Improving Soldier Performance With the AN/PSS-12

Note: The information contained in this article does not rep resent a change to TM 5-6665-298-10, Operator's Manual for the AN/PSS-12 Mine Detecting Set. The article provides some advanced techniques and training strategies that are now being included in the MOS 12B10 One-Station Unit Training Course at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Formal tests over the last decade indicate that American soldiers using the AN/PSS-12 handheld mine detector and Army-approved techniques consistently find less than 20 percent of low-metal mines. [1,2,3,4] Too often this poor performance is rationalized by assuming that the detector itself is just not capable of detecting low-metal mines. Yet, at the same time, professional, commercial, civilian deminers throughout the world are using the same detector and have safely lifted thousands of mines. Because of this great difference in performance between soldiers and professional deminers, we set out to learn what different techniques the experts were using. We wanted to learn if these techniques could be taught in a practical amount of time to improve the detection capabilities of our soldiers so they could apply them to countermine missions. Most importantly, we wanted to know if our soldiers could approach the performance levels of professionals if taught their techniques.

A Comparison

The Army Research Laboratory. Human Research and Engineering Directorate Field Element, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, collaborated to investigate this problem. The science of cognitive engineering was first used to essentially get into the minds of professional deminers to learn how they detect mines. Their techniques and thought processes were then translated into procedures and drills that we believed would provide an efficient training program for soldiers. A training and test site was developed at Fort Leonard Wood, where an experiment was conducted to test the practicality and effectiveness of training soldiers to use the professional techniques. A second part of the experiment was an additional test of the same soldiers at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

Initially, engineer soldiers were given a 1-hour refresher course by NCOs on standard Army techniques and were then tested using those techniques. They found less than 15 percent of the low-metal antipersonnel M14 mine simulants. They were then given 15 hours of instruction on the professional techniques and were retested. Their performance improved to a detection rate of 87 percent against the M14 mine simulants. The soldiers were then tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground against real-mines that had been made safe without influencing their detection signature. In this test, the soldiers found 100 percent of the M14 mines. [5]

Some may wonder why a comparison was made between soldiers' performance following 1 hour of refresher training and 15 hours of training on expert techniques. When an AN/PSS-12, using standard Army techniques, is passed over a low-metal mine (or even held over one) that is buried at a doctrinally supported depth, the detector provides no warning tone that a mine is present. Thus, no amount of training using standard Army techniques could significantly improve performance.

This article describes the professional techniques that have been shown to dramatically improve soldiers' ability to find low-metal mines while using the AN/PSS-12. It also provides guidance on teaching the skills needed to use the techniques. Although our focus was on teaching soldiers better ways to find low-metal mines, these techniques are also applicable to the much easier to detect high-metal mines.

Professionals use the AN/PSS-12, and information gained from it, much differently than we have been teaching our soldiers. [6,7] Before going into a mined area, professionals learn what mines they can expect to encounter and develop a mental catalog of information describing the characteristics of these mines. From experience and knowledge, they understand the type of information--relating to the strength of signals and the size of their signatures or "footprints"--the detector provides to identify different types of mines. Then, during actual detection work, professionals use the AN/PSS-12 to develop the spatial image of the footprint they detect and then match the footprint obtained to the known footprints of mines. A match leads to a mine declaration. The procedures take some training but, in a few hours, soldiers can develop skills far beyond those currently being taught.

Note: A warning tone should ALWAYS be considered to be a mine until the operator has developed the detecting skills that enable him to be certain that it is definitely NOT a mine. This is no place to be playing guessing games. No matter what the level of operator skill, if in doubt, call it a mine.

Techniques

Soldiers must understand the basic capabilities and limitations of the AN/PSS-12 to be able to properly employ it. The detector emits a magnetic field symmetrically above and below the detector head. When this field encounters metal objects, it induces currents in these objects. The larger the metal objects, the stronger the induced currents, and thus the greater distance at which the receiver component of the detector can pick up the induced currents. In practical terms, this means that the detector is able to detect high-metal mines from a distance of several feet, but low-metal mines can be detected from only a few inches (see Figure 1). If the detector head is not swept very close to a low-metal mine, the mine will not be detected.

Physical Setup

The AN/PSS-12 in the Army inventory is referred to by the manufacturer as an ANJPSS-12 Mod 2. Some design limitations of this model require that precautions be taken in the physical setup of the detector to get the best performance. The detector shaft is a telescoping pole composed of two pieces; the bottom piece is plastic and the top piece is aluminum. The cable that connects the head to the electronics unit is attached to the shaft with plastic clips. The first clip should be placed at the base of the shaft with a small loop in the cable between the detector head and the first clip. This allows some flexibility in movement of the head without damaging the connection of the cable to the head. Additional clips should then be placed along the plastic portion of the shaft to hold the cable away from the shaft. The top clip should be placed at the uppermost portion of the plastic section of the shaft. The cable should not be attached to the aluminum portion of the shaft because it may cause sensitivity to fluct uate.

The electronics unit is designed to either attach to a web belt or be slung over the shoulder using the shoulder strap. We recommend that the electronics unit be attached to the web belt so it will swing less. We also recommend that the cable length between the shaft and the electronics unit be held in the hand that is not operating the detector. If the cable is swinging around, it can hurt the detector's performance.

Initial Sensitivity Setting

Properly setting and maintaining the sensitivity of the detector is absolutely crucial to performance. Most soldiers adjust the sensitivity using the test piece provided in the kit. They hold the test piece so the metal component inside is 2 inches from the detector head, and then they adjust the sensitivity so they get a signal from the detector. This is a setup for failure! Once they put the detector in use, they sweep the head 2 or more inches above the ground. Thus buried low-metal mines are out of range of the electric field the detector was just set to detect, and there is virtually no chance of detecting a low-metal mine.

The test piece provided in the kit is an excellent device to hold near the detector head to determine if the detector is working properly. It should not be used to set the sensitivity by holding it in the air 2 inches from the detector head.

The sensitivity may be properly set in either of two ways. The best way is to have on hand the most difficult to detect type of mine that is expected to be encountered. Bury this mine at the deepest depth the threat is expected to have buried it. Place the detector head lightly on the ground directly above the mine, and then adjust the sensitivity so the mine can be detected with a clear warning tone.

As an alternative, if the threat mine described above is not available, bury the test piece vertically at the deepest depth the threat mine is expected to be encountered. (The depth of the metal component in the test piece is the critical issue.) Then place the detector head lightly on the ground just above the test piece, and set the sensitivity so that the test piece can be detected with a clear warning tone. Adjusting sensitivity with a mine or test piece buried in soil similar to where the detector will be used is very important. Otherwise, sensitivity setting is simply a guess. Different soil types and moisture content influence the sensitivity of the detector.

The process above describes the minimal sensitivity setting required. Anything less will result in missing amine. If the soil allows, without producing a warning tone from the detector, the sensitivity may be set at higher levels. This theoretically yields a greater probability of detection at the cost of a higher false-alarm rate. The mission dictates the optimal setting of the sensitivity between just enough to detect the hardest to detect mine at the deepest depth to the highest setting the soil type will allow without generating a warning tone that could hide the tone indicating amine. Due to time constraints, a tactical mission such as a combat breach may require a riskier, lower sensitivity setting. A higher sensitivity setting would be used during a non-time-constrained demining mission or clearing of a lodgement area or route.

Maintaining the Sensitivity Setting

A deficiency of the AN/PSS-12 Mod 2 is that its sensitivity drifts over time. [8] Professionals check the sensitivity frequently (nearly every 0.5 meter of advance) and, if required, reset the sensitivity. During training, we taught soldiers to check their detectors' sensitivity every 1 to 2 meters of advance.

