Air University Review, May-June 1976

The circumstances that led to the founding of the USAF Instrument Pilot Instructor School in March 1943 were chillingly described twenty years later by one of the officers responsible for founding the school, Colonel J. B. Duckworth:

I realize that most of you were not around when this school was started at Bryan in early 1943, and it may be difficult for you to realize the urgency, and in fact, the tragedy of the situation at that time ….hundreds of Cadets…had completed flight training without ever having been given one hour of instruments. What happened? They were immediately sent off to fly a B-26 across the Atlantic at night where, of course, it was black as the inside of a cow! . . . we were losing far more pilots on instruments than from actual combat.¹

That school formed the foundation upon which the USAF Instrument Flight Center was established in May 1972; it remains one of three divisions in the center.

Until World War II, the haphazard way of acquiring and using aircraft instruments had resulted in general flying training's far outpacing instrument training. This, coupled with the fact that the air war in 1943 was conducted almost exclusively during visual flight conditions, resulted in a 27-week pilot training syllabus with only rudimentary instrument instruction-primarily the "needleball-airspeed" method at that!² These shortcomings, which seem so obvious in the cold light of hindsight, led Colonel Duckworth and four other officers to devise an innovative full-panel system for attitude instrument flying. They ran highly successful field tests of the new system and developed a curriculum for the Instrument Pilot Instructor School (IPIS), which was subsequently established at Bryan Field, Texas, in March 1943. Throughout the thirty-year history of the IPIS, its mission has remained essentially unchanged; in fact, in expanded form it as become the mission of the USAF Instrument Flight Center (IFC) today: training instrument flight instructors in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the Air Force; providing standardization in the use of instrument procedures, techniques, and training methods; and participating in the test and evaluation of flight instruments and instrument systems. This mission, though questioned, has seldom been seriously challenged in those thirty years. In the beginning it was a recognized fact that many pilots were killing themselves and destroying aircraft because of inadequate training in instrument flying. Since that time, instrument displays have progressed from crude needleball-airspeed presentations to the elaborate autopilot-coupled flight-director systems of today, and instrument flying has progressed from almost none to fully automatic all-weather landing systems. With such a rapid technological pace, the need for an instrument school, with its corollary standardization and research and development functions, seemed manifest.

But in the seventies, spectres have begun to rear their heads: "cost effectiveness….mission essential . . . program cutbacks ….force reductions." Planners have been forced to look carefully at Air Force programs at all levels, and from this scrutiny one question has arisen: "Is the IFC an anachronism?" Many pilots feel that it is. After all, they say, Undergraduate Pilot Training is no longer a 27-week course in contact (visual) flying; it is a 52-week course, with extensive academic requirements and 210 hours of jet flying time, approximately 20 percent of which is instrument training. The graduate of Air Force pilot training today is a well-qualified instrument pilot. The major air commands have established, or are in the process of establishing, their own central instructor schools that will perform all the functions of the IPIS. Because of these and other arguments, there are many who feel that the IFC/IPIS is outdated and no longer needed. Suggestions for its disposition range from eliminating the IFC altogether through eliminating the IPIS to conducting an all-simulator (no flying) IPIS. And why not?

To answer these questions, they must be examined in detail.

Unlike nuclear or tactical weapons delivery, aerial refueling, or hurricane penetration, instrument flying is not exclusive to one major command or one mission. Only one aircraft type (or command) may ever he called upon to land on the Arctic ice pack, but every pilot in every aircraft in the USAF is continually required to engage in instrument flight. Because of the rapid proliferation of instrument flight operations worldwide and the ever present need for safety, these instrument flight operations must be standardized. Equally important, the "new technology" of the sixties and seventies has resulted in a multitude of new and innovative instrument systems that must be tested and evaluated; engineers' dreams for the future are boundless.

The civilian aviation community has built-in mechanisms to ensure that the capability for instrument flight remains abreast of developments. First, the Flight Standards section of the Federal Aviation Administration maintains general standardization of all procedures relevant to instrument flying and ensures the application of these standards through its dissemination and monitoring (flight check) functions. The corporation profit motive, applied to both equipment manufacturers and civil air carrier users, guarantees that equipment appropriate to needs, actual or anticipated, is designed, developed, tested, certified, and utilized.

What of USAF? Where are the mechanisms to ensure that military pilots remain abreast of innovations in equipment, systems, and procedures? At present these responsibilities are vested in the Flight Standards Division and Research and Development Division of the Instrument Flight Center. These divisions are tasked to

… prepare and monitor Air Force directives and publications governing instrument flight, determine USAF operational requirements for flight information, develop, coordinate, validate, and test instrument flight requirements, concepts, techniques, and procedures, …..and participate in research and development programs involving instrument flight…

The language of the regulation is dry, but the charter is clear: these absolutely essential functions are being performed by the IFC, and the USAF cannot afford to be without them. Who would administer the fledgling research study of the Microwave Landing System (MLS) pilot factors? Who would complete the Helicopter Pilot Factors study, the first of its kind in the world, that the Research and Development Division is conducting? Who would complete such projects as the Landing Weather Minimums investigation, hailed by many as the most significant advancement in all-weather landing research ever achieved by the Air Force? The list is extensive.

The mandate is clear. The programs and requirements are essential. The Air Force cannot afford to eliminate the Instrument Flight Center.

….but maintain flight standards and research and development.

The thrust of the argument in support of this suggestion is that the major air command central instructor schools will offer identical instruction to that provided at IPIS (whether or not IPIS remains in operation), and therefore the $12,000 per graduate cost of IPIS is not cost effective.³ The point is well taken. Suppose the central instructor schools do, indeed, offer identical instruction (from an effectiveness point of view) and the standardization that is essential in this nonparochial area can be maintained, perhaps IPIS would not be cost effective. There are several problems inherent in the basic supposition, however.

There is absolutely no requirement for a central school to expose an IPIS graduate who has been selected for instructor pilot upgrade in a particular aircraft to the same training that a non-IPIS graduate will receive. In the area of instruments and instrument flying his training requirement would certainly be minimal. If flying sorties in aircraft such as the C-5 and B-52 could thereby be saved, the cost effectiveness of the IPIS graduate begins to increase markedly. Additionally, what more logical pilot is there to be charged with developing and operating the instrument portion of a central instructor school? The IPIS graduate is ideally prepared and suited for this role. One extremely important corollary to the use of IPIS graduates in this manner is standardization--if the major air commands operate their own schools according to their mission requirements, as they should, there is a very real danger that, over a period of years, the Air Force-wide standardization that is essential in the area of instrument flight would be diluted to an unacceptable degree. The continuing input of iris graduates into the faculties of these schools would ensure that all commands were standardized with each other, the Federal Aviation Administration, and civil aviation in general.

Another consideration that deserves mention is "inbreeding." After a period of time, it is assumed that the faculties of the central schools would all be not only products of their own schools but also long-time products of their own commands (because of "longevity" requirements for instructor pilot upgrade) This kind of multiple inbreeding could eventually result in an idea-stifled atmosphere. Civilian education institutions have long realized the inherent dangers of such a situation and have attempted to avoid it.⁴ A regular infusion of IPIS graduates into the faculties of those schools would ensure a continuing fresh and informed approach to the teaching of instrument-related subjects.

Is not the IPIS itself a product of inbreeding? In a very limited way, perhaps, it is, since all iris instructors are IPIS graduates. The permanent change of station (PCS) inputs to IPIS, however, are from all commands and represent a broad cross section of experience levels. The students who attend the school have equally dissimilar backgrounds, and these two factors prevent any stagnation in the IPIS approach to instrument instruction.

The Instrument Flight Center operates on a concept of synergism--the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is true to a very large extent because the IPIS, through its instructors and its students, represents a source of operational input to both the Flight Standards and Research and Development Divisions. If there were no IPIS, these essential functions would be performed in a semivacuum, devoid of operational inputs on a face-to-face level, and the effectiveness of both would suffer from a severe loss of credibility among Air Force pilots. According to General Momyer: "I have had much confidence in the teaching and standardization of instrument flying techniques that have come out of IPIS over the years. . . . As a consequence of their first-hand experience, the IPIS provides a very needed service to the Air Force."⁵

Now back to that most important business of cost effectiveness. It is very tempting to make statements like "As a result of the efforts of IPIS, X number of instrument--related accidents have been prevented, saving Y millions of dollars." As tempting as it is to say, however, it simply cannot be proven. But it is a fact that increased instrument expertise in the Air Force can decrease the probabilities of instrument-related accidents, and the IPIS is an available source of such expertise.

The need for increased experience in the field of instrument flying is substantiated by the fact that our rated force experience level is rapidly declining and will even he lower in the post-1973 time period. . . . The cost of this increase is relatively small if we can prevent the loss of one aircraft and crew.⁶

This proposal has the greatest appeal to those who would alter the present IFC concept because it appears to offer, at the same time, a great cost saving in the elimination of the expense of flying while not degrading the effectiveness of the IPIS in providing the Air Force with fully qualified instrument instructor pilots. But does it, indeed, provide the "fully qualified" instructor that the Air Force needs?

A great deal of research has been done, and is in fact being done, in the area of flight simulators. Much of this research indicates that, with proper planning and correctly designed simulators, present flying training syllabi can be radically redesigned with greater emphasis on the use of simulators and correspondingly lesser emphasis on actual aircraft flying.^{7, 8} There has been no controlled research, however, claiming that flying training in the actual aircraft can be completely replaced by simulators. In fact, the transfer and validation of simulator training require far more research before we can know for certain exactly how much of any given flying syllabus can be replaced by simulators.⁹

Because of these research gaps, most learning and engineering psychologists consistently include in their discussions of simulators and training the understanding that all such training should be validated in an actual operational environment in an aircraft.

When [a simulator] is employed for improving performance, . . . the characteristic of importance is the amount of transfer of learning to an operational task . . . the training effectiveness of a device is determined in terms of the measurement of transfer from training on the device to performance in an operational situation.¹⁰

The training of an individual to be an instructor pilot is similar in many ways to the basic training of someone to be a pilot--both involve the learning of a skill that must eventually be performed in an aircraft. Granted that, like all present flying training programs in the Air Force, IPIS can make greater use of simulators in its syllabus, available research indicates that actual flying cannot and should not be eliminated from the program.

The IFC and the IPIS should not be eliminated; the mission they perform is too vital to the overall mission of the Air Force. But to say this is not to say that the IFC can continue unchanged in a changing world. The mission will remain the same-service-but the methods of achieving the mission and goals must keep pace with escalating needs.

If any single concept must attach itself to the Instrument Flight Center for the foreseeable future, it is the concept of responsiveness. If the IFC is to be a service to the worldwide operations of the Air Force, it absolutely must be responsive to the needs of operations throughout the Air Force. But responsiveness is a two-way street--if an organization is to provide a service to a using agency, the user must indicate the nature of the service that is desired.

The IFC/IPIS has gone through several changes in form during its thirty-year history. It was originally an instrument flying training school, and it is now an instrument instructor school. The Flight Standards Research and Development Divisions, now collateral units with IPIS within the IFC, were once attachments to the IPIS. The syllabus no longer contains physical training, which was at one time a 25-hour unit of the course. Helicopter instrument training, absolutely essential in the present-day Air Force, is now an integral part of the program. And the list could go on and on. The point is that, while most of these changes were made as adjustments to the changing needs of the Air Force, in many cases the needs were interpreted by personnel within the center and not as direct responses to stated needs from the using agencies.

The required responsiveness is built into the center's organization. If the instrument procedures and techniques currently used need to be changed, the people who work here can change them. If the regulations are too binding, unrealistic, or hard to understand, the people who can rewrite them work here. If the flight instruments in use are inadequate, the people who can test and evaluate new equipment work here. If the instrument instructor pilot does not possess the skills he needs in the operational environment, the people who can change the skills he is taught work here. The centralization of all these functions ensures the needed responsiveness, but the users must tell the IFC what their changing needs are.

The communications channels among Hq USAF, USAF operational units, and the USAF IFC must be opened wide and strengthened. The IFC has initiated a broad spectrum of efforts designed to accomplish this from one end. The recently initiated Instructional System Development survey of IPIS was begun in order to make the IPIS syllabus coincide and to keep pace with the needs of the Air Force for instrument instructor pilots. As a result of task analysis statements obtained from this study, the entire iris syllabus is being realigned to the present needs of the Air Force. But do not forget the fantastic proliferation of instruments and instrument procedures and techniques in the recent past. This expansion will certainly continue, and the needs of the Air Force today may change considerably by next year.

A briefing team whose purpose is to make interested parties aware of the uses to which the IFC can be put is in the planning stage. This team, to consist of instrument flight experts from within the IFC, will be on call to provide answers to instrument-related questions for Air Force operational units and to provide a face-to-face communications channel between these units and the IFC. A staff assistance team, chartered to provide assistance in the design and operation of instrument training facilities, is in the conceptual phase. Neither the briefing team nor the staff assistance team will be forced upon anyone. They will respond to requests from units who desire their assistance.

