Skip to main content

Full text of "DTIC ADA098616: Independent Evaluation Plan (IEP) for UH-60A Aeromedical Evacuation Kit. Revised."

See other formats


















































AD A098616 



HSA-CDM 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 
ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, UNITED STATES ARMY 
FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS 78234 




0 


V 


'23 MAR 1381 


SUBJECT: -Revisfid-Andependent Evaluation Plan (IEP) for UH-60A 
/ Aeromedical Evacuation Kit, r #• _ -r- 

/ i ( A a °l 


SEE DISTRIBUTION 


/ 


Forwarded for your use/information is the TRADOC approved Independent 
Evaluation Plan for the UH-60A Aeromedical Evacuation Kit. 


FOR THE COMMANDANT: 


1 Incl 
as 


DISTRIBUTION: 

CDR 

USATRADOC 

ATTN: ATCD-T (ETC Curbow) 

Ft. Monroe, VA 23651 

CDR 

USAIS 

ATTN: ATSH-CD-TE (Mr. Bushaw) 
ATSH-CD-MSC (Mr. Gile) 
Ft. Benning, GA 31905 



1 

1 



CDR 

USAAVNC & Ft. Rucker 
ATTN: ATZQ-TSM-U (MAJ Gordon) 1 

ATZQ-D-T 1 

Ft. Rucker, AL 36362 


HQDA (DASG-HCO-A/LTC Scofield) 
WASH DC 20310 


1 


DISTRIBUTION STATC MENT X 

Approved for puhlV n-'l'icise; 
Distributor] UiiOr.ited 

V 



3 // ? 


"XI 


/ 








KIT AEROMEOICAL EVACUATION: UH-60A 
REVISED INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PLAN 


29 January 1981 






\ : General- 2.1 

i k *■ Mission Performance---- 2.2 

'j* Reliability, Availability, Maintainability- 2.3 

Training--- 2.5 

Logistics--- 2.6 

I: j Cooperative System --- - --- 2.7 

it i Human Factors - 2.8 

* * 

CONCEPT OF EVALUATION- 3.0 

| - c 

r t 

g i Analytical Techniques to be Used- 3.1 

[ • Operational Tests- 3.2 

i Development Tests - 3.3 

t \ Relevant FDTE of Joint Tests- 3.4 

| Contractor Test- 3.5 


War Games/Simulaticns- 3.6 


Pertinent Studies - 3.7 

Personnel Documents - 3.8 

Others- 3.9 

DATA SOURCE MATRIX- 4.0 

MILESTONE SCHEDULE - 5.0 


FIGURE A-l UH-60A Litter Support System 

FIGURE A-2 Litter loading--- 

FIGURE A-3 MEDEVAC Configuration - 

FIGURE A-4 Strap Assembly - 

ANNEX A Coordination Annex - 









































PREFACE 


The Kit Aeromedical Evacuation: UH-60A Independent Evaluation Plan (IEP) 
provides guidance for the operational evaluation of that kit. The IEP 
will be revised as required based on information gained as development 
progresses and as manuals become available. 

This plan contains a brief description of the kit, issues for evaluation 
and milestones. The US Army Aviation Board will serve as operational 
evaluator for the system. Assistance will be provided by the proponent, 
the US Army Infantry School, and the cooperative proponent, the Academy 
of Health Sciences (AHS). 









KIT AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION: UH-60A 
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PLAN 


1.0 SY STEM DESCRIPTION . 

NAME OF SYSTEM . Kit, Aeromedical Evacuation: 
to as MEDEVAC Kit or litter kit). 

1. ^BACKGROUND. 


UH-60A (also referred 


a. The MEDEVAC litter kit is being developed specifically for use on 
the UH-60A. Early in the UTTAS conceptual phase it was determined that in 
addition to troop/cargo transport, the UTTAS would also be used for the 
aeromedical evacuation mission. 

b. "As a result of a desire to improve and speed up the litter loading 

and unloading operations, make provisions for better inflight patient care 
and comfort, and to make the litter kit more survivable in the event of a 
crash* strict guidelines for fabrication of the MEDEVAC litter kit were placed 
in the UTTAS Materiel Need (MN) document. In addition to the requirements of 
the MN, the medical common i ty w a s allowed to recommend several modifications/ 
additions to the kit, which further enhance its utility.^_ 

1.3 CHARACTERISTICS AND CONFIGURATION . 

a. The litter kit (FIGURE A-l) features a central pedestal with two 
litter support pans (total of four) on each side. The pedestal, with litter 
pans, is rotatable about the vertical axis by means of pivot fittings in the 
floor and ceiling. The litter kit can be manually rotated 93° to the right, 
to a lateral position, to facilitate simultaneous patient loading from either 
side of the aircraft (FIGURE A-2). After loading, the entire assembly is 
rotated back to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft for flight (FIGURE A-3). 

