U.S. Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1787 

Utility of a Personal Computer Aviation Training Device 

for Flight Training

David M. Johnson and John E. Stewart II 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

February 2002 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

February 2002 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

January 2001 – December 2001 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Utility of a Personal Computer Aviation Training Device for 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

Flight Training 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

20262785

6. AUTHOR(S) 

David M. Johnson and John E. Stewart II (U.S. Army Research

I i )

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790 

Institute) 5d. TASK NUMBER

206

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Rotary Wing Aviation Research Unit

Building 5100 

Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5354

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1787 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices (PCATDs) have recently been shown to support beginning flight training both in the private sector

and the military. These positive results are for fixed-wing aircraft only. The purpose of this research was to investigate which tasks from Initial 

Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) training could be supported by a PCATD. A utility evaluation was performed. Sixteen aviators, representing both

highly experienced and student helicopter pilots, evaluated the ability of a commercial PCATD to support IERW. Seventy-one tasks were selected 

from Primary and Instrument Flight Training. Aviators performed each task one or more times in the PCATD before rating it on a four-point scale.

Additional data were also collected. Results showed remarkable agreement between the experienced aviators and the students. The device was

judged as best able to support Instrument Flight Training, especially tasks involving radio navigation. Tasks from Primary Flight Training,

especially tasks requiring hovering, were judged as less well supported. The most frequently stated positive comment was that the device would be

of value in supporting the training of instrument procedures. The three most frequently cited criticisms of the device concerned narrow field of view, 

poor visual cues to depth, and inability to hover. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Flight training, Simulation, Aircrew training programs, Helicopter training

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

OF PAGES

 47

(Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. Dennis C. Wightman

DSN 558-2834

i 
FOREWORD_________________________________________________________________ 

The Rotary-Wing Aviation Research Unit (RWARU) of the U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) is located at Fort Rucker, Alabama. Fort

Rucker is the home of the United States Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC). The ARI Aircrew 

Performance Team is committed to enhancing aviation training. One means by which this can be

achieved is through the optimization of simulation-augmented Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW)

training programs. The advent of PC-based simulators and other training devices which are 

more reliable, simpler, and much less expensive than their predecessors, could potentially

revolutionize the expansion of synthetic flight for all levels of training. A research program in 

this area was deemed necessary because few reliable benchmarks exist as to how this new 

technology can best be employed in an IERW environment. 

It is widely known that the power of PC processors and the capability of commercial 

flight simulation software have grown dramatically at the same time that they have become less 

expensive. Both private and military aviation communities have noticed this trend and are

seeking ways to employ it in service to their own training needs. As a result of an inquiry from 

MG Anthony Jones, Commanding General Fort Rucker and USAAVNC, a working group was 

formed to investigate if and how best to employ personal computer aviation training devices 

(PCATDs) in IERW training. RWARU was asked to be a member of this working group 

because of its expertise in aviation training research and flight simulator technology. ARI

considered participation in this group to be technical advisory service to USAAVNC and 

covered under the Army Science and Technology Objective AVATAR or Simulation-based 

Aviation Training. 

This report describes a utility evaluation performed by RWARU on a commercial

PCATD. Interim results from this evaluation plus recommendations for possible use of PCATDs 

in IERW flight training were briefed to the assembled PCATD Joint Working Group and to 

Simulation Division Chief, Directorate of Training Doctrine and Simulation (DOTDS) at Fort

Rucker in August 2001. DOTDS has since purchased the device evaluated by RWARU and is 

continuing to study possible future implementation of PCATDs in helicopter flight training. 

 MICHAEL G. RUMSEY

 Acting Technical Director

 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS______________________________________________________

The authors would like to thank all the other members of the PCATD Study Group. The 

Study Group was made up of volunteers from the PCATD Joint Working Group who contributed 

their time, their expertise, and their creativity. These were a group of men who cared about the 

training of novice Army aviators and who were willing to put their effort into the examination of 

a new technology—often at the risk of taking heat for “playing games.” The Study Group 

persevered and accomplished its mission thanks in large part to these individuals: 

William Barker, ARI-RWARU 

Stephen Crouch, Lear Siegler Services, Inc. 

Thomas Flohr, Directorate of Training Doctrine and Simulation 

Edward Miller, Aviation Training Brigade

Willard Vignoe, Directorate of Training Doctrine and Simulation 

Dale Weiler, ARI-RWARU & CAE USA 

Finally, the authors would like to thank the units at Fort Rucker that supported this 

research. The very capable staff of Chief of Standards, Aviation Training Brigade, put ARI in 

touch with experienced aviators. Company B and Company D, 1st Battalion, 145th Aviation 

Regiment, provided ARI with access to student aviators. 

 
UTILITY OF A PERSONAL COMPUTER AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE FOR

HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRAINING 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY______________________________________________________ 

Research Requirement:

Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices (PCATDs) have recently been shown to 

support beginning flight training both in the private sector and the military. These positive 

results have been shown for fixed-wing aircraft only. The requirement of this research was to 

investigate which tasks from Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) training, if any, could be

supported by a PCATD. This requirement could be met most quickly, and with the least 

expenditure of resources, by performing a utility evaluation of the device. 

Procedure: 

Sixteen aviators representing both highly experienced and student helicopter pilots 

evaluated the ability of a commercial micro-simulator PCATD to support the IERW Common 

Core curriculum. Seventy-one flight tasks were selected from Primary Flight Training and 

Instrument Flight Training. Aviators performed each task one or more times in the microsimulator before rating it on a four-point supportability scale. Additional data were gathered on 

general attitudes toward simulation and computer literacy. Comments and criticisms were

recorded, also. 

Findings: 

Results showed remarkable agreement between the experienced aviators and the students. 

The micro-simulator was judged as best able to support Instrument Flight Training, especially

tasks involving radio navigation. Tasks from Primary Flight Training, especially tasks requiring

hovering, were judged as less well supported by the micro-simulator. The most frequently stated 

positive comment was that the micro-simulator would be valuable in supporting the training of

navigation instruments and procedures. The three most frequently cited criticisms of it 

concerned narrow field of view, poor visual cues to depth, and inability to hover. 

Utilization of Findings: 

The results of this analysis, plus additional recommendations, were made available to all 

members of the PCATD Joint Working Group as well as other interested parties at the U.S. 

Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC). USAAVNC is responsible for implementing the 

transformation of flight training from the current legacy system to Flight School XXI. ARI

continues to support this transformation with technical advisory service and research. 

 
UTILITY OF A PERSONAL COMPUTER AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE FOR

HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRAINING 

CONTENTS__________________________________________________________________ 

 Page

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 

 What is a PCATD?.................................................................................. 1 

 Recent Research Involving PCATDs............................................................. 1 

 Purpose of this Investigation...................................................................... 3 

METHOD............................................................................................... 5 

 Participants in Phase One: Experienced Aviators............................................... 5 

 Participants in Phase Two: Student Aviators.................................................... 5 

 Simulator............................................................................................... 5 

 IERW Flight Tasks.................................................................................. 6 

 Procedure.............................................................................................. 7 

RESULTS............................................................................................... 8 

 Flight Task Evaluation............................................................................... 8 

 General Questions.................................................................................... 15 

 Positive Comments and Criticisms................................................................. 16 

DISCUSSION........................................................................................... 17 

CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................... 18 

REFERENCES......................................................................................... 20 

APPENDIX A. Rating Form...................................................................... A-1 

B. Answers to the Open-Ended Question........................................ B-1 

 
C. Positive Comments and Criticisms............................................ C-1 

D. PCATD Study Group Report................................................... D-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Mean and Median Evaluation Ratings for IERW Flight Tasks from

Experienced Aviators................................................................ 9 

Table 2. Mean and Median Evaluation Ratings for IERW Flight Tasks from

Student Aviators...................................................................... 11 

Table 3. Summary of Evaluation Ratings by Stage of Flight Task............................. 13 

Table 4. Top Quartile: Tasks Judged to be Best Supported by the Micro-Simulator......... 14 

Table 5. Bottom Quartile: Tasks Judged as Least Well Supported by the 

Micro-Simulator...................................................................... 15 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Lateral view of commercial micro-simulator PCATD................................. 6 

Figure 2. Rear view of micro-simulator showing visual display................................. 6 

 
UTILITY OF A PERSONAL COMPUTER AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE FOR

HELICOPTER FLIGHT TRAINING 

Introduction 

According to a number of sources, consumer flight sims have become a de facto

part of Air Force flight training. “It’s almost like that’s the first phase of training— 

you come here fully trained up on [Microsoft] flight simulator and we’ll throw 

you into an Air Force simulator and see how you handle it.” (Prensky, 2001, p. 310) 

What is a PCATD?

It is widely recognized that both the power of PC processors and the capability of

consumer flight simulation software have grown dramatically at the same time that they have

become less expensive. Both the private and the military aviation communities have noticed this 

trend and are seeking ways to harness it in service to their own training needs. This has lead to 

the personal computer aviation training device (PCATD). In their review of this technology,

Koonce and Bramble (1998) note that PCATDs run the gamut from desktop devices to flight 

simulators complete with cockpit shells and full instrumentation. 

In the aviation training literature, the acronym PCATD usually refers to a relatively

inexpensive, fixed-platform flight simulator based on microchip processing technology and 

commercial-off-the-shelf, consumer-oriented software. These devices run on standard desktop 

PC-based operating systems such as the various versions of Microsoft WindowsTM. The out-thewindow view is shown on the host computer’s CRT screen. Usually, flight and navigation 

instruments are also shown on the host’s CRT screen as well. Some systems provide separate 

screens for instruments or actual instruments mounted in a simulated cockpit shell. Although the 

consumer software allows for flight to be controlled from a standard PC keyboard, this is seldom 

used in the training literature. Flight controls are usually separate hardware consisting of some

combination of flight stick and rudder pedals, control yoke and rudder pedals, cyclic and pedals 

(for helicopter applications), as well as a throttle or collective with throttle (helicopter). Some

systems are sold as a complete cockpit with a seat, instruments, controls, large CRT screen, and 

separate speakers; while others rely on the user’s chair, the host PC’s built-in speaker, screen, 

and separate add-on flight controls. Most PCATDs sell for less than $10,000--often much less--

making them orders of magnitude less expensive than the flight simulators historically sold by

major manufacturers for civilian or military training applications. 

Recent Research Involving PCATDs

Recent research, both in the private sector and the military, has investigated the value of 

using PCATDs for fixed-wing flight training. Ortiz, Kopp, and Willenbucher (1995) 

investigated the effectiveness of PCATDs for training instrument flight skills in a sample of 26 

students at the Lufthansa Pilot’s School. Two matched groups of students were compared. One 

group received part of their instrument training in a PCATD while the other group received the 

standard course of instruction using an approved procedures trainer. No statistically significant 

 1 
differences in flight performance were observed between the two groups at the end of course

check ride. The total cost of the PCATD, however, was only three percent of the cost of the 

certified procedures trainer. 

Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, Talleur, Emanuel, and Phillips (1997) in a large, well-designed 

study reported positive transfer of training from PCATDs to airplane for instrument flight tasks. 

Their experiment involved 144 participants taking instrument flight training courses at the 

University of Illinois. They measured both trials to criterion in the aircraft and time to criterion 

in the aircraft. Using these data the authors calculated percent transfer and transfer effectiveness 

ratios (TERs). They found statistically significant positive transfer in seven flight lessons with 

percent transfer ranging from 15% to 33% and TERs ranging from 0.16 to 0.39. These results 

imply that for every 2.5 to 6 trials of training in the PCATD, 1 trial in the Beechcraft Sundowner 

was saved. Taylor et al. concluded that the PCATD is an effective training device for teaching

instrument tasks to private pilots. 

Dennis and Harris (1998) reported positive transfer of training from desktop PCATD 

practice to the aircraft for a small sample of simple visual flight maneuvers. These authors 

employed 21 participants, none of whom had had any prior flight experience. The members of 

the PCATD group received a total of one hour of training on the desktop simulator prior to their 

test flight in a Beagle Pup 121 airplane. Compared to a control group that did not receive the 

simulator training, the PCATD group demonstrated significantly better performance in straightand-level flight as well as in exiting turns. There are two reasons for mentioning this 

experiment. First, transfer was shown for visual flight tasks. Second, this significant positive 

transfer was shown after a single hour of training with the PCATD. 

Koonce and Bramble (1998) reviewed the history and present status of the use of 

PCATDs for fixed-wing flight training. They made a number of separate points that will be

paraphrased here. First, instrument training has long been an area of flight training that has 

benefited from simulation. Readers are no doubt aware that the Link Trainer or “blue box” 

began institutional use prior to World War II. Second, Koonce and Bramble reviewed Air Force 

research that showed as early as 1966 that procedural tasks, such as instrument flight tasks, were 

far more likely to transfer well to the airplane than were perceptual-motor flight tasks, such as

stick and rudder skills. Third, simulator technology continues to improve. Thus, what appear to 

be “aviation games” today (i.e., PCATDs) surpass in power and fidelity what were state-of-theart full-mission simulators in 1970. Finally, the authors reported two studies that showed 

positive transfer of training from PCATDs to airplanes for instrument tasks and one study that

showed positive transfer from PCATDs to airplanes for visual flight rules (VFR) tasks. The

point is that PCATDs appear to be following in the footsteps of earlier flight simulator

technology. They begin as games, then demonstrate their validity for instrument flight training, 

and finally move on to simulating visual (contact) flight for ground-school institutional training. 

In keeping with this trend, and based in part on the Taylor et al. (1997) research, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorized the use of PCATDs to satisfy part of the

creditable training requirement for the private pilot instrument rating. The details of this 

approval are described in the FAA Advisory Circular #61-126 (1997). The key provisions of the 

FAA approval are these: If the PCATD meets FAA guidelines, and if the instruction is by an 

 2 
FAA Certified Flight Instructor, then said PCATD instruction can be used to satisfy as many as 

10 of the 20 simulator hours creditable for instrument rating in part 61 (or as many as 10 of the 

15 simulator hours creditable for instrument rating in part 141) of FAA Regulations. 

In order for a PCATD to qualify for FAA approval, extensive physical controls must be 

present. These include: A physical, self-centering displacement yoke or control stick that allows 

continuous adjustment of pitch and bank; physical, self-centering rudder pedals that allow 

continuous adjustment of yaw; a physical throttle lever or power lever that allows continuous 

movement from idle to full power settings; and physical controls for as many as 12 other items 

applicable to the aircraft being replicated, such as flaps and navigation radios for example. 

Interestingly, Koonce and Bramble (1998) state that in their review of the literature they could 

find no scientific evidence supporting the requirement for the 12 additional physical controls 

mentioned above. 

The Chief of Naval Education and Training has undertaken a project to identify and apply

commercial PC gaming and simulation technology as a potential training tool. Dunlap and Tarr

(1999) reported one outcome of this project that generated considerable interest in military

training circles. They configured 10 simulator workstations as Navy T-34C fixed-wing training

aircraft. Fifteen scenarios were developed including familiarization flights, basic instruments, 

and navigation instruments. Microsoft Flight Simulator 98TM software was augmented with an 

instructional framework that provided a demonstration of each scenario narrated to point out key

visual and timing events. After the demonstration, student pilots were afforded the opportunity

to practice the scenario. Participation in this training experience was entirely voluntary and 

performed at a time that would not interfere with the primary flight curriculum. Results from 

this initial test were positive. Participating students were significantly more likely to score

highly during flight training and significantly less likely to “wash out” of flight training, when 

compared to their peers who did not participate. However, this initial study did not contain a

control group—a fact freely admitted by the authors. Thus, it is impossible to know if practice 

with the PCATD helped the participating students, or if the best students were the ones who 

chose to participate.

 

Schneider, Greene, Levi, and Jeffery (2001) of the Air Force performed a controlled 

experiment comparing standard flight instruction to standard flight instruction plus PCATD 

practice. They compared the flight training performance of 55 students who were provided with 

access to PCATDs with that of 209 students who received standard training. The two groups of 

students were compared on their learning of nine advanced contact flight maneuvers such as loop 

and barrel roll. There were two measures of trials to criterion for each task and two measures of 

variability for each task. Although performance on all four measures favored the PCATD group 

in absolute magnitude, the small differences were statistically significant in one case only. 

Overall, the PCATD group showed significantly less variability than the control group. 

Purpose of this Investigation 

The positive results noted above were all obtained for fixed-wing aircraft. To date the 

authors have uncovered no published research employing PCATDs in introductory helicopter 

flight training. This explains the need for the current study. 

 3 
Desk Top Simulators L.L.C. of Fort Worth, Texas loaned two identical devices, called 

Rapidly Transferable Cockpits (RTCs), to the Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Simulation 

(DOTDS) at Fort Rucker for an initial 90-day examination period. The Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) was asked to evaluate these two PCATDs. 

Throughout this report the devices will be called “micro-simulators” in keeping with the usage 

established by Dunlap and Tarr. 

 

Bell and Waag (1998) listed three categories of approach for evaluating the training

effectiveness of flight simulators. Utility evaluations are the easiest and quickest. Subject matter

experts perform specific tasks or missions in the simulator and then rate the effectiveness of the

simulator for training. The second category is in-simulator learning. Novices practice tasks in 

the simulator and thereby show learning through an improvement in performance. Typically the 

method is one of pre-test, practice, and then post-test. In this case, practice in the simulator can 

be shown to produce an improvement in performance in comparison to an appropriate control 

group. The third category is transfer of training. Here the trainee is transferred to a new 

environment, such as an actual aircraft, after training in the simulator. The goal is to show that

the skills learned in the simulator improve performance in the aircraft in comparison to a control 

group not pre-trained in the simulator. Transfer of training is an excellent method to evaluate the 

training effectiveness of a simulator although it is resource intensive—requiring students, 

instructors, aircraft, and time. 

The present investigation was a utility evaluation, a rapid test of an existing microsimulator by users (cf., Nielsen, 1993). ARI was primarily interested in discovering what Initial 

Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) tasks could be supported for training by this device. This 

investigation was part of a larger examination of flight training at the U.S. Army Aviation Center 

(USAAVNC) at Fort Rucker. ARI chose to employ the technique of a utility evaluation in order 

to provide USAAVNC with reliable information in a timely manner. 

The evaluation proceeded in two phases that were identical in all respects except for the 

category of aviator doing the behavioral evaluation. Phase one included experienced aviators 

while phase two used student aviators. This allowed the micro-simulator to be evaluated by

people who were representative of the instructors and the students who would potentially use it. 

In brief, an attempt was made to have the micro-simulator under investigation evaluated by

members of the target audience of interest to USAAVNC. This issue of the target audience is 

important. The history of human factors engineering is rife with examples of very powerful 

systems that saw limited use because they were designed without input from the end user and 

were, therefore, inappropriate for the task or incapable of being used by the intended audience

(Nielsen, 1993; Norman, 1988; 1998). ARI was determined not to make this mistake. 

A decision to employ a total of 16 evaluators (6 experienced + 10 students) was based in 

part on the advice of Nielsen (1993). Research by Nielsen concerning the optimal number of 

participants for usability testing has shown that 15 are sufficient. Ninety percent of the usability

problems to be found will be found by 15 evaluators. Sample sizes larger than this increase 

testing costs without producing significant increases in benefits. 

 4 
Method 

Participants in Phase One: Experienced Aviators 

 

Six experienced helicopter pilots evaluated the micro-simulator. All were male. They

ranged in age from 33 to 55 years, with a mean age of 43.2 years (median 43 years). All were 

rated Army pilots. Their total aircraft flight hours ranged from 1153 to 5500 with a mean of 

2742.2 hours (median 2400). Five of the six were current or former instructor pilots (IPs), 

current or former standardization IPs, or current or former maintenance test pilots. All six were

rated in various models of the UH-1, five in various models of the OH-58, four in various models 

of the AH-1, four in the TH-55, two in various models of the AH-64, and one each in the OH-13, 

the TH-67, and various single-engine, piston-powered Cessna aircraft. At the time of the 

evaluation, the U.S. Army at Fort Rucker employed all six in some training-related capacity. 

Participants in Phase Two: Student Aviators 

Ten student pilots participated in this phase of the evaluation. Nine were male and one 

was female. Four were commissioned officers (2LT) and six were warrant officers (WO1). 

They ranged in age from 20 to 31 years with a mean age of 26.4 years (median 27.5 years). 

Their total aircraft flight hours ranged from 78 to 500 with a mean of 144.6 (median 120). All 

ten had completed Primary Flight Training Stage I, Primary Flight Training Stage II, Instrument 

Flight Training Stage I (Basic Instruments), and Instrument Flight Training Stage II (Advanced 

Instruments). Five were awaiting assignment to the last phase of IERW training called Basic

Combat Skills. The remaining five had completed Basic Combat Skills and were awaiting

assignment either to the Officer’s or the Warrant Officer’s Basic Course. Thus, all student 

evaluators had just completed that portion of the flight-training curriculum for which the microsimulator in question was being evaluated for possible use. 

