**AIAA-2000-4296**

The Effect of Simulator Motion on Pilot Training and Evaluation^\*^

Tiauw H.Go^^

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Judith Bürki-Cohen^^

Volpe Center, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Nancy N. Soja^^

Brookline, Massachusetts

**[ABSTRACT]{.underline}**

This study empirically examined the effect of simulator platform motion
on airline pilot recurrent training and evaluation. It is driven by the
need for sound scientific data on the relationship between certain key
modern device features and their effect on the transfer of pilot
performance and behavior to and from the respective airplane. The
experiment utilized an FAA qualified Level C simulator with
six-degree-of-freedom synergistic motion and a wide angle high quality
visual system. Experienced airline pilots were evaluated and trained in
the simulator, half of them with and the other half without motion. Then
the transfer of skills acquired by both groups during this training was
tested in the simulator with the motion system turned on as a stand-in
for the airplane (quasi-transfer). Every effort was made to avoid
deficiencies in the research design identified in a review of prior
studies, by measuring pilot stimulation *and* response, testing both
maneuvers and pilots that are *diagnostic* of a need of motion, avoiding
pilot and instructor *bias*, and ensuring sufficient statistical *power*
to capture operationally relevant effects. The results of the analyses
as well as their implications are presented in this paper.

## 

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

^\*^ Portions of this work have been published as Ref. 1.

^^ Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Member AIAA.

^^ Engineering Psychologist.

^^ Consultant, experimental psychology.

This paper is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject
to copyright protection in the United States.

## **Notations**

### FAA Federal Aviation Administration

PTS FAA Practical Test Standards

### RTO Rejected Take-Off

V~1~ Take-off decision speed; the minimum speed in the take-off,
following a failure of the critical engine, at which the pilot can
continue the take-off and achieve the required height above the take-off
surface within the take-off distance.

V~1~ cut Engine failure at or above V~1~ with continued take-off

V~2~ Take-off safety speed; a speed that will provide at least the
gradient of climb required by the airplane certification rules with the
critical engine inoperative.

PF Pilot Flying

PNF Pilot Not Flying

I/E Instructor/Evaluator

n Sample size

*p* Probability of null hypothesis (i.e., no effect of motion)

*r* Pearson correlation coefficient

STD Standard Deviation

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

This research effort is part of the Federal Aviation Administration\'s
(FAA) initiative towards promoting the availability and affordability of
flight simulators for U.S. commuter airline training.^2^ This initiative
becomes even more important as the FAA is proposing a rule that would
mandate the use of simulators for all air carrier training and
qualification, limiting the use of the aircraft itself as a training
option even for small regional airlines. However, there is a lack of
sound scientific data on the relationship between certain key training
device features, such as platform motion cuing, and their effect on the
transfer of performance to and from the airplane. This project will
develop a scientific basis to assure that FAA requirements promote full
transfer of pilot performance between simulator and airplane without
unnecessarily driving up cost. The data will also help the FAA to
evaluate air carrier proposals for the alternative use of other training
equipment in lieu of full flight simulators without compromising safety
objectives. The first stage of this multi-year project was a
state-of-the-art review of key aspects of flight simulation, involving
both FAA and Industry subject matter expert workshops^3,4^ and an
extensive literature review.^5,6,7^ Based on this review, an empirical
investigation of flight simulator requirements which seeks to correct
deficiencies in the research design of prior studies has been initiated.

The present study empirically examined the effect of platform motion
(i.e., FAA qualified Level C six-degree-of-freedom synergistic motion)
in the presence of a high-level visual system (i.e., wide-angle
collimated cross-cockpit) on pilot training and pilot evaluation. It
addressed the questions of whether the motion provided by an FAA
qualified Level C simulator affects 1) First Look evaluation of pilot
performance and behavior prior to any simulator practice, 2) the course
of Training in the simulator, and 3) the Transfer of training acquired
during training in the simulator with or without motion to the simulator
with motion as a stand-in for the airplane. The analysis also examined
whether the grading criteria used by the instructors/evaluators (I/Es)
were affected by the presence or absence of motion. The resolution of
the experiment was also considered, i.e., the power to find the effect
of motion if there is one.

**[Research Method]{.underline}**

The experiment used an FAA qualified Level C flight simulator, which
represents a 30 passenger, three crew, turboprop airplane with
wing-mounted twin engines and counter-rotating propellers. The six
degree-of-freedom synergistic motion system has hydraulically actuated
legs capable of a 60 inch stroke. The high quality visual system
provides wide angle collimated cross-cockpit viewing with a 150 degrees
horizontal and 40 degrees vertical field of view available to each
pilot.

The research was conducted with regional airline pilots in recurrent
training. Data were collected from 42 crews. Two experiments were
combined into one experimental session in order to minimize the
disruption to the host airline's training and evaluation program, as
well as to reduce pilot adaptation to a simulator configuration. Both
experiments investigated the need for platform motion in simulators,
focusing on different functions of the simulator. The first experiment,
First Look evaluation, examined the use of simulators as *evaluation*
tools of pilots' aviating skills. In other words, it assessed the degree
to which a pilot's existing skills transferred *from* the airplane *to*
the simulator, and whether this was affected by the motion state of the
simulator. This assessment needed to occur during the very initial
exposure of the crew to the simulator, so that pilots' behavior and
performance would reflect their actual skills in the airplane with as
little contamination as possible from potential adaptation to a
particular simulator configuration. The second experiment, Training and
Transfer testing, examined the use of simulators as *training* tools for
aviating skills, skills that would eventually need to be transferred to
the airplane. That is, the experiment assessed the degree to which
motion affected the training of skills and, most importantly, the
transfer of those skills to the airplane. Training transfer was measured
by comparing the effect of training received in the simulator, with and
without motion, on performance and behavior in the simulator with motion
(as a stand-in for the airplane, "quasi-transfer" design).

Two test maneuvers (i.e., pilot tasks) were chosen to maximize
satisfaction of criteria described in the literature as diagnostic for
the detection of a motion requirement, given the constraint that the
experiment was conducted in the context of an FAA approved training
program. These criteria included 1) closed loop, to allow for motion to
be part of the control feedback loop to the pilot; 2) unpredictable and
asymmetric disturbance, to highlight an early alerting function of
motion;^8^ 3) high gain and high thrust, to magnify any motion effects;
4) high workload with crosswind and low visibility, to increase the need
for redundant cues such as provided by motion, out-the-window view,
instruments and sound; and 5) short duration, to prevent pilots from
adjusting to a lack of cues. Engine failures on take-off with either
rejected take-off (RTO) or continued take-off (V~1~ cut) were deemed
fulfilling most of these criteria, while requiring minimum disruption to
the host airline\'s existing training program. To prevent bias, the
state of the motion system was kept concealed from all participants.

A laptop computer was programmed to control the simulator and record
events with minimal I/E intervention, eliminating the need for the
presence of an experimenter that might have contaminated the regular
training/evaluation environment. It also enabled the I/E to focus on
behavior and performance of the crew. Most importantly, it also
eliminated any need to inform the I/E (or the crew) of the interest in
motion and the motion state of the simulator for each maneuver, thus
minimizing any bias. To prevent the pilots from guessing which maneuvers
were to come during the final testing, they were given two normal
take-offs without being informed about the lack of engine failures, with
the motion platform still in its original configuration.

The chronology of an experimental session is explained next. First, the
crews did one V~1~ cut followed by one RTO (First Look evaluation). Half
of them did it with the motion system on (Motion group) and the other
half with the motion system off (No-Motion group). Any additional
training needed to reach the company standards for RTO and V~1~ cut came
next, with motion on or off depending on group. At most, there were two
additional training trials for each type of maneuver. After Training,
all participants filled out a questionnaire. This was followed by two
normal take-offs with the same motion configuration. Then the crews did
one last V~1~ cut followed by one last RTO with motion on for all crews
(Transfer). After Transfer testing, all participants filled out a second
questionnaire, to see whether their opinions had changed after all had
experienced motion.