b. Either end of the upper litter support pan may be lowered by means 
of a center pivot arm to facilitate loading of patients. The upper pan then 
becomes a ramp, with an incline of approximately 144°,.that the litter can 
slide up. The end of the support pan is manually raised to the horizontal 
position and locked to the pedestal for flight. 

c. The support pans have litter stirrup guides on both sides to preclude 
the litter iVcm sliding/falling off trie edge of the support pan. In addition, 
these guides have a raised area at each end to prevent the litter from sliding 
too far (FIGURE A-l). 

d. Each litter pan can be quickly removed, and they are interchangeable, 
’.'non not in use, the pans can be stowed against tho pedestal, which provides 
cargo space for transporting medical supplies. 


J 











e. Two adjustable lights (FIGURE A-l), similar to those found above 
passenger seats in commercial aircraft, have been installed over each litter. 
These should supply adequate light to enable the medical attendant to treat 

a patient at night. If additional lighting is required to illuminate a 
particular area, a portable maintenance light is provided with each aircraft. 

f. A retractable strap assembly has been installed at each end of the 

pedestal to secure the patient to the litter and the litter to the support 

pan (FIGURE A-4). 

g. Two intravenous (IV) hooks have been installed at each end of the 
pedestal above the top two litter pans. 

h. In keeping with the priority of survivability, the litter kit and 

support pans are designed to withstand crash loads of 15 G forward-, 12 G 
rearward and sideward, 8 G upward and 13 G downward. 

1.4 CONCEPT OF EMPLOYMENT . This kit will be issued on the basis of one per 

medical evacuation aircraft. 

1.5 TEST MANAGER . The Directorate of Combat Developments, US Army Infantry 
School, is the proponent for the development of this kit. Infantry School 
POC is Mr. Jake Bushaw, ATSH-CD-OE, AUTOVON 835-2416. The Directorate of 
Combat Developments and Health Care Studies, Academy of Health Sciences, is 
the cooperative proponent for the development of this kit. Academy POC is 
MAJ. William T. Stahl, HSA-CDM, AUTOVON 471-3403/2012. 

2.0 ISSUES AND ASSOCIATED C RITERIA . 

2.1 GENERAL. 


2.1.1 The following operational issues are a basis for evaluating the Kit 
Aeromedical Evacuation (litter kit) for the UH-60A Black Hawk aircraft. Data 
obtained from the evaluations will be used by decision authorities to support 
a recommendation for/against type classification (TC). 

2.1.2 Criteria contained in this IEP are found in the approved UTTAS MN (ED), 
Prime Item Development Specification (PIDS) of the UH-60A and various other 
studies. If the criteria are subjective in nature the source will be the AMS 
and the criteria are considered acceptable by the AMS. There are no RAM 
criteria in the MN but RAM data will be collected in accordance with paragraph 
2.3.1. 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. 


2.2 MISSION PERFORMANCE . 

*2.2.1 I SSUE . How long does it take to load two litter patients - four litter 
patients? 

2.2.1.1 SC OPE. Testing should determine how long it takes to load two and/or 
four litter patients on the aircraft. Test should be conducted using simulated 
patients. Litter patients will be prepared for loading and be directly adja¬ 
cent to the cargo doors of the aircraft. Each loading sequence will have a 
minimum of a tv/o person litter team and two MEDEVAC crewmembers as participants. 













* 




i > 


2.2.1.2 CRITERIA . Must be able to load two litter patients in 45 seconds 
or less and four litter patients in two minutes or less. Time for loading 
sequence will begin when the aircraft has landed and the cargo doors are 
opened. Loading sequence is terminated when patients are secured for flight 
and litter rack is in position for flight and doors closed. A litter team 
will consist of a minimum of two persons per litter to be loaded. The two 
MEDEVAC crewmembers will assist in all loading sequences. 

2.2.1.3 RATIONAL E. Loading times cited in above criteria are considered to 
be optimum times in order to minimize aircraft exposure while making field 
evacuations. Discretion will be used in the employment of female litter team 
members and medical evacuation crew members. It is considered unreasonable 
to expect that an all female crew could be expected to load/unload patients. 

2.2.1.4 SOURCES . 

a. PIDS paragraph 3.7.16.9 

b. MM paragraph 6.3.9.12.4 

*2.2.2 ISSUE . Can litters be loaded from either side of aircraft? 

2.2.2.1 SCOPE . Testing should determine if litters can be loaded from 
either side of the aircraft, and if they can be loaded simultaneously from 
both sides of the aircraft. 

2.2.2.2 CRITERION . Litter teams with the assistance of the MEDEVAC crew 
must be able to load litter patients from either side of the aircraft, as 
well as simultaneously from both sides. 

2.2.2.3 RATIONALE . There are instances when patients must be loaded from 
a particular side of the aircraft. An example would be during mountainside 
pickups when only one side can be used. In addition, there are many instances 
when patients are located on both sides of the aircraft, and in order to save 
time it is necessary to load simultaneously from both sides. 

2.2.2.4 S OURCE . MN paragraph 6.3.9.12.3 

2.2.3 ISSUE. Do litter kit lights provide a sufficient amount of illumination? 

2.2.3.1 SC OPE . This will determine how much light is provided across the 
length of each litter. 

2.2.3.2 C RITERION . The amount of light available should be sufficient to 
allow a medical attendant to start an intravenous (IV) solution. 

2.2.3.3 RATIO NALE. This is considered to be the minimum amount of 
illumination necessary to provide inflight medical care at night. 


1 





2.2.3.4 SOURCES. 


a. US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. 

b. PIDS paragraph 3.7.16.9 

2.2.4 ISSU E. Can litter pans be stowed on the pedestal to permit simul- 
taneous~use of the rescue hoist? 

2.2.4.1 SCOPE . This issue will determine if the two right-hand side litter 
pans can be stowed when the rescue hoist is installed and in use for patient 
extraction. 

2.2.4.2 C RITERIA . Means shall be provided for stowing the two right-hand 
side litter pans to permit simultaneous use of the rescue hoist. Rescue 
hoist should be installed and boom swung in and out with various extraction 
devices attached (i.e., stokes litter and forest penetrator) to determine 
restrictions of the kit during hoist operations. 

2.2.4.3 RATIONALE . There will be times when it will be necessary to perform 
patient extraction missions with both the MEDEVAC kit and rescue hoist installed. 
There is not sufficient room inside the aircraft to accomplish the extraction 
mission with the litter pans installed on the right-hand side. 

2.2.4.4 SOURCE . PIDS paragraph 3.7.16.9 

2.2.5 ISSUE . Does the three crewmember seating arrangement interfere with 
the operation/use of the litter kit? 

2.2.5.1 SCOPE . This issue will determine if the adapters for the MEDEVAC 
crewmember seats or the crew seats, when installed, will interfere with the 
loading, unloading or rotation of the litter kit. 

2.2.5.2 CRITERIA . 

a. The three crewmember seating arrangement (facing aft) will not obstruct 
the loading, unloading or rotation of the litter kit. Litter and simulated 
litter patients will be on litter pans during testing. 

b. with the three crewmember seats installed the medical attendant will 
have full access to ell litter patients. 

2.2.5.3 RATIONALE . The medical attendant will be required to administer 
medical care during flight. Therefore, the crewmember seats must be arranged 
to give the attendant access to all litter patients, and yet the seats must 
not obstruct the loading, unloading or rotation fo the litter kit. 

2.2.5.4 SOURCES. 


a. PIDS paragraph 3.7.16.9 

b. I'.:i paragraphs 6.3.9.12.3, 6.3.9.12.3, and 6.3.9.1-?.9. 


4 










2.2.6 ISSUE . Does the litter kit locking device properly secure the pedestal 
against inadvertent rotation? 

2.2.6.1 S COPE . This issue will determine if normal movement about the cargo 
compartment can cause inadvertent release of the pedestal locking device. 

2.2.6.2 CRITERIO N. The pedestal locking device shall secure the litter rack 
so that it will not inadvertently rotate while the medical attendant is admin¬ 
istering care to patients. 

2.2.6.3 RATIONALE . While administering care to patients the medical attendant 
may apply pressure to the litter rack which may cause it to rotate unless it is 
securly locked into position. 

2.2.6.A SOURCE . AHS 

*2.2.7 ISSUE . Can the latching mechanism that allows the upper litter pan to 
tilt be operated from inside the aircraft/outside the aircraft, with litter 
patient on the litter pan? 

2.2.7.1 SCOPE . This issue will determine if the crewmember can release and/or 
lock the latching mediansim when the litter.rack is in the flight position 
while inside the aircraft or when the litter rack is in the loading position 
while standing outside the aircraft, 

2.2.7.2 CRITERIA . The MEDEVAC crewmember must have access to and be able 
to release the latching mechansin which holds the upper litter pan in a 
horizontal position from inside the aircraft. The crewmember must be able 
to tilt the lowered end of the litter pan (with litter patient on), into the 
horizontal position and lock it into place while standing outside the aircraft. 
(The total weight of the litter, patient, blankets and splints will not be 
less than 220 lbs.) 

2.2.7.3 RATIO N ALE . While inbound to a landing zone the MEDEVAC crew will 
prepare the litter rack for loading by tilting the upper litter pan (s) when 
more than two patients are to be loaded. After the loading is completed 
either the crewmember and/or member of the litter team will be able to raise 
the tilted end of the litter pan and lock it into the horizontal position. 

