RU2182815C1 - Method for evaluating aircraft crew training quality in the human factor sphere - Google Patents

Abstract

FIELD: medicine. SUBSTANCE: method involves taking into account the whole set of psychodiagnostic indices and training results. Preliminary characteristics of aircraft crew personal training condition are determined at the first stage for each member of aircraft crew on the basis of human socionic model and crew member socionic model. Fitness coefficient value ξ is calculated from formula

, where X_pj is the quantitative expression of human socionic model or crew member socionic model component corresponding to one of the social types in fractions of unit for crew member number j; p- ordinal social type index of a crew member; θ_p - is the coefficient showing to what is the compliance degree of given p-th sociotype to professional flight personnel standards. Preliminary characteristics of personal training condition of an aircraft crew as a whole are determined at the second stage on the basis of aircraft crew socionic characteristic property and aircraft crew socionic model. personal training condition characteristics in the course of training are determined at the third stage on the basis of potential working capacity and practical interaction efficiency under emergency conditions. Aircraft crew personal training condition characteristics are determined at the fourth stage on the basis of personal deviations of AT- standard value, specification and valence and changes in behavior style during the training period. Training quality indices are determined at the fifth stage on the basis of collective changes in specification and valence during the training period. Complex estimation of aircraft crew training quality in the human factor sphere is determined by taking into account the whole set of the obtained characteristics. EFFECT: high reliability of evaluation. 2 dwg, 13 tbl

Description

 The invention relates to psychology and can be used in the training of flight personnel.

 It is known that human error is the dominant cause of accidents and incidents, therefore, education and training in the field of the human factor of flight personnel and an objective assessment of the capabilities and limits of human capabilities are extremely necessary to ensure flight safety.

 The human factor is a science about people in the environment in which they live and work, about their interaction with machines, procedures and the environment, as well as about the interaction of people among themselves / 1 /.

 A known method of psychophysiological assessment of the status of crew members of the aircraft, in which to determine the health of crew members use the method of assessing their psychological reserves / 2 /.

 The known method does not allow to identify and evaluate the capabilities and limitations of each member of the crew of the aircraft in the field of their interaction in an extreme situation.

 There are various methods for assessing the training of the crew of an aircraft (AC) in the field of the human factor, including group training, psychodiagnostic testing of crew members of the aircraft, as well as assessing their performance / 3 /, assessing the effectiveness of the interaction of crew members of the aircraft / 4 /.

 However, the known methods do not allow a complete, objective and reliable assessment of the training of the aircraft crew in the field of the human factor.

 It is known that a human person is a complex systemic formation that realizes itself at four levels of functioning: biological (human-nature), psychological (human-human), social (human-society) and informational (human-noosphere), or in terms of socionics, a person is characterized at the level of dichotomy "rationality-irrationality", "logic-ethics", "sensory-intuition" and "extraversion-introversion", respectively / 5 /.

In psychology, in particular in one of its areas - socionics / 5 /, it is known that a person’s personality type is determined by a combination of his mental functions - mind, will, intuition, emotions, etc. There are 16 socionic types of people (sociotypes or types of informational metabolism (TIM)) that exchange information with the outside world and among themselves according to certain laws / 5, 6 /, namely:
1. ILE - an intuitive logical extrovert; 2. SEI - sensory-ethical introvert; 3. ESE - ethical-sensory extrovert; 4. LII - a logical and intuitive introvert; 5. EIE - ethical and intuitive extrovert; 6. LSI - logical-sensory introvert; 7. SLE - sensory-logical extrovert; 8. IEI - intuitive and ethical introvert; 9. LIE - logical and intuitive extrovert; 10. ESI - ethical-sensory introvert; 11. SEE - sensory-ethical extravert; 12. OR - an intuitive logical introvert; 13. LSE - logical-sensory extrovert; 14. EII - ethical-intuitive introvert; 15. IEE - intuitive and ethical extrovert; 16. SLI - sensory-logical introvert.

 The problem of training aircraft crew members and the problem of crew formation with high interaction efficiency directly depends on the reliability of the diagnosis of the type of personality of the aircraft crew member and intertype relationships / 5 / in the crew.

 Intertype relationships cannot be reduced to only one type, even for a single specific pair of people.

 For a reliable assessment of the behavior of an aircraft crew member, it is not enough to simply indicate which TIM it refers to, because it will be only the dominant component of his personality (in its socionic aspect). Therefore, there is a need to create a socionic model of a person (MSC), where it can be shown in what proportion each of TIM is represented in this particular person, i.e. to quantify the degree of presence (or differentiation) of each TIM in a particular person (16 quantitative estimates for each TIM and form its TMS).

 Since the pilot’s informational metabolism in the aircraft-aircraft crew system differs from his informational metabolism as a person in the man-universe system (table 1), in addition to the SMC, to evaluate training in the human factor field, it is also necessary to obtain a socionic model of the crew member ( SMCHE). And since a crew member in both the man-universe system and the aircraft-aircraft system is characterized by not one, but the 16th TIM, intertype relationships cannot be reduced to only one type, even for a single specific pair of people. Consequently, there is a need to create a socionic crew model (SME), which would quantitatively determine the whole range of intertype relationships in the "aircraft-aircraft crew" system.

 The objective of the present invention is to provide an objective and reliable method for a comprehensive assessment of the training of the aircraft crew in the field of the human factor by determining and evaluating the personal characteristics of the aircraft crew members, as well as the results of the activities of the aircraft crew as a collective operator as a whole.

 The essence of the proposed invention is as follows.

где X_pj - количественное выражение составляющей СМЧ или СМЧЭ, соответствующее одному из сопиотипов (ТИМ) в долях единицы для j-го члена экипажа;
р - порядковый индекс социотипа (ТИМ);
θ_p - коэффициент, показывающий, на сколько данный р-й ТИМ соответствует профессиональным требованиям для летного состава.A method for assessing the training of an aircraft crew (aircraft) in the field of the human factor includes conducting training in the form of a series of games and exercises with the aim of actively psychological impact on the aircraft crew members, their individual and group psychodiagnostic testing, and determining the personal characteristics of the aircraft crew members and the results of testing assessment of their performance. New in the proposed method is that they evaluate the training of the aircraft crew by the totality of the complex of psychodiagnostic indicators and training results. At the same time, at the first stage, preliminary indicators of individual training of each of the aircraft crew members are determined based on the identification of the socionic model of a person (MSC), the socionic model of the aircraft crew member (MSC) and the calculation of the suitability factors ξ by the formula:

where X _pj is the quantitative expression of the component of the TIS or TIS, corresponding to one of the sopiotypes (TIM) in fractions of a unit for the j-th crew member;
p is the ordinal index of sociotype (TIM);
θ _p is a coefficient showing how much the given r-th TIM meets professional requirements for the flight crew.

 At the second stage, preliminary indicators of the training of the aircraft crew as a whole are determined based on the identification of the socionic characteristics of the crew (SCE) and the socionic crew model (SME). At the third stage, the training indicators for the aircraft crew members in the training process are determined based on the identification of potential extreme performance (PEP) and the practical effectiveness of the interaction. At the fourth stage, the training indicators for the aircraft crew members are determined on the basis of determining individual shifts of the AT-norm, normativity, valency and changes in the dominant style of behavior during the training. At the fifth stage, training indicators are determined based on the definition of collective changes in normativity and valency during the training.

 Then, based on the totality of the obtained indicators, in accordance with predetermined conditions, a comprehensive assessment of the training of the aircraft crew in the field of the human factor is determined, while the crew training is assessed as "excellent" when all the indicators obtained in the aggregate correspond to the specified conditions not lower than "excellent". If at least one of the aggregate of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions of the assessment “excellent”, but all the indicators obtained in the aggregate correspond to the specified conditions not lower than “good”, the crew training is assessed as “good”. If at least one of the aggregate of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions for evaluating "excellent" and / or "good", but all the indicators in the aggregate meet the specified conditions not lower than "satisfactory", the crew training is assessed as "satisfactory".

 In all other cases, the crew training is rated as unsatisfactory.

 The method is as follows.

 I. At the first stage, individual preliminary training indicators are determined in the field of the human factor of each member of the aircraft crew, while in the process of training the aircraft crew members, the parameters of the human socionic model (MSC), which characterizes the behavior of each crew member in the environment of the "man- universe "(table 1) and the parameters of the socionic model of a crew member (CEME), which characterizes the behavior of each crew member in the environment of the system" aircraft crew - aircraft "(table a 1), and then based on the obtained parameters calculated coefficients ξ suitability of each of these models.

 TMS is determined on the basis of data obtained using the MM-1 test, for which each member of the aircraft crew is offered to answer 30 questions from the test questionnaire, and each question corresponds to two proposed answers, indicated by the letters L and P.

 Questionnaire test "MM-1."

 1. What seems more important to you? L. Assessment of others. P. Self-esteem.

 2. In order to understand any issue, which is easier for you? L. Ask. P. Read.

 3. The circle of your acquaintances ... L. Shirok. P. Narrow.

 4. Is it easy for you to speak first with a stranger? L. Yes. P. No.

 5. If you need to do anything, is it easy for you to reach out to other people? L. Yes. P. No.

 6. Visiting you, as a rule, it is interesting to communicate with the majority of those present? L. Yes. P. No.

 7. Can you say that you are most likely a sociable person? L. Yes. P. No.

 8. Which word best suits your character? L. Uninhibited. P. Restrained.

 9. Which word most closely matches your spiritual structure? L. Lively. P. Calm.

 10. Which word most closely matches your spiritual mindset? L. Sociable. P. Closed.

 11. Which definition most closely matches your spiritual makeup? L. Critical. P. uncritical.

 12. Which definition most closely matches your spiritual makeup? L. Provident. P. Sympathy.

 13. Which definition most closely matches your spiritual makeup? L. Justice. P. Mercy.

 14. Which definition most closely matches your spiritual makeup? L. Cautious. P. Trusting.

 15. What is the most appropriate action for your spiritual disposition? L. To think. P. To survive.

 16. Your mindset is more likely ... L. Technical. P. Humanitarian.

 17. What is more in your spiritual spirit? L. Reasonableness. P. Empathy.

 18. What do you remember easier? L. Numbers. P. Persons and (or) names.

 19. Which word more closely matches your spiritual mindset? L. Truth. P. Beauty.

 20. Do you consider the formula “Law is harsh, but it is a law” fair? L. Yes. P. No.

 21. What inspires your confidence more? L. Experience. P. Premonition.

 22. What do you think is worse? L. Soar in the clouds. P. Walk the beaten track.

 23. You are more likely to be a person in life ... L. Practical. P. Impractical.

 24. What annoys you more when it rains? L. Possibility of being splattered by a car. P. The need to wade through puddles and mud.

 25. What is your greatest praise? To say that you have ... L. Common sense. P. Rich imagination.

 26. What is more in line with your spiritual structure? L. Practice. P. Theory.

 27. Which concept more closely matches your spiritual mindset? L. Concreteness (that which can be "touched with hands"). P. Abstractness (that which is a "product of inference").

 28. Do you like something more ... L. Do. P. Come up.

 29. Which word do you like more? L. Foundation. P. Spire.

 30. What interests you more in work and (or) in your studies? L. Experience. P. Theory.

 Each testee evaluates the proposed answers to each question posed as a percentage from 0% to 100% and puts down the obtained values in the left (L) and right (P) cells of the three lines of the proposed test table (an example of filling is shown in table 2). After filling in all the cells of the table, the values are summed up respectively in the left and right cells of each row of the table.

где i - номер строки, соответствующей i-й психологической дихотомии;
γ - номер клетки таблицы, соответствующий номеру вопроса теста. Значения Z_Л4 и Z_П4 для дихотомии "рацио"/"иррацио" определяются из выражений:
Z_Л4 = 0,5+|0,5-Z_Л2|-|0,5-Z_Л3|, (4)
Z_П4 = 0,5-|0,5-Z_Л2|+|0,5-Z_Л3|, (5)
Формулы для определения степени дифференциации отдельных р-х ТИМ (Х_p) соционической модели человека (СМЧ) приведены в таблице 3.If we denote by the indices Z _Лiγ and Z _{Пiγ the} sums of the values in the left and right cells of Table 2, respectively, then the values of Z _Лi and Z _{Пi will} be determined from the expressions:

where i is the line number corresponding to the i-th psychological dichotomy;
γ is the table cell number corresponding to the test question number. The values of Z _L4 and Z _P4 for the dichotomy "ration" / "irration" are determined from the expressions:
Z _L4 = 0.5+ | 0.5-Z _L2 | - | 0.5-Z _L3 |, (4)
Z _P4 = 0.5- | 0.5-Z _L2 | + | 0.5-Z _L3 |, (5)
Formulas for determining the degree of differentiation of individual r-TIMs (X _p ) of the socionic model of man (MSC) are shown in table 3.

 An example of the determination of TMS is presented in table 4.

где X_pj - количественное выражение составляющей СМЧ, соответствующее одному из социотипов (ТИМ) в долях единицы для j-го члена экипажа;
р - порядковый индекс социотипа (ТИМ);
θ_p - коэффициент, показывающий, на сколько р-й ТИМ соответствует профессиональным требованиям для летного состава.The coefficient of suitability, which determines the parameters of the socionic model of man (MSC) of the j-th crew member, is calculated by the formula:

where X _pj is the quantitative expression of the component of the NMS corresponding to one of the sociotypes (TIM) in fractions of a unit for the j-th crew member;
p is the ordinal index of sociotype (TIM);
θ _p - coefficient showing how much the r-th TIM meets professional requirements for the flight crew.

The coefficient θ _p = 0-3 (determined by expert).

Table 5 shows the numerical values of the coefficient θ _p determined for each TIM by expert means.

 The socionic model of a crew member (CEME) is determined on the basis of the test of the ACT questionnaire, which takes into account the specifics of flight activity and reflects the features of the functioning of an aircraft crew member in the EVS-VS environment (table 1).

 In contrast to the TIS, which defines informational metabolism in the "man-universe" system, the TISE defines informational metabolism in the specific system "crew member of the aircraft - aircraft".

 Each test person was asked to answer the 30 questions proposed in a form similar to the answer form for the MM-1 test questions, and the test table is filled in the same way (an example of filling is shown in table 6). After filling it, the values are also summed up in the left and right cells of each row of the table, respectively.

 Test questionnaire "ACT".

 1. Are outside conversations in the cockpit really hindering you from focusing? L. No. P. Yes.

 2. Do you happen to comment on your actions in flight? L. Yes. P. No.

 3. Do you communicate with representatives of ground services on informal topics, if time permits? L. Often. P. Rarely.

 4. Do you have many good friends in other airport services? L. A lot. P. Little.

 5. Do you know the pilots of other squadrons well? L. Many. P. Few.

 6. Do you think that informal relationships in the crew help in the work? L. Essentially. P. Not relevant.

 7. Do you consult with other crew members on issues of relationship with management? L. Often. P. Rarely.

 8. Are you deprived of the inability to communicate with other crew members in flight? L. Often. P. Rarely.

 9. Do you consider it possible to intervene in the discussion in the booth? L. Often. P. Rarely.

 10. Is it difficult for you not to fall asleep in a monotonous flight? L. Easy. P. Difficult.

 11. In the fight for safety, which, in your opinion, is more acceptable: L. Ruthlessness. P. Injustice.

 12. Do you survive the mistakes of other crew members? L. Yes, but without unnecessary emotions. P. Yes, it excites me.

 13. Could a decision be appropriate if it is detrimental to a crew member? L. Yes. P. No.

 14. Will you stay in flight if you are offered the same material conditions elsewhere? L. No. P. Yes.

 15. Do you think that pilots are special people? L. No. P. Yes.

 16. What is easier for you to do? L. Calculate. P. Introduce.

 17. When reading guidance documents, what do you remember easier? L. Numbers. P. Schemes.

 18. When you look at an airplane, what impresses you more? L. The expediency of the design. P. The beauty of form.

 19. Do you agree that the romance of flight work brought you to aviation? L. It was not basic. P. Yes, I think so.

 20. Do you feel confident in an uncertain situation? L. No. P. Yes.

 21. Do you consider that in a special situation it is more important to understand that. .. L. Occurs at the moment. P. May occur later.

 22. In your search for a way out of a special situation not foreseen by the RLE, you prefer ... L. Titmouse in his hands. P. Crane in the sky.

 23. Do you prefer, first of all, to have information ... L. On the current situation of the aircraft. P. On the forecasted position of the aircraft.

 24. Does it happen that when conducting radio communications the unpleasant voice of the interlocutor annoys you greatly? L. Yes, it does. P. I don’t care.

 25. Do you notice that inconvenient controls interfere with your work? L. Quite often. P. Very rarely.

 26. Does the design of the scales of some devices annoy you? L. Quite often. P. Very rarely.

 27. Are such trifles as the appearance of an airplane significant to you? L. Rather, yes. P. Rather, no.

 28. Did it happen that your intuition came into conflict with your experience in flying? L. Rarely. P. Often.

 29. Do you feel integrated with the plane? L. Often. P. Rarely.

 30. Do you enjoy piloting an airplane in difficult conditions? L. Yes. P. No.

If we denote by the indices Z _Лiγ and Z _{Пiγ the} sums of the values in the left and right cells of Table 6, respectively, then the values of Z _Лi and Z _Пi are calculated in the same way (according to formulas 1-5), as in determining the socionic model of a person (SMC).

 Formulas for the determination of SME are given in table 3.

 An example of the determination of TMSE is presented in table 7.

The suitability coefficient, which determines the parameters of the socionic model of the crew member (MSCE) of the j-th crew member, is calculated by the formula (6), where X _pj is the quantitative expression of the MSCE component corresponding to one of the sociotypes (TIM) in fractions of a unit.

 II. At the second stage, indicators of preliminary training in the field of the human factor of the aircraft crew as a whole are determined.

 At this stage, the parameters of the socionic characteristics of the crew (SCE) and the socionic model of the crew (SME) are determined.

 The aircraft crew, like any living social organism, has the property of integrity, and therefore the SMEs of individual members of the aircraft crew will not, mechanically summing up, determine the behavior of the aircraft crew as a collective operator (KO). Nevertheless, if you offer the crew of the aircraft some task (or test), he will solve it. Consequently, the aircraft crew as a KO obviously has some socionic characteristics, the properties of which determine the result of the aircraft crew solving a problem (test). That is, the aircraft crew, like any working micro-collective, has a certain analogue of TIM called the crew socionic characteristic (SCE).

 Thus, the SCE is a type of realization of the potential capabilities of the aircraft crew in their professional activities.

 The levels of functioning of the aircraft crew as a collective operator are shown in table 8.

 To determine the parameters of SCE, the above ACT test is used.

By a similar methodology, members of the aircraft crew under study are invited to answer the questions of the same test, but together, based on consensus / 4 /. The resulting values of the values Z _L1 , Z _P1 , Z _L2 , Z _P2 , Z _L3 , Z _P3 , Z _L4 , Z _P4 , characterizing the presence of individual properties (or rather professionally important qualities) that are characteristic of the corresponding levels of functioning, will be SCE itself.

Efficiency criteria when comparing the SCE with the values Z _L1j , Z _P1j , Z _L2j , Z _P2j , Z _L3j , Z _P3j , Z _L4j , Z _P4j will be as follows (j is the index assigned to the corresponding member of the aircraft crew under study).

говорит о том, что взаимодействие в экипаже ВС является эффективным. Строгое неравенство свидетельствует о наличии синергизма.Fulfillment of conditions:
(Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ) (7)
(Z _Л2 -Z _П2j ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ) (8)
(Z _L3 -Z _P3 ) ≥ (Z _L3j -Z _P3j ) (9)

says that the interaction in the crew of the aircraft is effective. Strict inequality indicates the presence of synergism.

 If at least one of the conditions (7) - (10) is not satisfied for the j-th crew member of the aircraft, then it is considered that these conditions are not fulfilled for this crew member.

 The following criteria are used to evaluate crew training.

 If conditions (7) - (10) are satisfied for at least 2/3 of the aircraft crew, the rating is "excellent", if these conditions are met for at least half of the aircraft crew members, the rating is "good" if these conditions are met for at least than one member of the aircraft crew - a rating of "satisfactory." In all other cases, the rating is "unsatisfactory".

 If, for example, there are 3 people in the carriage, then the fulfillment of conditions (7) - (10) for three members - the rating is "excellent", for two - "good", for one - "satisfactory", for no one - "unsatisfactory".

 If, for example, there are 4 people in the carriage, then the fulfillment of conditions (7) - (10) for three and four members - the rating is "excellent", for two - "good", for one - "satisfactory", for no one - "unsatisfactory "

To determine the parameters of the socionic model of the aircraft crew (SME), the initial data are the socionic models of crew members (SME), i.e. X _pj values determined by the formulas from table 3.

In total it turns out to = C _j ² - pairs, where J is the number of people in the crew.

т. е. для экипажа из трех человек это будет три пары, для экипажа из четырех человек - 6 пар.

i.e., for a crew of three people it will be three pairs, for a crew of four people - 6 pairs.

The obtained values of Z _pj characterizing the SME of the j-th crew member of the aircraft with the serial index TIM TIME "p" serve as initial data for calculating the parameters of the SME, which are determined in the following order.

 A square matrix is constructed in the form of a table (table 9), where the column number corresponds to the TIM order index of the corresponding component of the ISMS of the first crew member, and the row number corresponds to the TIM order number of the corresponding ISMS component of the second crew member.

The value of the (p, p) th element of the matrix is defined as:
ω _{p, p} = X _p1 • X _p2 . (12)
We summarize the values of ω _{p, p of the} elements of the matrix, which are at the positions corresponding to the cells in the table 9 with the same IO. The numbers of IO - ν correspond to those given in table 9.

A matrix of elements of the set {Ω _кν } $\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{\text{16}}{\text{ν = 1}}$ for the k-th pair of members of the crew of the aircraft, there is the SME for this k-th pair.

The effectiveness of the interaction of aircraft crew members is determined by the ratio of the values:
valid IO:
Ω ₍₊₎ = Ω ₁ + Ω ₂ + Ω ₃ + Ω ₇ + Ω ₁₁ ; (thirteen)
neutral IO:
Ω _⌀ = Ω ₄ + Ω ₈ + Ω ₉ + Ω ₁₂ + Ω ₁₆ ; (14)
invalid IO:
Ω _(-) = Ω ₅ + Ω ₆ + Ω ₁₀ + Ω ₁₃ + Ω ₁₄ + Ω ₁₅ . (fifteen)
In this case, information on the admissibility (Ω ₍₊₎ ), inadmissibility (Ω _(-) ) or neutrality (Ω _⌀ ) of the AI is determined by experts on the basis of the analysis of the generally accepted / 5 / description of the AI and comparing this description with the requirements for relations in the crew .

хорошая, если в полученной СМЭ выполняется условие:

удовлетворительная, если в полученной СМЭ выполняется условие:

неудовлетворительная, если в полученной СМЭ выполняется условие:
(2/3≤Ω₍₊₎+Ω_⌀)<3/4) Λ (Ω₍₊₎<1/5); (19)
крайне неудовлетворительная, если в полученной СМЭ выполняется условие:
(Ω₍₊₎+Ω_⌀)<2/3. (20)
Соотношения (16)-(20) получены экспертным путем на основе сопоставления данных соционической психодиагностики в процессе тренингов и учебных занятий и сравнением их с апробированными данными.The effectiveness of the interaction in the crew will be excellent if the following condition is met in the obtained SME:

good if in the obtained SME the condition is satisfied:

satisfactory if in the obtained SME the condition is satisfied:

unsatisfactory if, in the resulting SME, the condition is met:
(2 / 3≤Ω ₍₊₎ + Ω _⌀ ) <3/4) Λ (Ω ₍₊₎ <1/5); (19)
extremely unsatisfactory, if the condition is met in the obtained SME:
(Ω ₍₊₎ + Ω _⌀ ) <2/3. (20)
Relationships (16) - (20) were obtained by experts on the basis of comparing the data of socionic psychodiagnostics in the course of trainings and studies and comparing them with the tested data.

 III. At the third stage, the training indicators in the field of the human factor are determined, obtained in the course of a special psychological training - training of a strong commander (TSC), which includes psycho-diagnostics, special role-playing games and exercises, and individual counseling.

 In order to determine how psychologically stable a member of the aircraft crew will be during an extreme situation, the concept of potential extreme working capacity (PER) is used.

 PEP is the predicted ability of a member of the aircraft crew to perform correct and timely actions during some potential situation (OS) that is potentially possible during the flight.

 Assessment of PER is carried out in the process of TSC.

PER is characterized by the value of w, determined by the formula
w = n + m,
where n is the neuroticism of the crew member, which determines emotional stability;
m is a coefficient characterizing how adequately the danger is assessed in an extreme situation.

The neurotism of the j-th aircraft crew member (n _j ) for each j-th aircraft crew member is determined by the Eysenck test / 7 /.

 Coefficient m is determined in the process of TSC.

At the same time, in order to obtain standard PED assessments, participants are presented with a standard set of descriptions of special situations (OS), the objective danger of which is known - obtained by an expert survey of a large number of experienced pilots who have experience in extreme situations, including similar OS
Each j-th participant evaluates each of the proposed set of dangerous situations, determining a subjective assessment of its danger.

Based on the results for each participant, the value of m _j is determined by the known method / 8 / and, accordingly, the value of w _{j is} calculated, which characterizes the potential extreme performance of the j-th crew member of the aircraft.

w _j = n _j + m _j ,
The practical effectiveness of the interaction between aircraft crew members is determined on the basis of the Stealth role-playing game / 9 /, the purpose of which is to work out real interaction in the crew in solving a problem indirectly based on the principle of a homeostat.

 The crew is given "PROBA" - i.e. cyclic algorithm of computer actions (TsADK) with a length of 5 moves (the participants are not aware of this), but without limiting the number of visits. After completing "PROBA" and acquaintance with the technology of work, the crew is given a new TsADK already valid for a length of 6 to 9 moves with a time limit of no more than 20 minutes per run.

 The criterion for the practical effectiveness of the interaction is the number of approaches required to successfully complete the exercise.

 Assessment of practical effectiveness is carried out using table 10.

 IV. At the fourth stage, training indicators are determined on the basis of individual shifts that have occurred during the training process.

At this stage, for each j-th crew member of the aircraft, the parameters of emotional shifts are determined - the shift of the autotraining norm (Δ _ATj ), the normativity shift (Δ _Nj ), the valency shift (Δ _Vj ), as well as the shift in the dominant behavior style (Δ _rj ), recorded before and after the training.

 Shifts in the autotraining norm (AT norm), normativity, and valency show the presence or absence of positive tendencies for mutual understanding, the ability to learn how to interact and improve the efficiency of joint work among individual members of the aircraft crew and the aircraft crew as a whole during the training of a strong commander (TSC) .

The data for obtaining these indicators are detected twice - before and after (TSC), while for each crew member, the initial and final values of Δ _AT , N, V, r are revealed.

The shift of the AT norm is determined using the Luscher color test / 10 /, and for each j-th participant, the initial (AT _beginning.j ) and final (AT _end.j ) AT norms are _calculated according to the color series using table 11.

The shift of the AT norm (Δ _ATj ) is determined by the formula
Δ _ATj = AT _nach -AT _konj (21)
The valency shift and the normative shift are determined using the Luscher test and the color relationship test (CTC) / 11, 12 /, while the valency is calculated at the place that the named color occupies in the individual color range of preferences, and the normativity is calculated at the place that takes the selected color in autotraining norm.

According to the data of the color series, before the training and after the training, the initial _{Nj beginning} and the final N _{jcon of} normativity are _calculated , as well as the initial V _{j beginning} and final V _{j of} valency.

The normative shift Δ _Nj is defined as
Δ _Nj = N _jn −N _jcon . (22)
The valence shift Δ _Vj is defined as
Δ _Vj = V _jnach -V _jcon . (23)
It is known that the style of human behavior is determined by the orientation of his personality. The following styles of behavior are distinguished:
- self-direction, when a person is primarily inclined to act in his own interests (E);
- focus on the interests of the team (to interact with other people) when a person enjoys working in a "team". His interests are continuously connected with the interests of the collective (L);
- focus on business, when a person is interested in the best performance of the work that he undertook (P).

 Shift in the dominant style, i.e. basically, the most typical for a crew member, applied in a wide range of situations, style of behavior, is determined using the test "ММЯ-1", while each test person is offered questions and three possible answers (indicated by E, L or P) for each question. It is required to indicate in percentage terms how much each of the answer options is typical for the test person. The sum of answers to each question should be equal to 100%.

Questionnaire test "МЯЯ-1":
1. In order for the work to be successful, the most important, in my opinion, is: E - good financial incentives; L - benevolent atmosphere in the workforce; P - high interest in the work performed.

 2. Do not conflict with employees for nothing, because: E - it is possible that they will have to work together for a long time; L - it worsens the moral climate in the team; P - this interferes with normal operation.

 3. If you coped with the task poorly, the most unpleasant thing for you: E - to feel like a failure; L - loss of authority in the team; R - manifested professional incompetence.

 4. What is most significant for you: E - success in business; L sympathy and respect of the team; R - high professionalism.

 5. When evaluating your work, the most essential for you is: E - self-esteem; L - respect from workmates; R - the respect of specialists in this field.

 6. When making decisions, you most often rely on: E - your knowledge and experience; L - on the opinion of workmates; P - on the opinion of experts.

 7. You will make a decision that may infringe on the interests of the team if: E - without this, the commercial success of the enterprise is impossible; L - this will subsequently benefit the collective itself; P - this will help increase work efficiency.

 8. What ensures successful career advancement: E - healthy ambition; L - the ability to get along with people; R - high professionalism.

 9. I would like to have as a leader: E - a person who treats me with sympathy; L - a person who knows how to unite the labor collective; P - a professional who has something to learn.

 10. The main thing is that in our labor collective: E - they treat me well; L - there would be no internal conflicts and contradictions; P - it would be interesting to work.

 11. The worst thing is to constantly work with a person who: E - is something unpleasant for me; L - often quarrels and conflicts with others; P - not interested in work.

 12. I do not like lazy people, because: E - I have to do their work for them; L - quarrels and conflicts arise because of their laziness; P - they interfere with the advancement of work.

 13. The ability to get along with people is necessary because: U - without this, you will not achieve anything in life; L - it is unpleasant to live among conflicts; P - this contributes to normal work (you can do work, not small squabbles).

 14. I want to go to work when: U - I feel that everything is working out for me; L - I am pleased to meet my workmates; R - an interesting task awaits me.

 15. I always listen to: E - my own common sense; L - the opinion of respected people in the team; P - the opinion of experts who are respected in this field.

 16. Work alone is better if: E - otherwise you have to work for the "butterfly net"; L - there was an unfriendly atmosphere in the team; R - the team prevents me from fully revealing my capabilities as a specialist.

 17. The professionalism of the leader is manifested in: E - the skillful achievement of the goals; L - skillful interaction with subordinates; P - deep specialized knowledge.

 18. The best praise for me is: “He ...” Uh, an intelligent person; L is a good friend; P - competent specialist.

 19. It is necessary to reckon with the opinion of other members of the collective, because: E - otherwise, "as he goes around, he will respond"; L - any person has the right to be treated with respect; P - this helps to look at emerging issues from various angles.

 20. Personal success for me is most significant when it: E - allows you to rise to a higher level in a professional career; L - increases respect for me from the team; R - achieved in the field of my professional interests.

 21. When choosing a job, the priority for me is: E - high earnings; L - established friendly team; P - interest in work.

 22. I believe that a friendly team: E - one in which everyone can show their best qualities; L - one in which it is easy and pleasant to work; P is the one in which high labor efficiency is achieved.

 23. I consider effective a leader who: E - skillfully takes into account market issues; L - competently defends the interests of his team; P - knows how to get effective work from subordinates.

 24. I believe that in our time the greatest benefit to the country is people: E - showing initiative and independence; L - defending the interests of society; P - professionals.

 25. I believe that an interesting work is one that: E - will allow me to show all my knowledge and skills; L - rekindle the enthusiasm in the team; P - will solve a difficult professional problem.

 26. If the boss did not deservedly blame me for a poorly done job, then it will be most unpleasant for me: E - humiliation of me as a person; L - loss of sympathy and respect in the eyes of employees; P - undeserved discredit of me as a specialist.

 27. I would like some of my colleagues: E - to be less involved in other people's affairs; L - would be less opposed to the rest; P - would give more time to their immediate duties (less time to mess around).

 The proposed test in conjunction with the nomogram (presented in figure 1) to determine the style of behavior allows the participants to reliably evaluate their own and other people's behaviors in the process of performing specified exercises.

 The answers to the questionnaire are entered in a special table (an example of filling is presented in table 12). An example of determining the style of behavior for the data shown in table 12 is shown in figure 2.

где Э, Л, Р - координаты точки на номограмме, соответствующей доминирующему стилю поведения. При этом величины Э, Л и Р характеризуют следующие "направленности" в доминирующем стиле поведения:
Э - эгонаправленность;
Л - направленность на интересы коллектива;
Р - направленность на дело.Summing up the data for columns E, L and P of table 12, we obtain the values of E, L, P from the expressions:

where E, L, P are the coordinates of the point on the nomogram corresponding to the dominant style of behavior. Moreover, the values of E, L and P characterize the following "directions" in the dominant style of behavior:
E - egocentricity;
L - focus on the interests of the team;
P - focus on business.

 The style of behavior is determined twice - at the beginning and at the end of the TSK.

The magnitude of the shift (Δ _r ) towards the point of the "optimal" style of behavior (E = 0, L = P = 50), is determined from the expression
Δ _r = r _nach -r _con , (24)
Where
r _beg = ((E ² _beg + (50-L _beg ) ² + (50-P _beg ) ² ) ^1/2 ; (25)
r _con = ((E ² _con + (50-L _con ) ² + (50-P _con ) ² ) ^1/2 . (26)
V. At the fifth stage, training indicators are determined on the basis of collective shifts that have occurred in the learning process.

 At this stage, collective shifts in normativity and valency are determined.

 The data for obtaining these indicators are also revealed twice - before and after the training of a strong commander (TSC), while for each crew, the initial and final values of the values are determined to determine the collective shifts of normativity and valency.

According to the set of normative values {N _jach } _j-1 ^J , {N _jcon } _j-1 ^J and valencies {V _jach } _j-1 ^J , {V _jcon } _j-1 ^{J of} each of the jx crew members valencies before and after training.

И определяется коллективный сдвиг нормативности из выражения
Δ_N = N_нач-N_кон.
Аналогично определяется коллективный сдвиг валентности:

Δ_V = V_нач-V_кон.
Далее по совокупности полученных результатов в соответствии с заранее заданными условиями, представленными в таблице 13, определяют комплексную оценку подготовки экипажа ВС в области человеческого фактора, при этом численные значения заданных показателей определены из опыта проведения тренингов, проводимых по программе подготовки авиационного персонала в области человеческого фактора в гражданской авиации РФ.

And the collective shift of normativity is determined from the expression
Δ _N = N _beg -N _con .
Similarly, the collective shift of valency is determined:

Δ _V = V _beg -V _con .
Further, based on the totality of the results obtained, in accordance with the predefined conditions presented in Table 13, a comprehensive assessment of the training of the aircraft crew in the field of the human factor is determined, while the numerical values of the given indicators are determined from the experience of conducting trainings conducted under the training program for aviation personnel in the field of the human factor in civil aviation of the Russian Federation.

 The assessment is carried out on a four-point scale - "excellent", "good", "satisfactory", "unsatisfactory" in accordance with the conditions given in table 13, while the training of the crew is evaluated as follows.