 

Simulator 

Each RTC weighed approximately 500 pounds (227 kg.). Its dimensions were 72 inches 

(183 cm.) in length, 34 inches (86 cm.) in width, and 60 inches (152 cm.) in height. It used 

standard 110 V, 60 Hz power. The visual display monitor measured 28 inches (71 cm.) 

diagonally. The angular field of view of this screen from a normal sitting position was 43 

degrees (horizontal) by 34 degrees (vertical). This CRT screen had a resolution of 768 pixels 

horizontally by 1024 lines vertically. The RTC was capable of supporting a wide variety of PCbased flight simulator software applications. This evaluation was limited to Microsoft Flight 

Simulator 2000TM Professional Edition employing the Bell 206B Jet Ranger. The software was 

run on a Microsoft Windows 98TM operating system. The host computer was an Intel Pentium 

IIITM Processor, operating at a speed of 550MHz, with 256MB RAM. The system included a 

Logitech wireless keyboard, a Logitech wireless mouse, and two Juster Multimedia speakers. 

The RTC contained a padded seat facing the CRT screen and operational flight controls. The 

cyclic was a Stick II made by Flight Link. Flight Link also made the collective and the pedals. 

Figures 1 and 2 show a lateral view and a rear view, respectively, of an RTC emplaced at the 

ARI test facility on Fort Rucker. 

 5 
Figure 1. Lateral view of commercial micro-simulator PCATD. 

Figure 2. Rear view of micro-simulator showing visual display.

IERW Flight Tasks 

Seventy-one IERW flight tasks were chosen for evaluation. All tasks were taken from 

IERW Flight Training Guides (USAAVNC, November 1999; USAAVNC, February 2001). 

Twenty-nine tasks were selected from Stage I of Primary Flight Training. Six tasks were 

selected from Stage II of Primary Flight Training. Thirteen tasks were selected from Stage I

 6 
(Basic Instruments) of Instrument Flight Training. Twenty-three tasks were selected from Stage 

II (Advanced Instruments) of Instrument Flight Training. These 71 total tasks constitute

virtually the entire portion of the specifically flight-oriented curriculum. Non-flying tasks such 

as “Review DD Form 365-4” and “Prepare Performance Planning Card” were not included. The 

71 tasks are listed in Appendix A, Part I.

Primary Flight Training (sometimes called “contact flight training”) is the student’s first 

experience with flying the aircraft. Primary Flight Training tasks are referred to as “VFR” or 

visual flight rules tasks. The student aviator flying VFR is primarily using his or her out-thewindow view and ground references to control aircraft maneuvers. Examples of such tasks are 

“straight-and-level flight” and “takeoff to a hover.” 

Instrument Flight Training involves “IFR” or instrument flight rules training. In IFR 

flight, the student aviator is primarily using his or her flight and navigation instruments as the 

references to maintain control of aircraft attitude, altitude, and direction. Basic Instruments 

concerns training the use of flight instruments to control the aircraft and maintain proper attitude

in the absence of visual cues. Advanced Instruments concerns the use of radio navigation 

instruments in addition to, and in conjunction with, flight instruments. Examples of tasks taught 

as part of Basic Instruments are “standard rate turns” and “unusual attitude recovery.” Examples 

of tasks requiring navigation instruments are “Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) course 

tracking” and “Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range Receiver (VOR) 

approach.” (A list of acronyms can be found on the last page of Appendix D.) 

Procedure 

All participants were briefed on their role in this evaluation. They were asked to evaluate 

the micro-simulator in terms of how well it supported the 71 specific IERW Common Core flight 

tasks. They were asked to provide one evaluation for each task. The four possible levels of 

evaluation for each task were “Not at all,” “Slightly,” “Moderately,” and “Well.” An example of 

the questionnaire employed is provided in Appendix A, Part I. 

Each participant was given an opportunity to operate (“fly”) the micro-simulator until he 

or she was comfortable with it. When the aviator was ready, the formal evaluation period began. 

The tasks were listed on the questionnaire in the order they appeared in the Flight Training

Guides (FTGs). Usually the ARI researcher named a task from the questionnaire, the participant 

performed it in the simulator one or more times, and then offered an evaluation score. FTGs 

were available if an aviator wanted to check the published performance criteria prior to

attempting a task, and many did so. Many aviators, however, performed the tasks in their own 

idiosyncratic order calling out to the researcher what they were doing and then, when finished, 

offering their evaluation. Thus task presentation order was not held constant across all 

participants and so no order effects are implied by the results. Evaluators frequently verbalized 

their concerns or comments while operating the simulator. The researcher noted these concerns 

and comments on paper and asked questions when necessary. Although an effort was made to 

have all 16 aviators evaluate all 71 flight tasks, this was not always possible because of time

constraints. 

 

 7 
After the flight task evaluation portion each aviator was asked some general questions 

about simulation, PC flight simulators, personal PC usage, and how best to use this microsimulator in IERW training. These questions are found in Appendix A, Part II. Two short 

breaks were taken during the evaluation period. The entire procedure required four hours of 

concentrated work. 

Results 

Flight Task Evaluation 

The data were aggregated by task and by participant both for the experienced aviators and 

for the students. Mean and median ratings were calculated for each task. An evaluation of “Not 

at all” was rated 0, an evaluation of “Slightly” was rated 1, an evaluation of “Moderately” was 

rated 2, and an evaluation of “Well” was rated 3. The mean rating, the median rating, and the

number of evaluations on which those ratings were based are presented in Table 1 for the 

experienced aviators and in Table 2 for the student aviators. Tables 1 and 2 provide a detailed 

account of how the two groups of aviators evaluated the ability of the micro-simulator to support 

flight training on a task-by-task basis. 

 8 
Table 1 

Mean and Median Evaluation Ratings for IERW Flight Tasks from Experienced Aviators

Flight Tasks Mean Rating

(0 to 3)

Median

Rating 

(0 to 3)

N

(0 to 6)

Primary Flight Training Stage I

 Straight-and-level flight 2.00 2 6 

 Climbs and descents 1.83 2 6 

 Turns 2.00 2 6 

 Acceleration/deceleration 2.17 2 6 

 Climbing and descending turns 1.83 1.5 6 

 Relationship of the flight controls

 and the instruments 1.83 1.5 6 

 Hover check 0.33 0 6 

 Hover power checks 0.17 0 6 

 Rectangular course 1.67 1.5 6 

 “S” turns 1.83 1.5 6 

 Hovering flight 0.33 0 6 

 Takeoff to a hover 0.40 0 5 

 Hovering turns 0.17 0 6 

 Landing from a hover 0.50 0.5 6 

 Traffic pattern flight 1.60 1 5 

 Traffic pattern entry 1.20 1 5 

 Traffic pattern exit 1.40 1 5 

 VMC takeoff (hover) 0.33 0 6 

 VMC (normal) approach (hover) 0.50 0.5 6 

 Approach termination procedure 0.80 1 5 

 Standard autorotation 0.75 0.5 4 

 Simulated engine failure at 

 altitude (autorotation descent) 1.75 2 4 

 Power recovery 1.75 1.5 4 

 Go-around 2.25 2.5 4 

 VMC takeoff (ground) 1.67 2 6 

 VMC (normal) approach (ground) 1.33 1.5 6 

 Hovering autorotation 0.00 0 5 

 Simulated engine failure at 

 hover altitude 0.40 0 5 

 Shallow approach to a run-on

 Landing 2.00 2 5 

Primary Flight Training Stage II

 Simulated maximum performance 

 Takeoff 2.50 2.5 4 

 VMC (steep) approach 1.25 1 4 

 Slope operations 0.00 0 4 

 Termination with power 2.00 2 4 

 Low-level autorotation 1.25 1.5 4

 Standard autorotation with 180-

 degree turn 0.75 0.5 4 

 9 
Table 1 (Continued) 

 Flight Tasks

Instrument Flight Training Stage I

(Basic Instruments)

 Straight-and-level flight

Mean Rating

(0 to 3)

2.17 

Median

Rating 

(0 to 3)

2 

N 

(0 to 6)

6 

 Standard rate turn 1.67 1.5 6 

 Climbs and descents 2.00 2 6 

 Timed turns 1.83 2 6 

 Steep turns 1.83 2 6 

 Acceleration/deceleration 2.17 2 6 

 Climbing and descending turns 2.17 2 6 

 Unusual attitude recovery 2.17 2 6 

 Straight-and-level flight (EP) 2.50 3 6 

 Standard rate turns (EP) 2.00 2 6 

 Climbs and descents (EP) 2.20 2 5 

 Climbing and descending turns

 (EP) 2.00 2 5 

 Compass turns (EP) 2.20 3 5 

Instrument Flight Training Stage II

(Advanced Instruments)

 ADF station identification 2.40 3 5 

 ADF aircraft position 2.60 3 5 

 ADF course interception 2.60 3 5 

 ADF course tracking 2.60 3 5 

 ADF holding 2.60 3 5 

 ADF approach 2.60 3 5 

 Radio navigation 2.00 2 4 

 ADF missed approach 2.60 3 5 

 VOR station identification 2.25 2.5 4 

 VOR aircraft position 2.75 3 4

 VOR course interception 2.00 2 4 

 VOR course tracking 2.00 2 4 

 VOR holding station 2.00 2 4 

 VOR holding intersection 2.00 2 4 

 VOR approach 2.00 2 4 

 VOR missed approach 2.00 2 4 

 LOC/ILS station identification 2.50 3 4

 LOC/ILS course interception 2.50 2.5 4 

 LOC/ILS course tracking 2.25 2.5 4 

 LOC/ILS holding 2.00 2 4 

 LOC/ILS approach 2.25 2.5 4 

 LOC/ILS missed approach 2.25 2.5 4 

 Instrument takeoff 2.17 2 6 

 10 
Table 2 

Mean and Median Evaluation Ratings for IERW Flight Tasks from Student Aviators

Flight Tasks Mean Rating

(0 to 3)

Median

Rating 

(0 to 3)

N

(0 to 10) 

Primary Flight Training Stage I

 Straight-and-level flight 2.30 2 10 

 Climbs and descents 2.40 2.5 10 

 Turns 2.20 2 10 

 Acceleration/deceleration 2.00 2 10 

 Climbing and descending turns 2.00 2 10 

 Relationship of the flight controls

 and the instruments 2.20 2 10 

 Hover check 0.56 0 9 

 Hover power checks 0.30 0 10 

 Rectangular course 1.00 1 10 

 “S” turns 1.70 2 10 

 Hovering flight 0.40 0 10 

 Takeoff to a hover 0.70 1 10 

 Hovering turns 0.40 0 10 

 Landing from a hover 0.70 1 10 

 Traffic pattern flight 0.60 0.5 10 

 Traffic pattern entry 1.30 1.5 10 

 Traffic pattern exit 1.50 2 10 

 VMC takeoff (hover) 1.20 1.5 10 

 VMC (normal) approach (hover) 0.90 1 10 

 Approach termination procedure 1.25 1 8 

 Standard autorotation 1.11 1 9 

 Simulated engine failure at 

 altitude (autorotation descent) 2.40 3 10 

 Power recovery 2.40 3 10 

 Go-around 2.00 2 7 

 VMC takeoff (ground) 2.30 2 10 

 VMC (normal) approach (ground) 1.00 1 9 

 Hovering autorotation 0.30 0 10 

 Simulated engine failure at 

 hover altitude 0.30 0 10 

 Shallow approach to a run-on

 landing 1.50 1 10 

Primary Flight Training Stage II

 Simulated maximum performance 

 takeoff 1.80 2 10 

 VMC (steep) approach 1.00 1 10 

 Slope operations 0.00 0 6 

 Termination with power 1.50 2 6 

 Low-level autorotation 0.86 1 7

 Standard autorotation with 180-

 degree turn 0.00 0 8 

 11 
Table 2 (Continued) 

 Flight Tasks

Instrument Flight Training Stage I

(Basic Instruments)

