Technical Paper 298 tAD

EVALUATION OF A FLIGHT SIMULATOR

S(DEVICE 2B24) FOR MAINTAINING INSTRUMENT

PROFICIENCY AMONG INSTRUMENT-RATED

ARMY PILOTS

Donald 0. Weitzman and Michael L. Fineberg Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

and

George L. Compton ..J U.S. ARMY

C.03 HUMAN FACTORS IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS TECHNICAL AREA

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Scie'ces

July 1978 §Efif AVAILW-F-k COPY

App)|rofl¥,d 1,pr |I lic! -104%V, , fl,%1"11thfilm 1l,".'Jl .
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, US Army

Technical Director (Ditsignate) Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral arid Social Sciences,

ATTN PERI P. 5001 Fisenhaow Avenue. Alexandria. Virginia 22333

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

the U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE The findings in this report ae not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

unless so designated by other authorized documents.
UtIclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Enter d)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. NEPORT NtJMIJER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CArALOG NUMBER

'Technical Paper 2.98 __ _

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT a PERIOD COVERED

EVALUATION OF A FLIGHT SIMULATOR (DEVICE 2B24) Technical Paper

FOR MAINTAINING INSTRUMENT I'POFICIENCY N'IONG

I N'JTI)tMENT-RLg'I:ID ARItY P ILOTS 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUM1BER

7. AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NJMBER(s)

Donald 0. Weitzman, Michael Fineberg, and

George L. Compton

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENIT NUMBEROJECT TASK

PR1I-OT, Army Research Institute for the 2Q763743A772 Task D

H(lhdVivo r1 So1I,1 SOt' .. Sc i , 0t 01 l.'i. clhiowr Work Unit I

Avunue, Alexandria, VA 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

July 1978

Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Washington, DC 20310 30

14, MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOqRESS(I d: l tffent from Controllin Ofice) g IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of I reporI) "

Unc lass ified -

15. OECL ASSI FICATION/DOWN GRADING

SCHEDULE

16, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, it different from Report)

1. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Presented at 9th NTEC/Industry Conference, Nov. 1976.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide it necessary and Identify by block number)

Flight Simulation

Transfer of Training

Aviation Unit Training

20. AB.ST ACT (Continue on revore side if necessary and identify by block number)

_-; The research alms to evaluate the operational suitability of Device

2B24, which simulates the UH-IH helicopter, for facilitating UH-lH instrument proficiency training and proficiency assessment among instrument rated

pilots. The present data indicate that substantial amounts of UH-lH time

can be substituted by Device 2B24 time in instrument proficiency training

and proficiency assessment. With simulators, .the Army has the opportunity

to establish an instrument training program that can maintain and assess ___y,

DD ,JAN 7 1473 EDITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSULETE Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

BEST AVAILABLE COPY , ..
Vi

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whwe Data Entered)

20.

instrument proficiency year round and at a reasonable cost. A reasonable

conclusion from this study is that a realistic instrument training program

that includes simulator training would reduce accidents and enhance combat

readiness among instrument rated pilots..

[\

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(W7orn Data Entered)

J
Technical Paper 298

EVALUATION OF A FLIGHT SIMULATOR

(DEVICE 2B24) FOR MAINTAINING INSTRUMENT

PROFICIENCY AMONG INSTRUMENT-RATED

ARMY PILOTS __ /

/ Donald 0IWeitzman and Michael L. Fineberg Army Research Institute for the Behavioral ahd Social Sciences

and

George L. ompton

U.S. Army " Michael Kaplan, Work Unit Leader

HUMAN FACTORS IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved by:

technically accurate, by: Aaron Hyman, Technical Area Chief A.H. Birnbaum, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (Designate)

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

/I I , July 1078 - /

Army Project Number Human Performance

20763743A772 Enhancement

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. "
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.
I

FOREWORD

The Human Factors in Tactical Operations Technical Area of the Army

Research Institute (ARI) is concerned with the improvement of aviation

effectiveness and the maintenance of combat proficiency in operational

aviation units. Programs in the Technical Area deal with systematic

research over wide areas and with immediate and specific problems, in

this case the utility of flight simulators in combat-readiness training.

The Army has the task of maintaining instrument flight proficiency

for a large number of helicopter pilots. This goal imposes a significant demand on aircraft and aircraft instructor resources. Training alternatives, such as flight simulators, the analysis of the cost ratios

of simulator training, and the optimum amount of training required annually in simulators and in aircraft to maintain acceptable proficiency

need to be evaluated. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations was given

responsibility for research in the area of flight simulation and proficiency maintenance training. ARI, under the Office of the Deputy Chief

of Staff for Personnel, was assigned responsibility for assessing the

utility of flight simulators in combat-readiness training.

This publication summarizes ARI research on the operational suitability of Device 2B24, a device that simulates the UH-lH helicopter, for

facilitating UH-lH instrument-proficiency training and proficiency assessment among combat-ready pilots. ARI formulated the initial research

program primarily as an applied effort to furnish information and guidance to the Army. Research is conducted under Army RDTE Project

2Q763743A772, "Aircrew Performance in Tactical Environment," FY 1976

Work Program. The research was conducted at Fort Campbell, Ky., with

the help and support of the 101st Aviation Group, and is responsive to

the needs of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations of the U.S. Army.

SJo eph Zeir

hnical Director (Designate)
EVALUATION OF A FLIGHT SIMULATOR (DEVICE 2B24) FOR MAINTAINING INSTRUMENT

PROFICIENCY AMONG INSTRUMENT-RATED ARMY PILOTS

BRIEF

Requirement:

To evaluate the operational suitability of Device 2B24, which simulates the UH-lH helicopter, for facilitating UH-lH instrument-proficiency

training and proficiency assessment among instrument-rated pilots.

Procedure:

Two groups of pilots, representing a broad range of instrument

skills, were given instrument training as follows: 12 hours in Device

2B24; 12 hours in the UH-IH; or a combination of 6 hours in the simulator and 6 hours in the aircraft. The 12 hours of training were divided over a 9-month period into 4 hourly increments taken every 3 months.

Instrument proficiency measures were obtained at the end of each 3-month

period during a standardized instrument checkride in the UH-lH. A terminal checkride, identical in all essential characteristics with the

aircraft checkride, was given in Device 2B24.

