Aviation Human Factors Division 

AHFD 

Institute of Aviation 

University of Illinois 

at Urbana-Champaign 

1 Airport Road

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-033 
i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The effectiveness of ground-based flight training devices in teaching flying skills is measured by 

transfer of training, quantifiable by a transfer effective ratio (TER). The incremental transfer 

effectiveness ratio (ITER) determines the transfer effectiveness of successive increments of 

training in the ground trainer. Previous research on a personal computer based aviation training 

device (PCATD) has shown that this device is effective for teaching instrument tasks (Taylor et 

al., 1996; 1999). In a later study as predicted by the incremental transfer of training theory of 

Roscoe (1971)., the greatest transfer of training effect was found for the group that received five 

hours compared to 10 and 15 hours of prior PCATD training in an airplane (Taylor et al., 2002b). 

In some cases the results indicate a complex pattern supporting the notion that more training in a 

PCATD is not necessarily better. The research reported here sought to replicate the previous 

findings by Taylor et al. (1996, 1999, 2002b) using both PCATDs and flight training devices 

(FTDs). 

Participants in this experiment were assigned to four flight training device (FTD) groups, one 

PCATD group, and a control (airplane) group. Training in the FTD was conducted in Frasca 141, 

level-1 FTDs. The PCATD training was conducted using FAA approved PCATDs from Aviation 

Teachware Technologies (ELITE) v. 6.0.2, with flight controls by Precision Flight Controls. 

Airplane training was carried out in the Piper Archer III aircraft. 

Using a transfer of training design, the six groups of subjects were tested in the airplane for 

proficiency on various instrument flying tasks in both basic (AVI 130) and advanced instrument 

(AVI 140) courses. One group received 5 hours of prior training on instrument 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 FTD. With the exception of the crosscountry time, the treatment of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. 

Mean trials to reach criterion in the airplane for selected instrument tasks and mean time to 

complete the flight lesson were computed for all groups for both courses. Separate ANOVAs 

were performed to analyze the difference between the four groups on the three dependent 

measures for both AVI 130 and 140 to determine the significance of the trial and flight lesson to 

completion time variables as a function of experimental treatment, and to explore variability in 

the time to a successful evaluation flight as a function of the experimental treatment. 

The results indicate that the FTD is effective for teaching basic instrument tasks to private pilots. 

The current study systematically replicated the finding from a study by Taylor et al. (2002b), 

which had established similar results for the PCATD. For AVI 130 the current study found that 

compared to the control group prior training in the FTD resulted in a smaller number of trials in 

the airplane for 10 of 12 flying tasks tested, as well as a significant treatment effect (assignment 

to group). For mean trials to criterion in the airplane in AVI 140, the control group required 

more trials than the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 for all instrument tasks for all lessons. Significant 

treatment effects were found for four instrument tasks. The mean times to complete each of the 

four flight lessons in AVI 130 and 140 were less than the time for the control (airplane) group for 

the PCATD 5 and the FTD 5 and 10 experimental groups. 

One objective of the current study was to investigate the effectiveness of the FTD for crosscountry training. In addition to the ten hours of prior FTD training on instrument tasks, the FTD 
ii 

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 time in AVI 130 and 3 hours in 

140; the FTD 20 group received 4 hours of cross country time in AVI 130 and 6 hours in 140. 

With the exception of the cross-country time, the treatment of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was 

identical. Although the results failed to show an hour for hour replacement of aircraft crosscountry training with FTD cross-country training, savings of approximately 50% were realized 

by the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups. 

The current study found the greatest transfer for the FTD 5 group compared to the FTD 10 group 

for trials in AVI 130 (6 of 8 comparisons), trials in AVI 140 (14 of 14 comparisons), time to 

complete the flight lesson in AVI 130 (3 of 4 comparisons), and time to complete the flight 

lesson in AVI 140 (4 of 4 comparisons). Increased trials/time in the FTD saved trials/time in the 

airplane for trials in AVI 130 (5 of 6 comparisons) but not for trials in AVI 140 (1 of 11 

comparisons), nor for time to complete the flight lesson in AVI 130, (1 of 4 comparisons), nor 

for time to complete the flight lesson in AVI 140 (2 of 4 comparisons). The TERs for all 

instrument tasks for flight lesson 34/35, 36, and 37, and VOR flight lessons 38 showed the 

predicted negatively decelerated function for increased number of trials. Examination of the 

ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that additional training for trials for the FTD 10 group 

provided little benefit over the FTD 5 group. Taylor et al. (2002b) reported that two of the five 

ITERs for number of trials showed the predicted pattern of a negatively decelerated function 

(Roscoe, 1971; Flexman et al., 1972). 

Both the current research and the study by Taylor et al. (2002b) show that more training in the 

FTD or the PCATD is not necessarily better in terms of savings. The results in the current study 

indicted that reduced transfer for the FTD occurred for trials and for time to complete the flight 

lessons in AVI 140 as compared to AVI 130. The results systematically replicated the findings of 

Taylor et al. (2002b) for the PCATD for AVI 140 when compared to AVI 130. The negatively 

decelerated function of the ITER predicts reduced transfer for instrument tasks introduced during 

later stages in the instructional 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 while mastering one task in a training device generalizes (i.e., transfers to some extent) 

to other tasks introduced later, thus reducing the remaining potential for transfer” (Taylor et al., 

1999). 

In the current study, the time to a successful evaluation flight was less for the PCATD 5, the 

FTD 5, and the FTD 10 groups compared 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 time to a successful 

evaluation flight was less for three PCATD 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 time 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. These differences are likely due to the comparatively low power of 

the current study. These findings systematically replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (1999) 

who found overall savings of 3.90 hours. 
iii 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................i 

FOREWORD...............................................................................................................................iv 

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

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

Purpose of the Research.....................................................................................................3 

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

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

 Equipment..........................................................................................................................4 

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

 Analyses............................................................................................................................. 7 

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 8 

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

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

 AVI 140 ................................................................................................................ 10 

Time to Complete Flight Lesson......................................................................................13 

 AVI 130 ................................................................................................................ 13 

 AVI 140 ................................................................................................................ 16 

Time to Evaluation Flight................................................................................................ 18 

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

 AVI 140 ................................................................................................................ 20 

Overall Time Saved .........................................................................................................21 

Effectiveness of Using the FTD for Cross-Country Training..........................................21 

DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................. 22

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

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

 AVI 140 ................................................................................................................ 23 

Mean Time to Complete the Flight Lesson......................................................................24

 AVI 130 ................................................................................................................ 24 

 AVI 140 ................................................................................................................ 25 

Time to a Successful Evaluation Flight ...........................................................................26

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

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

Effectiveness of Using the FTD for Cross Country Training..........................................27 

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 27 

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

APPENDIX A: PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS................................................ 30 

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE SCORE CARDS FROM FLIGHT LESSONS 36 AND 48 ........ 31 
iv

FOREWORD 

This work is supported under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Cooperative 

Agreement Number 02-G-033 and sponsored by the FAA Headquarters, Flight Standard Service, 

General Aviation & Commercial Division. Dennis Beringer served as the COTR. Views 

expressed herein do not necessarily represent official FAA positions. We express our 

appreciation to Ms. Sybil Phillips for invaluable assistance with flight operations and with 

student management. Mr. William Jones, Mr. David Boyd, and Mr. Donald Talleur served as 

check pilots. We also thank the Institute of Aviation the flight instructors and students for their 

participation in the study. 
INTRODUCTION 

Training of flying skills in ground-based devices offers many attractive benefits, of which the 

two most important are safety and cost. However, it is critical to ascertain that use of flight 

training devices (FTDs) and personal computer aviation training devices (PCATDs) indeed work 

in this capacity, that is, their use saves training time in an airplane. Such effectiveness is 

measured by transfer of training. To evaluate transfer of training effectiveness of a ground-based 

trainer, the performance of participants trained on instrument tasks in the trainer, and later 

trained to criterion in an airplane, must be compared to the performance of participants trained to 

criterion only in the airplane. Percent transfer is commonly used to determine the savings 

(trials/time) in an airplane as a result of prior training in a ground trainer. The percent transfer 

measure, however, does not account for the trials/time in the ground trainer to achieve those 

savings. Roscoe (1971) demonstrated that the transfer effective ratio (TER) accounts for the 

amount of prior training in ground trainers by specifying the trials/time saved in the airplane as a 

function of the prior trials/time in the ground trainer. The incremental transfer effectiveness ratio 

(ITER) determines the transfer effectiveness of successive increments of training in the ground 

trainer (Flexman, Roscoe, Williams & Williges, 1972). 

Prior Research 

A study to determine the extent to which a PCATD can be used to develop specific 

instrument skills that are taught in instrument flight training and to determine transfer of these 

skills to the aircraft was reported by Taylor et al. (1996, 1999). Students in instrument training at 

the Institute of Aviation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) were taught 

instrument tasks using a commercially available PCATD. The performance of one group of 

students trained to criterion on a number of instrument tasks in a PCATD and later trained to 

criterion in an aircraft (PCATD group) was compared with a group of students who received no 

PCATD training but were trained to criterion on the same instrument tasks in the airplane 

(control group). In order to evaluate transfer of training effectiveness of the PCATD to complete 

each flight lesson in the airplane and make comparisons of trials to criterion in the airplane, 

course completion times for the two groups were recorded. The findings of the study indicated 

that the PCATD was an effective training device for teaching instrument tasks. When new tasks 

were introduced, transfer savings were generally positive and statistically significant. No 

significant transfer was found when tasks already learned in previous lessons were reviewed. The 

comparison of course completion times indicated an overall savings of about four hours in the 

airplane for the PCATD group compared 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 hours of PCATD time. 

In a later study, Taylor et al. (2002a, b) measured the effectiveness of a PCATD and 

determined 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 training on selected 

instrument tasks required for the instrument rating. After training on each instrument task the 

participants were evaluated in the airplane using completion standards for each task and these 

results were compared to a control group trained only in the airplane. The dependent measures 

were number of trials to specific completion standards, time to complete a flight lesson, and time 

to a successful evaluation flight in both basic and advanced instrument courses (AVI 130 and 

AVI 140, respectively). The data from the study indicated that the PCATD was effective in 

1
teaching basic and advanced instrument tasks to private pilots. For all three PCATD groups in 

AVI 130, prior training in the PCATD reduced the mean trials to completion standards in the 

airplane for 21 of the 24 instrument tasks tested when compared to the mean trials for the control 

group. A significant difference was found for the treatment effect for mean trials in AVI 130 for 

the four groups. Post-hoc tests indicated that the treatment effect was due to differences between 

the control group and both the PCATD 5 and the PCATD 15 groups. For AVI 140, the data 

indicate that, with six exceptions out of 33 instrument task measures, the mean trials in the 

airplane were less for all three PCATD groups for all instrument tasks when compared with the 

mean trials in the airplane by the control group. Statistical analyses indicated no significant 

differences due to experimental treatment for the four groups 

In AVI 130 the mean times to complete the flight lesson in the airplane for the four flight 

lessons in which there was prior training in the PCATD were lower for all three PCATD groups 

than for the control group. A significant treatment effect was found for the four groups. Three of 

the flight lessons showed the predicted decreased mean time with increased prior training in the 

PCATD when the PCATD 5 and 10 groups were compared, and one flight lesson showed this 

pattern when the PCATD 10 and 15 groups were compared. For AVI 140, the mean times for all 

three PCATD groups to complete each of the four flight lessons were less than the time for the 

Control group. An analysis of mean times for the four groups to complete the flight lesson 

indicated a significant treatment effect. Post-hoc tests, however, indicated no significant 

differences between the control group and any of the experimental groups. Analyses of 

individual flight lessons comparing the time to complete the flight lesson among the four groups 

found a significant treatment effect for one flight lesson, but not for the other three scored flight 

lessons in AVI 140. The pattern of the TERs for the mean time to complete the flight lesson 

variable for the PCATD groups showed the predicted negatively decelerated function for three of 

the four flight lesson for increased amounts of training time in the PCATD. Increased training 

time in AVI 140 beyond PCATD 5 did little to reduce the training time in the airplane. 

In AVI 130, the mean time to a successful evaluation flight was less for all three PCATD 

groups compared to the control group. A significant treatment effect was found for the four 

groups for the time to a successful evaluation flight during the basic instrument course. Post-hoc 

comparisons indicated a significant difference between the PCATD 10 group and the Control 

group. For AVI 140, the mean time to a successful evaluation flight was less for all three 

PCATD groups than for the control group. A significant treatment effect was found in AVI 140 

for the four groups for the time to a successful evaluation flight during the advanced instrument 

course. Post-hoc comparisons, 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 replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (1996) in that PCATDs 

are useful to teach instrument tasks to private pilots. As a result of prior training in a PCATD, 

trials, time to complete the flight lesson, and time to a successful evaluation flight were all less 

when compared to an airplane control group. Overall, the greatest effect was found for the 

PCATD 5 group, which was predicted by the incremental transfer of training theory of Roscoe 

(1971). In some cases the results indicated a complex pattern supporting the notion that more 

training is not necessarily better. That is, additional training in the PCATD did not always lead to 

more trials/ time saved in the airplane compared to the control group. The results also indicated 

reduced trials/time saved for AVI 140 compared to AVI 130. The negatively decelerated 

function of the ITER predicts reduced transfer for instrument tasks introduced during later stages 

2
in the instructional sequence (Roscoe, 1971). Taylor et al. (1999) also found less transfer during 

AVI 140 than AVI 130. They concluded that what is learned while mastering one task in a 

training device generalizes to other tasks introduced later, which reduces the remaining potential 

for transfer. Generally, in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study, little additional time/trials were saved 

by the PCATD 10 group when compared to the PCATD 5 group and practically no incremental 

transfer was found for the additional hours of training by the PCATD 15 group compared to the 

PCATD 10 group. One purpose for conducting an incremental transfer of training study is to 

determine at what point additional training in the PCATD in no longer effective. Taylor et al. 

(2002b) concluded that no appreciable benefit was found for more than 5 hours of PCATD 

training on instrument tasks. These results provide support for the current FAA policy of 

permitting PCATD time to be used in lieu of time in an approved training device or airplane, but 

found that only 5 of the 10 hours permitted could be used in a cost-effective manner. The results 

also provide no support for increasing the amount of time using PCATDs from 10 to 15 hours as 

a substitute for time in the aircraft to train instrument tasks. 

Purpose of the Research 

The question remains, however, how can flight schools most effectively use the 10 hours of 

instrument training time in a PCATD currently permitted by AC No: 61-126 (FAA, 1997). 

Taylor et al. (1999) suggested the approach used in this research of allocating the above time to 

the training of the following instruments tasks: steep turns, intersection holds, ILS, VOR and 

LOC BC Approaches, VOR, ILS and DME ARC approaches, review approaches, NDB holds 

and approaches, NDB holds and approaches review, and holds and approaches using partial 

panel. The results of Taylor et al. (2002b) clearly indicated that the use of 5 hours of PCATD 

time in accordance with the suggestions of Taylor et al. (1999) was cost-effective based on the 

allocation of PCATD time for the PCATD 5 group, but the doubling and tripling of the 

trials/time in these flight lessons, which was done as part of the experimental design in the 

Taylor et al. (2002b) study, was not an effective use of the additional time for the 10 nor the 15 

hour groups. Flight schools should examine their training course outlines (TCOs) to determine 

where the additional 5 hours could be effectively used. Taylor et al. (2002b) 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 instrument tasks. We directly replicated the PCATD 5 group 

using a PCATD and systematically replicated the PCATD 5 and 10 groups using FTDs. In 

addition, two new FTD groups were added to the experimental design, the FTD 15 and 20 

groups. These two groups directly replicated the FTD 10 group in the current study for 

instrument flight tasks but added 5 and 10 hours of cross country time respectively. The final 

group in the study is a control group that received training only in the airplane. 

METHOD 

Participants

Participants were assigned to four flight training device (FTD) groups, one PCATD group, 

and a control (airplane) group. In the initial proposal a total of 180 pilots (30 in each of the 6 

groups) were scheduled to participate in the study. Due to funding reductions in the second and 

third years of the research, the number of pilots in the study was first reduced to a total of 120 

(20 subjects in each group) and, due to the elimination of FY 2005 funding, the eventual number 

3
of participants for each group who successfully completed the instrument program ranged 

between 15 and 20 for the six groups. The participants were private pilot students at the UIUC 

who were enrolled in the Institute of Aviation’s instrument flight program. This program consists 

of two semester courses: AVI 130, Basic Instruments and AVI140, Advanced Instruments. All 

students in the instrument program were involved in the study. A total of 102 students completed 

the study. Each semester the students were assigned equally to the six groups while maintaining 

a balanced number of participants across all groups to account for students who did not complete 

the course. 

Equipment 

Training in the FTD was conducted in Frasca 141, level-1 FTDs with generic single-engine, 

fixed-gear, and fixed-pitch propeller performance models. The PCATD training was conducted 

using FAA approved PCATDs from Aviation Teachware Technologies (ELITE) v. 6.0.2, with 

flight controls by Precision Flight Controls (Figure 1). The PCATDs simulated the flight 

characteristics of the Piper Archer III aircraft. The system contained an instructor map display 

and a 20-inch monitor and hood. The 20-inch monitor permitted the display of eight flight 

instruments; avionics were contained in a separate unit positioned just to the side of the monitor. 

Airplane training was carried out in the Piper Archer III aircraft which is a single engine, fixed 

pitch propeller, fixed under-carriage aircraft. 

Figure 1. PCATD from Aviation Teachware Technologies (ELITE) 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 Instruments and AVI 140, Advanced Instruments. AVI 130 emphasizes aircraft 

control and instrument departure, en route and approach procedures, while AVI 140 emphasizes 

NDB holds and approaches and partial panel procedures. This report presents the results from

4
both AVI 130, and AVI 140. The students received 45 hours of lectures during the semester for 

both courses as well as 15 flight lessons, each of which are programmed for one lesson per week. 

