Doc 

FAA 

AM 

97 

11 

1'hisdoeu1J1~1'1t i~arailail).~ tO:~ lY~~········. 

through th~ Natto1'1aiT~l~ 

Servi.~. Sj>rii'ISfi;eld, Vi~gini;t '1,~~1>' ' . · '• ·· . '" . - -- ,_- - ---- - ~-

,(_ 

I• 

1 

I 

I 

! 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

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

DOT/FAA/AM-97/11 

4. 1111e and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Transfer ofT raining Effectiveness of Personal May 1997 

Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices 6. Performing Organization Code 

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

Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, D.,Emanuel, T., and 

Phillips, S. 

9. Perfoonlng Organization Name and Address 1 o. Work unn No. (lRAIS) 

lnscirute of Aviation 

University oflliinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Savoy, illinois 61874 11. COntract or Grant No. 

DTFA 94-G-044 

12. Sponsoring fi>Qercy name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

FAA Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agercy Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

Drs. Robert Blanchard and Kevin W. Williams served jointly as COTR for FAA-CAMI 

16. Abstract 

The training effectiveness of Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices (PCATDs) has received 

only limited testing. In the experiment reported here, a commercially available PCA TO was evaluated in a 

transfer of training experiment for its effectiveness in supporting instrument flight training. The data show 

levels of savings in airplane flight time that varied from 15o/o to over 40o/o for certain training exercises. 

However, there were also cases in which savings were essentially zero or even showed decrements as high as 

25o/o. In general, transfer savings were positive and substantial when new tasks were introduced. The data 

indicate that a PCA TO can provide training benefit for certain tasks but, in addition, use of the PCA TO in 

some areas is not expected to result in savings and will erode the overall potential to reduce costs. 

17. KeyWords 18. Distribution Statement 

Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices, Document is available to the public 

Flight Training, Instrument Flight, through the National Technical 

Psychology, Applied Psychology Informacion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 

19. Securtty Ciassn. (of thisreport) J 20. Securtty Ciassn. (of this poge) 121. No. of Pages 122. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 24 

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

This study tested the effectiveness of PC-based 

aviation training devices (PCA TDs) in instrument 

training for the purpose of guiding regulation and 

certification considerations by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). Heretofore, only data of a 

subjective nature had been available. 

The study was supported under FAA Grant No. 

94-G-044 with the Universityoflllinois at UrbanaChampaign during fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Ms. 

KarenAyers, Ms. Diana Christenson, and Ms. Sharon 

Allen assisted with the manuscript and Mr. Greg 

Morrison provided technical assistance during equipment set-up; Mr. Ricky Weinberg, chief pilot, and 

Mr. RichardKeir, instrument course supervisor, provided invaluable assistance with flight operations and 

with student management. Mr. Steve Owen, Mr. 

iii 

David Petersen, and Mr. Phillip Martin served as 

stage check pilots for the study. We thank the flight 

instructors and the students of Aviation 130 and 

Aviation 140 for participating in the study. 

Sponsorship of the study was provided by Mr. 

Thomas C. Accardi, Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1. Project oversight was provided by Mr. 

Louis C. Cusimano, AFS-800, and Mr. Lauren 

Basham, AFS-840. Human factors program coordination was provided by Dr. Thomas McCloy and 

Mr. Ronald Simmons, Office of the Chief Scientist 

and Technical Advisor for Human Factors, AAR100. Drs. Robert E. Blanchard and Kevin W. 

Williams served jointly in the role of contracting 

officer's technical representative for FAA Civil 

Aeromedical Institute. 

,..... 
.. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... I 

METHOD ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Subjects ................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Apparatus .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Procedure .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Analyses ................................................................................................................................................ 6 

RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Trials to Criterion ................................................................................................................................ 7 

Time to Complete Flight Lesson ....................................................................................................... II 

Course Completion Time .................................................................................................................. 14 

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 15 

Aviation 130 ....................................................................................................................................... 15 

Aviation 140 ....................................................................................................................................... 16 

Substitution of the PCATD for Instrument Flight Hours ............................................................... 17 

SUMMAR¥ ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ I8 

v 
.• 

TRANSFER OF TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSONAL 

COMPUTER-BASED AVIATION TRAINING DEVICES 

INTRODUCTION 

The resources required for flight training impose a 

substantial burden on the aviation community. The 

potential to reduce costs through the use of inexpensive but effective training devices has added an incentive for flight training departments to conduct more 

training with ground-based flight training devices. 

The cost of currently certified, generic flight training 

devices is out of reach of many flight .students and 

flight schools, but personal computer-based aviation 

training devices (PCATDs) offer a low-cost alternative for instruction of flight tasks. Recently, there has 

been increased demand from developers, from industry, and from training organizations to use PCATDs 

in flight training. A summary of a joint industryFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) conference 

concerned with the development and use ofPCATDs 

documents this emphasis (Williams, 1994). An expense 

of less than $10,000 will provide a PCATD including 

software, computer hardware, and a flight-control system. This is within reach of most flight schools. 

PCATDs have generated considerable enthusiasm 

within the aviation industry (Falun, 1992; Lert, 1990; 

Peterson, 1993). Hampton, Moroney, Kirton, and 

Biers (1994) reported that students trained in a PCA TD 

performed as well on instrument procedures in the 

airplane as those students trained in a Frasca 141. 

Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence that PCA TD 

training will transfer effectively to an airplane across 

a broad range of flight tasks. The fidelity ofPCATDs 

is low in areas normally thought to be important: 

representation of displays, switches, and out-of-cockpit scenes; with control loading and flight dynamics 

being the most obvious. In addition, PCATDs accept 

control inputs from low-fidelity devices that range 

from computer keyboards, single joysticks, and yoke/ 

pedal combinations of varying quality (Peterson, 1993). 

I 

There is evidence of positive transfer ofPCATDs to 

the airplane (Phillips, Hulin, & Lamermayer, 1993; 

Ortiz, 1993, 1994; Dennis, 1994), although the empirical evaluations have been limited in scope. Experimental data bearing on issues of skill transfer are 

equivocal, and there is no means of ascertaining the 

training effectiveness of a PCA TD without an empirical test of its impact on transfer of skills to flight 

performance. Specifically, it is necessary to determine 

the types of flight tasks that can be trained effectively 

in the PCATD and the level of proficiency obtained 

by practice with a PCATD. Analytical evaluation of 

PCA TDs indicates that they provide many of the 

features required for standard instrument flight maneuvers. Instrument training in a PCATD may result 

in substantial transfer for instrument flight tasks. 

To evaluate transfer of training, the performance of 

a group of subjects trained in a flight training device, 

and later trained to criterion in an aircraft, is compared with the performance of a control group of 

subjects who have been trained only in the airplane. A 

conventional measure of transfer of training has been 

percent transfer, which is known to be a negativelyaccelerated function. Roscoe (1971) and Roscoe and 

Williges (1980) correctly pointed out that percent 

transfer fails to consider the amount of practice in the 

flight training device in determining the training 

effectiveness of the device. The transfer effectiveness 

ratio (TER), a negatively-decelerated function, has 

been used to determine the ratio of the trials/rime in 

the airplane saved by the training device group, compared with the airplane group, as a function of the 

number of trials/time in the training device (Williams 

& Flexman, 1949; Roscoe, 1971). 

Many of the applied research studies on flight 

training effectiveness have examined the effect of 

specific simulator features on specific tasks (e.g., 

Lintern, Roscoe, Koonce & Segal, 1990; Taylor, 
Lintern, Koonce, Kaiser, & Morrison, 1991). The 

first transfer of training evaluations of PCATDs 

(Phillips et al., 1993; Ortiz, 1993, 1994; Dennis, 

1994) have followed that pattern. Only a few experiments have examined the impact of a single device on 

a whole course (e.g., Povenmire & Roscoe, 1971, 

1973). Transfer studies conducted in 1949/50, but 

first reported by Flexman, Roscoe, Williams, and 

Williges (1972), used percent transfer and transfer 

effectiveness ratios in terms of errors, time to critep 

rion, and trials to criterion to assess a comprehensive 

set of contact and instrument flight tasks. The Flexman 

et al. (1972) study remains the most definitive study 

of the effectiveness of flight training devices for a total 

flight course. It described a research plan that was 

implemented in the current evaluation ofPCATDs. 