Finding:

Twelve hours of training in Device 2B24 produced a higher quality

of instrument performance and a higher rate of improvement throughout

the training period than did training in the UH-IH. The training mode

that combined Device 2B24 and the UH-lH produced results intermediate

between the two.

Checkride performance in Device 2B24 covaried with checkride performance in the UH-IH. The data indicated that high and low scorers

in the simulator had similar scoring patterns in the aircraft.

Pilot acceptance of simulator training increased with simulator

experience.
Utilization of Finding:

The present data indicate that substantial amounts of UH-IH time

can be substituted by Device 2B24 time in instrument-proficiency training and proficiency assessment. With simulators, the Army has the opportunity to establish an instrument training program that can maintain

and assess instrument proficiency year round at reasonable cost. One

conclusion from this study is that a realistic instrument training program that includes simulator training would reduce accidents and enhance

combat readiness among instrument-rated pilots.
:VA it'ATL'I )N (1, A ~. [(;lT S I MIJLAT(JR (im. t: " "'.!24) ! kR MAINTAINING INSTPUMENT

twi'01 ic (1NCY AMONG INSTRUMENT-RATED ARMY PILOTS

Pa ge

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

MIETHIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Pilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2rocedure ............... ............................ 3

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 4

Aircraft Performance ......... ..... .................... 4

Statistical Analysis ............ ...................... 7

Simulator Performance ............ .................. .. 8

Questionnaire Survey ......... ...................... 12

DISCUSSION ............. ............................. .... 14

CONCLUSIONS ........ ....... ............................ 15

RECOMMENDATIONS ........... .......................... 16

REFERENCES ............. ............................. ... 19

APPENDIX A. SCORE SHEET, INSTRUMENT EVALUATION UH-1 .......... 21

B. TABLES SHOWING VARIANCE OF PERFORMANCE SCORES ..... . 23

C. SFTS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ..... ............... 27

DISTRIBUTION LIST ........ .. ......................... 29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Results of range tests of the differences between performance score means for training mode and pilot group 7

2. Results of range tests of the differences between

percent change score means for training mode and

pilot group .......... ....................... 8

3. Percent response given on Part I questionnaire by

pilots in each training mode ..... ............... 12
4. Descriptions of the training value of Device 2B24

and the UH-IH... ........ ...................... 13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Learning curves of checkride performance for the

three training modes and two pilot groups .......... 5

2. Change scores in checkride performance for the two

pilot groups as a function of training mode and test

periods .......... ......................... 6

3. Learning functions of simulator performance for the

three training modes and two pilot groups .......... 9

4. Inflight test scores plotted against simulator test

scores obtained from all pilots on the last test

period .......... ......................... 11
EVALUA'I ION A' A FLIGHT SIMULATOR (DEVICE 2B24) FOR MAINTAINING

INSTIRlMPNT PROFICIENCY AMONG INSTRUMENT-RATED PILOTS

INTRODUCTION

Since tho early days of flying, the value of flight simulators has

been amply demonstrated. Flight simulators have evolved from the relctively simple Link Trainer to precisely engineered devices capable of

accurately computing the aerodynamic responses of an aircraft to control

inputs and realistically reproducing instrument indications for all

flight situations. As Adams (1957) pointed out, flight simulators have

many advantages over the operational situation.

First, the simulator provides users with greater control over ambient conditions. Whereas the "real" world is subject to unpredictable

variations, a simulator can provide planned variation of various elements of the real situation and omit unessential elements.

Second, the simulator can more safely represent the dangerous elements in flight. Emergency procedures that would be too dangerous to

teach in the air may be taught safely in ground-based simulators.

Third, simulators cost less than aircraft to operate. For these

reasons, simulators continue to play an important role in pilot training for initial skill acquisition, transition training, and maintenance

of flying skills. The importance attached to simulators in meeting

training goals assumes, of course, that training given in the simulator

will transfer to the aircraft.

Although the value of simulators to initial entry pilot training

has never been seriously challenged, the utility of simulator training

for maintaining the proficiency of experienced pilots has not been

adequately established. The various studies that have assessed the

training effectiveness of a specific flight simulator for maintaining

pilot proficiency have sometimes produced contradictory results (Caro,

1971; Crook, 1965; American Airlines, Inc., 1969; TransWorld Airlines,

1969).

Three different explanations for these contradictory findings have

been suggested. First, the variance in flying skill among experienced

pilots is often greater than among student pilots, who bring little,

if any, initial skills to the task (McGrath and Harris, 1971). In performance training, it is well known that the beneficial effects of

training vary as a function of experience or skill level (Briggs, 1957;

Roscoe, 1971); that is, the same training simulator may exhibit different effectiveness functions for different levels of pilot experience

or skill. To the extent that experienced pilots are not carefully

matched in terms of flying skill, the significance of assessing what

can be learned in the simulator is diminished.

1i
Second, most performance measures used in earlier studies were

judgmental in nature and, thus, highly subjective evaluation instruments.

Third, instructional techniques may vary widely depending upon the

ability and attitudes of the instructor pilots (IPs). In considering

the possibilities of such instructional differences, the utility of

simulator training must be determined independent of the instructor

variable.

The training value of Device 2B24, a high-fidelity simulator, for

maintaining instrument flight proficiency among instrument-rated Army

helicopter pilots in the UH-lH aircraft needs to be determined. The

need for maintaining a high degree of instrument proficiency is much

greater today than in the past. Day and night low-level missions and

training are required to maintain combat readiness. Visual contact can

easily be lost because of darkness or poor weather, allowing the pilot

only seconds to transfer to instrument flight to avoid catastrophic

results. The inability to quickly and effectively transfer to instrument flight has been a factor in a number of fatal accidents involving

Army helicopters.

This paper reports on the transfer effectiveness of Device 2B24 for

use in maintaining instrument proficiency among rated pilots as compared

to inflight training in the UH-lH helicopter. This study extends previous studies by more adequate control of pilot and instructor variability

and through more objective measures of pilot performance, obtained both

before and after training in Device 2B24.