These are but a few of the efforts being; made within the IFC to keep the communications channels with the field open. They will be effective in ensuring the responsiveness that is so necessary, but their total effectiveness will be much greater if efforts are being made at the other end. As an example, area navigation capability is very likely to become a requirement for all instrument flight operations in the near future, and the IFC Flight Standards Division undoubtedly be called upon to assist in drafting of procedures and regulations its use. In addition, the Research and Development Division will be involved in factors testing of proposed equipment. Finally, the IPIS will establish a requirement for teaching this new information in. school. All these steps can be taken only minimal inputs from the field, but think how much more effective and they will be if the operational corn make their needs known in advance. This is the way the IFC should, and can, function if Air Force operational units make their requirements known.

Perhaps the most useful means of communications between the IFC and Air Force operational units is the IPIS graduate. He can be optimally effective, however, only if his talents are properly utilized. Although AFM 50-5 and AFR 53-12 both require that IPIS graduates be utilized in an instrument training capacity for one year from the date of completion of the school, it has been found that this resource is not always properly managed. A field survey in 1949 revealed that IPIS graduates were being only 55 percent utilized, and Headquarters USAF directed all commanders to monitor utilization more closely.¹¹ Essentially the same situation in 1959 resulted in another directive from the Flying Training Division at Headquarters USAF to all commanders. A follow-up field survey in 1962 showed proper utilization,¹² but the ISD survey in 1973 showed that utilization of graduates had, once again, become a problem area. In fact, the survey team found that in some cases commanders were not aware that they had IPIS graduates assigned to their units.¹³ This represents mismanagement of a valuable resource; a resource that could contribute greatly to the operational effectiveness of any unit.

The IPIS graduate is an expert--an expert in the field of instruction, in general, and instrument flying, in particular. He can manage existing continuation training programs and design these programs where they do not exist. He is ideally suited to serve on the faculty of command instructor schools. He would be an outstanding asset to any standardization/evaluation section-- and he is a point of contact: a communication channel to the IFC. He has been here at IFC and is more aware than anyone in the operational unit of the capabilities of the center.

Any organization that deals with fast-breaking technological changes must remain flexible and responsive if it is to accomplish its mission. It cannot afford a "head in the sand" attitude. But it cannot be viable if it operates in a vacuum either. The responsiveness and flexibility necessary to keep up with improvements and changes in the field of instrument flight are inherent in the mission and structure of the Instrument Flight Center. It can be the service agency for the United States Air Force that it was designed to be, but the operational units in the Air Force must be aware of the capabilities of the IFC, and they must tell the IFC what their needs are.

1. J. B. Duckworth (Colonel, USAF, Ret), an address on the occasion of the 20^th Anniversary of the USAF IPIS, 29 March 1963.

2. Major Changes in Undergraduate Pilot Training, 1939-1965, published by History and Research Division, Headquarters Air Training Command, October 1965.

3. ATC Instructional System Development Survey of the IPIS, December 1973 (hereafter cited as ISD Survey).

4. Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United States, McGraw-Hill, 1960, p. 164.

5. Lt Gen William M. Momyer in a letter to Brig Gen William C. Lindley, 28 Oct 64.

6. Lt Gen George B. Simler in a letter to Lt Gen Robert J. Dixon, recommending budgetary increase for IPIS, 19 Aug 70.

7. H. Kingsley Povenmire and Stanley N. Roscoe, An Evaluation of Ground Based Flight Trainers in Routine Primary Flight Training, Technical Report LF-69-1, October 1969, Aviation Research laboratory, University of Illinois.

8. Beverly H. Williges, Stanley N. Roscoe, Robert C. Williges, Synthetic Flight Training Revisited, Technical Report ARL-72-21/AFOSR-72-10, August 1972, Aviation Research Laboratory, University of Illinois.

9. Robert M. Gagne, "Training Devices and Simulators: Some Research Issues," Engineering Psychology: Current Perspective in Research, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971, pp. 441-58.

10. Ibid.

11. History of the USAF Instrument Pilot Instructor School, USAFIFC, Randolph, AFB, Texas.

12. Ibid.

13. ISD Survey.