the completion of the flight, while there was no
such reduction for dual flight; if anything, there
was a tendency for anxiety to increase from be-
fore to after such flights. These results suggest
that the presence of an instructor in the aircraft
has a beneficial effect on anxiety prior to the
flight but either increases anxiety or inhibits its
reduction during the course of the flight. The
student about to undertake a dual flight knows
that the primary responsibility for the flight
rests with the instructor and an expert is avail-
able to deal with any difficulties that might arise.
However, once the flight has started, the student
on a dual flight must perform new or difficult
tasks at the direction, and under the scrutiny,
of the instructor. On the other hand, the stu-
dent flying solo is able to do much as he pleases
without being subject to evaluation by the in-
structor. Thus, on dual flights the student may
not experience significant relaxation of anxiety,
because the threat of a negative evaluation is
present throughout the flight; however, on solo
flights the student may feel a relative high de-
gree of preflight anxiety arousal, due perhaps
to some physical and/or competence concerns,
which is subsequently reduced by the successful
progress of the solo flight.

The results indicating that evaluation flights
are the most anxiety arousing of all types of
flights are in keeping with the results of several
studies on student populations.*?7 These
studies indicate that the threat of failure, which
is implied in an evaluation setting, is a major
determinant of A-State levels.

A question still remains as to why TG stu-
dents showed no general tendency to report. ex-
periencing increased anxiety in association with
flight lessons. It seems unlikely that this result
can be ascribed to a reassuring effect of the
ground trainer on the TG students, since evi-
dence from physiological measures and informal
observations by the flight instructor indicated
that all participants in the TG, as well as those
in the AG, reacted with increased arousal and
tension to flight training. Perhaps for some in-
dividuals, particularly those with relatively high
A-Trait, the process of flight training diverts
attention from other conditions that are anxiety

arousing. It also may be that the student pilots
who are relatively high in A-Trait tend to deny
that there is a high level of anxiety associated
with flight training. In other words, an in-
dividual who is relatively susceptible to anxiety
may not be able to admit to himself that such
stressful activities are intensely anxiety arous-
ing, especially when the successful completion
of these activities may have significance for the
individual’s self-esteem and prestige. A related
finding by Bucky, Spielberger, and Bale? in
another aviation context was that candidates for
naval flight training tended to deny anxiety as-
sociated with imagined carrier landings. This
was interpreted as defensiveness on the part of
these student aviators in admitting to anxiety
when it pertains directly to aviation skills.

The physiological and biochemical findings,
like the results on anxiety levels, suggest that
use of the ground trainer has relatively little
effect on these variables in the student pilot.
What differences there were tended to suggest
that stress may be slightly lower during instruc-
tion with the trainer than during instruction
within the aircraft; however, the differences
appear to have negligible significance.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in con-
sidering the feasibility of using the ground
trainer as a substitute for the aircraft during
some portions of training, no apparent proficiency
penalty is paid for such use. Evidence from the
performance assessments indicated that students
who had some experience in the trainer were
able to perform as well as those students trained
only in the aircraft. Therefore, it can be seen
that use of the trainer in the private pilot course
can result in pilot proficiency comparable to
that of aircraft training, at least with respect
to the parameters measured in this study. This
suggests that the ground trainer with its several
advantages (ie., its efficiency for instructional
purposes, lack of dependence on weather condi-
tions, relatively low operating costs, and other
positive factors) could receive wider utilization
in private pilot training with beneficial results.
There are no contraindications to this conclu-
sion in either the psychological or physiological
data.



trainer (for a more detailed discussion of these
findings, see Melton et al.t).

