Pilot’s Evaluation of the Usefulness of Full Mission IFR Simulator Flights for General Aviation Pilot Training

Professional pilots, including flight instructors, who had participated in multiple session line-oriented flight training (LOFT) Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) simulator flights differing in task difficulty evaluated the value of such flights for the training of general aviation pilots. These flights, which employed a relatively low cost simulator (Frasca 141), were judged to be quite useful for instrument student flight training, for instrument rated pilots with moderate instrument experience, and for experienced pilots. The aspects of flight that were seen as receiving the greatest benefit from the flight scenarios were practicing responses to problem situations, attitude instrument flying, practicing instrument approaches under varying weather conditions, and navigation and communications for student piJots. In contrast, the simulator was not seen as useful for Visual Flight Rules (VFR) recurrent training. INTRODUCTION In air transport operations, an increased emphasis has been placed on LOFT in which full mission scenarios are flown in simulators with realistic work loads and simulated emergencies. A major focus of such training has been the functioning of the crew as an operating unit during full missions that often include unexpected flight situations (Helmreich et at, 1990). In contrast, simulator use in general aviation pilot training is typically focused on the training and assessment of individual pilot skills on more or less discrete and standardized flight tasks, e.g. instrument procedures and skills. This type of simulator-based training usually involves relatively inexpensive simulators, which mayor may not have interactive visual displays and motion capability. The question addressed in this study was the degree to \vhich fullmission scenarios flown on training simulators would be assessed by professional pilots, including certificated flight instructors (CFls), to be of benefit to pilots at a variety of skill levels. The positive features of such training have 16 1 Ross et al.: Pilot’s Evaluation of the Usefulness of Full Mission IFR Simulato Published by Scholarly Commons, 1990 been discussed by Lombardo (1987). who pointed out the advantages of using relatively inexpensive simulators and LOFT type scenarios in training and in assessing the pilot's overall ability to plan and execute a full range of flight task operations. In the present study professional pilots who had participated in a multiple session study involving LOFT-type IFR simulator flights that included a variety of difficult flight situations were asked to evaluate the value of such flights for the flight training of general aviation pilots. METHOD Subjects Twenty-two male pilots with no previous training in the Frasca simulator participated in the study. All were instrument rated and current. Seventeen were currently flying for compensation as CFls (10). charter pilots (5). or airline pilots (2). The other five used their IFR ratings for personal or business flying. Ages ranged from 21 to 61. with a mean and median of 38.8 and 34. respectively. Total time ranged from a commercially rated pilot with 262 hours to an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) rated CFI with 8.900 hours. The mean and median hours were 2100 and 900. respectively. Apparatus The simulator used was a Frasca 141 that had been modified for the LOFT flights by the addition of carburetor temperature and Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) gauges. with the former under experimenter control and the latter realistically responsive to the simulator's mixture-control settings. A vacuum gauge and backup system switch were also added. An IRIS-2400 based visual system permitted air traffic to be shown and visi bility conditions to be controlled in degrees from haze to IMC. The visual graphics were projected by an Electrohome 2400 projector on a screen 1.9 meters wide by 1.4 meters high located 2 meters in front of the pilot. The graphics and navigational aids represented the San Francisco Bay area and included airports with varied runway lengths. some with Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASls). Procedure The pilots were given two training sessions of about one hour each. The first consisted of cockpit familiarization. instruction in the use of the King radios 17 2 Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, Vol. 1, No. 2 [1990], Art. 14 https://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol1/iss2/14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15394/jaaer.1990.1024 if they were not familiar with them, and basic flight maneuvers. The second involved precision and non-precision instrument approaches similar to those they would be flying. Following this training, the pilots flew four simulated IFA flights, two on each of two days. The four flights were designed to impose different workload levels on the pilots by varying the complexity and danger of the problem situations encountered. The flights consisted of a base flight in which no problems were introduced and three other flights intended to impose a Jaw, a medium, or a high workload on the pilot. Each subject received a different order of flights with the order across subjects balanced so that each type of flight was given an equal number of times in each order position. Each flight lasted 30-40 minutes, during which an experimenter acted as a controller. Any assistance that would normally have been provided by Air Traffic Control (ATC) was available to the pilot upon request. To make the flights as realistic as possible, participants were provided with a completed flight plan form, area and en route charts, approach charts for airports in the San Francisco Bay area (NOS or Jeppeson, whichever the subject preferred), and a prfntout of current and forecast weather. Current Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) information was available en route. After a period to review weather reports, the flight began with an IFR clearance followed by a takeoff in visual conditions and a gradual entry into the clouds at the altitude at which the ceiling was reported. Each flight ended with vectors to an instrument approach course followed by the removal of the clouds at an appropriate point so that the approach could be completed. The base flight was designed to be an uneventful short IFR flight ending in a normal Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach. The pilot was cleared as filed from Hayward to San Jose, departed RWY 28L at Hayward, entered the clouds at 700 feet, was vectored to the ILS 30L final approach course at San Jose, and broke out at 700 feet. Two changes were introduced for the low workload flight. Moderate turbulence was added, and the pilot was required to make an en route decision between an Non-Directional Beacon (NOB) approach with the ceiling reported at minimums and a Very high Omni Directional Range (VOR) approach to another runway with an 8-knot quartering tail wind. The turbulence that the 18 3 Ross et al.: Pilot’s Evaluation of the Usefulness of Full Mission IFR Simulato Published by Scholarly Commons, 1990 pilot first encountered as he climbed through 2000 feet persisted throughout the en route portion of the flight. Approximately 10 minutes from San Jose, he received the current ATIS information indicating that the localizers were out of service, the ceiling was 600 overcast, the wind was 280 degrees at 8 knots, and the only approaches available were the VOR 12 or the NDB/DME 30L. The VOR 12 had an Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) below the reported ceiling (480 ft.) but a tail wind. The MDA for the NOB/OME 30L (660 ft.) was above the reported ceiling. The rest of the scenario allowed either approach to be completed successfully. On the medium workload flight, the directional gyro failed during the turn to final on an NDB approach, and the ceiling dropped below minimums, forcing the pilot to fly the missed approach and decide on the next course of action, which could include repeating the NOB approach, attempting a different approach, or asking for a radar assisted "no-gyro" approach. On the high workload flight, a rapid accumulation of structural ice (simulated by reduction of power to 60% over a two minute period) was followed by vacuum pump failure in Instrument Meteorlogical Conditions (IMC). The subject was then flying partial panel and gradually losing altitude, with no better weather within range. With expert technique and an immediate decision about a destination, it was possible to land safely on an airport. Following their participation in the study, subjects were sent a questionnaire soliciting their opinions of the value of this type of flight experience for pilot training. The questions were organized into three sets. The first set of three questions concerned the usefulness of the type of flights experienced for instrument students, for instrument-rated pilots, and for experienced professional pilots. The second set of questions concerned various aspects of flight training that might or might not benefit from this type of simulator training, while the third set of questions was concerned with evaluating particular aspects of the flight experience. Items included in the questionnaire are presented in Table 1. For each question the subject was asked to place an x or other mark on a horizontal scale that was five inches long with tic-marks at equal intervals numbered 0 to