Scanjack 3500 System Technical Test Report

Transcription

1 Scanjack 3500 System Technical Test Report U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Communications, Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Command, Countermine Division

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Page Introduction Page System Description Page Test Schedule Page Conditions Page Limitations Page Operational Test Lanes Page Blast Testing Page Mobility Testing Page Vegetation Cutting Test Page Training Assessment Page 20 Appendix A Simulants Page 21 Appendix B Lanes 1-3 Page 20 Appendix C Surveys Page 24 Appendix D Definition of Terms Page 33 2

3 Executive Summary Background. The Scanjack 3500 is a unique design incorporating proven heavy rough terrain log moving technology with a double flail. The test was conducted from 20 May to 29 June, 2005, by the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, Communications, Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Command, Countermine Division as an International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining (ITEP) Program test in partnership with the Swedish EOD and Demining Center (SWEDEC), Sweden, a fellow ITEP Participant. Objectives. The testing consisted of test lanes to determine surrogate mine movement and fuse detonation, blast testing to see if the system was able to detonate blast resistant mines and damage sustained after detonation of a metal cased AT mine, a mobility test, vegetation cutting exercise and a subjective trainability/maintainability assessment. Results. The Scanjack executed the terrain driving course and vegetation cutting exercises with no difficulty. It was outside the parameters of this test to determine the likelihood of mine detonation by the Scanjack All mine simulants recovered showed clear evidence of hammer strikes. This indicates that the dual flail system does a thorough job of flailing the ground. The system demonstrated a tendency to run over or throw the mine simulants designed to replicate real AP and AT mines when executing the mine lanes. In an operational environment this would not matter if the flail detonated all mines in its path. Station keeping was difficult for the operator in a dusty environment. The tested vehicle was not fitted with GPS, which will be offered as optional equipment on the latest generation (Ref 2.0 System Description). During blast testing, this system demonstrated the ability to detonate blast resistant mines. This is the only flail system tested by the Countermine Division that has demonstrated the ability to detonate blast resistant mines. One was detonated, one was thrown and neutralized. The two remaining mines did not detonate. Due to safety constraints, it was not possible to determine if they were neutralized. Given that the mine detonated when the flail was operating at a 12 centimeter depth, it is possible the likelihood of detonation could be increased if the operator consistently holds the flail at a 12 cm depth. The flail successfully detonated the 22 pound steel cased AT mine and sustained minimal damage that was repairable within 5 minutes. Conclusions. The use of mature technology and a well thought out design make the Scanjack relatively easy to train on, operate and maintain. This was evident throughout the test and borne out by observation and operator observer feedback. The system operated flawlessly throughout the test with no maintenance failures. Overall, the Scanjack 3500 seems to be a well designed large flail with more than sufficient horsepower. Further testing would be required to determine its ability to detonate AP and AT landmines and, if not detonate them, to at least determine if there is predictable movement of mines and mine fragments to facilitate follow on neutralization 3

4 1.0 Introduction. The Scanjack system has already undergone extensive testing by the Swedish Army, the results of which are available from the vendor, and has demonstrated considerable operational utility in Croatia and 1 vehicle is also operating in Sudan, Africa. This test was conducted as a single system assessment of the technical utility of the Scanjack Flail. This was an International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining (ITEP) Program test conducted by the US in partnership with Sweden System description. The Scanjack system is comprised of a prime mover machine and a flail unit. The flail unit is a dual drum system with 76 flails on each cylinder capable of penetrating up to 300mm of ground. The flail width is 3.5 meters. The prime mover is articulated and consists of a power pack and one person armored crew cabin. The system has tire mounted tracks to enhance mobility and can be operated with a remote control. Future versions will incorporate an on board relational GPS system which will provide accurate navigation in low visibility conditions and insure accurate station keeping Figure 2.1 Scanjack 3500 configured for maintenance 4

5 Figure 2.2 Rear under engine access panel Note hoses to facilitate filling and emptying hydraulic fluid and oil reservoirs Figure 2.3 Under cab access 2.1. Logistical Support and Maintenance. The standard crew for a Scanjack 3500 is one operator and two support mechanics/operators. The support mechanics operate out of two 20 ft Conex/ISO containers which provide a machine shop, power washer, tools and spare parts to support operations. The Workshop container is developed in cooperation with present customer. The logistical support package contained in the ISO containers allows for self supporting operations for up to a year for two flail systems. The system has a set of removable tracks for operations in difficult terrain which can be removed or attached in about 45 minutes. The flails are removable and have their own rack for transportation. Remote control operation is possible but not usually required given the demonstrated survivability of the system. If the system experiences a breakdown in a minefield all towing related tasks, i.e., disconnecting the steering, transmission and bypassing the hydraulic pumps can be done from on top of the vehicle without stepping on the ground. Figure 2.4 Side view of engine Figure 2.5 Fluid level sight gauge 5

6 3.0. Test Schedule 3.1. Site Survey: 22 Mar Plan complete: 30 May Range set up: 30 May-3 June Soldier/Observer Familiarization and Civilian Operator Training: June 3.5. Lanes 1 and 3 Testing: 6-10 June VIP Days/vegetation cutting testing: June Lanes 2 and 4/mobility testing: June Explosive testing: June First Draft Report complete: 10 July Conditions The system was tested during the May-June timeframe in ambient conditions. Soil conditions are described qualitatively for each lane in section System was operated by Scanjack employees during execution of lanes, vegetation cutting testing and mobility testing Limitations No actual full explosive charge mines or UXOs were used except in specific blast testing locations and scenarios. AT and AP mine simulants similar in weight, dimensions and center of gravity to a variety of mines in world inventories, and inert mines with live fuse/ inert booster combinations were used in other than blast testing scenarios. (See Appendix A, Simulants) There was no attempt to address magnetic fuses, tilt-rods, side attack, Wide Area Mines (WAM), and scatterable AT mines Variation is possible in the pre-execution lane survey and the post execution survey causing possible error in simulant location after the lane is executed. Error should not exceed 6 inches Soldier/Observers did not operate equipment due to absence of approved safety release. 6

7 6.0. Operational Test Lanes. (See Appendix B, Lanes 1-3) 6.1. Objectives. The objectives of the Operational Test lanes were to observe the dispersal pattern of moved AT and AP mine simulants and, on lane 4, to demonstrate the likelihood of detonation of fuses in inert mines Methodology. ScanJack executed 4 individually configured lanes with a single pass down the center of the lane 100m long and 3.5 m wide. Each simulant and inert mine was buried IAW Threat doctrine not to exceed 8 with the pressure plate exposed to the surface, if present. All simulants were given a number to facilitate position location data collected after the lane had been executed Overall Assessment. It appears that the flail encountered all mine surrogates in the lanes, however subsequent blast testing indicated that certain mines would not be consistently detonated by the system. It was beyond the scope of this test to demonstrate with any statistical significance the types and percentage of mines the flail would detonate. Given the circumstances, the Scanjack showed a tendency to either run over or throw the mine simulants used in the test lanes. Station keeping was difficult when the operator s vision was obscured by dust. In certain soil types there was a tendency for the Scanjack to bury mine simulants as well, some beyond recovery with a metal detector regardless of simulant metal content Lane 1. The lane had 30 AT and 30 AP simulants, with 10 each of the six different types of simulants. This was not an attempt to provide an operational target array but rather to observe the performance of the flail against a small sample (10) of six different types of mine simulants. Figure 6.2. Lane 1 Pre-execution Figure 6.3. Lane 1 Post-execution Note station keeping error 7

8 Figure 6.4. AP 3 Target Post Execution Figure 6.5. AP1 Target Note effect of hammer strikes Conditions and Outcomes. (See figures 6.6. Lane 1 Pre-execution and Figure 6.7. Lane 1 Post execution) the lane was executed on a compacted vegetation free, dry, sandy, clay mixture. Time to execute the 100 meter lane was 24 minutes and 37 seconds. Station keeping proved to be a problem due to dust obscuring the driver s vision. The overwhelming majority of recovered AP mines in the lane were thrown out of the lane with only three of the ten AP 1 simulants recovered in the lane. Six of ten AT 1 simulants were recovered with three found in the lane. Seven of ten AT 2 simulants were recovered and four of those were found in the lane. Three of ten AT 3 simulants were recovered with two beyond the end point of the lane and one thrown approximately half way back down the lane the Scanjack had executed. Only four simulants (one AT-1, one AT-2 and 2 AP-1) were buried in depths ranging from 17 to 3 cm. All recovered simulants had evidence of hammer strikes. Lane 1 Pre-Execution Target Array AP 1 AP 2 AP 3 AT 1 AT 2 AT 3 8

9 Figure 6.6. Lane 1 Pre-Execution. Direction of travel was left to right Lane 1 Post Execution Target Location Figure 6.7. Lane 1 Post execution. Direction of travel was left to right. Red line indicates dimensions of flailed lane Lane 2. The lane had 10 surrogate solid plastic blast resistant mines in it. These inert targets were laid out in zigzag pattern in the vicinity of the center line of the lane. 9

10 Figure 6.8. Lane 2 Post-Execution Note near perfect station keeping Figure 6.9. Buried Target. Post execution Figure Thrown Target. Note effect of hammer blows Conditions and Outcomes. (See figures Lane 2 Pre-execution and Figure Lane 2 Post execution) The lane was executed on loose dry soil consisting of sand to a depth of 40 cm. Time to execute the 30 meter lane was 4 minutes 38 seconds. There was no evident variation in station keeping. Of the ten recovered simulants, all but two remained in the lane with one thrown well forward of the lane endpoint. Eight of the ten simulants were buried at depths ranging from 11 to 26 cm. All recovered simulants had evidence of hammer strikes. 10

11 Lane 2 Pre-Execution Target Array AT Figure Lane 2 Pre-Execution Direction of travel was left to right Lane 2 Post Execution Target Location Figure Lane 2 Post Execution Direction of travel was left to right. Red line indicates dimensions of flailed lane. 6.6 Lane 3. The lane had 10 surrogate solid plastic blast resistant mines. These inert targets were laid out in a zig-zag pattern vicinity the center line of the flailed lane. 11

12 Figure Lane 3 Pre-execution Figure Lane 3 Post Execution Figure Target. Post Execution Conditions and Outcomes. (See figures Lane 3.Pre-execution and Figure Lane 3 Post execution) the lane was executed on a compacted, recently mowed, heavily rooted dry sandy clay mixture. Time to execute the 30 meter lane was 6 minutes 38 seconds. There was only minor variation in station keeping. Of the seven recovered simulants, four remained in the lane with three thrown forward of the lane endpoint. All recovered simulants were on the surface. All recovered simulants had evidence of hammer strikes. 12

13 Lane 3 Pre-Execution Target Array AT Figure Lane 3 Pre-Execution Direction of travel was left to right. 13

14 Lane 3 Post Execution Target Location Figure Lane 3 Post Execution Direction of travel was left to right. Red line indicates dimensions of flailed lane Lane 4. The lane was on a compacted vegetation free, dry, sandy, clay mixture. The lane had an array consisting of a single type of 10 fused AT inert mines. These inert targets were laid out in a zig-zag pattern vicinity the center line of the lane The condition of the simulants prevented collection of position location data. Description: 15 inerted metal AT wax filled mines with live smoke fuses emplaced in a zig zag pattern centered on a 3.5 meter lane 100 meters long. 14

15 Figure Lane 4 post-execution Note near perfect station keeping Figure Target. Note effect of hammer blows Figure Target fragment Conditions and Outcomes. Time of execution was 16 minutes 34 seconds. Seven of fifteen fuses ignited and one was found separated but not fired. After execution of the lane, position location data was not collected because it was not possible to identify the debris as belonging to any of the mines emplaced in the lane. Two EOD Technicians characterized all mines in the lane as neutralized. 15

