DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. – When tested on their knowledge of 23 types of weather information, from icing forecasts and turbulence reports to radar, 204 general aviation pilots surveyed by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University researchers were stumped by about 42% of the questions.
The findings, published in the April 2018 edition of the International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, are worrisome because GA pilots flying smaller planes at lower altitudes, usually with minimal ground-based support, have higher weather-related accident and fatality rates, said Elizabeth Blickensderfer, a professor in the university’s Department of Human Factors and Behavioral Neurobiology.
According to the researcher, of the four categories of pilots who completed the 95-question exam:
- Instrument-rated commercial pilots achieved the highest scores, with a 65% accuracy level;
- Instrument-rated private pilots ranked second, with 62% correct responses;
- Private pilots flying without an instrument rating scored 57%; and
- Students correctly answered only 48% of the questions.
Overall, the mean score across all 204 pilots was 57.89%, based on assessments conducted on the university’s Daytona Beach campus and at an air show in the midwestern United States.
Improved testing of GA pilots is needed, Blickensderfer said, noting that in 2014, the National Transportation Safety Board named “identifying and communicating hazardous weather” a top priority for improving safety.
However, the FAA’s Knowledge Exam allows pilots to pass even if they fail the weather portion of the test, the researcher noted.
Weather Displays are Part of the Problem
Blickensderfer emphasized, however, that her research should not be interpreted solely as a symptom of faulty pilot training.
“I don’t want to blame the pilots for deficiencies in understanding weather information,” she said. “We have got to improve how weather information is displayed so that pilots can easily and quickly interpret it. At the same time, of course, we can fine-tune pilot assessments to promote learning and inform training.”
What kinds of questions were asked on the survey?
As an example, pilots might be prompted to interpret cryptic METAR (Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine Weather Report) information, which helps pilots prepare for safe flights: “You notice the comment, `CB DSNT N MOV N.’ Based on this information, which of the following is true?”
Pilots should understand the METAR comment to mean, “Cumulonimbus clouds are more than 10 statute [land-measured] miles north of the airport and moving away from the airport.”
As another example, pilots might be asked to interpret a ground-based radar cockpit display, which would only show recent thunderstorm activity – not current conditions.
Or, the survey might ask pilots to look at an infrared satellite image and determine where the clouds with the highest-altitude clouds would most likely be found.
Assessing the Big Picture Before Takeoff
Thomas A. Guinn, an associate professor of meteorology at Embry-Riddle and a co-author on the study, noted that it’s critical for pilots to assess big-picture weather issues before takeoff. In addition, they need to understand, for instance, that radar displayed inside a cockpit shows what happened up to 15 minutes earlier.
“If you’re flying 120 miles per hour and you don’t understand that there’s a lag time in ground-based radar data reaching your cockpit, that can be deadly,” he said.
All test questions were designed to push pilots beyond whatever facts they had memorized, so that “they had to think about it and answer the question using the same thought processes as if they were performing a pre-flight check,” said Robert Thomas, another co-author of the study who is a Gold Seal Certified Flight Instructor and an assistant professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle.
The research was supported by $491,000 in funding from the FAA.
A follow-up study, involving about 1,000 GA pilots across the United States, is now underway.
I grew up around teletype when my father worked for the railroad. It was a step up from Morse code, but the railroad moved on in the 1970s. Teletype abbreviations are archaic. No one uses Morse code any longer and it would be ludicrous to ask people to know it before getting their pilot’s certificate. They are finally doing away with the teletype printout weather maps, why keep the teletype codes? (Yeah, I get it that some folks enjoy it. I know Morse and used to use it in Ham Radio but that was seldom a matter of life and death like knowing what a WX report for aviation means.)
This so called “study” really makes me irate … no … MAD !!! In another forum, I commented caustically and called it “fake news” … which it is. I opined that there was more to the story and … days later … sure enough … there was the proof right here …
This study cost the taxpayers $491,000 !!!!! (SIC) Read that again. The study interviewed 204 random pilots of unknown background. If you care to do that math, that’s over $2400.00 per respondent. Great work if you can get it. There are around 600,000 pilots in the US and they tested 204 people =~ 0.034% of the pilot population. Based upon that, they can make assumptions and change things !?
As soon as the study came out, it started being quoted as gospel in various aviation outlets … GA News among them. So on the basis of such a small sampling … now another more comprehensive study is required. They’re saying 1,000 people. Well … at $2400 per sampled pilot, that means the ‘new’ study will cost around $2.4 million. Even 1,000 people are only 0.16% of the pilot population. Folks … this is what happens when you give an Administration a large budget and they start spending it on ridiculous things. Embry Riddle is doing nothing but enrichening their coffers and their PhD’s are doing nothing more than fulfilling their requirements to be “published” in some “Journal.”
Beyond the very low sampling number of pilots and high cost … what the heck are the study’s principal trying to prove here? The good PhD says, “The findings, … are worrisome because GA pilots flying smaller planes at lower altitudes, usually with minimal ground-based support, have higher weather-related accident and fatality rates. DUH!! Where does she think GA pilots fly … FL 280? Of course they’re going to have a higher rate of weather related incidents.
So now the FAA bean counters will start doing “something” so that they can show that they’ve had a study and are taking firm action to correct the issues and then they can all jump up and down and say they’ve done something … based upon 0.03% of the pilot population. GREAT!
I’ve lost my respect for ERAU based upon THIS bogus study! And … the FAA is shedding responsibilities and cutting costs in others areas … for what … to fund $491K studies that don’t tell us anything substantial. Geez.
ME … I use the old rock for MY weather forecasting. Rock is wet … it’s raining. Rock is white … it’s snowing. Rock is hot … it’s sunny. And so on.
Yes and I’ll bet that the pilots that were surveyed didn’t get any of that money but I’m sure that everyone else involved got their pockets lined nicely
Everyone has great points, but I think you miss the point about weather information. It is just one leg of the tools you need.
Back when I was in my twenties and thirties I experienced circumstances where I flew around rapidly developing towering CBs in August at around 3 pm, both in a C-172 and B-737; in Florida. Weather information back then came only over a teletype and weather maps updated every hour. I learned very quickly that stationary CBs develop very quickly. So quickly that the weather center can hardly keep up with the information.
Knowing how weather occurs and what you are likely to experience in such weather ( will there likely be turbulence in stratus clouds?) is more useful than deciphering every little nuance of a weather report. I understood that unless I had the proper equipment on the airplane to fly in certain weather, especially in fast moving fronts, it’s best to stay on the ground. Weather reports won’t usually give you that insight, but experience and knowledge of how weather works will. Learn as much as you can from those who have experience in flying in various weather conditions. It will make you a more confident pilot when it comes to deciding on a go/no go flight.
I do have to say that after more than 50 years of flying, the tools we have today to be aware of what is happening with the weather and then flying from point A to B make it a whole lot easier and safer than ever before. I love it!
I spent 38 years in the Merchant Marine. Navigated around the planet with a sextant, the sun and stars. Used Loran A, Loran C , Omega, Transit Satilite and then GPS with and without selective availability. Now I have foreflight on my iphone. The information is there you just have to learn how to use it.
I agree with Miami mike ……. enough said
I taught FAA/JAA/EASA ground schools for 11 years. Weather information is presented cryptically and poorly, and is still stuck on teletype speeds (which is why everything is so severely abbreviated). Teletypes run at 110 or even as slowly as 60 baud. It is time to bring the dissemination of weather information into the 21st century.
I used to tell my students to go look at the weather channel after they read the “official” weather, which, as was stated, is often hours or even days old. I don’t care what last week’s weather was, it is the next few hours that are important to me.
I want to see a 3D visual presentation, full color, and I want to be able to click on any location and at any altitude and get the present conditions IN CLEAR LANGUAGE, and the forecast (same) for the next X, XX and XXX minutes.
There’s a reason we don’t navigate with sextants any more – it is called GPS. We also have these new-fangled pocket calculators, so we’ve stopped doing our sums on clay tablets. It is about time we brought aviation weather displays up to date, too. Want to reduce weather related accidents? Make the weather information easier to understand.
We don’t need to have an engineering degree to fly our airplanes, why should we have to be meteorologists to figure out the weather? Making it easier makes it safer. Making it safer reduces accidents and lowers insurance rates, and might even (perish the though!) encourage more people to take up aviation since it might not be perceived as so dangerous any more.
Agreed
I’m pretty sure that accidents in which weather was a contributing factor are generally not the result of the pilot’s inability to understand the information presented. These accidents result from the pilot’s poor choices when faced with adverse weather. Suggesting that 3D graphics will improve decision making seems highly speculative to me.
Easier is not necessarily safer. It seems to me the pilot who will make the effort to learn how to read a TAF is also the pilot who will make the effort to learn how to apply the information it contains. The pilot who won’t, won’t.
Looks like the VFR GA pilots did almost as well as the Professional IFR pilots.
I agree with Thomas above. Any questions surrounding METAR or TAF decoding should be deleted or significantly edited. At least provide a means for test takers to claim they use decoding apps or programs so those questions can be deleted. There may still be some test takers who don’t use decoding methods who DO need to know the codes.
Arcane? Cryptic? As a 50 year pilot and CFI, I have found many could be slapped in the face with weather reality and they still wouldn’t get it. What we have works, especially with pilot aids like iPads and ForeFlight…and some folks still don’t adapt or get it. Maybe a little tough love is in order.
Yup.
To quote the above, “As an example, pilots might be prompted to interpret cryptic METAR (Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine Weather Report) information, which helps pilots prepare for safe flights: “You notice the comment, `CB DSNT N MOV N.’ Based on this information, which of the following is true?”
Pilots should understand the METAR comment to mean, “Cumulonimbus clouds are more than 10 statute [land-measured] miles north of the airport and moving away from the airport.”
Really is that what it really means? As I read it the METAR reads the clouds are north of the airport and MOVING NORTH! Not away from the airport. If given this as an example then what do they expect? What the heck is a “land measured” mile? A statute mile is a statute mile period. Is this an example of the researchers questioning and answers, no wonder there is a problem.
Time to put the weather in plain English. For GA aviation simplify.
Ummm… North of the airport and moving north would indeed be “moving away”, right?
This stuff really isn’t that hard.
This sounds like an exercise in “gotcha”.
Weather information is almost infinitely arcane, and on top of that the standard teletype codes for communicating it are endlessly obscure. Pilots use translation engines for unusual teletype codes, and adopt go/no-go rules of thumb for weather that may be overly conservative, but don’t require deep meteorological knowledge. For example, when I see “CB” (or “TS”) in a METAR, I don’t need to know what the rest of the code means! And I have absolutely no need to know where to find the highest cloud tops in a satellite photo – what for? I’m low and slow, so it’s irrelevant.
Yes, we need better weather products. No, pilots do not need to be required to learn arcane weather information and codes.
Thomas hit the nail on the head, arcane weather information would be an understatement in my opinion. It’s now the 21st century, were far from limited to obscure two character abbreviations sent at 1200 baud.
I also don’t need a degree in meteorology to make a go/no go decision. Yes we definitely need some basic weather knowledge but I don’t need to know the intricate details of four different types of fog and how, when, and where each one forms, if it’s fog I’m not going to fly in it.