Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations
description
Transcript of Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations
![Page 1: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather
SituationsBeth Blickensderfer, Ph.D.John Lanicci, Ph.D. MaryJo Smith, Ph.D.
Michael VincentRobert Thomas, M.S.A, CFII
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityDaytona Beach, FL
Presentation given at the Friends and Partners of Aviation Weather Fall Meeting. October 23-24, 2013; Las Vegas, NV.
![Page 2: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Problem Research has shown that GA pilots using data
linked NEXRAD Radar do not understand all the facets of radar. Used data link radar for tactical decision making
(Latorella & Chamberlain, 2002). Made tactical decisions when the radar resolution
was higher (Beringer & Ball, 2004). A training module, “NEXRAD in convective
weather,” improved young pilots’ radar knowledge, application skills, and confidence in using NEXRAD (Roberts, Lanicci, & Blickensderfer, 2011).
![Page 3: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Purpose of current study
Further evaluate the Roberts et al. (2011) course: non-ERAU or current university students another region of the U.S. Part 61
![Page 4: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Current Study
2 x 3 Mixed Design Independent Variables:
Location▪ KC x Chicago x Boston
Training▪ Pre-training scores x Post-training scores
Dependent Variables Radar Knowledge Test Scenario Application Test Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
![Page 5: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Participants Kansas City
N = 24 Age: M = 58.9 (SD = 10.0) Flight hours: M = 2348.3 (SD = 2832.83) Mdn = 765 20 held instrument rating
Chicago N = 18 Age: M = 58.2 (SD = 10.6) Flight hours: M = 2370.6 (SD= 4150.13) Mdn = 487.5 14 instrument rating
Boston N = 32 Age: M = 50.7 (SD= 14.8) Flight time: M = 2363.8 (SD = 4998.49) Mdn = 380 19 instrument rating
Recruited through flying clubs, the Civil Air Patrol, and flyers posted in FBO’s Participants compensated with $50 and WINGS credit (and lunch).
Robert et al. (2011):
31 ERAU pilots received course
Mean age: 21.8 years
Mean flight time: 328.47 hours
![Page 6: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Participants
Private Commerci
al Air Transport
Pilot
nPart 61
Part 141
Part 61
Part 141
Part 61
Part 141
Part 142
Kansas City (KC)
24 18 3 9 3 2 1 1
Chicago18 12 3 5 3 0 2 0
Boston32 26 1 9 1 2 0 0
Overall74 56 7 23 7 4 3 1
Note: Not all participants responded to this portion of the questionnaire.
Participants by FAR training part and location
![Page 7: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Training Module Lecture based course Radar Basics, NEXRAD, Radar Modes,
Thunderstorms, Using NEXRAD for Decision Making
Two paper-based flight scenarios Learners applied knowledge from
course to respond to questions Instructor gave feedback
~ 2 hours; breaks as needed.
![Page 8: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Procedure
Consent & Pre-test Course module Lunch Practice Scenarios Post-test
Parallel form questions Additional novel scenario
Debrief & compensation Total time: 6 hours
![Page 9: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Effect of Training
Radar Knowledge Test: F(1, 69) = 218.50, p < .001, η2 = .76
Pre-Test Post-Test0
1020304050607080
Radar Knowledge
Radar Knowledge
![Page 10: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Effect of Training
Scenario Tests: F(1, 69) = 170.58, p ≤ .01, η2 = .712 Pretest: 65% Posttest 1: 85% Posttest 2: 71%
Pre-Test Post-Test 1 Post-Test 20
102030405060708090
Scenario Tests
Scenario Tests
Perc
ent C
orre
ct
![Page 11: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Effect of training
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire: F(1, 69) = 94.32, p ≤ .001, η2 = .58
Pre-Test Post-Test1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Self-Efficacy Ques-tionnaire
![Page 12: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Reactions
Participants rated the course highly M = 6.54 (SD = .51) (1 = Low, 7 = high)
![Page 13: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Discussion Course appears to be effective with typical GA
pilots. Similar pattern of results to Roberts et al. (2011). Course was given by a “naïve” instructor. Pre-test scores indicated pilots have limited
knowledge about weather radar. Limitations: no control group; no retention test;
no performance (flight) data. This short course has potential to increase pilots’
interpretation of in-cockpit weather radar displays.
![Page 15: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Comparison Study
2 x 3 Mixed Design Training (pre vs. post) Condition: 3 levels:
Embry-Riddle control group (Roberts et al., 2011 dataset)
Embry-Riddle experimental group (Roberts et al., 2011 dataset)
General Aviation group (Current dataset)▪ Randomly selected 30
![Page 16: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Interaction of Training and Condition Radar Knowledge
Pretest Posttest0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Radar Knowledge Scores
Control ERAUExperimental ERAUExperimental GA
Perc
ent
Corr
ect
![Page 17: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Interaction of Training and Condition Scenario Test
Pretest Posttest0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Scenario Scores
Control ERAUExperimental ERAUExperimental GA
Perc
ent
Corr
ect
![Page 18: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Interaction of Training and Condition Self-Efficacy
Pretest Posttest0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Self-Efficacy Responses
Control ERAUExperimental ERAUExperimental GA
Resp
onse
s
![Page 19: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Discussion
All performed significantly better than the ERAU control group
GA pilots outperformed the ERAU pilots GA pilots draw from greater experience? Course instructor was more effective in
the GA condition? GA pilots more motivated?
Overall, course has strong potential to help GA pilots understand NEXRAD
![Page 21: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
![Page 22: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
MANOVA Results
Significant main effect of training (pre vs. post) Wilks lambda F(3, 67) = 142.24, p
= .001, η2 = .86.4 Significant main effect of location
Wilks lambda F(6, 134) = 3.00, p = .009, No significant interaction
F(6, 134) = .76, p = .605
![Page 23: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Location: Univariate follow-up MANOVA revealed significant effect
of location Univariate revealed no main effect
for location Radar Knowledge: F(2, 69) = .877, p
= .420 Scenario: F(2, 69) = 2.05, p = .136 Self-Efficacy: F(2, 69) = .239, p = .788
Uneven groups
![Page 24: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Results: MANOVA (Analysis 2)MANOVA revealed a significant main
effect for each: Condition: F(6, 170) = 16.09, p ≤ .001,
η2 = .36
Training: F(3, 85) = 40.54, p ≤ .001, η2 = .58
Condition x Training: ▪ F(6, 170) = 31.16, p ≤ .001, η2 = .52.
![Page 25: Helping GA pilots interpret NEXRAD in Convective Weather Situations](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062520/568161ae550346895dd16df3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Means (Analysis 2)
PretestMean SD
PosttestMean SD
Radar Knowledge Scores Control ERAU 65.00% 8.77% 55.66% 9.79%Experimental ERAU 66.15% 8.08% 79.80% 7.60%Experimental GA 56.04% 12.55% 76.59% 11.38% Scenario Scores Control ERAU 57.11% 14.72% 56.86% 13.23%Experimental ERAU 62.00% 13.80% 75.76% 10.69%Experimental GA 64.04% 15.64% 86.14% 10.20% Self Efficacy Scores
Control ERAU 2.59 1.23 2.49 1.1Experimental ERAU 3.18 0.968 4.02 0.6498Experimental GA 3.42 0.41 3.83 0.533