Williams and Blanchard (1995), proposed that 

task analysis be used as a basis for predicting transfer 

effectiveness. The appropriate task analysis would 

identify the learning requirements for a particular 

flight task, and these requirements would then be 

organized in terms of common features. An analysis of 

the PCATD would determine which learning requirements could be supported by that device and, consequently, which flight tasks could be taught in the 

PCATD. They proposed that the initial validation of 

the guidelines would be accomplished through the 

collection of performance data from FAR Part 141 

schools using PCA TDs. The purpose of the present 

study is to determine the extent to which a PCATD 

can be used to develop specific instrument skills that 

are taught in instrument flight training and to measure transfer of these skills to the aircraft. The approach taken in this study is to use a representative 

PCA TD to teach instrument tasks in the two-semester 

instrument training course at the University of Illinois Institute of Aviation. 

Our training course outline for the PCATD emphasized instruction of specific maneuvers in order to 

determine if the PCATD was an effective training 

device for a variety of instrument tasks. For each flight 

lesson, which was programmed to be accomplished in 

one week, one or more instrument tasks were introduced and/or reviewed. Progression to the next flight 

lesson, however, required that the student meet the 

2 

objectives in that flight lesson. Advancement to the 

next flight lesson, therefore, was based on demonstrated proficiency on the respective instrument tasks. 

For the PCA TD group, proficiency had to be demonstrated in the PCATD prior to flying the flight lesson 

in the airplane. The PCA TD group was required to 

demonstrate their proficiency in the airplane on a 

respective flight lesson prior to attempting the next 

flight lesson. The Airplane group received all of their 

instrument training in the airplane but also had to 

demonstrate proficiency in the airplane on each flight 

lesson prior to advancing to the next flight lesson. The 

effectiveness of the PCATD in teaching specific instrument tasks in a flight lesson was measured by 

comparing the trials required for the PCA TD group 

and the Airplane group to reach proficiency in the 

airplane on specific instrument tasks. Subsequently, 

the percent transfer and TERfor trials were computed 

for each instrument task. The effectiveness of using 

the PCATD to reach proficiency for a particular flight 

lesson was measured by comparing the time required 

for the PCA TO group and the Airplane group to 

complete the objectives of the flight lesson in the 

airplane. Subsequently, the percent transfer and TER 

for time to complete the lesson were computed. 

Early in training, the emphasis was on basic control 

skills with reference to instruments. Instruction then 

progressed through increasingly challenging exercises 

with emphasis on instrument holding patterns, instrument approaches, and preparation for cross-country flights. In each flight lesson, transfer on specific 

instrument tasks was evaluated; transfer relative to 

logged airplane time to satisfy the completion standards for that lesson was also assessed. In many lessons, the logged time to satisfy completion standards 

represents student progress on more than just the tasks 

tested in the lesson. Any discrepancy between trials to 

proficiency and time to proficiency may reflect differential progress with relation to the rated instrument 

tasks and those other lesson objectives. 

An earlier interim report by Taylor, Lintern, and 

Hulin (1995) provided the results of the first year's work. 

This was also reported by Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, 

Emanuel, Phillips, and Talleur (1995), and Taylor, 

Lintern, Hulin, Talleur, Phillips, and Emanuel (1996). 
METHOD 

Subjects 

One-hundred forty-four subjects were tested in a 

transfer of training design. These subjects were enrolled in instrument flight instruction at the University ofillinois. A total of 117 subjects were enrolled in 

basic instrument instruction (Aviation 130); 40 in the 

Fall. 1994 semester; 17 in the Spring, 1995 semester; 

12 in the Summer, 1995 semester; 37 in the Fall, 1995 

semester; and II in the Spring, 1996 semester. Ten of 

the subjects enrolled in Aviation 130 in the Fall 1995 

received training in an integrated curriculum, which 

used both a PCATD and a Frasca 140 training device. 

The results of this preliminaty study are reported by 

Taylor, Lin tern, Hulin, Talleur, Emanuel, and Phillips 

(1996a). The remaining 27 students were enrolled in 

the advanced instruments course (Aviation 140) in 

the Fall, 1994 semester. Seventy-seven of the students 

who completed Aviation 130 completed the experiment as Aviation 140 students. The subjects were 

restricted to students between 18 and 30 years old who 

had taken their private pilot training at the University 

of Illinois or had completed a familiarization course 

and were recommended for Aviation 130. 

Subjects were randomly assigned to the PCATD 

group and the Airplane group, with the constraint 

that male and female students were distributed evenly 

over the two groups. Students in the PCATD group 

were taught specific instrument tasks on the PCATD 

to a specified criterion and were then transferred to 

the aircraft, where they were required to perform these 

tasks again to the same criterion. Comparisons were 

made with a Control group that had received similar 

training only in an airplane. Students from both 

groups were required to achieve criterion on those 

tasks in the airplane prior to moving to the next flight 

lesson. The Fall 1994 Aviation 140 data set will be 

presented separately, since these students had no previous experience with PCATDs, while the remaining 

Aviation 140 students in the PCATD group had 

received basic instrument training in the PCATD. Of 

the 92 subjects who completed Aviation 130, 45 

subjects were assigned to the Airplane group, and 47 

3 

subjects were assigned to the PCATD group. Of these 

92 subjects, 74 subjects completed Aviation 140; 36 

subjects were assigned the Airplane group, and 38 

were assigned to the PCA TD group. 

Apparatus 

A representative PCA TD system that would be 

affordable for the majorityofFARPart 141- approved 

schools was assembled from commercially available, 

state-of-the-art but proven PCATD technology. The 

choice of PCATD components was established in a 

discussion with the Civil Aeromedical Institute's 

Human Factors Research group on July 22, 1994. 

Figure I shows the system, based on the criteria of 

representativeness, capability, and cost, which included MDM FS I 00 software, modified for Beech craft 

Sundowner performance characteristics, an IBM-compatible Pentium, 60MHz computer, an instructor 

station map display, flight controls by Precision Flight 

Controls (see Figure 2), and a 20-inch monitor and 

hood. The 20-inch monitor permitted display of 6 

standard 3.0-inch instruments. The system is described in more detail in Appendix I of the University 

of Illinois contract report (Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, 

Talleur, Emanuel & Phillips, 1996b). The training 

aircraft used were Beechcraft Sports/Sundowners, 

which have a single-engine, fixed-pitch propeller, and 

fixed Iandin g gear. 

Procedure 

Instrument training at the University of Illinois is 

conducted in a two-semester sequence. Basic instrument procedures emphasizing aircraft control, instrument departure, enroute and approach procedures are 

taught during the first semester in Aviation 130; 

remaining instrument skills are taught during the 

second semester in Aviation 140 (Table 1). The objective of the courses is to develop the basic skills necessary for the control and accurate maneuvering of an 

airplane solely by reference to flight instruments; 

specifically, the skills necessatyto perform IFR flight, 

including departure, enroute, and arrival procedures. 

During each semester, the students are scheduled for 

45 hours oflecture (ground school) and 15 flight lessons, 

each programmed for one week. An experimental 
___,;.,. .· ._. -----· 

Figure 1. Student flight console on left with 20" screen. Avionics console to 

right of student console. Tower computer controls FS100 software for 

simulation. Computer on right of desk controls instructor's station. 

Figure 2. More detailed view of student flight console with rudder pedal 

assembly. Also shows avionics console to right. 

4 
Table 1. Summary of Training Course Outlines for Aviation 130, the First Semester Instrument 

Rating Course, and Aviation 140, the Second Semester Instrument Rating Course. 

Lesson' 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

Content 

Review private pilot maneuvers 

VFR cross-country flight review 

Two solo cross-country flights 

Introduce basic instrument flight skills 

Review basic instrument flight skills, Introduce attitude instrument flight wtth distractions 

Introduce VOR use and orientation, VOR radial intersection holding patterns 

Introduce ILS, VOR, and LOC BC instrument approach procedures, procedure turns, radar 

vectoring, review VOR tracking 

Introduce OME Arcs, review holding patterns and instrument approaches 

Introduce instrument cross-country flight procedures 

Review holding patterns and instrument approach procedures 

Review holding patterns and instrument approach procedures 

Review instrument cross-country flight procedures 

Review holding patterns and instrument approach procedures 

Review all content areas, mock stage check with a different instructor 

Review and stage check 

Review private pilot maneuvers, review basic instrument flying skills, solo cross-country flight 

Review basic instrument flying skills 

Review OME Arcs, ILS, VOR, and LOC BC approaches 

Introduce NOB tracking, NOB holding patterns, NOB instrument approaches 

Introduce localizer and localizer back course holding patterns, review NOB skills 

Introduce partial panel basic attitude instrument flying skills, review instrument approaches 

Introduce partial panel instrument approaches and holding patterns 

Review instrument cross-country flying skills and procedures 

Review instrument cross-country flying skills and procedures 

Review instrument cross-country flying skills and procedures, introduce night procedures 

250 nm IFR cross-country flight, also a review flight 

Review instrument cross-country flying skills and procedures 

Mock stage check with a different instructor 

Review for instrument stage check 

Stage check 

'Flight Lessons 1-30 are allocated to Aviation 101 and 120, which lead to Private Pilot Certification. 

