Disorientation Training in FAA-Certificated Flight September 1977 

and Ground Schools: A Survey 6. Performing Organization Code 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

7. Authorls)W'll' E 1 1am • Collins, A. Howard Hasbrook, 

Amelia 0. Lennon and Dorothv J. Gav 

9, Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, s.w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washinaton D.C. 20591 

15. Supplementary Notes 

This survey was conducted under Tasks AM-D-74/75-PSY-33. 

16. Abstract 

A 10-item, voluntary questionnaire answered by 674 flight and ground schools 

provided information on (l) the conduct of formal instruction about disorientation, 

(2) the occurrence and content of lectures on disorientation, (3) use of 

on-the-ground demonstrations of disorientation, (4) use of in-the-air 

demonstrations of disorientation, (5) use of films on pilot vertigo, (6) amount of 

instrument flying training students receive, (7) amount of instrument flying 

training required of flight instructors to maintain their proficiency, 

(8) adequacy of the school's program on disorientation training, (9) other comments, 

and (lO) numerical data regarding the number of students beginning and completing 

various flight and/or ground school courses. 

More than one-third of the respondents evaluated their disorientation training 

program as inadequate and defined the inadequacy most often as a lack of 

appropriate materials, aids, and information. Tabulations of responses to the 

separate items suggested areas for improvement in disorientation training. 

Recommendations were made. 

17. KeyWords 18. Distribution Statement 

Spatial Disorientation Document is available to the U.S. public 

Pilot Training through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

19. Security Classil. (of this report) 20. Security Clossil. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 12 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
I. Introduction: The Spatial Disorientation Problem in Civil Aviation. 

Disorientation refers, in general, to an incorrect appraisal of an 

individual's position, location, or movement. In aviation, the incorrect 

appraisal specifically relates to the attitude (orientation) or motion of the 

pilot and his plane with respect to the earth (1). On some occasions, 

disorientation in the air consists of true vertigo (sensations of rotary 

motion of the external world or of the individual) and/or dizziness (sensations 

of unsteadiness with a feeling of movement within the head). Indeed, the 

three terms "disorientation," "vertigo," and "dizziness" are frequently (if 

inaccurately) used interchangeably to describe a variety of symptoms, such as 

false sensations of turning, of linear velocity, or of tilt. When referred to 

by pilots, "vertigo" almost invariably means their awareness of any of the 

various forms of disorientation. Thus, "pilot vertigo" and the more technical 

term "spatial disorientation" are virtually synonymous in the language of 

pilots. In fact, the current Flight Instructor's Handbook issued by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines vertigo as "a disorientation in 

space" (5). 

According to the most recent annual review (1975) of aircraft accident 

data, 15 percent of all fatal general aviation accidents with assigned causes 

are attributable to spatial disorientation (12). This proportion may be an 

underestimate; spatial disorientation, or pilot vertigo, is probably the major 

factor in the 20 percent of 1975 fatal general aviation accidents attributed 

to pilots attempting to continue a visual flight rules (VFR) flight into 

adverse weather conditions requiring instrument flight rules (IFR). The 

latter situation presents an ideal opportunity for the development of spatial 

disorientation in flight, since disorientation usually occurs because of loss 

of visual reference with the terrain or horizon. In this regard, it is of 

more than passing interest that during the period from 1970 through 1975 

approximately 20 percent of all fatal accidents of non-instrument-rated 

pilots were attributed to spatial disorientation; less than 7 percent of the 

fatal accidents of instrument-rated pilots were assigned this cause. Moreover, 

a recent review (ll) of statistics on the role of spatial disorientation in 

fatal civil aviation accidents during the 5-year period from 1970 through 1974 

indicated that (i) 90 percent of all spatial disorientation accidents were 

fatal and (ii) 35 percent of fatal weather-related accidents involved spatial 

disorientation. 

Because the proportion of fatal general aviation accidents attributed to 

disorientation and continuation of VFR flight into IFR conditions has remained 

l 
aviation pilots is adequate or needs improvement and, if the latter, how it 

might be improved. 

II. Method. 

A 10-item questionnaire (OMB 04-S73015) was used in the survey. The 

questions related to the: (i) conduct of formal instruction on 

disorientation, (ii) occurrence and content of lectures on disorientation, 

(iii) use of on-the-ground demonstrations of disorientation, (iv) use of 

in-the-air demonstrations of disorientation, (v) use of films on pilot vertigo, 

(vi) amount of instrument flying training students receive, (vii) amount of 

instrument flying training required of flight instructors to maintain their 

proficiency, (viii) adequacy of the school's program on disorientation 

training, (ix) other comments, and (x) numerical data regarding the number of 

students beginning and completing various flight and/or ground school courses. 

A total of 1,269 schools were selected from 2,541 given in the FAA List of 

Certificated Pilot Flight and Ground Schools (6). All schools that taught 

both basic and advanced ground school courses and also provided training for 

all four of the major ratings (private, commercial, instrument, and flight 

instructor) were sampled. In addition, a few schools that met all the above 

requirements except for that of advanced ground school were also selected 

(10.6 percent of the sample). Voluntary questionnaires with preaddressed, 

return-postage-paid envelopes were mailed in 1973 to the selected schools. 

Within 2 months of the mailing date, 30.7 percent of the questionnaires had 

been returned. A followup letter was then mailed to those schools that had not 

responded; 33.8 percent of these subsequently returned completed questionnaires. 

Thus, 719 schools returned questionnaires during 1973-74 (56.7 percent); of 

the questionnaires returned, 674 (94.0 percent) were useful, 7 were blank, and 

38 were unusable because the schools had either closed or no longer provided 

pilot training. 

The ''yes-no" answers to the questionnaire were tallied. Responses to 

open end questions were examined by two raters, empirical categories were 

established, and each response was assigned to the most suitable category 

by the raters. 

III. Results. 

Schools. Responding schools averaged 60 trainees per year in private 

pilot courses, 27 in commercial, 17 in instrument, 14 in multiengine, and 

13 in instrument-instructor courses. Trainees in the multiengine courses 

were estimated to have the highest rate of successful course completion 

2 
TABLE 1. Responses to Questions on the Use by 674 

Flight Schools of Formal Instruction (Lectures, 

Films, and Demonstrations) on Disorientation 

Schools Responding (%) 

Yes No Blank 

Any formal instruction 

To students 83 16 1 

To instructors 62 34 4 

Lectures 

To students 74 24 2 

To instructors 52 42 6 

Ground based demonstrations 

To students 33 64 3 

To instructors 30 53 17 

In-flight demonstrations 

To students 82 11 7 

To instructors 52 30 18 

Films 34 60 6 

Formal Instruction. Table l indicates that 83 percent of the responding 

flying schools reported they provide students with some type of formal 

instruction on disorientation (e.g., lectures, structured demonstrations, 

films). Fewer schools (62 percent) provide some type of formal instruction 

for their flight instructors. 

Lectures. Seventy-four percent of the schools reported g1v1ng lectures on 

pilot vertigo to students while 52 percent provided lectures for instructors 

(Table 1). Of the 496 schools that reported giving lectures on pilot vertigo 

to trainees, most indicated that the lectures defined vertigo and explained 

the problems associated with it; multiple responses to this item were common. 

Lectures on the misleading cues a pilot can receive, such as illusions and 

flying problems associated with weather conditions, were cited by 127 schools; 

3 
Lecture Time Schools Responding (%) 

Up to 30 minutes 22 

30 - 60 minutes 24 

1 - 2 hours 16 

2 - 3 hours 7 

Longer than 3 hours 4 

Indefinite 12 

No response 11 

TABLE 3. Time at Which Lectures on Disorientation Were Given by 

Flight Schools in the Sequence of 

Ground School Hours and Actual Flying Hours 

Hours Ground School (%) Actual Flying (%) 

Lectures Given During: 

First 5 7 18 

5 - 10 11 13 

10 - 20 23 20 

20 - 50 21 8 

Indefinite 16 13 

No response 22 28 

4 
vertigo, the senses, panic, noise, spins, and the need to trust instruments. 

