## Aviation Human Factors Division 

# AHFD Institute of Aviation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1 Airpo r t Ro ad Savoy, Illinois 61874


# Effectiveness of Flight Training Devices Used for Instrument Training Henry L. Taylor, Donald A. Talleur, Tom W. Emanuel, Jr., and Esa Rantanen Final Technical Report

AHFD-05-9/FAA-05-4 May 23, 2005 Prepared for
Federal Aviation Administration Atlantic City International Airport, NJ Cooperative Agreement DOT 2002-G-033i

EXE CUTI V E SUMM ARY The effectiveness of gro und-based flight train i ng devices in teaching flying skills is m easured by transfer of training, quan tifiable by a transfer effective rati o (TER). The increm ental transfer effectivenes s ratio (ITE R ) determ ines the transf er effectiven ess of successive in crem ents of training in the ground trainer. Previous research on a personal com puter based aviation training device (PCATD) has shown that th is device is effective for teachi ng instrum e nt tasks (Taylor et al., 1996; 1999). In a later study as predicted by th e increm ental transfer of training theory of Roscoe (1971)., the greatest transf er of training effect was found for the group that received five hours com p ared to 10 and 15 hours of prior PCATD tr aining in an airplane (Taylor et al., 2002b). In som e cases the results indicate a com p lex patte rn supporting the notion that m o re training in a PCATD is not necessarily better. The research re p o rted here sought to replicate the p r evious findings by Taylor et al. ( 1996, 1999, 2002b) using both PCATDs and flight training devices (FTDs). Participants in this experim e nt were assigned to four flight training device (FTD) groups, one PCATD group, and a control (air plane) group. T r aining in the FTD was conducted in Frasca 141, level-1 FTDs. The PCATD training was conducte d using FAA approved PCATDs from Aviation Teachware Technologies (ELITE) v. 6.0.2, with fli ght contro ls by Precisio n Flight Con t rols. Airplane training was carried out in the Piper Arc h er III a i rc ra ft. Using a transfer of training design, the six groups of subjects were tested in the airplane for proficiency on various instrum e nt flying tasks in both basic (AVI 130) and advanced instrum e nt (AVI 140) courses. One group received 5 hours of prior training on instrum e nt tasks in a PCATD, four groups received 5, 10, 15 and 20 hours of prior training in a FTD, and the control group received all training in the airplane. The FTD 15 and 20 groups received an additional 5 and 10 hours respectively of cross- country training in the FT D. W ith the exception of the crosscountry tim e, the treatm e nt of the FT D 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. Mean trials to reach criterion in the airplane for s e lected ins t ru m e nt tasks and m ean time to
com p lete the flight lesson were computed fo r all groups for both courses. Separate ANOVAs were perform e d to analyze the difference between the four groups on the three dependent
m easures for both AVI 130 and 140 to determ ine the significance of the trial and flight lesson to
com p letion tim e variables as a function of experim e ntal treatm ent, and to explore variability in the tim e to a successful evaluation flight as a function of the expe rim e ntal treatm ent. The results indicate that the FTD is effective for teaching basic instrum e nt tasks to p r ivate pilots. The current study system atically replicated th e finding from a study by Taylor et al. (2002b), which had established sim ilar results for the PCATD. For AVI 130 the current study found that
com p ared to the control group prio r training in the FTD resulted in a sm aller num ber of trials in the airplane for 10 of 12 flying tasks tested, as we ll as a sign if icant tre a tm ent ef f

ect (a ssignm ent to group). F o r m ean trials to criterion in th e airplane in AVI 140, the control group required more trials than the FTD 5 and the F T D 10 for a ll instrum e nt tasks f o r all lessons. Sig n if icant treatm ent effects were found for four instrum e nt tasks. The m ean tim es to com p lete each of the four flight lessons in AVI 130 and 140 were less th an the tim e for the control (airplane) group for the PCATD 5 and the FT D 5 and 10 experim e ntal groups. One objective of the current study was to inves tigate the effectiveness of the FTD for crosscountry training. In addition to the ten hours of prior FTD training on instrum e nt tasks, the FTDii

15 and 20 groups received an additional 5 and 10 hours, respectively, of cross-country training in the FTD. The FTD 15 group received 2 hours of cross country tim e in AVI 130 and 3 hours in 140; the FT D 20 group received 4 hours of cr oss country time in AVI 130 and 6 hours in 140. W ith the exception of the cross-country tim e, the treatm e nt of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. A lthough the results failed to show an hour for hour replacem ent of aircraft crosscountry training with F T D cross- country training, savings of a pproxim a tely 50% were realized by the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups. The current study found the greate st transfer for the FTD 5 group com p ar ed to the FT D 10 group for trials in AVI 130 (6 of 8 com p arisons), tr ials in AVI 140 (14 of 14 comparisons), tim e to
com p lete the flight lesson in AVI 130 (3 of 4 comparisons), and tim e to com p lete the flight lesson in A V I 140 (4 of 4 com p arisons). Increased trials/time in the FTD sa ved trials/tim e in the airplane for trials in AVI 130 (5 of 6 com p ar isons) but not for trials in AVI 140 (1 of 11
com p arisons), nor for tim e to com p l e te the fli ght lesson in A V I 130, (1 of 4 com p arisons), nor for tim e to com p lete the flight lesson in AVI 140 (2 of 4 comparisons). T h e TERs for all instrum e nt tasks for flight lesson 34/35, 36, and 37, and VOR flight lessons 38 showed the predicted negatively decelerated function for incr eased num ber of trials. Exam ination of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that add ition a l train i ng for trials for the FTD 10 group provided little benefit over the FT D 5 group. Taylor et al. (2002b) reported that two of the five ITERs for num b er of trials showed the predic ted pattern of a negativ ely d ecelerated function (Roscoe, 1971; Flexm a n et al., 1972). Both the current research and the study by Taylor et al. (2002b) show that m o re training in the FTD or the PCATD is not necessarily better in te rm s of savings. The resu lts in the cu rrent study indic t ed tha t reduced tra n sf er f o r the FTD occurred f o r trials and f o r tim e to com p lete the f light lessons in AVI 140 as compared to AVI 130. The resu lts system atically rep licated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) for the PCATD for AVI 140 when com p ared to AVI 130. The negatively decelerated function of the ITER predicts reduced transfer fo r instrum e nt tasks in trod uced during later stages in the instructiona l sequence (Roscoe, 1971). Taylor et al. (1999) also found less transfer during AVI 140 than AVI 130. They noted that “the evident reason for this is that what is learned w h ile m a stering one task in a training device generalizes (i.e., tr ansfers to s o m e extent) to othe r task s introdu ced late r, thus reducing the rem a ining potenti al for transfer” (T aylor et al., 1999).
In the cu rren t study, th e tim e to a successful evaluation fligh t was less for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5, and the FTD 10 groups com p ared to the control group for both AVI 130 and 140. The total savings for both AVI 130 and 140 was 2.75, 5.06, and 4.26 for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5, and the FTD 10 groups respectively. Taylor et al . (2002b) also found that tim e to a successful evaluation flight was less for three P C ATD groups when compared to the control group for both AVI 130 and 140. The total savings for both AVI 130 and 140 was 4.08, 5.49, and 3.19 for the PCATD 5, 10, and 15 groups respectively. For the current study the total tim e savings for both AVI 130 and 140 was 2.75 for the PCATD 5 group com p ared to 4.08 hours for this group in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study. These differences are likely due to the com p aratively low power of the current study. These findings system atically re plicated the findings of Taylor et al. (1999) who found overall savings of 3.90 hours.iii

Table of Contents
EXE CUTI V E SUMM ARY

.......................................................................................................... i
FOREWORD

............................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................................ 1 Prior Research

................................................................................................................ .... 1 Purpose of the Research

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

............................................................................................................................... ...... 3 Participants

.................................................................................................................. ....... 3 Equipm ent

..................................................................................................................... ..... 4 Procedure

..................................................................................................................... ...... 4 Analyses

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

............................................................................................................................... ...... 8 Trials to Criterion

........................................................................................................... .... 8 AVI 130

.................................................................................................................. 8 AVI 140

................................................................................................................ 10 Tim e to Complete Flight Lesson...................................................................................... 13 AVI 130

................................................................................................................ 13 AVI 140

................................................................................................................ 16 Tim e to Eva l uation Flight

................................................................................................ 18 AVI 130

................................................................................................................ 18 AVI 140

................................................................................................................ 20 Overall T i me Saved

......................................................................................................... 21 Effectiveness of Using the FT D for Cross-Country Training

.......................................... 21
DISCUSSI ON

............................................................................................................................. 22 Mean Trials

................................................................................................................... ... 22 AVI 130

................................................................................................................ 22 AVI 140

................................................................................................................ 23 Mean Tim e to Com p lete the Flight L e sson...................................................................... 24 AVI 130

................................................................................................................ 24 AVI 140

................................................................................................................ 25 Tim e to a Successful Evaluation Flight

........................................................................... 26 AVI 130

................................................................................................................ 26 AVI 140

................................................................................................................ 26 Effectiveness of Using the FTD for Cross Country Training

.......................................... 27
CONCL US ION

.......................................................................................................................... 27
REFE RE NCES

........................................................................................................................... 29
APPE NDI X A: PUB L I CATIONS AND P R E S ENT A TI ONS

................................................ 30
APPE NDI X B: SAMP LE SCORE CARDS F R OM FLIGHT LESS O NS 36 AND 48

........ 31iv

FOREWORD This work is supported under Federal Av iation A d m i nistration (FAA) Cooperative Agreem ent Num b er 02-G-033 and sponsored by the FAA Headquarters, Flight Standard Service, General Aviation & Commercial Division. Dennis Beringer served as the COTR. Views expressed h e rein do no t necessa rily r e presen t of f i cial FAA position s . W e express ou r appreciation to Ms. Sybil Phillips for invaluab le assistance with flight operations and with student m a nagem e nt. Mr. W illiam Jones, Mr. Da vid Boyd, and Mr. Donald Talleur s e rved as check pilots. W e also thank the Institute of Avia tion the flight instructors and students for their participa tion in the s t udy

.INTRODUCTION Training of flying skills in gr ound-based devices offers m a ny attr active benefits, of which the two m o st importan t are s a f e ty a nd co st. However, it is cr itical to ascertain that use of flight training devices (FTDs) and pers onal com puter aviation training devices (PCATDs) indeed work in this capac ity, th at is, their use sav e s tra i ni ng tim e in an airplane. Such effectivenes s is
m easured by transfer of training. To evaluate tr ansfer of training effec tiveness of a ground-based trainer, the perform a nce of par tic ipan ts tr ained on instrum e nt tasks in th e tr ainer, and la ter trained to criterion in an airpla ne, m u st be com p ared to the perfor m ance of participants trained to criterion only in the airplane. Percent transfer is comm only used to determine the savings (trials/tim e ) in an airplan e as a result of prio r training in a ground traine r. T h e percen t transfer
m easure, however, does not accoun t for the tria ls /tim e in the ground train e r to achieve those savings. Roscoe (1971) d e m onstrated that the tr an sfer effectiv e ratio (TER) accoun ts for the
am ount of prior training in ground tr ainers by sp ecifying the trials /tim e saved in th e airplane as a function of the prior trials/tim e in the ground traine r. The increm ental transfer effectiveness ratio (ITER) determ ines the transfer effectiveness of successive increm ents of training in the ground trainer (Flex m an, Roscoe, W illiam s & W illiges, 1972). Prior Resea r ch A study to determ ine the extent to which a PCATD can be used to develop specific instrum e nt s k ills that are taught in in strum e nt f light training and to determ ine transfer of these skills to the aircraft was reporte d by Taylor et al. ( 1996, 1999). Students in instrum e nt training at the Ins t itute of Aviation, University o f Illin o i s at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) were taught instrum e nt tasks using a commercially availa ble PCATD. The perfor m a nce of one group of students trained to crite rion on a number of instrum e nt tasks in a PCATD and later trained to criterion in an aircraft (P CATD group) was com p ared with a group of students who received no PCATD training but were trained to criterion on the sam e instru m e nt tasks in the airplane (control group). In order to evalua te transfer of training effectiv eness of th e PCATD to com p lete each flight lesson in th e airp lane and m a ke com p ar isons of trials to criterion in the airplane,
course com p letion tim es for the two groups were recorded. The findings of the study indicated that the PCATD was an effective training dev i ce for teaching instrum e nt tasks. W h en new tasks were introdu ced, tr ansf er

savings wer e genera lly positiv e and statistica lly signif i can t. No significant transfer was found when tasks already l earned in previous lessons were reviewed. The
com p arison of course completion tim es indicated an overall savings of a bout four hours in the airplane for the PCATD group com p ared to the control group; the savings were statistically significant. The overall transfer effectiveness ratio was 0.15 or a savings of 1.5 flight hours for each ten hou rs of PCATD tim e. In a later study, Taylor et al. (2002a, b) m easured the e ffectiveness of a PCATD and determ ined the point at which additional training in a PCATD was no longer effective. Three groups of students at the UIUC received 5, 10, or 15 hours of prior trainin g on selected instrum e nt tasks requ ired for the ins t rum e nt ratin g. After training on each instrum e nt task the participan ts were evalu a ted in the air p lane us ing com p letion standards for each task and these results were com p ared to a control group traine d only in the airplane. The dependent m easures were num be r of trials to specific com p letion standa rds, tim e to com p lete a flight lesson, and tim e to a successful evaluation flight in both basi c and advanced instrum e nt courses (AVI 130 and AVI 140, respectively). The data from the study indicated that the PCATD was effect ive in

1teach ing basic and advan ced instrument tasks to private pilots. For all three PCATD groups in AVI 130, prior training in the PCATD reduced the m ean trials to com p letion standards in the airplane for 21 of the 24 instrum e nt tasks tested wh en com p ared to the mean tr ials f o r the control group. A significant difference was f ound for the trea tm ent effect for m e a n trials in AVI 130 for the four groups. Post-hoc tests indicated that th e treatm ent effect was due to differences between the control group and both the PCATD 5 and the PCATD 15 groups. For AVI 140, the data indica te th at, with six ex ception s out of 33 instrum e nt task meas ures, the m ean trials in the airplane were less for all three PCATD groups for all instrum e nt tasks when com p ared with the
m ean trials in the airplane by the control gr oup. Statistical analyses indicated no significant differences due to experim e ntal treatm ent for the four groups In AVI 130 the m ean tim es to com p lete the flight lesson in the airplane for the four flight lessons in which there w a s prior training in th e PCATD were lower for all three PCATD groups than for the control group. A signi ficant treatm e nt effect was found for the four groups. Three of the flight lessons showed the pr ed icted decreased m ean ti m e with increas ed prior training in the PCATD when the PCATD 5 and 10 groups were co m p ared, and one flight lesson showed this pattern when the PCATD 10 and 15 groups were com p ared. For AVI 140, the m ean tim es for all three PCATD groups to com p lete each of the four flight lesso ns were less than the tim e for the Control group. An analysis of m ean tim es for the four groups to com p lete the flight lesson indicated a s i gnifican t treatm e nt effect. Post-h oc tests, however, in dicated no significant differences between the contro l group and any of the experimental groups. Analyses of individual flight lessons com p aring the tim e to com p lete the flight lesson am ong the four groups found a significant treatm ent effect for one flight lesson, but not for the other three scored flight lessons in AVI 140. The pattern of the TERs for th e m ean ti me to com p lete the flight lesson variable for the PCATD groups showed the predic ted negatively decelerate d function for three of the four flight lesson for increased amounts of training tim e in the PCATD. Increased training tim e in AVI 140 beyond PCATD 5 did little to reduce the training tim e in the airplane. In AVI 130, the m ean tim e to a successful eval u a tion fligh t was less for all three PC ATD groups compared to the control group. A significant treatm e nt effect was found for the four groups for the tim e to a successful evaluation flight during the basic instrum e nt course. Post-hoc
com p arisons indicated a significan t d i fference between the PCATD 10 group and the C ontrol group. For AVI 140, the m ean ti m e to a successful evaluation flight was less for all three PCATD groups than for the control group. A sign ificant treatm ent effect was found in AVI 140 for the four groups for the tim e to a successful ev aluation flight during the advanced instrum e nt course. Post-hoc com p arisons, however, indicated no significant differences between the control group and any of the PCATD groups (Taylor et al., 2002b). The Taylor et al. (2002b) study rep licated the findings of Taylor et al. (1996) in that P C ATDs are useful to teach instru m e nt tasks to private pilots. As a res u lt of prio r train i ng in a PCATD, trials, tim e to com p lete the flight lesson, and tim e to a successful evaluati on flight were all less when com p ared to an airplane control group. Ov erall, the greatest effect was found for the PCATD 5 group, which was predicted by the increm en tal transfer of training theory of Roscoe (1971). In som e cases the results indicated a complex pattern supporting the notion that m o re training is n o t necess a rily better. That is, add i tion al train i ng in the PCATD did not a l ways lead to more trials/ tim e saved in the airplane com p ared to the control group. The results also indicated reduced trials/tim e saved for AVI 140 com p ar ed to AVI 130. The negativ ely decelerated function of the ITER predicts reduced transfer fo r instrum e nt tasks in trod uced during later stages

2in the instructional se quence (Roscoe, 1971). Taylor et al. (1999) also found less transfer during AVI 140 than AVI 130. They concluded that what is learned while m a stering one task in a training device generalizes to other tasks introduced later, w h ich reduces the rem a ining potential for transfer. Generally, in the Ta ylor et al. (2002b) study, little additional tim e/trials were saved by the PCATD 10 group when compared to the PCATD 5 group and practically no increm ental transfer was found for the additional hours of training by the PCATD 15 group com p ared to the PCATD 10 group. One purpose for conduc ting an increm ental transfer of training study is to determ ine at what point additiona l training in the PCATD in no l onger ef fective. Taylor et al. (2002b) concluded that no appr eciable benefit was found for m o re than 5 hours of PCATD training on instrum e nt tasks. These results provide support f o r the current FAA policy of perm itting P C ATD tim e to be used in lieu of tim e in an approv ed tra i ning d e vice o r airp lane, but found that o n ly 5 of the 10 hours perm itted could be used in a cost-effective m a nner. The results also provide no support for increasing the am ount of tim e using PCATDs from 10 to 15 hours as a substitute f o r tim e in th e air c raf t to tra i n ins t ru m e nt tasks. Purpose of the Research The question rem a ins, however, how can flight schools m o st effectively use the 10 hours of instrum e nt train i ng tim e in a PCATD curren tly perm itted by AC No: 61-126 (FAA, 1997). Taylor et al. (1999) suggested the approach used in this research of allocating the above tim e to the training of the following instrum e nts tasks: steep turns, intersection holds, ILS, VOR and LOC BC Approaches, V O R, ILS and DME ARC approaches, review approaches, NDB holds and approaches, NDB holds and approaches revi ew, and holds and approaches using partial panel. The results of Taylor et al. (2002b) clearly indicated th at the use of 5 hours of PCATD tim e in acco rdance with the suggestions of Taylor et al. (1999 ) was cost-effective based on the alloc a tion of PCATD time f o r the PCATD 5 gr oup, but the doubling and tripling of the trials /tim e in these fligh t lessons, which was done as part of th e experim e ntal design in the Taylor et al. (2002b) stud y, was not an effective u s e of the add ition a l tim e for the 10 nor the 15 hour groups. Flight schools should exam ine their training course outlines (TCOs) to determ ine where the ad dition a l 5 ho urs could be effectivel y used. Taylor et al. (2002 b) suggested that PCATDs would be effective in cross-country training. The purpose of the research reported here was to replicate the Taylor et al. (2002b) study that provided prior training on selective instrum e nt ta sks. W e directly replicated the PCATD 5 group using a PCATD and system atically replicated the PCATD 5 and 10 groups using FTDs. In addition, tw o new FTD groups were added to the experim e ntal design, the FTD 15 and 20 groups. These two groups directly replicat ed the FTD 10 group in the current study for instrum e nt flight tasks but added 5 and 10 hours of cross country tim e respectively. T h e final group in the study is a control group that received training only in the airplane.

METHOD Partic ipants Participants were assigned to four fli ght training device (FTD ) groups, one PCATD gr oup, and a control (airplane) group. In the initial proposal a total of 180 pilots ( 30 in each of the 6 groups) were scheduled to partic ipate in the study. Due to fundi ng reductions in the second and third years of the research, the num ber of pilots in the study was first reduced to a total of 120 (20 subjects in each g r ou p) and, due to the el im ination of FY 2005 funding, the even tual num ber

3of participan ts for each g r oup who successfully com p leted th e instrum e nt program ranged between 15 and 20 for the six group s. The partic ipants wer e priv ate pilot students at the UIUC who were enrolled in the Institut e of Aviation’s instrum e nt flight program. This program consists of two se m e ster courses: AVI 130, Basic Inst rum e nts and AVI140, Advanced Instruments. All students in the instrum e nt program were involve d in the study. A total of 102 students com p leted the study. E ach sem e ster the students were assign ed equally to the six groups while m a intaining a balanced num b er of participan ts across all groups to account fo r students who did not com p lete the cours e

. Equipment Training in the FTD was conducted in Frasca 141 , level-1 FTDs with generic single-engine, fixed-gear, and fixed-pitch pr opeller perform a nce m odels. Th e PCATD tr aining was conducted using FAA approved PCATDs from Aviation Teachware Technologies (E LITE) v. 6.0.2, with flight controls by Precision F light Controls (Figure 1). The PCATDs sim u lated th e f lig ht characteristics of the Pip e r Arch er III aircraft. Th e system cont ained an instructor m a p display and a 20-in ch m onitor an d hood. The 20-inch m on itor p e rm itted the disp lay of eight flig ht instrum e nts; avionics were contained in a separate unit positioned just to the side of the m onitor. Airplane training was carried out in the Piper Arc h er III a i rc ra ft which is a single engine, fixed pitch propeller, fixed under-carriage aircraft.

Figure 1 . PCATD from Aviation Teachware Technologi es (E LITE) v 6.0.2, and flight controls by Precision Flight Controls.

Procedure The instrument training program at the Institute of Aviation is divided into two courses: AVI 130, Basic Instrum e nts and AVI 140, Advanced Instrum e nts. AVI 130 e m phasizes aircraft control and instrum e nt departure, en route a nd approach procedures, while AVI 140 emphasizes NDB holds and approaches and pa rtial panel procedures. This re port presents the results from
4both AVI 130, and AVI 140. The students received 45 hours of lectures during the sem e ster for both courses as well as 1 5 flight less ons, each of which are p r ogramm e d for one les s o n per week. Experim e ntal curricula for both courses were developed for PCATD group, the FTD groups and the control group. Using a transfer of training design, six groups of subjects were tested in the airplane for proficiency on various instrum e nt flying tasks in both courses. One group received 5 hours of prior instrum e nt training in a PCATD, and f our groups received 5, 10, 15 and 20 hours of prior training in a FTD. The prior tr aining on instrum e nt tasks was di stributed equally between AVI 130 and AVI 140. A control group receive d all training in the airplane. Training on selected instrum e nt tasks using the F T D and PCATD was adm i nistered to the four FTD gr oups and the PCATD group during four flight lessons for each sem e ster. The FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups received ten hours of prior FT D training on instrum e nt tasks (see Table 1). In addition, FTD training was given during certain cross-coun try lessons in both AVI 130 and AVI 140 for the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups to inve stigate the effectiven ess of the FTD for cross-country training. T h e FTD 15 and 20 gr oups received an additional 5 and 10 hours respectively of cross-country training in the FTD. The FTD 15 group received 2 hours of crosscountry tim e in AVI 130 and 3 hours in 140; the FTD 20 group received 4 hours of cross-country tim e in AVI 130 and 6 hours in 140. W ith the excepti on of the cross-country tim e, the treatm e nt of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. Table 1. Time (hours) in PCATD and FTD by group and fl ight lesson in the AVI 130 and 140 courses.

