DOT/FAA/AM-95/27 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Airman Research 

Questionnaire: Methodology 

and Overall Results 

David R. Hunter 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, DC 20591 

October 1995 

Final Report 

This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

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

DOT/FAA/AM-95/27 

4 . Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Airman Research Questionnaire: Methodology and Overall Results October 1995 

6. Performing Organization Code 

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

David R. Hunter, Ph.D. 

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

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Washington, DC 20591 

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

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

1 5. Supplemental Notes 

1 6. Abstract 

A nationwide survey of 19,657 pilots was performed to collect information on their aviation qualifications and 

experiences, their participation in training activities, their involvement in critical aviation incidents, their personal 

minimums and usual practices when planning and conducting a flight, and their attitudes about flying issues. 

Results are based on returns received from 35% of the overall sample. Analyses were conducted to assess 

possible bias due to nonresponse effects by comparing respondent and nonrespondent groups on accident 

involvement, age, gender, and recent and total flight experience. No differences in accident involvement or in 

total flight experience were found. However, on average, the respondent group tended to be slightly older and to 

have slightly less recent flight experience than the nonrespondent group. The implications of these findings are 

discussed and cautions regarding the interpretation of the results are given. This initial report describes the 

methodology used in construction of the questionnaire and the procedures used for data collection. The 

percentages of respondents selecting each of the response alternatives for each question in the questionnaire are 

provided. Means, standard deviations, and medians are reported for those questions requiring exact numerical 

entries. Separate analyses of all items are given for private, commercial, and airline transport certificate 

categories. Possible applications of the data obtained from this study are discussed and proposed follow-on 

analyses to be conducted and reported in additional reports are described. 

1 7. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Pilots Attitudes toward safety Document is available to the public through the 

Surveys, aviation National Technical Information Service 

Aviation safety Springfield, Virginia 22161 

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

Unclassified Unclassified 67 

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

• 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This effort was sponsored by the Flight Standards Service (AFS-81 0). Mr. Roger M. Baker, 

Aviation Safety National Program Manager, provided program guidance on behalf of that 

organization and contributed significantly to the success of this research by his continued interest and 

support. 

The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the many people who helped make this 

project possible. I am indebted to Mr. Bruce Landsberg of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Aviation Safety Foundation and Captain Jim Irving for reviewing an early version of the survey 

instrument and making valuable comments. I also want to acknowledge the substantial help put 

forth by many members ofthe Federal Air Surgeon's Washington staff in addressing 20,000 followup postcards. Special thanks are also due to Mr. Sean Sanfilippo who contributed greatly to this 

project during his summer internship in my office. Between his other, more interesting activities, 

Sean took on the task of processing the returned questionnaires. Sean's initiative and determination 

to see the job through were a great help. 

Finally, I want to thank the almost 7,000 pilots who sat down with their logbooks for up to four 

hours ·in some cases and filled out the questionnaire. Whatever measure of success this project 

achieves is due largely to their efforts. 

iii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This effort was sponsored by the Flight Standards Service (AFS-81 0). Mr. Roger M. Baker, 

Aviation Safety National Program Manager, provided program guidance on behalf of that 

organization and contributed significantly to the success of this research by his continued interest and 

support. 

The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the many people who helped make this 

project possible. I am indebted to Mr. Bruce Landsberg ofthe Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Aviation Safety Foundation and Captain Jim Irving for reviewing an early version of the survey 

instrument and making valuable comments. I also want to acknowledge the substantial help put 

forth by many members of the Federal Air Surgeon's Washington staff in addressing 20,000 followup postcards. Special thanks are also due to Mr. Sean Sanfilippo who contributed greatly to this 

project during his summer internship in my office. Between his other, more interesting activities, 

Sean took on the task of processing the returned questionnaires. Sean's initiative and determination 

to see the job through were a great help. 

Finally, I want to thank the almost 7,000 pilots who sat down with their logbooks for up to four 

hours in some cases and filled out the questionnaire. Whatever measure of success this project 

achieves is due largely to their efforts. 

iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTR 0 D U CTI ON --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

METH 0 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

Subjects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 

Questionnaire Development ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 

Mailing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 

RESULTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 

Return Rates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 

Generalizability ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 

Sampling Error-------------------... -----------------------------------------.,.--------------------------------- 3 

Nonsampling Error------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 

Interpreting the Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 

Analyses of Responses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 

Aviation Qualifications and Experience --------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 

Aircraft Most Frequently Flown ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 

Professional Aviation Careers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 

Training ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 7 

Safety Seminars -~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 7 

Critical Aviation Incidents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 

Personal Minimums ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 

Common Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 

Attitudes Toward Flying ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 9 

Participation in Future Research------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 34 

Pilot Demographics ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 5 

Flight Experience------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 5 

DISC US S I ON AND C 0 N C L US I 0 N S ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 

REFERENCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45 

APPEND IX - SURVEY INSTRUMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A 1 

v 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. 

Table 2. 

Table 3. 

Table 4. 

Table 5. 

Table 6. 

Table 7. 

Table 8. 

Table 9. 

Table 10. 

Table 11. 

Table 12. 

Table 13. 

Table 14. 

Table 15. 

Table 16. 

Table 17. 

Table 18. 

Table 19. 

Table 20. 

Table 21. 

Table 22. 

Table 23. 

Table 24. 

Table 25. 

Table 26. 

Table 27. 

Table 28. 

Table29. 

Table 30. 

Representative sample sizes and confidence intervals---------------------------------------------- 4 

Comparison of accident rates for all respondents and nonrespondents -------------------------- 6 

Comparison of response rates for certificate type -------------------------------------------------- 6 

Comparison of response status by gender for all pilots-------------------------------------------- 6 

Comparison of age and flight experience for all respondents and nonrespondents ------------ 6 

Comparison of response status by gender for private pilots -------------------------------------- 7 

Comparison of age and flight experience for respondent and · 

nonrespondent private pilots---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 

Com pari son of response status by gender for commercial pilots--------------------------------- 8 

Comparison of age and flight experience for respondent and 

nonrespondent commercial pilots ----------------------------------------------~----------------------- 8 

Comparison of response status by gender for airline 

transport pilots-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 

Comparison of age and flight experience for respondent and · 

nonrespondent airline transport pilots----------------------------------------------------------------- 9 

Aviation qualifications and experience--------------------------------------------------------------- 11 

Most frequently flown aircraft ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 

Present employer---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 

Present position ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 

First em p Ioyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 

First professional aviation position------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 

Locations worked during aviation career----------------------------------------------------------- 14 

Number of training experiences over preceding two years -------------------------------------- 15 

Attendance at safety seminars ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 

Involvement in hazardous events--------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 

Personal minimums for VFR flight------------------------------------------------------------------ 22 

Usual practices - local flights --------------~------------------------------------------------------- 24 

Usual practices- cross-country flights ----------------------------------------------------------- 27 

Opinions about flying ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 0 

Participation in future research ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 

Demographic information ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 5 

Flight time during preceding 6 months, 12 months, and total career-------------------------- 36 

Number of landings made ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 3 

Number of instrument approaches made------------------------------------------------------------ 43 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. 

Figure 2. 

Total flight hours for private pilots------------------------------------------------------------------ 42 

Total flight hours for commercial pilots------------------------------------------------------------ 42 

vi 
AIRMAN RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE: 

METHODOLOGYANDOVERALLRESULTS 

INTRODUCTION 

This report describes a large-scale, nationwide 

survey of pilots conducted by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. The survey was originally conceived as a means of obtaining data to be used in 

support of research on aeronautical decision making (ADM). While formulating plans for the ADM 

research it soon became clear that certain underlying data were not available-specifically data which 

described the population of pilots in the United 

States. Although the characteristics of pilots who 

are involved in accidents are routinely tabulated 

(c.f., NTSB, 1989), such information was lacking 

for the much larger group ·of pilots who had not 

experienced an accident. Thus, while the numerator (the pilots involved in accidents) was well 

known, the denominator {the population of pilots 

in general) in accident risk equations was often only 

poorly estimated. This was of particular concern in 

the ADM research, because of the need to focus 

interventions on those groups of pilots most at-risk 

for accident involvement. This requirement dictated 

that information be available on the underlying 

population in order to properly distinguish at-risk 

groups from those with comparatively little likelihood of experiencing an accident. 

Beyond this basic requirement, which would primarily be served by a detailed enumeration of flight 

times and similar characteristics, the use of a survey also provided a means for the collection of collateral information which could be of significant 

use when planning a marketing strategy for new 

ADM interventions. At present the primary vehicle 

for disseminating safety information used by the 

FAA is the safety seminar. These seminars are conducted at hundreds of locations across the country 

and draw thousands of pilots annually. Yet, little is 

known about which pilots attend the seminars, why 

they attend, what formats of instruction and topics 

are favored, and how often they attend. Therefore, 

1 

the scope of the survey was broadened to include 

questions relating to training in general, and safety 

seminars specifically. 

Besides including questions on training issues, 

additional sections were developed to assess other 

factors which might be related to safety and accident involvement. These sections included questions on involvement in hazardous events (such as 

running out of fuel), personal minimums, and attitudes toward flying. One section was also added 

specifically dealing with the career patterns of professional pilots, in anticipation of future research 

in that area. 

As eventually formulated, the goal of the survey 

was twofold. First, the survey should provide a reliable normative description of the pilot population 

that would serve as a basis for comparisons for relative risk evaluations. Secondly, the survey should 

provide an adequate database for exploratory research to evaluate the relationships among various 

pilot characteristics, behavior, and attitudes, and involvement in accidents or other critical events. 

The information gained from the survey will be 

used, therefore, both by the sponsoring organization in evaluating its safety seminar programs and 

by the research community in conducting ADM and 

other aviation safety-related research. 

METHOD 

Subjects 

Subjects were selected using simple random sampling without replacement from the population of 

active airmen listed in the FAA Airmen Certification System. An active airman is one who has been 

issued a valid airman medical certificate within the 

preceding 25 months. The total population is approximately 561,486 pilots (excluding student pilots), from which 20,000 subjects were drawn. 
Computer files were generated containing names, 

addresses, certificate types, and certain information 

(i.e., total flight times, employer) from the FAA 

Aeromedical Certification database and these files 

were in tum used to create a research database. That 

database was examined to identify ineligible subjects (i.e., those residing outside the United States) 

who were then eliminated. This process reduced the 

sample to 19,657. 

Questionnaire Development 

The questionnaire was designed to provide a thorough demographic profile of the pilot population 

and at the same time to provide initial information 

on a number of areas of particular interest. These 

areas included training experiences, involvement in 

incidents which had the potential for accidents, personal preferences and practices when flying, and 

attitudes about flying. The questions were refined 

a number of times and the questionnaire was reviewed by both general aviation and airline pilots 

for clarity of instructions, completeness of alternatives, and the use of appropriate language and terms. 

The questionnaire and survey principles established 

in the literature (Dillman, 197 8; Kanuk & Berenson, 

1975; Kish, 1965; Patten, 1950) were utilized in 

layout and overall design of the instrument. The 

questionnaire was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval and was subsequently assigned the OMB Approval Number of 

2120-0566. 

A trial version of the questionnaire was printed 

in an optically scannable booklet format and distributed to a small sample of pilots (500 cases independent ofthe 20,000 cases described above) to 

pre-test the questionnaire and the scanning and data 

reduction process. Along with the questionnaire an 

additional sheet was included which asked for the 

amount of time required to complete the questionnaire, assessments of the clarity of instructions, and 

any other comments which the respondents might 

care to make. Approximately 50 responses were 

received to this pilot study. The average time required for this group to complete the questionnaire 

was one hour. Instructions were all rated as very 

2 

clear and no comments requiring substantial modifications to the instrument were received. However, 

the questionnaire was shortened somewhat by reducing the number of questions relating to the numbers and types of jobs held by professional airmen 

in an effort to increase the response rates. 

The final version of the questionnaire contained 

143 items: 16 dealing with general aviation qualifications, 19 dealing with the number of hours 

logged during the last 6 months, last 12 months, 

and during the entire career of the respondent, 8 

questions dealing with the type of aircraft flown 

most frequently over the past year, 3 dealing with 

the careers of professional airmen, 15 dealing with 

training experiences, 13 questions regarding critical aviation incidents, 34 dealing with personal 

minimums and practices, 27 dealing with attitudes 

about flying, 5 dealing with participation in future 

research studies, and 3 dealing with general demographic information. 

The questionnaire was printed as an opticallyscannable booklet and incorporated a cover letter 

describing the project as the first page of the booklet. Each booklet contained a unique code number 

identifying the recipient. 

Mailing 

Questionnaire booklets were mailed to the sample 

of pilots along with a self-addressed business reply 

envelope. One week after the booklets were mailed, 

a postcard containing a reminder was mailed to all 

the sample. 

. All returned questionnaires were reviewed for 

stray marks and other damage before being scanned 

using an NCS Sentry 3000 optical mark scanner. 

Response files created by the scanner were transferred to a desk-top PC for further analysis using 

SPSS for Windows. 

Handwritten comments were received from approximately 500 respondents and were categorized 

using a procedure developed by the author and a 

summer intern. The analysis of those comments is 

outside the scope of this report, but will be described 

in a future publication. 
RESULTS 

Return Rates 

Of the 19,657 questionnaires mailed out, 390 

were returned as undeliverable-usually because 

the pilot had moved and the time limit on forwarding of mail had expired. In addition, 19 were returned because the pilot was deceased. This reduced 

the effective sample to 19,248. There were 6,808 

questionnaire booklets returned, of which 6,735 

were usable-the others having been so damaged 

in transit that they were not scannable. The effective return rate for the survey was therefore 35% 

(6, 735/19,248). 

Generalizability 

When dealing with self-administered mail survey data, such as are given in this report, one must 

appreciate the sources of error to which the data 

are subject. In general, these sources fall into two 

groups: sampling error and nonsampling error. Because it is important that these factors be understood to properly evaluate the results of this study, 

each will be described in some detail. The interested reader is also referred to any of several excellent texts on this subject (c.f., Henry, 1990; 

Fowler, 1993; Rea & Parker, 1992). 

Sampling Error. Sampling error is that error 

which is attributable to the sample drawn from the 

population of interest. It is the margin of error most 

commonly reported in descriptions of surveys and 

is typically stated to the effect that the survey responses are accurate to within plus or minus 5%. 

This statement means that there is a 95% (or greater) 

certainty that the observed value (for example, the 

percentage of pilots possessing an instrument rating in the current study) falls within 5% of the true 

or population value-that value which one would 

obtain if the entire population were measured on 

that attribute. 

It is necessary to state this confidence interval 

because the values obtained from any particular 

sample are only estimates of the population values. 

If one were to draw samples repeatedly from a large 

population one would find that the values obtained 

3 

vary. In the present study we obtained the responses 

of one sample of pilots drawn from the total population of pilots. However, if we were to draw another sample of 20,000 pilots at random from the 

population and ask them the same questions in exactly the same way then we would expect that their 

responses might differ slightly from those we obtained from the first sample. This is simply due to 

random fluctuations in the characteristics of the 

individuals comprising the samples. 

In general, the larger the samples we draw from 

the population, the smaller will be these differences. 

Further, for a large population such as we are dealing with here, the percentage of the population represented by a particular sample does not influence 

the accuracy of the data. Rather, it is the size of the 

sample. Thus, a sample of20,000 individuals drawn 

from a population of 500,000 produces the same 

degree of accuracy as a sample of20,000 individuals drawn from a population of 5,000,000. This is 

because the variability of the results depends solely 

upon the size of the sample and it is this variability 

that we are referring to when we talk about the accuracy of the results. 

For the most part the data to be presented in this 

study consist of proportions (usually expressed as 

percentages) which indicate what portion of the 

specified sample chose a particular alternative for 

each question. For example, one of the first questions asks whether the pilot has a multi-engine rating. The possible alternatives are yes and no, and 

the numbers reported are the percentages of pilots 

in each of the three certificate categories who chose 

each of those alternatives. Of the Private Pilots, 

11.3% indicated they had a multi-engine rating, 

while 88.7% indicated they did not. As noted earlier, if we were to repeat this survey with another 

group of randomly selected pilots, the responses to 

this question might be slightly different, simply as 

a result of random fluctuation in the group drawn 

from the population. The number which we obtain 

from any particular sample of that population is simply an estimate of the population value, and hence 

will be somewhat inaccurate. Fortunately, because 

we know the properties of this random variation, 

we know how accurate we may expect our results 
to be and can specify that accuracy as a function of 

the sample size. If we were examining the total respondent group (N = 6,735), then we could say (as 

illustrated in Table 1) that we were 99% sure that 

the true population value (for example the proportion of the total population that held a multi-engine 

rating) fell within the range of the observed value 

plus or minus 1.6%. That is, there is less than one 

chance out of a hundred that the true population 

value for the proportion of all pilots with multiengine ratings falls outside the range 47.4% to 

50.0% (48.7% ± 1.3%). Further, if we are willing to 

accept a somewhat more liberal level of confidence, 

as shown in the second column of Table 1 (labeled 

95% Confidence Interval), then we may narrow the 

range to 48.7% ± 1.2%, and be assured that the population value would exceed that range in only 5 cases 

out of a hundred. 

If we were limiting our analysis to only private 

pilots, then we might choose to use a 95% confidence interval of± 2.0% (midway between the entries for 2,000 and 3,000 subjects in Table 1), and 

our range for the proportion of private pilots who 

hold multi-engine ratings would be 9.3% to 13.3%. 

Similarly, if we wished to be 99% certain that our 

range included the true population value, then we would 

use± 2.7% as the confidence interval. 

Although Table 1 shows confidence intervals for 

a number of representative sample sizes, in the 

present analysis we need be concerned only with three 

values, corresponding to the sample sizes for the 

Table 1 

private, commercial, and airline transport certificate 

categories. Those samples are 2,548, 2,845, and 

1,218, respectively. The associated 95% confidence 

intervals are 2.0%, 1.9%, and 2.9%; the 99% confidence intervals are 2.7%, 2.5%, and 3.9%. When 

examining the results for the private and commercial pilots, then, we may be sure (with 95% confidence) that the results are accurate within about 2%, 

while the results for the airline transport pilots are 

accurate within about 3%. 

Nonsampling Error. Nonsampling error is that 

error which is attributable to factors which include: 

nonresponse, erroneous entries or deliberate falsehoods by the respondent, and data scanning or entry errors. Every survey is subject to these sources 

of error which may bias the results and efforts are 

typically undertaken to minimize these effects. 

Modern optically-scannable answer sheets greatly 

reduce the instances of erroneous data entry; however, even these devices are not error-free and some 

responses, particularly where the respondent has not 

followed the instruction and completely darkened 

the answer circle, may be misinterpreted. For this 

reason all the answer sheets in the current study 

were individually examined and, where necessary, 

extraneous marks were erased and responses darkened. It is more difficult to detect erroneous responses or deliberate falsehoods. Range-checking 

and comparison to other sources of information for 

the respondents can identify some questionable entries. In the current effort that process was used 

·Representative sample sizes and confidence intervals. 

Respondent N 

6,700 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

500 

400 

95% Confidence Interval 

1.2% 

1.3% 

1.4% 

1.5% 

1.8% 

2.2% 

3.1% 

4.4% 

4.9% 

4 

99% Confidence Interval 

1.6% 

1.7% 

1.8% 

2.0% 

2.4% 

2.9% 

4.1% 

5.8% 

6.4% 
to check on flight time entries by comparing respondents' values to those reported at the last airman medical examination. Even so, some errors 

remain, as indicated by the small number of Airline Transport pilots who reported having no instrument rating-an impossible combination. 

Additionally, in some cases respondents may not 

provide truthful answers to certain questions in order to place themselves in a more favorable light. 

Or, they may respond with what they believe to be 

more socially desirable answers or with the answers 

which they believe the researcher wants to hear, as 

opposed to the truth. The magnitude of these effects in the current instance is unknown, but may 

be assumed to be operating to at least some extent. 

To the degree these effects are present, of course, 

the results will be subject to additional error variance and possible bias. 

By far the largest potential source of nonsampling 

error in a mail survey is associated with nonresponse. In any survey of this type some number 

of persons who receive the questionnaire will fail 

to complete and return it. This may occur because 

they simply forget about the survey or lose it, they 

may not perceive the benefits of completing the 

survey to be worth the effort required, the questions contained in the survey may be considered too 

personal or irrelevant to the stated purpose of the 

survey, they may be disinclined to cooperate with 

the requesting organization, they may be unable to 

answer the questions posed, or they may have a 

personal policy about never completing mail surveys. This list of reasons for nonresponse is certainly not exhaustive, but simply serves to illustrate 

that individuals may choose not to participate in a 

survey for any number of reasons. If the reasons 

for not responding are unrelated to the purpose and 

content of the survey then no bias is introduced. 

For example, if a survey asked about number of 

household pets, some people might chose not to 

respond because they did not consider the survey 

important enough to bother with. If there is no correlation between the number of household pets and 

the choice to respond or not respond, then the 

nonresponse does not bias the results and accuracy 

does not suffer. However, if those with few pets 

5 

felt the survey to be irrelevant while those with 

many pets considered it an important inquiry, then 

the results would show an inflated or biased estimate ofthe true number of household pets, because 

those with many pets responded while those with 

few pets did not. 

For the most part, we can never be certain of the 

extent to which bias exists because of non-response. 

Clearly, having a small proportion of nonrespondents 

strengthens the argument that the results are not 

biased. However, even in those cases where there 

is a considerable proportion of nonrespondents the 

results may still be valid if the choice to respond or 

not respond was not based upon factors being assessed by the survey. To support the argument that 

the results were not biased by nonresponse, one typically compares the respondent and nonrespondent 

groups on those attributes for which information 

are available. Since in the present instance approximately 35% of the total sample of 20,000 pilots 

completed the survey while approximately 65% did 

not, a comparison of the respondent and nonrespondent groups to assess the presence of bias is 

certainly required and is presented in the tables 

which follow. 

Remember that one of the primary goals of this 

data collection effort was the development of adatabase that would support future inquiries into aviation safety and accident risk. Clearly, then, one of 

the primary concerns would be whether the respondent and nonrespondent groups differed on the key 

element of previous accident involvement. One 

might hypothesize that pilots who had been involved 

in accidents would be more reluctant to respond to 

a survey which asks questions regarding involvement in accidents and other critical events, possibly fearing some sort of retaliation by the FAA 

based upon their responses, or simply because of a 

general reluctance to rekindle past painful memories. This hypothesis is evaluated in Table 2 that 

compares the accident rates for the total respondent 

and nonrespondent groups. Accident data for this 

table were obtained by matching the sample against 

the database maintained by the National Transportation Safety Board. As shown, the results do not 

support that hypothesis. The accident rates of the 
Table 2 

Comparison of accident rates for all respondents and nonrespondents 

Accident Involvement 

Accident No Accident 

Response 3.0% 

Nonresponse 3.3% 

x2 (df =1) = 1.13 (nonsignificant) 

Table 3 

97.0% 

96.7% 

Comparison of response status for certificate type 

Response 

Non response 

x2 (df =2) = 15.65 (P < .01) 

Private 

39.5% 

38.8% 

Certificate 

Commercial 

42.2% 

40.4% . 

Table 4 

Airline Transport 

18.1% 

20.3% 

Comparison of response status by gender for all pilots 

Response 

Non response 

X2 (df =1) = 1.13 (nonsignificant) 

Table 5 

Male 

96.7% 

96.3% 

Gender 

Female 

3.3% 

3.7% 

Comparison of age and flight experience for all respondents and nonrespondents 

Age 

Recent Flight Time 

Total Flight Time 

** p < .01 

' 

N 

6727 

6727 

6727 

Respondents 

Mean S.D. 

50 13 

. 66 105 

3340 5360 

6 

Nonrespondents 

N Mean S.D. z 

12952 47 13 17.21** 

12952 75 120 5.86** 

12952 3454 5310 1.42 
respondent and nonrespondent groups are very similar and a nonsignificant chi square is obtained leading 

us to believe that past accident involvement did not influence the decision to respond to the survey. 

Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide some additional general comparisons of the respondent and nonrespondent groups. Table 3 demonstrates a significant 

difference in the response rates among the three pilot 

certificate levels. Although the absolute differences 

are not large (not more than 2% for any of the certificate groups) there is a significant difference in 

the response rates, with private pilots being the most 

likely to participate. 

Tables 4 and 5 continue the comparison of the 

combined groups on gender, age, and flight time. 

In the combined certificate group there was no significant difference in gender between the respondent and nonrespondent groups, as demonstrated by 

the nonsignificant chi square shown in Table 4. 

Overall, there was a three year difference in the 

mean ages of the respondent and nonrespondent 

groups which was statistically significant. Respondents tended to be slightly older than nonrespondents. 

Similarly, though not the degree obtained for age, there 

was a significant difference in the recent flight time. 

Nonrespondents reported having flown an average 

of75 hours of recent flight time, while respondents 

reported having flown 66 hours. Comparison of total flight time, however, showed no significant difference between the two groups. 

While the results shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5 give 

some overall sense of the differences which might 

exist between the respondent and nonrespondent 

groups, a much better understanding may be obtained by analyzing each of the pilot certificate 

groups separately, since in all the analyses which 

follow those three groups will be treated separately. 

Tables 6 through 11 shown the comparisons of the 

respondent and nonrespondent groups on gender, age, 

and flight time for each of the three certificate levels separately. Generally, these results follow the 

same pattern as was noted for the combined groups. 

Gender (except for the airline pilots) is unrelated 

to participation, as is total flight time. However, 

respondents for all the certificate levels tended to 

be somewhat older that the nonrespondents and, except for the private pilots, to have slightly less recent flight experience. 

Interpreting the results. Since we can never be 

certain that those who chose not to respond did not 

in some way bias the results of the survey, we are 

left with only logic and caution to guide us. Logic 

suggests that, based upon the foregoing analyses, 

the survey results underestimate recent flight time 

slightly. In any future analyses in which this would 

be a critical element, statistical manipulations of 

the results might well be called for to correct that 

imbalance. It would be particularly important to 

apply separate correction factors to each of the three 

certificate groups, since, as shown in Tables 7-11 

the magnitude and even the direction of the differences vary among these groups. In addition, the 

respondent group tends to be slightly older than the 

nonrespondent group. If a variable of interest were 

shown to covary with age, then some correction 

might also be necessary to account for this bias. 

Based upon the results of the analysis shown in 

Table 2 we have some reason to believe that accident involvement and, presumably, those factors 

associated with accident involvement, did not 

Table 6 

Comparison of response status by gender for private pilots 

Response 

Nonresponse 

l (df =1) = 0 (nonsignificant) 

7 

Male 

96.4% 

96.4% 

Gender 

Female 

3.6% 

3.6% 
Table 7 

Comparison of age and flight experience for respondent and nonrespondent private pilots 

Age 

Recent Flight Time 

Total Flight Time 

•• p < .01 

N 

2658 

2658 

2658 

Respondents 

Mean S.D. 

49 13 

25 35 

803 1338 

Table 8 

Nonrespondents 

N Mean S.D. 

5021 46 13 

5021 23 39 

5021 807 1556 

Comparison of response status by gender for commercial pilots 

Response 

Non response 

X2 (df =1) = 1.21 (nonsignificant) 

Table 9 

Male 

96.4% 

95.9% 

Gender 

Female 

3.6% 

4.1% 

z 

9.61** 

2.64** 

0.13 

Comparison of age and flight experience for respondent and non respondent commercial pilots 

Age 

Recent Flight Time 

Total Flight Time 

•• p < .01 

N 

2836 

2836 

2836 

Respondents 

Mean S.D. 

52 14 

55 83 

2846 4227 

8 

N 

5227 

5227 

5227 

Nonrespondents 

Mean S.D. 

47 14 

63 102 

2702 3929 

z 

12.84** 

3.97** 

1.49 
Table 10 

Comparison of response status by gender for airline transport pilots 

Response 

Non response 

X2 (df =1 > = 5.86 (p < .05) 

Male 

98.3 

96.9 

Gender 

Female 

1.7 

3.1 

Table 11 

Comparison of age and flight experience for respondent and 

nonrespondent airline transport pilots 

Respondents 

N Mean S.D. 

Age 1216 49 12 

Recent Flight Time 1216 178 159 

Total Flight Time 1216 10010 7337 

** p < .01 

influence the decision to respond. Hence, there is 

some justification for accepting the results of those 

questions dealing with involvement in critical incidents, personal minimums, and attitudes about flying 

as not having been biased by nonresponse effects. 

Nevertheless, those who utilize these results must 

bear in mind the possible inaccuracies which may 

enter into the self-report data given here and are 

cautioned against making sweeping generalizations 

based upon these data without considering the possible range of error and the impact such error could 

have upon their conclusions. The sample sizes used 

here are more than sufficient to provide good control of sampling error which may be reliably estimated based upon the numbers provided. However, 

nonresponse bias is, more or less by definition, unknown and unknowable. No doubt the length of this 

survey (some participants reported spending over 

9 

Nonrespondents 

N Mean S.D. z 

2634 47 12 6.11 ** 

2634 198 163 3.63** 

2634 9958 6767 0.21 

four hours completing it) dissuaded many from even 

attempting it. In addition, many comments were 

received from nonrespondents to the effect that they 

were unwilling to trust the FAA not to use the information to their detriment. How these and other 

factors combined to influence the nonresponse rate 

is unknown. As noted before, it appears that these 

factors had only a limited effect on the accuracy of 

the results. Thus, these data seem to represent the 

best reasonably accurate estimates of these variables 

available; but, caution in their interpretation and 

use is strongly urged. 

Analyses of Responses 

In the sections which follow we present the percentages of respondents selecting each of the response alternatives for each question. Where an 

exact numerical entry was required, as for example 
in the questions regarding flight time, the mean and 

standard deviation of the responses are given. For 

almost all of the questions requiring a numerical 

entry the median of the responses is also given. 

The values are provided for all questions separately for each of the three pilot certificate categories: Private (N = 2,548), Commercial (N = 2,845), 

and Airline Transport (N = 1,218). Cases that did 

not fall into one of these three categories (for example, those pilots who reported having a student 

or recreational pilot license or who left this question blank) were excluded from the analyses. There 

were 124 cases so excluded. 

The order of presentation in these analyses generally follows the order of presentation in the questionnaire. The exact wording given in the questionnaire 

may be compared to the abbreviated wording given 

in the analyses by referring to Appendix A, which 

contains the actual instrument used for data collection. 

Given the extent of this database, an exhaustive 

analysis of the data in a single report is neither feasible nor desirable. Additional analyses of the characteristics associated with particular subgroups may 

be conducted in the future, provided there are sufficient numbers of cases available: At some points 

in the discussion of the results, follow-on analyses 

of this sort may be suggested where the results seem 

to raise particularly interesting questions. The 

reader must keep in mind however, that these are 

only suggestions at this point and that any analyses 

of that type must be predicated upon the availabililty 

of adequate data. Since it is difficult, if not impossible, to know a priori the research needs which 

may be served by these data and the exact form of 

the questions which need to be . addressed, such 

analyses will not be undertaken at this time. It is 

the intent in this initial report, therefore, to simply 

present the basic enumerations of responses and to 

defer more extensive analyses, particularly those 

involving subgroupings of the data where feasible, 

for future reports. 

Aviation Qualifications and Experience 

One of the goals of this research was to develop a 

normative database which could be used in later research to compare accident-involved pilots with those 

10 

who have not been involved in accidents and, if feasible, to develop a procedure for describing at-risk 

pilots. The data in Table 12 are the first elements of 

that normative database and provide information not 

formerly available on the characteristics of the pilot 

population. Although it is possible to make comparisons among the three certificate categories, the primary interest at this point is to better understand the 

characteristics of each individual group - recognizing that those with higher level certificates have 

of necessity passed through the lower stages at some 

point. 

Aircraft Most Frequently Flown 

Several questions asked about the characteristics 

of the aircraft that had been flown most frequently 

over the last year. Table 13 presents the responses 

for those questions. As might be expected, private 

pilots predominately flew single-engine piston aircraft with fixed landing gear, while those pilots .with 

more advanced certificates flew a progressively wider 

variety of aircraft types. For all pilot groups, however, the median number of different aircraft flown 

was two. 