The stimulation of the PF by the simulator and the pilots\' responses
were measured by recording 78 simulator state and control input
variables at a high sampling rate, resulting in a vast amount of
objective data on simulator performance and pilot performance and
behavior/workload. Two forms of subjective data were also collected.
First, at the conclusion of each maneuver the I/E provided a grade for
the just-completed maneuver. Second, as already mentioned in the
previous paragraph, at the end of the training period and again at the
end of the transfer period all participants were queried on PF
performance and workload as well as simulator comfort and acceptability.
From this set of data, four types of results were obtained: 1) the
motion stimulation at the PF station, 2) the effect of motion on the
performance of the PFs as perceived by the I/Es and reflected in their
grading, 3) the relationship between I/E grades and the objective
measures of pilot performance/workload and whether this relationship was
affected by motion; and 4) the effect of motion on measured performance
and workload of the PFs, and the effect of motion on participants
opinion regarding PF performance /workload and simulator comfort and
acceptability.

**[Motion Stimulation Provided by the Test Simulator]{.underline}**

For the test simulator, the actually measured roll and longitudinal
accelerations followed the airplane model fairly well given the
limitations inherent to all simulators. For vertical acceleration,
however, the motion system of the test simulator did not respond much to
the command provided by the equations of motion. This is especially true
for V~1~ cut maneuvers. However, because the engine failures used in our
experiment do not produce much vertical acceleration, the lack of
vertical acceleration cuing may not be very important.

More important, however, is the finding that failure-induced lateral
acceleration was not well represented by the motion system of the test
simulator. Not only was it greatly attenuated, but visual inspection of
the measured response does not lead to an easy distinction of
failure-induced lateral acceleration, unlike the response derived from
the equations of motion (relatively high peak shortly after engine
failure).^7^ This may represent a significant deficiency in pilot
stimulation, because lateral acceleration may act as a useful cue for
proper failure recognition and for initiation of appropriate response.
Further research, however, still need to be done to examine the
importance of lateral versus other cues in failure recognition.

**[I/E Grades]{.underline}**

The grade distribution obtained by the two groups at First Look
evaluation and Transfer is depicted in Fig. 1. The possible grades were
1 (unsatisfactory), 2 (FAA Practical Test Standards (PTS)^9^), 3
(company standards), and 4 (excellent). The experimental sessions
appeared to have been effective in simulating a real training session in
that the crews\' performance improved across the session. Specifically,
combining the two motion groups (or looking at them individually), the
grades for RTOs and V~1~ cuts improved across the training trials. This
was even stronger for the V~1~ cuts, which elicited lower grades than
the RTOs during First Look, but caught up by Transfer.

Platform motion had no effect on the grades that were provided by the
I/Es at any time for either the RTO or the V~1~ cut or for the normal
take-offs. That is, platform motion did not affect First Look evaluation
in the simulator, nor did it affect the grades at Transfer to the
simulator with motion. The latter was true when comparing the group
means and the number of low vs. high grades in each group (i.e., grades
of 3 and 4 vs. grades of 1 and 2). However, on V~1~ cut at Transfer the
crews which previously had motion did receive more grades of 2 than the
crews who had not previously had motion, and fewer grades of 1 (none
actually). Despite this single effect of motion, there was no effect of
motion on the course of Training or on the amount of Training required
before reaching the criterion needed to move onto Transfer for either of
the maneuvers. For the complete statistical analyses, see Ref. 7.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.827777777777778in"
height="3.029166666666667in"}

[Fig. 1 Grade Distribution]{.underline}

**[Measured Performance and Workload of pilot flying]{.underline}**

From the 78 variables recorded in the experiment, a set of criterion
measures was derived for determining whether or not motion had an effect
on training and evaluation of the tested pilot task. These were
categorized into performance and workload/behavior measures. Performance
measures reflect a pilot\'s control precision and efficiency in handling
the airplane by measurements such as flight path deviations and reaction
time. Workload/behavior measures describe how a pilot uses the controls
by measurement of control inputs. A guide to the determination of the
measures was provided by the PTS and by the company standards of the
host airline itself. An additional goal was to capture performance and
workload immediately after the engine failure, because disturbance
motion was expected to act as an alerting cue to the pilots that would
enhance early performance. The list of the measures can be seen in Ref.
7. Most of the measures were computed over the 15 second time period
following an engine failure. Exceptions include measures of reaction
times and Time to Reach 400 ft Altitude. In general, lower numerical
values of the measures indicate better performance or lower workload.

The effect of motion on First Look evaluation, Transfer of training to
the simulator, Training progress, and improvement from last training
trial to Transfer testing was examined. Because the I/Es shared the
motion platform with the pilots, and thus might have been affected by
the motion status of the simulator in their grading criteria, the
relationship between I/E grades and the objective measures was examined
by performing regression analyses. In addition to determining whether
the presence or absence of motion influenced which measures I/Es
considered for grading, these analyses helped to determine criterion
measures.

In this paper, only measures that are either listed in the PTS, were
used by the instructors for grading, or showed an effect of motion are
discussed. See Ref. 7 for a full report on all the analyses. For each
measure, the statistical power was determined (i.e., the smallest effect
that could be detected given the idiosyncratic variability between crews
with a probability of .80). The power of the experiment was found to be
sufficient to capture any operationally relevant effects.

**[Relationship Between Objective Measures and I/E Grades]{.underline}**

Linear and logistic regression analyses on the relationship between the
grades and the objective measures were used to infer the I/Es\' grading
criteria and whether the platform motion had an affect on these
criteria. Although the logistic regression was considered to be more
appropriate for cases involving ordinal data (like the grading system
used here), the results of both regression analyses were quite similar.
The regression models obtained were not meant to model I/E\'s decision
process in determining the grades, which is actually very complex. They
were only used to examine whether any available measures contributed to
the I/E\'s grading criteria.

For RTOs, regardless of whether the platform motion was on or off, the
measures of lateral and heading deviations played an important role in
predicting I/E grades. For V~1~ cuts, the results of the regression
analyses suggest that the platform motion status may affect grading. In
both motion-on and motion-off conditions, lateral measures seemed to
affect I/E grades. However, the level of importance of other types of
measures in the I/Es\' grading criteria depended on the status of the
platform motion. Notably, longitudinal measures appeared to matter
mainly when the platform motion was on.

Given that I/Es may have used different grading criteria dependent on
motion status, the effect of motion on grades before Transfer testing
may have been masked. This appears to be a possibility at least for V~1~
cuts, where the No-Motion pilots would have been able to get away with
worse performance on longitudinal measures. Later findings from the
objective data analysis, however, showed that the differences in the
longitudinal performance between the two groups were negligible.
Moreover, the regression models obtained accounted for only a small
portion of the variance in the grades. These findings render the
possibility that differences between the grades assigned to the two
groups were masked unlikely.

**[First Look Evaluation, RTOs]{.underline}**

####### As shown in Fig. 2,[^1] the presence of motion significantly improved yaw performance of the pilots (indicated by Integrated Yaw Activity, which is the integral of the absolute yaw rate for 15 seconds after engine failure). No effects of motion, however, were found on any other performance or workload measures, including performance in heading and lateral deviations (Fig. 2), which strongly related to I/E grades. This indicates that the presence of motion did not affect First Look evaluation of RTOs in any operationally relevant manner. 

**[First Look Evaluation, V~1~ Cuts]{.underline}**

No statistically significant differences for either performance or
workload measures were found between groups as a function of motion for
First Look evaluation of V~1~ cuts, although the Motion group was found
to control pitch angle marginally more steadily than the No-Motion group
(*p*\<.1) (Fig. 3). Physically, however, this difference was less than
one degree in average STD. Moreover, this slight advantage in pitch
angle control was not accompanied by improvements in any of the other
longitudinal performance measures. This, together with the fact that
there was practically no simple correlation between STD Pitch Angle of
Motion pilots and grades (*r*^2^=.01), and even the stepwise regression
model selecting three more longitudinal measures accounts for no more
than 30 percent of the variance in the grades, suggests that the
platform motion would not affect what grades PFs achieve during First
Look evaluation. This result also validates the subjective grade results
presented earlier.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="2.5in" height="2.05in"}

*p*=.033

![](media/image3.wmf){width="2.5in" height="2.09375in"}

*p*=.126

![](media/image4.wmf){width="2.7in" height="2.2020833333333334in"}

> *p*=.906

[Fig 2 RTO First Look: Directional Performance]{.underline}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="2.5in" height="2.0236111111111112in"}

