Stevenson,
I have an interest in this very same issue.
Separate advice suggested that the derivation of 5'2" to 6'3" in FAR/JAR 25.777 was based on 2.5 percentile mature female up to 95 percentile mature male. However, I could find nothing to support that explanantion nor could I find anything that formally identified the source anthropometric data that is used. A quick search using "anthropometic" at the NASA technical server
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate
came up with 467 documents, many of which could be incredibly useful. However, what I really need to know is what designers looking for FAR/JAR 25 or BCAR D certification would have used as the standard anthropometric model.
Unlike Genghis or yourself, I am not an engineer. However, it seems to me that such things as ankle rotation angles, ankle to kneee and knee to hip measurements are critical to the hardware design at the bottom while upper torso length, reach and eye position are all important measurements at the top end. Like many things in the FARs, the good ole 5'2" to 6'3" in FAR 25.777 seems to be just a portal to much more detailed data elsewhere.
Does anyone know what BAe used to design the flight deck of the 146 or what Boeing used for the 737 or what Airbus used for the A320 or de Havilland Canada used for the DHC 8?
BTW my earlier search on 15 Nov 99
http://starbase.msfc.nasa.gov/TSL/NA...0033d78000a387
unearthed NASA-STD-3000B "Man-systems Integration Standards" which is current.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by 4dogs (edited 25 November 1999).]