Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

FITS Fastrac07 by xiangpeng


									   FITS Fastrac

Dr. Charles L. Robertson
      June 7, 2007
• Initial studies – significant improvements
  – pilot performance,
  – situational awareness, and
  – judgment.
• Aerotech – FITS was not limited to TAA
  – 14 courses in legacy airplane

• Feedback from instructor community
  – Scenario-based training makes sense

      SBT Study
Scenario Based Training
• Presents maneuvers in an operational environment

• Assumes students are ADULT LEARNERS
  --Want to be there
  --Active learners
  --Correlate new information with previous knowledge
  --Learn best when new information is introduced in a
  realistic context

• Provides more realistic decision making
• Convert 141-Approved Private Pilot
  Syllabus from MBT to SBT

• Conduct test
  --1/2 the class receive MBT
  --1/2 the class receive SBT

• Compare results
       Private Pilot Training
• 30 Total Lessons
  --21 Aircraft
  -- 4 Sim
  -- 5 Gnd Briefs
• Piper Warriors
• UND Instructors
• Students
 What is Scenario Based Training?

• Purpose: Reason to go & consequences!

• X-Country: One airport to another!

• First-time introduction of maneuvers IAW
  realistic scenario

• Take scenario to conclusion
    SBT LESSON 2 (Simulator)

    You and a friend want to go to Fargo to see a Red Hawks’ baseball
game. Your plan is to land at the Fargo airport two hours before game
time in order to allow enough time for lunch.

    Practice Warrior checklists using the online trainer on HTMLEZ.
    Review Syllabus for lesson content.
    Complete appropriate sections of Workbook.
    Draw Practice areas on VFR sectional.

    Preflight Discussion – Discuss scenario and how normal operations
such as checklist usage and basic flight maneuvers are used on day-to-
day flights like this one. Ask student to locate FAR on map and give basic
navigation ideas on how to get there.
SBT Lesson 2 -- Cont
  GFK Departure – Conduct a normal takeoff and climb, show effects of
  coordinated and uncoordinated climb (refer to Aero Demo).

  Simulate Departure Control requesting a MOMENTARY level-off at 3500
  ft during climb and current airspeed (79 KIAS) to avoid inbound DC-9
  traffic. Than resume climb.

 Level off and Cruise – Level off at 5500 ft, do cruise checklist, and trim for
 cruise airspeed.
 Discuss how to maintain straight and level flight (refer to Aero Demo).
 Show effects of elevator input and discuss aircraft stability.

 Departure warns of opposite direction traffic at your same altitude, and
 suggests altering course to the right.
 Show effects of turns (shallow, medium, and steep) and how to keep
 those turns level (refer to Aero Demo).
Flight Lesson 2 (Cont)
Approach and Arrival at FAR – Start the descent checklist, obtain Fargo ATIS, and
contact Fargo Approach.

FAR Approach advises, ―Descend at pilot’s discretion to 2000. Expect vectors to
a 5 mile final for Runway 17.‖

Show effect of descent with and without power, level off at 2000 feet, and set-up
for a long final to Runway 17 (refer to aero demo).

Add flaps on final and discuss effects of each additional setting.

As you approach the runway, Tower directs, ―Go around -- traffic on the runway‖.
Conduct a normal go-around and show effects of each notch of flap retraction.

Go around the pattern at Fargo to a normal full-stop landing.

Taxi to the ramp and complete all appropriate checklists. Emphasize ―mission
complete—we made a routine flight from A to B‖.

Assign scenario for next lesson
SBT Implementation—IP Comments
           (early on)
 • ―It’s a little confusing figuring out how
   everything is supposed to work.‖

 • ―SBT takes a lot more time!‖

 • ―I like it. Student likes it—seems more
   motivated than previous students.

 • ―Lessons require about .3 longer than
           More IP Comments
               (early on)

•―Sometimes not enough time to get everything done.
Sometimes have to cut corners—like not taxiing into ramp
to signify trip complete.‖

―Student is often clueless about some of the details
presented in scenarios—like Lesson 8 calls for clouds
broken to overcast at 4000—I had to explain to him that
4000 means AGL, and that broken to overcast means it’s a
ceiling. This all takes more time.‖
IP Comments (near the end)
  "I really like SBT. Pace starting to pick up—not requiring
  as much additional time as earlier. Student will be on
  cross country phase by this Friday.‖
  "I'm really starting to see the benefits of SBT. Student
  seems more excited about flying than some of my
  earlier maneuver based students. Maybe because he
  sees the purpose of everything we practice ‖

  ―He's progressing rapidly now on each lesson—again
  because a lot of the stuff was front loaded during the
  early stages.‖

  "I like SBT."
                     Preliminary: 15/27 Complete

                    TRAINING HOURS REQUIRED

        BLK 1            BLK 2             BLK 3            TOTAL
      A/C TOTAL*

SBT   21.2   39.5       18.5   32.3         6.9    9.5      46.6 81.3

MBT   19.8   35.1       23.6   39.0         8.1    10.6     51.5 84.7

             SIM                      Overall, SBT required 9% less A/C time
             GND                              And 4% less Total time
          FITS – LCG Study
• Similar comments
  – Early on – takes to long
  – Later – students learning more, instructors
    and students see the value of the enhanced
    postflight briefing
• Again, improvements; however, they were
  not significant
      Individual Components
• Enhance learning but the interaction of the
  three is needed to significantly improve
  pilot training
    FITS – Automation Study
• Situational Awareness & Aeronautical
  Decision-making need time
• Automation can provide the required time
  – Flight manager vs. pilot
             Automation Use
•   Knowledge
•   Competence
•   Trust
•   Bias – pilot must be able to hand fly the
          Flight Manager
• Without automation – high degree of
  dependence on stick and rudder
• Low stick and rudder competency – high
  degree of dependence on automation and
  automation competency

Stick & rudder competency     Automation dependency

Automation competency       Stick & rudder dependency
         FITS vs. Non-FITS
• Twenty-nine question questionnaire
  – Enjoyed training & quality
  – SRM
  – LCG
  – ADM
  – Teaching methods
• Nineteen questions showed significant
  improvement with FITS vs. Non-FITS
  – 24 significantly (better); however, 5 questions
    eliminated to guard against type I errors
    (Bonferroni Adjustment)
• Best evidence to date:
  – The accident spike typically associated with
    aircraft enhancement or technological
    advancements have not happened.
  – Early ―glass cockpit‖ appeared to be following
    the normal trend; however, once FITS was
    adopted the spike has not occurred.


To top