Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

J. Kozey, J. McCabe and J. Jenkins School of Health and Human Performance Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia The effect of different training methods.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "J. Kozey, J. McCabe and J. Jenkins School of Health and Human Performance Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia The effect of different training methods."— Presentation transcript:

1 J. Kozey, J. McCabe and J. Jenkins School of Health and Human Performance Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia The effect of different training methods on egress performance from the Modular Egress Training Simulator

2 Introduction Helicopters provide an important mode of transportation in the civilian, industrial and military sectors Helicopters provide an important mode of transportation in the civilian, industrial and military sectors They are especially important for rapid transport to locations with limited space They are especially important for rapid transport to locations with limited space Unfortunately like all transportation systems adverse incidents happen – example ditchings Unfortunately like all transportation systems adverse incidents happen – example ditchings

3 Ditchings Most ditchings result in the helicopter inverting (77%, Taber & McCabe, SAFE – 2005). Most ditchings result in the helicopter inverting (77%, Taber & McCabe, SAFE – 2005). Survivors must content with immersion, disorientation and debris Survivors must content with immersion, disorientation and debris Statistical evidence that training will improve the chance of surviving a ditching (Cunningham, 1978) Statistical evidence that training will improve the chance of surviving a ditching (Cunningham, 1978) 234 Helicopter Mishaps/1093 Occupants 234 Helicopter Mishaps/1093 Occupants Survival Rate: Survival Rate: 66% without dunker training 66% without dunker training 91.5% with dunker training 91.5% with dunker training

4 Egress Training While the evidence indicates that training is beneficial: While the evidence indicates that training is beneficial: Little is written about skilled performance in egress training Little is written about skilled performance in egress training Little is known about practice, training fidelity and retention Little is known about practice, training fidelity and retention

5 The Development of Skilled Behaviour (Wickens, Lee, Liu, & Becker, 2004)

6 Practice More practice = better performance More practice = better performance www.croquetworld.com/images/Bamfordquote1.gif

7 Simulations/Training fidelity Lower fidelity Higher fidelity

8 Success Trainees are required to demonstrate the ability, underwater in an inverted HUET, to operate an escape exit mechanism, release a representative seat restraint, and effect an escape unaided. (Mills and Muir, 1998)

9 Research Questions Training Methods: Is there a difference in HUET performance as a result of different training protocols? Fidelity: Is escape success affected by prior training of underwater window ejection skills? Practice: Is escape success affected by the number of prior training trials?

10 Hypotheses There is no difference between the Pass/Fail rates of the different groups during Session 1: Training. There is no difference between the Pass/Fail rates of the different groups during Session 1: Training. There is a difference in Pass/Fail rates when a window must be ejected. There is a difference in Pass/Fail rates when a window must be ejected. There is a difference in HUET egress Pass/Fail rates among the different training groups at Session 2: Re-test. There is a difference in HUET egress Pass/Fail rates among the different training groups at Session 2: Re-test.

11 Overall Plan Train three groups of people in HUET escape (Session 1) Train three groups of people in HUET escape (Session 1) Each group will receive a different training experience Each group will receive a different training experience Bring the groups back to perform 1 HUET trial (Session 2) and measure their performance Bring the groups back to perform 1 HUET trial (Session 2) and measure their performance

12 Methods Study was conducted over a 6 month period Study was conducted over a 6 month period Session 1: Training session (Oct. 2005) Session 1: Training session (Oct. 2005) Session 2: Testing session (Apr. 2006) Session 2: Testing session (Apr. 2006) Subjects Subjects Recruited via posters, flyers and ads through newspapers, fire stations and TV Recruited via posters, flyers and ads through newspapers, fire stations and TV Inclusion/Exclusion: Inclusion/Exclusion: No prior HUET experience No prior HUET experience Successfully complete a medical exam Successfully complete a medical exam Indicate a willingness to attend both sessions Indicate a willingness to attend both sessions Sign a document of informed consent Sign a document of informed consent

13 Subject recruitment and assignment 211 initial volunteers from whom 191 entered the Training session after medical screening and informed consent 211 initial volunteers from whom 191 entered the Training session after medical screening and informed consent Subjects assigned to 1 of 3 Groups balanced for sex (males and females) and self-reported water experience/comfort Subjects assigned to 1 of 3 Groups balanced for sex (males and females) and self-reported water experience/comfort Water experience: Water experience: Level 1: no formal swimming training Level 1: no formal swimming training Level 2: swimming training Level 2: swimming training Level 3: competitive swimmer, SCUBA diving experience Level 3: competitive swimmer, SCUBA diving experience

14 Training session Fidelity

15 Experimental days Session 1: Session 1: 40 minute classroom session 40 minute classroom session Change into coveralls Change into coveralls Tested in pairs Tested in pairs Pre-test saliva sample & questionnaire Pre-test saliva sample & questionnaire HUET trials (subjects and evaluator blind to group assignment) HUET trials (subjects and evaluator blind to group assignment) Post-test saliva & questionnaire Post-test saliva & questionnaire Session 2: Session 2: 10 minute classroom session 10 minute classroom session Change into coveralls Change into coveralls Pre-test saliva sample & questionnaire Pre-test saliva sample & questionnaire Watched a pre-flight video (45 seconds) Watched a pre-flight video (45 seconds) 1 HUET trial (evaluator blind to previous group assignment) 1 HUET trial (evaluator blind to previous group assignment) Tested in alone or pairs (same side of METS) Tested in alone or pairs (same side of METS) Post-test saliva & questionnaire Post-test saliva & questionnaire

16 Training session GroupConditions Description # of trials 11Immersion Straight In No window1 2Immersion 180° inversion No window1 21Immersion Straight In No window1 2Immersion 180° inversion No window1 3Immersion 180° inversion Window in1 31Immersion Straight In No Window1 2Immersion 180° inversion No Window1 3Immersion 180° inversion Window in4

17 Dependent measures Egress time (seconds): The time recorded from when the METS touches the water to when the subject breaks the water surface. Egress time (seconds): The time recorded from when the METS touches the water to when the subject breaks the water surface. Pass/Fail: The performance of the subject in executing the egress according to a predefined rating scale. Pass/Fail: The performance of the subject in executing the egress according to a predefined rating scale.

18 Two subjects Two instructors Two Evaluators Timers and other research assistants Two safety divers

19 Performance Evaluation Categories (METS Underwater Escape) A4: Unaided escape, correct sequence, window released on first attempt. A4: Unaided escape, correct sequence, window released on first attempt. A3: Unaided escape, correct sequence, window not released on first attempt. A3: Unaided escape, correct sequence, window not released on first attempt. A2: Unaided escape, incorrect sequence, window released on first attempt. A2: Unaided escape, incorrect sequence, window released on first attempt. A1: Unaided escape, incorrect sequence, window not released on first attempt. A1: Unaided escape, incorrect sequence, window not released on first attempt. B: Instructor assistance required with window release. B: Instructor assistance required with window release. C: Instructor assistance with seatbelt required. C: Instructor assistance with seatbelt required. D: Instructor assisted evacuation from the METS. D: Instructor assisted evacuation from the METS. E: Unwilling to proceed, voluntarily leaves the pool deck. E: Unwilling to proceed, voluntarily leaves the pool deck.

