DOT/FAAlAM-97/16 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

19970912 028 

An Evaluation of 

Safety Seminars 

David R. Hunter 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, DC 20591 

July 1997 

Final Report 

This document is available to the pubHc 

througt. the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 
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 or use thereo£ 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 12. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

DOT/FAA/AM-97116 

4. Trt\e and Sub1ii\e 5. Report Date 

An Evaluation of Safety Seminars Julv 1997 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Aulhor(s) B. Performing Organization Report No. 

Hunter, D.R. 

'l. Performing Orgon~alion Name and Acl:1ress ro. Wor1< Unff No. (IRAISJ 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 11. COn1ract or Grant No. 

Washington, DC 20591 

12. Sponsoring Agency nome and Address 13. Type of Report and Pertod 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 

Fo!ll' versions of an ewluarion form, each of which had a set of common items, were distributed at safety seminars 

conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration. These evaluation forms assessed participant satisfaction with 

seminars, perceptions of the seminar content and the presenter, frequency of attendance at seminars, aviation 

qualifications and experience, seminar content, format and venue preferences, access to computer and video technology 

for training delivery, self-perceived knowledge and proficiency, training activities, and maim~nance activities. Seminar 

evaluation forms were received for 226 seminars, representing approximately 66% of the FM Flight Standards District 

Offices. A total of 5,615 seminar forms were received, approximately equally divided among the four form versions. 

This represents approximately 44% of the reported attendance at the 226 safety seminars. Seminar participants 

consistently rated the seminars favorably. Of the participants, 99% reported that they were satisfied with the seminar, 

99o/o would recommend seminars to feUow pilots, and 96% either definitely or probably will attend another safety 

seminar in the next year. Data on computer and video ownership and use suggest that computer-based training might be 

a feasible means for disseminating training programs. Over half of the participants reported membership in at least one 

flying organhation, and almost half reported that they had performed some preventive maintenance on an aircraft 

during the previous six: months. The data provided by the study may be used to guide the content and format of future 

seminars, while supporting the development of alternative forms of training delivery. 

17. Key WordS 18. Distribution Statement . 

Aircraft pilots Document is available to the public through the 

Aviation safety National Technical Information Service 

Training Springfield, Virginia 22161 

19. Securl1y Classif. (of thisrepor1) 20. Securtty ClassW. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. PriCe 

Unclassified Unclassified 41 

FonnOOTF 1700.7 8-72 ffon of com p .'eted 

authorized 

I 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This effort was sponsored by the Flight Standards Service (AFS-810). Mr. Roger M. Baker, 

Aviation Safety National Program Manager, provided program guidance on behalf of that organization and contributed significandy to the success of 

this research by his continued interest and support. 

iii 

The author thanks the Safety Program Managers 

at the local FAA offices who gave our the evaluation 

forms at their seminars and then collected them and 

mailed them back. 

Thanks are also due, of course, to the pilots who 

took the time to fill out the evaluation forms. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 

METHOD ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Instrument Development ..................................................................................................................... 2 

Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... 2 

RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Seminar Leaders Form ......................................................................................................................... 3 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Common Page ........................................................................................ 7 

Seminar Evaluation Form- Version 1 ............................................................................................... 13 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Version 2 ............................................................................................... 18 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Version 3 ............................................................................................... 20 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Version 4 ............................................................................................... 23 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 28 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 29 

APPENDICES 

Seminar Leader Data Form ............................................................................................................... A1 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Common Page ..................................................................................... B 1 

Seminar Evaluation Form Version 1.0 ............................................................................................. Cl 

Seminar Evaluation Form Version 2.0 ............................................................................................. D1 

Seminar Evaluation Form Version 3.0 ............................................................................................. E1 

Seminar Evaluation Form Version 4.0 ............................................................................................. F1 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure I. Reported numbers of attendees at safety seminars ....................................................................... 5 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. 

Table 2. 

Table3. 

Table 4. 

Table 5. 

Table 6. 

Table 7. 

Table 8. 

Table 9. 

Table 10. 

Table 11. 

Distribution and receipt of forms ................................................................................................. 4 

Seminars held in each region ......................................................................................................... 5 

Day of week and time of day on which seminars were held ........................................................ 6 

Duration of seminars ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Location of seminars ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Subjects covered during seminars ................................................................................................. 7 

Other seminar information ........................................................................................................... 8 

Distribution of seminar attendees and pilot population by FAA region ..................................... 8 

Attendees descriptions of seminar ................................................................................................. 9 

Attendees evaluation of seminar ................................................................................................. 11 

Primary reason for attending seminar ......................................................................................... 11 

v 
p 

Table 12. 

Table 13. 

Table 14. 

Table 15. 

Table 16. 

Table 17. 

Table 18. 

Table 19. 

Table 20. 

Table 21. 

Table 22. 

Table 23. 

Table 24. 

Table 25. 

Table 26. 

Table 27. 

Table 28. 

Table 29. 

Table 30. 

Table 31. 

Table 32. 

Table 33. 

Table 34. 

Table 35. 

Table 36. 

Table 37. 

Table 38. 

Table 39. 

Table 40. 

Table 41. 

Table 42. 

Table 43. 

Table 44. 

Table 45. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(CONTINUED) 

Intent to attend another seminar ................................................................................................ I I 

Number of seminars attended in previous 12 months ............................................................... 12 

Highest certificate level ............................................................................................................... 12 

Other ratings and aircraft ownership .......................................................................................... 12 

Total flight hours ......................................................................................................................... 12 

Flight hours during previous 90 days ......................................................................................... 13 

Most effective method for learning about aviation topics ......................................................... 14 

Preferred location for seminars ................................................................................................... 15 

Preferred time of day for seminars .............................................................................................. 15 

Preferred day of week for seminars ............................................................................................. 15 

Preferred duration of seminars .................................................................................................... 16 

Preferred seminar format ............................................................................................................. 16 

Best way to increase attendance at seminars ............................................................................... 17 

Time attendees are willing to travel to get to seminar ............................................................... 1 7 

Computer ownership and use ..................................................................................................... 19 

Would use FAA computer safety programs ........................................................................ .' ....... J 9 

Maximum attendees would pay to purchase FAA computer program ........... : ........................... 19 

Best way to distribute FAA computer program .......................................................................... 19 

Personal computer equipment features ....................................................................................... 20 

Videotape player ownership and usage ....................................................................................... 21 

Would view FAA safety videos .................................................................................................... 21 

Best way to distribute FAA safety videos .................................................................................... 21 

Maximum willing to pay to buy FAA safety video ..................................................................... 21 

Maximum willing to pay to rent FAA safety video .................................................................... 22 

Self-rating of knowledge and proficiency ................................................................................... 22 

Safety-related activities during the previous 12 months ............................................................ 24 

Membership in flying organizations ........................................................................................... 25 

Flying magazines regularly read .................................................................................................. 25 

Category of aircraft normally flown ................................................. , .......................................... 26 

M . . 't' d . 26 amtenance act1v1 1es an expenences .................................................................................... .. 

Frequency of self-maintenance during previous 6 months ........................................................ 27 

Frequency of aircraft tire inflation checks .................................................................................. 27 

Frequency of oil and hydraulic fluid checks ............................................................................... 27 

Maintenance topic most wanted at safety seminar ..................................................................... 27 

vi 
AN EVALUATION OF SAFETY SEMINARS 

INTRODUCTION 

This report Jescribes a: large-scale, nationwide evaluation of aviation safety seminars conducted by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These seminars are the primary means utilized by the FAA to 

provide continuing education on safety and other 

aviation issues to the pilot population. They are generally aimeJ at private anJ commercial pilots who do 

not otherwise receive training from their employer or 

some other. source. Many of the seminars are conducted by FAA Aviation Safety Program Managers 

(SPMs) located at each of rhe 78 Flight Standards 

District Offices (FSDOs). In addition, Aviation Safety 

Counselors (ASCs), volunteers with expertise in aviation, also conduct many seminars, both with and 

without direct participation by the local SPM. 

Despite the importance of the safety seminars as a 

means of disseminating safety information, no data 

beyond the most rudimentary enumeration of total 

seminars and attendees had previously been collected. 

Therefore, individual SPMs might have developed a 

general knowledge of the characteristics of attendees, 

particularly those who attended often, so as to become 

acquainted with the SPM; however, SPMs lacked 

detailed information on the majority of seminar attendees. This is an undesirable position, since to some 

degree, the attendees can be viewed as customers of 

the SPMs. In this case, the primary dictum applies, 

"Know your product, and know your customer." 

SPMs, because of their extensive aviation experienc.,, 

know their product very well. Unfortunately, they 

often do not have the information required to enable 

them to know their customers as well. 