The most frequently reported allocations of time for lecturing (Table 2) were 

up to 30 minutes (22 percent) and between 30 to 60 minutes (24 percent). 

Twenty-three percent of the schools stated that lectures on vertigo or 

disorientation were given after 10 to 20 hours of ground school and 21 percent 

gave lectures after 20 to 50 hours; these were the most frequently used 

response categories. With regard to flying time, 18 percent gave lectures 

prior to any flying time or within the first 5 hours, 13 percent lectured 

between 5 and 10 hours of flying time, and 20 percent lectured between 10 and 

20 hours of flying time (Table 3). 

With regard to the occurrence of lectures on disorientation for flight 

instructors, the responses were divided into different categories. Ninetyeight schools (28 percent) specified that instructors receive disorientation 

lectures on special occasions, such as at FAA flight safety meetings. Ninetytwo (26 percent) listed specific frequencies with which lectures occurred; 

e.g., once a year, at annual renewal clinics, during quarterly or weekly 

meetings. Eighty-one (23 percent) answered that their instructors received 

lectures at some time during their own training, during licensing, as student 

instructors, during various classes, etc. The remaining schools gave general 

answers suggesting that lectures are informal, are not scheduled at any 

specific time, or are provided as needed. 

Films on Pilot Vertigo. Only 34 percent of the schools reported using 

motion picture films in their training programs. The 228 titles (and title 

facsimiles) cited by these users are shown in Table 4. About half the film 

material originated with the FAA and several of the schools reporting 

facsimile titles (particularly "alcohol, drugs, and flight effects" and 

"oxygen, altitude, and the body") may have been referring to other FAA films. 

Thirty schools specifically listed the Sanderson films, 26 listed the Cessna 

Course films, and 10 schools each noted the Moody Institute film (by either an 

earlier or a revised title) and the Piper film. In 90 percent of these cases, 

the films accompanied lectures and demonstrations. 

Ground Demonstrations of Disorientation. Thirty-three percent of the 

schools gave ground demonstrations of disorientation-causing illusions to their 

students; 30 percent gave demonstrations to their flight instructors. The 

most common device employed for these demonstrations was some type of spinning 

chair, either one of the school's own devices (including a barber's chair) or 

a device demonstrated during an FAA meeting. Of the 282 responses (several 

schools gave more than one response), 170 (60 percent) indicated reliance on 

FAA or United States Air Force (USAF) physiological training. Moreover, only 

about half (53 percent) of the schools that responded positively stated that 

5 
Titles 

1. Federal Aviation Administration 

FAA films (titles unspecified) 

"Medical Facts for Pilots" 

"One Eye on the Instruments" 

"Charlie" 

"Vertigo" and "Vertigo and Vision" 

(actual title: "Disorientation") 

"It Only Takes Once" 

"Stable and Safe" 

"Aviation Medicine" 

"Rx for Flight" 

2. Sanderson films 

3. Cessna course film 

4. U.S. Air Force (or other military) films 

(56) 

(20) 

(13) 

(7) 

(7) 

(4) 

(2) 

(2) 

(1) 

5. Moody film ("Freedom in Flight" or "Signposts Aloft") 

6. Piper film 

7. Aero Product Research ("Sensations of Instrument Flight") 

8. Audiovisual aids 

9. Alcohol, drugs, and flight effects 

10. Felsenthal A-V slides 

11. Oxygen, altitude, and the body 

12. AOPA 360 rating course 

13. Michigan Aeronautics Commission film 

14. Man and safety 

15. "Why Instrument Training?" (Flying Physicians Association) 

6 

No. Schools 

112 

30 

26 

15 

10 

10 

7 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

228 
demonstrations for their flight instructors, almost half (44 percent) of such 

demonstrations involved attendance at FAA courses. 