16 7.0. Blast Testing 7.1. Conditions. Damp compacted rocky sandy soil Objectives. To assess the ability of the system to detonate or destroy double impulse/blast resistant plastic mines and to assess the amount of damage resulting from steel cased AT mine detonated under the first flail Methodology. The Scanjack was driven by remote control over each mine individually. All photos, with the exception of the photos taken of mines detonated after flailing, and measurements were taken after the all clear had been given in the blast pit area Assessment. Results from the first four trials were inconclusive. This system is the only one tested by the Countermine Division that has demonstrated the ability to detonate blast resistant mines. All four mines were encountered by the flail. One of the mines detonated when the flail was operating at a measured 12 cm depth, one was thrown and it was clearly neutralized as a result of flail contact. Due to safety constraints it was not possible to determine if the other two unexploded mines were neutralized as a result of flail contact. There are indications that the shallower the flail are run through the soil, the more likely it is to detonate a VS 1.6 in sandy dry soil. Extensive testing needs to be done to confirm or deny this. The fifth trial did confirm the survivability of the Scanjack flail as well as the speed of repair when the system strikes a live AT mine. Figure 7.1. Blast Testing VS

17 7.5. First trial. Target: VS 1.6 plastic blast resistant 2 kilo explosive blast resistant mine with top 5.8 cm (2 inches) below the surface Results: Mine was struck repeatedly but did not detonate. It was moved 3.96 m (13 ft) back towards the flail with little or no lateral deviation back towards the flail. Operators perceived Flail Depth: 20 cm Actual first flail depth as measured after detonation: cm Figure 7.2. Un-detonated mine from first trial. Note evidence of hammer blows 7.6. Second Trial. Target: VS 1.6 plastic blast resistant 2 kilo explosive blast resistant mine with top buried 5.8 cm (2 inches) below the surface Results: Mine detonated Operators perceived Flail Depth: 10 cm Actual first flail depth as measured after detonation: 12.7 cm 17

18 Figure 7.3. VS 1.6 Detonated Second Trial 7.7. Third Trial. Target: VS 1.6 plastic blast resistant 2 kilo explosive blast resistant mine with top buried 5.8 cm (2 inches) below the surface Results: Mine was struck repeatedly but did not detonate. It was moved forwards 30m with little or no lateral deviation. Detonator separated from mine and mine considered neutralized by two EOD Technicians. Scanjack operator halted over mine. Operators perceived Flail Depth: 20 cm Actual first flail depth as measured after detonation: cm 7.8. Fourth Trial. Target: VS 1.6 plastic blast resistant 2 kilo explosive blast resistant mine with top buried 5.8 cm (2 inches) below the surface Results: Mine was struck repeatedly but did not detonate. It was moved 4.26 m (14 ft) back towards the flail with little or no lateral deviation. Operators perceived Flail Depth: 20 cm Actual first flail depth as measured after detonation: cm 7.9. Fifth Trial. Target: A metal cased 22 pound (9.97 kilo) AT mine buried flush with the surface. Results: mine detonated. Two hammers with chain were blown off and one was damaged. Estimated repair time was 5 minutes for all three chains and hammers to be replaced. 18

19 Figure 7.4. Figure 7.5. Broken Hammer Shrapnel Damage Figure 7.6. Figure 7.7. Missing Hammers and Chains Recovered Hammer and Chain 19

20 8.0 Mobility Test. The Scanjack was driven, with tracks on, through a 1.7 km course consisting of 2 grades, one of 45 degrees and another of 30 degrees the terrain was a combination of dry compacted sandy clay soil as well as marshy stream beds. The trail width varied between 3 to 10 meters. The Scanjack executed the course in 27 minutes, 43 seconds with no difficulty. Figure 8.1. Figure 8.2. Scanjack Mobility Test Scanjack Mobility Test 20