Knowing the customers-who they are, what they 

are like, what they want, how they want it, when they 

want it, where they want it, what they need- enables 

the SPMs to shape their product to meet the customers' 

I 

demands. In selling their product - aviation safety 

information - the SPMs are competing with many 

other alternative uses of the customers' resources -

including time and effort. Time and effort devoted to 

attending safety seminars cannot also be devoted to 

other activities, such as scout meetings, business functions, and simply being at home with rhe family. The 

customer, if he or she is to buy the SPM's product by 

attending a seminar, must perceive that the bi:neflt~of 

the seminar justifies the cost. (See Kotler & Andreasen, 

1991, for a comprehensive overview of marketing in 

this area.) Besides having a high quality product, we 

must also tailor the format and delivery of that product so as to maximize its utilization by the target 

population. This means that we must know rhe characteristics of the seminar attendees so that we may tailor 

the product to fit their needs and capabilities. An excellent product for high-time instrument-rated pilots may 

be useless for novice private pilots, and vice versa. 

This study was designed to meet the needs of the 

SPMs for detailed information on the characteristics 

of seminar attendees. In addition to collecting attendee demographics that could be used to focus 

training content and delivery, satisfaction measures 

were also included. These measures provided information on attendees' satisfaction and views of the 

existing seminars ano provided a baseline against 

which future modifications could be compared. These 

data, combined with data from other studies of the 

pilot population (Hunter, 1995; Rakovan, Wiggins, 

Jensen, & Hunter, in press) also could be used to 

shape the development ofboth the content and format 

of new training products. For example, data on personal computer access could be used to evaluate the 

feasibility of disseminating new training products 

through a computer-based training format. Thus, the 
p 

study would serve both an immediate and long-term 

need for detailed information on seminar attendee 

characteristics, perceptions, and attitudes. 

METHOD 

Instrument Development 

Through discussions with SPMs, their regional 

and national managers, and researchers, several areas 

of interest were identified that would be addressed in 

.the evaluation instrument. These interest areas were: 

• Satisfaction with seminar 

• Perceptions of the seminar content and the presenter 

• Frequency of attendance at seminars 

• Aviation qualifications and experience 

• Seminar content, format, and venue preferences 

• Access to computet and video technology for training delivery 

• Self-perceived knowledge and proficiency 

• Training activities 

• Maintenance activities 

From these interest areas, a preliminary instrument 

was developed and field-tested at a safety seminar. 

Attendees were encouraged to comment upon the 

adequacy of the instructions, the clarity and relevance 

of the questions, and to suggest other items that 

should be included. Following this trial, the instrument was circulated among a group of SPMs for 

comment. The general result from both the pilots at 

the safety seminar and the SPMs was that the instrument was too long and that participants would be 

reluctant to complete such a lengthy instrument. In 

addition, doing so would detract from the time available for the seminar. Based upon these comments, it 

was d«ided to limit the amount of information that 

a single participant would be asked to provide to that 

which could be contained on the front and back of a 

single sheet of paper. To enable the collection of 

information on all the areas of interest, multiple 

versions of the instrument were developed. 

2 

A mtn1mum set of information on participant 

satisfaction, perceptions of the seminar, and aviation 

qualifications and experiences was identified, and 

questions regarding these areas were placed on the 

front page of each version. Each of the four versions of 

the instrument contained a different set of questions 

on the reverse side of the sheet. This approach allowed 

us to collect a common data set on certain critical 

issues for all participants, while at the same cime 

collecting information on all the other areas of interest without overburdening the participants. Following a final review by regional SPMs and the national 

manager for safety programs, the four instruments 

were printed as optically-scannable forms. 

In addition to the Seminar Evaluation Forms to be 

completed by rhe seminar participants, an additional 

Seminar Leader's Form was prepared. This form was 

to be completed by the seminar leader to record such 

information as seminar content and venue and number of attendees. 

Distribution 

Approximately 45 days prior to the distribution of 

the forms, a message was sent from the Manager, 

National Safety Program, to all SPMs advising them 

of the forthcoming mailing and asking them for their 

support. This was followed approximately 15 days 

later by a mailing to all Regional Safety Program 

Managers in which they were provided a copy of the 

instruments to be used in the study and were requested to encourage all of the SPMs within their 

respective regions to participate in the study. 

The Seminar Evaluation Forms (SEFs) and Seminar Leader Forms (SLFs) were mailed to safety program managers in 75 of the 78 Flight Standards 

District Offices during August of 1995. Forms were 

not mailed to three FSDOs at which there was no 

SPM. 

The package provided to each SPM included a 

cover letter from the Manager, National Safety Program, briefly explaining the purpose of the study and 

requesting the SPM' s assistance. Detailed instructions on the completion of the SLF and the SEF were 
also provided, along with a package of self-addressed 

mailing labels that the SPM could use to return the 

completed forms. 

The SPMs were instructed to begin handing out 

rhe evaluation forms at all seminars conducted on or 

after September 18, 1995. Evaluation forms were to 

be distributed at seminars until the supplies of the 

forms were exhausted. The numbers of evaluation 

forms provided ro each SPM were determined by 

stratification based upon regional pilot populations 

with 50% oversampling for Alaska and New England 

regions to ensure a sufficient number of completed 

forms for analysis. Within each region, equal numbers 

of each version of the form were provided to each 

FSDO. 

Approximately 90 days after the scheduled start 

date {September 18) a follow-up message was sent to 

all SPMs reminding them of the program and asking 

that they distribute the forms at their seminars. 

RESULTS 

Of the 24,000 evaluation forms distributed to the 

FSDOs, 5,615 were returned. Approximately 75% of 

the returned forms were received during the first three 

months of the data collection period {October through 

December 1995), with virtually all the remainder 

being received during the next three month period 

(January through March 1996). Seminar Leader Forms 

were received for 226 seminars. 

T oral reported attendance (from the SLF) at the 

226 seminars was 12,874;. participation rate among 

seminar attendees was therefore44% (5,615/12,874). 

However, some (25) of the 75 FSDOs did not 

return any of the forms. It is possible that those offices 

did not receive their shipment of forms or failed to 

recognize them and properly route them to the SPM. 

It is also possible, though rather unlikely, that no 

safety seminars were conducted by that office. Alternatively, none of the participants in any of the seminars may have elected to complete and return the 

forms, or the local SPM did not choose to participate 

in the evaluation. The latter explanation seems most 

likely, as this was a voluntary program for the SPMs 

and some of them may have been unconvinced of its 

benefit, regardless of the advance notification and 

reminders from FAA Headquarters. 

Thus, while 66% of the SPMs responded by partidraring in the study, 33% did not. Further, there 

was considerable variation in the participarion rates 

across the regions, with some regions having 100% 

participation, while ·in others data were available for 

only about half of the FSDOs. Table I shows the 

numbers of forms provided to each FSDO in each 

region, the numbers of forms received from each 

region, and the participation rates among regions, 

defined as the percentage of FSDOs that provided 

seminar evaluation forms for at least one seminar. 

Unfortunately, the limited participation confounds 

the interpretation of the data and limits generalizability 

of the results. Parcicularly for those regions with 

relatively low participation, we cannot know the extent to which their nonparticipation biases the results. 

One might speculate that SPMs whose safety seminars 

are not well received by the pilot population might be 

more likely not to participate, out of a fear of obtaining derogatory information. Since we cannot know 

the extent or direction of these effects, users of these 

data must remain aware of these possible effects and 

exercise due caution in interpreting the results. Generalizations should be limited to those FSDOs for 

which data are available and users should be aware 

that overall results reported here may not apply for 

those regions with low participation rates. 

In the sections that follow, we will first present the 

data from the Seminar Leader's Forms for the 226 

seminars, then the combined data from the common 

front page of all four evaluation forms, and finally, the 

data from each of the unique back pages of the 

evaluation forms. 

Seminar Leader's Form 

The Seminar Leader's Form (SLF) provided the 

mechanism for collecting information on the content 

and venue of the safety seminars. By having the FAA 

Region, FSDO Number, and a unique code number 

entered both on the SLF and on the Seminar Evaluation Forms (SEF), it was also possible to match 
Table 1 . Distribution and receipt of forms 

Region Number of Forms Number of Forms Number of FSDOs Percent of FSDOs 

Provided 1 Received" Participating Participating 

Alaska 2400 235 3 100 

Central 2400 914 4 80 

Eastern 2400 542 5 45 

Great Lakes 3200 1014 9 69 

New England 2400 430 3 100 

Northwest 2400 211 5 71 

Mountain 

Southern 3200 1096 9 75 

Southwest 2400 530 7 78 

Western Pacific 3200 443 6 50 

Note 1: The total number of forms prov1ded to each reg1on compnsed equal numbers of each of the four 

form versions. 

Note 2; This column does not total to 5615 because regional identification was not provided on some forms. 

Of the total 5615 forms returned, the composition was; Version 1 - 1356; Version 2 - 1438; Version 3 - 1438; 

Version 4 - 1383. 

information from the two sources. Thus, it would be 

possible to perform analyses that dealt with the impact 

of day of week, duration of seminar, or other s<Ominar 

attributes of the s<Ominar att<Ond<Oes' opinions. It also 

allowed seminar lead<Ors to obtain feedback on participants' evaluations for specific seminars, since each 

seminar was uniquely identified by the combination 

of Region, FSDO, and code numbers. 

From the SLF we find that the mean reported 

attendance at the 226 seminars was 57, with a standard deviation of 58 and a range of 3 to 478. The 

median reported attendanc<O was 36. The histograph 

in Figure 1 shows the distribution of seminar attendance, excluding two seminars with over 300 attendees. 

