Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning – Aviation
Academic Year of Report: Spring 2010 to Spring 2011*
College: _____CEPS____
Department ____Aviation______
Program: Bachelor of Science in Flight Technology
Specializations: Flight Officer (FO) & Commercial Pilot (CP)
*Due to the difficulty of obtaining thorough and complete data in time for an annual June 15 deadline—
especially flight lab data—the department had adjusted the report year to a spring-winter time frame.
However, since the due dates for annual Assessment Reports have now been pushed back to December, this
report spans a 15-month period from the beginning of spring 2010 quarter to the end of the spring 2011
quarter. Next year’s report will include data from fall 2011, winter 2012 and spring 2012 quarters.
Check here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: [ X ]
Check here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: [ ]
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
The four learner outcomes listed below were assessed this year because data were collected for all areas
(knowledge, skills, and attitudes) pertaining to those criteria and programs. The department will assess other
specializations in following years after a more comprehensive data set is collected so as to make the
assessment meaningful and useful.
1. Apply the foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fly commercial transport aircraft
in a safe and efficient manner. This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 - Provide for an outstanding
academic, professional growth experience for students at all CWU locations; College Goal 2 - Prepare
students to participate in an increasingly diverse economy and environment; University Goals 1 - Maintain
and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg Campus and 6 - Build inclusive
and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual inquiry and encourage civility, mutual respect,
and cooperation. Assessments were conducted to meet department and Federal Aviation Administration
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction standards.
2. Interpret, calculate, and analyze meteorological, aerodynamic, performance, and loading factors to
conduct safe and efficient commercial flights. This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 (see above);
College Goal 2 (see above) and University Goals 1 and 6 (see above). Assessments were conducted to meet
department and Federal Aviation Administration Title 14 CFR Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction
standards.
3. Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes to effectively operate aircraft airframe, powerplant,
navigation, and communication systems in a multi-crew environment, including Crew Resource
Management (CRM), Hazardous Attitudes Assessment, and Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM).
This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 (see above); College Goal 2 (see above) and University Goals 1
and 6 (see above). Assessments were conducted to meet department and Federal Aviation Administration
Title 14 CFR Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction standards.
4. Describe the physiological and psychological limitations to flight crew performance (including
personal limitations, hazardous attitudes and antidotes, and pilot decision making) and effectively cope
with these limitations in the flight environment. This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 (see above);
College Goal 2 (see above) and University Goals 1 and 6 (see above). Assessments were conducted to meet
1
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
department and Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction
standards.
2. How were they assessed?
A) Methods of Assessment and B) Who was assessed:
Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 4 were assessed at the Ellensburg campus through FAA written examinations (29
students enrolled in FLT 142, 13 students enrolled in FLT 242, 40 students enrolled in two sections of FLT
354, and 37 students enrolled in two sections of FLT 358), EOC written examinations (30 students enrolled
in FLT 142, 16 students enrolled irrfn FLT 242, 17 students enrolled in FLT 352, 41 students enrolled in two
sections of FLT 354, and 38 students enrolled in two sections of FLT 358), and FAA EOC practical flight
examinations (27 students enrolled in lab FLT 103, 38 students enrolled in FLT 203, 14 students enrolled in
FLT 301, 16 students enrolled in FLT 306, and 18 students enrolled in FLT 401 who completed these labs by
the end of Spring 2011 quarter).
Note: these courses and examinations are taught at the CWU campus—they are not taught or administered by
CWU at the Moses Lake Center (MLC); students transfer in to CWU with equivalents completed at Big
Bend Community College.
All examinations were graded based on FAA computer test standards or FAA Practical Test Standards
pertinent to the certificate or rating for which the student was enrolled.
Skills assessed include the following (non-comprehensive) list of content knowledge, operational skills, and
appropriate attitudes as applied to each lab course, EOC exam, or FAA certificate as listed in documents
FAA-S-8081-14A, FAA-S-8081-4D, FAA-S-8081-12B, or FAA-S-8081-6C with Changes 1 & 2). See
www.faa.gov for full text of those criteria – those documents are far too extensive to include in this report.
