DOTF)WNI-016Pilot Views of Montgomery

Ojt44 e County, Texas Automated

\\~~n ND iI') S FSS Services

00

DTI

Fin~i Repoit D-7ET

T1is d~umnit is Availabio 111c puL~ki dir p

the KainA Tcaulr~ Inrormatinrvice.

USDePWaeNe

o( Ianpoctation

Fed.ota AMIon

Amstrotlon
DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
4/.

NOTICE

This documern is disseminatcd tnder the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Tianslormtion iz, the interest of

inrormaiion exchange. The United Swtes Governmenr

assumes no -iabiliky for the conents or use hercof.
Tshkel kopott O.:woottIs Pogo

1. 11"f** o. G**qIAA Act tt"001 Me, X 4g? II leof -, too,

IDOTIFAL/AM-9016

Pilot Views of Montgomery County, Texas August 190

Automated VSS Services

__________________________... ... . .________________ Pq'j*.".s..l OI4IIIII +,IIs' MOl

Carol A. Manninl. D'ild J. Schroeder

9. P* t il 164 e.. , - I -l*0s U.. ",e 1TAII

FAA Civil Aeromodical Institute

P.O. box 25082

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 l se,, ... p.,. .. ,,l

Mt ,M,,,4it , tput Pao#.* "4,+ ... +t.l

offIc41 Of Avition M441CtO*

00 Indepandence Avenues S.W. We 4ftit, 

Washington, D.C. 20591

This work wis performed under ask A-C-8l/89-HRR-102

The Federal Aviation Administration 4'has seldcm assessed the

satisfaction of pilot 51customersW'* with the services provided by its

air traffic facilities. Moot available information about pilots'

satisfaction with Air Traffic Control (ATC)/ servicea is anecdotal;

thus, decisions affecting the users have been based on management's

perceptions rather than on an objective measure of the flying

public's satisfaction with the services provided. The purpose of

this study was to assess user satisfaction with the services provided

by one air traffic facility, the Montgomery County, Texas Automated

Flight Service Station (AFSS). The study also provides the FAA with

' model for assessing user satisfaction with other ATC services.

,verall, pilots who responded to the survey were very satisfied with

ch rformance of the specialists at the Montgomery County AFSS, and

we lightly less satisfied with the services provided by the

facility. Private pilots were more satisfied than were Airlino

Transport pilots with most of the services. The pilots' perception

of how the PSS weather briefers performed their jobs affected rating.

of satisfaction with the facility's services. A significant area of

dissatisfaction to pilots was the amount of time they thought was

required to reach a pilot briefer, especially during inclement

weather. -4-

11. K*.Wed% D ,I. ,.4S 5O**,,S!

Air Traffic Control fDocument is a.Ailable to the public

Pilots through the r'cionnal Technical InformnSatisfaction tion Service, Springfield. Virginia

Survey 22161

Unclassif ied Unclassified 59

Fm DOT F 1700.7 (1-72) Roplodvcll. of cemplolod Page oulhotid

F'
ACKNOWLEDGEI( NTS

Thie authors wish to acknowledge tile following Individuals ror

assisting In various ways with this project: Keith Gunncl. Speciilist,

Montgomery County AFSS, for providing technical advice to tle

authors and coordinating the project with facility and regional

management; other Montgomery County AFSS specialists and staff

who reviewed the survey and waited patictly for the project to take

place; a number of unidentifled pilots, who provided advance reviews

of the survey, Kevin Uiyant and David Nelms. for obtaining a readable

version of the Airmen Directory File, Clara Williams for handling the

logistics of mailing the surveys and processing the response forms;

Lena Dobbins, for writing the data entry programs and providing other logistical support, a number of unnamed contract workers who

stamped numbers on forms and stufled envelopes; Carolyn Dollar, for

developing the procedure for assigning codes to pilot comments, and

for assigning codes to comments: Lendell Nye and Wayne McMillin.

for also assigning codes to comments: and Fred I lyman, Mary Weltili,

and Dana Broach, for careftlly reviewing the manuscript.

NTI:S GC I

3DIC TAH

SDl~tritution/

A - A

IlI/iv
rILOT VIE~WS OF IIN17GONIERY COUNTY, T1VXAS AUTOMATI) ESS SERVICES

IINRODUCTIOIN

Thec Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilitiks have few methods for

assessing t satisfactoi of their pilot *customers,* t primary users of the services they provide. Most

of the Information available regarding pilots' percepdonj of satisfaction with ATC services is anecdotal; tdccisions to institute services and plans In respons to major system changes are thus based on

manatement's perceptions of user satisfiction rather than an objctively dtermincd measure of the flying public's satisfaction with the services provided. The purpose of this study wvas to assess user satisfaction

with one such change, the Introduction of Automated I-light Service Stations (AFSSs), by measuring pilots' reported satisfaction with the services provided by a single AFSS located in Montgomery County, 'Iexas.

Ii istorv of AESS gutetioln an nlidation

The recent consolidation and automation of FAA flitht service stations (FSSs) is a system chatige whidh

should be evaluated from thtL usrs' perseective. The Flight Service Automation Program Master Plan~

(1978) IdentIfed! one obitct of automating flight service stations as *meeting the present and projected iongterni denw.ad for flight services without a proportional increase In staff and comimensurate, operatig costs.* The original plan called for automating a numbe of the busidst Flight Service Stations. then

collociting and consolidating many of the present FSSs Into flub facilities located at the Air Route Traffic

Control Centers (ARTCCs). An anvnded plan (1980) revised the stepis, elimlna'int the effort to collocate

the PSSs Into ARtTCC facilities and instead provided for t 318 thtrnexisting iPSSs to be consolidated

Into 61 new facilities, 59 of which would require new buildings to he constructed. Currently, 46 of the

61 planned AFSSs are operational and 123 of the manual FSSs remain.

Prevlous surveys of pilo stjii(Action With AIE$S igrvi ts

Although much of the consolidation and suto~,atiori of FSSs began In 1986, no FAA studies were conducted

to evaluat user satisfaction with the services pro,4ded. T'he only surveys which assessed pilots' use of and

satisf'action with AFSS services wetre conducted hy the Aircraft Owners =nd Pilots Association (AGFIA) ilpi magazine. AOPA conducted twov surveyi, the first in August 1986, and the second in September 198?.

The results of these AO1bA surveys, published in December 1986 and February 1988, Indicated that about

92% of the readers did not use a private vendor service for weather Information and that 53-54% alwavs"

contacted night service. Furthermore, between August 1986 and September 1987, the percentage of readers

whose Oprimary contact* was made to automated as compared with manual FSSs increased from 23% to

43%. An increasing percentage of readers fronm the first survey to die second reported encountering significant delays with A FSSs; however, the qiuestion w-as phrased in such a wkAy as to make interpretation of these results difficult. In general, these surveys provided somec useful Information about user perceptions of system usage, but did not provide the FAA with sufficient feedbadch regarding speiric prolems.

Purnose of FAA survey

This report describes an FAA-sponsortd survey administered to pilots in the flight plan area of the AFSS

located In Mfontgomery County, Texas. The survey was developed to ascertain pilots' perceptions of the

quality, cost effectiveness, utilization, and knowledge of the types of services offered by the Montgomery County AFSS. and to a lesser extent, by other AFSSs. The hluman Resources Research Division (IIRRD) of the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute assisted the Mfontomery County AFSS in developing, administering, and analyzing the survey.
TI'- primay purpose of this stu~ly was to address Issues related to user saisfaction with services provided

by 3 spcific f3dlity so that othei AFSSs could become aware of the smisfaction pilots have with different

ypes of services aid learn what otors c influence satisfaction with AFSS scrvices. It was not possible to

deie that type of Information frout the AOPA surveys because those surveys primarily addressed system utili ation rather than user saisfacton and did not employ a specific sampling plan. The FAA survey,

besides inclou'in a set of questions 1br which .answers were provided in a multiple choice format, also

provided a nondireetlvc. areA in which respondents were allowed to provide comments ddrosing their

specific concerns about the scrviecs provided by AFSSs. Furthermore, the s.ampling strategy used in the

dministration of the FAA survey allows the results to be generalized to paricular groups of pilots,

The Information gained from this survey will be used by the Montgomery County AFSS to: a) determine

in what ways users percelve that their needs are or ar not being met, b) determine the level of awarness

of tho services provided by AFSSs, c) t3blish a nethod of dentifying s-stem %eaknesses, and d) obtain

an evalution ofservices which will contribute to making decisions regrling future system Improvent.

The NcIlity pl.ms to rev A- and revise their operational policies, If apropriate, based on the results of the

suirvey. Restlts of the .. ",ty will also be provided to Regional 2nod I leiquarters managers.

tI&,TIf 01)

Subjects were randomly selected from all pilots in the .AA Airmen Directory File whose addresses of

record fell in the Monigomery County APSS's flight plan area as of June 1989. The Airmen Directory File contains a record for each certii ed airman who has Lcen issued a valid airmen medical certificate

within the last 25 months. The file is updated twice t year.

It was expected that different types of pilots might utilize AFSS services differenially, and might have

different perceptions and concerns about the flight services provided by the Montgomery County AFSS.

Consequently, sampling was stratified by pilot certificatc (airline transport, Commercial, private, and

student) to allow the results to b generalized to each type of certificate holder.

Formula 4.19 from Schaeffer, ,cndenhall, and Ot (1979) was used to determine the sample size required

for each pilot group, assuming a 5% bound on the error of cstimation. 1"he sample site Identified as

appropriate for each group was doubled to insure that even if only 50% or the chosen sample responded,

the number of responses Would be sufficient to insure the 5% bound on the error of estim3tion. Procedures

from the SPSS-X statistical package were used to separate the airmen population into the different cenificate

categories and select each random sample. A total or 2,292 pilots was selected using this nethod; 554

held airline transport pilot certificates, 554 held commercial pilot certificates, 656 held private pilot

certificates, and 528 held student pilot certificates.

DaftuonMt& The Instrument was based on a set of questions identified by the specialists at the

tontgomery County AFSS, These questions ere refined a number of times, then reviewed by a certified

flight irstructor, a human performanc lnesttg.tor for the.National Transportation Safety Board, and a group of si non~government pilots identified by an Aviation Safety inspector assigned to F/AA Flight

Standards District Oflice 67. The pilots were asked to record the amount of tm required to complete the

questionnaire and any conIents they ha about the questions. Their coments, and those of the other

reviewers, inSnpo-ated were into the coordinated final with otm personnl the queitnnaire. from the Montgomery merstu, County AFSS and many ere

t2

Is r r I % I r X e ou V_______
The. final version of tho questionnire contained 56 Items; 14 dtaling with Information about recent flying c4Nrrince, 3 dealing with the Amount of time required to conrtcr a pilot weather briefer. 10 dealing with

the amiount or utiiration. of specific APSS services 3 dealing widho type of kwther briefing typically rusted, 6 dealing with utilization of speciric inflight And UPAS services or prmodres, 6 dealing withi

saifcinabout specific AFSS services. I dealing with use of the *Fast Pik" system to file (lIght 1lans

6 dealing with ratings About Montgone County specialists, 5 dealing with satisfaction and f1iil iarity With Monitomery County specialists Qservices. I comparing the services provided by Montgomery County AiVSS with those provided by other AFSSs, and I Indicating whether the resivondent would bk

Interested in receiving Additional information about APSS strvices.

M~ail~z A cverletter describing the projet and arinted questionnaire were administerecd by mall to thesapleofpiltsdescribed above (Appendix A cowtans a sample of the pae4age). Respondents recorded

thira swrona optically scanned mark sense form and returned It In A prep3id mailing envelope, along with a handwritten commient sheet atid request for Additional Information. Thle informAtion recorded on

t0w forms was tranisferrd to A Digital VAXR ifl$048350 cluster system for further analysis.

Respondents were assured that their namies %%,ild not be Associated with tlldvidual responses ufter the data

had been processed. However, a code number was Assigned to cachi naine to Allow a second mailing (including Another copy of the questionnaire, response sheet, And mailing enivelope) to be stito pilots into

did not respond to the first mailing. On the seconid milling, a one-page letter was aded to the package which allowed the pilot to Indicate why he or shet did not complete the sur.,ty. The single page document

could be returned Instead of the response sheet.

Handwritten comments were catelorized using a classification procedure d,_veopcd by the Authors and a

psychology tchnician from the IIRRD. lie categories idenrtified whether the comments were positive or

negative anid the generA content of the comment within cech of these classifications. Three independent reviewers used the classification procedure to categorivt up to 5 discrete comnrts for each pilot. Any discrepancies in the categorization of commtents were discussed until A consensus was achieved.

Discen~niesof slf.j~Qf ii~jfl~IL~Qtd~ nTe number sam-led In each group of pilots w&as

based upon the clast of ahmen certificate recorded for each pilot in the Afrmen Directory it. Whelin the

surveys were returned, 84 pilots reported that their most Advanced certificate was different than that whichi

had been recorded for them. In maost cases. differences in certificates occurred because pilots reported that their most advanced cenrtiicate wAs higher thin the one recorded In the file. For example, 8 pilots recorded

as commercial. 16 pilots recorded As private, and 54 pilots recorded as student reported that their most Advanced certificate was hrigher tian that recorded In the file. However, two pilots recorded as airline

transport pilots, I pilot recorded as contnerlial. and 4 pilots recorded As private reported trat their most

advanced certificate was lower than what was recorded in the Airmen Dirctory File.

For the puriose of the study, If a pilot reported that their 'most advanced certiicatioiW was different than

the certificate contained in the Airmen Directory Fite, their self-report was used for categorization. The 0most" advanced certiication' for those who turned In only the sheet indicating why they did not complete the survey and did not report the certificate held, was aissumed to be that whI:h was coded in lte Airmen

Directory File.

3
Xassnd='ss Willi tbh^ exception or thle student pilots, return rates were very consistent across groups regaraless or type or certiniat heid. While only about 24%S (n- 126) of student pilots returned their

surveys, 60% (n-i395) of private pilots. 60% (n-330) of commercial pilots, and S9% (11-326) of airline

transport pilots returned their Sdrvcyt;. The low return rate made it difcl to Seneralize the results of the

survey to t population or student pillots. Consequtntly, the group of student pilots was eliminated from

further analyses.

Surveys sphiltted by 21 other piots were also eliminated front further analyses because they Indicated In

their Comments thiat they 1) had not flown for at least 3 yecars (and thus could not have used Mentgomery County AFSS' automated services), or 2) had not used the service provided by tie Montgomery County AFSS (because they obtained wexther and flight plan services from another source or used die services of

another MSS or A FSS). 'The responses of commercial pilots who reported that they used thd Ell Route

Flight Advisory Services (131AS) provided by Montgomery County AFSS were retained, even If they reported using none of the other available services.

&=q A-I^. About five pecent (118s) of the 2,292 surveys mailed were not deliverable because they had Incoc adresses, No othe addresses which wevre more accurate could be obtained for these pilots. Tht highest proportion of surveys with incorrectaddresses had been milled to student pilot (44%), About

25% were addressed to private pilots, 16% were addresed to commercial pilots. and 15% wedre addressed

to airline transport pilots.