The heart rate data clearly indicated that stu-
dents in the aircraft for all lessons (AG) had
higher heart rates than did the TG students
(Table 2). However, these differences were
typically present under all conditions, not just
on comparisons between flights in the trainer
and comparable flights in the aircraft. For ex-
ample, the difference between the resting heart
rates for both groups prior to aircraft flights
is of the same magnitude as other differences
between the two groups, although in this par-
ticular comparison the difference in means is
not quite sufficient to achieve statistical signifi-
cance, This suggests that the group themselves
differed somewhat in basal heart rates, just as
they differed in A-Trait; however, it should be
noted that the group with the higher basal heart
rate, the AG students, had the lower A-Trait
level. If the differences between the groups on
the various comparisons of heart rates while
undergoing training are then adjusted by the
apparent differences in basal heart rate, it can
be seen that changes in heart rates from resting
to flight were generally comparable for both
groups. Heart rates for TG students increased
14.0 beats per minute (bpm) on aircraft flights
and only 3.5 bpm on trainer lessons. Interest-
ingly, this same pattern was found for AG stu-
dents, Their heart rates (all measured in the
aircraft) increased 14.2 bpm from rest on those
flights corresponding to flights in which the TG
students were also in the aircraft but increased
only 7.0 bpm on those flights corresponding to
ground trainer lessons for the TG students.

Blood pressure measurements yielded no sig-
nificant effects.

Energy expenditure, as measured by 0. con-
sumption, showed TG students apparently used
somewhat less energy on trainer lessons than on
aircraft lessons; however, all comparisons con-
cerning 0, use were nonsignificant (Table 2).
There was-no relationship between 0, use and
heart rate.

There were no consistent differences between
groups on the biochemical indices (Table 2).
Students in both groups did show substantial
increases from basal levels in metabolite excre-
tion during nearly all flights.

TABLE 2. Heart Rates, 02 Consumption, and Metabolite
Excretion for AG and 16 Students Under

Various Training Conditions

Ac 16
Resting Training «Resting —‘Trafning
Heart Rates
Geate per minute)
‘Trainer Flights 30.0 97.0 90.7 84.2
Aircraft Flights 89.6 103.8 81.2 95.2
Mean 83.7 101.6 81:0 91.2
0, Consuaption
(BiLi1feer 0,/aig/s2)
Trainer FLighess, | =o= 248.1 — 197.7
Aircraft Flight? o== 264.1 _ 270.2
Metabolite Excretion
(per 100 mg creatinine)
Epinephrine 1.03, 4.01 0.97 451
Norepinephine 5.00 10.26 5.72 10:15.
17=K6s. 795103 1528.23 859.82 (1692.30

@ trainer equivalent flights for AG vere tn atreraft.
> onty through flight 11.

No correlations between anxiety levels and
either physiological or biochemical measures were
noted.

C. Performance Findings. There were no
significant differences between the two groups
on any of the object flight measurements. Fur-
thermore, the flight test examiner could not dis-
tinguish the performance of those students who
had partial experience in a ground trainer from
those who received all training in the aircraft.

IV. Discussion.

The results of the analyses for type of flight
lesson suggest that use of the ground trainer
in training has very little effect. on the student
pilot’s self-reported anxiety level. While some
slight support for the hypothesis that use of
the trainer reduces student pilot anxiety might
be inferred from the direction of differences be-
tween trainer and other types of flights, the
reactions of individuals were sufficiently varied
to indicate that no generally appreciable benefit
with respect to self-reported anxiety reduction
was derived from trainer use.

The results of the comparisons between solo,
dual, and evaluation flights are generally in
keeping with findings of previous research.’ It
is of interest that the relatively high degree of
anxiety reportedly experienced by student pilots
prior to solo flight was significantly reduced at


m

Poy

References

. Bueky, S. F., C. D. Spielberger, and R. M. Bale: State

and Trait Anxiety in Student Naval Aviators. U.S.
Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Report
No. 1125, 1970.

. Hodges, W. F.: The Effects of Success, Threat of

Shock, and Failure on Anxiety. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1967.

. Melton, O. E., Jr, M. Hoffman, and R. H. Delafield:

The Use of a Tranquilizer (Chlordiazepoxide) in
Flight Training. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine
Report No. AM-69-12, 1969,

. Melton, C. E., Jr., J. M. McKenzie, J. R. Kelln, S. M.

Hoffmann, and J. T. Saldivar, Jr.: Effect of a General
Aviation Simulator on the Stress of Flight Training,
AVIATION, SPACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MEDICINE, 46:1-5, 1975.

5.

-

a

we

Sd

Melton, C. E., Jr, and M. Wicks: In-Flight Physio-
logical Monitoring of Student Pilots. FAA Office of
Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-67-15, 1967.
O'Neil, H. F., Jr, C. D. Spielberger, and D, N. Hansen:
The Effects of State-Anxiety and Task Difficulty on
Computer-Assisted Learning, JOURNAL OF EDUCA-
TIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 60 :343-350, 1969,

. Sachs, D. A., and H. Diesenhaus: The Effects of Stress

and Order of Administration on Measures of State
and Trait Anxiety. Unpublished manuscript, New
Mexico State University, 1969.

. Smith, R. C., and ©. E, Melton, Jr.: Susceptibility

to Anxiety and Shift Difficulty as Determinants of
State Anxiety in Air Traffic Controllers, AERO-
SPACE MEDICINE, 45 :599-601, 1974,

Spielberger, C. D., R. L. Gorsuch, and R. E, Lushene:
The State-Trait Angiety Inventory Manual, Palo Alto,
California, Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.

23113


Acknowledgment

Marlene Hoffmann, James R. Kelln, Julian T. Saldivar, and John
Vaughan had major responsibilities for collection of the data. Jess M.
McKenzie was responsible for analysis of metabolite excretion. Fred Porter
and Reynolds Smith of the Flight Standards Branch (AAC-950) served as
check pilots. The contributions of these individuals are gratefully acknowl-
edged.





EFFECTS OF GROUND TRAINER USE ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
AND PHYSIOLOGICAL STATES OF STUDENTS IN
PRIVATE PILOT TRAINING

I. Introduction.

Physiological measurements suggest that stu-
dent pilots working toward certification as
private pilots are subjected to a high degree of
stress during flight training.** Such stresses
may result in anxiety of sufficient intensity to
negatively affect the learning of the complex
tasks required of pilots; it has been shown in a
variety of settings that high levels of anxiety
interfere with learning of complicated mate-
riales* If flight training could be restructured
to reduce the stress in such programs, it might
prove beneficial to student pilots.

Apprehension over physical safety, the de-
manding nature of training procedures, and
physical discomfort are among the potential
stressors in flight training. However, as in other
types of instruction, the primary source of stress
may well be the presence of an instructor. The
instructor, in addition to being a teacher, em-
bodies the role of evaluator. Therefore, the stu-
dent is under the constant threat that his
performance will be judged inadequate.

While it is clear that the instructor, and there-
fore the threat of evaluation, cannot be readily
removed from the flight instruction setting, there
may be other approaches to modifying training
that could lessen the stress inherent in such
activity. The use of ground trainers could prove
beneficial in this respect. In ground trainers,
the student pilot may feel somewhat less con-
cerned about the highly probable occurrence of
procedural and performance errors, since there
are no serious negative consequences to be suf-
fered from such errors. Moreover, the ground
trainer provides the instructor with greater time
to explain and demonstrate matters not well un-

derstood by the student, since the simulator can
be stopped, axes of rotation can be eliminated,
and other problems can be simulated at any point
that will aid the teaching process. This obvi-
ously is not possible in a moving aircraft. The
ground trainer also allows the instructor to give
full attention and support to the student, since
there is no need for the instructor to monitor the
safety of the aircraft. Thus, although the stu-
det pilot is still faced with evaluation by the
instructor, the ground trainer may provide a
better overall teaching climate for flight instruc-
tion.

Since there may be teaching benefits, and there
are certainly benefits in terms of costs, weather,
maintenance, and safety, in using the ground
trainer, the major issue is to determine the extent
to which substitution of the trainer for an air-
craft during portions of training affects the
proficiency of student pilots. This study con-
siders the proficiency question and also assesses
the degree to which use of the ground trainer
reduces the stress of such training, as measured
through the psychological (anxiety) and physio-
logical states of the student pilot.

II. Method.

A. Subjects. Sixteen male volunteers, all FAA
employees with no more than casual experience
in flying general aviation aircraft, participated
in this study. The volunteers ranged in age from
30 to 42, and all were well established in non-
flying professions. None expressed an avowed
intent to make flying a career, and most were
principally motivated by the opportunity to ac-
quire much of the training required for certifica-
tion as a private pilot.