5 
~-· -·· 

curriculum for both the PCA TD group and the Airplane group (control) was developed (Emanuel, Taylor, Hulin, Lintern, Phillips, & Talleur, 1995). 

For the PCA TD group, all new maneuvers and 

procedures were introduced and trained to proficiency in a PCATD prior to training and skill validation in the aircraft. For the Airplane group, all new 

maneuvers were introduced and trained to proficiency in the airplane. Tasks within a flight lesson, 

trained in the PCATD, were trained or tested for 

proficiency in the airplane before proceeding to the 

next flight lesson. Subjects in the Airplane group were 

trained on the same tasks but in the airplane only. 

Instructors rated student performances on designated flight tasks in both the PCATD and the aircraft. 

For performance assessment in the aircraft, each instructor used a rating scale developed for each flight 

lesson to record whether the student met the completion standards during the execution of the designated 

flight tasks. Instructors also recorded trials to criterion for specific tasks and flight time to compl.:!te 

flight lessons. The rating scales used in the project 

were modeled on those that have been used in previous flight research at the University oflllinois, and are 

described in detail in an earlier paper (Phillips, Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, Emanuel, & Talleur, 1995). Inter-rater reliabilities of0.80 on these types of scales are 

typically achieved (Koonce, 1979). The rating scales 

were used for both the PCA TD group and for the 

Airplane group. For the PCA TD group, two identical 

rating scales were developed for each flight lesson (or 

a series of related flightlessons): one for training in the 

PCATD and one for training in the aircraft after 

reaching criterion in the PCATD. An identical rating 

scale was used for each flight lesson for the Airplane 

group. The rating scales can be found in Appendix 2 

of Taylor et al. (1996b). 

The guiding principles behind the development 

and scoring of these maneuver-assessment scales were 

to attempt to digitize the observing and scoring tasks 

of the instructor/observers. Maneuvers were divided 

into time segments, and the instructors were asked to 

record specific flight parameters, say, within± 100 feet 

of the assigned altitude or exceeding this range; within 

±5• of assigned heading or outside this range. By 

6 

breaking up the flight maneuvers into many parameters whose values define the quality of the maneuver, 

taking digitized assessments at specified times, and 

summing these digitized assessments across many 

flight parameters and times, the overall quality of the 

total maneuver and flight can be captured very accurately. In addition, the workload on the flight instructors was significantly reduced. They only had to 

glance at one or two instruments at specified times 

and note whether the student was within the range 

printed on their scoring sheets. By reducing the implicit analogue taSk from integrating a. student's performance on all parameters throughout a maneuver 

and attempting to summarize the overall quality of 

their performance to recording a small number of 

digitized scores, we were able to maintain flight safety 

standards while recording performance levels. 

Experienced flight instructors at the University of 

Illinois served as both flight instructors and experimenters in the project. The instructors were trained 

on delivety of the instructional curriculum and on the 

use of the rating scales. Three check pilots, who were 

uninformed as to the allocation of students to training 

conditions, were used for the stage checks. 

Analyses 

Percent transfer and transfer effectiveness ratios 

(TERs) were computed for each flight lesson using the 

following equations: 

Yc-Yx 

..::..:.__:..;;. x 100 = Percent Transfer 

Yc 

Yc-Yx 

= Transfer Effectiveness Ratio 

X 

Where: Y, = Time/Trials in airplane by Airplane 

group 

Yx = Time/Trials in airplane by PCATD 

group 

Y, = Time/Trials in airplane by PCA TD 

group 

Percent Transfer measures the difference between 

the airplane and the PCA TD groups in terms of trials/ 

time to reach criterion in the airplane, expressed as a 

percent. A positive percent transfer favors the PCATD 
Table 2. Instrument tasks in Aviation 130 and Aviation 140 for which percent transfer and TERs 

for mean trials to criterion and mean time to complete the flight lesson were calculated. 

Aviation 130 

SteepTums 

Intersection Holds 

Instrument Landing System (JLS) Approach 

Localizer Back Course (LOC BC) Approach 

Visual Omni Range (VOR) Approach* 

Distance Measuring Equipment Arc Approach 

(DME Arc) 

Aviation 140 

Intersection Holds 

I LS Approaches 

VOR Approaches 

NOB Holds 

NDB Approaches 

LOC BC Holds 

JLS Holds 

LOC BC Approaches 

Holding Patterns 

Flight Lesson•• 

34/35 

36, 40-43, 42 

37,38,39,40-43,42 

37, 39, 40-43 

38, 40-43, 42 

38 

48 

48,51,52,53,56,57 

48,51,52,53,56,57 

49,50 

49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56 

50 

50 

52 

52,53,54,55,56,57 

*VOR approaches were first introduced in Flight Lesson 37, but instructions for scoring this exercise were 

inadvertently omitted from the score sheet. 

**See Table 1 for the lesson descriptions for the respective flight lessons. 

group, and a negative percent transfer favors the 

Airplane group. Percent Transfer does not consider 

the amount of prior training in the PCATD by the 

PCATD group. Transfer effectiveness ratio (TER) 

measures the difference between the airplane and the 

PCATD groups in terms of trials/time to reach criterion in the airplane, as a function of the amount of 

prior training in the PCA TD by the PCA TD group, 

i.e., TER measures the effectiveness of the PCA TD in 

training specific instrument tasks. 

In all instrument tasks in Aviation 130 and Aviation 140, students were trained to proficiency in the 

PCATD and then trained and tested in the airplane. 

Table 2 shows the instrument tasks trained in Aviation 130 and Aviation 140, for which mean percent 

transfer and mean transfer effectiveness ratios (TERs) 

were computed from mean trials to criterion and from 

mean time to complete the flight lesson. 

7 

RESULTS 

Mean percent transfer and mean transfer effective~ 

ness ratios (TERs) are reported for two dependent 

measures: number of trials to criterion for selected 

instrument tasks (trials), and airplane time required in 

a flight lesson for students to reach the completion 

standards (time). In addition, means and variances of 

Trials to Criterion 

The mean trials used to compute percent transfer 

and TERs for trials on instrument tasks trained in 

Aviation 130 are shown in Table 3. It is evident from 

this table that the PCA TD was more effective for 

introduction of tasks than for their review. For most 

tasks, positive transfer was found in the flight lesson 

during which the tasks were introduced. With steep 

turns, for example, the Airplane group (N=54) required a mean o£3.83 airplane trials to reach criterion, 
while the PCATD group (N=53) required a mean of 

3.40 airplane trials after a mean of3.28 prior trials in 

the PCATD. The percent transfer was 11.2%, and the 

transfer effectiveness ratio (TER) was 0.13. Therefore 

for this task, within the limit of the number of trials 

administered, each trial in the PCATD saved 0.13 

trials in the airplane. The difference between the 

means of 0.43 trials as tested by a t-test (two tailed) 

was nonsignificant. For two tasks, ILS approach and 

VOR approach, the percent transfer was 33.3% (ILS, 

Flight Lesson 37) and 20.4% (VOR, Flight Lesson 

38). The TERs for these two tasks were 0.28 (ILS, 

Flight Lesson 37) and 0.25 (VOR, Flight Lesson 38). 

For each of the tasks, each prior training trial in the 

PCATD saved one fourth or more trials in the airplane. For the ILS task (Flight Lesson 37), the PCATD 

group required 1.50 mean trials to reach criterion in 

the airplane, compared with 2.25 mean trials for the 

Airplane group. The difference between the means of 

0.75 trials was significant: 1(86) = 4.18, 12 < 0.001 

(two-tailed). 