####### 

*p*=.096

[Fig. 3 V~1~ Cut First Look STD Pitch Angle]{.underline}

**[Training Transfer, RTOs]{.underline}**

Training Transfer was tested for all crews on the simulator with motion
activated as a stand-in for the airplane. Despite the fact that the
Motion crews were trained and tested on the same simulator
configuration, they did not do any better than the No-Motion crews with
any RTO performance and workload measure. Additionally, the power of the
experiment was generally higher after training, and still no effects of
prior motion were found. One *caveat* is that for heading control,
although there was no difference between the two groups, more No-Motion
crews improved than Motion crews between the last training and the
Transfer testing (Fig. 4). This may indicate an effect of adding motion,
although during Transfer testing the two groups performed at the same
level (as just described).

![](media/image6.wmf){width="2.7in" height="1.8993055555555556in"}

*p*=.014

![](media/image7.wmf){width="0.7in" height="0.475in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="2.7in" height="1.8472222222222223in"}

*p*=.033

[Fig. 4 RTO Last Training vs. Transfer: Directional Control
Performance]{.underline}

**[Training Transfer, V~1~ Cuts]{.underline}**

In terms of performance, the most notable differences between the two
groups were on Integrated Airspeed Exceedance (the integral of the
absolute airspeed deviation outside the (0,+5 knots) band from the
recommended V~2~) and STD Pitch Angle. The Motion group controlled
airspeed better (*p=*.006) at the expense of increased STD Pitch Angle
(*p=*.025) (Fig. 5). Physically this can be interpreted as the Motion
group controlling airspeed more successfully by adjusting pitch angle
more aggressively than the No-Motion group. Note that speed control is
critical in V~1~ cuts, because it involves safety (e.g. for clearing
obstacle and maintaining a margin above stall speed). The Motion group
also displayed higher Integrated Yaw Activity compared to the No-Motion
group (*p=*.024) (Fig. 6). However, this did not appear to result in any
differences in heading control or other directional performance
measures. No other statistically significant performance differences
were found.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="2.604861111111111in"
height="2.1034722222222224in"}

*p*=.006

![](media/image10.wmf){width="2.59375in" height="2.109722222222222in"}

*p*=.025

[Fig. 5 V~1~ Cut Transfer: Longitudinal Performance]{.underline}

With regard to workload during V~1~ cuts, the Motion group had fewer
wheel reversals than the No-Motion group (*p*=.059), whereas the
No-Motion group had fewer pedal reversals than the Motion group
(*p*=.008) (Fig. 7). The increased number of Wheel Reversals of the
No-Motion group was not accompanied by any lateral performance
differences. The increased number of pedal reversals of the Motion
group, however, was accompanied by an increase in Integrated Yaw
Activity, as was discussed earlier. The difference was not apparent at
First Look, nor did a combined Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of
Motion/No-Motion by First Look vs. Transfer find a significant
interaction, probably due to the variability in number of pedal
reversals for the Motion group during First Look. The questionnaire data
indicated that the Motion group felt the pedal was less like the
airplane than the No-Motion group did.

Although a few statistically significant differences between the groups
trained with and without motion were found during V~1~ cut Transfer
testing, the size of these differences on average were only about 1.5
knots exceedance per second for airspeed, half a degree RMS for pitch
angle deviation, and half a degree per second for yaw rate. Such
differences are very small compared to about 110 knots desired nominal
airspeed and about 10 degrees nominal pitch angle during climb, and may
be considered operationally irrelevant.

![](media/image11.wmf){width="2.8in" height="2.2979166666666666in"}

*p*=.024

![](media/image12.wmf){width="2.6in" height="2.0930555555555554in"}

*p*=.354

[Fig. 6 V~1~ Cut Transfer: Directional Performance]{.underline}

**[Training Progress, RTOs]{.underline}**

No statistically significant differences in improvement from first to
last training trial were found between groups for any of the measures
(all *p*\>.2). This suggests that the platform motion did not affect the
training progress of the pilots.

Also, the overall number of crews (Motion and No-Motion) improving in
lateral performance and workload measures was significant for most
measures, with the exception of Integrated Yaw Activity with no overall
improvement and pedal reversals, which actually increased after
training. When looking at the groups separately for these two measures,
neither of the groups shows any improvement or deterioration. This
confirms that the pilots generally did improve during training
regardless of the motion status of the simulator.