E x p e r i m e n t a l Grou p Flight Lesso n PCATD 5 an d FTD 5 FTD 10 FTD 15 FTD 20 AVI 130 34/35: S t e e p Turn s 0

. 5 1

. 0 1

. 0 1

. 0 3 6 : Hold s 0

. 7 1

. 3 1

. 3 1

. 3 37: Appro a ch e s 0

. 7 1

. 3 1

. 3 1

. 3 38: Appro a ch e s 0

. 7 1

. 3 1

. 3 1

. 3 39: IFR X-co untry NA NA 2.0 2.0 42: IFR X-Co untry NA NA NA 2.0 A V I 1 4 0 48: Revie w Appro a che s 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 49: NDB Hold s and App. 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 50: NDB Hold s and App. 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 52: Hold s/Ap proa ch e s 0

. 7 1

. 3 1

. 3 1

. 3 53: IFR X-co untry NA NA 2.0 2.0 54: IFR X-co untry NA NA 1.0 2.0 55: IFR X-co untry NA NA NA 2.0

Prior to the start of each sem e st er, all flight instructors were standard ized on the use o f the FTD and PCATD, the tra i ning cou r se outlin es (T COs), and experim e ntal procedur es. Flight instructors served as both instructors and da ta co llecto rs, r a tin g st udent perform a nces on designated flight tasks in the aircraft. For performance ass e ss m e nt in the airc raft, each instru cto r record ed if the studen t met the com p l e tion s t anda rds during the execution of the desig n ated fligh t

5tasks. They also recorded the num be r of trials to criterion for specific ta sks and flight tim e to
com p lete a flight lesson (Phillips et al., 1995). An exam ple of the check lists used (F light Lessons 36 and 48) is presented in Appendix B. Three check pilots, b lind to the a lloc a tion of students to training conditions, conducted the AVI 130 stage check and the AVI 140 instrum e nt rating flight check. Each flight instructor was instructed to schedul e an evaluation flight af ter f light lesson 40 in AVI 130, and an instrument rating flight check af ter flight lesson 55 in AVI 140 when the student was judged to be able to m eet the pr oficiency standards for the stage check and the instrum e nt proficiency check, re sp ectively. Thes e evalua tion flights permitted the ass e ssm ent of the dif f

e rential tim e to com p lete the f light cour se as a function of the am o unt of prior training in the FTD and the PCATD. Those students who faile d the evalu a tion f ligh t or f a iled to m eet the proficiency standards by flight lesson 45 (stage check) and flight lesson 60 (instrum ent rating check flight) were provided addi tional flight tim e to reach prof iciency. The dependent m e asures in this study were num ber of tria ls in the airplan e to prof ic ie ncy, tim e to com p lete the f light lessons in the airplane, and to ta l cour se com p letio n tim e in th e airplane for both courses. The am ount of tim e in the PCATD a nd the FTD for the four flight lessons in AVI 130 and AVI 140 is shown in Table 1 for the PCATD group and the four FTD groups. The tim e in the PCATD 5 and the FTD 5 is the same for all flig ht lessons and the tim e for the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups is the sam e for flight le ssons during which there is traini ng on instrum e nt tasks. The FTD 15 and 20 groups have an additional 5 and 10 hour s respectively in the F T D for cross country training. This training tim e was substitu ted on an hour for hour basis for aircraft cro s s country tim e. The number of trials in the PCATD and the FTD for the four flight lessons in AVI 130 and AVI 140 is shown in Table 2 for the PCATD group and the four FTD groups.
Table 2. Trials in the PCATD and FTD for instru ment tasks trained in AVI 130 and AVI 140. Trial s in PCA T D and F T D Task (AVI 13 0) PCATD an d FTD 5 FTD 10,1 5 , 20 Steep Turn s (FL 34/35 ) 1 2 Turn in Hold (FL 36) 6 12 ILS (FL 37) 1 2 VOR (F L 37) 1 2 LOC B C (FL 37) 1 2 ILS (FL 38) 1 2 VOR (F L 38) 1 2 DME ARC (F L 38) 2 4 Task (AVI 14 0) Turn s in Hold (FL 48 ) 3 6 ILS (FL 48) 1 2 VOR (F L 48) 1 2 Turn s in NDB Hold (F L 49) 3 6 NDB (FL 49 ) 1 2 Turn s in NDB Hold (F L 50) 3 6 NDB (FL 50 ) 1 2 Turn s in LO C Hold (F L 50) 3 6 NDB (FL 52 ) 1 2 GPS (FL 52 ) 1 2 Turn s in Hold (FL 52 ) 3 6
6Analyses Mean trials to reach criterion on th e airplane for s e lected ins t rum e nt tasks and m ean tim e to
com p lete the flight lesson were computed fo r all groups for both courses. Separate ANOVAs were perform e d to analyze the difference between the four groups on the three dependent
m easures for both AVI 130 and 140 to determ ine the significance of the trial and lesson tim e variables as a function of experi m e ntal treatm e nt, and to explore variability in the tim e to a successful evaluation flight as a function of the e xperim e ntal trea tm ent. To f u rther id e n tif y the locus of any significant effects, Tukey’s HSD pos t–hoc tests were em ployed to m a ke pairwise
com p arisons. The effectiveness of the additi onal tim e in the FTD 15 and 20 groups for crosscountry training was estim a ted by establishing a baseline by subtracti ng the control group tim e from the FTD 10 group tim e (FTD 10 group tim e sa ved in the airplane compared to control group tim e). The baseline was then used to evaluate the effectiveness of the FTD 15 and 20 groups cross country training in the FTD. To es tim a te the effectiveness of FTD cross country training the baseline time saved (FT D 10 group tim e) was subtracted from the tim e for the FTD 15 and 20 group tim e savings. Percent tran sfer, transfer effec tivenes s ratios, and increm ental transfer effective ratios were
com puted for each fligh t lesson us ing the followin g equation s : 

### Y Y Y Percent Transfer c x

c 

### − = ( 1 )

TER X Y Y x

c =

− ( 2 )

ITER X Yx x Yx

= ∆ − ∆

− ) ( ( 3 )

where Y c = Tim e /Trials in airplane by Control group, Y x = Tim e /Trials in ai rplane by PCATD or the FTD group, X = Time/Tri als in a PCATD or FTD, ∆ X = Increm ental unit in T i m e /Tria l s, f o r PCATD or FTD group, and Yx- ∆ x = Tim e /Trials, required by a PCATD or FTD group to reach a perform a nce criterion in an aircraft af ter x - ∆ x trials in a PCATD or FTD Percent tran sfer m easures the difference, expres s e d as a percent, betw een the control and an experim e ntal group (the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and 10 hour groups) in term s of trials/tim e to reach c r iterion in the a i rplane. A pos itiv e perc ent transfer fav o rs the exp e rim e ntal and a negative percent transfer favors the contro l group. Percent transfer does not consider the am ount of prior training in the PCATD or FTD by the experim e ntal groups. The TER is a ratio that com p ares the difference b e tween the control and th e experim e nt al g r oups in term s of trials/tim e to reach criterion in the airp lane as a function of the am ount of prior training in the PCAT D or FTD for the experimental g r oup. The TER is a m easure of the average transfer for each group as a function of prior trainin g . The ITER m easures th e am ount of transfer of successiv e in crem ents of training in the PCATD or FTD (Roscoe, 1971; F l exm a n, Roscoe, W illiam s , & W illiges, 1972).

7RESULTS Trials to Cr iterion AVI 130. The m ean trials to rea c h cr iterion in th e airp lane on the instrum e nts task s in AVI 130 by the control group, the PCATD group, and the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups were com puted and are shown in Table 3 and presented graphically in F i gure 2. The data indica te th at in alm o st all lessons, the control group requi red m o re trials in the airplane than any of the four experim e ntal groups for Steep Turns (Lesson 34/ 35), Turns in the Hold (Lesson 36), ILS and VOR (Lesson 37), and VOR (Lesson 38). The exce ptions are ILS (Less on 37), for the PCATD 5 group, and ILS (Lesson 38), for both the PCAT D 5 and FTD 5 groups. An ANOVA t o com p are the resu lts in Table 3 of m ean trials f o r all ins t ru m e nt tasks to criter ion in the airplan e of the Control, PCATD, FTD 5, and FT D 10 (treatm e nt effect of a ssignm ent to groups indicated a significant treatm e nt effe ct, F(3, 79) = 3.06, p < .05. Post-hoc tests show the FTD 10 group needed significantly less trials than the control; p < .05. Indivi dual ANOVAs co m p aring trials to criterion in the airp lane f o r these four groups we re perform e d for each instrum e nt task in Table 2. Both the steep turns task in lesson 34/35, a nd the holding task in lesson 36 showed a trend for
a m a in effect for trials to reach com p letion stand a rds, F(3, 81) = 2.21, p =.09 and F(3, 81) = 2.42, p = .07 respectively. In lesson 37, th e ILS appro ach showed a signi ficant m a in effect, F(3, 81) = 2.78, p = .05, but there were no significant differences between groups. The VOR approach indicated a significant main effect, F(3, 81) = 5. 12, p < .05, and post-hoc tests showed significan t differences between the contro l group and both the FTD 5 group and the FTD 10 group, p<=.05. One additio nal m a neuver, loca liz er b ack cours e a pproach, wa s tested but no signif i ca nt ef f

ects were observed. In lesson 38, significant m a in ef fects were found for the VOR approach trials and DME arc trials, F(3, 81) = 2.84, p = .05 and F(3, 81) = 2.70, p = .05 resp ectiv ely. No significan t differences were found between groups for either m a neuver. The ILS approach was also tested in this lesson but no significant eff ect was found for this m a neuver.

Table 3. Mean trials in the airplane for the Control group, the PCATD group, and the four F T D groups for ins t rume nt tasks tra i ned in AVI 1 30.

Lesson A P 5 F 5 F 1 0 F 1 5 F 2 0 M e an T r ials 34/35 Stee p tur n s 3

. 7 3 3

. 0 0 2

. 5 0 2

. 4 8 3

. 5 2 3

. 4 5 36 Tur n s in h o l d 7

. 5 0 5

. 0 5 6

. 3 6 5

. 2 0 6

. 7 5 5

. 2 3 3 7 I L S 1

. 5 5 1

. 7 0 1

. 2 7 1

. 2 9 1

. 8 3 1

. 5 0 37 V O R 2

. 5 9 1

. 8 5 1

. 5 5 1

. 3 3 2

. 1 3 1

. 7 7 38 ILS 1

. 3 3 1

. 4 7 1

. 4 5 1

. 3 3 1

. 4 8 1

. 2 3 38 V O R 2

. 2 3 1

. 8 0 1

. 5 5 1

. 4 8 1

. 6 5 1

. 7 3

8AVI 1 3 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

34 /3 5 3 6 3 7 I L S 3 7 V O R 3 7 L C BC 38 I L S 3 8 A R C 3 8 V O R L e sso nMean Number of Trials A P5 F5 F1 0 F1 5 F2 0

Figure 2 . Mean trials in the airplane for the C ontrol group (A), the PCATD 5 hour group (P5) and the FTD 5, 10, 15, 20-hour groups (F5, F10, F 15, and F20) for the instrum e nt tasks trained in AVI 130.

To determ ine the ef f

ect of the num ber of trials in the FTD, m ean trials f o r FTD 5 and FTD 10
were com p a r ed. For 5 of the 6 com p arisons, additi ona l tr aining trials res u lted in f e wer tr ia ls to reach criterion for the FTD 10 group but the d i ffere nces were not large; the exception was ILS for lesson 37 where the FTD 5 group required fe wer trials than the FTD 10 group. It is interesting to note that the FTD 5 group require d fewer trials to criterion than the PCATD 5 group for 5 of the 6 comparisons; the exception was holds for lesson 36. The data in Table 2 and 3 were used to com pute percen t tran sfer, TER and ITER, which are presented in Table 4. All percen t tran sfers fo r all instrum e nt tasks for FTD 5 and 10 were positiv e with the excep tion of four: for the FTD 5 group, both the ILS (-9.02 %) and DME arc (- 17.22 %) in Lesson 38; For the FTD 10 group, th e LOC BC (-4.72 %) in Lesson 37, and the DME Arc (-4.78 %) in L e sson 38. Four out of eight percent transfers for the PCATD 5 group were negative. W h en reviewing all 3 groups, the tw o largest percent transf ers found for the trials dependent variable were for the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups in Lesson 37 VOR (40.15 % and 48.65 % respectively). All other le ssons for the three groups had s ubstantial transf er except for the FTD 5 group Lesson 37 LOC BC (3.15%).

9Table 4. Percent transfer, transfer effect iveness ratios (TERs ) , and increm ental transfer effectiveness ratios (ITERs) for trials on selected instrument tasks in AVI 130 for PCATD group (P5) and the FTD 5 and 10 groups (F5, F10)

.
Perc ent Tra n s fer (% ) T ER ITER T a s k P 5 F5 F10 P 5 F 5 F 10 P 5 F5 F10 Steep Turn s (FL 34/35 ) 19.57 32.98 33.51 0.73 1.23 0.63 NA 1.23 0.02 Turn s in Hold (FL 36 ) 32.67 15. 20 29.47 0.41 0.19 0.18 NA 0.19 0.19 ILS (FL 37) -9.68 18.06 16.77 -0.15 0 .28 0 .13 N A 0 .28

- 0.02 VOR (F L 37) 28.57 40.15 48.65 0.74 1.04 0.63 NA 1.04 0.22 LOC B C (FL 37) -18.11 3.15 -4.72

- 0.23 0.04 -0.03 N A 0 .04

- 0.10 ILS (FL 38) -10.53 -9.02 0 .00

- 0.14 -0.12 0 .00 N A

- 0.12 0.12 VOR (F L 38) 19.28 30.49 33.63 0.43 0.68 0.38 NA 0.68 0.07 DME ARC (F L 38) -43.54 -17.22 -4.78

- 0.46 -0.23

- 0.03 NA -0.23 0 .13

Substantial TERs were found for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and 10 groups for steep turns (0.73, 1.23 and 0.63 respectively). Moderate TERs were found for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and 10 groups for turns in hold (0.41, 0.19, and 0.18 respectivel y). There was little transfer for ILS in Lesson 37, nor for ILS in Lesson 38. Conversely the TE Rs for VOR were substantial for both Lesson 37 and 38. The TERs for PCATD 5 we re 0.74 for Lesson 37 and 0.43 for Lesson 38. The TERs for FTD 5 were 1.04 and 0.68 for VOR Lesson 37 and 38 respectively and for FTD 10 they were 0.13 and 0.38 respectively. No TERs for other in strum e nt tasks were above the 0.30 level and
m a ny were negative. The TERs for steep turns, ILS (Lesson 37), and VOR for Lessons 37 and 38 showed the predicted negatively decelerated func tion for increased num ber of trials. Exam ination of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that additiona l train i ng f o r tr ials f o r the F T D 10 group provided little benef it over the FTD 5 group. AVI 140. The m ean trials to rea c h cr iterion in th e airp lane on the instrum e nts task s in AVI 140 by the Control group, the PCATD group, and the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups were com puted and are shown in Table 5. The data indicated that the Control group required m o re m e an trials in the airplane than the FT D 5 and FTD 10 groups fo r all instrum e nt tasks in all lessons. The PCATD 5 group failed to follow this pattern; the Control group requi red more m ean t r ials in the airplane than the PCATD 5 group for only 5 of the 11 instrum e nt tasks. An ANOVA was
com puted which com p ared the treatm ent effects of m ean tria ls of all instr u m e nt tasks to cr ite rion in the airplane of the Control, PCATD, FT D 5, a nd FTD 10 groups. The results indicated a significant treatm e nt effe ct; F(3, 72) = 2.98, p < .05. Post-hoc tests show that the FTD 5 group needed significantly fewer tr ials than the control group. Individual ANOVAs co m p aring trials to criterion in the airp lane f o r these four groups we re perform e d for each instrum e nt task. In lesson 48, holds, IL S approach, and VOR approach tria ls were com p ared. Only th e ILS appro ach showed a significant m a in effect for trials to reach com p letion standards; F(3, 77) = 2.90, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed a significant di fference between the PCAT D 5 group and the FTD 5 group, p < .05. No other between-group differen ces were found for ILS trials. In Lesson 49, NDB approach and NDB hold tasks were com p a r ed . No significant differences were f ound. In Lesson 50, ILS approaches, ILS holds, NDB appr oaches, NDB holds were analyzed. Only the NDB approach showed a significan t m a in effect; F( 3, 77) = 3.90, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed
10a significant difference between the Control group and both the PCATD 5 and FTD 5 groups; p < .05. No other significant differences were found. NDB approaches, NDB holds, GPS approaches were com p a r ed in Lesson 52. NDB holds and GPS approaches both showed significant effects; F(3, 76) = 3.34, p < .05, and F(3, 75) = 3.14, p < .05 respectively. Post-hoc tests f o r the NDB hold trials s howed a significant difference b e tween the P C ATD 5 and FTD 5 groups; p<=.05. A trend towards significance was also observed for the NDB approach; F(3, 75) = 2.42, p = .07.

Table 5. Mean trials in the Airplane for the Control group), the PCATD group and the four FT D groups, for ins t rume nt tasks tra i ned in AVI 1 40.

Grou p Lesso n A P 5 F 5 F 1 0 F 1 5 F 20

Hold s (F L 48) 4.38 3. 80 3.57 3

. 8 4 3

. 8 0 3.60 ILS (FL 48) 1.33 1.40 1.00 1.32 1.15 1.15 VOR (F L 48) 1.33 1.42 1.14 1.16 1.10 1.20 NDB HOL D (FL49 ) 5.43 4.50 4.52 4.74 4.70 4.30 NDB APPROACH (FL 49) 2.19 1.70 1.71 2

. 1 1 1

. 9 0 1.75 NDB HOL D (FL 50) 3.95 4.35 3.57 3.89 4.30 3.25 NDB APPROACH (FL 50) 1.81 1.15 1.19 1

. 3 7 1

. 5 0 1.20 ILS HOL D (F L 50) 3.90 3.75 3.29 3.74 3.50 3.80 NDB APPROACH (FL 52) 1.50 1.60 1.05 1

. 1 7 1

. 4 0 1.10 GPS APPROACH (FL 52) 1.53 2.45 1.48 1.47 1.89 1.80 NDB HOL D (FL 52) 4.90 6.25 3.86 4.84 4.35 4.35

The data in Table 5 are presented graphically in Figure 3. To determ ine the effect of the
num b er of trials in the F T D, the results fo r the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups were compared. For only one task, GPS approach in flight lesson 52, did addition a l train i ng tr ials resu lted in f e wer trials to reach criterion for the FTD 10 group.

11AVI 140

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

48 H L D 48 I L S 48 V O R 49 ND B H L D 49 NDB A P P 50 ND B H L D 50 NDB A P P 50 IL SH LD 52 N D B 52 GPS 52 HL D

Le ssonMean NumberofTrials A P5 F5 F1 0 F1 5 F2 0

Figure 3 . Mean trials in the airplane for the C ontrol group (A), the PCATD 5 hour group (P5) and the FTD 5,10, 15, 20 hour groups (F5, F10, F15, and F20) for the instrum e nt tasks trained in AVI 140.

The data in Table 2 and 4 were used to com pute percen t tran sfer, TER and ITER; the results are presented in Table 6. All pe rc ent transf ers f o r all instrum e nt tasks we r e positive with the exception of five percent transfers for the PCAT D 5 group, but these transf ers were generally
sm all. The five largest percent transfers found for the trials depe ndent variable for instrum e nt tasks trained in AVI 140 were for the thr ee groups on Lesson 49 NDB Approach, 36.46%, 34.25% and 24.31% for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, an d FTD 10 groups respectively, and on Lesson 52 NDB approach (30.00%), and on Lesson 48 ILS (24.81%) for the FTD 5 group. Only four of the rem a ining 22 observed transfer re sults wer e c onsidered su bsta ntial (above 20%). T h ese were the Lesson 49 NDB for the PCATD 5 and FTD 5 groups (22.37% and 21.92% respectively), the Lesson 52 NDB for the FTD 10 group (22.00%), and the Lesson 52 Turns in Hold (21.22%).

12Table 6. Percent transfer, transfer effect iveness ratios (TERs ) , and increm ental transfer effectiveness ratios (ITERs) for trials on selected instrument tasks in AVI 140 for the P C ATD group (P5) and two FTD gr oups (F5, F10)

.
P e r c e n t Trans f e r T E R I T E R T a s k P 5 F 5 F 1 0 P 5 F 5 F 1 0 P 5 F 5 F 1 0 Turn s in Hold (FL 48 ) 13.24 18.49 12.33 0.19 0.27 0.09 NA 0.28 -0.09 ILS (FL 48) -5.26 24.81 0.75 -0.07 0 .33 0 .01 N A 0 .33

- 0.32 VOR (F L 48) -6.77 14.29 12.78 -0.09 0 .19 0 .09 N A 0 .19

- 0.02 NDB Tu rn s in Hold (F L 49) 17.13 16.76 12.71 0.31 0.30 0.12 NA 0.30 -0.07 NDB (FL 49 ) 22.37 21.92 3.65 0.49 0.48 0.04 NA 0.48 -0.40 NDB Tu rn s in Hold (F L 50) -10.13 9.62 1.52 -0.13 0 .13 0 .01 N A 0 .13

- 0.11 NDB (FL 50 ) 36.46 34.25 24.31 0.66 0.62 0.22 NA 0.62 -0.18 ILS Turn s in Hold (FL 50 ) 3.85 15.64 4.10 0.05 0.20 0.03 NA 0.20 -0.15 NDB (FL 52 ) -6.67 30.00 22.00 -0.10 0 .45 0 .17 N A 0 .45

- 0.12 GPS (FL 52 ) -60.13 3.27 3.92 -0.92 0 .05 0 .03 N A 0 .05 0 .01 Turn s in Hold (FL 52 ) -27.55 21.22 1.22 -0.45 0 .35 0 .01 N A 0 .35

- 0.33

Although th e TERs were generally positiv e (s ev en negative TERS for the PCATD 5 group were found), m a ny were unsubstantial. There were som e exceptions. Three groups had 0.66, 0.62 and 0.22 for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and FTD 10 groups respectively on the Lesson 50 NDB approach. A l so, the PCATD 5 and FTD 5 groups had TERs of 0.49 and 0.48 respectively for the Lesson 49 NDB approach. There were also TERs of 0.45 for Lesson 52 NDB approach, and 0.35 for Lesson 52 Turns in Hold for the F T D 10 group. Other substantial TER s observed included the Lesson 49 NDB Turns in Hold for both the PC ATD 5 and FTD 5 groups (0.31 and 0.30 respectively), and the Lesson 48 ILS for the FTD 5 group (0.33). The rem a ining 23 T E Rs were unsubstantial or negative. All TERs for instrum e nt tasks in AVI 140 showed the predicted negativ ely d ecelerated function for increas ed nu mber of trials. The TERs for Lesson 52 GPS showed the pred icted negatively decelerated function for increase number of trials. Exam ination of the ITERs indicates that addi tional training beyond the FTD 5 level provided no substantia l benefit for trials for AVI 140. Time to Co mple te Flig ht Lesson AVI 130
. The m ean ti m e s to com p lete the flight lesson in AVI 130 are shown in Table 7 and are presented graphically in Figure 4. For all five experim e ntal groups, the m ean ti mes to
com p lete each of the four flight lesso ns were le ss than the tim e for the con t rol (airplan e) group. For three of the four f light lessons the FTD 5 group had the least tim e to com p lete the flight lesson. For Lesson 36 the FTD 10 group had the sm allest tim e. An ANOVA was perform ed to
com p are the treatm ent effect (assignm ent to group for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and FTD 10) for
m ean ti m e s to com p lete the flight lessons am ong t h e four groups. The results indicated a significant treatm e nt effe ct; F(3, 79) = 8.17, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed that a ll thr ee experim e ntal groups needed less tim e than co ntrol group; p < .05. Individual ANOVA were perform e d for each fligh t lesson in T a ble 7 com p aring the time to com p lete the fligh t lesson
am ong the four groups. The results of these ANOVAs indicated a signif i cant treatm ent effect for

13Lesson 34/3 5 , f o r total tim e to com p lete th e les s on; F(3, 81) = 6.63, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed a significant difference for tim e to co m p lete Lesson 34/35 between the control group and the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FT D 10 group; p < .05. In Lesson 36, a treatm e nt effect was found for mean tim e to reach less on com p letion standard s; F ( 3, 81) = 3.0 8 , p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed no differences between indivi dual groups. Analysis of Lesson 37 showed a significan t treatm e nt effect for tim e to reach le ss on com p letion standard s

. The total tim e main effect was F(3, 81) = 7.62, p < .05. Post-hoc tes t s showed sig n ificant d i fferences between the control group and both the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups, p < .05. There was no significant treatm ent effect for less on 38. The Control gr o up consisten tly required more tim e to reach criterion for all four fligh t lesson s in AVI 130 for each of the five experim e ntal g r oups. To
com p are the ef f

ect of addition a l FT D train i ng tim e , the tim e to com p lete the f light le ssons was com p ared f o r FTD 5 and FTD 10. For one of th e 4 com p arisons (f light les s on 36), add ition a l training time result in sm aller tim e to co m p lete the flight lesson for the FTD 10 group.

Table 7. Mean time to complete the flight lesson in the airplane for the Control group, the PCATD 5 hour group, and the four FTD groups for AVI 130.

Grou p Flight Lesso n Control PCATD 5 FTD 5 FTD 10 FTD 15 FTD 20
34/35, Steep Turn s 1.41 0

. 9 9 0

. 9 1 1

. 0 0 1

. 0 2 1

. 1 7 36, Intersecti on Hol d s 1. 7 4 1

. 3 0 1

. 5 9 1

. 2 7 1

. 3 8 1

. 5 0 37, ILS, LOC BC, VOR 2.90 2.54 1.80 1.82 2.44 1.90 38, ILS, VOR, DME ARC 2

. 4 1 1

. 9 4 1

. 8 0 1

. 9 1 1

. 9 0 1

. 9 3

14Figure 4 . M ean tim e to com p lete the f light lesso ns in the air p lane f o r the Control gro up (A), PCATD 5 hour group (P 5), and the F T D 5, 10, 15 , and 20 hour groups (F5, F10, F15, and F20) groups for AVI 130.