для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС по СМЧ и СМЧЭ; условия
(Z_Л1-Z_П1)≥(Z_Л1j-Z_П1j),
(Z_Л2-Z_П2)≥(Z_Л2j-Z_П2j),
(Z_Л3-Z_П3)≥(Z_Л3j-Z_П3j),

выполняются не менее чем для 2/3 членов экипажа; для каждой из пар, составленных из членов экипажа ВС, оценка эффективности взаимодействия согласно СМЭ будет не ниже, чем "хорошо"; показатель потенциальной экстремальной работоспособности w_j≤30 для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС; практическая эффективность взаимодействия признана отличной; для индивидуальных сдвигов каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС выполняются условия Δ_ATj≥0, Δ_Nj≥0, Δ_Vj≥0, Δ_rj>0 и для коллективных сдвигов выполняются условия Δ_N>0 и Δ_V>0.
Если хотя бы один из совокупности полученных показателей не удовлетворяет условиям оценки "отлично", но все показатели удовлетворяют следующим условиям:
Коэффициент пригодности ξ_j≤1,5 для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС по СМЧ и СМЧЭ; условия
(Z_Л1-Z_П1)≥(Z_Л1j-Z_П1j),
(Z_Л2-Z_П2)≥(Z_Л2j-Z_П2j),
(Z_Л3-Z_П3)≥(Z_Л3j-Z_П3j),

выполняются не менее чем для половины членов экипажа; для каждой из пар, составленных из членов экипажа ВС, оценка эффективности взаимодействия по СМЭ будет не ниже, чем "удовлетворительно"; показатель потенциальной экстремальной работоспособности w_j≤40 для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС; практическая эффективность взаимодействия признана как минимум хорошей; изменение в доминирующем стиле поведения Δ_rj>0 для половины и более членов экипажа ВС; для коллективных сдвигов выполняются условия Δ_N≥0 и Δ_V≥0 и при любых индивидуальных сдвигах Δ_ATj, ΔN_j, Δ_Vj для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС, подготовку экипажа оценивают на "хорошо".Crew training is rated excellent under the following conditions:
Suitability coefficient

for each j-th crew member of the Armed Forces in TIS and TIS; conditions
(Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ),
(Z _Л2 -Z _П2j ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ),
(Z _L3 -Z _P3 ) ≥ (Z _L3j -Z _P3j ),

performed for at least 2/3 of the crew; for each of the pairs made up of members of the aircraft crew, the assessment of the effectiveness of interaction according to the SME will not be lower than “good”; the indicator of potential extreme performance w _j ≤30 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft; practical effectiveness of the interaction is recognized as excellent; for individual shifts of each j-th crew member of the aircraft, the conditions Δ _ATj ≥0, Δ _Nj ≥0, Δ _Vj ≥0, Δ _rj > 0 are satisfied, and for collective shifts the conditions Δ _N > 0 and Δ _V > 0 are satisfied.
If at least one of the aggregate of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions of the assessment "excellent", but all indicators satisfy the following conditions:
Suitability coefficient ξ _j ≤1.5 for each j-th member of the aircraft crew according to TIS and TIS; conditions
(Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ),
(Z _Л2 -Z _П2j ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ),
(Z _L3 -Z _P3 ) ≥ (Z _L3j -Z _P3j ),

performed for at least half of the crew; for each of the pairs made up of members of the aircraft crew, the assessment of the effectiveness of interaction on the BMS will not be lower than "satisfactory"; the indicator of potential extreme performance w _j ≤40 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft; practical effectiveness of interaction is recognized as at least good; a change in the dominant style of behavior Δ _rj > 0 for half or more aircraft crew members; for collective shifts, the conditions Δ _N ≥ 0 and Δ _V ≥ 0 are satisfied and for any individual shifts Δ _ATj , ΔN _j , Δ _Vj for each j-th crew member of the aircraft, crew training is assessed as "good".

выполняются не менее чем для одного члена экипажа; для каждой из пар, составленных из членов экипажа ВС, оценка эффективности взаимодействия согласно СМЭ будет не ниже, чем удовлетворительно; показатель потенциальной экстремальной работоспособности w_j≤40 для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС; практическая эффективность взаимодействия признана как минимум удовлетворительной; и при любых значениях коллективных сдвигов Δ_N и Δ_V, и при любых значениях индивидуальных сдвигов Δ_ATj, Δ_Nj, Δ_Vj, Δ_rj для каждого j-го члена экипажа ВС, подготовку экипажа оценивают на "удовлетворительно".If at least one of the totality of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions for evaluating “excellent” and / or “good”, but all indicators satisfy the following conditions:
Suitability factors ξ _j ≤2.2 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft in terms of TIS and TIS; conditions
(Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ),
(Z _Л2 -Z _П2j ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ),
(Z _L3 -Z _P3 ) ≥ (Z _L3j -Z _P3j ),

performed for at least one crew member; for each of the pairs made up of members of the aircraft crew, the assessment of the effectiveness of interaction according to the SME will not be lower than satisfactory; the indicator of potential extreme performance w _j ≤40 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft; practical effectiveness of the interaction is recognized as at least satisfactory; and for any values of collective shifts Δ _N and Δ _V , and for any values of individual shifts Δ _ATj , Δ _Nj , Δ _Vj , Δ _rj for each j-th crew member of the aircraft, crew training is rated as "satisfactory".

 In all other cases, i.e. if at least one of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions given in table 13, for any other indicators, the assessment of the training of the aircraft crew in the field of the human factor is considered unsatisfactory.

 The proposed evaluation method was tested in 2000-2001. in the process of conducting trainings on training programs for crew members of civil aircraft of the Russian Federation in the field of the human factor, and has shown its high efficiency.

 The proposed method allows with a high degree of reliability to evaluate the training of the aircraft crew in the field of the human factor, which can be effectively used in the process of training of flight personnel. The results can be used to correct the existing system of professional psychological selection of aircraft crew members.

Sources of information
1. Human Factors Training Guide. Dos 9683-AN / 950. Canada, Montreal, ICAO, 1998.

 2. "Aviation medicine", ed. A.N. Babiychuk, M., 1980, pp. 21-40.

 3. RF patent 2128006, IPC A 61 B 5/16, publ. 1999 year

 4. RF patent 2128471, IPC A 61 B 5/16, publ. 1999 year

 5. Augustinavichute A., Socionics, M., publishing house ACT, St. Petersburg, 1998

 6. Kroeger O., Tewson J. "Types of people", Juventa, St. Petersburg, 1995

 7. Eysenck H.Y. and Eysenck S.D.G. Manual of the Eysenck personality of London Press. 1964.

 8. CRM of Russia. Training a strong commander. Training manual. Part 4, Academy of Civil Aviation. St. Petersburg, pp. 48-60, 2000.

 9. CRM of Russia. Training a strong commander. Training manual. Part 1, Academy of Civil Aviation. St. Petersburg, pp. 69-71, 2000.

 10. V. Timofeev, Yu. Filimonenko, A brief guide to a practical psychologist on the use of the color test M. Lusher, Gosstandart of Russia, SE "Imaton", St. Petersburg, 1994

 11. Color test of relations (guidelines), Gosstandart of Russia, SE "Imaton", St. Petersburg, 1993

 12. Etkind A.M. The color test of relations and its application in the study of patients with neuroses // Socio-psychological research in psychoneurology - L .: Scientific Research Institute of Psychoneurology, pp. 110-114, 1980

Claims (1)

A method for assessing the training of an aircraft crew (Aircraft) in the field of the human factor, including conducting training in the form of a series of games and exercises with the goal of active psychological impact on aircraft crew members, their individual and group psychodiagnostic testing, and determining socionic characteristics of aircraft crew members from testing and assessment of their performance, characterized in that they evaluate the training of the crew members of the aircraft on the basis of a set of psychodiagnostic indicators, while on In the second stage, by means of psychodiagnostic testing, the parameters of the socionic model of a person (MSC) characterizing the behavior of each crew member in the environment of the man-universe system and the parameters of the socionic model of the crew member (MSCE) characterizing the behavior of each crew member in the environment of the aircraft crew system are determined - an aircraft ", and then, on the basis of the obtained parameters, the fitness coefficients ξ are calculated for each of these models by the formula

where X _pj is the quantitative expression of the stating TIS or TIS, corresponding to one of the sociotypes in fractions of one for each j-th crew member of the aircraft;
p is the ordinal index of the sociotype;
θ _p = 0-3 - a coefficient showing how much the p-th sociotype meets the professional requirements for the flight crew is determined by experts;
at the second stage, they determine the parameters of the crew’s socionic characteristic (SCE), which characterizes the type of realization of the aircraft crew’s potential capabilities in their professional activities, and the parameters of the crew’s socionic model (SME), which determines the range of intertype relationships in the aircraft-aircraft crew system, with subsequent determination of effectiveness interaction in the crew to fulfill the conditions
(Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ),
(Z _Л2 -Z _П2j ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ),
(Z _L3 -Z _P3 ) ≥ (Z _L3j -Z _P3j ),

where Z _Лi , Z _Пi and Z _Лij , Z _Пij are quantities characterizing the presence of professional qualities characteristic of each of the four i-th levels of crew functioning as a collective operator, and each j-th member of the aircraft crew under study, respectively, as well as the interaction efficiency in each of the pairs made up of members of the crew of the aircraft in accordance with the calculated for this pair of SME;
at the third stage, they determine the potential extreme performance (PEP) and the practical effectiveness of the interaction of the crew members in the training process; at the fourth stage, individual shifts of the AT norm (Δ _ATj ), normativity (Δ _Nj ), valency (Δ _Vj ) and the change in the dominant behavior style (Δ _rj ) during the training are determined; at the fifth stage, collective shifts of normativity (Δ _N ) and valency (Δ _V ) are determined during the training, and then, based on the totality of the results obtained, in accordance with predetermined conditions, a comprehensive assessment of the training of the aircraft crew is determined, under the following conditions: fitness coefficient ξ _j ≤0.8 for each j-th crew member of the Armed Forces in terms of TIS and TIS, conditions (Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ), (Z _Л2 -Z _П2 ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ) , (Z _Л3 -Z _П3j ) ≥ (Z _Л3j -Z _П3j ),

performed for at least 2/3 of the crew; for each of the pairs made up of members of the aircraft crew, the assessment of the effectiveness of interaction according to the SME will not be lower than “good”; the indicator of potential extreme performance w _j ≤30 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft; practical effectiveness of the interaction is recognized as excellent; for individual shifts of each j-th crew member of the aircraft, the conditions Δ _Aj ≥0, ΔN _j ≥0, Δ _Vj ≥0, Δ _rj ≥0 are satisfied and for collective shifts the conditions Δ _N > 0 and Δ _V > 0 are satisfied, crew training is evaluated perfectly"; if at least one of the aggregate of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions of the assessment “excellent”, but all indicators satisfy the following conditions: the suitability coefficient ξ _j ≤1.5 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft according to TIS and TISE, conditions (Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ), (Z _Л2 -Z _П2 ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ), (Z _Л3 -Z _П3 ) ≥ (Z _Л3j -Z _П3j ),

performed for at least half of the crew; for each of the pairs made up of members of the aircraft crew, the assessment of the effectiveness of interaction according to the SME will not be lower than "satisfactory"; the indicator of potential extreme performance w _j ≤40 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft; practical effectiveness of interaction is recognized as at least good; a change in the dominant style of behavior Δ _rj > 0 for half or more aircraft crew members; for collective shifts, the conditions Δ _N ≥ 0 and Δ _V ≥ 0 are fulfilled and for any individual shifts Δ _ATj , ΔN _j , Δ _Vj for each j-th crew member of the aircraft, crew training is rated as "good"; if at least one of the totality of the obtained indicators does not satisfy the conditions for evaluating “excellent” and / or “good”, but all the indicators satisfy the following conditions: fitness coefficient ξ _j ≤2.2 for each j-th member of the aircraft crew according to TIS and TIS , conditions (Z _Л1 -Z _П1 ) ≥ (Z _Л1j -Z _П1j ), (Z _Л2 -Z _П2 ) ≥ (Z _Л2j -Z _П2j ), (Z _Л3 -Z _П3 ) ≥ (Z _Л3j -Z _П3j ),

are performed for at least one crew member; for each of the pairs made up of members of the aircraft crew, the assessment of the effectiveness of interaction according to the SME will not be lower than "satisfactory"; the indicator of potential extreme performance w _j ≤40 for each j-th crew member of the aircraft; practical effectiveness of the interaction is recognized as at least satisfactory; and for any values of collective shifts Δ _N and Δ _V , and for any values of individual shifts Δ _ATj , ΔN _j , Δ _Vj for each j-th crew member of the aircraft, crew training is assessed as "satisfactory"; in all other cases, the assessment of crew training is considered "unsatisfactory".

Images