Table 2 shows the numbers of seminars held in each 

region. The unit of analysis is therefore, seminars, not 

attendees. The Southern Region had, by far, the 

largest number of seminars, accounting for 26% of 

the 226 seminars in this sample. Although some data 

are available from the Flight Standards Performance 

Measuring System on the numbers of seminars held in 

each region annually, those dar.. are somewhat suspect 

due to confounding with oth<Or activities that were not 

4 

clearly formal safety s<Ominars. Therefore, no analyses 

were undertaken to compare frequencies of seminars 

in this sample to the general frequency of seminars in 

each region. However, this topic will be addressed, in 

terms of pilot attendees, later in this report. 

Tables 3 through 5 provide information on when 

and where the seminars took place. Predominately, 

the seminars were held in the evenings in the middle 

of the week, and most lasted about two hours. The 

SLF failed to adequately capture the location, since 

"Other" was the modal response (41 %). Meeting 

rooms at Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) or flying clubs 

was the second most common response. 

Since more than one topic is usually addressed at a 

safety seminar, the question regarding Subject of the 

Seminar allowed for multiple responses. From Table 

6 we see that Judgment and Decision Making was 

discussed at almost half of the seminars. Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FARs) and flight hazards (i.e., 

weather) were discussion topics at about one-third of 

the seminars. Least often discussed was the topic of 

aerial maneuvers, arguably the most difficult to address in a seminar setting. Interestingly, this seems to 
20 

0 

Figure 1 

Reported numbers of attendees at safety seminars 

Table 2. Seminars held in each region 

Region Frequency Percent 

Alaska 5 2 

Central 18 8 ' --

Eastern 16 7 

Great lakes 34 15 

New England 15 7 

Northwest Mountain 29 13 ' 

Southern 59 26 

Southwest 20 9 

Western Pacific 30 13 

5 
0 

Table 3. Day of week and time of day when seminars were held 

Day of Week Frequency Percent 

Sunday 3 1 

Monday 11 5 

Tuesday 56 25 

Wednesday 53 24 

Thursday 69 31 

Friday 6 3 

Saturday 26 12 

Time of Day 

Morning 25 11 

Afternoon 8 4 

Evening 192 85 

Table4. Duration of seminars 

Duration Frequency Percent 

1 hour 9 4 

11/2 hours 16 7 

2 hours 127 56 

3 hours 56 25 

over3 hours 16 7 

Table 5. Location of seminars 

Location Frequency Percent 

Airport hangar 36 13 

FBO or flying club 50 22 

Hotel meeting room 12 5 

College classroom 29 13 

Other 93 41 

6 
Table 6. Subjects covered during seminar 

Subject 

Aerial maneuvers 

Airport operating procedures 

Air space classification 

ATC procedures 

Aircraft systems and performance 

Emergency procedures 

Federal aviation regulations 

Flight hazards 

IFR procedures and techniques 

Judgment/decision making 

Navigation aids and procedures 

Preflight 

Takeoff and landing procedures 

Other 

correspond well to the attendees' perceptions of the 

optimal settings for learning about these topics, as we 

will see later in Tab!.: 18. 

To maximize attendance, Safety Program Managers (SPMs) often seek support in staging seminars 

from other organizations such as flying clubs, pilot 

organizations or alumni groups. From Table 7, we see 

that 78% of the 226 seminars in this sample had such 

a co-sponsor. Another inducement to attendance, the 

door prize, was offered in almost half of the seminars. 

As an induce!:lent to the seminar leader to participate in this evaluation, the instructions to the seminar 

leader included an offer to provide feedback on the 

results of the evaluation to any seminar leader who 

wished to receive it. This feedback was in the form of 

collared responses to the questions on the evaluation 

forms from the seminars conducted by that individual 

7 

Frequency Percent 

13 6 

46 20 

39 17 

46 20 

45 20 

51 23 

73 32 

71 32 

18 8 

107 47 

28 12 

26 12 

41 18 

97 43 

seminar leader. Table 7 shows that almost all rhe 

seminar leaders indicated they wished to rake advantage of this offer and requested that they be provided 

with feedback. 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Common Page 

The common first page of each of the four evaluation forms contained space to record the FAA region 

in which the seminar was hdd, along with the identification number of the sponsoring FSDO and the 

unique code number for that particular seminar. Table 

8 presents the numbers of evaluation forms received 

from each of the nine FAA rfgions and the percentage 

of the total number of evaluation fonns. For comparison, the percentage of the total pilot population for 

each region is also given. The numbers of responses 

range from a low of2ll for the Northwest Mountain 
p 

TabJe 7, Other seminar information 

Frequency- Yes F>ercent- Yes 

Co-sponsor 176 78 

Oo()r prize 109 48 

Want feedback 21~ 94 

Table 8. Distribution of seminar attendees and pilot population by FAA region 

Region Frequency Attendees Population 

NewEngrand 430 

Eastern 542 

Southern 1096 

Great Lakes 1014 

Central 914 

Southwest 530 

Northwest Mountain 211 

Western Pacific 443 

Alaska 235 

region, to a high of 1,096 for the Southern region. In 

comparing the percentage of attendees to the pilot 

population in the regions, we see that the Central 

region is considerably overrepresented in the sample, 

while the Northwest Mountain, and to a slightly lesser 

extent, Western. Pacific regions, are underrepresented. 

Overrepresentation for the New England and Alaska 

regions is the r,0•ult of deliberate oversampling for 

those two regions in an attempt to ensure adequate 

samples. 

Tables 9 and 10 show the responses to the adjective 

checklist items that captured the attendees' views of 

the seminar they had just attended. For some of the 

icenzs, t~rei~ noobvioua bcttc1' I:Jireccion of response, 

at! east no tat this global level of analysis. For example, 

8 

Percent Percent 

8 5 

10 13 

20 19 

19 17 

17 5 

10 12 

4 10 

8 17 

4 2 

the fllst 2 items in Table 9 show that the subjects of 

the seminar were judged "familiar" by 65% of the 

attendees, while 35% found that the subjects were 

"new" (at least to them). Similarly, the level of presentation was thought to be "advanced" to 55% of the 

attendees,. and "elementary" to 45%. One cannot say, 

in the absence of any further infOrmation, whether 

these are satisfactory levels for these attributes or 

whether some effort is needed to change thern. More 

detailed analyses, utilizing specific attendee groups 

(such as student or private pilots) and specific seminar 

topics (for e:xampleo, decision making or A TC procedures), would provide rnore enlightening results. Such 

analyses, where Feasible and cequesced by rhe sponsoring organization, may be accomplished in the future. 
Table 9. Attendees descriptions of seminar 

Frequency Percent 

Subjects were: 

Familiar. 3430 65 

New 1831 35 

Level of presentation: 

Advanced 2780 55 

Elementary 227.1 45 

Quality of materials: 

High 4862 94 

Low 305 6 .•. 

·- "'·" 

Speaker's knowledge: 

High 5202 99 

Low 54 1 

Speaker's presentation: 

Clear 5179 98 

Confusing 99 2 

Information presented: 

Useful 5261 99 

Not relevant 64 1 

Seminar designed for: 

Novices 3177 74 

Experts 1122 26 

Presentation was: 

Interesting 5135 98 

Boring 113 2 

Overall, I am: 

Satisfied 5225 99 

Dissatisfied 79 1 

9 
p 

For many of the items, however, the preferred 

orientation is obvious. Virtually everyone would agree 

that interesting seminars are better than boring ones 

and that having speakers with a high level of knowledge is preferabie to having speakers who don't know 

what they are talking about. On all items of this type, 

the responses of the attendees were overwhelmingly 

positive. The last item in Table 9 shows that 99o/o of 

the attendees were "satisfied" with the seminar. Likewise, from Table 10, 99% of the attendees would 

recommend seminars to other pilots. 

Table 11 gives the primary reason for attending the 

safety seminar. The topic to be discussed, and their 

past experience with seminars together accounted for 

the majority of the responses to this item. Since 

seminar topic is a major detcrntinant of attendance, 

the choice and advertising of topics, within a strategy 

of meeting a variety of training needs, becomes very 

important. Although not addressed in the current 

study, topics may repel as well as attract attendees, and 

there may well be a differential effect, which is moderated by demographic, skill, and other experimental 

variables. Clearly, this would be an interesting and 

potentially valuable subject for future research. 

Another measure of attendees' satisfaction with the 

safety seminars, beyond their simple statements of 

satisfaction, is their intent to attend another seminar. 

Of the attendees, 96% either "definitely" or "probably" will attend another safety seminar during the 

next year, as shown in Table 12. This strongly sup-

~~.!":S the results noted earlier. 

One impression held by those who conduct safety 

seminars was that they "preached to the choir" and, 

for the most part, the same people attend.,d safety 

seminars repeatedly, with little new influx. The data 

given in Table 13 indicate that such a perception may 

not be entirely correct. These data show rhat about 

one- third of seminar attendees have not been to 

another safety seminar in the last year, and that 

anorher rhird had only attended one seminar in the 

previous year. Only about one-third of the seminar 

attendees seems t.; constitute rhe "choir" who attend 

multiple seminars during a single year. It is hard to 

10 

understand how to interpret these data~ particularly in. 

light of the data given in Table 12, which showed that 

almost ail the attendees intend t<> attend another 

seminar within the next year. Perhaps intentions are 

fleeting, or the relationships among intentions, topk.s 

to be discussed, and opportunities to attend (which 

are not addressed here) are too complex to be captured 

by a single question. 