Professional Aviation Careers 

One section of the questionnaire was devoted specifically to developing a better understanding of the 

career process of professional airmen. This section 

was included to provide baseline data on career progression that might be of use in later studies. The 

data also allow us to better break down the heterogeneous Commercial and ATP groups for possible 

studies dealing with only flight instructors or Part 

121 pilots, for example. Because the first question 

in this series asked whether the pilot had ever been 

employed as a professional airman and directed those 

who had not to skip the following section, the numbers of pilots completing these questions is somewhat reduced. In addition, the question corresponding 

to Table 18 allowed for multiple responses, therefore no total is given. 
Table 12 

Aviation Qualifications and Experience 

Most Advanced Certificate 

Private Commercial ATP 

01. Source of training 

Military flying school 0.8% 10.4% 19.1% 

Civilian (141) school 19.2% 21.4% 25.1% 

CFI at a FBO 47.5% 38.9% 32.6% 

CFI at a Club 11 .5% 11.6% 8.3% 

CFI independent 18.4% 14.1% 11 .8% 

Other 2.5% 3.5% 3.1% 

05. Instrument rating 

No 60.9% 11.2% 0.5% 

Yes, for airplane 39.1% 86.0% 93.2% 

Yes, for rotorcraft 0.7% 0.4% 

Yes, for both 2.1% 5.9% 

06. Multi-engine rating 

Yes 11.3% 61 .0% 98.7% 

No 88.7% 39.0% 1.3% 

07. Rotorcraft rating 

Yes 1.4% 8.4% 12.8% 

No 98.6% 91.6% 87.2% 

Q8. Glider rating 

Yes 3.8% 9.8% 12.9% 

No 96.2% 90.2% 87.1% 

09. Ever fly as a military pilot 

Yes 1.9% 15.1% 28.4% 

No 98.1% 84.9% 71.6% 

010. Certified Flight Instructor 

Never 99.6% 51.7% 26.2% 

Expired 0.4% 12.3% 24.2% 

Yes, current 36.0% 49.6% 

011. Type of Medical Certificate 

None/Expired 2.5% 2.6% 3.0% 

Class 3 65.6% 18.4% 5.0% 

Class 2 30.3% 71.3% 29.4% 

Class 1 1.6% 7.7% - 62.6% 

012. Have a special issuance medical 

Yes 23.8% 13.5% 11 .2% 

No 76.2% 86.5% .88.8% 

11 
Table 13 

Most Frequently Flown Aircraft 

Most Advanced Certificate 

Private Commercial ATP 

036. Number of engines: 

None 8.6% 7.7% 5.6% 

One engine 85.7% 78.8% 27.2% 

Two engines 5.6% 12.9% 55.5% 

Three engines 0.0% 0.1% 6.9% 

Four engines 0.2% 0.5% 4.8% 

037. Type of engines: 

None/NA 7.7% 7.4% 5.3% 

Piston engine 91.3% 87.9% 37.3% 

Turbo-Prop 0.6% 2.5% 18.5% 

Jet 0.4% 2.2% 38.9% 

038. Wing configuration: 

None/NA 7.5% 6.7% 5.5% 

High Wing 52.0% 48.4% 21.8% 

Low Wing 38.7% 40.7% 65.8% 

Mid Wing 1.0% 1.9% 4.6% 

Rotary wing 0.8% 2.4% 2.2% 

039. Landing gear: 

None/NA 7.6% 6.6% 5.0% 

Fixed gear 67.8% 58.1% 19.8% 

Retractable gear 24.7% 35.3% 75.2% 

040. Number of places: 

1 Place 0.8% 2.3% 0.8% 

2 Places 17.3% 16.2% 5.7% 

3-4 Places 70.5% 61.1% 20.8% 

5-6 Places 10.2% 15.6% 12.8% 

7-12 Places 1.0% 3.3% 25.0% 

13-24 Places 0.5% 6.8% 

25-50 Places 0.4% 6.9% 

51-100 Places 0.2% 2.5% 

101+ Places 0.2% 0.3% 18.6% 

041. Cruising speed (MPH): 

Less than 50 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 

50-100 10.4% 9.1% 2.3% 

101-150 66.4% 56.6% 20.9% 

151-250 21.7% 30.2% 23.2% 

251-400 0.6% 2.1% 15.8% 

400+ 0.4% 1.4% 37.5% 

042. Pressurized: 

Yes 2.3% 6.0% 59.4% 

No 97.7% 94.0% 40.6% 

043. How many different aircraft flown in last year 

Mean 2 3 4 

Median 2 2 2 

Standard Deviation 7 9 5 

1 2 
Flight School 

Air Taxi 

Self Employed 

Part 135 

Part 121 

Corporate 

Agricultural 

Military 

Other Govt 

Other 

Total 

Flight Instructor 

Co-pilot/First Officer 

Pilot/Captain 

Navigator 

Flight Engineer 

Other 

Total 

N 

149 

42 

109 

13 

19 

46 

25 

46 

27 

39 

515 

N 

253 

44 

176 

4 

6 

41 

524 

Table 14 

Present Employer 

Commercial 

% 

28.9% 

8.1% 

21.1% 

2.5% 

3.6% 

8.9% 

4.8% 

8.9% 

5.2% 

7.5% 

Table 15 

Present Position 

Commercial 

% 

48.2% 

8.4% 

33.5% 

0.7% 

1.1% 

7.8% 

13 

N 

56 

55 

34 

46 

301 

175 

1 

17 

51 

39 

775 

N 

80 

124 

473 

0 

11 

68 

756 

ATP 

ATP 

% 

7.2% 

7.1% 

4.3% 

5.9% 

38.8% 

22.5% 

0.1% 

2.1% 

6.5% 

5.0% 

% 

10.5% 

16.4% 

62.5% 

0.0% 

1.4% 

8.9% 
Table 16 

First Employer 

Commercial ATP 

N % N % 

Flight School 262 45.8% 408 50.0% 

Air Taxi 39 6.8% 80 9.8% 

Self Employed 69 12.0% 28 3.4% 

Part 135 1 0.1% 19 2.3% 

Part 121 7 1.2% 29 3.5% 

Corporate 21 3.6% 50 6.1% 

Agricultural 19 3.3% 5 0.6% 

Military 95 16.6% 160 19.6% 

Other Govt 15 2.6% 10 1.2% 

Other 43 7.5% 27 3.3% 

Total 571 816 

Table 17 

First Professional Aviation Position 

Commercial ATP 

N % N % 

Flight Instructor 324 57.2% 442 54.9% 

Co-piloUFirst Officer 39 6.8% 132 16.4% 

PiloUCaptain 162 28.6% 194 24.1% 

Navigator 7 1.2% 5 0.6% 

Flight Engineer 10 1.7% 24 2.9% 

Other 24 4.2% 8 0.9% 

Total 566 805 

Table 18 

Locations worked during aviation career 

Commercial ATP 

N % N % 

Flight School 371 62.6% 574 68.8% 

Air Taxi 207 34.9% 561 67.2% 

Self Employed 263 44.4% 316 37.8% 

Part 135 60 10.1% 336 40.2% 

Part 121 31 5.2% 379 45.4% 

Corporate 120 20.2% 449 53.8% . 

Agricultural 56 9.4% 41 4.9% 

Military 119 20.1% 214 25.6% 

Other Govt 53 8.9% 90 10.7% 

Other 91 15.3% 105 12.5% 

14 
Training 

An area of particular interest to organizations disseminating safety information is that dealing with 

training. The questions relating to the number of 

training experiences over the last two years are given 

in Table 19. Clearly, the ATP and Commercial groups 

engage in more and different training activities than 

the Private group; however, even the majority of the 

Private pilots report having had some generic groundbased training over the last two years. In addition, 

80% of the Private Pilots have had some in-flight 

training during that period. 

Safety Seminars 

As shown in Table 20, the FAA Safety Seminars 

attract predominately Private and Commercial pilots. 

Even among these groups, however, half report having never attended or having attended only once in 

the last two years. The most frequently reported reason for not attending among all three groups is that 

they are too busy, with location being another major 

consideration. Interestingly, the most appealing 

topic-pilot techniques-is probably the one least 

amenable to instruction in the typical lecture-oriented 

safety seminar. 

Over the last several years the FAA has produced 

publications, videotapes, and other training materials dealing with aeronautical decision making. In 

most of these training materials the concept of hazardous thoughts, developed by Berlin et al. (1982a, 

b, c) based upon work by Jensen and Benel (1977), 

has been presented. The responses to Question 60 

would suggest that, despite these efforts, this concept 

has reached only about half of the pilot population. 

Critical Aviation Incidents 

Like the tip of the iceberg, accidents are only the 

visible part of a much larger body of events which, 

for various reasons, do not result in catastrophe. 

1 5 

Many times pilots are involved in situations that do 

not develop into reportable accidents or incidents but 

might have done so had the situation changed even 

slightly. Because of the skill of the pilot, the reliability of the mechanical systems, or the capacity of 

the air traffic control system, situations which have 

the potential for serious consequences are neutralized. Yet, had the pilot been a little rusty, had the 

backup system also failed, or had the controller not 

provided a vital bit of information, then the chain of 

events leading to an accident might have ensued. 

Accidents are relatively rare events in modern 

aviation. Demonstrating an impact on accident rates 

is therefore difficult because of the small number of 

events involved. However, if accidents are outgrowths of hazardous events and if hazardous events 

are much more common, even though they do not in 

the vast majority of times lead to an accident, then 

one might evaluate the impact of a safety training 

program by measuring the reduction in hazardous 

events. The logic being, if there are fewer hazardous 

events, then there should be fewer accidents. 

Table 21 lists many hazardous events and the proportions of each certificate group who have experienced such events. Quite clearly, the data show that 

the more you fly, the more likely you are to have 

experienced one or more such events. Whereas 9% 

of the Private Pilots have been in an accident, 18% 

of the Airline Transport Pilots reporting having been 

in one or more accidents. 

Continued VFR flight into IMC is the single largest cause of fatal accidents (particularly among the 

general aviation community). It is interesting to note, 

therefore, that 25% of the Private Pilots report having flown into these conditions at least once. Turning back because of weather is a common practice, 

however, with about 72% of the Private Pilots reporting having turned back at some time. 
·Table 19 

Number of Training Experiences over Preceding Two Years 

Private Commercial 

047. Generic ground-based- not for a specific aircraft/system. 

0 (None) 42.4% 40.9% 

1 time 16.8% 15.1% 

2 times 11.6% 11.6% 

3 times 6.6% 6.6% 

4-6 times 9.6% 8.7% 

7-10 times 4.2% 4.8% 

11-20 times 3.5% 3.3% 

21+ times 5.2% 9.0% 

048. Ground-based for a specific aircraft/system. 

0 (None) 63.3% 

1 time 12.6% 

2 times 8.6% 

3 times 4. 7% 

4-6 times 4.6% 

7-10 times 2.4% 

11-20 times 2.0% 

21 + times 1.8% 

58.5% 

11.4% 

9.6% 

4.0% 

6.1 o/o 

2.8% 

3.1 o/o 

4.5% 

049. Generic procedure trainer- not for a specific aircraft/system. 

0 (None) 84.5% 85.3% 

1 time 4.9% 4.3% 

2 times 3.7% 2.8% 

3 times 1.4% 1.8% 

4-6 times 1.9% 2.2% 

7-10 times 1.1% 1.2% 

11-20 times .6% .8% 

21 +times 1.9% 1.7% 

050. Procedure trainer for a specific aircraft/system. 

0 (None) 85.2% 

1 time 5.0% 

2 times 3. 7% 

3 times 1.1 o/o 

4-6 times 2.2% 

7-10 times .6% 

11-20 times 1.0% 

21 +times 1.2% 

051 . Generic flight simulator (not motion based). 

0 (None) 85.7% 

1 time 3.6% 

2 times 2.1 o/o 

3 times 1.1 o/o 

4-6 times 2.2% 

6-10 times 2.2% 

11-20 times 1.3% 

21 +times 1.8% 

1 6 

83.2% 

4.2% 

3.4% 

1.6% 

2. 7% 

1.6% 

1.3% 

2.0% 

81 .9% 

4.2% 

2.9% 

1. 9% 

3.0% 

1. 9% 

1.5% 

2.8% 

ATP 

37.3% 

12.5% 

15.0% 

6.4% 

11.4% 

5.6% 

4.4% 

7.5% 

22.1% 

9.8% 

19.8% 

6.6% 

15.3% 

4.5% 

4.8% 

17.1% 

84.0% 

4.0% 

2.8% 

1.3% 

3.7% 

2.7% 

.5% 

1.0% 

54.8% 

8.5% 

9.0% 

3.6% 

9.6% 

4. 7% 

3.6% 

6.3% 

85.2% 

3.2% 

2.2% 

1.1% 

3.0% 

1.8% 

1.5% 

1. 9% 
Table 19 (Continued) 

Private Commercial 

052. Flight simulator for a specific aircraft (not motion based). 

0 (None) 94.2% 90.2% 

1 time 1.5% 2.6% 

2 times 0.8% 1.3% 

3 times 0.5% 0.6% 

4-6 times 0.9% 1.6% 

6-10times 0.5% 1.4% 

11-20 times 0.6% 0.8% 

21 +times 0.8% 1.3% 

053. Generic flight simulator (motion based). 

0 (None) 98.1% 

1 time 0.7% 

2 times 0.4% 

3 times 0.0% 

4-6 times 0.2% 

6-10 times 0.2% 

11-20 times 0.1% 

21 +times 0.3% 

96.4% 

1.3% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

054. Flight simulator for a specific aircraft (motion based). 

0 (None) 96.5% 91.4% 

1 time 1.5% 2.6% 

2 times 0.7% 1.5% 

3times .1% 0.5% 

4-6 times 0.4% 0.8% 

6-10 times 0.3% 0.9% 

11-20 times 0.3% 0.9% 

21 +times 0.4% 1.4% 

055. In-flight training. 

0 (None) 20.9% 23.4% 

1 time 14.1% 12.0% 

2 times 14.3% 14.2% 

3 times 8.2% 8.2% 

4-6 times 13.0% 14.9% 

6-10 times 7.0% 8.0% 

11-20 times 7.6% 6.9% 

21 +times 14.9% 12.4% 

1 7 

ATP 

83.2% 

4.5% 

2.2% 

1.6% 

2.6% 

2.1% 

1.4% 

2.3% 

92.8% 

1.7% 

1.0% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

1.3% 

38.3% 

6.9% 

7.1% 

2.6% 

14.0% 

4.4% 

9.5% 

17.1% 

30.8% 

11 .7% 

12.4% 

8.7% 

16.0% 

5.0% 

5.6% 

9.8% 
Table 20 

Attendance at Safety Seminars 

Private Commercial 

056. How many FAA safety seminars attended over last two years: 

Never 35.2% 33.2% 

One 19.7% 20.8% 

Two to Five 38.0% 38.1 o/o 

Move than five 7.1 o/o 7.8% 

057. Why do you not attend: 

Location 17.3% 15.8% 

Time 11.8% 10.0% 

Irrelevant material 2.2% 4.0% 

Too busy 20.2% 19.3% 

Poor quality 1.6% 2.0% 

Other 8.8% 8.8% 

NA, I attend 38.2% 40.2% 

' 

058. Most appealing seminar subject: 

FARs 14.5% 19.1% 

Airspace 13.8% 12.3% 

Weather 21.6% 18.7% 

Flight Planning 3.4% 2.8% 

Pilot Techniques 23.3% 22.7% 

Stall/Spin 2. 7% 1.6% 

Pilot Certification & Training 1.4% '3.4% 

Local Flying Environment 15.7% 14.5% 

Other 3.6% 4.9% 

059. How many non-FAA Seminars over last two years: 

Never 50.0% 38.9% 

One 19.4% 23.5% 

Two to Five times 23.6% 27.6% 

More than five times 7.0% 10.0% 

060. Hazardous thoughts discussed in any training: 

Yes 43.4% 49.5% 

No 56.6% 50.5% 

061. Interested in voluntary FAA checks? 

Yes · 68.5% 65.2% 

No 31.5% 34.8% 

1 8 

ATP 

58.1 o/o 

15.2% 

21.0% 

5. 7% 

11 .7% 

7.7% 

18.6% 

22.2% 

1.9% 

11.9% 

26.0% 

26.9% 

11.4% 

15.1% 

1. 9% 

17.4% 

2.2% 

5.1 o/o 

9.6% 

10.5% 

27.0% 

. 16.8% 

41.3% 

14.8% 

57.0% 

43.0% 

56.2% 

43.8% 
Table 21 

Involvement in Hazardous Events 

Private Commercial ATP 

062. Number of aircraft accidents 

0 90.9% 82.6% 82.4% 

1 7.6% 12.6% 12.8% 

2 1.2% 3.1% 3.6% 

3 0.2% 1.2% 1.0% 

4 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 

5 0.1% 0.1% 

6+ 0.1% 0.1% 

063. Low fuel incidents 

0 80.2% 66.0% 63.4% 

1 15.9% 23.8% 24.6% 

2 3.0% 6.8% 8.4% 

3 0.7% 1.6% 1.7% 

4 0.1% 0.6% 0.6% 

5 0.2% 0.3% 

6+ 0.2% 1.0% 1.0% 

064. On-Airport Precautionary/forced landings 

0 54.1% 40.5% 34.7% 

1 23.0% 20.6% 19.0% 

2 11 .0% 15.2% 14.5% 

3 4.0% 6.8% 9.9% 

4 2.0% 4.5% 4.7% 

5 1.1% 2.1% 2.5% 

6+ 4.7% 10.3% 14.7% 

065. Off-airport precaution/forced landings 

0 93.4% 82.4% 82.4% 

1 4.9% 9.9% 12.1% 

2 1.0% 2.8% 1.8% 

3 0.1% 1.7% 1.3% 

4 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 

5 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 

6+ 0.3% 2.3% 1.8% 

066. Inadvertent stalls 

0 94.2% 90.2% 90.9% 

1 4.5% 6.2% 5.4% 

2 0.7% 1.7% 1.8% 

3 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 

4 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 

5 0.1% 0.2% 

6+ 0.2% 1.1% 1.3% 

1 9 
Table 21 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

Q67. Disoriented (lost) 

0 82.8% 83.0% 85.7% 

1 14.3% 13.4% 11.5% 

2 2.3% 2.6% 2.4% 

3 0.4% 0.7% 0.2% 

4 0.1% 0.1% 

5 0.1% 0.2% 

6+ 0.1% 0.1% 

Q68. Mechanical failures 

0 54.7% 32.6% 16.0% 

1 27.3% 26.1% 16.5% 

2 10.2% 16.8% 17.8% 

3 . 4.0% 9.0% 14.7% 

4 1.5% 5.0% 8.9% 

5 0.5% 2.0% 3.8% 

6+ 1.7% 8.6% 22.3% 

Q69. Engine quit due to fuel starvation. 

