This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 15 November 2014, At: 23:18Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The International Journal ofAviation PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hiap20

Personal Computer AviationTraining Devices: TheirEffectiveness for MaintainingInstrument CurrencyDonald A. Talleur , Henry L. Taylor , Tom W.Emanuel Jr. , Esa Rantanen & Gary L. BradshawPublished online: 13 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Donald A. Talleur , Henry L. Taylor , Tom W. Emanuel Jr. , EsaRantanen & Gary L. Bradshaw (2003) Personal Computer Aviation Training Devices:Their Effectiveness for Maintaining Instrument Currency, The International Journal ofAviation Psychology, 13:4, 387-399, DOI: 10.1207/S15327108IJAP1304_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327108IJAP1304_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AVIATION PSYCHOLOGY, 13(4), 387–399Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Personal Computer Aviation TrainingDevices: Their Effectiveness for Maintaining

Instrument Currency

Donald A. Talleur, Henry L. Taylor, Tom W. Emanuel, Jr., and Esa Rantanen

Institute of AviationUniversity of IllinoisUrbana–Champaign

Gary L. BradshawDepartment of Psychology

Mississippi State University

This study examined the effectiveness of personal computer aviation training de-vices (PCATDs) for maintaining the Federal Aviation Administration’s instrument-currency requirement. One hundred and six instrument-current pilots received an in-strument proficiency check (IPC) and were assigned equally to 3 independenttraining groups (aircraft, flight training device [FTD], and PCATD) and to a controlgroup who received no training. The 3 training groups received recurrent training intheir respective devices over the course of a 6-month period, following which all 4 groups received a second IPC. Pilots trained in the FTD and PCATD performed (a) comparably; (b) significantly better than the control group, indicating positivetransfer of training; and (c) at least as well as the aircraft group.

The potential of personal computers (PCs) for general aviation training programshas received increasing attention during the past 5 years. There is commercial in-terest in exploiting personal computer aviation training devices (PCATDs) aswell (Campbell, 1998; Karp, 2001; Kolano, 1997; Koonce & Bramble, 1998). Ascomputer capability has improved and the cost has decreased, the PC has become

Requests for reprints should be sent to Donald A. Talleur, University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation,1 Airport Rd., Savoy, IL 61874. E-mail: dtalleur@uiuc.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

a viable tool for presenting graphic representations of aircraft instrumentation,and they can also be equipped with realistic flight controls. PC software can pro-vide aerodynamic characteristics that closely mimic those experienced in flight,and navigation databases are unlimited in geographic coverage.

Partially for these reasons, PCATDs may be as desirable as flight training de-vices (FTDs) for instrument training. The effectiveness of PCATDs in instrumenttraining has been investigated by Beringer (1996) and Taylor et al. (1996, 1997,1999, 2001). These studies have shown that a PCATD can be used to save instru-ment flight training time. The research performed at the University of Illinois’s In-stitute of Aviation, by Taylor et al. (1996, 1997, 1999), showed that a PCATDcould be used effectively in a university instrument flight training program.

Positive transfer has been found for selected maneuvers when measured interms of trials to a specified criterion and flight hours required to complete spe-cific flight lessons. The experiments also showed that course-completion timecould be reduced significantly by using a PCATD. These results led to a FederalAviation Administration (FAA) advisory circular (U.S. Department of Transporta-tion [DOT], 1997), which established the guidelines for the approval and use ofPCATDs in instrument training programs.

FAA regulations require that a pilot be instrument-current to act as the pilot-in-command flying under instrument flight rules (IFR). Instrument-rated pilots areallowed to use aircraft, simulators, and FTDs to maintain the recent-instrument-experience requirement. According to Federal Aviation Regulation Part 61.57(c)(1) (Code of Federal Regulations, 2001), to be considered instrument-current,pilots must fly six instrument approaches, perform holding patterns, and interceptand track courses using navigation systems during the previous 6 months.

If a pilot’s recent instrument experience has lapsed to between 6 and 12 months, currency can be restored by meeting the currency requirements asstated previously, under the supervision of Certified Flight Instructor, Instruments(CFII). Once currency has lapsed beyond 12 months, an instrument proficiencycheck (IPC) is required to restore currency. The IPC can be accomplished in anapproved simulator, an approved FTD, or an appropriately equipped aircraft(Code of Federal Regulations, 2001). PCATDs are not currently approved for rating/certificate practical tests, instrument-currency training, or administeringIPCs (DOT, 1997).

There are several considerations in evaluating the effectiveness of PCATDs foruse in flight training programs: First, training in a PCATD should provide someminimum level of positive transfer of training; second, it should avoid negativetransfer; and third, the PCATD software should take full advantage of the computerthat drives it (Williams & Blanchard, 1995). How well currently available PCATDsmeet these requirements has not been established, but it is clear that PC softwaredesigners, to date, have not taken full advantage of research findings concerningdisplay augmentations that can enhance training effectiveness (Taylor et al., 2002).

388 TALLEUR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Beringer (1996) investigated the use of PC-based training devices in humanfactors research and found that they could be used effectively (compared to othersimulation devices) for several instrument tasks, such as VOR radial interceptionand tracking and standard-rate turns. Although Beringer’s PC-based training de-vice used reasonably high-fidelity controls, the simulation was based on commer-cially available software packages, one of which was designed for instrumenttraining and the other as a game. Current PCATD software and hardware require-ments (DOT, 1997) exceed those used in the Beringer study.

In another study, Childs, Spear, and Prophet (1983) tested private pilots on cer-tain piloting skills at 8, 16, and 24 months after initial certification. They foundthat larger performance deficiencies occurred for flight tasks that required signif-icant coordination between motor and cognitive skills (e.g., basic instrument ma-neuvers or operations in and out of airports). This finding tends to support the no-tion that frequent training or practice may also be required to maintain proficiencyon instrument flight tasks.

There appears to be no research on the use of FTDs or PCATDs for main-taining instrument flying skills to meet the FAA’s recent-experience requirementand no skill retention research involving such devices. This experiment was de-signed to provide missing information on several important issues. The maingoal was to determine whether a PCATD can be an effective vehicle to maintainthe FAA’s recent-experience requirement for instrument flight currency. Thiswould be evident if a group of IFR pilots who receive refresher training in aPCATD could perform comparably to groups that use an aircraft or FTD duringthe 6-month currency period.

A second goal was to answer a basic question about the FAA-mandated currencyperiod for IFR pilots specifically, and to examine whether 6 months is an appropri-ate period for IFR pilots to maintain currency, in general. Because the pilots in theexperiment would represent a cross-section of skills and experience within the gen-eral aviation community, results should be generalizable to the entire flying popula-tion likely to use a PCATD or FTD to maintain instrument currency.

METHOD

Participants

One hundred and six instrument-rated pilots participated in the experiment. Thepilots were volunteers, most from within a 75-mile radius of Champaign, Illinois,and some from larger metropolitan areas in Illinois. All were current at the begin-ning of the experiment. The pilots agreed to refrain from instrument flight for 6 months and also not to use a PCATD or FTD for instrument training during thisperiod, except for that received in the experiment.

PCATDS AND CURRENCY 389

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Participation was solicited by a mail survey sent to all instrument-rated pilots inthe area. A total of 596 surveys were mailed; 152 pilots responded with a statementof interest. A Pilot Experience and Biographical Data Questionnaire was mailed tothose who expressed interest. All pilots received payment for flight time during theexperiment, as well as mileage costs to and from Willard Airport in Savoy, Illinois,where all testing and training sessions were conducted.

The average age of the pilots selected for the experiment was 50 years, with a rangeof 22–76 years. Average total flight experience was 2,460 hr, with a range of150–24,000 hr. Average experience in aircraft similar to the type used in the experimentwas 1540 hr, with a range from 0–24,000 hr. The pilots selected for the experiment ini-tially fell into one of three categories of instrument-currency: Level 1, instrument cur-rent; Level 2, within 1 year of currency; and Level 3, beyond 1 year of currency.

Level 1 pilots began the experiment with a baseline instrument proficiencycheck (IPC 1) in the airplane following a familiarization session described in theProcedure section.

Level 2 pilots completed the recent-instrument-experience requirement in aFrasca FTD, under the supervision of a CFII, to become instrument-current.

Level 3 pilots were required to complete an IPC in a Frasca FTD to becomecurrent. Most pilots in this category required several training sessions before pass-ing an IPC. Several potential participants failed to reach proficiency and were notincluded in the experimental population.