The percen t transfers were all positive and generally m oderate (see Tab l e 8). All but three of the percent transfers were over 20%; these ex ceptions were for In tersection holds in lesson 36 for the FTD 5 group (8.62%), and for the PCATD 5 group in lessons 36 and 37 (ILS, LOC BC, VOR; ILS, VOR, DME Arc) with 12 .41% and 19.50% respectively. The largest percent transfers were for FTD 5 and FTD 10 for lesson 37 (37.93% and 37.24% respectively). The T E Rs for tim e to com p lete flight lesson in AVI 130 for the FT D 5 group for three of the flight lessons were substantial: 1.57, 1.00 and 0.87 for flight lesso ns 37, 34/35 and 38 respectively. The PCATD 5 group TERs was also substantial, ranging from 0. 51 to 0.84 and the FTD 10 TERs ranged from a high of 0.83 to 0.36. Three of the four TER s for FTD 10 showed the predicted negative decelerating function.

15Table 8. Percent transfer, transfer effect iveness ratios (TERs ) , and increm ental transfer effectiveness ratios (ITERs) for mean t i me to complete fli ght lessons for PC ATD 5 hour (P5) group and the FTD 5 and 10 hour groups FTD5, and FTD 10 for AVI 130.

P e r c e n t Trans f e r T E R I T E R Flight Lesso n P5 FTD 5 FTD 10 P5 FTD 5 FTD 10 P5 FTD5 FTD 10 34/35, Steep Turn s 29.79 35.46 29. 08 0.84 1.00 0.41 NA 1.00 -0.18 36, Intersecti on Hol d s 25.29 8. 62 27.01 0.63 0.21 0.36 NA 0.21 0.53 37, ILS, LOC BC, VOR 12.41 37.93 37.24 0.51 1.57 0.83 NA 1.57 -0.03 38, ILS, VOR, DME ARC 19.50 25. 31 20.75 0.67 0.87 0.38 NA 0.87 -0.18

AVI 140
. The m ean ti m e s to com p lete the flight lesson in AVI 140 are shown in Table 9 and are presented graphically in Figur e 5. For all experim e ntal groups , the m ean tim es to com p lete each of the four flight les s ons were less than th e tim e for the Control g r oup . For Lesson s 49 and 50, the PCATD 5 group required less tim e to comp lete the lesson. An ANOVA was perform e d to
com p are the treatm ent effect (assignm ent to gr oups) for the P C ATD 5, the FTD 5, and the FTD 10 groups for m ean tim e to com p lete the fli ght lesson am ong t h e four groups. The results indicated a significant treatm e nt effe ct; F(3,72) = 5. 59, p < .05. Post-hoc tests show that the FTD 5 group needed significantly less tim e than bot h the control group and the PCATD 5 group, p < .05. Individual ANOVA were perform e d for each f light lesson for tim e to com p lete the flight lesson am ong the four groups. There were no signifi cant treatm ent effects for Lessons 48, 49, or 50. There was a sign ificant treatm e nt effect for Le sson 52, F(3,76) = 5.79, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed significant differences between th e PCATD 5 group and both the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups; p < .05. A com p arison of the tim e to comp lete the flight lesson was m a de between FTD 5 and FTD 10 to dete rm ine if additio n al train i ng tim e resulted in inc r eased tim e savings in the airplane. For two of the four flight lessons (49 and 52) the FT D 10 group used less tim e to
com p lete the lesson than FTD 5, but for the ot her two flight lessons the FTD 5 group required less tim e . Consequently there was no consistent advantage for the additional 5 hours of training on instrum e nt tasks. T i m e s to com p lete the f our flight lessons were us ed to com pute percen t transfer, TE Rs, and ITERs for AVI 140 shown in Table 10.

Table 9. Mean time to complete the flight lessons in th e airplane for the Contro l, the PCATD 5 hour(P5) the four FT D groups for AVI 140.

Grou p Flight Lesso n Control PCATD 5 FTD 5 FTD 10 FTD 15 FTD 20

48, Holds , ILS, VOR 1. 7 9 1

. 9 2 1

. 5 0 1

. 6 3 1

. 7 7 1

. 6 8 49, NDB H o ld s, NDB 1. 5 7 1

. 2 7 1

. 2 3 1

. 2 4 1

. 3 0 1

. 2 8 50, NDB & ILS Holds, NDB 1.75 1.43 1.29 1.45 1.47 1.59 52, NDB, VO R, Hold s 2. 7 4 3

. 3 0 2

. 2 2 2

. 3 2 2

. 4 0 2

. 4 3

16AVI 140

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

48 49 50 52 Lesson A P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Figure 5 . Mean (hours) to com p lete the flight lessons in the airplane for the Control group (A), the PCATD 5 hour group (P5), and the FTD 5, 10 , 15, and 20 hour groups (F5, F10, F15, and F20) groups for AVI 140.

Table 10. Percent transfer, transfer effect iveness ratios (TERs ) , and increm ental transfer effectiveness ratios (ITERs) for mean t i me to complete flight lessons for the PCATD 5 hour group (P5) , the FTD 5 hour group (FTD 5) and the FTD 10 hour group (FTD 10) for AVI 140.

P e r c e n t Trans f e r T E R I T E R Flight Lesso n P5 FTD 5 FTD 10 P5 FTD5 FTD 10 P 5 FTD 5 FTD1 0 48, Hold s, ILS, VOR -6.67 16.67 9

. 4 4

- 0

. 1 7 0

. 4 3 0

. 1 3 N A 0

. 4 3

- 0

. 2 2 49, NDB Hold s, NDB 19.11 21.66 21. 0 2 0

. 6 0 0

. 6 8 0

. 3 3 N A 0

. 6 8

- 0

. 0 2 50, NDB & ILS Holds, NDB 18.29 26. 2 9 1 7

. 1 4 0

. 4 6 0

. 6 6 0

. 2 3 N A 0

. 6 6

- 0

. 2 7 52, NDB, VO R, Hold s -20.44 18.98 15. 3 3

- . 0

. 8 0 0

. 7 4 0

. 3 2 N A 0

. 7 4

- 0

. 1 7

17W ith the exception of the PCATD 5 group for Lesson 48 and 52, the percent transfers were all pos itive but gener a lly sm all. Only three p e rc ent transf ers were over 2 0 %; th ese were FTD 5 and FTD 10 for Lesson 49 (NDB holds and NDB approach ). These percent transfers were 21.66% and 21.02 % respectively. T h e largest pe rcent transfer (26.29% ) was found for FTD 5 for Lesson 50 (NDB and ILS holds and NDB appro ach). The TERs f o r tim e to com p lete f ligh t lessons in AVI 140 for the FTD 5 group for each lesson were positiv e and substantial ranging from a high of 0.74 for Lesson 52 to 0.43 for lesson 48. The TERs for FTD 10 all showed the predicted negative d ecelerating function. Tw o of the PCATD 5 group TERs were positiv e and substantial; 0.60 for Lesson 49 and 0.46 for Less on 50. The other two were negative. For the tim e to complete flight lesson variable fo r AVI 140, all ITERs for the FTD 10 group were negativ e and showed the predicte d negative d ecelerating function. Time to Eva l uation Flig ht AVI 130. A total of 124 participants com p leted the course of study and took the final check ride for the AVI 130 Ba sic Instru m e nts course. Table 10 shows the results of the check ride for the six g r ou ps. A total o f 75 partic ip ants pass ed the check r i d e on the f i rs t attem p t and 48 participants passed on the second attem p t. Nine participants were recom m e nded for rem e dial training. The total dual prior to a successful evaluation flight for the six groups is shown in Table 11 and in Figure 6. The average dual flight tim e to course completion for the Control group was greater th an the average tim e for each of the fi ve experim e ntal groups w ho had prior training in the PCATD or the FTD. The Control group require d 22.35 hours of dual to com p lete the course while the five experim e ntal groups, after prio r training in the PCATD or the FTD, required between 18.31and 20.20 hours of dual in the ai rplane. An ANOVA was co m puted to com p are the dual tim e to successfully com p lete the AVI 130 course for the four groups (control, PCATD 5, FTD 5, and FTD 10). The result indicated a si g n if icant trea tm ent eff ect; F(3, 80) = 3. 67, p < .05. Post-hoc tests for significance indicated a significance difference between the Control group and the FTD 5 group, (p < .05). No other signi ficant differences betw een groups were found.

18Table 11. Flight Lesson 45 Statistics (Fall 200 2, Spring, Summer, Fall 2003 and Spring 2004)

Group Airplane PCATD Fras ca FTD Hou r s in train i ng device (NA) 5 5 10 15 20
Numb er of Student s rea c hi ng che c k ride (le s son 45 ) 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 9

% Students takin g 1 st che c k ride who p a sse d (numbe rs of stude nts) 59.00 (13/22 ) 65.00 (13/20 ) 45.45 (10/22 ) 75.00 (15/20 ) 76.19 (16/21 ) 42.11 (8/19 ) % Students requiri ng 2 nd check ride who pa ssed (num bers of stude nts) 100.00 (9/9) 100.00 (7/7) 100.00 (12/12 ) 100.00 (5/5) 80.00 (4/5) 100.00 (11/11 )
Numb er of Student s req u iri ng 3 rd che c k ride wh o passe d 0 0 0 0 0 0

Students faili ng 1 st or 2 nd check ride an d not receivin g 2 nd or 3rd 0 0 0 0 1 0

Mean Total Dual hou rs (in airpla ne ) to Completion fo r those passin g the check rid e on 1 st

, 2 nd , or 3 rd atte mpt (& s a mple siz e ) 22.35 (n= 2 2 ) 20.20 (n= 2 0 ) 19.27 (n= 2 2 ) 20.87 (n= 2 0 ) 18.36 (n= 2 0 ) 18.31 (n= 1 9 )

Varianc e in Total Dual hours to Compl e tion 9

. 3 9 6

. 4 0 1 0

. 0 3 1 4

. 1 7 9

. 8 7 9

. 4 8

Students recommen ded fo r reme dial train i ng 0 0 1 1 4 3

Note: Lesson 45 is the final check ride for AVI 130

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

A i rp l a n e P 5 F5 F1 0 F 1 5 F2 0 Gr oupMean Time (hrs)

Figure 6 . Mean tim e to successful ev aluation flight for AVI 130.

19AVI 140. A total of 106 participants com p leted the course of study and took the final check ride (the instrum e nt rating fli ght check) for the AVI 140 Advanced Instrum e nts course. Table 12 shows the re sults of the c h eck rid e . A tota l of 51 participan ts p a ssed the ch eck rid e on the first attem p t and 46 participa n ts passed o n the second attem p t. Nineteen pa rticipants were
recomm ended for rem e dial training. The total du al prior to a successful ev aluation flight for AVI 140 was computed for the Control g r oup and for each of the five experim e ntal g r oups. The m ean tim es to the evaluation flight were less for a ll five experim e ntal groups than for the Control group. The Control group required 26.02 hours co m p ared to 25.77, 24.55, 23.78, 22.11 and 20.11 hours for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5, the FTD 10, the FTD 15 and the FTD 20 groups respectively. These tim es are presented in Tabl e 12 and Figure 7. The flight hours saved were 0.23, 1.47, and 2.24 hours respectively for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and the FTD 10 groups. An ANOVA was com puted to com p are the tim e to a successful evaluation flight for these four groups. The results show ed a sign ificant treatm e nt effect for total tim e to reach su ccessful
com p letion of the AVI 140 course, F ( 3, 63) = 4. 14, p < .05, however, no significant differences were found am ong the four treatm ent groups.