0 92.7% 84.0% 83.1 o/o 

1 5.6% 12.0% 11.9% 

2 0.9% 2.6% 3.2% 

3 0.4% 0.9% 0.7% 

4 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 

5 0.1% 0.1% 

6+ 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 

Q70. Flown VFR into IMC 

0 76.7% 77.9% 84.7% 

1 14.7% 13.8% 9.4% 

2 5.5% 4.9% 4.3% 

3 1.2% 1.5% 0.8% 

4 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 

5 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 

6+ 0.8% 1.1% 0.2% 

Q71. IMC disorientation (vertigo) 

0 94.6% 90.5% 91.4% 

1 4.1% 7.2% 6.0% 

2 1.0% 1.6% 2.0% 

3 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 

4 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 

6+ 0.1% 0.2% 

20 
Table 21 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

072. Turned back due to weather 

0 28.6% 22.9% 32.9% 

1 20.8% 16.1% 10.9% 

2 18.5% 17.8% 16.7% 

3 10.1% 11.2% 11.1% 

4 4.5% 5.9% 4.8% 

.5 2.8% 2.8% 2.3% 

6+ 14.6% 23.3% 21 .3% 

073. Practice DF approach 

0 63.7% 42.4% 32.6% 

1 127% 12.9% 10.0% 

2 9.8% 11 .2% 11 .1% 

3 4.6% 6.9% 8.0% 

4 2.0% 3.7% 4.6% 

5 1.0% 1.9% 2.7% 

6+ 6.0% 21.1% 31.0% 

074. Made a very bad decision 

0 47.9% 33.2% 28.1% 

1 31 .7% 29.0% 22.6% 

2 13.3% 20.4% 22.2% 

3 3.8% 8.8% 10.3% 

4 1.6% 3.3% 5.1% 

5 0.6% 0.9% 2.0% 

6+ 1.0% 4.4% 9.7% 

21 
Personal Minimums 

Although the FAA establishes the legal minimum 

conditions under which a pilot may undertake a flight, 

many individuals adopt more stringent personal minimums as a way of controlling risk and ensuring safety. 

These personal minimums reflect individual pilots' 

self-assessment of skill and knowledge and their estimate of the degree of risk associated with operating 

under varying weather conditions. This topic has been 

widely discussed in the popular aviation literature ( c.f., 

Clausing, 1990) and Kirkbride, Jensen, Chubb, and 

Hunter (in press) have developed a personal minimums 

tool to assist pilots in managing risk during preflight 

planning. 

Table 22 presents the minimum conditions under 

which pilots would conduct a VFR flight in a light 

general aviation aircraft. The results clearly show a 

tendency for pilots to be more conservative both in 

terms of increased visibility and increased ceiling 

when considering night or cross-country flights, compared to local day flights. Interestingly, however, 9% 

of the private pilots indicated they would start a local 

day flight with less than 3 miles visibility. Although 

there are conditions under which this would be legal 

(for example, operating outside controlled airspace, 

departing a controlled airport under Special VFR) 

whether it is an advisable practice is another matter. 

Subsequent analyses will examine the characteristics 

Table 22 

Personal Minimums for VFR Flight 

Private Commercial ATP 

075. Local day minimum visibility 

1 MILE 3.8% 6.8% 6.1% 

2 MILES 5.3% 6.5% 5.7% 

3 MILES 45.3% 54.8% 57.7% 

4 MILES 6.0% 6.1% 3.8% 

5 MILES 29.8% 21.3% 22.6% 

6 MILES 2.5% 1.5% 0.6% 

8 MILES 1.7% 0.7% 0.3% 

10 MILES 4.5% 1.5% 2.1% 

15 MILES 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 

076. Local night minimum visibility 

1 MILE 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 

2 MILES 0.5% 0.7% 0.9% 

3 MILES 10.5% 16.4% 27.6% 

4 MILES 1.6% 2.8% 2.6% 

5 MILES 33.4% 42.0% 43.5% 

6 MILES 6.0% 5.7% 3.7% 

8 MILES 6.0% 5.2% 3 .. 1% 

10 MILES 26.3% 18.7% 13.4% 

15 MILES 4.7% 7.6% 4.2% 

077. Cross-country day minimum visibility. 

1 MILE 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 

2 MILES 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% 

3 MILES 18.1% 25.6% 28.6% 

4 MILES 2.7% 4.0% 2.5% 

5 MILES 37.3% 40.9% 41 .1% 

6 MILES 5.9% 5.2% 4.2% 

8 MILES 6.6% 4.6% 4.1% 

10 MILES 19.5% 13.6% 13.1% 

15 MILES 7.9% 3.8% 4.2% 

22 
Table 22 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

078. Cross-Country night minimum visibility 

1 MILE 0.7% 0.4% 0.9% 

2 MILES 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 

3 MILES 5.8% 7.8% 12.9% 

4 MILES 0.9% 1.5% 0.8% 

5 MILES 19.5% 29.2% 35.4% 

6 MILES 3.5% 4.5% 3.0% 

8 MILES 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 

10 MILES 28.0% 27.1% 26.3% 

15 MILES 35.3% 23.1% 14.3% 

079. Local day minimum ceiling 

1000 FEET 14.6% 28.4% 36.5% 

1500 FEET 24.1% 31.1% 27.1% 

2000 FEET 29.4% 23.5% 9.3% 

3000 FEET 25.0% 14.2% 12.7% 

4000 FEET 3.5% 1.7% 1.2% 

5000 FEET 3.4% 1.0% 3.1% 

080. Local night minimum ceiling 

1000 FEET 1.9% 5.7% 11.9% 

1500 FEET 5.2% 11.4% 15.8% 

2000 FEET 16.3% 25.4% 28.0% 

3000 FEET 33.4% 34.1% 28.7% 

4000 FEET 12.8% 7.5% 3.6% 

5000 FEET 30.3% 15.9% 12.1% 

081. Cross-Country day minimum ceiling 

1000 FEET 2.7% 5.8% 8.0% 

1500 FEET 4.8% 9.6% 9.8% 

2000 FEET 14.2% 22.0% 20.4% 

3000 FEET 38.4% 37.8% 36.6% 

4000 FEET 15.5% 11 .2% 8.1% 

5000 FEET 24.2% 13.6% 17.2% 

082. Cross-Country night minimum ceiling 

1000 FEET 1.0% 2.1% 4.6% 

1500 FEET 1.1% 2.9% 3.3% 

2000 FEET 5.2% 9.4% 12.6% 

3000 FEET 18.2% 25.0% 29.8% 

4000 FEET 12.8% 14.7% 8.9% 

5000 FEET 61.8% 46.0% 40.8% 

23 
of those pilots who indicated more conservative minimums compared to those who have less conservative 

mtmmums. 

flight safety. As was found in the personal minimums 

questions, pilots are clearly more conservative when 

undertaking cross-country as compared to local flights. 

Although only about 56% of the private pilots get a 

Common Practices weather briefing more than half of the time before talcTable 23 and 24 present, for local and cross-coun- ing off for a local flight, 96% of the pilots indicate 

try flights, respectively, the percentages of times that they get a weather briefing more than half of the time 

pilots perform many common activities related to before taking off for a cross-country flight. 

Table 23. 

Usual Practices - Local Flights 

Private Commercial ATP 

Q83. Get weather briefing before take off 

0 PERCENT 9.5% 8.9% 8.0% 

10 PERCENT 10.2% 12.2% 92% 

25 PERCENT 8.8% 9.6% 8.1% 

50 PERCENT 14.3% 14.8% 13.1% 

75 PERCENT 8.4% 8.0% 7.4% 

90 PERCENT 12.4% 11.9% 9.5% 

100 PERCENT 36.0% 33.5% 40.3% 

NA 0.5% 1.3% 4.4% 

Q84. Top off/check fuel tanks 

0 PERCENT 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 

10 PERCENT 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 

25 PERCENT 0.3% .4% 0.5% 

50 PERCENT 1.4% 1.4% 1.6% 

75 PERCENT 1.4% 1.1% 1.5% 

90 PERCENT 2.6% 3.2% 1.8% 

100 PERCENT 93.6% 92.3% 89.4% 

NA 0.2% 0.6% 4.1% 

Q85. Compute weight/balance 

0 PERCENT 22.5% 17.7% 13.0% 

10 PERCENT 22.0% 23.3% 17.9% 

25 PERCENT 11 .8% 11 .3% 9.2% 

50 PERCENT 14.0% 14.5% 13.7% 

75 PERCENT 5.1% 5.0% 4.7% 

90 PERCENT 2.5% 2.6% 2.4% 

100 PERCENT 19.8% 22.7% 33.0% 

NA 2.2% 2.9% 6.1% 

Q86. Perform complete pre-flight 

0 PERCENT 0.1% 0.2% 

10 PERCENT 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 

25 PERCENT 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

50 PERCENT 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 

75 PERCENT 0.6% 1.1% 0.8% 

90 PERCENT 3.0% 3.8% 3.0% 

100 PERCENT 94.7% 92.2% 90.0% 

NA 0.4% 0.9% 3.9% 

24 
Table 23 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

087. Use a checklist for landing & takeoff 

0 PERCENT 3.3% 3.3% 2.8% 

10 PERCENT 1.5% 2.8% 1.7% 

25 PERCENT 1.6% 1.7% 1.0% 

50 PERCENT 4 .. 1% 4.6% 4.1% 

75 PERCENT 2.6% 3.5% 2.4% 

90 PERCENT 7.5% 7.5% 5.4% 

100 PERCENT 79.0% 75.9% 78.7% 

NA 0.4% 0.8% 3.9% 

088. Compute expected fuel consumption 

0 PERCENT 18.7% 17.2% 8.6% 

10 PERCENT 8.2% 8.2% 6.1% 

25 PERCENT 6.4% 6.3% 3.8% 

50 PERCENT 10.6% 9.0% 7.3% 

75 PERCENT 4.4% 3.3% 3.1% 

90 PERCENT 3.6% 3.7% 4.4% 

100 PERCENT 46.5% 50.0% 61 .5% 

NA 1.6% 2.3% 5.1% 

089. File a flight plan 

0 PERCENT 35.7% 33.1% 28.5% 

10 PERCENT 24.7% 25.9% 19.5% 

25 PERCENT 13.9% 13.6% 12.1% 

50 PERCENT 13.9% 13.4% 17.6% 

75 PERCENT 3.8% 4.1% 5.5% 

90 PERCENT 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 

100 PERCENT 3.7% 5.2% 8.8% 

NA 2.5% 2.8% 6.1% 

090. Request weather updates 

0 PERCENT 35.7% 33.1% 28.5% 

10.PERCENT 24.7% 25.9% 19.5% 

25 PERCENT 13.9% 13.6% 12.1% 

50 PERCENT 13.9% 13.4% 17.6% 

75 PERCENT 3.8% 4.1% 5.5% 

90 PERCENT 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 

100 PERCENT 3.7% 5.2% 8.8% 

NA 2.5% 2.8% 6.1% 

091. Fly VFR above clouds 

0 PERCENT 75.5% 66.0% 58.9% 

10 PERCENT 14.8% 20.0% 21.3% 

25 PERCENT 3.9% 5.6% 5.0% 

50 PERCENT 2.3% 4.2% 6.1% 

75 PERCENT 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 

90 PERCENT 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 

100 PERCENT 1.1% 1.3% 1.7% 

NA 1.6% 1.8% 6.0% 

25 
. Table 23 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

092. Fly below 1,000 AGL under clouds 

0 PERCENT 69.9% 58.4% 54.9% 

10 PERCENT 20.0% 28.3% 26.2% 

25 PERCENT 3.1 o/o 4.8% 5.1 o/o 

50 PERCENT 1.8% ·2.7% 4.0% 

75 PERCENT 0.6% 0.9% 0.6% 

90 PERCENT 0. 7% 0.6% . 0.5% 

100 PERCENT 2.0% 2.1 o/o 2.9% 

NA 2.0% 2.2% 5.8% 

093. Fly below 500 AGL under clouds 

0 PERCENT 94.4% 90.5% 85.7% 

10 PERCENT 2.0% 4.8% 5.3% 

25 PERCENT 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 

50 PERCENT 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% 

75 PERCENT 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 

90 PERCENT 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 

100 PERCENT 0.6% 0. 7% 1.0% 

NA 1. 9% 2.3% 6.3% 

094. Verify fuel consumption in flight 

0 PERCENT 22.7% 16.5% 8.6% 

10 PERCENT 7.4% 7.2% 4.1% 

25 PERCENT 7.2% 6.4% 2.9% 

50 PERCENT 10.6% 9.3% 7.6% 

75 PERCENT 5.3% 5.4% 3. 7% 

90 PERCENT 5.6% 5.2% 6.8% 

100 PERCENT 38.3% 46.1% 59.7% 

NA 2.9% 4.0% 6.6% 

095. Use shoulder harness 

0 PERCENT 5.8% 4.7% 3.2% 

10 PERCENT 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% 

25 PERCENT 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 

50 PERCENT 2.6% 3.1 o/o 3.6% 

75 PERCENT 1.4% 1.8d/o 0.9% 

90 PERCENT 2.2% 2.6% 2.6% 

100 PERCENT 73.9% 76.3% 80.5% 

NA 12.1% 9.3% 7.1% 

26 
Table 24 

Usual Practices -Cross Country Flights 

Private Commercial ATP 

096. Get a weather brief before takeoff 

0 PERCENT 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 

10 PERCENT 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 

. 25 PERCENT 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 

50 PERCENT 1.7% 2.0% 1.8% 

75 PERCENT 2.2% 2.5% 3.0% 

90 PERCENT 5.8% 6.3% 5.2% 

100 PERCENT 88.8% 87.0% 84.3% 

NA 0.4% 0.7% 4.6% 

097. Top off/check fuel tanks 

0 PERCENT 0.0% 0.1% 

10 PERCENT 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 

25 PERCENT 0.1% 0.1% 

50 PERCENT 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 

75 PERCENT 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 

90 PERCENT 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 

100 PERCENT 98.2% 97.4% 93.1% 

NA 0.4% 0.8% 4.5% 

098. Compute weight & balance 

0 PERCENT 9.4% 6.9% 5.9% 

10 PERCENT 13.0% 12.3% 9.4% 

25 PERCENT 8.1% 8.6% 7.0% 

50 PERCENT 14.4% 16.6% 14.1% 

75 PERCENT 7.4% 8.5% 4.9% 

90 PERCENT 5.1% 5.1% 5.8% 

100 PERCENT 40.8% 39.9% 47.6% 

NA 1.9% 2.1% 5.3% 

099. Complete pre-flight 

0 PERCENT 0.1% 0.2% 

10 PERCENT 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 

25 PERCENT 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 

50 PERCENT 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 

75 PERCENT 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 

90 PERCENT 1.1% 1.7% 1.5% 

100 PERCENT 97.8% 95.7% 92.4% 

NA 0.4% 0.9% 4.4% 

0100. Use a checklist for takeoff & /landing 

0 PERCENT 2.9% 2.9% 2.8% 

10 PERCENT 1.8% 2.4% 1.7% 

25 PERCENT 0.8% 1.6% 1.1% 

50 PERCENT 4.1% 3.4% 3.4% 

75 PERCENT 2.2% 2.9% 2.1% 

90 PERCENT 4.9% 5.7% 4.8% 

100 PERCENT 82.8% 80.2% 79.6% 

NA 0.4% 0.9% 4.5% 

27 
Table 24 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

0101. Computed expected fuel consumption 

0 PERCENT 2.1% 2.5% 1.1% 

10 PERCENT 1.7% 1.7% 1.2% 

25 PERCENT 1.7% 1.8% 0.8% 

50 PERCENT 3.7% 3.3% 2.4% 

75 PERCENT 3.3% 2.7% 1.8% 

90 PERCENT 4.6% 5.2% 4.5% 

100 PERCENT 82.3% 81.6% 83.8% 

NA 0.5% 1.1% 4.6% 

0102. Fire a flight plan 

0 PERCENT 10.2% 11 .2% 9.6% 

10 PERCENT 8.9% 8.7% 4.5% 

25 PERCENT 6.3% 6.9% 6.0% 

50 PERCENT 15.1% 15.7% 14.6% 

75 PERCENT 8.4% 8.6% 7.0% 

90 PERCENT 8.3% 8.3% 7.5% 

100 PERCENT 42.1% 39.6% 46.2% 

NA 0.6% 1.0% 4.6% 

0103. Request weather updates 

0 PERCENT 7.0% 3.5% 1.2% 

10 PERCENT 10.3% 9.3% 4.8% 

25 PERCENT 12.2% 12.0% 10.0% 

50 PERCENT 26.4% 25.9% 25.6% 

75 PERCENT 12.1% 13.6% 12.6% 

90 PERCENT 6.9% 8.3% 7.9% 

100 PERCENT 24.1% 26.3% 32.9% 

NA 1.0% 1.1% 4.8% 

0104. Fly VFR above clouds 

0 PERCENT 62.1% · 49.2% 42.4% 

10 PERCENT 19.9% 25.5% 22.8% 

25 PERCENT 7.6% 10.6% 11.2% 

50 PERCENT 4.9% 8.6% 11.4% 

75 PERCENT 1.3% 1.9% 2.1% 

90 PERCENT 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 

100 PERCENT 2.2% 2.0% 3.5% 

NA 1.5% 1.6% 6.0% 

0105. Fly 1,000 AGL under clouds 

0 PERCENT 75.4% 69.6% 62.9% 

10 PERCENT 15.7% 20.3% 20.6% 

25 PERCENT 2.2% 3.0% 3.8% 

50 PERCENT 1.7% 2.4% 3.1% 

75 PERCENT 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 

90 PERCENT 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 

100 PERCENT 2.4% 2.0% 2.7% 

NA 1.8% 1.7% 6.3% 

28 
Table 24 (Continued} 

Private 

0106. Fly 500 AGL under clouds 

0 PERCENT 94.3% 

10 PERCENT 2.1% 

25 PERCENT 0.3% 

50 PERCENT 0.3% 

75 PERCENT 0.1% 

90 PERCENT 0.2% 

100 PERCENT 0.9% 

NA 1.7% 

0107. Verify fuel consumption 

0 PERCENT 8.5% 

10 PERCENT 4.4% 

25 PERCENT 3.0% 

50 PERCENT 8.3% 

75 PERCENT 6.3% 

90 PERCENT 7.4% 

100 PERCENT 59.0% 

NA 3.0% 

0108. Use shoulder harness 

0 PERCENT 5.8% 

10 PERCENT 0.9% 

25 PERCENT 1.0% 

50 PERCENT 2.4% 

75 PERCENT 1.0% 

90 PERCENT 2.0% 

100 PERCENT 73.9% 

NA 13.0% 

Although the responses indicate that pilots follow safe practices most of the time, there are still 

many pilots who, for example, do not always perform a thorough pre-flight inspection or do notalways check their fuel tanks before a cross-country 

flight. Special circumstances, not easily captured 

in a survey instrument, may explain their practices, 

but it is also possible that these pilots have simply 

fallen into bad habits that may be placing them at 

greater risk for an accident. As noted in the previous section, additional analyses will examine these 

outlier groups in more detail and will be the . subject 

of future reports. 

29 

Commercial ATP 

92.1% 86.2% 

3.7% 5.0% 

0.5% 0.5% 

0.5% 0.6% 

0.1% 0.1% 

0.1% 0.1% 

0.9% 1.0% 

2.0% 6.5% 

5.6% 2.6% 

2.9% 1.9% 

3.4% 1.7% 

6.5% 3.9% 

5.7% 3.7% 

8.6% 6.6% 

64.0% 73.2% 

3.4% 6.4% 

4.4% 3.3% 

1.1% 0.9% 

1.0% 1.1% 

2.9% 3.8% 

1.7% 1.0% 

2.5% 2.5% 

76.5% 79.8% 

9.9% 7.5% 

Attitudes Toward Flying 

Pilots' attitudes about a number of issues were 

captured through 27 questions using a Likert scale. 

This section of the questionnaire included questions 

about pilots' capabilities (for example, instrument 

flight capability), knowledge (how to get A TC help), 

and skill levels (I fly enough to maintain proficiency), and several items reflecting the hazardous 

thought patterns described by Berlin, et al. 

(1982a,b,c). 

It is interesting to note that the first item in this 

section calls for a statement regarding agreement with 

a potentially illegal act - ducking below minimums 

to get home - and that many pilots indicated that 

they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. 
It is hoped that this apparent willingness to admit 

agreement with such an act is indicative of candid 

responses to the questionnaire in general. This question is also interesting in that the group who agreed 

least with the statement were those holding the A TP 

certificate - arguably the best-qualified, highestskilled group of respondents. Although 2.8% of the 

ATPs indicated agreement, 3.7% of the private pilots and 4.1% of the commercial pilots indicated 

they would duck below minimums to get home. As 

before, future analyses will examine these groups in 

more detail and will hopefully lead to an understanding of why the pilots with the lowest skills are the 

most willing to undertake such a hazardous behavior. 

· As we will see in the section dealing with flight 

time, the median number of hours flown by private 

pilots is on the order of 2 hours per month. It is 

hardly surprising therefore, to find, as shown in 

Question 129, that only about half of the private 

pilots feel that they fly enough to maintain proficiency. Conversely, approximately half of the private pilots felt they were capable of instrument 

flight, yet only 40% of them have instrument ratings. One must wonder upon what basis this confidence is built, since two hours of flight per month, 

even if devoted solely to instrument work, might be 

considered a minimum for maintenance of instrument proficiency. 

Table 25 

Opinions About Flying 

Private Commercial ATP 

Q109. I would duck below minimums to get home 

STRONGLY AGREE 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 

AGREE 2.6% 3.2% 2.3% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 7.9% 7.4% 6.3% 

DISAGREE 27.4% 25.4% 21.1% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 61.1% 63.1% 69.8% 

Q110. I am capable of instrument flight 

STRONGLY AGREE 23.3% 44.6% 82.1% 

AGREE 28.8% 38.1% 15.7% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 14.6% 6.9% 1.1% 

DISAGREE 16.9% 6.0% 0.7% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 16.5% 4.5% 0.4% 

Q111. I am a very careful pilot 

STRONGLY AGREE 48.7% 49.7% 65.6% 

AGREE 45.5% 45.3% 31.6% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 4.2% 3.9% 2.4% 

DISAGREE 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 1.2% 0.6% 0.3% 

Q112. I never feel stressed while flying 

STRONGLY AGREE 8.1% 8.3% 13.4% 

AGREE 25.9% 26.4% 26.7% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 27.7% 27.2% 24.8% 

DISAGREE 34.9% 35.1% 31.3% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 3.5% 3.0% 3.8% 

30 
Table 25 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

a 113. The rules on flying are too strict 

STRONGLY AGREE 3.7% 4.4% 5.0% 

AGREE 10.4% 11 .3% 10.9% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 30.6% 30.4% 30.2% 

DISAGREE 38.9% 38.7% 36.7% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 16.4% 15.1% 17.3% 

a114. I am a very capable pilot 

STRONGLY AGREE 21.5% 34.5% 60.4% 

AGREE 55.8% 53.2% 35.0% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 20.5% 10.8% 3.9% 

DISAGREE 1.9% 0.9% 0.2% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 

a 115. I am so careful I will never have accident 

STRONGLY AGREE .1.3% 2.2% 2.9% 

AGREE 7.9% 6.5% 9.8% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 42.8% 42.8% 44.9% 

DISAGREE 33.2% 33.5% 27.6% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 14.8% 14.9% 14.8% 

a116. I am very skillful on the controls 

STRONGLY AGREE 10.8% 21.5% 42.3% 

AGREE 50.6% 53.3% 45.5% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 34.7% 23.2% 11 .7% 

DISAGREE 3.7% 1.9% 0.5% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.2% 0.2% 

a117. I know aviation procedures very well 

STRONGLY AGREE 7.0% 14.3% 34.0% 

AGREE 47.9% 55.8% 53.8% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 36.3% 25.1% 10.3% 

DISAGREE 8.3% 4.6% 1.8% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 

a118. I deal with stress very well 

STRONGLY AGREE 12.7% 13.9% 22.8% 

AGREE 56.9% 56.7% 51.6% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 26.9% 26.0% 22.3% 

DISAGREE 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 

a119. It is riskier to fly at night than in day 

STRONGLY AGREE 32.7% 27.8% 19.2% 

AGREE 49.1% 48.3% 41.7% 

NEITHER AGREE N.OR DISAGREE 9.7% 11 .2% 17.5% 

DISAGREE 7.0% 10.0% 15.6% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 1.6% 2.7% 6.1% 

31 
Table 25 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

0120. Most accidents are beyond the pilot's control 

STRONGLY AGREE 0.7% 0.8% 0.6% 

AGREE 2.1% 2.0% 2.5% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 12.6% 11 .3% 14.9% 

DISAGREE 53.5% 53.8% 47.8% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 31.2% 32.1% 34.2% 

0121. I have thorough knowledge of my aircraft 

STRONGLY AGREE 22.9% 30.9% 46.8% 

AGREE 59.8% 58.8% 48.4% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 14.3% 8.9% 4.4% 

DISAGREE 2.7% 1.1 °/~ 0.3% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 

0122. Weather forecasts are usually accurate 

STRONGLY AGREE 2.2% 1.9% 3.9% 

AGREE 48.3% 44.5% 48.0% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 32.2% 34.2% 31.1% 

. DISAGREE 15.5% 17.1% 14.2% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 1.8% 2.3% 2.9% 

0123. I am a very cautious pilot 

STRONGLY AGREE 32.9% 31.5% 42.6% 

AGREE 57.3% 55.9% 46.5% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 9.2% 11.6% 10.1% 

DISAGREE 0.5% 0.9% 0.8% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.2% 0.1% 

0124. Pilots should have more control over how they fly 

STRONGLY AGREE 7.0% 8.3% 9.2% 

AGREE 26.3% 27.4% 27.1% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 54.4% 52.7% 52.6% 

DISAGREE 10.9% 10.5% 9.6% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 1.4% 1.3% 1.5% 

0125. Your first response is usually the best response 

STRONGLY AGREE 4.2% 5.7% 5.6% 

AGREE 44.7% 46.3% 46.7% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 39.7% 37.2% 37.2% 

DISAGREE 10.9% 10.0% 9.4% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 0.6% 0.8% 1.1% 

0126. It is easy to understand weather information 

STRONGLY AGREE 7.8% 11.4% 25.8% 

AGREE 56.6% 59.5% 58.5% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 17.5% 17.1% 9.9% 

DISAGREE 16.2% 11.0% 5.3% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 1.9% 0.9% 0.5% 

32 
Table 25 (Continued} 

Private Commercial ATP 

0127. You should decide quickly & adjust later 

STRONGLY AGREE 2.1% 2.4% 2.9% 

AGREE 22.7% 22.3% 13.2% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 35.4% 33.0% 32.8% 

DISAGREE 33.0% 35.2% 40.3% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 6.7% 7.0% 10.7% 

0128. It is unlikely I would have an accident 

STRONGLY AGREE 1.2% 2.2% 3.5% 

AGREE 11 .5% 13.1% 15.5% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 39.2% 37.1% 38.3% 

DISAGREE 37.6% 37.0% 30.7% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 10.5% 10.7% 11.9% 

0129. I fly enough to maintain proficiency 

STRONGLY AGREE 8.6% 14.2% 36.6% 

AGREE 43.8% 46.1% 38.6% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 19.9% 17.2% 10.9% 

DISAGREE 20.2% 17.5% 10.1% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 7.5% 5.0% 3.8% 

0130. I know how to get ATC help 

STRONGLY AGREE 27.1% 36.0% 56.6% 

AGREE 64.5% 58.9% 40.7% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 5.8% 3.4% 2.2% 

DISAGREE 2.0% 1.4% 0.5% 

STRONGLY DISA.GREE 0.5% 0.3% 

0131. There are few situations I couldn't get out of 

STRONGLY AGREE 2.9% 3.4% 9.9% 

AGREE 20.6% 27.6% 31.9% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 45.0% 44.2% 39.7% 

DISAGREE 25.8% 20.9% 15.1% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 5.7% 3.9% 3.4% 

0132. You should push yourself & aircraft to find limits 

STRONGLY AGREE 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% 

AGREE 10.5% 11 .1% 7.6% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 22.0% 23.5% 20.9% 

DISAGREE 42.5% 41 .2% 38.0% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 24.2% 23.3% 32.4% 

0133. I often feel stressed in/near weather 

STRONGLY AGREE 2.3% 2.2% 2.0% 

AGREE 36.4% 28.4% 16.4% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 32.1% 30.2% 22.1% 

DISAGREE 26.6% 34.3% 44.9% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 2.7% 4.9% 14.6% 

33 
0134. Sometimes you have to depend on luck 

STRONGLY AGREE 

AGREE 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 

DISAGREE 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 

Private 

0.5% 

1.6% 

8.3% 

35.4% 

54.2% 

· 0135. Speed more important than accuracy in a emergency 

STRONGLY AGREE 0.9% 

AGREE 3.4% 

NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 15.2% 

DISAGREE 44.1% 

STRONGLY DISAGREE 36.5% 

Commercial 

0.6% 

1.6% 

8.3% 

36.4% 

53.0% 

1.0% 

2.4% 

12.7% 

42.8% 

41.1% 

ATP 

0.6% 

1.9% 

7.9% 

29.2% 

60.5% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

6.9% 

31 .9% 

60.0% 

Participation in Future Research 

Uniformly the respondents indicated a high degree of willingness to participate in future research, 

although home-based activities were preferred over 

activities that would require going to some outside 

location, such as the airport. Considering the length 

of time required of some pilots to complete this survey (four hours in some cases), this willingness to 

participate in future efforts is encouraging. 

In parallel with this survey effort are other efforts aimed at developing exportable interventions 

to improve aviation safety. Because of its dynamic 

Table 26 

Participation in Future Research 

Private Commercial ATP 

0136. I would participate in surveys 

YES 89.3% 88.3% 85.0% 

NO 10.7% 11.7% 15.0% 

0137. 1 would participate in tests in my home 

YES 86.0% 84.7% 80.3% 

NO 14.0% 15.3% 19.7% 

0138. I would participate in tests at the airport 

YES 59.2% 58.8% 53.7% 

NO 40.8% 41 .2% 46.3% 

0139. 1 would participate in repeated tests 

YES 67.6% 68.1% 65.6% 

NO 32.4% 31 .9% 34.4% 

0140. 1 have access to a computer (IBM PC) 

YES 66.3% 61.7% 58.2% 

NO 33.7% 38.3% 41.8% 

34 
characteristics, the computer is the preferred medium 

for presentation of many of these interventions. It is 

significant to note therefore that two-thirds of the 

private pilots (the targeted group of most of the interventions under development) have access to a personal computer. This makes the distribution of 

computer-based safety training programs, either directly via floppy disk or through a bulletin board 

system, a feasible intervention strategy for the majority of pilots in this group. 

Pilot Demographics 

Table 27 presents the basic demographic information collected of respondents to the survey. As 

noted in the discussion of generalizibility of results, 

female pilots are slightly under-represented in the 

sample drawn from the population. The results of 

the question on education indicate a highly educated 

group, with a large number of respondents possessing a Doctorate in some field (i.e., medicine, law, 

academic field). With an average age of around 50, 

this is also a mature group, reflecting, perhaps, the 

popularity of pilot training in the decade of the 1960s 

and the subsequent decline in the numbers of people 

entering training. 

Flight Experience 

Table 28 contains the reported flight time over the 

previous 6 months, 12 months, and entire career for 

a number of categories. The mean flight time, median flight time, and standard deviation are given. 

The mean is simply the arithmetic average and provides a good picture of the state of affairs when there 

is a normal distribution. Unfortunately, for most of 

the data reported in this section, the distributions of 

flight times are_ not normal, but are heavily skewedwith most pilots reporting a low number of hours 

and a few pilots reporting very high numbers of 

hours. In these cases, the median may provide a better understanding of the distribution of hours. The 

median is the value below and above which there is 

an equal number of values. For example, half of the 

private pilots report having flown more than 12 hours 

in the previous 6 months, while half of the private 

pilots report having flown fewer than 12 hours during the same period. As can be seen, the median is 

substantially smaller than the average (22 hours)-

indicating the presence of a small number of private 

pilots who flew a very large number of hours during 

that period. 

Table 27 

Demographic Information 

Private Commercial ATP 

0142. Sex 

Male 96.0% 96.2% 98.0% 

Female 4.0% 3.8% 2.0% 

0143. Education 

Grade School 0.7% 0.3% 0.1% 

High School 17.3% 15.3% 16.1% 

Associate Degree 18.9% 19.4% 24.9% 

College Degree 31.8% 33.1% 40.7% 

Master's 17.3% 18.6% 13.7% 

Doctorate 14.0% 13.3% 4.6% 

0141. Age 

Mean 49 51 49 

Standard Deviation 13 14 12 

35 
Table 28 

Flight Time During the Preceding 6 Months, 12 Months, and Total Career 

Private Commercial ATP 

Total Time - 6 Months 

Mean 22 46 161 

Median 12 20 120 

Standard Deviation 34 97 151 

Total Time- 12 Months 

Mean 50 108 340 

Median 30 53 272 

Standard Deviation 68 230 303 

Total Time - Career 

Mean 819 2857 10412 

Median 445 1574 9066 

Standard Deviation 1293 3771 6809 

Airplane - Last 6 Months 

Mean 21 46 158 

Median 12 20 111 

Standard Deviation 32 154 163 

Airplane - Last 12 Months 

Mean 49 102 331 

Median 30 50 245 

Standard Deviation 65 230 364 

Airplane - Career 

Mean 798 2611 9861 

Median 427 1420 8300 

Standard Deviation 1310 3686 7236 

Rotorcraft - Last 6 Months 

Mean 1 6 3 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 21 130 21 

Rotorcraft - Last 12 Months 

Mean 1 7 8 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 7 50 51 

Rotorcraft - Career 

Mean 5 185 301 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 52 1219 1351 

Single Engine - Last 6 Months 

Mean 22 33 23 

Median 10 13 0 

Standard Deviation 154- 89 53 

36 
Table 28 (Continued} 

Private Commercial ATP 

Single Engine - Last 12 Months 

Mean 46 76 52 

Median 25 35 4 

Standard Deviation 184 181 112 

Single Engine - Career 

Mean 725 2098 2648 

Median 392 1134 1961 

Standard Deviation 1462 3710 3439 

Multi Engine - Last 6 Months 

Mean 4 15 139 

Median 0 0 80 

Standard Deviation 28 131 155 

Multi Engine- Last 12 Months 

Mean 8 29 292 

Median 0 0 175 

Standard Deviation 41 200 365 

Multi Engine - Career 

Mean 150 767 7566 

Median 0 30 5850 

Standard Deviation 1037 2662 6784 

Day - Last 6 Months 

Mean 24 44 128 

Median 11 18 90 

Standard Deviation 152 150 293 

Day - Last 12 Months 

Mean 46 96 263 

Median 27 47 193 

Standard Deviation 95 231 357 

Day- Career 

Mean 777 2403 7642 

Median 396 1361 6697 

Standard Deviation 1664 3267 5517 

Night - Last 6 Months 

Mean 3 5 38 

Median 0 0 13 

Standard Deviation 13 18 58 

Night- Last 12 Months 

Mean 5 11 76 

Median 0 2 28 

Standard Deviation 18 29 114 

37 
Table 28 {Continued} 

Private Commercial ATP 

Night - Career 

Mean 108 339 2423 

Median 22 117 1280 

Standard Deviation 644 771 2950 

Simulator- Last 6 Months 

Mean 1 1 7 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 4 6 35 

Simulator - Last 12 Months 

Mean 1 2 14 

Median 0 0 4 

Standard Deviation 5 12 59 

Simulator - Career 

Mean 10 61 249 

Median 0 12 122 

Standard Deviation 50 491 484 

Under Hood - Last 6 Months 

Mean 2 2 1 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 5 5 3 

Under Hood- Last 12 Months 

Mean 4 4 3 

Median 0 1 0 

Standard Deviation 9 13 7 

Under Hood - Career 

Mean 41 108 137 

Median 20 70 92 

Standard Deviation 67 265 178 

Actual Instrument- Last 6 Months 

Mean 2 4 19 

Median 0 0 9 

Standard Deviation 7 13 32 

Actual Instrument- Last 12 Months 

Mean 4 9 40 

Median 0 0 20 

Standard Deviation 16 25 64 

Actual Instrument- Career 

Mean 60 219 1357 

Median 2 50 700 

Standard Deviation 316 573 2728 

38 
. Table 28 (Continued) 

Private Commercial ATP 

Piston-Powered - Last 6 Months 

Mean 19 36 35 

Median 10 15 2 

Standard Deviation 28 64 96 

Piston-Powered - Last 12 Months 

Mean 44 81 73 

Median 25 40 5 

Standard Deviation 73 126 149 

Piston-Powered - Career 

Mean 698 2023 4076 

Median 375 1131 3000 

Standard Deviation 1132 2858 4174 

Turbo Prop - Last 6 Months 

Mean 1 6 45 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 16 130 115 

Turbo Prop - Last 12 Months 

Mean 1 8 95 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 13 63 232 

Turbo Prop - Career 

Mean 21 109 1690 

Median 0 0 406 

Standard Deviation 273 607 2545 

Jet - Last 6 Months 

Mean 1 2 82 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 10 20 133 

Jet- Last 12 Months 

Mean 2 4 170 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 35 40 342 

Jet- Career 

Mean 30 286 3731 

Median 0 0 900 

Standard Deviation 403 . 1889 5343 

Student - Last 6 Months 

Mean 1 1 0 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 5 6 4 

39 
Table 28 (Continued} • 

Private Commercial ATP 

Student- Last 12 Months 

Mean 3 1 1 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 13 9 4 

Student - Career 

Mean 95 138 147 

Median 64 75 100 

Standard Deviation 863 1134 135 

Instructor- Last 6 Months 

Mean 0 12 18 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 0 40 51 

Instructor- Last 12 Months 

Mean 0 29 45 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 0 124 153 

Instructor- Career 

Mean 3 655 1692 

Median 0 8 1052 

Standard Deviation 67 2042 2299 

Personal Business - Last 6 Months 

Mean 6 7 5 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 28 22 18 

Personal Business - Last 12 Months 

Mean 13 17 11 

Median 0 0 0 

Standard Deviation 65 52 40 

Personal Business- Career 

Mean 217 483 348 

Median 0 9 0 

Standard Deviation 802 2792 1891 

Pleasure - Last 6 Months 

Mean 19 15 6 

Median 7 6 0 

Standard Deviation 151 74 16 

Pleasure - Last 12 Months 

Mean 36 38 15 

Median 20 15 0 

Standard Deviation 77 184 47 

40 
Table 28 (Continued) 

Private 

Pleasure - Career 

Mean 573 

Median 336 

Standard Deviation 931 

Commercial - Last 6 Months 

Mean 0 

Median 0 

Standard Deviation 12 

Commercial - Last 12 Months 

Mean 5 

Median 0 

Standard Deviation 164 

Commercial - Career 

Mean 35 

Median 0 

Standard Deviation 822 

Military - Last 6 Months 

Mean 0 

Median 0 

Standard Deviation 5 

Military- Last 12 Months 

Mean 4 

Median 0 

Standard Deviation 157 

Military - Career 

Mean 35 

Median 0 

Standard Deviation 301 

As was noted earlier, from these data we may see 

that the median number of hours flown over the last 

year was 30 hours; roughly 2.5 hours per month. 

This means that while half of the private pilots flew, 

on average, more than the 2.5 hours per month, half 

flew less than that amount. 

The distribution of total career hours for private 

pilots is shown graphically in Figure 1. To enhance 

the depiction of the distribution of hours around the 

median, the figure only includes those private pilots with less than 3, 000 total hours. 

4 1 

Commercial ATP 

849 557 

528 215 

1139 936 

13 133 

0 58 

55 156 

27 271 

0 132 

106 311 

713 6699 

0 5050 

2565 7049 

1 2 

0 0 

10 19 

3 4 

0 0 

31 31 

489 1101 

0 0 

1500 2242 

For the private pilots, the results depict a group 

that predominately flies single-engine aircraft, almost 

exclusively during the day, has received almost no 

instruction or practice flying under the hood over 

the last year, and flies mainly for pleasure, as compared to personal business. They report making, on 

average, 1.5 landings per flight hour, indicating either short flights, or some degree of self-practice on 

that aspect of flying . 
c 

Q) 

E 200 '-

<( 

100 

0 

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 

200 600 1000 1400 1800 2200 2600 3000 

Total Flight Hours 

Figure 1. Total flight hours for private pilots 

3uu,~----------------------------------------------------~ 

c 

Q) 

E 

'-

<( 

200 

100 

0 

400 1200 2000 2800 3600 

Total Flight Hours 

Figure 2. Total flight hours for commercial pilots 

42 
The distribution of recent and total flight hours 

for the commercial pilots is skewed in the same 

manner as the private pilots. Note that the mean total time is 2,857 hours, while the median total time 

is approximately half that figure. For the most part, 

while the numbers are larger than for the private 

pilots, the pattern of times for commercial pilots is 

quite similar to that of the private pilots. This may 

be explained, in part, by the numbers reported for 

commercial (for hire) flights by commercial pilots. 

Although the mean total number of commercial 

hours is 713, the median is zero. This indicates that 

while pilots may possess a commercial license, half 

of them have never actually flown commercially. 

This suggests that there may be some other motivation for obtaining a commercial license, other than 

the desire to be able to hire oneself out as a pilot 

and raises some interesting questions which might 

be addressed on any subsequent surveys. The distribution of hours is depicted graphically in Figure 

2 for those commercial pilots with less than 4,000 

hours. 

Unlike the distributions of the private and commercial pilots, the flight hour distributions of the 

ATP certificate holders much more closely approximates a normal distribution, as indicated by the similarity of the mean and median values. The responses 

show a much broader range of experiences, with 

approximately equal levels of experience in piston 

and jet aircraft. They also report substantially more 

experience in simulators and as military pilots than 

the other groups. 

Tables 29 and 30 further depict the different experiences of the three certificate groups in terms of 

numbers of landings and numbers of instrument 

approaches made. 

Table 29 

Number of Landings Made 

Private Commercial 

Landings in last year 

Mean 61 117 

Median 40 55 

Standard Deviation 109 227 

Landings in last 6 Months 

Mean 29 51 

Median 16 23 

Standard Deviation 43 201 

Table 30 

Number of Instrument Approaches Made 

Private Commercial 

Number of instrument approaches in last year 

Mean 9 15 

Median 0 6 

Standard Deviation 19 28 

Number of instrument approaches in last 6 Months 

Mean 4 7 

Median 0 2 

Standard Deviation 10 14 

43 

ATP 

226 

120 

435 

97 

50 

146 

ATP 

47 

25 

66 

46 

13 

447 
While the private pilot group averaged around 1.5 

landings per flight hour, the commercial and ATP 

groups averaged approximately 1 and 0.5 landings 

per flight hour, respectively, indicating longer flight 

segments for these groups. In terms of instrument 

approaches, the median number of approaches for 

the private pilots was zero, reflecting the general lack 

of an instrument rating by members of this group. 

Interestingly, the numbers of instrument approaches 

reported by both the commercial and ATP groups 

were also quite low compared to their total number 

of flight hours. Over a one year period, the ATP group 

reported a mean of 4 7 instrument approaches and a 

median of 25 . This works out to about one instrument approach per week, using the mean value, or 

one every two weeks using the median value. Further, the difference between the mean and median 

values indicates a skewed distribution, with some ATP 

certificate holders performing many instrument approaches, while a large number perform very few-a 

reflection, perhaps, of regional weather differences. Additional analyses will certainly be needed to develop a 

better understanding of this observation. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

Within the limits on generalizability discussed 

earlier, the results of this survey provide a basis for 

the conduct of future aviation safety research. Previously, information at this level of detail was not 

available on the population of non-accident involved 

pilots. Hence, comparisons between the characteristics of pilots who had been involved in accidents 

and those who had not been involved in accidents 

were not possible. It is believed that the present 

study will alleviate to some degree, this lack of information about the general population of pilots and 

facilitate future safety studies by providing an empirical database for comparisons. 

The normative purposes of the survey are also 

served by the development of information on the 

career paths of professional pilots. As the recent 

report of the Pilot and Aviation Maintenance Technician Blue Ribbon Panel (DOT, 1993) indicates, 

aviation is in a state of change, and the old career 

paths which, for many of the major air carriers, led 

44 

from the military cockpit to the civil airliner iue being dissolved by the cutbacks in military training al\d 

increased retention of military pilots. The data contained here represent a snapshot to some degree of 

the pilot workforce at a time when those changes are 

just starting to be felt and may well prove very useful in assessing the impact of these environmental 

forces as they progress. 

To a large degree this survey was not intended as 

an end in itself, but as a basis or resource for a variety of research. The normative information gathered here, particularly that dealing with flight hours, 

will prove especially useful to those performing 

analyses of aviation accidents. The information on 

career paths will be used in studies of pilot selection and career management and training. Ongoing 

research on improving pilots risk management skills 

through the use of personal minimums will use the 

data on personal minimums. In addition, that and 

other intervention-oriented research will use the 

information on participation in training activities 

and safety seminars in the development of effective marketing strategies. 

This initial report has only just begun the process of analyzing the data obtained from the survey. In the brief discussions which accompanied the 

tabulated results several potential analyses were 

suggested to investigate the characteristics of various groups of interest. Where the data permit such 

analyses, a number of additional studies of the data 

reported here will be undertaken, to further examine the relationships between pilot characteristics 

and behaviors of interest, such as attendance at 

safety seminars. 

This survey was unique in both the scope of its 

content and the size of the sample used. However, due 

caution must be observed in utilizing these results because of the limitations and potential for error associated with self-report survey research described earlier. 

Nevertheless, if properly conducted the future analyses alluded to above can do much to expand our understanding of the nature of the relationships among 

the factors assessed by this survey and our understanding of the dynamic pilot population- furthering both 

our scientific knowledge and helping to bring about 

our ultimate goal of a safer pilot. 
REFERENCES 

Berlin, J. 1., Gruber, E. V., Holmes, C. W., Jensen, P, 

K., Lau, J. R., Mills, J. W., & O'Kane, J. M. 

(1982a). Pilot judgement training and evaluation- Volume I. (DOT/FANCT-82/56-1). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 

Berlin, J. 1., Gruber, E. V., Holmes, C. W., Jensen, P, 

K.,Lau, J. R., Mills, J. W., & O'Kane, J. M. 

(1982b). Pilot judgement training and evaluation- Volume II. (DOT/FANCT-82/56-11). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 

Berlin, J. 1., Gruber, E. V., Holmes, C. W ., Jensen, P, 

K., Lau, J. R., Mills, J. W., & O'Kane, J. M. 

(1982c). Pilot judgement training and evaluation - Volume Ill. (DOT/FANCT-82/56-III). 

Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 

Clausing, D.J. (1990). Improving your flying skills: 

Tips from a pro. Blue Ridge Summit, P A: TAB. 

DepartmentofTransportation (1993). Pilots and aviation maintenance technicians for the twenty-first 

century: An assessment of availability and quality. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: 

The total design method. New York: Wiley. 

Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods. Second Edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 

45 

Guilford, J.P., & Fruchter, B. (1973). Fundamental 

statistics in psychology and education. New York: 

McGraw-Hill. 

Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. Newbury 

Park: Sage Publications. 

Jensen, R. S., & Benel, R. A. (1977). Judgement 

evaluation and instruction in civil pilot training. 

(FAA-RD-78-24). Washington, DC: Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and 

response rates: A literature review. Journal of 

Marketing Research, 12, 440-453 . 

Kirkbride, L. A., Jensen, R. S., Chubb, G. P., & 

Hunter, D. R. (in press). Developing the personal minimums tool for managing risk during 

preflight go/no-go decisions. DOTIFANAM95/XX. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. 

Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley. 

NTSB (1989). Annual review of aircraft accident 

data: US. general aviation calendar year 1987. 

NTSB/ARG-89/01. Washington, DC: National 

Transportation Safety Board. 

Parten, M. (1950). Surveys, polls, and samples: Practical procedures. New York: Harper & Brothers. 

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and 

conducting survey research: A comprehensive 

guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
... . . . . ... 

. ••• . . . . . . 

US.Depca ..... 

dla ISPCQJibi 

,...... Alllallon 

APPENDIX A 

: •: •: Adii*Mu3on . 

.. . . . . . . . ..... . . 

... . . . . ... Dear Airman: 

In order to improve aviation safety, the FAA has begun a lon&·tenn. scientific study ol American 

airmen. This study will examine how ainnen make decisions critical to the safety ol flight, how ainnen 

develop and maintain their skills, how professional ainnen progress t:hrou8h their careers and how 

training, experience and other personal factors affect flight safety. 

As the first step in this study, I need your help in completing the enclosed AIRMAN RESEARCH 

QUESTIONNAIRE. 

You are one of a random sample of airmen selected from across the country to participate in this 

study. Your opinions and experiences will be combined with those of the others in the sample to 

represent the thoughts and experiences of all the ainnen within the United States. Therefore, it is 

very important th;lt you complete and return the questionnaire. 

The survey includes questions about your background, your career as an ainnan, your aviation -

experience, training, and involvement in accidents, and your opinions on a variety of issues. As you 

will see, some questions are oriented toward non-commercial general aviation pilots and some toward 

commercial pilot&. However, you should answer all the questions based upon your personal 

experiences. 

A1 
Appendix A 

When you are ready to complete the questionnaire, fmt review the instructions carefully before you , , , 

begin answering the questions. When you are through, return only the answer sheet, aJoos with any : , , , : 

comments you might want to include, using the return envelope provided in the packet. Please do not , • , •: 

fold or staple the answer sheets. • , : 

The results d this study will be described in reports published by the Offace r1 Aviation Medicine 

and will be made available to the public through the National Technicallnlormation Service. 

If you have any questions regarding this survey, you may write or call me at: 

Office d Aviation Medicine, AAM-240 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, OC 20591 

(202) 366-6935 

I appreciate your assistance, and hope that you will take the time to complete the questionnaire as 

soon as possible. 

Enclosed: 

1. Questionnaire 

2. Return Envelope 

Sincerely, 

t~~Jl/~ David R. Hunter, Ph.D. 

Program Scientist 

A2 

. . . . . . . 

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 
Airman Research Questionnaire 

••• • • • ... • 

••• 

. • • . • 

• • 

••• • • • • • • • 

. •• . • • • • 

..... • . . 

... . . . . ... 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

AIRMAN RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE 

1\it Wac ~ ••• calicdaa Co.6ir.. ID .._.a-t.-.....~~~~ .. ......._.~~~~· 1 ., d!eiWenl Oc::w ..,_ ....... ..___., ................... n.e w....daa ,... ~ ...... olllyfar 

-we.~,....._. .. IICitM paiiiWied or releued a •Y fora dt.ll ....U--' lpedflc w.--. ...,_,...,-...........,. WeedlleWe .....,.....h• "fbl. ................ ...,..,...,.. ., die Of&e., 

Y. 1 t _. 8aoftlt. _. ... loeee II-• OMB Appro¥~~ H..-fllllzo.o566. 

AGENCY DISPLAY OF liSTIWATm BURDIN 

'l1lc puWic nportlac ...... Iorch~~ collecdoa ol mtor-doa II --.c.d to •ftnlll' - hour per ICipCiftl&o U 

yau ..W. to-em die-_., ol the estilute or .Ue .,..._lor reclaclat,.... bunlea. pkMe olrect 

your_,..., OMB _.die FAA at the lollowiac .....__ 

Of&e oil+ 1 1 eat Uld Buoftet ... r.,er-lt IWadiaa Pftlject (li20-0S66) 

~DClOSOl 

. _ ... 

US ne,.-t ol TI'UIIIIpllltati 

Feolenl..w.doe AdaiDIIcndca 

Office ol Ari11C1oa Medidae. AAM·l40 

w.w..-, DC ZOS91 

READ THIS BEFORE YOU ANSWER ANY OUES1JQNS 

l 

< 

.i • 

• 

. . 

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: This is a voluntary survey-you do Dot have to take part if you do not wish to do so and 

the FAA will take no action bued upon your refuaal. 

PURPOSE OF STUDY: This is a scientific study of airmen's careen and their decilioo m.akin& pnxesaes. 

USES OF DATA: The data you provide will be combined with similar data from other rnpondine airmen and analy:ed to 

identify career pattel"'ll and to develop models of airman decision pnxesses. The data will be kept on file and will periodicaUy 

be compared with aviation accident reports to develop profiles of airmen at risk fot decision-related accidents. 

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DISCLOSURE: The information you provide in this survey will be protected. Information 

idenrifvin& you penonally {for example. your name and certificate number) will be removed from aU data files. Only the 

Proeram Scientist will have access to the key which links your Subject Identification Number with your name and certificate 

number. That key will be kept secured at aU times to prevent inadvertent disclosure of personal infonnation. 

• 

... J.; :· z. _, ·: 

INSI'RlJCIIONS 

• <1 ptuwet .., 

• Make heavy black marks that completely flD the circle. 

• Erue any chanaa cleanly and completely. 

• Do not make any stray marks in this booklet. 

• Please do not fold this documeat. 

• Answer each question except when directed to skip a section. 

• Read the quationll ~fuUy before selectift& an answer. 

• If you select an answer that is not identified in the list of 

options, write only in the space provided. 

· • " ""' ""; You will be ulted to pve numbers for ~ .ame answers. 1 :.~ u youi i.UWa: i.·t.u 

I •Wrir<dwn 

....... ..u.ou ... oNriadw ...... ~} ~ ~~ '" LAST NI.IMBEll io ~ • CD ~ olwovtplacodO>dw ·f :t • r,I RICHT HAND BOX. 

· ~ ~ (i• t,_!.• 

• FUIO> the UNl"SU> ' ~ \! • ...... widt ZEllOS. ~ @ · I 

•llwa...tr.dw (!) € €· <!:· ....wac a.. ......... EACHt.o.. · ® Cf· ~ 

·:!· ® (!) ~ CORRECT MARKS • ::. 2 INCORRECT MARKS l. ~ e ':!) 

·:!: ! :! :!: 

0001725 

• •• 

A3 

--• -------------------------

-------

-----------

---------

------

-I 

-
Appendix A 

-

----------

--

---------------

-------

--------

-------

----

--

---- pace 4 

-- •• 

*U.S.GOVEIINMENT,_,._OFA:e:1--

• 

A4 

... . . . . ... 

. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 

.. . 

. ..... . . 

... . . . . ... 

• 
... 

. • . • 

••• 

... 

. • • . • 

• • 

••• • • • • • • • 

.. •• 

• •• • 

..... • . . ... . . . . ••• 

• 

I. ,\\1 \Ill l''d,l\ \II Ill \II<''-" ,\'\ll 

t '\1'1 lUI VI 

l. How did you Ft dw aainina for your lint 

pib celtifble? 

0 Military ftyinc tcbool 

0 CMlian (put 141) ftyinc tcbool 

0 From a CFI workina for a FUcd-s- ()puaror 

0 From a CFI workina for a flytna club 

0 From a CFI workinc indepaldmdy 

0 Other (PinK tpeeify) . 

2. What i$ the most advanced pilot cenifJCate 

you hold? 

OStudmtpilot 

0 Recreational pilot 

0 Private pilot 

0 Commercial pilot 

0 Air traNpOrt pilot 

3. What year did you receive 

your fim certificate? 

4. What year did you receive 

your m<ll't advanced 

certiticate? 

19 

19 

• 

A5 

Airman Research Questionnaire 

S. Do you haft Ul inluument ratiJla? 

ONo 

0 Ya, for airplane 

0 Ya, for KlCili'Cralt 

0 Ya, for lloch airplane and rotorcraft 

7. Do you haw. rooxcnlt l'llline? 

Ova ONo 

a. Do you haw. Jlider ratiJla? 

OYa ONo 

9. Have you ever flown u a military pilot? 

0Ya 0No 

10. Do you now hold or have you previously held a 

f1icht inltructDr certificate? 

0 I have never held a f1icht instruCtor certificate. 

0 I once held a flight insauctor certificate, but it 

has expired. 

0 I have a current flight instructor certificate. 

II. Type c:/FAA medical certif~ate: 

0 None/Expired 

00..3 

00..2 

Oa-t 

12. Do you have a special issuance medical certificate? 

(For example, due to previous heart surgery or 

because ci loa ci vision in one eye.) 

0Ya 0No 

----------

-------------------

---------

-----

-

-

---

---

-------

- ,...s ---

- •• -
Appendix A 

------ 13. Total 

--------------- 14. Airplane 

-----

-

-

-------- 15. Rotorcraft 

-------------- 16. Single-Engine 

-- \.!) !. 

- CD J\ 

-----

- I \!) 

1 ~ a :': · a, (!: 

• _t@ "'.' . ~ I : {!) ' I t,!: ,, ._ . ® •· ~ 7 • (!)'7 !: 

(!. ~ \.!) \.!J 

(!· (!) ® ® ~ ~ @ 0 ~ 

·:I> !, (!) ® 

! :!) ® ® 

'! ® ® (!) 

-- I: ;'.{ij ,. ® '1· 

® $ i:!; ! 

.! (!) ·~ .. ® 

! (!) (!;' ® 

-,..e6 

-- •• • 

A6 

@ 

(!) 

(!:' 

(!: 

(!) 

! (!, Ci 

CAREER 

,!.. .!,· 

'i· C!: J: ·.!. •! '.!i 

T (! "1' 

Ii :! ·'!; ~ 

-! ! ! 

1 i 1 ·! !: ! "! :! ! 

! : · J'· 

\!. 

(!' 

~ 

~ 

:t 

·! 

'! 

! 

:!, 

... . . . . ... 

. .. . . . . . .. 

... . . . . . . . 

.. ... . . ..... . . 

• 
... • • • ... • ... . . . . . . . 

... • • • • • • • 

.. •• 

. . . • . ..... 

• • ... . . . . ... 

Airman Research Questionnaire 

17. Multi-En,ine -------------

--- 18. Day 

-

----

----

----- 19. Night 

--------

---

- 20. In a Simulator ----

-----

- I.!J . I.!J --

-

---- ptJce 7 --

. -

A7 
Appendix A ------------------------------------------------------------

21. With a view limitine 

device (hood) 

22. Under acrual i.tutrument 

conditions 

2.3. In a piston-powered 

aircraft 

2-4. In a turbo-prop aircraft 

- fH!ce8 -- •• 

AS 

... . . . . 

. .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 

. 

.. . . .. . 

. . ..... . . 

• • 
Airman Research Questionnaire 

25. In a jet aircraft --- .. • - • • . -- • . • . ... 

• • . . . . - • - .. -- • • • .. • 

..... . - . . --- ... . . - • . ... 26 . M a student pilot 

----- to •••• o • 0 • 0 :• 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 • o · ;.o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

~f.} ·i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

;o ,. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o·· ------

-

;,· 

~o · o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o,'. "O . 0 0 0 ·0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o,; ~'o '0 · 0 0 '·o • 0 0 ·. o 0 0 o .,o I 0~ 

'0 0 

0 0 .·o ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·· o ,.o3 

:·~~ 0 0 ~o · o 0 0 0 ·o 0 o +o~ ·o :o .o ; o 0 0 0 0 0 . o ~· o. : 

27. As an instructor ------

----

----

-- 28. For ~rsonal business ----

-----------

- ,., -- • • •• -

A9 
Appendix A 

-- 29. For pleasure 

----

--

---------

30. Commercial (except 

instructing) 

------------· - 3!. Military 

-----------------

The next questions are about how many Ja.ndines and instrument ipproac.hes you have flown as the pilot actually flyine 

the aircraft. Do not include approaches or landinat that you assisted in, either from the right or lc:ft seat, if the other pilot 

actually flew the approach or made the Jandint. 

--- 3l. How many landings have 

- you performed in the last 

- year? 

--

--

--- ! 

- i 

-- pace 10 

-- •• 

,_1 

I · ~ 

1: <!) 

33. How many landings have 

you performed in the last 

six months? 

• 

A1 0 

... . . ... 

. .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 

. .. 

. ..... . . 

• 
... . . . 

... . . . . . . . 

.. . . . ..... . . 

• 

34. How many instrument 

approaches have you 

performed in the last 

yeat? 

Please describe the aircraft that you ha~ flown fllllll 

freqycndx over the past year. 

36. Number oE engines? 

0None 0Two 0Four 

Oe>ne OThree 

37. Type oE engines? 

0 Not Applicable/None 0 Turbo-Prop 

0 Piston 0 Jet 

38. Wing configuration? 

0 Not Applicable/None OMidWing 

OHighWing 0 Rotary Wing 

OLowWine 

39. Type oE landing gear? 

0 Not Applicable/None 0 Retractable 

0 Fixed 

40. Number oE places (seats}? 

01 Os..o 025-50 

:J2 07-12 0 51-100 

OJ.-4 On-24 0 101+ 

41. Cruisine speed (MPH)? 

0 ,Less than 50 0151-250 

0 50-100 0 251-400 

0101-150 0400+ 

42. Pressurized? 

2 Yes ONo 

43. Hew many ,.iifierem types oi 

aircrah 

the past 

have 

year? 

you flown over ~I;} ~ ·0;..:.0 (j) 

® ® ® 

<!) <!) ® ~ <!) 0 

® ® ® 

® ® ® 

® ® ~ 

(.!) <!) ® 

® ® (!'; 

Airman Research Questionnaire 

35. How many instrument 

approaches have you 

performed in the last six 

months? 

------------- II. \Pl H ('f{Ol b"I0:\.\1 \\I \110:\ C \IU H~ --- If you have -~ been employed as an airman, please leave --

this blank and eo on to the next section. -

For the purpoaes oE this section, you are a pro(esional airman if --

the primary job duties for which you are paid are flying. You -

would not be considered a prolesional airman, for example, if -

you flew an aircrah to visit clients as pan oE your job as a -

salesman., -

44. Are you now employed as a professional airman? 

~OYes 

0No 

If you answered YES, then describe your 

present aviation job: 

LOCATION 

0 Right School 

0 Air Taxi/Charter 

0 Self-Employed 

0 Part IJ5 Commuter 

0 Pan 121 Airline 

0Corporate 

0 Agricultural 

0 Military 

0 Other Government 0 Other ______ _ 

POSITION 

'J Right Instructor 

,-:;: Co-Pilot/First Officer 

: Pilor/Capcain 

·:; Navigator 

:::·. Right Engineer ~Other ______________ _ 

----

----

-· --

---

----

---------

----

--- ~11 -- ~ -....,...- ----~- -· -.. - - -- - • •• -

A 11 
Appendix A 

---- 45. What- your RRST job as a pro(eaional airman? 

.. . - LOCATION . . . - 0 Riaht School 

0 AM Tai,Owter . - . . . . - 0 Sell-Employed 

- 0 Pan 135 Commuter 

- 0 Pan 121 Airline 

- 0Corporare . ..... 

. . - 0 A,ricultural 

- 0Miliary 

- 0 Odwr Govanmmt 

- oomer 

-- POSmON 

- 0 Richt Instructor 

- 0 Co-Pilot/Fint OffiCer 

- 0 Pilot.Capuin 

- ONaviptor 

- 0 Richt Engineer 

- oomer 

--

-

- 46. Durinc your aviation career, which c:i these locations 

- have you worked in? (Ma.rlt ALL that apply) 

-- LOCATION 

- 0 Rieht School 

- 0 Air Taxi/Charter 

- 0 Self-Employed 

- 0 Part IJS Commuter 

- 0 Part 121 Airline 

- 0Corporate 

- 0 Apicultural 

- 0Milirary 

- 0 Other Government 

- OOther 

-------- ~I --- !I -- i 

.. -

---- j~Q&cll 

-- •• • • 

A12 
••• • • • • ••• 

••• • • • . . • • . 

... 

• • • • • • • 

•• • • • • • • 

• ••••• . . 

. ••• . • • ••• 

• 

Airman Research Questionnaire 

-- How many rimes have you taken part in the following rrainin& experiences over the pasr rwo yean? - Count 

example, 

each 

you 

course 

mialu 

you 

have 

attended 

attended 

and 

one 

exh 

course hour on 

c:l 

the 

trainer 

ameraJ or simulator · iples 

rime 

and • one edura 

instance 

c:l navigation 

c:l trainine 

by 

experience. 

Laan C. 

For ----- obaincd 

aircnlt.llld 

three 

then 

hOun 

had 

c:l 

two 

training 

houn 

in 

c:1 a it\.fliaht 

procedura 

inltruction 

trainer ro 

in 

familiarize 

your · ro further 

with ~lop how ro your 111e Lonn 

Lonn 

C 

C 

in 

naviption 

your ~ 

skill . In that ca.e you would lUI in a cirde uncfer the column for l on the row for Generic ~ trudies, fiH ill a circle 

under the column for 3 on the row for pnxedura trainers b a~peeifiC ai~ and All in a cirde under the 

column for 2 on the row for in·tlighr trainin&. --- 47. Generic around-l-1 studi&-aot 

48. 

for. 

Ground 

tpeci6c: 

based 

~ 

studies for a tpeeific 

aircraft/"fftmt. 

49. Generic procedure trainer-not b a 

..,ecific~ 

50. Procedure miner for a tpeeific 

aircraft/system. 

51. Generic ftiaht timularor (noc ..ooon 

baled) 

52. Riaht limulator (noc IIIO(ion based) 

b a tpeeific aircnlt. 

53. Generic~ fllcht 

umua-. 

54. Morion·based tlighr simulator for a 

tpeeilk aircnlt. 

55. ln..fliebt trainin&· 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

56. The FAA ~ndy conducts safety seminan 

dealing with safety and other aviation iuues. Over 

the last two years. how often have you attended 

these FAA safety seminars? 

0 Never 0 Two ro five times 

0 Once 0 MOft than five tima 

57. If you have never attended an FAA safety seminar 

or attended only once, what is the principal reason 

f~ noc attending? 

0 Nor at a convenient location. 

0 Nor at a convenient rime. 

C Material presented is nor relevant to me. 

0 My schedule is too busy for me to attend. 

0 Poor quality c:l praentations. 

OOtber 

0 Nor applicable, I attend safety seminars. 

• 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

c 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 · 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-------

------------- 58. Which c:l the following would you like ro see covered -- ar the FAA Safety Seminars? (Mark the ONE subject -

that 11101t appeals ro you.) -

0 Federal Aviation Rqulationl -

OA.inpece - 0Weacher -

0 Riaht Planninc - 0 Pilol Techniques -

0 Scaii/Spin - 0 Pilot CertiAcarion &. Trainin& -

0 local Aying Environment -

0 Other (Please tpeeify: -

59. Over the last rwo yean, how often have you attended - seminars or training sessions dealine with safety and -

other aviation i11Ul'5, nor sponsored by the FAA? -

OOnce· 

v Never ·

0 

-.) 

MOft 

lwo to 

than 

live 

five 

tirMS 

rimes -- 60. Were Hazardous 'Thought Patterns discussed as part --

ol any of your pilot training or experience? -

OYes U No -

61. Would you be interested in a program of voluntary - counesy aircraft inspections and airman checks, -

with no risk of adverse FAA actions? -

0Yes ONo -

pap 13 --

•• -

A13 
Appendix A 

-

--------I --------------------

-------

-----------------------

---

• --

1\'. CRITICAL A\'IATIO!'\ II"UDfNTS 

. l 1. 

62. How many aircraft accidma have you been in (a • .ftictitaew member}? 0 .C 0 0 0 

63. How many times have you run !0 low on fuel (NOT because ol 

equipmmt &illftS) that you we~ seriously conccmed about makinc it to 

an airport bd~ you ran out? 0 0 0 0 0 0 

64. How -.ty times haw you made • ~or bad landinc • • . - . :. J' ~:; 

airport other tMn your oricinal dettinadonl -0 0 0 0 o· 0 

65. How many times have you made a precautionary or forced landinc away 

from an airf~tld? 0 ,..., 

~.... .. 0 0 0 0 

66. How many times have you inadvertently stalled an aircralt? 0 c ,-, 

. 0 0 0 ..., 67. How many times have you become !0 disoriented that you had to land or 

call ATC for assistance in determininc your location? 0 0 0 0 0 0 

68. How many times have you had a mechanical ~ which jeopardized 

the safety ol your flicht? (For example, nav failure while oo a 

croa-counay; landinc sear stuck in up politioo; encine runnin& roueb or 

quinine.) 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 

69. How many times have you had an engine quit because of fuel starVation, 

either because you ran out of fuel or because of an improper pump or fuel 

tank selection? 0 0 0 0 0 0 

70. How many times have you flown into areas ol inltrument mereorolop:al 

conditions, without an instrument ratinc or an inltrument qualified 

aircraft? 0 c 0 0 0 0 

71. How many times have you become so disoriented after enterinc 

instrument meteorological conditions that you had diffkulty in 

maintaining control of the aircraft? 0 C• 0 0 0 0 

72. How many times have you turned back or diverted to another airport 

because of bad weather while on a VFR fli&ht? 0 0 c 0 0 0 

73. How many times have you ~quested and performed a practice OF 

(Direction Finding) approach? r- r- - ..... '-' 0 0 '- ..) 

74. How many times have you made what you later corwidered to be a very 

bad decision (!Omtthing you would Mver do apin) that could easily have 

resulted in an accident had circUINtal\ces been sliehtly di~~t? (For 

example, decidinc to press on to your destination in the face of 

deterioratin& weather and landinc just minutes bef~ a se~ storm front 

passes through.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

V. WHEN AND HOW IX) YOL' FlY? --- - -

If you wanted to make a VFR flight for some penonal or business reason (not involvinc life or death), what are the 

minimum conditiens under which you would begin that flight? 

0 . 

0 

:i;;,; ! 

o·· 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

n -' 

Assume that you are flying from the airport you normally use and that these are the cumnt conditions at the departure 

airport and along the route of flight for a cross-country flight and that your aircraft is not equipped for IFR operations. 

If the ceiling was lower than this value or the visibility was le5s than this value, you would not take off. 

75. A local (30 minute) day flight. 

76. A local (30 minute) night flight. 

77. A cross-country (200 mile) day flight. 

78. A cross-country (ZOO mile) night flight. 

1000 

79. A local (30 minute) day flight. 

80. A local (30 minute) night flight. 

81. A cross-country ( 200 mile) day flight. 

.. 

:: 

82. A cross-country (ZOO mile) night flight. -

~~· 

•• 

A14 

~ 

VISmiLITY (MILES) 

I 2 I 3 I 4 ! 5 I 6 I 8 

0 0 --, ,.... -~ 

~ · '-'' ,....; 

;::..,_ :::: ·- :::. .::.. . 

'-' ::::: :: · 

' -

CEILING (FEET) 

1 10 

0 

"'\ 

·.J 

0 

...... 

1500 2000 3000 4000 

' .-, :::. 

I 

·-- : ~ 

=- - :::. = ....) 

_, 

• 

I 15 

("'\ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

'-' 

sooo 

.::.. 

-:::. 

-. 

... . . . . ... 

... . . . • . • . ... . . . . . . . 

.. . . .. 

. ..... 

• . 

... . . . . 

l 

t 

! 

• 
••• • • • • ••• 

••• • • • • • • • ... 

• • • • • • • 

•• • • • • • • 

..... • . . 

. ••• . . . ••• 

• 

Airman Research Questionnaire 

-- How many times have you taken pan in the followine trainiJ\i experiences over the past twO yean? -- example, 

Count each 

you 

coune 

mieN 

you 

have 

attended 

attended 

and 

one 

each 

coune hour on 

ci 

the 

trainer 

aeneral 

or simulator · ipla time 

and 

• one 

edures 

inlunce 

ci naviption 

ci trainine 

by 

experience. 

Loran C. 

For ---- obcained three hours ci trainine in a procedures trainer to f'aniiliarize with how to use Loran C in your puticular 

aircnfr, .nd !hen had twO houn ci m-1\iahl iNtruction in your . to further dew lop your Loran c navlpdon skill . In that c.e you would fill in a circle llnlfer !he column lor I on !he 101r lor Generic~ llUdiel, fill ill a circle 

under !he column lor J on !he 101r lor pcoadura trainen for a~peeifiC u~ and flU in a circle under rhe 

column for 2 on !he lOW for in-flight traininl . --

---- 47. Generic pound-t-1 saxfiet.-.not 

bai(IKillc~ 0 0 0 0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 · 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

48. Ground baed studies for a !peeific - aircnitlfJI(em. 

49. Generic~ trainer-not for a 

lpCific rilcrllt/sysum. 

50. Procedure trainer for a !peeific 

aircnitiSfSlem. 

51. Generic fticht simulator (not motion 

t.ed) 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

------

--- 52. Ri&ht simulator (nor mocion based) 

for a !peeific aircraft. 

53. Ommc JDOdon..t-f Riaht 

limu&.x. 

0 0 0 0 

0 c 0 0 

c -- 54. MOlion·based flight simulatOl for a - !peeific aircraft. 

55. ln.flicbt aaiftin&. 

0 

0 

56. 'The FAA fftquendy conducts safety seminan 

dealine with safety and other aviation ilaues. Over 

the last twO yean, how often have you attended 

these FAA sakty seminars? 

0 Never 0 Two to five rima 

0 OtiCe 0 More than five times 

57. If you have never attended an FAA sakty seminar 

or attended only once, what is the principal reaaon 

(~nor attending? 

0 NOl at a convmiem location. 

0 NOl at a convenient time. 

C Material presented is nor relevant to me. 

0 My schedule is too busy for me to attend. 

0 Poor quality ci presentations. 

OOther 

0 NOl applicable, I attend safety seminan. 

• 

0 0 - 0 0 0 

c --

A13 

- 58. Which ci the following would you like to see covered ---

at !he FAA Salety Seminan? (Mark the ONE subject -

that DIOit appeals to you.) -

0 Federal Aviation Rqulationl -

0Ampece - Oweamer - 0 Ri&ht Plannina - 0 Pilot Techniques -

0 StaiiJSpin - 0 Pilot Certifkation &. Trainina -

0 local Rying Environment -

0 Other (Please !peeify: -

59. Over the last rwo years, how often have you attended - seminars or training sessions dealing with safety and -

Olher aviation issues, nOf sponsored by the FAA? -

OOnce• 

v Never 0 

0 More 

lwo to 

than 

tive 

five 

times 

times -- 60. Were Hazardous lbought Pattema discussed as pan --

of any of your pilot training or experience? -

OY~ UNo -

61. Woold you be inter~ted in a program ci voluntary - coun~ aircraft inspections and airman checks, -

with no risk of adverse FAA actions? -

OY~ ONo -

fi'CIICU -

•• -
Appendix A 

-

-

-

-

--

---

I ----------------

----------

---

-------

-----------------

• --

1\'. CRITICAl AVIATION 11\:l'IDfNTS 

1. 

62. How many ain:nlt acciderus have you been in (• ~ member)? 0 c 0 0 0 

63. How many times have you Nn 50 low on fuel (NOT because of 

equipment &ih.ns) that you were seriously concemed about makina it to 

an airport before you ran out? 0 0 0 0 0 0 

64. How ~Y times haft you made a~ or fa.ad landirlc • a . ·• J' ~:; 

airport ocher than your orieinal datinadonl ·0 0 0 0 0' 0 

65. How many times have you madt a precautionary or forced landina away 

from an airf.eld? 0 ,..., \_.• 0 0 0 0 

66. How many times have you inadvertently salJed an aircralt? 0 c ,...., 

. _. 0 0 0 

67. How many times have you become 50 disoriented that you had to land or 

call ATC for assistance in dtterminina your location? 0 0 0 0 0 0 

68. How many times have you had a mechanical failure which jeopatdi:ed 

the safety of your fti&hr? (For example, nav failure while on a 

crou-counay; Iandin& pr stuck in up polition; mcine runninc roueh or 

quinine-) 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 

69. How many times have you had an engine quit because of fuel starvation, 

either because you ran out of fuel or because of an improper pump or fuel 

tank selection? 0 0 0 0 0 0 

70. How many times have you flown into areas of inltrument meteorological 

conditiom, without an in.stru~t~tnt rating or an inltrument qualified 

aircraft? 0 c 0 0 0 0 

71. How many times have you bec0111t 50 disoriented after enterina 

instrulfltnt lfltteorological conditions that you had difficulty in 

maintaining control of the aircraft? 0 C· 0 0 0 0 

72. How many times have you turned back or diverted to another airport 

because of bad weather while on a VFR fli&ht? 0 0 c 0 0 0 

73. How many times have you requested and perforlfltd a practice OF 

(Direction Finding) approach? r ,... ~ ..... "-' 0 0 '- ..) 

74. How many times have you made what you later corwidtred to be a very 

bad decision (something you would never do again) that could easily have 

resulted in an accident had circumstances been sliehtly d~rent? (For 

example, deciding to press on to your destination in the face of 

dtterioratin& weather and landing just minutes before a se~ storm front 

passes through.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

V. WHEN AND HOW 00 YOLl FlY? ~ - -- - - - -

If you wanted to make a VFR flight for 10me penonal or business reaaon (not involvina life or death), what are the 

minimum conditiens undtr which you would begin that flight? 

0 . 

0 

: ii;. : ! 

o ·· 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

c 

Assume that you are flying from the airport you nonnally use and that these are the current conditions at the departure 

airport and along the route of flight for a cross-country flieht and that your aircraft is not equipped for IFR operations. 

If the ceiling was lower than this value or the visibility was lm than this value, you would not take off. 

VISIBILITY (MILES) 

I 2 I 3 I .. ' 5 I 5 I 8 1 10 ' 15 

·"" ~ 

~ 

....... 

,... ~· v 0 

""\ 

· . . 0 ~ ·...-' 

-.. ...... 

75. A local (30 minute) day flight. 0 0 ~, 

':::_ ':: ~ 

76. A local (30 minute) night flight. ,...., 

-' ' 

77. A cros&-country (200 mile) day flight. .""\ ;:: - ~ 

-· ::::: :: 78. A cross·countty (200 mile) night flight. . -

CEILING (FEET) 

1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 sooo 

79. A local (30 minute) day flight. ~ 

.-, 

80. A local (30 minute) night flight. .. ~ 

'-· ';:::' 81. A cross·country (ZOO mile) day flight. -:: . :: 

82. A cross-country (200 mile) night flight. - ::., ::::: = -i 

jlclce J.f 

•• • 

A14 

... . . . . ... 

... . . . • • • • ... . . . . . . . 

.. . . .. . . . ..... . . 

... . . . . ... 

~ 

I 

i 

• 
••• • • • • ••• 

•• • • • • • • • • 

••• • • • • • • • 

•• •• • •• • 

• ••••• • • 

. ••• . • ... • 

• 

Airman Research Questionnaire 

-

-

----------

----

- If you an: maJan, a VFR OlQISS.(X)lJNTII.Y RJGHT in a aenem aviation aimalt (such • a c-.. 172), what -- percentqe «the rime do you do the f'ollowinc? -

96. l&Ka~-chewadlerW.IabrL 

97. I top alf and/u check my fuel tanb before I cake elf. 

98. I COIIIpiU 111J wetabc -r Waac:e Wen I .Xe cl 

99. I periorm a complete s-·fliaht iNpection. 

100. I we a chedlilt b t.i:ft-cakc-af and befcn-landlne checb. 

101. I compute my expected fuel consumption before mu alf. 

102. I file a fticht plan. 

103. I ~weather updata for my route and destination durin& 

fliaht. 

104. I fly Wider VFR above ove«at cloud layaa. . 

lOS. I fly at less than 1,000 ~t AGL to maintain cloud clearance. 

106. I fly ar lea chan SOO feet AGlto maintain cloud cltarance. 

107. I verify my fuel consumption rate in flight. 

108. ... .., thoalder bar-. 

109. I would cld below minimums to act N.e. 

110. I am capable« iNtrument flight. 

111. I am a YaY cmeful pilot. 

112. I never feel smaed when flyinc. 

113. 1be rules controllinc flvin& an: much too lttkt. 

114. I am a very capable pilot. 

liS. lam10 carelul that I will never have an ICddent. 

116. I am very skillful on conaols. 

117. I maw aviatiOn procedwa very well 

118. I deal with streu very well. 

119. It II riskier to fly at nJaht than durin& the day. 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

120. Most «the time accidents are caused by things beyond the pilot's conttol. 

121. I have a thoroueh lcnowledge of my aircraft. 

122. Aviation weather forecasts are usually accurate. 

123. I am a very cautious pilot. 

• •• 

A15 

-------

--------

---------------------

--

-- ,.u --

-
Appendix A 

-

-

----- 124.., The ,pilot .oould have more c.onaol over hooi 

12S." U..Uy your f111t response is the bat raponae. 

... . . . . 

-

- 126.~ l'lloCI 1r a11r ro Ynclentand the -mer IMxmatim 1 au belen a.-. . i27. Yw ibould decide quickly and then make ad;Uitlllella later. 

... . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . -- 128 •. k II YaJ lmlikdy that a pi)oc c:i DIY ability would have •ICddent. 

129.' '1 fly~ to maintain my proficiency. .. . . .. . . - 130. I know ho. to ttl help &om ATC if I au inrD trouble. 

- 131. 'There are very kw situations I couldn't ttl out c:i. 

- 131. II JOil don't pUib younelf and the aircn6 a little, yoU'D ne.s bow .t.t ,_ 

. ..... . . -- couldch . . 133. I often feel stressed when flying in/nar weather. 

-- 134 .. S!:meriinei yOu )Ill haw to depend 00 hd to ttl you rhrou&h. 

IJS. Speed is niore important then accuracy during an emergency. 

... . . . . ... 

-- \II. I'.\Hillll'\110:'\ 1:'\ H Il Hl..,ll Dll., 

-- The FAA may conduct further research to assist pilots in their - decision making and to study how the skills and abilities c:i - piloa change durirw their aviation careers. Please indicate 

- whether ycu would "be willing to participate in these studies. 

-- 136. I would participate in future survey studies. 

- 0Yes 0No 

-- 137. I would participate in srudies in which I complete tesu in 

- myhome . 

... _ OYes ONo 

------

---------

-----------

138. I would participate in studies in which I eo to IOille 

nearby location (like the airport) to complete tests. 

0Yes 0No 

139. I would participate in studies that have repeated, 

semi-annual surveys and tests. 

OYes 0No 

140. Do you ha~e access to a computer (IBM PC compatible) 

that you could use to take some tests or for training? 

OYes 0No 

i41. Age: 

142. Sex: 

0 Male C Female 

143. Hill- level c:i education: 

0 Grade School 

0 Hi,h School 

0 Aslociate dqree, or equivalent 

(2 yean c:i collqe) 

0 Collqe paduate (B.A .• B.S., oc other 

bachelor's degree) 

0 Master's dqree 

0 Professional or Academic Doctocate 

(M.D., J.D .• Ph.D., etc.) 

lf:JOK '-,_, annen~.~, fll-,_dieM • • .,_au ,_. _, lncWe dian with tile~ -"en,_ 

aend it !Jed to ... "' oddidon, - -u lib to .._. 

about,., jleriGMI ~ ~ deddon malcinc 

wlaich ,_ _, ,_ held. 

If,_ haw- pnwnaJ ~ inwh>inr JOOCI ~~' 

bad judpwnt ,_ -LIIilc.c co share with au, - -'d 

wry nNCh liJc.c co hear about them. If,_ wish co clo so, on 

a HJICmlk wet of paper describe - jla'sonGl inseance 

in wlaich )'OUf JOOCI ;.ulrment 4WI1af uM could '-'e 

turned inco 11ft acddent II' doae CGil. '" addition, ,_ could describe 11ft inseance of poor,...,._,.,, in wlskh 

)'OUf decirion led co a doae call, inddaat or acddent. In 

both inseancu please try co be as specific as ,_ CGn about 

the ciramueanca l1m'llllftdinc tile incident (...Mt ,_ 

. were dainr -' '-:JOK ..,C to that point) -' emcdy 

..U the aiticdl decision was tlwd led to « awned laur 

. problau. 

- PlEASE DO NOT WRITE IH THIS AREA 

- ,..16 Ill •••• = • :ee coc cccc 

-

-- •• • • 

A16 *U.S. GOVERNMENI' PRIN11NG OFFICE: lftS • "'-t67/28032