Aircraft control (all flight maneuvers required for FAA certifications)
Flight planning and decision making
Navigational skills
Aircraft systems knowledge
Airport operations
Air Traffic control procedures (VFR and IFR) and radar services
Meteorological considerations
Interpretation and application of weather reports and forecasts
Theory and application of instrument navigation
Assessment of hazardous attitudes
Application of pilot decision making skills
Situational awareness
Workload management
Aeromedical factors
Aerodynamics
Weight and balance
Night operations
High altitude operations
Federal Aviation regulations and publications
The National Airspace System
Airworthiness requirements
Fundamentals of instruction
2
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Human behavior
Commercial pilot operations
Instrument flight rules
Pilot certification and logbook endorsements
Flight Instructor responsibilities
In addition, Outcomes 1 through 4 were partially assessed through surveys given to 21 of students at the
Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 142, 15 students at the Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 242,
and 9 students at the Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 354. The Likert-scale survey is designed to
measure students’ perceptions of their experience in these courses.
Outcome 2 was also partially assessed through pass rates of 41 students who completed FLT 211
Meteorology for Pilots, and 29 students who completed FLT 312 Aviation Weather Services. These two
courses are not taught by CWU at the MLC, so only Ellensburg students were assessed.
Crew Resource Management (CRM) skills in Student Learner Outcome 3 were also partially assessed
through pass rates of 26 students who completed FLT 489 Turbojet FTD, CRJ-200 spring 10, winter 11 and
spring 11 quarters. This course is not offered at the MLC, so only Ellensburg students were assessed.
Outcome 4 was also partially assessed through surveys given to seventeen (17) students at the Ellensburg
campus who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival (one section) and forty-three (43) students
at the Moses Lake Center who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival (three sections). It was
also partially assessed through surveys given to forty-three (43) students at the Ellensburg campus who
completed FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight (two sections) and ten (10) students at the Moses Lake Center
who completed FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight (one section). The Likert-scale survey is designed to
measure self-perception of improvement of knowledge of the physiological and psychological limitations of
pilot performance and improvement in their ability to effectively cope with these limitations in the flight
environment as a result of taking these courses.
Outcome 1, along with measures of general satisfaction with the CWU and Midstate Aviation flight training
program, was partially assessed through a survey given to 15 and 12 graduating senior Ellensburg campus
Flight Officer (FO) & Commercial Pilot (CP) students who participated in the “Flight Technology Senior
Exit Survey” at the end of the spring 2010 and 2011 quarters respectively.
C) When it was assessed:
Students were assessed each quarter depending on which FAA course they were enrolled in:
Spring quarter 2010: FLT 103, FLT 203, FLT 301, FLT 306, FLT 354, FLT 358, FLT 401, FLT 358
Fall quarter 2010: FLT 103, FLT 203, FLT 301, FLT 306, FLT 401
Winter quarter 2011: FLT 103, FLT 142, FLT 203, FLT 242, FLT 301, FLT 306, FLT 352, FLT 401
Spring quarter 2011: FLT 103, FLT 203, FLT 301, FLT 306, FLT 354, FLT 358, FLT 401
Students enrolled in FLT 142 and FLT 242 were assessed through a survey administered at the end of winter
quarter 2011.
Students enrolled in FLT 354 were assessed through a survey administered at the end of spring quarter 2010
(a survey was not administered in spring 2011).
Students enrolled in FLT 211 Meteorology for Pilots and FLT 312 Aviation Weather Services, were assessed
at the end of winter 2011 quarter.
3
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Students enrolled in FLT 489 Turbojet FTD, CRJ-200 were assessed in the quarter they took the course
(spring 2010, winter 2011, spring 2011).
Students who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival and FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight
were assessed through surveys administered at the end of their respective quarters (spring 2010, fall 2011,
winter 2011, spring 2011).
3. What was learned? The following tables show stated criteria and goals for each criterion.
Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 below are applicable to all four student learning outcomes:
Students will:
1. Apply the foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fly commercial transport aircraft in a
safe and efficient manner.
2. Interpret, calculate, and analyze meteorological, aerodynamic, performance, and loading factors to
conduct safe and efficient commercial flights.
3. Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes to effectively operate aircraft airframe, powerplant,
navigation, and communication systems in a multi-crew environment, including Crew Resource
Management (CRM), Hazardous Attitudes Assessment, and Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM).
4. Describe the physiological and psychological limitations to flight crew performance (including personal
limitations, hazardous attitudes and antidotes, and pilot decision making) and effectively cope with these
limitations in the flight environment.
Criterion 1: Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FAA ground schools Passed FAA written exam
on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%
Quarter
Class
n
Spr 10
FLT
354
FLT
358
FLT
142
FLT
242
FLT
354
FLT
358
23
Spr 10
Win11
Win11
Spr11
Spr11
20
Criterion 1
Passed FAA
written exam on
the first attempt
with a minimum
score of 80%.
