Radar/Electro-Optical Fusion for sense and avoid

     I currently reviewed an article entitled Radar/electro-optical data fusion for non-cooperative UAS sense and avoid by Fasano, G., Accardo, D., Tirri, A. E., Moccia, A., & De Lellis, E. (2015).  This paper focused on the hardware and software implementation as well as flight results relevant to a multi-sensor obstacle detection and tracking system that is based on radar and electro-optical data fusion.  Research conducted in this paper resulted in a significant improvement of collision detection performance.

     With the growing awareness of issues regarding the use of unmanned systems in our National Airspace, It was interesting to read about research that shows significant advances in the sense and avoid issues as required by the FAA to operate in our National Airspace.  In an attempt to find safe and efficient ways to integrate unmanned systems, this research bridges the gap between existing technology and user requirements.

     The research address the requirements for sense and avoid that would guarantee a high level of safety.  These requirements are: adequate detection range, angular field of regard, uncertainty in estimating an objects relative position and rate of movement, and latencies.  Within this framework, it is perceived that different sensors each have complimentary features that if fused together could greatly advance the sense and avoid measurements and increase safety and reliability.

     This article confirms through testing that the data fusion of Radar and Electro-Optical sensors provides a remarkable improvement in situational awareness compared with standalone radar tracking.  The results of this research article and the data collected will assuredly pave the way for a multi sensor based approach for sense and avoid.  Another reason for the fusion of these systems is the cost savings of fusing two current systems instead of the high cost of developing new sensor technology.

Reference

Fasano, G., Accardo, D., Tirri, A. E., Moccia, A., & De Lellis, E. (2015). Radar/electro-optical data fusion for non-cooperative UAS sense and avoid. Aerospace Science and Technology, doi:10.1016/j.ast.2015.08.010

Automated Luggage Handling Systems

 

Automated Luggage Handling Systems

by

Stanley D. Pebsworth

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

March 2016

                                   

Research paper submitted to the Worldwide Campus in partial fulfillment of the requirements for course UNSY 610, Unmanned Systems Autonomy and Automation

Abstract

If you have ever traveled on a commercial airline, you have most assuredly asked yourself, “I wonder if my baggage made it?”  Disconsolately standing, you watch the empty luggage carousel go round and round waiting for the magical appearance of the luggage you trustingly deposited at your departure airport.  With the continuing advancements in automation, digital communications, and robotics, there must be an answer for the maligned luggage handling of airline operations.  Automated luggage handling is not a new endeavor.  In 2005, Denver International Airport (KDEN) attempted an automated luggage handling system.  It was not until $560M USD in delay costs that the project was scraped due in part to their proposed automated luggage handling system.  In 2008, London Heathrow (EGLL) encountered serious issues with a luggage handling system that delayed the opening of their new Terminal Five.  The intent of this paper will be to review past attempts at automated luggage handling systems and analyze where failures occurred.  After careful analysis, this paper will review new and more modern technology that might address past issues with automation of luggage handling.  This paper will conclude with a proposal and vision for the successful implementation of an automated luggage handling system.

Keywords: automation, autonomy, luggage handling, airport operations

Automated Luggage Handling System

             One of the most complex tasks at airports is not the movement of passenger or security, but the seemingly simple task of handling and routing of baggage (Nopper, J., ten Hompel, M., 2010).  Airlines realize that baggage handling plays a part in traveler satisfaction as well as airports realizing that the quality of their handling system will attract airlines to their hub (Nice, K., 2001).  Baggage handling has three jobs: move bags from check in to gate, gate to connecting gate for transfer, and gate to baggage claim.  This handling is done using destination coded vehicle (DCVs), automatic scanners that scan labels on baggage, and miles of conveyors and sorting machines (Nice, K., 2001).

            The measure of a quality baggage handling system is simple, do bags move from point A to point B effectively and efficiently?  An airports goal is to be able to move bags as quickly as they can move passengers.  In other words, your bag is waiting on you at baggage claim when you arrive at baggage claim (Nice, K., 2001).  Baggage handling systems also work as traffic monitors.  They have the ability to identify a bag, locate jams, volume regulation, load balancing, bag counting, and bag tracking and redirection (Jebakumari, D. A., Godweena, K. A., & Kavyaa, R., 2014).

            In Airports around the world today, updates are slowly being made to luggage handling systems.  These updates rang form the 100 percent use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags to DCV’s.  These systems are easy to implement in new airports and are rather difficult and costly for older airports.  Airports are implementing more modern luggage handling to include the removal of the truck and cart systems and interconnecting terminals via underground luggage transport systems that can continually move bags.  Unlike the truck and cart systems, these types of systems are less prone to mishandling (Anderson, A., 2012).

Problem Statement

            What seems like a simple task to most, baggage handling is getting more and more complex.  With long waits at security checkpoints and larger passenger volumes, baggage handling has become a complicated procedure (Jebakumari, D. A., et al, 2014).  IATA statistics in 2010 stated that airlines have incurred over $2.5 billion US from baggage mishandling (Jebakumari, D. A., et al, 2014).

            Case in point is the Denver International Airport (KDEN).  During its initial design, the airport was to have one of the most complex automated systems for baggage handling.  Due to breakdowns in project management the completion of the airport was delayed costing the city of Denver $1.1 Million US per day (Calleam Consulting Ltd. (2008).  The breakdown was in part due to underestimating the complexity of the baggage handling system, changes in strategy, scheduling pressure to complete the airport on time, communication breakdowns, poor design, and lack of management oversight (Calleam Consulting Ltd., 2008).  Because of these breakdowns, the final system design was nothing like the original design.  Rather than full automation between all three concourses, the automated system was only used on one concourse and a manual truck and cart system was used to transfer to the other two concourses (Calleam Consulting Ltd., 2008).

            Baggage handling is considered an inclusive service offered by airlines and thus airlines believed that baggage handling accuracy and efficiency was of less concern.  Airlines were more concerned with the timely turnaround of aircraft which would maximize revenue per seat mile.  Baggage handling plays a key role in how quickly an airline can turn a plane at the gate and therefore largely affects fixed costs.  Airline passengers expect that their baggage will meet them at their destination and thus plays a key role in customer satisfaction in the Airline.  Airlines have often placed the priority of baggage handling beneath quick turns at the gate to increase revenue.  Airlines have begun to realize the problems with this business ethic (Zane, C. K., & Reyes, P. M., 2010).

Significance of Problem Statement

            Turnaround times at gates are the greatest source of delays for Airlines.  These delays only compound themselves through the day as planes move from airport to airport.  Baggage handling plays a key role in this turnaround time and therefore greatly effects Airline revenue and customer satisfaction.  The offloading and distribution process of baggage has a mean time of 16.3 minutes and a standard deviation of 8.07 minutes (Zane, C.K., et al, 2010).  Offloading and on loading of baggage is still a hands on job and with airlines beginning to fly larger aircraft, has greatly increased the time for offloading and on loading.  Passengers are also flying with 10 percent more baggage.  It is believed that in 10 years there will be a 259 percent increase in baggage processing (Zane, C.K., et al, 2010).

            Additional issues are the labor required for baggage sorting.  Since only a few personnel fit in the baggage compartment of a narrow body aircraft, simply increasing the amount of labor to handle the increase in baggage is not the answer.  Increasing the time available to sort and transport the baggage is another possibility, but assumes that passengers and their baggage arrive early.  A paradox exists in where to implement a corrective action to both increase customer satisfaction and improve airline revenue per seat mile.  

Alternative Actions

            Several companies are researching alternative actions in the baggage handling process.  Beumer Group has developed a high speed baggage transport system called CrisBag^®.  With their system, each piece of baggage is placed into a tote-based transport system.  This system can track each piece of baggage at every stage of the handling process.  This one bag per tote process eliminates the need for additional handling once the bag in checked in until the bag arrives at the destination gate (Beumergroup, n.d.).

            Another company called Alstef has developed an automated baggage handling system that integrates a destination coded vehicle (DCV) called BagEpress^®.  This system is capable of processing 120 pieces of luggage an hour.  The advantages of this solution is that it is a plug and play system that can be implemented in steps and is a better management of resources (Alstef, n.d.).

            In all of these handling processes there is a large amount of computer processing and design that must be carefully thought out prior to implementation.  A company called Logplan is an airport logistics company that is a world leader in baggage handling and airport consulting (Logplan, n.d.).  Founded in 1987, their main goal is the implementation of their 100% baggage screening process, implementation of advanced automated baggage handling systems, and providing support for future projects (Logplan, n.d.).

Several additional alternative innovations have been developed in the baggage handling field over the past few years.  At the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, they have developed an on demand baggage handling system that was honored with an innovation award in 2011.  This system places all baggage in a central sort facility where a robotic arm locates, sorts, and loads baggage onto carts.  This process removes the human aspect of this process (Lo, C., 2012).

Another innovation that many airports are looking into is the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags.  This technology has been used in the logistics supply world for decades, but only recently been adopted into the baggage handling world.  The advantage to RFID over bar coded tags is that there is no line of sight requirement to identify a bag which facilitates a much higher rate of baggage identification.  This concept also reduces the amount of bags that must be sorted manually (Lo, C., 2012).

Self-service innovation has been taking hold at airports across the world as well.  This innovation allows passengers access to baggage drop off points that are always available.  This gives passengers the ability to not be required to stand in long ques and rather check-in and drop off their baggage in complete control of the process.  This process increases capacity resulting in a higher passenger efficiency and also offers an automated means in the event of lost baggage (Lo, C., 2012).

Recommendations and Vision

            Even with the increasing technology and implementation of automated sorting and transportation system, the system of on loading and offloading of baggage from an airplanes cargo hold remains outdated.  This time-critical process to aircraft turn times is further hindered by weather and cramped spaces within narrow bodied aircraft (Rijsenbrij, J., & Ottjes, J., 2007).  Recommendations for the increase of baggage sorting and processing time at check-in and at the gate must be addressed in order to increase airline revenue and reduce airline baggage claims (Rijsenbrij, J., & Ottjes, J., 2007). 

The following recommendations will be addressed: increase speed of baggage handling time, reduce baggage cart congestion on air-side roads, mechanism to deal with last minute gate changes and aircraft delays, and implementation of short term storage between terminal and gate.

Increased Speed of Baggage Handling Time

            The 100% use of RFID tags must be implemented to increase processing time of baggage.  This system has an improved accuracy rate over traditional bar-code tags (Zhang, T., Ouyang, Y., & He, Y., 2008).  RFID is a simple cost effective means to provide traceability of baggage throughout the entire baggage handling process.  An additional benefit to RFID is the cost benefit.  It is assumed that over the period of one year, the cost benefit to a single airline would be $175K US due to improvements in loss and damage (Zhang, T. et al, 2008).

            An RFID system consists of an electronic tag or transponder, antennas and readers, and software that controls the RFID data (Saygin, C., & Natarajan, B., 2010).  The RFID system is a wireless system in that it requires no visual recognition of luggage tags.  Factors that affect the identification capacity and accuracy are as follows: the conveyor speed or the time the tags stays in the interrogation zone, the reader antenna power which determines the size of the interrogation zone, and the number of reader antennas in the system which improves interrogation accuracy (Saygin, C., & Natarajan, B. (2010).

Reduced Baggage Cart Congestion on Air-side Roads

            With the implementation of route choice control, baggage can be autonomously sorted when received at check in and routed to either a holding area or the gate depending on time of departure and gate assignment.  This process can also be implemented at the gate in which bags can be offloaded onto a conveyor system that autonomously identifies the bag and routes the bag to a connecting gate, holding facility, or baggage claim with no need to transport via outdated truck and cart systems (Tarău, A., De Schutter, B., & Hellendoorn, J., 2009).  As earlier discussed, the use of DVCs aides in expeditious routing of baggage.  The computational requirements for routing of these DVCs is enormous.  An alternative approach to these computations is addressed in research done by Tarău, A. N., De Schutter, B., & Hellendoorn, J., (2011) in which the concept of using a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) helps reduce computational needs.