METHOD

Pilots

The 36 pilots participatinq in this study were fully qualified,

combat-ready Army aviators. The sample comprised both warrant and commissioned officers, who all had 400 to 600 hours of rotary-wing flight experience. Two groups of 18 aviators each were formed on the basis of

a composite score on three instrument performance measures. A written

test on instrument procedures (I), a standardized instrument checkride

in the UH-lH helicopter (H), and a standardized instrument checkride

in Device 2B24 (S) were the three measures making up the composite

score (P). The a priori scoring formula adopted reads: P = .51 + S

+ H, where the written test contributes 20%, and both checkrides contribute 40% to the total score. The three performance measures were

administered to 51 experienced pilots assigned to the 101st Aviation

Group, Fort Campbell, Ky. Those aviators who received the 18 highest

and 18 lowest scores were selected for group matching and for controlling differences in initial ability. The two groups will be referred

to as "high" and "low," respectively.

2
Following the selection, pilots within each group were quasirandomly assigned to one of three instrument-training modes under the

following conditions: (1) simulator training with Device 2B24, (2) inflight training in the UH-lH, and (3) a combination of simulator and

inflight training divided equally. Twelve pilots, six from each group,

were assigned to each training mode. This procedure provided an opportunity not only to evaluate training modes, but also to evaluate the

modes with respect to initial skill level among pilots. Statistical

analysis showed that the differences among pilots assigned to each

training mode were not significant but revealed a significant difference between pilot groups; i.e., "high" vs. "low" (see Appendix B,

Table 1, for a summary of the analysis). Thus, pilots appeared to be

effectively matched among training modes but differentiated in terms of

initial instrument skills.

Procedure

The pilots in each of the three training modes were given 12 hours

of instrument training during 9 months of testing in each of the three

training modes: Device 2B24, UH-lH, or combined Device 2B24 and UH-IH

training. (The experiment was originally designed to provide 16 hours

of training, divided into four quarterly increments. The last quarter

was not completed because of the temporary transfer of pilots to a new

duty station.) The 12 hours of training were divided into 4 hourly

increments. At the end of each 3-month period, pilots were required to

take a standardized instrument checkride in the UH-lH, identical to the

instrument checkride given before training.

Prior to testing, a precisely defined checkride inventory was developed to insure that all pilots were evaluated in the same way. The

decisions to include items were based upon desired terminal flight behavior for experienced Army pilots. Evaluated tasks were arranged into

a standard flight sequence, including objective and subjective items.

Performance was evaluated on each of five quantitative variables, with

one to four items for each variable scored on an appropriate scale.

Equal weights were given to each objective variable measured, namely:

(1) flight planning, (2) departure and enroute procedures, (3) holding

and arrival procedures, (4) ATC procedures, and (5) aircraft control.

All scored items were completed during flight. A score of 100 represented "errorless" performance. (The inventory is given in Appendix A.)

To minimize the effects of instructor differences, six IPs were

given familiarization training on the use of flight inventory before

each checkride. The order in which IPs were assigned to provide checkrdes was varied systematically among all 36 pilots. In addition,

knowledge of an individual pilot's proficiency ranking and group assignment was withheld to prevent such information from influencing the IPs'

judgment. Examination of mean inventory scores assigned by each IP

revealed little, if any, difference.

3
Instrument flight training began soon after the two groups of

pilots were formed. Training sessions lasted I hour, and four sessions

completed a training period. At the end of the period, each pilot was

given an instrument checkride in the UH-lH, using the flight inventory

for scoring pilot performance. In addition to checkrides in the aircraft, each pilot was required to complete a second instrument ride in

Device 2B24 at the completion of the study. Scoring procedures in

Device 2B24 were identical to those in the UH-IH. This paper reports

on the findings of the transfer effectiveness of Device 2B24 among the

36 instrument-rated pilots.

RESULTS

Aircraft Performance

The main results deal with checkride performance following training

in the three training modes and the percentage change in performance

representing the difference between checkride performance before (i.e.,

baseline) and after training.

The curves in Figure 1 compare mean inflight performance for each

training mode over the three test periods, with baseline performance

plotted separately. Two features of the curves stand out. First,

checkride performance was, in general, superior for pilots in both

groups given all their training in Device 2B24. Thus, transfer of

training benefits was greater when the simulator was used for all instrument training in the present study. Second, changes due to learning were, in general, greater for the low pilot group; that is, while

the curves for the low group show marked improvement over test periods,

the high group gave very little evidence of learning. This observation

is a familiar one in the psychology of learning. By the end of training, therefore, inflight performance was much the same for both pilot

groups. Percentage change scores for the three training modes are

shown in Figure 2.

The curves in Figure 2 plot the difference, in percent, between

checkride performance before training and after training in each mode

and each test period. The curves show that the level of change in

checkride performance was quite distinct, with Device 2B24 training

producing the nighest degree of positive transfer for both groups.

The plot of these scores shows that most of the observed improvement

in performance occurred by the second test period. It may be noted

that all of the transfer for Device 2B24 training occurred after 8 hours

of training in the simulator. The loss of the fourth test period, then,

does not appear to be crucial to the interpretation of these results.

4
INFLIGHT

TEST SCORES LOW GROUP

100

80 -.

70

60 ---- *DEVICE 21324

*COMBINED

50A INFLIGHT

BASE-LINE 1Ist 2nd 3rd

TEST PERIOD

INFLIGHT

TEST SCORES HIGH GROUP

100

80

70

50 - DEVICE 2B24

*COMBINED

50 A INFLIGHT

BASE-LINE 1st 2nd 3rd

TEST PERIOD

Figure 1. Learning curves of checkride performance for the thrce

training modes and two pilot groups.
%CHANGE

30 LOW GROUP

:Q 20 .- )

10-

0 .- - -HIGH GROUP

S-10

e DEVICE 2B124

-20 n COMBINED

& INFLIGHT

12 3

TEST PERIOD

Figure 2. Change scores in checkride performance for the two

pilot groups as a function of training mode and

test periods.
Statistical Analysis

A two-way analysis of variance, encompassing training modes and

test periods, was carried out on the inflight test score data (see

Figure 1) for each group separately. (Details of these analyses are

presented in Appendix B, Tables 2 and 3.)

Results of these analyses indicated that only low-group variations

due to test periods were statistically significant, F(2, 30) = 17.9,

p - .001, consistent with the evidence of differential rates of improvement among the two pilot groups during training. Although Device 2B24

training appeared to result in better performance throughout most of

the training periods, F tests of the training mode means for each group

were not significant.