21 9.0. Vegetation cutting test. The Scanjack executed two separate vegetation cutting exercises as a part of VIP Demonstrations, successfully cutting vegetation up to a 17cm diameter. The lane length was 30 meters with an execution time of 4 minutes. Scanjack could also be a useful tool in area reduction. The Scanjack during the vegetation test was operating at less than full power and is able to cut more dense vegetation by using more power as needed. Figure 9.1. Vegetation Cutting Test 21

22 10.0 Training assessment. The original goal was to provide an assessment of the system s manuals but the training conducted was based on training materials derived from the training manuals and not the manuals themselves. The training was approximately 40 hours in duration and was conducted in the classroom of approximately 10 percent of the time and that being an initial overview of the system. All the other training was conducted hands on using the system and related support equipment. The training was conducted with two categories of trainees, observers and operators. The observers were two US Army soldiers, one with 6 years of experience with heavy equipment operations and one with none. The soldiers were not permitted to operate the system due to the absence of the required U.S Army System Safety Release. They did however undergo all training. The operators were three very experienced Department of the Army civilian heavy equipment operators. They were permitted to operate the system. Figure Scanjack Training 22

23 Figure Scanjack Remote Training Methodology. Both operators and observers were trained in daily maintenance, track removal/installation, flail installation/removal, and remote control operations. The operators were trained in towing operations. Each of the operators was given at least 3-4 hours of hands on time with the system. Upon completion of the test, operator and observer insights were captured with a survey (see Appendix C) Assessment. The training prevented an assessment of training materials but it did highlight the trainability of the system. The Scanjack is a well thought out design that allows for a fairly rapid training period to support familiarization and safe operation of the system. Time with the system is the best way to gain expertise and the longest period given in both Observer and Operator surveys for comfortable operation was a week. 23

24 Appendix A, Simulants Lane 1 AP-1 AT-1 AP-2 AT-2 AP-3 AT-3 Lane 2 and Lane 3 Lane 4 24

25 Appendix B, Lanes 1-3 Lane #1 Type/Number Original Loc XY End Loc XY Exposed Depth Hammer strikes Orientation Comments AP 1/ 1 2/.5 -.5/.65 yes 0 Yes ½ found 2 2/ /3 -.5/6.25 yes 0 Yes 4 6/ /12.85 yes 0 Yes ½ found 5 6/ /4.5 yes 0 Yes 6 10/ / /1.6 no 3cm Yes 8 10/3 9 14/ /2 no 4cm Yes 10 14/ /68 yes 0 Yes ½ found AP2/ 1 18/ / /11.5 yes /3 4 22/ / / / /3 AP3/ 9 30/ / / / / / /2.38 No End Loc XY indicates simulants not found 25

26 Lane #1 Type/Number Original Loc XY End Loc XY Exposed Depth Hammer Strikes Orientation Comments AT 1/ 1 42/ /0 yes 0 yes 2 42/ /3 36.1/4.1 yes 0 yes ½ found 4 46/ / /2.5 no 17cm yes ½ found 6 50/ / /8.7 yes 0 yes ½ found 8 50/3 49.9/3.85 yes 0 yes ½ found 9 54/ /1.3 yes 0 yes 10 54/ /2.25 yes 0 yes AT 2/ 1 58/.5 82/11.75 yes 0 yes 2 58/ /4.2 yes 0 yes sideways 3 58/3 4 62/ / /1.95 yes 0 yes sideways 6 66/.5 59/1.55 yes 0 yes sideways 7 66/ /1.8 no 10cm yes 8 66/3 67/-3.7 yes 0 yes 9 70/ /1.2 yes 0 yes sideways 10 70/2.38 AT 3/ 1 74/ / / / / / / /1.9 yes 0 yes ½ found 15 82/3 78.6/2.5 yes 0 yes ½ found 25 86/ /0 yes 0 yes ½ found 13 86/2.38 No End Loc XY indicates simulants not found 26

27 Lane # 2 Number Original Loc X/Y End Loc X/Y Exposed Depth Hammer strikes Orientation Comments 390 3/1 0/2 no 11cm yes flipped in tracks 1 6/2 2.95/3.5 no 19cm yes flipped in tracks 8 9/1 6.6/2.18 yes 0 yes 55 12/2 10/3.25 no 15cm yes flipped /1 13.4/2.85 no 16cm yes flipped 99 18/2 82/3 yes 0 yes 10 21/ /2.2 no 26cm yes flipped /2 24.3/3.6 no 17cm yes in tracks / /1.7 no 25cm yes flipped in tracks 34 30/2 30.8/2.6 no 12cm yes flipped Lane # 3 Number Original Loc XY End Loc XY Exposed Depth Hammer Strikes Orientation Comments 1 4/1 2 8/2 28.9/-.5 yes 0 yes 3 12/1 10.4/1.3 yes 0 yes 4 16/2 15.4/3.6 yes 0 yes in tracks 5 20/1 20.3/1.5 yes 0 yes 6 24/2 7 28/1 48.5/2 yes 0 yes 8 32/2 35.3/3.6 yes 0 yes 9 36/ /2 44.1/3.15 yes 0 yes No End Loc XY indicates simulants not found 27

28 Appendix C, Surveys Operator Experience/Daily Maintenance Survey Observers 2 Military Soldiers Heavy Equipment Operator Observer 1- N Observer 2-Y Operator 1-Y Operator 2- Y If Yes, years of experience? Observer 1-0 Observer 2-6 Operator 1-12 Operator What similar equipment have you operated prior to this? Observer 1 Mine Clearing Survivable Vehicle Rhino M-60 Tank Bridge Rotary Mine Comb Operator 1 Front end loaders Motor grader Operator 2 Loader Fork lift 2. After completing training, how much hands-on time did/would you need to become comfortable to operate the system by yourself? - Right after the training - 5 hours -1 week- 40 hours - 1 day 3. How much hands-on time do you think you need to become proficient with this system? - A couple of days - 5 hours - 1 week- 40 hours - 1 week 28

29 4. Was it difficult to learn to operate the system? Explain - While the flail is in operation. The technique of how to operate. That would come with practice - It is fairly simple to operate. The hard part would be remembering the button placement - No, I had a good instructor - No 5. What is the average time needed to conduct daily maintenance? - Thirty minutes - N/A -1-2 hours 6. Is the daily maintenance difficult? Explain: - No, it is similar to the other pieces of equipment in checking oil, fluid levels, grease points, blowing out filters and function checks. - N/A - no, set up to make it easy 7. Suggestions for improvements on the system. -. Quick disconnects for the hydraulic lines going to the flail -. A different design for unhooking the flail instead of using the piece of wood -. Maybe a kind of camera since you can t tell when a mine is set off -. Use quick disconnects instead of screw on adapters on flail - Add electric hydraulic pump for raising hood of the smaller vehicle motor - needs more work on destroying mines 8. Additional Comments. - The conexes are very well equipped. Training team was very professional. - Ability to speak English made the training easier and faster -. The fluids are filled through a pump so that keeps you from having to pour it - Has its own built in compressor for air tools, air ratchet makes it very convenient - The way it turns the soil to a fine powder is very impressive - It is very comfortable and the features are endless. 29

30 Training Survey 2 Observers 2 Operators Task: Track Installation/removal Time to Complete: 20 minutes a track with 2 man crew 3-4 hours Scaled response with 1 being least and 5 being greatest 1. Degree to which the training material were helpful in completing the task 4 - Was covered hands on - Most of this could be done without instruction but getting track on tires before securing was not one of them. Instructor taught us the simplest way to install them. - Everything was made simple 2. How logical were the sequence of steps in the training material Very easy to connect-showed us while we did it - The steps were very logical and everything made sense 3. Degree of detail in step descriptions in task Was very simple and made it simple to do by the method used - There really wasn t too much detail necessary in this task but the instructor explained task well. 4. Accuracy of cautions, warning and indicators

