The result analysis of the human centrifuge gradual-onset rate training of (student) pilots
10.3760/cma.j.cn113854-20231208-00127
- VernacularTitle:飞行（学）员载人离心机慢增长率模式训练结果分析
- Author:
Minghao YANG
1
;
Baohui LI
1
;
Xiaoyang WEI
1
;
Ke JIANG
1
;
Lihui ZHANG
1
;
Haixia WANG
1
;
Jinghui YANG
1
;
Xiaoxue ZHANG
1
;
Yifeng LI
1
;
Zhao JIN
1
Author Information
1. 空军军医大学空军特色医学中心加速度生理研究室，北京 100142
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Acceleration;
Centrifuge;
Gradual-onset rate mode;
(Student) Pilots
- From:
Chinese Journal of Aerospace Medicine
2024;35(3):168-173
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To discuss the application of gradual-onset rate run (GOR) of human centrifuge on G-tolerance evaluation and training by analyzing the training results of (student) pilots in GOR centrifuge run.Methods:The G-tolerance and anti-G straining maneuver effect of 440 student pilots and 368 pilots participated centrifuge training in recent years were analyzed. The (student) pilots were grouped by age (20-25 years,26-30 years,31-35 years,36-40 years, >40 years). The 392 student pilots and 335 pilots who completed rapid onset rate run (ROR) were divided into 8 G 10 s training high G tolerance group (group A), 8 G 10 s training low G tolerance group (group B), 9 G 10 s training high G tolerance group (group C) and 9 G 10 s training low G tolerance group (group D) according to pass the 8 G 10 s or 9 G 10 s run one-time or not. The relation of G-tolerance and anti-G straining maneuver effect of GOR to ROR was discussed.Results:The average distribution range of relaxed G-tolerance under GOR (GOR tolerance 1) was (4.1±0.7) G, and the average distribution range of anti-G straining maneuver aided G-tolerance under GOR (GOR tolerance 2) was (6.2±0.8) G. The average HP anti-G straining maneuver effect was (2.1±0.6) G. There was a significant difference in GOR tolerance 1 ( H=11.94, P=0.018), no significant difference in GOR tolerance 2 ( H=4.80, P=0.308), and a significant difference in the effect of HP anti-G straining maneuver among pilots in different age groups ( F=3.01, P=0.018). The effect of HP anti-G straining maneuver in the age group over 40 years old was greater than that in other age groups ( P=0.027, 0.034, 0.009, 0.006). There was no significant difference in GOR tolerance 1, GOR tolerance 2 and HP anti-G straining maneuver effect between pilots and student pilots (all P>0.05). There were significant differences in GOR tolerance 2 ( H=15.38, P=0.002) and the effect of HP anti-G straining maneuver ( H=8.22, P=0.041) among group A, group B, group C and group D. The GOR tolerance 2 of group B was lower than that of other anti-G tolerance groups ( P=0.003, 0.001, 0.040). Conclusions:The centrifuge GOR training could reflect the G-tolerance and anti-G straining maneuver effect of (student) pilots and provide references for predicting the human centrifuge training result and improving accelerate training and tolerance evaluating.
