DOT IF AAI AM-95/31 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

~.· ··· ... 

Results of a Field Study of the 

Performance Enhancement 

System: A Support System for 

Aviation Safety Inspectors 

Charles F. Layton 

Galaxy Scientific Corporation 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

William T. Shepherd 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, DC 20591 

December 1995 

Final Report 

This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information 

Servic.e}'-'.Springfield1 Vi:~ia 22161. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 
Tec~nical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-95/31 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Results of a Field Study of the Performance Enhancement System: December 1995 

A Support System for Aviation Safety Inspectors 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Charles F. Layton, Ph.D., and William T. Shepherd, Ph.D. 

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

Galaxy Scientific Corp. Office of Aviation Medicine 

2310 Parklake Drive, Suite 325 Federal Aviation Administration 11 . Contract orGrant No. 

Atlanta, GA 30345 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 DTF AO 1-92-Y -01005 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Office of Aviation Medicine Final Report 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

This work was performed under task AM-E-94-AAM-182. 

1 6. Abstract 

The Performance Enhancement System (PENS) is a prototype electronic performance support system for Aviation 

Safety Inspectors (ASis). PENS facilitates field data collection, information management, and on-line references, 

thus eliminating paperwork, redundant data-entry tasks, data errors, slow data-entry and turnaround times, and 

bulky paper references. PENS allows A Sis to collect field data in the format used by national FAA databases and it 

allows them to verify data at the time of inspection. A national field study of PENS was conducted. The study 

consisted of fielding four different computers to four A Sis in each of nine FAA Flight Standards District Offices 

across the country from November 1993 through March 1994. Study results indicate that the complex information 

management difficulties encountered by ASis will not be solved by purchasing computer hardware alone. Rather, 

appropriate field software applications must be developed that will work in combination with field computer 

hardware to provide A Sis with a system of tools that supports their daily responsibilities. The A Sis must be closely 

involved in the continued development of these tools to ensure that they are designed to meet the inspectors' needs. 

1 7. Key Words 1 8. Distribution St atement 

Electronic performance support system, Data Document is available to the public through the 

collection, Job Aid, Mobile computing, National Technical Information Service 

Maintenance and inspection, Aviation safety Springfield, Virginia 22161 

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

Unclassified Unclassified 83 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This program was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration.Technical program 

management was provided by Dr. William T. Shepherd, Program Manager, Office of Aviation 

Medicine. This program was conducted under contract DTFAOl-92-Y-01005. 

The authors thank Anthony Broderick, Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification; 

Thomas Accardi, Clyde Jones, Danny O'Harrow, and Connie Streeter, of the Office of Flight 

Standards; and Jean Watson, Office of Aviation Medicine, for their assistance and support during 

this program. 

The authors also thank all of the inspectors in the Flight Standards Service who participated in 

this study. Without their support this study would not have been possible. We look forward to 

continuing this work on their behalf. 

iii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Performance ENhancement System (PENS) is a prototype pen computer-based 

electronic performance support system for Aviation Safety Inspectors. Several issues 

related to the efficacy of computers for field use have been identified and study results are 

discussed. These results have broad implications for implementation of field computer 

applications. 

The Performance ENhancement System (PENS) is a prototype pen computer-based electronic 

performance support system. PENS is an outgrowth of the Federal Aviation Administration's 

Flight Standards Service Information System Strategy, which has the goal of improving 

efficiency by taking a user-centered approach to matching automation capabilities to personnel 

needs. PENS is designed to support Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety 

Inspectors (ASis) in their daily inspection tasks. ASis make up the inspection team for the Flight 

Standards Service within the FAA. AS Is are responsible for ensuring that aviation industry 

organizations comply with federal safety regulations. ASis inspect maintenance, training, and 

operational facilities across the country. Whereas inspectors previously carried two briefcases 

full of books and forms into the field, PENS allows them to replace these materials with a 

lightweight notebook computer. 

PENS facilitates field data collection, information management, and on-line documentation, thus 

eliminating paperwork, redundant data-entry tasks, data errors, slow data-entry turnaround times, 

and bulky paper references. PENS allows ASis to collect field data in the format used by national 

FAA databases and it allows them to verify data at the time of inspection. Inspectors currently 

complete paper forms (up to 400,000 PTRS forms annually) and give them to data-entry clerks 

who often make transcription errors. There is often a two-week interval between data collection 

and entry into the national databases. 

The PENS field study consisted of fielding three different models of pen computers and one 

standard notebook computer to four AS Is in each of nine FAA offices across the country from 

November, 1993 through March, 1994. Thus, 36 computers in all were put into the field. Each 

inspector used one of the computers for a week and then rated it on such factors as weight, ease 

of use, speed, preference, etc. The inspectors then rotated to another computer; the rotation was 

counter-balanced to eliminate order effects. At the end of four weeks, the inspectors compared 

the four computers and evaluated the PENS software (which was consistent across the 

computers). The study sites ranged from as far north as Fairbanks, AK, to as far south as San 

Juan, PR. Questions of interest included: Was a pen computer necessary, or would a notebook 

computer suffice? Would a computer be used in the field? What factors affect preference for one 

field computer over another? What environmental conditions preclude use of a field computer? 

As increasing marketing emphasis is placed on mobile computing, the answers to these types of 

questions will gain interest among human factors practitioners. 

v 
Inspector Characteristics 

Four airworthiness (maintenance) aviation safety inspectors at each of nine sites (for a total of36 

inspectors) participated in the study. The inspectors averaged 49 years in age, had been 

inspectors for five and a half years (thus, it was their second job; most airworthiness inspectors 

are former aircraft mechanics), and had five and a half years of computer experience. Sixty-five 

percent of the inspectors use the current data entry system and sixty percent own computers. 

Note that the inspectors' computer experience corresponds with their experience as ASis. The 

current computer systems installed at the field evaluation sites run a very limited set of DOS 

applications, as opposed to Microsoft Windows applications; PENS runs in Microsoft Windows 

for Pen Computing. 

Training was given according to time, rather than to criterion. Inspectors were trained for two 

days. The first day of training consisted of an explanation of file storage conventions, DOS, 

Windows, and handwriting recognition (including training the computer to the inspectors' 

handwriting). The second day consisted of training on the PENS software. 

Much more time was spent covering basics in Windows than was originally thought necessary. 

Even though each office had Windows installed on its workstations, inspectors were generally 

inexperienced with respect to that operating environment. The most likely reason for their 

inexperience was that few of the inspectors had a need to run Windows software. The extra 

Windows training did not significantly affect the amount of training devoted to PENS, as there 

was time left at the end of the second day of training. 

Materials 

Three different models of pen computers and one standard notebook computer were fielded at 

each office. Thus, 36 computers in all were put into the field. These computers were selected 

based on their particular combination of features and differentiating characteristics. That is, the 

computers were selected because they had certain features in common, but they also had a 

particular feature that made them unique compared to the others. These three computers allowed 

the inspectors to evaluate the tradeoffs between weight, versatility, and speed. These features are 

summarized below. 

GRiD CQnY~tli.bl~ NEC V ~rsaPad I~ld~ad SL IQshi.ba Sat~llite Il2QQ 

486/25 MHz CPU 486/25 MHz CPU 386/25 MHz CPU 486/25 MHz CPU 

200 Mb Hard Drive 80 Mb Hard Drive 200 Mb Hard Drive 120 Mb Hard Drive 

Built-in Keyboard Separate Keyboard Separate Keyboard Built-in Keyboard 

Pen Stylus Pen Stylus Pen Stylus Trackball 

vi 
Features common to all four computers: 

8Mb RAM 

Backlit LCD Monochrome display 

PCMCIA Data Storage Card 

DOS 6.0 

Windows 

Microsoft Word 2.0 (except the NEC VersaPad) 

PENS Prototype Software 

Results--Computer Platforms 

The inspectors were asked to rate a number of usability characteristics of the computers. Such 

characteristics included weight, ease of use, screen characteristics, environments in which the 

computer was used, and the like. In comparing the particular characteristics of the pen 

computers, the only significant difference was that the GRiD Convertible was judged to be more 

comfortable than the NEC V ersaPad. This result is consistent with inspector comments that the 

case made using the VersaPad difficult and cumbersome, whereas the Convertible was much 

more compact and easy to use. 

When the ratings for the pen computers are compared against the notebook computer (Toshiba 

Satellite T1900), both the GRiD Convertible and the TelePad SL were judged to be faster. The 

VersaPad was generally disliked by the inspectors, and that dislike may have biased the 

inspectors when evaluating it. The VersaPad originally was thought to be a good computer to 

examine the tradeoffs between computer characteristics: it had a smaller hard disk, but was also 

much lighter in weight. 

Finally, the inspectors addressed the tradeoff between weight and capability: many of the 

inspectors complained that the VersaPad did not have enough hard disk capacity because it was 

too small to contain the on-line versions of both the F ARs and the Airworthiness Inspectors' 

Handbook. 

Perhaps the most telling data collected on the computers was in response to the question: "Would 

you use this computer in the field as part of your job?" The GRiD Convertible and the TelePad 

SL were generally preferred over the NEC VersaPad and the Toshiba Satellite. One must note, 

however, that none of these computers are currently in production. The GRiD Convertible and 

the NEC VersaPad have been removed from the market. The TelePad SL is due to be replaced 

this Fall with the TelePad 3, and the Toshiba Satellite T1900 has been replaced by another 

model. 

Because the notebook computer was comparatively heavy and cumbersome, it was extremely 

difficult to use while actually performing an inspection. While a pen computer could be easily 

operated with two hands, the notebook computer really needed a flat surface to rest it on. 

Inspectors indicated that they definitely would not be able to use a standard notebook computer 

as part of their daily routine, whereas a pen computer was feasible. 

vii 
Interviews with the inspectors indicated that immediate recording of field data may not always be 

required, but immediate access to previous data or regulatory materials is required. Thus, the 

computer is a better information management and retrieval tool than a data collection vehicle for 

many inspection activities. 

Inspectors were unanimous in requesting computers that were smaller and lighter. They were 

particularly interested in devices that would fit in their coat pockets, such as personal digital 

assistants (e.g. Apple Newton, Tandy/Casio Zoomer, etc.). Currently such devices do not have 

the storage or processing resources to run the applications necessary for ASis. Inspectors were 

also intrigued by the possibility of using speech recognition for data collection so that their hands 

would remain free. 

A number of additional concerns were raised by the inspectors during the study. Many of the 

inspectors were concerned about liability for the equipment should it be stolen, dropped, or left 

on an airplane. Some inspectors were concerned with the perceptions of the people they were 

inspecting; that is, they were worried that they appeared inept or incompetent when using the 

computers. Others were concerned that the computer lent an air of permanence to notes they 

made and, as a result, operators would be less cooperative (even though notes made on paper had 

the same degree of permanence). While there are practical solutions to all of these issues, the 

issues themselves go well beyond the questions of which computer is better or can a field 

computer be used for one-time data capture. 

With regard to environmental considerations, the inspectors commented that the computers 

stopped working once the temperature approached freezing. Such cold temperatures also make it 

more difficult to use computers because of the need to wear gloves, bulky coats, etc. Finally, as 

might be expected, the inspectors were also reluctant to use the computers in the snow or rain for 

fear of damaging them. 

The accompanying report addresses all of these issues in much greater detail. In addition, 

insights into what would be required of a completed PENS software application are addressed. 

The concerns raised by inspectors and potential solutions to those questions are discussed at 

length. Finally, recommendations for future field studies are made. 

viii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND _____________________________________________________ l 

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 3 

FIEWSTUDY 7 

Methods 7 

Hardware 8 

Training 9 

Evaluation Process 9 

Results And Discussion 9 

Inspector Background 10 

Post-Training Comfort Level 11 

Computers 12 

Environmental Conditions 20 

s~~ w 

Automation Difficulties 21 

On-Line References 23 

Interviews with Inspectors: Problems and Solutions 23 

Inspector Attitudes 24 

Data Collection Device versus Information Management Tool 24 

Task Specific Appropiateness of Field Computers 25 

Inspector Computer Experience 25 

Ease of Data Transfer 26 

Number of Peripherals 26 

Single versus Multiple Computers 26 

Aptitude 26 

Data Security 27 

Permanence of Data 27 

Liability for Equipment 27 

Handwriting Recognition 27 

Lessons Learned 28 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS------------------- 29 

GLOSSARY 31 

REFERENCES 31 

APPENDIX A: COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS A-I 

APPENDIX B: TRAINING SLIDES B-1 

APPENDIX C: INSPECTOR BACKGROUND QUESTIONS C-1 

APPENDIX D: POST-TRAINING COMFORT LEVEL QUESTIONS D-1 

APPENDIX E: COMPUTER QUESTIONS E-1 

APPENDIX F: INSPECTOR COMPUTER EVALUATIONS F-1 

APPENDIX G: SUMMARY COMPUTER COMPARISON STATISTICS G-1 

APPENDIX H: SOFTWARE EVALUATION FORMS H-1 

IX 
LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1: PENS PROTOTYPE PTRS FORM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 

FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE ON-LINE SEARCH---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 

FIGURE 3: PROTOTYPE WORK PROGRAM UTILITY ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 

FIGURE 4: GRAPH OF GRID CONVERTIBLE RATINGS--------------------------------------------------------------- 13 

FIGURE 5: GRAPH OF NEC VERSAPAD RATINGS--------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 

FIGURE 6: GRAPH OF TELEPAD SL RATINGS-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 

FIGURE 7: GRAPH OF TOSHIBA SATELLITE T1900 RATINGS ----------------------------------------------------- 16 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1: PENS FIELD STUDY SITES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------- 7 

TABLE 2: COMPUTER PLATFORMS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 

TABLE 3: INSPECTOR BACKGROUND INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------10 

TABLE 4: POST-TRAINING COMFORT LEVEL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 

TABLE 5: INTERPRETATION OF EVALUATION RESPONSES ------------------------------------------------------12 

TABLE 6: EVALUATION OF GRID CONVERTIBLE-------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 

TABLE 7: EVALUATION OF NEC VERSAPAD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 

TABLE 8: EVALUATION OF TELEPAD SL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 

TABLE 9: EVALUATION OF TOSHIBA SATELLITE T1900 ----------------------------------------------------------- 16 

TABLE 10: RESPONSES OF ALL INSPECTORS-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 

TABLE 11: RESPONSES OF INSPECTORS WHO EVALUATED ALL COMPUTERS----------------------------- 20 

TABLE 12: PENS SOFTWARE EVALUATION STATEMENT RESPONSES ---------------------------------------- 21 

X 
RESULTS OF THE PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM FIELD STUDY: 

A SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTORS 

BACKGROUND 

The Performance ENhancement System (PENS) represents a series of investigation and 

implementation phases supporting the goal of matching the needs and responsibilities of Flight 

Standards Service (FSS) Aviation Safety Inspectors with automation capabilities. This project is 

a direct result of the FSS Training and Automation Committee's Information Systems Strategy, 

which recommended that all future automation systems be developed in conjunction with the 

work force so that the systems are designed to meet their needs and desires. The Training and 

Automation Committee has been instrumental in supporting PENS and providing project 

oversight. 

One characteristic of ASI activities is field data collection. The data are collected on paper forms 

and these forms are transcribed by data entry clerks into computer databases. These data are then 

recorded in a national database and are used to monitor the safety of the aviation industry. 

Another characteristic of field inspector activities is that they must authoritatively answer 

questions as they arise. This need requires ASis to carry voluminous, bulky, cumbersome copies 

of regulations and guidance in the field. 

There are four primary concerns which provided the impetus for PENS. First, data entry clerks 

represent a significant annual expense for FSS. If it were easy for inspectors to record their data 

in the computer databases themselves, FSS would save money spent on data entry. Second, there 

is a significant time delay (up to two weeks) in transcribing forms. By decreasing that time delay, 

FSS would be more effective at monitoring and ensuring compliance of the aviation industry. 

Third, many data transcription errors occur from the current process. The Government 

Accounting Office has repeatedly criticized the FAA for the quality of its data. Fourth, the paper 

regulations and guidance materials are not used effectively because of their bulk and because 

they are difficult to maintain. When combined, these factors point toward automation as a 

potential solution. In particular, field automation at a minimum would allow the ASis to: 1. store 

data directly in the proper database format; 2. verify the validity of those data at the time of the 

inspection; 3. eliminate the time delay associated with transcription; and 4. quickly and easily 

use on-line guidance materials with minimal maintenance of the documents. Other benefits 

would accrue as more tools were added to the field computers. 

The project started as an investigation into the utility of pen computers for aviation industry 

inspectors and maintenance technicians sponsored by the Office of Aviation Medicine (AAM). 

This phase of the project continued from approximate January of 1992 through August of that 

year. Meanwhile, FAA Administrator Thomas Richards had learned of pen computers and 

thought they might be a good tool for Aviation Safety Inspectors. He requested briefings from 

the Flight Standards Service (FSS). The Flight Standards Service learned of the AAM research 

and requested information in August 1992. After a series of briefings to FAA personnel, 

including Clyde Jones, FSS Director Thomas Accardi, and Associate Administrator for 
Regulation and Certification Anthony Broderick, we briefed Administrator Richards in 

November, 1992, and Acting Administrator Joseph DelBalzo in January, 1993. 

Between January and August 1993, PENS received a lot of publicity within the Flight Standards 

Services, both in the FSS Headquarters and in the field. Meanwhile, the project was continuing at 

a low level of funding from the Office of Aviation Medicine. From August 1992 through August 

1993, a series of task analyses and prototypes were carried out to determine the basic content of a 

field computer tool. The Fort Lauderdale Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) was 

fundamental to these initial analyses and prototypes. 

Funding for a national field human factors study of PENS concepts was provided in August and 

October of 1993. Because of all of the publicity that had occurred over the previous year, FSS 

Headquarters felt considerable pressure to start the field study quickly once funding was 

available. After some very rapid prototyping and testing with Atlanta FSDO inspectors, the 

national field study began on November 15, 1993 and continued until March 1, 1994. The 

following is a description of the PENS concepts that were evaluated, of the nature of the field 

study, the important results, lessons learned, recommendations for future study, and 

considerations for full implementation. 

2 
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 

The Performance ENhancement System, PENS, represents a suite of tools to support Flight 

Standards Service Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASis) in the field. PENS addresses data quality, 

data collection, efficient access to regulatory information, decision support, work program 

management, and a host of other issues. 

The general data collection concept is that a pen computer will replace the inspector's clipboard. 

(Pen computers are approximately the same size as clipboards.) The system presents an 

enhanced version of the Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem (PTRS) form, as well as job 

aids and other forms. In many cases, the inspector does not need to write data on the form; 

instead, he/she is able to select entries from lists. The error checking procedures that are built 

into the current PTRS data-entry system are also present in the PENS PTRS. The PENS 

prototype PTRS form is shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: PENS Prototype PTRS Form 

The completed PENS software will include additional error prevention mechanisms that are not 

included in the Flight Standards Automation System (FSAS) PTRS. Such mechanisms will have 

the additional benefit of speeding data collection. For instance, the forms could be linked to 

3 
other FAA databases. This will allow the system to fill in default information on the PTRS form. 

For example, if the inspector were performing an airworthiness ramp inspection on Mythical 

Airlines and Mythical flew only Boeing 737s, the form would automatically fill in B737 on the 

PTRS form. 

The system allows inspectors to collect field data and store it in the proper database format 

immediately, thus eliminating the need for data entry clerks. Instead of giving paper PTRS 

forms to data-entry clerks or sitting down at a data-entry terminal in the office, the inspector 

connects the pen computer to the office network and starts a software utility that transfers all of 

the field-collected data into the office database while the inspector takes care of other business. 

Furthermore, the forms will be linked together so that an entry in one form propagates to the 

other forms, thus eliminating the redundant data entries required for paper-based forms. 

PENS automatically loads all reference materials required to perform a given activity. Inspectors 

currently carry two briefcases full of books with them on their daily inspections. A regulatory 

document system will replace these books with information stored on the hard disk of the pen 

computer or on a CD ROM. All of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), the Inspectors' 

Handbooks, Airworthiness Directives, Advisory Circulars, FAA Orders, and other regulatory 

documents and reference material will be available on the computer. These documents will be 

incorporated into an easy to use system that will allow the inspectors to quickly answer questions 

in the field. The inspector will be able to browse through the information as if it were in a book, 

but he/she will also be able to ask the computer to search all of the documents that discuss a 

particular topic. For instance, if an airline operator asks an inspector "Do I have to file a report if 

I find corrosion on one of my planes?", the inspector will be able to write or type the word 

"corrosion" and initiate a computer search of the FARs. The computer will then display FAR 

Part 121, Subparts V "Mechanical Reliability Reports", with the word "corrosion" highlighted. 

An example of such a search is shown in Figure 2. 

PENS includes work program management utilities that allow an inspector to qu:ckly determine 

the percentage of her/his work program that is completed, remaining inspections, inspections 

planned for a given day or time period, the planned inspections for a given operator, and the like. 

This capability obviates the need to carry large, cumbersome printouts into the field to monitor 

progress and schedule inspections. A rough prototype of such a utility is shown in Figure 3. 

Additional capabilities might include report and letter generators that would automatically 

produce these documents when required based on inspection outcomes. The data collection 

system could be tied to on-line documents. For instance, if an inspector is performing a ramp 

inspection on a given aircraft, PENS could notify her/him of all of the Airworthiness Directives 

that apply to that aircraft. 

4 
(9) Engine shutdown during flight of more than one engine; 

( 1 0) A propeller feathering system or ability of the system to control 

overspeed during flight; 

(11) A fuel or fuel-dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes 

hazardous leakage during flight; 

( 12) A landing gear extension or retraction or opening or closing of 

landing gear doors during flight; 

( 13) Brake system camp onents that result in loss of brake actuating 

force when the airplane is in motion on the ground; 

( 14) Aircraft structure that requires major repair; 

( 15) Cracks, permanent deformation, or MIMM0 of aircraft structures, 

if more than the maximum acceptable to the manufacturer or the FAA; 

( 16)Aircraft camp onents or systems that result in taking emergency actions 

during flight (except action to shut down an engine); and 

(17) Emergency evacuation systems or components including all exit doors, 

passenger emergency evacuation lighting systems, or evacuation equipment 

that are found defective, or that fail to perform the intended functions 

during an actual emergency or during training, testing, maintenance, 

Figure 2: Example On-Line Search 

For in-depth inspections, inspectors could load database information into PENS prior to leaving 

the office so that they could run the Safety Performance Analysis System (SPAS) while in the 

field, thus supporting decision making. A portable printer would allow inspectors to issue 

certificates in field. These capabilities are just some of the things we have in mind for PENS. 

(SPAS is being developed to assist inspectors in tracking the performance of operators with 

regard to specific safety parameters. SPAS will help field personnel to decide when resources 

should be reallocated to operators that are having difficulty.) 

For each capability, a prototype will be thoroughly field tested before it is fully implemented. 

This will ensure that the tools will be designed to meet inspectors' needs. The following is a 

description of the first such study. This study investigated the feasibility of field computers for 

ASis by fielding four such computers running an enhanced PTRS form, a data transfer utility, 

and on-line FARs and the Airworthiness Inspectors' Handbook. 