The certificate levelst racings, and total and rec.:nt 

experience of the attendees are reported in T abies 14 

throngh 17. The safety seminars attract a higher 

proportion of private pilots than exist in the overall 

pilot population (53% compared to 42%). They also 

draw a correspondingly lower proportion of airline 

transport pilots than make up the pilot population 

(7% versus 20%). The proportions of student and 

commercial pilots in the seminars are approximately 

equal to their proportions in rhe pilot population. 

There were substantially more Certified Flight Instructors among the att"ndees than are found among 

the pilot population {18% compared to ll %), while 

the proportion of attendees with instrument ratings 

(40%) was considerably less than the pilot population 

(54%}. The latter finding is probably due to the 

relatively high proportion of private pilots among 

attendees. 

The reported total and recent flight experience, 

given in Tables 16 and 17, respectively, approximate 

the values found in an earlier survey of the total pilot 

population (Hunter, 1995). Like the general population of private pilots, the majority of attendees had 

500 hours or less of total flight experience. The recent 

experience was also simHar to that of the private pilot 

population. Hunter (1995) reported that half of the 

private pilots in his survey had flown 30 or fewer hours 

in the previous year; or, roughly 2.5 hours per month. 

Of the seminar attendees, 44% reported having flown 

10 hours or less in the previous 90 days; or, roughly 

3.3 hours per month. 

The evaluation form also asked for the age of the· 

participants. The mean age was 46, with a standard 

deviation of 15. 
Table 10. Attendees evaluation of seminar 

Leamed something new: 

Refreshed old skills and knowledge: 

Had my questions answered: 

Would recommend seminars: 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Table 11. Primary reason for attending seminar 

Curiosity 

Friend's recommendation 

Topic to be discussed 

Professional obligation 

Reputation of speaker 

Good previous seminar 

Frequency 

396 

391 

1602 

812 

344 

1454 

Table 12. Intent to attend another safety seminar 

Definitely will 

Probably will 

Undecided 

Probably will not 

Definitely will not 

Frequency 

3894 

1317 

148 

30 

4 

11 

Frequency 

5068 

309 

4797 

403 

4927 

84 

5207 

47 

Percent 

8 

8 

32 

16 

7 

29 

Percent 

72 

24 

3 

1 

0 

Percent 

94 

6 

92 

8 

98 

2 

99 

1 
p 

Table 13. Number of seminars attended in previous 12 months 

Frequency Percent 

None (0) 1710 31 

1 1593 29 

2 to4 1690 31 

5 to7 306 6 

8to 12 110 2 

More than 12 84 2 

Table 14. Highest certificate level 

Frequency Percent 

Student 728 14 

Recreational 8 0 

Private 2845 53 

Commercial 1421 26 

Air Transport 391 7 

Table 15. Other ratings and aircraft ownership 

Frequency- Yes Percent- Yes 

CFI certificate 1022 18 

Instrument rating 2194 40 

Multi-engine rating 1395 26 

OWn an aircraft 2372 43 

Table 16. Total flight hours 

Frequency Percent 

Less than 1 00 995 18 

100 to 500 1991 36 

501 to 1,000 870 16 

1,001 to 3,000 852 16 

3,001 to 10,000 559 10 

More than 1 0,000 205 4 

12 
Table17. Flight hours during previous 90 days 

None (0) 

1 to 10 

11 to 20 

21 to 50 

51 to 100 

More than 1 00 

SEMINAR EVALUATION FORM -

VERSION 1 

The unique items contained on the reverse side of 

Version 1.0 of the SEF primarily addressed the attendees' opinions and preferences regarding seminars 

in general - not specifically the one they had just 

attended. The data contained in Tables 18 through 25 

are potentially useful for SPMs and others deciding on 

the best day and time to hold a safety meeting so as to 

attract the largest participation. Clearly, Mondays 

and Fridays (Table 21) are poor choices, as are meetings hdd at someone's house (T .. hle 19) or meetings 

in which only a video is shown without an accompanying speaker (Table 23). Lunchtime seminars also 

seem unlikely to attract attendees (Table 20}; although, the lunchtime seminars held in New York 

City are usually filled to capacity (R. Baker, personal 

communication, July 1996). 

These data are also potentially useful in the design 

and implementation of new training products. The 

c•.ta in Table 18 show that seminar attendees have 

some definite expectations about what subjects can 

and cannot be effectively addressed in a seminar 

format. Not surprisingly, aerial maneuvers (for example, slow flight or stall recovety procedures) are 

generally thought best learn~d from a certified flight 

instructor (CFI). Alternatively, there are some subjects for which seminars are clearly the preferable 

format. Flight hazards (for example, weather), pilot 

decision making, human factors, and crew resource 

management are all topics for which the seminar was 

considered the most effective method of instruction. 

Frequency Percent 

13 

748 14 

1624 30 

1423 26 

1125 21 

327 6 

218 4 

It is interesting to note that computer-based training was very infrequently chosen as the preferred · 

training medium, even though some topics, such as 

navigation aids and procedures, might be very well 

addressed through such a medium. It seems likely that 

this reflects a vety limited exposure to computerbased training by the pilots, rather than a bias against 

that medium based upon personal experiences with 

unsatisfactory computer-based training, since {from 

Table 27) the vast majority indicated they would use 

computer safety programs developed by the FAA. 

Although they may be willing to try computerbased training (presumably at home), the preference 

of attendees for a live speaker in seminars is quite clear 

from the data shown in Table 23. Of the seminar 

formats given, the combination of live speaker and 

video was the preferred format for almost half of the 

attendees,while a lecture by a safety expert accounted 

for most of the remainder. 

The preference of the attendees for a live speaker who 

can discuss the aviation safety topic knowledgeably 

places a significant burden on those arranging safety 

seminars. As anyone who has attended a safety seminar 

( c :any similar lecture by a technical expert) is well aware, 

some speakers are able to make the most pedestrian of 

subjects seem fascinating and can hold the audience's 

attention almost effortlessly, while other speakers can 

make the most exciting of topics as dull as the shine on 

a two-dollar pair of shoes and induce profound drowsiness in the most insomniac of listeners. Perhaps these 

experiences are reflected in the data given in Table 24, 

which show that the single best way to improve attendance at seminars is to provide more exciting presentations. 
p 

Table 18. Most effective method for learning about aviation topics (% by row) 

Talk to Safety CFI Books or Videotape Computer 

other seminars manuals based 

pilots training 

Aerial maneuvers 6 10 69 7 6 2 

Airport operating 13 31 20 28 7 1 

procedures 

Airspace 2 36 15 35 11 2 

classification & use 

Air traffic control 3 37 20 28 10 2 

procedures 

Aircraft systems & 6 10 19 56 7 2 

procedures 

Emergency 3 20 44 27 4 2 

procedures 

Federal aviation 1 32 8 52 5 2 

regulations 

Right hazards 7 47 13 18 14 1 

IFR procedures & 2 15 52 19 10 3 

techniques 

Navigation aids & 3 18 28 36 13 3 

procedures 

Preflight 3 8 30 52 5 3 

Takeoff & landing 5 11 61 16 5 2 

procedures 

Pilot decision 10 46 26 10 6 1 

making 

Human factors 11 52 10 19 6 1 

Crew resource 11 45 12 21 10 2 

management 

!4 
Table 19. Preferred location for seminars 

Frequency Percent 

Airport hangar 270 23 

FBOorclub 483 41 

Hotel 135 11 

College classroom 297 25 

Friend's house 1 0 

Table 20. Preferred time of day for seminars 

Frequency Percent 

Morning 71 6 

Lunchtime 8 1 

Aftemoon 22 2 

Evening 1171 92 

Table 21. Preferred day of week for seminars 

Frequency Percent 

Sunday 25 2 

Monday 94 8 

Tuesday 234 21 

Wednesday 308 28 

Thursday 246 22 

Friday 44 4 

Saturday 165 15 

15 
Table22. Preferred duration of seminars 

Frequency Percent 

1/2 hour 1 0 

1 hour 58 5 

1 1/2 hours 228 18 

2 hours 737 58 

3 hours 210 17 

Over3 hours 32 3 

Table 23. Preferred seminar format 

Frequency Percent 

Lecture by safety expert 265 25 

Speech by celebrity 15 1 

Panel discussion with 68 6 

experts 

Open discussion 30 3 

Testimonials by fellow 14 1 

pilots 

Videos with live speaker 471 44 

Videos without speaker 9 1 

Short presentations with 117 7 

open discussion 

Panel discussion with 71 7 

experts, celebrities & 

pilots 

16 
Table 24. Best way to increase attendance at seminars 

Frequency Percent 

More relevant topics 0 0 

More exciting 342 31 

presentations 

Encourage group 211 19 

participation 

More advance notice 67 6 

Better meeting location 96 9 

Better meeting time 41 4 

Provide baby sitting 23 2 

Get friends to attend 7 1 

Offer door prize 26 2 

Better publicity 41 4 

More local involvement 107 13 

Table 25. Time attendees are willing to travel to get to seminar 

Frequency Percent 

15 minutes 72 6 

30 minutes 419 33 

45 minutes 288 23 

60minutes 361 29 

90 minutes 67 5 

120 minutes 59 5 

17 
SEMINAR EVALUATION FORM -

VERSION2 

The qu~stions on the reverse side ofVersion 2.0 of 

the SEF were concerned with two possible training 

product delivery mechanisms- computer-based training and videotapes. It is recognized that pilots do not 

attend every safety seminar offered in their local area, 

and that many pilots never attend safety seminars. 

