No questions on the Overview section.

Puget Sound, Norfolk, and Portsmouth Naval Shipyards (Mantis, Fortis, OLAD, Zero-G arm)

Answered Questions (9)
--------------------------

Q1. During the Navy brief, it was mentioned that there were potential NAVAIR users. Who are they? Further, have you considered classifying it as support equipment, and getting CNAF support for procurement through the APN-7 prioritization process?

A1. We are working with NAVAIR Hqs maintenance folk, and targeting NAVAIR maintenance depots. I can pass the latter part of the question on.

Q2. Increased time on task also increases the time exposed to other potential hazards such as respirable dust, noise, and hand-transmitted vibration. Are there efforts to quantify the impact of these new technologies on those exposures?

A2. There is no focus on that. However, we want to setup methods to record long-term data. Mark Geiger of the Navy Safety Center states they are getting ready to do a study and this is still being worked out. Upper body exposure is a concern, especially grinding where the level is reduced from a level 7 to a level 4.

Q3. How are various government sponsoring organizations approaching safety approvals and certifications for human augmentation technologies through relevant safety agencies to help facilitate the large-scale implementation of this technology throughout DoD's industrial base? 

A3. We are working closely with OSHA to get approval to use this. Carderock is also looking into it.

Q4. What is the Navy projecting as the basis of issue for iHAS across all the shipyards and NAVAIR depots? Is this reflected in the POM17 funding request?

A4. The navy is looking at buying 160 units over 4 years. RTOC proposal has gone in and has hi-level visibility. Not sure about NAVAIR.

Q5. How will the ensuing iHAS specification be applicable to other types of heavy maintenance outside of shipyards?

A5. As long as the application is for holding tools, it doesn’t matter what industry it’s used in.

Q6. Could someone address what procedures are in place in the event of emergency or work place evacuation?

A6. There is a required 5-10 second docking process. The BAE model has a tether which unpowers the suit and the capability to be out of the suit in 10-20 seconds. 

Q7. When I asked "who are they" with regard to the NAVAIR users, I was asking what platforms. Have you considered approaching the individual platform program offices for their buy in? 

A7. This is a tool. I don’t know if you have to go to a PM for adding a tool. 
Comment: The question was aimed at the source of funding being from the PMs versus the shipyards. For example, to use the tool on aircraft, the support equipment is funded by the PA program office, i.e. PM 260 or common support equipment.

Q8. How are these systems controlled / activated by the users? Team talked about use cases and great things these are being used for, but can you discuss how the users controls the system, that would be helpful

A8. The user controls the apparatus. You just walk or move your arms and it moves and feels like a 10 lb. backpack. It has a spring to adjust the tool height. As far as the tools, you use the same controls as without the iHAS or zeroG arm. One of the variants has 4 buttons which allows you to set a stand mode, rest button, and move buttons. 

Q9. How does NAVSEA envision contracting for iHAS systems and will the ensuing contracts be open to other Services for procurement?

A9. NAVSEA may not be the best place. It may possibly be a large DoD contract.