DOCUMENT RESUME ED 220 600

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 220 600 CE 033 394

AUTHOR Hughes, R. G.; And OthersTITLE Applications of Simulator Freeze to Carrier

Guideslope Tracking Instruction. Cooperative StudySeries. Final Report, May 1, 1980-August 31, 1981.

INSTITUTION Canyon Research Group, Inc., Westlake Village,Calif.

SPONS AGENCY Air Force Human Resources Lab., Brooks AFB, Texas.;Naval Training Equipment Center, Orlando, Fla.

REPORT NO AFHRI-TR-82-3; NAVTRAEQUIPCEN-78-C-0060-9PUB DATE Jul 82CONTRAC N61339-78-C-0060NOTE 64p.

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRLPTORS Aircraft Pilots; *Flight Training; *Instructional

Innovation; Military Training; Outcomes of Education;Postsecondary Education; Program Effectiveness;*Simulation; *Skill Development; *Training Methods;*Transfer of Training

IDENTIFIERS Air Force; Simulator Freeze

ABSTRACTTwenty-five experienced F-4 and F-16 Air Force pilots

weie instructed in carrier landings in the Visual Technology ResearchSimulator (VTRS). The training was conducted under threeinstructional conditions, two of which employed the simulator's"freeze" feature. Additionally, two methods of defining errors forcarrier glideslope tracking were examined. These experimentaltraining techniques were compared to a conventional training approachill which no "freezes" were imposed during the training sequence.4While pilots who were trained under the "freeze" condition developedcontrol strategies that distinguished them from pilots trained byconventional measures, no differences were found between these groupson rate or extent of learning. In response to a post-expetimentalquestionnaire, pilots who were trained under "freeze" conditionsindicated that the simulator "freeze" was "frustrating" and added tothe overall difficulty of the task. These pilots further reportedbeing more motivated to avoid the "freeze" than to perform-t/le taskcorrectly during training. A probe technique was used to examinedifferential transfet in lieu of the more traditionaltransfer-of-training technique. Although this experimental use of theprobe technique was a preliminary effort, it does appear to holdpromise for transfer-of-training experiments of this type.(Author/KC)

**************************************************ft********************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

nIca 1 geport: '1aVTRA:CTIPCEN

fl)

411111111101111COOPERAT1VE STUDY SERIES1111111111111=mi

DoD Distribution Statement

Approved for public release:

distribution unlimited.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

ETCATIONAL SiESOURCES INFORMATiONCENTER tERIC

ti 1hs Glonio,nt Rh: EeP,/..c.,,o-d ham TTO oeryon O onianijhon

o+ nittr,i 41

MdIfir h1,), n made to frOfOrf

froanitn't nn ,31,ty

Po (IN nf n N14, th ;r1,,f 1r

!pot nt off c 11F

:CAT:(Yls FEE.ZET'PACK:%G

July 192

NAVAL TRAINING EQUIPMENT CENTERORLANDO, FLORIDA 328)3

AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORYBROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 78235

V&

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE When Data Enittred)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEREAD INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM1. REPORTNUMBER, NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHR121*-82-3

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and subtitle) .

APPLICATIONS OF SIMULATOR FREEZE TO CARRIERGLIDESLOPE TRACKING INSTRUCTION

S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Final1 May 1980 - 31 August 1981

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT HUMBER

TR-81-0237. Au THOR(s)

R.G. Hughes, G. Lintern, D.C. Wightman,R.B. Brooks, and J. Singleton

(Cont'd)

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NuMBER(s)

N61339-78-C-0060

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Canyon Research Group, Inc.741 Lakefield Road, Suite BWestlake Village, California 91361

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASKAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

4781-6P1A1123-02-34 (AFHRL)

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS NAVAL TRAININGEQUIPMENT CENTER, Qrlando, Florida 32813 andUSAF Human Resources Laboratory/0TWilliams AFB. AZ 85224

12. FiEPORT DATE

July 198213. NUMBER OF PAGES

5014. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(11 di ffefent from Con(rolling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (o/ the toport)

Unclassified

;Se. DECLASSIFICATION, DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE

16 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the sbet:act entered in Block 20, if different (roth Report)

IS SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. XEY WORDS (ContInu on reyeraa ide II necwary and Identify by block number)

Aircraft Simulation Skill Acquisition Flight Training

Human Factors Computer-Generated Displays Visual Simulation

Transfer of Training Training Dispiays Instructional

Computer-Generated Imagery Techniques

20. ASSTRACT (Continu on reveres side if nitbeeary and identify by block number)

Twenty-live experienced F-4 and F-16 Air Force pilots were instructed'in carrier landings in the Visual Technology Research Simulator (VTRS).The training was conducted underthree instructional conditions, two of whid'employed the simulator's "freeze" feature. Additionally, two methods of defin-

ing errors for carrier glideslope tracking were examined. These experimental

training techniques were compared to a conventional training approach whereno "freezes" were imposed during the training sequence.

DD FJLRM73 1473S N 0102. LF. 0I4.6601EDITION OF 1 NOV 153 IS OUSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ()Mon Data Enforod)

20. Abstract (Cont'd)

While pilots who were trained under the "freeze" condition developedcontrol strategies that distinguished them from pilots trained by Con-ventional measures, no differences were found between these groups onrate or extent of learning. In response to a post experimental question-naire, pilots who were trained under "freeze" conditions indicated that thesimulator "freeze" was "frustrating" and added to the overall difficulty of

the task. These pilots further reported being more motivated to avoidthe "freeze" than to perform the task correctly during training.

A probe technique was used to examine differential transfer in lieuof the more traditional'transfer-of-training technique. Although thisexperimental use of the probe technique was a preliminary effort, it doesappear to hold promise for transfer-of-training experiments of this type.

. Author(s) (Cont'd) -

R. G. HughesUSAF Human Resources Laboratory/OTWilliams AFB, Arizona 85224

G. Lintern

Canyon Research Group, Inc.Orlando, Florida 32803

D. C. WightmanNaval Training Equipment CenterOrlando, Florida 32813

R. B. BrooksUSAF Human Resources Laboratory/0TWilliams AFB, Arizona 85224

J. Singleton, LCDRU.S. Navy

S N 0102- LF.014-6601UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whon De* &tiered)

ii

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78C-0060-9/AFHRLTR-82-3

PREFACE

This report is the fourth in a continuing series of cooperativeventures between the Naval Training Equipmect Center and the Air Force HumanResources Laboratory. This experiment was carried out on the Navy's VisualTechology Research Simulator (VTRS) in Orlando; Florida, and is the first inthis cooperative series to employ the VTRS.

A subject of concern to both the Navy and the Air Force was addressedin the experiment reported here. Issues concerning the implementation ofinstructional strategies and employment:6f certain simulator features inline with their instructional value have been addressed in the recent past.The issue addressed in the experiment reported here concerns theinstructional value of one.common simulator feature, the "freeze" feature.The "freeze" feature allows for a suspension of the simulator task so that astudent may be "given instructional feedback while freed of the requirementto perform the task. The experiment reported hene concerns the "freeze"feature commonly found in flight simulators and whether it should beemployed in the training of a complex flight task.

A number of persons contributed to-this research. Walter S. Chambers, .

Stanley C. Collyer, Patricia Daoust and Edward Holler of the Naval TrainingEquipment Center (Code N-732); Brian Nelson, Daniel /Sheppard and DanielWestra of Canyon Research Group, Inc.; and Jack Davis and Karen Thomley ofthe University of Central Florida provided technic l support.

Twentyfive Air Force pilots from the 56th T ctical Fighter Wing,Macbill Air Force Base, Florida served as subjec s in this experiment. Theyare tc:, be commended for their cooperation. The uthors would like tospecifically thank Major C.P. Dockery of the 9t Air Force, Shaw Air ForceBase, South Carolina and Col. D. McCarcer, the ft1aval Training EquipmentCenter's Air Force Liaison officer for their v luable assistance in securingthe pilots who participated.

1/2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

INTRODUCTION \..\ 7

SUMMARY OF PRIMARY OBJECTIVES \ 11

II METHOD 1\3'

APPARATUS 13

VISUAL SYSTEM 13

FRESNEL LENS OPTICAL LANDING SYSTEM 18

SIMULATOR CONFIGURATION 18PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 18

FREEZE AND RESET FEATURES 20

TRAINING CONDITIONS 20DISPLACEMENT ERROR CRITERION 20

DISPLACEMENT AND DESCENT RATE CRITERION 21

PROCEDURE 21

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS 22

III RESULTS 23

TRAINING TRIALS 23

LEARNING EFFECTS 23

EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT EFFECTS 23

PROBE TRIALS 23

LEARNING EFFECTS 23

EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT EFFECTS 23

PROBE METHODOLOGY 25

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES . . OOOOOOOOO 28ON THE GENERAL ROLE OF ERROR IN TRAINING 28ON THE INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE FREEZE FEATURE 28

IV DISCUSSION 29

RECOMMENDATIONS 31

REFERENCES 33

APPENDIX A RESULTS/DATA SUMMARY TABLES 35

APPENDIX B MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF INDIVIDUALITEMS-OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 47

3


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

ComputerGenerated Image of the Day Carrier

Page

1

with FLOLS and Portion of Wake 16

2 ComputerGenerated Image of the Night Carrier with FLOLS . 17

3 Configuration of FLOLS Simulation ShowingDatum Bars and Meatball 19

4 Freezes Per Trial Averaged Across Freeze Conditionsand Across 4Trial Blocks of Training Trials 24

5 Means of RMS Glideslope Error 26

6 Means of Aileron Control Activity 27

4


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Biographical Data on Pilot Subjects 14

Al Glideslope RMS Error: Training Trials 35

,A2 Angle of Attack RMS Error: Traitng Trials 36

A3 Average Elevator Stick Activity: Training Trials 37

A4 Average Throttle Activity: Training Trials 38

A5 Average Aileron Stick Activity: Training Trials 39

A6 Average Rudder Pedal Activity: Training Trials 40

A7 Glideslope RMS Error: Probe Trials 41

A8 Angle of Attack RMS Error: Probe Trials 42

A9 Average Elevator Stick Activity: Probe Trials 43

A10 Average Throttle Activity: Probe Trials 44

All Average Aileron Stick Activity: Probe Trials 45

Al2 Average Rudder Pedal Activity: Probe Trials 46

5/6

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-TR-82-3

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

The history of simulation has closely followed the history ofaviation. Early trainers were crude. unsophisticated boxes designed to givepilots some semblance of the flying experience and to prepare them toperform procedures important in flight. With the passage of time, aircraftand flight simulators have undergone evolutionary changes. Modern flightsimulators are capable of reproducing many of the same conditions that areattainable in the aircraft (Caro, 1977). This refinement in simulatorcapability is an outgrowth of advances in technology and is due to anincreased desire on the part of the simulator design engineer to give thepilot an environment that "feels" as much as possible like the real .

aircraft. Pilot self-report and subjective assessment were the rulingcriteria that drove the development of flight simulators.

Thus the flight simulator has been regarded as an artificial airplanewherein flight tasks could be performed in a safer, cheaper environment.Economy and safety we'e the specific reasons to substitute flight simulatorsfor aircraft. Howeve recent advances in training technology have increasedawareness that the a craft may not be the best place to begin the processof learning to fly. Th simulator, in contrast to the airplane, has thepotential to be structured as a learning environment that can facilitate theacquisition of the perceptual and motor skills necessary for aircraftcontrol (Caro, 1976).

Reliance upon an "in-flight" model to dictate the limits_of design anduse of simulators for pilot training can unnecessarily restrict thepotential of simulation to facilitate skill acquisition. Recent researchhas begun to address the issue of how to enhance the training value ofsimulation by employing principles of learning and transfer rather thansheer physical fidelity as the guiding criteria (Hughes, 1979): The

employment of certain techniques that follow from these principles maysleadto simulator conditions that, although objectively unrealistic, can enhancethe efficiency of the simulator as a training device.

For example, Hughes, Hannan, and Jones (1979) have explored the use ofa record-playback feature for instruction of a complex flight task whileBailey, Hughes,,and Jones (1980) have tested the instructional value ofbackward chaining with a dive bombing task. Lintern (1980) and Hennessy,Lintern, and Collyer (1981) have examined learning with novel and alteredvisual displays.'

Simulators not only offer the promise of permitting learning to proceedmore rapidly, but also may permit a higher level of skill attainment. Withsome specific flight tasks, the benign and predictable simulationenvironment may permit pilots to quickly perceive critical relationships

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C -0060 -9/AFHRL -TR -82 -3

that can aid their performance in the aircraft but that would never clearlyemerge if they practiced only in the aircraft.

These studies represent initial attempts to explore the potential offlight simulators as training devices through the alteration of the displaypresentation or through the application of principles of learning astraining features. This point of view diverges from the artificial aircraftmodel and requires that relevant learning principles be addressed as thedriving force behind the conduct of training in flight simulators.

Of all the instructional options that have been, or might be, builtinto an aircraft simulator, "freeze" appears to have gained the widestacceptance. "Freeze," in the simulatar training context, refers to thesuspension of any part or all of the simulated task for instructionalpurposes. Two uses may be made of this "freeze" feature. First, "freeze"can be employed to suspend some aspect of the flight dynamics (e.g.,aircraft roll may be "frozen") so that the trainee may focus _his attentionupon some other, more critical aspect of the task, prior to attempting thewhole task. Another potential use of "freeze" that has high apparentvalidity is for the instructor to stop the action while explaining errorsand strategies to the student. Nevertheless, there must.be some concernthat the level of assistance provided by the use of "freeze," especially inthe latter case, could disrupt retention of the skill (c.f., Snow, 1980) orthat the interruption could disrupt its acquisition.

The present study is concerned with the use of the latter, total tasksuspension "freeze" technique, and how it relates to the specific role of'errors in skill acquisition; in particular, whether a "freeze" should beused as an opportunity to instruct the student in the cause and correctionof errors or whether it should be used to minimize them. While it isapparent that information about the direction and magnitude of errors canfacilitate skill learning (AdAms, 1981), there is same concern that ,.

frequently committed errors could become embedded in a student's responserepertoire (Holding, 1970). Thus approaches that enhance the student'sawareness of the nature of the error and those that minimize errorsrepresent extreme positions in the treatment of errors during learning.

The possibility that repetition will embed errors in a student'sbehavior appears possible in the case of the carrier landing task. Forexample, a marginal approach, while being severely criticized by the LandingSignal Officer (LSO), can result in a safe landing. Although Navy pilotsare consciously and explicitly concerned with technique in making carrierapproaches, successful completion of a dangerous task by any means is, 'in atechnical sense, reinforced. This positive reinforcement may partiallynegate the effects of negative reinforcement frowthe LSO and from thepilot's own cognitive judgments and could be one of the more potentinfluences on learning. The natural consequences of errors apOtar to have apowerful self-correcting influence in perceptual-motor learning, but thenatural consequences of errors in carrier approaches may not be sufficientlynegative with the required frequency to give full force to this effect.

8

1, U

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78C-0060-9/AFNETR-82-3

Given the expanded range of options available for simulator instructionversus inflight instruction, the questions arise as to whether errorsshould be permitted, how they should be treated if they are permitted, andhow an instructor might intervene to enhance the learning process. Thecarrier landing task was considered ideal for examining these issues.Control behavior is strictly constrained by the demands of the task, anderrors can be specified clearly. Navy pilots and instructors tend to agreethat error detection and correction are fundamental to safe and consistentcarrier landings.

The present study addressed the issue of how errors should be treatedby examining three techniques for teaching the carrier approach task.Specifically, the study addressed the use of the simulator's "freeze"feature to interrupt an otherwise continuous performance whenever an errorwas detected. One possible advantage of freezing the task in this manner isthat it would allow students to attend to instructional feedback without thesimultaneous need for them to perform the task. Effectiveness of the

-feedback might thus be enhanced and so lead to faster learning.Alternatively, interruption of the continuous task might be disruptive andthereby impede learning. The following instructional conditions werecreated to explore these issues.

"Freeze/Reset." Under the Freeze/Reset condition, the simulator was"frozen" whenever an error was detected. Feedback was given while the"freeze" was in effect. During the "freeze," inside and outsidecockpitreferences and cues were maintaineo as they were when the "freeze"occurred. Before continuing the task, however, the simulator was returnedto the appropriate position (vertically) on glideslope with appropriatelyconfigured angle of attack and airspeed. At the termination of the"freeze," the student continued the task from the "corrected" position.

"Freeze/Flyout." Under the Freeze/Flyout condition, the actions duringthe "freeze" were the sameNas those for the Freeze/Reset condition exceptthat at termination of the "freeze," the student cbntinued the task from theexact point at which it was "frozen." That is, no correction was made.

"Conventional." Under the Conventional condition, students learned thetask without use of the "freeze." Instructional feeftack was given at thecompletion of each approach.

In addition to examlning these three alternative instructionalconditions, the study aeiressed the manner in which errors were defined.One error criterion was based on displacement from the glideslope while theother was based on both displacement from glideslope and deviation from theoptimum rate of descent. The latter criterion is potentially moreinformative in that a descentrate error car give advance warning of a

displacement error so that earlier corrective action can be taken. Theaddition of rate information to displacement information has been shown tominimize glideslope tracking errors of experienced Navy pilots (Kaul,Collyer, and Lintern, 1980).

9


One important methodological issue in transfer-of-training (TOT)research is related to selection of an appropriate training period.'Training to a proficiency criterion has often been used, but in a study ofdifferential transfer, the average time for various groups to attainproficiency almost alwos differs. Thus, training time tends to beconfounded with the exNrimental effects of interest. Fixed training times

resolve that problem but selection of an appropriate period can be critical,and necessarily relies heavily on the judgment and experience of theexperimenter. Training times could be too short to allow differences toemerge. Alternaively, they could be so long that worthwhile trainingdifferences are washed out by subjects attaining a high level of proficiencywith even the poorest training conditions. Thus, training times should beextended into, but not beyond, that period in training which showsworthwhile learning differences between instructional methods.

Pre-experimental work could ascertain the most appropriate trainingperiod, but it would require expenditure of a large portion of theexperimental resources to obtain a'reliable answer. Furthermore, in a studyof more than two training conditions, the selected training time may beappropriate for only some of the comparisons. A range of times could beused but would,reduce theipower of the experiment (i.e., its capability toreveal differences between conditions) to the extent that some of theselected training periods were inappropriate. Training time is a specialissue in a study of novel training techniques, such as those considered herewhere an experimenter has limited experience and meager data to provideguidance.

A probe technique in which learning trials or the experimentalconditions are interspersed with test trials on the control condition couldavoid these problems. This technique, which appears to have been used onlyonce in applied transfer-of-training research (Smith, Pence, Queen andWulfetk, 1974) might effectively map the course of learning and thus allowan estimate of the optimum training period for each instructional method.Smith et al. (1974) used a single-trial probe strategy in which training andprobe trill's alternated. Their strategy was probably not optimum.

Presumably an experimental session should be weighted heavily with trainingversus probe trials to limit dilution of the training effects. Nevertheless

probes should be frequent enough to ensure that critical differences are notmissed, and sufficient data would be required at each probe to achieve

worthwhile stability. Probe methodology would seem to offer distinctadvantages for the initial investigation of a novel training method.

However, for evaluating savings in relation to'a standard instructionalparadigm, the traditional transfer-of-training paradigm would still bepreferred. In this experiment, the probe technique was employed in anattempt to solve some.of the dilemmas faced by transfer of trainingexperimenters. Here probe trials, consisting of performance of the transfertask, were interspersed throughout the training sessions in order to assessthe level of proficiency of the trainees as training progressed. Twocritical issues surface as a consequence of the use of a probe technique.First, are the probe performances sensitive to the learning that is taking

14:10


place during the training trials? Secondly, are the probe trials.in someway disruptive of the training process? Both of these issues wereaddressed in the experiment.

SUMMARY OF PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the relative effectiveness of three instructionalmethods differing in the degree to which each alt5rs'theinstructional environment following an error.

2. To explore the total task suspension use of "freeze" forinstruction of a continuous tracking skill.

3. To examine the effects on leaening of two error criteria:displacement only versus Aisplacement and rate.

4. To assess.the extent to which the transfer task performancesampled periodicaTly in probe trials is sensitive to what islearned in training trials and what effect, if any, probe trialsmight have upon learning.

ll/12


SECTION II

METHOD

Five groups of five experienced Air Force pilots were taught carrierlandings in a flight simulator at the Naval Training Equipment Center undera control or one of four experimental training conditions.

Experienced Air Force pilots were sought to avoid the necessity ofteaching basic aircraft control skills. These pilots were, however,inexperienced with reference_to the specific carrier approach skills thatwere to be learned.in this experiment. Table 1 summarizes the flightexperience of the pilots.

APPARATUS

The Visual Technology Research Simulator (VTRS) consists of a fullyinstrumented T-2C navy jet trainer cockpit, a six-degree-of-freedomsynergistic motion platform, a 32-element G-seat, a wide-angle visual systemthat can project both computer-generated and model-board images, and anExperimenter/Operator Control Station (Collyer and Chambers, 1978). The.motion system, G-seat, and model board were not used in this experiment.

VISUAL SYSTEM. The background subtended 50° above to 300 below the pilot'seye level, and 800 to either side of.the cockpit. The aircraft carrierimage, which was a representation of the Forrestal (CVA 59) was generated bycomputer and projected onto the background through a 1025-line videosystem. A carrier wake and Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS) werealso generated by this method. Both daytime and nighttime carrier images

could be displayed (Figures 1 and 2).

Average delay between control inputs and generation of thecorresponding visual scene was approximately 116 msec (calculation of newaircraft coordinates required 50 msec while calculation of the visual scenecorresponding to the viewpoint from the.new aircraft coordinates requiredApproximately 50 msec and'generation of the new scene required 17 msec). An

updated aircraft position was computed every 33 msec, but the pictureposition was mpdated every 17 msec by extrapolating aircraft position inbetween each computed aircraft position.

The sky brightness for the day scene was 0.85 fL (foot-lambert) and theseascape brightness was 0.6fL. The brightest area of the day carrier was

4.0 fL. Except for the horizon, no features were represented in either the

sky oy sea. The night background luminance was 0,04 fL and the horizon andseascape were not visible. The night carrier appeared as lights of 0.8 fL ,1brightness outlining the landing deck and other features.

13

TABLE 1. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA ON PILOT SUBJECTS

Subject-

GroupAssignment

Age

Flight Hrs.

Aircraft

Simulator

Last 30 Days

Hrs. Aircraft

1

(3)

35

2030

10

15/

F-16

2

(3)

35

2363

470

20/

F-16

3

(1)

27

1233

550

22/

F-4D

4

(4)

32

2050

360

20/

F-16

5

(2)

33

1900

300

20/

F-4

6

(5)

32

1680

350

20/

F-4D

7

(4)

29

1250

300

17/

F-4D

8 9 10 11 12 13

(1) (5) (2) (3) (4) (3)

37 32 31 33 34 32

3040 1500 1825 1500 1956 2700

450 400 194 210 90 300

20/ 22/ 12/ 20/ 24/ 20/

F-4 F-4D F-16 F-4 F-16 F-16

continued

TABLE 1. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA ON PILOT SUBJECTS (Cont'd)

Subject

GroupAssignment

Age

Flight Hrs.Aircraft

Simulator

Cast 30 DaysHrs. Aircraft

14

(5)

37

2500

215

20/F-4

15

(2)

,38

3040

170

25/

F-4

16

(1)

45

3100

150

0

17

(1)

47

5500

500

15/

F-4

18

(4)

43

3500

295

5/

F-4

19

(2)

31

2175

200

20/

F-4

20

(5)

32

2080

210

18/

F-16

21

(4)

36

2035

300

0

22

(2)

42

5300

350

15/

F-4D

23

(5)

35

1600

390

25/

F-4D

24

(1)

39

2300

260

25/F-4

25

(3)

30

1480

250

14/F-4D

Key to Group Assignment

1) Freeze/Flyout Display2) Freeze Reset/Displacement3) Conventional Display4) Freeze/Flyout Displacement and Rate5) Freeze Reset/Displacement and Rate

Figure 1, Computer-Generated 1mage,of the Day Carrier, with FLOLS and Portion of Wake.

J2/I

20

a ,...;

a

/S.

a .

:

I

0 0

Figure 2. Computer-Generated Image af the Night Carrier, with FLOLS.

2.i.

NAVTRAEQURCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-TR-82-3

FRESNEL LENS OPTICAL LANDING SYSTEM. The configuration of the FLOLS isshown in Figure 3. In contrast to a carrier,FLOLS, which is generated byincandescent lights and can derefore be much brighter than other parts ofthe carrier, the simulated FLOLS was generated by the same sYstem as thecarrier image. It was therefore only as bright as the brightest areas ofthe ship (e.g., the white lines on the landing deck). To compensate for itslower relative brightness, the FLOLS was enlarged by a factor of 4.5 whenthe distance behind the ramp was greater than 2250 ft. From 2250 ft., thesize of the FLOLS was linearly reduced until it a.ttained 1.5X its normalsize at 750 ft. It remained that size throughout the remainder of theapproach. The FLOLS was centered 414 ft. down the landing deck and 61 ft.to the left of the centerline. It was set at a nominal 3.5° glideslope andwith a lateral viewing wedge of 52°.

SIMULATOR CONFIGURATION. The simulator was initialized with the aircraft at9000 ft. from the ramp, on the glideslope and centerline, and in theapproach attitude and configuration (hook and wheels down, speed brake out,15 units angle-of-attack (A0A), and power at 83%). The T-2C is normallylanded with full flaps, but flaps were at half extension for this experimentto more closely simulate approach speeds of typical fleet aircraft. Fuel

was set at 1320 lbs.to give 10,000 lbs.gross weight. A landing trial wasflown from the initial condition to wire arrestment or, in the case of abolter, to 1000 ft. past the carrier.

The carrier was pt on a heading of 360° at 5 knots. Environmentalw.nd was set at 349.5 with a velocity of 20.1 knots. This combination ofcarrier speed and environmental wind produced a relative component of 25knots down the landing deck.

Turbulence was used to increase the difficulty. The turbulence modelbuffeted the simulator computed aircraft model with a random forcingfunction.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT. VTRS has the capacity to assess performance at30 Hz for three classes of measure. First, aircraft position can bedetermined throughout the approach. Secondly, aircraft control surfaceactivity can be measured throughout the approach for elevator, aileron andrudder displacement. Finally, aircraft control position data can also becollected in order to determine throttle, control stick and rudder pedalactivity throughout the approach.

For each of these categories of measure, specific measures such as RootMean Square (RMS) error, absolute error, and percent time within apredefined tolerance band may be collected throughout the course of anapproach. In addition, these measuees can also be collected for anypredefined segment (or segments) of the approach (e.g., 1500 ft. totouchdown).

18

'

,- DATUM BAR/

-

r---11 1

I -II I

MEATBALL(SHOWINGRANGE OFMOVEMENT) I I

iL.---J1-------1

I

I

I I

\

DATUM BAR

... l' 'I*'

1 -I8.5' 4.125' 2.75 4.125'

,

8.5'

Figure 3. Configuration of FLOLS Simulation, Showing Datum Bars and Meatball.(Dimensions Shown are in Ft.).

2 4


Aside from continuous measures of glideslope performance, up to twoseparate snapshot measures may be collected at any point on the approach.This snapshot can contain any of the classes of measures deemed important.

[lie capacity also exists for collecting touchdown performance data fromwhich a measure of success of the landing may be calculated.

FREEZE AND RESET FEATURES. The simulator has the capacity to suspend theongoing simulation either manually, by the use of the "freeze" buttonlocated on the console, or the "freeze" feature may be instigatedautomatically based upon a specified error being committed by the trainee.Regardless of how the "freeze" is initiated, thiree actions are possiblefollowing the suspension of the simulation. First, the simulator may be ,

xeset to a corrected initialization point and the trainee can begin to flyfrom that point. Secondly, the current simulator state may be restored andthe trainee can continue the task from that point. Finally, the simulatormay,be set to some other, entirely different, initial condition and thetrainee can be required to perform some other task. The first two of thesepost "freeze" actions were employed here as experimental trainingconditions. These training conditions and the criteria for defining an

error are described below.

TRAINING CONDITIONS. Two experimental training procedures were used in theexperiment. For both procedures the simulator was frozen during theapproach if the pilot's vertical deviations from the glideslope exceededspecific criteria. Under one procedure, known as Freeze/Reset, when thesimulator was frozen, the pilots were advised on how they had incurred theirvertical error and were then reset to the glideslope with the simulator inits optimum approach attitude. Longitudinal distance from the carrier andlateral distance from the extended centerline of the landing deck were notchanged. Pilots continued their approach from the reset position. Underthe other procedure known as Freeze/Flyout, pilots were advised on how thvhad incurred their vertical error and how to correct it once they werereleased. They then continued their approach from the position and attitudein which the simulator had been frozen.

Two experimental training conditions were derived for each Freezeprocedure by applying two different criteria.

DISPLACEMENT ERROR CRITERION. This criterion "froze" the system if

Gi > Gc (1)

mhere ei = angular displacement of the aircraft from the3.5° glideslope,

ec . 0.5625 -r(0.3125 x 10-4), 0 < r < 6000and

r . range in feet from the carrier ramp.

This algorithm linearly increased the criterion in meatball units from 1.0at 6000 feet from the ramp to 1.5 at the ramp. "Freezes" did not occurbeyond 6000 feet from the carrier or past the ramp.

20


DISPLACEMENT AND DESCENT RATE ERROR CRITERION. The second error criterionwould result in a "freeze" if vertical deviation from the 3.5° glideslope,descent rate error, or some combination of the two was excessive. "Freezes"would occur:

if Mi > oc (2)

. 1for M = oi + 0.5625 oc ,

. angular rate of displacement in degrees/secondfrom the glideslope,

oc . 0.405 (0.49 x 10-4) (r + rK),

and rK . 524 feet, the distince from the carrier ramp tothe FLOLS origin.

This algorithm established a criterion that was a'weighted sum of thepreviously described displacement criterion and a descent rate error limitthat decreased linearly from 600 fpm at 6000 feet from the ramp to 200 fpmat the ramp.

"Freezes" were not permitted within 10 seconds of restarting the.approach after a previous "freeze." In addition, a "freeze" would not occurif, at the end of this 10second period, the subject was outside of theperformance criterion but was decreasing the error.

In the fifth training condition, designated the Conventional, thesimulator was not "frozen" during the approach but the subjects were givenfeedback as to their error (equivalent to that given the Freeze/Flywt.group) at the end of each trial.

PROCEDURE

Two subjects arrived at the simulation facility each day, Mondaythrough Thursday, during the experiment. They viewed a vi6e9 tape oncarrier landings which described the FLOLS and carrier landings. They werethen given detailed instructionstly *a Navy LSO on carrier landingtechniques. This instructional period lasted approximately 45 minutes.When convenient,.subjects were given this preliminary instruction in pairs,but the remaining experimental work was undertaken with only one subject inattendance 'except that subjects were occasionally permitted to monitor theperfonPance of others from outside the simulator if they had entirelycompleted their experimental work. Subjects were assigned to trainingconditions as they arrived at the simulator facility in accordance with apredetermined sequence that ensured the number of subjects having beentrained with each condipon remained approximately equal throughout theexperiment.

21

<r


After preliminary instruction, subjects were familiarized with the

cantrols of the simulator. They were then given a brief flight of

approximately two minutes before they commenced their carrier landing

training. The training sequence consisted of 24 approaches to the day

carrier,on the afternoon of their first day at the simulator facility, and

24 approaches to the night carrier on the morning of the second day. The

two 24trial blocks were diVided into sixtrial subblocks, the first four

trials of weth were flown under the appropriate training condition. The

last two trials of each subblock were used as probe trials to assess theprogress of learning, and were flown under the control condition. The LSO

gave no instructions during or following probe trials. Subjects were given

a ten minute rest after the twelfth trial of each 24trial block.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS

Position, attitude, and state of the simulated aircraft and elevator,throttle, aileron and rudder control positions were sampled at 30 Hz. The

simulator position, attitude, and state variables were used to deriveperformance measures for glideslope and AOA tracking. The control position

variables were used to derive control activity measures: The continuous

measures were derived for nonaverlapping 1500foot segments of the

approach.

Repeated measures analyses of variance were applied to root mean square(RMS) glideslope and RMS AOA errors and to flight control activity

measures. In addition, multiple discriminant analyses were applied to the

probe data to find linear combinations of scores that maximallydiscriminated the instructional treatments.

2, 2 2


SECTION III

RESULTS

TRAINING TRIALS

LEARNING EFFECTS. Several learning trends are apparent and show up asreductions in RMS error for glideslope (See Appendix A, Table Al) and AOA(Table A2), and as reductions in activity of elevator (Table A3) andailerons (Table A5). There was comparable reduction in throttle activity(Table A4), while average y'uddee pedal activity (Table A6) showed noreliable effects. Figure 4 shows a consistent trend towards reduction innumber of "freezes" (dith a reversal in transitioning from Day to Nightapproaches) in the experimental conditions. This also indicates a steadyimprovement in glideslope control throughout the experiment.

EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT EFFECTS. Only RMS glideslope error scores showed anystatistically reliable effect of experimental training condition's (TableAl). Glideslope errors of the Freeze/Reset groups were lower than for othergroups, .an unsurprising result in view of the fact that errors wereconstrained and frequently zeroed by the experimental manipulation. Thissuggests.that "freezes'" occurred frequently enough to reduce error andthereby validates the experimental manipulation to some extent.

PROBE TRrALS

LEARNING EFFECTS. While error scores and control activity tended todecrease throughout probe trials, these trends were generally reliable onlyfor the final,segment (last.1500 feet) of the Day approaches (session 1)with measures of RMS glideslope error (Table A7), RMS AOA error (Table A8),and elevator and aileron control activity (Tables A9 and All). In contrastto other measures, the reductions in aileron control activity werestatistically reliable over all four 1500-foot approach segments for bothDay,and Night conditions. RMS glideslope error and aileron control activityshowed a sharp increment in the transition from Day to Night approaches(which coincided with the break between sessions I and 2).

EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT EFFECTS. 4.1nivariate analyses showed no reliableinstructional treatment effects between probe-trial measures of RMSglideslope error, RMS AOA error and control activity. Tables A7 to Al2summarize the tests of statistical reliability for these measures. Thusneither instructional technique nor the method of determining error appearedto have any clear effect on learning.

In a further ,effort to seek a relationship between instructionaltechniques and learning, stepwise discriminant analyses were applied tothe*six measures of Tables A7 to Al2. The analyses were restricted to thedata of the final approach segment (1500 to 0 feet) because they showed themost consistent learning trends. Data from the first pair of probe trials

23

1.40

1.35

1.30

1.25

1.20

1.15

.,

1.10

1 05

1.00

.95

.90

.85

.80

SESSION 2STARTS HERE

(1-4) (7-10) (13-i 6) (19-22) (25-28) (31-34) (37-40) (43-46)

TRIALSSESSION 1 (DAY) SESSION 2 (NIGHT)

Figure--4. -Freezes per Trial--Averaged--AcrossF-reeze Conditrions

and Across 4-Trial Blocks of Training Trials.


were not included because they did not appear to follow the pattern of laterprobe trials, and because it was considered that differences due to learningmight not have become established at that point. Pairs of probe trials wereused to define dependent measures so that the numbers_of dependent measuresentered into the discriminant analyses were 18 (three probe pairs by sixmeasures) for the day analysis and 24 (four probe pairs by six measures) forthe night analysis. Day and night trials were analyzed separately toimprove the ratio of subjects to dependent measures. Nevertheless, theanalyses did not conform to the normal constraints (the size of the smallestgroup should exceed the number of variables, the total number of.subjectsshould be two to three times the number of dependent measures (Tatsuoka,1970)) and should be considered as purely exploratory.

The cumulative proportion of total dispersion accounted for by thediscriminant function of the Day data was 86% and the average correctclassification of subjects into groups (using the jackknifed procedure) was36% (expected chance value of 20%). The overall approximate F ratio wasstatistically reliable at p<.01. Aileron control activity for the third andfourth probe trials contributed most to the separation of the groups on thefirst canonical variable. The trend was towards smoother aileron controlinputs for pilots in the Conventional (no-"freeze") condition.

The cumulative proportion of the total dispersion accounted for by thediscriminant function of the Night data was 94% and the average correct.classification of subjects into groups was 68%. The overall approximate Fratio was statistically reliable at p<.01. Pedal control activity at thesixth and seventh probe pairs, throttle control activity at the fifth probepair and aileron,control activity at the sixth probe pair contributed mostto separation of\the groups on the first canonical variable. The trend wastowards smoother throttle and aileron control inputs for pilots in theCOnventional group, and for higher thnottle activity for both Freeze.groupsthat used the Displa ement-only criterion.

PROBE METHODOLOGY

Means of RMS glideslope errors and of aileron control activity in thefinal 1500 feet of the approach were examined for disruptive effects oftransitions between training and probe trials (Figures 5 and 6). Thissegment was chosen for analysis because it showed the strongest and mostconsistent learning trends in both training and probe trials. Theglideslope measure was examined because the experimental manipulations wereintended to:impact glideslope tracking. Aileron control activity was alsoexamined because of the strong and consistent learning effects that weredemonstrated with this measure.

There were no consistent differences between probe trials for theexperimental groups and the trials for the Conventional groups that were inthe probe locations. Nor were there consistent differences between firstand second probe trials, between first and second training trials followinga probe, or between training trials prior to and subsequent to a probe, thatwould suggest any disruption resulting from transitions between training andprobe trials.

2S

co PO cs)

Co

1 kw.

L?.

CO

NT

RO

L A

CT

IVIT

Y (

UN

ITS

/SE

C A

SD

EF

INE

D F

OR

TA

BLE

6)

e, ...C...

....

.....

/0"'

4,

......

......

.....

'NO...

.

......

...

.....

.....

.... .

......

KW

,

ar.

... S

.

.....

......

. ....

.....

......

.

0C

P-4

CO

CO

0

<'m

.1m

.M...

......

......

....

. ...

-4

C-Z8-211-121HdV/6-0900-0-8L N30dInInnlAVN


QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Descriptive data based on pilot responses to the paper-and-pencilquestionnaire are given by individual item in Appendix B. The results aresummarized below.

ON THE GENERAL ROLE.OF ERRORS IN TRAINING. Pilots generally.disagreed that"errors served little purpose" and also disagreed with the notion that"students may actually learn the errors they commit" (Item 12). Pilots alsodisagreed with the contention that "instructional methods that allow errorsto occurare inefficient". (Item 14). Instead, pilots in-the study pointedto error recognition as a basis for the development of correct performance(Item 18). Errors were seen as helping the student to focus on the criticalelements of task performance (Item 13), as well as exposing the student toout-of-tolerance situations which may, under later conditions, result fromfactors such as adverse weather, visibility/ceiling limitations, etc. (Item15). On the issue of whether correct performance is best thought of asresulting from a process of eliminating errors or from a process of shapingdesired resp,onses, pilots were undecided (Item 17).

ON THE'INSTRUCTIONAL USE OF THE FREEZE FEATURE. Pilots agreed that it waseasier to attend to the LSO's feedback while the simulator was "frozen" thanwhile trying to listen and fly the aircraft at the same time (Item 3).Pilots also agreed that use of the "freeze" aided development of errorrecognition (Item 5) but were undecided as to whether it might significantlydecrease the overall time required to learn the landing task. On thenegative side, pilots indtcated that the occurrence of the "freeze" early intraining was,"frustratinr (Item 8). In fact, pilots in the Freeze/Resetcondition indicated that they were more motivated by "trying to avoid the"freeze" than by trying to fly the task correctly" (Item 7). Pilots in theFreeze/Flyout condition tended to respond in somewhat the opposite manner.Regardless of the "freeie" condition to which subjects were assigned, allindicated that regaining control of the simulator following a "freeze"significantly added to the difficulty of the flying task (Item 2) and thatthe difficulty increased the closer the occurrence of the "freeze" to theterminal portion of the task (Item 2).

In general, the questionnaire data indicated that pilots perceivederrors as contributing positively to training, that the present use of the"freeze" feature was in some instances aversive, and that it served to addto the difficulty of learning the task in the simulator despite the factthat the "freeze" made it easier to attend to feedback from the LSO. So faras being -able to potentially reduce the time needed to learn the task,pilots perceived the present application of the "freeze" to have littlevalue.

28


SECTION IV

DISCUSSION

Learning appeared to be limited to the final 1500 feet of the approach;an observation that suggests that the experienced Air Forde pilots used inthe experiment were able to perform the early part of the task withstrategies similar to those used in normal landings. Only in the last partof the approach, where the altitude tolerances became very small-, did thepilots appear to develop new techniques. This probably reduced theeffectiveness of the expermental manipulation since it appears to haveoffered limited opportunity to "freeze," and to process errors subsequentlyduring the "freeze," in that part of the approach that required newlearning. Thus, the results did not clearly bear on the hypotheses relatingto the treatment of errors when they occur and the procedure for definingthe error criterion.

Nevertheless, the Freeze/Reset condition did result in smaller errorsin the final approach so that a modified hypothesis, that the magnitude of.errors permitted in training will affect learning, can be examined bycontrasting the probe performances of the Freeze/Reset groups with the probeperformances of the Conventional and Freeze/Flyout groups. This hypothesisvaries sli-ghtly from the original'one that postulated effects ofdifferential treatment of errors when they occurred.

The notion thatlearning will proCeed more quickly if students canpractice with fewer or smaller errors hasintuitive appeal. As notedpreviously'in this report, Holding (1970) has suggested that frequentlycommitted errors could become embedded in a student's response repertoireand thereby impede progression to asymptotic behavior. Lintern and Roscoe(1980) have suggested that training might benefit from manipulations thatconverge quickly on desirable control behavior. In addition, a criterionsetting process might be postulated where students who become used toperforming with few errors endeavor to acheive similar standards even undermore difficult conditions. Given the popularity of these notions, it seemsnoteworthy that there is do suggestion in the data that the reduced errorsduring Freeze/Reset training resulted in any differential rate of learningor terminal level of probe performance. While some instructional strategiesthat promote more accurate learning behavior do assist skill acquisition(e.g., Lintern, 1980)* it would appear that they do so by means other thantheir errorlimiting function.

There is some evidence, albeit insubstantial, that "freeze" had someadverse effects on performance during probe trials; in particular, thatsubjects training under the "freeze" conditions exhibited higher controlactivity. Pilot comments support the vlew that the "freeze" may be aversiveand that some applications of the "freeze" (e.g., the Freeze/Reset) maychange the nature of students' motivation in performing the task. That one

29


or more of these processes can affect perceptualmotor acquisition isindicated by the work of Payne and his associates (Payne, 1970; Payne andArtley, 1972; Payne and Dunman, 1974; Payne and Richardson, 1972). Thus

while there is no evidence that the use of "freeze" can facilitate learning,there is some suggestion that it can disrupt the integrity of the task andthereby impede learning on some aspects of the skill. In surinary, the

implications of the data for instructional procedures are that attempts toenhance performance during learning will not necessarily facilitate skillacquisition, while injudicious use of the "freeze" function may disrupt it.

From a methodological standpoint, the study is significant in that itsupports the use of the probe technique as an alternative to the moretraditional transferoftraining methodology in the preliminaryinvestigation of instructional treatment effects. In the present case, theprobe technique proved to be sensitive to learning effects as well as tosubtle performance differences which transferred from training trials to thesubsequent probe (criterion) trials.

The main methodological issues explored by examining the probe datawere in relation to possible disruptive effects from frequent transferbetween training and control conditions. There was no evidence of anydisruptive effects, although this conclusion must be tempered with theobservation that learning effects were minimal. The probe methodology couldbe valuable in a learning experiment, and its further examination with.datathat show a strong learning trend would be useful. Stability of the probe

trials was similar to stability of similarly located control trials. The

question of how many probe trials are necessary might best be answered by apower analysis (Hays, 1963) and would require data that show some worthwhiledifferences between groups. Nevertheless this preliminary analysis of theprobe technique suggests that it could be useful in future studies of skillacquisition.

30


SECTION V

RECOMMENDATIONS

Caution should be exercised when using the flight simulator's "freeze"feature d4ring the performance of a continuous control task such as thatinvolved(ip the approach to landing task. Other tasks to which this advicemight alsó apply are aerial refueling training and weapons delivery training.

The/fact that an instructional technique may result in better traineeperformahce during training should not be the sole criterion for itsimplementation. While an effective instructional technique can be expected\to aid and improve learning performances,,better performance on aninstructional task does not necessarily lead to improved performance on thecriterion task.

The probe methodology is recommehded as an alternative to thetraditional transfer-of-Veining paradigm, especially for exploratorystudies where training effectiveness may vary not only as a function ofinstructional approach but also as a function.of amount of training.

31/32

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-CJ0060-9/AFHRL-TR-82-3

REFERENCES

Adams, J.A. A closed-loop theory of motor behavior. Journal of MotorBehavior, 1971, 3, 111-149.

Bailey, J.S., Hughes, R.G., and Jones, W.E. Application of backward chaininto air-to-surface weapons delivery training. AFHRL-TR-7963, WilliamsAF , AZ: Operations Training Division, Air Force Human ResourcesLaboratory, April 1980. AD-A085610.

Caro, P.W. Some factors influencing transfer of simulator training. Profes-sional Paper HUMRRO4P-1-76. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources ResearchOrganization, August 1976.

Caro, P.W. Some current problems in simulator design testing and use. Pro-fessional Paper HUMRRO-PP-2-77. Alexandria, VA: Human ResourcesResearch Organization, March 1977.

Collyer, S.C. and Chambers, W.S. AWAVS, a research facility for definingflight trainer visual requirements. Proceedings of the Human FactorsSociety, 22 Annual Meeting, Detroit, 1978.

Hays, W.L. Statistics. 'New York: flolt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Hennessy, R.T., Lintern, G., and Collyer, S.C. Unconventional visualdisplays for fli9ht trainina. NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-5, Orlando,FL: Naval Training Equipment Center, November 1981.

Holding, D.H. Learning without errors. In L. Smith (Ed.), Psychology of' Motor Learning.. Chicago, IL: The Athletic Institute, 1970.

Hughes, R.G. Enabling features versus instructional features in flyingtraining simulation. Proceedings of the 1st Inter-service/IndustryTraining Equipment Conference. Orlando, FL: NAVTRAEQUIPCEN IH-316,

Hughes, R.G., Hannan, S., and Jones, W. Application of flight simulatorrecord/playback feature. AFHRL-TR-79-52, Williams AFB, AZ: OperationsTraining division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, AD-A081 752,December 1979.

Kaul, C.E., Collyer, S.C. and Lintern, G. Glideslope descent-rate cuingto aid carrier landings. NAVTRAEQUIPCEN IH-322. Orlando, FL: NavalTraining Equipment Center, October 1980.

Linterd, G. Transfer of landing skill after training with supplementaryvisual cues. 'Human Factors, 1980, 22, 81-88.

33


Linterri",-,G., and Roscoe, S.N. Visual cue augmentation in contact flightsimulation. In Roscoe, S.N. Aviation Psychology, Ames, Iowa: Iowa

State University'Press, 1980.

Payne, R.B. Functional properties of supplementary feedback stimuli.Journal o, Motor Behavior, 1970, 2, 37-43.

Payne, and Artley, C.W. Facilitation of psychoffiotor learning byclassically differentiated feedback,cges. Journal of Motor Behavior,

1972, 4, 47-55.- 1

Payne, R.B. and Dunman, L.S. Effects of classical differentiation on thefunctional properties of supplementary feedback cues. Journal of Motor

Behavior, 1974, 6, 47-52. /

Payne, R.B. and Richardson, E.T. Effects of classically differentiatedsupplementary feedback cues on tracking skill Journal of Motor

Behavior, 1972, 4, 257-261.

Smith; R.L., Pence, G:G., Queen, J.E., and Wulfeck, J.W. Effect of apredictor instrument on learning to land a simulated jet trainer.Inglewood, CA: ,OunTap and Associates, Inc., 1974.

Snow, R.E. Aptitudes and instructional methods: Research bn individual

differences in learning--related processes. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University School of Education, 1980.

Tatsuoka, M.M. Dis&iminant analysis: The study of 9roup differences.Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1970.

7 4

34

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL=TR

APPENDIX A.

RESULTS/DATA SUMMARY T 8LES

TABLE Al. GLIDESLOPE RMS ERROR (IN FEET):MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p<.01),

AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2): TRAINING TRIALS

S.

Distance From6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0the Ramp (Ft)

Means Day Nighi ';'Day Night Day Night Day Night

CONDITIONS

Freeze/Flyout 15.3 14.2 13.2 13.5 11.2 10.7 8%9 9.3Di§placement

Freeze/FlyoutDisp & Rate

13.0 13.5 14.4 11.5 10.2 9.1 8.1 8.0

Conventional 16.4 14.7 14.2 15:4 10.5 12.9 7.1 11.9

Freeze/Reset.Displacement 13.1 '9.7 11.0 11.3 8.6 7.2 4.9 4.9

Freeze/ResetDisp & Rate 8.6 9.1 7.7 8.8 6.7 6.6 4.1 4'2

TRAINING TRIALS

1-4 14.5 14.3 14,5 14.1 12.4 11.4 8.5 11.0

7-10 14.1 12.1 10.8 10.8 8.4 8.8 6.3 7.1

13-16 13.2 11.4 13.3 11.8 9.2 8.4 5.9 6.3

19-22 12.1, 11.1 10.6 11.5/1 8.4 8.9 6.4 6.5

Reliabilitiesand n2 p n

2

CONDITION

Day

Night

TRAINING

Day

Night

CT

Day

Night

* * .078

.053 .077 * *

**

Wel=

ANIP NO

n2

n2

n2

.079

.023

.032

Nadia

**

.055

.055

.023

we we

**

.118

.030

35 ,

,4


TABLE A2. ANGLE OF ATTACK RMS ERROR (IN AOA UNITS):MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p<.01),

AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2): TRAINING TRIALS

Distance Fromthe Ramp (Ft)

6000

Means Day

CONDITIONS

Freeze/Flyout.576

Displacement

Freeze/FlyoUt.415

Disp.& Rate

Conventfonal .370

Freeze/ResetDisplacement .597

Freeze/Reset.508

Disp & Rate

TRAINING TRIALS

1-4 . :562

7-10. .491

13-16 .463

19-22 .436

Reliabilitiesand n2 p

CONDITION

Day ....

Night......

TRAINING

Day , **

Night **

CT

Day....Night ....

- 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0

Night' Day Night Day Night Day Night

:425 :778 .580 133 .573 1.067 .845

.358 .653 .661 .590 .579 .795 .706

.355 .482 %437 .423 .407 .695 .701

.420 .697 .617 :661 .511 .736. .675

374/ .587 .494 .572 .493 .673 .554

.476 .727 .634 .671 .591 .905 .829

'389 .623 .565 .570 .561 .780 ..693

.363 .583 .520 .574 .467 .727 .646

.623 .473 .560 .427 ' .792 .622

n2 n2

n2 n2

...... .....

...... ...... ......

\1022 * .023 * .019 .053 .021

.033 ** .035 .** .040 ** .035

...... ..... .....

** .o7p ** 1,

.076 ......

36

NAVtRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-TR-82-3

TABLE A3. AVERAGE ELEVATOR STICK ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SECWHERE,RANGE OF CONTROL DISPLACEMENT IS FROM -1 TO +1 UNITS):

MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:15<.01),AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2): TRAINING TRIALS


6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0

Means Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night

CONDITIONS

Freeze/Flyout.108 .068 .110 .070 .128 .088 .202 .132Displacement

Freeze/Flyout.097 .085 .098 .085 .107 .090 .153. .110

Disp & Rate

Conventional .071 .086 .067 .083 ,075 .089 .127 .141

Freeze/Reset.154 .063 .142 .063, .210 .070 .299 .089

Displacement

Freeze/Reset.129 .087 .139 .083 .184 .089, . .324 .104

Disp & Rate

TRAINING TRIALS

.079 .134 .078 .169 .090 . .253 .127

.078 .106 .079 .135 .087 .220 .120

.077 .098 .076 .123 .085 .191 413

.079 .096 .076 .117 .083 .188 .106

1-4 .143

7-10 .103

13-16, .100

19-22 .091


2n2

n2 n2

CONDITION

Day

Night

TRAINING

Day

Night

CT

Day-

Night

06 .101.

.101.

.044 .029 * * .023 * * .015

37


TABLE A4: AVERAGE THROTTLE ACTIVITY (IN UNIfS/SECWHERE RANGE OF THROTTLE DISPLACEMENT IS FROM 0 TO +1 UNITS)

MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p<.01),AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2): TRAINING TRIALS

Distance Fromthe Ramp .(Ft)

6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0

Means pay Night Day Night: Day Night Day Night

CONDITIONS

'.081

.083

.081

'.080

.0B1

.081

.081

.080

.082

.041

.009

.008

.024

.012

.012

.015

.026

.623

.010

.011

.008

.009

.010

.069

.010

.069

.010

.043

.011

.010

.022

:015

.015

.017

.026

.024

.013

.013

.009

.010

.011

.011

.012

:010

.012

.063

.024

.019

.033

.023

, .031

.030

.0.35

.036

.028

.025

.Q22

.025

.016

.022

.024

.022

.023

Freeze/FlyoutDisplacement .112

Freeze/Flyout.081

Disp & Rate

Conventional .081

Freeze/ResetDisplacement

.095

Freeze/Reset.086

Disp &-Rete

TRAINING TRIALS

1-4 .087

7-10 .087

13-16 \.096

. 19-22 '.094


2n

2n2

n2

CONDITION

Day

Night

TRAINING

Day

Night

CT

Day

Ntght .071

_

_

38


TABLE A5. AVERAGE.AILERON STICK ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SECWHERE RANGE OF CONTROL DISPLACEMENT IS FROM -1 TO +1 UNITS):

MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*p<A5, **:p<.01),AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2): TRAINING TRIALS


6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0

Mans Diy Night Day Night Day. Night Day Night

CONDITIONS

Freeze/FlyoutDisplacement

Freeze/FlyoutDisp & Rate'

Conventional


Freeze/ResetDisp & Rate.

TRAINING TRIAL

.112

.107'

.071

.102

.099

.101

.094

.083

.079

.110

.104-

.098

.090

.090

.117

.113

.073

.106

.103

.111

.101

.100

.098

.107

.093

.090

.,082

.117

.108

.104

.092

.095

.129

.122

.079

.118

.118

.132

.110

.104

.105

..134

.099

.103

,102

.130

.128

.119

.107

:112

.168

.136

.100

.145

.147

:163

.133

.126

.132

.146

.123

.112

-.115

..130

.150

.127

.119

.112

1-4'

7-10

13-16

L9-22

.111

.099

.092

.090

Reliabilitiesand n2 p p n

2n2

n2

CONDITION

WO Oar

**

.....

....

.032

WM*

....

.053

*

.009

.050

NIO

**

__

.047 **

**

..,

/NO

.050

.044

Day

Night

TRAINING

Day

' Night

CT

Day

Night

39


TABLE A6. AVERAGE RUDDER PEDAL ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SEC,WHERE RANGE OF-PEDAL DISPLACEMENT IS FROM -1 TO +1 UNITS):

MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p<.01),AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2)': TRAINING TRIALS

..4*Dlstance Fromthe Ramp (Ft)

6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0


CONDITIONS



Conventional

Freeze/Reset.

Displacement

Freeze/ResetDisp & Rate

TRAINING TRIALS

.063

.059

.046

.060

.058

.055

.057

.060

.056

.049

.058

.062

..040

.061

.054

.056

.053-

.056

.058

.056

.041

.054

.056

.050

.052

.057

.052

.046

.057 .

.058

.034

.056

.049

.052

.050

.053

.061

.057

.041

.053

.057

.054

.053

.054

.053

.051

.060

.060

.036

.057

.052

.053

.054

.055

.074

.059

.045

.059

.060

.061

.059

.059

.058

.064

.061

.063

. .038

.056

.057

.059

.056

.059

1-4

7-10

13-16

19-22

Reliabilities

and n2 p n2

n2

n2

n2

CONDITION

Day

Night

TRAINING

Day

Night

CT

Day

Night

_

_

_

Th

WOE

MI6 410410

.

40


TABLE A7. GLIDESLOPE RMS ERROR (IN FEET):MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES.(*:p<.05, **:p<.01),

AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED Cn2): PROBE TRIALS

Distance Fromthe Ramp Ft)

6000 = 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0Z


CONDITIONS



Conventional


'Freeze/ResetDisp &.Rate

TRIALS

14.8

13.0

12.8

12.9

13.3

14.7

14.3

13.1

11.3 .

14.2

12.8

15.0

11.0

11.1

14.9

11.7

12.3

12.3

10.8

11.1

11.3

14.9

11.8

12.3

11.6

13.0

11.1

12.7

11.1

12.5

14.2

9.9

12.9

11.7

11.3

12.4

10.0

8.9

8.3

10.9

8.1

9.8

9.0

, 10.0

8.1

9.3

9.4

10.1

10.7

8.8

10.6

10.1

8.8

9.2

7.6

6.6

6.1

7.8

7.6

9.3

6.3

6.7

'6.2

7.4

9.7

8;4

8.1

7.9

*9.6

8.6

7.3

7.8

,BROBE

' 11-12

17-18

23-24

Reliabilitiesand n2 n

2n2

CONDITION

-_

'"1

WO. OP

.11.

* * .082

Day

Night

PROBE

Day

Night

CP

Day

Night

41


TABLE A8. ANGLE OF ATTACK RMS ERRORMEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p<.01),

AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (i2): PROBE TRIALS


6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0

Means Day Night Day Night Day Night' Day Night

CONDITIONS



Conventional'


Freeze/ResetOcisp & Rate

PROBE TRIALS

.59

.43

.35

.55

.53

.51

.43

.47

.38

.43

.31

.43

.42

.40

.42

.37.

.37

'.61

.66

.45

.77

.70

.67

.66

.62

.62

.59

.73 ,

.39

.77

.53

.65

.59.

.58

.58

.76

.59

.45

.61

.54

.67

.57

.56

.56

.59

.57

.39

.66

.50

.57

.58

.52

.49

1.07

.70

.60

.87

.90

1.14

.72

..80

.65

.71

.83

.61

.70

.55

.68

.74

.65

.65

5-6

11-12

17-18

23-24


2na n

2n2

CONDITION

Day

Night

PROBE

Day

Night

CP

Day

Night WOO/

* * .073

42 40


TABLE A9. AVERAGE ELEVATOR STrCK ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SECWHERERANGE OF CONTROL DISPLACEMENT IS FROM -1 TO +1 UNITS):

MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p<.01),AND VALUES OF ETA SQUARED (n2): PROBE TRIALS


6000 - 4500 4500 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0


CONDITIONS

.099

.101

.066

.105

.139

.117

.098

.101

.093

.071

.089

.073

.066

.089

.074

.083

.077

.077

.108

.104

.065

.136

:147

.143

.104

.105

.096

.070

.090

.074

.o66,

.087

.075

.082

.076

.076

.126

.11

.071

.179

..193

.164

.127

.129

.124

.082

.099

.081

..077

.097

.086

.094

.085

-.084

.195

;169

.132

.282

.348

.269

.225

.205

.2

.121

.147

.130

.115

.123

.127

.14

.116

.126



Conventional


Freeze/ResetDisp A Rate

PROBE TRIALS

5-6

11-12

17-18

23-24


2P n

2p n

2P n

2

CONDITION

Day ....

Night

PROBE

Day .... -- -- * -.01

Night .... .... ....

CP

Day.... _-

Night ....

43

4,9


TABLE A10. AVERAGE THROTTLE ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SECWHERE RANGE OF THROTTLE DISPLACEMENT IS FROM 0 TO +1 UNITS):

MEANS, STATISTICAL RELIABILITIES (*:p<.05, **:p(.01),AND VALUES -OF ETA SQUARED (n2): PROBE TRIALS

Distance From6000 - 4500 4506 - 3000 3000 - 1500 1500 - 0the Ramp (Ft)


CONDITIONS



Conventional



PROBE TRIALS

.103

.081

.079

.083

.084

.084

.086

.093

.082

.081

.080

.079

.080

.092

.081

.090

.08

.079

.035

.008

.008

.012

.014

.012

.015

.023

.011

.010

.008

.007

.009

.010

.009

.01

.008

.009

.038

.009

.009

.013

.016

.015

.016

.024

.013

.013

.010

.009

.010

.012

.011

.012

.010

.010

.053

.024

.016

.036

.027

.031

.032

.039

.024

.025

.027

.017

.027

.020

.025

.024

.022

.022

5-6

11-12

17-18

23-24


2n2

n2

n2

CONDITION

Day

Night

PROBE

Day

Night

CP

Day

Night

IMAM

Ma Oak

OROS

.022

MA ORO

1

44 h.

NAVTRAEQUIPaN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-TR-82-3

-

TABLE All. AVERAGE AILERON STICK ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SECWHERE,RANGE OF CONTROL DISPLACEMENT IS FROM -1 TO +1 UNITS):


Distance Fromthern Ramp (Ft)

6000 - 4500 4500 - 3000 3000'- 1500 1500 - 0

Means Day Night Day Night Day Wight DaY Night

CONDITIONS

.104

.11

.068

.089

.097

.104

.091

.093

.088

.095

.116 4

.085

.096

.110

.107

.109

.089

:096

.118

.117

.068

.096

.105

.113

.098

.098

.094

.101

.123

.091

.102

.120

.114

.119

.097

.098

.137

.125

.08 ,

.115

.113

.127

:113

.114

.103

.128

.142

.109

.125

.134.

.133

.146

.117

.115

.162

.133

.109

.147

.14

.159

.138

.14

.115

.145

.158

.133

.160

.140

.174

.156

.133

.125

Freeze/FlyoutDitplacement


Conventional



PROBE TRIALS

5-6

11-12

17-18

23-24

Reliabilitiesand n2 P n

2P n2 P n

2P n

2

CONDITION

Day __ __ __

Night

PROBE

Day * .019 ** ..024 * .026 ** .059

Night * .023 ** .031 ** .032 * .044

CP

Day -- * .063

Night __ __

45


TABLE Al2. AVERAGE RUDDER PEDAL ACTIVITY (IN UNITS/SECWHERE RANGE OF PEDAL DISPLACEMENT IS FROM -1 TO +1 UNITS):



60006

- 4500" 4500 - 3000 3000 - 1500 15Q0 - 0


CONDITIONS

.057

.058

.042

.051

.058

.053

.053

.056

.051

.051

.062

.054

.042

.062.

.055

.056

.054

.051

.057

.056

.038

.047

.056

.052

.05r

.051

.049

.045

.057

.052

.037

.058

.049

.052

.05

.048

.065

,.057

.038

.048

.058

.058

.053

.053

.049

.051

.062

.052

.040

.058

.053

.056

.054

.049

.073

.056

.046

.055

.062

.066

.059

.057

.052

.064

.067

.059

.044

.060

(1/4/

.067

.059

.056

.051



Conventional



PROBE TRIALS

5-6

11-12

A 17-18

23-24


2n2 n2 n2

CONDITION

Day

Night

PROBE

Day

Night

CP

Day

Nighi

-

t-

46

4


APPENDIX B

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OFiNDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE:FREEZE/RESET AND FREEZE/FLYOUT CONDITIONS.

SYMBOLS: FREEZE/FLYOUT = 0; FREEZE/RESET = A

1) Use of the freeze ifeature may be used to significantly decrease the.overall training time required to learn the landing task.

1

StronglyDisagree

2 .L.CL3

Neut

.8 T. 2.9c = 1.32 a = 1.10

4 5_

StronglyAgree

2) -Regaining control of the simulator following a freeze significantlyadded to the difficulty of the flying task in the simulator (whenresponding, consider each of the following phases of the maneuver

separately): ,

(a) ."IN THE MIDDLE" (first 1/5)

1

Stronglypisagree

\ral Strongly41e. Agree

7 = 2.2 'T. 2.6a = .79 a = 1.07

4 5

(b) "IN THE GROOVE" (second 1/3)

01 5

Strongly utral Strongly

2

DiSagree, Agree

a = 1.1 a = 1.1.

(c) "IN CLOSE" 5-10 seconds from,the ramp)

1

itronglyDisagree

2

Neu

3

T. 3.7 = 4.2a = 1.49 a = .92

47

5

4- 11 5

StronglyAgree .

3

4


(d) "AT THE.RAMO"

/ 1 2 3

Strongly NeutraDisagree

= 4 = ;5

a = 1.49 a = .97

5

StronglyAgree

3) It was significantly easier to.attend to the LSO's feedback while'frozen than while trying to listen and fly the Aircraft at the same time.

1

StronglyDisagree

2

Neu

3 -4 5

StronglyAgree

= 3.6 7 .8

a = .70 o 1.14

4) Improvements in performance were highly correlated with a decrease in

the number of freezes.

,1

StronglyDisagree

2

Neu

3 4 5

StronglyAgree

= 3.5 7= 3.5,a .85 a = .85

5) Using the freeze feature to explicitly identify pilot errors duringthe "training" trials made it easier to detect errors on "test" trialswhtn no feedback was given and when no freezes were in effect.

1

StronglyDisagree

2

A

-)-(= 3.4

a = 1.35

3

al

= 3.5a = 1.08

4 5

StronglyAgree

6) Compared.with the usUal practice of givii,g detailed feedback at the

conclusion of a task, providing feedback immediately following an rror is

more effective.

1 2 a-

StronglyDisagree

7' 3.3

a = 1,16

ral

5

StronglyAgree

7) In learning the task, I was more motivated by trying to avoid a freeze

than by trying to fly the task correctly.

1

StronglyDisagree

3

Neutral

a . 1.42 a48

5

StronglyAgree

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHK-TR-82-3

8) The occurrence of the freeze was "frustrating" early in training.

1 2 3

StronglyDisa9ree

= 3.5a = 1.39

Ne

4-

= 4.3a = 1.06

StronglyAgree

9) A helpful feature would be to present a "warning" signal (such asan auditory.tone) prior to freezing the visual system.

1 2 3 -4 5

Strongly Neu StronglyDisagree ,Agree

r.-Y = 3.5

. ' a = 1.58 a = .82

10) Night approaches were more dqficult to learn than th*e Day approaches.

1

1-

5

Neutra

4

StronglyDisagree Pe Agree

L 2

7 = 2.6ay1.35 a . 1.05

11) Errors were more difficult to detect during the Night approaches thanduring the Day approaches. A

StronglyDisagree

2

Neutra

7 = 3a = 1.05

4 5

StronglyAgree

12) "'Errors serve little purpose, since students may actually learn theerrors that they commit."

DisagreeStrongly

2

tral

3- .-.. 4 5

StronglyAgree1

-

7 = 2.3 7= 2.4a = .95 a = 1.07

13) "Errors help th student to focus on the critical elements bf task

/performance."

1

StronglyDisagree

. 2

49

5

Strongly.Agree


14) "Instructional methods that allow errors to freely occur are ineffi-cient, since students spend valuable training time practicing incorrectresponses."

1 2- -4- -3 1 4 5

Strongly Neu al StronglyDisagree Agree

7 = 2.3 7 = 2.8a . 1.06 a = 1.03

15) "In committing errors, students learn how to recover from situationswhich at some later time may be caused not be task-specific errors but byconditions beyond their control (for example, by adverse weather, visi-bility, turbulence, etc.)."

1

StronglyDisagree

2 3

Neutr

= .74 a = .52

16) "Pointing out 'errors' frustrates students, whereas pointing out whata student is doing, 'right' is reinforcing."

5

StronglyAgree

1

StronglyDisagree

2

StronglyAgree

17) "Correct perfprmance resulfs from a process of eliminating errors andnot from a process of shaping desired performance."

02 3- 4 5

StronglyAgree

1

StronglyDisagree

-X- = 3.0

a = .94

Neutral

X = 3.2a = 1.03

18) "A student's recognition of what is consfdered correct is dependentupon his being able to recognize what is incorrect (that is, an error)."

1

StronglyDisagree

2

= 3.8a = .42

Neu

3 4 5

StronglyAgree

= 4.3a = .67

t-

50 t)


DISTRIBUTION LIST

Naval Training Equipment CenterOrlando, Florida 32813

Document Processing DivisionDefense Documentation CenterCameron StationAlexandria, VA 22314

JSAS Manuscript Office1200 Seventeenth Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20036

American Psychological AssocPsyc INFO Document Control Unit1200 Seventeenth Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20036

Human Factors SocietyAttn: Bulletin EditorP. O. Box 1369Santa Monica, CA 90406

Acquisitions LibrarianERIC Processing & Reference

FacilityRugby Avenue

Wthesda, MD 20014

65 LibraryDivision of Public DocumentsGovernment Printing Office

12 Washington, D.C. 20402

Technical LibraryNaval Training Equipment Center

,Orlando, FL 328133

Technical Library (DRXAM-TL)U.S. Army Material Development& Readiness Command

1 5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333

The Van Evera LibraryHuman Resources Research

2 Organization300 North Washington StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

Unit X2 Documents Expediting Project

Library of CongressWashington, D.C. 20504

Literature Resources Department 1

BioScience Information Service2100 Arch StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103

Acadeinic Library 2

ATZI-AG-ALBBldg 400, Room 205Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46216

AULSE-61-296Maxwell AFB, AL 36112

Center LibraryNavy Personnel Research and

Development CenterSan Diego, CA 92152

,

'CONRAD Technical LibraryU.S. Army gbhal Schoolht,Gordon4 GA 30905

USAF DFSLBD 1

USAF Academy, CO 80840

Milne Library, Document Section 1

State University Collegeof Arts & Sciences

Geneseo, NY 14454

U.S. Army Transportation School 1

Attn: LibraryFt Eustis,,VA 23604

1 Aerospace Systems, Inc.Research Library121 Middlesex Turnpike

3 Burlington, MA 01803

ARI Field Unit - USAREURc/o DCSPERAttn: Library

1 APO, NY 09403

1 of 8

Chief of Naval Education& Training Support

Research LibraryPensacola, FL 32509

r; tf

1

1

2


Old Domilion University 1

Performance Assessment Lab1425 W..49th StreetNorfolk, VA 23508

Prof. Ralph E. FlexmanUniversity of Illinois'Institute of KviationTerminal Bldg - Willard AirportSavoy, IL 61874

ATC/XPTD 10

Randolph AFB, TX 78148

HQ USAF/DPXHMMWashington, D.C. 20330

HQ USAF/MPCDWBolling AFB, Bldg 626


Deputy Chief of Naval Operations(MPT)

uP-01TWashington, D.C. 20370

Headquarters, US Marine Corps 1

(Code MPI-20)

Washington, D.C. 20380

HQDA (DAPE-MBR)Washington, D.C. 20310

US Coast Guard (G-P-1/62)400 Seventh Street, SWWashington, D.C. 20590

OAD (E & LS)ODDR&E

Room 3D129, PentagonWashington, D.C. 20301

DASD (MRA & 0/TrainingRoom 3B922,,PentagonWashington, D.C. 20301

ODASD(PM)

Attn: Major W.S. SellmanRoom 3B930; PentagOnWashington, D.C. 20301

HQ AFSC/DLSAndrews AFBWashington, D.C. 20334

AMD/RDUBrooks AFB, TX 78235

1

1

1

HQ USAF/MPPTWashington, D.C. 20330

AQ USAF/SAMI,Room BD936, The PentagonWashington, D.C. 20330

ATC/XPTIARandolph AFB, TX 78148

DCT/TTGHStop 62Chanute AFB, IL 61868

.Keesler/TTGHXKeesler AFB, MS 39534

LTTC/TTSLowry AFB, CO 80230

.STTC/TTGHR

Stop 32Sheppard AFB, TX 76311

SAF/ALRWashington, D.C. -20330

AFMPC/MPCYPR2 Randolph AFB, TX 78148

AFOSR/NL (Dr. A. R. Fregley)Bolling AFBWashington, D.C. 203321

1

2 of 8

Center for Naval AnalysesAttn: Dr. R. F. Lockman'2000 N. Beauregard StreetAlexandria,'VA 22311

CommanderHQ, TRADOCAttn: ATTNG-PAFt Monroe, VA 23651

NAYTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-TR-82-3

DR, Naval Recruiting,CoMmand(Code N22)

401\5 Wilson Blvd.

Arltngton, VA 22203

Det 4,\ HQ MAC

Wright4atters-o-n-AF8, OH 45433

Director\Training Analysis & Evaluation

Group \

Department 6f the NavyOrlando, FL 32813

DMDC (DPMYL)550'Camino El EsteroMontero, CA 93940

MEPCOM/MEPCTFt Sheridan, IL 60037

MIISA Branch OfficeBldg S-237Naval Air Station MemphisMillington, TN 38054

PERI-OUUS Army Institute for 'the

Behavioral & Social Sciences5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333

Personnel & Training ResearchPrograms

Office of Naval Research (Code 458)Psychological Sciences Division800,N. Quincy StreetArlington, VA 22217

1 AFHRL Technology OfficeAttn: MAJ Duncan L. DieterlyNASA-Ames Research CenterMS 239-2Moffett Field, CA 94035

1

7-AFSC-L-taison Office

NASA-Ames Research Center1 Moffett Field, CA 94035-

1

Commanding OfficerAttn: ESD/ESS

Marine Corps Communication-Electronics School

Marine Corps BaseTwentynine Palms, CA 92278

National Defense University2 Research Directorate

Ft McNair, D.C. 20319

1

1

1

1

1 Dr. Michael Letsky (OP 102B/WEM) 1

R&D Studies Branch (Mppower,Personnel and thining)

Navy DepartmentWashington, D.C. 20350

1 H.P. VanCottNational Bureau of StandardsA-375 Metrology BldgWashington, D.C. 20234

3 Naval Civilian Personnel CommandAttn: James S. HerndonSouthern Field DivisionNorfolk, VA 23511

uS Army Institute of Administration 1

Attn: ATZI-DCO-EAft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46216

US Army Research Institute forthe Behavioral and Social

/SciencesAttn: PERI-OBP. O. Box 2086Ft Benning, GA 31905

1550 ATTW (MAC) (DOTEE) Stop #64 1

Kirtland AFB, NM 87117

3 of 8

COL A. J. AffleckDirector of Psychology - NavyDepartment of Defense (Navy Office)Camberra ACT 2600AUSTRALIA

Mr. J. AndersonHead of Personnel PsychologicalDtvision

C/O RAE, APREFarnborough, Hants, ENGLAND

LT COL Joseph BirtAerospace Medical Research

Laboratories/HEWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

5d

1

1

1

1

2

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN

Dr. Ralph R. CanterUS Army Research InstituteField UnitP. O. Box 16117Fort Harrison, IN 46216

Mr. K. CorkindaleAD/SAG(A)3Main BuildingWhitehall, London SWIA 2HBENGLAND

MAJ Charles A. U. Cotton'Canadian Forces PersonnelApplied Research Unit

1107 Avenue RoadToronto, Ontario M5N 2E4CANADA

Dr. Ralph DusekUS Army Research Institute

for the Behavior0 and SocialSciences

5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333

Mr: E. ElliottSP (N)Archway South, Old Admiralty BldgSpring GardensLondonSWLA-2BE, ENGLAND-

Dr. John FordNaval Personnel Research andDevelopment Center

San Diego, CA 92152

Dr. K. GardnerHead of APUAdmiralty Marine Technology

EstablishmentQueens RoadTeddington, Middlesex, UK

USAFSAM/VN (Dr. Bilfce Hartman)

Brooks AFB, TX 78235

Dr. D. HopkinRAF Institute of Aviation and

MedicineFarnborough, HampshireENGLAND

78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-82-3

1 Mr. Les InnesBehavioral Sciences Divis.ionDefense and, Civil Institute

of Environmental MedicineP. O. Box 2000Downsview, Ontario M3M

1 CANADA

1

Mr. J. JamesResearch BranchHQ Support CommandRAF UpwoodHuntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE17 1PJENGLAND

Dr. Ed JohnsOnUS Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue2 Alexandria, VA 22333

1

1

1

MAJ E. J. LewisProductivity Development DivisionDepartment of ProductivityCanberra ACT 2600AUSTRALIA

LibrarianRAN Research LaboratoryP. O. Box 706Darlinghurst, NSW 2010AUSTRALIA

Dr. John E.'MayhoodDirector General, PersonnelResearch & Development

National Defense HeadquartersOttawa, Ontario KlA 0K2CANADA

COL A. G. OwensD. Psych-ADepartment of DefenseCanberra ACT 2600AUSTRALIA

4 of 8

Dr. D. G. PearceBehavioral Science Division, DCIEMP. O. Box 2000Downsview, Ontario M3M 3B9CANADA

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-9/AFHRL-82-3

Dr. M. RadomskiAssociate Chief, Defense and

Civil Institute of EnvironmentalMedicine

P. O. Box 2000Downsview, Ontario M3M 3B9CANADA

Dr. L. A. RyderDirectorate of Psychology - Air

ForceDEFAIR - Russell Offices

Canberra A.C.T. 2600AUSTRALIA

Dr. H. Wallace SinaikoSmithsonian InstitutionManpower Research801 N. Pitt StreetAlexandria, VA 22314

Dr. K. N. AcklesDefense Research and DevelopmentCanadian Defense Liaison Staff2450 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20008

Mr. K. W. TilleyACS(P) (RAF)

Main BuildingWhitehal1,4London SWIA 2HBENGLAND

Dr. Martin TolcottOffice of Naval Research800 N. Qdincy StreetDepartment of the NavyArlington, VA 22217

Dr. Martin WiskoffNavy Personnel Research andDevelopment Center

San Diego, CA 92151

Dr. Russell BrownDefense and Civil Institute ofEnvironmental Medicine

P. O. Box 2000Downsview, Ontario M3M 3B9CANADA

2 IPC Science and Technology PressLimited

Westbury HouseBury StreetGuildford, Surrey, GU2, 5AWENGLAND

1.

1

4

1

1

1

1

Commanding OfficerCanadian Forces Personnel AppliedResearch Unit

Suite 6004900 Yonge StreetWillowdale, Ontario MZN 6B7CANADA

LT COL Dennis J. Armstrong1 Psych Research UnitDepartment of Defense (Army Office)Campbell Park OfficesCANBERRA ACT 2600AUSTRALIA

The Air Attache (S38)Embassy of Australia1601 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20036

1

1

2

1

Dr. J. Huddleston 1

Head of Personnel PsychologyArmy Personnel Research Establishmentc/o RAE, FarnboroughHants, ENGLAND

.The Naval AttacheEmbassy of Australia1601 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20036

5 of 8

Dr. Jesse OrlanskyScience and Technology DivisionInstitute for Defense Analyses400 Army-Navy DriveArljngton, VA 22202

HumRRO/Western Division/CarmelOffice

27857 Berwick DriveCarmel, CA 93923

Sev.ille Research Corporation

Suite 400Plaza BuildingPensacola, FL 32505

'( 4

1

1

1

1


4444th OPS SQDN (OTD)Luke AFB, AZ 85309

TAC/DOOSLangley AFB, VA 23665

LTATG/TTDILittle Rock AFB, AR 72076

National Aviation FacilitiesExperimental CenterLibrary

Atlantic City, NJ 08405

Dr. Donald W. ConnollyResearch PsychologistFederal Aviation AdministrationFAA NAFEC ANA-230 Bldg 3Atlantib City, NJ 08405

CoMmanding OfficerAir Force Office of ScientiflicResearch

Technical Library'Washington, D.C. 20025

Technical LibraryOUSDR&ERoom 30122Washington, D.C. 20301

OUSDR&E (R&AT) (E&LS)CAPT Paul R. ChatelierWashington, D.C. 20301

CommanderNaval Air Development CenterAttn: Technical LibraryWarminster, PA 18974

Chief of Naval Operations (MPT)OP-115Attn: M. K. MalehornArlington AnnexWashington, D.C. 20350

Assistant Secretary of the NavyResearch, Engineering & SystemsWashington, D.C. 20350

2 Office of Deputy Chief of Naval. 1

OperationsManpower, Personnel and Training

1 (0P-01)


1 Chief of Naval OperationsOP-987HAttn: Dr. R. G. Smith


1

Chief of Naval OperationsOP-596


Chief of Naval OperationsOP-5938Washington, D.C. 20350

Chief of Naval Material1 MAT 08D2

CP5, Room 678Attn: Arnold I. RubinsteinWashington, D.C. 20360

1

Cgmmander

Naval Air Systems CommandTechnical LibraryAIR-950DWashington, D.C. 20361

1 Commander

Naval Air Systems CommandAIR 340FWashington, D.C. 20361

1

1

CommanderNaval Air Systems CommandAIR 413Attn: LCDR J. H. AshburnWasqngton, D.C. 20361

Naval Research LaboratoryAttn: LibraryWashington, D.C. 20375

1 HQ Marine CorpsCode APCAttn: LTC J. W. BiermasWashington, D.C. 20380

6 of 8

1

1

1

1

1


Scientific AdvisorHeadquarters US Marine CorpsWashington, D.C. 20380

1

Scientific Technical Information 1

OfficeNASA


Federal Aviation Administration 1

Tednical LibraryBureau Research and DevelopmentWashington, D.C. 20590

CommanderNaval Air Test CenterCT 176Patuxent River, MD 20670

Dr. J. D. FletcherDefense Adv. Research ProjectsAgency (CTO)

1400 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22209

Comanding OfficerNaval Education Training Programand Development Center

Attn: Technical LibraryPensacola, FL 32509

1

1

1

Chief of Naval Education and 1

TrainingCode 01APensacola, FL 32509

Commanding Officer 1

Naval Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratory

Code L5Department of PsychologyPensacola, FL 32512

ChiefARI Field UnitP. O. Box 476Ft Rucker, AL 36362

Chief of Naval Air Training 1

Attn: Code N2NAS

Corpus Christi, TX 78419

7 of 8

Chief of Naval Education andTr4ining Liaison Office

Human Resource LaboratoryFlying Training DivisionWilliams AFB, AZ 85224

CommanderEacificAissile Test CenterPoint Mugu, CA 93042

Commander,Naval Weapons CenterHuman Factors Branch (Code 3194)*Attn: Mr. Ronald A. EricksonChina Lake, CA 93555

Officer in ChargeNaval Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratory

Box 29407New Orleans, LA 70189

CAPT James GoodsonCode L-32Naval Aerospace Medical Research,Laboratory

Pensacola, FL 32512

Mr. James BasingerASD/YWEWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Mr. Don GumAFHRL/OTTWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Mr. Eric MonroeAFHRL/OTRWilliams AFB, AZ 85224

Dr. Thomas LongridgeAFHRL/OTRWilliams AFB, AZ 85224

Dr. Kenneth BoffAFHRL/LRWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Mr. Brian GoldiezPM TRADEAttn: DRCPM-PND-RENaval Training CenterOrlando, FL 32813

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1


Mr. Robert WrightAeromechanics Lab (USAAVRADCOM)Ames Research Center, MS 239-2Moffett Field, CA 94035

Dr. David C. NagelLM-239-3NASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035

Mr. Will BickleyUSARI Field UnitP. O. Box 476Fort Rucker, AL 36362

Mr. James L, CopelandNASA Langley Research CenterMS 125-BHampton, VA 23365

AFHRL/OTLNWilliams AFB, AZ 85224

AFHRL/TSZBrooks AFB, TX 78235

Dr. Genevieve HaddadAFOSR/NLBolling AFBWashington, D.C. 20332

Lt. Col. Jefferson KoonceUSAFA/DFBLUSAF Academy, CO 80840

CDR Joseph FunaroCode 602.Human Factors EngineeringDivision

Naval Air Development CenterWarminster, PA 18974

Lt. Col. David L. Hosley,OASD/MRA&L, Room 2D261

Cv/ PentagonWashington, D.C. 20330

15 AF/DOTPMarch AFB, CA 92518

93 BMW/D05Castle AFR, CA 95342

1 USAFTAWC/TNEglin AFB., FL 32542

U.S. Army Research Institute 2

Field Unit1 Attn: Mr. C.A. Gainer

P. O. Box 476Fort Rucker, AL 36362

1

Study Center1 National Maritime Research Center

Kings Point,.NY 11024

Officer CommandingRAF School of Education

1 RAF NewtonNottingham NG13 8HLENGLAND

AD/HF(A)20 Ministry ef Defense

Main BuildingWhitehall, London SW1A 2HB

38 ENGLAND

Dr. William E. Collins1 FAA, CAMI (AAC 118)

P. O. Box 25082Oklahoma City, OK 73125

ASD/YW-AZS (Capt. L. D. Puckett) 1

1 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

1

1

1

1

1

8 of 8

HQ USAFA/RREUSAF Academy, CO 80840

Chief of Naval Education andTraining

TDT&E BranchPensacola, FL 32508

Army Training Support Center 1

ATIC-SMDAttn: James S. HerndonFort Eustis, VA 23604

3400 TCHTW/TTS (Lt. Eckert) 2

Lowry AFB, CO 80230

4

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 220 600

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 220 600