Mechanism to Deal with Last Minute Gate Changes and Aircraft Delays

            In 2011, airline passengers saw a 35 percent increase in mishandled bags (Anderson, A., 2012).  This was due in part to the luggage failing to load on the same aircraft that the passenger had boarded.  Issues cited included the fact that last minute gate changes increased mishandling of luggage (Anderson, A., 2012).  In most airports, as the passenger arrives, their luggage is routed to the gate of departure, and then placed on a cart on the ramp.  If there is a gate change, this cart must be identified and re-routed by ground to the new gate.

            A mechanism to deal with this issue would be the implementation of luggage transfer systems that interconnect each terminal area.  This mechanism would eliminate the need for the truck and cart systems and could move luggage much quicker.  Each piece of luggage could be identified as having a connecting flight or nonstop flight via an automated sorting system and routed as needed.  Luggage could be routed in an order that places nonstop bags in first and connecting bags in last at the gate.  As the aircraft lands, this process would be reversed.

Implementation of Short Term Storage Between Terminal and Gate

            Transfer mishandling accounted for 53 percent of mishandled bags in 2011 (Andersson, A., 2012).  This mishandling could be reduced by not placing luggage at the gate and instead placing luggage in a short term handling area and not routed to the gate where the luggage could wait for hours before the flight arrives.  This would reduce the amount of luggage carts cluttering the ramp posing a safety hazard and also reduce the chances of pilfering if the short term storage area was a secure area.

Conclusion

            The good news is that many advances have been made and research conducted on the logistical nightmare of airport luggage routing and handling helping to ensure that luggage mishandling is a thing of the past.  It is believed that with a few simple changes such as the 100 percent use of RFID that the frustrated passenger waiting frantically at the luggage carousel will be a thing of the past.  Research must also continue into the on loading and offloading of luggage into narrow body aircraft that removes the human aspect of this process.

The intent of this paper was to review past attempts at automated luggage handling systems and analyze where failures have occurred.  After careful analysis, this paper reviewed new and more modern technology that addresses past issues with automation of luggage handling.  This paper concluded with recommendations and vision for the successful implementation of an automated luggage handling systems for the future.

References

Alstef. (n.d.) Alstef Automation – Automated baggage handling systems. airport-technology.com. Retrieved from http://www.airport-technology.com/contractors /baggage/alstef/

Andersson, A. (2012). Handling baggage: Alex andersson searches for signs that the days of lost luggage are consigned to the past. Business Traveller Asia Pacific, 70.

Beumergroup. (n.d.). Crisbag – High speed baggage transport and sortation system. Retrieved from https://www.beumergroup.com/en/products/airport-baggage-handling-systems/high-speed-transportation-systems/crisbagr

Calleam Consulting Ltd. (2008). Case Study – Denver International Airport baggage handling system – An illustration of ineffectual decision making. Retrieved from http://calleam .com /WTPF/wp-content/uploads/articles/DIABaggage.pdf

Jebakumari, D. A., Godweena, K. A., & Kavyaa, R. (2014). Automated air baggage security enhancements with biometric recognition using programmable logic controller. International Journal of Computer Applications, 96(2), 12-17. doi:10.5120/16765-6327

Lo, C. (2012). Airport baggage systems go high-tech: handling with care. Airport-technology.com. Retrieved from http://www.airport-technology.com/features /featureairport-baggage-handling-systems/

Logplan. (n.d.). World leader in baggage handling, airport and transportation consulting. Retrieved from http://www.logplan.com/

Nice, K. (2001). How baggage handling works. HowStuffWorks.com. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/baggage-handling.htm

Nopper, J. R., & ten Hompel, M. (2010). Quantification of life cycle advantages through increased expansion flexibility of self-organized baggage-handling systems. Logistics Research, 2(3), 135-146. doi:10.1007/s12159-010-0032-7

Rijsenbrij, J., & Ottjes, J. (2007). New developments in airport baggage handling systems. Transportation Planning and Technology, 30(4), 417-430. doi:10.1080/03081060701461899

Saygin, C., & Natarajan, B. (2010). RFID-based baggage-handling system design. Sensor Review, 30(4), 324-335. doi:10.1108/02602281011072215