31 - Cautions and warnings were indicated but not a lot of mechanical work here. You just have to take your time and be careful. Tracks are very heavy and hard to manage by hand. Hard to use forklift to take them out of the conex. - Instructor explained obvious concerns about working around the wheels of the vehicle and weight of tracks. 5. Level of difficulty in performing the task Simple but the tracks are very heavy so you don t want to rush through this procedure. - It is not complex but it is somewhat demanding on the physical side General - Very simple steps but physically demanding 31

32 Training Survey 2 Observers 2 Operators Task: Flail installation/removal Time to Complete: - With two experienced operators about two and a half hours - 2hrs w/2 man crew Scaled response with 1 being least and 5 being greatest 1. Degree to which the training material were helpful in completing the task Has details how to operate vehicle and maintain in handout from manuals - 90% was hands on instruction. Excellent instruction. Extremely detailed on all steps. - Very easy 2. How logical were the sequence of steps in the training material Went in order building up to operation - Instructor was very knowledgeable and explained all steps, then let us go to work. It was simple to remember all the steps involved. 3. Degree of detail in step descriptions in task % of it were hands, so we actually did all the procedures that were covered - Very detailed. Every nut and bolt and its function was explained. 32

33 4. Accuracy of cautions, warning and indicators All were covered before we did a hand on 360 degree walk around - Instructor explained everything to be careful around while installing/removing flail. 5. Level of difficulty in performing the task Everything was made as simple as possible ( side panels have a secondary catch, flail arm has a secondary catch). - Pretty simple, even for the first time. General - The only thing that would make it easier is quick disconnects for the flai hydraulic hose. - This is a lengthy process but pretty simple and moderate on the physical side. 33

34 Training Survey 2 Observers 2 Operators Task: Remote control operation Time to Complete - N/A - N/A Scaled response with 1 being least and 5 being greatest 1. Degree to which the training material were helpful in completing the task 4 - We had a powerpoint presentation that went over vehicle history and history. The training material had a remote function the rest were all hands on. - Everything was on hand and in good condition that was necessary to complete the task - Very Easy 2. How logical were the sequence of steps in the training material We went from start to finish meaning the powerpoint presentation, maintenance, features and special features of the vehicle, a hands on 360 degree walk around of what was what on the vehicle, operating the vehicle for the operators, connecting and disconnecting the flail. The operating the vehicle and the flail. - Very simple to operate. Remote operation was taught well. 3. Degree of detail in step descriptions in task Everything was explained perfectly and anything that I had a question on was explained to detail. - Instructor was in depth on operation with remote 34

35 4. Accuracy of cautions, warning and indicators Everything that is hazardous is marked and was also walked through on the vehicle. Also has a lot of built in safety features that are to prevent injuries. - Instructor made sure all cautions /warnings were put out and explained 5. Level of difficulty in performing the task The features on the vehicle keep everything simple. - The remote looked extremely easy to use General - Everything was covered thoroughly and professionally. Remote has a feature where you can step the lever to power down that you are getting through the controls. No herky jerky motion. - Great design on remote. Very comfortable design and easy to use. 35

36 Training Survey 2 Operators Task Towing Operations Time to Complete Scaled response with 1 being least and 5 being greatest 1. Degree to which the training material were helpful in completing the task 1 2. How logical were the sequence of steps in the training material 1 3. Degree of detail in step descriptions in task 1 4. Accuracy of cautions, warning and indicators 1 5. Level of difficulty in performing the task 1 General 36

37 Appendix D, Definition of terms. Found The term found will refer to those simulants the ScanJack moved or exposed while executing the lane. Exposed in Lane The exposed in lane column represents the proportion of AP simulants exposed to the surface by the ScanJack but not moved out of the lane. Neutralized A condition in which ordinance no longer functions in its original capacity Station Keeping Left and right variation as system moves down a lane 37