82.6%
Goals for Criterion 1:
80% of students in lower
division classes and 90% of
students in upper division
classes met criterion 1
Not Met
FAA National
Average
Test Scores
84.7%
86.6%
FOI
FIA
92%
85.1%
86.5%
FOI
FIA
88.3% 83.8%
84.2%
29
FOI
FIA
100%
80%
79.3%
13
77%
Not Met
82.9%
80.2%
17
88.2%
Not Met
88.5
86.6
17
FOI
35.3%
FIA
58.8%
FOI
FIA
Exceeded
Not Met
Not Met
CWU Average
Test Score, FAA
written
FOI
Not Met
4
FIA
Not Met
FOI
76.8
FIA
81.8
FOI
n/a
FIA
n/a
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 2: Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FAA ground schools Passed FAA EOC written
exam on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%
Quarter
Class
n
Goals for Criterion 2
Passed EOC written exam on the first
attempt with a minimum score of 80%.
Spr 10
Spr 10
Win11
Win11
Win11
Spr11
Spr11
FLT 354
FLT 358
FLT 142
FLT 242
FLT 352
FLT 354
FLT 358
24
21
30
16
17
17
17
100%
90.5%
90%
56.3%
94.4%
100%
100%
Goals for Criterion 2:
80% of students in lower division classes
and 90% of students in upper division
classes met criterion 2
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Not Met
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Criterion 3: Ellensburg campus students enrolled in flight labs Passed FAA EOC practical flight
exam on the first attempt.
Quarter
Class
*n
Goals for Criterion 3
Goals for Criterion 3:
% Passed EOC flight 80% of students in lower division classes and
exam on the first
90% of students in upper division classes met
attempt
criterion 3
Spr10
FLT103
21/24
88%
Exceeded
FLT203
20/23
87%
Exceeded
FLT301
4/4
100%
Exceeded
FLT306
0/0
n/a
-FLT401
4/6
67%
Not met
Fall 10
FLT103
1/1
100%
Exceeded
FLT203
3/3
100%
Exceeded
FLT301
7/8
88%
Not met
FLT306
1/2
50%
Not met
FLT401
6/9
67%
Not met
Win 11
FLT103
1/1
100%
Exceeded
FLT203
0/0
n/a
-FLT301
2/2
100%
Exceeded
FLT306
9/11
82%
Not met
FLT401
1/1
100%
Exceeded
Spr11
FLT103
1/1
100%
Exceeded
FLT203
10/12
83%
Exceeded
FLT301
0/0
0%
-FLT306
3/3
100%
Exceeded
FLT401
2/2
100%
Exceeded
*n = number of students who passed EOC flight exam on the first attempt / number of students who completed EOC
flight exam
5
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 4: Survey results from 21 students at the Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 142.
Question:
Private Pilot Ground School
1. The Flt 141/142 Private Pilot Ground School has
met the requirements required by the Federal Aviation
Regulations.
2 The Private Pilot Ground School training met my
expectations.
3. I feel that the Private Pilot Ground School has
prepared me to pass the FAA Written Test.
4. I was able to understand aircraft performance
information and how to go about calculating it.
5. The Private pilot ground school gave me an overall
good understanding of airplane aerodynamics and
aircraft systems.
6. After the ground school, I am now able to
distinguish between the different classes of airspace
and identify the rules for each.
7. The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR’s) were
presented in a way that allowed me the understand
them.
8. When going through the basic meteorological
process, I was able to understand the information
being presented.
9. If I had difficulty on certain subject areas, I was
able to obtain help outside the classroom.
10. I am overall satisfied with the Aviation classes that
I have taken so far.
11. I feel that the Private Pilot Courses (Flt 141, 142,
221, 211) has prepared me to be a safe and competent
private pilot.
12. I feel that the training received in the FAA 141
ground school classes and the FAA 141 flight training
received at Midstate were complementary in terms of
timing and instruction.