Tarău, A., De Schutter, B., & Hellendoorn, J. (2009). Route choice control of automated baggage handling systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2106, 76-82. doi:10.3141/2106-09

Tarău, A. N., De Schutter, B., & Hellendoorn, J. (2011). Predictive route control for automated baggage handling systems using mixed-integer linear programming. Transportation Research Part C, 19(3), 424-439. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2010.06.004

Zane, C. K., & Reyes, P. M. (2010). Airlines' plight: Where has all the luggage gone? Management Research Review, 33(7), 767. doi:10.1108/01409171011055834

Zhang, T., Ouyang, Y., & He, Y. (2008). Traceable air baggage handling system based on RFID tags in the airport. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 3(1), 106.

Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT) Team Training Applications

 

Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT)

Team Training Applications

by

Stanley D. Pebsworth

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University

December 2015

                                   

Research paper submitted to the Worldwide Campus in partial fulfillment

 of the requirements for course ASCI 550, Aviation Education Foundation

Abstract

In Military Aviator training today, the use of Computer Based Training (CBT) is essential in reducing training cost and maintaining aviator proficiency.  As training plans are developed, emphasis must be placed on the uses and applications of all available training tools.  The Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT) is an often overlooked tool for team tactical training.  This research paper will address the uses and capabilities of the AVCATT as a team training tool.  The research will identify the gaps in training and conduct analysis that will identify the possible training applications of the AVCATT.  This research will propose possible training plans and identify how to effectively evaluate the outcomes of the training.

Keywords: aviation, team tactics, training, military, computer based training

Vision Statement

            We who strive for Aviation excellence must learn to preserve and improve the quality of training we produce, be good stewards of instructional design concepts, and build a strong sense of community.  This Instructional Design Project will address the needs of our diverse group of aviation professionals by applying the instructional design process to a team training design module specifically for the Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT).  This team training module will apply to all aspects of Attack Aviation and promote safer team operations in both training and combat missions.

            The AVCATT has the ability to provide tough and realistic training for Army Aviators through the use of realistic simulation.  It is built by L3 Link Simulation and Training and first fielded in 2003.  The AVCATT can be utilized by Active, Reserve and National Guard components.  It is a transportable multi-station simulation device that supports unit collective and combined arms training for helicopter crews.  Using a helmet mounted display, the aviator in transported into a realistic virtual training mission (Program Execution Office, n.d.).

Figure 1. AVCATT AAR Trailer

Image Source: Program Executive Office (n.d.).

Figure 2. AVCATT BMC Trailer

Image Source: Program Executive Office (n.d.).

            In 2002, the Army invested $300 million in the AVCATT project.  Today, the Army utilizes 23 suites in both the Continental United States as well as International locations.  These suites consist of two fifty-three foot trailers: Battle Master Control (BMC) and After Action Review (AAR) trailers.  The BMC trailer houses the Battle Master Control room and three reconfigurable maned modules.  The AAR trailer houses the AAR room and three reconfigurable maned modules (Tiron, 2002).

            Instructional Designers must know and understand all tools available for developing instructional modules.  The AVCATT, in this researcher’s opinion, is an underutilized training tool that has the potential to provide team tactical mission training that otherwise is only available in an unsafe hostile environment.  Having the ability to mentor through this type of training could prove to be invaluable.

            The Instructional Design approach used in this research was derived from proven design concepts and applications as outlined by Rothwell & Kazanas, Mastering the Instructional Design Process (Fourth Edition).  This approach helps to find gaps in human performance and provide the means to design an instructional process that addresses those gaps.  The U.S Military originally invented the Instructional Design Process to be an efficient and effective means to train troops.  The key focus of Instructional Design is to improve human performance in a safe organized setting using effective training (Rothwell & Kazanas, 2008).  The Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model will be used in this paper.  Figure 3 illustrates the steps in the instructional design process.

Figure 3. Applying the ADDIE model. Image Source  http://ci484-learning-technologies.wikispaces.com/Ross+%26+Kemp+Mode

Needs Assessment (Analysis)

            The Military does not air its laundry and discuss issues that it may or may not have with regards to training and capabilities.  The assessment made in this paper is based on this researcher’s personal opinion back by a twenty-year Military aviation tactical operations background.  That being said, or should I say, with all due respect, the Army is failing miserably in grasping the requirement to conduct tactical team training on a regular basis to allow their aviators the ability to hone their skills and remain tactically proficient.

            What the Army is missing is the understanding of what it takes to be a skilled combat pilot.  We spend most of our training time in progressions (Readiness Level 3 to 1) and not in conducting Team Training Techniques.  We are required as Army Aviators to fly a specific amount of time conducting Instrument Flight, Night Flight, and Night Vision Device Flight, but there is no requirement for conducting team training missions.  Team missions are left up to the responsibility of the Unit Commander and in this researcher’s twenty-year experience I have never had a Unit Commander designate and iteration requirement for Team Tactical Training.

            A lack of Team Training results in unhappy employees, low production, an unsafe work environment, increased expenses, and a loss of customers (Amo, T., n.d.).  Amo points out that in a workplace environment where workers are required to learn as they go can result in inadequate learning of employees.  Therefore, this researcher proposes that the needs of the Army have been poorly assessed and that a change to policy should be made that will incorporate the requirement for Tactical Team Training outlined by the Unit Commander with the intent to focus more on team training and less on individual training.  This can be done with the use of the AVCATT at a much lower cost than the actual aircraft.  Funding for AVCATT is already in place.  Each Active Unit has one of the 23 available suites at their disposal.  No increased hourly funding to utilize AVCATT is required at an hourly savings of $3,406.98 (AH-64D) (Globalsecurity.org, n.d.).

Instructional Design (Design)

            In developing Instructional Design, one must conduct a job, task, and content analysis.  This analysis is essential to organizational structure and performance (Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H., 2008).  This being said, this paper proposes the following performance objectives to be assessed with the incorporation of the AVCATT.

            1) Conduct Team Mission Planning and Rehearsals

            2) Conduct Team Tactical Departure Procedures

            3) Conduct Team In-route Security

            4) Conduct Team Reconnaissance and Security

            5) Conduct Team Attack

These objectives will be required to be conducted by with a minimum of two aircraft.  It will also be noted that missions should also consider multi-ship formations of four or more aircraft.  A minimum of four interactions of each task must be conducted during each of the aviator’s semi-annual periods.

            The performance measurement for these tasks will be without error.  The understanding of this measurement is that a learning curve is expected and that each iteration conducted by an individual should show improvement.  The complex nature of these tasks does not allow for an exacting science of performance measurement and therefore it will be the judgment of the observer (SP, IP, AMSO) as to the critique of the mission conducted.  A thorough After Action Review must also be conducted to aide in the development of the individual aviator and team.

Instructional Strategies (Development)

            Instructional strategy is a blueprint for systematically exposing learners to experiences that will help in their understanding of the intended knowledge that should be attained.  The aim of instructional strategy is to plan holistically in order to give Instructional Designers a conception of the plan before they begin the painstaking task of selecting instructional materials (Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H., 2008).  There exist two types of instructional strategy; macro and micro.  Macro focuses on the overall plan of the learning experience and Micro focuses on a more detailed plan for the learning experience (Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H., 2008).  It is the intent of this paper to establish an overarching Macro-Instructional Strategy and outline key tasks that should be considered and not to re-establish Army Doctrine.

Conduct Team Mission Planning and Rehearsals

            Team mission planning and rehearsals will be conducted prior to each mission.  The Unit Commander is responsible to produce an Operation Order that will be the building block of the mission.  The Operation Order will contain five key areas as outlined.

            1) Situation

            2) Mission

            3) Execution

            4) Service Support

            5) Command and Signal

A more detailed outline of an Operation Order can be found using FM 101-5, FM 71-10, FM 100-15, and TC 1-400.  Once the Operation Order is received, the team to be trained will conduct deliberate mission planning that will produce an Air Mission Briefing/Air Crew Briefing.  The intent of the Air Mission briefing is to be a back brief to the Unit Commander to ensure the Commanders intent is understood.  The intent of the Air Crew Briefing is to brief all personnel involved in the mission on the plan of execution.  Rehearsals will also be conducted to ensure all personnel involved understand their role in the mission.  Each unit should have an outline as to the specific content of these briefing and rehearsals in their Tactical Standard Operating Procedures (TACSOP).

