Author: cjois

Sample Research Problem Statement

~ cjois

Problem Statement

There has been debate on whether simulators can cut the time to complete training (Allerton, 2000; Miller et al., 1995; Myers, Starr, & Mullins, 2018). Especially for a student outside of the environs of a University or school that is equipped with simulator devices, access to a simulator may in itself be a limiting factor (Fussell & Truong, 2020; Judy, 2018). Before we establish studies to determine whether simulator intervention can produce shorter training cycles, it is worth establishing whether those who have access to a simulator complete their training faster than those who do not.

Purpose statement

The purpose of this study is to determine if a relationship exists between simulator access and the time taken to complete training.

Research Questions/Hypotheses

RQ1: Is there a relationship between student pilots’ access to a flight training device and the time taken to complete their training (elapsed time)?

H1: Flight training elapsed time is correlated to having access to a flight training device.

H0: Flight training elapsed time is not correlated to having access to a flight training device.

Participants

Participants of this study will include current student pilots at NWF Flight School in Schaumburg Airport (06C) and IAA’s flight school in Dupage Airport (KDPA). Participants at 06C have access to an advanced flight training device and those at KDPA do not have access to a flight training device.

Procedure

The time taken from the point when a student enrolls in the flight school to the point the student achieves the Private Pilot Certificate will be measured as elapsed time. This data will be collected for a period of 12 months at both schools. Since the data collected will not include any item that can identify the student, there is no requirement to acquire IRB approval.

Proposed Data Analysis

The data is best analyzed with a one-way, between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA). There is a single independent variable (i.e. Access to a flight training device) and one dependent variable, ‘Elapsed Time’. Since there are two groups, one with access to the flight training device and another with no access, the Between-Groups model works well. (Wilson & Joye, 2017).
References

Allerton, D. J. (2000). Flight Simulation-past, present and future. The Aeronautical Journal, 104(1042), 651-663.

Fussell, S. G., & Truong, D. (2020). Preliminary results of a study investigating aviation student’s intentions to use virtual reality for flight training. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 7(3), 2.

Judy, A. (2018). A study of flight simulation training time, aircraft training time, and pilot competence as measured by the naval standard score (Doctoral dissertation, Southeastern University).

Miller, R., Hobday, M., Leroux-Demers, T., & Olleros, X. (1995). Innovation in complex systems industries: the case of flight simulation. Industrial and corporate change, 4(2), 363-400.

Myers III, P. L., Starr, A. W., & Mullins, K. (2018). Flight simulator fidelity, training transfer, and the role of instructors in optimizing learning. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 5(1), 6.

Wilson, J. H., Joye, S. W., (2017). Research Methods and Statistics: An Integrated Approach. Sage Publications, Inc.

Notes on Instructing and Learning

~ cjois

What comes to mind when you think of ‘good instruction?’
Instruction basically means to direct or help acquire a skill or help ‘do’ something.

Good instruction is about providing steps on ‘how to do’ something in the simplest but most effective manner. Ultimately the test of good instruction is how quickly a learner can acquire the skill being taught and how effectively that Individual can demonstrate gained proficiency.

What were your most profound (positive or negative) learning experiences?
The one experience that comes to my mind is my flight training experience.

My instructor was an individual who learned to fly in Hawaii, in times when flying was not as regulated or complicated. Making learning a fun experience was his primary goal. He deeply believed that when you enjoy something, you learn faster. He also grew up in aircraft that were basic. Hence his stick and rudder skills were so much more effective. He was a natural at flying. More than all the theory he provided me (which I got from my textbooks also), his attitude towards flying and instructing struck me as most powerful. I went from zero to solo in 20 days. He would wake up early so that I could fly early mornings before I got to work. We flew every morning at 5:30a or 6a. He would demonstrate how every runway, however short, was long enough if the proper technique was applied.

I got my PPL. However, I took away more about attitude and instruction from him, than simply flying skills.

How does it feel to teach someone how to do something?
I have always had a passion to explain concepts, events, machines, and weather phenomena to those interested in it. I have a natural ‘coaching’ style when it comes to building teams at work. I have had the privilege of running 300-400 person teams and my instinctive style is to coach and allow individuals the latitude to express themselves. I run a flight simulation venture that I started out of a deep passion for simulator technology combined with a passion for teaching/instructing. I began teaching at a university in Chicago over a decade ago only because I wanted to ‘pay it forward’. Shaping minds, and creating the next generation of professionals give me immense pleasure. One-half of my 30-year career has been in building and operating technology platforms for Higher Education. In that context, I was privileged to develop algorithms for adaptive learning and competency-based learning models. I used it as an opportunity to deploy my learning as a student and an instructor into new models for learning and instructional design. To me, teaching and/or instructing a learner is a profoundly rewarding experience. This is also the reason why I took an adjunct role at ERAU.

When teaching someone how to do something, what strategies do you use?
Modeling elements from the ‘real environment’ is essential. Creating an environment that mirrors the environment in which the knowledge or skill will be applied is essential for the effective transmittal of knowledge or skill. Hence I try to recreate elements from the ‘real environment’ in the teaching process.

I also enable a student as many learning aids as possible.

Different learners learn differently. Hence teaching style has to adapt and I adapt as needed. For some, visual aids are effective, others learn better by listening and some do well by ‘doing’. I use any or all of these channels.

Explaining underlying theory to the extent needed substantiates learning. Mixing theory with practice is another strategy for the effective transmission of knowledge. The learner must feel the joy of learning something. Being able ‘to do’ something, and being able to apply the knowledge or skill is very effective in reinforcing learning. There are times when I create a phenomenon and I ask the student to explain why it’s occurring.

Chunking learning into smaller segments is another strategy. Especially when learning is ‘chunked’ into segments that collectively and cohesively aggregate to a larger whole, knowledge or skill is transmitted effectively.

Current-day technology allows for several techniques to ‘gamify’ learning and bring a sense of challenge into the learning process. The human psyche likes a challenge – however, care must be exercised to ensure that it is not perpetually overwhelming where it can introduce a sense of “I can never win this’. Hence adaptive learning is powerful. Using Machine Learning techniques, the system can be engineered to adapt to skills/success levels and introduce the challenge in a controlled manner where the learner is challenged, but a little bit at a time, and knowledge or skill is built over time.

How do you know if a learning experience was successful?
Measured assimilation is the true test of success in learning. Can the learner explain a concept effectively and have an audience understand it? Can a student now fly effectively and within standards? These are examples of success in learning experiences.

The Expert Blind Spot

~ cjois

Wiggins and McTighe describe the “Expert Blind Spot” in Chapter 2 and how it could impact greater student understanding. On page 46 they describe three types of “uncovering” that assist in designing and teaching for understanding to avoid forgetfulness, misconception, and lack of transfer. Select one of the ideas presented below and expand on how you could incorporate it into your current profession.

1) Uncovering student’s potential misunderstandings (through focused questions, feedback, and diagnostic assessment)

2) Uncovering the questions, issues, assumptions, and gray areas lurking underneath the black and white of surface accounts

3) Uncovering the core ideas at the heart of understanding a subject, ideas that are not obvious—and perhaps counterintuitive or baffling to the novice

While all of these are important and perhaps all required to varying proportions, I will be choosing the item (3) pertaining to uncovering core ideas.

The ‘Expert Blind Spot’ is something most people have either demonstrated or experienced. Beginning with getting instructions to make a certain recipe, driving directions, operating instructions for a device, or a lecture on how to seek happiness, most people have been subject to this form of the blind spot.

Phelan (2021) provides an example of the recipe ‘Blind Spot’.

I was teaching a class yesterday (my first session with those students) and after about 20 minutes into the class, I asked a few questions to gauge how much they knew or understand the task at hand. The result – Two students in the entire class knew the objective of the class they had registered for. The rest had no idea. Knowing that made it easy for me. I had a baseline to operate from.

I was in a conversation earlier this week about the concept of situational awareness in aviation. Upon reading a reasonable number of prior studies and results, I was slowly but surely arriving at the conclusion that situational awareness, at its core, was about perception – a human trait. Regardless of whether the individual applies it to flying or driving or waiting at a lonely bus stop, the need for being aware of your surroundings was fulfilled by the same trait, perception. In the above-mentioned conversation, the individual I was speaking to added another term – sensation. Sensing and perceiving became the core concepts of being situationally aware.

Likewise, in my profession both as a Technology Executive and as an Aviation faculty member, I realize that breaking topics down to their core ideas has been the only effective way to transfer knowledge or skill. The success of any individual who has a role to transfer knowledge or skill, in my opinion, lies entirely in how well that individual performs point (3) – i.e. breaks down topics to their core ideas – which are most often easier to communicate and entrench in a learner’s mind.

Here is an example – In teaching Project Management, one arrives at the topic of Earned Value. Earning value to novices may mean many different things. Speaking about measures such as SPI and CPI may make the instructor look really experienced and intelligent. However, it will do little to help a novice understand the subject of earning value. Instead, speaking about a project that is scoped to build the four sides of a fence, 1000 dollars for each side and four weeks to do it, frame the idea a little better.

