# A Study of Applying Fuzzy Theory in Simulation-Based Education
## 4 Empirical Analysis
### The Second-Stage Questionnaire Analysis
#### 4.2.2 Aspects and Criteria of Questionnaire
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Aspects** & **Criteria Scenario and Competency Factors** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Fuzzy** \\ **Weighting Value** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Nonfuzzy** \\ **Weighting Value** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **CR Value** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Scenario 1 & Take-off with different tailwind but not informed & (0.228,0.230,0.227) & 0.228 & \\ Scenario 2 & High-altitude area or high payload made & (0.249,0.249,0.244) & 0.248 & \\ Scenario 3 & Multiple external NAV failure. & & 0.0689 \\  & NAV capability deteriorated & (0.167,0.169,0.169) & 0.168 & \\ Scenario 4 & Under “Visual Flight Rule” (VFR), visibility & (0.136,0.134,0.135) & 0.135 & \\ Scenario 5 & Recognized “Air Traffic Control” (ATC) unsafe & (0.116,0.114,0.118) & 0.116 & \\ Scenario 6 & Increasing tailwind on final approach & (0.104,0.103,0.108) & 0.105 & \\ Scenario 1 & S11 & Communication & (0.575,0.581,0.575) & 0.577 & \\ Scenario 1 & S12 & Problem Solving and Decision Making & (0.425,0.419,0.425) & 0.423 & \\ Scenario 2 & S21 & Communication & (0.266,0.263,0.264) & 0.264 & \\ Scenario 2 & S22 & Leadership and Teamwork & (0.293,0.289,0.290) & 0.290 & 0.0021 \\  & S23 & Problem Solving and Decision Making & (0.441,0.448,0.447) & 0.445 & \\  & S31 & Application of Procedures & (0.214,0.208,0.205) & 0.209 & \\ Scenario 3 & S32 & Communication & (0.180,1.74,0.174) & 0.176 & 0.0109 \\  & S33 & Problem Solving and Decision Making & (0.283,0.281,0.282) & 0.282 & \\  & S34 & SA & (0.324,0.337,0.333) & 0.333 & \\  & S41 & Communication & (0.186,0.182,0.184) & 0.184 & \\ Scenario 4 & S42 & Leadership and Teamwork & (0.189,0.185,0.187) & 0.187 & \\ Scenario 4 & S43 & Problem Solving and Decision Making & (0.290,298,0.294) & 0.297 & \\  & S44 & SA & (0.325,0.335,0.335) & 0.332 & \\  & S51 & Application of Procedures & (0.449,0.449,0.445) & 0.448 & \\ Scenario 5 & S52 & Communication & (0.211,0.208,0.214) & 0.211 & 0.0006 \\  & S53 & Problem Solving and Decision Making & (0.340,0.343,0.341) & 0.342 & \\ Scenario 6 & S61 & Problem Solving and Decision Making & (0.438,0.431,0.438) & 0.436 & 0 \\  & S62 & SA & (0.562,0.569,0.562) & 0.564 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Weighting values of criteria. 4. The fifth most notable scenario was No. 5, \"Recognized \"Air Traffic Control\" (ATC) unsafe terrain clearance,\" weighting value 0.116. The experts thought that CAA did not establish and renew the hindrance information for the light-weight aircraft visual flight corridor, such as high-voltage electric wires, aerial lifts and cable transports since the Aviation Law did not regulate the temporary airfield application or related regulation. The responsibility rested on the flight crew mission application orientation, which had to check possible hindrance locations, conduct a flight crew crosscheck, and ensure good communication and decision making. 5. The last most notable scenario was No. 6, \"increasing tailwind on final approach (not reported),\" weighting value 0.105; the value seemed slightly low, but this did not mean it was unimportant. The experts thought that the helicopter was operated in the outer airfield without wind speed and wind direction information, and the rapid weather change and payload difference led to the tail rotor malfunctioning. Thus, the flight crew should pay more attention to flight environment changes and contingency decision making to cope with sudden occurrences.