In an effort to assess independently the terminal effects after

12 hours of training, two further analyses were run. The first analysis,

a two-way analysis of variance encompassing training mode and pilot

group means during the third test period, confirmed the lack of differences among the three training modes and between the two pilot groups

after 12 hours of training (see Appendix B, Table 4, for a summary of

the analysis). Duncan's multiple range test (Duncan, 1955), a second

test, was carried out on the training mode means of the third test

period to determine which, if any, of the differences among the three

training modes were or were not significant. Results of these tests are

summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Results of Range Tests of the Differences Between Performance

Score Means for Training Mode and Pilot Group

Group Device 2B24 Combined Inflight

High 84 78 81

Low 82 78 71

Note: Significant at the .05 level. Common lines underlying

two or more means indicate that these means are not

significantly different from one another.

The results shown in Table 1 indicate that the mean differences

between inflight training in the UH-lH and simulator training in Device 2B24 were significant, but for the low pilot group only. All other

7
comparisons were not significant, indicating that the advantages of

simulator training were most apparent for the least proficient pilot

group.

A three-way analysis of variance, encompassing groups, training

modes, and test periods, was carried out on the change score data of

Figure 2 (see Appendix B, Table 5, for a summary of the analysis). The

analysis revealed that training modes F(2, 25) = 4.12, p < .05, pilot

groups; F(l, 25) = 8.32, p < .01, and test periods; F(2, 65) = 4.22,

p < .025 were a significant source of variance.

Duncan multiple-range tests were carried out on the training mode

change scores for the last test period to determine the source of the

differences that account for the significant overall variations in the

training mode means. Results of these tests are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Results of Range Tests of the Differences Between Percent

Change Score Means for Training Mode and Pilot Group

Group Device 2B24 Combined Inflight

High 5 -3 -7

Low 38 28 14

Note: Significant at the .05 level. Common lines underlying

two or more means indicate that these means are not

significantly different from one another.

Negative values in Table 2 indicate a percentage decrement in performance associated with training. This decrement is in line with normal

variation in performance that may be expected with a pilot group already

at a high level of instrument proficiency prior to training. The results

indicate again that Device 2B24 training and UH-lH training showed the

greatest number of significant differences, consistent with the evidence

of increasing beneficial effects of Device 2B24 when compared to inflight

training in the UH-lH.

Simulator Performance

Checkride scores in Device 2B24 for each group in each training

mode are summarized in Figure 3.

8
DEVICE 2624

TEST SCORES LOW GROUP

100.

0 DEVICE 2824

90 - aCOMBINED

So - & INFLIGHT

60 -

50

BASE-LINE TEST PERIOD 3

DEVICE 2824

TEST SCORES HIGH GROUP

00

so

70

60 - DEVICE 2824

5 COMBINED

50 INFLIGHT

BASE-LINE TEST PERIOD 3

Figure 3. Learning functions of simulator performance for the three

training modes and two pilot groups.

9
Mean scores in Figure 3 are plotted for baseline and final test

period performance when checkrides in the simulator were administered.

The curves show that most of the learning that occurred in the simulator

took place in the low pilot group. For the high group, the extent of

learning change was very limited. The curves reveal that checkride performance among the three training modes are are again distinct, with

Device 2B24 training producing the highest degree of performance. That

simulator training would best transfer to the simulator is hardly surprising. What is surprising is the finding of symmetrical transfer;

that is, transfer from the aircraft to the simulator, as well as from

the simulator to the aircraft, shown earlier. In fact, Figure 3 reveals

that both groups showed improved performance in Device 2B24 following

training in the UH-lH. A simple interpretation of this result is that

specific tasks common to instrument flight in the simulator are also

common to instrument flight in the aircraft. The fact that instrument

flying in Device 2B24 and in the UH-lH are similar suggests that Device

2B24 may be substituted for the aircraft for certain instrumentproficiency evaluation tests.

Principal evidence for assessing the utility of Device 2B24 as a

proficiency-evaluation instrument may be seen, however, in the degree

to which final checkride performance in the simulator covaries with

checkride performance in the aircraft. These data indicate that high

and low scorers in the simulator had similar scoring patterns in the

aircraft.

Although a similar pattern of results was observed prior to training, the relation between aircraft and simulator performance improved

with training. A product-moment correlation coefficient computed between final aircraft and simulator checkrides provides a conservative

estimate of the degree to which it would be possible to predict instrument performance in the UH-lH from performance in Device 2B24. Such a

correlation was computed for all pilots as a group.

Checkride scores in Device 2B24 correlated 0.56 with checkride

scores in the UH-lH. The standard error of estimate was 4.1. The correlation was statistically significant at the .001 level, indicating

that Device 2B24 could serve as a useful predictor of performance in

the UH-lH. To facilitate the application of the foregoing analysis,

individual scores on the final UH-IlH checkride (Y) were plotted against

the final simulator checkride (X), as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4

reveals that aircraft performance was a linear function of simulator

performance; in other words, increasing scores in the simulator result

in a predictable increase in aircraft scores. A best-fit line was

fitted to the points in Figure 4. The regression equation describing

the line is: Y = .51X + 41.17.

To predict aircraft performance from simulator test scores, the

actual score achieved in the simulator (X) can be substituted into the

regression equation. By solving the equation, the best estimate of a

10
INFLIGHT

TEST SCORES (y)

100

90

800

70 - A W DEVICE 2B324

*COMBINED

60 - y = .51 x+ 41.17 AINFLIGHT

r = .56,p<.001

60 70 80 90 100

DEVICE 2B24 TEST SCORES (x)

Figure 4. Inflight test scores plotted against simulator test scores

obtained from all pilots on the last test period. Solid

line: least squares, best-fit line.
pilot's inflight performance can be determined based upon the present

data, plus or minus the standard error of estimate, 68% of the time.

However, the present analysis should be interpreted with caution since

the pilot sample is relatively small. For the present analysis to

achieve practical significance, a larger sample size should be available. Nevertheless, the data suggest that Device 2B24 can be used to

predict instrument flying in the UH-IH with some degree of confidence

and may be used to substitute for the aircraft in testing instrument

proficiency.

Questionnaire Survey

To obtain information about pilot experience with Device 2B24,

pilots were asked about particular aspects of their training in the

simulator and in the aircraft. It was felt that pilot assessments would

be valuable in that the responses would indicate some level of acceptance of simulator training, a feature not readily available from the

objective evidence.