5 
Figure 3: Prototype Work Program Utility 

6 
FIELD STUDY 

The field study was conducted in all nine regions of the FAA to test the equipment in a wide 

range of environmental conditions. The study was conducted from mid-November until early 

March, from offices as far north as Fairbanks, Alaska, to as far south as San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

The PENS field study was developed to test the viability of field computers and to learn the 

hardware and software issues that would need to be addressed by an implemented system. The 

study subjected the computers to a wide range of environmental conditions, from the cold and 

snow of Fairbanks, to the heat and humidity of San Juan. Inspector computer expertise was also 

investigated as part of the study. The following is a description of the field study methods, 

results, and discussion. 

Methods 

The field study was conducted from November 15, 1993 through March 1, 1994. Each FSDO in 

the study participated for approximately one month. Nine offices, one per region, participated in 

the study; these offices, the installation dates, and prevalent weather conditions are shown in 

Table 1. 

Table 1: PENS Field Study Sites 

Great Lakes Milwaukee, WI Cold, snow November 15-16 

Central St. Louis, MO Cold, rain, snow November 18-19 

Southwestern Ft. Worth, TX Warm, dry November 21-24 

Western Pacific Long Beach, CA Warm, humid November 29-30 

Northwest Mountain Seattle, WA Average, humid December 2-3 

Alaskan Fairbanks, AK Extreme cold, dry December 6-7 

New England Boston, MA Cold, snow December 13-14 

Eastern Harrisburg, P A Cold, snow December 16-18 

Southern San Juan, PR Hot, humid, rain 10-11 

These offices were selected with the help of Regional Managers because they were medium in 

size and they were willing to participate. The criterion that one office per region participate 

meant that the study would undergo a wide range of environmental conditions. The two 

extremes were Fairbanks with daytime high temperatures in the -10° to + 10° F range and snow 

and San Juan with daytime high temperatures in the 85° to 1 ooo F range, high humidity and 

thunderstorms. The remaining offices were intermediate between those extremes, both in 

temperatures and weather conditions. 

In addition to the nine regional sites, a pilot evaluation was performed at the Atlanta FSDO to 

test the evaluation plan and identify potential problem areas. Thus, the pilot evaluation served as 

a dry run to ensure that the full evaluation would proceed smoothly. 

7 
Hardware 

A total of thirty-six computers (nine units of each of four models) were fielded. These 

computers were selected based on their particular combination of features and differentiating 

characteristics. That is, the computers were selected because they had some features in common, 

but they also had a particular feature that made them unique compared to the others. These 

features are described in Table 2. 

486/25 MHz CPU 

200 Mb Hard Drive 

Built-in Keyboard 

Pen St Ius 

Table 2: Computer Platforms 

486/25 MHz CPU 

80 Mb Hard Drive 

Separate Keyboard 

Pen St Ius 

386/25 MHz CPU 

200 Mb Hard Drive 

Separate Keyboard 

Pen St Ius 

486/20 MHz CPU 

120Mb Hard Drive 

Built-in Keyboard 

Trackball 

These computers allow us and inspectors to address the following questions: 

1. Is a field computer a viable solution? 

2. Is a pen computer required, or will a standard notebook computer suffice? 

3. Does a faster processor make a difference? 

4. Is a separate or built-in keyboard preferable (given that it adds weight)? 

5. Which is preferable: A lightweight machine with limited functionality or a slightly heavier 

machine with increased functionality? 

Features common to all four computers: 

8Mb RAM 

Backlit LCD Monochrome display 

PCMCIA Data Storage Card 

DOS 6.0 

Windows (Windows for Pen Computing or Windows 3.1; functionally equivalent except 

for handwriting recognition) 

Microsoft Word 2.0 (except NBC VersaPad) 

PENS Prototype Software 

The complete specifications for these computers are listed in Appendix A. 

The PENS prototype software was common to all four computers and runs nearly identically on 

each of the three pen computers. (The NBC VersaPad did not have sufficient hard disk space to 

contain the Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook or Microsoft Word.) The software ran 

essentially the same way on the trackball computer, with the exception that there was no 

handwriting recognition on that computer. (Because it used a trackball, not a pen stylus, the 

Toshiba Satellite ran Windows 3.1 instead of Windows for Pen computing.) The PENS software 

consisted of an enhanced PTRS form, the F ARs, the Airworthiness Inspectors' Handbook, and 

Data Transfer (a utility to transfer PTRS data to and from FSAS). The PENS software 

demonstrated the ability to record information graphically and it was equipped with on-line help. 

8 
Trainin~ 

Training was given according to time, rather than to criterion. Inspectors were trained for two 

days. The first day of training consisted of an explanation of file storage conventions, DOS, 

Windows, and handwriting recognition (including training the computer to the inspectors' 

handwriting). The second day consisted of training on the PENS software. Copies of the 

training slides can be found in Appendix B. 

Much more time was spent covering basics in Windows than was originally thought necessary. 

Even though each office had Windows installed on its workstations, inspectors were generally 

inexperienced with respect to that operating environment. The most likely reason for their 

inexperience was that few of the inspectors had a need to run Windows software. Approximately 

half of the inspectors used FSAS (which is a DOS application), and few of them appeared 

familiar with even Windows word processors. The extra Windows training did not significantly 

affect the amount of training devoted to PENS, as there was usually some time left at the end of 

the second day of training. 

Evaluation Process 

A team of four inspectors in each FSDO evaluated PENS. These inspectors represented a crosssection of the inspector population in terms of age, sex, work experience, and computer 

experience. The inspectors were asked for background information on themselves prior to 

training. After training, the inspectors were asked about their comfort with the training and 

proficiency with the PENS hardware and software tools. Each inspector used one computer 

model for a week and then switched to a different model. The rotation was counterbalanced to 

eliminate order effects. At the end of each week each inspector evaluated the computer he/she 

had been using. The rotation continued until each inspector had an opportunity to use each 

model. (Thus, the evaluation lasted approximately four weeks per site.) At the end of the 

rotation, each inspector completed an evaluation form that requested him/her to evaluate the 

software. Copies of the evaluation forms can be found in Appendices C-F. 

Results And Discussion 

Several mitigating factors intervened in the study such that evaluation data are incomplete. Of 

the 36 inspectors participating in the study, one unfortunately passed away and one who was on 

temporary assignment returned to his home office. The network administrator at one site, 

Seattle, did not support transferring data between the field computers and FSAS, thus nullifying 

any results there. (As a result of not transferring data directly, the inspectors had to complete 

paper forms and enter the data through FSAS, as well as the PTRS form on the field computers, 

thus doubling their efforts with no apparent benefit to them. These inspectors quickly lost any 

enthusiasm for the project or the computers.) Other factors, such as travel, training, vacation, 

and equipment failure contributed to incomplete data. Fourteen of the thirty six inspectors 

evaluated all four computers and the software. The remaining inspectors evaluated between one 

and three computers. 

9 
Inspector Back~round 

Prior to beginning training, the inspectors were asked to describe their background in terms of 

age, years as an ASI, computer expertise, and the like. A copy of the background questions can 

be found in Appendix C. The results of these questions are shown in Table 3. Blank cells 

indicate incomplete data. As can be seen in the table, an average inspector in the study was 49 

years old and had been an ASI for five years. Nearly all of the inspectors had computer 

experience, with an average duration of five years. Three quarters of the inspectors have 

experience using FSAS. The inspectors were also asked to give their opinion (Favorable, 

Unfavorable, or No Opinion) on the computer manufacturers (GRiD, NEC, TelePad, and 

Toshiba) to determine whether they were predisposed to favoring or disfavoring a computer; 

nearly all of the responses were "No Opinion". 

Table 3: Inspector Background Information 

Off1ce Inspector Age ASI Expenence Computer Do You Years of Do You Use 

Initials in Years Experience in Own a Computer FSAS? 

Years Computer? Ownership 

Boston BVO 58 3 3 No Yes 

AR 52 7 5 Yes 8 Yes 

ALO 

RSL 

Fairbanks RRH 53 6 3 No Yes 

JOG 48 6 2 Yes 2 No 

HAK 58 7 2 No Yes 

SKJ 43 3 3 Yes 3 Yes 

.Ft. Worth TlT 32 3 13 No Yes 

LEV 57 3 12 Yes 9 No 

LNW 52 2 7 Yes 5 No 

Harrisburg RNS 50 6 7 Yes 0.5 Yes 

RRS 47 4 5 Yes 2 Yes 

FNG 

HEG 58 8 4 Yes 3 Yes 

Long Beach JAS 50 9 

DEG 

Milwaukee DMH 47 4 2 No No 

KEL 50 3 9 Yes 9 No 

ECS 52 13 No No 

HCE 45 5 15 Yes 15 No 

SanJuan FSM 35 4 2 No Yes 

RDR 50 4 3 No Yes 

REG 50 7 7 Yes 5 Yes 

AAP 

St. Louis RLH 46 8 2 Yes 0.5 Yes 

CHB 

RLS 

Average 49.19 5.48 5.58 60% 5.17 65% 

Std. Dev. 6.74 2.66 4.06 4.34 

Responses 21 21 19 20 12 20 

10 
Post-Trainin~ Comfort Level 

After training, the inspectors were asked how comfortable they were using the computers and the 

software. The materials used to ask these questions are in Appendix D. The questions and 

responses are summarized in Table 4. The range of possible responses was from "1, not at all 

comfortable" to "5, quite comfortable". In general, inspectors' responses averaged between 

"somewhat comfortable" and "very comfortable" with PENS after the two days of training. 

While it would have been nice for everyone to be "quite comfortable" after the training, the fact 

that the inspectors were somewhat comfortable is reassuring that the training was successful 

given its relatively short duration and the limited computer experience of many of the inspectors. 

Table 4: Post-Training Comfort Level 

Boston BVO 3 4 2 4 4 

AR 4 5 4 5 3 

ALO 2 2 2 1 1 

RSL 5 5 4 5 4 

Fairbanks RRH 3 3 5 4 3 

JOG 5 5 4 5 5 

HAK 3 3 3 4 3 

SKJ 4 4 4 4 4 

Ft. Worth TLT 5 5 5 5 5 

LEV 5 4 4 4 4 

LNW 3 3 1 4 2 

Harrisburg RNS 4 3 3 4 4 

RRS 4 4 5 3 3 

FNG 

HEG 3 2 1 2 1 

JAS 3 3 3 2 4 

DEG 3 2 2 1 1 

DMH 3 3 2 3 

KEL 5 5 3 5 5 

ECS 4 4 4 3 3 

HCE 5 4 2 5 5 

FSM 4 4 4 4 4 

RDR 4 4 3 5 5 

REG 4 5 4 5 4 

AAP 3 3 3 3 4 

RLH 3 3 3 4 5 

CHB 

RLS 

3.76 3.68 3.20 3.76 3.58 

0.88 0.99 1.15 1.23 1.28 

25 25 25 25 24 

11 
Computers 

The inspectors were asked to rate a number of usability characteristics of the computers. Such 

characteristics included weight, ease of use, screen characteristics, environments in which the 

computer was used, and the like. Appendix E contains copies of the evaluation questions for 

each model of computer. 

Inspectors were asked to use a three point scale for judging each attribute. The possible 

responses for "Weight", for example, were "Too Heavy", "Adequate", or "Too Light/Fragile". 

While responses were verbal, they were normalized to a numeric scale. In the "Weight" 

example, ''Too Heavy" was assigned a value of 1, while "Too Light" was assigned a value of 3. 