![](media/image13.wmf){width="2.604861111111111in"
height="2.1381944444444443in"}

*p*=.059

![](media/image14.wmf){width="2.6in" height="2.154166666666667in"}

*p*=.008

[Fig. 7 V~1~ Cut Transfer: Wheel and Pedal Reversals]{.underline}

**[Training Progress, V~1~ Cuts]{.underline}**

The course of training for V~1~ cuts reflected the Transfer results. For
longitudinal control during V~1~ cuts, motion improved Training progress
for speed control (Integrated Airspeed Exceedance), but at the cost of
pitch angle control (STD Pitch Angle) (Fig. 8). Progress in directional
control (i.e., RMS Heading Deviation, Integrated Heading Exceedance, and
Maximum Heading Deviation) was also negatively affected by the presence
of motion during Training (*p*\<.1). The Training progress on lateral
control was not affected by the presence or absence of motion. Also,
there was no difference for workload between the two motion groups.

The data indicate that the No-Motion group improved on more measures
than the Motion group. While Motion crews improved in Integrated
Airspeed Exceedance and STD Column Position only, the No-Motion crews
improved in Integrated Bank Angle Exceedance, Heading Deviation, Time to
Reach 400 ft Altitude, and STD Pitch Angle. During Transfer, however,
the No-Motion group surpassed the Motion group only with steadier pitch
angle and yaw activity; and the actual size of these differences was
very small.

The above discussion indicates that the training without motion was at
least as effective as the training with motion, and the earlier results
on Transfer show that although some differences were found in training
progress between the two groups, they did not translate into
operationally relevant differences during Transfer.

![](media/image15.wmf){width="2.7in" height="1.8458333333333334in"}

*p*=.023

![](media/image7.wmf){width="0.7in" height="0.475in"}

![](media/image16.wmf){width="2.7in" height="1.8472222222222223in"}

*p*=.089

[Fig. 8 V~1~ Cut First vs. Last Training: Longitudinal
Performance]{.underline}

**[QUESTIONNAIRE DATA]{.underline}**

Each of the PFs and PNFs was given two questionnaires (i.e., one after
Training and one after Transfer) that each had six questions (i.e.,
control precision, workload, gaining proficiency, simulator comfort and
acceptability). Each I/E was also given two questionnaires, each with
five questions (i.e., the same questions as above, but without
acceptability). PFs responded always with reference to themselves. PNFs
and I/Es referred to the PFs, with the exception of comfort and, for the
PNF, acceptability.

Despite all of these questions, only four differences were found between
the Motion and No-Motion crews. 1) After Training, the PNFs from the
No-Motion crews rated the control precision of the PFs better than the
PNFs from the Motion crews did. 2) The PFs from the No-Motion crews,
once transferred to the simulator with motion, rated their control
precision higher than their motion-trained counterparts. This is
possibly because of the contrast between the added motion and the lack
of motion they had been experiencing. 3) In contrast, after Transfer,
the I/Es gave higher ratings for performance to the PFs from the Motion
group than to the PFs from the No-Motion group. 4) Looking across both
questionnaires, the PFs from the No-Motion crews gave better ratings to
the simulator for training ("gaining proficiency") than the PFs from the
Motion crews.

All together the subjective responses of the pilots and the I/Es did not
indicate that the motion used in this study had any impact on the PFs'
performance. It also had very minimal impact on the pilots' perception
of their own performance, workload, ability to gain proficiency,
comfort, or their acceptability of the simulator.

**[CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}**

The results of this study indicate that the motion provided by the test
simulator, which may or may not be typical of other FAA qualified Level
C flight simulators, does not, in an operationally significant way for
the tasks tested, affect either First Look evaluation, Training
progress, or Transfer of training acquired in the simulator with or
without motion to the simulator with motion. It also doesn't
consistently affect the PFs', PNFs', and I/Es' subjective perception of
the PFs' performance, workload, and training, or of their own comfort in
the simulator. Neither does it affect the acceptability of the simulator
to the PF and the PNF.