A questionnaire was constructed (see Appendix C) to enable the

pilots to express themselves in an easy and understandable way. Part I

was essentially a series of rating scales. The pilot had to indicate

on a five-point scale whether he agreed or disagreed with certain aspects of simulator training. Part II included a series of openended

questions concerning the advantages and disadvantages cf simulator and

inflight training. The questionnaire was administered to all pilots

at the end of training. Table 3 shows the percent response on the

Part I questionnaire for each training mode.

Table 3

Percent Response Given on Part I Questionnaire by Pilots

in Each Training Mode

Training Question

mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Device 2B24 % agree (A + B) 45 73 73 9 63 54 100 73

% disagree (D + E) 45 18 18 73 27 18 0 9

Combined % agree (A + B) 36 91 54 9 54 27 90 90

% disagree (D + E) 45 9 36 82 27 73 0 0

Inflight % agree (A + B) 45 83 50 0 58 25 92 83

% disagree (D + E) 54 8 33 80 25 42 0 0

12
The data in Table 3 indicate that simulator training is more acceptable among pilots who received all their current training in Device

2B24 (questions 3 and 6). Nevertheless, all pilots seemed to agree

that Device 2B24 can be an effective training device (questions 4, 7,

and 8). Increasing experience with Device 2B24 appears, however, to

result in somewhat greater confidence that simulator training can maintain instrument proficiency among qualified UH-1H pilots (questions 1

and 5).

Table 4 shows the results of the Part II questionnaire for all

pilots.

Table 4

Descriptions of the Training Value of Device 2B24 and the UH-lH

Device 2B24 UH-lH

Disadvantages

Over-sensitive controls 53 Unsafe 38

Lack of realism 29 Long preparation time 35

High workload 29 Poor training 35

Control lag 26 Unavailability of A/C 29

Unrealistic ITOs 26 Poor equipment 23

Poor training 12 Weather 18

Others 9 Cost 6

Others 6

Advantages

Good IFR procedural trainer 79 Realism 65

Good emergency procedural Good IFR procedural trainer 53

trainer 59 Realistic control touch 50

Individualized training 29 Realistic control responses 29

Others 9 Realistic ITOs 24

Others 6

13
From the descriptions in the Part II questionnaire, pilots describ4

simulator training as safer, more accessible, and less time consuming.

The UH-lH was usually described as providing realism in flight and at

the controls. It is interesting to note, however, that 35% of the pilots

tested considered the quality of inflight training poor. Among those

pilots, half received all of their current training in the UH-lH. At

the same time, only 11% of the pilots tested found the quality of simulator training poor. In fact, the individualized instruction available

in the simulator was often perceived as an important instructional benefit. Nevertheless, no pilot was willing to give up training in the

aircraft.

DISCUSSION

The objective of this research was to determine the extent to which

instrument skills acquired during simulator training, inflight training,

or in combination maintained or even enhanced subsequent performance in

the UH-lH among instrument-rated pilots. The procedure compares the performance on a criterion checkride of pilots who had received 12 hours of

simulator training with the performance of similar groups who had received

12 hours of inflight training only or 6 hours of simulator and 6 hours

of inflight training. In this research, the transfer effectiveness of

the simulator was measured by determining the extent to which the performance of the simulator-trained group matched the performance of the

inflight-trained group on the criterion checkride.

The results of this study indicate substantial positive transfer of

training from Device 2B24 to the UH-lH helicopter, as evidenced by the

fact that simulator training produced an overall performance in the

aircraft that was as good if not better than inflight training. Of the

three training modes studied, instrument flight performance and its rate

of improvement was highest with Device 2B24 training. Performance was

lowest with UH-lH training and next highest with training that combined

Device 2B24 with the UH-lH. Thus, Device 2B24 appeared to be a major

factor in maintaining instrument skills in Army pilots who already knew

how to fly, at least for the periods of time tested. One implication

of the results is that 12 hours of instrument training in Device 2B24 can replace 12 hours of training in the UH-1H with no measurable loss

in training effectiveness. These findings were characteristic of both

groups of pilots. Certainly the findings presented tend to support the

notion that Device 2B24 would fare well in an operational cost comparison

with the UH-lH. Based on an hourly cost of $20 for Device 2B24 instruction and $200 for the UH-lH, simulator training can reduce the overall

cost of unit training, while serving as an effective training adjunct

for instrument-rated pilots.

The results of this study further show that the beneficial effects

of training were more apparent among pilots who demonstrated the poorest

instrument skills (low group) as measured by our criterion checkride.

The consequences of the training procedures were that the initial

14
differences in instrument performance between the two groups of pilots

were no longer significant by the end of the study. The importance of

this finding lies in the implication that any training program is artificially constrained in a structured training situation with unyielding

hourly limitations that are characteristic of present Army training procedures. The present 20-hour training requirement for the instrument

flight may be too much for some pilots and not enough for other lessskilled pilots. Device 2B24 may be used to provide a less constrained

estimate of the point at which each pilot's instrument proficiency approximates the performance required to pass the flight checkride.

Analysis of checkride performance in the simulator and in the aircraft suggested that a relatively high degree of prediction of flight

proficiency in the UH-lH can be made from performance in the simulator.

It may be concluded that Device 2B24 can be used not only for maintaining proficiency among pilots with instrument ratings, but also for evaluating the current effects of past training (proficiency assessment).

The findings generally agree with the results of studies conducted by

both TransWorld Airlines (1969) and American Airlines (1969), which indicate that performance evaluations of experienced pilots in the simulator accurately predicted performance in the corresponding aircraft.

In particular, the present study indicates that the U.S. Army could

modify proficiency-assessment requirements to allow increased use of

simulators of proven effectiveness.

A primary consideration in evaluating the training contribution of

any simulator is Lhe factor of pilot acceptance. The responses to our

questionnaire revealed nothing to indicate that pilot acceptance of

Device 2B24 would be a significant problem. In fact, pilot acceptance

of the simulator appeared to increase with simulator experience, suggesting little in the way of potential problems.

CONCLUSIONS

The fact that instrument training in Device 2B24 transfers to the

UH-lH is not surprising since it is a high-fidelity simulator of the

UH-lH helicopter. The results are also consistent with the record of

commercial aviation, which has shown that simulators can provide an effective means of providing training for highly qualified pilots.

It should be emphasized, however, that the effectiveness of any

training device depends upon how it is used; success is influenced by

variables concerning conditions that are favorable and unfavorable to

learning. Prophet (1966) has pointed out that a simulator is a training tool, and, as such, will produce results no better than the quality

of the training program of which it is a part. The evidence of transfer in the present study may well be attributed to the training program

rather than to simulator design alone. It is possible, for example,

that if inflight training were conducted differently, that is, with a

15

LI
more systematic training program, some evidence of additional benefits

might be found.

The findings of this study complement results of past studies that

demonstrated the operational utility of simulator training (Caro, 1972;

Woodruff and Smith, 1974). In particular, analysis of the data indicate

that much of the instrument training now conducted in rotary-wing aircraft can be conducted more effectively on the ground. Although with

Device 2B24, pilots may require approximately the same number of hours

of training as in the aircraft, the total time required is actually reduced because of the greater availability of the simulator and the

elimination of much of the aircraft preparation time. The safety associated with elimination of much of the inflight training time; the

release of aircraft for operational flights; and the decreased cost of

operating the simulator, rather than an aircraft for training all add up

to a highly positive evaluation of Device 2B24 for the maintenance of

instrument pilot proficiency. A reasonable conclusion is that evidence

was found to support the assumption that simulator training administered

in Device 2B24 can maintain, and perhaps improve, subsequent pilot performance in a tactical instrument situation. Furthermore, with Device

2B24, the Army has an opportunity to establish an instrument-training

program that can maintain instrument proficiency year round at a reasonable cost. There is little doubt that a more realistic instrumenttraining program would reduce accidents and enhance combat readiness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this study permit the following recommendations with

respect to the training value of Device 2B24 to instrument-rated pilots:

1. Substantial amounts of UH-lH time can be substituted by Device

2B24 time in instrument-proficiency training. General application of

Device 2B24 toward the instrument requirement for Army instrument certification appears warranted on a one-for-one basis up to some limit that

is equal to, or perhaps greater than, 12 hours.

2. The prediction of instrument flight proficiency in the UH-lH

based on a pilot's performance in Device 2B24 appears promising. In

this context, the Army can make greater use of Device 2B24 for certain

instrument-proficiency evaluation checks. It is recommended, however,

that pilots be permitted to take a checkride in the aircraft if they

fail to pass a simulator checkride, as airline pilots are permiLted.

This procedure would enhance pilot acceptance and provide important additional data on the validity of assessing pilot proficiency in the

simulator.

3. All instrument training should be conducted on a proficiency

basis. Since the level of instrument skill importantly influences transfer, the number of hours of training should depend upon pilot skill

rather than upon fixed hours.

16
4. Since Device 2B24 can discriminate the level of instrument

skills about as well as the UH-IH, the simulator can be used on an individual basis to assess skill level and, hence, determine training

hours.

17

t'
REFERENCES

Adams, J. A. Some Considerations in the Design and Use of Dynamic Flight

Simulators. (AFPTRC-TN57-51) Lackland Air Force Base, Tex.: Air

Force Personnel and Training Research Center, 1957.

American Airlines, Inc. Flight Training Academy. Optimized Flight

Crew Training, a Step Toward Safer Operations. American Airlines,

Inc. Fort Worth, Tex., 1969.

Briggs, C. E. Retroactive Inhibition as a Function of the Degree of

Original and Interpolated Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 53, 60-67.

Caro, P. W. An Innovative Instrument Flight Training Program. New

York: Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper No. 710480, 1971.

Caro, P. W. Transfer of Instrument Training and the Synthetic Flight

Training System. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization, Professional Paper 7-72, 1972.

Crook, W. G. Experimental Assessment of Ground Trainers in General

Aviation Pilot Training. (FAA-ADS-67-5) Federal Aviation Agency,

Washington, D.C. April 1965. (AD 652371).

Duncan, D. B. Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests. Biometrica, 1955,

11, 1-42.

McGrath, J. J., and Harris, D. H. Adaptive Training. Aviation Research

Monographs, 1971, 1 (2).

Prophet, W. W. The Importance of Training Requirements Information in

the Design and Use of Aviaticn Training Devices. Human Resources

Research Organization, Professional Paper 8-66, 1966.

Roscoe, S. N. Incremental Transfer Effectiveness. Human Factors, 1971,

13, 561-567.

TransWorld Airlines. Flight Simulator Evaluation. Kansas City, Mo.:

TransWorld Airlines, Flight Operations Training Department, June

1969.

Woodruff, R. R., and Smith, J. F. T-4G Simulator and T-4 Ground Training Devices in USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training. Air Force Human

Resources Ldboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, Tex., Rep. No.

AFHRL-TR-74-78, November 1974.

19

"
APPENDIX A

SCORE SHEET

INSTRUMENT EVALUATION

UH-I

Name Rank SSAN Unit 3

1. Flight planning 20 points _

a. Weather requirements for departure enroute

destination and alternative 10 points

b. Fuel management, planning, enroute,

alternate fuel check enroute 5 points

c. DD 175 & FAA 7233-1 5 points

2. Departure and enroute procedures 20 points

a. Navigation and tracking 10 points

b. Radio reports 10 points

3. Hold and arrival 20 points

a. Holding, entry, time, track, altitude

airspeed 10 points

b. Approach and missed approach 10 points

4. Air Traffic Control Center (ATC) procedures 20 points

a. Understanding and complying with

clearance and procedures

5. Aircraft control 20 points

a. Airspeed ±10 Kts 10 points

Altitude ±100 feet

Heading ±100

b. ITO (Instant Take-off) 10 points

Aircraft turn (enroute, holding, approaches)