Total
Quarter
Winter 10
Students
Surveyed
n
FLT 142
21
Strongly
Disagree
1
5%
Disagree
Neutral
1
5%
1
5%
13
62%
13
62%
7
33%
5
24%
11
52%
15
71%
1
5%
1
5%
9
42%
10
48%
3
14%
8
38%
10
48%
2
10%
8
38%
11
52%
1
5%
4
19%
5
24%
3
15%
15
71%
15
71%
17
85%
1
5%
6
30%
13
65%
6 (2%)
Goals for Criterion 4
6
7
33%
7
33%
1
5%
80% percent agree or strongly agree
93%
3
14%
Strongly
Agree
17
81%
2
10%
1
5%
1
5%
1
5%
3 (1%)
Agree
9 (4%)
72 (29%) 160 (64%)
Goals for Criterion 4:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 4
Exceeded
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 5: Survey results from 15 students at the Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 242.
Question:
Instrument Pilot Ground School
1. The Flt 242/242 Instrument Pilot Ground
School has met the requirements required by the
Federal Aviation Regulations.
2 The Instrument Pilot Ground School training
met my expectations.
3. I feel that the Instrument Pilot Ground School
has prepared me to pass the FAA Written Test.
4. I was able to understand the flight instruments
and understand how they operate.
5. Holding was presented to me in a way that
allowed me to understand and conduct holding.
6. Through the instrument ground school, I am
now able to interpret and understand instrument
approach charts.
7. If I had difficulty on certain subject areas, I was
able to obtain help outside the classroom.
8. I have seen program changes occur as a result
of the feedback that I have provided.
10. I am overall satisfied with the Aviation
classes that I have taken so far.
11. I feel that the Instrument Pilot Courses (Flt
241, 242, 312) has prepared me to be a safe and
competent instrument pilot.
12. I feel that the training received in the FAA
141 ground school classes and the FAA 141 flight
training received at Midstate were complementary
in terms of timing and instruction.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
1 (6%
3 (20%
1 (6%
1 (6%
2 (13%)
1 (6%
1 (6%
2 (13%
2 (13%)
4 (27%
1 (6%)
2 (13%)
Agree
Strongly Agree
4
(27%)
11 (73%)
2
(14%)
6
(40%)
9 (60%)
3
(20%)
2
(13%)
4
(27%)
10 (67%)
7
(47%)
4
(27%)
6
(40%)
4
(27%)
8 (53%)
4
(20%)
6 (52%)
1 (6%)
3 (20%)
1 (6%)
2 (1%)
8 (5%)
16 (10%) 46 (28%)
7 (48%)
10 (68%)
11 (73%)
4 (27%)
8 (54%)
9 (60%)
93 (56%)
Results from question 9, which is structured differently than the rest of the questions above, are included
below:
9. The quality of instruction I have received this
year compared to last year has:
Quarter
Winter 11
Students
Surveyed
n
FLT 242
15
N/A
1 (7%)
Decreased
3 (20%)
Goals for Criterion 5
80% percent agree or strongly agree
84%
7
Same
5 (33%)
Improved
6 (40%)
Goals for Criterion 5:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 5
Exceeded
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 6: Survey results from 9 students at the Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 354.
Question:
Commercial Pilot Ground School
1. The Flt 354 Commercial Pilot Ground School
has met the requirements required by the Federal
Aviation Regulations.
2 The Commercial Pilot Ground School training
met my expectations.
3. I feel that the Commercial Pilot Ground
School has prepared me to pass the FAA Written
Test.
4. The advanced systems were presented to me in
a way that allowed me to understand them.
5. I was able to understand advanced aircraft
performance information and how to go about
calculating it.
6. The weight and balance and weight shift
formula were covered enough to give an
understanding of their operations.
7. If I had difficulty on certain subject areas, I
was able to obtain help outside the classroom.
8. I have seen program changes occur as a result
of the feedback that I have provided.
10. I am overall satisfied with the Aviation
classes that I have taken so far.
11. I feel that the Commercial Pilot Courses (Flt
354, 322, 340) has prepared me to be a safe and
competent instrument pilot.
12. I feel that the training received in the FAA
141 ground school classes and the FAA 141
flight training received at Midstate were
complementary in terms of timing and
instruction.
Total
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
2
Strongly
Agree
7
1
4
4
1
3
5
1
3
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
4
3
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
3
4
5
3
1
Neutral
1
0 (0%)
16 (16%) 14 (14%)
Agree
36 (36%)
43 (44%)
Results from question 9, which is structured differently than the rest of the questions above, are included
below:
9. The quality of instruction I have received this
year compared to last year has:
Quarter
Spring 10
Students
Surveyed
n
FLT 354
9
Decreased:
3 (33%)
Goals for Criterion 6
80% percent agree or strongly agree
80%
8
Same:
4 (44%)
Improved:
2 (23%)
Goals for Criterion 6:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 6
Met
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 7 results below apply to Student Learner Outcome 2: Interpret, calculate, and analyze
meteorological, aerodynamic, performance, and loading factors to conduct safe and efficient commercial
flights.
Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FLT 211 Meteorology for Pilots and FLT 312 Aviation Weather
Services who passed the course with a minimum of 80% mastery level.
Quarter
Winter 11
Class
FLT 211
FLT 312
n
Goals for Criterion 7
41
29
Passed course with a minimum score
of 80%.
90%
95%
Goals for Criterion 7:
80% of students in each
course met criterion 7
Exceeded
Exceeded
Criterion 8 results below apply to Student Learner Outcome 3: Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to effectively operate aircraft airframe, powerplant, navigation, and communication systems in a
multi-crew environment, including Crew Resource Management (CRM), Hazardous Attitudes Assessment,
and Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM).
Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FLT 489 Turbojet FTD, CRJ-200 who passed the course with a
minimum of 80% mastery level.
Quarter
Spring 10
Fall 10
Winter 11
Spring 11
Class
FLT 489
FLT 489
FLT 489
FLT 489
n
Goals for Criterion 8
10
0
6
10
Passed course with a minimum score
of 80%.
100%
n/a
100%
100%
9
Goals for Criterion 8:
80% of students in course
met criterion 8
Exceeded
n/a
Exceeded
Exceeded
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 9 results below apply to Student Learner Outcome 4: Describe the physiological and
psychological limitations to flight crew performance (including personal limitations, hazardous attitudes and
antidotes, and pilot decision making) and effectively cope with these limitations in the flight environment.
Results for 20 students who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival and participated in
the survey below at the Moses Lake Center Spring 2010.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 337 …
1. …my understanding of the physiological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the physiological limitations of
flight”
3. … I’m more confident in my ability to
successfully avoid the hazards associated with
these physiological limitations”
4. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
Total
Quarter
Spring 10
Strongly
Disagree
0 (0%)
Disagree
0 (0%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 337
20
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
96%
10
Neutral
15 (75%)
Strongly
Agree
5 (25%)
14 (70%)
6 (30%)
1 (5%)
14 (70%)
5 (25%)
2 (10%)
9 (45%)
9 (43%)
3 (4%)
Agree
52 (65%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
25 (31%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 17 students who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival and participated in
the survey below at the Ellensburg campus Fall 2010.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 337 …
1. …my understanding of the physiological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the physiological limitations of
flight”
3. … I’m more confident in my ability to
successfully avoid the hazards associated with
these physiological limitations”
4. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
Total
Quarter
Fall 10
Strongly
Disagree
1(6%)
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
7 (41%)
Strongly
Agree
9 (53%)
1(6%)
1(6%)
5 (29%)
10 (59%)
1(6%)
2(12%)
3 (18%)
11 (65%)
1(6%)
1(6%)
6 (35%)
9 (53%)
4 (6%)
21 (31%)
4 (6%)
0 (0%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 337
17
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
88%
11
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
39 (57%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 10 students who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival and participated in
the survey below at the Moses Lake Center Fall 2010.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 337 …
1. …my understanding of the physiological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the physiological limitations of
flight”
3. … I’m more confident in my ability to
successfully avoid the hazards associated with
these physiological limitations”
4. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
Total
Quarter
Fall 10
Strongly
Disagree
0 (0%)
Disagree
0 (0%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 337
10
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
90%
12
Neutral
Agree
1(10%)
4 (40%)
Strongly
Agree
5 (50%)
1(10%)
2 (20%)
7 (70%)
1(10%)
3(30%)
6 (60%)
1(10%)
3 (30%)
6 (60%)
4 (10%)
12 (30%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
24 (60%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 13 students who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival and participated in
the survey below at the Moses Lake Center Spring 2011.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 337 …
1. …my understanding of the physiological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the physiological limitations of
flight”
3. … I’m more confident in my ability to
successfully avoid the hazards associated with
these physiological limitations”
4. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
Total
Quarter
Spring 2011
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
1(8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 337
13
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
98%
13
1 (2%)
Agree
6 (46%)
Strongly
Agree
6 (46%)
5 (42%)
7 (58%)
6(46%)
7 (54%)
5 (42%)
7 (58%)
22 (44%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
27 (54%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 17 students who completed FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight and participated in the
survey below at the Ellensburg campus Spring 2010.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 340 …
1. …my understanding of the psychological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the psychological limitations to
flight and avoid them”
3. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
4. …I better understand the concepts of crew
resource management and as a result I feel I
can effectively use all available resources to
achieve safe and efficient flight.”