Setup for maintaining a consistent sensitivity level is made at the time of the initial setting. With the initial sensitivity properly set while using a buried mine or the buried test piece, the detector head is moved to a nearby place on the ground over a clear area. A metal object is then slid down the shaft of the detector until the operator hears the same warning tone that was emitted when the detector head was placed over the buried mine or test piece. At this point on the shaft, the soldier positions one of the plastic cable clips, which becomes the sensitivity marker clip. Now, after every 1 to 2 meters of advance in the mine lane, the soldier can simply move the same metal object down the shaft to the sensitivity marker clip and listen to see if the same warning tone is emitted. If the same tone is not emitted, the sensitivity knob can be adjusted up or down to replicate the desired signal. A useful metal object for maintaining the sensitivity is a common mason's trowel, which can serve other purposes when mine detection is ongoing (see Figure 2).

Sweep Techniques

As explained earlier, the electric field emitted by low-metal mines is very small-often less than the width of the detector head. Therefore, each sweep across the lane must overlap the previous sweep by about one-half the width of the detector head. Otherwise, a gap is left between sweep paths and a low-metal mine can be missed. Uneven sweep spacing was found to be a major problem, even among more experienced soldiers.

A training device developed by Dr. Herman Herman of Carnegie Mellon University recorded the movement of the detector head over the ground and played it back to soldiers so they could evaluate their own performance. [9] Any gaps in ground coverage were shown by the device, and soldiers could correct their sweeping flaws.

The movement rate of the detector head is also important. The operator's manual advocates a sweep rate of 1 meter per second. [10] However, if low-metal mines are the threat, this is too fast because the detector head can be swept directly over these mines without emitting a warning tone. The detector head should be swept no faster than about 1 foot per second.

Head height above the ground is the most important factor concerning sweep techniques. The operator's manual advocates sweeping with the head "not more than 2 inches above the ground." [11] The authors observed that soldiers sweep with the detector head a minimum of 2 inches above the ground and often-especially at the end of sweeps-swing the detector head much higher. These techniques ensure that low-metal mines are not detected. The detector head should be lightly floated on the ground surface. The closer the detector head is to the ground, the deeper the electrical field is projected and the greater chance there is to detect low-metal mines. Actual contact with the ground appears to improve the electrical coupling, thereby strengthening the electrical field.

Loosening the nut on the plastic bolt that attaches the detector head to the shaft makes it easier to maintain constant contact with the ground. This allows the head to pivot, and the head can then be lightly slid across the surface. The head essentially follows the variations in the surface. In low vegetation, a different technique is to keep the nut tight so the position between the head and shaft is fixed. Then, the detector head is lightly patted on the ground, each pat advancing no more than one-half the width of the detector head.

In some instances, vegetation may prevent the detector head from getting on the ground. And we do not advocate pushing through vegetation to get the detector head on the ground. Different environments will require slightly different techniques, but the point is that if the detector head is not on or very near the surface of the ground, the detector is not going to help locate low-metal mines.

Practice

Just employing the proper techniques is not enough to successfully detect mines. As in developing any kind of skill, practice is required. And to support learning, a critical part of this practice is to provide soldiers with quick feedback on their performance. Our training program helped soldiers develop the skills of the experts by employing a series of drills, each building upon the other. Additionally, we found the process of mine detection to be one of precision. Failure to properly apply the techniques described accounted for most of the few mines missed during this research effort.

Edge-Detection Exercise

In this exercise, soldiers developed the fundamental technique to acquire patterns of information that signify buried mines. As mentioned earlier, professionals use the detector as a tool to develop a spatial image of the detected object in the ground. The soldiers were taken to specific locations where a mine simulant was buried. A plastic poker chip marker was placed on the ground directly above the mine simulant. Facing the poker chip mark from a predetermined orientation (each soldier was told to arbitrarily consider that the poker chip marking the mine was to his north), each operator would place the detector's sensor head on the ground in a 3 o'clock (east) orientation to the mark. Moving the head on a line perpendicular to the north-south line connecting the operator's center with the poker-chip mark, the soldier was to determine the point at which the detector sounded off, while sweeping the head slowly in an east-west direction toward the mark. This position was marked with a small plastic golf-ball marker, and its distance to the target mark was measured and recorded by an observer (see Figure 3).

