Best AK

Best Evidence for the FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) Program for Pilot Training in the TAA: 

Best Evidence for the FAA Industry Training Standards (FITS) Program for Pilot Training in the TAA Wayne A. Dornan, Paul Craig Steve Gossett, Wendy Beckman Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN Contact:wdornan@mtsu.edu

Definition of a TAA: 

Definition of a TAA Integrated cockpit system consisting of a primary flight display, a multifunction display including an instrument-certified Global Positioning System (GPS) with traffic and terrain graphics, and a fully integrated autopilot.

Slide4: 

FITS Group: 16 MTSU students began their flight training in “glass” in DA-40 aircraft using the FAA-approved training program in August 2004 Traditional Round (Archival): 19 students who had taken their Private and Instrument flight training at MTSU

Slide5: 

Bottlenecks: Additional time required to complete a lesson beyond syllabus requirements Setbacks: Repeated lessons

Setbacks Comparison: 

Setbacks Comparison

Slide7: 

Our data indicates that “FITS” trained pilots have fewer setbacks over the entire VFR/IFR training But what was the determining factor? TAA or “FITS”

Slide8: 

Second Phase – Fall 2005 TAA with traditional syllabus

Slide9: 

Traditional Glass: 11 students (7 have finished) who had taken their Instrument flight training at MTSU using a traditional syllabus in a TAA (glass cockpit) Traditional Round: 19 students who had taken their Private and Instrument flight training at MTSU

Identified Bottlenecks: 

Traditional/Round Dials Syllabus Hours Identified Bottlenecks

Identified Setbacks: 

FITS TRADITIONAL ROUND TRADITIONAL GLASS *** = significantly different from traditional groups, p < 0.05 0 4 8 12 16 20 MEAN NUMBER OF SETBACKS IFR TRAINING *** Identified Setbacks

Slide12: 

One of our “FITS” students passed her combined Private / Instrument check ride with a total of 55 airplane hours !

IF WE ARE GOING TO BE CERTIFICATING PILOTS WITH FEWER HOURS WHAT KIND OF PILOTS WILL THEY BE ? : 

IF WE ARE GOING TO BE CERTIFICATING PILOTS WITH FEWER HOURS WHAT KIND OF PILOTS WILL THEY BE ?

NTSB REPORT:2005 Accidents Released March 2006: 

NTSB REPORT: 2005 Accidents Released March 2006 “GA Crash Stats Rise Significantly For 2005” ……………………………………………………….AVweb, March 20, 2006 “Accidents – End of Downward Trend” …………………………………………Associated Press, March 20, 2006 “The increase in accident statistics is disappointing” ……………………………….NTSB Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker

PHASE THREE: 

PHASE THREE “ THE EFFECTS OF A “FITS” TRAINING PROGRAM THAT EMPHASIZES SCENARIO BASED FLYING ON PILOT DECISION MAKING SKILLS “

METHODOLOGY: 

METHODOLOGY 16 Students enrolled in the “FITS” group 7 Students enrolled in the Traditional / Glass Group 24 Pilots who completed their Instrument training within 6 months / Traditional Round

METHOLODOLOGY : 

METHOLODOLOGY All groups were administered pencil and paper tests following the completion of their flight training

Personal IFR Comfort Questionnaire : 

Personal IFR Comfort Questionnaire How comfortable are you to fly alone in the IFR environment? How comfortable are you to fly alone in IMC ? How comfortable are you to shoot an ILS approach to minimums ? What are your “personal minimums” ?

Responses: 

Responses 1 = Not comfortable 2 = Somewhat comfortable 3 = Comfortable 4 = Very comfortable 5 = Absolutely comfortable, no problem!

RESULTS: 

RESULTS Not Comfortable Flying Alone in the IFR Environment Traditional Round 18 % Traditional Glass 0 % FITS 0 %

RESULTS: 

RESULTS Not Comfortable Flying Alone in IMC Traditional Round 38 % Traditional Glass 0 % FITS 14 %

RESULTS: 

RESULTS Not Comfortable Shooting an ILS to minimums Traditional Round 16 % Traditional Glass 0 % FITS 0 %

RESULTS: 

RESULTS Would You Feel Comfortable Using a GPS When Flying IMC? Traditional Round: Yes (48 %) Traditional Glass: Yes (100 %) FITS = Yes (100 %)

Mean Self-Reported Visibility: 

Mean Self-Reported Visibility FITS TRADITIONAL ROUND TRADITIONAL GLASS *** = significantly different from all other groups, p < 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 STATUTE MILES IFR TRAINING *** ***

Mean Self-Reported Ceiling: 

Mean Self-Reported Ceiling FITS TRADITIONAL ROUND TRADITIONAL GLASS *** = significantly different from all other groups, p < 0.05 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 ALTITUDE IN FEET IFR TRAINING *** ***

RESULTS: 

RESULTS What are your personal minimums ? Visibility: Never thought about it ! Traditional Round 68 % Traditional Glass 60 % FITS 18 %

SUMMARY: 

SUMMARY Our results indicate that pilots have fewer setbacks over the entire VFR/IFR training using the FITS syllabus Our results suggest that the FITS training, and not the aircraft, makes the difference “FITS” trained pilots are: More comfortable with their IFR skills More comfortable with their automation More conservative with IFR decision making

QUESTIONS: 

QUESTIONS