These results may be subject to some bias, because
respondents may never have been exposed to some of
the formats suggested. For example, in an earlier
study (Guilkey, Jensen, & Hunter, 1998), responses
to the “Personal Minimums” field test indicated a
very high acceptance of discussion in small-group
formats.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS—ACCIDENT/INCIDENT
INVOLVEMENT AND SAFETY TRAINING

Safety Activities

In addition to attending safety seminars, there are
many other activities that pilots could undertake to
improve their safety. The first question in the survey
asked pilots to indicate (using a 10-point scale) how
often during the previous 12 months they had per-
formed several activities that might be related to
aviation safety. Table 13 compares the responses of
seminar attendees and non-attendees on these safety-
related activities. Significant differences between the
two groups were found for three activities: watching
safety videos, reading magazine articles on safety, and
reading FAA publications. Differences between the
two groups on two of these activities (watching safety
videos and reading FAA publications) are easily ex-
plained, since these are common elements of FAA
safety seminars.

Self-Assessments of Proficiency

Pilots were asked to provide a self-assessment of
their level of knowledge or proficiency in each of the
areas shown in Table 14. Ratings were given ona five-
point scale, ranging from “Poor” (1) to “Excellent”
(5). Lower values indicate lower proficiency or knowl-
edge. No significant differences were found between
the two groups: however, in every comparison, the
non-attendees rated themselves as higher (i.e., more
proficient or knowledgeable) than the attendees.

Pilots were also asked to compare themselves with
other pilots on several factors, using a five-point,
Likert-type scale. Responses ranged from “Strongly
Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). As shown in
Table 15, only one item showed a significant differ-
ence between attendees and non-attendees: seminar
attendees agreed more strongly that they were willing
to study safety than non-attendees.

As noted previously, pilots were asked whether
they had been involved in an accident or incident
resulting in damage to an aircraft. In the target group,
114 pilots indicated they had been involved in such
an accident/incident, while 638 responded that they
had not. To examine the relationship between re-
sponses to certain of the survey items and accident/
incident involvement, two subgroups of the target
group were formed based upon reported accident/
incident involvement. A series of independent sample
mean comparisons between the two groups was then
conducted. As before, because of the large number of
comparisons, the Bonferroni adjustments to the sig-
nificance levels are also reported.

Use of Safety Resources

The analysis of safety resources was designed to
determine the extent to which accident/incident in-
volvement was associated with the utilization of
safety-related resources by pilots during the 12 months
prior to the survey. The first item in the survey asked
how often, over the last 12 months, the pilot had
performed any of 10 safety-related activities. Table
16 shows the results of these comparisons.

Of the ten safety-related activities, only “Hired a
CFI for training” showed a significant difference
between the two groups. Pilots who had not had an
accident/incident had hired a CFI more often than
those pilots who had been in an accident/incident.
The item relating to reading a magazine article on
safety approached statistical significance, and the
direction of the effect was the same (safer pilots more
likely to engage in the activity).

One safety-related activity of prime concern to the
FAA is attendance at FAA-sponsored safety seminars.
Seventeen percent of the pilots in the target group
who had not been to at least one seminar in the
previous 12 months reported having been in an
accident involving damage to an aircraft, compared
with 13% of the pilots who had been to one or more
seminars. These results can be compared with those
previously found by Hunter (1995). In that study,
13% of pilots in a similarly constructed target group,
who had not been to at least one seminar in the
previous 12 months, reported being in an accident,
compared to 12% of the pilots who had been to one
or more seminars. This difference in accident rates


45. To what flying organizations do you belong? (mark ALL that apply)

© Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA)

© Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)

© Vocation related organizations (e.g., Flying Farmers)
© Aircraft owner's club (e.g., Cessna Pilot's Assoc.)
3 Aviation trade organization (e.g., union)

c 3 Ido not belong to a flying organization.

46. What flying magazines do you read regularly? (mark ALL that apply)

9 Flying
© Air Progress
© Aviation Safety
© Aviation Consumer
‘=? EAA Sport Aviation
2 Business & Commercial Aviation
© Plane & Pilot
© Professional Pilot
© Others:
© | do not read flying magazines.

47. Highest educational degree received:

© Grade School

© High School

© Associates degree or equivalent (2 yrs. college)

© College Graduate (B.A., B.S., or other Bachelors degree)
© Master's Degree

© Professional or Academic Doctorate (M.D., J.D., Ph.D., etc.)

48. Year of Birth: 19

© Great Lakes'(IL, iN, Mi, MN, ND, OH, SD, W)

© New England (CT, MA, ME, 'NH, Rl, V1)

£2 Northwest - Mountain (CO, ID, MTOR, WA, WY, UT)
© Southern (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)

© Southwestern (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)

© Western Pacific (AZ, CA, HI, NV)

50. What is your primary occupation:

51.Gender:; © Male
© Female

Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly complete this survey. It is concerned individuals, such as
yourself, who participate in research studies that help make positive changes in the aviation field possible.

Furthermore, as mentioned in the survey cover letter, there are four optional questions on the following
page. Feel no obligation to complete them, but please do so if you feel you have something to offer that you
believe would be helpful to this research project or aviation safety in general. Thank you again for your
assistance in this important study.

AQ


7. Were the following topics formally presented at the last FAA safety seminar you attended?

FAA lations

& landings

Operating procedures (IFR or VFR)
Air space classifications and use
wtratic traffic control procedures

Q
®
®

Aircraft system:
Pilot decision making
Human factors

If YES, rate its usefulness:

NO Low High
® QD @ @ @ @
@ is @ @ @D ®
om ro ® Qi @ ®@
WM. @ @ @ D a
® . @ Q @ i
© Oe oO @
co) ® ®@ @ S
<> fen) @® ®D @® 3)
a oO eG @D @ ®

8. Regardless of whether you've attended FAA safety seminars, what are your perceptions of each of the following aspects?

FAA seminars primarily are designed for. . Poor pilots. oD @Q 2 . ®D @®_ Allpilots

The presentations at FAA seminars are. + Boring oO @ . @ ® Interesting
The topics discussed at FAA seminars are. ge complex a @ 7 @ @) Too easy

The material presented at FAA seminars D & @ a ® - Innovative
Most pilots go to FAA seminars to . Sopane D QD D ® @® Learn

Most FAA seminars are Poorly publiized g @ oS. D ®. ‘Well publicized
Most FAA seminars are Poorly organized @ @ @ ® =~ Well organized

9. Regardless of whether you've attended non-FAA safety seminars, what are your perceptions of each of the following aspects?

Non-FAA seminars s primarily er are designed for Poor pilots D @ D ®D ® Allpilots
‘The pr “AA seminars are Boring @D ® @ ® ® Interesting
The topics discussed at non-FAA seminars ar - Too complex QD ® ® ®D @® Too easy
‘The material presented at non-FAA seminars is. . . g 3) @ @ ® Innovative
Most pilots go to nen-FAA seminars to . + Sodialize 2) ® @ ® lean
Most non-FAA seminars are ....... Poorly publicized 2 e@ @ ic) @® .Well publicized
Most non-FAA seminars are Poorly organized < @ ® @ Well organized
10. | attended my last safety seminar because (mark ALL that apply)... 13. Meeting Location:
© [had never been to one and was curious 2 Airport hangar © Friend's house
It had been recommended to me by friends School or college classroom © Hotel meeting room
| wanted to learn about the topic. 5 FBO/Fying club meeting room =“ Other:
[felt obligated to go
My friends were going _
I had to renew my certification 14, Class Size: 2 Less than 10 © 50-100
always try to attend & 10-50 © More than 100
C2 Other:
~ O° ©
11. The BEST way to get me to attend a future aviation 18. Day: ©} Mon. & hes. = St
safety seminar Is... 5 wee ao ° "
Discuss more relevant topics
Offer more exciting presentations _
Provide a better meeting location 16. Time of Day: > Morning © Afternoon © Evening

Set a more convenient meeting time
Provide child care

Provide better publicity

Get more of my friends to attend
Other:

Do nothing, | will never attend
Do nothing, | always try to attend

For questions 12 - 17, choose the ONE that best describes
the seminar setting that would be MOST appealing to you:
12. Please rate how these factors affect your safety seminar
attendance decision.
Not

Very
Important Important
D a

W417.

ther:
Not applicable, | always try to attend.

8 60 - 90 minutes
> More than 90 minutes

Length: © © Less than 30 minutes
© 30-60 minutes

18. For me, the BEST format for a safety seminar would be

(mark only one)...
© Lectures by experts followed by a question and

answer period

> Testimonials by felow pilots folowed by a question and
__., answer period

group discussion
2 Town meeting format — no set coed. leader
answers questions raised by the gr
mall group discussions on ingle topic followed by

{age group discussion
> lide presentation followed by discussion
©) Practice exam on topic(s) followed by a question and
answer period about exam



TABLE B-2.

The most effective method for me to learn would be:

Aerial maneuvers (e.g., stalls)

Target Private Commercial ATP
Talk to other pilots .......sccsccsssssssee YO ceesccccsessseeees seseesteesneeeseee 1% one +
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI.
Self-study, practice

Other

Airport operating procedures
Talk to other pilots ...
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI .

Self-study, practice

10%

Airspace classification and use

Talk to other pilots ...
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI.....
Self-study, practice
Other ...

Air traffic control procedures

Talk to other pilots ...
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI.
Self-study, practice
Other ....

Aircraft systems and performance

Talk to other pilots ....
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFT......
Self-study, practice
Other ....

Emergency procedures

Talk to other pilots
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI......
Self-study, practice
Other ...

B4


=
a

Percentage of Respondents
=
i—}

a

<21 21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60 61-70 >70

Age (Years)
Figure 1. Frequency distribution of respondents across age categories.

Table 4. Educational level of respondents in
the target group.

Highest Completed Percent
Grade School 1%
High School 21%
Associate Degree 16%
College Degree 35%
Master’s Degree 18%
Professional Degree 10%

Fifteen percent of pilots reported being involved in
aircraft accidents resulting in damage to the aircraft.
This figure is relatively larger than that evident in either
of the previous categories, and is consistent with acci-
dent and incident statistics which show that most
accidents or incidents involve damage only to an aircraft
with little or no damage to either personnel or property.

Number of Stressful Situations in the Last 12
Months. Considerable anecdotal evidence suggests
that stressful experiences play a major part in both
incidents and accidents and may contribute signifi-
cantly to pilots’ subsequent use of safety-related in-
formation (Jensen, 1995). Such stressful experiences
may range from life stressors, such as a death or
divorce, to more task-related stressors, such as pas-
senger or job-related demands.

Forty-six percent of pilots indicated that they had
experienced a stressful aviation event during the 12
months prior to completion of the survey.

For those pilots in the target group who reported
having a stressful event, the distribution of factors
contributing to the event are given in Table 5.

Analysis of the types of stressful events experi-
enced by pilots revealed that weather is the primary
factor contributing to stressful events during flights,
followed closely by mechanical problems with the
aircraft, Mistakes attributed to pilots in other aircraft
also account fora substantial number of stressful events,
as do bad decisions made by the pilots themselves.

Self-Assessment of Pilot Knowledge. Pilots were
asked to rate their level of knowledge or proficiency
in 12 areas using a 5-point scale from “Poor” (1) to
“Excellent” (5). Table 6 presents the mean self-
ratings from the target group for the 12 knowledge
and proficiency areas.

Topics Presented at FAA Seminars. As a means of
determining the relative usefulness of topics pre-
sented at FAA seminars, respondents were asked to
indicate whether a particular topic was presented at
the last FAA safety seminar they attended, and fur-
ther, to indicate the relative usefulness of the topic.
The mean usefulness ratings (1 to 5 scale, higher
scores indicate higher usefulness) for the topics are
listed in Table 7. In addition, the frequency of pilots
who indicated that these topics were presented at the
last FAA safety seminar they attended is given.




Money

Target Private Commercial ATP
1 - [Not important] .. . i”
2

3
4.
5 - [Very im

portant]

Interest

1 - [Not important] .

5 - [Very important]
Motivation

1 - [Not important] ..

2

3

4

5 - [Very important]...
Effort

1 - [Not important].
Other priorities

1 - [Not important] .

2

5 - [Very important]
Confidence

1 - [Not important] ...........0. eee

3

4-.

5 - [Very important]
Support from family

1 - [Not important].

3
4-.
5

B14


TABLE B-8.

Perceptions of non-FAA seminars.

Seminars primarily designed for

Target Private Commercial ATP
” 1%

1 - [Poor pilots]
2

3
4
5 - [All pilots] .

Presentations were

1 - [Boring] .
2

Ubw

- [Interesting]

Topics discussed are
1 - [Too complex]
2

Material presented is
1 - [Repetitive]

4-.
5 - [Innovative]

Most pilots go to seminars to
1 - [Socialize
2-.
3
4-.
5 - [Learn]

Most seminars are
1 - [Poorly publicized]

5 - [Well publicized]...

B12


What is the most you would pay to rent a FAA safety video

Target Private Commercial ATP
Will not use. +

Less than $3
$3 to $5...
More than $5

TABLE B-15.
Self-assessment.

Preflight planning
Target Private Commercial ATP
1 - [Poor 7 .
2
3
Ae eeceseesee
5 - [Excellent] .

Ground handling

5 - [Excellent] .

Take off and landing procedures

1 ~ [POOF] ...eecesecsseesseesesessseseneessnees O% veessseesseessseeese 0% veeeesseesseesenee O%o veeseeesseeeteeeee 0%
2-

5 - [Excellent] ........ccceeeeeeeees

Basic VFR flying techniques
1 - [Poor]

5 - [Excellent] .