Disorientation Problems Demonstrated in the Air. Eighty-two percent of 

the schools gave their students specific disorientation demonstrations in the 

air, and at 52 percent of the schools the flight instructors received in-flight 

demonstrations (Table 1). Of these schools, most listed more than one form of 

demonstration. Of 609 responses, about 55 percent specified vertigo-producing 

maneuvers and 33 percent cited demonstrations with the trainee "under the hood" 

or "flying blind." 

Hours of Instrument Flying Training (Air or Hood) Received. Responses to 

this item appear in Table 5. The data may be summarized as follows: Private 

pilot students received 2-5 hours of instrument flying training in 59 percent 

TABLE 5. Hours of In-Flight Instrument Flying Training Provided 

by Flying Schools for Five Categories of Instruction 

Courses 

Instrument- MultiInstrument Private Commercial Instrument Instructor engine 

Hours (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

< 2 2 0.3 0 0.2 19 

2 - 5 59 0 0.2 1 21 

5 - 10 29 3 0.7 7 8 

10 - 20 1 83 0.2 35 3 

20 - 40 0 4 34 26 0.2 

40 - 60 0 0 50 3 0.2 

60 - 100 0.2 0.3 3 2 0.3 

Blank 8 9 11 23 46 

Nonspecific 0.7 0.5 0.3 2 2 

7 
flying training; 50 percent of the schools indicated that they gave students 

40-60 hours of instrument flight training and 34 percent gave 20-40 hours. 

The number of blank responses was greatest for the instrument-instructor 

(23 percent) and multiengine (46 percent) courses, probably because some 

schools rarely or never give these courses. However, 35 percent of the 

schools reported giving students in the instrument-instructor courses 10-20 

hours of instrument flying training while 26 percent said they provided 20-40 

hours. With regard to multiengine courses, 19 percent of the schools gave 

students less than 2 hours of instrument flying training while 21 percent 

gave 2-5 hours. 

Actual or Simulated Hours of Instrument Flying That Flight Instructors 

Were Required to Fly to Maintain Their Proficiency Ratings. Responses to 

this item varied considerably among schools. Significant findings can be 

summarized as follows: Only 27 percent of the schools indicated a requirement for a specific number of hours utilizing some form of flight simulator. 

Actual flight requirements were in accordance with Federal Aviation 

Regulations (Part 61) in the majority of cases, but 47 percent of the schools 

reported requirements exceeding those of the FAA (8). 

Adequacy of Current Disorientation Training. Sixty percent of the 

sampled schools reported their disorientation training program was adequate 

and 35 percent stated their program was inadequate; 5 percent did not 

respond. Almost 90 percent of those who described their program as 

inadequate commented on the deficiencies, which were primarily a lack of 

training materials. Seventy percent of these schools said they needed 

instructional aids, films, equipment (such as a rotating chair), and more 

"handout" information. 

Additional Comments. Only 28 schools provided additional open end 

comments. Ten of these schools specifically indicated Federal Aviation 

Regulations should be improved in regard to disorientation training, and six 

others suggested the need for more FAA help (e.g., more visits from the 

General Aviation District Office (GADO) safety inspectors, more information). 

The 12 remaining comments were varied in nature. 

IV. Overview. 

Although it is clear that spatial disorientation is a significant factor 

in general aviation fatal accidents, 16 percent of the flying schools sampled 

indicated they did not provide their students with any type of formal 

instruction (lectures, films, demonstrations) on the topic and almost 

one-fourth of the schools indicated they gave no lectures on pilot vertigo. 

8 
best figures becausy of the criteria used in selecting the sample of 

schools; the selected schools provide the widest range of training and, 

conceivably, should be among the best staffed and best equipped. Similarly, 

facilities and training aids would not likely be available to "free lance" 

flight inspectors who are not affiliated with a school. 

Ground-school training can include disorientation demonstrations, but only 

one-third of the schools provided such training; more than 70 percent of those 

schools relied on FAA or USAF facilities or equipment. In these latter cases, 

only about half the students were given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the disorientation experience. Although the majority of schools 

reported disorientation demonstrations in flight, 11 percent indicated they 

provided no such experience for students. 