Conduct Team Tactical Departure Procedures

            As we move to the execution phase of this training the first key task for teams should be the understanding of a tactical departure.  It should be understood by the team that based on the current threat established in the Operations Order, the technique for departure should be addressed.

Conduct Team In-route Security

            During this phase of training teams should be considering bypass techniques, security techniques, as well as ways to provide reaction time to friendly forces.  It will be beneficial for all involved if there is an observer in the BMC that can assess the techniques of the team and provided feedback both during and after the mission.

Conduct Team Reconnaissance and Security

            Reconnaissance and security techniques are key in this phase of training.  Fundamentals of reconnaissance and security are well outlined in FM 3-90 and TC 1-400.  The successful execution of operations is based upon a careful analysis of the plan and a detailed reverse planning sequence (Department of the Army, 2006).

Conduct Team Attack

Capabilities of the Attack Reconnaissance Battalion (ARB) coupled with joint systems, provides the Unit Commander with the capability to extend fires and effects to the maximum range of a commander’s organic and supported sensors.  During this phase of training it should be understood how to bring the ARB’s firepower, speed, and shook effect to the battlefield (Department of the Army, 2006).  Decisive to this training phase is the understanding of key forms of attack and how the ARB shapes the battlefield for follow on forces.

Instructional Materials (Implementation)

            In the development of this training, consideration should be made as to the means of tracking the progress of individual aviators.  The use of the aviators Common Task List is a means of showing the requirements for this instruction, but does not track where the individual aviator in in his progression.  Being able to provide a means of tracking progress and logging instructional comments is imperative this training.  Instructional materials used for this training will be as follows.

            1) TC 1-400 (Brigade Aviation Element Handbook).  This manual is not the be all end all to resources for this training, however it is a great starting point for all elements of this training.

            2) Personnel Computer with Windows and Microsoft Office

            3) Projector

            4) Color Printer

            5) Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT)

Means of Evaluation (Evaluation)

            The means of evaluation for the instructional design will use an expert review technique.  These expert reviews should be conducted by subject matter experts (SMEs).  These SMEs education and experience should mirror the instructional content.  A key advantage to this type of evaluation is that it ensures that material is current, accurate, and credible (Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H., 2008).  Examples of these SMEs are unit SPs, IPs, and AMSO/TACOPS officers.  You must also look to those that have had significant operation experience.  Figure 4 proposes a means for tracking individual progress as well as a means for tracking SME/Instructor comments.

Figure 4. Crewmember Team Training Assessment

 

Conclusion

            We have discussed a very formative Instruction Design Process for conducting Team Training Techniques utilizing the AVCATT.  It should also be understood that the Instructional Design Process is not inflexible and should not have a means for modification (Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H., 2008).  The intent of this research was to provide recognition of the gap in knowledge of our aviators in conducting Team Tactical Missions and formulate a plan to address and correct this gap in knowledge.

Reference

Amo, T. (n.d.). The negative effects of a lack of training in the workplace. Small Business. Retrieved 19 December 2015 from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effects-lack-training-workplace-45171.html

Department of the Army. (2006). Brigade Aviation Element Handbook TC 1-400. Retrieved from https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/4665AA7B-D7EE-4988-B615-487252281A2B-1274545009642/1-400/toc.htm#toc

GlobalSecurity.org. (n.d.). Rotary Aircraft. Retrieved 19 December 2015 from http://www .globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/rotary.htm

Program Execution Office. (n.d.). Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT). Retrieved 2 December 2015 from http://www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/AVCATT/

Rothwell, W., & Kazanas, H. (2008). Mastering The Instructional Design Process, A Systematic Approach (Fourth ed.). San Francisco, CA.: Pfeiffer.

Tiron, R. (2002). Army Simulator to Fill Gap in Combined-Arms Training. National Defense Magazine. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013042/http: //www .nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Feb/Army_Simulator.htm