There is a variety of possible reasons for this, ranging 

from a simple lack ofinterest in safety issues to lack of 

opportunity to attend. For the most part, safery seminars are held in the evening, and for many pilots 

attending an evening function involves some considerable sacrifice. As Kotler and Andreasen ( 1991) indicate, there is always a cost involved for the individual 

even when partaking of ostensibly free services. That 

cost includes not only the obvious elements such as 

transportation expenses, but also other hidden opportunity costs- a pilot attending one of our seminars 

cannot, at the same time, attend an evening college 

course. make rounds at the hospital, call upon cusromea, visir wirh his or her family, oc simply relax. 

0\:.t \etn~m>.to m-.n"l t.\m\pe"le "ffhh "the.e ahema"lhe 

activities for the expenditure of the pilot's time and 

resources. However, ther" will always be some number of pilots who will "lect not to attend. For these 

pilots, alternative methods of training delivery must 

be developed in order ta disseminate our training and 

improve aviation safety. 

Computer-based training and videotapes are two 

mechanisms for providing training to pilots who 

cannot or will not attend safety seminars. Computerbased training has many advantages that recommend 

it as a training medium including provisions for 

interactive learning, adaptive training based upon 

skill and knowledge assessment, and low duplication 

and distribution costs. However, as was shown in 

Table 18, few pilots would consider it the training 

medium of first choice, possibly because of their 

unfamiliarity with this medium. 

The earlier survey of the general pilot population 

(Hunter, 1995) indicated that approximately twothirds of pilots own or have access to a personal 

18 

com purer that could he used for rr;~ining. The current 

results (shown in Table 26) rer;>licate that findin~&- In 

addition, a large portion of those who do not currently 

have a home computer intend to purchase one during 

the next year. This large proportion of pilots who 

possess personal computers makes feasible the use of 

computer-based training as a delivery mechanism. 

This is supported by the data in Table 27, that 

indicate that a large number of pilots would use 

computer-based training program developed by the 

FAA. It might also be possible, as the data in Table 28 

suggest, to recover part of the costs of production and 

distribution, since pilots were generally willing to pay 

more thJln $5 to purchase such training programs. 

That conclusion must be tempered somewhat, however, since the pilots who do not attend safety seminars, although they have access to computers in 

approximately the same proportion, might not be as 

willing to use or purchase computer training programs as the seminar attendees sampled in this study. 

The data on preferred ways to distribute computerbased training programs {fable 29) present someciting of a dilemma with respect to developing a cost 

e{fect~-.e del~-.ery m«k11nm. 1he p~'M;' plelttted 

delivery method, mail-order, is the one which would 

present the most organizational difficulty and expense. The FAA is not staffed or organized to function 

as a mail-order house. Therefore, functions of this sort 

must be transferred either to another government 

agency (such as the National Technical Information 

Service) or to a contractor. 

The alternative distribution mechanisms allow the 

FAA to function more in its traditional role of a 

technology developer and, in effect, wholesaler of 

training products. Particularly attractive is the possibility of disseminating new training through computer networks- both commercial networks such as 

CompuServe and America On Line and the World 

Wide Web. This prospect virtually removes all distribution costs and allows for a very rapid modification 

and expansion of the training suite as new products 

are developed. Based upon the results shown in Table 

29, atleast one-fourth of the pilots have access to such 

a network, and if the geometric growth in utilization 
Table 26. Computer ownership and use 

Use computer at home 

Will buy home computer 

within next year 

Have used computer 

tllght simulation program 

Frequency- Yes 

918 

397 

739 

Table 27. Would use FAA computer safety programs 

Frequency 

Certainly 594 

Possibly 554 

Uncertain 126 

Not likely 84 

·Never 6 

Percent- Yes 

67 

32 

54 

Percent 

44 

41 

9 

6 

0 

Table 28. Maximum attendees would pay to purchase FAA computer program 

Frequency Percent 

Will not use 125 9 

Nothing ($0) 130 10 

\.&s.S \han $5 '\SS 14 

$5to $15 646 49 

More than $15 126 18 

TabJe 29. Best way to distribute FAA computer program 

Frequency Percent 

Will not use 136 11 

Download from network 285 23 

Buy at computer store 74 6 

Order through mail 468 37 

BuyatFBO 301 24 

19 
p 

of the World Wide Web is any indicator, that proportion should increase rapidly, making chis a viable 

means of training delivery to a large segment of the 

pilot population. In addition, as shown in Table 30, 

substantial numbers of pilots now have the newer 

generation computer systems with faster processors 

and CD-ROM drives. These more powerful systems 

allow program developers to utilize multimedia presentation techniques that capitalize upon the capabilities of these systems. Thus, it might be feasible to 

develop and distribute simulation-based training and 

other complex instructional packages that could not be 

used with the older, more limited personal computers. 

Virtually all the seminar attendees reported that 

they had a videotape player in their home, and over 

two-thirds reported that they had viewed safety videos 

in the past (Table 31). Likewise, almost all the attendees indicated they would view safety videos produced 

by the FAA (Table32). The order of preference for the 

best way to distribute videos was reversed from that 

given for the computer-based training programs. For 

videos, the first choice was to obtain them from the 

local Fixed Base Operator (FBO), while mail-order 

was the second choice (Table 33). 

As with the computer programs, attendees expressed 

a willingness to invest reasonable amounts either to 

buy (Table 34) or to rent (Table 35) FAA safety 

videos. This is a particularly important issue, since the 

cost of duplication and distribution (for example, 

packaging and mailing) of videorapes is far greater 

than the corresponding costs for computer-based training programs. These costs would generally preclude a 

mass-mailing of videos to pilots, except where relatively small groups of pilots who were particularly at 

risk for accident involvement could be identified. 

SEMINAR EVALUATION FORM -

VERSION 3 

Table 36 contains the attendees' self-ratings of 

knowledge and proficiency in a number of aviation 

areas. Since pilots generally rate themselves as above 

average on flying and related activities, it is not too 

surprising that the ratings were heavily skewed toward 

the competent side of the scale. The notable exception 

to that trend was the self-ratings ofinstrument flying, 

in which 40% of the attendees rated themselves as 

somewhat or very rusry. Conversely, 60% of the 

attendees rated their instrument flying knowledge 

and proficiency as adequate or better; however, only 

40% of the attendees indicated they had an instrument rating. This suggests chat about 20% of the 

attendees think they can adequately fly on instruments, even though they do not have an instrument 

rating. Whether that assessment is valid is, of course, 

Table 30. Personal computer equipment features 

Frequency- Yes Percent -Yes 

Macintosh 161 11 

IBM compatible 809 56 

3.5" disk 666 46 

CD-ROM 430 30 

Color monitor 689 48 

386CPU 157 11 

486CPU 403 28 

Pentium CPU 196 14 

20 
Table 31. Videotape player ownership and usage 

Frequency- Yes Percent- Yes 

Videotape player at 1347 98 

home 

Have viewed safety 931 68 

videotapes at home 

Table 32. Would view FAA safety videos 

Frequency Percent 

Certainly 928 67 

Possibly 396 29 

Uncertain 39 3 

Not likely 16 1 

Never 2 0 

Table 33. Best way to distribute FAA safety videos 

Frequency Percent 

Local FSDO 117 10 

Local FBO 457 38 

Public library 210 17 

Video rental outlet 120 10 

Order through mail 306 25 

Table 34. Maximum willing to pay to buy FAA safety video 

Frequency Percent 

Will not use 30 2 

Nothing ($0) 126 9 

Less than $5 249 19 

$5to$10 707 53 

More than $10 227 17 

21 
----· --------

p 

Table 35. Maximum willing to pay to rent FAA safety video 

Frequency Percent 

Willi not use 29 2 

Nothing ($0) 122 9 

Less than $3 659 49 

$3to$5 476 35 

More than $5 65 5 

Table 36. Self-rating of knowledge and proficiency (% by row) 

Very Good Adequate Somewhat Very 

Good Rusty Rusty 

Weather 20 40 27 11 3 

ATC procedures 18 35 28 13 6 

Air space regulations 16 35 30 16 4 

Basic VFR flying 33 43 19 4 2 

techniques 

Takeoff and landing 31 46 17 4 2 

procedures 

Emergency procedures 18 36 31 13 3 

Instrument flying 12 23 24 20 20 

Preflight planning 29 42 21 6 2 

Ground handling 31 44 20 3 2 

Radio navigation 27 37 23 9 4 

Navigation by pilotage 26 40 23 7 3 

Aviator decision making 24 43 24 6 3 

Cross-wind landing 22 34 29 10 5 

22 
not testable from the data in this study. One might 

specuJate, ho~ever, that overestimation of skill in dtis 

area, so often associated with fatal accidents, might 

explain in part why some pilots are willing to continue 

VFR flight inro deteriorating weather conditions, 

believing that they have the skills necessary to fly under 

instrument conditions should that be the last resort. 

