Applicability of a new pilot anti-G capability assessment trainer
10.3760/cma.j.cn113854-20240205-00010
- VernacularTitle:新型飞行员抗荷能力评估训练器应用效果评价
- Author:
Tao JIANG
1
;
Jiao YIN
;
Lijun WEN
;
Bin LI
;
Jiyu DANG
;
Xi ZHAO
;
Wen DONG
;
Haixia WANG
;
Yan XU
Author Information
1. 空军都江堰特勤疗养中心弹射救生训练科，成都 611830
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Anti-G capability;
HP maneuver;
Pressure breathing for G;
Training;
Pilots
- From:
Chinese Journal of Aerospace Medicine
2025;36(1):38-43
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the applicability of a new anti-G capability assessment trainer (AG-CAT) in high-performance (HP) anti-G maneuver training and positive pressure breathing for high-G (PHP) training for pilots.Methods:A total of 142 fighter pilots who were subjected to anti-G maneuver training at Dujiangyan Special Crew Sanatorium of PLA Air Force between January and November 2023 were enrolled. According to the Guidelines for Aviation Physiological Training, 123 pilots underwent both HP anti-G maneuver training and PHP positive pressure breathing training, 15 received only HP training, and 4 received only PHP training. Based on the training devices used, these pilots were divided into AG-CAT group and an anti-G and anti-hypoxia capability detection instrument (GHyCDI) group. The 2 groups were compared regarding the pedal force of lower limbs, blood pressure, and improvement of +G z tolerance during training. Results:Of the 138 pilots undergoing HP training, 88 used AG-CAT and 50 used GHyCDI. One hundred and twenty-seven pilots participated in PHP training, with 73 in the AG-CAT group and 54 in the GHyCDI group. During HP training, the pedal force of left lower limbs in the AG-CAT group was greater than that of the right limbs and of the GHyCDI group ( t=4.38, 2.64, P<0.001, =0.009). In PHP training, the AG-CAT group exhibited greater pedal force in left limbs than in right ones, while the GHyCDI group showed an opposite trend ( t=2.25, 3.37, P=0.029, 0.002). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures during HP training (with or without anti-G suits) were higher in the AG-CAT group than in the GHyCDI group ( t=3.50, 3.72, 2.55, 4.21, P=0.001,<0.001,=0.012,<0.001). Similarly, during PHP training, both systolic and diastolic pressures were higher in the AG-CAT group ( t=2.03, 3.81, P=0.045,<0.001). The AG-CAT group demonstrated superior improvements in +G z tolerance during HP training (without/with anti-G suits: Z=2.14, 3.21, P=0.049, 0.001) and PHP training ( Z=2.56, P=0.010) compared with the GHyCDI group. Conclusions:AG-CAT shows excellent applicability in aviation physiological training of pilots. Its ergonomic design, practical functionalities and enhanced compatibility with personnel protective equipment can better meet training requirements compared to conventional devices.