The following will aid interpretation of the data: 

Table 5: Interpretation of Evaluation Responses 

Response/ Response/ Response/ 

Normalized Normalized Normalized Interpretation of 

Attribute Value Value Value Avera e Response 

Weight Too Heavy Adequate Too Light <1.67 Too Heavy 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Light 

Size Too Large Adequate Too Small <1.67 Too Large 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Small 

Speed Too Slow Adequate Too Fast <1.67 Too Slow 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Fast 

Disply inside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright <1.67 Too Dark 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Bright 

Display outside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright <1.67 Too Dark 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Bright 

Pen Responsiveness Too Slow Adequate Too Fast <1.67 Too Slow 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Fast 

Trackball Speed Too Slow Adequate Too Fast <1.67 Too Slow 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Fast 

Pen Feel Too Slick Adequate Scratchy <1.67 Too Slick 

1 2 3 >2.33 Too Scratchy 

Trackball Ease Too Cumbersome Adequate Easier than a <1.67 Too Difficult 

Pen >2.33 Easy to Use 

1 2 3 

Overall Comfort Not Comfortable Adequate Comfortable <1.67 Uncomfortable 

1 2 3 >2.33 Comfortable 

The "Interpretations" should be considered as guidelines, rather than absolutes. Average 

responses near the margins are open to interpretation because the cutoff points are arbitrary. For 

example, the "Size" attribute for the GRiD Convertible received an average rating of 1.68, which 

puts it just inside the "Adequate" range; in fact, one would be justified in saying that it may be a 

little large. 

Appendix F contains the individual inspector responses to the questions. 

Tables 6-9 and Figures 4-7 summarize the inspectors responses for each of the computers. 

12 
Table 6: Evaluation of GRiD Convertible 

1.52 1.68 1.89 1.86 1.93 1.74 1.96 1.92 

0.51 0.48 0.57 0.36 0.60 0.45 0.53 0.81 

27 28 28 28 28 27 26 25 

H A A A A A A A 

H = Heavy; A = Adequate 

3 

2.5 

2 c.o 

c 

-:: 

~ Gl 1.5 c.o 

= "' Gl 

... 

< 

0.5 

0 

..: ., "0 ., ., "' ~ N ., "0 "0 btl i:i5 "' ., ·u; ·u; ., ·o; Q. 

.s :; c !:I.. 

~ en ., c >. 0 > ., 

"' ~ 

·u; p.,. 

c.. c 

0 "' c.. Q. Ci "' "' Ci ., 

~ 

c 

-e ., 

> 

0 

~ 

Characteristic 

Figure 4: Graph of GRiD Convertible Ratings 

13 
0 

1.42 

0.50 

24 

H 

Table 7: Evaluation ofNEC VersaPad 

1.57 1.61 

0.51 0.50 

23 23 

L S 

1.70 

0.56 

23 

A 

1.87 

0.81 

23 

A 

1.64 

0.49 

22 

s 

1.87 

0.55 

23 

A 

H = Heavy; L = Large; S = Slow; A= Adequate; U = Uncomfortable 

1: ., "' ., ., "' ~ N ., bO Vi ~ "' "' ., ·v; ., ·;:; c.. .s '5 c:: (/) ., ~ 0 .:: c:: >. &! "' ~ "' i5. c:: 

"' i5. 8. 0 "' "' 0 ., 

IX 

c:: 

&! 

Characteristic 

Figure 5: Graph ofNEC VersaPad Ratings 

14 

1.42 

0.65 

24 

u 
Ci) 

.!3 

~ -

Q,l 

Ci) 

= ""' Q,l 

~ 

< 

1.63 

0.49 

24 

H 

Table 8: Evaluation of TelePad SL 

1.65 1.91 

0.49 0.42 

23 23 

L A 

1.91 

0.51 

23 

A 

1.82 

0.66 

22 

A 

1.74 

0.45 

23 

A 

1.91 

0.51 

23 

A 

H = Heavy; L = Large; S = Slow; A = Adequate; U = Uncomfortable 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

0.5 

0 

.:: .., "0 .., .., "' ..., N .., "0 :'S! "' bl) Cii .., ·;;; .., .., . ., c.. ~ c ~ 

~ til .s = .., c >. 0 > OS &! ~ 

·;;; 

· C. c 

~ c. 8. 

~ "' .., 

~ 

c 

&! 

Characteristic 

Figure 6: Graph of TelePad SL Ratings 

15 

1.61 

0.72 

23 

u 
Table 9: Evaluation of Toshiba Satellite T1900 

1.58 1.77 1.38 1.85 1.81 1.62 1.46 1.65 

0.50 0.43 0.50 0.37 0.49 0.57 0.58 0.69 

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 

H A s A A s c u 

H =Heavy; A = Adequate; S = Slow; C = Cumbersome; U = Uncomfortable 

0 

1: ~ "3 ., ., "0 "0 "0 ., 1;l t: bl) i;j 8. ·;;; "4) Cll .s "B 8. ~ ~ "' Cll ~ ~ 0 =a =a 0 

~ .0 u 

c.. .0 ..loC 

"' c.. ~ ..loC 

0 iS ~ ~ ., 

> 0 

Characteristic 

FigUre 7: Graph of Toshiba Satellite T1900 Ratings 

16 
In comparing the particular characteristics of the pen computers, the only significant difference 

was that the GRiD Convertible was judged to be more comfortable than the NEC VersaPad (t 

pooled = 2.383, a.= 0.043). This result is consistent with inspector comments that the case made 

using the VersaPad difficult and cumbersome, whereas the Convertible was much more compact 

and easy to use. More is said about the VersaPad below. 

When the ratings for the pen computers are compared against the notebook computer (Toshiba 

Satellite T1900), both the GRiD Convertible and the TelePad SL were judged to be faster (t 

pooled= 3.694, a.= 0.00106, and t pooled= 4.006, a.= 0.000437, respectively). These judgments 

may be attributed to the fact that the PENS software had to be modified for the Toshiba to ensure 

that the data were backed up when changes were made. The result was that the software .ran 

slower on that computer. However, in speaking with inspectors, they also stated that the Toshiba 

ran slower on standard applications, such as Microsoft Word. Note that the Toshiba had a 

486/20 MHz processor, while the GRiD and the NEC both had 486/25 MHz processors, while 

the TelePad SL had a 386/25 processor. It is curious that the TelePad was judged faster than the 

Toshiba, while the NEC was not. The TelePad used a RAM cache, which probably increased its 

apparent speed. 

The NEC was generally disliked by the inspectors, and that dislike may have generally biased the 

inspectors when evaluating it. The VersaPad originally was thought to be a good computer to 

examine the tradeoffs between computer characteristics: it had a smaller hard disk, but was also 

much lighter in weight. In discussing the computer with the inspectors, it became apparent that a 

number of factors contributed to their dislike of it. First, a technical problem with the network 

adapter required that the keyboard be attached whenever the inspectors booted the computer. 

The best way to carry both the detached keyboard and the computer was in the case, which led to 

the second problem: the case concealed dials that were used to adjust the screen brightness and 

contrast and it prevented access to the parallel port which was required for the network adapter. 

Coincidentally, whenever the computer was put back in the case after taking it out to transfer 

data to the network, the screen adjustment dials would rub against the interior of the case and 

darken the screen. Many inspectors complained about the screen being difficult to see without 

realizing that they could adjust the display characteristics. 

Finally, the inspectors addressed the tradeoff between weight and capability: many of the 

inspectors complained that the NEC didn't have enough "memory" because the hard disk was too 

small to contain the on-line versions of both the PARs and the Airworthiness Inspectors' 

Handbook. (The inspectors universally called hard disk capacity "memory". This is a common 

mistake made by computer novices because random access memory, RAM, and hard disk 

capacity are measured in the same units--kilobytes, megabytes, etc. Only RAM is conventionally 

called "memory". All of the computers had the same amount of memory.) 

The comparisons of the computers are summarized in Appendix G. 

Perhaps the most telling data collected on the computers was in response to the question "Would 

you use this computer in the field as part of your job?" The responses to this question are 

summarized in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 lists all responses to that question, while Table 11 

lists only those response from inspectors who evaluated all four of the computers. As can be 

17 
seen from the data in the two tables, the GRiD Convertible and the TelePad SL were generally 

preferred over the NEC VersaPad and the Toshiba Satellite. While the percentages in the two 

tables do not match, they do maintain the trends. A discrepancy arises with the NEC VersaPad, 

however, in that the smaller sample would seem to indicate that this computer had more 

proponents than indicated in the larger sample. A binomial test for dichotomous outcomes 

indicates that the GRiD Convertible and the TelePad SL are preferred over the Toshiba Satellite 

(B = 1.67, p = 0.0471 for both tests). Given the above discussion of the NEC VersaPad and the 

large sample percentage of preferences, one would suspect that the Convertible and the SL would 

be preferred over the VersaPad, although we can't draw such a conclusion based on the statistical 

evidence. (Because of the nature of the data, there does not appear to be an appropriate statistical 

test for this hypothesis given that not all of the inspectors used all of the computers.) 

18 
Table 10: Responses of All Inspectors 

Boston BVO Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR Yes Yes Yes Yes 

ALO 

RSL No No No 

Fairbanks RRH Yes 

JQG Yes No Yes Yes 

HAK Yes Yes Yes Yes 

SKJ Yes Yes Yes 

Ft. Worth TLT Yes No Yes 

LEV Yes No No 

LNW Yes Yes Yes Yes 

RNS Yes Yes Yes 

RRS Yes Yes Yes Yes 

FNG No No No No 

HEG No No No No 

JAS Yes 

DEG No No No 

DMH No No No No 

KEL No No No No 

ECS Yes Yes No 

HCE Yes 

San Juan FSM Yes Yes Yes No 

RDR Yes Yes Yes No 

REG Yes No Yes No 

MP Yes 

RLH No No No No 

CHB Yes No No 

RLS No No 

67% 41% 68% 43% 

Responses 24 22 19 21 

19 
Table 11: Responses of Inspectors who Evaluated All Computers 

~~=~in the field as 

Boston BVO Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Fairbanks JOG Yes No Yes Yes 

HAK Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Ft. Worth LNW Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Harrisburg RRS Yes Yes Yes Yes 

FNG No No No No 

HEG No No No No 

DMH No No No No 

KEL No No No No 

FSM Yes Yes Yes No 

RDR Yes Yes Yes No 

REG Yes No Yes No 

RLH No No No No 

64% 50% 64% 43% 

14 14 14 14 

None of the fielded computers are currently in production. The GRiD Convertible and the NEC 

VersaPad have been removed from the market. The TelePad SL is due to be replaced this Fall 

with the TelePad 3, and the Toshiba Satellite T1900 has been replaced by another model. The 

only pen computer on the market that has similar capabilities to those in the study is the Compaq 

Concerto. 

Environmental Conditions 

With regard to environmental considerations, the inspectors commented that the computers 

stopped working once the temperature approached freezing. Apparently the batteries are subject 

to a slow degradation, wherein the computer slows down and eventually stops working when the 

temperature drops to the freezing range. Such cold temperatures also make it more difficult to 

use computers because of the need to wear gloves, bulky coats, etc. As might be expected, the 

inspectors were also reluctant to use the computers in the snow or rain for fear of damaging 

them. There were no reported problems with high temperatures or humidity. 

Software 

The PENS software was developed as an expedient means to evaluate the efficacy of field 

computers. Indeed, without such prototype software, the field study could not have been 

conducted; it would not have been possible to collect meaningful data on the usability of field 

computers without an application to run on them. Any study that purported to analyze field 

computer usability without actually using them in conjunction with a proposed application would 

20 
be limited to anecdotal evidence (e.g. Edens, 1992). During the course of the field study, the 

software was frequently updated to reflect changes requested by the inspectors. 

The PENS software was evaluated according to a number of usability, functionality, and 

effectiveness criteria. The evaluation measures included several true/false statements, comment 

sections for software features, and interviews with the inspectors. The software comment 

sections can be found in Appendix H and the true/false statements and the responses are listed in 

Table 12. 

Table 12: PENS Software Evaluation Statement Responses 

Pl'rcl'ntagl' 

of ""Trul'" 

Rl'SJlOilSl'S 

I enjoyed using PENS. 74 

I am eager to see PENS evolve to meet my additional needs. 85 

I would like all of my forms linked together so that I don't have to fill in the same 88 

information on multiple forms. 

I will continue to use PENS after the evaluation period. 52 

I would rather use paper in the field and transcribe the forms at the office. 85 

I would rather use the current transmittal system (FSAS) for transcribing forms. 52 

I like the On-Line References (Hypermedia), such as FARs and Handbooks. 81 

I would like more On-Line References (Hypermedia), such as ADs, ACs, etc. 77 

The On-Line References (Hypermedia) are the best part about PENS. 38 

I had difficult transferrin m files from the com uter to the network. 96 

A surface analysis of these data would provide a rather confusing picture of inspector opinions. 

However a deeper analysis that takes into account the inspectors' comments provides a more 

coherent view. The inspectors enjoyed using PENS and liked the concept. In fact, they want to 

see PENS expanded to incorporate more of their forms, more references, and greater 

performance support capabilities (such as work program management, report and letter 

generators, a scheduling system, etc.). 

Automation Difficulties 

But the following questions arise: If they are so enthusiastic about PENS, how come they don't 

plan on continuing to use it? and, Why would they prefer to use paper forms and transcribe the 

data using FSAS? One answer to both of these questions lies in the last evaluation statement: 

ninety-six percent of the inspectors had difficulty transferring their data to the office databases on 

the network. There were several causes for such difficulties, including StarLAN (a network 

architecture and software), the network hardware connections, and the software design. 

StarLAN was the single largest contributor to data transfer problems. Because of the StarLAN 

architecture, data could be easily transferred to the network database only when there were no 

users other than the inspector on the network; other network activities would greatly slow down 

the data transfer process. Milwaukee provided the worst data transfer performance: with nobody 

21 
on the network, it would take approximately 10-15 minutes to transfer one record to the PTRS 

database. (This is comparable to entering the data into the system manually. Although the 

amount of time is the same, the transfer could be performed without supervision, thus allowing 

an inspector to accomplish other tasks.) Loading an inspector's work program onto a computer 

would take literally hours. Other sites would take 5-10 minutes to transfer a record, which is not 

acceptable. Given that inspectors had to transfer up to 100 records in a week, this transfer 

performance would be excruciatingly slow and frustrating. Shortly after completion of the study, 

the Atlanta FSDO converted to Novell Netware. Transfer performance there improved 

drastically to the point that it took approximately nine minutes to transfer an entire work program 

of over 400 records. Therefore, the network speed problems should no longer be an issue. 

The network hardware connections were a bit cumbersome. The computers were connected to 

the networks with Xircom Pocket Ethernet Adapters via the parallel port. These connectors were 

chosen because Personal Computer Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA) ethernet 

cards were not readily available and were prohibitively expensive. The Xircom adapters also 

came with the necessary software drivers to support StarLAN and Novell. The adapters required 

that the adapter be connected to the computer, to their own power supply, and to the network 

cable. Once connected, the computer needed to be rebooted for it to detect the network. 

Inspectors commented that it was difficult to keep track of all of the steps and equipment. 

Indeed, we had several trouble calls from sites that couldn't log on because they had forgotten to 

plug in the adapter power supply. 

After logging on to the network, the inspectors started a data transfer utility to transfer their 

completed inspections to the network databases. (Many of the sites had the network set up such 

that inspectors did not have network access or did not have access to the proper drives for data 

transfer. This problem was corrected during training, but did create some confusion among the 

network administrators and the inspectors.) It was emphasized during training that the inspectors 

did not need to "baby-sit" the data transfer process. However, inspectors reported during the 

debriefings that in fact they felt did need to baby-sit the process because StarLAN would 

frequently shut dowQ on their computers, thus halting the process. 

Finally, development of the data transfer utility was rushed to meet the field evaluation deadline. 

Early in the study it was determined that there were some bugs in this utility such that it 

occasionally, albeit rarely, overwrote an existing database record. These bugs were discovered 

and corrected two weeks after the initial installation. Unfortunately, the bugs resulted in the 

deletion of a required item at the Fort Worth FSDO. Repeated attempts to recover that data were 

unsuccessful. 

Another interesting occurrence at Fort Worth resulted from unintended use of the data transfer 

utility. After the utility transferred data from the field computer to the network databases, it 

archived the records on the field computer and removed them from the list of currently active 

records. The inspectors in Fort Worth, however, wanted to keep track of their completed items. 

Therefore, they copied their database files prior to running the data transfer utility and then 

reinstated the deleted records after running the utility. The inspectors kept track of which items 

had been transferred and did not transfer them again. Because the utility creates blank records in 

the network databases as place holders for items that are not part of the work program, the result 

22 
of this procedure was that dozens of blank records were created every time the data transfer 

utility was run. In fact, the inspectors at Fort Worth were explicitly instructed not to follow such 

a procedure for this very reason. The network administrator instructed the data entry clerks to 

use these blank records for paper PTRS forms. We learned from the Fort Worth network 

administrator that the inspectors at least one other used the same unintended procedure with the 

same results (dozens of blank PTRS entries). 

The hardware and software problems point to the need for a sophisticated data transfer utility that 

runs automatically when the computer is connected to a docking station. (A docking station 

generally consists of a case that contains a network card, a video card and video port, serial and 

parallel ports, a power connection for the portable computer, and a full-size keyboard. Some 

docking stations also have additional hard drives.) The docking station would eliminate the need 

for keeping track of and connecting peripherals. The automatic utility would transfer the data in 

the background as soon as the computer is logged onto the network, thus eliminating the need for 

inspector supervision or intervention. This utility would track which inspections had already 

been transferred and would allow the inspectors to view all of the items in their work program 

without making backup copies. 

On-Line References 

As discussed above, the Federal Aviation Regulations and the Airworthiness Inspectors' 

Handbook (FAA Order 8300.10) were put "on-line". That is, these documents were stored in a 

digital format on the hard disks of the computers and were coupled with an easy to use interface 

that supported retrieval of those documents in real time. The documents could be browsed 

similar to their paper counterparts and they could be searched for specific information. This 

prototype software was designed to indicate similar FAA libraries that were in development but 

unavailable for test at the time of the study. (There were several DOS-based libraries available, 

but the two leading Windows-based libraries were still in development. One is now completed, 

while the other is still in development.) The FARs and the Handbook are now over one year out 

of date and there are no plans to update them as part of this project. Such information is 

becoming available through commercial publishers and will be purchased if needed. 

The inspectors were very enthusiastic about the on-line references. They appreciated the fact that 

they would not have to maintain nor carry the bulky paper documents. Furthermore, they 

appreciated the ability to quickly and easily search for specific information. It was quite 

common for inspectors to continue to search for information during breaks from training. The 

inspectors were eager to see the on-line documents supplemented with ADs, ACs, additional 

FAA Orders, Bulletins, and the like. The inspectors remarked that such a capability would be 

invaluable to them at their desks, as well as in the field. 

Interviews with Inspectors: Problems and Solutions 

Interviews with the inspectors were conducted repeatedly during the course of the study, 

primarily during training and de briefings after a site had completed its portion of the study. 

Several issues which had not been anticipated were brought up during the interviews. These 

issues and possible solutions to them are discussed below. 

23 
Inspector Attitudes 

Problem. A significant proportion of the inspectors have wary or antagonistic attitudes regarding 

PENS and computers in general. No doubt many of these attitudes have been engendered by past 

attempts to apply automation to ASI tasks. In fact, it was quite common for members of the 

team to be advised not to discuss the fact that we were "computer people" with some of the 

inspectors because we were liable to end up on the receiving end of a litany of complaints. To 

say that inspectors dislike StarLAN, Paradox, the PTRS data-entry system, and the other 

"stovepipe" automation systems would be an understatement. Many of the inspectors feared that 

PENS was another "WPMS" (Work Program Management System)--an attempt to throw 

technology at a problem without making an effort to learn the duties and responsibilities of ASis. 

Some inspectors' attitudes were so negative at the outset that they could not be overcome. For 

instance, the first words spoken by one inspector to the author (even prior to introductions) were, 

"I view this project the same way I do that pager over there. It's just another high tech ball and 

chain." This inspector, and another at the same site, held this opinion throughout the study. 

Others declared, "I was hired for my knowledge and experience, not to become a computer 

operator or data entry clerk." This type of attitude was not uncommon among inspectors. 

Fortunately, most of the inspectors who did not have computer experience remained open 

minded. These inspectors made comments to the effect of "Well, I need help to do my job, and if 

you say this will help, then I'm willing to give it a try." · 

Proposed Solution. There may be no way to combat negative attitudes, other than through 

attrition. Some inspectors will be slowly convinced by their peers who use the field computers 

and by repeated demonstrations of the benefits to them. 

Data Collection Device versus Information Mana~ement Tool 

Problem. Field computers will definitely not be supported if they are used solely as data 

collection devices. This approach would end the same way the Work Program Management 

System (WPMS) did: the computers would break, disappear, or end up in the back of a drawer 

with the hand-held tape recorders within two months. This suggests that while the On-Line 

Forms Initiative will greatly ease data entry burdens in the office, it will not gain broad 

acceptance for use in the field. 

Proposed Solution. Inspectors clearly want to use field computers to manage inspection 

information. They want to access previous inspections to recall their results so that they know 

what to look for during current inspections. They want to access information about operators 

(e.g. Vital Information System and Operations Specifications information) while doing 

inspections. They want the convenience of automatic letter and report generators. They want to 

use the computers to manage their workload. For these reasons, any final solution must comprise 

a suite of tools that supports these needs. Such a suite of tools is referred to in the Human 

Factors literature as an "electronic performance support system" (Gery, 1991) or a "decision 

support system" (cf. Thierauf, 1988). A hallmark of such systems is the application of artificial 

intelligence techniques to integrate data, information resources, and automation tools to support 

problem solving, rather than data or computer maintenance. That is, such systems are "user24 
centered" in that they are designed to support real user needs, as opposed to systems that 

subjugate the user to the role of data gatherer. 

Task Specific Appropiateness of Field Computers 

Problem. Another factor which contributed to the preference of paper and pencil for many of the 

inspectors was the nature of the inspection tasks themselves. A computer can be very difficult to 

use on the ramp, especially when time is short, one's hands are full with a flashlight and a mirror, 

and it is raining. Similarly, a switched-on computer in the cockpit is generally frowned upon 

(and even prohibited by the FAA during takeoff and landing) by the cockpit crew for fear of 

radio frequency interference with the navaids. Inspectors also commented that cockpit space is 

cramped and there frequently isn't sufficient room to use a computer, particularly in commuter or 

light aircraft. Airworthiness inspectors may be more sensitive to such difficulties because of 

their typical work environments. 

Proposed Solution. The inspectors did point out that the computers would be extremely useful 

during base or line station inspections or when on itinerary. Base and line station inspections are 

protracted compared to ramp inspections and the inspector frequently has a desk or table to work 

from. Itineraries provide a compelling reason for having a computer along: inspectors are gone 

from the office for days or even weeks at a time and they need to have all of their materials with 

them. In short, their are many situations in which a computer is not an appropriate solution, but 

there are also many situations that are ripe for computer use; inspectors should not be mandated 

to use computers at all times. 

Inspector Computer Experience 

Problem. As noted above, many of the inspectors did not have much, if any, computer 

experience and most had limited Windows experience. Nearly all of the inspectors had 

inappropriate mental models of the way computers operate (recall the confusion between RAM 

and hard disk capacity). 

Proposed Solution. Inspectors must be extensively trained on computer concepts and Windows 

functionality. Computer concepts can be difficult to learn, particularly given their "black box" 

nature. "Training" itself is not a particularly novel concept, but it is critical to the success of a 

PENS system. Some of the inspectors were quite adept at picking up computer and Windows 

concepts (doubtless because of previous exposure), while others were rather slow. Thus, while 

classroom instruction will be effective in many instances, individualized and self-paced 

instruction will also be necessary. Given that many inspectors have negative attitudes toward 

computers, it will be critical to devote significant amounts of time demonstrating the benefits to 

inspectors of computer systems. 

25 
Ease of Data Transfer 

Problem. As discussed above in "Automation Difficulties", there were significant difficulties 

with the data transfer process, both in terms of connecting the computer to the network and 

selecting which records to transfer. 

Proposed Solution. As discussed above, the best solution to such difficulties is to provide 

inspectors with a docking station and a utility that automatically transfers data between the 

network and the field computer. The docking station would simplify connecting the computer to 

the network and reduce the number of peripherals. The automatic transfer utility would resolve 

differences between office data and field computer data without inspector supervision. A report 

would be generated detailing the transfer and any problems encountered. 

Number of Peripherals 

Problem. The inspectors generally complained that they had to keep track of too many 

peripherals with the fielded computers: all of the computers had network adapters with cables 

and power supplies; the pen computers had external floppy disk drives; and the notebook had a 

trackball that fell off, etc. Inspectors were afraid they would either lose some of these 

peripherals or they would not have them when needed. If a portable CD ROM drive were added 

for the document library system, it would make matters worse because it would have its own 

cable and power supply. 

Proposed Solution. A docking station would greatly reduce the number of peripherals required. 

The docking station would have a network card built in and would allow for a full-size keyboard 

and a full-size monitor. 

The TelePad 3, due to be released this Fall, has an attached/detachable keyboard, and hard disk, 

floppy disk/PCMCIA, CD ROM drive, and cellular phone modules. The TelePad 3 is a pen 

computer that also has a built-in pointing device. This computer would allow the inspectors to 

carry their necessary peripherals in a single integrated unit, rather than as separate parts. 

Sin&le versus Multiple Computers 

Problem. Inspectors were adamant that they did not want a desktop computer and a field 

computer. They saw no need for the duplication of equipment and they did not want the 

additional file maintenance difficulties presented by having two computers. (With two 

computers, it becomes difficult to recall on which computer a particular document, or version of 

it, resides.) 

Proposed Solution. Once again, a docking station is the natural solution to such concerns. The 

docking station allows an inspector to take the computer in the field, as well as use it on the 

desktop. Thus, one computer fills both roles. Furthermore, files reside in only one place: the 

hard disk of the double-duty computer. 

Aptitude 

Problem. Many of the inspectors feared that they would appear inept using computers in front of 

operators. They were consequently afraid that this apparent ineptitude would compromise their 

26 
authority with operators. One inspector said, "There I was looking like a damn fool in front of 

my operators and they were laughing at me because I couldn't make it work." 

Proposed Solution. Nobody likes to appear inept. A field computer, like any other tool, requires 

practice to develop skilled use. Additional training would also have helped in this regard. 

Data Security 

Problem. Some of the inspectors expressed concern that they did not want operators to see their 

notes about an inspection. They worried that if they left their computers unattended, the operator 

might be tempted to look at what they had written. Furthermore, the inspectors said that it was 

more difficult to make surreptitious notes with the computer than with a small pad of paper. 

Proposed Solutions. The computers can easily be configured with password-protected screen 

savers and log-ins that would prevent unauthorized access. With regard to surreptitious notetaking, the inspectors can either remember to make such notes outside the view of the operator, 

or they can make these notes on paper as before and then transcribe them to the computer later. 

Permanence of Data 

Problem. Some of the inspectors felt that their operators were less forthcoming with information 

because the computer lent an air of permanence to the matters. 

Proposed Solution. The data recorded on the computer is no more or less permanent than that 

recorded on paper. However, it is the operators' perception of permanence that must be dealt 

with. One solution is to offer to print a copy of the inspector's notes for the operator. Another 

solution is for the inspector to use discretion in deciding when to make notes. 

Liability for Eg,uipment 

Problem. Many of the inspectors voiced concern over who would be liable for the equipment 

should it be inadvertently left on a plane, accidentally broken, or stolen from a hotel. A couple 

of inspectors even said that they would never take the equipment out of the trunk of their car if 

they were personally liable. 

Proposed Solution. The solution to this perceived problem will have to be handled the same as it 

is for other work equipment, such as cameras and cellular phones: through administrative policy. 

In administering that policy, however, it is important to realize that a field computer costs 

substantially more than a camera or cellular phone (on the order of $5000). 

Handwritin~ Reco~nition 

Problem. Some of the inspectors never became comfortable with the handwriting recognition 

capabilities of the pen computers. At the end of the study, they still had a significant proportion 

of misrecognition errors. 

Proposed Solution. PENS team members do not have significant problems with misrecognition 

of handwriting. However, the team members dedicated time to improving the personalized 

recognition files on their computers. Furthermore, the team members probably have a better 

27 
conception of what is needed for recognition accuracy. These issues can be addressed through 

training. Note, however, that if FSS decides to purchase a pool of computers for the inspection 

force, then each inspector will have to train each computer in the pool to his/her handwriting. 

This problem can be mitigated if a single computer is dedicated to a small number of inspectors 

(say three). 

Lessons Learned 

A number of lessons were learned by the PENS team in the course of conducting the field study. 

First, future studies should be conducted with fewer sites because the logistics of supporting nine 

sites are problematic. The usability information garnered from each site was largely the same 

across sites. Now that environmental issues have been identified, there is no further need to test 

the equipment in a diverse range of environments. Fewer sites would allow greater dedication of 

project resources and personnel to those sites than was achievable during this study. Thus, more 

time can be spent on training, team personnel can spend more time at a site answering questions 

that arise, and closer wor~ng relationships can be forged with the inspectors. 

Second, the PENS team needs to provide on-site support during future studies. Many problems 

that developed during this study were not communicated to team members. For example, 

although there were frequent discussions with the Seattle office, team members did not discover 

until the debriefing that data were not being transferred to the office database from the field 

computers. The presence of team personnel would allow them to address problems as they arise. 

Third, fewer computer platforms should be tested in future studies. Coordinating with vendors 

regarding purchasing, delivery schedules, technical support, and the like became very difficult in 

this study. Furthermore, the study has answered many of the questions regarding computer 

platforms, so fewer platforms need be tested in future studies. More is said about 

recommendations for future studies in "Conclusions and Recommendations". 

Finally, a test database on the FAA main frame is absolutely necessary for testing prototype 

software for evaluating field computers. Many of the errors discovered during the study would 

have been discovered prior to it had the team been able to subject test data to the upload 

procedure used for the PTRS databases. Thankfully, John Bent's office, AFS-620, has recently 

provided this capability. 

28 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

While not all of the inspectors support the notion of field computers, the majority of them who 

participated in this study do support it, provided that the tools are designed to meet their needs 

and provided they get to choose when to use them. That is, the computers will not be supported 

as simple data collection devices; they must support the broader information management roles 

of inspectors. Furthermore, a mandate that inspectors must always use a computer on an 

inspection will meet with a lot of resistance because it can be extremely difficult (if not 

impossible) to use a computer on some types of inspections. The worst thing that the FSS could 

do would be to purchase a number of pen computers, install them in the field without a properly 

designed electronic performance support system, and issue an edict to use them. If FSS · 

management continues to keep the inspectors' concerns firmly in mind and strives to keep 

inspectors involved in program development, the system will be supported by the inspectors. 

However, it would appear that the ideal field computer has yet to be developed. On the one hand, 

inspectors want all of the power and processing resources of a desktop computer (color display, 

large hard disk, CD ROM, fast processor, etc.), but they want the field computer to be small and 

light enough to fit in a coat pocket. Unfortunately, these demands conflict in that greater 

capabilities generally mean greater size and weight. There was also significant interest in speech 

recognition and magnetic stripe or bar-code readers. 

None of the fielded computers are currently in production. The GRiD Convertible and the NEC 

VersaPad have been removed from the market. The TelePad SL is due to be replaced this Fall 

with the TelePad 3, and the Toshiba Satellite Tl900 has been replaced by another model. 

Inspectors themselves will have to make the determination of whether they want a larger, more 

powerful computer, or a smaller, less powerful computer. To this end PENS team members 

recommend a second field study, albeit much smaller in scope. Such a study might compare, for 

instance, a multimedia notebook computer (which supports integrated CD ROM, an integrated 

pointing device, and speech recognition) and a subnotebook computer, which is smaller in size 

and has fewer capabilities. Both the notebook computer and the subnotebook will support 

magnetic stripe or bar-code readers through the serial port. The subnotebook computer will 

support speech recognition and CD ROM, but only through the addition of peripherals. 

This second field study should be conducted at a maximum of three sites in order to ensure that 

the sites can be properly supported. By reducing the size of the study, PENS team members can 

provide more training, more on-site support, and greater attention to individual inspectors' 

concerns. The participation of four inspectors per site, as in this study, provides sufficient 

personnel to ensure a broad cross section of inspector responsibilities and experiences. A total of 

twelve inspectors is also a large enough sample size to test hypotheses with sufficient statistical 

power. That is, with twelve inspectors participating, there is a greater probability that the results 

of the study will apply to the greater population of inspectors. These suggestions are subject to 

the approval of Flight Standards personnel and have not been finalized. 

Because the concerns addressed above were raised by airworthiness inspectors, and because 

operation inspectors may have different needs, it is recommended that only airworthiness 

29 
inspectors participate in the second study, as well. As a rule, it would appear that airworthiness 

tasks place more stringent demands on the ease of use of field computer hardware than do 

operations tasks. As an alternative, the study could be broadened to include eight inspectors per 

site (four airworthiness inspectors and four operations inspectors). By broadening the study in 

this manner, we could compare the needs of airworthiness inspectors with those of operations 

inspectors and still maintain a sufficiently large sample size. 

Once again, the field study should last approximately four weeks per site. This length of study 

gives the inspectors ample opportunity to become familiar with the equipment and to use it as 

part of their daily routine. Training time should also be increased to three full days or five half 

days. This will have to be determined as the details of the study are finalized. 

Rarely is a field study of this magnitude conducted because they are notoriously difficult. 

Fortunately, this one went exceedingly well. The study accomplished its two major objectives: 

evaluate the feasibility of applying field computers to Aviation Safety Inspector tasks and 

involve the inspector workforce in this evaluation. In the past, inspectors have had little 

opportunity to influence what tools are purchased or developed to support them and they 

appreciated the approach taken in this study: present inspectors with potential solutions and let 

them evaluate the solutions, suggest improvements, and guide future developments. This 

approach is an outgrowth of the Flight Standards Service Training and Automation Committee 

Information Systems Strategy project which is directly concerned with meeting inspectors' 

needs. From this standpoint alone, the study was a resounding success. 

30 
AAM 

AC 

AD 

ASI 

CD ROM 

DOS 

FAA 

FARs 

FSAS 

FSDO 

FSS 

PCMCIA 

PENS 

PTRS 

RAM 

SPAS 

WPMS 

GLOSSARY 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Advisory Circular 

Airworthiness Directive 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Compact Disc Read Only Memory 

Disk Operating System 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Federal Aviation Regulations 

Flight Standards Automation System 

Flight Standards District Office 

Flight Standards Service 

Personal Computer Memory Card International Association 

Performance ENhancement System 

Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem 

Random Access Memory 

Safety Peformance Analysis System 

Work Program Management System 

REFERENCES 

Airworthiness inspector's handbook (Order 8300.10). Department of Transportation: Federal 

Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Air transportation operations inspector's handbook (Order 8400.10). Department of 

Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Code of federal regulations: Title 14--Aeronautics and space (1994). National Records and 

Archives Administration: Office of the Federal Register. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

General aviation operations inspector's handbook (Order 8700.1). Department of 

Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Edens, E. S. ( 1992). Aviation safety inspector job automated PTRS data collect and reporting 

human factors study. Federal Aviation Administration: Systems Technology Division 

Human Performance Program, Technical Report. 

Gery, G. J. (1991). Electronic performance support systems: How and why to remake the 

workplace through the strategic application of technology. Boston: Weingarten. 

31 
Thierauf, R. J. (1988). User-oriented decision support systems: Accent on problem findin~. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

32 
APPENDIX A 

COMPUTER CHARACTERISTICS 

A-I 
GRiD Convertible 

Features 

Dimensions--1.6" H x 11.5'' W x 9.3" D 

486/25 

8MB RAM 

130MB Hard Drive 

Math co-processor 

Built-in keyboard 

External floppy drive (parallel port) standard 

Sidelit (backlit) 9.5" 64 shade VGA LCD display (blue) with brightness and contrast controls 

Serial port - · · ._- • · "' -

Parallel port/floppy disk drive port (requires adapter for parallel port) 

Monitor port 

PCMCIA Type II slot 

Attached keyboard 

Battery-operated pen 

Rechargeable/replaceable computer battery 

5 112lb . 

... 

A-2 
NEC UltraLite Autograph 

Features 

Dimensions--1.2" H x 10.9" W x 9.8" D 

486/20 

8MBRAM ~')' 

80 MB Hard Drive ~ 

Math co-processor 

Optional external keyboard 

External floppy drive standard 

. .. , ,. . .. 

Backlit 9.4" 64 shade VGA LCD display (blue) with brightness and contrast controls 

Serial port 

Parallel port/floppy disk drive port (requires adapter for parallel port) 

Monitor port 

2 PCMCIA Type II slots 

Separate keyboard 

Battery-operated pen 

Rechargeable/replaceable computer battery 

3.9lb. 

A-3 
TelePadSL 

Features 

Dimensions--1.3 "H x 11 "W x 11 "D 

386/25 

8MB RAM. 

200 MB Hard Drive 

Sidelit (backlit)ffransflective (backlighting can be turned off) 16 shade VGA LCD display 

(blue) with brightness and contrast controls 

Serial port 

Parallel port 

Floppy disk drive port 

Monitor port 

2 PCMCIA Type II Slots 

Built-in 9600 baud FAX/2400 baud Modem 

"Hot Dock" docking port for power and/or other connections available. 

Separate keyboard 

Battery-operated pen 

Rechargeable/replaceable computer battery; 2 batteries std. 

4lb. 

A-4 
Toshiba Satellite Tl900 

Features 

Dimensions--2"H x 11.7"W x 8.4"D 

486/20 

8MB RAM 

120MB Hard Drive 

Backlit 

Serial Port 

Parallel Port 

Floppy disk drive 

Monitor port 

PCMCIA Type II slot 

Attached keyboard 

BallPoint (Trackball) 

Rechargeable/replaceable computer battery 

6.4lb. 

A-5 
APPENDIXB 

TRAINING SLIDES 

B-1 
PENS 

What is PENS? 

• Field 

B-2 

The Perfonnance 

ENhancement System 

for Aviation Safety 

ion 
I PENS I 

1993 

• Field Evaluation of 

Airworthiness Prototype 

PENS 

PENS 

Timetable 

1994 

• Complete Airworthiness 

and Avionics PENS 

• Prototype Operations 

PENS 

• Field Evaluation of 

Operations Prototype 

Schedule 

Day One 

• Demo 

The Peifonnance 

ENhancement System 

for Aviation Safety 

1995 

• Complete Operations 

PENS 

• Prototype General 

Aviation PENS 

• Field Evaluations of 

General Aviation 

Prototype 

• Complete General 

Aviation PENS 

The peifonnance 

ENhancement System 

for Aviation Safety 

• Background Information 

• Introduction to Computer 

• Windows Tutorial 

• Windows Practice 

• Pen Computer Tutorial 

B-3 
I PENS I Schedule 

Day Two 

• PENS Training 

• PENS Practice 

• Data Transfer Training 

• Data Transfer Practice 

• Evaluation Forms 

• Rotation Schedule 

The Performance 

ENhancement System 

for Aviation Safety 

• Specific Computer Training 

You cannot harm the 

computer by using it! 

B-4 
You can harm the computer by: 

dropping it 

spilling liquids on it 

throwing it against the 

But if you do, you will make several 

people very unhappy with you. 

B-5 

- - ___________ 
DOS 

+ Stands for: Disk Operating System 

+ Basic operating level 

+ Runs programs and stores data 

+ Hierarchical organization of data 

--files: lowest element 

--subdirectories: hierarchies of files 

--both are limited to eight letter names and 

three letter extensions: eg. filename.txt 

DOS (cont.) 

storage devices 

(letters are only examples) 

A: 

floppy disk 

C: 

hard disk 

E: 

solid state 

subdlrct < 

huckdir ?-filename.txt 

~ file2.txt 

cllffdlr~ 

B-6 
DOS (cont.) 

To get out of DOS and back to Windows: 

1. Type exit <Entet'> 

2. Type win <Enter> 

3. Restart the computer 

Hold down <Ctrl> <Ait> and <Del> keys simultaneously 

Turn off the computer and tum it on again 

Windows 

+ Graphical User Interface (GUI) 

+ Shows programs as screen objects 

+ Take action on screen objects 

Point 

Click 

Double Click 

Drag 

Windows for Pen transcribes printed text to "typed" text 

B-7 
Tips 

fi/1 Turn off the computer before plugging or unplugging any devices: 

--keyboard 

--floppy disk drive 

--net\wrk connection 

--CD-ROM 

1.~ Plug the computer into AC power when possible and convenient 

~ Plug the computer into the cigarette lighter when possible 

and convenient 

1.~ Turn olf the computer If it will be idle for a half hour or more 

B-8 
APPENDIXC 

INSPECTOR BACKGROUND QUESTIONS 

C-1 
Personnel Background 

Initials: FSDO: 

Age: YearsasASI: __ _ 

Type of operator you inspect regularly: 121 125 129 133 135 137 

other 

Type of operator you inspect most frequently: 121 125 129 133 135 137 

other 

Have you ever used a computer before? Yes No How many years? 

What type of computer have you used? IBM PC Compatible (e.g. AT&T/NCR OATS) 

Apple Macintosh 

Other: ______ _ 

Do you own a computer? Yes No How many years? 

What type of computer do you own? IBM PC Compatible (e.g. AT&T/NCR OATS) 

Apple Macintosh 

Other: ______ _ 

Have you ever used a "Mouse" before? Yes No 

Have you ever used a "Trackball" before? Yes No 

Have you ever used a "Pen Computer" before? Yes No 

Do you currently use the PTRS Transmittal System (Paradox)? Yes No 

At this point, how comfortable do you feel using a computer? 

1 2 3 4 5 

not at all comfortable somewhat comfortable quite comfortable 

C-2 
What is your opinion of the following computer manufacturers: 

GRiD Favorable Unfavorable No Opinion 

NBC Favorable Unfavorable No Opinion 

TelePad Favorable Unfavorable No Opinion 

Toshiba Favorable Unfavorable No Opinion 

C-3 
APPENDIXD 

POST· TRAINING COMFORT LEVEL QUESTIONS 

D-1 
Post-Training Comfort Level 

Initials: FSDO: 

Now that you have been trained ... 

How comfortable do you feel using a computer? 

1 2 3 4 5 

not at all comfortable somewhat comfortable quite comfortable 

How comfortable do you feel using a pen computer? 

1 2 3 4 5 

not at all comfortable somewhat comfortable quite comfortable 

How comfortable do you feel with handwriting recognition? 

1 2 3 4 5 

not at all comfortable somewhat comfortable quite comfortable 

How comfortable do you feel with the PENS PTRS? 

1 2 3 4 5 

not at all comfortable somewhat comfortable quite comfortable 

How comfortable do you feel with the On-Line References (Hypermedia)? 

1 2 3 4 5 

not at all comfortable somewhat comfortable quite comfortable 

Do you have any other comments? 

D-2 
APPENDIXE 

COMPUTER QUESTIONS 

E-1 
Evaluation of GRiD Convertible 

Initials: FSDO: 

Please rate the computer on the following factors: 

Weight Too Heavy Adequate Too Light/Fragile 

Size Too Large Adequate Too Small (e.g. screen) 

Speed Too Slow Adequate Fast 

Display--inside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Display--outside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Pen Responsiveness Too Slow Adequate Too Fast 

Pen Feel Too Slick Adequate Scratchy 

Overall Comfort Not Comfortable Adequate Comfortable 

What were the environmental conditions in which you used the computer? 

snow drizzle rain heat 

Did you use the computer for five working days? 

cold frigid 

Yes No 

If not, why not? Broken On TravelN acation/RDO Too difficult to use 

Do you prefer to have the pen tethered to the unit? 

Could you comfortably carry this unit throughout a typical day? 

Yes 

Yes 

If a neck, shoulder, or waist strap were available, would you use it? Yes 

Which would you prefer? Neck Shoulder Waist 

What are the three largest drawbacks to this product? 1. ---------

2.~--------

3. _____________ __ 

E-2 

No 

No 

No 
Would you use this computer in the field as part of your job? Yes No 

If not, why not? 

E-3 
Evaluation of NEC VersaPad 

Initials: FSDO: 

Please rate the computer on the following factors: 

Weight Too Heavy Adequate Too Light/Fragile 

Size Too Large Adequate Too Small (e.g. screen) 

Speed Too Slow Adequate Fast 

Display--inside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Display --outside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Pen Responsiveness Too Slow Adequate Too Fast 

Pen Feel Too Slick Adequate Scratchy 

Overall Comfort Not Comfortable Adequate Comfortable 

What were the environmental conditions in which you used the computer? 

snow drizzle rain heat 

Did you use the computer for five working days? 

cold frigid 

Yes No 

If not, why not? Broken On TravelN acation/RDO Too difficult to use 

Do you prefer to have the pen tethered to the unit? 

Could you comfortably carry this unit throughout a typical day? 

Yes 

Yes 

If a neck, shoulder, or waist strap were available, would you use it? Yes 

Which would you prefer? Neck Shoulder Waist 

What are the three largest drawbacks to this product? 1. _________ _ 

2. ________ __ 

3. ________ __ 

E-4 

No 

No 

No 
Would you use this computer in the field as part of your job? Yes No 

If not, why not? 

E-5 
Evaluation of TelePad 

Initials: FSDO: 

Please rate the computer on the following factors: 

Weight Too Heavy Adequate Too Light/Fragile 

Size Too Large Adequate Too Small (e.g. screen) 

Speed Too Slow Adequate Fast 

Display--inside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Display--outside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Pen Responsiveness Too Slow Adequate Too Fast 

Pen Feel Too Slick Adequate Scratchy 

Overall Comfort Not Comfortable Adequate Comfortable 

What were the environmental conditions in which you used the computer? 

snow drizzle rain heat 

Did you use the computer for five working days? 

cold frigid 

Yes No 

If not, why not? Broken On TravelN acation/RDO Too difficult to use 

Do you prefer to have the pen tethered to the unit? 

Could you comfortably carry this unit throughout a typical day? 

Yes 

Yes 

If a neck, shoulder, or waist strap were available, would you use it? Yes 

Which would you prefer? Neck Shoulder Waist 

What are the three largest drawbacks to this product? 1. ----------

2. _________ _ 

3. _______________ __ 

E-6 

No 

No 

No 
Would you use this computer in the field as part of your job? Yes No 

If not, why not? 