Equipment

Two FAA-approved Jeppesen FS-200 PCATDs, configured as Beechcraft Sun-downer aircraft, and two FAA-approved Frasca 141 FTDs, with a generic single-en-gine, fixed-gear, fixed-pitch-propeller performance model, were used. The FTDswere approved for instrument training toward the IFR-rating, IFR recent-experiencetraining, and IPCs, as well as for administering part of the IFR-rating flight test. Two180-hp single-engine Beechcraft Sundowner aircraft (BE-C23), with fixed-pitchpropeller and fixed undercarriage, were used as the aircraft for the IPC flights.

Procedure

All pilots participated in a familiarization session, during which pertinent instru-ment flight regulations and emergency procedures were reviewed. The pilots alsoreceived an overview of the first flight in the aircraft, as well as a review of theaircraft systems and instrumentation. Following the familiarization session, allpilots received IPC 1 in the airplane to start the 6-month experimental period.IPC 1 was flown with a CFII who acted as both a flight instructor and an experi-mental observer. The IPC was a standardized test of the instrument pilot’s skills

390 TALLEUR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

in the aircraft. The types of maneuvers and completion standards for an IPC arelisted in the instrument-rating practical test standards (DOT, 1998).

A flight scenario, which followed the current guidelines for the flight maneu-vers required by the practical test standards (PTS), was developed. This scenariowas used to collect baseline data and to establish the initial level of proficiency foreach pilot. The IPC 1 flight included a brief (15–20 min) in-flight aircraft check-out under visual flight rules, followed by a VOR approach, holding procedures,steep turns, unusual-attitude recovery procedures (UAR), instrument landing sys-tem (ILS) approach, and intercepting and tracking navigation courses under IFRconditions. All instructors who administered the IPC 1 flight were standardized onthe scenario and the scoring procedure.

A standardization document was developed for instructor training to assurethat all instructors used the same criteria for scoring performance during the IPCflights. The CFIIs used a form (Phillips et al., 1995) that was designed to facilitatethe collection of the following three types of data: First, within each maneuver, upto 24 variables were scored as pass/fail to indicate whether performance on thosevariables met PTS. Second, the CFII judged whether the overall performance ofeach maneuver was acceptable (pass/fail). Finally, the CFII recorded whether theoverall performance met the PTS for the IPC.

Following completion of IPC 1 flights in the airplane, the 106 pilots were as-signed, as equally as possible, to one of four groups: PCATD (27), FTD (27),Aircraft (26), or control (26). After the random assignment of 47 pilots, a bal-ancing constraint was imposed, so that the 45 who successfully completed theIPC 1 flight were distributed as equally as possible across the four groups.

To assess the assignment of pilots to groups, four demographic factors, ex-tracted from the questionnaire administered at the outset of the project, were ana-lyzed. These were initial instrument-currency status, age, flight time, and recentflight experience. Flight-time and recent-experience variables contained severaldistinct elements that were collapsed into two single factors, so that there wouldbe a single standardized value for each pilot on each factor.

Results from an analysis of variance indicated no difference among the distribu-tions for the four experimental groups on any of the four demographic factors. Noneof the demographic variables approached the p < .05 level of confidence. As a re-sult, it was concluded that any contribution that these factors made to the relativeperformance of a given pilot was sufficiently balanced among experimental groupsand unlikely to have influenced the comparative IPC performance outcomes.

Experimental Design

Table 1 shows the experimental design. Each pilot in the aircraft, FTD, and PCATDgroups received two recent-experience flights of about 1.8 hr each during the 2ndand 4th months of their participation in the experiment. These flights included

PCATDS AND CURRENCY 391

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

three instrument approaches, holding procedures, and intercepting and trackingnavigation radials and courses. The second flight also included a partial-panel non-precision (VOR) approach. The control group received no training during the ex-periment prior to the IPC 2 airplane flights. IPC 2 contained all required maneu-vers that a pilot must complete satisfactorily to receive an endorsement ofinstrument proficiency.

RESULTS

IPC 1 Pass/Fail Data by Initial Currency Status

Tallies of IPC 1 passes and failures were made for each of the three levels of initial(on arrival) currency of the pilots. Table 2 shows the number of pilots in each ofthe three levels who passed and failed the IPC 1 flight. Of the 106 who completedIPC 1, 45 (42.5%) received a pass rating by the IPC check pilot. Of the 32 pilotsin Level 1 (instrument-current), 14 (44%) passed. Nine of 15 pilots (60%) inLevel 2 (those within 12 months of currency) passed after receiving training in theFTD. Twenty-two of 59 pilots (37%) in Level 3 (those beyond 12 months of cur-rency who passed an IPC in the FTD) subsequently passed IPC 1 in the aircraft.The differences among group pass/fail frequencies would be expected 30 in 100 times by chance, χ2(2, N = 106) = 2.48, p = .30.

392 TALLEUR ET AL.

TABLE 1Experimental Design

Group IPC 1 2nd-Month Training 4th-Month Training IPC 2

Aircraft In aircraft In aircraft In aircraft In aircraft FTD In aircraft In FTD In FTD In aircraftPCATD In aircraft In PCATD In PCATD In aircraftControl In aircraft None None In aircraft

TABLE 2IPC 1 Pass/Fail Frequencies and Percentages by Initial Currency Status

Pass Fail

Currency Status Level n % n % Total

1 14 44 18 56 322 9 60 6 40 153 22 37 37 63 59Total 45 42 61 57 106

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Performance Changes From IPC 1 to IPC 2

Table 3 shows the pass/fail data for IPC 1 and IPC 2 for each of the four experi-mental groups. Thirty-four of the pilots who passed IPC 1 also passed IPC 2 (32%of 106), and 40 of the pilots who failed IPC 1 subsequently failed IPC 2 (38% of106). These two groups together represented 70% of the 106 pilots who partici-pated in the experiment. This finding indicates that a pilot’s initial performance(IPC 1) is the best predictor of final performance (IPC 2), regardless of the typeof intervening training. Twenty-one pilots (20%) who failed IPC 1 passed IPC 2,and 11 (10%) who passed IPC 1 subsequently failed IPC 2.

Post-hoc analyses were done to assess performance changes between IPC 1 andIPC 2. Improvement and deterioration ratios are presented in Figure 1. Pilots inthe aircraft, FTD, or PCATD groups who failed IPC 1 may have benefited from

PCATDS AND CURRENCY 393

TABLE 3IPC 2 Pass/Fail Frequencies for Those Who Passed IPC 1 and Those Who Failed IPC 1

Pass IPC 1 Fail IPC 1

Group Pass IPC 2 Fail IPC 2 Pass IPC 2 Fail IPC 2 Total

Aircraft 7 4 5 10 26FTD 11 2 8 6 27PCATD 10 1 6 10 27Control 6 4 2 14 26Total 34 11 21 40 106

FIGURE 1 Instrument flight performance improvement/deterioration by group. Black barsrepresent percentages of pilots who failed IPC 1 but passed IPC 2; hatched bars represent thosewho passed IPC 1 but failed IPC 2. Some pilots passed both tests, and some failed both tests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

practice during the retention period, which may, in turn, have allowed them to passIPC 2. Likewise, the performance of pilots who passed IPC 1 might deteriorateduring the 6 months, leading to an IPC 2 failure. Some passed both tests, andsome failed both tests.

The control group’s performance appeared to deteriorate during the 6-monthabsence from instrument practice. Four of the 10 pilots who passed IPC 1 failedIPC 2, and only 2 of the 16 who failed IPC 1 passed IPC 2, but the sample is small,and the apparent trend did not approach statistical significance, χ2(1, N = 26) =0.67, p = .41. The aircraft group’s improvement ratio showed that 33.3% of the pi-lots who failed IPC 1 passed IPC 2, and that 36.4% of those who passed IPC 1failed IPC 2. The McNemar test for intervening-activity effects showed that thetraining in the aircraft was no more likely to improve performance than to allow itto deteriorate, χ2(1, N = 26) = 0.11, p = .74.

For the pilots in the FTD group, 57.1% of those who failed IPC 1 passed IPC2, and only 15.4% of those who passed IPC 1 failed IPC 2. This improvement inperformance approached significance, χ2(1, N = 27) = 3.60, p = .057. ThePCATD group’s performance change was similar to that of the FTD group, withan improvement ratio of 37.5% and a deterioration ratio of 9.1%; this also approached significance, χ2(1, N = 27) = 3.57, p = .058.

IPC 2 Pass/Fail Rates by Experimental Groups

The effectiveness of the Beechcraft Sundowner, the Frasca 141 FTD, and theJeppesen FS-200 PCATD for maintaining instrument currency was assessed bycomparing IPC 2 pass/fail ratios for the four pilot groups. Table 4 presents thenumber and percentage of pilots who passed and failed IPC 1 and IPC 2 by groups.Pass rates were low for all groups on both IPC 1 and IPC 2. A total of only 45 of106 pilots (42%) passed IPC 1, and only 55 (51.9%) passed IPC 2. Chi-square testsassessed the significance of differences among the four groups and between pairs

394 TALLEUR ET AL.

TABLE 4IPC 1 and IPC 2 Pass/Fail Frequencies and Percentages by Experimental Group

IPC 1 IPC 2

Pass Fail Pass Fail

Group N n % n % n % n %

Aircraft 26 11 42 15 58 12 46 14 54FTD 27 13 48 14 52 19 70 8 30PCATD 27 11 41 16 59 16 59 11 41Control 26 10 38 16 62 8 31 18 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

of groups. Pass/fail ratios for the four pilot groups did not differ significantly onIPC 1, but, when the groups were later compared on IPC 2, the ratios differed bylarge amounts, indicating significant treatment effects, χ2(3, N = 106) = 9.27, p < .05.

A series of planned comparisons tested the differences between pairs of exper-imental groups. Both the FTD group and the PCATD group had significantlyhigher IPC 2 pass/fail ratios than the control group, χ2(1, N = 53) = 8.32, p < .01,and χ2(1, N = 53) = 4.34, p < .05, respectively, although the aircraft group didnot, χ2(1, N = 53) = 1.30, p = .26. The difference between the PCATD group andthe FTD group was not significant, χ2(1, N = 54) = 0.73, p = .39. Although thepass rate for either ground-based device was significantly higher than that of theaircraft group, the higher pass rate for the FTD approached statistical signifi-cance, χ2(1, N = 53) = 3.13, p = .077.

Changes in Maneuver Performance

Changes in performance on the various flight maneuvers between IPC 1 and IPC2 were analyzed. There were six maneuvers in both IPC 1 and IPC 2. An overallmaneuver-change score was determined for each pilot: 0 (no change in perform-ance), +1 (performance improved), or –1 (performance deteriorated). IndividualIPC 1 maneuver scores were then subtracted from their corresponding IPC 2 ma-neuver scores. The change scores for the six maneuvers were then summed foreach pilot. Thus, a pilot’s overall change score from IPC 1 to IPC 2 could rangefrom –6 to +6. These scores were standardized and analyzed using a single-factoranalysis of variance. No statistical difference among groups was found in overallmaneuver performance between IPC 1 and IPC 2, F(3, 105) = 1.1, p = .35.

Maneuver Performances Considered Individually

The McNemar chi-square test for intervening-activity effects was used to assessperformance changes between IPC 1 and IPC 2, considering only one maneuver ata time. Results are shown in Table 5. Improvement on a given maneuver is indicatedby a plus sign preceding the chi-square value, and deterioration by a minus sign.Improvements for the PCATD group on the holding procedures and the ILS ap-proach were equally significant, χ2(1, N = 27) = 5.40, p < .05. No other maneuversshowed improvement at the p < .05 confidence level. However, performance im-provement approached significance at the p = .06 level on the partial-panel VORapproach by the aircraft group and the PCATD group, χ2 = 3.57 and 3.60, respec-tively, and on the holding procedures by the FTD group, χ2 = 3.60. The controlgroup showed no significant performance change on any individual maneuver.

PCATDS AND CURRENCY 395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Influence of Partial-Panel Approach on IPC 2 Scores

IPC 2 included an extra maneuver at the end of the flight: a partial-panel VOR ap-proach. A chi-square test failed to show a difference in the numbers of pilots fromthe four experimental groups who passed and failed the partial-panel approach,χ2(3, N = 106) = 0.63, p = .89. In only 2 of the 33 cases in which a pilot failed theVOR approach was a failure of that maneuver the most likely cause of the IPC 2failure. In all other cases, the failure of the approach was accompanied by the fail-ure of one or more other maneuvers.

DISCUSSION

As was shown earlier by Taylor et al. (1996, 1997, 1999, 2001) and by Beringer(1996), PCATDs can be effective for teaching instrument flight tasks. Specifically,the PCATD group in this study performed significantly better on IPC 2 than thecontrol group, as did the FTD group. Furthermore, the PCATD and the FTDgroups maintained instrument currency at least as well as the aircraft group. TheIPC 2 scores of the aircraft group were not statistically better than those of the con-trol group. Proper integration of ground-based training devices in a recurrent-train-ing program may actually produce better currency refreshment than an aircraft.

The best predictor of performance on IPC 2 was not the type of training de-vice used, but rather the pilots’ IPC 1 scores prior to training. Pilots who wereassigned to the FTD and PCATD training groups, on average, showed improvedperformance on IPC 2, but a majority maintained the same level as recorded onIPC 1 (see Table 4). However, it is also apparent that simply meeting the mini-mum FAA requirement for instrument currency does not result in performanceimprovement by some pilots who receive refresher training during the 6-monthretention period.

Because all pilots were legally instrument-current prior to training, the follow-ing observations appear warranted. First, only 42.5% were able to pass an IPC inthe aircraft. Of those who were initially current (Level 1), 44% passed IPC 1.

396 TALLEUR ET AL.

TABLE 5McNemar Chi-Square Values for Changes in Individual Maneuver Performances Between

IPC 1 and IPC 2

Group VOR Hold Turn UAR ILS ATC

Aircraft +3.57 +3.60 +0.09 +0.33 +1.00 +0.66FTD +1.29 +3.60 +0.11 0.00 +0.09 –1.00PCATD +3.60 +5.40 +2.00 +1.80 +5.40 +0.20Control +0.69 +0.29 +1.33 –0.67 0.00 –0.20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Of those who were within 1 year of currency and had met the recent-experiencerequirement in an FTD (Level 2), 60% passed IPC 1. However, only 37% of thosewho regained currency by passing an IPC in the FTD (Level 3) passed the IPC inthe aircraft. Although none of these pass rates are good, the performance of theLevel 3 pilots as a group was dismal.

Performance on individual maneuvers during IPC 2 supports the claim ofWilliams and Blanchard (1995) that PCATDs should provide positive transfer oftraining to the aircraft. No specific measure of transfer was employed, but each in-strument maneuver showed at least marginal-to-significant improvement by oneor another of the training groups between IPC 1 and IPC 2, and the PCATD groupshowed significant improvement on three of the six maneuvers (see Table 5). Thecontrol group showed no change in individual maneuver performance betweenIPC 1 and IPC 2, indicating, by comparison, that positive transfer did occur for atleast two of the training groups.

The FTD group showed a slightly larger improvement than the PCATD groupin pass/fail ratios between IPC 1 and IPC 2, so one may question why the PCATDappears more effective when considering individual maneuver performance. Onepossible reason may be the quantitative nature of the improvement that took place.Inspection of the scoring records shows that a larger number of FTD pilots im-proved on individual maneuvers, whereas a smaller number of PCATD pilotsachieved higher levels of improvement on some individual maneuvers.

The PCATD showed a significant improvement in performance on holdingprocedures and ILS approaches not enjoyed by the aircraft group. This findingmay seem counterintuitive, but the PCATD probably yielded greater performanceimprovement on these maneuvers because of the difference in training environ-ments. The terminal-area flight environment is laden with distractions that may in-hibit effective learning; ground-based devices provide a sheltered training situa-tion conducive to learning.

As shown by Childs et al. (1983), and as suggested by this study, layoff frompractice of coordinated flight skills can result in deterioration in instrument flightproficiency. If the evident trend of deterioration is as rapid as it appears, the FAA’s6-month recurrency period, although appropriate for some pilots, may be too longfor others. Unfortunately, it was impossible to determine from this study whetherthe 6-month period is appropriate for all pilots.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that the PCATD is effective for maintaining instrument currency,and our findings suggest that it is also effective in enhancing instrument profi-ciency. Pilots who trained in the PCATD during the 6-month period performed aswell as those who trained in the FTD (an FAA-approved method for maintaining

PCATDS AND CURRENCY 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

instrument currency), and those who trained in either the PCATD or the FTD per-formed at least as well as those who received refreshment in the aircraft. Thisfinding tends to support the use of PCATDs, as well as FTDs, for maintaining in-strument currency.

PCATD training was beneficial for all critical instrument maneuvers that in-volved procedural components, such as VOR navigation, ILS approaches, andholding procedures. Proficiency in maneuvers, such as steep turns, UAR, and airtraffic control communications, was maintained at the initial level demonstrated inIPC 1. FTDs also proved effective for maintaining instrument skills over a 6-monthperiod, and both FTDs and PCATDs may actually be more effective for this pur-pose than an airplane.

The issue of whether the FAA’s 6-month currency period is appropriate for allinstrument pilots is unclear. The control group seems to have experienced skill de-terioration during their hiatus from instrument flying, but several pilots from theFTD, PCATD, and aircraft groups also showed some skill loss. Individual differ-ences in depth of original learning, and other non-instrument-flying activity dur-ing the period, may have influenced IPC 2 performance. However, our findingsbring into question the appropriateness of the 6-month period for all general avia-tion pilots. The IPC 1 scores show that many pilots who meet the minimumrecent-experience requirement will not be instrument proficient as tested by anIPC in flight.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported under FAA Grant No. DTFA 98-G-003 and was spon-sored by Michael Henry of FAA Headquarters, AFS-800. Dr. Kevin Williams,FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute, served as the technical monitor. The views ex-pressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be construed as anofficial FAA position, policy, or decision.

Gary L. Bradshaw was at the University of Illinois at the beginning of the proj-ect. Christopher Wickens, Lester Lendrum, and Charles Hulin assisted the authorsduring the course of the research, as did Mary Wilson and the flight instructorsfrom the Professional Pilot Division of the Institute of Aviation, who worked onthe project.

REFERENCES

Beringer, D. B. (1996). Use of off-the-shelf PC-based flight simulators for aviation human factors(DOT Publication No. DOT/FAA/AM-96/15). Oklahoma City, OK: Federal Aviation Administra-tion, Civil Aeromedical Institute.

398 TALLEUR ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Campbell, S. (1998, September). PC trainers in the real world. IFR, 14, 16–18.Code of Federal Regulations (2001). 14 Parts 60 to 139 (61.57). Office of the Federal Register,

National Archives and Records Administration: Author.Childs, J. M., Spears, W. D., & Prophet, W. W. (1983). Private pilot flight skills retention 8, 16, and 24

months following certification (DOT Publication No. DOT/FAA/CT-83/34, Seville TR-83–17).Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Karp, M. R. (2001). Using the PC-based aviation training device (PCATD) in the aviation classroom.Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Aviation Psychology. Columbus: TheOhio State University.

Kolano, E. (1997, October). Personal computer primer: At the controls of a new instrument trainingdevice. Flight Training, 9(10), 56–58.

Koonce, J. M., & Bramble, W. J. (1998). Personal computer based flight training devices. InternationalJournal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 277–292.

Phillips, S. I., Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., & Talleur, D. A. (1995). Developing performance measures for evaluating personal computer-based aviation training devices within an FAR part 141 pilot training school. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1204–1209). Columbus: The Ohio Sate University.

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., & Phillips, S. I. (1996).Transfer of training effectiveness of personal computer-based aviation training devices (Tech. Rep.No. ARL-96-3/ FAA-96-2). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., & Phillips, S. I. (1997). Effectiveness of personal computers for instrument training. Proceedings of the Ninth Interna-tional Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 1276–1280). Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Taylor, H. L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., & Phillips, S. I. (1999).Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device. InternationalJournal of Aviation Psychology, 319–335.

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., Rantanen, E. M., Bradshaw, G. L., & Phillips, S. I.(2001). Incremental training effectives of personal computers used for instrument training. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Aviation Psychology (Compact Disc Pro-ceedings). Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Taylor, H. L., Talleur, D. A., Emanuel, T. W., Jr., Rantanen, E. M., Bradshaw, G. L., & Phillips, S. I.(2002). Incremental training effectiveness of personal computer aviation training devices(PCATD) used for instrument training (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-02-5/NASA-02-3). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1997). Qualification and approval of personal computer-based aviation training devices (Advisory Circular 61–126).Washington, DC: AFS-840.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1998, October). Instrument rat-ing for airplane, helicopter and airship: Practical test standards (FAA-S-8081-4C). Washington,DC: Flight Standards Service.

Williams, K. W., & Blanchard, R. E. (1995). Development of qualification guidelines for personalcomputer-based aviation training devices (DOT Publication No. DOT/FAA/AM-96/6). OklahomaCity, OK: Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aeromedical Institute.

Manuscript first received November 2001

PCATDS AND CURRENCY 399

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

18 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014