Aviation Safety

Last year, 621 people died in about 1,900 general aviation accidents. The National Transportation Safety Board estimates that 87 percent of all fatal general aviation accidents are caused by pilot error, especially when pilots who do not have appropriate instrument training fly with poor visibility, such as during bad weather. To reduce general aviation accidents, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been exploring ways to strengthen training for general aviation pilots. One possible enhancement is the use of special personal computers and software called personal computer-based aviation training devices, which can be used for up to 10 hours of instrument training. FAA's decision to allow the use of these devices has sparked debate. Some contend that pilots trained with these devices will actually be less skilled. Others argue that pilots trained with the devices are better trained at lower cost. This report (1) describes the process and information FAA used to approve the use of personal computer devices for 10 hours of instrument training and (2) discusses what is known about the training effectiveness of these devices and their long-term impact on a pilot's ability to fly safely. FAA's decision to allow the use of computer-based devices for instrument flight training took more than six years to be finalized and was based on two major research studies and input from aviation industry representatives. The two major research studies generally support the use of computer-based devices for training. Similarly, most experts GAO spoke with saw some training value from the use of devices and did not believe that they were likely to degrade aviation safety. GAO recommends that FAA gather more information on the long-term safety issues associated with computer-based devices and previously approved flight training devices.

GAO noted that: (1) FAA's decision to allow the use of computer-based devices for instrument flight training took over 6 years to be made final and was based on two major research studies, FAA's professional judgment, and input from aviation industry representatives; (2) because the two studies did not address the appropriate number of hours of training on these devices, FAA's decision to allow 10 hours was based on its professional judgment and industry input; (3) FAA had earlier relied on its professional judgments rather than empirical studies, to support its approval of up to 20 credit hours for the devices now known as flight training devices; (4) a University of Illinois research study is planned to assess the appropriate number of credit hours for the use of these devices in an instrument training course; (5) the two major research studies generally support the use of computer-based devices for training; (6) despite some methodological limitations, these are the most complete controlled studies to date on the training effectiveness of computer-based devices; (7) one study shows that the use of computer-based devices may modestly reduce the training time spent in an airplane, while the other shows that the training effects of computer-based devices and previously approved flight training devices may not differ greatly; (8) other studies GAO reviewed also generally supported the use of computer-based devices in training; (9) similarly, the majority of the experts GAO interviewed saw some training value from the use of the devices and did not believe that they were likely to reduce aviation safety; (10) although most experts did not speculate on the appropriate number of credit hours that should be granted for the devices, several disagreed with FAA's decision to allow any credit hours; (11) GAO found no empirical evidence, however, on the long-term safety impact of the devices, their potential safety benefits, or the long-term safety impact or benefits of the approved flight training devices; and (12) moreover, FAA does not collect the data needed to conduct future research on a possible link between the use of the devices and pilots' long-term safety records.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: