Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:15:49.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The benefits and limitations of ground-based upset-recovery training for general aviation pilots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

R. O. Rogers  and
A. Boquet
R. O. Rogers*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Science, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA
A. Boquet*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Factors, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research by Rogers et al (2009) and Leland et al established that flight simulator training can improve a pilot’s ability to recover a general aviation aeroplane from an in-flight upset. To reach this conclusion, they administered simulator-based and classroom-based upset-recovery training to two groups of student pilots, then compared their performance in recovering an aerobatic Decathlon aeroplane from a series of four upsets with the performance of a third group of untrained control group pilots subjected to the same upsets. We extend this result by addressing the unanswered question of how much classroom-based training as opposed to simulator-based training contributes to improving a pilot’s upset-recovery manoeuvring skills. After receiving classroom-based upset-recovery training but no simulator training, our participants were subjected to the same series of four upsets in the same Decathlon aeroplane. We then compared the performance of the classroom-trained pilots with the performances of control group pilots and the two groups of simulator-trained pilots. Statistical analysis suggests that classroom-based instruction alone improves a pilot’s ability to recover an aeroplane from an upset. We summarise related research, describe the training experiment and the training program, analyse and interpret flight-test data, and explain what our research implies with respect to establishing career-long commercial pilot upset-recovery training requirements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1184 , October 2012 , pp. 1015 - 1039
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents, World wide operations, Boeing Aircraft Company, 1955–2009, http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf, accessed 27 August 2011.Google Scholar
2. Rogers, R.O., Boquet, A., Howell, C. and DeJohn, C. An experiment to evaluate transfer of low-cost simulator-based upset-recovery training, FAA Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM09/05, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.Google Scholar
3. Gawron, V. Aircraft upset training evaluation report (revision 20), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): NAS2-99070, 2004.Google Scholar
4. Kochan, J.A. The Role of Domain Expertise and Judgment in Dealing with Unexpected Events, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA, Summer Term 2005.Google Scholar
5. Kochan, J.A. and Priest, J.E. Program update and prospects for in-flight upset recovery training, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 2005, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA: Wright State University, 2005.Google Scholar
6. Kochan, J.A., Breiter, E., Hilscher, M. and Priest, J.E. Pilots’ perception and retention of in-flight upset recovery training: Evidence for review and practice, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, USA: 26-30 September, 2005.Google Scholar
7. Kochan, J.A., Breiter, E.G. and Jentsch, F. Surprise and unexpectedness in flying: Database reviews and analysis, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 2004.Google Scholar
8. Kochan, J.A., Breiter, E.G. and Jentsch, F. Surprise and unexpectedness in flying: Database factors and features, Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA: Wright State University, 2005.Google Scholar
9. Kochan, J.A., Priest, J.E. and Moskal, M. The application of human factors principles to upset recovery training, 50th Annual Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar, Orlando, Florida, USA: Flight Safety Foundation and National Business Association, 26-28 April 2005.Google Scholar
10. Kochan, J.A. Priest, J.E and Moskal, M. Human factors aspect of upset recovery training, 17th Annual European Aviation Safety Seminar, Warsaw, Poland: Flight Safety Foundation and European Regions Airline Association, 14-16 March 2005.Google Scholar
11. Based on Kochan, 2005.Google Scholar
12. Kochan, J.A. Human factors aspects of unexpected events as precursors to unwanted outcomes, 18th Annual European Aviation Safety Seminar, Flight Safety Foundation and European Regions Airline Association: Athens, Greece, 13-15 March 2006.Google Scholar
13. Roessingh, Jan J.M. Transfer of manual flying skills from PC-based simulation to actual flight–comparison of in-flight data and instructor ratings, Int J Aviation Psychology, 2005, 15, (1), pp 67–90.Google Scholar
14. Rogers, R.O., Boquet, A., Howell, C. and DeJohn, C. Preliminary results of an experiment to evaluate transfer of low-cost, simulator-based Airplane upset-recovery training, FAA Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM07/28, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
15. Rogers, R.O., Boquet, A., Howell, C. and Charles Dejohn, C. An experiment to evaluate transfer of low-cost simulator-based airplane upset-recovery training, FAA Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM-09/5, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.Google Scholar
See also Rogers, R.O. and Boquet, A., Howell, C., and DeJohn, C. A two-group experiment to measure simulator-based upset recovery training transfer, Int J Applied Aviation Science, Summer 2010, 10, (1), pp 153–168.Google Scholar
16. Leland, R., Rogers, R.O., Boquet, A. and Glaser, S. An experiment to evaluate transfer of upset-recovery training using two different flight simulator devices, FAA Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM-09/17, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC, USA, 2009.Google Scholar
17. Carbaugh, D, Rockliff, L. and Vandel, B. Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid, Version 2, November 2008, http://flightsafety.org/files/AP_UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf.Google Scholar
18. Burks, B. Upset recovery training: a call for a higher standard, Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Flight Simulation Group Conference, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
19. Carbaugh, D.C., Cornutt, R.A. and Roberson, W.C. Simulator upset recovery training, Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Flight Simulation Group Conference, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
20. Roberson, W.C. An evaluation of the effectiveness of airplane upset recovery training, unpublished paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Embry-Riddle MS Degree in Technical Management, 2008, available from Captain Roberson at .Google Scholar
21. Priest, J. Upset recovery and pilot training–the quest for safety, Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Flight Simulation Group Conference, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
22. Ransbury, P. Unusual attitude training, Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Flight Simulation Group Conference, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
23. George, K.A. Upset recovery and disorientation training at NASTAR center, Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Flight Simulation Group Conference, 3-4 June 2009, London, UK.Google Scholar
24. Advani, S.K., Schroeder, J.A. and Burks, B. What really can be done in simulation to improve upset training?, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2-5 August 2010, Montreal, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar