DOT/FAA/AM-03/3

H.L. Taylor

D.A. Talleur

G.L. Bradshaw

T.W. Emanuel, Jr.

E. Rantanen

C.L. Hulin

L. Lendrum

University of Illinois at Urbana

Aviation Research Lab

1 Aviation Road

Savoy, IL 61874

February 2003

Final Report

This document is available to the public

through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591

Effectiveness of Personal

Computers to Meet Recency

of Experience Requirements
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

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

DOT/FAA/AM-03/3 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

February 2003 Effectiveness of Personal Computers to Meet Recency of Experience 

Requirements. 6. Performing Organization Code 

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

Taylor HL, Talleur DA, Bradshaw GL, Emanuel TW Jr., Rantanen E, 

Hulin CL, & Lendrum L

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Lab 

1 Airport Road, Savoy, IL 61874 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

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

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Work was accomplished under approved Task HRR-521. This material is based upon work supported by the Federal 

Aviation Administration under Award No. DTFA 98-G-003. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

16. Abstract 

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effectiveness of Personal Computer Aviation Training Devises 

(PCATDs) and Flight Traning Devices (FTDs) to meet FAA recency of experience requirements for instrument flight. 

Two types of training devices were tested: 1) an FAA approved PCATD; and 2) a Frasca 141 FTD. An Instrument 

Proficiency Check (IPC) was given to all subjects in the airplane to establish a performance baseline (IPC #1). After the 

completion of IPC #1 in the airplane, the subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups: the PCATD, the FTD, 

the aircraft or the control group with a balancing constraint so that the subjects successfully completing IPC #1 were 

equally distributed among the four groups. During the six-month period, each subject received two recency of experience 

flights of about 1.8 hours each in either the PCATD, the FTD or the aircraft; the control group received no recency 

training. These recency of experience flights included three instrument approaches, holding procedures, and intercepting 

and tracking navigation radials and courses. After the six-month period, performance on an IPC in the airplane (IPC #2) 

compared pilots who received recency of experience in the training devices to a control group. The subjects in the PCATD 

and FTD group were also compared to the aircraft group who received recency of experience in the airplane. A comparison 

of the three training groups with the control group performance on the final instrument proficiency check indicated that 

the training groups performed significantly better than the control group. The study also indicated that PCATDs are 

effective in maintaining recency of experience for instrument rated pilots over a period of six months. The two recency of 

experience practice sessions resulted in significantly better performance for the PCATD group on an IPC compared to the 

control group. Practice in either the PCATD or the FTD resulted in higher pass rates compared to the control group and 

practice in the PCATD and the FTD was found to be at least as effective as practice in the airplane. Finally, the 

performance of the PCATD group was statistically indistinguishable from the FTD group. These findings present 

compelling evidence that the FAA should permit the use of PCATDs to maintain recency of experience for instrument 

pilots. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

PCATD, Instrument Flight, Flight Training Document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161 

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

Unclassified Unclassified 50 

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

iii

FOREWORD

This study was prompted by the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) No. 61-126 (1997), which authorized the use

of a Personal Computer Aviation Training Device (PCATD) to be used for 10 of the 15 hours authorized for

an approved ground training device. The advisory circular, however, did not authorize the use of PCATDs for

recency of experience requirements. The study was supported under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

contract DFTA 98-G-003 with the Institute of Aviation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign during

1998-2001. The study was sponsored by FAA Headquarters AFS-840, Mr. Michael Henry. Dr. Kevin Williams,

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), served as the contracting officer’s technical representative for FAACAMI. We express our appreciation to Ms. Mary Wilson who scheduled subjects, to Ms. Diana Christenson

who assisted in manuscript preparation, and to Ms. Karen Ayers who assisted with report formatting. We also

thank all of the Institute of Aviation flight instructors who provided instrument training in the Flight Training

Device (FTD), the PCATD and the aircraft; the Institute flight instructors who served as IPC check pilots; and

the instrument pilots for their participation in the study.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

METHOD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3

Subjects --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Apparatus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Procedure ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

FDR Data Collection, Preprocessing and Reduction---------------------------------------------------------- 4

Performance Measures Derived from the FDR Data ---------------------------------------------------------- 5

Analysis --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Analysis of the Effectiveness of the FDR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6

RESULTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

IPC Pass Rate by Group-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Performance Changes from IPC#1 to IPC#2------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

IPC #1 Pass Rates by Prior Currency Status -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

Change in Maneuver Performance between IPC#1 and IPC#2 --------------------------------------------- 9

Change in Individual Maneuver Performance Between IPC#1 and IPC#2 ------------------------------- 9

Change in Maneuver Element Performance between IPC#1 and IPC#2 ---------------------------------- 9

Demographic Factors --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

Analysis of Instructor Assignments ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

Delay to IPC#2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

Influence of Partial Panel Approach on IPC#2 Pass/Fail Outcome --------------------------------------- 10

CFI Scores vs. FDR Measures ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

The Effect of Sampling Rate on Measure Accuracy --------------------------------------------------------- 12

DISCUSSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

RECOMMENDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

SUMMARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

APPENDIX A: REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS DURING THE CONTRACT ------------------- A1

APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE -------------------------------------------------------- B1

APPENDIX C: CURRENCY TRAINING SESSION ----------------------------------------------------------- C1

APPENDIX D: PRESCREENING SESSION-------------------------------------------------------------------- D1

APPENDIX E: ORAL/FAMILIARIZATION SESSION-------------------------------------------------------- E1

APPENDIX F: ORAL/FAMILIARIZATION SESSION PROFILE BRIEFING --------------------------- F1

APPENDIX G: IPC#1 SCORE CARD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- G1

APPENDIX H: IPC CHECK PILOT STANDARDIZATION DOCUMENT---------------------------- H1

APPENDIX I: RECENCY OF EXPERIENCE SESSION #1 -------------------------------------------------- I1

APPENDIX J: RECENCY OF EXPERIENCE SESSION #2 -------------------------------------------------- J1

APPENDIX K: IPC#2 SCORE CARD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- K1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effectiveness of PCATDs and FTDs to meet FAA

recency of experience requirements for instrument flight. Two types of training devices were tested: 1) an FAA

approved PCATD; and 2) a Frasca 141 FTD. An Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC) was given to all subjects

in the airplane to establish a performance baseline (IPC #1). After the completion of IPC #1 in the airplane,

the subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups: the PCATD, the FTD, the aircraft or the control

group with a balancing constraint so that the subjects successfully completing IPC #1 were equally distributed

among the four groups. During the six-month period, each subject received two recency of experience flights

of about 1.8 hours each in either the PCATD, the FTD or the aircraft; the control group received no recency

training. These recency of experience flights included three instrument approaches, holding procedures, and

intercepting and tracking navigation radials and courses. After the six-month period, performance on an IPC

in the airplane (IPC #2) compared pilots who received recency of experience in the training devices to a control

group, which received no recency of experience. The subjects in the PCATD and FTD group were also

compared to the aircraft group who received recency of experience in the airplane.

This study clearly demonstrated the benefit of recency of experience training in maintaining instrument

currency for instrument rated pilots. A comparison of the three training groups with the control group

performance on the final instrument proficiency check indicated that the training groups performed significantly better than the control group. The study also indicated that PCATDs are effective in maintaining recency

of experience for instrument rated pilots over a period of six months. The two recency of experience practice

sessions resulted in significantly better performance for the PCATD group on an IPC compared to the control

group, which had no practice. Practice in either the PCATD or the FTD resulted in higher pass rates compared

to no practice by the control group and practice in the PCATD and the FTD was found to be at least as effective

as practice in the airplane. Finally, the performance of the PCATD group was statistically indistinguishable

from the FTD group. These findings present compelling evidence that the FAA should permit the use of

PCATDs to maintain recency of experience for instrument pilots.

The study showed that only 45 of 106 (42%) of instrument current pilot subjects passed the initial IPC (IPC

#1) in the airplane. This finding raises questions concerning the relationship between instrument currency and

instrument proficiency. The results indicated that many subjects had difficulty with the ILS approach. Recency

of experience requirements require six instrument approaches, but do not specify that any must be a precision

approach. This suggests the need for the FAA to consider changing the recency of experience requirements for

instrument currency. An alternative approach would be to require a periodic IPC to demonstrate instrument

proficiency in addition to the current currency requirements.

Only thirty-seven percent of the subjects who pass an IPC in a FTD were able to subsequently pass the initial

IPC in the airplane. This calls into doubt the effectiveness of a FTD as a viable platform to administer an IPC.

It should be noted that all subjects in this category were more than one year out of currency. All retraining was

done in an FTD. We recommend that the FAA sponsor a study specifically designed to test the effectiveness of

both FTDs and PCATDs for administering IPCs. This study should include instrument pilots from all three

currency groups.

A comparison of the pass/fail rates for IPC #1 and IPC #2 indicated that the performance on the baseline

IPC was the best predictor of performance on the final IPC. Seventy-five percent of the subjects who passed IPC

#1 also passed IPC #2 and 66 percent of the subjects who failed IPC #1 also failed IPC #2. Regardless of the

intervening training during the six-month currency period, 70 percent of the subjects either passed both tests

or failed both tests. Thirty percent of the subjects passed IPC #1 and failed IPC #2 or failed IPC #1 and passed

IPC #2. A analysis of improvement and deterioration on IPC #2 compared to IPC #1 indicated a trend of

improvement for the FTD group and PCATD group which approached statistical significance. The control

group showed a trend for deterioration which was not significant. These results support the earlier finding of

the benefit of the PCATD and FTD in maintaining instrument proficiency and suggest that improvement may

be possible for some pilots when these devices are used.

vii

1

EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSONAL COMPUTERS TO MEET

RECENCY OF EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS

INTRODUCTION

Recently there has been an increased emphasis on

the use of Personal Computers (PCs) in flight training

(Campbell, 1998; Falun, 1992; Lert, 1990; Miller,

1996; Kolano, 1997). A summary of a joint industryFAA conference concerned with the development and

use of personal computers documents this emphasis

(Williams, 1994). Koonce and Bramble (1998) have

provided an overview of the use of personal computer-based flight training devices. As computer capability has improved and cost decreased, the PC has

become a viable tool for presenting realistic, highquality, full-size graphic representations of aircraft

instrument displays. Current PC technology can provide aerodynamic characteristics that are as accurate

as current Flight Training Devices (FTDs) and that

closely mimic those experienced in flight. Also, they

have realistic flight controls and aerodynamics models that are at least as accurate as current FTDs. In

addition, navigation databases are unlimited in geographic coverage. Desktop computer devices offer a

low-cost alternative for instruction of instrument

tasks. A computer, software, flight-control system,

monitor, and an instructor station monitor can be

acquired at a cost of less $7,000. Studies by Phillips,

Hulin, and Lamermayer (1993), Ortiz (1994), and

Dennis (1994) have provided evidence of positive

transfer of training from desktop computers to the

airplane, but these empirical evaluations have been

limited in scope. A report by Hampton, Moroney,

Kirton, and Biers (1994) reported that students trained

in a Personal Computer Aviation Training Device

(PCATD) performed as well on instrument procedures in the airplane as students trained in a Frasca

141. No airplane control group was used in this study,

so it was not possible to determine the transfer effectiveness of the PCATD or the Frasca 141. Recently,

Karp (2001) has described the use of PCATDs in the

classroom. PCATDs provide many features required

to practice instrument tasks; but their fidelity is low in

areas normally thought to be important in instrument

training, such as displays, switches, out-of-cockpit

scenes, control loading, and flight dynamics. PCATDs

also accept control inputs from low-fidelity devices

that range from computer keyboards, single joysticks,

and yoke/pedal combinations of varying quality

(Peterson, 1993), but realistic flight controls are currently available.

Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, Talleur, Emanuel, and

Phillips (1996, 1999) and Taylor, Talleur, Phillips,

Emanuel, and Hulin (1998) reported a study to determine the extent to which a PCATD can be used to

develop specific instrument skills that are taught in

instrument flight training and to determine transfer

of these skills to the aircraft. A commercially available

PCATD was used to teach instrument tasks to students in instrument training at the Institute of Aviation, University of Illinois. In order to evaluate transfer

of training, the performance of a group of subjects

trained in a PCATD and later trained to criterion in

an airplane (PCATD Group) was compared to the

performance of a control group of subjects trained

only in the airplane (Airplane Group). For the PCATD

Group, all new maneuvers and procedures were introduced and trained to proficiency in a PCATD prior to

training and skill validation in the aircraft. For the

Airplane Group, all new maneuvers were introduced

and trained to proficiency in the airplane. Comparisons of trials to criterion in the airplane for the two

groups, their times to complete each flight lesson in

the airplane, and their course completion times were

used to assess the training effectiveness of the PCATD.

The data from this study indicated that the PCATD

was an effective training device for teaching instrument tasks. Transfer savings were generally positive

and statistically significant when new tasks were introduced, but lower transfer was found when tasks

already learned in previous lessons were reviewed. A

comparison of course completion times showed a

statistically significant saving of about four hours in

the airplane for the PCATD Group compared to the

Airplane Group. The cumulative transfer effectiveness ratio was 0.15 or a savings of 1.5 flight hours for

each ten hours of PCATD time.

In a follow-on study concerning incremental transfer of training effectiveness Taylor, Talleur, Emanuel,

Rantanen, Bradshaw, and Phillips (2001) found that
2

the PCATD was effective in teaching basic instrument tasks to private pilots. Prior training in the

PCATD for 5, 10, or 15 hours resulted in a smaller

number of trials in the airplane for each of the three

PCATD groups when compared to the Airplane group

which was trained only in the airplane. However, the

transfer effectiveness ratio was not a simple function

of the amount of practice in the PCATD. Although it

seems reasonable to believe that greater training in the

PCATD would reduce the amount of training needed

in the aircraft this prediction was not borne out. For

five of the eight instrument tasks, the PCATD 10-

hour group needed the fewest number of trials in the

airplane, for two tasks the PCATD 5-hour group had

the fewest number of trials in the airplane and the

PCATD 15-hour group had one task with the fewest

number of trials in the airplane. Of course, all groups

benefited to some extent from their practice. The

mean times to complete the flight lesson in the airplane for the four flight lessons in which there was

prior training in the PCATD were less for all three

PCATD groups than for the Airplane group. These

studies document the complex relationship between

“flying” a PCATD and flying an airplane. Clearly

there are important similarities that lead to positive

transfer. But just as clearly, mastery in a training

device does not necessarily imply mastery in an airplane. For this reason, it is important to continue to

investigate the potential of PCATD devices in acquiring and maintaining instrument flight skills.

Williams and Blanchard (1995) discussed the development of qualification guidelines for personal

computer-based aviation training devices. In 1997,

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published

an advisory circular concerned with the qualification

and approval of PCATDs (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997). The advisory circular permitted the

use of PCATDs in instrument training programs

conducted under FAR Part 61 and FAR Part 141 and

authorized the use of a PCATD to be substituted for

10 of the 15 hours authorized for an approved ground

training device. The advisory circular did not authorize the use of PCATDs for practical tests or for

recency of experience requirements.

In order to maintain instrument currency, every six

months instrument pilots must meet a recency of

experience requirement by tracking courses, completing six approaches and one instrument holding pattern under either simulated or actual instrument

meteorological conditions (IMC). The simulated

recency of experience requirements may be conducted

in an airplane or an approved FTD with a Certified

Instrument Flight Instructor, (CFII). If an instrument

pilot fails to meet the recency of experience requirements within the six month period, the requirements

can be met within the following six months to regain

instrument currency. If an instrument pilot fails to

meet recency of experience requirements within the

12-month period, an instrument proficiency check

(IPC) must be accomplished with a CFII for the pilot

to regain instrument currency.

Evaluations by a certified flight instructor (CFI),

which are primarily based on direct observation, meet

the validity and reliability requirements for performance evaluation for training and proficiency assessment. However, these evaluations have some important

prerequisites. They depend heavily on the expertise

and skill of the evaluator. Observer expertise is critical

because differences in pilot performance can be subtle

and may not be sufficiently salient for an inexperienced observer to detect. Efficient usage of a standardized checklist where all the items to be evaluated

are explicitly defined is also essential. Such checklists,

based on the FAA requirements and criteria, were

created for the purposes of this project. The evaluators must also be sufficiently trained to achieve reasonable inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. In the

present project, evaluator pilot training and standardization were explicitly emphasized as well.

If these prerequisites are met, this method is probably the best currently available performance evaluation technique. Experienced evaluators not only have

detailed knowledge of the appropriate procedures and

techniques, but also knowledge of the pitfalls and

most common mistakes. Thus, they may be able to

follow the subject’s performance and detect subtle

errors. The observation method also captures the

“whole” of the task, including the use of aids and

equipment, communication, and performance on several secondary tasks, which may not be part of a

particular piloting task but which are nevertheless

critical for a safe conduct of the flight.

Pilot performance evaluation by a CFI has, however, a number of significant disadvantages. First, the

practice is labor-intensive, with a one-to-one CFIsubject ratio. Additionally, a human evaluator may

not be able to provide sufficiently accurate quantitative data for research purposes, due to the limitations

of human observation capabilities. Likewise, the check

pilot may not be able to provide data at a sufficient

frequency to study the variable in question. This is

particularly the case in observation of simultaneous

events. For these reasons, there is a need to develop

valid and reliable automatic performance data collection and evaluation methods to be used in conjunction with instructor pilot evaluations. Toward this
3

end, an in-flight data logger was also used to record a

number of flight parameters during the IPC #1 and

IPC #2 flights, from which pilot performance measures were derived for analysis.

The purpose of the current study was to investigate

the effectiveness of PCATDs and FTDs to meet FAA

recency of experience requirements for instrument

flight. Two types of training devices were tested: a

PCATD and a Frasca 141 FTD. An IPC was given to

all instrument pilots in the airplane to establish a

performance baseline (IPC #1). After a six-month

period, performance on an IPC in the airplane (IPC

#2) was compared for pilots who received recency of

experience in the training devices to a control group

which received no recency of experience and to pilots

receiving recency of experience in an airplane.

Interim reports, and earlier reports and presentations

of the work including reports of the airborne performance measuring device are listed in Appendix A.

METHOD

Subjects

One hundred and six subjects participated in the

experiment. All subjects were instrument pilots who

were instrument current when they began the experiment. The subjects agreed to refrain from instrument

flight for six months. They also agreed not to use a

PCATD for instrument training during those six

months. The initial pool of subjects were volunteers

primarily within a 50 mile radius of Champaign, IL.

Their participation was solicited using a mail survey

which was sent to all instrument-rated pilots in the

area. A total of 596 invitations were mailed; 152

instrument pilots responded with a statement of interest. A Pilot Experience and Biographical Data

Questionnaire was mailed to those instrument pilots

who expressed interest (see Appendix B). The questionnaire collected information about the pilot’s experience and instrument currency status. Subsequent

mailings were made to a 75 mile radius and to the

larger metropolitan areas within Illinois in order to

achieve the desired subject pool.

The average age of the subjects was 50 with a range

of 22 to 76 years. Average total flight experience was

2460 hours with a range of 150 to 24,000 hours.

Average experience in aircraft similar to the type used

in the experiment was 1540 hours with a range from

zero to 24,000 hours.

The instrument pilots who were potential subjects

for the study were in one of three categories of instrument currency: 1) instrument current, 2) within one

year of currency, or 3) outside of one year of currency.

Pilots in category one began the experiment with a

baseline instrument proficiency check (IPC #1) in the

airplane following an oral/familiarization session described below. The pilots who were within one year of

currency completed the recency of experience requirement in a Frasca FTD under the supervision of

a CFII to become current. A standardized session was

used to complete the currency requirement (see Appendix C). The pilots who were more than one year

outside of currency were required to complete an IPC

in a Frasca FTD to become current. Most pilots in this

category required several training sessions before they

passed an IPC (see Appendix D). Several potential

subjects failed to reach proficiency and were subsequently released from the project prior to their involvement in the experiment. All subjects had the

option of receiving payment for flight time flown

during the experiment, as well as mileage costs to and

from Willard Airport in Savoy, IL, where all sessions

took place.

Apparatus

Two FAA-approved Jeppesen FS-200 PCATDs

with a Beechcraft Sundowner performance model and

two FAA approved Frasca 141 FTDs with a generic

single-engine, fixed gear, fixed pitch propeller performance model were used. The FTDs were approved for

instrument training towards the instrument rating,

instrument recency of experience training, and IPCs,

as well as for administering part of the instrument

rating flight test. Two 180 hp Beechcraft Sundowner

aircraft (BE-C23) which have a single engine, fixedpitch propeller, and fixed under carriage were used as

the training aircraft for IPC #1 and IPC #2. An

airborne performance measurement system was installed in each aircraft to record flight data during the

IPC flights (Lendrum, Taylor, Talleur, Hulin,

Bradshaw, & Emanuel, 1999, 2000; Rantanen,

Talleur, Taylor, Bradshaw, Emanuel, Lendrum, &

Hulin, 2001).

As a part of this project, a flight data recorder

(FDR) system that automatically tracked a number of

important flight parameters was developed and used

to collect airborne performance measurement data. A

number of performance measures were derived to

objectively assess the subject’s performance during

IPC #1 and IPC #2. The FDR was built specifically to

support research on pilot performance at the University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation. The FDR is

based on a commercial single board computer, which

measures approximately 22 x 24 x 12 inches, and

weighs about 42 pounds. The FDR was installed in a

Beechcraft BE23 Sundowner aircraft in the rear seats
4

and cargo bin area of the aircraft’s cabin. The FDR

recorded aircraft position by global positioning system (GPS) and differential correction receivers, altitude, pitch, roll, yaw, magnetic heading, vertical

speed, and airspeed. In addition, VHF omnirange

receiver and localizer (VOR/LOC), as well as glideslope

(GS) indications were recorded. A handheld terminal

allowed instructor pilots to start and stop recording of

data, mark the data record, and view the progress of

recording. The FDR recorded the data at a rate of one

frame per second (1 Hz) (Lendrum et al., 2000).

Procedure

All subjects participated in an “Oral/ Familiarization” session, during which pertinent instrument flight

regulations and emergency procedures were reviewed.

The subjects also received an overview of the first

flight in the aircraft as well as a review of the aircraft

systems and instrumentation (see Appendices E and

F). Following the Oral/Familiarization session, all

subjects received a baseline IPC flight in the airplane

(IPC#1), which started the six month experimental

period. IPC#1 was flown with a CFII who acted both

as a flight instructor and as an experimental observer.

The IPC is a standardized test of the instrument

pilot’s skills in the aircraft. The types of maneuvers, as

well as completion standards for an IPC, are listed in

the instrument rating practical test standards (PTS)

(U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998). A flight

scenario, that followed the current guidelines for the

flight maneuvers required by the PTS, was developed

(see Appendix G). This scenario was used to collect

baseline data and established the initial level of proficiency for each subject who participated in the project.

The IPC#1 flight included a brief (15-20 minutes) inflight aircraft checkout under Visual Flight Rules

(VFR) followed by a VOR approach, holding procedures, steep turns, unusual attitude recovery procedures, an ILS approach, and tracking and intercepting

of navigation courses.

The IPC #1 flight contained six maneuvers (VOR

approach, holding patterns, steep turns, unusual altitude

recovery, ILS approach and ATC procedures and communication). The CFIIs for the IPC#1 flight used a form that

was designed to facilitate the collection of three types of data

(Phillips, Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, Emanuel, & Talleur,

1995). First, within each maneuver there were up to 24

variables (e.g., altitude, airspeed) which were scored as pass/

fail indicating whether performance on those variables met

PTS requirements. Second, the flight instructor judged

whether the overall performance of the each maneuver was

pass/fail. Third, the CFII recorded if the overall performance of the subject met the PTS for the IPC.

All instructors who administered the IPC#1 flight

were standardized on the scenario to be flown and the

scoring procedure. Appendix H shows the document

that was used for instructor training to assure that all

instructors used the same criteria for scoring performance during an IPC flight. After the completion of

IPC#1 flight in the airplane, the subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups: the PCATD,

the FTD, the aircraft or the control group. After the

assignment of 47 subjects, a balancing constraint was

added so that those successfully completing the IPC#1

flight were equally distributed among the four groups.

Depending on group assignment, each subject received two recency of experience flights of about 1.8

hours each in either the PCATD, the FTD, or the

aircraft during the six-month period. These recency

of experience sessions included three instrument approaches, holding procedures, and intercepting and

tracking navigation radials and courses (see Appendices I and J). The second recency of experience flight

also included a partial-panel non-precision approach.

The control group received no training but received

IPC #1 and IPC #2 flights in the airplane. Table 1

shows the experimental design.

After a six-month period, all subjects flew a final

IPC (IPC#2) in the aircraft to assess instrument

proficiency. IPC#2 consisted of the maneuvers in

IPC#1, but also included a partial-panel non-precision approach at the end of the flight (see Appendix

K). Since the subjects were already familiar with the

Sundowner’s flight characteristics, the visual familiarization segment, as flown at the beginning of IPC#1,

was not flown in IPC#2. This final session contained

all required maneuvers that a pilot must satisfactorily

complete in order receive an endorsement of instrument proficiency. Completion of IPC#2 marked the

end of a subject’s involvement in the experiment.

Subjects in the Control or PCATD group who did not

receive an endorsement of instrument proficiency

during IPC#2 were allowed to return for a final

session in the FTD in order to complete the recency

of experience requirements and reestablish instrument currency.

FDR Data Collection, Preprocessing and

Reduction

An IPC flight consists of a series of specific maneuvers, which the student pilot is required to perform

within certain criteria. The FDR, which was installed

in the aircraft, collected raw data at a rate of 1 Hz.

Flight instructors marked flight segments of specific

maneuvers in the data file during the flight using a

handheld terminal to facilitate later evaluation. It was
5

not, however, always possible to mark the data file

accurately while in-flight. Therefore, a data visualization tool was developed for post-flight examination of

the data and re-marking the flight segments.

To analyze the flight segments, a tool that allows

for an accurate and efficient marking of the flight

segments was developed. Because an IPC flight follows a standardized scenario, the aircraft’s position

relative to airports and ground-based navigational

aids (navaids) is the best indicator for making segments of the specific maneuvers being executed during flight. Therefore, a plot of the aircraft’s flight path

facilitates differentiating between critical flight segment transitional portions of the flight. To be effective, the tool must therefore allow a high level of

interaction between the analyst and the data, and

must permit several variables to be viewed simultaneously. Thorough analysis of the data collected by

the airborne FDR required two distinct steps: (1)

specification of the flight segments for further analysis of the flight data, and (2) the detailed analysis of

the data.

A computer program was developed to provide a

visualization tool for the analyst and an interface

between the analyst and the raw data collected by the

FDR. A typical IPC data file contained 23 fields (for

the 23 variables measured) and about 3600 records

from a one-hour flight (collected at 1 Hz). The

product of the visualization tool was a plot of the

horizontal position data on a fixed background in the

Cartesian coordinate system. Other selected variables

were plotted in a similar manner, with record number

on the x-axis and the variable of interest on y-axis. The

range of the data for these plots can be selected either

from the x, y plot of from the tabular display. The

program also allowed editing of the raw data file so

that the head and tail of the data file (unimportant

data) could be trimmed. In addition, the program

allowed for selection of the variables of interest to be

plotted and displayed in tabular form. These were

cross-referenced between the windows depicting different variables, which were used to select a single data

point or range of data points for further examination.

The program also permitted zooming in and out for

detailed visual inspection of any particular point in

the flight. The analyst was also able to mark the

beginning and end of a selected segment or several

segments in each data file could be marked and save

the marked segments of the data file could be saved to

new files for further analysis.

Criteria for the various flight parameters for the

particular segments were also entered in the data files.

Another computer program was developed to further

reduce these data and to derive pilot performance

measures for detailed analysis. The raw data in this

experiment was contained in 171 data files which

represented 65 IPC #1 flights and 106 IPC #2 flights.

The data files were collected at a sampling rate of 1

Hz. The files had up to 6,000 lines in length for a

typical 105-minute flight, but were reduced by the

program to a single row in a spreadsheet for analyses.

Performance Measures Derived From the FDR Data

Criteria and tolerances were clearly defined for

each flight parameter that was recorded using the FAA

as Practical Test Standards. Separate criteria and

tolerances were determined for the performance indices derived from the FDR data. For the purposes of

the current study, five primary performance measures

were derived from the FDR data for nine flight

parameters. The flight parameters are (1) altitude, (2)

roll, (3) pitch, (4) yaw, (5) vertical speed, (6) indicated airspeed, (7) magnetic heading, (8) course deviation, and (9) glide slope deviation. The five primary

performance measures are described in detail as follows:

Table 1. Experimental design.

Sessions

 Group IPC#1 Two-month Four-month IPC#2 

 Recency of Recency of 

 Experience Experience 

 Aircraft In Aircraft In Aircraft In Aircraft In Aircraft 

 FTD In Aircraft In FTD In FTD In Aircraft 

 PCATD In Aircraft In PCATD In PCATD In Aircraft 

 Control In Aircraft none none In Aircraft 
6

Standard deviation. Standard deviation (SD) describes the amount of variability around the mean of

any measure. A small SD will usually be indicative of

good performance.

Root mean square error. Root mean square error

(RMSE) is a widely used measure of tracking performance (e.g., Scallen, Hancock, & Duley, 1995). It

can be used to reduce the tracking performance along

a specified parameter (e.g., altitude, or VOR radial) in

the entire segment of an IPC flight into a single

number. A low number typically indicates good performance. Squaring individual errors, adding them,

dividing this sum by the total number of errors, and

then taking a square root of this quantity provides the

RMSE of a function. The RMSE summarizes the

overall error, but it does not contain information

about the direction of deviations or the frequency of

deviations from the criterion. The latter is a particularly important dimension of tracking performance,

as it would allow for detection of high velocity error

in tracking while the position error (measured by the

RMSE) might be minimized (Wickens & Holland,

2000). To overcome these limitations, additional

measures were developed.

Number of deviations. The number of deviations

outside tolerance (ND) is a measure that tallies the

occurrences of the aircraft straying outside predetermined tolerances (Reynolds, Purvis, & Marshak,

1990). This is essentially a measure of velocity error in

tracking and it complements the RMSE, which contains the error magnitude information. A low number

typically indicates good performance. A low ND

value can, however, be obtained if the pilot makes few

deviations outside the tolerances but stays there for a

substantial proportion of the flight segment. Therefore, the ND measure must be considered together

with the total time spent outside tolerance in a given

segment.

Time outside tolerance. The cumulative time the

aircraft spends outside a given tolerance (TD) provides

an indication of tracking performance beyond the RMSE

and ND. This measure is computed by summing the

time the pilot spends outside of a given tolerance. A small

number indicates good performance.

Mean time to exceed tolerance. The mean time to

exceed tolerance at any time (MTE) is computed from

the rate of change between successive data points and

the aircraft’s position relative to a given tolerance.

This provides a tracking performance measure within

the tolerance region, as opposed to the ND and TD

measures described above. A large mean (and small

SD) indicate good performance.

Because a number of the measures require predetermined criterion (e.g., RMSE) or tolerance values

(e.g., ND, TD, and MTE), separate files containing

the criteria and tolerance information were created

and read by the data reduction program prior to

processing of the IPC data files. In cases where the

tolerances or criteria differed from segment to segment, these were included in the IPC data files. In

general, the tolerances were the same used by the flight

instructors in their evaluation of pilot performance

during the IPC flights.

Analysis

The effectiveness of the PCATD for maintaining

instrument currency was assessed by comparing IPC#2

pass rates for each experimental group to the control

group using Chi-Square analysis. Performance changes

that occurred between IPC#1 to IPC#2 were analyzed

using both Chi-Square and ANOVA procedures in

order to ascertain the relative benefits that can be

expected when using the various training methods

employed in this study. The McNemar intervening

activity statistic was used for a finer grain analysis of

individual maneuver pass rates within each group to

determine if one currency maintenance method was

particularly better for certain maneuvers than other

methods. ANOVA procedures were used to analyze

the influence of demographic factors on the dependent variable.

Analysis of the Effectiveness of the FDR

Two primary analysis efforts with respect to the

FDR measures were made. First, a comparison of the

FDR measures with CFI evaluations was accomplished.

The best possible correspondence between the CFI

scores and the FDR measures occurs in a segment of

an ILS approach from glideslope intercept to decision

height. This segment was chosen for evaluation. Second, the effect of the sampling rate on the accuracy of

measurement was examined by comparing sampling

rates of 1 Hz and 0.067 Hz (once every 15 seconds).

RESULTS

IPC Pass Rate by Group

A total of 45 of 106 subjects (42%) passed the IPC

#1 flight in the airplane and 55 of 106 subjects (52%)

passed the IPC#2 flight. Table 2 presents the number

and percentage of pilots that passed/failed IPC #1 and

IPC#2 for each of the four experimental groups. Chisquare tests were used to analyze the IPC#2 data to

determine whether the treatment (assignment to group)

had an effect on the pass/fail ratio for the IPC#2
7

flight. When all groups were compared, the treatment

effect on the final IPC pass/fail ratios was statistically

significant, χ2

 (3, N=106) = 9.27, p < 0.05.

A series of planned-comparison tests were also

performed between and among the experimental

groups. The first test evaluated the effectiveness of

PCATD for maintaining instrument proficiency by

comparing the PCATD group with the control group.

The PCATD group had a significantly higher proportion of IPC#2 passes than the control group, χ2 (1,

N=53) = 4.34, p < 0.05. The next comparison was of

the FTD and PCATD groups with the control group.

Subjects who received recency of experience practice

in either the FTD or in the PCATD resulted in a

significantly higher IPC#2 pass rate than the control

group, χ2 (2, N=80) = 8.18, p < 0.05. Neither the

FTD nor the PCATD groups’ IPC#2 pass rates were

statistically different from the Aircraft group’s, χ2 (2,

N=80) = 2.52, p > 0.05, nor was the PCATD group

statistically different from the FTD group, χ2 (1,

N=54) = 0.73, p > 0.05. Figure 1 shows the differences

between pass rates for the four groups for IPC #2.

Performance Changes from IPC#1 to IPC#2

An analysis of the change of performance that took

place between the IPC#1 and IPC#2 flights was made

in order to understand the benefit (or deficit) created

by each of the training methods. Table 3 shows a

comparison of the pass/fail rates for IPC #1 and IPC

#2. Thirty-four of the subjects who passed IPC#1 also

passed the IPC#2, and 40 of the subjects who failed

IPC#1 subsequently failed IPC#2. This finding indicates that the performance on IPC#1 is the best

predictor of performance on IPC#2 regardless of the

type of recency of experience training during the six

Table 2. IPC pass rates for each experimental group.

IPC #1 IPC #2 

Pass Fail Pass Fail 

Group Group 

N 

N % N % N % N % 

Aircraft 26 11 42 15 56 12 46 14 54 

FTD 27 13 48 14 52 19 70 8 30 

PCATD 27 11 41 16 59 16 59 11 41 

Control 26 10 38 16 62 8 31 18 69 

Total 106 45 42 61 58 55 52 51 48 

0

5

10

15

20

Aircraft FTD PCATD Control

Group

IPC#2 Passes

Figure 1. IPC#2 passes by experimental group. 

Table 3. Comparison of the number of pass/fail for 

IPC#1and IPC#2.

 IPC#2

 Pass Fail Total 

 Pass 34 11 45 

IPC#1 Fail 21 40 61 

 Total 55 51 106 
8

Table 4. IPC #1 and IPC #2 pass/fail rates by group.

Pass IPC #1 Fail IPC #1 

Pass IPC #2 Fail IPC #2 Pass IPC #2 Fail IPC #2 Total 

Aircraft 7 4 5 10 26 

FTD 11 2 8 6 27 

PCATD 10 1 6 10 27 

Control 6 4 2 14 26 

Total 34 11 21 40 106 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Improvement 33.3% 57.1% 37.5% 12.5%

Deterioration 36.4% 15.4% 9.1% 40.0%

Aircraft FTD PCATD Control

Figure 2. Skill improvement/ deterioration by group.

Table 6. Change in performance between IPC#1 and IPC#2 

for individual maneuvers.

Maneuvers

VOR Hold Turn Uns. Att. ILS ATC 

Group: 

Aircraft 3.57 3.60 0.09 0.33 1.00 0.66 

FTD 1.29 3.60 0.11 0.00 0.09 1.00 

PCATD 3.60 5.40* 2.00 1.80 5.40* 0.20 

Control 0.69 0.29 1.33 0.67 0.00 0.20 

*p<0.05. 
9

months. Twenty-one subjects, who failed, IPC#1

subsequently passed IPC #2 and 11 of the subjects

who passed IPC #1 subsequently failed IPC #2.

The IPC #1 and IPC #2 pass-fail rates by group are

presented in Table 4. Analyses to determine the performance changes between IPC#1 and the IPC#2 for

each experimental group were conducted and improvement and deterioration ratios are presented in

Figure 2. Subjects who failed IPC#1 may benefit from

practice in the aircraft, FTD, or PCATD during the

six-month period and subsequently pass IPC#2 (the

improvement ratio) and subjects who passed the IPC#1

may fail IPC#2 (the deterioration ratio). The improvement ratio for the airplane group showed that

33.3% of subjects who failed IPC#1 passed IPC#2,

and the deterioration ratio shows that 36.4% of those

who passed IPC#1 subsequently failed IPC#2. The

McNemar test for intervening activity effects showed

that the intervening six-month period of training in

the aircraft was no more likely to improve performance than to deteriorate it, χ2 (1, N=26) = .11, p >

0.05. For the FTD group the improvement ratio

indicated that 57.1% of the subjects who failed IPC#1

passed the IPC#2 and the deterioration ratio indicated that 15.4% of those who passed IPC 1, failed

IPC#2. The McNemar test indicated that the improvement in performance for the FTD group approached significance, χ2

 (1, N=27) = 3.60, p = 0.057.

The PCATD group had an improvement ratio of

37.5% and a deterioration ratio of 9.1%; the improvement in performance approached significance,

χ2

 (1, N=27) = 3.57, p = 0.058. The improvement

ratio for the control group was 12.5% and the deterioration ratio was 40%, but the trend was not significant, χ2

 (1, N=26) = 0.67, p > 0.05.

IPC #1 Pass Rates by Prior Currency Status

Table 5 illustrates the number of subjects that

passed/failed IPC#1 flight by prior currency status.

Of the 106 subjects who completed IPC #1 in the

airplane, 45 (42.5%) passed. Of the 32 pilots in

currency status 1 (instrument current pilots), only 14

(44%) passed IPC#1 in the aircraft. In level 2 (those

within the 12 months of currency) nine of 15 pilots

(60%) passed the IPC#1 in the aircraft after competing recency of experience requirements in the FTD.

For Level 3, 22 of 59 pilots (37%) passed IPC #1 in

the aircraft. It is noteworthy that all 59 of these pilots

received remedial training in the FTD and passed an

IPC in the FTD before taking IPC #1 in the aircraft.

Change in Maneuver Performance Between

IPC#1 and IPC#2

An analysis of the changes in maneuver performance that occurred between IPC#1 and IPC#2 was

performed to determine if there were systematic

changes in performance when considering the overall

change in number of maneuvers passed. There were

six maneuvers to be scored in both IPC#1 and IPC#2.

An overall “maneuver change score” (+1, 0, -1) for

each maneuver was determined for each subject; a

positive score represents an improvement from IPC

#1 to IPC #2, while a negative score represents a loss

in skill from IPC #1 to IPC #2. The maneuver change

scores for the six maneuvers were then summed for

each subject. The subject’s overall performance change

from IPC#1 to IPC#2 could range from –6 to 6.

These scores were then standardized and analyzed

using a single factor ANOVA to determine if there

was a difference between experimental groups. The

change in maneuver performance between IPC#1 and

IPC#2 was not significant, F (3,105) = 1.1, p > 0.05.

Change in Individual Maneuver Performance

Between IPC#1 and IPC#2

In order to compare maneuver performance among

groups, the individual maneuver pass/fail judgment

for one group was analyzed using the McNemar Chisquare test for intervening activity. Table 6 shows the

results of this post-hoc analysis which indicates that a

few maneuvers improved significantly between IPC#1

and IPC#2. The analysis shows that all three training

groups (i.e., Aircraft, FTD or PCATD) showed improvement trend in performance on at least one of the

six maneuvers over the period of six months. The

improvement for the PCATD group was significant

for the holding procedures and the ILS approach, χ2

(1, N=27) = 5.40, p < 0.05. No other maneuver

improved significantly, but the following approached

significance: the PCATD group on the VOR approach, χ2

 (1, N=27) = 3.60, p = 0.06: the Aircraft

group on the VOR approach, χ2

 (1, N=26) = 3.57, p

= 0.06 and holding procedures, χ2

 (1, N=26) = 3.60,

p = 0.06; and the FTD group on holding procedures,

χ2

 (1, N=27) = 3.60, p = 0.06. The Control group

showed no significant change in individual maneuver

performance.

Change in Maneuver Element Performance

Between IPC#1 and IPC#2

During both IPC #1 and IPC #2, the CFI recorded

additional detail about performance on each maneuver, including control and procedural performance.
10

An analysis of the change in performance at the

maneuver element level was performed to determine

if any of these elements contributed significantly to

the overall maneuver pass/fail judgment. Several different elements for each maneuver received a pass/fail

for both IPC#1 and IPC#2, so it was possible to

compute on overall “maneuver element change score”

for each subject. Maneuver elements fell into two

categories; procedural and control. Therefore, two

separate maneuver element change scores were computed. The procedural element change score consisted of those maneuver elements that were not

directly related to aircraft control, but rather the

execution of instrument procedures and Air Traffic

Control (ATC) instructions. The control element

change score consisted of those maneuvers concerned

with how well the subject controlled the aircraft while

executing the maneuvers. Only three of the six maneuvers scored had maneuver elements that were both

procedural and control. The remaining three maneuvers consisted entirely of either procedural or control

elements. Table 7 displays procedural and control

elements of the three maneuvers used in the analysis.

Two tests were significant when the four experimental groups were compared for a change in performance on either procedural or control elements

between IPC#1 and IPC#2. The hold maneuver improved significantly on procedural elements, F (3,105)

= 2.63, p = 0.05. Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey’s

HSD test with a 90% confidence interval showed that

both the FTD and Control group’s performance on

the maneuver elements changed were significantly

different from the Airplane group’s performance. The

ILS approach also showed a significant change in

performance on control elements, F (3,105) = 3.45, p

< 0.05. Post-hoc analysis comparisons indicated that

the PCATD group’s performance on control elements for the ILS approach changed significantly

(95% confidence interval) when compared to the

Control group’s performance on those elements.

Demographic Factors

The four demographic factors on which subjects

varied were prior instrument currency status, age, flight

time, and recent piloting experience. Flight time and

recent experience variables contained several distinct

data points, which were collapsed into single score (i.e.,

the flight time factor, and the recent experience factor)

and then standardized. ANOVA results indicated no

difference among the distributions of any of the four

demographic factors between the four experimental

groups: each of the four demographic variables failed to

reach the p=0.05 level of significance.

Analysis of Instructor Assignments

A factor that may have contributed to the overall

IPC#2 rate was the failure to adequately randomize

the assignments of the flight instructor to the IPC#2

flight. Substantial efforts were made to standardize

each instructor on the experimental procedures and to

keep instructors blind to the subject’s group assignment. An analysis was made using the Friedman test

for J matched groups was performed to determine if

instructors had been assigned to an equal number of

IPC#2 sessions within each experimental group. The

result was non-significant, χ2

 (3, N=60) = 0.50, p >

0.05, indicating that any variability introduced by an

individual instructor was evenly distributed among

each of the experimental groups.

Delay to IPC#2

The period of time that elapsed between IPC#1

and IPC#2 was analyzed. Although the experimental

design called for the IPC#2 flight to be completed six

months from the IPC#1 flight, it was not always

possible to complete IPC#2 on time. Inclement

weather and subject illness were the two primary

factors for delaying the IPC#2 flight. Since a delay in

IPC#2 was a potential source of variability, an ANOVA

was performed to determine if a significant difference

existed between the groups. No significant difference

in the number of days to IPC#2 was found between

the experimental groups, F (3,105) =1.04, p > 0.10.

This result indicates that any influence of the delay

between IPC#1 and IPC#2 on IPC#2 performance

was equally distributed among all four experimental

groups.

Influence of Partial Panel Approach on IPC#2

Pass/Fail Outcome

Since IPC#2 included an extra maneuver at the end

of the flight, partial panel VOR approach, an analysis

was performed to determine the effect of this maneuver on the overall pass/fail judgment for IPC#2. A

Chi-square analysis was performed to determine if

equal numbers of the four experimental groups passed

the partial panel approach. The results showed no

significant differences, χ2

 (3, N=106) = 0.63, p>0.05.

CFI Scores vs. FDR Measures

The evaluation of the FDR performance measures

versus CFI scores was accomplished by collapsing all

groups and both IPC #1 and #2 flights into two

groups; those who passed and those who failed according to the CFI evaluation of a maneuver element.

The sample maneuver (i.e., Decatur, IL [DEC] ILS 6,

final approach) contained three elements scored by
11

the CFI: (1) Course direction indicator (CDI) deflection (< 3⁄4 scale deflection), (2) Glideslope (GS) deflection (< 3⁄4 scale deflection), and (3) indicated

airspeed (IAS) (± 10 K). The FDR recorded parameters relevant to this maneuver were: (1) IAS, (2) GS,

and (3) CDI. For each of these parameters, five

measures were derived: (1) Standard deviation (SD),

(2) root mean square error (RMSE), (3) number of

deviations outside tolerances (ND), (4) percent time

outside tolerance (TD), and (5) mean time to exceed

tolerance (MTE). The criteria used by the FDR measures were identical to those used by the CFIs.

In order to compare the CFI scores with the FDR

measures, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for each measure and flight parameter. The

null hypothesis was that the two groups (pass and fail)

for both the CFI scores and the FDR measures would

not be significantly different, that is, the pilots who

passed would have come from the same population as

those who failed the IPC flight. The alternative hypothesis was that the pass and fail groups came from

different populations. The results of these analyses are

presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Difference between the pass and fail groups by flight parameter and FDR data derived measure.

Measure Group n Mean SD F p

SD-IAS Fail 26 5.01 2.02 8.77 0.004

(K) Pass 136 3.95 1.59 

RMSE-IAS Fail 26 4.69 2.14 4.30 0.04

(K) Pass 136 3.94 1.58 

ND-IAS Fail 25 1.72 1.97 1.67 0.198

 Pass 136 1.13 2.14 

TD-IAS Fail 25 0.07 0.11 7.64 0.006

(s) Pass 136 0.03 0.06 

MTE-IAS Fail 25 91149.00 78753.00 2.14 0.146

(s) Pass 136 73098.00 51853.00 

SD-GS Fail 51 42.29 19.66 113.00 <0.001

(K) Pass 113 20.52 10.30 

RMSE-GS Fail 51 42.14 19.59 86.45 < 0.001

(K) Pass 113 20.45 10.26 

ND-GS Fail 50 1.54 2.08 31.69 < 0.001

 Pass 113 0.31 0.70 

TD-GS Fail 50 0.09 0.12 42.39 < 0.001

(s) Pass 113 0.01 0.03 

MTE-GS Fail 49 76587.00 107559.00 1.41 0.237

(s) Pass 113 62114.00 47988.00 

SD-CDI Fail 26 40.17 12.96 48.92 < 0.001

(K) Pass 137 22.94 11.24 

RMSE-CDI Fail 26 40.03 12.92 48.89 < 0.001

(K) Pass 137 22.86 11.20 

ND-CDI Fail 26 1.04 0.87 48.27 < 0.001

 Pass 137 0.18 0.50 

TD-CDI Fail 26 0.06 0.07 27.10 < 0.001

(s) Pass 137 0.01 0.04 

MTE-CDI Fail 26 63709.00 42930.00 0.26 0.609

(s) Pass 137 58769.00 45469.00 
12

The SD of IAS revealed a significant difference

between the pass and fail groups, F (1, 160) = 8.77, p

< 0.005. The pilots who failed the IPC flight exhibited higher variation in their airspeed control than the

pilots who passed. The analysis of IAS RMSE yielded

similar results. The pass and fail groups were significantly different, F (1, 160) = 4.3, p < 0.05. The failed

group exhibited larger RMSE values than the passed

group. The number of deviations outside tolerances

of IAS did not reveal differences between the groups.

However, when examining the time pilots stayed

outside tolerances, the groups differed significantly.

The failed group spent less than 7% of the time

outside the tolerance, and the pass group’s spent 2.5%

of the time outside the tolerance. The difference

between the two groups was significant, F (1, 159) =

7.64, p < 0.01. The time to exceed tolerance measure

did not yield significant differences between the

groups. This is probably because this measure is very

difficult to be observed by the CFI, and would not be

reflected in the subjective pass or fail judgment.

The above results were observed also on measures

of glide slope tracking performance. Pilots who failed

the maneuver exhibited significantly larger variability

than those who passed, F (1, 162) = 113.00, p < 0.001.

A similar trend is evident also on the RMSE measure

for GS. Pilots who failed had significantly higher

RMS errors than those who passed, F (1, 162) =

86.45, p < 0.001. Both the number of deviations

outside the GS tolerance and the time outside the GS

tolerance showed significant differences between the

failed and passed groups, F (1, 161) = 31.69, p <

0.001, and F (1, 161) = 42.39, p < 0.001, respectively.

Pilots who failed strayed more often outside the

tolerance and spent more time there than pilots who

passed the maneuver element. The mean time to

exceed tolerance did not differ significantly between

the groups.

The results were nearly identical for the localizer

tracking performance (CDI). Pilots who passed this

element of the ILS approach exhibited significantly

smaller variance and RMSE scores in their tracking, F

(1, 161) = 48.92, p < 0.001, and F (1, 161) = 42.89,

p < 0.001, respectively. Similarly, both the number of

deviations outside the CDI tolerance and the percent

cumulative time outside tolerance were significantly

smaller for the pilots who passed than for those who

failed, F (1, 161) = 48.27, p < 0.001, and F (1, 161)

= 27.1, p < 0.001, respectively. The groups did not

differ in terms of time to exceed the tolerance. In

summary, these results show a remarkably high correlation between the CFI scores and the performance

measures derived from the FDR data.

The Effect of Sampling Rate on Measure Accuracy

In order to investigate the effect of sampling rate on

the FDR measure accuracy, one IPC flight was arbitrarily selected and the data (originally collected at

1Hz) was manipulated to simulate a 0.067 Hz sampling rate. Because it was not possible to determine

what the data might have been like if it had been

collected at the lower rate, all possible outcomes were

analyzed. Thus, the measurement value based on the

1 Hz sampling rate was compared to 15 other values,

representing the 15 possible outcomes of a lower

sampling rate (i.e., once every 15 seconds).

Figure 3 depicts altitude SD measures for each

applicable maneuver. The solid white circle represents the measure based on 1 Hz sampling rate. Each

black diamond shows a measure based on data sampled

at 0.067 Hz, or once every 15 seconds. The 15 values

represent all possible outcomes should the lower sampling rate be used.

Similar results were found for the other measures

and flight parameters. Figure 4 shows the results for

rate of climb RMSE. The use of the 0.067 sampling

rate introduced a substantial degree of uncertainty to

the measures and consequently reduced their reliability and usefulness. It is also noteworthy that the

measures in Figures 3 and 4 are from segments that

involved level flight. Maneuvers where the aircraft’s

state may change rapidly present further challenges to

the FDR-derived measures .

Based on the analyses of each measure from each

maneuver of the sample IPC flight data, if FDR data

are used to derive measures on pilot performance, the

highest possible sampling rate should be used. Any

reduction in sampling rate degrades the quality and

reliability of subsequent measures by potentially missing deviations or extreme values of the parameter

recorded. The resulting measure may indicate better

than true performance by missing extreme values, or

worse that true performance by missing values that

were within tolerances or close to criteria.

DISCUSSION

This study has clearly demonstrated the benefit of

recency of experience training in maintaining instrument currency for instrument rated pilots. A comparison of the three training groups with the control

group performance on the final instrument proficiency check indicated that the training groups performed significantly better than the control group.

The study also indicated that PCATDs are effective in

maintaining recency of experience for instrument

rated pilots over a period of six months. The two
13

recency of experience practice sessions resulted in

significantly better performance for the PCATD group

on an IPC than the control group, which had no

practice. Practice in either the PCATD or the FTD

resulted in higher pass rates compared to no practice

by the control group and practice in the PCATD and

the FTD was found to be at least as effective as

practice in the airplane. Finally, the performance of

the PCATD group was statistically indistinguishable

from the FTD group. These findings present compelling evidence that the FAA should permit the use of

PCATDs to maintain recency of experience for instrument pilots.

A comparison of the pass/fail rates for IPC #1 and

IPC #2 indicated that the performance on the baseline

IPC was the best predictor of performance on the final

IPC. Seventy-five percent of the subjects who passed

IPC #1 also passed IPC #2 and 66 percent of the

subjects who failed IPC #1 also failed IPC #2. Regardless of the intervening training during the six-month

currency period 70 percent of the subjects either

passed both tests or failed both tests. Thirty percent of

the subjects passed IPC #1 and failed IPC #2 or failed

IPC #1 and passed IPC #2. A comparison of improvement and deterioration ratios indicated a trend of

improvement for the FTD group and PCATD group

that approached statistical significance. The control

group showed a trend for deterioration that was not

significant. These results support the earlier finding

of the benefit of the PCATD and FTD in maintaining

instrument proficiency and suggest that improvement may be possible for some pilots when these

devices are used.

Altitude SD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 3. A comparison of altitude SD measures sampled at 1 Hz and 0.067 Hz for the 15 possible 

cases. Solid white circles represent the measure obtained from the 1Hz rate and black diamonds for each 

of possible outcomes using the 0067-sampling rate. VOR 18 Intercept VOR 18 outb. track VOR 18 procedure turn VOR 18 inb. intercept VOR 18 inb. Tracking to FAF VOR 18 tracking FAF—MAP Hold at HASSE Left steep turn Right steep turn

ILS 16 Intercept

ILS 16 level tracking

ILS 16 GS tracking to DH

Feet 
14

The study showed that only 42 percent of instrument current pilots passed the initial IPC in the

airplane. Forty-four percent of subjects who were

current (recency of experience level 1) passed IPC #1.

Sixty percent of the subjects who met the recency of

experience requirements in an FTD to regain their

currency passed IPC #1. However, only 37 percent of

the subjects who regained their currency by passing an

IPC in the FTD passed the IPC in the aircraft. These

findings raise questions concerning the relationship

between instrument currency and instrument proficiency. While all subjects were instrument current,

less than half of the subject population was able to

demonstrate instrument proficiency in an IPC in the

airplane. IPC #1 was performed before the most

recent changes in Practical Test Standards (PTS). The

new standards provide for a standardized PTS and

add a partial panel non-precision approach such as a

VOR approach that likely increases the difficulty of

IPC flights. Some of the failures may be related to a

lack of familiarity with the airplane, since few of the

subjects had flown a Beech Sundowner prior to the

study. In addition, most of those tested had not taken

an IPC after the test was standardized to include

required maneuvers. For example, the results indicated that many subjects had difficulty with the ILS

approach. Current recency requirements require six

approaches, but do not specify that any must be a

precision approach. This suggests the need for the

FAA to consider changing the recency of experience

requirements for instrument currency. An alternative

approach would be to require a periodic IPC to

demonstrate instrument proficiency in addition to

the current currency requirements.

Figure 4 Rate of Climb RMSE measures based on full data (sampled at 1 Hz) and data 

sampled at 0.067 Hz for the 15 possible cases. 

Rate of Climb: RMSE

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 VOR 18 Intercept VOR 18 outb. track VOR 18 procedure turn VOR 18 inb. intercept VOR 18 inb. Tracking to FAF VOR 18 tracking FAF—MAP Hold at HASSE Left steep turn Right steep turn ILS 16 Intercept ILS 16 level tracking ILS 16 GS tracking to DH

Feet/min
15

As expected, the Control group’s performance

showed a trend of deterioration after a six-month

absence of instrument practice. The finding supports

the FAA regulations that require currency requirements to be met within a six-month period. The

performance of the subjects who regained currency by

passing an IPC in a FTD (recency of experience level

3) raises a different question. Only 37 percent of the

subjects who pass an IPC in a FTD were able to

subsequently pass the initial IPC in the airplane. This

calls into doubt the effectiveness of a FTD as a viable

platform to administer an IPC. It should be noted that

all subjects in this category were more than one year

out of currency. All retraining was done in an FTD.

We recommend that the FAA sponsor a study specifically designed to test the effectiveness of both FTDs

and PCATDs for administering the IPC. This study

should include instrument pilots from all three currency groups.

Analysis of the individual maneuvers performed

during IPC#2 showed that the PCATD was more

effective than either the Aircraft or the FTD in terms

of the number of maneuvers that were scored as passes

by the checkpilot. One question concerns why the

PCATD is more effective for individual maneuver

performance when FTD group showed a larger improvement ratio for subject passes on IPC#2 than the

PCATD group. This effect could result if a larger

proportion of FTD subjects improved on enough

maneuvers in order to pass IPC#2 after failing IPC#1,

while a smaller proportion of PCATD subjects improved enough to pass IPC#2, but at the same time,

showed improvement on more individual maneuvers

than the FTD subjects. In this instance, the training

effectiveness of the PCATD would be found to be

higher than that of the FTD when considering individual maneuvers.

The effectiveness of the PCATD for training specific maneuver elements (i.e., altitude control, airspeed control, navigation procedures, etc.) was

observed by comparing performance on subsets of

maneuver elements between the experimental groups.

A significant improvement for the FTD group on

procedural elements on the hold relative to the Aircraft and Control group was found which is similar to

the findings of Homan and Williams (1997) as well as

Taylor and Stokes (1986), and Taylor (1985). The

PCATD group showed a significant improvement on

control elements for the ILS approach. This result

appears to contradict the finding by Dennis and

Harris (1998), that inferred that the PCATD was not

effective for practicing psychomotor skills. However,

it is well accepted that instrument flight tasks may

require differing levels of psychomotor skills than the

visual tasks such as those examined by Dennis and

Harris (1998).

The effect of pilot experience as an explanation for

observed variability in data has been reviewed by

Taylor (1985) and Taylor and Stokes (1986). The

subjects in the present study had a wide range of

piloting experience which could potentially affect

piloting performance. A biographical questionnaire

was completed on each subject so that demographic

data could be incorporated into the analysis. No

significant difference for any demographic factors

between groups were found, thus the effect of pilot

experience was balanced across all groups.

The delay in completing the IPC#2 flight following the six-month period was evaluated as a potential

source of variance in the IPC#2 results. Although a

delay was experienced for some subjects from each

experimental group, the results indicate that the differences between groups were not significant.

One last concern was that an extra maneuver flown

in IPC#2 (partial-panel VOR approach) may have

influenced the overall pass/fail judgments. The extra

maneuver was added because of a change in regulations concerning the required IPC maneuvers. This

change occurred after about 40% of the subjects had

completed IPC#1. None of the subjects had completed IPC#2 at the point when the additional maneuver was added. In an effort to minimize the impact

of an added maneuver, the extra approach was added

to the end of the IPC flight so that no learning effect

could contribute to the performance of the other

maneuvers. Thirty-three subjects of 106 failed the

partial-panel approach. Chi-square analysis showed

that these failures were distributed equally among the

four groups. Additional analysis of the maneuvers

indicated that only 2 of the 33 partial-panel approach

failures were only due to a failure of the partial-panel

approach. The other 31 subjects also failed at least one

additional maneuver. Therefore, the addition of partial panel approach to IPC#2 is unlikely to have

changed the overall pass/fail outcome that was observed for each group.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Rulemaking

1. We recommend that the FAA permit the use of

approved PCATD to meet recency of experience

requirements.

2. We recommend that the FAA consider changing

recency of experience requirements for instrument

currency.
16

Recommendations for Further Research

1. We recommend that the FAA sponsor a study specifically designed to test the effectiveness of both

FTDs and PCATDs for administering the IPC.

The study should include instrument pilots from all

three currency groups.

2. We recommend that the FAA sponsor a study to

evaluate the flight data recorder measures for sensitivity in determining differences between pilots at

different performance levels. Algorithms for additional measures should be developed based on the

analyses of the IPC flight data. Factor analysis

methods should be used to reduce the number of

measures and to retain those of highest predictive

power.

3. We recommend that the FAA sponsor a study to

evaluate performance differences between pilots in

the four experimental groups using FDR measures.

The evaluation should be by both segment/maneuver and type of control (e.g., altitude, course tracking). This examination would potentially allow

detection of very subtle differences in pilot performance that can conceivably be traced to the type of

training device used in the experiment in contrast

with the pass/fail performance assessment by the

check pilots.

SUMMARY

This study has clearly demonstrated the benefit of

recency of experience training in maintaining instrument currency for instrument rated pilots. A comparison of the three training groups with the control

group performance on the final instrument proficiency check indicated that the training groups performed significantly better than the control group.

The two recency of experience practice sessions resulted in significantly better performance for the

PCATD group on an IPC than the control group,

which had no practice. Practice in either the PCATD

or the FTD resulted in higher pass rates compared to

no practice by the control group and practice in the

PCATD and the FTD was found to be at least as

effective as practice in the airplane. Finally, the performance of the PCATD group was statistically indistinguishable from the FTD group. This finding

presents compelling evidence that the FAA should

permit the use of PCATDs to maintain recency of

experience for instrument pilots.

A comparison of the pass/fail rates for IPC #1 and

IPC #2 indicated that the performance on the baseline

IPC was the best predictor of performance on the final

IPC. Seventy-five percent of the subjects who passed

IPC #1 also passed IPC #2 and 66 percent of the

subjects who failed IPC #1 also failed IPC #2. Regardless of the intervening training during the six-month

currency period 70 percent of the subjects either

passed both tests or failed both tests.

Thirty percent of the subjects passed IPC #1 and

failed IPC #2 or failed IPC #1 and passed IPC #2. A

comparison of improvement and deterioration ratios

indicated a trend of improvement for the FTD group

and PCATD group which approached statistical significance. The control group showed a trend for

deterioration which was not significant. These results

support the earlier finding of the benefit of the PCATD

and FTD in maintaining instrument proficiency and

suggest that improvement may be possible for some

pilots when these devices are used.

The study showed that only 42 percent of instrument current pilots passed the initial IPC in the

airplane. This finding raises questions concerning the

relationship between instrument currency and instrument proficiency. While all subjects were instrument

current, less than half of the subject population was

able to demonstrate instrument proficiency in an IPC

in the airplane. The results indicated that many subjects had difficulty with the ILS approach. Current

recency requirements require six approaches, but do

not specify that any must be a precision approach.

This suggests the need for the FAA to consider changing the recency of experience requirements for instrument currency. An alternative approach would be to

require a periodic IPC to demonstrate instrument

proficiency in addition to the current currency requirements.

As expected, the Control group’s performance

showed a trend of deterioration after a six-month

absence of instrument practice. The finding supports

the FAA regulations that require currency requirements to be met within a six-month period. Only 37

percent of the subjects who pass an IPC in a FTD were

able to subsequently pass the initial IPC in the airplane. This calls into doubt the effectiveness of a FTD

as a viable platform to administer an IPC. It should be

noted that all subjects in this category were more than

one year out of currency. All retraining was done in an

FTD. We recommend that the FAA sponsor a study

specifically designed to test the effectiveness of both

FTDs and PCATDs for administering IPC. This

study should include instrument pilots from all three

currency groups.
17

The FAA should address the adequacy of the sixmonth instrument recency of experience requirements.

Alternative method of performance measurement such

as automated airborne performance measurement

should be experimented with and compared to the

current method which incorporates subjective evaluations. In using a flight data recorder, the highest

possible sampling rate should be used. Finally, since

we have established the effectiveness of a PCATD for

meeting the instrument currency requirement, follow-on research should investigate the efficacy of

PCATDs for administering IPC flights.

REFERENCES

Campbell, S. (1998, September). PC trainers in the real

world. IFR, 14, 16-8.

Dennis, K.A. (1994). Computer-based simulation as adjunct to the initial stages of private pilot device

training. Cranfield University.

Dennis, K.A., & Harris, D. (1998). Computer-based

simulation as an adjunct to ab-initio flight training. International Journal of Aviation Psychology,

8(3), 261-76.

Falun, N. (1992). Azuresoft elite. Flight Training, 50-2.

Hampton, S., Moroney, W., Kirton, T., & Biers, D.W.

(1994). The use of personal computer-based training

devices in teaching instrument flying: A comparative

study (Final Report). Daytona Beach, FL: EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University.

Homan, W.J., & Williams, K.D. (1997). Effects of pcbased pretraining on pilot’s performance in an

approved flight-training device. The Journal of

Aviation/Aerospace Education and Research, 7(3),

19-28.

Karp, M.R. (2001). Using the PC-based aviation training device (PCATD) in the classroom. Proceedings

of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation

Psychology. Columbus, OH. The Ohio State University.

Kolano, E. (1997, October). Personal computer primer:

at the controls of a new instrument training device. Flight Training, 56-8.

Koonce, J.M. & Bramble, M.J. (1998) Personal computer based flight training devices. International

Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 277, 292.

Lendrum, L., Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Hulin, C.L.,

Bradshaw, G.L. & Emanuel, T.W., Jr. (1999).

Airborne flight data recorders. In R.S. Jensen, B.

Cox, J.D. Callister, & R. Lavis (Eds.), Proceedings

of the 10th International Symposium of Aviation

Psychology. Volume 2, 1003 –7. Columbus, OH:

The Ohio State University.

Lendrum, L., Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Hulin, C.L.,

Bradshaw, G.L. & Emanuel, T.W., Jr. (2000). PC

data logger (a flight data recorder): Operation manual

(Technical Report ARL-00-8/FAA-00-5). Savoy,

IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation,

Aviation Research Lab.

Lert, P. (1990). Flight simulator programs. Air Progress,

20-68.

Miller, W. (1996, May 1). Flying the computer. Aviation Safety, 12-4.

Ortiz, G.A. (1994). Effectiveness of PC-based flight

simulation. The International Journal of Aviation

Psychology, 4, 285-91.

Peterson, C., Jr. (1993, April). Controlling your simulator software. Private Pilot, 72-7.

Phillips, S.I., Hulin, C.L. & Lamermayer, P.J. (1993).

Uses of part-task trainers in instrument flight

training. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium of Aviation Psychology (pp. 743-6). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Phillips, S.I., Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L.,

Emanuel, T.W., Jr., & Talleur, D.A. (1995). Developing performance measures for evaluating personal computer-based aviation training devices

within an FAR part 141 pilot training school.

Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on

Aviation Psychology. Columbus: The Ohio State

University.

Rantanen, E.M., Talleur, D.A., Taylor, H.L., Bradshaw,

G.L., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Lendrum, L., & Hulin,

C.L. (2001). Derivation of pilot performance

measure from flight data recorder information.

Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on

Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH. The Ohio

State University.

Reynolds, M.C., Purvis, B.D., & Marshak, W.P. (1990).

A demonstration/evaluation of B-1B flight director computer control laws: A pilot performance

study. Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace

and Electronics Conference (pp. 490-4). Piscataway,

NJ: IEEE.
18

Scallen, S.F., Hancock, P.A., & Duley, J.A. (1995).

Pilot performance and preference for short cycles

of automation in adaptive function allocations.

Applied Ergonomics, 26(6), 397-403.

Taylor, H.L. (1985). Training effectiveness of flight

simulators as determined by transfer of training,

Keynote Address, NATO Symposium on the

Transfer of Training to Military Operational systems. Brussels, Belgium: Headquarters, NATO.

Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, D.A.,

Emanuel, T.W. & Phillips, S.I. (1996). Transfer of

training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices (Technical Report ARL-96-3/

FAA-96-2). Savoy, IL. University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.

Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, D.A.,

Emanuel, T.W., Jr., & Phillips, S.I (1999). Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer

aviation training device. The International Journal

of Aviation Psychology, 9(4), 319-35.

Taylor, H.L. & Stokes, A.F. (1986). Flight simulators

and training devices. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human

productivity Enhancement: Training and human

factors in systems design, 1, 81-129. Praeger Press.

Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel, T.W., Jr.,

Rantanen, E.M., Bradshaw, G.L. & Phillips, S.I.

(2001). Incremental training effectiveness of personal computers used for instrument training.

Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium of

Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: The Ohio

State University.

Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Phillips, S.I., Emanuel,

T.W. & Hulin, C.L. (1998). Use of personal

computers for instrument training: Proceedings of

the Royal Aeronautical Society: Low cost simulation

– new opportunities in flight training (pp. 5.1 –

.14). London, UK.

U.S. Department of Transportation. (1997). Qualification and approval of personal computer-based aviation training devices, AFS-840 (AC No: 61-126).

Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

U.S. Department of Transportation. (1998, October).

Instrument rating for airplane, helicopter and airship: Practical test standards (FAA-S-8081-4C).

Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Wickens, C.D. & Holland, J.G. (2000). Engineering

psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Williams, K.W. (1994). Summary proceedings of the joint

industry-FAA conference on the development and use

of pc-based aviation training devices (DOT/FAA/

AM-94/25). Oklahoma City, OK: Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aeromedical Institute1

.

Williams, K.W., & Blanchard, R.E. (1995). Development of qualification guidelines for personal computer-based aviation training devices (DOT/FAA/

AM-96/6). Oklahoma City, OK: Federal Aviation

Administration, Civil Aeromedical Institute1

.

1

All Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in

full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s Publications

Web site: http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/

Tech_Rep.htm.
A1

APPENDIX A:

REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS DURING THE CONTRACT

Semi-Annual Reports

1. Bradshaw, G., Taylor, H., Talleur, D., Emanuel, T., Hulin, C., Lendrum, L. & Vaughn, J. (1999).

Determining the effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD) to meet

recency of experience requirement. Semi-Annual Report, Jan. 8, 1999 – July 7, 1999.

2. Bradshaw, G., Taylor, H., Rantanen, E., Talleur, D., Emanuel, T., Hulin, C. & Lendrum, L. (2000).

Determining the effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD) to meet

recency of experience requirement. Semi-Annual Report, July 8, 1999 – Jan. 7, 2000.

3. Bradshaw, G., Taylor, H., Rantanen, E., Talleur, D., Emanuel, T., Lendrum, L., & Hulin, C. (2000)

Determining the effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD) to meet

recency of experience requirement. Semi-Annual Report, Jan. 8, 2000 – July 7, 2000.

4. Bradshaw, G., Taylor, H., Rantanen, E., Talleur, D., Emanuel, T., Lendrum, L., & Hulin, C. (2001)

Determining the effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD) to meet

recency of experience requirement. Semi-Annual Report, July 8, 2000 – Jan. 7, 2001.

Published Reports

1. Lendrum, L., Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Hulin, C.L., Bradshaw, G.L. & Emanuel, T.W., Jr. (1999).

Airborne flight data recorders. Jensen, R. S., Cox, B., Callister, J. D., & Lavis R., editors. Proceedings

of the Tenth International Symposium of Aviation Psychology. Volume 2, 1003 –1007. Columbus, OH:

The Ohio State University.

2. Lendrum, L., Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Hulin, C.L., Bradshaw, G.L. & Emanuel, T.W., Jr. (2000).

PC data logger (a flight data recorder): Operation manual. (Technical Report ARL-00-8/FAA-00-5).

Savoy, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Lab.

3. Talleur, D.A., Taylor, H.L., Bradshaw, G.L., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Hulin, C.L., Rantanen, E., &

Lendrum, L. (2000). Effectiveness of personal computer aviation training devices to meet recency of

experience requirement. University Aviation Association Fall Education Conference. Mesa, AZ

(Abstract).

4. Talleur, D.A., Taylor, H.L., Bradshaw, G.L., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Rantanen, E.M., Lendrum, L. &

Hulin, C.L. Effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD) for

maintaining instrument currency. The Eleventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.

Columbus: The Ohio State University.

5. Taylor, H.L., Bradshaw, G.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Hulin, C.L., Lendrum, L. &

Vaughan, J. (1999). Effectiveness of personal computers to meet recency of experience

requirements. In R.S. Jensen, B. Cox., J.D. Callister & R. Lavis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth

International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Volume 2, 1008 – 1013, Columbus, OH. The

Ohio State University.

6. Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Bradshaw, G.L., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Hulin, C.L., Rantanen, E.M., &

Lendrum, L. (2000). Evaluation of a personal computer aviation device to meet recency of

experience requirements (Technical Report ARL-00-9/FAA-00-6). Savoy, IL: University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Lab.
A2

Presentations

1. Lendrum, L. Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Hulin, C.L., Bradshaw, G.L., and Emanuel, T.W., Jr.

(1999). Airborne Flight Data Recorder, Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology.

Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

2. Talleur, D.A., Taylor, H.L., Bradshaw, G.L., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Rantanen, E. M., Lendrum, L. &

Hulin, C.L. Effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device (PCATD) for maintaining

instrument currency. The Eleventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: The

Ohio State University.

3. Taylor, H.L., Bradshaw, G.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Hulin, C.L., Lendrum, L. and

Vaughan, J.A. (1999). Effectiveness of Personal Computers to Meet Recency of Experience

Requirements. Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.

4. Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Bradshaw, G.L., Emanuel, T.W., Jr., Hulin, C.L., and Lendrum, L.

(1999). Effectiveness of Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices to Meet Recency of Experience

Requirements. Research Roundtable, University Aviation Association, Fall Educational Conference,

October 16, 1999, Atlanta, GA.

5. Taylor, H.L. Evaluation of a Personal Computer Aviation Training Device to Meet Recency of

Experience Requirements, 2000, NAFI/ERAU Symposium 2000, EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI,

July 23, 2000.

6. Taylor, H.L. (2000). Effectiveness of Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices to Meet Recency

of Experience Requirements. Research Roundtable, University Aviation Association, Fall Education

Conference, October 28, 2000, Mesa, AZ.
B1

APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE 

Flight Experience and Biographical Data Questionnaire

We expect that the pilots involved in this project will have widely varying flight 

experience. To help us interpret the results of our study, we need to have some 

background information about your flying experience, and so ask you to fill out this 

questionnaire and return it to us in the pre-paid envelope. 

 Your answers will help us classify the experience level of the participants in this 

experiment. All answers will be confidential: We will code your answers using only an 

arbitrary reference number assigned to each participant. The data will not be linked to 

your name in any way. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Please Print Your Responses

Name:_________________________ Date:___________ Ref # ( ) 

Age: Native Language: 

 (language you learned to speak first) 

Check the Flight Certificates and Rating you hold and indicate year earned (if available): 

Year Earned: Certificates/Ratings: (or Military Equivalent) 

_____ Private Pilot Single Engine Land/Sea 

_____ Private Pilot Multiengine Land/Sea 

_____ Instrument Rating Single Engine 

_____ Instrument Rating Multiengine 

_____ Commercial Pilot Single Engine Land/Sea 

_____ Commercial Pilot Multiengine Land/Sea 

_____ Airline Transport Pilot Single Engine or Multiengine 

_____ Certified Flight Instructor Single Engine 

_____ Certified Flight Instructor Instrument Single Engine 

_____ Multiengine Flight Instructor 

_____ Multiengine Flight Instructor Instrument 

_____ Military Flight Instructor (list qualifications below) 

_____ Other Certificates or ratings: 

_____ _______________________ 

_____ _______________________ 

_____ _______________________ 

Please list any Type Ratings you have: 

 _______________________ 

 _______________________ 

 _______________________ 
B2

Please fill in the approximate amount of aircraft flight time you have: (This includes 

Helicopter Time) 

1) Total Flight Time: 

2) Total Simulated Instrument Time (Hood time) : 

3) Total Actual Instrument Time (IMC conditions): 

4) Total Ground Trainer/Simulator Time: 

5) Total Personal Computer Aviation Training Device (PCATD) Time : 

6) Total Dual Instruction Given (if you’re a CFI) : 

7) Total Dual Instruction Received: 

8) Total Single Engine Airplane Time: 

9) Total Multiengine Airplane Time : 

10) Total Night Flight Time : 

11) Total Cross Country Time : 

12) Total Turbojet Time : 

13) Total Turboprop Time : 

14) What Type of Airplane Do You Usually Fly: 

 (Circle one choice from each column) 

Engine: Gear: Horsepower:

 1. Single 1. Fixed 1. Less than 200 

 2. Multi 2. Retractable 2. 200 or more 

15) Total Recent Aircraft Flight Time: 

 

 Last 90 days Last 6 months Last 12 months 
B3

16) Instrument Currency: 

 a) Are you Instrument Current? Circle one: YES NO 

 b) If not, when were you last instrument current? (Date) ____________ 

 c) How many Instrument Approaches have you flown in the last 6 months? _____ 

 d) How many Holding Patterns have you flown in the last 6 months?_____ 

 e) When did you last receive an Instrument Proficiency Check flight to renew 

 your Instrument Currency? (Date) ____________ 

 

17) Do you have a current Flight Review (BFR)? 

 Circle one: YES NO 

18) If you have military flight experience, please indicate types of aircraft flown here: 

__________________ __________________ __________________ 

__________________ __________________ __________________ 

__________________ __________________ __________________ 

__________________ __________________ __________________ 

19) What is the main reason that you fly aircraft? Circle one: 

 

 a. For Fun 

 b. Commercially (Airlines, Charter, Corporate) 

 c. Military 

 d. Travel Related to my Job 

 e. Other (please fill in)_____________________ 

20) What type of flying do you normally engage in? Circle one: 

a. local (within 50 miles of homebase airport) 

 b. Cross-Country of 50-200 miles 

 c. Cross-Country of 201-500 miles 

 d. Cross-Country of 1000 miles or greater 

 e. Other (please fill in)______________________ 
B4
C1

APPENDIX C: CURRENCY TRAINING SESSION

Currency Training Session:

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number___________

This form should be used to log the completion of the subject’s required approaches/hold to meet the

currency requirements of FAR part 61. Regardless of each subject’s currency status, please have them

perform six approaches, holding procedures and intercepting and tracking courses through the use of

navigation systems. Please indicate the maneuvers flown to meet this requirement. Approaches may be flown

with choice of procedure-turn or radar vectors. The subject may be pre-positioned for any or all of the

approaches and hold. Assure that the subject is still eligible to achieve currency by simply doing six

approaches and holding procedures. If they are not, you must start the session using the “Prescreening”

form.

Date that subject was last current ______________ (Assure that they are still within one year of currency

for this session)

Approaches: Acceptable Approaches:

1)__________________________________ CMI: VOR 22R, VOR 4L, VOR18,

ILS 32L, LC BC 14R

2)__________________________________ C16: VOR-A, VOR-B

2K0: VOR-A

3)__________________________________ 2I5: VOR 27

4)__________________________________

5)__________________________________

6)__________________________________

Hold: Acceptable Holds:

1)__________________________________ OCTOE, EMTEE, LODGE,

BEMEN, FRAKA

Time flown in the Frasca to complete the above training ________
C2
D1

APPENDIX D: PRESCREENING SESSION 

Frasca Prescreening Session

Subject Number_________________

 Instructor__________________________

 Date___________ 

(A) The scenario below will be followed in order to assess the participant’s instrument 

proficiency. It is possible that a participant will complete the assigned maneuvers successfully 

within 30-40 minutes. In this case, if you believe the participant will be able to pass an IPC in the 

Frasca without future sessions, instruct them to perform the remaining maneuvers (B) that will 

result in completing an IPC. Section (B) must be completed in order to give an IPC sign-off. 

Otherwise, if you believe the participant needs additional training, use section (C). 

Maneuver: Completed Satisfactorily: 

Takeoff & Climb to 3000 ft ________ 

Straight & Level ________ 

Standard Rate turns ________ 

Pattern B Climb and Descents Profile (see attached) ________ 

ILS 32L Approach Via Radar Vectors ________ 

 If the above maneuvers were performed satisfactorily, assign the participant to complete, at a 

minimum, the maneuvers in Section (B) to your satisfaction in order to receive an IPC sign-off. 

You may ask the participant to perform other maneuvers or repeat maneuvers if you feel this will 

lead to the IPC sign-off. If the subject needs extra training to achieve proficiency, continue 

instructing the participant using section (C) to bring their performance up to a satisfactory level. 

Section (B) 

Maneuver: Completed Satisfactorily: 

VOR approach via PT ________ 

Hold at an Intersection ________ 

Partial Panel VOR approach ________ 

Recovery from Unusual Attitudes ________ 
D2

Statement of Currency at Completion of Prescreening Session:

This participant has successfully completed an IPC (and has received a logbook endorsement) 

and is ready for the Oral and Aircraft Orientation: YES NO 

Flight Time spent during Prescreening Session: ______ 

Flight Time spent during Proficiency Training Session(s): 1)_____2)_____3)_____ 

Pattern B 

Start: 

Normal 

Cruise Speed 

➽

1. 

Enter 

Climb 

2. Level off 

3. Descend 1000 ft.

End: Level off 

Normal Cruise

Speed 

1000 ft 

Climb 

1000 ft. 

Descent
D3

Section (C) Proficiency Training: 

Subject______________________ Instructor__________________ Date_________ 

(C) This section is for participants who do not complete section (A) and (B) satisfactorily in the 

allotted time. The maneuvers below are recommended at this stage to prepare the participant to 

pass an IPC in the Frasca. 

Maneuver: Completed Satisfactorily:

For Review of Basic Attitude Skills: 

Pattern A (see attached) _______ 

For Review of Procedural Skills: 

Partial Panel MTO VOR 6 _______ 

 

 MTO VOR 24 via Procedure Turn _______ 

MTO ILS 29 via Radar Vectors _______ 

 

 Hold at ARCOL intersection _______ 

 

Partial Panel DNV VOR 21 _______ 

 

 DNV VOR 3 via Procedure Turn _______ 

DNV ILS 21 via Radar Vectors _______ 

Hold at BUBLE intersection _______ 

If participant is not ready to pass an IPC in the Frasca within the two-hour block of time, have 

them schedule another two-hour Proficiency Training session. Please list below any specific 

trouble area so that the next instructor will know what you’ve done and what areas to 

reemphasize. 
D4
E1

APPENDIX E: ORAL/FAMILIARIZATION SESSION

Oral Discussion/ Aircraft Familiarization Session

Instructor_____________________Date___________Subject Number________

Task: Completed:

Participant has completed Oral Discussion ______

Participant has received an Aircraft

Familiarization ______

Participant has received briefing on IPC flight ______

Profile

Suggested Aircraft Familiarization Schedule:

A) Explanation of Controls and Throttle

B) General Instrument Layout

C) Radio Rack Layout and Operation

D) Location and Operation of Emergency Equipment

E) Fuel Management

F) Use of Safety Belts and Harness
E2
F1

APPENDIX F: ORAL/FAMILIARIZATION SESSION PROFILE BRIEFING

IPC #1 Flight Profile:

The following flight profile will be flown on the IPC #1 flight. There will be minimal time to review the profile

during the session in which it is scheduled to be flown. Feel free to review the attached charts in preparing

yourself for this flight. The flight will be executed in the exact order listed below.

Profile:

1) Depart CMI (Champaign’s Willard Airport) VFR or with a clearance to fly to VFR conditions

2) A short amount of time will be spent going over the basic performance characteristics of the aircraft; you

need not prepare yourself for this part.

3) An IFR clearance will be obtained to do the following:

a) VOR 18 at DEC (Decatur) via the CMI 253 radial to TRACS Intersection. This approach will be flown

via Procedure Turn.

b) Modified Missed Approach procedure to HASSE Intersection. You will be asked to hold there for 3

turns in the hold.

c) Steep Turns and Unusual Attitude recovery will be performed.

d) ILS 6 at DEC via Radar Vectors

e) Miss and return to CMI via Radar Vectors to within 2 miles of CMI. At that point the Instructor will

take over and finish the flight.
F2
G1

APPENDIX G: IPC#1 SCORE CARD 

IPC 1 

Instructor_____________________ Date___________Subject Number________ 

Data logger File Name:__________________ 

VFR Flight Familiarization Schedule: 

It is reasonable to assume that most of the participants do not have experience flying the Sundowner. The 

following schedule of maneuvers is designed to provide some operating experience with the performance 

profiles of the aircraft. This portion of the 1st IPC flight should be carried out prior to any instrument 

work. It is recommended that this training be kept to a maximum of 15-20 minutes. Verbal or physical 

intervention is allowed during the VFR training. All maneuvers during the VFR training are to be 

performed in VFR conditions without a hood. 

On taxi out: Completed:

Instrument Check during taxi ______ 

Maneuvers: Completed:

Takeoff ______ 

Cruise Climb ______ 

Level -off ______ 

Straight & Level ______ 

After reaching practice area: 

180° Std. Rate Turns ______ 

A/S Climb and Descent ______ 

Rate Climb and Descent ______ 

A/S and Rate Descent (Precision Profile) ______ 

A/S and Rate Descent (Non-Prec. Profile) ______ 

Once the above is completed, have the participant obtain an IFR clearance to proceed with the scheduled 

IPC flight. 

Continue to next page to begin IPC scoring
G2

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________ IPC 1

VOR Approach (DEC VOR 18)

Please test the VOR approach first during the flight of this flight. Check “yes” or “no” to indicate whether

the subject’s performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No

Tune, Ident VOR _____ _____

Set Proper Course _____ _____

Before Final Approach Segment:

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Heading +10 o

_____ _____

Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Executes Proper Procedure Turn _____ _____

Identifies FAF _____ _____

Starts Time _____ _____

On Final Approach:

Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Maintains MDA +100/-0 ft _____ _____

Properly Identifies MAP _____ _____

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____

Marking Instructions:

Mark data at the beginning and end of each segment listed below:

1) Start of outbound tracking from TRACS through start of Procedure Turn

2) Start of Procedure turn through intercepting FAC inbound

3) Tracking inbound until arrival at TRACS

4) TRACS inbound to MAP
G3

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________ IPC 1 

Holding Procedures (HASSE) 

Please test the holding pattern second during the flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the 

subject’s performance met the criteria. 

Holding Pattern Entry

 Measure Desired Yes No 

Tune and Ident Proper Navaids _____ _____ 

Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix _____ _____ 

Initiates Prompt Entry _____ _____ 

Uses Recommended Entry Procedure _____ _____ 

Properly Reports Entry _____ _____ 

From Initial Arrival at Holding Fix to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

On Inbound Leg 

 Maintains Desired Course +10 o

 _____ _____ 

Applies Proper Timing _____ _____ 

 

First Full Holding Pattern

 Measure Desired Yes No 

On Outbound Leg: 

 Maintains appropriate Wind Correction _____ _____ 

Applies Proper Timing _____ _____ 

On Inbound Leg: 

 Maintains Desired Course +10 o

 _____ _____ 

Throughout Pattern: 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 

Second Full Holding Pattern

 Measure Desired Yes No 

On Outbound Leg: 

 Maintains appropriate Wind Correction _____ _____ 

Applies Proper Timing _____ _____ 

On Inbound Leg: 

 Maintains Desired Course +10 o

 _____ _____ 

Throughout Pattern: 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____ 

Marking Instructions: 

Mark arrival at HASSE and end of holds just prior to starting Steep Turns
G4

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________ IPC 1 

Steep Turns

Please test steep turns third during the flight; one 360o turn to the left and one 360o turn to the right. 

Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the performance met the criteria. 

Measure Desired Yes No

Left 360o Steep Turn

At 90o Heading Change 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Bank Angle +5o _____ _____ 

At 180o Heading Change 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Bank Angle +5o _____ _____ 

At 270o Heading Change 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Bank Angle +5o _____ _____ 

Rollout at Starting Heading 

 Heading +10o _____ _____ 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

Right 360o Steep Turn

At 90o Heading Change 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Bank Angle +5o _____ _____ 

At 180o Heading Change 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Bank Angle +5o _____ _____ 

At 270o Heading Change 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

 Bank Angle +5o _____ _____ 

Rollout at Starting Heading 

 Heading +10o _____ _____ 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____ 

Marking Instructions:

Mark beginning of Steep Turns and end just prior to unusual attitude recovery 
G5

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________ IPC 1 

Unusual Attitude Recovery 

Please test one unusual attitude recovery immediately after the steep turns. Check “yes” or “no to indicate 

whether the subject’s performance met the criteria. 

 Task

Applies appropriate Bank, Pitch and Power in a timely fashion during Yes No

recovery. _____ _____ 

Marking Instructions:

Mark Beginning and end of maneuver 

______________________________________________________________________________

ILS Approach (DEC ILS 6) 

Please test the ILS approach last during the flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the subject’s 

performance met the criteria. 

Task Yes No

Tune, Ident Localizer _____ _____ 

Before Final Approach Segment: 

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____ 

 Heading +10 o

 _____ _____ 

 Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____ 

Properly Intercepts Glide Slope _____ _____ 

Starts Time _____ _____ 

On Final Approach: 

 Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____ 

 Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection _____ _____ 

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____ 

Properly Identifies MAP _____ _____ 

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____ 

Marking Instructions: 

1) Interception of FAC until reaching ELWIN 

2) ELWIN until DH 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

ATC Procedures/ Communications

Please monitor the subject’s ATC procedures and communications throughout the flight. Check “yes” or 

“no to indicate whether the subject’s performance met the criteria. 

 Task

Subject used appropriate ATC procedures and Communications during Yes No

the flight _____ _____ 

Would you give this participant an IPC sign-off based on the performance of the above maneuvers? 

YES NO (Circle one) 

Please indicate the Hobbs time logged on this flight _______ 
G6
H1

APPENDIX H: IPC CHECK PILOT STANDARDIZATION DOCUMENT

IPC Check Pilot Standardization: IPC signoff guidelines

Below are some basic guidelines to assist you in making a decision to give a subject an IPC signoff. These

rules are not meant to supercede PTS guidelines, but rather supplement them since we are not strictly

required to follow PTS standards in determining whether a pilot should be singed off:

General- Overall Performance

1) Most scored maneuvers have tasks that specify fairly concrete parameters (such as +/- 100 ft, etc.) These

task elements should be scored objectively in the sense that the subject’s performance either falls within the

stated limits or it does not. No subjective decision or rational should be applied to these scores.

2) At the end of each maneuver you are asked to indicate whether the maneuver, on the whole, meets PTS

standards. Remember that this judgement allows for the standards to be exceeded as long a) as they are not

consistently exceeded and b) a prompt and correct action is taken by the subject to recover from the error.

3) The last “scoring” item is if you feel the subject’s performance deserves an IPC signoff. This is the most

subjective decision that you will make during the session. Remember to make your decision by referencing

what is safe, legally allowable, and accepted practice in terms of performance. Also use the guidelines below

to help determine how closely the PTS should be followed when making an IPC signoff decision.