For the VOR task (Flight Lesson 38), the PCATD 

group required 1.33 mean trials to reach criterion, 

compared with 1.67 for the Airplane group. The 

difference between the means of 0.34 trials was significant: 1(93) = 2.37, 12 < 0.02 (two-tailed). For 

localizer, back course (LOC BC) (Flight Lesson 37) 

and the DME/Arc (Flight Lesson 38) approaches, the 

transfers were 17.5% and 18.1 o/o, respectively. The 

TERs for these 2 tasks were 0.17 (LOC BC) and 0.20 

(DME/Arc). For the LOC BC (Flight Lesson 37), the 

PCA TD group required 1.46 mean trials to reach 

criterion compared with 1. 77 for the Airplane group. 

The difference of0.31 trials was not significant: t(97) 

= 1.73, 12 < 0.09 (two-tailed). Similarly, the mean 

trials to criterion on the DME/ Arc task (Flight Lesson 

38) was 1.58 for the PCA TD group compared with 

1.93 for the Airplane group. The difference between 

the means of 0.35 trials was not significant: 1(98) = 

1.84,12 < 0.07 (two-tailed). 

Additional training was given on each task after the 

flight lesson in which a task was introduced. For 

example, the ILS approach and the LOC BC approach 

were introduced in Flight Lesson 37. Additional training was conducted on the ILS in Flight Lesson 38 and 

on the LOC BC approach in Flight Lesson 39. As seen 

8 

in Table 3, the mean number of uials to reach proficiency in the airplane for the Airplane group and the 

PCATD group was substantially smaller for Flight 

Lessons 38 and 39 compared with Flight Lesson 37, as 

was the mean number of trials to reach proficiency in 

the PCATD. For example, for the ILS task in Flight 

Lesson 37, the Airplane and the PCATD groups 

required 2.25 and 1.5 trials, respectively, to reach 

proficiency in the airplane after 2. 70 prior trials in the 

PCATD by the PCA TD group. Review of the ILS in 

Flight Lesson 38, however, indicates that the Airplane 

and PCATD groups required only 1.36 and 1.20 

trials, respectively, to reach proficiency in the airplane 

after 1.33 prior trials in the PCATD by the PCATD 

group. The difference between the means was not 

significant. For Flight Lessons 38 and 39, the effectiveness of the prior training in the PCATD, as defined by percent transfer and the TER, was also 

reduced. For example, for the ILS task, the percent 

transfer was 33.3% in Flight lesson 37 and 11.8% in 

Flight Lesson 38; the TER was 0.28 in Flight Lesson 

37 and 0.12 in Flight Lesson 38. 

The means used to compute percent transfer and 

TERs for instrument tasks trained in Aviation 140 

after the students had completed the experimental 

program in Aviation 130 are shown in Table 4. Flight 

Lesson 48 was a review ofiLS and VOR tasks that had 

been introduced and reviewed extensively during the 

previous semester in Aviation 130. The percent transfer for ILS was 18.7% and the TER was 0.23. The 

mean trials to reach criterion for the ILS task in Flight 

Lesson 48 was 1.26 mean trials for the PCATD group 

and 1.55 mean trials for the Airplane group. The 

difference between the means of 0.29 trials was not 

significant:1(57) = 1.60,12 < 0.12 (two-tailed). For the 

VOR, the percent transfer was 14.6% and the TER 

was 0.17. For the VOR task in Flight Lesson 48, the 

PCATD group required 1.05 mean trials to reach 

criterion compared with 1.23 trials for the Airplane 

group. The difference between the means of0.18 trials 

was significant: t(50) = 2.20, 12 < 0.03 (two-tailed). 

Non Directional Beacon (NDB) holds and approaches were introduced in Flight Lesson 49. Positive transfer was found for the mean trials to proficiency 

for the NDB holds and the NDB approaches in that 

lesson. The percent transfer for NOB holds and 
Table 3. Mean trials in the airplane for the Airplane group (Yc) and the PCATD group (Yx). and the 

mean trials in the PCATD (X), percent transfer and training effectiveness ratios (TEAs) for 

instrument tasks trained in Aviation 130. Levels of statistical significances of differences between 

Yc and Yx are shown. 

Percent 

Task Grou11 Transfer TER 

Yc Yx X 

Steep Turns (Fit Lessons 34/35) 3.83 3.40 3.28 ns 11.2% 0.13 

lnt Hold (Fit Lesson 36)** 

ILS (Fit Lesson 37) 2.25 1.50 2.70 <0.001 33.3% 0.28 

LOC BC (Fit Lesson 37) 1.77 1.46 1.81 <0.09 17.5% 0.17 

VOR (Fit Lesson 38) 1.67 1.33 1.38 <0.02 20.4% 0.25 

ILS (Fit Lesson 38)* 1.36 1.20 1.33 ns 11.8% 0.12 

DME/Arc (Fit Lesson 38) 1.93 1.58 1.76 <0.07 18.1% 0.20 

ILS (Fit Lesson 39)* 1.40 1.50 1.29 ns 7.9% 0.10 

LOC BC (Fit Lesson 39)" 1.51 1.47 1.49 ns 2.7% 0.03 

ILS (Fit Lessons 40,41 ,43)* 2.94 3.10 2.69 ns 5.4% 0.06 

LOC BC (Fit Lessons 40,41 ,43)* 1.87 1.70 1.62 ns 4.9% 0.10 

VOR (Fit Lessons 40,41 ,43)* 3.33 3.30 2.47 ns 1.0% O.ot 

ILS (Fit Lesson 42)* 1.39 1.59 1.44 ns -3.6% -0.03 

VOR (Fit Lesson 42)* 1.13 1.06 1.16 ns -2.3% -0.03 

*Review tasks. 

•• An incorrect definition of a hold trial precluded meaningful data collection. 

approach was 19.7% and 21.0%, respectively, and the 

TERs were 0.16 and 0.17, respectively. For the NOB 

holds task, the PCATO group required 1.18 mean 

trials; the Airplane group required 1.47 trials to reach 

criterion. The difference of0.29 trials was not significant:!(57) = 1.93,~ < 0.06 (two-tailed). The PCATO 

group required 1.54 NOB approach trials to reach 

criterion compared with 1.95 mean approach trials 

for the Airplane group. The difference between the 

means was significant: !(67) = 2.29, ~ < 0.03 (twotailed). The review of NOB holds and approaches in 

the PCATO during Flight Lesson 50 also produced 

positive transfer. The percent transfer for NOB holds 

was 15.8%, and the TER was 0.16. These scores were 

about the same as the percent transfer and TER for 

holds when previously introduced in Flight Lesson 

9 

49. In Flight Lesson 50, the PCATO group required 

1.12 hold trials to reach criterion compared with 1.33 

trials for the Airplane group. The difference between 

the means was significanq(59) = 2.05,12 < 0.05 (twotailed). For review of NOB Approaches in Flight 

Lesson 50, the percent transfer was 28.1 o/o and the 

TER was 0.39, both of which were larger than the 

values found for Flight Lesson 49 when NOB approaches were introduced. For the NOB approach 

task in Flight Lesson 50, the PCATO group required 

1.18 mean trials to reach criterion compared with 

1.64 mean trials for the Airplane group. The difference between the means of 0.46 was significant, !(54) 

= 2.70, ~ < 0.01 (two-tailed). The LOC BC holds in 

Flight Lesson 50 also showed a significant amount of 

transfer. Percent transfer was 26.5% and the TER was 
Table 4. Mean trials in the airplane for the Airplane group (Yc) and the PCATD group (Yx). mean 

trials in the PCATD (X), percent transfer and training effectiveness ratios (TEAs), for selected 

instrument tasks trained in Aviation 140 after the students completed experimental training in 

Aviation 130. Levels of statistical significances of differences between Y c and Y x are shown. 

Percent 

Task Groug I! Transfer TEA 

Yc Yx X 

ILS (Fit Lesson 48) 1.55 1.26 1.26 ns 18.7% 0.23 

VOR (Fit Lesson 48) 1.23 1.05 1.05 <0.03 14.6% 0.17 

NOB Holds (Fit Lesson 49) 1.47 1.18 1.87 <0.06 19.7% 0.16 

NOB Approach (Fit Lesson 49) 1.95 1.54 2.36 <0.03 21.0% 0.17 

NOB Holds (Fit Lesson 50) 1.33 1.12 1.33 <0.05 15.8% 0.16 

NOB Approach (Fit Lesson 50) 1.64 1.18 1.18 <0.01 28.1% 0.39 

LOC BC Holds (Fit Lesson 50) 1.47 1.08 1.29 <0.03 26.5% 0.30 

ILS Holds (Fit Lesson 50) 1.14 1.11 1.14 ns 2.6% 0.03 

ILS (Fit Lesson 51)* 1.10 1.03 1.20 ns 6.4% 0.06 

NOB (Fit Lesson 51)* 1.15 1.13 1.21 ns 1.7% 0.02 

VOR (Fit Lesson 51)* 1.10 1.00 1.10 ns 9.1% 0.09 

ILS (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.09 1.22 1.16 ·ns ·11.9% -0.11 

VOR (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.17 1.29 1.51 ns -13.2% -0.10 

NOB (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.14 1.19 1.73 ns -1.7% -0.01 

LOC BC (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.15 1.10 1.19 ns 4.4% 0.04 

ILS (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.29 1.14 1.18 ns 11.6% 0.13 

VOR (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.06 1.00 1.12 ns 5.1% 0.05 

NOB (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.06 1.06 1.07 ns 0.0% 0.00 

Holds (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.07 1.14 1.04 ns -6.5% -0.07 

NOB (Fit Lesson 54)* 1.45 1.34 1.21 ns 7.6% 0.09 

Holds (Fit Lesson 54)* 1.23 1.03 1.12 ns 16.3% 0.18 

NOB (Fit Lesson 55)* 1.62 1.56 1.61 ns 3.7% 0.04 

Holds (Fit Lesson 55)* 1.11 1.24 1.09 ns -11.7% -0.12 

ILS (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.14 1.11 1.17 ns 2.6% 0.03 

VOR (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.22 1.06 1.16 ns 4.9% 0.06 

Holds (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.22 1.11 1.20 ns 9.0% 0.09 

ILS (Fit Lesson 57)* 1.14 1.14 1.03 ns 0.0% 0.00 

VOR (Fit Lesson 57)* 1.14 1.14 1.03 ns 0.0% 0.00 

Holds (Fit Lesson 57)* 1.04 1.18 1.12 ns -13.5% -0.13 

• Review tasks. 

10 
0.30, which indicates that almost one-third of a trial 

was saved in the Airplane for the PCATD group for 

each prior trial in the PCATD. For the LOC BC task 

in Flight Lesson 50, the PCATD group required 1.08 

mean trials to reach criterion, compared with 1.47 

mean trials for the Airplane group. The difference 

between the means of0.39 trials was significant:l{40) 

= 2.19, I! < 0.03 (two-tailed). None of the tasks 

reviewed in the remaining fight lessons indicated 

significant transfer. 

The means used to com pure percent transfer and 

TERs for instrument tasks trained in Aviation !40 in 

theFall1994 are shown in Table S.As in Aviation 130 

and the combined Aviation !40 data in Table 4, the 

introduction of tasks generally resulted in better transfer than review of tasks. For example, non directional 

beacon {NDB) holds and approaches were introduced 

in Flight Lesson 49. High positive transfer was found 

for the mean trials to proficiency for NDB holds and 

NDB approaches in that lesson. The percent transfer 

was 32.5% and 42.8%, respectively, and the TERs 

were 0.35 (NDB holds) and 0.40 (NDB approach). 

Each NDB hold trial and each NDB approach trial in 

the PCATD saved over one-third of a hold or approach trial in the airplane. For the students in Aviation 140 trained in the Fall 1996, the transfer 

effectiveness for both NDB holds and NDB approaches 

for the PCATD group was lower in Flight Lesson 50 

than for Flight Lesson 49, when NDB holds and 

approaches were introduced. An NDB hold trial in 

the PCA TD saved approximately one-tenth of a trial 

in the airplane, while an NDB approach trial in the 

PCATD group produced no savings. 

Time to Complete Flight Lesson 

The mean times to complete the flight lessons in 

Aviation 130 are shown in Table 6, together with 

associated values of percent transfer and the TERs. 

Transfer of training was substantial for many lessons. 

Positive transfer observed ranged from 22.7% transfer 

for Flight Lesson 38 {review of VOR and ILS and 

introduction of DME Arc) to 37.5% transfer for 

Flight Lessons 34/35 {introduction of steep turns). 

Positive TERs ranged from 0.23 for Flight Lesson 36 

{intersection holds) to 0.50 for Flight Lessons 34/35 

(introduction to steep turns). For Flight Lessons 34/ 

II 

35, the PCATD group saved one-half hour in the 

airplane for each prior hour in the PCATD. For Flight 

Lessons 34/35 {introduction of steep turns), the mean 

time for the flight lesson for the PCATD group was 

0.95 mean hours compared with 1.52 mean hours for 

the Airplane group; the difference between the mean 

of0.57 hours was significant: !(78) = 5.0 I, I!< 0.001 

{two-tailed). For Flight Lesson 37 (ILS and LOC BC 

approaches), the percent transfer was 27.5 and the 

TER was 0.32, which indicated that the PCATD 

group saved almost one-third of an hour in the airplane for each prior hour in the PCATD. For Flight 

Lesson 37 (ILS and LOC BC approaches), the mean 

time for the PCATD group to complete the flight 

lesson was 1.74 mean hours compared with 2.40 mean 

hours for the Airplane group. The difference between 

the means of0.68 hours was significant: !(94) = 3.32, 

I!< 0.00 I (two-tailed). For Flight Lesson 36, intersection holds, the PCATD group saved almost onefourth hour in the airplane for each prior hour in the 

PCATD. The PCATD group required 1.34 mean 

hours to complete Flight Lesson 36 (intersection 

holds), compared with 1.81 hours for the Airplane 

group. The difference between the means of 0.47 

hours was significant: 1(99) = 2.89, I!< 0.001 (tworailed). For Flight Lesson 38 (reviewofVOR and ILS, 

and Introduction to DME Arc) the percent transfer 

was 22.7 and the TER was 0.30. The PCATD group 

required 1.53 mean hours to complete this flight 

lesson, compared with 1.98 mean hours for the Airplane group. The difference between the means of0.45 

was significant: 1(85) = 2.82, jl < O.Ql (two-tailed). 

The times to complete Aviation 140 flight lessons 

for subjects who had completed the experimental 

curriculum in Aviation 130 are shown in Table 7, 

together with the associated percent-transfers and 

TERs. Transfer of training, as measured by the time to 

complete the flight lesson, was substantial for the 

introduction of NDB holds and approaches (Flight 

Lesson 49) and for their first review (Flight Lesson 

50). The percent transfer was 26.4% and 19.2%, 

respectively, for Flight Lesson 49 and 50. The TERs 

were 0.22 and 0.24 respectively for Flight Lesson 49 

and 50, which indicated for both of these lessons prior 

training on NDB holds and approaches in the PCATD 

saved almost one-fourth of an hour in the airplane. 
-r---------------------------------._a. 

Table 5. Mean trials in the airplane for the Airplane only group (Y c) and the PCATD group (Y xl and 

the mean trials in the PCATD (X), and percent transfer and training effectiveness ratios (TEAs), 

for instrument tasks trained in Aviation 140 (Fall 1994 data). 

Percent 

Task Groug Transfer TEA 

Yc Yx X 

Holds (Fit Lesson 48)* 1.69 1.93 2.43 -14.2% -0.10 

ILS (Fit Lesson 48)* 2.23 2.00 2.64 10.3% 0.09 

VOR (Fit Lesson 48)* 2.31 1.79 1.79 22.5% 0.29 

NDB Holds (Fit Lesson 49) 1.69 1.14 1.57 32.5% 0.35 

NDB Approach (Fit Lesson 49) 2.62 1.50 2.79 42.8% 0.40 

NDB Holds (Fit Lesson 50)* 1.38 1.27 1.00 8.0% 0.11 

NDB Approach (Fit Lesson 50)* 1.25 1.33 1.08 -6.4% -0.07 

LOC BC Holds (Fit Lesson 50) 1.38 1.31 1.07 5.1% 0.07 

ILS Holds (Fit Lesson 50) 1.15 1.08 1.08 6.1% 0.06 

ILS (Fit Lesson 51)* 1.00 1.22 1.79 -22.0% -0.12 

VOR (Fit Lesson 51)* 1.09 1.08 1.15 0.9% 0.01 

NDB (Fit Lesson 51)* 1.50 1.00 2.00 33.3% 0.25 

ILS (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.25 1.27 1.43 -1.6% -0.01 

VOR (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.17 1.14 1.42 2.6% 0.02 

NDB (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.62 1.08 2.10 33.3% 0.26 

LOC BC (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.25 1.00 1.29 20.0% 0.19 

Holds (Fit Lesson 52)* 1.08 1.00 1.50 7.4% 0.05 

ILS (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.31 1.21 1.50 7.6% 0.07 

VOR (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.10 1.15 1.00 -4.6% -0.05 

NDB (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.00 1.14 1.20 -14.0% -0.12 

Holds (Fit Lesson 53)* 1.67 1.00 1.33 40.1% 0.50 

NDB (Fit Lesson 54)* 1.17 1.29 1.50 -10.3% -0.08 

Holds (Fit Lesson 54)* 1.10 1.08 1.00 1.8% 0.02 

NDB (Fit Lesson 55)* 1.75 1.50 1.93 14.3% 0.13 

Holds (Fit Lesson 55)* 1.44 1.27 1.15 11.8% 0.15 

ILS (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.00 1.14 1.07 -14.0% -0.13 

VOR (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.17 1.29 1.14 -12.0% -0.11 

NDB (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.07 

Holds (Fit Lesson 56)* 1.00 1.25 1.29 -25.0% -0.19 

ILS (Fit Lesson 57)* 1.00 1.07 1.14 -7.0% -0.06 

VOR (Fit Lesson 57)* 1.25 1.29 1.17 -3.2% -0.03 

Holds (Fit Lesson 57)* 1.17 1.13 1.22 3.4% -0.03 

*Review tasks. 

