Bird Hazard Mitigation Training For General Aviation Pilots - A Prospective Research Study

General aviation industry 446,000 aircraft worldwide 211,000 in the U.S. Supports $219 billion in total economic output and 1.1 million jobs in the U.S Flies approximately 25 million flight hours (U.S.) Flies to more than 5,000 public airports Primary training ground for most commercial airline pilot

A Safety Management Model for FAR 141 Approved Flight Schools

The Safety Management Annex (Annex 19), which became applicable in November 2013, consolidates safety management provisions previously contained in six other International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annexes, and will serve as a resource for overarching state safety management responsibilities. Through Annex 19, ICAO has required that its member states develop and implement safety management systems (SMS) to improve safety. This mandate includes an approved training organization that is exposed to aviation safety risks. In 2015, the FAA published AC 120-92B to provide guidance material for certificate holders operating under FAR 121, to implement and maintain an SMS. This AC may also be used by other aviation service providers interested in voluntarily developing an SMS based on the requirements in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 5 (14 CFR Part 5). There are numerous reasons for SMS implementation going beyond simple compliance with international or national guidelines. The most important of these is safety enhancement, because it is an intrinsic requirement of the aviation system. There is a vast body of literature regarding SMS, but none of it suggests a model to a specific service provider. The implementation of an SMS model tailored to FAR 141 approved flight schools has the strong potential to yield safety enhancement, through a structured management system to control risks in operation. The purpose of this study is to develop a safety management model for FAR 141 operators, based on the ICAO SMS outlined in Annex 19, and current FAA requirements and safety protocols, as outlined in AC 120-92B

General Aviation Pilots\u27 Strategies to Mitigate Bird Strikes

To date, a few operational efforts have been launched by the FAA to mitigate wildlife strikes away from the airport jurisdiction, and those do not include actions by general aviation (GA) pilots. This presentation explores the safety training of GA pilots using aeronautical decision-making concepts as a strategy to mitigate the risk of mishaps due to birds. Previous research, the FAA Serial Report #22, and final reports of GA aircraft accidents due to birds will be covered

General Aviation Pilots’ Strategies to Mitigate Bird Strikes

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has partnered with the FAA since 1995. USDA has assisted the FAA with production of yearly and special reports on wildlife hazards to aviation: Develop or enhance existing wildlife hazard management programs (including pilots) Create refinements in the development and implementation of integrated research and operational efforts to mitigate the risk of bird strike

Bird Hazard Mitigation Training for Part 141 General Aviation Pilots: An Experimental Study

From 1990 through 2018 ==\u3e 209,950 wildlife strikes in the U.S., Approximately 95% of those incidents involved birds; Seventy aircraft destroyed as a result of wildlife strikes! 13 bird strikes 32 ==\u3e fatalities; 244 wildlife strikes ==\u3e 319 people injured! 224 bird strikes ==\u3e299 people injured! General aviation community; 97% of the strikes occurred below 3,500 feet AGL; There were 22,775 wildlife strikes ==\u3e 26% caused damage to the aircraft

Cockpit Text Communications: Evaluating the Efficiency and Accuracy of Different Keyboards

Non-voice data exchanges will become a primary method of communication between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers as the Federal Aviation Administration’s plan for the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen) evolves. In support of this communication evolution, pilots will need the most efficient interface tools in order to accurately and quickly exchange text messages with Air Traffic Control. Keyboards, or similar input devices, will be become a necessity in the cockpit. This study aims to investigate and compare the typing speed and accuracy possible using three sizes of two-hand, QWERTY1 keyboards: a full size (100%), a medium size (92%), and a small size (thumb typing home theater PC keyboard) that could be used for aviation data exchanges. Each study participant was administered 15 typing tests having aviation specific content, on each keyboard, including 5 tests of short length, 5 tests of medium length, and 5 tests of long length. The results of this study suggest that in terms of words per minute typing speed, participants using the medium size keyboard had a slightly faster typing speed than with the large keyboard, while the small keyboard produced a considerably slower typing speed than either the medium or large keyboards. In terms of accuracy, participants using the small keyboard had the highest level of accuracy, followed by the medium keyboard, while the least accurate keyboard tended to be the large keyboard. Overall, findings suggest that the optimal size of two-handed, QWERTY keyboard for use in an aircraft cockpit was the medium keyboard

Cockpit Text Communications: Evaluating the Efficiency and Accuracy

Non-voice data exchanges will become a primary method of communication between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers as the Federal Aviation Administration’s plan for the Next Generation Air Traffic Control System (NextGen) evolves. In support of this communication evolution, pilots will need the most efficient interface tools in order to accurately and quickly exchange text messages with Air Traffic Control. Keyboards, or similar input devices, will be become a necessity in the cockpit. This study aims to investigate and compare the typing speed and accuracy possible using three sizes of two-hand, QWERTY1 keyboards: a full size (100%), a medium size (92%), and a small size (thumb typing home theater PC keyboard) that could be used for aviation data exchanges. Each study participant was administered 15 typing tests having aviation specific content, on each keyboard, including 5 tests of short length, 5 tests of medium length, and 5 tests of long length. The results of this study suggest that in terms of words per minute typing speed, participants using the medium size keyboard had a slightly faster typing speed than with the large keyboard, while the small keyboard produced a considerably slower typing speed than either the medium or large keyboards. In terms of accuracy, participants using the small keyboard had the highest level of accuracy, followed by the medium keyboard, while the least accurate keyboard tended to be the large keyboard. Overall, findings suggest that the optimal size of two-handed, QWERTY keyboard for use in an aircraft cockpit was the medium keyboard

Decision to Use an Airframe Parachute in a Flight Training Environment

The purpose of this study was to complete a qualitative analysis of the decision-making process used by pilots to determine whether or not to deploy an airframe parachute system. A sample of participants from the subject university’s flight training program was selected to complete a scripted simulator flight in instrument flight conditions. During the flight, participants experienced an engine failure while enroute during IFR conditions. The script was examined and validated by an expert panel who determined use of the airframe parachute was the most appropriate outcome for the scenario. Interestingly, only 9 of the 21 participants responded as expected by the expert panel and deployed the parachute system; only three of the nine followed the correct deployment procedure as outlined in the Pilot’s Operating Handbook. Analysis of a post-flight survey completed by participants provides insights into the decision-making process used by pilots and offers explanations on why or why not participants used the airframe parachute