With regard to flight instructors, more than one-third of the schools 

provided no formalized training of any sort on disorientation and more than 

40 percent gave no lectures to their instructors. Even among those schools 

reporting lectures for their flight instructors, about one-fourth indicated 

the instructors were exposed to the material when they were licensed, when 

they were being trained, or when they were instructing new students. Another 

25 percent of the schools reported their flight instructors were exposed to 

disorientation lectures only when an opportunity arose to attend an 

FAA-sponsored meeting that included the topic. Similarly, of the 30 percent 

of schools that indicated they provided their flight instructors with 

ground-based demonstrations, nearly half depended on FAA courses. More 

schools (52 percent) provided instructors with in-flight demonstrations of 

disorientation. 

An area of instruction that should be clearly related to disorientation is 

instrument flight training. Almost half the schools required more of their 

flight instructors than the minimal currency requirements of the FAA. With 

regard to trainees, the amount of instrument flying training varied, as would 

be expected, with type of course. In private pilot courses, more than half 

the schools gave 2-5 hours of instrument training (2 percent of the schools 

gave less than 2 hours) while 83 percent of the schools gave 10-20 hours to 

commercial students. For instrument courses, the number of hours of instrument 

training jumped to 40-60 for half the schools (and less than thqt for the 

remainder of those reporting). Because relatively few students enroll in 

instrument-instructor and multiengine courses and because many schools 

provide no instruction in the latter, data regarding these samples are based 

on a smaller number of responses. However, of the schools responding, 10-20 

hours of instrument training were most often provided in the instrumentinstructor courses and the vast majority of responses regarding the 

multiengine courses were about equally divided between less than 2 hours and 

2-5 hours of airborne instrument practice. 

9 
V. Comments and Recommendations. 

As noted elsewhere (2), most incidents and fatal accidents related to 

spatial disorientation (or pilot vertigo) in general aviation are probably 

attributable to normal functioning of the pilot's vestibular and visual 

systems in the absence of earthbound visual references coupled with 

inadequate instrument flying skills and questionable judgment about safe 

flying conditions. While it may be difficult to teach good judgment 

directly, certainly the causes of disorientation, the disorientation-induced 

dangers associated with flying in poor visibility and/or IFR conditions, the 

need to acknowledge to oneself when an orientation problem exists, and the 

ways to overcome disorientation in flight could be meaningfully presented to 

all student pilots and "graduate" trainees. A combination of appropriate 

lectures, films, and demonstrations could accomplish this objective, but the 

emphasis must be both on the dangers of disorientation and on how to deal 

with it in flight. The latter, of course, involves proficient use of 

appropriate instruments. 

Lectures could be given at all flight schools by using the 

"Disorientation" lecture material and slides developed by the Aeromedical 

Education Branch of the Civil Aeromedical Institute in Oklahoma City. A 

ground-based demonstration should accompany the lectures; techniques for such 

demonstrations are available (1) and every student should be allowed to 

participate in these familiarization experiences. Moreover, an appropriate 

presentation should always accompany the demonstrations. Also, in-flight 

demonstrations should be given on more than one occasion. The first occasion 

should include a preflight briefing to alert the student that a portion of 

the flight will be used to de~onstrate the unreliability of the student's 

position and motion senses and to convince the student that he must become 

skilled in interpreting and trusting his instruments. Later, the student 

should be given extensive opportunity to experience forms of disorientation 

in flight and to develop appropriate aircraft control recovery behavior and 

techniques. Apparently, the procedures of controlling and maneuvering an 

a~rplane solely by reference to instruments, which private pilot applicants 

are currently required to perform (3,7), are not presented in the context of 

their use in overcoming disorientation problems. However, the FAA does 

provide in its Instrument Flying Handbook (4) a set of controlled maneuvers 

designed to produce disorientation. These maneuvers should be used not just 

as indoctrination during instruction for an instrument rating but for all 

ratings and particularly those for private pilots. Moreover, private pilots 

should be taught (and have demonstrated to them) the experience of not 

perceiving changes in the attitude of an aircraft when changes have-occurred. 

10 
Students and private pilots should also be encouraged to obtain an 

instrument rating and to maintain instrument flying proficiency. They should 

be strongly and repeatedly advised always to obtain preflight weather 

briefings, not to take off or fly into conditions of poor visibility, and, 

further, not to fly at dusk or at night unless they are sufficiently 

proficient in instrument flying to deal with problems of disorientation. 

Efforts should be made to increase their awareness of general aviation 

accident statistics, particularly those statistics that relate to fatalities 

and injuries where spatial disorientation is so prominently featured. 

Schools should schedule regular safety meetings with students and private 

pilots to include group discussions of general aviation "weather accidents" 

reported by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). They should also 

encourage attendance at GADO and other FAA safety seminars. 

Schools should formally encourage instructors to attend flight safety 

meetings periodically so they will thoroughly understand disorientation and 

can present its features to students in a serious manner; in-flight 

demonstrations should be presented as life-saving matters and not as amusing 

tricks. The demonstrations should be used to familiarize students with 

disorientation and its potentially hazardous effects so that trainees will 

learn to make appropriate, well-defined responses. Furthermore, schools 

should be informed periodically by the FAA about the availability of 

appropriate instructional literature, slides, and films on disorientation and 

how to survive it. 

To test the effectiveness of training in disorientation, flight test 

examiners should quiz pilot applicants concerning their basic understanding of 

disorientation phenomena and test their ability to resist and cope with 

disorientation conditions at several points during the flight test. Finally, 

because loss of aircraft control during poor visibility conditions is related 

to the ability to resist disorientation by effective use of instruments, 

aircraft manufacturers and the FAA should seek improved instrument displays 

that provide more natural cues of position and orientation, particularly for 

inexperienced pilots (9,10). 

11 
70-17, 1970. 

2. Collins, W. E., A. 0. Lennon, and E. J. Grimm: The Use of Vestibular 

Tests in Civil Aviation Medical Examinations: Survey of Practices and 

Proposals by Aviation Medical Examiners. FAA Office of Aviation 

Medicine Report No. 75-4, 1975. 

3. Federal Aviation Administration: Flight Test Guide (Part 61, Revised) 

Private Pilot Airplane. FAA Advisory Circular AC-61-54A (revised), 

1975. 

4. Federal Aviation Administration: Instrument Flying Handbook. FAA 

Advisory Circular AC-61-278 (revised), 1971. 

5. Federal Aviation Administration: Flight Instructor's Handbook. FAA 

Advisory Circular AC-61-16A (revised), 1969. 

6. Federal Aviation Administration: List of Certificated Pilot Flight and 

Ground Schools. FAA Advisory Circular AC-140-2G, 1972. 

7. Federal Aviation Agency: Flight Training Handbook. FAA Advisory 

Circular AC-61-21 (revised), 1965. 

8. Federal Aviation Regulations: Part 61--Certification: Pilots and 

Flight Instructors, November 1974. 

9. Hasbrook, A. H.: Peripheral Vision: A Factor for Improved Instrument 

Design. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual SAFE Symposium, 

October 7-11, 1973, pp.· 1-3. 

10. Hasbrook, A. H., and P. E. Young: Peripheral Vision Cues: Their Effect 

on Pilot Performance During Instrument Landing Approaches and Recoveries 

from Unusual Attitudes. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. 

AM-68-12, 1968. 

11. Kirkham, W. R., J. M. Simpson, T. F. Wallace, P.M. Grape, and 

W. E. Collins: A Review of Statistics on Spatial Disorientation in Civil 

Aviation Accidents. Preprints of the 1977 Annual Scientific Meeting of 

the Aerospace Medical Association, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 97-98. 

12. National Transportation Safety Board: Annual Review of Aircraft 

Accident Data (U.S. General Aviation, Calendar Year 1975). Report No. 

NTSB-ARG-77-1, 1976. 

12