12 
Table 6. Mean time (in hours} to complete the flight lesson for V0 , Y., and X, and percent transfer 

and TERs for Aviation 130 (Combined data for study). Levels of statistical significances of 

differences between Yc and Yx are shown. 

Percent 

Flight Lesson Groug Transfer TEA 

•, Yc Yx X 

34/35 (Steep Turns, N=54 and 53) 1.52 0.95 1.13 <0.001 37.5% 0.50 

36 (Intersection Holds, N=54 and 53) 1.81 1.34 2.07 <0.001 26.0% 0.23 

37 (ILS, LOC BC, N=54 and 53) 2.40 1.74 2.05 <0.001 27.5% 0.32 

38 (VOA, ILS, OME Arc, 

N=54 and 52) 1.98 1.53 1.51 <0.01 22.7% 0.30 

39 (ILS, LOC BC, N=52 and 52) 2.12 2.24 1.20 ns -5.7% -0.10 

40,41,43 (ILS, LOC BC, VOA, 

Holds, N=48 and 48) 4.75 4.72 3.49 ns 0.6% 0.01 

42 (ILS, VOA, Holds, N=49 and 52) 2.25 2.38 1.19 ns -5.8% -0.11 

Table 7. Mean time (in hours} to complete flight lesson for Yc. v •. and X and percent transfer and 

TERs for Aviation 140 (After completing training in Aviation 130}. Levels of statistical significances 

of differences between Yc and Yx are shown. 

Percent 

Flight Lesson Groug Q Transfer TEA 

Yc v. X 

49 (NOB Holds, Approach, N=38 

and 39) 1.63 1.20 1.98 <0.001 26.4% 0.22 

50 (NOB Holds, Approach, ILS 

and LOC BC Holds, N=38 and 39) 1.88 1.52 1.51 <0.04 19.2% 0.24 

51 (ILS, NOB, VOA, N=38 and 38) 1.60 1.58 1.47 ns 1.3% 0.01 

52 (ILS, NOB, VOA, LOC BC, 

Holds, N=38 and 38) 2.05 2.02 1.92 ns 1.5% 0.02 

53 (ILS, NOB, VOA, Holds, N=38 

and 38) 2.13 2.15 1.32 ns -0.9% -0.02 

54 (NOB, Holds, N=38 and 37) 2.02 2.02 0.83 ns 0.0% 0.00 

55 (NOB, Holds, N=38 and 37) 2.47 2.52 1.00 ns -2.0% -0.05 

56 (ILS, VOA, Holds, N=36 and 37) 3.94 3.99 1.49 ns -1.3% -0.03 

57 (ILS, VOA, Holds, N=37 and 37) 2.14 2.49 1.12 ns -16.4% -0.31 

13 
F1 

For Flight Lesson 49 (introduction ofNDB holds and 

approaches), the PCATD group required 1.20 mean 

hours to complete the flight lesson compared with 

1.63 mean hours for the Airplane group. The difference between the means was significant: !(57) = 2.96, 

ll < 0.001 (two-tailed). NDB holds and approaches, 

ILS and LOC BC holds were reviewed in Flight 

Lesson 50. The mean time to complete the flight 

lesson for the PCATD group was 1.52 mean hours 

compared with 1.88 mean hours for the Airplane 

group. The difference between the means of 0.36 

hours was significant: t(65) = 2.06, 12 < 0.04 (twotailed). There was no significant transfer, as measured 

by time, for the remaining flight lessons. The percent 

transfer was -16.4%, and the TER was -0.31 which 

means that for each hour in the PCATD it took the 

PCA TD group almost one-third of an hour longer to 

complete the lesson in the airplane than the Airplane 

group. This difference was not significant. 

The mean times to complete selected flight lessons 

in Aviation 140 are shown for the Fall1994 data in 

Table 8, together with associated values of percent 

transfer and the TERs. As indicated in Table 8, for 

Flight Lesson 49 (the introduction ofNDB holds and 

approaches) and for their review (Flight Lesson 50), 

the transfer effectiveness for the time to complete the 

flight lesson variable was positive and substantial. 

Transfer for Flight Lesson 49 was 31.6% and 23.2% 

for Flight Lesson 50. TERs for lessons 49 and 50 were 

0.31 and 0.35, respectively. PCATD students saved 

about a third of an hour in the airplane for each hour 

in the PCATD. 

Course Completion Time 

The means and variances for total airplane time for 

the Airplane and the PCATD groups to complete the 

two courses are shown in Table 9. For Aviation 130, 

the PCATD group required a mean of21.0 hours to 

complete the course, compared with 23.1 hours for 

the Airplane group. The difference between the means 

of2.1 hours was significant: t(90) = 3.53,11 < 0.001 

(two tailed). The data for those Aviation 140 subjects 

who first completed the Aviation 130 experimental 

program indicated that the PCATD group required a 

mean of 26.37 hours to complete the course, compared with 28.18 hours for the Airplane group. The 

difference between the means of 1.81 hours was significant: !(72) = 2.61,11 < 0.01 (two tailed). 

Table 8. Mean time (in hours) to complete flight lesson for v •. Yx. and X, and percent transfer and 

TEAs for Aviation 140 (Fall 1994 Data). 

Percent 

Flight Lesson Grou11 Transfer TER 

v. Yx X 

49 (NOB Holds, Approaches, N=13 

and 14) 1.90 1.30 1.92 31.6% 0.31 

50 (NOB Holds, Approaches, ILS 

and LOC BC, N=13 and 14) 1.81 1.39 1.19 23.2% 0.35 

51 (ILS, NOB, VOR, N=13 and 14) 1.54 1.61 2.20 -7.0% -0.03 

52 (ILS, NOB, VOR, LOC BC, 

Holds, N=13 and 14) 2.52 1.73 1.96 31.4% 0.40 

53 (ILS, NOB, VOR, Holds, N=13 

and 14) 2.18 2.08 1.06 4.6% 0.09 

54 (NOB, Holds, N=12 and 14) 1.99 1.85 0.87 7.0% 0.07 

55 (NOB, Holds, N=13 and 14) 2.74 2.50 1.05 8.8% 0.23 

56 (ILS, VOR, Holds, N=12 and 14) 4.02 4.15 1.07 -3.2% -0.12 

57 (ILS, VOR, Holds, N=12 and 14) 2.13 2.16 1.02 -1.4% -0.03 

14 
Table 9. Mean Airplane times (in hours) and variances to complete courses for Airplane and 

PCATD groups for Aviation 130 and Aviation 140. 

Mean (Yc-YJ Variance !::! ! Q 

Aviation 130 

(Yc) Airplane 23.1 

(YJ PCATD 21.0 2.1 

Aviation 140 

Airplane 28.2 

PCATD 26.4 1.8 

Aviation 140 (Fa111994) 

Airplane 29.8 

PCATD 26.7 3.1 

For the Aviation 140 Fall1994 data, the PCATD 

group required a mean of26.7 hours to complete the 

course, compared with 29.8 hours for the Airplane 

group. The difference between the means of3.1 hours 

was significant: I(25) = 2.91, I!< 0.05 {two tailed). 

DISCUSSION 

The data from the study indicate that the PCATD 

is an effective training device for teaching instrument 

tasks to private pilots. These data show a significant 

level of transfer savings for course hours overall. 

