We are currently experiencing delivery delays for items requested from other institutions while transitioning to a new statewide delivery service. Please contact your library
with questions or advice about alternative resources. Thank you for your patience!
LEADER 00000nam 2200457Ii 4500
006 m d f
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 080513s2003 dcua ob f000 0 eng d
074 0431-E-04 (online)
086 0 TD 4.210:03/3
086 0 TD 4.210:03/3
245 00 Effectiveness of personal computers to meet recency of
experience requirements /|cH. L. Taylor, ... [and others].
264 1 Washington, D.C. :|bU.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine,
300 1 online resource (1 volumes (various pagings)) :|bdigital,
338 online resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
500 Title from title screen (viewed Oct. 5, 2010).
500 "February 2003."
500 Performed by the Aviation Research Laboratory of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
504 Includes bibliographical references (p. 17-18).
506 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.
520 The purpose of the current study was to investigate the
effectiveness of Personal Computer Aviation Training
Devises (PCATDs) and Flight Training Devices (FTDs) to
meet FAA recency of experience requirements for instrument
flight. Two types of training devices were tested: 1) an
FAA approved PCATD; and 2) a Frasca 141 FTD. An Instrument
Proficiency Check (IPC) was given to all subjects in the
airplane to establish a performance baseline (IPC #1).
After the completion of IPC #1 in the airplane, the
subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups: the
PCATD, the FTD, the aircraft or the control group with a
balancing constraint so that the subjects successfully
completing IPC #1 were equally distributed among the four
groups. During the six-month period, each subject received
two recency of experience flights of about 1.8 hours each
in either the PCATD, the FTD or the aircraft; the control
group received no recency training. These recency of
experience flights included three instrument approaches,
holding procedures, and intercepting and tracking
navigation radials and courses. After the six-month period,
performance on an IPC in the airplane (IPC #2) compared
pilots who received recency of experience in the training
devices to a control group. The subjects in the PCATD and
FTD group were also compared to the aircraft group who
received recency of experience in the airplane. A
comparison of the three training groups with the control
group performance on the final instrument proficiency
check indicated that the training groups performed
significantly better than the control group. The study
also indicated that PCATDs are effective in maintaining
recency of experience for instrument rated pilots over a
period of six months.
650 0 Flight training|0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/
650 0 Instrument flying|0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/
650 0 Microcomputers.|0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/
700 1 Taylor, H. L.|q(Henry L.)|0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/
710 1 United States.|bOffice of Aerospace Medicine.|0http://
710 2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.|bAviation
776 08 |iPaper version:|tEffectiveness of personal computers to
meet recency of experience requirements.|h1 v. (various
856 40 |uhttp://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS126774