date Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR)

Previous Testing

Assessment of Aviator Body Armor Vests 06 August 2019

U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Command, Systems Integration Management Office

Quick Look Results of Risk Reduction Manikin Burn

15 July 2019 U.S. Navy, PMA202/276

Risk Reduction Manikin Burn of H1AV-A 06 August 2019 U.S. Navy, Naval Air

Systems Command

Technical Publications and Documents

AFMAN 11-2CV-22V1,

CV-22 Aircrew Training 10 March 2020 AFSOC/A3T

AFMAN 11-2CV-22V3,

CV-22 Operations Procedures

26 July 2019 AFSOC/A3V

AFI 11-301V1. Aircrew Flight Equipment Program

10 October 2017 AF/A3TF

Interim Safe-to-Fly Assessment

Configuration Control Board Aircrew Body Armor Vest

17 December 2020 AFLCMC/WNU

Interim Safe-to-Fly Memo Interim Safe-to-Fly for Aircrew Body Armor Vest

(ABAV)

19 January 2021 AFLCMC/WNU

1.9. Concept of Test.

1.9.1. Scope. This test consisted of ground testing and 13 CV-22 tactical sorties between 29 June and 30 November 2021. Ground testing was conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida, using a CV-22 cabin operational fuselage trainer (COFT). Flight testing was conducted in conjunction with 8th Special Operations Squadron (SOS) local training sorties at Hurlburt Field, Florida, and the Eglin Test Training Complex. Operators from the 8 SOS supported the test. CV-22 aircrew wore the ABAV during testing.

1.9.2. Limitations. A limitation affects operational realism or results (table 1-2).

Table 1-2. Limitations Limitation Description Impact Mitigation

Flight hours Limited flight hours Ability to determine reliability measures with statistical significance

Data from previous testing and/or follow-on data collection supplemented these metrics as required

Aircrew availability

Limited cross section of trained aircrews available for flight test

Small sample size reduced confidence aircrew selected for operational testing accurately represented entire aircrew population

Aircrew selected for operational testing were as representative of typical aircrew as possible

ABAV availability Limited number of ABAV provided for testing across multiple sizes

Two full crews (8 people) may not be able to operate while wearing the ABAV due to availability of sizes to provide each member an ABAV

Largest quantities of ABAV were ordered in the most common sizes. Flights were scheduled across a two week timeframe to allow multiple opportunities for testing

1.9.3. Method. The test team conducted this OUE by observing CV-22 aircrew members of differing physical size and operational experience using the ABAV during operationally representative ground and flight test events. The CV-22 COFT was also utilized in order to mitigate potential risk from initial use of the quick release adapter, as well as remove the potential for aircraft damage from vehicle loading procedures. AFE personnel conducted training with participating personnel prior to any test events. During ground test events, CV-22 aircrew members loaded and unloaded cargo and vehicles and performed egress using the CV-22 COFT. During flight test events, CV-22 aircrew members planned and flew day/night tactical sorties which included AIE/hoist operations and aerial gunnery. The test team interviewed and surveyed all test participants after test events were completed.

1.9.3.1. Scenario. CV-22 aircrew members planned and flew 13 operationally representative missions while wearing the ABAV. Aircrew members assessed the ABAV while performing primary flight duties during their missions. Day and night tactical training sorties included but are not limited to: visual and radar low-level, austere landings, low visibility landings, aerial gunnery, fast rope, hoist, and water operations.

1.9.3.2. Data Collection Sources (Table 1-3).

Table 1-3. Data Collection Sources Type Description

Interviews Test team will conduct interviews as the primary source of data collection.

Surveys Surveys consist of a discussion and comments based on measures. Surveys will be primarily administered post-test by interview.

Test team observations

Test team will document any observed performance or behavior not specifically planned for in the test.

1.9.3.2.1. Interviews. The test team conducted interviews as a primary means of gathering survey responses and comments. Tailored interviews are intended to add amplifying and explanatory subjective data to the surveys.

1.9.3.2.2. Surveys. The test team administered surveys to aircrew members immediately following each flight (attachment 1).

1.9.3.2.3. Test Team Observations. Throughout this test, 18th Special Operations Test and Evaluation Squadron (SOTES) personnel observed and recorded findings.

The test team compared survey and interview responses with test team observations.

1.9.3.3. Test Data Analysis. A combination of interviews, survey comments, survey scores, and test team observations were used to determine suitability of each measures of suitability (MOS).

1.9.3.3.1. Evaluation Criteria. The test team developed evaluation criteria (EC) for this test using identified standards (IS) defined by the test request and in conjunction with the user.

SECTION II – TEST RESULTS

2.1. Evaluation Summary. The 18 SOTES rated the critical operational issues (COI) based on an evaluation of test results at the measure level, the significance of identified effectiveness and suitability shortfalls, and the degree of operational impact on the COI. In addition, the test team considered deficiency reports, tactics, additional findings, interviews, and observations based on operational experience. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the definitions and defines the ratings for the COIs and the measures of effectiveness (MOE) and MOS ratings. Table 2-3 is a summary of the COIs and associated measures.

Table 2-1. Mission Capability Rating Definitions Rating Definition

Fully Mission Capable Mission can be accomplished in the intended operational environment.

Mission Capable Mission can be accomplished, but with minor discrepancies.

Partially Mission Capable Only some aspects of the mission can be accomplished or mission can only be accomplished under some conditions.

Not Mission Capable Mission cannot be satisfactorily accomplished.

Not Resolved Insufficient information to support a resolution.

Table 2-2. COI and Measure (MOE and MOS) Rating Definitions

No Operational Impact COI: No shortfalls identified.

MOE/MOS: Met EC.

Minimal Operational Impact

COI: Shortfalls identified with minimal impact on mission capability.

MOE/MOS: Met/Did not meet EC – minimal impact on COI.

Significant Operational Impact

COI: Shortfalls identified with significant impact on mission capability.

MOE/MOS: Did not meet EC – significant impact on COI.

Not Evaluated/Inconclusive Insufficient information to support a rating.

Table 2-3. COIs and Measures COI Rating

1 Is the First Spear Aircrew ABAV suitable for CV-22 operations?

MOS COI Measure EC Data Sources

1-1 Fit/comfort of the ABAV for aircrew performing in-flight duties during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that the fit/comfort of the ABAV is sufficient for conducting in-flight duties and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-2 Ability of hoist/AIE operators to perform duties while wearing the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Hoist/AIE operators agree that they can perform duties while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-3 Ability of aircrew to perform egress while wearing the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that they are able to perform egress while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-4 Ability of aircrew to perform gunnery duties while wearing the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that they are able to perform gunnery duties while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-5 Ability of aircrew to conduct vehicle/cargo loading while wearing the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that they are able to perform vehicle/cargo loading while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-6 Ability of aircrew to accomplish cockpit control requirements while wearing the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that they are able to accomplish cockpit control requirements while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-7 Ability of aircrew to perform scanner duties while wearing the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that they are able to perform scanner duties while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-8 Durability of the ABAV during CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that the ABAV is sufficiently durable and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-9 Adequacy of ABAV training for CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that the ABAV training is adequate and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

1-10 Adequacy of ABAV documentation for CV-22 operations

IS: Aircrew agree that the ABAV documentation is adequate and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale

Interview, survey, and test team observation

2.2. COI 1. Shortfalls identified with minimal impact on mission capability. The First Spear Aircrew ABAV is suitable for CV-22 operations. Aircrew members were able to conduct in-flight duties related to CV-22 operations at or above the IS. Table 2-3 shows the individual rating for each MOE.

2.2.1. MOS 1-1. Shortfalls identified with minimal impact on mission capability.

Data Analysis. Three of 46 aircrew members disagreed that the fit/comfort of the ABAV is sufficient for conducting in-flight duties.

Additional Finding: Two members stated that the integration of the current restraint harness with the ABAV led to discomfort from the vest depressing the hoist connection point in the center of the wearers’ chest. One member stated that due to the smaller size of the ABAV, lumbar support was not available and led to discomfort over the period of the flight (5.5 hours).

Recommendation: 18 SOTES recommends:

1. Use the Advanced Crew Tethering System (ACTS) hoist extension strap when wearing the ABAV over the ACTS (figure 2-1). Using the ACTS extension strap could help shift depression points to more comfortable locations or provide extra space to alleviate points of discomfort.

2. Replace the standard Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) plates with aircrew specific armored plates, which are significantly lighter (5 pounds per plate). Reducing the aircrew’s combat load will reduce floatation related risks with aircraft ditching, while maintaining nearly the same ballistic protection as the SAPI plates.

Figure 2-1. ACTS Hoist Extension Strap

Using the above recommendations may help alleviate the discomfort experienced during testing. In addition, once members are issued individual ABAVs for personal use, they will be able to make the more fine-tuned adjustments to fit their individual body requirements.

2.2.2. MOS 1-2. Met EC. Hoist/AIE operators agree that they can perform duties while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale.

2.2.3. MOS 1-3. Met EC. Aircrew agree that they are able to perform egress while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale.

2.2.4. MOS 1-4. Met EC. Aircrew agree that they are able to perform gunnery duties while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale.

2.2.5 MOS 1-5. Met EC. Aircrew agree that they are able to perform vehicle/cargo loading while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale.

2.2.6 MOS 1-6. Shortfalls identified with minimal impact on mission capability.

Data Analysis. Three of 46 aircrew members disagreed that they are able to accomplish cockpit control requirements while wearing the ABAV.

Additional Finding: There is the potential for survival equipment or other items carried on the ABAV to interfere with the cockpit controls. One member required the removal of their

Helicopter Emergency Egress Device from the ABAV in order to have full range of motion with the flight controls (figure 2-2). There is no standardized ABAV configuration with regards to survival equipment or other item positions.

Figure 2-2. Flight Control Interference

Recommendation: The 18 SOTES recommends:

3. The aircrew conducts a preflight of the flight controls full range of motion after aircrew members configure their individual ABAVs. Conducting a preflight of the flight controls will ensure that survival equipment located on the ABAV does not interfere with flight controls.

Members should utilize the CV-22 alternate training device to the maximum extent possible for this check prior to flight in the aircraft.

2.2.7. MOS 1-7. Met EC. Aircrew agree that they were able to perform scanner duties while wearing the ABAV and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale.

2.2.8. MOS 1-8. Met EC. Aircrew agree that the ABAV is sufficiently durable and rate the suitability with average score of 4 or greater on a 5-point scale.

2.2.9. MOS 1-9. Did not meet EC – significant impact on COI.

Data Analysis. Eight of 46 aircrew disagreed that the ABAV training is adequate.

Additional Finding: Multiple members stated that they received inadequate training or no training at all. There is currently no Air Force Technical Order for the training, inspections, and maintenance of the ABAV. Documentation for training purposes was provided to AFE personnel by First Spear in order to accomplish Aircrew Training prior to flight.

Recommendation: 18 SOTES recommends:

4. AFSOC/A3OZ develop an ABAV Air Force publications and training for AFE and aircrew personnel. The Army Special Operations Aviation Regiment currently uses the ABAV and has existing technical orders. AFSOC/A3OZ should utilize First Spear provided training material and existing Army technical orders to develop Air Force publications and training for AFE and aircrew personnel moving forward.

2.2.10. MOS 1-10. Shortfalls identified with minimal impact on mission capability.

Data Analysis. Seven of 46 aircrew disagreed that the ABAV documentation is adequate.

Additional Finding: No standardized Air Force documentation currently exist for the First Spear ABAV.

Recommendation: See recommendation 4 above.

SECTION III – CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1. General Conclusions and Recommendations. The First Spear Aircrew ABAV is mission capable for CV-22 operations. The CV-22 mission can be accomplished using the ABAV, but with minor discrepancies. The 18 SOTES recommends fielding the ABAV for use on the CV-22 with caveats.

Table 3-1. Mission Capability Definitions

Fully Mission Capable Mission can be accomplished in the intended operational environment.

Mission Capable Mission can be accomplished, but with minor discrepancies.

Partially Mission Capable Only some aspects of the mission can be accomplished or mission can only be accomplished under some conditions.

Not Mission Capable Mission cannot be satisfactorily accomplished.

Not Resolved Insufficient information to support a resolution.

3.2. Shortfalls (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Shortfalls Shortfall Description Impact Reference

Documentation and training for AFE and flight crew on ABAV use and procedures.

There are currently no Air Force publications for the fitting, don/doff, dse, inspection, or maintenance of the ABAV.

No training program has been certified for AFE personnel or flight crew.

Improper sizing and use of the ABAV could lead to user discomfort and potential interference with flight controls.

2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.2.9, 2.2.10

3.3. Additional Findings. Due to the fact that the ACTS and the ABAV are separate systems, an adapter panel was used to attach the ACTS quick release to the ABAV for interoperability (figure 3-1). While performing pre-flight duties, crew members and the test team observed that the ACTS quick release lanyard, while using the ABAV adapter, had multiple un-commanded activations when under tension; creating the potential that personnel in the cabin/ramp could become unsecure in flight. Testing was halted while a material solution was worked. Survival Innovations manufactured an adapter that connects directly to the ACTS and allows access to the quick release while wearing the ABAV (figure 3-2). The Survival Innovations adapter panel should be the only adapter used for ACTS and ABAV interoperability. Failing to do so could result in severe injury or death.

Figure 3-1. ABAV Quick Release Adapter

Figure 3-2. Survival Innovations Adapter

3.4. Recommendations. Recommendations are solutions presented by subject matter experts or 18 SOTES members that address a specific issue related to effectiveness or suitability (table 3-3).

Table 3-3. Recommendations

Recommendation OPR Description Reference

Use the ACTS hoist extension strap when wearing the ABAV over the ACTS (figure 2-1).

AFSOC/A3

Using the ACTS extension strap could help shift depression points to more comfortable locations or provide extra space to alleviate points of discomfort.

2.2.1

Replace the standard SAPI plates with aircrew specific armored plates.

AFSOC/A3

Reducing the aircrew’s combat load will reduce floatation related risks with aircraft ditching, while maintaining nearly the same ballistic protection as the SAPI plates.

2.2.1

Aircrew conduct a preflight of the flight controls full range of motion after aircrew members configure their individual ABAVs.

AFSOC/A3

Conducting a preflight of the flight controls will ensure that survival equipment located on the ABAV does not interfere with flight controls. Members should utilize the CV-22 alternate training device to the maximum extent possible for this check prior to flight in the aircraft.

2.2.6

AFSOC/A3OZ develop an ABAV Air Force publications and training for AFE and aircrew personnel.

AFSOC/A3

The Army Special Operations Aviation Regiment currently uses the ABAV and has existing technical orders. AFSOC/A3OZ should utilize First Spear provided training material and existing Army technical orders to develop Air Force publications and training for AFE and aircrew personnel moving forward.

2.2.9, 2.2.10

The Survival Innovations adapter panel should be the only adapter used for ACTS and ABAV interoperability.

AFSOC/A3 Failing to do so could result in severe injury or death. 3.3

SECTION IV – RESOURCES

4.1. Emergency and Special Program Code or Responsibility Center/Cost Center Indicator Code.

8R4116.

4.2. Cost. Due to all test being conducted in conjunction with local training lines, no additional cost were incurred by this test. All flights were planned and executed under the 8 SOS Flying Hour Program.

4.2.1. For Information Only.

4.2.1.1. Total Number of Test Personnel.

4.2.1.1.1. 18 SOTES. Five core test team members, one analyst, one instrumentation specialist, and three additional test directors.

4.2.1.1.2. Operators. There were 46 CV-22 aircrew members that supported this test.

4.2.1.1.3. AFE Personnel. Seven AFE personnel supported training and preflight in support of test.

4.2.1.1.4. Instrumentation. Cameras for video and still photos were used.

4.2.2. Aircraft. Six CV-22Bs.

4.2.3. Flight Hours. 75.6 training hours.

4.2.4. Munitions. 1,200 .50 caliber ball/tracer.

SECTION V – ADMINISTRATION

5.1. 18 SOTES. The 18 SOTES was responsible for accomplishing this evaluation, coordinating required test support with those agencies and/or units participating in the test and evaluation, and publishing/distributing the test report.

5.2. Test Management. AFSOC/A3FT was responsible for the management of this test including coordination and assistance with AFSOC and other agencies as requested by the

18 SOTES.

5.3. Integrated Test Team.

5.3.1. Program Manager. Mr. Emilio Varcarcel, NH-IV, DAF.

5.3.2. Test Manager. Mrs. Wendy B. Corey, AFSOC/A3FT.

5.3.3. Test Director. TSgt Daniel M. Butler, 18 SOTES/TEA.

5.3.4. Assistant Test Director. Mr. Salim K. Charania, 18 SOTES/TEA.

5.3.5. Assistant Test Director. TSgt Corey A. Poley, 18 SOTES/CSS.

5.3.6. Test Analyst. Mr. Roland A. Robaldo, 18 SOTES/DOA.

5.3.7. Instrumentation Engineer. SSgt Aleczander V. Jackson, 18 SOTES/DOI.

5.4. Release of Information.

5.4.1. Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Reference DoDI 5200.48, Controlled Unclassified Information, para 3.4. Unauthorized disclosure of CUI information may result in administrative, civil, criminal penalties depending on the category.

5.4.2. Government Channels. AFSOC/A3FT is the OPR for the release of test information through government channels. Participants will not discuss this test with uninvolved persons or agencies. Refer any inquiries to AFSOC/A3FT, 100 Bartley Street, Suite 153 West, Hurlburt Field, Florida 32544-5328, DSN 579-3630/3634, commercial (850) 884-3630/3634.

5.4.3. Outside Government Channels. AFSOC/PA is the OPR for release of unclassified information outside government channels and any press releases. Refer any inquiries to AFSOC/PA, 229 Cody Avenue, Suite 103, Hurlburt Field, Florida 32544-5273, DSN 579-5515, and the test manager in accordance with AFI 35-101, Public Affairs Policies and Procedures.

5.4.4. Foreign Nationals, Governments, or Agencies. The Foreign Disclosure and Technology Transfer Division (SAF/IAPD) is the OPR for approval and release of test and evaluation information to foreign nationals, governments, or agencies. Refer any inquiries to AFSOC/A2S, 100 Bartley St, Suite 216, Hurlburt Field, Florida 32544-5273, DSN 579-6588.

They will review the request and make release recommendations to the SAF/IAPD.

ATTACHMENT 1 – OPERATIONAL IMPACT COMMENTS

The following selected operator comments are the basis for identifying shortfalls for MOS 1-1, 1-6 and 1-9.

A.1. MOS 1-1 Survey Statement: Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about fit/comfort of the ABAV while performing in-flight duties (table A-1).

Table A-1. Comments for MOS 1-1 Position Response Comment

FE 10 Neither Agree or Disagree

“Normal size is large, vest was very tight causing [carabineer] on under-harness to dig into chest. In seat back plate caused unnatural posture.”

Pilot 5 Agree “Bad for lumbar support. Next time will test w/o back plate.”

FE 4 Strongly Agree “Vest was comfortable. The harness underneath had a hot spot in the chest where the [carabineer] was. However, I am very excited for these vests.”

FE 13 Agree “Vest is way better than the Eagle vest. Harness is slightly uncomfortable w/ hard plates.”

FE 7 Agree “Uncomfortable after a while. Fits ok.”

Pilot 9 Disagree “[Lumbar] support/fit continues to be a pain.”

A.2. MOS 1-6 Survey Statement: Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about cockpit control requirements while wearing the ABAV (table A-2).

Table A-2. Comments for MOS 1-6 Position Response Comments Pilot 17 Agree “Without HEEDS – it is good.”

Pilot 5 Agree “Some difficulty due to high seat setting & back plates. No back plates might solve this.”

A.3. MOS 1-9 Survey Statement: Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about the adequacy of ABAV training (table A-3).

Table A-3. Comments for MOS 2-2 Position Response Comments Pilot 3 Disagree “Training was not accomplished.”

Pilot 13 Agree “Training on how to properly fit vest would be helpful to aircrew.”

ATTACHMENT 2 – SURVEY STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS

OVERALL Results ABAV (Project 21-019) Survey (MOS 1-1) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about fit/comfort of the ABAV while performing in-flight duties.

- 19Oct21, FE-12: Fits well. Tight to body with limited moving/rubbing. Integration with harness made the chest very uncomfortable, integration with harness to remove need of chest straps made front plate would be a great improvement. -4

- 19Oct21, Pilot-19: Vest sits higher than Eagle vest. More discomfort in lumbar while flying, but less strain on mid-to-upper back.

W/[shoulder] straps tightened for better fit the pads were too big causing bunching in shoulder straps. -5

- 19Oct21, Pilot-6: It got there while I sat there. Not fit properly & plate was wrong size. -4

- 27Oct21, FE-11: If fitted properly, ABAV was comfortable for flying duties. Again, flyers (SMAs specifically) must ensure harness is sized correctly along w/ABAV -4

- 17Nov21, FE-6: EXTREMELY COMFORTABLE minus the [carabineer] on the frame of harness -5

- 17Nov21, Pilot-20: Good fit/comfort * needs a standardized HEEDS location for pilot position -4

- 18Nov21, Pilot-10: Size & weight are awesome. However, the back plate for pilots is very uncomfortable w/lower back & lumbar. Do not recommend flying with back plate pilot seat -4

- 18Nov21, FE-1: Easy movement – more comfortable in hot weather. Over time lower back hurts from plate pushing out. -5

- 22Nov21, FE-2: The [carabineer] on the chest rubs and is uncomfortable -4

- 22Nov21, Pilot-12: I wore a small so it [probably] needed to be lowered, but it touched the seat mid-back. BETTER THAN EAGLE VEST. -5

- 23Nov21, Pilot-16: Wishing had more adjustment levels… more than 2 stations/side… one tight and/or loose is lopsided -4

- 23Nov21, Pilot-4: Very comfortable, but reduces space between pilot torso & [cyclic] -5

- 30Nov21, FE-3: Vest was great. Only issue is discomfort over sternum. -5

- 30Nov21, FE-9: Fit well and was light. Only hot spot was the attachment for the harness on my chest. -4

- 30Nov21, Pilot-13: There are hard spots inside the LPUs, the vest was a bit tight and they dug in. I loosened the vest and then fit was great. -5

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: The fit/comfort of the ABAV is sufficient for performing in-flight duties.

0 (1) Strongly Disagree 1 (2) Disagree 2 (3) Neither Agree or Disagree 12 (4) Agree 25 (5) Strongly Agree 4 Not Applicable

(MOS 1-2) Hoist/AIE Operator - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about performing hoist/AIE while wearing the ABAV.

No critical comments noted.

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: Hoist/AIE duties can be performed while wearing the ABAV.

0 0 0 6 12 21

(MOS 1-3) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about performing egress while wearing the ABAV.

- 23Nov21, FE-10: Egress could be hindered based on thicker front plate and attachments -4

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: Egress can be performed while wearing the ABAV.

0 0 0 13 28 1

(MOS 1-4) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about performing gunnery duties while wearing the ABAV.

No critical comments noted.

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: Gunnery duties can be performed while wearing the ABAV.

0 1 0 6 9 24

(MOS 1-5) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about conducting vehicle/cargo loading while wearing the ABAV.

- 22Nov21, FE-7: It’s a little thick, it may get in the way -4

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: Vehicle/cargo loading can be accomplished while wearing the ABAV.

0 0 1 4 8 28

(MOS 1-6) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about cockpit control requirements while wearing the ABAV.

- 19Oct21, Pilot-6: It was ok and worked, the wings sat too low though -4

- 17Nov21, Pilot-20: Good fit / need standardized location for A/C equipment -5

- 18Nov21, Pilot-10: Less room b/w cyclic & pilot w/ABAV ( both plates attached) -4

- 18Nov21, FE-1: Easier to move – just have to find location for equipment -4

- 18Nov21, Pilot-14: No issues, recommend pilot’s remove back plate -5

- 30Nov21, Pilot-15: No issues other than how five point harness sat below vest -none

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: Cockpit control requirements can be accomplished while wearing the ABAV.

0 0 3 15 23 3

(MOS 1-7) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about performing scanner duties while wearing the ABAV.

No critical comments noted.

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: Scanner duties can be performed while wearing the ABAV.

0 0 0 5 13 23

(MOS 1-8) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about the durability of the ABAV in the operational environment.

- 27Oct21, FE-11: MOLLE issue. Whit HEEDS equipped, space on vest is drastically low. Cannot wear M-9 holster. -4

- 22Nov21, FE-5: The MOLLE system seems less durable than previous vest -3

- 22Nov21, Pilot-12: As long as the plastic clips hold up -5

- 30Nov21, FE-13: Vest is great, harness is mediocre (chest part presses into the chest) W/hard plates. -4

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: The ABAV is durable in the operational environment.

0 0 3 10 19 10

(MOS 1-9) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about the adequacy of ABAV training.

- 27Oct21, FE-11: Could receive more training from AFE/SOTES to ensure vest is utilized correctly -4

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: ABAV training is adequate for operational applications.

2 2 4 11 21 2

(MOs 1-10) Aircrew - Impressions, comments, accolades, and concerns about the adequacy of ABAV documentation.

- 19Oct21, Pilot-6: What [documentation]? -na

- 17Nov21, FE-7: “?” -none

Evaluate the following statement on the scale below: AVAV documentation is adequate for operational applications.

0 0 7 4 15 12

General Findings: Please comment on anything that you feel is pertinent to this test that was not addressed above.

- 19Oct21, FE-12: Strongly recommend a way to integrate harness with ABAV, would make for easier donning/doffing and increase comfortability for prolonged flights. Running chest attachments through front plate or in front of it would be ideal.

- 27Oct21, FE-8: Be able to stitch together chest piece. Also would cut a spot in the [MOLLE] to make room for comm cord.

- 17Nov21, FE-6: Great vest even with the harness integration issue (carabineer) would love to just keep mine now.

- 17Nov21, Pilot-9: ABAV is better except for plate placement

- 17Nov21, Pilot-20: ABAV locations of HEEDS /other required gear should be standardized to allow for better gear management

- 18Nov21, FE-1: Would like potential integration of harness. Taking on and off has to have positive control of tether or it gets stuck on vest or hit head

- 18Nov21, Pilot-14: Big improvement from eagle vest and LPUs. Loss of some real estate for pouches but mitigated by several improvements.

- 22Nov21, FE-5: ABAV is much better than Eagle claw vest for comfort & use. However ABAV integration with ACTS harness needs work.

The attachments on the chest of the ACTS will dig into your chest from the ABAV pressing up against it. This makes wearing the ACTS & ABAV together very uncomfortable.

- 22Nov21, FE-13: Vest is way better. Harness is the only complaint, the loops press into the chest w/hard plates.

- 23Nov21, Pilot-16: I didn’t attempt to put all my gear on it… it may not have enough MOLLE for people that choose to carry a lot.

- 30Nov21, FE-9: Better than the Eagle vest. Just needs a fix for the harness.

- 30Nov21, FE-13: Vest is great, harness integration is annoying

FINAL REPORT

AFSOC PROJECT 21-019