Overall, 1,177 surveysiwere returned. Three hundred and twenty-six (em) of t returns were the single page forms that had been sent with the second miltling to request information about wh-fy the first omlinq

wvas not returned. Morc s;udent Pilot respondents returned single page forms than any other group of

respondents (about 48% (61) of student Pilots). About 22% (88) of private pilot respondents, 2.1% (SO) of commercial pilot respondents, and 30% (97) of airline. transport pilot respondents also returned only the

single page response sheet form.

Motprvt (73%). commercial (64%), and airline transport pilots (85%) who completed thle single picl

repnefrm, reported that they did so becatuse they do not use the services of the Montgomery County AI-Sns Onl 39 ofsuetplots who returned the single p age form reported that they do not use dhe

services of that particular APSS. Onl tie otiter hand, a higher percentage of student pilots (43%1 thin

pots wvith other types4 of certinites (ringing front 9.25%) reported that they did not complete dhe sur~ty bCause they no longer fly as pilots.

D-Afflanhics

Overall, 6s5% of the remaining, 725 pilot respondents who completed the survey Indicated that they have

an Instrument rating. About 22% of private pilots, 87% of conunercial pilots, and al! airline transport pilots reported holding an Instrument rating.

11jZM.LiiinL Twenty-nine private pilots, twetnty-twov commneal pilots, and seven airline transport pilots reported not flying at all during the last 6 months. Tables I and 2 show the number of hours that

pltwthdilfrent tye ofcriiae eotdfyn uigtepeiu otsb h ype of nlight, tyeo civity, and tyeo-icat eealfwplt eotdsedn n or l ing t for

o r eut ngine pressurizeda tur ohre tuircrafl.

4
TAB1.E I

NUMIMR OF HOURS FLOWN PER MONT , DURING LAST 6 MONrtS

H1Y TYPE OF FLIGHT

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATE HEL)

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

I'ILOT PILOT TPANSPORT PILOT

% I N Ir N rt

VFR FOR I'PERSONAL BUSINESS

NO IOURS 155 53.3% 120 50.8% 165 77,1% 1-10 HOURS S 29.9% 70 "A-9, 31 14.,5,% 11.50 HlOURS 37 12.% 32 13.6% 12 5.6%

MORE THAN 50 fIRS 12 41% 14 59% 6 2.3%

1"R FOR PERSONAL BIUSIMSS

NO HOURS 245 S5.7% 150 638% 169 79.3%

1-10 HOURS 31 1018% 56 238% 33 15.5%

11.50 HOURS $ 2.3% 20 $,% 5 2 3%

MORE THAN 50 IIRS 2 .7% 9 3.8% 6 2.8%

VFR FOR PLM-ASURE

NO HOURS 56 19.1% 9 1 37.9% 149 70.0%

1-10 HOURS 149 50.9% 105 43.18% 51 23 9%

11.50 HOURS 77 26.3% 36 15.0% 9 4.2%, MORE THAN 50 IRS 11 3.$% S 3.3% 4 1t9%

If-lt FOR PLASURE

NO HOURS 243 8S.0% 175 74.8% IS6 8771

I-10 HOURS 37 12.9% 50 21.4% 21 9,9%

11-50 HOURS 5 1 7% 7 3.0% 4 1.9%

MORE THAN 50 !IRS 1 ,3% 2 9% 1 .5

VFR COMMEI CIAL FOR HIRE

NO IOURS 284 100% 141 60.0% 139 64.71%

1-10 HOURS 27 11.5% 24 11,2%

11.50 HOURS 30 12.8% 22 10.2%

MORE THAN 50 fIRS 37 15.7% 30 14,0%

IFR COMMERCIAl. FOR ItlRE

NO HOUR!; 22 100% 167 71.7% 47 21.S%

1-10 HOURS 30 12.9% 25 11,4% I1-50 HOURS 19 3.2% 33 15.1%

MORE THAN 50 1IRS 17 7.3% 114 52.1%

..... ....
TAB1LE 2

NHIBItR OF HOURS FIOWN tITR ,MONI, )URING LAST6 MONTHS

BY AIRCRAFT USr.

MOST ADVANCE.1D CE"RTIPICATI1. ItEUI)

PR VATI2 COMMERCIAL. A!ILINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N % N %

I,!1INGINE UNIPRESUKIZIID AIRCRAFT

NO HOURS 39 13.1% 58 24.1% 129 60.3%

1-40 HOURS 133 44.8% 69 28.6% 53 24.8%

11.50 HOURS 98 33.0% 67 27.8% 18 8.4%

MORE THAN 50 1IRS 27 9.1% 47 19.5% 14 6.5%

1.EINGINI PRrESSURIJI) OR

TURBOCtIARG!I) AIRCRAFT

NOC)OOURS 264 92.3%. 208 $9.3% 201 95.3%

1-10 HiOURS 14 4.9% 16 6.9% 9 4.3%

11-50 HOURS 5 1.7% 7 3.0%

MORE THAN 50 IlRS 3 1.0% 2 .9% 1 .5%

,IULTI.ININE UNPRrSSURI7.D CRA-T

NO HOURS 266 9410% 16o 695% 15s 72.8%

1-10 HOURS 11 3.9% 36 15.5% 31 14.6%

11-50 HlOURS 3 1.1% 24 10.3% 13 6.1%

MORE 711AN SO IRS 3 1.1% 11 4.7% 14 6.6%

MULTI.ENGINI: PRESSURIZFD OR

TURBOCIIARGED AIRCRAFr

NO HOURS 278 97.9% 203 817.5% 172 80.8%

1-10 HOURS 2 .7% 15 6.5% 17 8.0%

11-50 HOURS 3 1.1% 6 2.6% 6 2.8% MORE THAN 50 IIRS 1 .4% 8 3.4% 18 8.5%

TURIJO.PROP AIRCRAFi

NO HOURS 283 100% 202 86.7% 157 74.1%

1-10 HOURS 8 3.4% 13 6.1%

11-50 HOURS 11 4.7% 19 9.0%

MORE THAN 50 IIRS 12 5.2% 23 10.8%

JET AIRCRAFT

NO HOURS 281 99.3% 203 86.8% 67 30.7%

1-10 HOURS 2 .7% 5 2.1% 10 4.6%

11-50 HOURS 11 4.7% 34 15.6%

MORH THAN 50 IIRS 15 6.4% 107 49.1%
Additional anaplyses were, Conducred whic-h furter Combined pilot group (respondents were catcgorlted

as either OiA or -more dhil C hourso spent Maing cach type of flitht or flying each type of aircraft.)

T1he analyse' 10tdfi4A ;gn~t significant differtrnees In t frrequencies with which certain types of pilots

reported maiug different types of 1h111. The results Of thed Chi square Statistics producedi from these

analyses are shown in Appendix 02 3c discussed below.

Private and commpdeal pilots reported flying VFR for personal business with about equal freqtutne' bt

both madet VPIR~ business flights significantly more frequently than did airline transport pilots. 1irvate

pilots were significantly more likely to fly VYFg for pikaure aW fly single engine unpressuriled aircraft

than -Aere both commerciA and airline transport pilots. Commrterclil pilots were also significantly mtore

likely to nuke these typos of flights than were airlne transport pilots.

Comrciall pilots were more likely to report flying IFR for personal business and for pleasurc than were

either private or airline transport pilots. The frequency with which private and airline transport pilots

reported making these types of fligts did not differ significantly.

Private pilots were significantly less likely to report flying muldtigine unpressurizied aircraft and multl.

engine pressurized or turbochargtd aircraft than were elth.-r coimercial and airlift, irtnsport pilots. Thia

frequenicy with which commercial and airlint transport pilots reported naking these types of flights did

not differ significantly.

No significant differences were observetd between airoLn transport and commercial pilots Iii the frequency

of making VFR commerceial flights or flying singke-engine pressurited or turbocharged aircraft.

h~owver, airline transport pilots were significantly more likely than commercial pilots to report making

IMR cominerciAl flights and flying turbo-prop aircraft and jet aircraft. Private pilots were excluded fromt

these analyses because they did not make commercial flithts; or fly turbo-prop aircraft, TWO NASA pilotS

with private pilot Certificates reported flying jet aircraft, but because of the Infrequency of occurrence.

those data were not analyzed.

SD1Qft 111UmlWfuiLim. A series of items wa:s Included which assessed pilots' utilization of

specific weather briefing services provided by either AFSSs or nongovernmental sources:. Thest serviinclude the Telephone Information Briefing S tem (Ti BS), the Interim Voice Response System (IV'

an ArPSS preflight specialist, the AM Wealter Television show on PDS. television, radio statioi,

newspexr reports of weadtr, private comp anies, an AFSS inflight specialist, the Transcribed Weno

1)roxa nrTW1:D) on the GLS NOB, the Hazardous inflight Weather Advisory Service (11IWAS)

the. CA Rot. Flight Advisory Service (11l'AS, also called "Flight Watch").

ton iclues phne.TilS geeraize wethe brefig i anare or along a limited set of routes. The

recodin isupdtedperidicllyandas ondiion chnge 1VS is a service run by a contractor which

proide inormtio wethe alo ccesibe b toch~onephoe.The data used for IVRS are based on

IAA eater atarecive frm te Knsa Ciy Wathr Mssae Switching Center. IVRS Incorporates

moedtie wahrifrmto hde i s ,btdosntprovide Notices to Airmen (NoTA~is)

for any portion of a flight. The TWB IS a continuous recording of meteorological and sonmc aeronautical

informition, covering the basic flight plan area, that is broadcast on a Nondirectional Becacon (NDB) to

be received inlight. The II IWAS is a continuous broadcast of inflight hazardous weather advisories

obtained from the National Weather Service or urgent pilot weather reports. These advisories predict or

identify locations of conditions hazardous to aircraft Inflight.

r AA preflight specialists communicate to pilots the meteorological and aeronautical information ne-cessary prior o a fnight. Preflight specialists provide current information (weather and NOTAMs) applicable to

7
n

the piiot's route of flight. IFAA inflght specialists rovlde information similar to that provided by' the

pirelighr specilist, but they .ommunicte by rado with pilots who are already aloft. Inflight specialists daw much of their infor141on from current weather obsetvations and reports.

The AM Weather television show, produced by the National Weather Service, Is shown on Public

broadcasting System affiliated stations each moning. The show, targ.ted to aviation viewers, provides gtneral information about c"petted weather across the country for the coming day. Viewers are reminded

to obt ln a tomplctc weather briefing prior to departure. Television, radio, and newspaper %.%vthr reports

are very general and do not contain Information required for light planning.

A number of private companies offer weather services. These Include alphanumeric and graphical displays of weather Information, bwd in some cases on interpretations made by staff meteorologIsts. Verbil

briefings are provided by some companies, while others allow the pilot to access their weather data base

using a personal computer and print out a hard copy of a weather briefing or weather ataps. Note that

at the time this survey was administered (July 1989), the Direct User Access Terminal oystem (DUAT)

was not yet on line (ImplkmcnitIon took place In September 1989). Thus. pilots' j idgments about use

of wcather services provided by private companies does not encompass the I)UAT system.

The ElAS speciallst provides en route aircraft with timely Inflight weather advisories pertinent to a pilot's route of flight. he -veather sources used by the EFAS specialist Include real-time color weather radar, National Weather Service outlets, pilot weather rtpons, t d Geostatlonary Operational Environmental

Satcllite (GOES) Imagery products.

Table 3 shows the percentage of flights on which each type of pilot reported using each type of service

as their primary weather sourre. The high perccntage of pilot, Indicating that they us,^ each type of

service suggests that the pilots may have responded to these items as If they were, sked to report on what percentage of their flights they used each service as anj important weather sout , rather than on what

percentage of their flights they used each as their UIima weather source. The way In which pilots responded to these Items makzes It difficult to Interpret the responses.

TABILE 3

ON WHAT % OF YOUR FLIGHTS DO YOU USE THE FOLLOWING

AS YOUR PRIMARY WEATHER SOURCE?

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATE HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N % N %

TELEPHONE INFORMATION BRIEFING SYSTEM ('TIBS)

DO NOT USE 107 35.9% 94 39.5% 135 61.9%

* = 50% OF TIME 96 32.2% 97 40.8% 63 28.9%

> 50% OF IME 95 31.9% 47 19.7% 20 9.2%

INTERIM VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM (IVRS)

DO NOT USE 209 71.3% 147 62.0% 167 76.3%

* = 50% OF TIME 74 25.3% 76 32.1% 46 21.0%

> 50% OF TIME 10 3.4% 14 5.9% 6 2.7%

8_ ... . .- " .-
TAIE 3 (continued)

ON WHAT % OF YOUR PLIGHTS DO YOU USE TIlE FOLLOWING

AS YOUR PRIMARY WATIER SOURCIv

MOST ADVANCED CERTIPICATH I HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRI.INIE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N % N %

AFSS PREFLIGhIT SPECIALIST

DO NOT USE 59 20.0% 62 25.9% 71 34.8%

< 50% OF TIME 104 35.3% 77 32.2% 58 26.2%

> 50% OFTIME 132 44.7% 100 41.8% 86 38.9%

AM WEATHER TV SHOW

DO NOT USE 145 48.7% 97 40.2% 103 46.3%

< - 50% OF TIME 98 32.9% 107 44.4% 90 40.9%

> 50% OFTIME 55 18.5% 37 15.4% 27 12.3%

TV, RADIO, NEWSPAPER RIEPORTS

DO NOT USE 98 32.9% 67 28.0% 84 38.2%

< - 50% OF TIME 125 41.9% 115 48.1% 98 44.5%

> 50% OFTTIME 75 25.2% 57 23.8% 38 17.3%

PRIVATE COMPANY

DO NOT USE 252 85.4% 171 72.5% 87 39.7%

< - 50% OF TIME 38 12.9% 38 16.1% 39 17.8%

> 50% OF TIME 5 1.7% 27 11.4% 93 .2.5%

FSS INFLIGHT SPECIALIST

DO NOT USE 80 27.2% 46 19.2% 53 24.0%

< = 50% OF TIME 154 52.4% 135 56.3% 117 52.9%

> 50% OF TIME 60 20.4% 59 24.6% 51 23.1%

TRANSCRIBED WEATHER BROADCAST ON THE GLS NDI3

DO NOT USE 149 50.5% 110 45.6% 116 52.7%

< = 50% OF TIME 122 41.4% 112 46.5% 95 43.2%

> 50% OF TIME 24 8.1% 19 7.9% 9 4.1%

HAZARDOUS INFLIGHT WEATHER ADVISORY SERVICE (tIlWAS)

DO NOT USE 196 66.9% 131 54.8% 88 40.0%

< = 50% OF TIME 83 28.3% 92 38.5% 107 48.6%

> 50% OF TIME 14 4.8% 16 6.7% 25 11.4%

EN ROUTE FLIGHT ADVISORY SERVICE (EFAS)

DO NOT USE 71 23.9% 51 21.3% 36 16.4%

< =50% OF TIME 148 49.8% 127 52.9% 134 60.9%

> 50% OF TIME 78 25.3% 62 25.8% 50 22.7%

9
Additional analyses were conducted to compare the percentage of pilots responding that they used the

equipment or services with the percentage who did not use the. services, and to assess the frequency of use

for those who responded that 'hey used the equipment or services. In these chi square analyses, uslng a

significance level of .01, comparIsons were made to determine whether the pilot groups differed

significantly in their usage of specific AFSS services. 1h .esults are reported In Appendices C and D.