E-7 
Evaluation of Toshiba Satellite 

Initials: FSDO: 

Please rate the computer on the following factors: 

Weight Too Heavy Adequate Too Light/Fragile 

Size Too Large Adequate Too Small (e.g. screen) 

Speed Too Slow Adequate Fast 

Display--inside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Display--outside Too Dark Adequate Too Bright 

Trackball Speed Too Slow Adequate Too Fast 

Trackball Ease Too Cumbersome Adequate Easier than a Pen 

Overall Comfort Not Comfortable Adequate Comfortable 

What were the environmental conditions in which you used the computer? 

snow drizzle rain heat 

Did you use the computer for five working days? 

cold frigid 

Yes No 

If not, why not? Broken On TravelN acation/RDO Too difficult to use 

Could you comfortably carry this unit throughout a typical day? Yes 

If a neck, shoulder, or waist strap were available, would you use it? Yes 

Which would you prefer? Neck Shoulder Waist 

What are the three largest drawbacks to this product? 1. _________ _ 

2. _________ _ 

3. _______________ __ 

E-8 

No 

No 
Would you use this computer in the field as part of your job? Yes No 

If not, why not? 

E-9 
APPENDIXF 

INSPECTOR COMPUTER EVALUATIONS 

F-1 
GRiD Convertible Evaluation Responses 

Inspector Weight Size Speed Display Display Pen Pen Comfort Five Tether Carry Strap? Would 

inside outside Rspns. Feel days pen? comfort? use it? 

use? 

BVO 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 No No No No Yes 

ALO 1 1 1 1 1 1 

RSL 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 No 

RRH 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Yes Yes No No Yes 

JOG 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

HAK 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

SKJ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

TLT 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 No No Yes Yes Yes 

LEV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

LNW 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 No Yes No Yes Yes 

RNS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No Yes No 

RRS 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

FNG 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 No No No No No 

HEG 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes No No No No 

JAS 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes Yes No No 

DEG 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 

DMH 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 Yes No No No No 

KEL 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 No Yes No No No 

ECS 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 Yes No No No Yes 

HCE 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 No No No No Yes 

FSM 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 No No Yes No Yes 

RDR 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

REG 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

AAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No Yes No Yes 

RLH 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes No No No 

CHB 2 2 2 2 2 3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

RLS 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 Yes Yes No No No 

Avg. 1.52 1.68 1.89 1.86 1.93 1.74 1.96 1.92 0.72 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.67 

Std. Dev. 0.51 0.48 0.57 0.36 0.60 0.45 0.53 0.81 

Response 27 28 28 28 28 27 26 25 

F-2 
NEC VersaPad Evaluation Responses 

Inspector Weight Size Speed Display Display Pen Pen Comfort Five Tether Carry Strap? Would 

inside outside Rspns. Feel days pen? comfort? use it? 

use? 

BVO 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

AR 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 No No No No Yes 

ALO 

RSL 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 No 

RRH 1 2 3 3 2 1 Yes No No Yes 

JOG 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 No Yes No Yes No 

HAK 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

SKJ 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 Yes No No No Yes 

TLT 2 2 1 1 1 1 Yes No No Yes No 

LEV 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 Yes Yes No Yes No 

LNW 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 No Yes Yes Yes Yes 

RNS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No Yes No Yes 

RRS 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 No No Yes Yes Yes 

FNG 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 '1 No No No No No 

HEG 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 No No No No No 

JAS 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes Yes No No 

DEG 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 

DMH 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 Yes No No No No 

KEL 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 No Yes No No No 

ECS 

HCE 

FSM 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 Yes No Yes No Yes 

ADA 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

REG 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 Yes No No Yes No 

AAP 

RLH 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 No Yes No No No 

CHB 2 1 1 3 1 Yes No No 

RLS 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 Yes Yes No No No 

Avg. 1.42 1.57 1.61 1.70 1.87 1.64 1.87 1.42 0.64 0.43 0.27 0.48 0.41 

Std. Dev. 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.56 0.81 0.49 0.55 0.65 

Response 24 23 23 23 23 22 23 24 

F-3 
TelePad SL Evaluation Responses 

Inspector Weight Size Speed Display Display Pen Pen Comfort Five Tether Carry Strap? Would 

inside outside Rspns. Feel days pen? comfort? use it? 

use? 

BVO 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 No No No No Yes 

ALO 

RSL 

RRH 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Yes No No Yes 

JOG 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

HAK 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

SKJ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

TLT 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

LEV 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes No 

LNW 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 No No Yes Yes Yes 

RNS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No Yes No Yes 

RRS 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 No No Yes Yes Yes 

FNG 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Yes No No No No 

HEG 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes No No No No 

JAS 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 Yes Yes No No 

DEG 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 No 

DMH 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 Yes No No No No 

KEL 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 No Yes No No No 

ECS 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 Yes No No No Yes 

HCE 

FSM 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Yes No Yes No Yes 

RDR 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

REG 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 

AAP 

RLH 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 No No No No 

CHB 2 No 

RLS 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 Yes Yes No No 

Avg. 1.63 1.65 1.91 1.91 1.82 1.74 1.91 1.61 0.78 0.36 0.41 0.45 0.68 

Std. Dev. 0.49 0.49 0.42 0.51 0.66 0.45 0.51 0.72 

Response 24 23 23 23 22 23 23 23 

F-4 
Toshiba Satellite T1900 Evaluation Responses 

Inspector Weight Size Speed Display Display Trackball Trackball Comfort Five Carry Strap? Would 

inside outside speed ease days comfort? use it? 

use? 

BVO 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

AR 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 No No No Yes 

ALO 

RSL 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 No 

RRH 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes No Yes 

JOG 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 

HAK 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No Yes Yes 

SKJ 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Yes Yes No Yes 

TLT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Yes Yes Yes 

LEV 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes No 

LNW 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 No Yes Yes Yes 

RNS 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 Yes Yes No Yes 

RRS 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 No No Yes Yes 

FNG 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 No No 

HEG 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes No No No 

JAS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No No Yes 

DEG 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 

DMH 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 Yes No No No 

KEL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 No Yes No No 

ECS 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 Yes No No No 

HCE 

FSM 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes No No No 

RDR 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 Yes Yes Yes No 

REG 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 Yes No Yes No 

AAP 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 Yes No No 

RLH 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes No No No 

CHB 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 Yes No No No 

RLS 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 Yes No No 

Avg. 1.58 1.77 1.38 1.85 1.81 1.62 1.46 1.65 0.79 0.39 0.43 0.43 

Std. Dev. 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.37 0.49 0.57 0.58 0.69 

Response 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 

F-5 
APPENDIXG 

SUMMARY COMPUTER COMPARISON STATISTICS 

G-1 
Summary Computer Comparison Statistics 

GRiD vs. NEC Weight Size Speed Display Display Pen Pen Feel Comfort 

inside outside Response 

Number of responses 15 17 18 17 18 18 18 17 

t 0.717 0.822 1.879 1.252 0.297 0.777 0.598 2.383 

Sp 0.507 0.490 0.538 0.458 0.707 0.468 0.537 0.739 

t (0.025) 2.312 2.312 2.312 2.312 2.312 2.315 2.315 2.315 

Significant? no no no no no no no yes 

GRiD vs. TelePad Weight Size Speed Display Display Pen Pen Feel Comfort 

inside outside Response 

t -0.756 0.195 -0.142 -0.457 0.614 0.013 0.325 1.398 

Sp 0.502 0.481 0.505 0.435 0.631 0.448 0.522 0.771 

t (0.025) 2.312 2.312 2.312 2.312 2.314 2.314 2.315 2.317 

Significant? no no no no no no no no 

NEC vs. TelePad Weight Size Speed Display Display Pen Pen Feel Comfort 

inside outside Response 

t -1.446 -0.593 -2.244 -1.372 0.231 -0.732 -0.277 -0.956 

Sp 0.499 0.497 0.460 0.537 0.745 0.471 0.532 0.688 

t (0.025) 2.317 2.321 2.321 2.321 2.323 2.323 2.321 2.319 

Significant? no no no no no no no no 

GRiD vs. Toshiba Weight Size Speed Display Display Comfort 

inside outside 

t -0.423 -0.692 3.694 0.093 0.703 1.233 

Sp 0.507 0.454 0.534 0.362 0.553 0.752 

t (0.025) 2.310 2.308 2.308 2.308 2.308 2.312 

Significant? no no yes no no no 

NEC vs. Toshiba Weight Size Speed Display Display Comfort 

inside outside 

t -1.124 -1.525 1.574 -1.126 0.326 -1.246 

Sp 0.504 0.467 0.497 0.467 0.663 0.673 

t (0.025) 2.314 2.315 2.315 2.315 2.315 2.314 

Significant? no no no no no no 

TelePad vs. Toshiba Weight Size Speed Display Display Comfort 

inside outside 

t 0.340 -0.894 4.006 0.528 0.063 -0.224 

Sp 0.499 0.457 0.461 0.443 0.577 0.705 

t (0.025) 2.314 2.315 2.315 2.315 2.317 2.315 

Significant? no no yes no no no 

G-2 
APPENDIXH 

SOFTWARE EVALUATION FORMS 

H-1 
PENS Software Evaluation 

Initials: FSDO: 

Now that you have used PENS for a significant period of time, please tell us what you think. 

I enjoyed using PENS. 

I am eager to see PENS evolve to meet my additional needs. 

I would like all of my forms linked together so that I don't have to fill in 

the same information on multiple forms. 

I will continue to use PENS after the evaluation period. 

I would rather use paper in the field and transcribe the forms at the office. 

I would rather use the current transmittal system (FSAS) for transcribing forms. 

I like the On-Line References (Hypermedia), such as PARs and Handbooks. 

I would like more On-Line References (Hypermedia), such as ADs, ACs, etc. 

The On-Line References (Hypermedia) are the best part about PENS. 

I had difficulty transferring my files from the computer to the network. 

H-2 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 

True False 
If any of the following need improvement, please comment below: 

Section I 

PTRS Record ID function 

Inspector ID, Inspector Type, Activity Number, and FAR screen 

NPG 

Status 

Callup Date, Start Date, Completion Date 

Designator 

Airman Certification # 

Airman N arne/Other 

Aircraft Registration # 

Make-Model-Series 

Loc/Departure Point, Arrival Point 

Flight# 

Investigation # 

Tracking 

Miscellaneous 

H-3 
Numeric Mise 

Local Use 

National Use 

Activity Time 

Travel Time, Travel Cost 

Section II. Personnel 

Personnel Name 

Position 

Base 

Remarks 

New Entry ,/Save Entry, Clear Entry 

Section III. Equipment 

Manufacturer 

Model 

Serial# 

Remarks 

New Entry, Save Entry, Clear Entry 

H-4 
Section IV. Comments 

Primary 

Key Heading 

KeyWord 

Opinion 

Clear Comment 

Erase Last Ink 

Erase All Ink 

Undo Last Erase 

Transcribe 

Transcription Screen 

Scratchpad Entries 

Transcribed Text 

Done For Now, Keep Ink 

Done, Erase Ink 

Aircraft Graphic 

H-5 
Save Verify 

On-Line References (Hypermedia) 

Open Book 

Topics (Table of Contents) 

Viewer 

Searching 

--This Chapter 

--Entire Book 

Bookmarks 

Copying 

H-6 
Other 

Data Transfer 

Inspector Name 

Transfer List 

Record List 

Supervisory Review 

Previous 

Next 

Transfer 

Print 

Delete 

-tru.s. GOVEIIJIIMENT PIUN'I1NG omCE: 1JM -7~ 

H-7