Approximately 4.0 hours were saved for Aviation 130 

and Aviation 140 combined. This represents a worthwhile benefit because rental costs are $69/hour for the 

airplane used in this experiment and $5/hour for the 

PCA TD. The savings may seem marginal in light of 

the fact that time spent in the PCA TD to generate 

those savings exceeded 12.5 hours for Aviation 130 

and 14 hours for Aviation 140. It should be noted, 

however, that the procedures developed to satisfy the 

goal of the experiment generated inefficiencies. In 

that the primary goal was to explore all possibilities of 

contributions of the PCATD, a considerable amount 

of the PCA TD training was undertaken to review task 

areas that resulted in little or no transfer. Training 

PCATD flight lessons to proficiency also reduced the 

efficient use of the PCATD. 

15 

8.3 45 

8.3 47 3.5 < 0.001 

8.41 36 

9.47 38 2.61 < 0.01 

9.85 13 

5.67 14 2.91 < 0.05 

Some signs of negative transfer are also evident. 

None of these effects was statistically significant, and 

they probably reflect random fluctuations. The data 

that have been generated in this experiment offer a 

solid guide to development of an instrument syllabus 

that could maximize the efficiency of the PCATD. 

Indeed, further savings should be possible from targeting for PCATD training only those tasks that show 

worthwhile positive transfer. Specifically, the data 

suggest that the same savings of approximately four 

hours could be achieved by use of approximately 6. 75 

PCATD hours in Flight Lessons 34 to 38 and 4.5 

PCATD hours in Flight Lessons 45 to 50. 

Aviation 130 

Flight Lessons 34 to 38 were used to develop 

proficiency in a number of basic instrument tasks and 

to introduce and review various instrument hold and 

approach procedures. Total lesson times for each of 

these lessons showed significant levels of transfe; 

ranging from approximately 20 to 40%, with TERs 

ranging from approximately 0.20 to 0.50. Analyses of 

individual tasks revealed that, in almost all cases, this 

transfer resulted, at least in part, from the learning of 

specific instrument maneuvers when they were first 

introduced. 
The single exception to this trend was in Flight 

Lessons 34 and 35, when the task of steep turns failed 

to reveal significant transfer, but there was significant 

transfer for the overall flight lesson. In that Flight 

Lessons 34 and 35 included a considerable amount of 

nonspecific flying beyond steep turns that were also 

practiced in the PCATD, we assume the enhancement 

was generated in these nonspecific flying activities. 

No single instrument procedure trained in Aviation 

130 showed statistically significant transfer in any 

lesson in which it was reviewed. A few of the transfer 

indexes for reviews of instrument procedures were 

negative, bur none approached statistical significance. 

Flight Lessons 39 to 42 prepared students for 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) cross-country flight. Ir 

was difficult to develop a PCATD scenario that would 

assist the students with very much of this preparation. 

The exercise that was developed had students practice 

ILS, VOR, and LOC BC that would be flown in the 

cross-country flight, which provided an opportunity 

to rehearse these tasks in the PCATD prior to the 

cross-country flight. The percent transfer and TER 

were insensitive measures in terms of determining the 

potential benefit of approach rehearsal during those 

flight lessons. The specific objectives of the flight 

lessons prevented substantial transfer, as measured by 

the percent transfer and TER. 

Flight Lesson 43 was a review of IFR procedures 

and cross-country skills with the completion standards to the Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards for the lesson content with no assistance from 

the instructor.lrwas required that the PCATD group 

fly the PCATD a minimum of one hour per lesson in 

Flight Lessons 40 and 41. The group could use the 

PCATD up to a maximum of five hours in Flight 

Lessons 40-43 combined. Additional PCATD time 

was available with prior permission. Since the means 

of airplane trials to completion standards show that 

most students required only one trial to achieve proficiency on each of these exercises, high levels of 

positive transfer were not expected. One approach trial 

would be expected in cross-country flight, since the 

students would typically perform only one ILS, VOR, 

and/or LOC BC approach in the airplane at any airport. 

16 

The final two lessons in Aviation 130 are devoted 

to a practice check flight and a· check flight. These 

lessons may appear at first to offer a critical point for 

measuring training effectiveness. However, it was 

assumed at the outset that these measures would be 

insensitive to differences between the Airplane and 

the PCA TD groups. By design of the experiment, 

students from both groups had been brought to the 

same proficiency standards lesson by lesson in the 

airplane. The only possibility that real differences 

would show up in the practice or the real check flight 

is that one or the other of the training conditions had 

provided some sort of learning experience that contributed substantially to overall flight competence, as 

evaluated in the check flight, bur had nor been taught 

explicitly. There is no evidence here that this occurred. 

Aviation 140 

As noted earlier, Aviation 140 students were not 

treated identically in this experiment. The first group 

of Aviation 140 subjects (Fall 1994) had not been 

involved in the experiment during their Aviation 130 

training. The remaining Aviation 140 subjects had 

been in the experiment as Aviation 130 subjects prior 

to taking the experimental curriculum in Aviation 

140. Their data are combined into a single data set and 

treated separately from the Aviation 140 data collected during in the Fall 1994. Some differences 

between the two sets of results are evident. Most 

noticeably, there was a difference in transfer, based on 

rime required ro complete Flight Lesson 52, for transfer based on trials to reach criterion for review ofNDB 

and LOC BC approaches in Flight Lesson 52, and for 

transfer based on trials to reach criterion for review of 

holds in Flight Lesson 53. There are a number of 

possible reasons for changes of this type from semester 

to semester, two being variations in weather and a 

changing pool ofinstructors. The most likely explanation is that the small number of students in the Fall 

1994, coupled with the fact that these review lessons 

required very few trials to criterion in the airplane, 

induced some instability in the data. Because of the 

limited resources available for this project, we could 

not investigate the cause of these differences. Given 
the possibility of unstable data for the Fall1994 group 

of Aviation 140 students, we emphasize the Aviation 

140 combined data set in this discussion. 

As in Aviation 130, task introduction generally 

resulted in better transfer than task review but several 

exceptions were observed. Flight Lesson 48 was a 

review lesson for the ILS and VOR approaches. The 

subjects had received substantial practice on these 

tasks in Aviation 130 during the previous semester. 

The data indicate that, compared with the Airplane 

group, the PCATD group saved in the airplane approximately one-fifth of the trials on the VOR approaches, due to prior review in the PCATD. This is 

strong evidence that the PCA TD is an effective tool 

for reviewing previously learned instrument tasks if 

some time has elapsed since the tasks were last practiced. Indeed, these data are in marked contrast to the 

review data obtained in Aviadon 130 that indicated 

review of instrument tasks learned to proficiency 

during the previous lesson was not a productive use of 

the PCATD. 

In other respects, the observations to be drawn on 

the data from the Aviation 140 closely follow those 

drawn on the data from Aviation 130. Again, it was 

the early lessons in which new material was introduced that there was significant positive transfer. 

Flight Lessons 49 and 50 showed transfer values of 

approximately 20 and 25%, with TERs of approximately 0.20 and 0.25. All tasks in these two lessons 

were introduced here for the first time; all, with the 

exception ofNDB holds in Flight Lesson 49 and ILS 

holds in Flight Lesson 50, showed statistically significant positive transfer. These values ranged from approximately 15 to 30%, with TERs in the range of 

approximately 0.15 to 0.40. With the exception of 

VOR in Flight Lesson 48 and NDB holds and approaches in Flight Lesson 50, no reviewed tasks showed 

statistically significant positive transfer, and none of 

the negative transfer values was statistically significant. No times to complete the flight lessons in 

Aviation 140 showed statistically significant positive 

transfer, with the exception of Flight Lessons 49 and 50. 

As in Aviation 130, the practice checkflight for 

Aviation 140 (Flight Lesson 58) and the checkflight 

(Flight Lesson 60) may appear at first to offer a critical 

point for measurement of training effectiveness. How17 

ever, these two lessons were again unlikely to discriminate between the training conditions because in pre~ 

ceding lessons, instructors were required ro bring 

students from both groups to the same standards of 

proficiency. Flight Lesson 59 was used to review 

instrument procedures for which individual students 

had not met instrument rating practical test standards. There were relatively few students providing 

data on any specific exercise. It is likely that instructors used this lesson to selectively reinforce a student's 

weakest areas. Some of the transfer ratios in this lesson 

are high and there is also one large negative value. 

Nevertheless, these ratios are difficult to interpret 

because of the selective nature of the data. 

