USE OF TRAINING DEVICES IN GENERAL AVIATION TRAINING PROGRAMS # Michael E. Wiggins and * Michael W. Crognale # Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL. * University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV. While several studies have been done regarding the effectiveness of various training devices in general aviation, not much is known about how they are actually being used by flight schools. This study was designed to gain insight into the way flight schools use training devices. This study surveyed 184 flight schools to gather data about demographics, certification information about their devices, and which tasks are being taught at which level of training in each of the types of devices. Seventy schools responded. The results show that 1) the use of training devices is more prevalent in FAA approved flight schools than other schools, 2) there is some confusion about device certification requirements, 3) training time does not appear to be correlated with the use of these devices, and 4) most of the tasks taught are focused on instrument pilot certification, 5) some schools appear to be using training devices for non-instrument tasks. INTRODUCTION Aviation training devices are finding their way into more flight schools than ever before in the past. A recent study of 354 flight schools revealed a total 724 training devices in use (Wiggins, Hampton, Morin, Larssen, & Troncoso, 2002). Of these devices, 381 flight training devices (FTDs), 224 personal computer aviation training devices (PCATDs), and 99 training aids (TA) were reported in use. Most of these devices were used in FAA approved training programs under 14 CFR Part 141 (Part 141) in university-based programs and traditional approved flight schools. Use of these types of devices is not prevalent in schools operating under 14 CFR Part 61 (Part 61). Many of these schools were discovered to be smaller operations where there may not be sufficient resources available to justify the cost or use of these devices. Increasing capabilities and lowering costs are contributing to this increased use. FTDs and PCATDs have become more usable and realistic, prompting several studies on the usefulness of these devices and how well the training conducted in them transfers to training in airplanes (Lintern, Roscoe, Koonce, & Segal, 1990; Hampton, Monroney, Kirton, & Biers, 1994; Taylor, Lintern, Hulin, Talleur, Emanuel, & Phillips, 1997). These studies all showed positive transfer of training benefits. Studies have been conducting using training devices to teach cognitive skills such as decision-making and situational awareness (Craig, 1999; Wilt, 1997). Benefits from the use of these devices range from the ability to train in less time, train in situations normally considered hazardous in actual flight, to lowering costs. What is not revealed by any of these studies is how various aviation training devices are actually being used in training programs in general aviation. While guidance exists regarding the certification requirements of these devices (FAA, 1992, FAA 1997), it is not fully known if the devices in use are being used in accordance with these guidelines. Another issue that is not well understood is which areas of operation (AOO) and/or tasks are being targeted for instruction in training devices. The purpose of this study was to reveal the types of training devices in use, how they are being used to enhance skill and proficiency, which tasks are being taught in these devices, whether or not the devices are appropriate certified and being used in accordance with National Simulator Program (NSP) guidelines, and if they are being used to augment training outside of approved training curricula. 1