Table 12: Flight Lesson 60 Statistics (Spring, Summer, Fall, 2003, Spring, Summer, Fall 2004)
Group Airplane PCATD Fras ca FTD Hou r s in train i ng device (NA) 5 5 10 15 20
Numb er of Student s rea c hi ng che c k ride (le s son 60 ) 1 8 1 8 2 0 1 6 1 5 1 9

% Students takin g 1 st che c k ride who p a sse d (numbe rs of stude nts) 44.44 (8/18 ) 55.56 (10/18 ) 45.00 (9/20 ) 43.75 (7/16 ) 40.00 (6/15 ) 57.89 (11/19 ) % Students requiri ng 2 nd check ride who pa ssed (num bers of students) 100.0 (10/10 ) 75.0 (6 /8) 88.9 (8/9) 88.9 (8/9) 100.0 (9/9) 62.5 (5/8)

Numb er of Student s req u iri ng 3 rd che c k ride wh o passe d 0 1 1 1 0 2

Students faili ng 1 st or 2 nd check ride an d not receivin g 2 nd or 3rd 0 1 2 0 0 1

Mean Total Dual hou rs (in airpla ne ) to Completion fo r those passin g the check rid e on 1 st

, 2 nd , or 3 rd atte mpt (& s a mple siz e ) 26.38 (n= 1 8 ) 25.78 (n= 1 7 ) 24.40 (n= 1 8 ) 23.60 (n=1 6) 21.93 (n= 1 5 ) 20.79 (n= 1 8 )

Varianc e in Total Dual hours to Compl e tion 1 6

. 5 5 6

. 0 3 7

. 9 2 8

. 8 0 1 0

. 2 0 1 7

. 8 9

Students recommen ded fo r reme dial train i ng 2 3 4 3 5 2

Note: Le sson 60 is the fina l che ck ride for AVI 140

2017 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

A i r p la ne P 5 F 5 F 1 0 F 15 F 2 0 Gr o u pMean Time (hrs)

Figure 7 . Mean tim e to a successful instru m e nt proficiency check for AVI 140.
Overall Time Saved In the cu rren t study, th e tim e to a successful evaluation fligh t was less for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups com p ared to the control group for both AVI 130 and 140. The total saving s, tim e saved in the airp lane for each of the experim e ntal groups com p ared to the Control group, for both AVI 130 and 140 was 2.75, 5.06, and 4.26 for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups respectively. The current st udy found that savings in the airplane fail to support the prediction that m o re training in the FTD is better. The results also indicted that reduced tran sfer for the FTD occurred for trials and f o r tim e to com p lete the f light le ssons in AVI 140 as com p ared to AVI 130. Effectiveness of Using the FTD for Cross-Country Training The effectiveness of the cross-country FTD tr aining tim e can be estim a ted by establishing a baseline by subtracting the c ontrol group tim e from the FTD 10 group tim e (FTD 10 group tim e saved in the airp lane co m p ared to c ontrol g r oup tim e). The baseline can then be used to evalu a te the effectiveness of the FTD 15 and 20 groups cross-country training in the FTD. Table 13 shows the tim e by group to an evaluation flig ht, the tim e saved by group, total tim e saved and cross-country tim e saved for AVI 130 and 140. The tim e saved in the airplane (Control group tim e – FTD group tim e) for the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups for AVI 130 and 140 is presented in Table 12. T o estim ate the effectiveness of FTD cross-country training the baseline tim e saved (FTD 10 group tim e) is subtracted from the tim e for the FTD 15 and 20 group tim e saved. These tim es are computed as follows: FTD 15 tim e – FTD 10 tim e = tim e saved by the FTD 15 group: 7.44-4.26= 3.18; FTD 20 tim e –FTD 10 tim e = tim e saved by the FTD 20 group: 9.63-4.26 = 5.37.
21Table 13. Time by group to an evaluation fl ight, time saved by group, total time saved and cross- country savings for AVI 130 and 140.
Time to Evaluation Flight Time Saved by Group Total Time Saved X-C Trainin g Savings Grou p AVI 130 AVI 140 AVI 130 AVI 140 C o n t r o l 2 2

. 3 5 2 6

. 3 8 N A N A N A N A FTD 10 20.87 23.60 1.48 2.78 4.26 NA FTD 15 18.36 22.93 3.99 3.45 7.44 3.18 FTD 20 18.31 20.79 4.04 5.59 9.63 5.37

DISCUSSI ON Mean Trials AVI 130. Th e results from the current study indicate that the FTD is e ffec tive for teaching basic instrum e nt tasks to private pilots. The cu rrent study system atically replicated the finding from a study by Taylor et al. (2002b), which f ound that the P C ATD was effective in teaching basic instrum e nt tasks in AVI 130 to private pilo ts. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that prior training in the PCATD in AVI 130 resulted in a sm aller num b er of trials in the airplane for each of the PCATD groups for 21 of the 24 instrum e nt tasks te sted. The present study shows that com p ared to the control group prior training in the FTD re sulted in a sm aller num ber of trials in the airplane for 10 of 12 tasks tested as well as a significant treatm ent effect (assignm ent to group). Post-hoc tests indicated that the control group re quired significantly m o re trials than the FTD 10 group. No other differences were st atistically significant. This partially replic ated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b), which also showed a si gnificant treatm ent effect due to differences between the control and the PCATD 5 and the co ntrol and the PCATD 15 groups. In the present study, individual tests of signifi cance for instrum e nt tasks found a treatm ent effect for the ILS and the VOR tasks for Lesson 37 and for the for VOR and DME Arc tasks in Lesson 38. Taylor et al. (2002b) found a significant treatm ent effect for ILS and VOR for Lesson 38 and significant differences for the ILS task for Lesson 37 but not for Lesson 38 when a PCATD group, trained to proficiency, was com p ared w ith a control group tr ained only in the airplane (Taylor et al., 1996). These differences m a y be ex plained by differences in experi m e ntal design. Taylor et al. (1996) trained the experim e ntal group to prof iciency in the P C ATD prior to training to proficiency in the airplane while the design in the Taylor et al . (2002b) study called for a fixed
num b er of trials, which varied from 1-3 for the three experim e ntal groups. One can infer that the flight instructors in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study trai ned to a higher proficiency standard for the ILS task in Lesson 38 com p ared to Lesson 37. It should also be noted that the flight instructors in the Taylo r et al. (2002b) study had less teach ing expe rien ce o n average th an the in stru ctors in the Taylor et al. (1996) study. For the current study, the prediction that an incr eased num ber of trials in the FTD on selected instrum e nt tasks would save m o re tim e in the ai rplane was found for 5 of 6 com p arisons between FTD 5 and FTD 10 in AVI 130. This is sim ilar to the Taylor et al. (2002b) finding that additional tra i ning in the PCATD on the se lected instrum e nt ta sks save d m o re trials in the a i rp la ne in AVI 130 for only six of the sixteen instrum e nts task co m p arisons. In that study, for two of the eight

22instrum e nt tasks, the PC ATD 5 group had the le a s t tr ia ls in th e airp lane, f o r two tasks the PCATD 10 group had the least trials in the airplane and the P C ATD 15 gr oup had two tasks with the le ast tria ls in th e airp lane. In the current study the percent transfer for trials ranged from 48.65% for VOR in Les s on 37 for FTD 10 t o – 43.54% for Lesson 38 DME Arc for the PCATD 5 group. In the study by Taylor et al. (2002b), the per cent transfer for trials ranged from a high of 41.00% for the PCATD 5 group for Lesson 38 ILS in to a low of – 6.80% for Lesson 37 LOC BC for PCATD 10. In the current study a TER of 1.23 and 1.04 for the FTD 5 group for Lesson 34/35 Steep turns and Lesson 37 VOR respectively indicates a savings of ove r one tria l in th e airplane f o r e a c h tr ial in the FTD. In the Taylor et al. (2002b) study the PC ATD 5 group had a TER of 0.84 whi c h indicated th at for Lesso n 38 alm o st one trial in the aircraft w a s saved for each trial in the PCATD. The results of Taylor et al. (1996) show ed the opposite e ffect. T h e percent transfer and TER for ILS were 33.30% and 0.28 respectively f o r Lesson 37 but only 11.80% and 0.12 for Lesson 38. It should be noted, howev er, that in the Taylor et al . (1996) study, the subjects were tra i ned in th e PCATD to a prof ic iency standard and trained to th e sam e proficiency standard in the airplan e in Lesson 37 . Trai ning in the PCATD for Lesson 38 was a rev i ew lesson. In the Taylor et al. (2002b) study the subj ects received only 1, 2, or 3 trials respectively for the PCATD 5, 10, 15 groups in each of the two flight lessons and were trained in the airplane to a com p letion standard. For the current study, the T E Rs for all instrum e nt tasks for flight lesson 34/35, 36, and 37, and VOR flight lessons 38 showed the pr edicted negatively decelerated function for increased number of trials. Exam ination of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that additional training for trials for the F T D 10 gr oup provided little benefit over the FTD 5 group. Taylor et al. (2002b) repo rted that two of the five ITERs for the trial variable (steep turns and VOR Flight Lesson 38) showed the predicted pattern of a negatively decelerated function (Roscoe, 1971; Flexm a n et al., 1972). The incr eased num ber of trials in the PCATD for the PCATD 10 group com p ared to the P C ATD 5 group failed to save addi tional trials to criterion in the airplan e

. W ith the ex ception of P C ATD 10 for steep turns , there was little ITER f o r either PCATD 10 nor PCATD 15, which in dicated that additional traini ng beyond the training for the PCATD 5 group saved few tria ls in the airplane. AVI 140. For m ean trials to criteri on in the airplane in AVI 140, the control group required on average more trials than the FTD 5 and the F T D 10 f o r all instrum e nt tasks f o r all lessons. Significant treatm e nt effects were found for the Lesson 48 ILS approach, Lesson 50 NDB approach, and Lesson 52 NDB holds and GPS approaches. T h is provid e d a system atic replication of Taylor et al. (2002b) w ho found that prior training in the PC ATD in AVI 140 resulted in a sm aller number of trials in the ai rp lane for each of the PCATD groups for 27 of the 33 instrum e nt tasks tested, but these differen ces were sm all and none were significant. The PCATD 5 group in the current st udy failed to follow the pattern found for the two FTD groups since for only 5 of the 11 instrum e nt tasks the control group required m o re m ean trials in the airplane than the PCATD 5 group. In previous research, Taylor et al . (1996) found significant differences for the VOR task for Lesson 48, NDB holds for Lesson 50, NDB approach in Lesson 49 and 50, and for LOC BC holds for Lesson 50, wh en a PCATD group, trained to proficiency,
was com p ar ed with a control group trained only in the airplane
. The differences between the Taylor et al (2002b) a nd Taylor et al. (1996) results m a y be explained by differences in experim e ntal design. As discusse d above, Taylor et al. (1996) tr ained the experim e ntal group to proficiency in the PCATD prior to training to proficiency in the airp lane while the d e sign in th e current study calls for a fixed num be r of trials which varies f r om 1-3 trials for the three
23experim e ntal groups. The lack of effectiven ess f o r the PCATD 5 group in the current study
com p ared to the two ea rlier s t udie s is m o st lik ely due to the reduced power due to a sm aller
num b er of participan ts. The percent transfer for AVI 140 ranged from a high of 36.46% for the P C ATD 5 group for Lesson 50 NDB approach to –60.13% for the Lesson 52 VOR approach for the PCATD 5 group. A num b er of percen t tran sfer s ranged between 34.25% and 21. 22% for the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that the percen t transfer for trials in AVI 140 ranged from a high of 20.44% for PCATD 10 for Lesson 52 NDB, 18.66% for the PCATD 5 group for Lesson 52 VOR and ILS, and 18.27% for Lesson 48 Turns in Hold for PCATD 15, to a low of –16.62% for Lesson 50 ILS Turns in Hold for PCATD 10. Com p ared to the present study and to the Taylor et al. (2002b) study, s ubstantial higher percent transf ers were found for com p arable instrum e nt tasks for Flight Lessons 48, 49 and 50 in the earlier study (Tay lor et al., 1996). These ranged from 28.10% for Lesson 50 NDB approach to 14.60% for Lesson 48 VOR appr oach. In addition, only two of seven of the previous perc en t transfers were below 20.00% (Taylor et al., 1996). The current study had 7of 14 TERs that range d for m 0.28 to 0.62 for the FTD 5 group and 3 of 14 TERs for the PCATD 5 group. W ith the exception of the PCATD 5 group for NDB Lesson 49 (TER of 0.31), the TER s for trials in AVI 140 we re sm aller for the Taylor et al. (2002b) study com p ared to the current a nd to the Taylor et al. study (1996). Mean Time to Comple te the Flight Lesson AVI 130. The m ean ti m e s to com p lete each of the four flight lessons were less th an the tim e for the control (airplane) group for the PCAT D 5 and the FTD 5 and 10 experim e ntal groups. This system atic ally rep l icated th e finding of Taylor et al. (2002b) who found that the m ean ti m e s to com p lete the f light les s on in the airplane f o r th e f our f light lessons, in which ther e was prior training in the PCATD, were less for all three PC ATD groups than fo r the airplane group. Taylor et al. (1996) found the sam e result for these four flight lessons. The current study found a significant treatm e nt effe ct (assi gnm ent to groups) for tim e to com p lete the flight lesson. Posthoc tests showed that all three experim e ntal groups needed less tim e th an control group to
com p lete the four lessons. This provided a system a tic replication of the re sults of Taylor et al. (2002b) that found a significant treatm ent effect fo r tim e to complete the f our lessons for the three PCATD groups. Post-hoc test s in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study also showed that the experim e ntal groups needed less tim e than the co ntrol group to com p lete the four lessons. The current study found a significant treatm ent effec t for lessons 34/35, 36, and 37 but not for lesson 38 f o r total tim e to com p lete the less on. This syst em atically r e plic ated th e findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) and Taylor et al. (1996) . Taylor et al. (2002b) found significant differences for flight Lessons 36 and 38 when the com b ined experim e nt al groups were com p a r ed with the Control group for each of the four flight lessons, while Taylor et al. (1996) found significant differences in the m ean tim e to com p lete the f lig ht lesson f o r

all f our of the f light less ons. The present study found that the pe rcent transfer for tim e to complete the flight lesson for AVI 130 for the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups ranged from 37. 93% for lesson 37, to 8.62% for lesson 36. S e ven of the eight per cent transfers were above 20.75%. These results were consistent with the percent transfer for tim e reported by Tayl or et al. (2002b) for th e PCATD, which ranged from 12.90% for lesson 34/35 (steep turns) fo r PCATD 5, to 37.20% for lesson 38 (ILS, VOR, DME Arc) for PCATD 10. The percent transfer for the PCATD 5 group in the current study ranged from 12.41% to 29.75%, which directly re plicated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b)