Substitution of the PCATD for Instrument 

Flight Hours 

CurrentFAAregulations,FARPart 141.41, permit 

the substitution of 15 hours of time in a certified 

ground trainer for aircraft time required for instrumentcettification (FAA, 1992). TheFAAFlightStandards Office has drafted an Advisory Circular, which 

provides that some of those hours of the instrument 

time required by FAR Part 141 can be flown in a 

PCA TD. The draft advisory circular, if approved, 

would permit a PCATD, that meets the requirements 

of FAR Part 141.41 (a) (1), to be used in lieu of some 

of the time afforded an authorized ground training 

device under FAR Part 141, Appendix C. As mentioned earlier, the PCATD group required a mean 

47.4 hours in the airplane to complete the instrument 

rating, compared with 51.3 hours for the Airplane 

group. This represents a saving of approximately 4 

hours. This finding supports the proposal to permit 

the substitution ofPCATD time for instrument time. 

Indeed, the data presented here suggest that the 

PCA TD is effective in teaching all instrument tasks. 

This experiment is specific to evaluation of a 

PCATD. It is possible that a generic training device 

would be more effective and might not suffer from the 

occasional problems of negative transfer we have observed here. However, the available evidence does not 

support this belief (Hampton et al., 1994) and there 

is little evidence that a generic training device would 

offer any benefit in addition to that gained from the 

PCATD. 
SUMMARY 

The data show that training in a PCATD resulted 

in positive transfer for instrument flight tasks when 

measured in reference to trials to criterion or time to 

complete a flight lesson in the airplane. The benefit of 

training in the PCA TD varied substantially among 

the instrument tasks tested (from 15% to over 40%). 

In general, savings were positive and substantial when 

new tasks were introduced. The data indicated that a 

PCA TD can save a part of the aircraft time that would 

otherwise be needed. A comparison of course completion times for the rwo courses resulted in savings of 

about four hours for the PCA TD group, compared 

with the Airplane group. 

Time constraints and other organizational limitations prevented the full use of the PCA TD in all flight 

lessons. One substantial constraint on savings is an 

FAA-mandated requirement offour hours of pilot-incommand cross-country time in Aviation 130 and 

12.5 hours in Aviation 140. In the present experiment, the PCATD was not used to teach cross-country skills. It would, however, be possible to offer 

practice on cross-country scenarios. With development of an appropriate assessment tool, it may be 

possible to demonstrate that PCATD-trained students could achieve full competence with cross-country flight well before they had completed their 

mandated exercises. Adjustments in the way the 

PCA TD has been used may extend its usefulness in 

relation to these tasks. 

The data also reveal that some tasks do not benefit 

to a large extent from training in the PCATD, and 

that use of the PCATD is more beneficial for training 

of new tasks than it is for review of tasks trained earlier 

in the course. These results suggest principles that 

might be used to target a PCATD for maximum 

effectiveness within a flight training program. This 

was not done in the present study. Our objective was 

to investigate the instrument tasks that could be 

trained using a PCA TD. In that the overall savings in 

each of the courses, although statistically significant, 

are relatively small, it may be desirable to ensure that 

a PCA TD is focused specifically on areas that result in 

substantial transfer to the airplane. 

REFERENCES 

Dennis, KA (1994). Computer-based simulation as 

adjunct to the initial stages of private pilot device 

training. Cranlield, England: Cranfield University. 

Emanuel, T.W.,Jr., Taylor,H.L.,Hulin,C.L.,Lintern, 

G., Phillips, S.I., & Talleur, D.A. (1995). Development of an experimental flight syllabus for testing PC computer-based aviation training devices. 

In R.S. Jensen & L.A. Rakovan (Eds.),Proceedings 

of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation 

Psychology (pp. 1198-203). Columbus, OH: The 

Ohio State University. 

Falun, N. (1992, September). Azuresoft elite. Flight 

Training, 50-2. 

FAA. (1992). Flight schools (14 CFR Part 141). Federal 

Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation. 

Flexman, R.E., Roscoe, S.N., Williams, A.C., Jr., & 

Wtlliges, B.H. (1972, June). Studies in pilot training: Tht anatomy of transftr (Aviation Research 

Monographs, vol. 2, no. 1). Savoy, IL: University 

of Illinois, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory. 

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

( 1994). The use ofpmonal computer-based training 

tkvices in teaching instrument flying: A comparative 

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

18 

Koonce, J .M. ( 1979). Predictive validity of flight simulators as a function of simulator motion. Human 

Factors, 21(2), 215-23. 

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

Progress, 20-68. 

Lintern, G., Roscoe, S.N., Koonce,}.M., & Segal, L.D. 

(1990). Transfer of landing skill in beginning 

flight training. Human Factors, 32, 319-27. 

Ortiz, G.A. (1993). PC-based flight simulation effectiveness. In R.S. Jensen & D. Neumeister (Eds.), 

Proctedings of the Seventh International Symposium 

on Aviation Psychology (pp. 698-701). Columbus, 

OH: The Ohio State University. 

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

simulation. The Inttrnational journal of Aviation 

Psychology, 4, 285-91. 
Peterson, C., Jr. (1993,April). Controlling your simulator software. Private Pilot, 72-7. 

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

Usesofpart-task trainers in instrument flight training. In R.S. Jensen & D. Neumeister (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on 

Aviation Psychology (pp. 743-46). Columbus, OH: 

The Ohio State University. 

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

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

within an FAR part 141 pilot training school. In 

RS. Jensen & L.A. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of 

the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation 

Psychology (pp. 1204-9). Columbus, OH: The 

Ohio State University. 

Povenmire, H.K., & Roscoe, S.N. (1971). An evaluation of ground-based flight trainers in routine 

primary flight training. Human Factors, 15, 109-16. 

Povenmire, H.K., & Roscoe, S.N. (1973). Incremental 

transfer effectiveness of a ground-based general 

aviation trainer. Human Factors, 15, 534-42. 

Roscoe, S.N. (1971). Incremental transfer effectiveness. 

Human Factors, 13, 561-7. 

Roscoe, S.N., & Williges, B.H. (1980). Measurement 

of transfer of training. In S.N. Roscoe (Ed.),Aviation psychology (pp. 182-93). Ames, IA: The Iowa 

State University Press. 

Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., & Hulin, C.L. (1995). Transfir training effectiveness of personal computer-based 

aviation training devices (Interim Report). Savoy, 

IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation. 

Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Emanuel, T.W., 

Jr., Phillips, S.I., &Talleur, D.A. (1995). Transfer 

of training effectiveness of personal computerbased aviation training devices. In R.S. Jensen & 

L.A. Rakovan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth 

International Symposium on Aviation Psychology 

(pp. 1210-5). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State 

University. 

19 

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

Emanuel, T.W., & Phillips, S.I. (1996a). A preliminary study of an integrated syllabus using a 

personal computer aviation training device and a 

generic training device. Savoy, IL: University of 

Illinois, Institute of Aviation. 

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

Emanuel, T.W., & Phillips, S.I. (199Gb). Transfer 

of training effectiveness of personal computerbased aviation training devices. Final Technical 

Report ARL-96-3/FAA-96-2. Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation. 

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

Phillips, S.I., & Emanuel, T.W. (1996). Effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training 

devices. Poster session presented at the Eighth Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, San Francisco, CA. 

Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Koonce, J.M., Kaiser, R.H., 

& Morrison, G.A. (1991). Transfer of training 

and quasi-transfer of scene detail and visual augmentation guidance in landing training. Proceedings of training tramfir- Can we trust flight simulation (pp. 6.1-6.14). London: Royal Aeronautical 

Society. 

Williams, A.C., Jr., & Flexman, R.E. (1949). Evaluation of the school link as an aid in primary flight 

instruction. University of Illinois Aeronautics Bulletin, 46(5), 71. 

Williams, K. W. (Ed.). (1994). Summary Proceedings of 

the joint Industry-FAA Conference on the Development and Use of PC-Based Aviation Training Devices. Washington, DC: Department ofTransportation/Federal Aviation Administration. (DOT/ 

FAAIAM-94125. NTIS #N95-14917). 

Williams, K. W., & Blanchard, RE. (1995). Development of qualification guidelines for personal computer-based aviation training devices. Washington, 

DC: DepartmentofTransportation/ FederalAviationAdministration. (DOT/FAA/AM-95/6. NTIS 

#ADA-292961). 

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINnNG omCE: 1997 • 5~/400t'f