Appendix C shows no significant differences beween pilot groups In the percentage reporting that they

used the AM Weather television show; reports from television, radio, etc.; an AFSS Inflight specialist;

the Transcribed Weather Broadcast (rWEB); and the En Route Flight Advisory Service (EF:AS). However.

a significantly lower percentage of airline tra:,sport pilots than both private and commercial pilots reported using the Telephone informntion Briefing System (rils) and a significantly lower percentage of airline

transport pilots than private pilots reported using an AFSS preflight specialist. Also, all groups differed

significantly in their use or a private weather service and the Hazardous inflight Weather Advisory Service

(IIIWAS). Airline pilots reported using both private weather services and the HIWAS most frequently;

private pilots reported using these sevvices least frequently, A significantly higher percentage of

comnmrcial pilots than airline transport pilots reported using the Interim Voice Response System (IVRS).

Appendix D shows the results of analyses which compared the frequency of utilization of particular AFSS

services for members of each group of pilots reporting that they use the services. For most of the services

listtd, the frequency of utilfratlon did not differ as a function of de type of pilot certificate held. However,

a higher percentage of airline transport pilots than commercial pilots, and a higher percentage of

commercal pilots than private pilots reported using a private weather service more than 50% of the time.

Also, private pilots reported using the TIBS more frequently than did both commercial pilots and airline

transport pilots.

TABLE 4

WHAT % OF THE TIME DO YOU ASK FOR THE FOLLOWING

WHEN CONTACTING A PILOT WEATHER BRIEFER?

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATE HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N % N %

STANDARD PILOT WEATHER BRIEFING

DO NOT USE 37 12.5% 49 20.5% 72 32.7%

< = 50% OF TIME 41 13.8% 46 19.2% 46 20.9%

> 50% OF TIME 219 73.7% 144 60.3% 102 46.4%

ABBREVIATED WEATHER BRIEFING

DO NOT USE 123 42.1% 90 38.0% 89 40.6%

< =50% OF TIME 154 52.7% 119 50.2% 100 45.7%

> 50% OFTIME 15 5.1% 28 11.8% 30 13.7%

AN OUTLOOK BRIEFING

DO NOT USE 78 26.4% 73 30.5% 94 42.9%

< = 50% OF TIME 137 46.4% 119 49.8% 94 42.9%

> 50% OF TIME 80 27.1% 47 19.7% 31 14.2% ..-. ..... .......-....... ............-..-...

10
L J Table 4 shows the percent of time pilots reported asking for cewtaln types of whvalr briefings when contacting an AFSS pilot weather brifer. In gcneral, tandard briefngs vere

requested most frequently, outlook briefings next, then abbreviated blfilnts. Chi squuae analyses, reported I Appendix E, wre conducted to compare the frequency of rcqutstIni prtlctlar types of brifings by type of pilot centificate. No significant differences were found In the percentage of any group of pilots requesting abbreviated briefings. Airline transpon pilots were significantly less Ikely than were both

private a comnrcla! pilots to request both standard and outlook brlefings. lowever. private and

commercial pilots did not differ significantly in the frequency of their requests for any type of briefing.

Table 5 showi the percentage of pilots reporting dia it required more or less than 3 minutes to contact a

pilot weather brte~r during pcrids of "nonsignifican" and Significant" womher. Appendix F contains

the re ults of chi squ3re analyses which compared the percentages reported by each type of pilot certficte

holder. A significantly lower percentage of private pilots dhn airline transport pilots reported that It took

more than 3 minutes to contact a briefer during "onsitnificant" wather, and a sinilficantly lower

percentage of private pilots than both commercial and airline transport pilots reported that It took more

tIhan 3 minutes to contact a briefer during *signilficant" weather. No signifieait differences betn

conmercial and airline transport pilots were observed,

With regard to this Issue, it must be ncted that "slgnilcnr and "nonsignificant* were not defined to the

pilots, but were left up to the pilots' Interpretation. Weather perceived as significant to a private pilot nmay be perceived as nonsignificant to an airline transport pilot. Furthermore, times reported by pilots to reach

pilot weather briefers are not actual measurements, but are instead their perceptions of the amount of time

required.

TALIoE 5

TIME Ri"-QUIRED TO REACH A PILOT WEATHER IIRIEFER:

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICAr. IIEI.D

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N % N %

DURING "NONSIGNIFICANT" WEATHER

3 IINUTES OR LESS 234 94.0% 159 90.3% 115 82.1%

> 3 MINUTES 15 6.0% 17 9.7% 25 17.9%

DURING "SIGNIFICANT* WEATHER

3 MINUTES OR LESS 168 69.7% 90 48.9% 52 36.1%

> 3 MINUTES 73 30.3% 94 51.1% 92 63.9%

1Iilization of infliht and EFAS services. Table 6 shows responses to items dealing with die utilization of inflight services, particularly die En route Flight Advisory Service (EFAS.) Examination of Table 5

suggests that two.thirds of the pilots utilized AISS Inflight services. Additional analyses, reported in

Appendix G, compared rates of utilization for each group of pilots. The results reflected no slgnificant differences between pilot groups in the percentage who reported using EFAS, identifying their radio

frequency to an inflight specialist, or their position or altitude when contacting EFAS. Private pilots were

less likely than were both commercial and airline transport pilots to use EFAS between 10:00 p.m. and

6:00 a.m. Airline transport pilots were more likely to use the discrete high altitude EFAS frequency than

were either private or commercial pilots. Furthermore, commercial pilots were more likely than were

private pilots to use the high altitude EFAS frequency.

11
Anothcr question conerned the us of the F: t File sstcm to llk fight plans. Results of :1 chi square :m3lysis show d that prihxc pilots wre slniicanly Ies likely to use thi Ftile system thmi %wr. both

cosnyrldl and airlinc trsport pilots. Conmxrcial arnd airline trasport pilots did not differ significantly

in their utiliation of tie Fast File.

TABLE 6

ON WHAT % OF YOUR FLIGHTS DO YOU.

'MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATE HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

IDENTIFY YOUR FREQUENCY TO INFLIGIIT SPECIAIST

DO NOT USE 90 30.3% 54 22.5% 55 24.9%

< 0 50% OF TIME 99 33.3% 71 29.6% 4S 21.7%

> 50% OF TIME 108 36.4% 115 47.9% IS 53.4%

USE EFAS

DO NOT USE 78 26.2% 56 23.3% 47 21.4%

< - 50% OF TIME 148 49.7% 113 47.1% 125 56.8%

> 50% OF TIME 72 24.2% 71 29.6% 48 21.8%

USE EFAS BDErWEEN 10 PM AND 6 AM

DO NOT USE 198 66.9% 115 47.9% 91 41.6%

< =50% OF TIME 87 29.4% 102 42,5% 114 52.1%

> 50% OF TIME 11 3.7% 23 9.6% 14 6.4%

IDENTIFY YOUR POSITION UPON CONTACING EAS

DO NOT USE 79 26.5% 51 21.2% 51 23.4%

< = 50% OF TIME 55 18.5% 35 14.5% 49 22.5%

> 50% OF TIME 164 55.0% 155 64.3% 118 54.1%

IDENTIFY YOUR ALTITUDE UPON CONTACTING EFAS

DO NOT USE 92 30.9% 64 26.7% 61 28.0%

< = 50% OF TIME 87 29.2% 61 25.4% 68 31.2%

> 50% OF TIME 119 39.9% 115 47.9% 89 40.8%

USE THE DISCRETE HIGH ALTITUDE EFAS FREQUENCY DO NOT USE 27i 91.6% 181 75.4% 91 41.4%

< - 50% OF TIME 21 7.1% 38 15.8% 62 28.2%

> 50% OF TIME 4 1.4% 21 8.8% 67 30.5%

USE THE FAST FILE SYSTEM TO FILE FLIGHT PLANS

DO NOT USE 209 70.4% 142 59.7% 122 55.2%

S= 50% OF TIME 79 26.6% 83 34.9% 79 35.7%

> 50% OF TIME 9 3.0% 13 5.5% 20 9.0%

12
The next, section concerns the extent to which pilots reported that they were satisfied with various aspects

or tie services provided by the Montgomery County ASS. Th1e section will address satisraction wih

specific types of services. the per~ev nI adequacy of the briefings provided, and tile mverallt satisfaction

with ilia flight services providedI by Montlomteq County AFSS. The relative frequency or responses will

bW analyied first, then relationships between di~teen Items will be analyzed.

~ Table 7 shows the percentage of pilots reporting differing degrees or

satsfactIon lit specific equiptmnt and scrvicms. Those responding that they did not use the services were

excluded front te analy-ses. A general egimintion of the data suggests that airline transport pilots were

less satisfied an private pilots wevrc more satisfied with the services described, with the excepion of the

IIIWAS and EMAS.

Appendix It shows the results of more specific staistical analy'ses which compared the percentage or pilots In cach group who expressed satisraction with each type of~ service provided. For the purpose or this

analysis, the responses were combined Into two categories; those responding 'Not at AI or "To a limited

extent- were catelorited as *Not satisfied,' while those responding 'To a ;nod'irate extenit." 0,11 a

considerable extent,* or 011o a great extent'~ were categorize-d as *Satisfied.0 This melhod of eategori7.ation

was used to allow comparisonr , results of this survey with results of other user surveys.

The results suggest that a higher percentage of private pilots than both airline transport pilots and

commercial pilots wetre satisfied with the amount of timte required to contact a pilot weather briefer.

Furthermore, a hgeprengeof private pilots were satisfied %% q thTil S ths de I'IRS, thie pilot wvelther

briefings, and the TWEBl than were airline transport pilots. No, other significant differences occurred

betwee private and commercial ptilots and no significant differences occurred between comniclil and

airline transport pilots In the percentage reporting satisfaction with any of thle services.

TABLE. 7

To WHAiT r..vrEN'r ARE YOU SATISFIED WI'Tm mIIFLOWING

MOST AD)VANCED CE'RTI FICATE IIE LD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PIL.OT miLOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

IN % N % N

NOT AT ALL 11 5.3% 7 4.7% 14 12.4%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 30 14.6% 29 19.5% 29 25.7%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 34 16.5% 28 18.8% 20 17.7%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 57 27.7% 37 24.8% 17 15.0%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 74 35.9% 48 32.2% 33 29.2%

INTERIM VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM (IVRS)

NOT AT ALL 18 18.8% 20 21.5% 23 24.5%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 15 15.6% IS 16.1% 28 29.8%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 19 19.8% 15 16.1% 13 13.8%

TO~ A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 17 17.7% 18 19.4% 8 8.5%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 27 28.1% 25 26.9% 22 23.4%

13
TABIX 7 (contInued) TO WHAT l1-\"rl-NT ARE YOU SATISF:IED WITH THE FOLLOWING:

MOST ADVANCED CIHRTIFICATE HELD

-PRIVATE R- TT V* W. ~ 'et *C't COMNILERCIAL *0* 'S* I I IW -IAI. NI eA AIRLINE I I *. -I Ii -

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N ,% N .%

MONTGOMI.ERY COUNTY AFSS WEATIhER fRIEFWS

NOT AT ALl 3 1.2% 3 1.5% 2 1.3%

TO A LIMITED EXTINT 8 3.1% 14 7.1% 16 10.0%

TO A MODERATE .r;NT 36 14.1% 22 11.2% 20 12.5%

TO A CONSIDERAILE EXTENT 68 26.6% 62 31.5% 47 29.4%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 141 55.1% 96 48.7% 75 46.9%

TRANSCRIBED WEATHER BROADCAST ON GLS NDII

NOT AT ALL, 11 6.2% 9 6.2% 18 14.1%

TO A LIMITED I-XTENT 41 23.0% 38 26.2% 39 30.5%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 52 29.2% 37 25.5% 32 25.0%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 34 19.1% 30 20.7% 13 10.2%

TO A GREAT EX"IENT 40 22.5% 31 21.4% 26 20.3%

HAZARDOUS INFLIGiHT WEATHER ADVISORY SERVICE (HilWAS)

NOT AT A LL 14 12.7% 15 13.2% 9 6.0%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 24 21.8% 24 21.1% 36 23.8%

TO A MODERATE E, XTENTr 23 20.9% 22 19.3% 31 20.5%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 21 19.1% 27 23.7% 33 21.9%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 28 25.5% 26 22.8% 42 27.8%

EN ROUTE FLIGirT ADVISORY SERVICE (EFAS)

NOT AT ALL 8 3.3% 11 5.6% 3 1.6%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 26 10.8% 20 10.2% 21 11.3%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 48 19.9% 32 16.2% 34 18.3%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 58 24,1% 54 27.4% 51 27.4%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 101 41.9% 80 40.6% 77 41.4%

Ratings of Montiomerv County AFSS ascialist oerformance, Table 8 displays responses to items

regarding pilots' evaluations of specific aspects of the performance of the specialists at the Montgomery

County AFSS. In general, the ratings for the areas addressed by these items seems to be very high for

pilots holding each type of certificate. Areas for which the lowest percentage of pilots provided positive

ratings included the accuracy of the weather briefing and the extent to which the specialists tailored the

weather briefings to meet the needs of the pilot.

Chi square analyses were conducted which compared the performance ratings provided by different groups

of pilots for the dichotomized rating variable. The results of these analyses are displayed in Appendix I.

The results suggested that there were no statistically significant differences between any of the pilot groups

in their ratings with the Montgomery County AFSS specialists' performance, although a marginally higher

percentage of private pilots than commercial pilots provided positive ratings for the technical competence of Montgomery County specialists. A marginally higher percentage of private pilots than both commercial

and airline transport pilots, provided high ratings for the extent to which the specialists tailored weather

14
briefings. . m irnaly hIgher perc~gem of conurl thin alrlin ir nport pllots Save hi h rmings

to Oh sufcidency of die wxhdr briefng to i1onW planntln a lIht.

TABLE t

TO WIIAT IXTENT IX) YOU FEEL THAT MONTGOMERY COUINTY AFSS SPECIALISTS:

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATI HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT I'lOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

ARE COURTEOUS 1N TIlE CONDUCT O1F TIIEIR DUTIES

NOT AT ALL. 1 .5%

1O A LIMITED EXTENT 2 .8% 2 1.0% 3 1.8%

TO A MODERATE: EXTENT 19 7.3% 20 10.0% 8 4.57

TO A CONSIDIERABLE I.LXTENT 71 27.3% 53 26.4% 37 22.4%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 168 64.6% 125 62.2% 117 70.9%

APPEAR TECIHNICALLY COMPI'ENr

NC r AT A.I. .5 %

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 3 1.2% 9 4.5 % 4 2.4%

TO A MODERATE IETENTi 20 7.7% 17 8.5% 16 9.7%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EX"rENT 76 29.3% 61 30.5% 53 32.1%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 160 61.8% 112 56.0% 92 55.8%

PROVIDE ACCURATE WEATiHER BRIEFINGS

NOT AT ALI., 1 .4%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 4 1.5% 9 4.6% 8 4.9%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 27 10.4% 44 22.7% 20 12.3%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 99 38.1% 77 39.7% 60 37.0%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 129 49.6% 64 33.0% 74 45.7%

PROVIDE COMPLeTE WEATIrlER BRIEFINGS

NOT AT ALL 1 .4%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 6 2.3% 5 2.6% 8 4.9%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 24 9.3% 25 13.0% 13 8.0%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 83 32.0% 63 32.6% 57 35.2%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 145 56.0% 100 51.8% 84 51.9%

PROVIDE YOU A BRIEFING SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW YOU TO PLAN FLIGHT

NOT AT ALL 1 .4% 1 .6%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 6 2.3% 4 2.1% 9 5.6%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 16 6.2% 24 12.6% 13 8.1%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 73 28.2% 54 28.3% 43 26.7%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 163 62.9% 109 57.1% 95 59.0%

TAILOR THEIR WEATIIER BRIEFINGS TO MEET YOUR NEEDS

NOT AT ALL 2 .8% 6 3.1% 3 1.8%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 17 6.6% 19 9.9% 19 11.7%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 27 10.5% 23 12.0% 25 15.3%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 78 30.2% 55 28.6% 45 27.6%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 134 51.9% 89 46.4% 71 143.6%

15
fl~tf~t~ nd aihftionwith~rv~ or ~xI'4~Tlb 9 shows the degree to which different pilot

ccnificate holdds reported knowledgle of and s3ri'sf-iIon with he services providcd by the Montgomcry

County A:SS mid otler AFSSs. ll1Iher percenmies of pilots expressed sitisfacrton with Monigomry

Countys services thin expressed SAIstaction with the servlc provided by 111 AFSSs.

TABLE 9

TO WHAT .\TENT ARE YOU. n....n.n.....n....... . ... . ... ...................... ......... MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICAT1'E IIiLD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PII.OT TRANSIORT

PI.OT

N % N % N %

FAMILIAR WITH SERVICES PROVIDED HY MONTGOMERY AFSS SPECIALISTS

NOT AT ALL 4 1.5% 4 2.3%

TO A LIMITI"Mi Ex.\TEr 79 29.9% 42 20.4% 21 12.1%

TO A MODEHIIATE EXTENT 80 30.3% 59 28.6% 42 24.3%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXrl-TENT 63 23.9% 51 24.8% 61 35.3%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 38 14.4% 54 26.2% 45 26.0%

CONFIDENT THAT YOUR FLIGIT PLAN WILL BE HANDLED CORRECTLY

NOT AT ALL 1 .5% 1 .6%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 8 3.4% 4 2.1% 9 5.8%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 20 8.4% 20 10.3% 19 12.3%

TO A CONSIDERABLE Ei\"EN'r 55 23.1% 53 27.3% 41 26.6%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 155 65.1% 116 59.8% 84 54.5%

GENERALLY SATISFIED WITH TIlE PERFORMANCE OF MONTGOMERY SPECIALISTS

NOT AT ALL 1 .4% 1 5%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 5 1.9% 7 3.5% 9 5.5%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 18 6.9% 18 8.9% 17 10.3%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 79 30.4% 69 34.2% 51 30.9%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 157 60.4% 107 53.0% 88 53.3%

GENERALLY SATISFIED WITH SERVICES PROVIDED BY TIlE MONTGOMERY AFSS

NOT AT ALL 3 1.2% 2 1.0% 3 1.9%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 11 4.3% 8 4.0% 12 7.5%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 32 12.5% 38 19.2% 28 17.5%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 93 36.2% 76 38.4% 56 35.0%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 118 45.9% 74 37.4% 61 38.1%

GENERALLY SATISFIED WITH SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL AFSSs

NOT AT ALL 4 1.6% 4 2.0% 7 4.0%

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 21 8.4% 24 12.0% 33 18.6%

TO A MODERATE EXTENT 49 19.5% 57 28.5% 46 26.0%

TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 96 38.2% 67 33.5% 50 28.2%

TO A GREAT EXTENT 81 32.3% 48 24.0% 41 23.2%

16
I

Chi square analys', contAtnd In Appendix J, compared the rtlative s3isf(tion of etch group of pilots wi the servies provided by the Montgomery County AFSS using the dtchotomwous response variabl'.

Significantly fewr private pilots than both commerclal vvd 2irlina transport pilots wera fmilnar with the

services provided by the Montgonicty County A:S$, Commercial and airline transport pilots expressed statistically equivalent degrtes of familiarity with the services provided. No differenes wtre foutd in th.

rantgaes of pilots from each of the groqu who expressed m odoe to high degrees of satisfaction with

the services provided by the Montgonery County AF.SS. lloever, a hi hcr percentage of private pilots

than airline transport pilots vre satsfied with the services provided by all FAA's AFSSs.

Table 10 shows the percentage of pilots who rated the srvices provided by the Montgomery County A\SS

in coinpuison with the services provided by other APSSs. About 44% of thde pilots thoughi Montgonety County's services were better than those provided by other A:SSs, and fewer than 5% thought the services

provided were worse than those provided by other A-SSs. Chi squ:re analyses revealed no sitntiicant

differences in ratings as a function of the type of certificate held.

TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF MONTGOMERY CouNrY SERVICES WTll THOSE OF OTHER AFSSs:

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATE HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSPORT PILOT

N % N % N %

RAT- MONTGOMERY COUNTY ASS SERVICES AS COMPARED WITH O'I'IIER AFSSs

MUCH BETTER TH4AN OTHERS 41 16.0% 24 11.7% 21 11.3%

SOMEWHAT BEr'rER THAN O'IHERS 73 28.5% 68 33.2% 61 32.8%

ABOU'rTHESAMEASOTIERS 136 53.1% 106 51.7% 101 54.3%

SOMEWHAT WORSE THAN OTHERS 4 1.6% 6 ,9% 2 1.1%

MUCH WORSE THAN OTHERS 2 .8% 1 .5% I .5%

A series of analyses was conducted to identify patterns in the ratings made by Ohe pilot respondents.

Correlational analyses, a factor analysis, and regression analyses were conducted and will be reported In

this section. The purpose of the analyses is to identify the items which may predict satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the services provided by the Montgomery County AFSS, so that the facility can target those areas.

Corre I analyss Pearson product-moment correlations were computed between the items in the

survey to assess their interrelationships. Correlation coefficients, as used in this context, are statistics

which describe the extent to which pilots' responses on one item are related to their responses on a second

item. Correlation coefficients range between -1.0 (a perfect negative correlation: suggesting that every pilot who made a high-valued response on one item also made a low-valued response on a second Item) and + 1.0 (a perfect positive correlation; suggesting that every pilot who made a high-valued response on

one. item also made a high-valued response on a second item). A correlation of 0 suggests that all

responses are independent; that is, there is no relationship between the response made on one item and the

response made on a second. Subsets of correlation coefficients computed between items on the survey can

be seen in Tables 11-14.

17
For these analyses. the variable describing ty: of pilot wAs dccompod Into three variabls, 'Privatco*

Corineeia, ad 'irlne ranpor,' Achhving a vleof I Or 0, dcrrendIng ondttype of tiflate

held by each pliot. Thet rows 3ne tolumns In t tables contain abbrtv itions desteibing the content of

each Item. For furdtr clarifiestion of the labels, lsc refer to Ap;Kndix A.

Table I I shtows the intecorrtlations betweven thp. type of pilot Ad Items reflecting the pilots' experiene,. type of flighi, typo of aircrAft flown. trA knowkcdge of ASS services, Themtble Illustrates that typedo ratings was cortelated with %Y typ 11,11a and aircraft usage. Raving a lids-to pilot c.rtificate was

positiVeY correlitttd with number of haurs spent flying V M. for pleasure an was Mf ativciy correlate

with having An -IFR rating, making VFR or IM~ commerci~l flightts. and flying jet aircraft. Ilaving a

commercil lo ccrting.are was positivly correlated with having an IPR rating.Haiga rlntasot

pilot certilfisa was positively correlated w~th having an WR rating, nuking IFR commercial Algtts, and

11I~yng turbo-prop an jet aircraft an was negaltivey correlated with flying single-trigine tinpressurired arcroft and mtking ViFR pleasure flights.

P'atterns or sincAnt correlations Can be found attong othtr Items. Ilaving an IMR rating was positively correlated with nwiang IFK and \'FR comomial flights, flying IFR for personal business, and flying Jet

aircraft. Making VIPK pleasurd flights was correlated with makd ng I1PR pleasure flights, and making VFR

flights for personal business was correlated with making IFR flights for personal business. Flying single- engine uppressurircd aircraft was positively correlated with making VF-R flihs, for both pleasurd and

personil business and wis negatively correlated with flying jet aircraft. MACin VFR commercial flights WAS correlated with flying muitl-engine inpressurixed aircraft and turbo-prop aircraft, and making Ii'R

commetrclil flights was correlated with flying mulrl-engine pressurized aircraft, turbo-prop aircraft, and

Jet aircraft. Finally, flmg multi-engina presuiid aircraft was correlated with flying turbo-prop aircrift.

Trabie 12 shows correlations between the type of pilot, itemis dealing with tiiliration of specific APSS

services, and knowledge of AFSS services. Pew items were significantly correlated with each other.

Having a private pilot certificate had a negative correlation and having an airline transport pilot certificate

had a positive correlation with using ~s private company as a primary weather soturce. Trhe amount of time

perceived to be required to contact a briefetr during "nonsignificant" weather was correlated with the

amount of time perceived to be required to contact a pilot briefer during "significant'0 weather. Use of

iLhe AM Weather show as a primary weather source was correlated with use of TV, radio, etc., as primary weather sources. Use of an inflight specialist was related to use of the TW1I3, HI WAS, and TiPAS ais

p~inwy weather soturces. (Ise of T%1i:11 was also correlated with ust of IlIWAS, and use of IIIWAS was

correlated with use of IWAS as primary weather sources. Requesting a standard briefing was negatively correlated with requesting an abbreviated briefing.

Table 13 shows Intercorrelations between the type or pilot, knowledge of AFSS services, and variables

related to the utilization of the EFAS. Holding a privae pilot certificate was negatively correlated, and

holding an airline transport pilot certificate was positively correlated, with using the discrete High Altitude

E FAS frequency. Identifying one's position was highly correlated with Identifying one's attitude when

contacting EPAS, *The percentage of the time that ERAS was used was correlated with using the EFAS

as a primary weather source, percentage of time that EPAS was used between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a~m., percentage of time that tie pilot identified his or her position and altitude when contacting EPAS, and the

user's satisfaction with '2FAS.

Table 14 shows intercorrelations between the variables Indicating type of pilot cenrtiicate held, kno'?ledge of AFSS services, variables related to satisfaction with specific services, and general satisfaction with

Montgomery County's services. The variables describing the type of pilot certificate held and knowledge of services were not related to ratings of satisfaction, Satisfaction regarding die time to reach a briefer was

mnoderately correlated with satisfaction regarding Montgomery County specialists, and with satisfaction

regarding the services provided by Montgomery County's and all other AFSSs. Items assessing the

courtesy and competence of the specialists; the accuracy, completeness, and sufficiency of the briefings: t4nd the egree to which the briefings are tailored to the pilots' needs were highly correlated with each other

and with items assessing satisfaction with Montgomery County specialists and services. To a lesser extent, these items were also correlated with the rating of satisfaction with services provided by all APSSs.

I8
I 4k 0 4 M

< 09.

ac 0,e- " o W h

>I I o:,0 

wE . A*

09. eCn t0~n -z-0h

4 ***1 ~ *1

0 

u a .. 04 mN 0 0 .0 00 Mle It%0000 ' i 0V.oV.V..q00,,h

0 4~ . i ~ w ~ . . . . . 14 08 A. m 0 ~ 4F.. 

C*M N 40 C, C Flgo

14e..0 '.C r -q 

90- .* 0 . 000b 14

56 0l9 00 .4~0t v **9M A.w e* 9 ~ 0~0n -ooXH.. U~dmo4 *-

I-wU H> > > W ) itFl0l~~ 

r !I::;:;:o 19F* C
aa 0 *t.

CI-D

n Aj Z

62i. .....-

9. C r4 0 ' 0 * * 'a 'an; 1 .4 A9 v tA0' v

%D to f*4 43

u '"I 'a, 'a wr.

U 4

0 0 r t m Dr C

04r- ifl-K 4 C 'C

Aw*o w. H~zgj 64 b

200
TABLE 15

ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX

PACt I FACT 2 FACT 3 FACT 4 FACT 5 FACI' 6

SATIS SPECLST .85

COMPLETE ORF .S3

SUFFICIENr ORP M82

SPEC COMPET.NT .32

TAILOR BRIEF .78

ACCURATR iRF .78

SATIS SERVICE .75

SPEC COURTEOUS .73

SATIS BRIEFERS .66 SATIS ALL FSS .57 -.36

COMPARE AFSS -.31

S1NGI ENG UNPR -.72

JET AIRCRAFt .67 .33 DISCRETE FREQ .63

IFR COMMERCL .60 .57

PRIVATE WX .60

VFR PLEAS -.59

VFR PERS BUS -.54 .33 IFR PLEAS -.47

IFR RATING .67

PILOT CERTIF .49 .66

VFR COMMERC .61 TURBO.PROP AC .60

MULTI-ENG UNP .53

MULTI.ENG 1R .53

FAMILIAR .39 IDENT POSN .69

% USE EFAS .66 IDENT ALT .66

EFAS PRIMARY .62 .32

SAT EFAS .50

USE INFLIGHT .43 .34 .30

EFAS 10.6 .38

STANDARD BRF .36

USE TWEB .66

USE IVRS .59

USE TIBS ,56 USE IlIWAS .37 .48

OUTLOOK BRF .43 AM WX TV SHOW .42

ABBREV BRF .33 .37 FAST FILE .31 .35 TIME SIGN WX .72

TIME NONS WX .69 SAT TIME BRFR .31 -.63 IFR PERS BUS -.36 .39

21
j~o Whildexamining correlations betwoen Individual variables Is uvtful, it Is diffletift to determine relationships bitweeni multiple variables. After completing the corrclAtiortal anaiyses,

a principl gompo1nents analys I using a Varimax rotation was performtd as an exploratory anlysis. PrInia componens analysis is one method of Identifyii a small number of common factors which

represent interrelationships between a large number of vaales.

Thlt principal components analysis used the items incikod in the survey to Identify factors which describe coolmon aspects of different sets of Items, The anAlys!. wms based upon the responses rf 407 pilots: Items .17.33, 40.and 4i (itms dealing with satisf(action with sixci fic services provided). and i 50 (conlfidenice that a iled flight plan will be handled correctly) were ecluded fromi thet analysis becAuse a considerable

number of pilots did not provide ratings of satis faction as they did not use thlt services. A screen test wvas used to idntify a 6-factor solution, which accounted for 43.9% of the common variance In thet responses. 11ie results are displayed in Table 15. Loadings less than .3 were deleted front the table. Loadings shoi In thlt table represent tile correlations betwn each variAble and each factor. ilie description of each factor is thus dependent on the common aspects of the variables that have high (psitive or negativ) correl~tiu

with thAt factor.

The first factor appears to represnt user satisfaction with Montgomery County's services. The Item that load$ highest Onl thle first factor assesses dhe wxent to whiich thet respondent is generally saitisfied with dhe

performance of the Montgometry County AFSS specialists. Other high-loading items deal with thle perceived sufficiency, accuracy. conirieteness of the weather briefigs, whether the briefings arc tailored to the user's needs, the perceived techn cal competence and courtesy of the briefers, the satisfrction with Miontgomery County AFSS's weather briefers and services, and Ceneral satisfaction with all AFSSs. Sawisfactit.a wit

tit ime required to reach a pilot weather briefer loaded moderately on the first factor. The imi comnparing Montgomery County's services with those provided by other ArPSSs had a moderate negative loading -,q this factor.

The second factor appears to be- defined by reiponses describing airline transport pilots, The items with the highest loadings on this factor rie the numuber of hours spent flying jet aircraft. use of the discrete Iligh Altitude IWAS frequency, number of hours spent making IPR commercial flights, use of a private company as a primary weather source, and type of illot. Items having high negative loadings on this factor Included flying single-engine unpressurircd aircraft, flying VFR for personal business or for pleasure. and flying IFR for pleasure. Thie amrount of timet spent flying IFR for personal business had a moderate

negative loading on this factor.

The third factor appears to be defined by elements associated with commer-cial pilots. The htems having the highest loadings on this factor include: having tin IFR rating: the type of pilot: making VP commercial flights: flying niuitiengine pressurized or unpressurized aircraft or turbocharged aircraft; and number of hours spent making IFR commercial flights, Items with moderate to low loadings Include familiarity with AFSS services, the amount of time spent flying jet aircraft, requesting an abbreviated briefing, and use of the Fast File system.

The fourth factor appears to be related to the use of the [iPAS. The items with highest positive loadings on this factor Include: the percentage of nlights on which the pilot uses ErAS; use of the I3PAS as a primary weather source; whether or not the pilot Identifies the position and altitude wl-en contacting EPAS; satisfaction with EFAS; and use of an infilit specialist as a primary weather source. Items with low to moderate positive loadings Include use of the IWAS between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., requesting a standard pilot briefing, and using the IIIWAS as a primary wetathzr source.

22
The fifth factor alpipars to be related to use of multiple sourccs to obtain weather Information. The hems

with thi highest loadings are use of the T,'ti the IVRS, the TillS, and the iiWAS, Items with low

to moderate positive loadinp included usint AM Weather as a prinary wCathcr source, requesting

abbreviatcd afd outlook briefings, use of P.FAS and an inflight speiAliht as primlry weathcr sources, And

use of the IAst File.

The sixth factor Is defined by tle items dealing with tli amount of time it takes to contact : pilot brifer.

both during periods of "nonslgnlficant" and "signtficant %wather. Satisfaction with the amount of time

required to contact a briefer has a high negative loading on this factor. Other items having low to moderate

positive loadings were use of an inflight specialist as a primary weather source and flying VFR and IFR

for personal business. The Item rating pilot satisfaction with the services provided by all ASSs had a

moderate negative loading on this factor.

l n. 10. hours .(!im On 'M zgle en pressurizd or turbocharged aircraft; item 20, iuii of a preflight specialist as a primary weather source; hem 22, use of television, radio, or newspaper reports as primary weather sources; and item 31, identifying the frequency whhen contacting an infight specialist, did not have

any loadings greater than .3 on any factor.

&UMaIM. Mnlysg.. While the factor analysis yielded some interesting, results, it is necessary to conduct

additional analyses to determine the variables predicting satisfaction with the services provided by th

Montgomery County A SS. Several regression analyses were performed. The an.lyses were conducted

separately for private, comntercial, and airline transport pilots to determine if different factors predicted satisfaction for pilots with different levels of experience and different flying requirements. i!ie purpose of the regression analysis was to identify a small number of items, or predictors, which sufficiently predict

or account for the variance in the pilots' satisfaction ratings, the dependent variables. Identification of such

a set of Items can Inform the facility about which factors affect pilots' satisfaction with the services provided.

Three dependent variables were used for the first set of regression analyses, These were pilots' rath ,s of 1) satisraction with (hie performance of Montgomery County AFSS specialists (item 51), 2) general satisfaction with the services provided b. Montgomery County AFSS (item 53), and 3) general satisfaction

with the services provided by all FAA ' A FSSs (item 54). Because relatively few pilots in each group answered all the questions on the survey, a subset of items was chosen to be the predictors for the

regression analyses which used the three dependent variables mentioned above. These include three

variables which combined Information from items describing the pilot's rating and amount of time spent making VFR or IFR flights over the last 6 months: items 20, 21. 23, 24, and 26 regarding the type of

services used as a primary weather source; items 28 and 29 regarding the type of briefing requested; items

32, 33. 36, and 42 regarding the use of and satisfaction with the EFAS; item 43. regarding use of the Fast

File system: items 44.49. regarding the perceived competence of specialists and adequacy of briefings provided; and items 15-17, regarding thde perceived time to contact a pilot briefer and satisfaction with that

amount of time.

Tables 16-19 show the results of the stepwise regression analyses. The multiple R is the correlation

between the combination of items entered at each step of the stepwise regression analysis and the dependent variable. R' is the square of the multiple correlation, and reflects tie percentage of variance in the

dependent variable that is accounted for by the combination of independent or predictor variables. R

is the change in the percentage of variance accounted for which resulted front adding an additional

23
varlable to the set of predictors. kras are the standard Ied regressit coefficlents which reflect the relative

Importance of the Indendent variables in predicting the dependent variable, in the presence of the other

Independent variables. The partial correlation Is the correlation between each Indeptident vaiable and the

dependent variable when the effects of the other Idepndent variables have been removed. This statistic

provides an esilniasi of thde relative Importance of the Independent variables In Isolation In predictlng the

dendent variable.

T:able 16 shows the results of the analysis using item 5, satisfaction with thde performance of Montgome County A.SS specialists, as 3 dependent variable. For al three groups of pilots, ratings on items 45, 4, and 49 (To wlhat extent do you feel that Montgomery Ccunty briefers 1451 appear to be technically competent, 1481 provide you with a %,ether briefing tha is sufficient to allow you to plan your flight, 1491

tallor their weather briefings to meet your specific needs) predicted satisfaction with the specialists. For

private pilots, Item 23 (use of a private weather company is a primary weather source) was Inversely related to satisfaction with Montgomery County specialists.

'FABLE 16

REGRESSION ANALYSES PREDICTING PILOT SATISrA..TION

DEPENDENT VARIABLE 1: SATISFACTION wIrit MONTGOmFR COUNTY SPECIALISTS

PRIVATE PILOTS (N11 195)

Partial

1, 48 .67 .45 .45 .29 .31

2 45 .75 .57 .12 .33 .39

3 49 .78 .60 .03 .29 .31

4 23 .79 .61 .01 -.12 -.20

COMMERCIAL PILOTS (N=150)

Partial

1 48 .74 .55 .55 .40 .41

2 45 .79 .62 .07 .26 .30

3 49 .81 .65 .03 .25 .29

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS (N=122)

Partial &M RM h lttple R R' chnc R Correlatin

1 49 .64 .41 .41 .37 .41

2 48 .72 .52 .11 .29 .32

3 45 .75 .56 .04 .24 .27

24
Table 17 shows tnm results of the analysis using itcm 53. general satisfaction with the scritees provided by Mopf onry County AFSS, as a dependent variable. For all three groups or pilots. ratings on item

17, satilsaction with the anount or time required to contact a pilot briefr, %as predIctive of satisfaction with the services provided by de facility. llowever, each type of pilot differed in the other variables which predicted satisfaction. For private pilots. the perceived technical competence of the brleer, and

the degree to which briefers tailored their briefings to the needs of the pilot also predicted satisfaction.

For commril pilots, the extent to which briefers provided a briefing that was sufficient to psan the flight and the perceived technical compeenc of the briefers also predicted satisfitlon. For airline transport pilots, the accuracy of the briefings and the degree to which briefers tailored thdir briefings to the needs of the pilot also predicted satisfaction.

TAIBLE 17 REGRr.SSION ANAI.YSIP, PREDICTING PILOr SATISFACTION

DEPENDENT VARIABLE 2: GENERAL SATrISFACTION WITH SERVICES

PROVIDED BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFSS

PRIVATE PILOTS (N==195)

Partial

1 45 .58 .34 .34 .42 .41

2 49 .62 .39 .05 .24 .25

3 17 .64 .41 .02 .16 .20

COMMERCIAL PILOTS (N= 150)

Partial

48 .63 .40 .40 .33 .33

2 17 .68 .47 .07 .26 .33

3 45 .72 .52 .05 .32 .32

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS (N= 122)

Partial

1 49 .52 .27 .27 .25 .27

2 46 .60 .36 .09 .35 .38

3 17 .66 .44 .08 .30 .35

25
TALAe IS At"Ws the results of tile nalysis using tem 54. general satisfaction with the services rovidcd

by .l1 FWAs AFSSS. as a dendent variable. For all three groups of pilots, ratings on item 49, (id extent

to which briefers tailored diir briefings to the needs of the pilot, ere. predictive of satlsfaction with all

AFSS. For pr;eV pilots, Jhe amount of time required !o contact a pilot briefer dotrlog times of signiflc.nt weathet was inversely related to salsfactlion (sug#eting that the less tlne they percivd %-as

recruired to contact a pilot weather briefer, die more lIkely they were to bW satisfied with services provided

by aill AFSSs). rind item 45, the perceived tecnilcal compctenct of die briefers, was positively related to

ssfa3tr,4nn. 14r commircial pIlots, tle percelvd accuracy of dte brieflngs was the only other Item found

to Ne prok0t|1w of satisfacion with all AFSSs. For airline tramnport pil=. the amount of time re qutd

to contlt a pilot briefer during times of "lgniflant" weather wm the. only other Item found to be related

to satisfactIonl, and Its relationship was Inverse.

TAILE 18

REGRISSION ANALYSES PREDICTING PILOT SATISFACTION

DI NDNT VARIAlLL 3: GEINERAL SATISFACTION WITH| SERVICES

PROVIDED BY ALL FAA'S AFSSs

PRIVATE PILOTS (N 195)

Partial

1 45 .43 .19 .19 .28 .27

2 !6 .49 .24 .05 -.21 -.24

3 49 .53 .28 .04 .M .23

COMMERCIAl. PILOTS (N IS0)

Partial

1 49 .51 .26 .26 .35 .34

2 46 .56 .31 .05 .28 .27

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS (Ne 122)

Parial

1 16 .43 .19 .19 -.38 -.41

2 49 .53 .28 .09 .31 .33

Table 19 shows the results or another regression analysis conducted using item 42, satisfaction with EFAS.

as a dependent variable. This analysis utilized a different set of predictor variables: 3 items about the

pilot's rating and type of flights made over the last 6 months; items 20. 21. 23, 24, and 26, regarding the

type of services used as a primary weather source; items 28 and 29, regarding the type of briefing

requested; items 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36, regarding de use of the EFAS; Item 43, reg.ding use or ihe

Fast File system; items 44-49, regarding dte perceived competence of specialists and adequacy of briefings

provided; and items 15-17, regarding the perceived time to contact a pilot briefer and satisraction with that

amount of time.

26
Results of dt rckxssilon :wIlysa.s ug esc that tle sal Items preicled tlsfatloni with l.1AS for both

Vr ic and comn.ercial pilots, but differnt cis of itenis ws predkctuie for aIrline transporn pilots. For

th1private and comnwrcial pilots, Items 32 (on what percent of y-our flights do you use the I.AS) and

hem 45 (die extent to which Montgolm , County AFSS speeillsis appear technically competcnt) Were

sufflicknt to predict satisfiction with the hFAS. I-or airlin trAnsport pilots. Item 34 (oto what percet of

your Ri.pts do you Identiy your position upon cont uing EFAS), item 36 (on what percent of your flights

do you use the discrete Iligh A,\ diw Mit AS frequency), and Item 48 (to what ex i do you feel that

Mont omery County APSS specialists provide you with a weather briefing that is suffIcki to allow you to plan yor flight) wicre sufticknt to prtcdict siisactlon with EP~AS

TABLE 19

RERESSION ANAIYSIi'S PREDICTING PILOT SATISFACTION

DEPENDENT VARIADI- 4: SAIrSFACMON WITl EAS

PRIVATE PILOTS (Nm 183)

Partial

1 32 .2)3 .05 .05 .25 .25

2 45 .33 .11 .06 .23 .24

COMMERCIAL PILOTS (N-149)

1 32 .41 ,17 .17 .40 .41

2 45 .47 .22 .05 .24 .26

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS (Nm 18)

Partial

&Vp &Mc~A MOP=iIU Le- kLan" 110a C=rre11& 1 34 .31 .10 .10 .28 .29

2 48 .44 .19 .09 .30 .32

3 36 .49 .24 .05 .22 .24

For these regression analyses, examination or the multiple correlations and squired multiple correlations

shows that the dependent variable predicted best by the other questions on the survey \as "satisfaction

with the performance of the brierers (Table 16): next was "satisfaction with the services provided by

Montgomery County AFSS' (Table 17). The effectiveness of tie prediction Is assessed by examining the

squared multiple correlations, vhich measure the proportion of variance In the dependent variable accounted

ror by the predictors. Because of the magnitude of the squared multiple correlations, it is apparent that the

itoms on the survey dld not predict satisfaction with de services provided by all AFSSs as wvell as they

predicted satisfaction with Montgomery County's services. However, this result is expected, because the

items specificAlly addressed Montgomery CoUnty's operations and not the operations of other AFSSs.

Furthermore, prediction of satisfaction with EFAS was relatively inefficient; apparenty, factors other than

those measured by the items in the survey also affected pilots' satisfaction with EFAS.

27
Two hundred and ninety.thrce pilots submitted comment sheets with their response sheets. 'rom these,

548 different comments were coded from the written materials submittcd by the respondents. Student pilot

commens were eliminated from the statistical analysis of the comment categorizations because, as

mentioned earlier, the student pilots' responses could not be gencrallzud to the population of sludent pilo6s

One hundred and fifly-four (28%) of the comments were neutral, 190 (35%) were positive, and 204 (37%)

were nqgative,

Table 20 shows the number and percentage of iosidtve, negative, and neutral comments made by type of

pilot certificate held. Individual ,:i square statiltics were computed to compare the proportions of positive

and negative comments made by each type of pilot. Th. "oliy significant difference revealed by the analyses

was that private pilots were significanty more likely to make positive comments than were airline transport

pilots (X'(i) - 18.2, . < .001),

TABLE 20

TYPE OF COMMENT BY PILOT CERTIFICATE ..... .... ........................ fl..f...... .....

MOST ADVANCED CERTIFICATE HELD

PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AIRLINE

PILOT PILOT TRANSIRT PILOT

N % N % N %

TYPE OF COMMENT

NEUTRAL 44 24.0% 52 31.7% 44 26.5%

POSITIVE 82 44.8% 51 31.1% 40 24.1%

NEGATIVE 57 31.1% 61 37.2% 82 49.4%

Appendix K shows the number and percentage of specific types of comments made by pilots holding each

type of certificate. No additional analyses were conducted to compare the types ofcomments made by

each type of pilot. To assist the reader in appreciating the types of comments made by the pilots, Appendix

L contains several *typical examples for each category of comments.

Relationshin between -comments Iibas o Statistical analyses were conducted to assess the

relationship between the type of comments made by pilots and the level of satisfaction they expressed wid

different aspects of the performance of the Montgomery County and other APSSs. The pervntage of

positi,,c, neative, and neutral comments, as compared with the total number of comments provided, was

computed. A Spearman rho correlation coefficient was then computed between this number and each

pilot's response to items 51, 53, 54, and 55, which dealt with satisfaction with various aspects of AFSS

performance. (Note that while low numbers reflect low levels of satisfaction for items 51, 53, and 54,

,ow numbers reflect high levels of satisfaction for Item 55. This explains the difference in signs for some

of the correlation coefficients.) The results for each group of pilots are shown in Tables 21.23.

For each type of pilot, the percentage of negative comments had a significant negative correlation with the

degree to which they were satisfied with the services provided by the Montgomery County and other

AFSSs. For private and commercial pilots, the percentage of negative comments was also significantly related to their rating of the Montgomery County AFSS as compared with other AFSSs, but the relationship

was not statistically significant for airline transport pilots.

For airline transport pilots, the percentage of positive comments made was positively correlated with their

satisfaction with Moi|tgomery County and other AFSSs. The percentage of commercial pilots' positive

28
comments was only correlated with their satisfaction with Mfontgomery County AFSS specialists. and die

services provided by all AFSSs, while the percentage of private pilots' positive comments was only

significantly correlated with their satisfaction with all AFSSs. For no group of pilots was the percentage

of oshve comments significantly correlated with their rating of Montgomery County AFSS as compared

with other AFSSs.

The percentage of neutral comments made had a significant positive correlation with private and commercial

pilots satisfaction with the services provided by Ntontgomcrq County, but not other AFSSs. and with their

rating of the services provided by Movigomery County AFSS as compared with other AFSSs. I lowever,

the percentage of neutral comments made by airline transport pilots was not statistically related to their

satisfaction with AFSS services.

TABLE 21

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TYPE OF COMMENTS

AND PILOT SATISFACTION

FOR PRIVATE PILOTS

ITEM NUMBER

TYPE OF COMMENTS 51 53 54 55

PERCENT POSITIVL -12 106 .270 .12

PERCENT NEGATIVE -.29, -.40* -.42, .31m

PERCENT NEUTRAL .400 .33s .22 -.42

Statistically significant at D < -.01

TABLE 22

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TYPE OF COMMENTS

AND PILOT SATISFACTION

FOR COMMERCIAL PILOTS

ITEM NUMBER

TYPE OF COMMENTS 51 53 54 55

PERCENT POSITIVE .33" .21 .300 .00

PERCENT NEGATIVE -.53" -.46' -.45v .29'

PERCENT NEUTRAL .31 * .34" .24 -.40'

Statistically significant at v < =.01

TABLE 23

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TYPE OF COMMENTS

AND PILOT SATISFACTION

FOR AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOTS

ITEM NUMBER

TYPE OF COMMENTS 51 53 54 55

PERCENT POSITIVE .46* .44' .25 -.07

PERCENT NEGATIVE -.40* -.40* -.36" .06

PERCENT NUTRAL -.06 -.00 .19 -.05

'Statistically significant at R < =.01

29
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of this survey provide importmnt information to the Miontgomery County AFSS to allow them

to target their activities toward increasing user familarity with their services, and improving services that

pilots prceive to be deficient. These results should also be noted by FAA management officials In

Washlngton leadquarters who are interested In assessing user satisfaction with FAA services. While these

results can only be gcneralized to one specific AFSS, the areas of dissatIsfaction and concerns tpresscd may be applicable to other AFSSs.

This project identified a number of ways In which this survey should be improved If it were to be used

to assess pilot satisfactlion with APSS services on a national level. First the lack of response of student

ipllots to the survey is of concern. Student pilots comprisc the segment of the pilot population likely to Ix

least familiar with AFSS servi:ces. Their Identification of problem areas could provide valiable feedback

to aid AFSS facilities In Improving or betier describing their services. Future efforts to survey pilots

should Identify other ways to contact pilots than using the Airmen Directory file. Second, : future survey should expand the section on the use of private weather services to identify what type of private services

are preferred by pilots. Use of and satisfaction with DUAT should also be addressed by a future survey.

Third, questions on a future survey should be revised in light of problems experienced with the present

survey. For example, the questions dealing with use of specific services as a "primary weather source,

should be revised to address the percentage of flights for which the services are used. The sections dealing with number of hours during which specific types of flights were made and specific types of aircraft were

flown could be compressed.

Thi results of this survey suggest that pilots appear to be very satisfied with die performaince of thA

specialists at the Montgomery County AI'SS. and slightly less satisfied with the services provIded by the

racility. More pilots were satisfied with the services providj.d by Montgomery County ASS than were

satisfied with the services provided by other AFSSs. livate pilots were more satisfied with most of the

s tific services provided, and were more likely to make positive commemts about the services, than were

airline transport pilots.

Private pilots were less familiar with the services provided than were other types of pilots. However, most

pilots, regardless of familiarity, expressed an interest In learning more about the services provided by die

facility. Over 60% expressed an interest in receiving Information by mail, another 12% Indicated an

interest In meeting to discuss optimal utilliation of the AFSS system, and another 10% expressed Interest

in taking a tour of the facility. Facility actions to Increase awareness of services provided , as well as

system limitations, can only serve to improve communications between pilots and AFSS specialists.

The satisfaction levels reported by respondents to this survey compare very favorably with those of another

survey of users of the services provided by FAA Airworthiness Inspectors (Schroeder, Collins, and Dollar,

1987). While 96% of the private, commercial, and airline transport pilots responding to this survey were

moderately to greatly satisfied with the performance of Montgomery County AFSS specialists, only about

83% of the users in the aforementioned survey were similarly satisfied with the performance of their

assigned airworthiness Inspectors. In fact, the 96% level or satisfaction exceeds reported satisfaction levels

of users with the performance of the following types of professionals, for example, veterinarians (91 %),

Income tax preparers (88%), medical doctors and nurses In offices or homes (81 %), and lawyers (79%)

(Day and Bodur, 1977).

The analyses conducted using pilots' responses to the survey showed that ratings or satisfaction with both

the Montgomery County AFSS specialists and the services provided by the facility could be predicted by

responses to items dealing with the specialists' perceived technical competence, the perceived sufficiency

and accuracy of the weather briefings, and the degree to which the briefer mailored the briefing to fit the

needs of the pilot. Thus, the pilots' perceptions of how the briefers do their jobs is very important in

affecting their ratings of satisfaction with the services provided. While the survey did not address specific

aspects of briefer performance, an examination of the comments may provide examples of specific incidents

that may innience a pilot's perceptions of good or poor performance.

30
IL

A significant area of dissatisfaction to pilots was the amount of time pilots perceived was required to reach

x pilot briefer. Not only was their satisfaction with that amount of time correlated wM thtir Satisfaction

with other services provided by the AFSS, but the amount of time that pilots reported wa required to

contact a pilot briefer during periods of "signlficamt weahcr was among fte top three predictors (.negativt)

of private and airline iransport pilots' satisAtion with all AFSSs. A high perccntage of private and *irlirm

transport pilots' negative commnts also dealt with this Issue. In fact, 7 pilots (I were aidin tra sport

pllots) indicated that they were willing to to without a briefing if it took too long to contact a pilot briefer.

uch comments hould highlight this ara as a signific--it safety concern that thould be ddresscd by

facility, regional, and FAA IleMquarters mnagemnnt.

RIEERE.NCES

1. Day, R. I-, and odur, M. A comprchensive sudy of satisfaction with consumr srvIces ad

Intlagibks. In R. L. Day (id.), C n ,

Division of Business Research, Indiana University, 1977, pp. 64-74.

2. Schaeffcr, R. L., Mendenhall, W., and Ott, L. flicntmU-y Surve ' Simdi. loston, MA: Kent

l'ublishing, 1979.

3. Schroeder, D. J., Collins, W. c., aM Dollar, C. S. I291A_1rxv of Aviation Hl1uinesso.

heir Vi~ws of I:AA Airworthiness lninegtors; FAA Office of Aviation Mediclne Keport No. FAA.

AM-87.4, 1987.

4. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. l idLtr j

St!lon ALUon110rIM, 1978.

5. U. S. D)epartment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. N1atter Plan Addendum. rlidt

service Stalion Automaiont Protram, 1980.

6. Your August Re3dback, A MIA LYJ1t. February, 1988, p. 94.

7. Your September Readback, AOPA Pilot, December, 1986, p. 96.

31
AM1NDIX A

0

USDooxwiWw M'&i woAAAM-SO0

Members of the Avlatl2n Community:

In order to assure that the needs of the flying public are being met and

provide you with ivroved services, the MontgewAry County Autotmted Flight Service Station 1s seeking a better understanding of your thoughts and

perceptions concerning their services. To accoMpliSh this goal, we are

asking you to €pleto the enclosed qutstionnalre, entitled "Pilot Views

of Montgomery County, Texas, Autcmtated FSS Services.0 This questionnaire has been &pproved by the Office of anagcment and Budget, and has been

given an 0045 Approval Nu-ber of 2120-0537.

You are one of a random sample of pilots selected from the 32 county flight plan area of the Montgoery County AFSS. Since only a small number

of pilots will receive this survey, It is yLe important that You € let

and return it. Your opinicns will b-cEcmb nd w--ththoseltne others in

the Tir- o represent the thoughts and feelings of all pilots within the

Montgsr.ry County AFSS flight plan area.

!he questions In the survey cover Items about your utilization and

satisfaction with particular services provided by the Montgomery County AFS$, as well as your perceptions of the courtesy and competence of the

facility's specialists. Your responses will assist the AFSS In meeting

Its safety and service ehleectives.

Please be assured that your responses will remain anonymous. The mailins, analysis of the rdsults, an production-of = e at re being conducted

by researchers at the FAA's Civil Aeremedical Institute (CAJI), not by

employees of the gontgcm ry County AFSS. At CAMI, your responses will be

machine-scored, and only s=.-rized results--NOT INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS--wIll

be provided back to the facility. You may notice that each answe' sheet

contains a code nurwber. The i-iber will be used to identify those who do

not riturn their survey within 3 weeks, so that a follow-up reminder

letter and another copy of the survey can be g?4led to them from CAM.

After the response sheets are returned, the forms will be machine-scanned

and the code number and all identifying Information will be removed from

the data file.

When you are ready to return the survey, please enclose only the answer

sheet , *0, with the cvr-nt shret and tne sheet eque--nadittonai Tf n (i you i 1Zp1'te F -gesT i stiod be 0i Ted

'- ,'eturn envelope provided in the packet. Please 00 N(OT staple a( ,wn to the ccomuter-scannable response sheet. You do not need to

return the questionnaire to us, Just the rt-sponse sheets.

We need to begin analyzing the responses as soon as possible, so we are

asking you to take the time to c"-plete the survey. today if possible, and

Al
return it in thn enclosed return envelope, If we do not receive the

survey within 3 weeks, we will send out a reminder letter along with

another copy of the survey.

When the final report has been prepared, It will be wade available to the

public. We would appreciate your participation and assure you that your

responses and cotnnents will be given careful consideration.

Sifedrtiy,

Carol A. Manning, Ph.O. )

Supervisor, Training Systems Section

A2
oii Approval Number Z12U-UbJ/

PILOT VIEWS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS, AUTOMATED FSS SERVICES

1. What is the most advanced pilot certificate that you hold?

a. Student p !;,

b. Private piolt

d. Airline transport pilot

2. Do you have .. art1n ls t l 1;r tng's -,.,,j

a. No

b, Yes, for airplane

c. Yes, for rotorcraft

d. Yes, for both airplane and rotorcrart

DURING THE 1,AST 6 MONITHlS, ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS

PER MOITi Dji YCU FLY: MORE TIHAN 100 HOURS ------ +

51-100 HOURS ----------- 26-50 HOURS ---------- 1 1-25 HtOURS -----.. -- 5-10 HtOURS ---------

NO 1-4 fHOURS HOURS --------- -------4 !

3. VFR for personal business O F G

4. IFR for personal business A B C 0 E F G

5. VFR for pleasure A B C 0 E F G

6. IFR for pleasure A B C D E F G

7. VFR ceIwrcial flights (for hire) A B C D E F G 8. IFR cotivercial flights (for hire) A B C 0 E F G

DURING THE LAST 6 MONTHS, ABOUT HOW PANY HOURS

PER MONTH DID YOU FLY:

MORE THAN 100 HOURS ....... 51-100 HOURS -----------

26-SO HOURS --------- 11-25 HOURS -----.--.

5-10 HOURS ------- -

NO HtOURS --------

9. Single-engine unpressurized a~rcraft D F

10. Single-engine pressurized or turbocharged aircraft A B C D E F G

11. Multi-engine unpressurized aircraft A B C 0 E F G

12. Multi-engine pressurized or turbocharged ait.raft A B C 0 E F G

13. Turbo-prop aircraft A 0 C 0 E F G

14. Jet aircraft A 6 C 0 E F G

15. During periods of nonsignificant weather, when you call Montgomery County AFSS for a

pilot weather briefing, about how long does it typically take before a briefer answers

the telephone?

-a. I do not use this service

b. less than 1 minute

c. 1-3 minutes

d. More than 3 and less than 5 minutes

e. 5 minutes or more

A3
16. During periods of significant weather, whcn you call Montgomery County AFSS for a

pilot weather briefing, about how long does It typically take before a briefer ansvers

the telephone?

a. I do not use this service

b. Le$ thin I minute

c. 1-3 minutes

d. More than 3 and less than S inutes

e. 5 minutes or core

17. Now acceptable do you find the a.eount of tire it takes for you to conth(,

a pilot weather briefer at the Montgomery County AFSS?

a. Not at all

b. To a limited extent

e. To a moderate extnt.

d. To a considerable extent

e. To a great extent

ON WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR FLIGHTS O0 YOU USE A)NY OF

THE FOLLOWING AS YOUR PRIMARY WEATHER SOURCE:

O0 NOT USE ------------

MORE THtAN 75% OF MY LIGHITS ----------- 51-75% OF MY FLIGHTS ------------ 26-50% OF MY FLIGITS---- ....-

25% OR LESS OF Y FLIGHTS t i

18. the Telephone Information Briefing System (TICS)? A O C 0 E

19. the Interim Voice Response System (IVRS)? A D C D E

20. an FAA Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS) A B C 0 E

preflight specialist?

21. the AM Weather television show on PBS? A B C 0 E

22. television, radio station, or newspaper report? A B C 0 E

23. a private company? A B C O E

24. a FAA Flight Service Station (FSS) inflight specialist? A B C D E

25. the Transcribed Weather Broadcast (TWEB) on the GLS or 1OB? A B C 0 E

26. the Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS)? A B C D E

27. En route Flight Advisory Service or "Flight Watch" (EFAS)? A B C 0 E

A4
WIEN' CC TACTG A MONTGOMERY COiTY AFSS PILOT WEATHER BRIEFER, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TIHE TIRE 00 YOU ASX FOR:

RORE THAN 75% OF THE TIME -------------

51-75% OF THE TIRE- ----

2S% OR 

26-50% 

LESS OF OF 

THE TlE TIE--- 

TIME .. I

28. A standard pilot weather briefing? A C D E

29. An abbreviated weather briefing? A 8 C 0 E 30. An outlook briefing? A B C 0 E

ON UIAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR FLIGHTS 00 YOU:

00 NOT USE ------------

MORE THIAN 75% OF THE TIME ----------- S-75% OF THE TIME------- .... t

26-509 OF TIlE TIME- - -+ /

25% OR LESS OF THE TIME ...... i I

31. Identify your frequency when contacting an AFSS

Inflight specialist? A 0 C 0 E

32. Use the Enroute Flight Advisory Service (EFAS)? A B C 0 E

33. Use EFAS between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and

6:00 a.m. local time? A 0 C 0 E

34. Identify your position upon contacting EFAS? A 1 C D E

35. Identify your altitude .Jpon contacting EFAS? A B C 0 E

36. Use the discrete High Altitude EFAS frequency? A B C 0 E

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH:

HAVE NOT USED -....

TO A GREAT EXTENT ----+ TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT- TO A MODERATE EXTENT----+

TO A LIMITED EXTENT- -- +

37. the Telephone Information Briefing System (TIBS)? A B D E F

38. the Interim Voice Response System (IVRS)? A B C D E F

39. Montgomery County FAA AFSS weather briefers? A B C D E F

40. the Transcribed Weather Broadcast (TWEB)? A B C D E F

41. the Hazardous Inflight Wea'tr.r Advisory Service (HIWAS)? A B C D E F

42. En Route Flight Advisory Service or 'Flight Watch" (EFAS)? A B C D E F

AS
43. For what percentage of your flights do you use the

"faSt file Systtm to file flight plans?

(a) 25% or less

b 26 to 50%

c 51 to 75%

d More thin 75%

t' Have not used

TO WHAT EXTENT 00 YOU FEEL THAT MONTGOMERY COUNTY AFSS SPECIALISTS:

HAVE NOT USED --.... TO A GREAT EXTENTTO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT----

10 A MODERATE EXTENT----

TO A LIM1TED EXTENT I 1-

44, are courteous in the conduct of their duties? NOT AT ALL--D E

45. appear to be technically competent in the cliduct A 8 C 0 E F

of their duties?

46. provide accurate weather briefings? A B C D E F

47. provide ccmplete weather briefings? A 8 C D E F

48. provide you with a weather briefing that is sufficient

to allow you to plan your flight? A B C D E F

49. tailor their weather briefings to meet your specific

needs? A B C D E F

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU:

HAVE NOT USED .......+

TO A GREAT EXTENTTO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT ----- TO A MODERATE EXTENT----

TO A LIMITED EXTENT---+

SD. confident that a flight plan that you file with A

Montgomery County AFSS will be handled correctly? A B C D E F

51. generally satisfied with the performance of Montgomery

County AFSS specialists? A B C D E F

52. familiar with the services provided by Montgomery

County AFSS specialists? A B C 0 E F

53. generally satisfied with the services provided by the

Montgomery County Automated Flight Service Station? A B C D E F

54. generally satisfied with the services provided by all

the FAA's Automated Flight Service Stations? A B C D E F

A6
55. How would you rate the services provided by the Montgomery County Automated

Flight Service Station as compared with other currently operating Automated

Flight Service Stations that you have contacted?

a. Much better than ohers.

b. Somewhat better than others.

c. About the same as others.

d. Somewhat worse than others.

e. Much worse than others.

56. Would you be interested in receiving additional information on AFSS

services?

a. I feel that I am already sufficiently informed about AFSS services

b. Would like to receive information by mail on the range of services provided

by an AFSS.

c. Would be interested in attending a meeting on how best to utilize the AFSS

system.

d. Would be interested in touring the facility.

A7
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

If you would be intested in receiving more information about the services provided

by the Montgomery County AFSS, please circle the letter next to the response below

that best describes the type of information you dolire. Then write your name and

address on the bottom of this page and, if appropri..1, list any specific information

you would like to receive. Enclose the page with your computer-scannable response

sheet in the return envelope. Please 00 NOT staplu the pages together. This page

will be separated from your response sheet and sent to employees of the Montgomery

County AFSS. Those completing this page will soon be contacted by a representative

of the facility.

a. Would like to receive information by mail on the range of services provided

by an AFSS.

b. Would be interested in attending a meeting on how best to utilize the AFSS

system.

c. Would be Interested in touring the facility.

A8
APP- )IX 5

RESULTS OF CI SQUARIE ANALYSE.S COMPARING

FREQUENCY OF FIGtTS FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

VlFR for personal PR! vs. COM .3 > .55 business PRI vs. ATP 30.2 .001 " COM vs. ATP 33.3 .001 "

IFR for personal PRi vs. COM 33.5 .0010

business PRi vs. ATP 3.5 .06 COM vs. AT!' 13.1 .0010

VFR for pleasure PR! vs. CON! 23.4 .0010

PRi vs. ATP 132.3 ,0010 COM vs. ATP 46.5 .001 *

IFR for pleasure PRI vs. COM 8.5 .004 *

PR! vs. ATP .8 >.35 COM vs. ATP 12.1 .001 w

VFR Commercil COM vs. ATP 1.0 >.30

IFR Commercil COm vs, AT' 114.2 .001 "

Single engine PR! vs, CONI 10.8 .002 *

unpressurized PRI vs. ATP 1213 .001 0

COM vs. ATII 61.4 .001

Single engine PRI vs. COM 1.4 > .20 pressuried or PR! vs. ATP 1.8 >.35 trbocharged COM vs. ATP 5.5 .02

Multi.engine PR! vs. COM 54.1 .001 - unpressurized PRI vs. ATP 42.6 .001 0

COM vs. ATP .6 > .40

Multi.engine PRI vs. COM 21.8 .001 pressurized or PRI vs. ATP 41.7 .001 *

wrbochr&ged COM vs. ATP 3.8 .05

Turbo.prop COM vs. ATP 11.4 .001 0

Jet COM vs. ATP 147.2 .001 *

BI1
APPENDIXC C

R~IISULTS OF CIII SQUARC- ANALYSES COMPARING USH~OF

PARTICULR FSS SE~RVICES FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

USEDI VS. DID)N'T USE~

Inlmaodin cz uhg X~ai -dJJ

IDS PRI vs. COM .7 > .35

PMU vs. ATP~ 34.2 .0010

COM vs. ATP~ 11.9 .001

IVRS PRI vs. CONI 5.1 .03

PRU vs. ATP 1.6 >.20

COM vs. ATP 10.7 .001

AFSS Prefligt PRI vs. COM 2.7 >.10

speiist PR! vs. ATP 14.3 .001, CON! vs. imr 4.3 .04

ANI Weather show PR! vs. COM 3.8 > .05

PRI vs. ATP ~ .2 > .65

COM vs. INT1 2-.0 > .15

TV, radio, etc. PRI vs. Cost 1.5 >.20

PR! vs. ATP 1.6 >.20

COM vs. ATP 5.3 > .02

Private Weather PRI vs. COM 13.6 .001

service MUI vs. ATP 116.9 .001

COM vs. ATII 49.6 .0010

AFSS Inflight MU vs. CONI 4.7 .03

specialist PR! vs. ATP .7 > .40

CONI vs. ATP' 1.6 > .20

TWED PRI vs. CONI 1.3 > .25

PR! vs. ATP .3 >.60

COM vs. ATP 2.3 >.10

1I1WAS PR! vs. COM 8.1 A005w

PR! vz. ATP' 36.8 .001*

CONI vs. ATP 10.1 .002*

!3PAS PRI vs. CONI .5 > .45

PR! vs. ATP 4.4 .04

COM vs. ATP 1.8 >.15

CI
APPFENDIX I)

RE:SULTS OF CI SQUARE ANALYSES COMPARING FREQUENCY OF

USE OF PARTICULAR I:SS SERVICIS FOR 3 'ILOT GROUPS

USED MORE OR LESS TllAN 50% OF TIlE TIME

TIRS PRI vs. COM 9.8 .002

PRI vs. ATP 15.6 .001"

COM vs. ATP 1.8 >.15

IVRS PRI vs. COM ,5 > .45

PR vs. ATP .0 >.90

COM vs. ATP .4 > 50

AFSS Preflight PRI vs. COM .0 > .90 specilist PRI vs. ATP .5 > .45 COM vs. ATP .3 > .55

AM Wc hcfr show PRI vs. COM 3.6 .06

PR! vs. ATP 5.2 .03 COM vs. ATP .2 > .60

TV, radio, c. PRI vs. COM .8 > .35

PRI vs. ATP 3.3 .07

COM vs. ATI 1.0 >.30

Private weather PRI vs. COM 11.1 .0010

service PRI vs. ATP 45.6 .001 *

COM vs. AT3 15.3 .001 a

AFSS Inflight PRI vs. COM .3 > .55

specialist PR! vs. AT!P .3 > .60

COM vs. ATP .0 >.99

TWEB PR! vs. COM .2 >.65

PRI vs. ATP 3.2 .08

COM vs. ATP 1.9 > .15

IIIWAS PRI vs. COM .0 >.90

PRI vs. ATP .8 >.35

CON vs. ATP .7 > .35

.FAS PRI vs. COM .1 >.70

PRI vs. ATP 2.5 >.I0

COM vs. ATP 1.4 > .20

DI
APPENDIXC E

RESULTS OF CHI SQUARE~ ANALYSES COMPARING FREQUENCY OF REQUESTING

DIFFERENT TYPES OF PILOT WEATHER BRIEFINGS FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

lIterndgiin comsm X dLfU I p

Standard PR! vs. COM 6.4 .02 APRI vs. ATP 31.2 .001*

COM vs. ATP 8.8 .002 *

Abbreviated PR! vs. COM .9 > .33

PR! vs. ATP .1 >7

COM vs. AlrP .3 >5

Outlook PR! vs. COM 1.1 .!

PR! vs. ATP 15.3 .001

COM vs. ATP 7.6 .006

El
APPENDIX F

RESULTS OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES COMPARING PIRCEIVED

TIME TO REACH A PILOT WEATHER BRIEFER FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

In "nonsignificant" PRI vs. COM 1.2 >.15

weather PRI vs. ATP 13.6 .001

COM vs. ATP 4.5 .04

In signiicant* PRI vs. COM 18.9 .0010

weather PRI vs. ATP 41.6 .001

COM vs. ATP 5.4 .02

Fi
APM.NDIX G

RESULTS OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES COMPARING FREQUENCY Or UTILIZING

EFAS AND PROVIDING IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

h1mcIk n Xm S, (dfI -_ .

Identify frequency PRI vs. COM 4.1 .05

when contact PRI vs. ATP 1.8 >,15 inflight specialist COM vs. ATP .4 > .50

Use EFAS PRI vs. COM .6 >.40

PRi vs. ATP 1.6 >.20

COM vs. ATP .3 >.60

Use EFAS between PRI vs. COM 19.6 .001 w

10:00 p.m. and PRi vs. ATP 32.8 .001 0

6:00 a.m. COM vs. ATP 1.9 >.15

Identify position PR! vs. COM 2.1 .15

when contact EFAS PRI vs. ATP .7 > .40

COM vs. ATP .3 > .55

Identify altitude PRI vs. COM 1.1 > .25

when contact EFAS PRI vs. ATP .5 > .45

COM vs. ATP .1 >.75

Use discrete High PRI vs. COM 26.1 .001 * Altitude EFAS PRi vs. ATP 151.8 .001 * Frequency COM vs. ATP 55.1 .001 *

Use Fast File PR! vs. COM 6.7 .01"

PRI vs. ATP 12.6 .001w

COM vs. ATP .9 > .30

GI
APENDIX II

RISULTS OF CIII SQUARE ANALYSES COMPARING REIRTEDI

SATISFACTION WITH! SPCCIFIC A:SS SE.RVICES FOR 3 PI.OT GROUPS

Time to reach PR! vs. COM 14.1 .001 * gllol weather PRI vs, ATP 30.9 .001 *

ricfer COM vs. ATP 3.5 .07

TIBS PRI vs. COM .9 > .30

PRI vs. ATP 12.4 .001 * COM vs. ATP 5.9 .02

IVRS PRI vs. COM .2 >.60

PR! vs. ATP 7.6 .006'

COM vs. ATP 5.2 .03

Montlomery County PRI vs. COM 3.6 .06

AFSS weather PRI vs. ATP 7.3 .007 

briefers COM vs. ATP .7 > .40

TWEB PRI vs. COM .4 > .50

PRI vs. ATP 7.6 .006'

COM vs. ATP 4.2 .04

HIWAS PRI vs. COM .0 > .95

PRI vs. ATP .7 >.40

COM vs. ATP .6 > .40

CEFAS PRI vs. COM .2 >.60 PRI vs. ATP 11 >.70

COM vs. ATP .6 > .40

HI
ArPIENDIX I

RESULTS OF CIII SQUARE ANALYSES COMPARING REPORTED

SATISFACTION WITH SPUCIAUST PERFORMANCE FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

To what tnial do you fredll h Ntoutm y Counly AFSS s$We kia s:

I=ssrvinC=fi X2 (df- I --.-

are couneous PRI vs. COM .6 > .45

PRI vs. ATP 1.0 >.30

COM vs. ATP .1 >.80

appear technically PRI vs. COM 6. I .02

competent PRI vs. ATP 1.0 > .30

COM vs. ATP 1.6 >,20

provide accurate PRI vs. COM 2.7 .10

weather briefings PRI vs. ATP 3.0 .10

COM vs. ATP .0 >.85

provide complete PRI vs. COM .0 > .90

weather briefings PRI vs. ATP 1.4 >.20

COM vs. ATP 1.4 >.20

provide sufficlent PR! vs. COM .2 >.65

weather briefings PRi vs. ATP 3.1 .08

to plan flight COM vs. ATP 3.9 .05

tailor weather PRI vs. COM 4.0 .05

briefings to meet PRI vs. ATP 4.3 .04 specific needs COM vs. ATP .0 > .85

1!
APPENDIX J

RESULTS O1- CHI SQUARE ANALYSES COMPARING

REIPORTED SATISFACTION WITH MONTGOMERY

COUNTY SERVICES FOR 3 PILOT GROUPS

To what went art you:

confident or 3ccurate PRI vs. COM .2 > .60 flight pl:m handling? PRI vs. ATP 2.1 .15

COM vs, ATP 3.2 .08

generally sadsfied PRI vs. COM 1.1 > .30 with specialist PR! vs. AT' 2.9 .09 performance? COM vs. ATP .5 > .45

funilar with PRi vs. COM 7.2 ,AOS Montgonxry County PRI vs. ATP 1612 .001 0 services? COM vs. ATP 2.3 >.I0

eneraly satisfied PRI vs. COM .0 > .85

with Montgomery Co. PR! vs. ATP 2.4 >.10 services? COM vs. ATP 2.5 >.30

generally satisfied PR! vs. CO\M 1.8 >.1s with all FAA's AFSS PRI vs. ATP 12.9 AI services? COM vs. ATP 4.7 .03

J1
APPENOIX K

CATEGORIZATION OF COMMENTS BY TYPE O1: PILOT

MOST ADVANCED 4DRTIFICATE HILLI)

PRIVATE COMMERCIAIL AIRI.INE

PILOT PIIOT TRANSPORT

PILOT

N % N % N %

NEUTRAL COMMENTS GENERAL INFORMATION 31 16,9% 40 24.4% 40 24.1%

SUGGESTIONS 6 3.3% 6 3.7% 3 1.8%

REQUEST MORE INFORMATION 7 3.8% 6 3.7% 1 .6%

POSITIVE COMENTS

ABOUT TlE SURVEY 5 2.7% 1 .6% 3 1.8%

AD3OUT SERVICES 22 12.0% 17 10.4% 10 &,O COURTEOUS PERSONNEL 28 15.3% 10 6.1% 9 5.4%

COMPETENT PERSONNEL 10 5.5% 8 4.9% 7 4.2% ACCURATE INFORMATION 12 6.6% 13 7.9% 8 4.8% MONTGOM CO IS SUPERIOR 5 2.7% 2 1.2% 3 1.8%

NEGATIVE COMMENTS

DISCOURTEOUS PERSONNEL 3 1.6% 4 2.4% 2 1.2%

INCOMPETENT PERSONNEL 1 .5% 3 1.8% 2 1.2%

INACCURATE INFORMATION 2 1.1% 3 1.8% 3 1.8% BRIEFERS EDIT WEATHER 1 .5% 10 6.1% 4 2.4%

AFSS NEEDS MORE PEOPLE 2 1.1% 2 1.2% 1 .6% COMPLAINTS ABOUT EFAS 1 .5% 1 .6%

COMPLAINTS FLT PLANS 2 1.1% 4 2.4% 11 6.6% OTHER COMPLAINTS 3 1.6% 1 .6% 4 2.4%

POOR EQUIPMENT 4 2.2% 9 5.5% 10 6.0%

TIMETO REACH BRIEFER 11 6.0% 7 4.3% 19 11.4%

DISLIKE RECORDINGS 8 4.4% 4 2.4% 11 6.6%

MISC COMPLAINTS 13 7.1% I1 6.7% 12 7.2%

COMPLAINTS ABOUT SURVEY 4 2.2% 2 1.2% 2 1.2%

UNRELATED CRITICISMS 2 1.1% 1 .6%

KIl
I

APPENDIX I,

REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY R"'SPONDENTS

PART I - NEUTRAL CONIMENTS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. "1 am i pilot with a commercial carrier, so therefore never have the opportunity to use Montgomery County AFSS.*

2. "Iklng a studen pilot and just now starting x country flights, I am sure I have not taken advantage of all the services Montgomery County AFSS has to offer."

3. 'My flying time has been limited to kss than 25 hours In the last 3 years. I have used Montgomery Co. Al SS for briefings In the past. The questions answered on the sheet will be based on tiese

briefings.'

B. SUGGESTIONS

1. "Could we (pilots) have a ile for name, address, home base, etc. at MCAFSS? It sure would save

tie for us and open telephone lines if w could say 'On file, MCAFSS, 1009."

2. "Install a FAX machine for filing flight plans!!l It works well at NASA Moffett Field (NUQ), and

could probably work well for you too.'"

3. 'A I.800 number for weather briefings and flight plan filing could only benefit the flying community

as well as the FAA."

C. REQUESTS FOR MORE INFORMATION

I. "Like every other pilot, flying to ile Is a continual learning process and I would enljoy learning more

about F.S.S. services--

2. 'Would like to have list of 800 no's.'

3. "At such time I will be interested learning more about the pilot aids available in the East Texas

area."

PART 2 - POSITIVE COMMEN'NIS

A. COMMENTS ABOUT THE SURVEY

1. "Thank you for considering pilots in your survey. We often get the feeling that we have little or no

input into the very system which exists for our use. Surveys such as this are steps in the right direction.'

2. 'As a pilot I appreciate you asking for the pilots opinion of the services and hopefully I may be able

to b more helpful on a future survey."

3. "Thank you for the chance to participate."

LI t
AM NDX I, (co.eioud)

REPRSI1NTATiVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY R:SPONDENTS

PART 2 - P ImtIVE CONIMENTS (comtlisd)

U. COMMEntS AftOUT SERVICES

1. "! have been pkd with the srvices provied by the Montgomery County AFSS aod would like

to thank you or your support."

2. "1 do use 'Flight Watch' en route %nd appreciate the f(a, helpful responses. I have heard many

fhverabk commenu from friends who use Montgomery Co. FSS so keep up the good work.

3. "Have found Montgomery County services to be much Improved."

C. COMMENTS ADOUT PERSONNEL

1. Coutleoutlhelpful

a. "Mosst of the brkfers ar very helpful and knowledgeable and do a good job,*

b. *...the one time I did use them on a trip to Central America during Hurricane Gilbert last year

they were very helpful and provided everything we needed."

c. "Fach time I have had the opportunity to contact the Montgomery County AFSS, I have never

failed to receive courteous and prompt servlce."

2. Competentlprofesslonal

2. "i find most of the specialists to be courteous :ad competent as well as willing to help with

normal probkms."

b. 'Thank you for a good job. You people provide courteous, personal, and accurate briefings.

Your brfers also are very helpful In suggesting routes to avoid trouble.0

c. "hank you for your excellent and professional asslstance.*

3. Provide a.curatetcomplete Information

a. 'Several times I have complimented the briefer on services and info received and manner given.

So far I've always made the right decision on "go" or "no-goo based on the briefing received."

b. "...they have provided excellent instruction to both our pilots and flight operations specialists.'

c. 'Overall, the pilot briefing I receive from Montgomery County AFSS is very satisfactory for

planning and conducting a flight."

1,2
APW.NDIX 1 (Cml.Uowd)

REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDIENTS

PART 2 - POSmVIE COMMENTS (craniwed)

0). MONTGOMERY AFSS SUPERIOR TO OTHER AFSSs

1. '1 rail Montgomery County AFSS as good or bee than other Automated Flight Service Sttions

but I rate all AFSS's as marginal compared to the old FSS that Is being phased out."

2. "Montgomery County FSS bricfers compare favorably with other briefers natonwide."

3. "Just moved from Texas to Minnesota. Montgomery County AI"SS is far superior in services and

courtcous conduct."

PART 3 - NEGATIVE COMMENTS

A. COMMENTS ABOUT PERSONNEl.

1. Discouncous/not helpful

a. "Most of my flight plans involve muli.kned (2 or 3 kegs) 'stopover' light plans occasionel

by the need for en route refueling stops. Some specialists will nt accept a stopover flight plan

when you rcd it off In the 'DOD FIJP General Planning format", but require you to read thcm

2 or 3 separat flight plans. It is most helpful when you can just read straight through the

required forma.

b. "However, as in each large organizaion, there are a few that become somewhat "(csty" under

pressure,

c, "Occasionally a briefer will be unfriendly and rude. In one situation after advising 'VFR flight

not recommended' he would not give any further informntion, would only keep saying loudly

'VFR flight not recomnmnded,'"

2. Incompetent'nonproressional

a. "FSS specialists like other option ATCS seem to have little technical knowledge on aircraft

characteristics and no desire to learn, I am based at CXO and exczpt for one or two specialists

I have never seen any visit the facilities on the airport (I an on the airport 6 days a week,) In

briefings there seems to be too much 'CYA' feeling."

b. "Would like to request that they go through the ranks and pick out the best diction and ask

them to speak slower and more distinctly in prerecorded segments, Son talk fast and sort of 'mumble'.'

c. "Other briefers simply regurgitate NWS paper with lack of true understanding. This sometimes

leads to defensiveness & insecurity."

L3
APMVNIX IL (cweduweil)

REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS

PART 3 - NEGATIVE COMMENTS (cotlutd)

A. COMMENTS ABOUT PERSONNEL (coninued)

3. Briefers do not provide accuratelcomplete information

a. "Have called to get weather at Montgomery Co. Airport and you couldn't give It to me. Get

some windows in your bidg!"

b. "I feel the briefers sometimes do not attenmt to provide information tailored to the profile of the

flight the pilot describes but tend to follow the standard briefing form (either complete or

arevited) that provides a lot of useless information and may leave out information pertinent to the flight planned.

c. "Please give all Info on the last hour's sequence report even if the weather is CAVU. POXS

want the temps, I want the dev pt. surface winds, and alt setting at the departure airport and

destination without having to ask,"

4. Opinionited/conservative

a. "In general, the briefings and recommendations are obviously too conservative and as a result

pilots have lost confidence in their recommendations.

b. "The personnel providing the weather briefing should provide complete and accurate weather

information concerning possibly hazardous conditions, not shadirg or editing the Information

to influetce my decision."

c. 'On occasion, I have had briefers editorialize the briefing based on their personal opinions of

what the weather is doing."

0. NEED MORE PEOPLE/TRAINING OF PERSONNEL

1. "1 think most of your briefers need experience in actual marginal VFR flying, that is so prevalent

here on the Gulf Coast."

2. "Need more briefers."

3. "Briefers are very professional, could make quicker by employing more personnel."

C. COMPLAINTS ABOUT SPECIFIC SERVICES

1. EFAS

a. "At times, information given in PIREPS to EFAS doesn't get in the system, especially if it is

contradictory to the 'approved official' forecast."

L4
Al'I'NDIX 1, (coetiutd)

REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS F~ROM SURVE~Y RESSPONDEINTS

PART 3 - NE.GATIVE CONINT-S (cowtioutd)

C. COMPLAINTS ABOUT SPECIFIC SERVICES (continued)

2. Flight plan processing

a,"Too many lost FLTIPIans.'

b. *Sometimes the second or third flight plan of a series of flight plans 'gets lost', but I understand

that this may be a computer problem rather than a people problem."

c. OAbout iling flight plans: Some speialists are new (slow), and sometimes nlight plan doesnot at Into system."

3. Other - TIllS, IVRS, TWEB, HIWAS

a. "I would like to be- able to get the TuBS on a 24 hr basis rather than only until 10:00 pmn.'

b. "I would like to see a weather britfing for high altitude jet Aircraft, that, didn't Include low

altitude en route weather.'

c. " Access to the TillS should be available imediatcly without having to listen to all tile Tilns

4. Poor/unusable equipmentlprocedures

a. "Often while getting a clearance, the remote will go 'dead' and require additional pilotibriefer time to repeat. This happens more often than nail*

b. *1 have one major complaint with FSS and this may be- a problem with all FSS not just Mont.

Co AFSS. On many diff. occasions FSS has given me NOTAMS or NA V-AIDS that are out

of service."

c. OWith better radar equipment I feel a better pin point of T-shwrs Wit (?) 2 100 nni radius would

be most helpful.'

D. LENGTH OF TIME TO REACH A BRIEFER

1. "My biggest Irritant with Montgomery Co. A.F.S.S. Is the 3 to 5 mninute wait in order to get a

%warm body' briefer."

2. '1 once held 45 minutes because the phone system didn't 'roll over'. I found this out by using a

second telephone to call in without hanging up t first line.'

3. "Many pilots depart without proper information due to excessive deI~lys, especially where most

netded (NE)(NW)."

'.5
I#

AFENDIX L (coaiaIvtd)

REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS

PART 3 -NEGATIVE COMMENTS (c€tioved)

M. DISLIKE OF RECORDED INSTRUCTIONS

1. "I would ike to be abl to ener a number on the phon and bypass the normal verblage and go directly to a brkftr.

2. '1 wvuld like to have a direct line to briefers without going through the 'touch-tone' menu."

3. '1 understand that the auto services use ,ouch tones. What about those of us who use rotary dial

phones on party lines?"

F. MISCELLANEOUS COMPLAINTS ABOUT OTHER FSSs

1. "Willianspon, Pa., AFSS stands out as particularly poor when compared to FSS stations a

Morgantown, W.Va.; Malnsiurl, WVa.; Lufkin, Tx.; an Crestview, Fl"

2. Montgomery County AFSS Is of a much higher quality than other AFSS. San Angelo is the worst."

3. "1 find that wx & w, fl; briefs are -%'-as complete is when they were received from FSS's prior to

the creation of AFSS's."

G. UNRELATED CRITICISMS

l. Complaints about the survey

a. "1 question the validity of this statement (the following underlined In red on the cover letter)

'THE CODE NUMBER AND ALL. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE DATA FILE."

b. "May I suggest (for future use) that the questions be stapkd in the upper LH corner rather than

at the left mid page. It makes it easier to flnip page by page.'

c. "My comment Is about the questionnaire. I believe th you are going to have many answers

that are inaccurate on questions 37-42 inasmuch as "Do Not Use" is an "E" response !o that point and most responding pilots will assume tha to be true for them too. I caught my mistake--others may not. Next time devise the responses so this will not occur."

2. Critical statements, but unrelated to Issues addressed by survey

a. "1 think the addition of windows in the AFSS (like the FSS) would be most helpful to your pecialists."

b. The survey you should be taking is how we all (including most ATP's and FAA personnel) feel about the most unamerican bureaucratic government action that I know of in this country; the power grab to take away our freedom and right (not just privilege) to fly..."

c. "I feel flight instructors do not go into enough detail about the services that are provided, and

as a student you do not always know what to ask for."

L6

-A GOVERtmENT PRNlTING O !E W-C ?6, 020 0310It