24for the PCATD 5 group (percent transfer ranged from 12.00% to 33.90%). The percent transfer for Taylor et al. (1996) ranged from 37.50% for steep turns to 22.70%. The TERs ranged from 0.21 to 1.57 for the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups in the current study. Seven of the eight TERs were above 0.38. The TERs for the PCATD 5 group in the present study ranged from 0.51 to 0.84. These findings system atic a lly replic ated th e resu lts of Taylor et al. (2002b) who reported T E Rs which ranged from 1. 17 to 0.25 for the PCATD 5 and 10 groups and directly replicated the findings of the PCATD 5 group (TERs ranged from 0.38 to 1.17). In the
curren t stud y the TERs f o r the tim e to com p lete the f light less on showed the negatively decelerated function predicted by Ro scoe (1971), and Flexm a n et al. (197 2) for three of the four lessons. The exception was lesson 36. These result s replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) that for all four flight lessons the TER s for the tim e to com p lete the flight lesson variable showed the negatively decelerated func tion. In com p aring the FTD 5 and 10 groups in the current study, the largest am ount of aver age transfer was found for FTD 5 for 3 of 4
com p arisons. This system atically replicated the re sults of Taylor et al. (2002b) that the largest
am ount of tr ansfer was found for all four flight lessons for PCATD 5 and the sm allest for PCAT D 15. In the current study, 3 of 4 of the ITERs s howed the predicted pattern of a negatively decelerated function (Ro s coe, 1971; Flexm a n et al ., 1972) for tim e to co mplete the flight lessons. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that for the four flight lesson the ITERs for tim e to com p l e te the lesson exhibited the negatively d ecelerated function. In the curr ent study there were substantial tim e savings (transfer) for three of four of the f lig ht lesson s f o r FTD 5, the increm ental savings were found for only lesson 36 for the FTD 10 gr oup. Taylor et al. found that there were substantial tim e savings for all four of the flight lessons for PCATD 5, the increm ental s a vings for the PCATD 10 group was m i nim a l. AVI 140. In AVI 140 the m ean tim es for all three experim e ntal groups to com p lete each of the four flight lessons were less than the tim e for the c ontrol (airplane) group. This system atically replicated the fi nding of Taylor et al . (2002b) who found t h at for all four flight lessons in AVI 140 the control group required m o re tim e to complete the flight lesson in the airplane when com p ared to the three experim e ntal groups in whic h there was prior training in the PCATD. The sam e result was found by Taylor et al . (1996) f o r three of the four flight lessons (Lessons 49, 50, and 52) in which there was prio r training in the PCATD. In the current study, a significant treatm e nt effe ct was found for the m e a n tim es to com p lete the flight lessons am ong the four groups. Post-hoc tests show that the FTD 5 group needed significantly less tim e than both the control group and the PCATD group. Tayl or et al. (2002b) found a significant treatm e nt effect am ong the four groups, but post-hoc tests found no signif icant differences between the Control group and any of the three experim e ntal groups. In the current study, tests of significan ce for each of the flight lessons found a significan t treatm e nt effe ct for Lesso n 52 but not for Lessons 48, 49 or 50. This replicated th e findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) who reported that individu al tests of signi ficance f o r each lesson found a significan t treatm e nt effe ct for lesson 52. Post-hoc tests indicated si gnificant differences between th e Control group and the PCATD 5 group and the Control group and the PCATD 10 group. These findings were sim ilar to those of Taylor et al. (1996) who found si gnificant differences for Lessons 49 and 50 between the Control group who trained only in the airplane and the PC ATD group who had prior training in the PCAT D.

25In the current study, the percen t transfer for tim e to com p lete the flight lesson ranged from 19.11% for Lesson 49 (NDB holds and approach es) for the PCATD 5 group, to -20.44% for Lesson 52 (partial panel ILS, VOR , and holds) f o r the sam e group. Taylor et al. (2002b) found sim ilar results for the PCATD 5 group; the pe rcent transfer ranged from 6.59% for Lesson 50 (NDB holds and approaches and ILS holds) to 28.63% for Lesson 52 (partial panel ILS , VOR, and holds). The percent transfer for Taylor et al. (1996) was sim ilar ranging from 1.50% for lesson 52 to 26.40% for lesson 49. In the current study, the TERs for the tim e to complete the flight lesson the four flight lessons in AVI 140 were substantial ranging from 0.43 to 0.74 for the FTD 5 group; the TERs for FTD 10 were sm alle r f o r all f o ur lesson s . This system a tically rep l icated th e fi ndings of Taylor et al. (2002b) who reported that the TERs ranged from 0.17 to 0.93 for PCATD 5 group and from 0.22 to 0.52 for the PCATD 10 group; the TERs for the PCATD 15 group were sm aller ranging from 0.13 to 0.24. Taylor et al. (1996) reported TERs which ranged from 0.01 to 0.24. For the PCATD 5 group in the current s t udy, the TERs showed subs tantially more variab ility than th e sam e group in the Taylor et al. (2002b) st udy; the TERs ranged from -0.80 to 0.60 compared to 0.17 to 0.93. In the current study for the TERs for the tim e to com p lete the flight lesso n variable showed the negativ ely d ecelerated function p r ed icted by Rosc oe (1971), and Flexm a n et al. (197 2) for all four lessons. Taylor et al. (2002b) reported that for three of the four flight le ssons the TERs for the tim e to com p lete the lesson show ed the nega tively dece ler a ted f unctio n; Lesson 50 was the exception. The ITERs for FTD 10 in the current study ar e all negative w h ich indicated that the additional training tim e for FTD 10 com p ared to FTD 5 provided no benefit to tim e saved in the airplane. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that increased training tim e beyond t h e PCATD 5 level
m a de no substantial contribution to reducing the training time in the airplane in AVI 140. Time to a S u ccessful E v aluation Flight AVI 130. The m ean dual flight tim e to course co mpletion for the airplane group was greater than the average tim e for each of the five expe rim e ntal groups that h a d p r ior training in the PCATD or the FTD. These results system atically replicated the re sults of Taylor et al. (2002b) who found t h at tim e to a successful evaluation fl ight for AVI 130 was less for all th ree PCATD groups compared to the control gr oup. In the current study the f light hours save were 2.15, 3.08 and 1.48 for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FT D 10 groups respectively. These results are sim ilar to the results of Taylor et al. (2002b) who reported that the fli ght hours saved were 2.03 hours, 3.10 hours, and 1.44 hours respectively f o r the PCATD 5, 10, 15 groups for AVI 130. A significant treatm e nt effe ct was found for the current study but post-hoc analyses found no significant difference among the groups. Taylor et al. (2002b) found a significant treatm ent effect for the tim e to a successful evaluation flig ht in AVI 130 for the four groups. Post-hoc tests indicated a s i gnifican t difference between the PCATD 10 group and the C ontrol group but not between the Control group and the P C ATD 5 an d 15 groups. Taylor et al. (1996) found a tim e savings of 2.1 hours for the PCATD group for AVI 130. AVI 140 . For AVI 140, the current study found that the m ean dual flight tim e in the airplane to course co mpletion for the control group was great er th an the m ean ti me for each of the five experim e ntal groups that had prior training in the PCATD or the FTD. These results system atically replicated the results of Taylor et al. (2002b) w ho found that the tim e to a successful evaluation flight for AVI 140 was less for all three PCATD groups com p ared to the

26Control group. In the present study the flight hours saved were 0.60, 1.98, and 2.78 hours respectively for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and th e FTD 10 groups. In the Taylor et al. (2002b) study the flight hours saved were 2.05 hours, 2.39 hours, and 1.75 hours respectively for the PCATD 5, 10, 15 groups. Since the P C ATD 5 group in the current study was a direct replication of the PCATD 5 group in the Taylor et al. ( 2002b) study the comparative sm all num b er of hours saved for the present study require s explanation. The princip l e reason for the differen ces is m o st likely due to the low power in th e current study as a result of a com p aratively sm all num b er of subjects. A significant treatm e nt effe ct was found for the present study for tim e for the groups to reach su ccessful com p letion of the AVI 140 c ourse; F (3, 63) =4.14, p<=. 05, however, no significant differences were found between th e four groups. T a ylor et al. (2002b) found a significant treatm e nt effe ct for th e tim e to com p l e te the evaluati on flight in AVI 140 for the four groups. However, post-hoc tests indicated no sign ificant difference betw een any of the PCATD groups and the Control group. Taylor et al. (1996) found a significant treatm ent effect and a tim e savings of 1.8 hours for the PCATD group for AVI 140. Effectivenes s of Using the FTD for Cross Country Training One objective of the current study was to inves tigate the effectiveness of the FTD for crosscountry training. The FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups received ten hours of prior FTD training on instrum e nt tasks (see Table 1). In ad dition, the F T D 15 and 20 groups received an add ition a l 5 and 10 hours respectively of cro ss-country training in the FT D. The FTD 15 group received 2 hours of cross country tim e in AVI 130 and 3 hours in 140; the FTD 20 group received 4 hours of cross country tim e in AVI 130 and 6 hours in 140. W ith the exception of the cross-country tim e the treatm e nt of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. Althou gh this s t udy f a iled to show an hour for hour replacem ent of aircraft cro ss-country training wi th FTD cross-country training, savings of approxim a tely 50% were realized by the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups. This indicates that, while the FTD m a y be used effectively for cross-c ountry training, there are som e aspects that do not transfer 100% . The current study did not inve stigate the variables af fecting the am ount of transfer for the cross-country training in the FTD. It should al so be noted that there was no test of cross-cou n try skills o n the Lesson 60 check r i de, so it is im possible to determ ine if any studen t deficiencies on these sk ills were pres ent. CONCL US ION The curren t study found that FTDs are useful to teach instru m e nt tasks to private pilots training tow a rds the instrum e nt rating. This finding system atically replicated the find ings of the Taylor et al. (2002b) and the Ta ylor et al. (1996, 1999) that PCATDs are useful to teach instrum e nt tasks to pr iva t e pilots. As a result of pr ior train i ng in a FTD, trials to a spec if ic criter ion, tim e to com p lete th e f light lesson a nd tim e to a successful evaluation flight were less when com p ared to a control group trained only in the airpla ne. The sam e result was found by Taylor et al. (2002b) fo r PCATDs. The current study found the greatest transfer for the FTD 5 group com p ared to the F T D 10 group for trials in AVI 130 (6 of 8 com p arisons), trials in AVI140 (14 of 14 com p a r isons), tim e to com p le te the flight lesson in AVI 130 (3 of 4
com p arisons), and tim e to com p lete the flight le sson in AVI 140 (4 of 4 comparisons). Taylor et al. (2002b) f ound that the greate st transfer effect was found for the PCATD 5 group. The increm ental transfer of training theory of Roscoe (1971) predicte d both of these findings. In the
curren t stud y the pred iction tha t inc r eased tria ls/ tim e in the FTD would save tr ials/tim e the airplane was found for trials in AVI 130 (5 of 6 com p arisons) but not for tr ials in AVI 140 (1 of 11 com p arisons); the prediction was not found for tim e to complete the flight lesson in AVI 130,
27(1 of 4 comparisons), nor for tim e to com p lete th e flight lesson in AVI 140 (2 of 4 comparisons). Taylor et al. (2002b) found that in creased trials/ tim e in the PCAT D failed to save trials/tim e in the airplane com p ared to the control group. In so m e cases the results indicate a com p lex pattern of tim e savings. For the current study, the TERs fo r all in stru m e nt tasks for flight lesson 34/35, 36, and 37, and VOR flight lesson s 38 showed th e predicted negativ ely decelerated function for increased number of trials. Exam ination of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that additional training for trials for the F T D 10 gr oup provided little benefit over the FTD 5 group. Taylor et al. (2002b) reported th at two of the five ITERs for the trial variable, showed the predicted pattern of a negatively decelerate d function (Roscoe, 1971; Flexm a n et al., 1972). The current study and the study by T a ylor et al. (2002b) show that savings in the airplane fail to support the prediction that m o re training in the FTD or the PCAT D is better. The results in the
curren t stud y indicted th at redu ced transfer f o r th e FTD occurred f o r tr ials and f o r tim e to
com p lete the flight lessons in AVI 140 as com p a r ed to AVI 130. The results system atically replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) which indicated re duced trials/tim e saved for the PCATD for AVI 140 when com p ared to AVI 130. Th e negatively decelerated function of the ITER predic ts reduc ed tr ansf er f o r in strum e nt tas k s introdu ce d during late r stage s in th e instructional sequence (Roscoe, 1971). Taylor et al. (1999) also found less transfer during AVI 140 than AVI 130. They noted that “the evident r eason for this is that what is learned while
m a stering one task in a training device generalizes (i.e., transfers to som e extent) to o t her task s introduced later, thus reducing the rem a ining potential for transfer” (Tay lor et al., 19 99). In the cu rren t study, th e tim e to a successful evaluation fligh t was less for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups com p ared to the control group for both AVI 130 and 140. The total savings for both AVI 130 and 140 was 2.75, 5.06, and 4.26 for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups respectively. Taylor et al . (2002b) also found that tim e to a successful evaluation flight was less for the three PCATD gr oups when com p ared to the control group for both AVI 130 and 140. The total savings for both AVI 130 and 140 was 4.08, 5.49, and 3.19 for the PCATD 5, 10 and 15 groups respectively. For the current study, the total tim e savings for both AVI 130 and 140 was 2.75 for the PCATD 5 group compared to 4.08 hours for this group in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study. Ag ain these differences are likely due to the com p aratively low power of the current study. These findings system a tically r e plica t ed th e f i ndings of Taylor et al. (1999) who found overall savings of 3.90 hours. Generally, the current s t udy found little additio n a l tim e /trials were saved by the FTD 10 group com p ared to the F T D 5 group replicating the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b). Practically no increm ental transfer was found for the addi tional hours of training by the PCATD 15 group
com p ared to the PCATD 10 group. One purpose fo r conducting an increm ental transfer of training study is to determ ine at what point additional training in the PCATD in no longer effective. Based on the results of the current study no appreciable bene fit was found for m o re than 5 hours of FTD training on instrum e nt tasks. These results provide support to the current FAA policy of perm ittin g FTD tim e in lieu of tim e in an airplane and pe rm itting PCATD tim e to be used in lieu of tim e in an approved training device or airplane, but th e results ind i c a ted th at only 5 hours of training tim e on in strum e nt tasks in the FTD or PCATD was effective. Although the current study failed to show an hour for hour replacem ent of ai rcraft cross-country tim e with FTD cross-country tim e , savings in the airplane of approximately 50% were realized by the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups.

