Heat Stress of Helicopter Aircrew Wearing Immersion Suit
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the present study were to define the lowest ambient air and cabin temperatures at which aircrews wearing immersion protection are starting to experience thermal discomfort and heat stress during flight operations, and to characterize during a flight simulation in laboratory, the severity of the heat stress during exposure to a typical northern summer ambient condition (25 degrees C, 40% RH). Twenty male helicopter aircrews wearing immersion suits (insulation of 2.2 Clo in air) performed 26 flights within an 8-month period at ambient temperatures ranging between -15 and 25 degrees C, and cabin temperatures ranging between 3 and 28 degrees C. It was observed based on thermal comfort ratings that the aircrews were starting to experience thermal discomfort and heat stress at ambient and cabin air conditions above 18 degrees C and at a WBGT index of 16 degrees C. In a subsequent study, seven aircrews dressed with the same clothing were exposed for 140 min to 25 degrees C and 40% RH in a climatic chamber. During the exposure, the aircrews simulated pilot flight maneuvers for 80 min followed with backender/flight engineer activities for 60 min. By the end of the 140 min exposure, the skin temperature, rectal temperature and heart rate had increased significantly to 35.7 +/- 0.2 degrees C, 38.4 +/- 0.2 degrees C and between 110 and 160 beats/min depending on the level of physical activity. The body sweat rate averaged 0.58 kg/h and the relative humidity inside the clothing was at saturation by the end of the exposure. It was concluded that aircrews wearing immersion suits during the summer months in northern climates might experience thermal discomfort and heat stress at ambient or cabin air temperature as low as 18 degrees C.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it