20 Subject Allocation for training session (group by sex by water levels) Group Level 1 Level 2 Level 3Grand FemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaletotals 11177 61462 231561751359 341381642166 All84521501548187 4 people withdrew and did not complete their trials

21 Session 1 : Egress times

22 Training Results: Percent success versus trials Push-out exit No Push- out exit 14% Groups 1,2 & 3Groups 2 & 3Group 3 97% 94%

23 Session 2 – April 2006 153 of the initial 187 returned for session 2 153 of the initial 187 returned for session 2 11 dropped out of Group 1 11 dropped out of Group 1 13 dropped out of Group 2 13 dropped out of Group 2 14 dropped out of Group 3 14 dropped out of Group 3 Reasons: Reasons: 6 not comfortable, 2 attended but did not participate 6 not comfortable, 2 attended but did not participate 8 had moved away and 3 had conflicts 8 had moved away and 3 had conflicts 8 medical/illness 8 medical/illness 13 scheduled but did not attend 13 scheduled but did not attend

24 Session 2: Subject allocation (group by sex) SubjectsGroup 1Group 2Group 3All Males413846125 Females11 9 8 28 Combined524754153 No difference in group by sex assignments

25 Session 2: Egress times (s) GroupMeanSD 116.92.5 217.62.8 317.32.7 No difference in the group by time

26 Session 2: Pass/Fail rates GroupTotal (n) Pass (n) Pass (%) 1 522854% 2 473881% 3 545296% Total 15311877% ( 2 = 27.591, df = 2, p< 0.000)

27 Discussion Drop outs from Session 1 to 2 Drop outs from Session 1 to 2 38 (19.9%) out of the 191 subjects dropped out 38 (19.9%) out of the 191 subjects dropped out In the planning we had built in a drop out of 20% therefore we maintained the statistical power necessary for the experiment In the planning we had built in a drop out of 20% therefore we maintained the statistical power necessary for the experiment We also ran the statistical analysis including all the drop outs as failures. There was no change in overall Group results We also ran the statistical analysis including all the drop outs as failures. There was no change in overall Group results

28 Discussion Males vs females Males vs females In terms of the overall results the percentage of males who were successful was greater than the females In terms of the overall results the percentage of males who were successful was greater than the females The window required 80 lbs (36 Kg) of force to open The window required 80 lbs (36 Kg) of force to open This would affect the overall success values but it would not change the effect by groups This would affect the overall success values but it would not change the effect by groups

29 Conclusions From Session 1: From Session 1: Use of a push out window increases the task difficulty Use of a push out window increases the task difficulty Increases average egress time by 4 seconds Increases average egress time by 4 seconds Decrease percentage of successful egresses by 14% Decrease percentage of successful egresses by 14% With 3 additional trials percentage of successful egresses rises to ~ 94% With 3 additional trials percentage of successful egresses rises to ~ 94%

30 Conclusions (continued) Session 2: Session 2: No effect of previous training on successful egress times No effect of previous training on successful egress times Without previous push-out experience the percentage of failures is close to 50% (46%) Without previous push-out experience the percentage of failures is close to 50% (46%) Just 1 training trial with a window increases percentage of successful egresses to 81% Just 1 training trial with a window increases percentage of successful egresses to 81% With 4 training trials the percentage of successful egresses is 96% With 4 training trials the percentage of successful egresses is 96%

31 Future research issues Will changing the period between training and testing affect the success rate of HUET egress? Will changing the period between training and testing affect the success rate of HUET egress? Does changing the task difficulty alter performance? (Cross cabin, other window types) Does changing the task difficulty alter performance? (Cross cabin, other window types)

32 Practical implications The closer the match of the training to the real situation (fidelity) the better the person will perform when needed. The closer the match of the training to the real situation (fidelity) the better the person will perform when needed. Design considerations for push out forces and mechanism locations is still needed. Design considerations for push out forces and mechanism locations is still needed.

33

34 Simulations/Training Lower fidelity Higher fidelity

35 Acknowledgement Thank the subjects for their time and participation Thank the subjects for their time and participation Thank Survival Systems Ltd for support and time Thank Survival Systems Ltd for support and time Thank Borge Hognestad and Daniel McInnis for being the evaluators Thank Borge Hognestad and Daniel McInnis for being the evaluators


Download ppt "J. Kozey, J. McCabe and J. Jenkins School of Health and Human Performance Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia The effect of different training methods."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google