One might suppose that pilots who attend safery 

semjn.ars have an jnreresr in safety jssues, and that 

·interest might also be reflected in other safery-related 

activities. Table 37 presents the data on self-reported 

safery activities for the seminar attendees. Although 

the data cannot address the depth of understanding 

achieved or the degree of involvement in the safery 

activities, they do suggest a substantial degree of 

participation across all the various activities. Some 

activities, such as reading a magazine article on safety, 

obviously do not reflect the same degree of participation as hiring a certified flight instructor (CFI) for 

training; nevertheless, overall it would seem that this is a 

group of pilots who are actively concerned with safety. 

The last two items in Table 37 provide a rough 

index of the level of application of the safety lessons 

learned from some of the training activities. Although 

there are undoubtedly regional variations in the need 

to compute density altitude and similar variation in 

the need to compute aircraft weight and balance, more 

of these activities is clearly better rhan less. For pilots 

in a region that is characterized by high-altitude 

runways and high ambient temperatures, the propensity to make densiry altitude computations might well 

be an interesting index of their commitment to safery 

- a notion rhat will be explored in larer research. 

Tables 38 and 39 provide additional information 

on the level of aviation-related activities by the seminar attendees. These data ·also provide information 

that may be pertinent to the marketing of new aviation 

safery products, both through cooperative agr~ements 

with flying associations and clubs and through the 

choice of print media ro maximize the exposure of a 

new produce. Although the FAA may well wish to 

publicize its new products initially through its internal 

23 

publication, the FAA Aviation News, the dissemination of new product information through articles in 

magazines such as rhe AOPA Pilot and Flying will 

reach a far larg~r audience. 

SEMINAR EVALUATION FORM -

VERSION 4 

Earlier, in Table 15, we saw rhar 43% of rhe 

seminar attendees own their own aircraft, either by 

themselves or as parr of a partnership. The questions 

on the reverse side of Version 4.0 of rhe SEF were 

designed to assess the level, and in some cases the 

frequency, of the self-performed aircraft maintenance 

being conducted by pilots, in particular aircraft owners. Tables 40 through 44 show that seminar attendees 

predominately fly aircraft in the normal and utility 

categories, and that almost half of them have performed some sort of maintenance activity on their 

aircraft- most frequently, changing the oil in the 

aircraft. Almost a fourth of rhe attendees reported 

having performed some self-maintenance on their 

aircraft rhree or more times during the previous six 

months. 

Although one might think rhar maintenance is 

solely within the province of the aircraft owner, in a 

sense every pilot performs a preventive maintenance 

function with every preflight inspection. Simply verifying the condition of rhe aircraft structures and fluid 

levels serves a vital safery function whose importance 

cannot be overestimated. 

The data provided in Table 45 show that, in the 

area of maintenance, pilots would most like to see 

seminar_s dealing with preflight inspections and with 

the maintenance activities that they mighr perform 

that are sanctioned by the FAA. Although the two 

topics were approximately equally chosen, the former 

would probably be more widely received, since the 

preflight inspection must be performed by all pilots, 

while self-maintenance activities are generally limited 

to aircraft owners. 

Table 38. Membership in flying organizations 

Frequency- Yes Percent- Yes 

.Aircraft Owners & Pilots 846 59 

Association 

Experimental Aircraft 313 22 

Association 

Ninety-Nines 36 3 

National Business Aircraft 22 2 

Association 

National Air Transportation 14 1 

Association 

Helicopter Association 8 1 

International 

Local flying club 407 28 

Vocation-related organization 37 3 

Aircraft owner's club 177 12 

Table 39. Flying magazines regularly read 

Frequency- Yes Percent - Yes 

FAA Aviation News 387 27 

Aviation Safety 342 24 

Plane & Pilot 472 33 

AOPA Pilot 909 63 

Aviation Consumer 113 8 

Professional Pilot 140 10 

Flying 588 41 

EAA Sport Aviation 309 22 

Air Progress 88 6 

Business & Commercial 141 10 

Aviation 

25 
p 

Table 40. Category of aircraft nonnally flown 

Frequency Percent 

Nonnal 921 82 

Utility 149 13 

Acrobatic 6 1 

Transport 10 1 

Glider 6 1 

Experimental 19 2 

Restricted 11 1 

Table 41. Maintenance activities and experiences 

Frequency- Yes Percent- Yes 

Perform preventive 518 45 

maintenance on aircraft 

Have an A&P certificate 108 9 

Have military experience in 176 14 

aircraft maintenance 

Have signed off on ADs for 91 8 

aircraft 

Have a copy of the 500 44 

Manufacturers Maintenance 

Manual for aircraft 

Routinely record all 481 45 

preventive maintenance you 

perfonn in logbook 

Aircraft is hangared 591 55 

Have had a mechanical or 617 49 

· electrical failure in flight 

Have replaced damaged or 434 35 

womtire 

Personally observe refueling 850 68 

of aircraft 

Have serviced aircraft oleo 372 30 

strut 

Have replaced or serviced 428 35 

aircraft sparkplugs 

Have changed oil in aircraft 580 47 

26 
I 

r 

Table 42. Frequency of self-maintenance during previous 6 months 

Frequency Percent 

None 664 

1 to 2 times 210 

3to4times 144 

5to6times 45 

7 or more times 80 

Table 43. Frequency of aircraft tire inflation checks 

Frequency 

Before every flight 688 

Once a week 34 

Once a month 145 

VVhentheylooklow 309 

Never 61 

Table 44. Frequency of oil and hydraulic fluid checks 

Frequency 

Before every flight 1136 

Once a week 

Once a month 

Only during scheduled 

maintenance checks 

8 

21 

51 

Table 45. Maintenance topic most wanted at safety seminar 

Frequency 

FARs dealing with 109 

maintenance 

Acceptable maintenance 228 

practices 

Preventive maintenance 150 

Aircraft systems 185 

Aircraft hardware 20 

Preflight inspections 233 

Maintenance publications 17 

27 

58 

18 

13 

4 

7 

Percent 

56 

3 

12 

25 

5 

Percent 

93 

1 

2 

4 

Percent 

12 

24 

16 

20 

2 

25 

2 
p 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

The results of this study provide important information to the managers of the FAA safety seminar 

program to allow them to target their seminar content, format, and venue toward participants' expressed 

preferences. The results should also be noted by those 

managers and others interested in assessing user satisfaction with FAA services. In addition, researchers 

developing new training programs intended for use in 

safety seminars may also find these results of value. 

While these results can only be generalized to the 

districts from which data were obtained, the levels of 

satisfaction with seminars and participant preferences 

and characteristics may be applicable to other districts. 

The results of this study indicate that most pilots 

are satisfied with the current FAA safety seminars. 

This high level of satisfaction is indicated by near total 

agreement (99%) with the statement "Overall, I am 

satisfied, • by participants willing to recommend seminars to other pilots, and by their expressed intent to 

attend future seminars. This fmding is comparable to 

that obtained by Manning and Schroeder (1990) in a 

localized survey of pilot satisfaction with FAA flight 

service station services. In that survey, 96% of pilots 

were moderately to greatly satisfied with the services 

they received. 

Contrary to the expectations expressed by seminar 

leaders, attendance at seminars is relatively fluid, 

since approximately one-third of the participants had 

nor attended a seminar during the previous year. 

Although it is impossible to fully appreciate the significance of this datum without having a great deal 

more information on the dynamics of pilot participation in seminars and in flying in general, it at least 

suggests that the FAA safery messages are reaching a 

large number of previously untouched pilots with 

each seminar. 

The questions dealing with computer and videotape ownership indicated that a majority of the pilots 

possessed a home computer, while almost all the 

remainder intended to purchase one in the coming 

year. Virtually everyone had a videotape player. Participants were generally willing to use safety training 

computer programs and videotapes developed by the 

FAA and were often willing to pay for their purchase 

28 

or rental. Given the turnover in seminar panicipation~ 

use of these media for follow-on training may prove an 

effective means of disseminating information to those 

who are unable to attend seminars regularly. This may 

prove especially advantageous in those geographically 

large districts in which seminars are only infrequently 

offered within a reasonable commuting distance of 

pilots' homes. Computer-based instruction and videotapes also are better suited for some types of training 

than the rypicallecture format used in seminars; the 

finding that these media are widely available among 

pilots may encourage researchers to develop new training programs utilizing the capabilities of those formats. 

The self-ratings ofknowledge and proficiency indicate that pilots have a generally positive self-image of 

their capabilities. Except in the area of instrument 

flying, all the items in this area were heavily skewed 

toward a positive assessment of knowledge or skill. 