The type of mine was then revealed to the operator, as well as the distance measured from mine center to the "edge" mark determined by the operator. Each operator performed this exercise on five different encounters with each type of mine simulant (M14, PMA3, VS2.2, M15, and M16) for a total of 25 mine encounters.

Footprint-Development Exercise

This exercise introduced soldiers to the patterns or footprints that identify and locate buried mines. Soldiers repeated the previously described edge-detection technique from at least five different directions--for example, advancing the sensor head from different perimeter points (E, S, W, SE, SW) toward a target mark. For safety reasons, operators were told to move the head no closer toward the mine than was needed to establish an edge of the footprint. Each edge was to be marked, with all markers remaining in place until the task was completed. All center-to-edge distances were measured, recorded, and reported to the operators along with the identity of the buried target. Soldiers were instructed to describe the size and shape of each resulting pattern and compare and contrast the patterns obtained across trials. This helped develop a spatial image of the mine signature based on input from the detector. By familiarizing themselves with mine footprints, while also learning acquisition techniques, soldiers accumulated the knowledge needed to match footprints found later with those that identify mines and successfully find mines.

"Airborne" Technique Exercise

High-metal mines produce footprints that extend as far as 1 meter away from the mine's center. The purpose of the airborne technique is to locate the mine target within the extended footprint as accurately as possible and to avoid unplanned detonations caused by the sensor head contacting the prongs that trigger many high-metal antipersonnel mines (such as Ml6s or Valmara 69s). This technique involves fixing the sensor head so that it can be maintained in a position parallel to the ground surface while it is raised as high as 2 to 3 feet. By scanning the area within the footprint--and progressively increasing the height of the sensor head until small, upward or sideward, in-plane movements cause loss of signal from the AN/PSS-12--an operator can pinpoint the location of a buried mine by exploiting the tapered geometry of the detector's sensing field (see Figure 4).

Blind-Detection Exercise

After practicing the preceding techniques, soldiers engaged in a sequence of blind-detection tasks. Initially, these tasks began with each soldier being directed to a specific and bounded area to search. In each 1.5- by 1.5- meter cell, the task was to use the techniques taught to determine whether a mine was buried within the area's boundaries and, if so, to mark its location as accurately as possible. Soldiers received feedback on the accuracy of each detection before proceeding to the next cell. Each soldier then had the opportunity to resweep the area to familiarize himself with the target's footprint, especially if he missed the mine. After completing single-cell detection exercises, operators practiced blind search (with feedback) over progressively longer distances and time periods. The practice task progressed to cover 5-cell distances, then 10-cell distances, and finally an 18-meter test familiarization trial. Feedback on mine locations was provided on the conclusion of each soldier's training-lane s weep.

Training Requirements

We developed a training site that we hoped would optimize the training efficiency and, at the same time, be a facility that units in the field could practically replicate. Description of the training site is beyond the scope of this article, but we believe it played an important role in the training process.

Construction of high-fidelity simulants of low-metal mines was also a critical factor to support this research effort. Metal components were developed by the Program Manager's Office for Mines, Countermines, and Demolitions, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. [12] These very small metal components were inserted into hockey pucks to provide low-metal mine simulants. The simulants proved their merit when soldiers were trained on them at Fort Leonard Wood and later performed even better against the real mines at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Use of bolts, nails, and other relatively large metal components as simulants are typically far too easy to detect and may perpetuate the continued use of improper detection techniques. The metal components used in the hockey pucks as carriers are an inexpensive and available source for high-fidelity, low-metal mine simulants.

Conclusion

The proliferation of low-metal mines over the past years has changed the techniques we must now use to successfully find mines. The old techniques were adequate for locating mines with high-metal content but are completely inadequate for low-metal mines. Many of the techniques advocated in this article, and validated by scientific research, were also described in an article in Engineer more than 6 years ago. [13] This research showed that gains in detection performance achieved by soldiers who received only 15 hours of training on the professional techniques resulted in more than a six-fold increase in performance on the hardest to detect mines. Most impressively, after being trained against mine simulants, the soldiers found 100 percent (63 of 63) of the hardest to detect M14 mines. The performance increase was so enormous (and statistically supported) that little doubt can be left about the validity of these techniques.

The professional techniques described in this article are only a part of mine-detection work, but we believe they can provide a critical supplement to other important factors of standard training, such as visual cue indicators and mine awareness. Training techniques must catch up with an evolving threat of low-metal mines. Employing standard Army techniques sets soldiers up for failure in a task that is swiftly and savagely unforgiving of human error.

The future promises improved mine detectors. The new Handheld Standoff Mine-Detection System (HSTAMIDS), which is progressing well, will offer two sensors. One will be an improved metal detector, and the other is a ground-penetrating radar sensor. Together, these sensors will provide soldiers information that may allow them to discriminate between mines and clutter. Assuming that soldiers will be properly trained, fielding this detector has the potential to provide a much greater capability to detect low-metal mines. For more information on the HSTAMIDS program, go to http://www.wood.army.mil/TSM or call (573) 563-4085.

This material is based on work supported in part by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office under grant number DAAG55-98-1-0147.

For more information on improving training with the AN/PSS-12 detector or setting up an effective training and test site, or to suggest ways to further improve the techniques described above, please contact one of the authors.

Dr. Davison, a retired lieutenant colonel, is Chief of the Army Research Laboratory Human Research Engineering Directorate Field Element, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. His e-mail address is davisona@wood.army.mil or telephone 573-563-4008 or DSN 676-4008.

Dr. Staszewski is the Senior Cognitive Engineer at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He can be contacted by e-mail atjjs@cinu.edu or telephone 412-268-8881.

Mr. Boxley is the combat developer for handheld mine detectors, Directorate of Combat Developments, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Endnotes:

(1.) U.S. Army Test Report, "AN/PSS-12 Metallic-Mine Detector," U.S. Army Test and Experimentation Command, Fort Hood, Texas, July 1991.

(2.) W.C. Schneck, "Countermine in OOTW: Operation Restore Hope," a presentation to the U.S. Army Engineer School, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, 19-20 December 1994.

(3.) U.S. Army Test Report, "Early Developmental Test/Early User Test and Evaluation of the Handheld Standoff Mine-Detector System," 1998.

(4.) James J. Staszewski, Alan Davison, "Mine Detection Training Based on Expert Skill," Detection and Remediation Technologies for Mines and Minelike Targets V, A.C. Dubey, J.F. Harvey, J. T. Broach, and R. E. Dugan (Eds.), SPIE Proceedings, Volume 4038, pp. 90-101, 2000.

(5.) lbid.

(6.) lbid.

(7.) James J. Staszewski, "Information Processing Analysis of Human Land Mine Detection Skill," Detection and Remediation Technologies for Mines and Minelike Targets IV, T. Broach, A.C. Dubey, RE. Dugan, and J. Harvey, (Eds.), SPIE Conference Proceedings, Volume 3,710, pp. 766-777, Orlando, Florida, 1999.

(8.) Y. Das, and J.D. Toews, "Issues in the Performance of Metal Detectors," Conference Proceedings of UXO FORUM '98, Anaheim, California, 5-7 May 1998.

(9.) H. Herman and D. Inglesias, "Human-in-the-Loop Issues for Demining," T. Broach, A. C. Dubey, R. E. Dugan, and J. Harvey, (Eds.), Detection and Remediation Technologies for Mines and Minelike Targets IV, SPIE Conference Proceedings, Volume 3,710, pp. 797 - 805, Orlando, Florida, 1999.

(10.) TM 5-6665-298-10, Operator's Manual for the AN/PSS- 12 Mine Detecting Set, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 21 February 1992.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Project Manager - Mines, Countermines and Demolitions (Countermine Division), Scientific & Technical Report, Simulant Mines. http:hlwww.uxocoe.brtrc.com/Technical %20Reports/sim-richard %20essh/SlM percent20Mines %20Report.htm, 21 October 1998.

(13.) Captain Lawrence M. Chirio, "Lessons Learned: Kuwaiti Demining Operation,"Engineer, August 1994, pp. 25-28.

COPYRIGHT 2001 U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group