The Effectiveness of the iPad In the Flight Deck: An Evaluation

Results

To evaluate the effectiveness of Apple iPads and like devices concerning potential safety risks, a survey sample was taken of the over 1,000 students at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Of the 96 aeronautical students who participated in the study, 77 % reported that they use iPads in flight within the cockpit. It was only the students that have adopted the use of the iPad who were able to further participate in the research. This delimitation was imposed by the researcher due to limited access to pilots who use iPads. Of the 77 %, further questions were asked in gathering information about said iPad usage in the cockpit.

This left the study findings focused on the remaining 74 active pilots studying at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University as the primary sample used in representing the population of current pilots utilizing iPads during their flight experiences. Of the study findings, one noticed that although 74 students do use iPod devices during flight, not every student answered every question, and took the option to skip. This may have skewed the results slightly, however, enough students answered each question to sufficiently support the data retrieved in determining statistical findings for most lines of questioning. There were a couple of questions that were skipped by a majority of students. Each question was answered by a large enough sample size to be sufficient in generalizing findings to the entire population. The purpose of this statistical research is to determine if the iPad has influenced flight student’s safety, workload, and expenses.

Descriptive Statistics

The statistical tests used consist of qualitative surveys used in determining if there was a significant difference between pilots who used the iPads and pilots who did not. This was calculated in terms of the amount of workload they indicated that they experienced while using the iPad and paper versions, money they had to spend per year on charts, flight manuals, and maps and whether they felt an interference ever occurred between the radio signals. Ordinal data were collected and it will be presented by the researcher in the form of bar graphs and pie charts. Since the study design and statistical measurements used were very simple and basic, simple statistics will be used in describing the data and presenting the results. The descriptive statistics used are primarily qualitative. Three primary questions were aimed to be answered as it pertains to those who use iPads in flight. These three questions pertained to how much money students save each year by using the iPad, if the iPad reduces the overall workload in cockpits, and if the iPad causes any interference with the aircraft navigation system.

Qualitative Data

Of the respondents who indicated that they did use iPads in the cockpit, the remainder of the questions given by Survey Monkey were asked to students. The first question asks if the iPad has ever caused any radio interference within the navigation systems. The number of students who answered this question was 71. This means that three students failed to answer this question, or chose to skip it. Of the 71 students who answered, only one respondent indicated that they had experienced interference within the navigation system while utilizing an iPad in flight. Chart one shows the results via a bar graph and pie chart. This leaves 70 students out of the initial 96, and 70 out of the test sample size of 74 who have never experienced interruptions throughout their experience with the navigation system as it pertains to using an iPad.

The second question asked to the test sample pertains to whether or not the iPad has ever frozen, crashed, locked up, etc. during flight. Of the 74 respondents within the sample, 73 responded, and one did not. Of the 73 respondents, five said that they did experience a malfunction with the iPad during a flight, and 68 respondents reported that they did not. The results are displayed in chart two which depicts the bar graph and pie chart showing the percentages. This brings us to the third question about whether or not the iPad has saved students money on maps, charts, checklists, and flight manuals. Of the 74 students, only one skipped. This form of question was not a yes or no, but rather asked the participant to choose that they strongly agree that they have saved money, agree, are neutral; or that they disagree or strongly disagree. Chart three shows that 42 participants, or 58%, reported that they strongly agree. Only 29%, or 21 participants, reported that they agree. Even lower, 11 participants/ 15% were neutral. No one disagreed, and one person strongly disagreed; leveraging 1.37% of the sample population.

The fourth question in the survey asked the 74 students if, as a pilot, they recommend using the iPad in the cockpit as an electronic flight bad. Of the students questioned, only one person skipped this question. The students were given the same choices based upon the varying levels of agreeableness experienced with the statement as the third question. The results, which are shown in chart 4, show that 73% (53 students) strongly agreed. Only 23% (17 students) agreed, and four students (5%) were neutral. An interesting factor to note is that no one said that they would not recommend using the iPad in the cockpit as an electronic flight bag. Of everyone questioned, no one opposed the suggestion. Four students simply remained neutral to the idea, while well over 50% strongly recommended their use.

The fifth question asked students about the ease of managing their workload, transferring between paper charts, maps, and checklists in the cockpit. This is without the use of the iPad. Of those surveyed, only 15 students responded. This is difficult in generalizing to the entire sample. Perhaps a majority of these students are not yet advanced to the point that they have to use these functions, or perhaps they have never experienced having to navigate through physical charts, maps, and checklists. Perhaps these students who did not answer have only been exposed to the iPad in completing these functions.

Of the 15 students who answered the question, one said that it is not a problem and they can transfer between the paper charts, maps, and checklists with ease. Seven students (47%) reported that they transferred with somewhat ease, but that at times it could be difficult. Four students (27%) reported that half of the time it was difficult, and half the time it was easy. Only two students (13%) reported that they had a somewhat difficult time across the board. One student (7%) reported that they had a difficult time.

The percentages are shown in chart 5 and are based upon those who did respond. It was not asked of those who do not use iPads, however, if they can transfer through these documents with ease. Furthermore, the results would look much different if the percentages were based upon all 74 students who did use iPads in flight, or on the 96 students in total who participated in the survey. There was one last question which is presented in chart 6 which was asked of the students. This pertains to how much money they spend on average per semester on flight books, aircraft checklists, maps, approach charts, airport directories, and flight manuals.

The expensed defined in the questionnaire pertain only to expenses that could potentially be eliminated through the use of the iPad’s in-flight activities. None of the costs measured in the survey pertain to any type of tuition payments or expenses that could be accrued in addition to using the iPad to retrieve these resources, save paper, hassle and time. Of the 74 students who were surveyed, only 16 people answered this question. Of these 16 students, ten of them stated that they spend $100 or less on these materials. Six students or 38% stated that they spent over $100 on these materials. It is difficult to know why such a large portion of students chose not to respond to this question. Perhaps they did not have any expenses accrued due to these materials. There was not an option for students to choose that they did not spend any money on the materials, however, choosing the option of $100 or less would have sufficed.

Conclusion

In reviewing the results from the survey one can see where changes and revisions are necessary. Additional variables could be gathered in attaining a greater picture of the participants and the reasons as to why so many participants chose not to answer the last two questions. Perhaps additional options such as “I have never used paper aircraft checklists, maps, approach charts, airport directories and flight manuals.” Another idea would be to ask these questions about the physical documents rather than the iPad functions to all those who participated in the survey and did not use iPads. This would give a greater idea as to how all pilots react to these variables. Additional variables pertaining to the students researched which could give one greater date to create further statistical inferences such as correlations, chi-squared, etc. could be gained, as well as running tests of reliability and variance on those more sophisticated statistical results. As the survey is, it is incredibly basic and did not identify or analyze any sort of demographic information about the students other than that they were of a specific program at one university. Demographic information such as their year in the program, flight hours in the air, age, SES (socioeconomic status), income, gender, ethnic origin, education outside of the program, experience with IT software, etc. could aid in further insight into this issue and more complex statistical data.

Reference

iPad inflight survey responses. (2014) Responses. Survey Monkey. Retrieved from: http://www. Surveymonkey.com/results/SM_WCPB6J9/.