Speaking of scenarios where the first side got built in the planned one week, and 1000 dollars was spent as planned. The project has ‘earned planned value’ for the 1000 dollars spent and 1 week elapsed. The second week went by and only half of side 2 was built and 1000 dollars was spent. The 1000 dollars failed to earn planned value and the project is now also behind schedule. Week 3 completed the remaining half of side 2 and also side 3, but only 500 dollars was spent. Time has been recovered and since the 3 sides are now complete and only 2500 dollars have been spent, they are ahead on earning planned value…. and so forth. Rarely do PMs or PM instructors teach EV in this manner.

Another way to establish and reinforce core ideas is to gravitate to workshops where students learn by doing rather than rote learning a concept.

Points (1) and (2) are equally important because they help gauge the learner and also adapt as needed to the varying needs of each learner (a concept that today has been marketed as ‘Adaptive Learning’).

References –

Huang, E. (2018). Rearview mirrors for the “expert blind spot”. Design Research in Education: A Practical Guide for Early Career Researchers, 16.

Nathan, M. J., Koedinger, K. R., & Alibali, M. W. (2001, August). Expert blind spot: When content knowledge eclipses pedagogical content knowledge. In Proceedings of the third international conference on cognitive science (Vol. 644648).

Phelan, J. (2021, March 26). Beware the Expert Blind Spot – Educate. – Medium. Medium; Educate. https://medium.com/educate-pub/beware-the-expert-blind-spot-42744dc66ba9Links to an external site.

Exploring a data-driven connection between astronomical movements and life events

~ cjois

In my study of Eastern astrology, I learned a principle that correlates planet Mercury’s movement across the zodiac with higher rates of transportation and communication breakdowns. Each year the Internet is filled with articles on this topic (Kerr, 2022; Lonely Planet, 2021; Tips for Mercury Retrograde, 2021; Travel during Mercury Retrograde, 2016). There are several books written on this subject (Boland & Farnell, 2018; McGuirk, 2016). With the exception of work by Qi, Wang, and Zhang (2022), most of this literature is not data-driven.

I am motivated to explore this correlation in the realm of flight delays and cancellations.

Question: Is there really a higher incidence of flight delays and cancellations during time periods when the planet Mercury goes into retrograde motion?

Hypothesis:

HA – There is a significantly higher incidence of flight delays when planet Mercury goes into retrograde motion in its orbit around the zodiac.

HN – There is not a significantly higher incidence of delays when planet Mercury goes into retrograde motion in its orbit around the zodiac.

This would be a quantitative experiment method and a non-experimental (correlational) design.

Publicly available archived flight delay and cancellation datasets should serve the data needed for this experiment. 

References:

5 Tips for a Mercury Retrograde-Proof Vacation. (2019, October 21). Expedia Travel Blog. https://www.expedia.com/stories/5-tips-for-a-mercury-retrograde-proof-vacation/Links to an external site.

Boland, Y., Farnell, K., 2018. The Mercury Retrograde Book: Turn Chaos into Creativity to Repair, Renew and Revamp Your Life. Hay House UK.

Buckley, J. (2022, April 16). Experts are predicting a summer of travel chaos. Here’s why. CNN; CNN. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/travel-chaos-summer-2022/index.htmlLinks to an external site.

Kerr, J. (2022, January 14). Everything you need to keep calm this Mercury retrograde 2022. CNN Underscored; CNN. https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/health-fitness/mercury-retrograde-2022Links to an external site.

McGuirk, L. (2016). The Power of Mercury: Understanding Mercury Retrograde and Unlocking the Astrological Secrets of Communication. United States: HarperCollins.

The dos and don’ts of traveling during Mercury Retrograde – Lonely Planet. (2021, July 7). Lonely Planet. https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/travel-mercury-retrogradeLinks to an external site.

‌Travel during Mercury Retrograde. (2016, January 22). AFAR Media; AFAR Media. https://www.afar.com/magazine/5-ways-to-survive-a-mercury-retrograde-while-travelingLinks to an external site.

Qi, Y., Wang, H., & Zhang, B. (2022). Long Live Hermes! Mercury Retrograde and Equity Prices. Mercury Retrograde and Equity Prices (April 4, 2022).

Simulators and the Logbook

~ cjois

In the context of flight training the discussion of simulator time that can be logged versus not logged is an important one. There is a general argument that if the FARs do not allow the time to be logged then why spend more time in a simulator. Firstly, it is important to understand that there is a difference between “logging” and “being able to apply” those hours for credit towards the PPL. The FAA does not impose any maximums in terms of simulator (BATD, AATD, FTD) time that can be logged. However, it does place maximums of how many of those hours can be used as credit towards the PPL certificate.

The Federal Regulations indeed place certain limits on the amount of simulator time that can be counted towards flight training minimums. For example, the minimum hours needed to achieve the PPL is 40 hours. Of the 40 hours, the FAA allows for 2.5 hours to be used as credit towards the PPL using a qualifying simulator (FAR 61.109 [i][1]). Similarly, the FAA allows for 20 hours of the 40 hours required towards the instrument rating to be achieved on a simulator (FAR 61.65). If it is a Part 141 school, the allowances go up to 15% of the minimum time required (40 hours) which is 6 hours (Part 141, Appendix B (c)(3)) for the PPL. For the Part 141 school, for the Instrument Rating, the credit goes up to 25% if using a BATD, or 40% if using an AATD or FTD. While these are maximums that current regulations impose, it is a flaw to limit the use of the simulator to these numbers.

Let’s examine why.

Simulators provide a whole lot of value when it comes to flight training. The value earned is typically in terms of either reduced time to complete training or reduced cost of completing training.

Such value is better understood when it is broken down into direct value and indirect value. The direct value is in reduced cost that one pays for the simulator hours as compared to real-aircraft hours. The indirect value is even more important. Every hour spent on a simulator brings about learning in some form and eventually reduces the amount of real-aircraft time needed to complete training. Research has shown this over the years. Every iteration of training performed on the simulator leads to reduced iterations of practice that would be required in real-world aircraft. This reduction in ‘iterations’ leads to compressing training time while also reducing training costs.

The US national average to achieve a PPL is around 70-75 hours. It has been proven that blending simulator time into the training drops that number down to 55-60 hours. This is despite the fact that only 2.5 of those simulator hours can be used as credit towards the PPL (if Part 61 – or 6 hours for Part 141 schools). Even if we blended in 20 hours of simulator time and total training hours equaled 70 or 75, the cost of those 20 hours in a simulator is far lower than in a real-world aircraft. Given a simulator’s ability to pause, re-position, and restart scenarios at the press of a button, the number of practice iterations that can be conducted in a 90-minute slot is much higher than in a real-world aircraft.

As with anything, there is always another perspective. Ask an experienced CFI (and I did ask more than one), and one of the responses was “…personally I think PPL students need time in the airplane to learn to ‘feel’ the airplane”.

That said, there are a lot of areas in flight training that don’t require running a real-world aircraft to achieve that training. To name a few – understanding the workings of the GPS onboard an aircraft, practicing procedure under instrument failures, pattern entry, runway or taxiway markings, airspace entry and avoidance, engine-out scenarios, getting visual feedback of the rectangular pattern, descent procedures, VOR workings, DG or HSI use, and autopilot use.

Once again, most experienced CFI’s would argue that a simulator can certainly introduce an instrument failure to a student on the sim, but it’s a totally different feeling when you’re in an airplane and you lose an attitude indicator in the clouds. The CFI view on this is that simulators miss out the emotion where “suddenly the body is fighting what the eyes are telling the brain, leading you to put the airplane into a position you didn’t intend to…. it’s very hard to simulate that sensory illusion”. Another CFI went on to add about engine failures… “there’s a much different feeling you get in your gut when you’re running out of airspeed, you’re getting low and you suddenly realize you didn’t plan your approach well to the field or runway in a real airplane…”. He believes that a sim will teach the procedure and enhances skill, but the airplane combines procedure, skill, and adds the element of inherent discomfort that goes with being in that situation without having a ‘pause’ button to press.  

There is no taking away that there is a lot of teaching and learning that comes out of experiencing the imperfections of the machine.

On the contrary, the ability to experience a solo cross-country flight before it is undertaken in real-world aircraft, in certain weather conditions, and across uneven terrain gets the flying brain engaged. Building muscle memory around checklist use and proper sequence of actions in the cockpit can all be accomplished better in a simulator and help get prepared for a check-ride at much lower cost.

CFI’s agree that simulators have come a long way over the years. What this means is that the industry needs to adopt balance. It also means that there is not a ‘one size fit all’ approach. For the PPL, real-world stick time is essential to some extent. For any of the follow-on certifications, a simulator is absolutely viable and essential.

