HUET RESEARCH TRAINING PROCEDURES

OPITO SCOPITOExits 15.12.2006 Page 19 of 30

5.0 TRAINING PROCEDURES

5.1 HUET RESEARCH

A number of research investigations have looked at the issue of improving the fidelity of HUET training. The term fidelity is used to describe the degree to which helicopter simulators represent the real environment within a helicopter and how closely evacuation and escape training procedures match the process that may be experienced in a real water impact incident. It is generally assumed that the closer the match and the higher the degree of similarity, the better will be the transfer of knowledge to the real situation. According to Summers 1996 close physical fidelity is not necessarily needed for transfer of training. Fidelity is determined by task analysis, which identifies the information required for learning and focuses on the actions that the individual will have to undertake rather than a close representation of the helicopter environment. Summers states essentially, it is the operational realism or functional similarity which determines fidelity in simulation and not face validity based on physical similarity of devices. Summers cites as an example a study where training in a plywood aircraft cockpit mock-up produced transfer of training that was similar to that achieved with a high fidelity, sophisticated and expensive cockpit simulator. From this research it can be concluded that, in developing training procedures, attention should focus primarily on the actions and sequence of events undertaken by delegates. The similarity of equipment should be a secondary consideration. Thus, when training delegates to operate an exit, it will be important to ensure that all actions, such as pulling on a tab to remove a seal before pushing out a window, are included in the escape procedures taught. Summers 1996 also investigated refresher training and concluded that relatively simple retraining methods may be sufficient for upgrading procedural skills particularly if the task was initially learned on the operational equipment. This suggests that learning about the operational environment by helicopter type-specific briefings, videos and safety cards is an essential part of the overall learning process. A study aimed at developing a training standard on behalf of Shell Muir and Mills, 1999 concluded that delegates must be given training and practice in the operation of representative exits if they are to meet minimum competency levels. They found that the training received significantly influenced the time taken by participants to operate an exit window in an inverted simulator METS. The time taken to operate the exit directly influenced the overall time taken to escape. They considered that transfer of training was dependent upon the operational environment and the force needed to operate an exit being similar to the real situation. Mills and Muir 1999 found that the completion of two inversions in the simulator during training improved both the confidence and performance of the trainees. They therefore suggested that trainees should complete a minimum of one, but would benefit from two, capsize exercises. It was found that higher fidelity training including the operation of exits caused more stress but individuals were more confident as a result of their training. Subjects completing a second capsize exercise experienced less stress than was experienced during the first capsize. Many experienced severe disorientation in the first inversion but learnt more during a second inversion when they knew what to expect. The authors also supported the need for part-task learning whereby trainees skills are built up in an incremental fashion Mills and Muir, 1999. More detailed training improved the speed and accuracy with which participants were able to operate exits. OPITO SCOPITOExits 15.12.2006 Page 20 of 30 A more recent study Kozey et al, 2006 also investigated the effects of training fidelity and practice on egress performance. Participants were split into three groups. Group 1 undertook two training exercises: one partial submersion and one inversion, both without windows to push out. Group 2 undertook three exercises: one partial submersion without a window to push out, one inversion without a window to push out and one inversion during which a window had to be pushed out to make a successful escape. Group 3 undertook six exercises: one partial submersion without a window to push out, one inversion without a window to push out and four inversions during which a window had to be pushed out to make a successful escape. During training, the operation of exits for the first time underwater decreased the pass rate, but with repeated training, success rates increased. Six months after the training, participants returned to complete a single underwater escape test including the operation of the push-out windows. Performance was evaluated on the basis of passing or failing the attempt to make a successful escape. The escape test results are reproduced below: Group Pass Fail Total 1 28 54 24 46 52 2 38 81 9 19 47 3 52 96 2 4 54 Training that included the operation of exits significantly improved the escape success rate from 54 to 81. There was a further significant improvement to a 96 success rate observed for the Group who had also had the opportunity to practice underwater escape with exits during their training. These results clearly demonstrate the combined benefits of including the operation of exits during training and of practicing underwater escape using exits.

5.2 SURVEY OF HUET TRAINING WITH EXITS