 Straight-and-level flight

Mean Rating

(0 to 3)

2.70 

Median

Rating 

(0 to 3)

3 

N

(0 to 10) 

10 

 Standard rate turn 2.60 3 10 

 Climbs and descents 2.50 2.5 10 

 Timed turns 2.50 3 10 

 Steep turns 2.10 2 10 

 Acceleration/deceleration 2.50 3 10 

 Climbing and descending turns 2.10 2 10 

 Unusual attitude recovery 2.30 2 10 

 Straight-and-level flight (EP) 2.44 3 9 

 Standard rate turns (EP) 2.56 3 9 

 Climbs and descents (EP) 2.25 2 8 

 Climbing and descending turns

 (EP) 2.14 2 7 

 Compass turns (EP) 3.00 3 6 

Instrument Flight Training Stage II

(Advanced Instruments)

 ADF station identification 3.00 3 10 

 ADF aircraft position 3.00 3 2 

 ADF course interception 3.00 3 10 

 ADF course tracking 2.80 3 10 

 ADF holding 2.80 3 10 

 ADF approach 2.70 3 10 

 Radio navigation 3.00 3 8 

 ADF missed approach 2.89 3 9 

 VOR station identification 3.00 3 10 

 VOR aircraft position 3.00 3 9

 VOR course interception 2.89 3 9 

 VOR course tracking 2.78 3 9 

 VOR holding station 3.00 3 5 

 VOR holding intersection 3.00 3 5 

 VOR approach 3.00 3 6 

 VOR missed approach 3.00 3 1 

 LOC/ILS station identification 3.00 3 9

 LOC/ILS course interception 3.00 3 8 

 LOC/ILS course tracking 2.88 3 8 

 LOC/ILS holding 3.00 3 1 

 LOC/ILS approach 2.67 3 6 

 LOC/ILS missed approach 2.50 2.5 2 

 Instrument takeoff 2.56 3 9 

The mean overall evaluation given by the experienced aviators for all 71 tasks was 1.72. 

For student aviators the mean overall evaluation was 2.00. This small difference in overall mean 

ratings was statistically significant (nonparametric: Mann-Whitney U test, N = 142, z = 2.84, p < 

.005). The difference in overall median ratings was also statistically significant (nonparametric: 

Mann-Whitney U test, N = 142, z = 2.34, p < .02). Students consistently tended to rate the 

 12 
micro-simulator a little higher than did the experienced aviators in its ability to support IERW

training. 

Student ratings for the flight tasks were positively and significantly correlated with those

ratings provided by the experienced aviators. This was true both for mean ratings

(nonparametric: Spearman rank order correlation, rs = 0.78, N = 71, p < .001) and for median 

ratings (nonparametric: Spearman rank order correlation, rs = 0.79, N = 71, p < .001). That is, 

though the students tended to assign somewhat higher ratings, there was substantial agreement 

between the students and the more expert pilots as to which of the 71 flight tasks were well 

supported by the micro-simulator and which were not well supported. These results are shown 

more clearly in Table 3. 

Table 3 presents the results of the evaluations summarized across the four stages of flight 

training (Primary Stage I & II, Instrument Stage I & II) and the two categories of aviator 

(experienced & students). Both experienced and student aviators rated the micro-simulator as

better able to support Instrument Flight Training than Primary Flight Training. Both experienced 

pilots and students rated the micro-simulator as best able to support Advanced Instruments. 

Overall, the micro-simulator was evaluated as “slightly” able to support Primary Flight Training

but “moderately” or “well” able to support the Instrument Flight Training stages. This difference 

in ratings favoring the ability of the micro-simulator to support Instrument tasks over Primary

tasks was statistically significant both for experienced aviators (nonparametric: Sign test, N = 6, 

X = 0, p < .02) and for students (nonparametric: Sign test, N = 10, X = 0, p < .001). 

Table 3 

Summary of Evaluation Ratings by Stage of Flight Task

Stage of Flight Training Task Experienced 

Mean Median

Students 

Mean Median

Primary Flight Training 

Stage I 1.19 1 1.34 1 

Primary Flight Training 

Stage II 1.29 1 0.91 1 

Instrument Flight Training

Stage I (Basic) 2.07 2 2.43 3 

Instrument Flight Training

Stage II (Advanced) 2.32 2 2.89 3 

These results can be further explained by a listing of the specific tasks that were rated as 

supported best by the micro-simulator and those that were rated as supported least. Table 4 

presents the top quartile of tasks (highest-rated 25%) as judged by both experienced and student 

evaluators. Table 5 presents the bottom quartile of tasks (lowest-rated 25%) as judged by both 

groups of aviators. No tasks were included in either table for which there were fewer than four

experienced evaluations or six student evaluations. The results from which Tables 4 and 5 were 

constructed can be found in Tables 1 and 2. 

 13 
Table 4 

Top Quartile: Tasks Judged to be Best Supported by the Micro-Simulator 

Task Experienced Students

Primary Flight Training Stage I

 Go-around X 

Primary Flight Training Stage II

 Simulated maximum performance 

 Takeoff X 

Instrument Flight Training Stage I (Basic)

 Straight-and-level flight X 

 Straight-and-level flight (EP) X 

 Compass turns (EP) X X 

Instrument Flight Training Stage II (Advanced)

 ADF station identification X X 

 ADF aircraft position X 

 ADF course interception X X 

 ADF course tracking X X 

 ADF holding X X 

 ADF approach X X 

 ADF missed approach X X 

 Radio navigation X 

 VOR station identification X X 

 VOR aircraft position X X 

 VOR course interception X 

 VOR course tracking X 

 VOR approach X 

 LOC/ILS station identification X X 

 LOC/ILS course interception X X 

 LOC/ILS course tracking X X 

 LOC/ILS approach X X 

 LOC/ILS missed approach X 

Of the 18 tasks rated by the experienced aviators as best supported by the microsimulator, 16 were part of the Instrument Flight Training curriculum. Of these, 14 were trained 

as part of Advanced Instruments and were tasks involving radio navigation. For the student 

aviators the pattern of evaluations was much the same. All of the 18 tasks rated as best 

supported by the students were part of Instrument Flight Training. Of these, 16 were trained as 

part of Advanced Instruments and involved radio navigation. Thirteen tasks were rated highest 

by both groups of evaluators. Of these, 12 were a part of the radio navigation curriculum. 

Clearly, as previously shown in Table 3, the aviators sampled in this evaluation rated the microsimulator highest in its ability to support the Advanced Instruments stage of IERW. 

 14 
Table 5 

Bottom Quartile: Tasks Judged as Least Well Supported by the Micro-Simulator 

Task Experienced Students

Primary Flight Training Stage I

 Hover check X X 

 Hover power checks X X 

 Hovering flight X X 

 Takeoff to a hover X X 

 Hovering turns X X 

 Landing from a hover X X 

 Rectangular course X 

 Traffic pattern flight X 

 Traffic pattern entry X 

 Traffic pattern exit X 

 VMC takeoff (hover) X 

 VMC (normal) approach (hover) X X 

 Approach termination procedure X X 

 VMC (normal) approach (ground) X

 Standard autorotation X X 

 Hovering autorotation X X 

 Simulated engine failure at hover 

 altitude X X 

Primary Flight Training Stage II

 VMC (steep) approach X X 

 Slope operations X X 

 Low-level autorotation X X 

 Standard autorotation with 180-degree 

 Turn X X 

The bottom quartile consists of the 18 tasks rated as least well supported by the microsimulator. The list of these tasks is found in Table 5 both for experienced aviators and for 

students. All the tasks listed in Table 5 were from Primary Flight Training. Fifteen tasks were

rated as poorly supported by the micro-simulator by both groups of evaluators. Eleven of these 

were part of Stage I Primary Flight Training and the remaining four were from Stage II. Clearly, 

as also shown in Table 3, the aviators sampled in this evaluation rated the micro-simulator as

least able to support Primary Flight Training. Note also that of the total of 21 tasks listed in 

Table 5, 15 involved hovering. (This includes the ten with the word “hover” in their title plus 

approach termination procedure, standard autorotation, slope operations, low-level autorotation, 

and standard autorotation with 180-degree turn. These tasks all have a hovering component.) 

Clearly, the aviators sampled in this evaluation gave low marks to the micro-simulator in its 

ability to support tasks requiring hovering. 

General Questions 

Four questions were asked of both groups of aviators after the flight task evaluation was 

completed. These questions can be found in Appendix A, Part II. The first question was “All in 

all, I believe that simulation is an effective tool for initial flight training.” Participants indicated

their agreement with this statement by checking one of six boxes along a (six-point) Likert-type 

 15 
scale. The choices were “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Agree Somewhat,” “Disagree Somewhat,” 

“Disagree,” and “Strongly Disagree.” For both experienced and student aviators the mean and 

median response was “Agree.” In other words, both groups of aviators agreed that, in principle, 

simulation is an effective tool for initial flight training. 

 

The second question asked whether the participants had run any desktop flight simulator 

or aviation-related game on a PC in the past year. All six of the experts said “yes.” Only four of 

the 10 students said “yes.”

The third question assessed whether or not the participants had access to a PC at their 

place of residence. All six experts answered “yes.” Nine of the ten students answered “yes.” 

The last question was an open-ended one. Participants were asked, “If you were in a 

decision-making capacity, how would you employ this micro-simulator for IERW flight 

training?” Their answers to this question, in accurate paraphrases as well as actual quotations, 

can be found in Appendix B. These answers were entirely in keeping with their flight task 

ratings. Fifteen of the sixteen evaluators expressed the opinion that the micro-simulator had 

value for Instrument Flight Training. Interestingly, four of the experienced and two of the 

students used the term “procedures,” “procedures trainer,” or “instrument techniques” in 

answering the question. Clearly, the respondents were attempting to communicate to the 

researcher that the machine had value as a way of practicing specific procedures for heavily

procedures-driven instrument tasks. 

One experienced aviator and one student expressed the opinion that the micro-simulator

would be of value as a dynamic classroom teaching aid in ground school. Three students stated 

that the machine would be of value as a practice tool and should be available to flight students in 

the Learning Center at Fort Rucker. 