Two *caveats* have to be kept in mind, however. First, the simulator
used in this study may not have provided sufficient motion stimulation
to be effective. The measurements indicate that the simulator may have
failed to provide lateral acceleration cuing representative of the
aircraft for the test maneuvers (RTO and V~1~ cut).

A second *caveat* is that the current study used the simulator with
motion as a stand-in for the airplane. Although some may believe that
this quasi-transfer design needs to be validated, others say that
high-level simulators have been validated as a stand-in for the airplane
by many years of use of the simulator for total flight training. Also,
given that the motion-trained group transferred to the same simulator
configuration that they had been trained in, whereas the No-Motion group
transferred to a configuration that was new to them (i.e., the motion
configuration), the Motion group should have had an advantage. Based on
the quasi-transfer results, it is unlikely that it would have had a
greater advantage transferring to an airplane.

Clearly additional steps must be taken to determine the extent to which
it may or may not be appropriate to draw generalizations from these
results. These should include a comparison of the objective measures
from the motion system used in this experiment with such measures taken
from other FAA qualified Level C simulators to determine whether or not
the motion used in the present study is representative. This should be
followed by an investigation on whether operationally relevant effects
of motion would be found with a simulator where the motion is
manipulated to assure that it is representative of the airplane for the
maneuvers selected. Additional maneuvers that may be diagnostic and a
different pilot population should be tested as well. Ideally, some
validation of the quasi-transfer design with a real airplane would also
be undertaken.

**[ACKNOWLEDGMENTS]{.underline}**

This work was funded by the Office of the Chief Scientist for Human
Factors of the Federal Aviation Administration, AAR-100. The FAA Program
Manager was Dr. Eleana Edens. The manager of the FAA Advanced
Qualification Program Dr. Thomas Longridge identified the need for this
work. We thank them for their guidance throughout the project.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation
Administration, or the U.S. Government.

**[References]{.underline}**

1.  Bürki-Cohen, J., Boothe, E.M., Soja, N.N., DiSario, R.D., Go, T.,
    and Longridge, T., "Simulator Fidelity---The Effect of Platform
    Motion," proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society conference on
    Flight Simulation---The Next Decade, London, May 2000.

2.  Longridge, T., Ray, P., Boothe, E.M., and Bürki-Cohen, J.,
    "Initiative Towards More Affordable Flight Simulators for U.S.
    Commuter Airline Training," paper presented at the Royal
    Aeronautical Society Conference on Training---Lowering the Cost,
    Maintaining the Fidelity, London, May 1996.

3.  Transcript[^2] of the Joint FAA/Industry Symposium on Level B
    Airplane Simulator Aeromodel Validation Requirements, Washington
    Dulles Airport Hilton, March 13-14, 1996.

4.  Transcript^\#^ of the Joint FAA/Industry Symposium on Level B
    Airplane Simulator Motion Requirements, Washington Dulles Airport
    Hilton, June 19-20, 1996.

5.  Bürki-Cohen, J., Soja, N., and Longridge, T., "Simulator Fidelity
    Requirements: The Case of Platform Motion," paper presented at the
    International Training and Education Conference and Exhibition,
    Lausanne, Switzerland, 1998.

6.  Bürki-Cohen, J., Soja, N., and Longridge, T., "Simulator Platform
    Motion---The Need Revisited," The International Journal of Aviation
    Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1998, pp. 293-317.

7.  Bürki-Cohen, J., Soja, N.N., Go, T.H., Boothe, E.M., DiSario, R.,
    and Jo, Y.J., "Simulator Fidelity: The Effect of Platform Motion,"
    Report No. DOT/FAA/RD-00/XX, in preparation.

8.  Gundry, J., "Man and Motion Cues," paper presented at the Third
    Flight Simulation Symposium, London, April, 1976.

9.  Federal Aviation Administration, "Airline Transport Pilot and Type
    Rating Practical Test Standards," FAA-S-8081-5B, U.S. Government
    Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July 1995.

[^1]: ^^ In this and subsequent figures, numbers next to data points
    refer to sample size.

[^2]: ^^ Available in electronic format from Dr. Thomas Longridge,
    Advanced Qualification Program Manager, AFS-230, tel. (703) 661-0275