4) In terms of overall performance, there are a few areas that are immediately disqualifying:

a) failure to realize a missed approach is needed (due to full scale deflection of CDI inside of

FAF, etc.)

b) inability to communicate on the radios; however, a subject may miss a few radio calls due to

unfamiliarity with the call sign. You may prompt them that they’ve missed a call. At that point they

should be able to handle the call without assistance. Incorrect readbacks to ATC followed by

correct action on the pilot’s part should not immediately disqualify them. Making these types of

errors consistently is grounds for disqualification. Non-compliance with an ATC clearance or

request will be disqualifying if the error would clearly lead to a possible violation or put flight safety

at risk.

c) consistent busting of altitudes, MDA, or leveloff is disqualifying; however, infrequent

deviations from PTS is allowed in all areas as long as timely corrections are made.

d) failure to identify the MAP within safe limits: this means within the context of the approach

being flown and surrounding terrain or obstructions.

5) A statement from the pilot indicating reasons for doing a maneuver, or part of a maneuver, in a manner

different from what we normally expect is acceptable as long as there is no legal or safety issue. Do not

confuse technique with ability to perform a maneuver safely within legal limits.

6) Leeway should be given if unusual environmental circumstance exist: i.e., turbulence, high winds,

windshear. It should be clear that most pilots will not venture into certain weather conditions while solo.

However, with us onboard, they may agree to fly in conditions that are beyond their ability. Every effort

should be made to determine if the pilot is comfortable with the weather conditions. In general if you are

doubtful about the “average” pilot’s ability to handle the current weather, you should have the session

rescheduled. If you would not do a training flight with an AVI 130 in the current conditions, you should

seriously consider whether you want to do it with our subjects.
H2

VOR Approach

1) Pilot must perform some sort of procedure turn (PT) on the barbed PT side of the FAC.

2) Pilot must make a decent from FAF to MDA in order to arrive at the MDA by the time they reach the

MAP. Being higher than necessary crossing FAF is not immediately disqualifying unless they fail to descend

safely. They must be in control of whatever descent they perform.

3) Timing from FAF to MAP is not required if they are using an alternate means to identify MAP.

4) Deviations below MDA exceeding 20 ft (but not to exceed 50 ft) are allowed as long as prompt action is

taken by the pilot to return to MDA.

5) Deviations above MDA are allowed and not limited to a specific altitude; however, if they exceed 100 ft

they should have a reason for doing so.

6) Deviations beyond 3⁄4 scale CDI deflection are allowed at anytime along the FAC as long as the error is

infrequent and the pilot sees the need, and applies, a correction appropriate to the deviation.

Holding Pattern

Note: The altitude at which we hold is usually part of a block altitude clearance. The pilot may be unfamiliar

with this, so you should tell them what altitude they are expected to maintain.

1) Pilot must stay in protected airspace at all times. Remember that this is a large area around the holding fix.

2) Pilot must be able to enter the hold in some manner consistent with staying in protected airspace.

Remember that the standard holding entry procedures are recommended and are not regulatory.

3) Pilot may identify the fix either by DME or crossing radials as charted.

4) Pilot should know where they are at relative to the holding fix at all times.

5) Accurate timing is not a requirement as along as a complete lack of timing does not lead to disorientation

in the pattern or would lead to busting protected airspace.

6) Corrections to return to the inbound course (if off -course) so as to be within full scale CDI deflection

prior to crossing over the holding fix is required. However, the pilot should not consistently need to correct

from full scale deflection on each inbound leg.

7) Altitude deviations from PTS are allowed as long as they are infrequent and the pilot makes corrections to

return to the desired altitude.

Steep Turn

1) Deviations from altitude and airspeed are allowed but prompt correction should be made if an error does

occur.

2) Pilot must be able to rollout from turn and be restabilized in straight and level flight within 10-15 sec.

3) Pilot must be in control of the aircraft with no serious doubt about the outcome of the maneuver.

Unusual Attitude

1) Deviation from the standard recovery procedure (order) is allowed as long as the pilot is in control

of the aircraft and a return to steady state is accomplished in a timely manner.

ILS Approach

1) Pilot should be able to intercept course from ATC vector and become established inbound prior to

reaching FAF.

2) Once established, full scale deflection is allowed outside of the FAF only if the pilot realizes the error and

is in the process of correcting.

3) Proper glideslope interception is at the Initial Approach Altitude (IAA) as charted, however, the pilot may

intercept the glideslope form any altitude above IAA and track it to the FAF.

4) If the glideslope is full scale at FAF the maneuver is failed and the pilot should indicate the need to

execute a missed approach.
H3

5) During Final descent on the glideslope, the pilot needs to stay within full scale deflection at all times

while tracking both the localizer and glideslope. Consistent deviations to 3⁄4 scale (or beyond) is

disqualifying.

6) The pilot needs to recognize the need to look up and then execute a miss upon reaching the DH.

7) Timing is not a requirement for the ILS

VOR Partial Panel Approach (IPC#2 only)

1) Pilot should be able to fly approach partial panel from established inbound on the FAC within 10 miles all

the way to MAP or until you need to take over for the landing.

2) Pilot must make a decent from FAF to MDA in order to arrive at the MDA by the time they reach the

MAP. Being higher than necessary crossing FAF is not immediately disqualifying unless they fail to descend

safely. They must be in control of whatever descent they perform.

3) Timing from FAF to MAP is not required if they are using an alternate means to identify MAP.

4) Deviations below MDA exceeding 20 ft (but not to exceed 50 ft) are allowed as long as prompt action is

taken by the pilot to return to MDA.

5) Deviations above MDA are allowed and not limited to a specific altitude; however, if they exceed 100 ft

they should have a reason for doing so.

6) Deviations beyond 3⁄4 scale CDI deflection are allowed at anytime along the FAC as long as the error is

infrequent and the pilot sees the need, and applies, a correction appropriate to the deviation.
H4
I1

APPENDIX I: RECENCY OF EXPERIENCE SESSION #1

Recency of Experience Session #1

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________

The following maneuvers should be flown during Recency of Experience Session #1. Do all maneuvers in the

order listed. If circumstances beyond your control should arise and you need to deviate from the order or

perform a maneuver other than those listed below, please make a note on this form.

Maneuver: Completed:

DEC LOC BC 24 via UNITI transition ________

DEC VOR 36 via Radar Vectors ________

Miss to a Hold at MAROA Intersection ________

DEC VOR 18 via Holding pattern ________

Return via Radar Vectors to CMI ________

(Let subject fly with hood on)

 (Instructor is to fly instrument approach if wx is IMC, otherwise, Instructor is to take over within two miles of

CMI for landing.)

(If this training is completed in the Frasca or the PCATD,

 it is permissible to discontinue the flight within 2 mile of

 CMI VORTAC.)

Hobbs time flown to complete this session _________
I2
J1

APPENDIX J: RECENCY OF EXPERIENCE SESSION #2

Recency of Experience Session #2

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________

The following maneuvers should be flown during Recency of Experience Session #1. Do all maneuvers in

the order listed. If circumstances beyond your control should arise and you need to deviate from the order or

perform a maneuver other than those listed below, please make a note on this form.

Maneuver: Completed:

DEC VOR 18 via Radar Vectors ________

Miss to a Hold at DEC VOR ________

DEC ILS 6 via Radar Vectors ________

Partial Panel DEC VOR 36 via Procedure Turn ________

Return via Radar Vectors to CMI ________

(Let subject fly with hood on)

 (Instructor is to fly instrument approach if wx is IMC, otherwise, Instructor is to take over within two miles

of CMI for landing.)

 (If this training is completed in the Frasca or the PCATD,

 it is permissible to discontinue the flight within 2 mile of

 CMI VORTAC.)

Hobbs time flown to complete this session _________
J2
K1

APPENDIX K: IPC#2 SCORE CARD

IPC 2

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number________

Data logger File Name:_______________

On taxi out: Completed:

Instrument Check during taxi ______

VOR Approach (DEC VOR 18)

Please test the VOR approach first during the flight of this flight. Check “yes” or “no” to indicate whether

the subject’s performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No

Tune, Ident VOR _____ _____

Set Proper Course _____ _____

Before Final Approach Segment:

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Heading +10 o

_____ _____

Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Executes Proper Procedure Turn _____ _____

Identifies FAF _____ _____

Starts Time _____ _____

On Final Approach:

Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Maintains MDA +100/-0 ft _____ _____

Properly Identifies MAP _____ _____

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____

Marking Instructions:

Mark data at the beginning and end of each segment listed below:

1) Start of outbound tracking from TRACS up to start of Procedure Turn

2) Start of Procedure turn through intercepting FAC inbound

3) Tracking inbound until arrival at TRACS

4) TRACS inbound to MAP
K2

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number_______ IPC 2

Holding Procedures (HASSE)

Please test the holding pattern second during the flight. Check “yes” or “no” to indicate whether the

subject’s performance met the criteria.

Holding Pattern Entry

Measure Desired Yes No

Tune and Ident Proper Navaids _____ _____

Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix _____ _____

Initiates Prompt Entry _____ _____

Uses Recommended Entry Procedure _____ _____

Properly Reports Entry _____ _____

From Initial Arrival at Holding Fix to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

On Inbound Leg

Maintains Desired Course +10 o

_____ _____

Applies Proper Timing _____ _____

First Full Holding Pattern

Measure Desired Yes No

On Outbound Leg:

Maintains appropriate Wind Correction _____ _____

Applies Proper Timing _____ _____

On Inbound Leg:

Maintains Desired Course +10 o

_____ _____

Throughout Pattern:

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Second Full Holding Pattern

Measure Desired Yes No

On Outbound Leg:

Maintains appropriate Wind Correction _____ _____

Applies Proper Timing _____ _____

On Inbound Leg:

Maintains Desired Course +10 o

_____ _____

Throughout Pattern:

 Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

 Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____

Marking Instructions:

5) Mark arrival at HASSE. Stop marking just prior to starting Steep Turns
K3

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number_______ IPC 2

Steep Turns

Please test steep turns third during the flight; one 360o turn to the left and one 360o turn to the right. Check

“yes” or “no” to indicate whether the performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No

Left 360o Steep Turn

At 90o Heading Change

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Bank Angle +5o _____ _____

At 180o Heading Change

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Bank Angle +5o _____ _____

At 270o Heading Change

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Bank Angle +5o _____ _____

Rollout at Starting Heading

Heading +10o _____ _____

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Right 360o Steep Turn

At 90o Heading Change

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Bank Angle +5o _____ _____

At 180o Heading Change

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Bank Angle +5o _____ _____

At 270o Heading Change

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Bank Angle +5o _____ _____

Rollout at Starting Heading

Heading +10o _____ _____

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____

Marking Instructions:

6) Mark beginning of Steep Turns. Stop marking just prior to unusual attitude recovery
K4

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number_______ IPC 2

Unusual Attitude Recovery

Please test one unusual attitude recovery immediately after the steep turns. Check “yes” or “no to indicate

whether the subject’s performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No

Applies appropriate Bank, Pitch and Power in a timely fashion during _____ _____

recovery.

Marking Instructions:

7) Mark Beginning. Stop mark at end of maneuver

______________________________________________________________________________

ILS Approach (DEC ILS 6)

Please test the ILS approach last during the flight. Check “yes” or “no” to indicate whether the subject’s

performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No

Tune, Ident Localizer _____ _____

Before Final Approach Segment:

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Heading +10 o

_____ _____

Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Properly Intercepts Glide Slope _____ _____

Starts Time _____ _____

On Final Approach:

Less Than 3⁄4 Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Less Than 3⁄4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Properly Identifies MAP _____ _____

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____

Marking Instructions:

8) Mark Interception of FAC until reaching ELWIN

9) Mark passing ELWIN. Stop mark at DH
K5

Instructor_____________________ Date___________ Subject Number_______ IPC 2

Partial Panel VOR Approach via Radar Vectors (Name of Approach _______________)

Please test a partial panel VOR approach during return to CMI. Check “yes” or “no” to indicate whether the

subject’s performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No

Tune, Ident VOR _____ _____

Set Proper Course _____ _____

Before Final Approach Segment:

Altitude +100 ft _____ _____

Heading +10 o

_____ _____

Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Identifies FAF (If applicable) _____ _____

Starts Time (If applicable) _____ _____

On Final Approach:

Less Than 3⁄4 Scale CDI Deflection _____ _____

Airspeed +10 kts _____ _____

Maintains MDA +100/-0 ft _____ _____

Properly Identifies MAP _____ _____

Meets Practical Test Standards _____ _____

Marking Instructions:

Mark data at the beginning and end of each segment listed below:

10) Mark Start of tracking final approach course inbound until FAF or Final descent

11) Mark Final approach course inbound of FAF or during final descent (if applicable)

12) Mark when level at MDA until descent for Landing. Stop mark anytime after landing.

ATC Procedures/ Communications

Please monitor the subject’s ATC procedures and communications throughout the flight. Check “yes” or “no

to indicate whether the subject’s performance met the criteria.

Task

Subject used appropriate ATC procedures and Communications during Yes No

the flight _____ _____

Would you give this participant an IPC sign-off based on the performance of the above maneuvers? (Using

old PTS requirements) YES NO (Circle one)

Please indicate the Hobbs time logged on this flight ___________

Did you give an IPC signoff (based on current PTS requirements) YES NO (circle one)
K6