2.2.7.4 SOURCES. 

a. MN paragraph 6.3.9.12.2. 

b. PIDS paragraphs 3.7.16.9 and 3.2.2.1.7. 

2.2.8 ISSUE. Can incapacitated litter patients be removed with tiie litter 
rack in the logitudinal position? 

2.2.8.1 SCO PE. This issue will determine if, in a crash sequence when the 
litter kit cannot be rotated, patients can be unloaded with the litter kit 
in the logitudinal axis. This issue should be examined using personnel un¬ 
familiar with the litter kit to simulate rescue by ground personnel. 


5 












2.2.5.2 CRITERION . With the 1itter kit in the logitudinal position personnel 
unfamiliar with the kit will be able to unload patients from all four litter 
pans. Mote: There is no time limit. 

2.2.8.3 R ATIONAL E. If the aircraft should crash with litter patients on 
board and the crew incapacitated, patients may have to be removed by personnel 
unfamiliar with the rotation of the kit. 

2.2.8.4 SOURCE. AHS 

2• 3 RELIABILITY, AVAILABILIT Y , M AINTAINABILITY. 

*2.3.1 ISSUE. What is the reliability of the kit during this test? 

2.3.1.1 SCOPE . This issue examines the reliability of the litter kit and its 
impact on mission accomplisnment/performance. 

2.3.1.2 CRI TERION . The reliability of the aeromedical evacuation kit must be 
such that aeromedical evacuation missions of the unit can be reasonably met. 

2.3.1.3 RATIONALE . Cnee a evacuation mission is in progress the mission will 
not be aborted due to a failure of the kit (e.g. pedestal will not rotate or 
upper litter pan(s) will net tilt). 

2.3.1.4 SOURCE . AHS 

2.3.2 ISSUE. What is the operational availability of the kit during this 
test? 

2..3.2.1 SCOPE . This issue includes an evaluation of the following operational 
availability data: 

a. Maintenance downtime. 

b. Supply downtime. 

c. Administrative downtime. 

d. Failure rates. 

e. Number of operational hours. 

2.3.2.2 CRITERION . Operational availability of the kit will meet or exceed 
the operational availability rate for the UH-60A. 

2.3.2.3 RATIONALE. The number of aeromedical evacuation kits operationally 
available will be at least equal to the number of aircraft operationally 
available in the air ambulance unit. 








2.3.2.4 SOURCE . 

a. AHS 

b. MM paragraph 6.2.14.3 

2.3.3 ISSUE . How maintainable is this kit in an operational environment? 

2.3.3.1 SCOPE . This issue examines the following maintenance areas: 

a. Ease of service/maintenance. 

b. Mean time to repair. 

c. Maintenance ratio (manhours/operational hours). 

d. Allocation of maintenance tasks, tools. 

e. Mean preventive maintenance time. 

f. Utility of manuals, technical literature and other applicable 
software. 

g. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance actions to include time 
(clock hours) and total manhours required. 

h. Operational hours. 

2.3.3.2 CRI TERIOii. Maintenance time for the aircraft will not be increased 
by the installation and operation of the aeromedical evacuation kit. 

2.3.3.3 RA TIONAL E. The addition of the aeromedical evacuation kit is to 
enhance the capabilities of the UH-60A, therefor its maintainability must 
be equal to or exceed the maintenance criteria for the aircraft. 

2.3.3.4 SOURCE. 

a. AHS 

b. MM paragraph 6.5.2 

2.4 DELETED 

2.5 TRAIjiHlG. . 

2.5.1 I_S_S'JE. Can the intended users ins tall/remove the litter kit after 
receiving pretest training? 






2.5.1.1 SCOPE . The purpose of this issue is to determine if the installa¬ 
tion/removal instructions are clear enough to allow the installation/removal 
of the litter kit. Additionally, it will determine the minimum number of 
personnel required to ins tall/remove the kit, and how long it takes to 
accomplish this tasks. 

2.5. 1 .2 CRITERIA . 

a. The installation/removal instructions must be clear and understand¬ 
able. 

b. Four personnel must be able to install/remove the litter kit in 0.8 
hours, (installation/removal time does not include the time to install/ 
remove crewmember seats). 

c. The kit must be installed/removed using only those tools normally 
available in the aircraft general mechanics tool box. 

d. No materials handling equipment will be available. 

2.5.1.3 RATIONALE . Tools and trained personnel other than the MEDEVAC 
crew with general mechanics tool kit will normally not be available to 
install/renove the kit. Under certain conditions, tine to install/remove 
the litter kit will be vital to mission accomplishment. 

2.5.1.4 S OURCE . PIDS paragraph 3.2.4.7.2. 

*2.6 LO GISTICS . 

2.6.1 ISSUE . What is the logistics impact on the using unit? 

2.6.1.2 SCOPE . This issue examines the following: 

a. The requirement for repair parts during operational testing. 

b. Storage requirement at the unit level. 

c. The requirement for test equipment and special tools. 

d. Utility of technical manuals and literature. 

2.6.1.3 CRITERIA. 

a. Test equipment and tools, if required, must be common and currently 
available in the Army Supply System. 

b. Appropriate technical manuals and supply literature must be avail¬ 
able and usable at the proper levels. 


8 






2.6.1.4 RATIONALE . In order to determine if the Aerornedical Evacuation 
Kit will be supportable in the field, the logistics support concept must 
be well defined. Within the logistics support structure, hardware and 
software requirements must be allocated to the proper level and in the 
proper number to allow personnel to perform their respective mission. 

2.6.1.5 SOURCE. TRADOC Reg 71-9, Appendix C. 

2• 7 COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS . 

2.7.1 ISSUE . Does the Aerornedical Evacuation Kit, when installed, permit 
accessibility to and use of the 115VAC 60HZ electrical outlets? 

2.7.1.1 SCOPE . The issue will determine if there is accessibility to 
the 115VAC, 60HZ outlets when the Aerornedical Evacuation Kit is installed. 
It will also determine if the 115VAC, 60HZ power receptacles are useable. 

2.7.1.2 CRITERION . Medical attendants must have access to 115VAC, 60HZ 
electrical outlets to plug in various medical equipment. (Aerornedical 
Evacuation Kit installed) 

2.7.1.3 RATIONALE . There will be times when medical equipment utilizing 
115VAC, 60HZ will be used with litter patients on board the aircraft. In 
order to use this equipment, 115VAC, 60KZ outlets must be available and 
usable. 

2.7.1.4 SOURCE . AMS 

2.7.2 ISSUE . Is the power converter box conveniently located? 

2.7.2.1 SCOPE . This issue will determine if the electrical outlets are 
conveniently located for use with various medical equipments routinely 
used on medical evacuation missions. 

2.7.2.2 CRITERI ON. The power converter must not interfere with the move¬ 
ment of the medical attendent, about the cabin area, when administering 
care to patients or interfere with normal setting in the crewmember seats. 

2.7.2.3 RATIONALE . The crewmembers must be able to move from the crew¬ 
member seats and from litter patient to litter patient without being 
impeded by the power converter. 

2.7.2.4 SOURCE. AHS. 


9 







2.8. HUMAN FACTORS. 


2.8.1 ISSUE. Does the 95th percentile male medical attendant have access 
and work space to perform inflight medical treatment along the entire length 
of the litter racks? 

2.8.1.1 SCOPE . This issue will determine if the 95th percentile male 
medical attendant has access to a litter patient, in order to provide treat¬ 
ment, along the entire length of the litter rack. 

2.8.1.2 CRIT ERION. The 95th percentile male medical attendant must have 
access to the patient along the entire length of the litter rack. 

2.8.1.3 RATIONALE . It is not unusual for the MEOEVAC crew to consist of 

a 95th percentile male medical attendant. In order to provide comprehensive 
inflight medical care, the medical attendant must have unrestricted access 
to the patient. 

2.8.1.4 SOURCE . PIDS paragraph 3.7.16.9. 

2.8.2 JSSUE. Are litter light switches accessible to the medical 
attendant? 

2.8.2.1 SCOP E. The issue will determine if the medical attendant can 
easily reach the light switches when a full load of patients is on board. 

2.8.3 ISS UE. Are Intravenous (IV) hooks readily accessible to the medical 
attendant? 

2.8.3.1 SC0?E_. This issue will determine if the medical attendant can 
easily reach/attach IV containers to the hooks with a full load of 
patients on board. 

2.8.4 ISS UE . Do the IV hooks present a safety hazard to crewmembers or 
patients? 

2.8.4.1 SCOP E. This issue will determine if the IV hooks are constructed 
in a manner that does not present a safety hazard to onboard personnel. 

The position/locatiori ef the hooks, as well as the type of construction 
must be examined. 

2.8.5 ISSUE. How difficult is the pedestal locking device to operate? 

2.8.5.1 SCOPE. This issue will determine if the pedestal locking device 
is conveniently located for use by crewmembers, and if it requires an 
inordinate amount of force to operate. 

2.8.6 ISSN". Does the litter kit present safety hazards to crewmembers 
or patients? 


10 











■TTiirtfc 


2.8.6.1 S COPE . This will require a thorough visual inspection of the 
litter kit to determine if there are sharp edges or protrusions on the 
kit which may cause injuries to crewmembers or patients. 

2.8.7 ISSUE . Is the patient restraint system easily fastened/unfastened 
by crewmembers? 


2.8.7.1 SCOP E. This issue will address the ease with which crewmembers 
can faste’n/unfasten the restraining straps while wearing flight gloves. 