Instrument flying procedures

- 0%
. 1%
.TM%
. 27%
5 - [Excellent] .

B18


Learned from a CFI

Target Private Commercial ATP
12%
27%
31%
25%

1 - [None]...
2 - [Very little]
3 - [About half]
4 - [Most]
5 - [Almost all]

Memorized but never understood

1 - [None]...
2 - [Very little]
3 - [About half]

50%
. 5%
1%
. 0%

I learned from a computerized tutorial

1 - [None]... -- 53%
2 - [Very little] 36%
3 - [About half] - 9%
4 - [Most] .... . 2%

5 - [Almost all] . 0%

Learned in a classroom

1 - [None]... 1%
2 - [Very little] 15%
3 - [About half] 40%
4 - [Most] 31%

5 - [Almost all] 13%

TABLE B-18.
Stress Factors.

Iwas in a stressful situation in last 12 months
Target Private Commercial ATP
srsessseesseess 46%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

or more.

B22


Weather

Target Private Commercial ATP

If Yes, then usefulnes:

1 - [Low] .

5 -[High] ..

Pilot decision making

If Yes, then usefulnes:
1- [Low].
2-.

If Yes, then usefulnes:
1- [Low].
2-.

TABLE B-7.

Perceptions of FAA seminars.

Seminars primarily designed for

Target Private Commercial ATP
- 2%
1%
28%
15%
48%

1 - [Poor pilots]

5 - [All pilots] .

B10


Table 16. Accident involvement and safety-related activities.

Damage N Mean SD. t p __ Bonferroni
toan Adjusted-p
aircraft?

Used a computer flight simulation Yes 111. «1.37 283 2.371 .018 18
program No 636 2.15 3.25

Read a book on aviation safety Yes 111. 2.29 283 1.205 .229 2.29
No 632 266 2.99

Viewed a video on aviation safety Yes 110 «1.49 2.18 1.434 .152 1.52
No 622 1.83 2.35

Read a magazine article on safety Yes 112 «=©6.00 3.18 2.751 .006 .06
No 632 6.83 2.88

Hired a CFI for training Yes 110 1.65 2.45 3.411  .001 .01
No 632 2.73 3.15

Read a FAA publication Yes 110 3.98 3.02 1.426 .154 1.54
No 623 4.42 3.03

Referred to an aircraft operating Yes 110 468 3.38 1.126 .261 2.61
manual No 636 5.05 3.19

Asked another pilot a safety question Yes 111 3.60 3.05 .945 .345 3.54
No 634 3.91 3.24

Answered another pilots safety Yes 112) §=63.25 43.12 1.182 .237 2.37
question No 631 2.88 3.03

Used a computer-based learning Yes 111 99 233 -.564 .573 5.73
program No _634__—«:14.13 2.42

Table 17. Accident involvement and FAA-sponsored seminar attendance.

Number of Seminars Attended Damage — Yes Damage - No
None 66% 58%
One 21% 20%
Two 14%
Three 6%
Four or more 2%

X?=8.4, p = .078 (N.S.)


AVIATION SAFETY SURVEY OPTIONAL QUESTIONS:

1. Over your career, have you had flying experiences (accidents, incidents, or stressful situations) that have
changed your knowledge or attitude about flying in a significant way? Such experiences may be useful in
teaching other pilots better decision making skills. Please use the space below, adding other pages as
needed, to describe one such experience.

2. Some say that experiences such as you just described can make you less safe because you were
rewarded by “making it through”. Others say, that the pain of the experience makes you more cautious.
What was the result of the above experience to you? Did it make you more cautious? Did it make you
believe that because you were successful, you could take more chances?

8. If you were in a position of power, what would you change to make your kind of aviation safer in the USA?

4. If any of the questions in the survey sparked an idea potentially useful for aviation safety, please use the
space below, and/or additional pages, to discuss or expand on your answers.

AlO


TABLE B-28.
Education.

Highest education level completed
Target Private Commercial ATP

Grade school...
High school 21%
Associate degree (2 years’ college’
College graduate (B.A., B.
Master’s degree .....
Professional or academic doctorate

(M.D., J.D. PID.) .seeecsessssescsesssseeeseeesseessetsss LOY cecseecssserseses LOY ceeeeceseeeseeenes TY vesvesesseseeeses 1%

TABLE B-29.
Departure point for flights.

Region you usually take-off from

Target Private Commercial ATP
. 1%
3%
16%
17%
- 3%
9%
17%

Great Lakes ..
New England
Northwest-Mountait

15%
19%
TABLE B-30.
Gender.
Gender
Target Private Commercial ATP
Male 94% . 193% cesressseserreess 4M vecsssresesssees 96%,

Female.

B31


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors of this document wish to acknowledge the contributions and efforts of the many
people whose assistance made this project possible.

Dr. John Fisher and Mr. Trent Taylor did most of the initial work in the development of the survey
instrument,

Mr. Phil Boyer of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Mr. Tom Poberenzy of the
Experimental Aircraft Association, Mr. Paul Fiduccia of the Small Aircraft Manufacturers Associa-
tion, and Mr. Edward Stimpson of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association provided a letter
of support that undoubtedly improved our response rate.

Mr. Haydn Decker, of the FAA Flight Standards District Office in Columbus and the Ohio
Department of Transportation-Aviation Department assisted in pre-testing the survey instrument.

A special thank you goes to our student assistants: Louis Zur Muhlen, Stephanie Bosch, Brad
Patterson, Diana Battista and Paul Valach for their many hours of categorizing and entering data.

The authors thank the other members of The Ohio State University Aviation Research Team for
their invaluable assistance and support through this entire process.

Finally, the pilots who filled out the questionnaire deserve thanks for the time and thought that
they provided in making this project a success.

iii


The Ohio State University
DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING,
APPLIED MECHANICS, AND AVIATION

AVIATI@N SAFETY SURVEY

Directions: Please fill in the oval of the best answer or
answers to each question completely.
Use No. 2 pencil only.

Ex. 1. Have you ever flown as Pilot-In-Command?
@ YES NO

Additionally, if you choose the response OTHER as an
answer to a question, please elaborate in the space
provided. If you are unsure of an answer, such as the exact
number of hours you have logged in the past year, use your
best estimate, but please answer every question.

The survey should take you about 30 minutes (more if you
answer the optional questions at the end) to complete.

Thank you for your time and input in this matter.

AB


Table 13. Safety-related activities.

Attended N Mean S.D. t-test p Bonferroni

Seminar Adjusted —p

Used a computer flight No 445 1.89 3.21 1.284 200 2
simulation program Yes 313 2.19 3.19

Read a book on aviation No 444 2.34 2.92 2.566 010 A
safety Yes 311 2.90 3.00

Viewed a video on aviation No 436 1.32 2.09 5.783 0001 .001
safety Yes 310 2.26 2.34

Read a magazine articleon No 445 6.31 3.13 4.557 .0001 001
safety Yes 311 7.28 2.51
Hired a CFI for training No 446 2.31 3.07

Yes 308 2.87 3.02 2.462 .014 14
Read an FAA publication No 440 3.89 3.02

Yes 310 4.95 2.87 4.808 .0001 001

Referred to an aircraft No 445 4.90 3.36 0.691 490 49
operating manual Yes 312 5.06 2.98

Asked another pilot a No 447 3.64 3.24 1.512 131 1.31
safety question Yes 310 4.00 3.08

Answered another pilots No 446 2.69 2.97 2.284 .023 .23
safety question Yes 308 3.20 3.08

Used a computer-based No 443 1.04 2.39 0.523 601 6.01
learning program Yes 313 1.14 2.43

approached but did not achieve significance (Fisher’s
Exact Test p = .114; one-sided). Similarly, in the
current study, the difference between groups ap-
proaches but does not achieve statistical significance
(Fisher’s Exact Test p=.065; one-sided). Table 17
shows the relationship between seminar attendance
and accident involvement in more detail. As in the
overall test, of course, the differences do not attain
statistical significance.

Self-Assessment of Knowledge and Proficiency
Pilots were asked to rate their level of knowledge or
proficiency as a pilot in each of several areas, using a
5-point scale from “Poor” (1) to “Excellent” (5).
Table 18 compares the mean self-ratings of those
pilots who had been in an accident with the mean
self-ratings of those pilots who had not been in an
accident. Significant differences were noted for (1)
basic VFR flying techniques, (2) emergency proce-
dures, and (3) weather and its impact on flight. In


Table 19. Comparisons with other pilots by accident involvement groups.

Damage N Mean SD. t p Bonferroni
toan adjusted-p
aircraft?

| am more safety conscious Yes 110 3.75 66 816 .415 3.735
No 632 3.81 74

lam more willing to study safety Yes 110 367 .70 161 .872 7.848
No 635 3.68 74

| do better on FAA written exams Yes 109 3.31 75 1.434 .152 1.368
No 634 3.43 82

1 do better on FAA check rides Yes 1113.22 (61 -393 694 6.246
No 630 3.25 68

| am willing to do more to be a safe Yes 111 3.94 77° 695 .487 4.383
pilot No 633 3.99 70

| have had fewer “close calls Yes 111. 3.53 80 1.516 .130 1.17
No 634 3.66 86

| know more about the causes of Yes 110 3.55 .77 1.835 .067 0.603
accidents No 631 3.40 .80

| am more interested in safety issues Yes 111. (3.68 = 71 508 .612 5.508
No 630 3.64 77

| take fewer risks when flying Yes 112 «3.92 75 .754 451 4.059
No 6393.99 81

Question 2

Question two was designed to determine the ex-
tent to which the circumstances described in ques-
tion one led pilots to become more or less cautious
with regard to their flying capabilities. Of the pilots
surveyed, 74% responded to this question with the
majority indicating that such stressful experiences
made them more cautious concerning these events
and less likely to make the same mistakes again. For
example:

Fortunately the ice blocked off the tube enough to
kill the engine during the flare and not on final or
before. The experience definitely made me more care-
ful and thoughtful, because I have learned from my
carelessness; if the engine would have quit 5 to 10
seconds earlier, it could have killed me [082].

19

It absolutely made me more cautious. I do not like
to be foolhardy, and would not have ever felt “re-
warded”, I also believe my perception of the danger (or
potential) was accurate. However, the folks at the GA
terminal presumed that it made me less safe — this
attitude was nearly more damaging then the event
itself, because I felt distrust, which undermined my
confidence even further [283].

In some cases, pilots indicated that the experiences
enhanced “higher level” cognitive skills such as situ-
ation awareness. As a case in point:

The result of that experience was that I learned to
monitor all phases of the landing (airspeed, attitude,
glide path, runway alignment, flap position, etc.) and
not focus on one thing ( in this case, the need to satisfy
my training of “putting it on the numbers”). It cer-
tainly did make me more cautious and did not make me
feel I could take more chances [247].


Table 15. Self-comparisons with other pilots.

Attended N Mean S.D. ttest p Bonferroni
Seminar Adjusted-p

| am more safety conscious No 443 3.81 74
Yes 306 3.80 73 0.299 .765 6.89

lam more willing to study safety No 443 3.62 = 471
Yes 309 3.78 76 3.004 .003 .027

| do better on FAA written exams No 441 3.41 83
Yes 309 3.43 80 .0286 .775 6.98

| do better on FAA check rides No 441 3.29 68
Yes 307 3.16 62 2.497 .013 12

lam willing to do more to be a safe pilot No 441 3.96 .70
Yes 310 4.03 70 1.475 .141 1.27

| have had fewer “close calls No 443 3.69 85
Yes 309 3.57 .88 1.823 .069 62
1 know more about the causes of No 441 3.42 79 0.083 .934 8.41

accidents Yes 307 3.42 81

| am more interested in safety issues No 441 3.61 72
Yes 306 3.69 79 1.489 .137 1.23

| take fewer risks when flying No 448 4.01 77
Yes 310 3.99 -78 0.362.718 6.46

VFR Minima

Anecdotal evidence has indicated for some time
that VFR pilots who consistently operate in condi-
tions that require an instrument rating are more
likely to be involved in an aircraft accident. The aim
of this analysis was, therefore, to determine the extent
to which pilots have operated in actual or potential
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), and
whether this affected accident involvement. As shown
in Table 21, no significant differences were found,
although the activity “Flown VFR under a 1500 AGL
ceiling” approached significance.

SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE RESULTS
A series of open-ended questions was used to
provide pilots with an opportunity to describe a
situation that altered their knowledge or attitude
about flying, and whether this experience resulted in
more- or less-cautious behavior. In addition, pilots

15

were given the opportunity to express their opinions
regarding the aviation safety system in general, and
the FAA in particular.

Question 1

This question was designed to provide pilots with
an opportunity to recount a situation which had
altered in a significant way either their knowledge or
attitude about flying. Seventy-six percent of pilots
responded to this question, and there were a number
of key themes running through the responses. First,
the majority of experiences resulted from uninten-
tional behavior in which pilots were often “caught”
unaware by the circumstances. These situations ranged
from those that were weather-related, such as,

Two years after receiving IFR rating, flew a Piper
PA28-180 into known instrument conditions without
a heated Pitot Tube. This was a rental plane that was
well equipped for the IMC except for the Pitot tube.


E OF TI AFETY INFORMAT.
1. In the last 12 months, how often did you do each of the following?

puter rogrem oooESEHEHEOOE
Used a cor flight simulation @Q Oo ® ®&
Read a book on. ston ° OD OO. @ O'O OO @B @
Mapped a video on aviation ®@2O 2B QO OOOH ODO ®
‘@'magazine article on safety @Q © @: ® ®@ ®©® @ & © ®
Urge 2 CF for @2 2 ® ®@2@ @® 8 OG ®D ®
Sete eee 2 3883 28
ircraft. oj manual.
Aes cncthor loka ee aston QO 2 2 ®Q® ®®2 B® ®
Angwered another OS ee et ® OOO GG G& GB OD ®&®
Uséd a computer-based Qa @,@: 8 © © @ © G&G ®
2. The most effective method for me to learn more about each of the following safety topics would be (mark one per topic)...
Talkto Attend Safety Meetwith — Self Study, Other,
Other Pilots = Seminar acFi Practice Please Specify
* Aerial maneuvers (6.g., stalls).  O ® @ @ ®
‘Atport operating procedures Qo. @ @ QD @Q
Air space classifications & use Qo @ _@ ®@ QD
Arcchoserskpaomace DB @ ® ° ®
formance,
@ @. @ @ i)
efor tic oD @ ® ®D @®
g., weather) @ @ ® ® ®
patel QD @ ®@ @®@ ®
ratight (2.0. jweraht & balance) @D @ ® ® ®
ing procedures @ @ ® @® ®
Faotcocieen tran oO @ @ @ ®
Human factors oO @ @ @ ®@
Crew resource management Oo @ ® @® @
MIN; 2
3. Number of non-FAA safety seminars you have 4. Who sponsored the last non-FAA safety seminar
attended in the last 12 months: you attended?
© None (go to question © AOPA
Soe” 9 © EAA
SO Two © Local FBO
© Three © Other.
© Four or more

5. Were the following topics formally presented at the last non-FAA safety seminar you attended?
IEYES, rate its usefulness:

YES NO Low High
lations ©, ® oD ® ® ®@ ©
Te & 8 Oe @D ® © ©. ® ©
Operating res (FR or VFR) o @® ® ® ® @® ©
Alr space cl Qo. ® Oo @ ® © @®
Air traffic control @o ® QD @ @ @ ®
Weather @. wD QD @ ® ®D ®
Aircraft DO ® Oo @ @ @ ®
Pilot making Ow o © ©® © ©
Human factors ®o @® o ® ® ®©. ©

6. Number of FAA safety seminars you have attended in the last 12 months:
© None (go to question 8)
© One

© Two
Q Three
© Four or more

A4



Table 9. Perceptions of seminar attendees and non-attendees regarding FAA safety seminars.

Attended N Mean S.D t-test p Bonferroni
Seminar Adjusted-p
FAA seminars primarily are = No 436 4.49 .88
designed for...
FAA seminars primarily are = No 436 4.49 88
designed for...
(Poor Pilots...All Pilots) Yes 315 4.55 78 1.017 -309 2.16
The presentations at FAA No 420 3.42 1.04
seminars are...
(Boring...Interesting) Yes 315 3.70 96 3.769 -0001 .0007
The topics discussed at No 421 3.12 71
FAA seminars are...
(Too Complex...Too Easy) _ Yes 314 3.17 61 0.976 329 2.30
The material presented at No 417 2.87 92
FAA seminars is...
(Repetitive...Innovative) Yes 314 2.92 97 763 445 3.115
Most pilots go to FAA No 421 3.73 1.09
seminars to...
(Socialize...Learn) Yes 313 3.96 93 3.020 .003 02
Most FAA seminars are... No 426 3.29 1.30
(Poorly ...Well Publicized) Yes 312 3.68 1.24 4.099 -0001 -0007
Most FAA seminars are... No 420 3.58 1.04
(Poorly...Well Organized) Yes 313 3.90 1.01 4.148 -0001 .0007

Table 10. Factors affecting attendance decision by seminar attendees and non-attendees.

Attended N Mean $.D t-test p Bonferroni
Seminar Adjusted-p

Time No 426 4.21 1.14
Yes 283 4.00 1.12 2.396 .017 7

Money No 416 2.82 1.42
Yes 278 2.62 1.34 1.884 .060 60

Interest No 420 4.33 80
Yes 286 4.31 81 0.244 .807 8.07

Motivation No 404 3.84 1.05
Yes 273 3.79 1.03 0.630 529 5.29

Effort No 402 3.53 1.11
Yes 266 3.36 1.01 1.971 .049 49

Other priorities No 397 3.70 1.16
Yes 261 3.31 1.13 4.184 .0001 001

Confidence No 397 2.83 1.32
Yes 262 2.94 1.26 1.089 276 2.76

Support from family No 401 2.11 1.25
Yes 267 2.12 1.32 0.088 -930 9.3

Peer pressure No 395 1.61 95
Yes 266 1.47 86 1.930 .054 54

Fear of failure No 397 1.56 96
Yes 268 1.46 84 1.423 -155 1.55



TABLE B-16.

Comparison to other pilots.

Iam more safety conscious
Target Private Commercial ATP

0%.

1%.

1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree]

Tam more willing to study safety
1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree]
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree]

Ido better on FAA written exams
1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]
5 - [Strongly Agree

Ido better on FAA check rides
1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree]

Iam willing to do more to be a safe pilot
1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree]
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree]

I have fewer “close calls”
1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree’
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree] ...........scce

B20


The questions were arranged in an optically-
scannable questionnaire booklet under the following
seven categories:

+ Use of Aviation Safety Information
° Seminars

* Computer/Video Use

+ Self Assessment

+ Recent Flying Experience

* Demographic Information

* Stressful Experiences

Four optional open-ended questions, listed at the
end of the survey, asked pilots to expand on their
stressful flying experiences and solicited suggestions
about how to improve aviation safety.

To enhance the response rate, the questionnaire
was developed to be quickly understood and easy to
complete within approximately 30 minutes. Some
compromises in content were necessary to meet this
goal as the development effort was carried out. To
facilitate the survey development process and gain
the best response rate, the Statistical Consulting
Service and the Polimetrics Laboratory of the Ohio
State University (OSU) were consulted regarding the
consolidation and ordering of questions.

Pre-testing of the Survey Form

The prototype survey was pre-tested using stu-
dents in OSU aviation classes and an array of local
volunteer private, commercial, and airline transport
pilots. The pre-test helped to determine the time
required to complete the form. Pilots who partici-
pated in the pre-testing also provided valuable feed-
back on the questionnaire content, resulting in more
clearly understood text. In some cases, questions were
added and others dropped as pilots offered their own
ideas. The final form of the questionnaire was an
eight-page booklet (shown in Appendix A).

Sampling

Astratified random sample of the pilot population
was drawn to represent three pilot groups: private,
commercial, and airline transport. The database used
to select pilots was the February 1995 Aviation Data
CD (Avantex, 1995). This database included all
airmen with valid medical certificates on December
31, 1994 who lived within the nine domestic FAA
regions. Thus, the sample represented pilots who
were active, at least to the point of maintaining their

medical certificate. The primary information source
for the CD database was the FAA, which then listed
the names and addresses of approximately 240,000
private pilots, 121,000 commercial pilots, and
110,000 airline transport pilots.

The selection procedure was to draw one name for
every 120 private pilots, 60 commercial pilots, and
50 airline transport pilots listed. Since the listing was
ordered according to FAA region, this selection
method produced a sample that was relatively charac-
teristic of each regional population with approxi-
mately the same number of private, commercial, and
airline transport pilots per region. The final sample
consisted of 2,005 private pilots, 2,008 commercial
pilots, and 1,973 airline transport pilots. Equal num-
bers of each certificate type were chosen instead of
proportions of the actual total population (51%,
26%, and 23% for private, commercial, and airline
transport, respectively) because the concern was to
control sampling error by obtaining a suitable num-
ber of completed surveys from each population seg-
ment of interest.

Survey Procedure

Following the recommendations of Dillman
(1978), pre-notification postcards were sent to all
pilots in the sample, notifying them that they had
been selected and requesting their participation.
Approximately one week later, the survey packets
were sent to the 2,000 pilots in each of these three
groups. After considering the various options for
follow up to improve response, it was decided that
within the budget and time constraints of the study,
a single mailing of another complete survey packet to
the sample of pilots would offer the most effective
means to improve responses. Accordingly, four weeks
after the initial mailing, additional survey packets
were sent out to 4,000 pilots randomly selected from
among those (approximately 5,000) who had not
responded. Approximately equal numbers of pilots
from each of the three license categories were selected
for this follow up. The figure of 4,000 was arrived at
by estimating, a priori, the number of non-respond-
ing pilots that would remain after the first mailing.
However, the response rate failed to meet our initial
expectations, and only about 1,000 responses had
been received prior to the second mailing. This left
approximately 5,000 non-respondents and (because
all the surveys had been printed at the same time) only
4,000 questionnaires available to be sent out. There-


APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

Al


TABLE B-21.
Military flying experience.

T have flown as pilot-in-command as a:

Target Private Commercial ATP

Military pilot — YES... ae see 13%

Commercial pilot for hire- YES ..4% *

Airline pilot — YES .......

*These entries are probably erroneous, since the holder of a Private certificate could not serve as a commercial crew
member. However, it is possible that an individual previously held a higher level certificate and surrendered it.

TABLE B-22.
Characteristics of aircraft most frequently flown.

Aircraft flown most frequently in last 12 months

Target Private Commercial ATP
Category
Airplane ......ecesesssessesseesseetesseesnees 96% rsessesssereeeres 97% oe
Rotorcraft... 3%
Lighter-than-air . 0%
Glider
Class

Single-engine land
Multi-engine land .
Single-engine se;
Multi-engine sea
Helicopter ..
Gyroplane
Airship ....
BallOom .......cssessessesssessesssesseesesneeenees

TABLE B-23.
Portion of total hours logged during the last 12 months.

Local VFR pleasure flights

Target Private Commercial ATP
18%.
50%...
14%.
11%.
9%.

Less than 25%
25% to 50% ...
50% to 75%
75% to 100%

B27


TABLE B-24.

In the past 12 months, how many times have you...

Flown at night in a single-engine aircraft

Target Private Commercial ATP
1%
TMM%
1%

Zero

5 or more

Flown VFR under a 1500 AGL ceiling
Zero

5 or more ..

Requested a Special VFR clearance
Zero.

5 or more.

Flown VFR over the top
Zer

Flown in instrument meteorological conditions

Zero .. 55% ..
8% ..

B29


TABLE B-25.
Source of initial flight training.

Where did you receive the majority of training for your first pilot certificate

Target Private Commercial ATP
Military flying school 11%.
Civilian flying school
Collegiate flight school
CFl at a FBO......
CFI at a flying club
Independent CFI
Other

TABLE B-26.
Membership in flying organizations.

Belong to flying organizations
Target Private Commercial ATP

Aircraft owner’s club .
31%

Aviation trade organization .
Ninety-nines... -1%
A flying club . 6%
Other 20%
TABLE B-27.
Use of aviation-related periodicals.
Flying magazines read regularly

Target Private Commercial ATP
16%. 7 20%

72%
4T%
4%

FAA Aviation Safety
AOPA Pilot
Flying .......
Air Progress
Aviation Safety
Aviation Consumer...
EAA Sport Aviation .
Business & Commercial Aviation .5% .
Plane & Pilo'
Professional Pilot

B30


A majority of pilots (59%) in the target group (pri-
vate certificate holders and non-professional commer-
cial certificate holders) had notattended a FAA-sponsored
safety seminar during the preceding 12 months. The
attendees and non-attendees differed significantly in
their reasons for non-attendance only with respect to
“other priorities” that interfered with attendance. In
order to encourage future attendance at FAA safety
seminars, more consideration should be given to the
selection of the topic and providing better meeting
locations, as these were the two items chosen most often
by seminar attendees and non-attendees, respectively.

Overall, pilots considered a “lecture by experts” as
the most preferred learning style, perhaps in combi-
nation with slides and videos. However, many pilots
are unlikely to have been exposed to all the learning
styles listed, and therefore, the responses may reflect
“familiarity” rather than “preference” per se.

While there was relatively little difference among
the ratings of mean usefulness for each of the topics
presented at FAA seminars, “Air Space Classifica-
tion” was considered the most useful topic, followed
closely by “Pilot Decision Making.” “Aircraft Sys-
tems” was considered the least useful topic. The
content of seminars was by far the most important
motivator in terms of pilot attendance.

With respect to the venue of FAA-safety seminars,
the majority of the pilots expressed a preference for a
classroom or FBO meeting room. This appears to
reflect the issue of accessibility, which was mentioned
previously as one of the strategies to encourage atten-
dance at FAA safety seminars.

Considerable support was expressed for the use of
computer technology in safety-related training, with
79% of pilots indicating that they would either
certainly or possibly use an interactive computer
safety program. Moreover, nearly half of the pilots
(45%) indicated a willingness to spend $10 to $30 to
purchase a copy of a program.

Comparison of Seminar Attendees and Non-
attendees

Those pilots in the target group who had attended
at least one FAA-sponsored safety seminar during the
previous 12 months differed significantly in four
areas from non-attendees in their perceptions regard-
ing FAA seminars. Seminar attendees perceived the
FAA seminars as being (1) more interesting, (2) well
publicized, and (3) well organized. In addition, they

22

believed more strongly than non-attendees that pilots
attend FAA-sponsored to seminars to learn rather
than to socialize.

Seminar attendees chose “Offer more exciting pre-
sentations” as the best way to encourage attendance.
These findingsare in accord with other research (Hunter,
1997), which suggests that providing interesting pre-
sentations is an important element in attracting pilots to
seminars. In contrast, non-attendees indicated that “Pro-
videa better meeting location” was the factor that would
most improve their attendance. Both groups agreed,
however, on the preferred format —lectures by an expert,
combined with a question and answer period.

In examining the factors that may affect atten-
dance decisions, attendees and non-attendees dif-
fered only with respect to the extent to which “Other
priorities” affected their decision. Non-attendees were
more strongly affected by this factor than attendees.

Significant differences were found between the two
groups on the incidence of watching safety videos and
reading FAA publications. This finding is probably an
artifact of the group formation, since many (if not most)
FAA seminars involve watching safety videos, and it
would not be unreasonable to think that seminar at-
tendees read more FAA publications as a result of their
being distributed at all FAA seminars.

Although no significant differences were found
between seminar attendees and non-attendees on
their self-assessed knowledge and proficiency, it is
interesting to note that non-attendees rated them-
selves as higher on all categories. This leads to the
speculation that non-attendees abstain from the FAA
safety seminars because they feel, to some extent, that
they have achieved a satisfactory state of knowledge
and proficiency and, hence, have no need for further
training. The present data do not allow us to explore
this notion further (specifically, we have no measure
of the non-attendees degree of satisfaction with their
knowledge and proficiency, relative to attendees),
but it would make for an interesting future study.

For those questions that asked the pilots to compare
themselves with other pilots, there was only one statis-
tically significant difference. Seminar attendees indi-
cated that they were more willing to study safety,
compared to non-attendees. The remainder of the items
showed no clear pattern — for half of the items the
attendees rated themselves marginally higher than other
pilots, while for the other half the non-attendees rated
themselves marginally higher than other pilots.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
Segmentation of the Pilot Population

METHOD
Questionnaire Development .
Pre-testing of the Survey Form
Sampling
Survey Procedure
Mailing
Return Rates

RESULTS
Target Group Characteristics
Age ....
Gender .
Education Level
Accidents ....eessesssessessssssecssseseesseesesseeseeseenseessees
Number of Stressful Situations in the Last 12 Months
Self-Assessment of Pilot Knowledge .
Topics Presented at FAA Seminars
Location and Structure of FAA Safety Seminars
Use of Computer Technology..........
Use of Video Technology .......sss00
Comparative Analysis - FAA Safety Seminar Attendees and Non-attendees ..
Factors that Influence Seminar Attendance ........

Seminar Format ....c.ssessssesssesesseesessesseseesseseeseeneenenses

Comparative Analysis — Accident/Incident Involvement and Safety Training 12
Safety Activities ...c.cscccsssssesssseesseessneessneessneesneenneersnee 12
Self-Assessment of Proficiency 12
Use of Safety Resources .......... 12
Self-Assessment of Knowledge and Proficienc 13
Comparisons With Other Pilots .......sseesssssereees 14
Stressful Events During the Previous 12 Month: 14
VER Mimima .....csscssecsecsesssseessesneseeseenseneeneenenenses 15

Summary of Qualitative Results. 15
Question 1 . 15
Question 2. 19
Question 3 voececcssecssesesseeestesneseeseeneeseeneeeeneeeen 20

CONCLUSION

Descriptive Analysis
Comparison of Seminar Attendees and Non-attendees .
Accident/Incident Involvement and Safety Activities
Qualitative Analysis...
Implications .......-eeeneeeeees




Table 11. Best way to encourage future attendance.

Total Attendees Non-Attendees
Discuss more relevant topics 12% 13% 12%
Offer more exciting presentations 12% 25% 9%
Provide better meeting location 19% 13% 23%
Set more convenient meeting time 9% Th 11%
Provide child care 1% - 1%
Provide better publicity 14% 9% 17%
Get more of my friends to attend 1% - 1%
Other 5% 4% 6%
Do nothing, | will never attend 3% 1% 4%
Do nothing, | always try to attend 25% 37% 16%

Note: Columns may not sum to 100%, due to rounding.

Table 12. Preferred seminar format.

Total Attendees Non-Attendees
Lectures by experts & question and 55% 52% 56%
answer period
Testimonials by fellow pilots & question 6% 3% 8%
and answer period
Open group discussion 2% 1% 3%
Town meeting format -- no set agenda, 1% 1% 1%
leader answers questions raised by group
Small group discussion on single topic 3% 1% 4%
followed by large group discussion
Video or slide presentation followed by 29% 37% 23%
discussion
Practice exam on topic(s) followed by a 3% 2% 3%
question and answer period about exam
Other 3% 4% 2%

ll


A SurRVEY OF PILOTS ON THE DISSEMINATION OF SAFETY INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

The dynamic and heterogeneous nature of the
aviation industry is such that it is often difficult to
develop a coherent understanding of how best to
serve the safety information needs of various pilot
segments. Aviation safety seminars presented by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other
groups have been one method of providing safety-
oriented information to pilots. However, the effec-
tiveness of such programs may be debated, as voluntary
attendance is often low. This suggests that the current
mechanisms for the dissemination of safety informa-
tion may not be meeting the particular needs of a
significant number of pilots.

Previous evaluations of the pilot population have
been designed primarily to examine the nature of the
pilot population as a type of “snap shot” for subse-
quent comparisons (See Hunter, 1995). In general,
the primary focus has rested upon the identification
of safety-related behavior, rather than mechanisms
through which unsafe behavior can be altered.

The objective of the present research was to iden-
tify pilot perceptions of safety-related information,
including its usefulness within the operational envi-
ronment, its role in accident causation and preven-
tion, and the process through which safety-related
information might be better disseminated to them.
This study is a part of a larger research program
designed to develop and disseminate aviation-related
safety information to the pilot population in general.
The specific goal was to determine the most effective
strategies through which a broad range of pilots could
be provided with relevant, innovative safety informa-
tion using methods that fit the various learning styles
of the population.

Segmentation of the Pilot Population

Because their experience and flying environments
are quite different, private, commercial and airline
transport pilots are likely to require different types of
safety information. Moreover, it was considered un-
likely that all pilots could be served effectively through
the same mechanisms of information dissemination;

that is, some methods are perhaps more appropriate
for certain types of pilots. Educators know that
individual learning styles vary considerably across
the population. Some people learn best from lectures,
some from computers, some from discussions, and
still others learn best from reading.

On the basis of these factors, it was considered
appropriate to segment the pilot population into
subgroups that share similar characteristics in terms
of experience and knowledge. The participants were
thus divided into three groups on the basis of the
license that they held when they were sampled. Other
variables, such asa pilot’s primary FAA region, recency
of experience, and involvement in aircraft accidents,
were used to further segment the population.

Segmentation of the pilot population also facili-
tated the examination of safety habits among the
various pilot subgroups. Consistent with Hunter
(1995), this kind of information was considered
useful in establishing a profile of “at risk” pilot
subgroups that coincided with appropriate safety
intervention efforts.

METHOD

Questionnaire Development

The survey questions were developed to meet the
objective of the study, which was to determine how
best to bring safety information to the various seg-
ments of the general aviation pilot population. There-
fore, it was necessary to ask how the population
perceives present and proposed future methods of
presenting safety. Questions were designed to exam-
ine attitudes toward FAA and non-FAA safety semi-
nars (including best times, places, and locations) as
well as alternate forms of intervention strategies (i.e.,
computer use, video use, etc.). Questions relating to
the pilot’s profile focused upon the acquisition of
information relating to the characteristics of pilots
including age, gender, education level, and involve-
ment in accidents/incidents. Information from these
types of questions would be used to link the responses
to questions regarding FAA safety seminars to sub-
groups of the pilot population.


Table 18. Accident involvement and self-assessment of knowledge and proficiency.

Damage N Mean SD. t p Bonferroni
toan adjusted-p
aircraft?
Preflight planning Yes 112 4.15 -76 1.676 .094 1.128

No 642 4.02 .74

Ground handling Yes 112 4.22 70 2.183.029 0.348
No 640 4.05 74

Takeoff and landing procedures Yes 110 4.16 71 2.494 .013 0.156
No 639 3.97 75

Basic VFR flying techniques Yes 110 430 .64 2.901 .004 0.048
No 635 4.08 .72

Instrument flying procedures Yes 108 2.90 1.32 2.070 .039 0.468
No 625 263 1.23

Emergency procedures Yes 111 3.58 88 3.221 .001 0.012
No 641 3.30 82

Weather and its impact on flight Yes 111 4.04 85 4.639 .000 0.0012
No 641 3.61 90 4.826

Air traffic control procedures Yes 111 359 93 1.317 .188 2.256
No 638 3.46 92

Navigation Yes 111 432 .78 2.431 .015 0.18
No 640 4.03 .76

Aviator decision-making Yes 110 3.96 84 1.010 .313 3.756
No 638 3.88 76

Human factors Yes 108 368 91 -164 .870 10.44
No 635 3.76 82

Air space regulations Yes 111 3.25 91 .045 .964 11.568
No 640 3.25 85

17


DOT/FAA/AM-99/7 A Survey of Pilots on the

Dissemination of Safety
Office of Aviation Medicine .
Washington, D.C. 20591 Information

Lori Rakovan
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210

Mark W. Wiggins
The University of Western Sydney
Sydney, Australia

Richard S. Jensen
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210

David R. Hunter
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, DC 20591

March 1999

Final Report

This document is available to the public
through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Federal Aviation
Administration


Human factors

Target Private Commercial ATP

Talk to other pilots
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI...
Self-study, practice
Other

Crew resource management

Talk to other pilots «0.0...
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI..

Self-study, practice
Other

TABLE B-3.
Non-FAA Safety seminars.

Number of non-FAA seminars attended in last 12 months

Target Private Commercial ATP
62% 65%.
18% 17% ..
10% 9%.
4% 4%.
6% 6%.

Three .
Four or more

Sponsor of last non-FAA seminar attended

AOPA 27% ..
EAA .. 13%.
Local FBO

Other ....

TABLE B-4.

Topics covered at non-FAA seminars and their usefulness.

FAA regulations
Target Private Commercial ATP

5 -[High]

** Figure given is percentage of sample responding yes to this question. Remaining percentages of usefulness are based
upon those who responded YES (i.e., N=192 for the Target group).

BG


Table 1. Age of survey respondents and pilot population.

Mean — Respondent Mean - Population

Sample
Private 46.6 42.7
Commercial 45.7 41.9
Airline Transport 45.7 44.1

Note: All differences significant (t > 1.96, p < .05).

Table 2. Gender of survey respondents and pilot population.

Survey Respondents _ Population

Male Female = Male Female =X?
Private 93.2 6.8 94.1 5.9 0.94
Commercial 94.2 5.8 95.7 4.3 3.08
Airline Transport 96.4 3.6 97.4 2.6 2.7

Note: All X? (df = 1) nonsignificant (p > .05)

Table 3. Responses by FAA region.

Region Number of Percent of Number of Pilots Percent of Pilots
Responses Responses

Alaska 4 2.4% 9404 1.5%
Central 96 5.6% 31853 5.1%
Eastern 249 14.5% 83220 13.2%
Great Lakes 313 18.3% 108139 17.1%
New England 75 4.4% 29653 4.7%
Northwest 160 9.3% 65859 10.4%
Mountain

Southern 269 16.1% 117834 18.7%
Southwest 230 13.4% 75692 12.0%
Western Pacific 279 16.3% 108898 17.3%



fore, the follow up second mailing of the survey
packet was limited to approximately 80% of the non-
respondents.

The survey packet included a cover letter and a
letter of endorsement. The cover letter urged recipi-
ents to respond to the survey, stressing the benefits of
the survey, its 30-minute completion time and the
confidentiality of responses. This cover letter was
signed by the Ohio State University study director.
The letter of endorsement stressed the significance of
each pilot’s response in contributing to aviation
safety and was signed by the presidents of the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, Experimental Air-
craft Association, General Aviation Manufacturers
Association, and Small Aircraft Manufacturers Asso-
ciation.. In addition, the survey packet included one
copy of the survey and a 9”x12” pre-paid, business
reply envelope.

Mailing

The first mailing of the 5,988 surveys was dis-
patched on March 27, 1995. Following the initial
mailing, 146 survey packets were returned undeliv-
ered, including 46 from private pilots, 56 from com-
mercial pilots, and 44 from airline transport pilots.
On April 18, 1995, 146 replacement surveys were
mailed to an additional sample of pilots from each of
the three categories not represented in the initial
mailing.

To keep track of those pilots who had responded
for second mailing purposes, sequential numbers
were assigned to the return envelopes. These numbers
corresponded to those printed next to the names of
pilots on the address labels. Thus, each pilot had a
number and the return of their questionnaire
prompted elimination from the second mailout list.
Since the numbering system suggested a means
through which to track the responses of pilots, recipi-
ents had to be assured of the confidential nature of
the survey. Consequently, the cover letter accompa-
nying each questionnaire stated that once received,
the questionnaires would be immediately separated
from the return envelopes and combined with those
from thousands of other pilots prior to data process-
ing or tabulation.

Return Rates

Of the 5,988 surveys distributed, 1,822 were re-
turned. This represented a response rate of 30.4%,
and is consistent with that previously obtained by

Hunter (1995). Ten questionnaires were either lost
in transit or received too late to be included in the
data analysis.

The response rate across license categories was
relatively consistent across the three segments of the
pilot population. The response rates for private, com-
mercial, and airline transport certificate holders were
31.3%, 34.2%, and 34.5%, respectively. Thus, there
were approximately 600 respondents for each of the
three certificate categories. That size sample provides
a sampling error 95% confidence interval of + 4%.

Because of the substantial proportion (70%) of
non-respondents, we must be concerned with the
possibility of non-response bias that may occur when
members of the sample differentially choose to re-
spond or abstain based upon characteristics germane
to the purpose of the survey. It is incumbent upon the
researchers, in such a situation, to demonstrate to the
degree possible, that such an effect has not taken
place. Generally, this takes the form of comparisons
of respondents with non-respondents or with the
general population for such measures of interest as
may be available, and the latter is the approach taken
here.

Since data are not available for those pilots who
did not respond, we are limited to comparing the
respondents to the pilot populations from which they
were drawn. However, only limited data are available
for the pilot population. Two available measures are
age and gender, and the sample of respondents are
compared to the population for each of those vari-
ables in Table 1 (age) and Table 2 (gender). The
results in Table 1 show that the sample of respon-
dents were uniformly (and significantly) older than
the populations from which they were drawn. Hence,
we might suspect that any variables of interest in our
survey that correlate with age might be biased. One
obvious measure would be flight time. Generally, one
might expect total flight time to be positively corre-
lated with age. Therefore, the data presented later on
total flight time may be somewhat inflated, com-
pared with the true population figures, because the
respondents to this survey are somewhat older.

An examination (using Chi-Square) of the propor-
tion of male and female pilots in the general popula-
tion and among the survey respondents was not
significant. Thus, there appeared to be no differential
proclivity to participate in the survey attributable to
gender differences.


Emergency procedures

Target Private Commercial ATP

1 - [Poor]
2-
3-
4-
5 - [Excellent]

Weather and its impact on flight
1 - [Poor]
2-
3-
4-
5 - [Excellent]

Air traffic control procedures
1 - [Poor]
2-

Navigation

5 - [Excellent]

Aviator decision making
1 - [Poor]
2-
3-
4-
5 - [Excellent]

Human factors
1 - [Poor]
2-
3-
4-
5 - [Excellent] ........cscesseeseseeseees

Air space regulations

1 - [Poor]
2-

5 - [Excellent]

B19


Read a magazine article on safety

Target Private Commercial ATP
Never 4%

One tim
Two times
Three times ..
Four times
Five times
Six times .
Seven times ..
Eight times ..
Nine or more times «00...

Hired a CFI for training
Never...esssees . . 16%
One time... . - 11%
Two times TM%

Three times ..
Four times
Five times
Six times .

1%
0%
1%
0%

Seven times . 0%
Eight times ... . 0%
Nine or more times 0... LAY cesceecsssesssse LAY soestecsesneeeees 10% veeessssesreesssees 2%

Read an FAA publication

One time...
Two times
Three times ..
Four times
Five times
Six times .
Seven times .
Eight times ...
Nine or more times «0.0...

B2


Avantext, Inc. (1995, February). Aviation Data CD.
Washington, DC: Author.

Cialdini, R.B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice.
New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The
total design method. New York: Wiley.

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

Guilkey, J., Jensen, R.S., and Hunter, D.R. (1998). An
Evaluation of Pilot Acceptance of the Personal Mini-
mums Training Program for Risk Management.
Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administra-
tion.

Hunter, D.R. (1995). Airmen Research Questionnaire:
Methodology and Overall Results. DOT/FAAIAAM-
95/27. Washington DC: Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, Office of Aviation Medicine.

ADA300583.

24

Hunter, D.R. (1996). The Airmen Research Question-
naire: Characteristics of the American Pilot Popu-
lation. In R.S. Jensen and L.A. Rakovan (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium
on Aviation Psychology (pp. 795-800). Columbus,
OH, 1995. Pp 795-800

Hunter, D.R. (1997). An evaluation of safety seminars.
DOT/FAA/AM-97/6, Washington, DC: Federal
Aviation Administration.

Jensen, R.S. (1995). Pilot judgment and crew resource
management. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Lamp), R. (Ed). (1996). Aviation & aerospace almanac
1996. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

O’Hare, D. (1989). Pilot judgement: Individual differ-
ences and process models. In B.J. Fallon, H.P.
Pfister, & J. Brebner (Eds.), Advances in industrial
organisational psychology (pp. 310-335).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.


Take-off and landing

Target Private Commercial ATP

YVOS weiss eeseesseenee . 21%
If Yes, then usefulnes =113)..
1- [Low]. 4%
2-. . 11%
3 . 34%
4-.
5 -[High] .

Operating procedures (IFR or VFR)
YVOS veeceseeseseseeneeneees
If Yes, then usefulnes:
1- [Low].
2-.
3

5 -[High] ..

Airspace classification and use

If Yes, then usefulnes:
1- [Low].
2-.

5 <High] cccsccssssssssseneeseneese

Air traffic control procedures

YES cecscececsteetesseesees
If Yes, then usefulnes:
1 - [Low]

Weather

If Yes, then usefulnes:
1 - [Low] «neces

B7


Accident/Incident Involvement and Safety
Activities

In comparing the use of safety resources by those
pilots who had been in an accident/incident to those
pilots who had not been in an accident/incident, only
one statistically significant difference was observed.
Non-accident pilots hired CFI more often than did
accident pilots. A marginally significant difference (p
= .06) was obtained for “Reading a magazine article
on safety” which was done more often by non-
accident pilots.

A marginally significant difference ( p = .065) was
also found when comparing accident and non-acci-
dent pilots on seminar attendance. Accident pilots
were less likely to have attended one or more seminars
than non-accident pilots.

Accident pilots consistently rated themselves as
higher in knowledge and proficiency than non-acci-
dent pilots. In addition, in comparing themselves to
other pilots, accident pilots rated themselves as more
capable in every category than non-accident pilots.

The proportion of pilots who reported that they
had experienced a stressful situation in the previous
12 months was almost exactly the same for accident
(43%) and non-accident (44%) pilots. In addition,
among those pilots in both groups who reported
having experienced a stressful situation, there were
no significant differences in the contributing factors
for the stressful flights. Similarly there were no sig-
nificant differences between the two groups with
respect to the numbers of times they had flown in
potential instrument meteorological conditions. Only
one difference, “Flown VFR under a 1500 AGL
ceiling” approached significance (p = .07).

Qualitative Analysis

A surprising number of respondents took the time
to answer the optional questions (76% in the case of
the first question). The results arising from the quali-
tative analysis indicated that the majority of pilots
had been involved in stressful situations that caused
them to alter their knowledge or attitude about
flying. These situations ranged from the pilots being
unaware of an impending event until it was too late,
to peer or management pressure. A large majority of
events was related to weather conditions; in particu-
lar, unexpected deterioration from either the forecast
on departure or the particular conditions expected.

23

Overwhelmingly, these events had resulted in pilots
becoming more cautiousand developing “higher-order”
skills such as situation awareness or problem-solving. A
number of pilots indicated that they had not received
such skills during their training, and that this was one
area that required some revision by the FAA. Indeed,
requirements for the teaching and evaluation of deci-
sion-making have recently been added to the Federal
Aviation Regulations.

Consistent with the results arising from the quan-
titative aspect of the questionnaire, pilots expressed a
willingness to improve their safety-related skills but
found it difficult to acquire such information. In
addition to ease of access, pilots requested a variety of
safety-related aids incorporating “real-life scenarios.”

Implications
There are several of implications arising from the
current analysis that may be used to improve pilots’
receptivity to safety-related information.
*Provide FAA seminars in an accessible location
(schools, FBOs, etc.)
* Develop and distribute a variety of safety-related
training products.
Ensure that available safety-related training prod-
ucts are cost-effective.
* Define the target group for which a FAA seminar
is designed, and focus the seminar accordingly.
* Provide wider publicity for FAA seminars.
*Provide more innovative and interesting topics
for discussion at FAA seminars.
* Consider content issues in the selection of semi-
nars (human factors and pilot decision making).
* Develop strategies to encourage the use of safety-
related resources among pilots in the target group.

REFERENCES

Air Accidents Investigation Branch. (1988). Report on
the Accident to Cessna F 172M OO-JEL in the
Sea, 3 Nautical Miles East-North-East of Ryde,
Isle of Wight on 30 April, 1987. London, UK:
Her Majesty's Stationary Office.

Alreck, P.L., and Settle, R.B. (1995). The survey re-
search handbook: Guidelines and strategies for con-
ducting a survey (Second Edition). Burt Ridge:
Irwin Professional Publishing.


Hours logged as pilot-in-command — Actual Instrument

Target Private Commercial ATP

Last 12 months
Under 25
25 to 50.
Over 50 .

Career
Under 100
100 to 400
Over 400 ...

Hours logged as pilot-in-command — Complex single-engine
Last 12 months

Under 25 10% .

25 to 50. 13%.

Over 50. 17%.
Career

Under 100 5T% .

100 to 400 19% .

Over 400 .. 24% .

Hours logged as pilot-in-command — multi-engine piston

Last 12 months
Under 25
25 to 50.
Over 50 .

Career
Under 100
100 to 400

Hours logged as pilot-in-command — Turbine

Last 12 months
Under 25
25 to 50 ..
Over 50 ..

Career
Under 100
100 to 400
Over 400 ..

B26


REFERENCES .

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire .........ccesssesssessessssssssscssessuessvesacessesssecsecsuccanecnsesnsenseceeenseeaeeeneeaneneeenee A-l

APPENDIX B: Distribution of response frequencies for certificate categories and target group .... B-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.

Frequency distribution of respondents across age Categories ........cssesessseesssseeeessstteessseeeees 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.

Table 8.
Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.

Table 13

Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.

Age of survey respondents and pilot population...

Gender of survey respondents and pilot populatio

Responses by FAA region
Educational level of respondents in the target group
Frequency of factors contributing to stressful events
Mean self-assessments of knowledge and proficiency

Frequency of pilots who indicated that various topics were presented at safety
seminars and the mean usefulness associated with each topic presented .......s0.ssseseseereeees 7

Preferred day for seminars ........sscsssssssescssessssessssessseessstecsuecsaeesstessuseenneeenseesarecsueeenneeraneessess 8

Perceptions of seminar attendees and non-attendees regarding FAA safety seminars ......

Factors affecting attendance decision by seminar attendees and non-attendees

Best way to encourage future attendance

Preferred seminar format

Safety-related activities...

Self-assessments of proficiency or knowledge
Self-comparisons with other pilots .............
Accident involvement and safety-related acti
Accident involvement and FAA-sponsored seminar attendance .
Accident involvement and self-assessment of knowledge and proficiency
Comparisons to other pilots by accident involvement groups

Source of stressful events

vi


Table 14. Self-assessments of knowledge or proficiency.

Attended N
Seminar
Preflight planning No 449
Yes 313
Ground handling No 447
Yes 312
Takeoff and landing procedures No 444
Yes 312
Basic VFR flying techniques No 444
Yes 310
Instrument flying procedures No 438
Yes 303
Emergency procedures No 447
Yes 313
Weather and its impact on flight | No 446
Yes 313
Air traffic control procedures No 444
Yes 313
Navigation No 448
Yes 310
Aviator decision-making No 444
Yes 311
Human factors No 442
Yes 309
Air space regulations No 446
Yes 312

Mean Std. t-test p Bonferroni
Deviation Adjusted-p
4.07 79
3.98 69 1.570 .117 1.40
4.11 76
4.03 .70 1.542 .124 1.49
4.05 74
3.90 73 2.706 .007 .08
4.14 71
4.08 69 1.189 .235 2.82
2.72 1.29
2.60 1.17 1.321.187 2.24
3.38 86
3.25 .80 2.142 .032 38
3.68 92
3.61 -90 0.914 .361 4.33
3.4 96
3.48 = .88 0.203.839 10.07
4.97 77
4.03 .77 0.569.569 6.83
3.92 80
3.82 .72 1.684 .093 1.16
3.72 85
3.59 80 1.989 .047 56
3.21 91
3.31 80 1.558 .120 1.44

these three areas, and in all other areas except for air
space regulations, pilots who had been in an accident
rated their level of knowledge and proficiency higher
that did the pilots who had not been in an accident.

Comparisons With Other Pilots

There were no significant differences found for the
two accident involvement groups with respect to
comparisons with other pilots (See Table 19).

Stressful Events During the Previous 12 Months

The impact of stressful events is often regarded
both as an important factor in determining pilot
performance during flight and a motivator to learn
more about the topic (Air Accidents Investigation
Branch, 1988). Comparison of the two accident
involvement groups, as shown in Table 20, showed
no significant differences on the source of stressful
events between the two groups.


What is the best way for you to obtain FAA computer safety programs

Target Private Commercial ATP
6% 12%
1% 30%

Will not use
Down load from a network
Buy at a computer store
Order through the mail .
Buy at a FBO

Describe your computer equipment

MAC... wee DY ceeecsesseesseeses LLY ccesceeseesseres LOY seesseeseeseenee 12%
IBM... 59%
CD-ROM 31%
Diskette .... 40%

26%
22%

Ihave no computer
Note: Multiple responses permitted, therefore, columns will not sum to 100%

TABLE B-14.
Video use.

Q26. Have you viewed aviation safety video at home

Target Private Commercial ATP
VES ceeesceteseeseeseeeneeneeneneeneeneneens 60% . 62% 62%

Would you view FAA aviation safety videos
Certainly
Possible ...
Uncertain
Not likely
Never...

What is the best way for you to obtain FAA aviation safety videos
Local FSDO ......csssseessseesseessseesses 21% sessssseeseerssees 20% vee
Local library 34% .. 33%
Video rental store . A% .
Grocery store
Other ..

What is the most you would pay to buy a FAA safety video
Will not use

Less than $5
$5 to $10...
More than $10

B17


Passenger requirements

Target Private Commercial ATP

1
2.
3.
4
5

or more

Job related demands

Mechanical problems with the airplane

0
1
2.
3.
4
5

or more

B24


33. Approximately how much of the information required for safe flight do you think you...

Very About Almost
None Littie Half Most All
Learned at a safety seminar oO @ _@ @ ®
Learned from a textbook 5 ‘ Des a OD @ @
Learned from watching \ videos ® @ ®
Learned from:a CFI He a see ee De De @ @-
Memorized but never understood Qo @ @ eo
Learned from a computerized tutorial we esha Dink & wo ~ &
Learned in a classroom a D @ lon

'RESS FACTORS:

We are attempting to determine the frequency with which pilots encounter situations they perceive as dangerous, or
situations that are stressful because they are unusual or potentially dangerous. When answering questions 35 - 38, a
‘stressful situation is defined as a flight where you were the Pilot-in-Command and either of the following occurred:
(1) a situation you feared might result in injury or damage; or (2) a situation where something happened causing
above normal stress to you, your passengers or others.

34. In the last 12 months...

S| have had a stressful situation as defined above.
©) Ihave not had a stressful situation as defined above (go to question 37).

35. How many of your flights in the last 12 months as Pilot-In-Command put you in a stressful situation (as defined above)?
od 22 23 O4 O56 O68 OO7 28 CD O+

36. How often were the following contributing factors in your stressful flights in the last 12 months...

Fuel problems? ® & wa ep
Mistakes made by pilots in other aircraft? @ @ 7
Navigational problems? ® cy
Physiological problems (e.g., illness, fatigue)? ® cy
Family commitments? ®@ op
Passenger requirements? D eS
Job related demands? @ SH
Abad decision (@.g., go/no go, flight into IMC)? ¢ D SS
Mechanical problems with the airplane? __ ® a
Weather problems (e.g., sudden storm)? . @ ee
Other: wo a

37. Have you been the Pilot-In-Command of an aircraft that was involved in an accident or incident resulting in...
YES NO
Damage to an aircraft? ®D cu
Damage to property? ®» Oy
Personal injury? ina (w

-ECENT FLYING EXPERIENCE:
38. About how many hours have you logged as Pilot-In-Command in...

Last 12 months. Career
Under 25 25-50 Over 50 Under 100 100-400 = Over 400

Airplane = -
Night
Simulator
Actual instrument OQ
Complex single engine - oO
Multi-engine piston Se S

Turbine < ©

39. Have you ever flown as Pilot-in-Command as a...
YES: NO

Military pilot? _® oi
Commercial pilot for hire (e.g., air taxi, CFI)? x Ay
Airline Pilot? aa De

A7


40. Which category and class represents the type of flying you have done most frequently in the last 12 months?

Category: <> Airplane © Rotorcraft © Lighter-than-air © Glider
Class: jingle-Engine Land ‘© Helicopter © Airship
Multi-Engine Land <> Gyroplane © Balloon
jle-Engine Sea
2 Multi-Engine Sea

) 1 have NOT flown in the past 12 months (go to question 43).

41. What portion of your total hours logged in the past 12 months were...
Zero Lees than 25% 25% to 50% 50% to 75% 75% to 100%

Local VFR pleasure flights ¢ Q 2
Cross-country VFR pleasure flights ae iS) Q
Cross-country VFR business flights QO Qo,
Training or proficiency flights co on
i fins er business purposes oO 2
its for. alge purposes. oO C
Commercial flight crew member oO 2
Other, please specify: a =) ©
42. In the past 12 months, how many times have you...
Flown at night in a single engine aircraft? _, » @ fea @ ®D $
Flown VFR under.a 1500 AGL ceiling? ‘ : oY Do Bo a aw SP.
sted a Special VFR clearance’ @ D @ @ @® co
Flown VFR over the top? Oe oO ao & a cs)
Flown in instrument meteorological conditions? @ a @ & @ 2)
om): ERSONAL INFORMATION:
43. Where did you receive the MAJORITY of training for your first pilot certificate
(please mark ONLY ONE of the following)...
<3 Mllitary flying school <> From a CFI working for a Fixed-Based Operator
Civilian flying school <> From a CFI working for a flying club
Collegiate flight school > From a CFI working independently
None of the above, please specify:
44. Indicate the year you received each Certificate and Rating you hold:
STUDENT: 19___
Airline
Recreational —Private Commercial Transport cri Instrument
AIRPLANE: 19.
single. ote 19, 19 19. 19. 19
ine land 19 jg= 497 19
ong. e-ergine sea 19, 19 19. 19.
multiengined sea 1 Ag 9
ROTORCRAFT: 19,
helicopter 19. 19. 19. 19 19.
gyroplane 19___ 19 19. 3 2 19:
LIGHTER-THAN-AIR:
airship : 19, 19,
free balloon : 19 19__
GLIDER: 19, 19 19.

"ENTER RATINGS OR LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION:

A8


Most seminars are

Commercial ATP
1 - [Poorly organized] . . 2%

TABLE B-9.

Reasons for attending last seminar.

Target Private Commercial ATP
. 12%
11%

Never been to one; curious
Friend’s recommendation

Wanted to learn about topic
Obligated to go ....
Friends were going ..
Had to renew my certification
Always try to attend
Other osc
Note: Multiple responses allowed; therefore columns will not sum to 100%

TABLE B-10.
Best way to encourage future attendance.

Target Private Commercial ATP
Discuss more relevant topics .............0+ srvesseesserseeses LLY cccsseesseeteenee
Offer more exciting presentations
Provide better meeting location
Set more convenient meeting time
Provide child care
Provide better publicity .
Get more of my friends to attend ..
Other
Do nothing, I will never atten
Do nothing, I always try to attend

TABLE B-11.
Importance of factors in attendance decision.

Time
Target Private Commercial ATP

1 - [Not important] 6%

5 - [Very important] : 58%

B13


Table 20. Source of stressful events.

Damage N Mean S.D. t Pp __ Bonferroni
toan adjusted-p
aircraft?
Fuel problems? Yes 55 21 49 .597 551 5.51
No 309 17 54
Mistakes made by pilots in other Yes 49 46 1.08 .863 .389 3.89
aircraft? No 306 61 1.12
Navigational problems? Yes 49 16 62 .985 325 3.25
No 309 25 63
Physiological problems (e.g,, illness, Yes 49 22  .77 «136 = .892 8.92
fatigue)? No 301 .20 71
Family commitments? Yes 48 .06 .24 705 481 4.81
No 303 1 51
Passenger requirements? Yes 47 10 31.247 ~—.805 8.05
No 299 12 46
Job related demands? Yes 51 21 61.239 811 8.11
No 301 24 86
A bad decision (e.g., go/no go, flight into Yes 49 61 1.005 2.26 .027 27
IMC)? No 300 34° © «73
Mechanical problems with the airplane? Yes 52 92 1.25 1.71 .088 88
No 309 -64 1.04
Weather problems (e.g., sudden Yes 51 88 1.12 .690  .491 4.91
storm)?
No 308 761.11
Question 3 What about incorporating flight training into some

This question was designed to determine pilots’
perception of the aviation system in general, and the
FAA in particular. Sixty-seven percent of pilots re-
sponded to this question, and the majority provided
suggestions for the improvement of the system. One
of the most consistent themes among more experi-
enced pilots referred to the level of training provided
to pilots. A number of pilots have developed sugges-
tions to improve this situation, including:

20

sort of adult-ed program or community college level
course? The bottom line is better and more complete
training at an affordable price [067].

Some IFR training for VFR pilots, as well as stall/
spin training [163].

Mandatory hands on spin training from skidding
turns and departure stalls prior solo- better basic in-
struction like “Stick and rudder”. Would like to see
videos depicting real weather situations from the air
which would aid pilot trainee with special recognition
of weather systems [233].


Length of meeting
Target Private Commercial ATP

Less than 30 minutes 1%. 1%

30 - 60 minutes .. -21%.

60 - 90 minutes -61%.

More than 90 minutes . .17%.

Preferred format

Lectures by experts & question
and answer period
Testimonials by fellow pilots &
question and answer period
Open group discussion .....
Town meeting format — no set agenda, leader

answers questions raised by group ..........0-+ VY vesseessesneeneense 1% veessesseesreeseee LY cesses 3%
Small group discussion on single topic

followed by large group discussion .............. BY voessessseesrersees 2Y0 sesessessteseesees 2Y0 vessvssrecrsersesee 3%
Video or slide presentation followed by

discussion
Practice exam on topic(s) followe
question and answer period about exam .
Other

TABLE B-13.

Computer ownership and usage.

Target Private Commercial ATP
Use a computer at home — Yes aes 73%

Have used a computer flight

simulation program - Yes 59%
Is it likely you will buy a computer for your
home in the next year - Yes... eecseecsseeste 36% coecseteeeneeeeee BBY coesseessesseenes BAY versssssssereese 37%

Would you use FAA computer safety programs

Certainly
Possibly
Uncertain .
Not likely .
Never ..

What is the most you would pay for FAA computer safety programs

Will not use. + 6%,
$0 wees - 10%.
Less than $10 . 21%.
$10 to $30 - 46% .
$31 to $100. . 16%.
More than $100.. 1%

B16


TABLE B-19.

Accident involvement.

I have been the pilot-in-command of an aircraft involved in an accident or incident resulting in:

Target Private Commercial ATP
5%
2%
2%

Damage to an aircraft —- YE
Damage to property - YES .
Personal injury - YES

TABLE B-20.
Flying Experience.

Hours logged as pilot-in-command — Airplane

Target Private Commercial ATP

Last 12 months

Career

Under 25
25 to 50
Over 50 ..

33%..
31%
36%..

Under 100 ...sssecssessssessssssseessseeneees
100 to 400 ..
Over 400 ...

Hours logged as pilot-in-command — Night
Last 12 months

Career

Under 25 seve 34%
25 to 50. . 14%
Over 50 . . 52%
Under 100. 1%
100 to 400 .. . 11%
Over 400 - 88%

Hours logged as pilot-in-command — Simulator
Last 12 months

Career

Under 25
25 to 50.
Over 50.

93%

Under 100 .
100 to 400 .
Over 400 ...

B25

1%




Federal Aviation Regulations
Target Private Commercial ATP
Talk to other pilots ..
Attend safety seminai
Meet with a CFI
Self-study, practice
Other ..........

Flight hazards (e.g., weather)

Talk to other pilots
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI..
Self- study, practice
Other .. woes

IFR procedures and techniques
Talk to other pilots ..
Attend safety seminar
Meet with a CFI
Self-study, practic

Preflight (e.g., weight and balance)
Talk to other pilots ..
Attend safety seminat
Meet with a CFI...
Self-study, practic
Other

Take off and landing procedures
Talk to other pilots
Attend safety seminar .
Meet with a CFI..
Self-study, prt
Other ve

Pilot decision making
Talk to other pilots .
Attend safety seminar .
Meet with a CFI
Self-study, practice .
Other soe

BS


Referred to an aircraft operating manual

Target Private Commercial ATP
Never... 9%

One tim 8%
Two times 11%
Three times 11%
Four times ... 10%
Five times 8%
Six times .. 9%

2%
2%

Seven times
Eight times
Nine or more times

Asked another pilot a safety question

Two times
Three times
Four times
Five times
Six times .
Seven times
Eight times . .
Nine or more times... 19% erecessescsneersee

Answered another pilot’s safety question

Three times
Four times
Five times
Six times
Seven times
Eight times .
Nine or more times

Used a computer-based learning program

Never... . 52%
One time.

Two times . 13%
Three times

Four time:

Five times .

Six times 2%
Seven times 1%
Eight times ..... . 0%
Nine or more time: 10%

B3


Cross-country VFR pleasure flights

ATP
11%

Private Commercial

Less than 25%
25% to 50% ...
50% to 75%

75% to 100%

Cross-country VFR business flights

Less than 25%
25% to 50%
50% to 75%
75% to 100% .

14%

- 4%

Training or proficiency flights
21%
64%

Less than 25%
25% to 50%
50% to 75% . . .
TS% t0 100% o.eeessessesseessesseessesseenees ssesssetseesesesess OY

51%
Less than 25% . 8%
25% to 50% ... 4%

50% to 75% ...
75% to 100% ..

IFR flights for personal purposes

81%
Less than 25% 16%
25% to 50%
50% to 75%

75% to 100% ..

Commercial flight crew member

19%
Less than 25% - 2%
25% to 50% -1%
50% to 75% 3%
75% to 100% .. -- 15%

Other (N approximately 169 to 246)

62%
- 8%

Less than 25%

25% to 50%
50% to 75%
75% to 100% ..

B28


Table 5. Frequency of factors contributing to stressful events.

Factor None 1-2 Times 3 or More Times
Fuel problems 86% 12% 2%
Mistakes by other pilots 69% 24% 7%
Navigational problems 82% 16% 1%
Physiological problems (i.e., illness) 88% 10% 2%
Family commitments 93% 6% 1%
Passenger requirements 91% 9% 0%
Job-related demands 89% 8% 3%
A bad decision 74% 22% 4%
Mechanical problem with airplane 57% 37% 6%
Weather 51% 42% 7%
Other 72% 23% 5%

Table 6. Mean self-assessments of knowledge and proficiency.

Knowledge & Proficiency Area

Mean Self-Rating (S.D.)

Ground handling

Basic VFR flying techniques
Navigation

Preflight planning

Takeoff and landing procedures
Aviator decision making

Human factors

Weather and its impact on flight
Air traffic control procedures
Air space regulations
Emergency procedures
Instrument flying procedures

41 (0.74)
4.1 (0.72)
4.0 (0.78)
4.0 (0.76)
4.0 (0.75)
3.9 (0.78)
3.7 (0.83)
3.7 (0.92)
3.5 (0.93)
3.3 (0.87)
3.3 (0.85)
2.7 (1.25)

Table 7. Frequency of pilots who indicated that various topics were presented at safety
seminars and the mean usefulness associated with each topic presented.

Topic N Mean Usefulness (S.D.)
Air Space Classification 222 3.81 (1.05)
Pilot Decision Making 184 3.78 (0.97)
Operation Procedures (IFR or VFR) 178 3.75 (0.95)
Weather 179 3.72 (1.08)
Human Factors 162 3.72 (1.05)
Air Traffic Control Procedures 175 3.70 (1.02)
FAA Regulations 222 3.57 (0.99)
Takeoffs and Landings 102 3.49 (1.14)
Aircraft Systems 61 3.30 (1.19)



Peer pressure

Target Private Commercial ATP
. 69%

1 - [Not important] .

5 - [Very important]

Fear of failure
1 - [Not important] 0.0... ..ccceseecees T0%0 ccecseeeseeseeeses 09% cesseesssessessee 17%0 cocsssesseentenee 78%
- 10%
3 9%
4-. . 2%
5 - [Very important] - 1%
TABLE B-12.
Preferences for seminar venue and scheduling.
Meeting location
Target Private Commercial ATP
Airport hangar 21%. + 16%

Class size

Day

Time of day

School or college classroom .27% .
FBO/Flying club meeting room...
Friend’s house....
Hotel meeting room
Other oo. eseeceeceseeeesesneeeeeeseseeeseeneenes

Less than 10
10-50.
50 - 100
More than 100

Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday ..
Thursday
Friday ..
Saturday .
Sunday .....cecssessecseesseseeeeetseeeseennees

Morning ..
Afternoon
Evening ..

B15


I know more about the causes of accidents

Target Private Commercial ATP

1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree]
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree]

Iam more interested in safety issues

1 - [Strongly disagree] .............00 VY sessessseresseeee V0 veseessessserternes 1% cessseesessseesees 0%
2 - [Disagree] .
3 - [Neutral]
4 - [Agree]...
5 - [Strongly Agree]...

I take fewer risks when flying
1 - [Strongly disagree]
2 - [Disagree] .
3 - [Neutral] ....

TABLE B-17.
How much of the information required for safe flight did you think you:

I learned at a safety seminar

Target Private Commercial ATP
1 - [None]... 16% . 12%
2- [Very little] ATH . 50%

29% .
Th .
1%.

3 - [About half] .
4 - [Most]
5 - [Almost all] .

I learned from a textbook
1 - [None]...
2 - [Very little’
3 - [About half] .
4 - [Most] ....
5 - [Almost all] ..

I learned from watching videos

T= [None] .....seeseecsesseeeeeeseeeneeee
2 - [Very little] ..
3 - [About half] .
4 - [Most]
5 - [Almost all] ....csssessssecsssecssesesnees

B21


ComPaRATIVE ANALYSIS - FAA SareTy SEMINAR
ATTENDEES AND NON-ATTENDEES

Factors that Influence Seminar Attendance

Two of the primary aims of this research were to
determine the frequency with which pilots attended
FAA safety seminars, and to determine strategies
through which attendance and learning among pilots
could be improved. Initial frequency analyses re-
vealed that 59% of respondents in the target group
indicated that they had not attended a FAA-spon-
sored seminar during the 12 months prior to comple-
tion of the survey, while 21%, 12%, and 8% had
attended 1, 2, and 3 or more seminars, respectively.

To determine the reasons associated with seminar
attendance, the sample was divided into two groups
on the basis of their attendance of at least one seminar
during the 12 months prior to testing. Analyses were
then conducted that compared the two groups on: (1)
the perceptions of pilots regarding FAA-sponsored
seminars; and, (2) factors that affect their attendance
decision.

In the tables that follow, the means and standard
deviations of the ratings for the two groups are given.
The differences between the means are compared
using a t-test, and the value of the obtained t-statistic
is given, along with the exact significance of that t-
statistic (Computed by SPSS for Windows, Version
8.0). Because of the large number of comparisons,
Bonferroni adjustments to the significance levels
were also computed and are given in each table. The
Bonferroni adjustments were arrived at by simply
multiplying the obtained exact significance by the
number of comparisons in that particular table. Al-
though the Bonferroni procedure is rather conserva-
tive, it serves fairly well in controlling the overall
Type I error rate in a set of comparisons. However, it
also produces some probability values greater than
1.0, by virtue of multiplying the obtained probabili-
ties by the number of comparisons. In those cases the
reader may simply consider that it is unlikely that the
obtained results represent any true difference in the
population.

The pilots were asked to indicate on a five-point
scale their perceptions of several aspects of FAA safety
seminars. Verbal anchors were provided for each
scale. Table 9 presents the mean ratings on each scale
for the attendee and non-attendee groups, along with

the verbal anchors used in each scale. The attendees
and non-attendees differed significantly on their per-
ceptions of four aspects of FAA seminars. Compared
with non-attendees, seminar attendees perceived FAA
seminars as being more interesting, well publicized,
and well organized. In addition, attendees believed
that pilots attend seminars to learn, as opposed to
socialize.

Respondents were asked to rate ten factors on a
five-point scale from “not important” (1) to “very
important” (5) in terms of the extent to which each
factor influenced the decision to attend a safety
seminar. As shown in Table 10, only the factor of
“Other Priorities” showed a significant difference
between attendees and non-attendees. Non-attend-
ees indicated that this factor affected their attendance
decision more than did attendees.

Prior to developing strategies that would encour-
age pilot attendance at seminars in the future, it is
important to ascertain the factors that motivate pilots
to attend safety seminars. This information would
provide important guidelines for the development of
strategies to encourage pilots to attend safety semi-
nars on a more frequent basis.

Table 11 shows a contrast between the concerns of
seminar attendees and non-attendees regarding the
best way to improve seminar attendance. Specifically,
attendees are concerned about getting more exciting
presentations (selected by 25% of attendees) while
non-attendees expressed the most concern over pro-
viding a better meeting location (23%). These results
are consistent with previous observations that there is
a requirement for more exciting, interesting and
relevant topics, presented in a venue that does not
require significant “effort” for attendance.

Seminar Format

To determine the optimal nature of the format for
safety seminars, respondents were asked to indicate
their preferred safety seminar format. This provided
the basis for the frequency distribution of responses
in Table 12.

Clearly, the results shown in Table 12 indicate that
respondents in both groups preferred “lectures by
experts” as the optimal format for safety seminars.
Video or slide presentations were the next preferred
format, with the preferences of the two groups being
virtually identical.


Technical Report Documentation Page

1, Report No, 2. Government Accession No, 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
DOT/FAA/AM-99/7
4, Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
A Survey of Pilots on the Dissemination of Safety Information March 1999
& Performing Organization Code
7, Author@) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Rakovan, L.', Wiggins, M.W.’, Jensen, RS.', and Hunter, D.R?

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
"Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
* University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia 11. Contract or Grant No.
> Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington, DC 20591

72. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13, Type of Report and Period Covered
Office of Aviation Medicine
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20591 14, Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplemental Notes

16. Abstract

A survey was conducted to obtain information from the pilot population on perceptions of safety-related training
currently being offered, its usefulness, and the process through which it might be better disseminated to the
general aviation population. The questionnaire assessed use of safety information, safety awareness,
computer/video use, pilot self-assessment of proficiency, demographic information, and stressful experiences. In
addition, four open-ended questions were included to allow pilots to freely express themselves on a variety of
safety issues. The questionnaire was sent to 6,000 pilots (approximately 2,000 each to private, commercial, and
airline transport) selected randomly from the pilot population. Responses were received from 1,822 (30.4% of
the sample). Of the respondents, 31.3% were private pilots, 34.2% were commercial pilots, and 34.5% were
airline transport pilots. The frequency of response to all questionnaire items for the three certificate categories are
provided, plus analyses of the responses of pilots in a target group consisting of all private pilots and those
commercial pilots who had not flown for hire. Analyses also compared the responses of (1) seminar attendees
versus non-attendees, and (2) pilots who had been in accidents versus those who had not. Recommendations to
improve the attendance of pilots at FAA-sponsored safety seminars are given.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Pilots, Aircraft Pilots, Training, Survey, Document is available to the public through the
Aviation Safety National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classi. (of this report) 20. Secutty Classi. (of ris page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 70

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


19. Do you use a computer at home?

<> YES © NO
20. Have you used a computer flight simulation program?
2 YES © NO

21. Is it likely you will buy a computer for your home in the
next year?
© YES = NO

22. If the FAA provided interactive computer safety
Programs for pilots, would you use them?

> Not likely
» Never ee (go to question 25)

& Possibly
© Uncertain
23. If the FAA prepared computer safety programs for

pilots, what is the most you would be willing to pay
to buy one?

Will not use “ $10 to $30
& $0 £ 1 to $100
<2 Less than $10 -.. More than $100

24. If the FAA prepared computer safety programs for
pilot use, what is the best way to make them available
to you?

=> Will not use

es from a network (E-Mail, etc.)
at a computer store

Order thi the mail

“> Buy ata

(,)SELE ASSESSMENT

25. Which of the following describes your computer
equipment ‘set-up and format? (mark ALL that apply)

26. Have you ever viewed an aviation safety video at home?
«2 YES: . = NO

27. If the FAA prepared aviation safety videos for pilots,
would you view them?
Not likely
~» Never (go to question 31)

28. If the FAA prepared aviation safety videos for pilots,
which of the following is the best way to make them
available to you?

<> Local FSDO- Grocery store
* Local library » Other:
Video rental store

29. If the FAA prepared aviation safety videos for pilots, what
is the most you would be willing to pay to BUY one?

» Will not use $5 to $10
More than $10
* Less than $5

30. If the FAA prepared aviation safety videos for pilots, what
is the most you would be willing to pay to RENT one?
2 Will not use. » $3 to $5
¢ * More than $5
‘ Less than $3

31. Please rate your level of knowledge or proficiency as a pilot in each of the following areas...

Preflight planning

Ground handling

‘Takeoff and landing procedures
Basic VFR flying techniques
fpstrument jing broceclures

gency procedures
Weather and its impact on flight
Air traffic control procedures
Navigation

Aviator decision making

Human factors

Air space regulations

32. Compared to other pilots...

1am more safety conscious

| am more willing to study safety

! do better on FAA written exams.

| do better on FAA check rides

1am willing to do more to be a safe pilot
'have had fewer “close calls”

| know more about the causes of accidents
|am more interested in safety issues

| take fewer risks when flying

AG

‘Strongly
Disagree Disagree
1

Poor Excellent
i

oa
x

Ces Seeeu Veee
Baebes a dine eee

F icedeseanen
i :

Neutral Agree Agree

Rie eeeeas


No ice was forecasted, however, ice was encountered.
Could have been a real serious situation if ceiling was
lower. Lost use of instruments for 5 min [S600].

Tried to climb through hole to get on top, ran out
of room. Clouds were thicker than I thought. After that
I would measure the holes by sunshine on ground, sec-
lines ete [S031].

...to those that were performance-related such as,

Forgot pitot heat in IMC, lost RAM air, gear safety
light on (PA28-R) should have had more training on
pitot heat [S298].

Single Engine Bonanza, catastrophic engine failure
that cracked the case. My attitude was changed/strength-
ened. As a flight instructor on this flight, with the
throw over yoke type of control column, I chose to let
the left seat pilot make the approach and land. This was
acheckout in this aircraft for insurance purposes, prior
to purchase. We were in the last hour of a required 10
hour checkout. Good emergency procedures knowl-
edge, practice, and remaining calm following the pro-
cedures gave us a successful outcome [1168].

There were very few cases in which pilots reported
that they had deliberately violated regulations or
minima.

Second, unexpected or unpredicted weather con-
ditions contributed significantly to pilots developing
more conservative minima when dealing with in-
flight weather conditions. For example,

On one occasion, I ventured on a short (55 mile)
cross-country flight to satisfy my private pilot require-
ments. Weather was acceptable but not great because
ofa haze layer. I had traveled the route twice previously
with no problems. I thought I'd have no problems
because of previous success and short distance. Within
20 minutes of departure, I found myself disoriented
because of the haze. Fortunately I remained calm and
eventually spotted a familiar landmark. This taught me
to never take anything for granted (i.e., I’ve taken
things for granted before) and to stay focused on all
trips [S365].

Third, a number of pilots indicated that they had

been subject to “peer pressure” or management pres-
sure. For example,

As a private pilot, I succumbed to the “get-home-
itis” of myself and my passengers aftera weekend flight,
which resulted in flying into deteriorating weather

18

toward rising terrain, Fortunately, I climbed through
abreak in the OVERCAST and continued VFR on top
and was lucky enough to find another isolated break
close to my destination. I succeeded in getting home
through luck, not skill, and have never succumbed to
peer pressure and “get-home-itis” since. I am just glad
this was a learning experience instead of my last flight
[S547].

While flying a contract, another pilot and I were
discussing the bad weather (it was 3rd week in Decem-
ber). The boss overheard us and came into the pilot
office. His exact words were: I am not pushing you to
flying. However, if you think the weather is bad
tonight and you want your job tomorrow night, it
better be bad enough that nobody else is flying either!
I crashed three days later in freezing rain on ILS
approach [1045].

Finally, a number of pilots indicated that the most
stressful experience that they had encountered in-
volved a failure to see-and-avoid. The resulting near
misses were described by a number of pilots,

‘The most stressful situations I have encountered in
my flying career have been, without a doubt two,
maybe three near misses during my training and while
I have flight instructed. I am positive each situation
could have been avoided had it not been for compla-
cency or getting too comfortable in the plane [0645].

Near mid-air collision, while instructing an instru-
ment flight student. It was a hazy day, the student was
under the hood. I looked down to write something on
my clipboard-when I looked up a second later we were
flying head on with another single engine aircraft. That
aircraft flew below us by about 30 feet. I don’t think
they even saw us [0671].

Collectively, these results suggest that the factors
that contribute most to pilot learning in the cockpit
are those for which there is very little practical expe-
rience within the training environment. In the major-
ity of these cases, the pilots appeared unaware of the
significance of their behavior until it was almost too
late to recover. One of the limitations associated with
the existing pilot training environment is that inex-
perienced pilots are not often exposed to deteriorat-
ing weather conditions ora variety of in-flight failures.
This lack is probably due to a combination of factors,
including the costs involved over and above existing
training systems and the difficulty in simulating the
events safely.


NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government
assumes no liability for the contents thereof.


Aircraft systems

5 -[High] .
Pilot decision making

Tf Yes, then usefulnes:
1- [Low].
2-.

5 -[High] .

Human factors

5 [High] .

TABLE B-5.
FAA Safety seminars.

Number of FAA seminars attended in last 12 months

81%
10%
. 6%
1%
- 1%

B8




APPENDIX B

DISTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONSE FREQUENCIES FOR CERTIFICATE
CATEGORIES AND TARGET GROUP

TABLE B-1.

In the last 12 months, how often:
Used a computer flight simulation program

Target Private Commercial ATP

Never... 61%
One time. 6%
Two time:
Three times
Four time:
Five times
Six times
Seven times
Eight times
Nine or more times

Read a book on aviation safety

One time.
Two times .
Three times
Four times .
Five time
Six times
Seven times
Eight times .....
Nine or more time:

Viewed a video on aviation safety

Two times .
Three times
Four times .
Five time:
Six times
Seven times
Eight times
Nine or more times .

Bl


Table 21. Flights in potential or actual instrument conditions.

Damage N Mean SD. t Pp __ Bonferroni
toan adjusted-p
aircraft?

Flown at night in a single engine aircraft? Yes 107 2.30 2.15 183.855 4.275
No 614 2.26 2.06

Flown VFR under a 1500 AGL ceiling? Yes 103 1.63 1.98 2.474 .014 07
No 614 #117 1.69

Requested a Special VFR clearance? Yes 104 40 1.02 .773 .440 2.2
No 609 32 97

Flown VFR over the top? Yes 103. 73) 1.34 417.677 3.385
No 610 67 = 1.33

Flown in instrument meteorological Yes 106 1.86 222 .970 .332 1.66
conditions? No 6061.65 2.11

I think a combination of pilot training and aircraft
design is the key to GA safety, NOT more laws and
regulations. Of the two, I think pilot training is most
important. I think a pilot should receive some kind of
safety training at least once a year, possibly twice [247].

Another relatively consistent theme was related to
the provision of safety information. It appeared that
a significant proportion of pilots could not get access
to affordable safety information. Consider:

Make more safety material available to general
aviation. Example: tapes, printed material such as
accident reports [234}.

I would require the FAA, NTSB, etc. to provide
remedial training to help reduce recurrence. (No or
low cost). [would have more programs such as “Wings
Weekends” available. More safety seminars. Publica-
tions such as Aviation Safety should be more available
and affordable [294].

A number of suggestions were advanced including
the use of FBOs, local libraries, or local FSDOs.

Anumber of pilots considered the overall aviation
system to be too complex, and therefore recom-
mended the simplification of both procedures and
requirements. For example,

I would simplify and standardize the FAA regula-
tions (598).

I would simplify communication procedures at
major airports. Ground control and approach/depar-
ture... more switch and monitor rather than check in

(255).

‘Adopt AOPA 5 point plan on ATC reorganization:
simplify recreational pilot certification requirements
[266].

Overall, these results initially suggest that the
majority of pilots are willing to offer advice concern-
ing the improvement of the aviation system. More-
over, there appears to be a willingness to utilize
safety-related information if the information is made
accessible. This is consistent with the data arising
from the quantitative aspect of the questionnaire,
which indicates that pilots generally had a strong
inclination towards skills development and the en-
hancement of pilot safety.

CONCLUSION

Descriptive Analysis

As a means of comparison, it was necessary ini-
tially to examine the extent to which the sample data
obtained were a valid reflection of the responses that
would be expected from the pilot population. In
terms of the frequency of responses across pilot cat-
egories, the results suggested that commercial pilots
and airline transport pilots were overrepresented
within the sample, while private pilots were relatively
underrepresented relative to the pilot population.

21


Table 3 presents the number and proportion of
respondents from each of the nine FAA regions.

This table also gives the number of pilots in each
region and the proportion of the national total.

Recall that the sample was stratified on FAA re-
gions; hence, the approximately equal proportions of
pilots in the respondent sample and in the regions
indicate there was little differential responding by
regions.

In summary, slightly less than one-third of the
pilots elected to take part in the survey. Caution is
therefore required in interpreting the results because
of the potential for non-response bias. Since we have
no data on the non-respondents, other than that
summarized above, we cannot say with certainty
whether the results are biased. Other than the age
effect noted earlier, there is no a priori reason to
believe that bias is present. However, readers must
keep in mind that the data in self-report surveys,
particularly when based upon less than a large per-
centage of the potential respondents, always involve
a degree of uncertainty.

RESULTS

The frequency of response to each alternative for
all questions comprising the survey is provided in
Appendix B for each of the three certificate levels. In
addition, Appendix B provides the responses for a
group (labeled Target Group) comprised of private
pilots and commercial pilots who have never flown
for hire. Previous research (Hunter, 1995) has indi-
cated that a substantial proportion of commercial
pilot certificate holders do not engage in commercial
flying activities. Rather, they acquire a commercial
certificate as a means of increasing their flying skills
and, possibly, their status in the flying community.
Members of this group of non-professional commer-
cial certificate holders are very much like private
pilots in many respects in terms of their demograph-
ics, flying activities and training event participation.
Hence, like the private pilot certificate holders, they
are the prime target group for FAA-sponsored safety
seminars and other safety-related training.

Since the objective of this effort is to develop a
better understanding of how to disseminate training
information, the subsequent analyses will focus on
this group of private and commercial pilots whose
primary source of safety-training information is likely

to be FAA-sponsored programs. We have defined this
target group as consisting of all private pilots (N =
602) and all commercial pilots (N = 193) who re-
ported (in Question 39) that they had never flown as
a commercial pilot for hire. The total available for
analysis is, therefore, 795.

Three sets of analyses are presented below. First,
we provide general demographic and experience data
for the target group. Second, we divided the target
group into two subgroups: (1) those who had at-
tended a FAA-sponsored safety seminar within the
previous 12 months, and (2) those who had not. The
responses of these two groups to certain of the ques-
tions are compared to provide information on char-
acteristics associated with seminar attendance. Finally,
we divided the target group into two subgroups: (1)
those who had been in an aircraft accident (involving
damage to an aircraft), and (2) those who had not.
The responses of these two groups are compared to
provide information on characteristics associated with
accident involvement.

Target Group Characteristics

Age. Overall, the mean age of respondents in the
target group was 48 (SD = 14) and ranged from 20 to
89 years. For purposes of interpretation and compari-
son, the age-related data were categorized into ten-
year segments. The frequency distribution indicated
that the largest proportion of respondents were aged
from 41 to 50 years of age (see Figure 1).

These data are comparable with published FAA
data (Lampl, 1996) in which the largest proportion of
pilots (26.6%) is aged from 41 to 50 years. However,
as noted earlier, pilots responding to the question-
naire are slightly (but significantly) older than would
have been expected on the basis of the population.

Gender. In the target group, 94% of the sample
were males, and 6% were females.

Education Level. As a part of the process of deter-
mining the capabilities of the pilot population, re-
spondents were asked to indicate the highest
educational level they had attained. The frequency
distribution (see Table 4) indicated that the majority
of respondents had obtained at least a college degree.

Accidents. Of the pilots in the target group, 2%
indicated that they had been involved in an aircraft
accident resulting in damage to property (other than
the aircraft), and 2% had been involved in an aircraft
accident resulting in personal injury.


How often were these contributing factors in your stressful flights in the last 12 months.
(Percentages based upon respondents to Question 35 ~ “Have you had a stressful event in previous 12
months.” Approximate N= 350, 280, 250, and 350, for Target, Private, Commercial, & Airline Transport,
respectively)

Fuel problems

Target Private Commercial ATP
80%
14%
- 2%
2%
. 2%
or more . . 1%

0
1
2.
3.
4
5
Mistakes made by pilots in other aircraft
0.
1
2.
3.
4
5
Navigational problems
0

1
2
3
4 . .
5 OF MOLE weessesssseessesssecesseentecsneesanees O% coeesresessesseens 0% vessssseesssesenees V%o cesessesseesessees 1%

Physiological problems (e.g., illness, fatigue)

seseeeseeeseeenee srssesessseessse 63%
15%
TM%
5%
4%
TM%

URWNH OS

or more...

Family commitments

0
1
2
3
4
5

B23


TABLE B-6.
Topics covered at FAA seminars and their usefulness.

FAA regulations

Target Private Commercial ATP
29%
=154).
3%
16%
25%
31%
25%

Take-off and landings

YES veeecssessesseeseeenees

If Yes, then usefulnes:
1- [Low].
2-.
3-.
4...
5 -[High] .

Operating procedures (IFR and VFR)
VES cesessessesteeeeeneee

Tf Yes, then usefulne:
1 - [Low]
2-
3-
4- “
5 [HIGH] oeeeccceesssecseseessseeeeeseseee

BO


Presentations were

Target Private Commercial ATP
4% .

1 - [Boring]

3-
4-
5 - [Interesting] .

Topics discussed are
1 - [Too complex] .........cssssecsessseeee: 240 cecsessserseesreeses 20 vesseesreseesnersee Yo vevssesseerseeseene 2%

4-
5 - [Too easy]

Material presented is

1 - [Repetitive
2-
5 - [Innovative] .

Most pilots go to seminars to
1 - [Socialize]

Most seminars are
1 - [Poorly organized] .

2-

5 - [Well organized]

Bll


Inspection of the mean ratings of usefulness asso-
ciated with each topic indicates that pilots perceived
air space classification and pilot decision-making as
the most useful topics examined during seminars.
Pilots indicated that the least useful of the seminar
topics were aircraft systems and takeoffs and land-
ings. Overall, the mean usefulness of the topics exam-
ined during FAA seminars was 3.6, which can be
regarded as moderately useful along the five-point scale.

Location and Structure of FAA Safety Seminars.
For most pilots, the preferred location for FAA safety
seminars was a fixed-base operator (FBO) or flying
club (33%), followed closely by a school or college
classroom (27%). The least popular location was a
friend’s house (<1%).

In terms of class size, the majority of pilots (76%)
selected between 10 and 50 participants, while con-
siderably less support was indicated for seminars with
50 to 100 participants (15%), less than 10 partici-
pants (7%), and greater than 100 participants (3%).

The preference for a particular day on which to
hold a FAA safety seminar was less clear although
pilots preferred not to have seminars on either Fri-
days or Sundays (See Table 8).

On the basis of these results, it would appear that
either Wednesday or Saturday would be the preferred
day on which to hold FAA safety seminars. In terms
of the time of day, the majority of respondents
selected the evening (70%), rather than the morning
(19%) or the afternoon (11%).

The majority of respondents considered 60 to 90
minutes (61%) to be the optimal duration of FAA
safety seminars. There was considerably less support
for 30 to 60 minutes (22%), more than 90 minutes
(17%), or less than 30 minutes (1%).

Use of Computer Technology. Overall, 71% of
respondents indicated that they had used a computer
at home, while 36% indicated that they were likely to
purchase a computer during the 12 months following

Table 8. Preferred day for seminars.

Day of Week Percent
Monday 10%
Tuesday 16%
Wednesday 24%
Thursday 13%
Friday 7%
Saturday 27%
Sunday 5%

the survey. Seventy-nine percent of pilots indicated
that they would certainly (41%) or possibly (38%)
use an interactive, computer-based safety program
provided by the FAA.

The majority of respondents indicated that they
would purchase a copy of the program from the FAA,
and about half (45%) were willing to pay $10 to $30
for a copy.

There was some disagreement in terms of the
optimal method through which to obtain a copy of
the computer program. Twenty-two percent of re-
spondents indicated that they preferred to download
the program from the Internet; 3% indicated that
they preferred to purchase a copy at their local com-
puter store; 47% of respondents indicated that they
preferred to mail order a copy; and, 20% indicated that
they preferred to purchase a copy from their local FBO.

In terms of the types of computers used by respon-
dents, 11% indicated that they had access toa Macintosh
computer, 60% indicated that they had access to an
IBM-compatible computer, 46% of respondents indi-
cated that they had a computer equipped with a diskette
drive, 23% indicated that they had access to email, and
31% of respondents indicated that they had a computer
equipped with a CD-ROM.

Use of Video Technology. The use of video tech-
nology is becoming more and more widespread as a
means of improving aviation safety and pilot profi-
ciency. Overall, 60% of respondents indicated that
they had watched a video related to aviation safety.
Moreover, 92% of respondents indicated that they
would either certainly (52%) or possibly (40%) be
prepared to watch an aviation safety video prepared
by the FAA.

The responses regarding the optimal process
through which to acquire videotaped material were
relatively consistent across the options with 21% and
24% of respondents indicating that they would pre-
fer to access aviation safety videos via their local
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or video
rental store, respectively. Thirty-four percent of re-
spondents indicated that they would prefer to acquire
a video from their local library, while only 3% indi-
cated that they would prefer to acquire an aviation
safety video from their local grocery store.

Consistent with previous results (Hunter, 1997),
half of the pilots were willing to spend between $5.00
and $10.00 to purchase a copy of an FAA aviation
safety video, and 90% would pay $3.00 or more to
rent a video.