Positive Comments and Criticisms 

Aviators spontaneously reported their comments and criticisms of the micro-simulator 

while performing the flight task evaluations. These verbalizations were recorded, aggregated, 

paraphrased, and are presented in Appendix C. Comments and criticisms from all 16 evaluators

were aggregated by common themes. No comment or criticism was included in Appendix C 

unless it was stated by at least two evaluators. A total of 5 positive comments and 14 criticisms 

were listed. 

The most frequently stated positive comment was that the micro-simulator was an

instruments trainer. It would be valuable in supporting the training of navigation instruments 

and procedures during Instrument Flight Training. Fourteen evaluators mentioned this theme. 

The three most frequently cited criticisms of the micro-simulator concerned visual field 

of view (FOV), visual cues to depth, and inability to hover. All 16 evaluators commented that a 

helicopter flight simulator must have a wider FOV than was provided by this one. Peripheral 

visual cues are required for hovering tasks, traffic pattern flight, traffic pattern entry/exit, 

autorotation, and other VFR tasks. Fourteen evaluators stated that the visual cues to height 

 16 
above ground must be improved for VFR tasks. Helicopter pilots use out-the-window visual 

cues to determine height above terrain for a wide range of VFR tasks such as hovering, approach, 

and autorotation. None of the aviators could achieve a stable hover with this micro-simulator. 

Twelve evaluators commented upon this deficiency directly. The simulator was reported to be 

much harder to hover than the helicopter itself. 

Discussion 

This was an evaluation of the utility of a commercial micro-simulator running a PC-based 

flight simulator application. It was a behavioral evaluation in the sense that aviators performed 

each flight task listed at least once before providing a rating. The sample of aviators who rated 

the device was representative of the target audience of instructors and students of value to 

USAAVNC. This was not a training experiment. No novice flight students were trained to 

criterion using this micro-simulator and then compared to some relevant control group. Further, 

it would be technically incorrect to generalize these findings to another micro-simulator running

a different software application. However, within the constraints imposed by these limitations 

certain clear conclusions can be drawn. 

First, there was remarkable agreement between the experienced aviators and the students 

in their flight task evaluations, their answers to the general questions, their positive comments, 

and their criticisms. This was shown by the statistically significant correlations reported for the

ratings. Additionally, eyeball examination of the five tables shows this similarity. Further, the

answers to the open-ended question recorded in Appendix B were similar in content between 

both samples. Finally, examination of Appendix C shows several themes that were expressed 

independently by both experts and students. 

This agreement between high-time aviators and student aviators has practical

consequences. It suggests that the results of this particular evaluation were so obvious that one 

did not need to be an expert to notice them. Also, it suggests that sometimes relatively easy-toget student aviators might be substituted for relatively difficult-to-get subject matter experts in 

simulator evaluation research. 

 

Second, the ratings argued persuasively that this micro-simulator could be used to 

support Instrument Flight Training in some capacity. Evaluators stated that both instrument 

flight tasks and navigation tasks could be trained to some extent using it. Those procedural, 

knowledge-based, radio navigation tasks that are trained as a part of Advanced Instruments, in 

particular, were judged as well supported. This conclusion drawn from Army rotary-wing

aviators was consistent with prior fixed-wing research by the Navy (Dunlap & Tarr, 1999), by

the private sector (Koonce & Bramble, 1998; Ortiz et al., 1995; Taylor et al., 1997), and recent 

FAA regulations (FAA, 1997). This conclusion may help explain the small effects of using

PCATDs for practice reported by Schneider et al. (2001). They chose to investigate the training

of advanced VFR tasks. Such tasks are quite different from those of radio navigation, both in 

terms of the sensor-motor cues required and ability of a desktop simulator to support them. 

Third, this device was seen as being of very little use for tasks from Primary Flight 

Training that required hovering as a part of the flight maneuver. Experts and students alike rated 

 17 
hovering tasks as unsupported or slightly supported. Hovering is an integral part of Primary

Flight Training in IERW. Many tasks require achieving a stable hover, taking off from a hover, 

or landing to a hover. No evaluator was able to achieve a stable hover with the micro-simulator. 

The frustration was most noticeable with the high-time aviators who often refused to believe that 

they could “not make this thing hover.” The device simply did not allow pilots, all of whom had 

proven repeatedly that they could hover the aircraft, to meet performance standards. The stated 

reasons for this were legion: lack of peripheral visual cues, lack of visual cues to depth, lack of 

correct flight control response, lack of a helicopter flight model, even lack of platform motion 

cues. Unfortunately, the verdict on hovering the device gets worse upon closer examination. 

Those expert aviators who were best able to control heading, height above ground, pitch, and 

drift while attempting to hover stated that what they were doing with the flight controls was in no 

way similar to how they would operate the flight controls in a helicopter. In other words, the

likelihood of positive transfer from hovering the device to hovering the aircraft is doubtful. This 

result is unique, to date, because no other published research has been found that combines 

PCATDs with helicopter flight tasks. 

Fourth, the results from the answers to the general questions were consistent with earlier

research. Nine of the ten student evaluators (90%) had access to a PC at their place of residence. 

The result from an earlier assessment of Army IERW students was that 88% had access to a PC 

at their place of residence (S. Crouch, personal communication, February 8, 2001). The 

comparable data from Navy beginning flight students was 71% (Dunlap & Tarr, 1999). An 

Army-wide sample (ARI, 2001) found that 93% of all officers and 79% of all enlisted personnel 

had access to a PC at their place of residence. Four of the ten students (40%) had run a desktop 

flight simulator or aviation-related game prior to the evaluation. The result of an earlier Army

IERW assessment was 34% (S. Crouch, personal communication, February 8, 2001). The figure

for the Navy’s beginning flight students was 47% (Dunlap & Tarr, 1999). At the very least 

these figures show that beginning flight students are computer literate and that a substantial 

minority are using PCATDs. 

Finally, the results of this utility analysis should not be understood to mean that the 

evaluators or the authors are advocating replacing any current systems with a suite of PCATDs. 

This was not the purpose of the evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was simply to 

determine if the micro-simulator under investigation supported the IERW Common Core 

curriculum. A discussion of how USAAVNC could approach integrating PCATDs into Flight 

School XXI does exist and is included at Appendix D. 

Conclusions 

1. The high-time aviators and the student aviators agreed very closely in their evaluations of

the utility of the micro-simulator for IERW training. 

2. The micro-simulator being evaluated: 

Was rated as not able to support hovering tasks (cf., Tables 1, 2, and 5). 

 18 
Was rated as slightly able to support Primary Flight Training, especially upper air 

tasks (cf., Tables 1, 2, and 3). 

Was rated as able to support Instrument Flight Training moderately to well, 

especially radio navigation tasks (cf., Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4). 

3. Evaluators reported in answer to a specific question, as well as in their spontaneous 

comments, that the simulator had promise as a procedures trainer for the instruments 

portion of IERW. Some also reported that it had value as a dynamic classroom aid for

ground school instruction and as a practice device if located at the Learning Center. 

 

 19 
References 

ARI (2001). Internet access and PC capabilities (ARI Survey Report No. 2001-08). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

 Sciences. 

Bell, H. H., & Waag, W. L. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of flight simulators 

for training combat skills: A review. The International Journal of Aviation 

 Psychology, 8(3), 223-242. 

Crouch, S. (February 8, 2001). IERW students with PCs available (email).

Dennis, K. A., & Harris, D. (1998). Computer-based simulation as an adjunct to ab 

initio flight training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 

 261-276. 

Dunlap, S., & Tarr, R. (1999). Micro-simulator systems for immersive learning

 environments. Proceedings of the 21st Interservice/Industry Training Simulation 

and Education Conference (pp. 506-511). Orlando, FL: I/ITSEC. 

Federal Aviation Administration (1997). Qualification and approval of personal 

computer-based aviation training devices (Advisory Circular No. AC61- 

126,5/12/97). Washington, DC: Department of Transportation. 

Koonce, J. M., & Bramble, W. J. (1998). Personal computer-based flight training

 devices. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 277-292.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. New York: Academic Press. 

Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. 

Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Ortiz, G. A., Kopp, D., & Willenbucher, T. (1995). Instrument training using a computerbased simulation device at Lufthansa Airlines. In R.S. Jensen & L. A. Rakovan (Eds.). 

Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1047- 

1050). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Schneider, D., Greene, R., Levi, K., & Jeffery, D. S. (2001). Microflight simulator. 

Proceedings of the 23rd Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education 

 Conference (pp. 1319-1325). Orlando, FL: I/ITSEC. 

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D., Emanuel, T., & Phillips, S. (1997). 

Transfer of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation 

 20 
 training devices (DOT/FAA/AM-97/11). Washington, DC: Office of Aviation 

 Medicine. 

U. S. Army Aviation Center (November, 1999). Initial entry rotary wing aviator 

course: Primary phase. Fort Rucker, Alabama: Author. 

U. S. Army Aviation Center (February, 2001). Initial entry rotary wing aviator course:

 Instrument phase. Fort Rucker, Alabama: Author.

 21 
Appendix A 

Rating Form

Name_____________________________ Age_____ Total Flight Hours________ 

Job Title_________________________________ Date____________ 

Subject Matter Expert Evaluation: IERW Flight Tasks (from Flight Training Guides)

Part I: Instructions. How well does this low-cost micro-simulator (Desk Top Simulators RTC)

support the following IERW Common Core Tasks? Please check one evaluation per task. 

TASKS EVALUATION

 Not at all Slightly Moderately Well 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Phase I Primary Flight Training Stage I

 

 Straight-and-level flight _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Climbs and descents _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Acceleration/deceleration _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Climbing and descending turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Relationship of the flight

 controls and the instruments _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Hover check _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Hover power checks _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Rectangular course _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 “S” turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Hovering flight _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 A-1 
 Takeoff to a hover _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Hovering turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Landing from a hover _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Traffic pattern flight _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Traffic pattern entry _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Traffic pattern exit _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VMC takeoff (hover) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

VMC (normal) approach (hover) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Approach termination procedure _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Standard autorotation _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Simulated engine failure at

 altitude (autorotation descent) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Power recovery _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Go-around _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VMC takeoff (ground) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VMC (normal) approach (ground) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Hovering autorotation _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Simulated engine failure

at hover altitude _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Shallow approach to a 

run-on landing _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Phase I Primary Flight Training Stage II

 Simulated maximum 

performance takeoff _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 

 A-2 
 VMC (steep) approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Slope operations _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Termination with power _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Low-level autorotation _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Standard autorotation with

180-degree turn _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Phase II Instrument Flight Training Stage I (Basic Instruments) 

 Instrument maneuvers: 

 Straight and level _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Standard rate turn _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Climbs and descents _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Timed turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Steep turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Acceleration/deceleration _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Climbing and 

descending turns _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Unusual attitude recovery _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Straight and level (EP) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Standard rate turns (EP) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Climbs and descents (EP) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Climbing and descending

turns (EP) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 Compass turns (EP) _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 

 A-3 
Phase II Instrument Flight Training Stage II (Advanced Instruments) 

 ADF station identification _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 ADF aircraft position _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 ADF course interception _____ _____ _____ _____ 

ADF course tracking _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 ADF holding _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 ADF approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 

 Radio navigation _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 ADF missed approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR station identification _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR aircraft position _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 

VOR course interception _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR course tracking _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR holding station _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR holding intersection _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 VOR missed approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 LOC/ILS station identification _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 LOC/ILS course interception _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 LOC/ILS course tracking _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 LOC/ILS holding _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 LOC/ILS approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 LOC/ILS missed approach _____ _____ _____ _____ 

 A-4 
 Instrument takeoff _____ _____ _____ _____ 

Part II: General. 

1. All in all, I believe that simulation is an effective tool for initial flight training. (Please

indicate your impression by placing an X in the appropriate box.) 

Strongly

Agree 

Agree Agree

Somewhat

Disagree 

Somewhat

Disagree Strongly

Disagree 

2. In the past year I have run a desktop flight simulator or aviation-related game on a

personal computer (PC). (Such as Microsoft Flight Simulator, Strike Eagle, Falcon, or

RAH-66 Comanche.) 

_____Yes _____No 

3. I have access to a PC at my place of residence. 

_____Yes _____No 

If you were in a decision-making capacity, how would you employ this micro-simulator for 

IERW flight training?

 A-5 
Appendix B

Answers to the Open-Ended Question 

Answers recorded by the researcher to the question “If you were in a decision-making capacity,

how would you employ this micro-simulator for IERW flight training?” These answers are 

accurate paraphrases and direct quotations. 

Experienced Aviators

Evaluator A: As it sits, “not use it at all for flight training.” Would be valuable in ground 

school, as a teaching aid in ground school. 

Evaluator B: Procedural, procedures trainer both Primary and Instruments. Use it to supplement 

Primary and Instruments. Procedures training: flight instruments, cross check, navigation aid 

tuning and use, emergency procedures, system failures. It is a procedures trainer, not a flight 

simulator.

Evaluator C: It is “useless” for Primary contact phase. It is “very useful for instrument flight 

training” both flight instruments and navigation instruments. 

Evaluator D: “It is a procedures trainer, an instruments trainer for navigation instruments, cross 

needles, location on the ground, instrument approaches, instrument techniques, identify stations, 

tune navigation aids, teach and learn navigation aids. It is not a flight simulator.”

Evaluator E: “Instrument procedures only (and that with two students).” Flight instruments and 

navigation instruments. Need clock, torque gauge, flight package, and navigation aids. Do not 

need engine gauges, fuel gauge, oil gauge, and temperature gauges. 

Evaluator F: Use it as a procedures trainer for flight controls, flight instruments, and “upper air 

work,” not for hovering. Use it as a procedures trainer for “partial panel.” 

Student Aviators

Evaluator G: VFR—not useful; IFR—“pretty good, pretty useful.” Basic Instruments “OK,” 

navigation training “great.” Use it for Instruments training. 

Evaluator H: VFR—use for upper air work, but not hover. IFR—“pretty good tool” for training

navigation instruments and flight instruments, BI, AI, procedures turns, etc.

Evaluator I: Use it as a classroom teaching aid or Learning Center practice tool. VFR—no 

comment. IFR—use for instruments, especially navigation instruments, BI, AI, “train basic 

concepts then transfer to flight simulator.” Instruments procedures trainer.

 B-1 
Evaluator J: “For Instruments students.” It is a “better tool for navigation, flight instruments.” 

Not for VFR, it does not fly like a helicopter. IFR—“valuable training tool.” Primary Flight 

Training it is “slightly useful.” 

Evaluator K: “Tool for Instrument students.” Both navigation and flight instruments training, 

IFR. Not Primary Flight Training, not VFR, not the correct visual cues. “Nav stuff good,” “two 

VORs at pilot station good.” 

Evaluator L: “Primarily for instruments. Best to take home and practice for instruments.” Not 

helpful for Primary Flight Training. 

Evaluator M: “Instrument flight training only.” Not VFR. 

Evaluator N: Instrument training of navigation aids. Not VFR. Best for instrument training. 

Good for instruments, not good for primary VFR. Some limited use for upper air procedural 

training. 

Evaluator O: “Very suitable for instrument training.” For hover work it is “not suitable.” 

Evaluator P: Not VFR. “Not Primary. Secondary or instruments, yes.” “Maybe emergency

procedures.” No peripheral vision for VFR. Flight controls not correct for VFR. “Simulates 

instrument techniques, station IDs, approach plates, interpretation of instruments.” Value as 

instruments. Should be located at Learning Center, for off-time, voluntary practice. 

 B-2 
Appendix C 

Positive Comments and Criticisms 

This appendix contains the concerns and comments verbalized by aviators while evaluating the

micro-simulator and recorded by the researcher. The comments of all 16 evaluators, both 

experienced aviators and students, were aggregated together. Only comments that were

expressed by at least two aviators were included. Comments were grouped together if they

expressed a common underlying theme. 

Positive Comments

1. This is an instruments trainer. It should be used to train navigation instruments and 

navigation procedures. (“I wish I’d had this for instruments practice.”) Fourteen (14) evaluators 

mentioned this theme.

2. This is a procedures trainer. It should be used to train basic relationships between flight 

controls and flight instruments, emergency procedures, partial panel. Seven (7) evaluators 

mentioned this theme.

3. This device is for training upper air work; normal flight procedures at altitude. Three (3) 

mentioned this theme.

4. This device would be useful for student stations in ground school academics or as a practice 

device at the Learning Center. Four (4) mentioned this theme. 

5. With the addition of a large, classroom-size, projection screen, this device would be very

useful (“excellent”) for academic training in ground school. Two (2) mentioned this theme. 

Criticisms

1. Flight controls. The cyclic position, seat position, and pedal positions are not comfortable, 

not adjustable, and not like the aircraft. This is especially true for the cyclic. The cyclic is

positioned unnaturally. The pilot cannot relax and let his/her hand rest on the right thigh. It

produces fatigue, back pain, and/or neck pain while trying to operate this device for any

appreciable length of time. Ten (10) evaluators mentioned this theme.

2. Flight controls. The cyclic is a hindrance to flying this simulator. The cyclic has a spring that

keeps trying to return it to the center position. It needs a force trim capability. The pilot cannot 

just set the force trim and leave the cyclic alone temporarily. The pilot must continually “fight”

the cyclic. This is unlike the aircraft. The pilot must constantly move, adjust, press, and control 

the cyclic to maintain straight and level flight. It is more difficult to maintain straight and level 

flight in this device than in the aircraft. In addition, there is a null area in the cyclic center

position of about two inches in diameter within which no command inputs have any impact. 

There is no such null area in the aircraft’s cyclic. Eight (8) evaluators mentioned this theme.

 C-1 
3. Flight controls. The collective is unlike that of the aircraft. It needs force feedback. The 

collective should give feedback to the pilot concerning how much power he/she has pulled in. 

The collective is “too sensitive,” “too jumpy” at the high end. The collective in the aircraft is not 

linear; the collective in the device is too linear. Four (4) evaluators mentioned this. 

4. Flight controls. The pedals are unlike those of the aircraft. They are both stiff to move and 

insensitive to control inputs. Pilots have to “put in too much pedal.” Pedals are not “responsive 

enough.” Twelve (12) evaluators mentioned this. 

5. Flight instruments. The Bell 206B Jet Ranger was the aircraft model used for this evaluation. 

The Bell 206B aircraft model does not have the same cockpit configuration as the Army TH-67. 

The evaluators wanted any simulator used in any capacity for IERW training to incorporate an 

accurate representation of the TH-67’s flight instruments; the same instruments in the same

locations for accurate instruments procedures training and accurate scan pattern development. 

Four (4) evaluators mentioned this. (The researcher chose the Bell 206B model for the 

evaluation because it was a higher quality, more readable, and scalable model of the flight

instruments than the TH-67 model available. Thus, this criticism is not fair to the microsimulator under evaluation. The device would have been able to run a higher quality TH-67 

model if one had been available.) 

6. Flight instruments. The flight instruments lag the flight controls. This is not like the aircraft 

and not good. When the instruments lag the controls a pilot’s feedback is reduced and this can 

cause pilot induced oscillations of the aircraft. Aviators remarked that this situation was 

particularly notable during instrument takeoffs and acceleration/deceleration. Ten (10) 

evaluators mentioned this. 

7. Flight instruments. Simulator would be of greater value with a clock that can be set/reset with 

a button to time approaches, holding patterns, etc. Two (2) evaluators mentioned this. 

8. Flight instruments. The turn indicator moves too much; is too sensitive to cyclic inputs. It

acts like the turn indicator in a fixed-wing aircraft rather than a helicopter. Two (2) evaluators 

mentioned this. 

9. Visual cues. The instruments-in-the-windscreen approach used by Microsoft has some 

drawbacks. It reduces field of view. It blocks part of the view out the front on an approach, 

causing the pilot to adjust the pitch up and down to see the landing site (“porpoise”). It reduces 

visual cues needed to hover. When the instruments are scaled well down in size or pushed 

“below” the screen, then the pilot loses his/her instruments. Aviators wanted the instruments 

below the windscreen, either on another monitor or actual instruments. A related complaint was 

that pilots could not see below themselves for hovering and approach. They wanted something

to simulate the “chin bubble” available in helicopters. Twelve (12) evaluators mentioned this. 

10. Visual cues. Everyone wanted peripheral visual cues, wider field of view, and a view out 

the right and left doors. VFR tasks require better simulation of peripheral cues for hovering drift, 

 C-2 
traffic pattern flight, traffic pattern entry/exit, rectangular pattern, S turns, autorotation, and 

more. All sixteen (16) evaluators mentioned this theme.

11. Visual cues. Better visual cues to depth. Height above ground was difficult to judge 

visually. Height above terrain is a necessary visual cue for VFR helicopter flight. Among the 

tasks where it is essential are hovering tasks, approaches, and autorotations. Fourteen (14) 

evaluators mentioned this. 

12. Flight model. The micro-simulator does not hover. None of the evaluators could achieve a 

stable hover. The simulator was reported to be much harder to hover than the helicopter itself. 

Criticisms concerned the flight controls and the mathematical flight model. Twelve (12)

evaluators mentioned this theme during operation of the simulator.

13. Flight model. The micro-simulator does not “fly” like a helicopter at low indicated air 

speeds. It does not react to control inputs at low speeds the way a helicopter does. It acts 

“squirrelly” at low speeds. One evaluator, an expert, said it “gets stable above 60 knots, which 

means it is using a modified fixed-wing flight model.” The point is that a helicopter is stable at 

low air speeds, or even zero air speed. Four (4) evaluators mentioned this. 

14. Flight model. It does not turn like a helicopter. This is especially true for steep turns and 

ascending/descending turns. Two (2) evaluators mentioned this. 

 C-3 
Appendix D 

PCATD Study Group Report 

The Potential Use of PCATDs as an Adjunct to Initial Entry Rotary-Wing (IERW) Flight Training1

PCATD Study Group2,3

The Mission of the PCATD-JWG

The mission of the Personal Computer Aviation Training Device (PCATD) Joint Working Group (JWG) as

stated in the draft charter (Stewart, 2000) was, in part:

This could involve, but is not necessarily limited to, an evaluation of 

training outcomes using PCATDs based upon current off-the-shelf,

commercially available flight simulation software. The evaluation will 

take place within the context of the training system as a whole. The 

committee will provide input in the form of recommendations for the 

optimal employment of PCATDs in the aviation training system of the 

 21st Century. (Stewart, 2000, p.1) 

In an email to the JWG Thomas Flohr said that the mission “is to determine what PC based system is capable of

improving and enhancing current and future POI training to obtain a better qualified pilot” (T. Flohr, personal

communication, October 6, 2000). 

Given either of these wordings the mission of the PCATD-JWG was open to a wide variety of

interpretations (and misinterpretations). Hence, a small Study Group was formed from a subset of volunteers

attending the JWG meeting of 2 October 2000. This PCATD Study Group (hereafter referred to as “Group”) read, 

thought, and engaged in productive dialog in an attempt to structure the PCATD issue for the JWG.

The Group was able to winnow down the many potential uses of PCATDs to a few which appeared 

practical, and then present these options to the JWG. The Group made its initial presentation to the JWG on 17

January 2001. As a result of that presentation the Group was encouraged to evaluate a commercial micro-simulator 

PCATD manufactured by Desk Top Simulators of Fort Worth, Texas. This micro-simulator evaluation has been

performed, briefed, and reported (PCATD Study Group Interim Report, 23 August 2001). A brief discussion of this

evaluation is included as a part of Option Three (below). 

The Group concluded that there are three potentially valuable approaches to the use of PCATDs in IERW

training. PCATDs can be used for self-study by students prior to flight school, they can be used in ground school

academics as a dynamic interactive aid for teaching key concepts, and they can be used to support the training of

instrument procedures. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. One or all of them can be employed in an

effort to improve student proficiency, early in flight training, with little or no modification of the current curriculum.

Potential Options for Training that the PCATD-JWG Could Consider Pursuing

Option One: Informal self-study using commercially available flight simulation software. The United States Army

Aviation Center (USAAVNC) could provide inexpensive PCATD software to students prior to their beginning flight

school at Fort Rucker. Along with the software USAAVNC could provide a simple printed syllabus explaining to

students how they should use the software for prerequisite learning prior to flight school. Students would gain

knowledge of aviation vocabulary, concepts, flight instruments, and navigation instruments. The intent of this

would be to increase student knowledge, and readiness to learn, before the formal course of instruction began.

 

1

 This report is not the official position of the United States Army Aviation Center. 2

 The members of the PCATD Study Group were: William Barker (ARI), Stephen Crouch (LSI), Thomas Flohr 

(DOTDS), David Johnson (ARI), Edward Miller (ATB), John Stewart (ARI), Willard Vignoe (DOTDS), and Dale

Weiler (ARI). 3

 David Johnson and John Stewart wrote this report.

 D-1 
There are at least two media that could be used to provide this “head start.” Both CD-ROM and the 

Internet could be used, and both have been used in the past. There are a number of low-cost, CD-ROM based flight 

simulator packages available. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000TM Professional Edition, for example, contains a CD 

plus a textbook with flight training tutorials, homework assignments, and a glossary of aviation terms. The Navy

provides a modified version of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000TM, plus access to a custom website (NROTC Zone, 

found at www.cnet.navy.mil/microsim/), to every Navy flight student and every member of Naval ROTC at all 65 

campuses. This Navy program has been in operation since 2000. 

This option assumes that virtually all flight students have access to a PC at their place of residence. 

Research shows that they do. In the micro-simulator evaluation referred to earlier it was found that nine of the ten

student evaluators (90%) had access to a PC at their place of residence. The result from an earlier assessment of

Army IERW students was that 88% had access to a PC at their place of residence (S. Crouch, personal 

communication, February 8, 2001). The comparable data from Navy beginning flight students was 71% (Dunlap &

Tarr, 1999). Finally, an Army-wide sample (ARI, 2001) found that 93% of all officers and 79% of all enlisted 

personnel had access to a PC at their place of residence. Thus, since virtually all flight students have access to a PC, 

Option One should not be limited by computer illiteracy on the part of the students. 

Would students use the PCATD materials provided at government expense or not? There is a certain

amount of evidence that says they would. First, research has shown that highly capable students do well in an

unstructured, self-study environment (e.g., Cronbach & Snow, 1977). Second, computer literate students of the 

present generation are comfortable in a self-study environment because that is how they have been learning their 

computer skills since grade school (e.g., Prensky, 2001; Schaab & Moses, 2001). Third, many flight students are 

using these materials on their own already. Four of ten students (40%) had run a desktop flight simulator or

aviation-related game prior to the micro-simulator evaluation (PCATD Study Group Interim Report, 23 August 

2001). The result of an earlier assessment of Army IERW students was 34% (S. Crouch, personal communication,

February 8, 2001). The comparable figure for the Navy’s beginning flight students was 47% (Dunlap & Tarr, 1999). 

Thus, it is likely that primary flight students would take advantage of any PCATD materials provided to them prior 

to school—especially since these materials would arrive with the clear imprimatur of USAAVNC.

USAAVNC could institute this option on an experimental basis in order to determine if, in fact, IERW

students were arriving better prepared for school and performing at a higher level while in school. There are at least 

two research approaches that could be considered. PCATD Option One could be instituted for every IERW class for 

a year. The performance of students in these experimental classes could be compared to historical records of student 

performance using the standard, PCATD-less curriculum. Academic classroom instructors, primary flight

instructors, and instruments instructors could be interviewed as to their professional opinion of the experimental

students versus past students. A second approach would be to employ a formal experimental methodology and 

compare PCATD classes to standard control classes. ARI would be available to consult with USAAVNC on

research methods, measures, and analyses. In addition, if a bona fide research plan were in place, ARI could

purchase any number of PCATD flight simulator software packages with funds transferred for this purpose through

Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR). 

This option is the easiest to implement. It does not require any changes to any part of flight school. The 

POI and instructor force are unchanged. It does not require modifications of classrooms, refurbishing old buildings, 

or new construction. It does not even require additional electrical power. 

Option Two: Upgrade Classroom Instruction in Ground School with the Addition of Commercially Available 

PCATD Flight Simulation Software. Academic instruction in ground school for IERW currently uses the “sage on

the stage” pedagogical technique—lectures, slides, and tests. This technique is both effective and efficient. It is a 

valid method of getting information to large groups of students and it has been doing so for 200 years (cf., Prensky,

2001). It can be improved upon, however, in a number of ways—most of which are not the focus of this Group 

report. One technique that would improve classroom instruction, while leaving virtually the entire academic POI 

unmodified, is simply to improve the teaching aids available to the platform instructor. A PCATD being run by a 

suitably powerful computer with the screen display being projected onto a classroom sized display is one such

teaching tool. 

There are few activities in life more dynamic, interactive, and three-dimensional than that of flying a 

helicopter. A PCATD flight simulator program can be used by an instructor to show, in real time, key concepts

from his or her lectures embedded in an integrated flight environment. A PCATD flight simulator can be used to

provide dynamic, interactive, three-dimensional examples of what the instructor just said. It can be used as a 

powerful teaching tool without requiring new instructors, new classrooms, or a new POI. 

 D-2 
An example may be pertinent here. Training Module G of the IERW POI (USAAVNC, May 1996) is

called Instrument Academics and it is intended “To provide the student with a working knowledge of those subjects

required for a rotary-wing instrument qualification.” (USAAVNC, May 1996, p.27) It contains instructional submodules entitled: holding procedures, approach procedures, attitude instrument flying, introduction to radio

navigation, radio magnetic indicator, radio navigation/horizontal situation indicator, and others. Module G is

intended to give the student the academic information necessary to learn basic instruments flying and advanced 

instruments radio navigation. 

The Bell 206B helicopter model included as a part of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000TM, a common 

inexpensive PCATD, contains functional flight and navigation instruments, including: indicated airspeed, attitude

indicator, barometric altimeter, vertical speed indicator, turn indicator, trim ball, compass, horizontal situation

indicator, automatic direction finder (ADF), two very high frequency omni-directional radio range receivers

(VORs), tunable navigation radios with Morse code identification and distance measuring equipment (DME), a

clock, and inner/middle/outer markers, among other instruments. These flight and navigation instruments operate in

real time and function the way the actual instruments function in the aircraft. The geographic database contained in

Flight Simulator includes the non-directional beacon (NDB), VOR, localizer, and instrument landing system (ILS) 

transmitter frequencies and ranges. Airports are modeled in the database with all runways correctly oriented to

magnetic heading. This means that the classroom instructor could use this PCATD to demonstrate concepts related 

to attitude flying; standard rate turns; tuning, identifying, position identification, intercepting, and tracking an NDB, 

VOR, localizer, or ILS; holding patterns; or intersection holding. The instructor could show the ADF needle 

spinning 180 degrees when the PCATD is made to simulate flying over an NDB, for example, all in real time and all

interactively under control of the instructor. Key academic concepts could be demonstrated using a PCATD as a 

dynamic, interactive, three-dimensional teaching aid. 

This approach would increase the concrete illustrative quality of the ground school instruction. The 

PCATD when controlled by the instructor would provide clear, compelling, real time examples of some of the 

course content. It should increase the richness of the mental flight model that the students develop as a result of

their ground school instruction. This option would shorten somewhat the bridge from the classroom to the flight

line. 

Academic instruction is scheduled for 95 of the 100 training days devoted to Primary Flight Training and 

Instrument Flight Training (USAAVNC, 2000). Option Two does not require any modification to the academic 

POI. However, the usefulness of the classroom PCATD would only increase if additional classroom time were 

made available for its use. Are there any classroom content hours that could be shifted, modified, or shortened? For 

example, ten days of academic instruction are devoted to aviation weather. For another example, one day is devoted 

to platoon training. Is IERW really the best place to put this platoon training? Platoon training, some would 

suggest, properly belongs in Basic Combat Skills. The point is simply this: the advantages to IERW that would

accrue by use of a PCATD during academic instruction would increase with increasing use—and use takes time. 

Increasing the classroom time available for essential flight instruction would be a good thing, if possible. 

To implement this option the classroom computers currently being used for ground school would need to

be upgraded. While the current systems are adequate for projecting Microsoft PowerPointTM slides, they are too 

slow for regular classroom use of a PCATD flight simulator program. It is the experience of the Group that a host

computer with an Intel Pentium IIITM processor, operating at a speed of 550MHz, with 256MB RAM, can run the 

PCATD with no irritating delays between control input and response. The instructor station would also need a 

joystick to input control commands comfortably. Keyboard input to the PCATD is not an acceptable interface (cf., 

Norman, 1998) and has been shown to reduce learning and transfer (Dennis & Harris, 1998). 

The expert aviators who currently teach academics would need a block of instruction on the PCATD as a 

part of implementing Option Two. This step cannot be ignored. Instructors who have not had an opportunity to

learn the PCATD software will simply not use it. However, learning how to operate the Microsoft Flight Simulator 

2000TM, for example, is neither difficult nor time-consuming. This is one of the many advantages of commercial 

PCATDs. Besides being inexpensive and reliable, they are designed to be easy to learn, easy to operate, and 

relatively forgiving of errors. Vendors design their PCATD products to be “flown” out of the box by ordinary

consumers who are neither engineers nor aviators. 

Option Three: Provide Commercially Available PCATD Micro-Simulators for IERW Student Practice. Why

should any student who has successfully passed Primary Flight Training fail Instrument Flight Training? Why

should any student who has learned how to hover and fly a helicopter solo under visual flight rules fail instruments? 

Why should a student who can fly a helicopter not be able to master the largely knowledge-based, procedural skills 

taught in instruments? Some students may simply need extra practice to grasp these procedurally and cognitively

 D-3 
complex tasks. PCATDs provide a low-cost vehicle for providing students extra practice prior to and during

Instrument Flight Training.

Options One and Two refer to simple, desktop PCs running inexpensive CD-ROM flight simulator 

applications and being controlled by a joystick. Option Three calls for PC-based micro-simulators. These microsimulators are near the high end of the PCATD continuum. They are PC-based, desktop simulators with seats, flight

controls, and sometimes even physical switches, knobs, and dials. One exemplar of this type of procedures trainer is

the Rapidly Transferable Cockpit (RTC) made by Desk Top Simulators and evaluated by the Group (Study Group 

Interim Report, August 23 2001). The RTC evaluated by the Group is described below in order to give the reader an

impression of the kind of device that is meant when one refers to a micro-simulator. 

Each RTC weighed approximately 500 pounds (227 kg.). Its dimensions were 72 inches (183 cm.) in

length, 34 inches (86 cm.) in width, and 60 inches (152 cm.) in height. It used standard 110 V, 60 Hz power. The 

visual display monitor measured 28 inches (71 cm.) diagonally. The angular field of view of this screen from a 

normal sitting position was 43 degrees (horizontal) by 34 degrees (vertical). This CRT screen had a resolution of

768 pixels horizontally by 1024 lines vertically. The RTC was capable of supporting a wide variety of PC-based 

flight simulator software applications. The evaluation was limited to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000TM

Professional Edition. The software was run on a Microsoft Windows 98TM operating system. The host computer

was an Intel Pentium IIITM processor, operating at a speed of 550MHz, with 256MB RAM. The system included a 

Logitech wireless keyboard, a Logitech wireless mouse, and two Juster Multimedia speakers. The RTC contained a 

padded seat facing the CRT screen and operational flight controls. The cyclic was a Stick II made by Flight Link. 

Flight Link also made the collective and the pedals. 

The interested reader should examine the report referenced above to learn the details of the utility

evaluation performed and the results obtained. In brief, a sample of expert and student aviators evaluated the 

capability of the micro-simulator to support training of IERW flight tasks. They rated the micro-simulator as being

able to support Instrument Flight Training moderately to well. They were much less satisfied with the capability of

the micro-simulator to support Primary Flight Training, without major modifications to the visual system, database, 

and flight model.

The report also listed a body of research showing the validity of PCATD micro-simulators for fixed-wing

visual flight rules (VFR) training and fixed-wing instrument flight rules (IFR) training. The report noted that the

Federal Aviation Administration allows certified PCATDs to be used for creditable training for the private pilot 

instrument rating (cf., FAA, 1997). The interested reader of the Interim Report will learn that PCATD microsimulators are now a valid and accepted part of aviation training in the private sector and the Navy. 

Option Three is a proposal to extend PCATDs to IERW training in the form of a student procedures trainer 

for the practice of instrument techniques. The suggestion is to provide a student micro-simulator laboratory at the 

Learning Center or some other accessible location on Fort Rucker. Students could use the PCATDs to practice basic 

and advanced instrument procedures voluntarily, on their own time, after training hours. The Group is not

suggesting in this document any change to flight line helicopter training or instruments simulation at Pratt Hall. 

This is merely an adjunct to standard IERW training. It is an opportunity for the students who need extra practice in

instrument procedures to have some place to get that practice. 

The Option Three micro-simulator lab should not require significant maintenance or supervisory resources. 

The PCATDs are fundamentally desktop computers running a flight simulator application from a Microsoft 

Windows

TM operating system. This means that they have in common with PCs both ease of use and reliability. 

During three months of dedicated testing the RTC evaluated by the Group never experienced any problem that could 

not be solved by simply rebooting the system. Further, since these PCATDs are little more than upgraded PCs, the 

researcher (David Johnson) required only a very few hours of practice to learn how to operate the system, preset test

flight conditions, record flights, and modify the system settings. Virtually any “bubble student” (a flight student

who has finished Primary and Instruments and is awaiting assignment to Basic Combat Skills training, for example) 

could be trained how to operate and maintain the PCATDs in one day and then supervise the micro-simulator lab for 

the duration of his or her bubble period. USAAVNC would have no difficulty finding a crew of bubble students

who are both computer literate and available for this aviation-relevant assignment. Finally, since these PCATDs are 

merely modified PCs, they do not have special power, temperature, or humidity needs. They can be plugged into a 

power strip and operate in virtually any building on Fort Rucker. 

Option Three could easily have other, unanticipated advantages. For example, what about those many days

each year when weather prevents flight line training? Or, what about those crews who cannot train on a given day

because of aircraft unavailability? In each of these cases having procedures trainers available and accessible could 

mean the difference between a productive day and a lost day. Enterprising instructor pilots (IPs) could (and would) 

take their students to the micro-simulator lab and give them a block of instruction on something. Perhaps the IPs 

 D-4 
would use the time to introduce a concept or technique that will be trained later. For example, all of the microsimulators have a visual system. IPs would soon learn to use them for introducing students to VFR tasks when

aircraft were unavailable for any reason. The unanticipated advantages of having a dedicated simulator training

facility for IERW will surely grow over time. 

Finally, Dennis and Harris (1998) will be quoted below since their wisdom deserves to be repeated over 

and again when discussing micro-simulator PCATDs: 

Despite evidence that low-grade simulation is beneficial in the 

early stages of pilot training, there is still a real requirement for 

instruction to take place in the air to expose trainees to the flight 

environment. For this reason, it is suggested that simulation

should be used as an adjunct to training in the air and not as a 

replacement for it. The objective of using low-cost simulation in

the initial stages of instruction should be to maximize the quality

of instructional time in the air. (Dennis & Harris, 1998, p. 263) 

Now is the Time

Providing students with extra, preparatory, aviation materials for self-study is not “rocket science.” Using

a classroom simulator to demonstrate flight instruments and navigation instruments is not rocket science. Using a 

low cost micro-simulator to allow students to practice instrument skills is also not rocket science. These are basic 

pedagogical techniques whose usefulness is almost certain to be shown in future Navy, Air Force, and Army

research. What makes these techniques valuable at the present time is not the instructional theory underlying them, 

for this has not changed. The value in these techniques lies in the enormously capable simulator technology that can

now be purchased relatively inexpensively. 

Voltaire said in 1764 “The best is the enemy of the good.” He was referring to the very human tendency of

people to keep delaying decisions about good simulator technology because better technology is right around the 

corner. There will always be better technology around the corner. Technology always improves over historical 

epochs (cf., Burke, 1978). This should not prevent us from deciding upon good technology today.

 D-5 
References

ARI (2001). Internet Access and PC Capabilities (ARI Survey Report No. 2001-08). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Burke, J. (1978). Connections. Boston: Little, Brown.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on

Interactions. New York: Irvington. 

Crouch, S. (February 8, 2001). IERW students with PCs available (email). 

Dennis, K. A., & Harris, D. (1998). Computer-based simulation as an adjunct to ab initio flight training. 

The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 261-276. 

Dunlap, S., & Tarr, R. (1999). Micro-simulator systems for immersive learning environments. Proceedings of the

21st Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference (pp. 506-511). Orlando, FL:

I/ITSEC.

Federal Aviation Administration (1997). Qualification and Approval of Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training

Devices (Advisory Circular No. AC61-126,5/12/97). Washington, DC: Department of Transportation.

Flohr, T. (October 6, 2000). PCATD Study Group (email). 

Norman, D. A. (1998). The Invisible Computer. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

PCATD Study Group (23 August 2001). Utility Evaluation of a Micro-Simulator for Introductory Helicopter Flight

Training: Interim Report (unpublished).

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Schaab, B. B., & Moses, F. L. (2001). Six Myths about Digital Skills Training (ARI Research Report 1774). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Stewart, J. E. (2000). Charter, Personal Computer Aviation Training Device (PCATD) Joint Working Group 

(unpublished).

U.S. Army Aviation Center (May, 1996). Program of instruction, IERW core. Fort Rucker, AL. 

U.S. Army Aviation Center (2000). USAAVNC Form 138 (course flow). Fort Rucker, AL. 

 D-6 
Acronyms

ADF Automatic Direction Finder 

ARI US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ATB Aviation Training Brigade

CRT Cathode-Ray Tube

DME Distance Measuring Equipment 

DOTDS Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Simulation

EP Emergency Panel

FOV Field of View

FTG Flight Training Guide 

IERW Initial Entry Rotary Wing

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

ILS Instrument Landing System

IP Instructor Pilot 

JWG Joint Working Group

LOC Localizer 

LSI Lear Siegler Services Incorporated 

MIPR Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request 

NDB Non-Directional Beacon

NROTC Naval Reserve Officer Training Course

PCATD Personal Computer Aviation Training Device

POI Program of Instruction

RTC Rapidly Transferable Cockpit

USAAVNC US Army Aviation Center 

VFR Visual Flight Rules 

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions

VOR Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range Receiver 

 D-7