3.0 CONCEPT OF EVA LU ATION . 


3.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES TO BE U SED. The litter kit will be both 
objectively and subjectively evaluated, however, all data will be evaluated 
from an operational point of view in order to determine if the system is 
operationally effective in the hands of the typical user troops. 


3.1.1 DETERMINATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE OPERATIONAL TESTING AND THE 
VALIDITY OF THE TEST RE 


yJL i5. 


me 


_ quality, quantity, and suitabTfity of all 

data used in the independent evaluation will be examined to insure that it 
is germane and properly addresses the issue. Credibility of the findings 
will be determined through an assessment of the data provided in the test 
reports. 


3.1.2 DETERMINATION OF THE E F FECT OF TEST LIMITATIONS. An assessment will 
be made as to the effect the test limitations has on the operational testing. 
The impact must be determined and the degree of degradation estimated and 
reported in the evaluation. 

3.1.3 EXTENT TO WHICH THE IS SUES MAY BE ADDRESSE D. The majority of the 
operational issues will be answered directly by operational testing, however, 
others such as RAM can be evaluated using OT data supplemented by development 
or contractor testing. 

3.1.4 CONCLUSIONS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS DETERMINED . 

3.1.5 MISSION PERFORMANC E. All available data will be used in the evaluation 
of the litter kit. Roth quantitative and qualitative measures will be used 

in the assessment of these issues. The primary evaluation of the ability of 
the litter kit to properly perform its mission will be based upon user troop 
participation. The events of each mission will be noted. 

3.1.6 RELIAB ILITY, AV AILAB ILITY AND MA INTAINAB ILITY (RAM). Evaluation of 
RAM issues must be subjective. There are no mean time between failure (MT3F) 
or mean time to repair (MTTR) criteria stated in any published documents. 


3.1.7 TRAINING. Individual performance will be noted throughout the test. 
Difficulties in accomplishing required operator and maintenance tasks will 
be noted. Significant observations of player personnel, controllers and 
evaluators will be used in the? evaluation. 


11 










3.1.8 LO GISTIC S. This issue will be addressed through the use of both 
quantitative and qualitative data. The availability of required spare parts 
and the number of spare parts required will be used as indicators of the 
impact of the litter kit on the logistical system. Significant observations 
of player personnel, controllers and evaluators will be considered in this 
issue. 

3.1.9 HUMAN FACTOR . Performance of medical evacuation aircraft crewmembers 
will be closely monitored throughout evaluation of this issue. Ease/difficulty 
of performing normal tasks, will be subjectively evaluated. 

3.2 OPERATIONAL TESTS (OT) . All data gathered from OT will be considered in 
the final recommendations. 

3.3 DEVELOPMENT TESTS (DT) . Data generated by any DT performed by the 
Aircraft Development Test Activity will be considered in the final recommen¬ 
dation. 


3.4 RELEVANT FDTE OR JOIN! TESTS . None anticipated at this time. 

3.5 CONTRACTOR TEST . Contractor test data, verified by the appropriate 
test agency, will be considered in the final recommendation. 

3.6 WAR GAMES/SIMULATIOKS ■ War garnes/simulations will be used if appropriate. 
Selected Field Training Exercises would be an excellent method of testing the 
litter kit. 

3.7 PERTINENT STUDIES. None anticipated at this time. 

3.8 PE RSONNE L DOCUMENTS . 

3.8.1 BASIS O F ISSUE (BOI ). Academy of Health Sciences has provided input 
to BOI. BOI will be one litter kit per medical evacuation aircraft. 

3.8.2 QQPRI . No MOS chnages or additions are anticipated as a result of 
introduction of litter kit. 

3.9 OTHERS. None. 


* DENOTES: Critical Issues. 


12 







4.0 DATA SOUR CE 

ISSU E 

2 . 2.1 

2 . 2.2 

2.2.3 

2.2.4 

2.2.5 

2 . 2.6 

2.2.7 

2 . 2.8 

2.3.1 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

2.3.4 

2.5.1 

2 . 6.1 

2.7.1 

2.7.2 

2 . 8.1 

2 . 8.2 

2.8.3 

2.8.4 

2.8.5 

2 . 8.6 
2.8.7 


M ATRIX . 

OT 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


DT 


X 


X 

X 

X 

X 


X 

X 

X 


COM TRACTOR 


X 


13 











MILESTONE SCHEDULE. 