28REFE RE NCES
Federal Aviation Adm i nistration. (1997). Verification and approval of personal computer-based aviation training device (Advisory C i rcu l ar 61 -1 26). W a sh ington, DC: FAA, Departm e nt of Transportation.
Flexm a n, R. E., Roscoe, S. N., W illiam s , A. C., Jr ., & W illiges, B. H. (1972, June). Stu d ies in pilot train i n g (Aviation Research M onographs, vol. 2, #1). Savoy, IL: University o f Illino i s, Institute of Aviation. Phillips S. I., Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin , C. L., Em anuel, T., & Talleur, D. (199 5). Developing perform a nce m easures for evaluati ng personal computer-bas ed aviation training devices within an FAR Part 141 pilot training school. Proceed ings of Aviation Psychology 8th International Symposium . Columbus, OH. Roscoe, S. N. (1971). Increm ental transfer effectiveness. Human Factors, 13 , 561-567. Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G ., Hulin, C. L., Ta lleur, D., Em anuel, T., & Phillips, S. (1996). Transfer of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices (T echnical Report ARL-96-3/FAA-96-2). Savoy, IL : Aviation Research Laboratory. Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G , Hulin, C. L., Talleur , D. A., Em anue l, T., & Phillips, S. (1999). Transfer of train i ng effectiveness of a personal computer avia tion training device. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9 , 319-335. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W ., Jr., Rantanen, E

. M., Bradsh aw, G. L., & Phillips, S. I. (2002a). Incremental training effectiveness of pe rsonal computers used for instrument training: Basic instruments (Technical Report A R L-02-4/NASA-02-2). Savoy, IL: University o f Illino i s, Aviation Rese arch Lab. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W ., Jr., Rantanen, E

. M., Bradsh aw, G. L., & Phillips, S. I. (2002b). Incremental training effectiveness of pe rsonal computers used for instrument training (Technical Report ARL-02-5/NASA-02-3). Savoy, IL: Univers i ty of Illino i s, Aviation Research Lab.

29APPE NDI X A: PUB L I CATIONS AND P R E S ENT A TI ONS Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Em anue l, T. W ., Jr ., & Rantanen, E. M. (2005) . Transfer of training effectivenes s of a flight train i ng de vice (FTD). Paper presented at th e 13th International Sym posium on Aviation Psychology, Okla hom a City, OK, April 18-21, 2005. Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Em anue l, T. W ., Jr., & Rantanen, E. M. (2005). The effectiveness of flight training devices (FTDs) in instrum e nt training. A paper pres ented at the Mid Year
m eeting of APA Divisions 19 and 21 and Potom ac Chapter o f the HFES, at George M a son University, VA, March 4, 2005. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr ., and Rantanen, E. M., Increm ental transfer of training effectiveness of a flight training device. A paper presented at the Technology Enhancem e n ts for Aviation Classroom s Se m i nar, University Aviation As socia tion Fa ll Education C onference, Dayton, OH, October 22, 2003. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M. Transfer of Training Effectivenes s of an FTD. A paper presented at the Federal Aviation Adm i nistration’s H u m a n Factors Research and E ngineering Divisi on (A AR-100) FY03 Aviation Maintenance, General Aviation, and V e rtical F light program review at the University of Nevada, Reno, NV, Septe m ber 10-11, 2003. The paper was published a CD. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr ., and Rantanen, E. M., Increm ental Transfer of Training Effectiveness of a Flight Training Devi ce (FTD). A paper presented at the R e search Roundtable, University Aviation Associati on Fall Education Conference, Dayton. OH, October 24, 2003. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., Increm ental Ef f

ectivenes s of Personal Com puter Aviati on Training Devices (PCATDs) and a Flight Training Device (FTD), A paper presented at the annual m eeting of the Am erican Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI, July 2004. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., The Effectiveness of personal computer aviation traini ng devices (PCATDs) and flight training devices (FTDs) in instrum e nt train i ng, m a intain ing cur r ency and instrum e nt proficiency checks. A paper presented at the Institutional W o rkshop, Un iversity Aviation Association Fall Education Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 9, 2004. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., The Effectiveness of Personal Computers (PCATDs) and Flight Trai ning Devices (FTDs) on Instrum e nt Training for Pilots. A paper presented at the Aerosp ace Medical Association 75th Annual Scientific Program Meeting, Anchorage, AK, May, 2004. Taylor, H. L., Talleu r , D. A., Em anue l, T. W

. Jr ., and Rantanen, E. M., Increm ental transfer of Training effectiveness of Personal Com puter Aviation Training Devices (PCATDs) and a Flight Training Device (FTD ). A pa per presented at the Res earch Roundtable, University Aviation Association Fall Educa tion Conference, Toronto, Onta rio, Canada, October 8, 2004.

3031 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE SCORE CARDS FROM FLIGHT LESSONS 36 AND 48

Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 36 5.0 HOUR PCATD GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the PCATD. Holding Pattern Set a direct crosswind of 15 knots to the holding pattern.

Student entered 2 intersection holds during this lesson __________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) ____
****************************************************************************** Date___________ This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the airplane. Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered during this lesson to reach completion standards _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _______ Amount of time flown in airplane during this lesson until student performs intersection holds to completion standards ________32 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 36 5.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA. Holding Pattern Set a direct crosswind of 15 knots to the holding pattern.

Student entered 2 intersection holds during this lesson __________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) ____
****************************************************************************** Date___________ This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the airplane. Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered during this lesson to reach completion standards _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _______ Amount of time flown in airplane during this lesson until student performs intersection holds to completion standards ________33 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 36 10.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA. Holding Pattern Set a direct crosswind of 15 knots to the holding pattern.

Student entered 4 intersection holds during this lesson __________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) ____
****************************************************************************** Date___________ This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the airplane. Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered during this lesson to reach completion standards _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _______ Amount of time flown in airplane during this lesson until student performs intersection holds to completion standards ________34 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 36 15.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA. Holding Pattern Set a direct crosswind of 15 knots to the holding pattern.

Student entered 4 intersection holds during this lesson __________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) ____
****************************************************************************** Date___________ This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the airplane. Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered during this lesson to reach completion standards _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _______ Amount of time flown in airplane during this lesson until student performs intersection holds to completion standards ________35 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 36 20.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA. Holding Pattern Set a direct crosswind of 15 knots to the holding pattern.

Student entered 4 intersection holds during this lesson __________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) ____
****************************************************************************** Date___________ This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the airplane. Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered during this lesson to reach completion standards _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _______ Amount of time flown in airplane during this lesson until student performs intersection holds to completion standards ________36 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 36 AIRPLANE-ONLY GROUP Holding Pattern Check "completed" when the student's performance meets the criteria.

Measure Desired Completed Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ Number of intersection holds entered during this lesson to reach completion standards _______ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _______ Amount of time flown in airplane during this le sson until student performs intersection holds to completion standards _______37 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 5.0 HOUR PCATD GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the PCATD. ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Student entered 1 intersection hold during this lesson _________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) _________ Student performed 1 ILS approach during this lesson _________ Student performed 1 VOR appro ach during this lesson _________38 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 5.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA. ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Student entered 1 intersection hold during this lesson _________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) _________ Student performed 1 ILS approach during this lesson _________ Student performed 1 VOR appro ach during this lesson _________39 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 10.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA

. ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Student entered 2 intersection holds during this lesson _________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) _________ Student performed 2 ILS appro aches during this lesson _________ Student performed 2 VOR approaches during this lesson _________40 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 15.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA

. ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Student entered 2 intersection holds during this lesson _________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) _________ Student performed 2 ILS appro aches during this lesson _________ Student performed 2 VOR approaches during this lesson _________41 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 20.0 HOUR FRASCA GROUP This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the FRASCA

. ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria.

Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Student entered 2 intersection holds during this lesson _________ Student crossed holding fix from inbound leg 3 times in each hold (complete turns in hold) _________ Student performed 2 ILS appro aches during this lesson _________ Student performed 2 VOR approaches during this lesson _________42 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 PCATD AND FRASCA GROUPS This portion of the lesson will be conducted in the airplane. ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria. Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria. Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered to reach Instrument PTS criteria _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _________ Number of ILS approaches performed to reach Instrument PTS criteria _________ Number of VOR approaches performed to reach Instrument PTS criteria _________ Amount of time flown in airplane to reach completion standards _________43 Student______________________ Instructor_____________________ Date___________

FLIGHT LESSON 48 AIRPLANE GROUP ILS Approach Please test the first ILS approach of this flight. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria. Task Yes No Tune, Ident Localizer

_____ _____ Before Final Approach Segment: Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ Heading + 10 o

_____ _____ Less Than Full-Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Intercepts Glide Slope

_____ _____ Starts Time

_____ _____ On Final Approach: Less Than 3/4 Scale CDI Deflection

_____ _____ Less Than 3/4 Scale Glide Slope Deflection

_____ _____ Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Properly Identifies MAP

_____ _____ Holding Pattern Please test the first holding pattern of this flig ht. Check "yes" or "no" to indicate whether the student's performance met the criteria. Measure Desired Yes No Tune and Ident Proper Navaids

_____ _____ Recognizes Arrival at Holding Fix

_____ _____ Initiates Prompt Entry

_____ _____ Uses Recommended Entry Procedure

_____ _____ Properly Reports Entry

_____ _____ From Initial Arrival at Holding Fi x to Crossing Fix on 1st Inbound Leg Airspeed + 10 kts

_____ _____ Altitude + 100 ft

_____ _____ On Inbound Leg Maintains Desired Course + 10 o

_____ _____ Number of intersection holds entered to reach Instrument PTS criteria _________ Number of times holding fix crossed from inbound leg (complete turns in holds) _________ Number of ILS approaches performed to reach Instrument PTS criteria _________ Number of VOR approaches performed to reach Instrument PTS criteria _________ Amount of time flown in airplane to reach completion standards _________