Fly Like a Naval Aviator: Effect of Procedural Angle-of-Attack Training on Pilot Comprehension and Decision-Making in General Aviation

<p>To make life-saving equipment more accessible to general aviation (GA) aircraft owners and operators, the FAA streamlined installation of angle of attack (AOA) systems in GA fleets. Yet studies suggest GA pilots are ill-equipped to use these systems without training. Pilot performance suffers when an AOA is added to the flight deck because pilots’ knowledge with these systems is merely declarative (know-what) and not sufficiently procedural (know-how). Furthermore, GA pilots struggle to integrate the indicator into their existing (and well-rehearsed) mental models.</p> <p>The study used a two-way mixed-design analysis of variance with a within-between- subjects approach to examine the effect of training method and time on pilot comprehension (CO) and decision-making (DM) using an AOA system in GA. The within-subjects factor was time (repeated measures, pre- and post-treatment). The between-subjects factor was training method (three treatment groups). The first group received procedural AOA training, developed using naval aviator training materials. The second group received declarative training, taken nearly verbatim from the Pilots’ Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. The third group was a control group that received training unrelated to AOA.</p> <p>Fifty (50) GA pilots participated in the study. They were randomly divided into three groups and each group received one of the three treatments. Before and after training, each group was assessed on (1) CO, or the ability to interpret AOA system indications, and (2) DM, or the ability to determine a correct response to AOA system indications. Measurement scales were developed with the help of subject-matter experts.</p> <p>The study found that, pre-training, CO and DM scores do not meet the FAA’s knowledge test passing standards, a finding supported by existing literature. Post-training CO scores were statistically significantly greater in the procedural compared to the control group, and not statistically significantly greater in the declarative compared to the control group. Post-training DM scores were statistically significantly greater in the procedural and declarative groups compared to the control group.</p> <p>The findings confirm GA pilots require training in the use of these systems, regardless of prior (non-AOA) training or experience. Declarative AOA training is insufficient when it comes to GA pilots’ CO. However, procedural AOA training, which conforms to pilots’ existing stall avoidance mental models and addresses GA pilots’ misconceptions, can significantly improve CO and DM.</p>

Name thesis:degree_name

Doctor of Philosophy in Aviation

Level thesis:degree_level

Dissertation - Open Access

Discipline thesis:degree_discipline

College of Aviation

Year

2024

Author dc:creator

• Samuels, Tara

• angle of attack (AOA)
• angle of attack indicator (AOAI)
• aviation
• aviation human factors
• aviation safety
• aviation training
• decision-making (DM)
• general aviation (GA)
• loss-of-control (LOC)
• loss-of-control in-flight (LOC-I)
• pilot training
• situation awareness (SA)
• stall
• stall avoidance
• stall awareness
• stall margin
• Aviation and Space Education

Repository record dc:identifier

https://commons.erau.edu/edt/849

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:commons.erau.edu:edt-1891