IEP 

1QEY81 

TDP 

2QFY81 

Safety Release 

2QTY81 

Test Start 

3QFY81 

Test End 

3QFY81 

Test Report 

4QFT81 

IER 

4QFY81 

I PR 

4QFY81 


14 



























patient On litter- Litter On Utter Suppoy 
Straps Secured 











ANNEX A 

COORDINATION ANNEX 


Coordination: 
Organization/Activi t 


Concurrence 
Yes No 


Comments 

Accepted Not Acce 


USA IS 


Ft. Benning, 6A 

ATSH-CD-TE 

X 

ATSH-CD-MSD 

X 

USAAVNC 

Ft. Rucker, AL 

ATZQ-TSM-U 

X 

USAAVNBD 

Ft. Rucker, AL 

ATZQ-OT-AU 

X 

HQ DA 

DASG-HCO-A 

X 

PM, Black Hawk 

ST. Louis, MO 

DRCPM-BH-OT 

X 

Consideration of comments 

not accepted. None 











2 3 MAR m\ 


HSA-CDM 

SUBJECT: Revised Independent Evaluation Plan (IEP) for UH-60A 
Aeromedical Evacuation Kit 

CDR 

USAAVNBD 

ATTN: ATZQ-OT-AU (MAJ Grose) 1 

Ft. Rucker, AL 36362 

CDR 

USATSARCOM 

ATTN: DRCPM-BH-QT (Mr. Baerveldt) 1 

4300 Goodfellow Blvd. 

St. Louis, MO 63120 

CDR 

IKAfAP 

ATTN: ATZLLA-DM-PB 1 

ATZL-CAT-E 1 

Ft. Leavenworth, KS 65027 

CDR 

USALOGC 

ATTN: ATCL-FT 1 

Ft. Lee, VA 23801 

CDR 

USALEA 

ATTN: DALO-LEI 1 

New Cumberland Army Depot 
New Cumberland, PA 17070 

CDR 

USAOTEH 

ATTN: CSTE-PON 1 

5600 Columbia Pike 
Falls Church, VA 22041 

CDR 

USATSC 

ATTN: ATTSC-DC-OPA 1 

Ft. Eustis, VA 23604 

CDR 

USAADMINCEN 

ATTN: ATZI-PI 1 

Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN 

CDR 

USAMSAA 

ATTN: ANXSY-DD 1 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 


? 








HSA-CDH 

SUBJECT: Revised Independent Evaluation Plan (IEP) 
Aeromedical Evacuation Kit 

CDR 

USATRASANA 

ATTN: ATAA-CD 1 

White Sands Missile Range, NM 83002 

CDR 

USATECOM 

ATTN: US Army TRADOC LO 1 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 

Defense Documentation Center 
Cameron Station 

ATTN: DDC-TCA 1 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

CF: 

CDR, HSC, ATTN: HSOP-SP 1 


3 









wmmmm 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

HtADOUA^l f R'i 

COMtllNLO ARMS CENTER AND f-OH I t F.AVl NAORTH 
FORT LEIAVf.NWOK .'M KANGAS 6602 * 


ATZL-CAT-EF 

SUBJECT: Revised Independent Evaluation Plan (IEP): 
Evacuation Kit 


Commandant 

Academv of Health Sciences 
ATTN: KSA-CDM (MAJ Stahl) 
Fort Sam Houston, Texas 72234 


ft 9 tfA" ’ 
UH-60A Aeromedical 



Reference: 

a. Letter, HSA-CDM, USAAHS, 2 Feb 81, SAB. 

b. 1st Indorsement, IS Feb 81, to letter HSA-CDM, USAAHS, 2 Feb 81, SAB. 


f 




P 


¥ 



* 



c. Message, ATCS, TRADOC 301840Z Dec 80, subj: Realignment of TRADOC 
Test and Evaluation. 

d. FONECQN between Mr. B. Morrison (LOGC) and Mr. B. Doyal (CAC), 

25 Feb 81, SAS. 

e. FONECQN between MAO T. Sather (USAAVNC) and Mr. B. Doyal (CAC), 

26 Feb 81, SAB. 

f. FONECQN between MAJ Shannon (USALEA) and Mr. B. Doyal (CAC), 

27 Feb £1, SA3. 

g. AR7C-10, Test and Eval During Development and Acquisition of Materiel, 
29 Aug 75. 

2. In response to your request (ref la), this headquarters grants approval 
of the 50.4 Aeromedical Evacuation Kit pending incorporation of the comments 
provided at the Inclosure. This approval has been coordinated with the TRADOC 
and Army communities. 





81 3 27 110 








ATZL-CAT-EF 

SUBJECT: Revised Independent Evaluation Plan (IEP): UH-60A Aeromedical 
Evacation Kit 

3. Reference lg (Chap 3) request that the USAAHS coordinate future materiel 
development efforts to include IEPs and IERs with the USALEA to expedite 
the approval and type classification processes. 

4. The point of contact at the Combined Arms Center is Mr. Benny G. Doyal, 
Autovon 552-2585. 


FOR THE COMMA'!DEP: 


1 Incl 

aS 


s. CMUiV/y 
•Asit Aujjtjjjj General 






RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PUBLICATIONS AND ua '£ 

BLANK FORMS P^-t U (tevvrw) for Repair parts and 

Special Tool Lists (RPSTL) and Supply 

Fo. UII o( iK.. (om, AR 3IC-1. *• propon.n. 09.cc/ .« tK. US Catalogs Supply Munui.ls (SC SM), 2? Feb 81 

Af'ny .Wju'onf G*n#ro( Center. 


TO; •Forward fii popoflfnt ot pahlii a!ton or lorm) 'Jr: ludr ZIP Codo) FROM: (Activity and foirtnonj (In ltrta ZIP Cod~) 

Commandant Commander . . . , _ 

'S Army Academy of Health Sciences Army Combined Arms Center 

ATTN: HSA-CDM (MAT Stahl) ATTN: ATZL-CAT-E 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027 


PART I • ALL PUBLICATIONS [EXCEPT RPSTL AND SC/SM) AND BLANK FORMS 


DATC T,T '- E Revised Independent Evaluation 

Plan (IEP): UH-60A Aeromedical 
29 Jan 1981 Evacuation Kit 




PuBvlCATiON form number 


LINE FIGURE 
SO * NO. 


RECOMMENDED CHANGES. AND REASON 
(Exact wording of recommended change must he given) 


1 1.2b 


22 2.1.2 4 


7 2.5.1.24 2 


COMMENT: Change "... strick..." to read: ... 
strict... 

REASON: To correct misspelling. 

COMMENT: Delete the sentence beginning "As stated 
in paragraph ..." and the two sentences that 
follow. Add: There are no RAM criteria in the MN 
but RAM data will’ be collected inaccordance with 


paragraph 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, an 
REASON: To reduce subjectivity in the evaluation 
process and address the quantitative data that will 
be used during the RAM evaluation of the kit. 

COMMENT: Change "... crewchief's tool tox ..." to 
read: aircraft general mechanic's tool box. 

REASON: To correct description/nomenclature and 
misspelled word. 


j COMMENT: Insert the issue and the scope that 
! address the power converter box as para 2.7.2 and 
I 2.7.2.1. 

REASON: Inadvertently left out of the IEP. 


5 6 2 . 


COMMENT: TRADOC and USALEA noted that RAM is 
j identified as a critical issue, yet no criteria 
or rationale is issued, subjective or otherwise. 
Recommend that parameters for operational avail- 
j ability and mission reliability be provided as 
I applicable. 

I REASON: To qualify the criticality of the issues. 


typed name, grade or TlTOE 


BENNY G. DOYAL, DAC 


DA ,:?r\.2028 ; 


COMMENT: Per request of USLEA, recommend that the 
following be accomplished during the planned test: 
"Each organizational task, as outlined in the 
maintenance allocation chart (MAC), should be per¬ 
formed by representatives of the user population 
to ascertain whether there are requirements for 


telephone exchange autovon, 
Pi. EXTE NSION 


552-2585 



ME Pi. AC f DA ‘vIlwr.N. 1 Df.C ?■». 1C *« * 11 L R l * uM. t’, 


IN CL 1 


























RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PUBLICATIONS AND 
BLANK FORMS 

For us* of tKis form, »•• AR 31M; fh* proponent oyancy is tha US 
Army Adjutant Genarol C*rit*r. 

Use Part II (tevvrw ) for Repair parts and 
Special Tool List* (RPSTL) and Supply 
Catalogs Supply Manuals (SC SM). 

DATt 

27 Feb 81 

TO: f Fard to pt oporten; of publication nr form) (Include ZIP Code; 

Commandant 

US Army Academy of Health Sciences 

ATTN : USA-COM (MAO Stahl) 

Fort Sam Houston. Texas 78234 

FROM: (Activity am/ loc at ivn) (In. bide ZIP C <.de ) 

Commander 

US Army Combined Arms Center 

ATTN: ATZL-CAT-E 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027 

PART 1 - ALL PUBLICATIONS (EXCEPT RPSTL AND SC/SM) AND BLANK FORMS 


public ± w ion form n 



LINE FIGURE TABwE 
NO.* NO. NO 



riTi.E Revised Independent Evaluation 
Plan (IEP): UH-60A Aeromedical 
Evacuation Kit 


RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND REASON 

(Exac I weeding of re c orr.mended r.'i ange must be given) 


special tools and to adjudge the adequacy of: 

(1) Technical manual instructions 

(2) Training 

(3) Assessability " 

REASON: To insure proper evaluation of the kit's 
supportability. 


li.frt.-n: t- f. 


vtfhtn the or subfvtrafirflrh. 


TVREO NAME, GRADE OR t iTl£ 

PENNY G. OOYAL, DAC 


.:r..2028 


TELEPHONE EXCM ANGE AuTOVON, SlGNATURf- 
PLUS EXTENSION 


552-2585 


REPLACT’. {t A F o » M 2 n , ! Ol'.f 6 B, WHlC will l» r u % t o