While it is certainly possible that tbese pilots are as 

skilled as they believe, the fact that half of them have 

fewer than 500 total hours of experience and almost 

half of them had flown 10 hours or less in the previous 

90 days at least suggests they are being overly optimistic in their self-evaluations. On the other hand, the 

data on safery-related activities suggest that, as a 

group, the seminar participants frequently took part 

in activities that might be expected to enhance their 

knowledge and proficiency. Ultimately these data 

cannot be used to definitively assess skills and knowledge in anything more than relative terms, and are 

better used to identify topics (such as air space regulations) that should be addressed in seminars because 

a large number of pilots indicate their knowledge in a 

particular area is less than adequate. 

The data provided by this study, in combination 

with other studies of the pilot population, may provide guidance on the preferred content and format of 

seminars, while at the same time supporting the develCji:nent of alternative forms of training delivery. The 

data clearly show, at least for the FAA districts for 

which data were available, tbat participants in safery 

seminars overwbelmingly report that they are satisfied 

with them. While this findin~ is heartening, it must 

also be remembered that only about half of the active 
pilot population regularly attend safety seminars 

(Hunter, 1995). Thus, a challenge exists to develop 

new seminar programs to attract a greater share of the 

potenri:tl market, while maintaining the existing high 

levels of satisfaction. In a matter as important as the 

ddivety of safety training, there is no such thing as too 

successful. 

29 

REFERENCES 

Hunter, D.R. (1995). Airman research questionnairt: 

Methodology and ovr:ra/1 results. DOT/FAA/AM95/27. Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration. NTIS # 

ADA300583. 

Koder, P., & Andreasen, A.R. (1991). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizatiom. Fourth Edition. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Manning, C.A., & Schroeder, D.J. (1990). Pilot views of 

Montgomery County, T~X~ZJ autom4tedFSSservias. 

DOT/FAA/AM-90/6. Washington, DC: Office 

of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration. NTIS # ADA227484. 

Ralrovan, L., Wiggins, M.W., Jensen, R.S., & Hunter, 

D.R (in press). A NUional pilot suTJJey to mhana 

the development and dismnination ofsaftty information. Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration. 

.. 
APPENDIX A 

• Safety Seminar Evaluation 

Seminar Leader's Fonn • 

1. Region: 2. FSDO 3. Code 

Number: number: 

ONE 1 00 1 0 

oEA 200 2® 

oso 3 00 30 

oGL 4 00 40 

oCE 5 Gl@ 5® 

oSW 6 0® 6® 

oNM 7 00 7® 

cWP 8 (i) 0 80 

cAL 9 00 9® 

0 00 10@ 

4. on what day was this seminar held? 

o Sunday o Thursday 

oMonday 

oTuesday 

oWednesday 

5. What time did this seminar begin? 

o Morning o Afternoon 

o Lunchtime o Evening 

6. How long did this seml1111r last? 

0 1/2 hOUr 0 2 hourS 

o1 hour 03 hoUrs 

o 1 112 hours o over 3 hours 

7. How many people attended? 

I I IJ 

8. Date of seminar? 

Year Month Day 

rnrnrn 

• 

AI 

9. INhere did this seminar take place? 

o Airport Hangar 

o FBO or flying club meeting room 

o Hotel meeting room 

o College classroom 

o PilOt's houSe 

o Olher - please specify ____ _ 

10. What was the subject of this seminar? 

Mark ALL that apply. 

o Aerial maneuvers (e.g., stalls) 

o Airport operating procedures 

o Air space claslflcatlon & use 

o Air tramc control procedures 

o Alraaft systems & performance 

o Emergency procedures 

o Federal aviation regulations 

o Flight hazards (e.g., weather) 

o IFR procedures & techniques 

o JUdgement I Decision-making 

o Navigation aids & procedures 

o Prellight {e.g., \Y8Igl1t & balance) 

oTIIkeoff & landing PlocedLnS 

o Other - please specify--

11. Was there a co-sponsor for this seminar 

oYes oNo 

12. Was there a door prize at this seminar? 

oYes oNo 

13. Do you want to receive feedback? 

oNo oYes -->~i ,. ·r-=J 

Enter the first four letters of your last name: 
APPENDIX B 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Common Page 

Fede,.l Aviation Administration 

Safety Seminar Evaluation 

SubjeciS diSCussed-········· 

Level of ....-t.uon wes ...... . Quality of IRI!erlaiS was •...•.... 

Speekel's knowledge was ...... . Speaker's pruentatiOn was. •••• 

lnfOI'IIIallon presented was .••••. 

Seminar was designed for ....•.. 

Presentation -··············-···· 0\'erell,lem ........................ .. 

2. Would you ay that you: 

OfamiJier 

01dviii1C8CI 

O!ow 

Olow 

Oclear 

Ousetul 

OnOVicH 

Qballng 

Oslllslled 

o- oerement8ry 

0hlgh 

OhiQh 

Oc:onfusing 

Onot relevant 

Oexpetts 

Olnlerestlng 

Odissllisfied 

Leamed something new...................................... Oyes Ono 

RefresMd aid slcllls or k.-lec!Qe ...... -............... Oyes Ono 

Had yourq~ons 11nswered setlsfactorily......... Oyas Ono 

Would reoommencl semlniiS to other pilols......... Oyes Ono 

3. Which ONE of1111 following best duc:rlbes 

why you au.nded 1hls lllfely ..,.lnlll? 

OCurlaSJty 

QFrlendS' NCOmmendllon 

0Toplc to be diSCussed 

OProrallonal obllgalon 

QRepulltlon of speakel(s) 

0 GoOd pn111l0us seminar 

4. Which ONE ofthiH ·--bell 

duc:rlbel your lnlent to -nd MOJW 11rety ..,.Ina,. ctuttng tile nest t21110111111? 

0 I Will dellnilely - anothenemlnar. 

0 I.WIII probably llltend another semlner. 

01 am undecided ·I may or may not attend. 

01 probably will not attend another seminar. 

01-KIIIy Will not lll!end en-r seminar. 

1. How many otller P:M sponsored 11rety 

Hmlnars have you -nded In the last 

t2 months? 

ONone(O) 

01 

02·-4 

05-7 

01·12 

0 More than 12 

REGION 

NE 0 

EAO 

soo 

GL 0 

ceo 

swo 

NM 0 

WPO 

AL 0 

1'8DONO 

<!><!> 

(D(D 

(!)(!) 

@(!) 

<!><!> 

<!><!> 

<!><!> 

(!)(!) 

<!><!> 

<!><!> 

CODE 

(D <!> 

@ (!) 

@ <!> 

<!> (!) 

<!> ® 

7. Do you have 1 CFI cartificlllll? 

Oyes Ono 

I. Do you -en Instrument filing? 

o,.,. 0 110 

t. Do you hive a mulli .. nglna riling? 

Oyes Ono 

11. Do you own your own P'-allher 

by yourself or u pert of a partnership? 

Qyes Ono 

11. HowiMJiyTOTAL 

hours have you flown? 

0Lesslhan 100 

010010500 

050110 1,000 

01,001 to 3,000 

03,001 to 10,000 

OMore than 10,000 

12. How_, hours heve you 

Wown In the rutH DAYS? 

oo (Zero) 

01-10 

011·20 

021·50 

051-100 

0 More than 100 

13. How old 111 you? 

®<!> 

(D(D 

®(!) 

®@ 

®® 

®® 

®® 

(?.)(!) 

<!>® 

®<!> 

1. What Is your highest pilot cetUIIc:ate? 

OSiudent 

If you are unable to finish 1hls evaluation during the 

semln•r, plesse complete it Ieier •nd moil it to: 

0 Recreational 

OPrlvllte 

OCommeroial 

OAir T111nsport 

BI 

FediJWI A--Admin~ 

MM-240 (Dr. Dlvld Hunlel') 

100 lndlpt-nce Ave., SW 

WUhlngton, DC ZOit1 
APPENDIX C 

Seminar Evaluation Form -Version 1.0 

14. If you Wllntedla Jeom more elloUI ..... topk:s. wttlc:h-.ld be the most -cllv•-for you? 

Talk to 

other 

pilols 

-'-' m.,..,.,_(e.g . ..US) 0 

Airport operating procedures 0 Air~ claulllcatlon & use 0 

Alrtrallic ~ pR)Cidures 0 

Alnnft .,stems & pelfolmance 0 

EmlllllftCY ~res 0 

federal A'lleUOn Regullllons 0 

Flight !lards (e.g. wealhel) 0 

IFR ~ & tecllnlques 0 

Novlgalion aids and ptliCidures 0 

l'twllighl (I.Q weight & bll..._) 0 

TlkeO« & landing prDCedlftS 0 

Pllol decisloll moldng 0 

H"""'n- 0 

c,_reeauicotmoMQIIMI'll 0 

15. Whldl meeting location for seminars 

-~~~ ....... far you? 

0Airporth0FBO or ftVfnll dub ..-IRQ room 

CHolet melting room 

Ocollege daSSIOOI1I 

0Frielld's hOuse 

11. VI/hill time af daf for seminars Ia bllst for you? 

OMomlng 

0Lunchlime 

OAftemoon 

0Evening 

Attend 

Safety 

Seminars 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17. Whit day ollheweek far seminars Is blst foryau? 

0Sunday 

0Manday 

0TUIIday 

0\'Yadnesday 

OThursctay 

0Frlllay 

0Satulllay 

111. What length of seminar Is best far you? 

0112 hour 

Othaur 

011/2 haul'S 

02haurs 

03haurs 

Cover 3 haul'S 

Cl 

Mlet Rlld study use 

with boots or VIdeo· Computer 

CFI manuals tapes Training 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

18. Whllsemlnarformlt do you ~nfer? 

O!Miures r,. saflll)' experts 

O~brCIIOP.nll diiCUIIion Involving numerous experts 

OOpen dlscuulan ~ hal fa!INII) 

OTestimonials r,. flllow pilots 

OYideos. With .,-an r,. Uve spelker 

OYicleoa, wlb no p,. .. ,-. by live spelker. 

OShort p!M811tatlons fol- by open dllcusslon. 

0Panel discussion iiiVDiving mix of 1xperts, celelllilies 

and fellow pilots. 

20. Whatls11oe ONE best woyto get yauto atllnd 

mare safety S41minars? 

ODiscuss more rerevam topics 

OOifer mo,. 1xcillng presenllllons 

OEncourage mar• fiiOUP pertlclpltian 

0 Pmvlde mcore lidVa- notice 

0 Provide a batllr meeting location 

OSeta IIICft cconv- meeting lime 

OPravld• bllby-sltllng services 

OGII mont af my friends to alend 

OOireran lncenllve (door prize) 

OPravkle better publicity 

OGII 1110111local pilots involved In the planning and 

,._ntatlon 

21. How long.,. you wiling to travel to get to a 

.-etysemlnar? 

015mlnutes 

030mlnUiel 

04Sminutes 

oeomlnutea 

080 0 120 --mlnllles 
APPENDIXD 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Version 2.0 

14. Do you use a computer at home? 

Oyn Ono 

15. Is it fikely you will buy a computer fOr 

your home In the ne>lt year? 

Oyes Ono 

115. Have you used a computer flight 

simulation program? 

Oyes Ono 

17. If the FAA provided interactive computer safety 

program for pilots, would you use them? 

OCertainly 

OPossibly 

OUIICertain 

ONotllktly 

ONevar 

18. If the FAA prep1red computer safety programs fOr sale 

to PilOts, whit is the most you would be willing to pay fOr 

one? 

OWillnotuse 

0Nothing ($0) 

OLRs than $5 

0$5to$1S 

0 More than $15 

1D. If the FAA prepared computer safely programs for 

pilot use, what is the best way to make them available to 

you? 

OWill not use 

0 Download frOm a network (AOL or compuserve) 

OBuy at computer store 

0 Order through the mall 

OBuyataFBO 

20. Which of the following describes your computer 

equipment? MARK ALL THAT APPLY. 

OUacintosh 

0 IBM Compatible 

0 3.$" floppy disk 

OCE:i'ROM 

OColor monftor 

038SCPU 

Q-4311CPU 

0Pantium CPU 

Dl 

21. Do you have a Videotape player at home? 

Oyes Ono 

22. Have you ever viewed an aviation safety 

video lit hclme? 

Oyes Ono 

23. If the FAA prepared aviation safety videos for 

pilots, would you view them? 

ocartainly 

OPosslbly 

OUncertain 

0Notlikely 

ONever 

24. lfthe FAA prepared aviation safety videos for 

pilots, what is the best way to mal<e them 

available to you? 

O~FSCO 

OL.ac:aiFBO 

OPubllc library 

OVICieo rental outlet 

OOnlerthrough the 1111111 

25. If the FAA prepared aviation safety vieclos fOr 

sale to pilots, what Is the most you would willing to ~to BUY one? 

OWIII not use 

ONothing (SO) 

OLass than $5 

0$5 to 10 

0More than $10 

211. If the FAA prepared aviation safety videos for 

pilots, what 1$ the most you would be wiiNng to pay 

to RENT one? 

OWII not use 

0 Nothing ($0) 

OLessthan $3 

0$3to$5 

0More than $5 

., 

.· 

I 

j 

I 

.I 

I 

. 

·J 

I 
APPENDIX E 

Seminar Evaluation Form - Version 3.0 

14. Please rate your level of knOWledge or proficiency as a pilot in each of the following arees: 

Very good Good Adequate Somewhat Very rusty 

rusty 

Weather end Its impact on flight 0 0 0 0 0 

Air traffic control procedures 0 0 0 0 0 

Air space regulations 0 0 0 0 0 

Basic VFR flying techniques 0 0 0 0 0 

Takeoff and landing procedures 0 0 0 0 0 

Emergency procedures 0 0 0 0 0 

Instrument ftylng 0 0 0 0 0 

Preflight planning 0 0 0 0 0 

Ground lwldllng 0 0 0 0 0 

Radio navigation 0 0 0 0 0 

Navigation by pilotage 0 0 0 0 0 

AYIItor decision making 0 0 0 0 0 

Cross-wind landing 0 0 0 0 0 

15. In the last 12 MONTHS, heM' often did you: 

0 1-5 6-10 11 + 

(None) times times times 

Use a computer ftlghl simulltion program 0 0 0 0 

Read a book on avilltion safety 0 0 0 0 

View a vidao on avlalion safety 0 0 0 0 

Read • magazine article on ssfety 0 0 0 0 

Hire a CFI for training 0 0 0 0 

Read an FAA publication 0 0 0 0 

Refer to an aircraft operation manual 0 0 0 0 

Ask another pilot • safaty question 0 0 0 0 

Answer anolher pilot's safety question 0 0 0 0 

Use a computer-based leamillg program 0 0 0 0 

compute aircraft weight and balance 0 0 0 0 

Compute the derslty a1tltude 0 0 0 0 

18. To what flying 0/gllnizations do you belong? 

MARKALL THAT APPLY 

17. What llylng magazines do you read regu!arly 

MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

QAircraft owners & Pilots Association 

QElcperimental Aircraft Association 

QNinely-Nines 

ON.Uonal Business Aircraft Associltlon 

ONational Air Transportation Association 

QHelicoptar AssociatiOn lntemdonal 

QA local flying club 

OVocation relatad organization (e.g. Flying Farmers} 

QAircraft owner's club (e.g. Cessna Pilot's Association} 

El 

QFAA Aviation News 

0Aviatlon Saf8ty 

0Piane &PRot 

QAOPAPIIot 

QAvlatlo Consumer 

· 0 Professional PRot 

QFiying 

QEAA Sport Aviation 

OAir Progress 

OBusiness & Commercial Aviation 
APPENDIX F 

Seminar Eval11ation Form - Version 4.0 

14. What category aircraft do you normally fly? 

ONormal 

OUtllity 

0Acrobatic 

OTranspolt 

0Giider 

0Experimental 

ORestri;:ted 

15. As the owner or operator, do you perform any 

preventive maintenance on your aircraft? 

Oyes Ono 

111. How often in the past SIX MONTHS have you 

performed some type of maintenance on your · 

aircraft? 

OD (None) 

01-2times 

03-4times 

05 -II times 

07 or more limes 

17. Do you have an A&P certlllcate? 

Oyes Ono 

18. Do you have miikary experience in aircraft 

maintenance.? 

Oyes Ono 

111. Have you, as the owner or operator, ever 

signed off on any Airworthiness Directives issued 

for your aircraft? 

Cyes Ono 

20. Do you have a copy of the Manufacturers 

Maintenance Manual for your aircraft? 

Qyes Ono 

21. As the owner or operator, do you rol11nely 

record all preventive maintenance performed by 

yourself in the maintenance logbook? 

Oyes Ono 

22. Is your aircraft hangered? 

Oyes Ono 

Fl 

23. Have you ever had a mechanical or electrical 

failure in ftlght? 

Oyes Ono 

24. Have you ever replaced a damaged or worn 

tire? 

Oyes Ono 

25. How often do you check for proper inflation of 

your aircraft tires? 

OBetore e"ery flight oa.-.,ek 

oonce a month 

OWhen they took low 

ONever 

211. Do you peiSOnaly observe the refueling 

process every time to insure for proper guel 

grade? 

Oyes Ono 

27. How often is your oil and hydraulic fluid level 

checked? 

OBefore every flight 

OOnceaweek 

Oonoe a month 

0 Only during SCheduled maintenance checks 

28. Have you ever serviced an aircraft oleo strut 

with hydraulic fluid or air? 

Oyas Ono 

29. Have you ever replaced or serviced your 

alrcralt sparkplugs? 

Oyes Ono 

30. Have you ever changed the oil in your aircraft? 

Oyes Ono 

31. What topic would you MOST like to see 

discussed by an A&P or an lA at a Safety 

Seminar? 

OFARs dealing with ma!ntenance 

OAcc:eptable maintenance practices 

0Preventi"e maintenance 

OAircraft systems 

OAircraft hardware 

0 Preflight Inspections - what to look for 

0 Maintenance publications 

~U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 'ltt1 • 5~/60014