General aircraft control

100 points maximum

SCORE points

21

Li [ .. .......... .... .............. i i .... ...
APPENDIX B

TABLES SHOWING VARIANCE OF PERFOR4ANCE SCORES

Table B-i

Analysis of Variance of the Composite Scores of Two Groups

of Pilots Assigned to Different Training Modes

Source of Sum of Mean

variation squares df square F p

Groups (G) 3344.69 1 3344.69 17.91 '.001

Training Modes (M) 115.39 2 57.69 .31

Interaction: G x M 15.72 2 7.86 .04

Error: 5603.17 30 186.77

Table B-2

Analysis of Variance of Inflight Performance Scores of the Low

Pilot Group Tested under Different Modes with

Three Test Periods for Each Pilot

Source of Sum of Mean

variation squares df square F p

Training Modes (M) 186.86 2 93.43 .66

Error: 2108.25 15 140.55

Test Periods (P) 4572.72 2 2286.36 17.9 <.001

Interaction: P x M 217.60 4 54.40 1.18

Error: 3834.90 30 127.83

23 I
Table B-3

Analysis of Variance of Inflight Performance Scores of the

High Pilot Group Tested under Different Training

Modes with Three Test Periods for Each Pilot

Source of Sum of Mean

variation squares df square F p

Training Modes (M) 82.10 2 41.05 .17

Error: 3663.51 15 244.23

Test Periods (P) 773.64 2 386.82 2.42

Interaction: P x M 1018.00 4 254.50 1.59

Error: 4801.50 30 160.05

Table B-4

Analysis of Variance of Inflight Performance Scores of the Two

Pilot Groups Tested under Different Training Modes

during the Last Training Period

Source of Sum of Mean

variation squares df square F p

Training Modes (M) 730.40 2 365.20 2.38

Between Groups (G) 61.43 1 61.43 .40

Interaction: M x G 376.88 2 188.44 1.23

Error: 4604.40 30 153.50

24
Table B-5

Analysis of Variance of Change Scores of the Two Pilot

Groups Tested under Different Training Modes

during Three Test Periods

Source of Sum of Mean

variation squares df square F p

Groups (G) 943.17 1 943.17 8.32 <.01

Training Modes (M) 933.92 2 466.96 4.12 <.05

Interaction: G x M 614.30 2 307.15 2.17

Error: 2833.50 25 113.34

Test Periods (P) 628.78 2 314.39 4.22 <.025

Interaction: P x G 152.44 2 76.22 1.07

Interaction: P x M 712.24 4 178.06 2.39

Interaction: P x G

x M 545.36 4 136.34 1.83

Error: 4842.50 65 74.50

25
APPENDIX C

SFTS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME

PART I

The scale below applies to questions in Part I. Place the letter

representing the description which best fits your opinion on the line

following each question.

A B C D E

Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree

1. A qualified UH-l aviator can maintain instrument proficiency, if all

instrument training is completed in the Synthetic Flight Training System

(SFTS).

2. The SFTS is more difficult to fly than the actual aircraft.

3. If you were (are) an instructor pilot, you would probably prefer

teaching Instant Flight Rules (IFR) skills in the SFTS rather than in

tha aircraft.

4. IFR proficiency can be achieved and maintained in the aircraft in

less time than in the SFTS.

5. You can safely complete an IFR mission in the UH-I aircraft, if you

had received all of your training in the SFTS during the previous

3 months.

6. I prefer to do my instrument training in the SFTS.

7. IFR training received in the SFTS can transfer to the aircraft.

8. IFR training is more effective when it is given in both the SFTS and

aircraft.

27
PART II

1. How many hours of pilot time training do you think you may need per

year to maintain instrument proficiency, if all your training is completed in the:

(a) aircraft

(b) SFTS

(c) SFTS and aircraft

2. What three characteristics do you most dislike concerning instrument

training in the SFTS?

(a)

(b)

(c)

3. What three characteristics do you most dislike concerning instrument

training in the aircraft?

(a)

(b)

(c)

4. What characteristic(s) of IFR flying can best be taught in the SFTS?

5. What characteristic(s) of IFR flying can best be taught in aircraft?

6. Are there any additional comments you would like to make concerning

your instrument training in the aircraft and/or SFTS?

28
1STRIBUTION

ARI Distrilbtiron List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HOUSACDEC. Ft Ord, ATTN Library

HODA IDAMI CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN ATEC-EX-E-Hum Factors

1 HODA IDAPE PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Hairsoi, ATTN: Library

1 HODA iDAMAAR) 1 USAPACDC, Ft Benjamin Harrison. ATTN: ATCP-HR

1 HODA (DAPE HRE PO) I USA Comm-Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN-EA

HODA ISGRD ID) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth. ATTN: AMSEL-CT- HOP

1 HODA IDAMI DOT C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL -PA-P

1 HODA (DAPC-PMZ A) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL SI-CB

1 HODA MACH PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: C, Facl Dev Br

SHODA (DAPE-HRE) I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberrieen, ATTN: AMXSY-P

1 HODA (DAPE MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal. Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA BL-H

1 HODA IDAPEDW I USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen. ATTN: ATSL-TEM-C

SHODA (DAPE HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab. Aberdeen, ATTN- Library/Dir

I HODA (DAPE-CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd. Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Lint. Ft Benning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA IDARD-ARS P) I USA Infantry Bd. Ft Benning ATTN: STEBC-TE-T

1 HODA IDAPC.PAS-AI 1 USASMA, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS--LRC

1 HODA (OUSA OR) 1 USA Air Def Sch. Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA CTD-.ME

1 HODA (DAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HODA (DASGI 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: FILES

1 HODA (DAlO-PI) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBD-PO

1 Chief. Consult Div (DA OTSG). Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Lib

1 Mil Asst. Hum Res, ODDR&E. DAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE-L

1 HO USARAL. APO Seattle. ATTN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA-OI-T 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army. Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1 Dir, Army Sf Studies Ofc. ATTN OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act. Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Stf. Studies Ofc I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dew Act, Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: ATCACO-E

1 DCSPER, ATTN CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC-CI

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon. ATTN RSB Chief 1 USAECOM, Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL-NV-SD

1 The Army Lib. Pentagon. ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc. Asst Sect of the Army (4&01 1 USAMEROC, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB-DO

1 Tech Support Ofc, OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir. ATTN: Library

1 USASA, Arlingtun. ATTN: IARDT 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL -TD-S

1 USA Rsch Otc. Durham. ATTN. Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir. ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM. Natick, ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL-GSL

1 USATTC, Ft Clayton, ATTN: STETC-MO.A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: CTD-MS

1 USAIMA. Ft Bragg, ATTN: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS-CTD-MS

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TE

I US WAC Ctr & Sch. Ft McClellan, ATTN: Lib I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huac.uca, ATTN: ATSI-TEX-GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTS-OR

1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-DT

1 Intelligence Material Dev Ofc, EWL, Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-CTD-CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon, ATTN: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch, Ft Hamilton, ATTN: ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-TEM

1 USATSCH, Ft Eustis, ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks, ATTN: Lib I CDR, HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR, Neuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR, USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN: STEEP-MT-S

1 DLI. SDA, Monterey 1 CDR, Project MASSTER, ATTN: Tech Info Center

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda. ATTN: MOCA-WGC 1 Hq MASSTER, USATRADOC, LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 Research Institute, HO MASSTER, Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian, ATTN: USARCPM-P

1 USA Artic Test Ctr, APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC-MO-ASL 1 Senior Army Adv., USAFAGOD/TAC, Elgin AF Aux FId No. 9

1 USA Artic Test Cir. APO Seattle. ATTN: AMSTE-PL-TS 1 HO USARPAC, DCSPER, APO SF 96658, ATTN: GPPE-SE

1 USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK-TEM 1 Stimson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

I USA Armament Cmd. Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR-TDC I Marine Corps Inst.. ATTN: Dean-MCI

1 FAA.NAFEC. Atlantic City. ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAANAFEC, Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Engr Br 1 HOUSMC, Commandant. ATTN: Code MPI-20

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City. ATTN: AAC.44D 2 USCG Academy, New London. ATTN: Admission

2 USA FId Arty Sch. Ft Sill. ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Library

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox. ATTN: Library I USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: CO

1 USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox. ATTN: ATSB-DI-E 1 USCG Training Ctr, NY, ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox, ATTN! ATSB-OT-TP I USCG, Psychol Res Br. DC, ATTN: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox, ATTN: ATSB-CD-AD 1 HO Mid-Range Br, MC Det. Quantico, ATTN: P&S Div

29
IIi:' Mas k'-., t I iloll Oh. 1 MN' Alexindri, ATTN: AMCGS F IDO & t, In11hst fit Irwin Msuri,(aritid

! IIS I4 ri f Mnmv A I fr. P rRo it) 1Al R CR S',, Keisitgion. ATTN- Ito Sy Br

it LJI;A I ttA00Ct I M-.III Al IIN rt'l All1 I weriskolrtgisk Tlosrwste, Copetiagel

I A I )(Al,) . 1 t Ma::.. Al ! N %111 E A I M amV AiIjc., i f-Ich m:vjAl rti. Due see

IIISP I %..: ,d. F. N! I'~-i A TN iL trir i M..1

v6. 11<, C F* I P~ A5 t'l.. iln/Noata France

2) IISA Avi, I It-t Lt, Ft Fi,: ;:, '%, (. STEBG-P I V-11 Ss.10111 UP, Ott. Aiitim p Entp Fisct Div, Ministry

IIISA Aspilst Awaimi I 5.1: t Riw ker, AT TN: Libhrary )I De fense . N ti !ii,

11ISA A+, s- Aviti si- t ftiIrr A ITN: Edur Advisw 1,,r n. 01i. :A,- . AKA. Israel Defernse Forces

I t I'A ,. 'I- i,. h I tIick,:, Al rN: i'l 0f8wet 'Vl .:,, " .'e nOrP!KI AD' Sociaal

i it ,'i X. ni " v, ll.i St t .,- i. A I* rN. AMSAV -ZDR V*I' .... ji'stW LZ '. T: oiii.:i. Netherlands

I :. x Ai iiSv r,..,~ ,rt:I~ . t AFB, ATTN: SAVTE--T

I It A -'I I SoI. 1r ty. ATIN: ATSA 1EM

I.t.. a1~ %lolts: IFlit, ATTN t SAVDL AS

* ,.A . i' o I. 111 !. .li io Hke, AT TN: ATST- T -ATM

I ~5 a' 5.: L, I i taa1, 'r ATTN: ATST 0D-A

I! MCI( At e.j,ta AT N. AMIXCDO-TL

I pai: Atia~sit. Al TW. CDR

'., l.A F A, t P.~nlt ATTI'. Serials Unit

kwh-n. A:aIit. Wv~r Pimrst. 0l IN Wte of Milt Ldrshp

.~' A;.ti aw I'~ lVsI I''I 'ITT. MAOR

a~ ~~~6 ~it~ii'I UK I, t-' NN', AY-TN: MASE-GC

AIi , ta. 1. ' 452

P I, z h. is ;,T TtIJ.~AlN: Ccite 450

N it-.-. i. a, Aa'rjg.i. All N: Code 441

'1A fr Re Li, st,~ uia., ATTN: Acous Sch Div

Y. - d R 'i;ci ATTN: Code 151

at c I i. I i'voi cot, A rTN: Code 15

..... . 9'...0 1~ Per i

.A:. tANA, N.,. \ f I N: Satett, Ctr

* ~ ~ U UtN: I.a..~ 114~ 1t'o!., t, Charts & Tech

IrTN. I II Cr1 I4C

* a,..AItlN: 113

I RLt it r t 'Aitlhli. AFFB

f 1, It1 1 I 1) 1 awr At-fl

' roS) 01,S A tI ti. 0H

Al itt ' WIJ.:, l1ook.. At G BEST AVAILABLE COPY

itAit arklamt(i

a" .. ;9 ..... 1, At ti 151.1. 4). ATTN! DOC SEC

V ~ a. ~ ~ INJL4 ~ I \ AT IN AI t'TJPCHB

.I.00 CI At A1!: 1.,litif BM Scn

* jiiy ri. Ii.. H~l~arcIs. It ti, Sun Diego

*~ F~ ~ sf,, ~ .i i e.pi, AlI t'Pt: Has Lah

* *)ii ., AMiI It I - 11.: L toot-.. -moy, A It'N: Coile 5Aa

i' ct. mors~c ; A.'IAtN. Codte 2124

I '4u i Cos 0, I.wI:l, AlI I Ni. ecti Lib

1..'.t..v r'- is N: ManpiIowe Admrin

.1 . ~ . 1 .. A I .. i EvfuItrcos A in

lps' in 1W,,. I W, A I' fl:N CompTuter Ito Section

4 **' (I ' ':''* IIt.I~,~tIOfcs. Cilterril

0 ..1:1 (1,. .:.- 'k, 9a.ssil (ics, Canberra

Rui ~lf t, 1

i-.I At*. ATrTN: liers .Ild Anal Or

jj.;.j.'j t30