Experimental 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 instrument flying tasks in both courses. One group received 5 hours of 

prior instrument training in a PCATD, and four groups received 5, 10, 15 and 20 hours of prior 

training in a FTD. The prior training on instrument tasks was distributed equally between AVI 

130 and AVI 140. A control group received all training in the airplane. 

Training on selected instrument tasks using the FTD and PCATD was administered to the 

four FTD groups and the PCATD group during four flight lessons for each semester. The FTD 

10, 15 and 20 groups received ten hours of prior FTD training on instrument tasks (see Table 1). 

In addition, FTD training was given during certain cross-country lessons in both AVI 130 and 

AVI 140 for the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups to investigate the effectiveness of the FTD for 

cross-country training. The FTD 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 crosscountry time in AVI 130 and 3 hours in 140; the FTD 20 group received 4 hours of cross-country 

time in AVI 130 and 6 hours in 140. With the exception of the cross-country time, the treatment 

of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. 

Table 1. 

Time (hours) in PCATD and FTD by group and flight lesson in the AVI 130 and 140 courses.

Experimental Group

Flight Lesson PCATD 5 and FTD 5 FTD 10 FTD 15 FTD 20 

AVI 130 

34/35: Steep Turns 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0

36: Holds 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3

37: Approaches 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3

38: Approaches 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3

39: IFR X-country NA NA 2.0 2.0 

42: IFR X-Country NA NA NA 2.0 

AVI 140

48: Review Approaches 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 

49: NDB Holds and App. 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 

50: NDB Holds and App. 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 

52: Holds/Approaches 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.3

53: IFR X-country NA NA 2.0 2.0 

54: IFR X-country NA NA 1.0 2.0 

55: IFR X-country NA NA NA 2.0 

Prior to the start of each semester, all flight instructors were standardized on the use of the 

FTD and PCATD, the training course outlines (TCOs), and experimental procedures. Flight 

instructors served as both instructors and data collectors, rating student performances on 

designated flight tasks in the aircraft. For performance assessment in the aircraft, each instructor

recorded if the student met the completion standards during the execution of the designated flight

5
tasks. They also recorded the number of trials to criterion for specific tasks and flight time to 

complete a flight lesson (Phillips et al., 1995). An example of the check lists used (Flight 

Lessons 36 and 48) is presented in Appendix B. Three check pilots, blind to the allocation of

students to training conditions, conducted the AVI 130 stage check and the AVI 140 instrument 

rating flight check. 

Each flight instructor was instructed to schedule an evaluation flight after flight lesson 40 in 

AVI 130, and an instrument rating flight check after flight lesson 55 in AVI 140 when the 

student was judged to be able to meet the proficiency standards for the stage check and the 

instrument proficiency check, respectively. These evaluation flights permitted the assessment of 

the differential time to complete the flight course as a function of the amount of prior training in 

the FTD and the PCATD. Those students who failed the evaluation flight or failed to meet the 

proficiency standards by flight lesson 45 (stage check) and flight lesson 60 (instrument rating 

check flight) were provided additional flight time to reach proficiency. The dependent measures 

in this study were number of trials in the airplane to proficiency, time to complete the flight 

lessons in the airplane, and total course completion time in the airplane for both courses. 

The amount of time in the PCATD and 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 time in the 

PCATD 5 and the FTD 5 is the same for all flight lessons and the time for the FTD 10, 15 and 20 

groups is the same for flight lessons during which there is training on instrument tasks. The FTD 

15 and 20 groups have an additional 5 and 10 hours respectively in the FTD for cross country 

training. This training time was substituted on an hour for hour basis for aircraft cross country 

time. 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 instrument tasks trained in AVI 130 and AVI 140. 

Trials in PCATD and FTD 

Task (AVI 130) PCATD and FTD 5 FTD 10,15, 20 

Steep Turns (FL 34/35) 1 2 

Turn in Hold (FL 36) 6 12 

ILS (FL 37) 1 2 

VOR (FL 37) 1 2 

LOC BC (FL 37) 1 2 

ILS (FL 38) 1 2 

VOR (FL 38) 1 2 

DME ARC (FL 38) 2 4 

Task (AVI 140) 

Turns in Hold (FL 48) 3 6 

ILS (FL 48) 1 2 

VOR (FL 48) 1 2 

Turns in NDB Hold (FL 49) 3 6 

NDB (FL 49) 1 2 

Turns in NDB Hold (FL 50) 3 6 

NDB (FL 50) 1 2 

Turns in LOC Hold (FL 50) 3 6 

NDB (FL 52) 1 2 

GPS (FL 52) 1 2 

Turns in Hold (FL 52) 3 6 

6
Analyses 

Mean trials to reach criterion on the airplane for selected instrument tasks and mean time to 

complete the flight lesson were computed for all groups for both courses. Separate ANOVAs 

were performed to analyze the difference between the four groups on the three dependent 

measures for both AVI 130 and 140 to determine the significance of the trial and lesson time 

variables as a function of experimental treatment, and to explore variability in the time to a 

successful evaluation flight as a function of the experimental treatment. To further identify the 

locus of any significant effects, Tukey’s HSD post–hoc tests were employed to make pairwise 

comparisons. The effectiveness of the additional time in the FTD 15 and 20 groups for crosscountry training was estimated by establishing a baseline by subtracting the control group time 

from the FTD 10 group time (FTD 10 group time saved in the airplane compared to control 

group time). The baseline was then used to evaluate the effectiveness of the FTD 15 and 20 

groups cross country training in the FTD. To estimate the effectiveness of FTD cross country 

training the baseline time saved (FTD 10 group time) was subtracted from the time for the FTD 

15 and 20 group time savings. 

Percent transfer, transfer effectiveness ratios, and incremental transfer effective ratios were 

computed for each flight lesson using the following equations: 

Y Y

Y

Percent Transfer c x

c

− = (1)

TER

X

Yc Yx

= − (2)

ITER

X

Yx x Yx = ∆

( − ∆ ) − (3)

where Yc = Time/Trials in airplane by Control group, Yx = Time/Trials in airplane by PCATD or 

the FTD group, X = Time/Trials in a PCATD or FTD, ∆X = Incremental unit in Time/Trials, for 

PCATD or FTD group, and Yx-∆x = Time/Trials, required by a PCATD or FTD group to reach a 

performance criterion in an aircraft after x - ∆x trials in a PCATD or FTD 

Percent transfer measures the difference, expressed as a percent, between the control and an 

experimental group (the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and 10 hour groups) in terms of trials/time to 

reach criterion in the airplane. A positive percent transfer favors the experimental and a negative 

percent transfer favors the control group. Percent transfer does not consider the amount of prior 

training in the PCATD or FTD by the experimental groups. The TER is a ratio that compares the 

difference between the control and the experimental groups in terms of trials/time to reach 

criterion in the airplane as a function of the amount of prior training in the PCATD or FTD for 

the experimental group. The TER is a measure of the average transfer for each group as a 

function of prior training. The ITER measures the amount of transfer of successive increments of 

training in the PCATD or FTD (Roscoe, 1971; Flexman, Roscoe, Williams, & Williges, 1972). 

7
RESULTS 

Trials to Criterion 

AVI 130. The mean trials to reach criterion in the airplane on the instruments tasks in AVI 

130 by the control group, the PCATD group, and the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups were computed 

and are shown in Table 3 and presented graphically in Figure 2. The data indicate that in almost 

all lessons, the control group required more trials in the airplane than any of the four 

experimental groups for Steep Turns (Lesson 34/35), Turns in the Hold (Lesson 36), ILS and 

VOR (Lesson 37), and VOR (Lesson 38). The exceptions are ILS (Lesson 37), for the PCATD 5 

group, and ILS (Lesson 38), for both the PCATD 5 and FTD 5 groups. An ANOVA to compare 

the results in Table 3 of mean trials for all instrument tasks to criterion in the airplane of the 

Control, PCATD, FTD 5, and FTD 10 (treatment effect of assignment to groups indicated a 

significant treatment effect, F(3, 79) = 3.06, p < .05. Post-hoc tests show the FTD 10 group 

needed significantly less trials than the control; p < .05. Individual ANOVAs comparing trials to 

criterion in the airplane for these four groups were performed for each instrument task in Table 

2. Both the steep turns task in lesson 34/35, and the holding task in lesson 36 showed a trend for 

a main effect for trials to reach completion standards, F(3, 81) = 2.21, p =.09 and F(3, 81) = 2.42, 

p = .07 respectively. In lesson 37, the ILS approach showed a significant main 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 significant 

differences between the control group and both the FTD 5 group and the FTD 10 group, p<=.05. 

One additional maneuver, localizer back course approach, was tested but no significant effects 

were observed. In lesson 38, significant main effects 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 respectively. No significant 

differences were found between groups for either maneuver. The ILS approach was also tested in 

this lesson but no significant effect was found for this maneuver. 

Table 3. 

Mean trials in the airplane for the Control group, the PCATD group, and the four FTD groups 

for instrument tasks trained in AVI 130. 

Lesson A P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Mean Trials 

34/35 Steep turns 3.73 3.00 2.50 2.48 3.52 3.45

36 Turns in hold 7.50 5.05 6.36 5.20 6.75 5.23

37 ILS 1.55 1.70 1.27 1.29 1.83 1.50

37 VOR 2.59 1.85 1.55 1.33 2.13 1.77

38 ILS 1.33 1.47 1.45 1.33 1.48 1.23

38 VOR 2.23 1.80 1.55 1.48 1.65 1.73

8
AVI 130

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

34/35 36 37 ILS 37 VOR 37 LCBC 38 ILS 38 ARC 38 VOR

Lesson

Mean Number of Trials

A P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Figure 2. Mean trials in the airplane for the Control group (A), the PCATD 5 hour group (P5) 

and the FTD 5, 10, 15, 20-hour groups (F5, F10, F15, and F20) for the instrument tasks trained in 

AVI 130. 

To determine the effect of the number of trials in the FTD, mean trials for FTD 5 and FTD 10 

were compared. For 5 of the 6 comparisons, additional training trials resulted in fewer trials to 

reach criterion for the FTD 10 group but the differences were not large; the exception was ILS 

for lesson 37 where the FTD 5 group required fewer trials than the FTD 10 group. It is 

interesting to note that the FTD 5 group required 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 compute percent transfer, TER and ITER, which are 

presented in Table 4. All percent transfers for all instrument tasks for FTD 5 and 10 were 

positive with the exception 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, the LOC BC (-4.72 %) in Lesson 37, and the 

DME Arc (-4.78 %) in Lesson 38. Four out of eight percent transfers for the PCATD 5 group 

were negative. When reviewing all 3 groups, the two largest percent transfers 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 lessons for the three groups had substantial transfer except for 

the FTD 5 group Lesson 37 LOC BC (3.15%). 

9
Table 4. 

Percent transfer, transfer effectiveness ratios (TERs), and incremental 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). 

Percent Transfer (%) TER ITER 

Task P5 F5 F10 P5 F5 F10 P5 F5 F10

Steep Turns (FL 34/35) 19.57 32.98 33.51 0.73 1.23 0.63 NA 1.23 0.02

Turns 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 NA 0.28 -0.02

VOR (FL 37) 28.57 40.15 48.65 0.74 1.04 0.63 NA 1.04 0.22

LOC BC (FL 37) -18.11 3.15 -4.72 -0.23 0.04 -0.03 NA 0.04 -0.10

ILS (FL 38) -10.53 -9.02 0.00 -0.14 -0.12 0.00 NA -0.12 0.12

VOR (FL 38) 19.28 30.49 33.63 0.43 0.68 0.38 NA 0.68 0.07

DME ARC (FL 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 respectively). There was little transfer for ILS in Lesson 

37, nor for ILS in Lesson 38. Conversely the TERs for VOR were substantial for both Lesson 37 

and 38. The TERs for PCATD 5 were 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 instrument tasks were above the 0.30 level and 

many were negative. The TERs for steep turns, ILS (Lesson 37), and VOR for Lessons 37 and 38 

showed the predicted negatively decelerated function for increased number of trials. Examination 

of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that additional training for trials for the FTD 10 

group provided little benefit over the FTD 5 group. 

AVI 140. The mean trials to reach criterion in the airplane on the instruments tasks in AVI 

140 by the Control group, the PCATD group, and the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups were computed 

and are shown in Table 5. The data indicated that the Control group required more mean trials in 

the airplane than the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups for all instrument tasks in all lessons. The 

PCATD 5 group failed to follow this pattern; the Control group required more mean trials in the 

airplane than the PCATD 5 group for only 5 of the 11 instrument tasks. An ANOVA was 

computed which compared the treatment effects of mean trials of all instrument tasks to criterion 

in the airplane of the Control, PCATD, FTD 5, and FTD 10 groups. The results indicated a 

significant treatment effect; F(3, 72) = 2.98, p < .05. Post-hoc tests show that the FTD 5 group 

needed significantly fewer trials than the control group. Individual ANOVAs comparing trials to 

criterion in the airplane for these four groups were performed for each instrument task. In lesson 

48, holds, ILS approach, and VOR approach trials were compared. Only the ILS approach 

showed a significant main effect for trials to reach completion standards; F(3, 77) = 2.90, p < 

.05. Post-hoc tests showed a significant difference between the PCATD 5 group and the FTD 5 

group, p < .05. No other between-group differences were found for ILS trials. In Lesson 49, 

NDB approach and NDB hold tasks were compared. No significant differences were found. In 

Lesson 50, ILS approaches, ILS holds, NDB approaches, NDB holds were analyzed. Only the 

NDB approach showed a significant main effect; F(3, 77) = 3.90, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed 

10
a 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 compared 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 for the NDB hold trials showed a significant difference between the PCATD 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 FTD groups, 

for instrument tasks trained in AVI 140.

Group 

Lesson 

A P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Holds (FL 48) 4.38 3.80 3.57 3.84 3.80 3.60

ILS (FL 48) 1.33 1.40 1.00 1.32 1.15 1.15

VOR (FL 48) 1.33 1.42 1.14 1.16 1.10 1.20

NDB HOLD (FL49) 5.43 4.50 4.52 4.74 4.70 4.30

NDB APPROACH (FL 49) 2.19 1.70 1.71 2.11 1.90 1.75

NDB HOLD (FL 50) 3.95 4.35 3.57 3.89 4.30 3.25

NDB APPROACH (FL 50) 1.81 1.15 1.19 1.37 1.50 1.20

ILS HOLD (FL 50) 3.90 3.75 3.29 3.74 3.50 3.80

NDB APPROACH (FL 52) 1.50 1.60 1.05 1.17 1.40 1.10

GPS APPROACH (FL 52) 1.53 2.45 1.48 1.47 1.89 1.80

NDB HOLD (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 determine the effect of the 

number of trials in the FTD, the results for the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups were compared. For 

only one task, GPS approach in flight lesson 52, did additional training trials resulted in fewer 

trials to reach criterion for the FTD 10 group. 

11
AVI 140

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

48 HLD 48 ILS 48 VOR 49

NDBHLD

49

NDBAPP

50

NDBHLD

50

NDBAPP

50

ILSHLD

52 NDB 52 GPS 52 HLD

Lesson

Mean Number of Trials

A P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Figure 3. Mean trials in the airplane for the Control group (A), the PCATD 5 hour group (P5) 

and the FTD 5,10, 15, 20 hour groups (F5, F10, F15, and F20) for the instrument tasks trained in 

AVI 140. 

The data in Table 2 and 4 were used to compute percent transfer, TER and ITER; the results 

are presented in Table 6. All percent transfers for all instrument tasks were positive with the 

exception of five percent transfers for the PCATD 5 group, but these transfers were generally 

small. The five largest percent transfers found for the trials dependent variable for instrument 

tasks trained in AVI 140 were for the three groups on Lesson 49 NDB Approach, 36.46%, 

34.25% and 24.31% for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and 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 remaining 22 observed transfer results were considered substantial (above 20%). These 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%). 

12
Table 6. 

Percent transfer, transfer effectiveness ratios (TERs), and incremental transfer effectiveness 

ratios (ITERs) for trials on selected instrument tasks in AVI 140 for the PCATD group (P5) and 

two FTD groups (F5, F10). 

Percent Transfer TER ITER

Task P5 F5 F10 P5 F5 F10 P5 F5 F10

Turns 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 NA 0.33 -0.32

VOR (FL 48) -6.77 14.29 12.78 -0.09 0.19 0.09 NA 0.19 -0.02

NDB Turns in Hold (FL 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 Turns in Hold (FL 50) -10.13 9.62 1.52 -0.13 0.13 0.01 NA 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 Turns 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 NA 0.45 -0.12

GPS (FL 52) -60.13 3.27 3.92 -0.92 0.05 0.03 NA 0.05 0.01

Turns in Hold (FL 52) -27.55 21.22 1.22 -0.45 0.35 0.01 NA 0.35 -0.33

Although the TERs were generally positive (seven negative TERS for the PCATD 5 group 

were found), many were unsubstantial. There were some 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. Also, 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 FTD 10 group. Other substantial TERs observed included 

the Lesson 49 NDB Turns in Hold for both the PCATD 5 and FTD 5 groups (0.31 and 0.30 

respectively), and the Lesson 48 ILS for the FTD 5 group (0.33). The remaining 23 TERs were 

unsubstantial or negative. All TERs for instrument tasks in AVI 140 showed the predicted 

negatively decelerated function for increased number of trials. 

The TERs for Lesson 52 GPS showed the predicted negatively decelerated function for 

increase number of trials. Examination of the ITERs indicates that additional training beyond the 

FTD 5 level provided no substantial benefit for trials for AVI 140.

Time to Complete Flight Lesson 

AVI 130. The mean times to complete the flight lesson in AVI 130 are shown in Table 7 and 

are presented graphically in Figure 4. For all five experimental groups, the mean times to 

complete each of the four flight lessons were less than the time for the control (airplane) group. 

For three of the four flight lessons the FTD 5 group had the least time to complete the flight 

lesson. For Lesson 36 the FTD 10 group had the smallest time. An ANOVA was performed to 

compare the treatment effect (assignment to group for the PCATD 5, FTD 5, and FTD 10) for 

mean times to complete the flight lessons among the four groups. The results indicated a 

significant treatment effect; F(3, 79) = 8.17, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed that all three 

experimental groups needed less time than control group; p < .05. Individual ANOVA were 

performed for each flight lesson in Table 7 comparing the time to complete the flight lesson 

among the four groups. The results of these ANOVAs indicated a significant treatment effect for 

13
Lesson 34/35, for total time to complete the lesson; F(3, 81) = 6.63, p < .05. Post-hoc tests 

showed a significant difference for time to complete Lesson 34/35 between the control group and 

the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 group; p < .05. In Lesson 36, a treatment effect was 

found for mean time to reach lesson completion standards; F(3, 81) = 3.08, p < .05. Post-hoc 

tests showed no differences between individual groups. Analysis of Lesson 37 showed a 

significant treatment effect for time to reach lesson completion standards. The total time main 

effect was F(3, 81) = 7.62, p < .05. Post-hoc tests showed significant differences between the 

control group and both the FTD 5 and FTD 10 groups, p < .05. There was no significant 

treatment effect for lesson 38. The Control group consistently required more time to reach 

criterion for all four flight lessons in AVI 130 for each of the five experimental groups. To 

compare the effect of additional FTD training time, the time to complete the flight lessons was 

compared for FTD 5 and FTD 10. For one of the 4 comparisons (flight lesson 36), additional 

training time result in smaller time to complete 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. 

Group 

Flight Lesson

Control PCATD 5 FTD 5 FTD 10 FTD 15 FTD 20 

34/35, Steep Turns 1.41 0.99 0.91 1.00 1.02 1.17

36, Intersection Holds 1.74 1.30 1.59 1.27 1.38 1.50

37, ILS, LOC BC, VOR 2.90 2.54 1.80 1.82 2.44 1.90 

38, ILS, VOR, DME ARC 2.41 1.94 1.80 1.91 1.90 1.93

14
Figure 4. Mean time to complete the flight lessons in the airplane for the Control group (A), 

PCATD 5 hour group (P5), and the FTD 5, 10, 15, and 20 hour groups (F5, F10, F15, and F20) 

groups for AVI 130. 

The percent transfers were all positive and generally moderate (see Table 8). All but three of 

the percent transfers were over 20%; these exceptions were for Intersection 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 TERs for time

to complete flight lesson in AVI 130 for the FTD 5 group for three of the flight lessons were 

substantial: 1.57, 1.00 and 0.87 for flight lessons 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 TERs for FTD 10 showed the predicted negative 

decelerating function. 

15
Table 8. 

Percent transfer, transfer effectiveness ratios (TERs), and incremental transfer effectiveness 

ratios (ITERs) for mean time to complete flight lessons for PCATD 5 hour (P5) group and the 

FTD 5 and 10 hour groups FTD5, and FTD 10 for AVI 130. 

Percent Transfer TER ITER

Flight Lesson P5 FTD 5 FTD 10 P5 FTD 5 FTD 10 P5 FTD5 FTD 10 

34/35, Steep Turns 29.79 35.46 29.08 0.84 1.00 0.41 NA 1.00 -0.18

36, Intersection Holds 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 mean times to complete the flight lesson in AVI 140 are shown in Table 9 and 

are presented graphically in Figure 5. For all experimental groups, the mean times to complete 

each of the four flight lessons were less than the time for the Control group. For Lessons 49 and 

50, the PCATD 5 group required less time to complete the lesson. An ANOVA was performed to 

compare the treatment effect (assignment to groups) for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5, and the FTD 

10 groups for mean time to complete the flight lesson among the four groups. The results 

indicated a significant treatment effect; F(3,72) = 5.59, p < .05. Post-hoc tests show that the FTD 

5 group needed significantly less time than both the control group and the PCATD 5 group, p < 

.05. Individual ANOVA were performed for each flight lesson for time to complete the flight 

lesson among the four groups. There were no significant treatment effects for Lessons 48, 49, or 

50. There was a significant treatment effect for Lesson 52, F(3,76) = 5.79, p < .05. Post-hoc tests 

showed significant differences between the PCATD 5 group and both the FTD 5 and FTD 10 

groups; p < .05. A comparison of the time to complete the flight lesson was made between FTD 

5 and FTD 10 to determine if additional training time resulted in increased time savings in the 

airplane. For two of the four flight lessons (49 and 52) the FTD 10 group used less time to 

complete the lesson than FTD 5, but for the other two flight lessons the FTD 5 group required 

less time. Consequently there was no consistent advantage for the additional 5 hours of training 

on instrument tasks. Times to complete the four flight lessons were used to compute percent 

transfer, TERs, and ITERs for AVI 140 shown in Table 10. 

Table 9. 

Mean time to complete the flight lessons in the airplane for the Control, the PCATD 5 hour(P5)

the four FTD groups for AVI 140. 

Group 

Flight Lesson

Control PCATD 5 FTD 5 FTD 10 FTD 15 FTD 20 

48, Holds, ILS, VOR 1.79 1.92 1.50 1.63 1.77 1.68

49, NDB Holds, NDB 1.57 1.27 1.23 1.24 1.30 1.28

50, NDB & ILS Holds, NDB 1.75 1.43 1.29 1.45 1.47 1.59 

52, NDB, VOR, Holds 2.74 3.30 2.22 2.32 2.40 2.43

16
AVI 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 complete 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 effectiveness ratios (TERs), and incremental transfer effectiveness 

ratios (ITERs) for mean time 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. 

Percent Transfer TER ITER

Flight Lesson P5 FTD 5 FTD 10 P5 FTD5 FTD 10 P 5 FTD 5 FTD10

48, Holds, ILS, VOR -6.67 16.67 9.44 -0.17 0.43 0.13 NA 0.43 -0.22

49, NDB Holds, NDB 19.11 21.66 21.02 0.60 0.68 0.33 NA 0.68 -0.02

50, NDB & ILS Holds, NDB 18.29 26.29 17.14 0.46 0.66 0.23 NA 0.66 -0.27

52, NDB, VOR, Holds -20.44 18.98 15.33 -.0.80 0.74 0.32 NA 0.74 -0.17

17
With the exception of the PCATD 5 group for Lesson 48 and 52, the percent transfers were 

all positive but generally small. Only three percent transfers were over 20%; these were FTD 5 

and FTD 10 for Lesson 49 (NDB holds and NDB approach). These percent transfers were 

21.66% and 21.02 % respectively. The largest percent transfer (26.29%) was found for FTD 5 

for Lesson 50 (NDB and ILS holds and NDB approach). The TERs for time to complete flight

lessons in AVI 140 for the FTD 5 group for each lesson were positive 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 decelerating function. Two of the PCATD 5 group TERs were positive and 

substantial; 0.60 for Lesson 49 and 0.46 for Lesson 50. The other two were negative. For the 

time to complete flight lesson variable for AVI 140, all ITERs for the FTD 10 group were 

negative and showed the predicted negative decelerating function. 

Time to Evaluation Flight 

AVI 130. A total of 124 participants completed the course of study and took the final check 

ride for the AVI 130 Basic Instruments course. Table 10 shows the results of the check ride for 

the six groups. A total of 75 participants passed the check ride on the first attempt and 48 

participants passed on the second attempt. Nine participants were recommended for remedial 

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 time to course completion for the Control group was 

greater than the average time for each of the five experimental groups who had prior training in 

the PCATD or the FTD. The Control group required 22.35 hours of dual to complete the course 

while the five experimental groups, after prior training in the PCATD or the FTD, required 

between 18.31and 20.20 hours of dual in the airplane. An ANOVA was computed to compare 

the dual time to successfully complete the AVI 130 course for the four groups (control, PCATD 

5, FTD 5, and FTD 10). The result indicated a significant treatment effect; 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 significant differences between groups were found. 

18
Table 11. 

Flight Lesson 45 Statistics (Fall 2002, Spring, Summer, Fall 2003 and Spring 2004) 

Group Airplane PCATD Frasca FTD 

Hours in training device (NA) 5 5 10 15 20 

Number of Students reaching 

check ride (lesson 45) 

22 20 22 20 21 19

% Students taking 1st check ride 

who passed (numbers of 

students) 

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 requiring 2nd check 

ride who passed (numbers of 

students) 

100.00 

(9/9) 

100.00 

(7/7) 

100.00 

(12/12) 

100.00 

(5/5) 

80.00 

(4/5) 

100.00 

(11/11) 

Number of Students requiring 3rd

check ride who passed 

0 0 0 0 0 0

Students failing 1st or 2nd check 

ride and not receiving 2nd or 3rd 

0 0 0 0 1 0

Mean Total Dual hours (in 

airplane) to Completion for those 

passing the check ride on 1st, 

2nd, or 3rd attempt (& sample 

size) 

22.35 

(n= 22) 

20.20 

(n=20)

19.27 

(n=22)

20.87 

(n=20)

18.36 

(n=20)

18.31 

(n=19)

Variance in Total Dual hours to 

Completion 

9.39 6.40 10.03 14.17 9.87 9.48

Students recommended for 

remedial training 

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

Airplane P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Group

Mean Time (hrs)

Figure 6. Mean time to successful evaluation flight for AVI 130. 

19
AVI 140. A total of 106 participants completed the course of study and took the final check 

ride (the instrument rating flight check) for the AVI 140 Advanced Instruments course. Table 12 

shows the results of the check ride. A total of 51 participants passed the check ride on the first 

attempt and 46 participants passed on the second attempt. Nineteen participants were

recommended for remedial training. The total dual prior to a successful evaluation flight for AVI 

140 was computed for the Control group and for each of the five experimental groups. The mean 

times to the evaluation flight were less for all five experimental groups than for the Control 

group. The Control group required 26.02 hours compared 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 times are presented in Table 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 computed to compare the time to a successful evaluation flight for these four 

groups. The results showed a significant treatment effect for total time to reach successful 

completion of the AVI 140 course, F(3, 63) = 4.14, p < .05, however, no significant differences 

were found among the four treatment groups. 

Table 12: 

Flight Lesson 60 Statistics (Spring, Summer, Fall, 2003, Spring, Summer, Fall 2004)

Group Airplane PCATD Frasca FTD 

Hours in training device (NA) 5 5 10 15 20 

Number of Students reaching 

check ride (lesson 60) 

18 18 20 16 15 19

% Students taking 1st check ride 

who passed (numbers of 

students) 

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 requiring 2nd check 

ride who passed 

(numbers 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) 

Number of Students requiring 3rd

check ride who passed 

0 1 1 1 0 2

Students failing 1st or 2nd check 

ride and not receiving 2nd or 3rd 

0 1 2 0 0 1

Mean Total Dual hours (in 

airplane) to Completion for those 

passing the check ride on 1st, 

2nd, or 3rd attempt (& sample 

size) 

26.38 

(n=18)

25.78 

(n=17)

24.40 

(n=18)

23.60 

 (n=16) 

21.93 

(n=15)

20.79 

(n=18)

Variance in Total Dual hours to 

Completion 

16.55 6.03 7.92 8.80 10.20 17.89

Students recommended for 

remedial training 

2 3 4 3 5 2

Note: Lesson 60 is the final check ride for AVI 140 

20
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Airplane P5 F5 F10 F15 F20

Group

Mean Time (hrs)

Figure 7. Mean time to a successful instrument proficiency check for AVI 140.

Overall Time Saved 

In the current study, the time to a successful evaluation flight was less for the PCATD 5, the 

FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups compared to the control group for both AVI 130 and 140. The 

total savings, time saved in the airplane for each of the experimental groups compared 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 study found that savings in the airplane fail to 

support the prediction that more training in the FTD is better. The results also indicted that 

reduced transfer for the FTD occurred for trials and for time to complete the flight lessons in 

AVI 140 as compared to AVI 130. 

Effectiveness of Using the FTD for Cross-Country Training 

The effectiveness of the cross-country FTD training time can be estimated by establishing a 

baseline by subtracting the control group time from the FTD 10 group time (FTD 10 group time 

saved in the airplane compared to control group time). The baseline can then be used to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the FTD 15 and 20 groups cross-country training in the FTD. Table 13 

shows the time by group to an evaluation flight, the time saved by group, total time saved and 

cross-country time saved for AVI 130 and 140. The time saved in the airplane (Control group 

time – FTD group time) for the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups for AVI 130 and 140 is presented in 

Table 12. To estimate the effectiveness of FTD cross-country training the baseline time saved 

(FTD 10 group time) is subtracted from the time for the FTD 15 and 20 group time saved. These 

times are computed as follows: FTD 15 time – FTD 10 time = time saved by the FTD 15 group: 

7.44-4.26= 3.18; FTD 20 time –FTD 10 time = time saved by the FTD 20 group: 9.63-4.26 = 

5.37. 

21
Table 13. 

Time by group to an evaluation flight, 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 Training

Savings 

Group AVI 130 AVI 140 AVI 130 AVI 140 

Control 22.35 26.38 NA NA NA NA

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 

DISCUSSION 

Mean Trials 

AVI 130. The results from the current study indicate that the FTD is effective for teaching 

basic instrument tasks to private pilots. The current study systematically replicated the finding 

from a study by Taylor et al. (2002b), which found that the PCATD was effective in teaching 

basic instrument tasks in AVI 130 to private pilots. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that prior training 

in the PCATD in AVI 130 resulted in a smaller number of trials in the airplane for each of the 

PCATD groups for 21 of the 24 instrument tasks tested. The present study shows that compared 

to the control group prior training in the FTD resulted in a smaller number of trials in the 

airplane for 10 of 12 tasks tested as well as a significant treatment effect (assignment to group). 

Post-hoc tests indicated that the control group required significantly more trials than the FTD 10 

group. No other differences were statistically significant. This partially replicated the findings of 

Taylor et al. (2002b), which also showed a significant treatment effect due to differences 

between the control and the PCATD 5 and the control and the PCATD 15 groups. In the present 

study, individual tests of significance for instrument tasks found a treatment 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 treatment 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 compared with a control group trained only in the airplane (Taylor et al., 

1996). These differences may be explained by differences in experimental design. Taylor et al. 

(1996) trained the experimental group to proficiency in the PCATD prior to training to 

proficiency in the airplane while the design in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study called for a fixed 

number of trials, which varied from 1-3 for the three experimental groups. One can infer that the 

flight instructors in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study trained to a higher proficiency standard for the 

ILS task in Lesson 38 compared to Lesson 37. It should also be noted that the flight instructors in 

the Taylor et al. (2002b) study had less teaching experience on average than the instructors in the 

Taylor et al. (1996) study. 

For the current study, the prediction that an increased number of trials in the FTD on selected 

instrument tasks would save more time in the airplane was found for 5 of 6 comparisons between 

FTD 5 and FTD 10 in AVI 130. This is similar to the Taylor et al. (2002b) finding that additional 

training in the PCATD on the selected instrument tasks saved more trials in the airplane in AVI 

130 for only six of the sixteen instruments task comparisons. In that study, for two of the eight 

22
instrument tasks, the PCATD 5 group had the least trials in the airplane, for two tasks the 

PCATD 10 group had the least trials in the airplane and the PCATD 15 group had two tasks with 

the least trials in the airplane. 

In the current study the percent transfer for trials ranged from 48.65% for VOR in Lesson 37 

for FTD 10 to – 43.54% for Lesson 38 DME Arc for the PCATD 5 group. In the study by Taylor 

et al. (2002b), the percent 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 over one trial in the airplane for each trial in 

the FTD. In the Taylor et al. (2002b) study the PCATD 5 group had a TER of 0.84 which 

indicated that for Lesson 38 almost one trial in the aircraft was saved for each trial in the 

PCATD. The results of Taylor et al. (1996) showed the opposite effect. The percent transfer and 

TER for ILS were 33.30% and 0.28 respectively for Lesson 37 but only 11.80% and 0.12 for 

Lesson 38. It should be noted, however, that in the Taylor et al. (1996) study, the subjects were 

trained in the PCATD to a proficiency standard and trained to the same proficiency standard in 

the airplane in Lesson 37. Training in the PCATD for Lesson 38 was a review lesson. In the 

Taylor et al. (2002b) study the subjects 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 completion 

standard. For the current study, the TERs for all instrument tasks for flight lesson 34/35, 36, and 

37, and VOR flight lessons 38 showed the predicted negatively decelerated function for 

increased number of trials. Examination of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that 

additional training for trials for the FTD 10 group provided little benefit over the FTD 5 group. 

Taylor et al. (2002b) reported 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; Flexman et al., 1972). The increased number of trials in the PCATD for the 

PCATD 10 group compared to the PCATD 5 group failed to save additional trials to criterion in 

the airplane. With the exception of PCATD 10 for steep turns, there was little ITER for either 

PCATD 10 nor PCATD 15, which indicated that additional training beyond the training for the 

PCATD 5 group saved few trials in the airplane. 

AVI 140. For mean trials to criterion in the airplane in AVI 140, the control group required 

on average more trials than the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 for all instrument tasks for all lessons. 

Significant treatment effects were found for the Lesson 48 ILS approach, Lesson 50 NDB 

approach, and Lesson 52 NDB holds and GPS approaches. This provided a systematic 

replication of Taylor et al. (2002b) who found that prior training in the PCATD in AVI 140 

resulted in a smaller number of trials in the airplane for each of the PCATD groups for 27 of the 

33 instrument tasks tested, but these differences were small and none were significant. The 

PCATD 5 group in the current study failed to follow the pattern found for the two FTD groups 

since for only 5 of the 11 instrument tasks the control group required more mean 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, when a PCATD group, trained to proficiency, 

was compared with a control group trained only in the airplane. The differences between the 

Taylor et al (2002b) and Taylor et al. (1996) results may be explained by differences in 

experimental design. As discussed above, Taylor et al. (1996) trained the experimental group to 

proficiency in the PCATD prior to training to proficiency in the airplane while the design in the 

current study calls for a fixed number of trials which varies from 1-3 trials for the three 

23
experimental groups. The lack of effectiveness for the PCATD 5 group in the current study 

compared to the two earlier studies is most likely due to the reduced power due to a smaller 

number of participants. 

The percent transfer for AVI 140 ranged from a high of 36.46% for the PCATD 5 group for 

Lesson 50 NDB approach to –60.13% for the Lesson 52 VOR approach for the PCATD 5 group. 

A number of percent transfers ranged between 34.25% and 21.22% for the FTD 5 and FTD 10 

groups. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that the percent 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. Compared to the present study and to the 

Taylor et al. (2002b) study, substantial higher percent transfers were found for comparable 

instrument tasks for Flight Lessons 48, 49 and 50 in the earlier study (Taylor et al., 1996). These 

ranged from 28.10% for Lesson 50 NDB approach to 14.60% for Lesson 48 VOR approach. In 

addition, only two of seven of the previous percent transfers were below 20.00% (Taylor et al., 

1996). The current study had 7of 14 TERs that ranged form 0.28 to 0.62 for the FTD 5 group and 

3 of 14 TERs for the PCATD 5 group. With the exception of the PCATD 5 group for NDB 

Lesson 49 (TER of 0.31), the TERs for trials in AVI 140 were smaller for the Taylor et al. 

(2002b) study compared to the current and to the Taylor et al. study (1996). 

Mean Time to Complete the Flight Lesson 

AVI 130. The mean times to complete each of the four flight lessons were less than the time 

for the control (airplane) group for the PCATD 5 and the FTD 5 and 10 experimental groups. 

This systematically replicated the finding of Taylor et al. (2002b) who found that the mean times 

to complete the flight lesson in the airplane for the four flight lessons, in which there was prior 

training in the PCATD, were less for all three PCATD groups than for the airplane group. Taylor 

et al. (1996) found the same result for these four flight lessons. The current study found a 

significant treatment effect (assignment to groups) for time to complete the flight lesson. Posthoc tests showed that all three experimental groups needed less time than control group to 

complete the four lessons. This provided a systematic replication of the results of Taylor et al. 

(2002b) that found a significant treatment effect for time to complete the four lessons for the 

three PCATD groups. Post-hoc tests in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study also showed that the 

experimental groups needed less time than the control group to complete the four lessons. The 

current study found a significant treatment effect for lessons 34/35, 36, and 37 but not for lesson 

38 for total time to complete the lesson. This systematically replicated the 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 combined experimental groups were compared with the Control 

group for each of the four flight lessons, while Taylor et al. (1996) found significant differences 

in the mean time to complete the flight lesson for all four of the flight lessons. 

The present study found that the percent transfer for time 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. Seven of the eight percent transfers were above 20.75%. These results were consistent 

with the percent transfer for time reported by Taylor et al. (2002b) for the PCATD, which ranged 

from 12.90% for lesson 34/35 (steep turns) for 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 replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) 

24
for 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 systematically replicated the results of Taylor et al. 

(2002b) who reported TERs 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 

current study the TERs for the time to complete the flight lesson showed the negatively 

decelerated function predicted by Roscoe (1971), and Flexman et al. (1972) for three of the four 

lessons. The exception was lesson 36. These results replicated the findings of Taylor et al. 

(2002b) that for all four flight lessons the TERs for the time to complete the flight lesson 

variable showed the negatively decelerated function. In comparing the FTD 5 and 10 groups in 

the current study, the largest amount of average transfer was found for FTD 5 for 3 of 4 

comparisons. This systematically replicated the results of Taylor et al. (2002b) that the largest 

amount of transfer was found for all four flight lessons for PCATD 5 and the smallest for 

PCATD 15. 

In the current study, 3 of 4 of the ITERs showed the predicted pattern of a negatively 

decelerated function (Roscoe, 1971; Flexman et al., 1972) for time to complete the flight lessons.

Taylor et al. (2002b) found that for the four flight lesson the ITERs for time to complete the 

lesson exhibited the negatively decelerated function. In the current study there were substantial 

time savings (transfer) for three of four of the flight lessons for FTD 5, the incremental savings 

were found for only lesson 36 for the FTD 10 group. Taylor et al. found that there were 

substantial time savings for all four of the flight lessons for PCATD 5, the incremental savings 

for the PCATD 10 group was minimal. 

AVI 140. In AVI 140 the mean times for all three experimental groups to complete each of 

the four flight lessons were less than the time for the control (airplane) group. This 

systematically replicated the finding of Taylor et al. (2002b) who found that for all four flight 

lessons in AVI 140 the control group required more time to complete the flight lesson in the 

airplane when compared to the three experimental groups in which there was prior training in the 

PCATD. The same result was found by Taylor et al. (1996) for three of the four flight lessons 

(Lessons 49, 50, and 52) in which there was prior training in the PCATD. In the current study, a 

significant treatment effect was found for the mean times to complete the flight lessons among 

the four groups. Post-hoc tests show that the FTD 5 group needed significantly less time than 

both the control group and the PCATD group. Taylor et al. (2002b) found a significant treatment 

effect among the four groups, but post-hoc tests found no significant differences between the 

Control group and any of the three experimental groups. In the current study, tests of 

significance for each of the flight lessons found a significant treatment effect for Lesson 52 but 

not for Lessons 48, 49 or 50. This replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) who reported 

that individual tests of significance for each lesson found a significant treatment effect for lesson

52. Post-hoc tests indicated significant differences between the Control group and the PCATD 5 

group and the Control group and the PCATD 10 group. These findings were similar to those of 

Taylor et al. (1996) who found significant differences for Lessons 49 and 50 between the Control 

group who trained only in the airplane and the PCATD group who had prior training in the 

PCATD. 

25
In the current study, the percent transfer for time to complete the flight lesson ranged from

19.11% for Lesson 49 (NDB holds and approaches) for the PCATD 5 group, to -20.44% for 

Lesson 52 (partial panel ILS, VOR, and holds) for the same group. Taylor et al. (2002b) found 

similar results for the PCATD 5 group; the percent 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 similar ranging from 1.50% for 

lesson 52 to 26.40% for lesson 49. 

In the current study, the TERs for the time 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 smaller for all four lessons. This systematically replicated the findings 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 smaller 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 study, the TERs showed substantially more variability than the same group 

in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study; 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 time to complete the flight lesson variable showed the 

negatively decelerated function predicted by Roscoe (1971), and Flexman et al. (1972) for all 

four lessons. Taylor et al. (2002b) reported that for three of the four flight lessons the TERs for 

the time to complete the lesson showed the negatively decelerated function; Lesson 50 was the 

exception. 

The ITERs for FTD 10 in the current study are all negative which indicated that the 

additional training time for FTD 10 compared to FTD 5 provided no benefit to time saved in the 

airplane. Taylor et al. (2002b) found that increased training time beyond the PCATD 5 level 

made no substantial contribution to reducing the training time in the airplane in AVI 140. 

Time to a Successful Evaluation Flight 

AVI 130. The mean dual flight time to course completion for the airplane group was greater 

than the average time for each of the five experimental groups that had prior training in the 

PCATD or the FTD. These results systematically replicated the results of Taylor et al. (2002b) 

who found that time to a successful evaluation flight for AVI 130 was less for all three PCATD 

groups compared to the control group. In the current study the flight hours save were 2.15, 3.08 

and 1.48 for the PCATD 5, the FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups respectively. These results are 

similar to the results of Taylor et al. (2002b) who reported that the flight hours saved were 2.03 

hours, 3.10 hours, and 1.44 hours respectively for the PCATD 5, 10, 15 groups for AVI 130. A 

significant treatment effect was found for the current study but post-hoc analyses found no 

significant difference among the groups. Taylor et al. (2002b) found a significant treatment 

effect for the time to a successful evaluation flight in AVI 130 for the four groups. Post-hoc tests 

indicated a significant difference between the PCATD 10 group and the Control group but not 

between the Control group and the PCATD 5 and 15 groups. Taylor et al. (1996) found a time 

savings of 2.1 hours for the PCATD group for AVI 130. 

AVI 140. For AVI 140, the current study found that the mean dual flight time in the airplane 

to course completion for the control group was greater than the mean time for each of the five 

experimental groups that had prior training in the PCATD or the FTD. These results 

systematically replicated the results of Taylor et al. (2002b) who found that the time to a 

successful evaluation flight for AVI 140 was less for all three PCATD groups compared to the 

26
Control 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 the 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 PCATD 5 group in the current study was a direct replication 

of the PCATD 5 group in the Taylor et al. (2002b) study the comparative small number of hours 

saved for the present study requires explanation. The principle reason for the differences is most 

likely due to the low power in the current study as a result of a comparatively small number of 

subjects. A significant treatment effect was found for the present study for time for the groups to 

reach successful completion of the AVI 140 course; F (3, 63) =4.14, p<=.05, however, no 

significant differences were found between the four groups. Taylor et al. (2002b) found a 

significant treatment effect for the time to complete the evaluation flight in AVI 140 for the four 

groups. However, post-hoc tests indicated no significant difference between any of the PCATD 

groups and the Control group. Taylor et al. (1996) found a significant treatment effect and a time 

savings of 1.8 hours for the PCATD group for AVI 140. 

Effectiveness of Using the FTD for Cross Country Training

One objective of the current study was to investigate the effectiveness of the FTD for crosscountry training. The FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups received ten hours of prior FTD training on 

instrument tasks (see Table 1). In addition, the FTD 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 time in AVI 130 and 3 hours in 140; the FTD 20 group received 4 hours 

of cross country time in AVI 130 and 6 hours in 140. With the exception of the cross-country 

time the treatment of the FTD 10, 15 and 20 groups was identical. Although this study failed to 

show an hour for hour replacement of aircraft cross-country training with FTD cross-country 

training, savings of approximately 50% were realized by the FTD 15 and FTD 20 groups. This 

indicates that, while the FTD may be used effectively for cross-country training, there are some

aspects that do not transfer 100%. The current study did not investigate the variables affecting 

the amount of transfer for the cross-country training in the FTD. It should also be noted that there 

was no test of cross-country skills on the Lesson 60 check ride, so it is impossible to determine if

any student deficiencies on these skills were present. 

CONCLUSION 

The current study found that FTDs are useful to teach instrument tasks to private pilots 

training towards the instrument rating. This finding systematically replicated the findings of the 

Taylor et al. (2002b) and the Taylor et al. (1996, 1999) that PCATDs are useful to teach 

instrument tasks to private pilots. As a result of prior training in a FTD, trials to a specific 

criterion, time to complete the flight lesson and time to a successful evaluation flight were less 

when compared to a control group trained only in the airplane. The same result was found by 

Taylor et al. (2002b) for PCATDs. The current study found the greatest transfer for the FTD 5 

group compared to the FTD 10 group for trials in AVI 130 (6 of 8 comparisons), trials in 

AVI140 (14 of 14 comparisons), time to complete the flight lesson in AVI 130 (3 of 4 

comparisons), and time to complete the flight lesson in AVI 140 (4 of 4 comparisons). Taylor et 

al. (2002b) found that the greatest transfer effect was found for the PCATD 5 group. The 

incremental transfer of training theory of Roscoe (1971) predicted both of these findings. In the 

current study the prediction that increased trials/ time in the FTD would save trials/time the 

airplane was found for trials in AVI 130 (5 of 6 comparisons) but not for trials in AVI 140 (1 of 

11 comparisons); the prediction was not found for time to complete the flight lesson in AVI 130, 

27
(1 of 4 comparisons), nor for time to complete the flight lesson in AVI 140 (2 of 4 comparisons). 

Taylor et al. (2002b) found that increased trials/ time in the PCATD failed to save trials/time in 

the airplane compared to the control group. In some cases the results indicate a complex pattern 

of time savings. For the current study, the TERs for all instrument tasks for flight lesson 34/35, 

36, and 37, and VOR flight lessons 38 showed the predicted negatively decelerated function for 

increased number of trials. Examination of the ITERs for FTD 5 and FTD 10 indicates that 

additional training for trials for the FTD 10 group provided little benefit over the FTD 5 group. 

Taylor et al. (2002b) reported that two of the five ITERs for the trial variable, showed the 

predicted pattern of a negatively decelerated function (Roscoe, 1971; Flexman et al., 1972). 

The current study and the study by Taylor et al. (2002b) show that savings in the airplane fail 

to support the prediction that more training in the FTD or the PCATD is better. The results in the 

current study indicted that reduced transfer for the FTD occurred for trials and for time to 

complete the flight lessons in AVI 140 as compared to AVI 130. The results systematically 

replicated the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b) which indicated reduced trials/time saved for the 

PCATD for AVI 140 when compared to AVI 130. The negatively decelerated function of the 

ITER predicts reduced transfer for instrument tasks introduced during later stages in the 

instructional 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 while 

mastering one task in a training device generalizes (i.e., transfers to some extent) to other tasks 

introduced later, thus reducing the remaining potential for transfer” (Taylor et al., 1999). 

In the current study, the time to a successful evaluation flight was less for the PCATD 5, the 

FTD 5 and the FTD 10 groups compared 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 time to a successful 

evaluation flight was less for the three PCATD 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 time 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. Again these differences are likely due to the comparatively low 

power of the current study. These findings systematically replicated the findings of Taylor et al. 

(1999) who found overall savings of 3.90 hours. 

Generally, the current study found little additional time/trials were saved by the FTD 10 

group compared to the FTD 5 group replicating the findings of Taylor et al. (2002b). Practically 

no incremental transfer was found for the additional hours of training by the PCATD 15 group 

compared to the PCATD 10 group. One purpose for conducting an incremental transfer of 

training study is to determine at what point additional training in the PCATD in no longer 

effective. Based on the results of the current study no appreciable benefit was found for more 

than 5 hours of FTD training on instrument tasks. These results provide support to the current 

FAA policy of permitting FTD time in lieu of time in an airplane and permitting PCATD time to 

be used in lieu of time in an approved training device or airplane, but the results indicated that 

only 5 hours of training time on instrument tasks in the FTD or PCATD was effective. Although 

the current study failed to show an hour for hour replacement of aircraft cross-country time with 

FTD cross-country time, savings in the airplane of approximately 50% were realized by the FTD 

15 and FTD 20 groups. 

28
REFERENCES 

Federal Aviation Administration. (1997). Verification and approval of personal computer-based 

aviation training device (Advisory Circular 61-126). Washington, DC: FAA, Department of 

Transportation. 

Flexman, R. E., Roscoe, S. N., Williams, A. C., Jr., & Williges, B. H. (1972, June). Studies in 

pilot training (Aviation Research Monographs, vol. 2, #1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, 

Institute of Aviation. 

Phillips S. I., Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Emanuel, T., & Talleur, D. (1995). 

Developing performance measures for evaluating personal computer-based aviation training 

devices within an FAR Part 141 pilot training school. Proceedings of Aviation Psychology 

8th International Symposium. Columbus, OH. 

Roscoe, S. N. (1971). Incremental transfer effectiveness. Human Factors, 13, 561-567. 

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D., Emanuel, T., & Phillips, S. (1996). Transfer 

of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices (Technical 

Report ARL-96-3/FAA-96-2). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory. 

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G, Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T., & Phillips, S. (1999). 

Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device. 

International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 319-335. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., Rantanen, E. M., Bradshaw, G. L., & Phillips, 

S. I. (2002a). Incremental training effectiveness of personal computers used for instrument 

training: Basic instruments (Technical Report ARL-02-4/NASA-02-2). Savoy, IL: 

University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., Rantanen, E. M., Bradshaw, G. L., & Phillips, 

S. I. (2002b). Incremental training effectiveness of personal computers used for instrument 

training (Technical Report ARL-02-5/NASA-02-3). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois,

Aviation Research Lab. 

29
APPENDIX A: PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., & Rantanen, E. M. (2005). Transfer of training 

effectiveness of a flight training device (FTD). Paper presented at the 13th International 

Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Oklahoma City, OK, April 18-21, 2005. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., & Rantanen, E. M. (2005). The effectiveness 

of flight training devices (FTDs) in instrument training. A paper presented at the Mid Year 

meeting of APA Divisions 19 and 21 and Potomac Chapter of the HFES, at George Mason 

University, VA, March 4, 2005. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., Incremental transfer of 

training effectiveness of a flight training device. A paper presented at the Technology 

Enhancements for Aviation Classrooms Seminar, University Aviation Association Fall 

Education Conference, Dayton, OH, October 22, 2003. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M. Transfer of Training 

Effectiveness of an FTD. A paper presented at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Human 

Factors Research and Engineering Division (AAR-100) FY03 Aviation Maintenance, 

General Aviation, and Vertical Flight program review at the University of Nevada, Reno, 

NV, September 10-11, 2003. The paper was published a CD. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., Incremental Transfer of 

Training Effectiveness of a Flight Training Device (FTD). A paper presented at the Research 

Roundtable, University Aviation Association Fall Education Conference, Dayton. OH, 

October 24, 2003. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., Incremental 

Effectiveness of Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices (PCATDs) and a Flight 

Training Device (FTD), A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI, July 2004. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., The Effectiveness of 

personal computer aviation training devices (PCATDs) and flight training devices (FTDs) in 

instrument training, maintaining currency and instrument proficiency checks. A paper 

presented at the Institutional Workshop, University Aviation Association Fall Education 

Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 9, 2004. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., The Effectiveness of 

Personal Computers (PCATDs) and Flight Training Devices (FTDs) on Instrument Training 

for Pilots. A paper presented at the Aerospace Medical Association 75th Annual Scientific 

Program Meeting, Anchorage, AK, May, 2004. 

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W. Jr., and Rantanen, E. M., Incremental transfer of 

Training effectiveness of Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices (PCATDs) and a 

Flight Training Device (FTD). A paper presented at the Research Roundtable, University 

Aviation Association Fall Education Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 8, 2004.

30
31

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 flight. 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 Fix 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 Fix 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 _______ 
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 flight. 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 Fix 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 approach 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 approach 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 approaches 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 approaches 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 approaches 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 flight. 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 Fix 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 _________