The idea till now has been that a PPL student gets 2.5 hours of value (or 6 hours as the case may be) from the simulator and the rest has to happen within a real-world aircraft. Simulators have advanced significantly over the decades. The time has come for this idea to be flipped, within limits of course, as indicated before. It may be completely possible for flight training curriculums to aim to perform the FAA-prescribed minimum time (40 minus the 2.5) in a real-world aircraft and perform the rest of the training on a simulator. Going by the national average, this would amount to 35 hours of real-world aircraft time being substituted by a simulator. Savings that quickly adds up to 3500-4000 dollars!

Hence, the next time you have access to a simulator make the most of it. If you do not have access to a simulator, make sure to find a location that has one. When in a simulator, use it to practice those aspects of flight training such as the use of the GPS that you won’t have the time or attention to work on while in a real-world training aircraft.

Simulators are time and cost compressors. Make the most of them when they are available. Do not limit your use of the simulator to maximums prescribed by the FARs. Remember, the time may not all qualify for the credit, but every hour spent on the simulator reduces your real-world aircraft time and your costs.

Instrument Rating

~ cjois

The instrument rating is a great addition to a pilot’s skill set. However, it’s also a challenging rating to achieve. That said, just the knowledge prep for the written test provides immense learning and makes one a much better pilot. The fundamental shift is in the level of precision that it teaches a pilot which then tends to become second nature to the individual – whether they are flying with visual references or with reference to instruments.

A shift in roles for technology

~ cjois

Simulators in aviation began as a training device. They were setup to help train pilots fly flying machines (as they were called in the early days of aviation). They had a role to play.

Fast forward a century…. the same technology (more advanced, no doubt!) is now used to design and test the very machine that it was to help train people for.

Flight simulators have come a long way in their evolution. This is a classic example of how the role for technology can shift 180 degrees with time. The accuracy of flight models on modern simulators is astounding. I have had the opportunity to measure and compare distinct performance parameters between real-world aircraft and a few different models of aviation training devices, and the coherence of software models to the real-world object is so precise. The picture below is an example of such a comparison. It is hard to tell which one is the real thing. Stall performance, fuel burn, climb and descent profiles, lift modeling are accurately engineered.

Instructing a computer to do all this through programming is very valuable. The next generation of this evolution has the machine learning by itself, and beyond that telling the human what to do. Indeed a powerful sequence of outcomes.

Thanks,
CP Jois

Technology and Flight Simulators

~ cjois

Technology, in the form of flight simulators, has changed the fundamentals of flight training.

My introduction to flight simulators dates back to 1984 with Microsoft’s Flight Simulator 2, running on an IBM PC XT. What began by chance, soon turned into a hobby, then a deep passion, and now an integral part of my purpose. The impact that this technology can have on aviation safety and pilot proficiency is immense. As described in one of my writings, when coupled with Machine Learning, this impact can be taken to a new level altogether.

While the earliest reference to a flight simulator, the ‘Sanders Teacher’, dates back to 1910 (Flight, 1910), the use of technology in flight training has increased dramatically over the years.

This image indicates an early flight simulator from 1910, the Antoinette Trainer (Flight, 1910)

Flight simulator fidelity is a multi-dimensional topic. However, visuals, touch and feel are perhaps the more dominant three. The decreasing costs of computational hardware and display technology allowed for the introduction and rapid rise of new genres of simulators that were also more affordable. These flight simulators have changed the flight training landscape. Coupled with projectors or LED TVs, the levels of visual immersion is so rich that one has to experience it to believe it.

The image below shows a comparison between the graphics of Flight Simulator 2 from around 1985 to 210 degrees of triple-channel surround projector vision built as a hobby project from about 4 years ago. It is even better now with HD projectors. The FS 2 picture actually comes from running that product on a DOS-emulator about 4-5 years ago. Hence I don’t think it looked even half as good as that back in 1985!

Not so long ago, even the very best simulators would use collimated displays where visual detail was grainy and barely sufficed. Today, even low-end basic aviation training devices come with high-quality displays that provide rich visual detail.

How technology changes everything….

Over 35 years that i have been involved with simulator technology, the flight simulator and flight training landscape has changed completely. While formal airline training programs in commercial aviation use these routinely, I find that there is tremendous opportunity in General Aviation (GA) space (for those not familiar with term, GA is everything that is not commercial air transport). In fact, the value is even higher in the GA realm given frequency of flight, long periods of time between recurrent certification and the costs aircraft use.

The potential for simulators in this realm is not fully tapped yet and presents a unique opportunity.

CP Jois