The increasing availability of large capacity, high speed, general purpose digital computers, such as those that drive American Airlines’ unique six-axis DC-10 flight simulators, could add up to a better, cheaper method of training military pilots.
The total cost of training Air Force and Navy replacement pilots in 1972 will be over three billion. Training costs-per-pilot are expected to increase during the 1970s because of economic inflation and the introduction of such new high-performance, high-priced aircraft as the F-111, F-14, F-15 and B-1 into the operating inventories of the two services. The training cost trend upward, combined with increasingly fierce competition for appropriate federal funds, puts immediate pressure upon the service air training commands to achieve significant near-term efficiencies in dollar expenditures and manpower utilization.
Recent breakthroughs in training methods and training devices indicate that a series of phased evolutionary changes in aviation training system will produce more efficient—hence, lower cost—training operations. The proponents of the new training systems believe that the systems should be designed specifically for the present and future training requirements of the Air Force, on the one hand, and the Navy on the other hand. This will assure development of optimized training hardware and training software which will yield important new benefits.
Present Pilot Training Systems. Current Air Force and Navy pilot training is provided in two distinct phases: undergraduate pilot training (UPT) and graduate training. Figure 1 is a representation of the paths followed in pilot training. The figure shows that the new pilot candidate achieves the skills of basic airmanship and the first levels of operational flying proficiency in UPT.
[Figure 1, depicting the general paths of undergraduate and graduate pilot training]
It is important to note that the Air Force and the Navy have evolved somewhat different UPT training objectives in order to best meet their own unique requirements for pilots.
Although both services start the pilot trainee in a propeller-driven primary trainer, the Air Force UPT program assigns pilot candidates to a single all-jet pipeline in basic and advanced undergraduate training. The Air Force UPT training objective is to turn out a “universally assignable pilot” who is then assigned specialized training in the Combat Crew Training Squadron (CCTS) appropriate to his first operational assignments.
Navy UPT tends to produce a more specialized graduate pilot. Depending upon which of the pipelines he enters in basic and advanced training, the naval aviator will qualify as a jet, propeller, or helicopter pilot. The pipeline selection is made upon the basis of the candidate’s relative aptitude and achievement in the primary and early basic training stages. The graduates of Navy UPT receive their naval aviator designations and are ordered to a Readiness Carrier Air Wing (RCVW), Replacement Air Group (RAG), or Fleet squadron for training in operational aircraft.
Once the Air Force or Navy pilot completes UPT and enters into operational training, the training loop closes until the pilot is promoted to the grade of Air Force colonel or Navy captain. Within the loop, each pilot can look forward to two or more cycles of duties. These are operational flying, a tour of non-squadron duty which encompasses minimum or “proficiency” flying, and refresher training in CCTS or RCVW squadrons prior to another operational assignment.
Current Pilot Training Problems. The general methods by which military aviators are trained have not kept pace with the aviation training innovations which, for example, have been adopted by commercial aviation during recent years. The syllabi length and content have undergone little change. Although instrument simulators have been widely used for many years within the Air Training Commands, military aircraft simulators have not been developed to the level of the 727 and 747 commercial airliner simulators, to mention two specific examples.
Both Air Force and Navy basic trainer aircraft are obsolescent and are nearing the end of their service lives. The first flight of the Air Force T-37B occurred in 1954; the Navy T-2A in 1958; and the Navy T-28 in 1953. The Air Force T-38 supersonic advanced trainer first flew in 1959; the Navy S-2 prop advanced trainer, in 1953. Although new TA-4 trainers are now being delivered to the Navy’s Advanced Training Command, this aircraft is a design modification of the A-4, which first flew in 1957. The point here is that the development and production of trainer aircraft now lag operation aircraft by about one-and-one-half generations. To compound current problems, the existing training systems have been designed around whichever trainer aircraft model was available at the time of need. This overall situation, reflects expediency and, therefore, is less than optimal.
The Air Force is now studying new alternatives to the T-37 basic trainer and the T-38 advanced trainer. Similarly, the Navy will retire the T-2A. Replacement of these obsolescent trainers creates a rare opportunity to evolve new training systems and to optimize trainer aircraft design to the future training requirement.
Past military pilot training problems have been solved in a piecemeal fashion, rather than through the systems approach. This results from two factors which have forced the Training Commands to address their short-run problems through frequent fire drills. First, budgetary shortages, and second, low priorities assigned to the Training Commands perpetuate the piecemeal approach.
This recitation of UPT program problems is old hat to the officers of the training commands. Having recognized these and other problems, both the Air Force and the Navy have undertaken large-scale studies which have attempted to define optimal UPT training systems. Thus it appears that efficiencies are in sight for UPT programs. Here, aircraft operating costs, which dominate training systems costs, range from about $75 to $300 per flight hour.
UPT costs, however, are only about 40% of the total investment per replacement pilot. The preponderance of the training costs occurs in the Air Force CCTS or Navy RCVW during graduate training. It seems clear, furthermore, that graduate training costs will constitute an increasingly greater proportion of replacement pilot training costs over the next several years as the higher cost F-111, F-14, F-15 and B-1 phase into the CCTS/RCVW squadrons. The 60% (graduate training) portion of replacement pilot training costs is, of course, only a part of total CCTS/RCVW systems costs. In addition to newly designated pilots, another large group of CCTS/RCVW students includes those experienced pilots who are requalified prior to a second or third operational squadron tour. Total CCTS/RCVW system costs, therefore, exceed UPT systems costs by a large margin, even though CCTS/RCVW flight hours per student are less than one-half of UPT flight hours per student. This is so because CCTS/RCVW aircraft procurement and operating costs amount to as much as ten times the costs of UPT aircraft.
It is for these reasons that the search for additional efficiencies should also be vigorously pursued in graduate pilot training systems.
Pilot Training Innovations. The traditional methods of training do produce qualified military pilots. However, operating force requirements and the application of training resources to achieve long-range training goals need to be reviewed. It is fortunate that fundamental changes in training methods are now within the state-of-the-art for application to pilot training. These offer promise of producing more highly qualified aviators at no increase in present funding levels and with savings in training time. These methods, incorporated into an advanced technology training system, include such features as a new jet trainer, possibly one having variable flying characteristics; high fidelity simulators compatible with the aerodynamics of the trainer aircraft, and employing external environment simulation; an objective system of recording and evaluating student progress by means of flight data recording with computer evaluation and pictorial critique playback; programmed ground instruction, employing computer-managed training technology; mission-oriented instructional units; a greater degree of student self-pacing and individualized instruction; and fully integrated ground, simulator, and flight instructional units.
An example of cost savings achieved by the Flying Tiger Line (FTL) through aircraft model standardization and innovations in pilot training was reported in Aviation Daily, 9 June 1970. Having converted its cargo aircraft to a single model, the stretched DC-8-63F, FTL has reduced maintenance burden costs by 21%, aircraft servicing costs related to flight operations expense by 22%, and 1970 direct operating costs are expected to be 5.5% less than those of 1969. With a single aircraft model, flight instructor requirements have been reduced by 50%, ground school instructors by 40%. In 1969, FTL’s DC-8-63F simulator eliminated 600 hours of inflight proficiency training at a cost ratio of about 6 to 1. If cost savings of a similar magnitude are available to military pilot training systems, the savings to DoD would be enormous.
Neither military nor commercial aviation training managers have yet fully integrated the three elements of aircraft, simulator, and classroom training devices into a cohesive system. They have, however, sponsored considerable research and development of some of the major subsystems employed in aviation training today. These efforts have been primarily centered upon the development and employment of the aircraft-specific simulator.
Simulators are of two general types: procedural trainers and flight simulators. The procedural trainer, which has been in use for years, consists of a mockup in which the student practices to gain familiarity with, for example, cockpit layout or instrument reading. Procedural trainers are relatively inexpensive and are quite effective for the simple training tasks for which they have been employed to date. Aircraft flight simulators, on the other hand, are quite complex and are expensive to procure and to operate. The elements which make up an aircraft simulator are one or more cockpits having several degrees of freedom (or motion); appropriate flight controls; and a high-speed, large-capacity computer. Aircraft simulators are employed to provide the flight student practice in such specific aircraft maneuvers as landing, precision aerobatics and gunnery. Aircraft simulators are most efficiently used in the simulation of difficult flight maneuvers owing to considerations of cost and the fact that simulator availability usually exceeds aircraft availability.
One of the major U. S. air carriers, American Airlines, has found through several years of experiments that pilot training in the flight simulator can be conducted to a level of proficiency that will assure the pilot a high level of success in commercial airlines. This work has reduced expensive aircraft flight training hours through increased use of the simulator. Whereas the average flight captain received approximately 21 hours of aircraft flight time to transition to the Boeing 727 in 1966, in 1968, he received 18 simulator hours and only eight aircraft hours. Transition to the 747 jumbo airliners furthers this trend of substitution of simulator hours for aircraft flight time during transition training.
The Army, whose pilot population increased from about 9,200 in 1966 to over 16,000 in 1969, awarded a $3.5 million contract for the development and production of a helicopter Synthetic Flight Training System. This system consists primarily of an instrumented flight simulator which will duplicate the flying characteristics of the UH-1H utility transport helicopter, which has been widely used by the Army in Vietnam. The resultant realism will enable pilot trainees to experience all the motions of helicopter flight, including power failure, control malfunctions, and rough air. In addition to simulation of actual flight, the Synthetic Flight Training System also includes a prerecorded library of oral briefings, prerecorded instructions, continuous visual recording of pilot trainee performance for comparison with the standard, and variability of the training task complexity within a variety of flight parameters. Delivery of the prototype was made late in 1971. The Army’s feasibility studies have estimated that this system will save about $1.7 million annually in flight training costs by substituting simulator hours for aircraft hours. The Synthetic Flight Training System is of particular interest because it represents the first military flight training device which promises to integrate several training elements into one system.
The Air Force and the Navy have undertaken study of similar systems for UPT fixed-wing aircraft pilot training.
An Advanced Technology Aviation Training System. Aviation training experts have become increasingly aware of the need for the pilot training systems proposed by researchers. In the words of Doctor Wallace W. Prophet, Director of the Aviation Division, Human Resources Research Organization:
“The approach to training system development involves an in-depth look at: operational requirements; trainee characteristics and capabilities; operational and training equipment; training technology, media, and the psychology of learning; training management; and cost-effectiveness analysis. Development of effective training systems involves an integration of these and similar factors.”
Those in the training business must still perform a great deal of work in order to understand the empirical relationships which determine the optimum interface between the individual elements of the training system. Training executives must evolve measures of the combined effectiveness of training elements relative to today’s methods and tomorrow’s systems.
An advanced technology aviation training program is an integrated training system consisting of hardware and software elements optimized to meet the military training requirement. This training system would be student-oriented. The prime objective is to recognize that each student is an individual and therefore needs individualized instruction. The several elements of the training system provide the flexibility to achieve this vital objective.
The major advantages expected to accrue from an advanced technology training system are that it:
► Increases training value per unit of flight time and calendar time.
► Compresses calendar time.
► Minimizes learning loss “transfer” effect between instructional vehicles.
► Matches training to individual student need.
► Identifies student deficiencies more clearly.
► Singles out potential attrites earlier.
► Provides better instructor standardization at lower cost
► Increases value of solo practice.
► Provides more consistent integrated psychological learning atmosphere.
A block diagram of an advanced technology training system is shown in Figure 2. Each Instructional Unit (the detailed requirements of which would be described in the appropriate syllabus or lesson plan) is mission-oriented. The trainee would be expected to participate fully in the mission planning phase and then, of course, would complete the Instructional Unit. The trainee’s learning path through each Instructional Unit includes training received in the classroom, simulator flights, aircraft flights, and the evaluation and critique provided by the instructor. Hardware support provided to each Instructional Unit includes the instructional processor, the simulator, the trainer aircraft, and critique hardware. Software support consists of the mission evaluation and scoring programs, student records, progress evaluation programs, and critique outputs or displays.
[Figure 2: block diagram of an advanced technology training system]
Each system element would be applied to that portion of a classroom or flight training in which it could be shown to be most efficient. Undoubtedly, many training methods now in use would not be changed under an advanced technology training system.
Instructional Processors. Instructional processors or “teaching machines” are currently in use in university, commercial, and military training centers. Their chief training program value is their capability to permit the student to progress through the assigned lessons at his own speed, rather than at the speed of his “average” classmate. If he is fast, he can breeze through the lesson. Conversely, he can go more slowly or review past learning. Thus the presentation of constant challenge through means of instructional processors keeps student interest, motivation, and achievement high.
An alternative method of classroom instruction makes greater use of the computer. Called Computer Managed Instruction, this method uses the computer to control the information presentation to the student and processes the student’s response to the information presented. These functions constitute a cycle of presentation and response. The student’s response causes the computer to actuate the next presentation. The forms of information presentation include still pictures or images, prerecorded sound messages, typewritten material, moving pictures, and cathode ray tube displays. The computer controls the sequencing of the information presented by actuating the individual devices in accordance with the instructions set up by a course author. A major advantage of a computer assisted instruction program is its ability to determine the knowledge level of each individual and to branch into a review of the basic course prerequisites, if that is necessary or to progress more quickly into new study areas.
Simulators. Rapid progress has been made during the past two or three years in the design and manufacture of simulators which can be programmed to represent with a high degree of fidelity the flying qualities and performance capabilities of specific aircraft models. This development has been made possible by the increasing availability of large capacity, high-speed, general purpose digital computers.
A break-even analysis trading off aircraft flight hours for simulator cockpit hours, taking into consideration the training values of the two systems, would pinpoint the specific syllabus stages in which a simulator could be economically used. Some of the raw data for this analysis exists now; new data can be generated during the development cycle. The syllabus stages might be limited to precision aerobatics, gunnery, and carrier qualification.
Flight Training Recording/Grading Devices. Flight training recording/grading devices provide a means of objectively measuring student progress and proficiency, facilitating instructor standardization and training, and enhancing the instructional value of flight time. Examples include airborne flight recorders, computerized student grading programs, and visual display devices.
Trainer Aircraft. The principal trainer aircraft models employed in Air Force UPT are the T-41, T-37 and T-38. In Navy UPT, they are the T-34, T-28, T-2, TA-4, TF-9, S-2, and several helicopter models. Consolidation of this aircraft inventory should take place in the long run in order to replace the obsolescent trainers and to take advantage of economies of scale in instructor standardization, aircraft scheduling, aircraft maintenance, and aircraft installations and logistics.
An analysis of new basic and advanced trainer aircraft requirements would, for example, examine conventional designs as well as concepts now being proposed in other countries. Dornier is studying the feasibility of providing a multipurpose jet trainer for the German Air Force. This concept would provide the variable flying qualities required of a multi-purpose trainer by designing a basic fuselage with interchangeable flying surfaces and engines. Dornier claims that their modular airplane would permit a considerable reduction in the costs of ground handling equipment, stocks of spares, tools and jigs, personnel training at all maintenance levels, installations, and administration. Coupled with these cost reductions would be an improvement in flight training.
Another approach to a multipurpose trainer would lie in a design concept of a single aircraft for operating primarily in subsonic ranges, but which would have the capability of exceeding Mach 1.0. This would give the pilot training in both trans-sonic and supersonic flying regimes.
Once again, the prime consideration in designing a new trainer aircraft is to take into account the operational requirements downstream by integrating the trainer aircraft into the whole of an optimized training system.
System Software. The software requirements of an advanced technology training system consist of the classroom computers, the flight simulators, and the recorder critique playback device.
Long-Range Program Alternative Formulation Tasks.
The tasks required to formulate the most efficient long-range pilot training programs will include:
► Analyze the proficiency objectives (end proficiency expected of an operational aircraft pilot in a specific billet in a specific aircraft model) required in operating squadrons at specified times in the future.
► Determine the specific system characteristics required of the training hardware. Integrate with software requirements.
► Formulate the cost-estimating relationships applicable to classroom computers, simulators, recording/grading devices, and advanced trainer aircraft.
► Produce the system element cost-building blocks required for trade-off analyses.
► Formulate the measures of value applicable to a long-range training system, including training program values and service-wide values.
► Record in machine compatible format detailed student pilot performance data in the training command.
► Revise computer effectiveness models to accommodate input data peculiar to the students and aircraft of the training command.
► Design specific test programs for certain students in which the effects of significant variations in syllabi can be measured against a norm. Include provision for follow-up of aviator performance in operating squadrons.
► Design a detailed system implementation plan to show the phase-in of major changes to the existing training systems. Indicate major milestones.
Conclusion. An advanced technology aviation training system holds the key to more efficient undergraduate and, particularly, graduate pilot training operations. The hardware and software elements of the training system are in development or are available off-the-shelf. Now is the time for the military services to begin the programming and budgetary actions necessary to apply the principal features of advanced technology to pilot training. Inasmuch as the systems approach is desirable and we have a lot to learn about this system, the prototype approach appears highly attractive. The potential benefits include more highly qualified pilots, training-time savings, and long-range training systems cost savings.
__________
Commander Speer retired in 1967 after serving 20 years of active duty in the Navy. His continuing interest in naval aviation results from his tours of duty in the USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63); the Naval Air Station, Point Mugu, California; the Center for Naval Analyses; and the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis). He is now employed by Vought Aeronautics Company, LTV Aerospace Corporation, Dallas, Texas. Commander Speer received his B.S. from the U. S. Naval Academy in 1948 and his M.B.A. from Stanford University in 1958.
__________
Lieutenant Colonel Kusewitt served in the Army during the period 1945 through 1965. He was designated an Army aviator in 1950 and his service included assignments in aviation, artillery, and general staff. Staff duty assignments included the Office of the Chief of R&D, the Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, and Headquarters, Continental Command. Since retiring, he has been employed by Vought Division, LTV Aerospace Corporation. He received his B.S. degree from the U. S. Military Academy in 1945 and his M.B.A. degree from the University of Alabama in 1960.