Experimental Study of Airworthiness Compliance Verification of High-Temperature Environment in Aircraft Cockpit

TL;DR

This study tested how high cockpit temperatures affect Chinese pilots' physiology and performance, finding that current safety limits are safe and applicable.

Contribution

The study validates the MSCWG's core temperature limits for Chinese pilots under high-temperature conditions.

Findings

Core body temperature, skin temperature, and heart rate increased with ambient temperature but stayed within safe limits.

Oxygen saturation decreased slightly but not significantly with rising temperature.

Neurobehavioral performance remained stable across different temperature-time conditions.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of the Mechanical Systems Coordination Working Group’s (MSCWG) findings, based on FAR 25.831(g), to Chinese pilots through a human physiological experiment conducted in a high-temperature environment to investigate the effects of core temperature. Methods: A controlled experiment was carried out in a high-temperature environment simulation room involving a cohort of healthy males aged 18–50 years. Wireless physiological monitoring equipment and a neurobehavioral assessment system were utilized to track changes in physiological parameters and neurobehavioral responses at varying core temperatures and time intervals. Results: There was a significant increase in human core body temperature, skin temperature, and heart rate as the ambient temperature rose, all remaining within acceptable physiological limits. Although arterial and venous oxygen saturation decreased with increasing ambient temperature, the difference was not statistically significant. The neurobehavioral abilities of the subjects did not exhibit notable changes across different core temperature–time conditions. Conclusions: The core temperature limits set forth by the MSCWG have been shown to have a safe impact on the physiological and behavioral aspects of Chinese pilots, which can be used as an equivalent safety regulation for airworthiness compliance validation under CCAR 25.831(g). Limitation: The present study was constrained to a male sample, it did not thoroughly explore female responses, and it had a small sample size (10 per group). The latter two factors may have affected the statistical validity and generalizability of the results.

Figures