Total
Quarter
Spring 10
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
1 (6%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 340
17
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
88%
14
Neutral
Agree
3(18%)
7 (41%)
Strongly
Agree
7 (41%)
8 (47%)
9 (53%)
2 (11%)
10 (59%)
4 (24%)
2 (11%)
10 (59%)
5 (30%)
7 (10%)
35 (51%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
25 (37%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 26 students who completed FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight and participated in the
survey below at the Ellensburg campus Fall 2010.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 340 …
1. …my understanding of the psychological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the psychological limitations to
flight and avoid them”
3. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
4. …I better understand the concepts of crew
resource management and as a result I feel I
can effectively use all available resources to
achieve safe and efficient flight.”
Total
Quarter
Fall 10
Strongly
Disagree
0 (0%)
Disagree
0 (0%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 340
26
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
94%
15
Neutral
Agree
2(8%)
17 (65%)
Strongly
Agree
7 (27%)
2(8%)
14 (54%)
10 (38%)
2(8%)
13(50%)
11 (42%)
16 (62%)
10 (38%)
6 (6%)
60 (57%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
38 (37%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 10 students who completed FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight and participated in the
survey below at the Moses Lake Center Fall 2010.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 340 …
1. …my understanding of the psychological
aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to
recognize the psychological limitations to
flight and avoid them”
3. …I believe my ability to make safe
aeronautical decisions has significantly
improved”
4. …I better understand the concepts of crew
resource management and as a result I feel I
can effectively use all available resources to
achieve safe and efficient flight.”
Total
Quarter
Fall 10
Strongly
Disagree
0 (0%)
Disagree
0 (0%)
Students
Surveyed
n
Goals for Criterion 9
FLT 340
10
80% percent agree or strongly
agree
90%
16
Neutral
Agree
1(10%)
6 (60%)
Strongly
Agree
3 (30%)
1(10%)
7 (70%)
2 (20%)
1(10%)
7 (70%)
2 (20%)
1(10%)
5 (50%)
4 (40%)
4 (10%)
25 (62%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 9
Exceeded
11 (28%)
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 10 results below partially assess Student Learner Outcome 1: Apply the foundational
knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fly commercial transport aircraft in a safe and efficient manner.
It is also included to indicate overall general strengths and weaknesses, from the graduate’s perspective, of
the CWU and Midstate Aviation flight training program.
Results for 15 graduating senior Flight Officer (FO) & Commercial Pilot (CP) students who participated in
the “Flight Technology Senior Exit Survey” at the Ellensburg campus Spring 2010.
N/A
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
1. Central Washington University’s
Flight Technology Program met my
expectations.
2. This program prepared me for
entry into the aviation industry.
6
Strongly
Agree
9
5
10
3. I felt confident in Flight
Technology faculty knowledge.
2
13
4. Flight Technology faculty were
approachable.
5
10
5. Flight Technology faculty
effectively taught industry related
material.
6
9
12
2
5
10
3
12
1
3
11
2
3
8
3
4
8
1
9
3
3
4
7
1
1
8
5
2
3
6
4
3
6. Flight Technology faculty varied
their delivery methods of course
material.
7. Flight Technology faculty
conducted themselves
professionally.
8. The Flight Technology faculty
treated me with respect.
9. The academic advising provided
by the faculty every quarter was
useful in completing my degree.
10. I felt knowledgeable about the
activities taking place in the
program.
2
11. I felt confident in the Flight
Technology part-time lecturer’s
knowledge.
1
12. Flight Technology part time
lecturers effectively taught industry
related material.
13. Text books required for Flight
Technology courses were relevant to
course material.
14. Flight Technology curricula
appears relevant to the aviation
industry.
Neutral
15. I have had an opportunity to
17
Agree
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
provide feedback to the Flight
Technology program.
16. Changes occurred as a result of
feedback I have provided.
3
7
2
3
17. I understand why changes may
not have occurred as a result of
feedback provided.
2
5
5
2
18. Flight Technology curricula and
Midstate Aviation curricula are
complementary.
6
6
3
19. Effective communication
existed between Midstate Aviation
and Flight Technology.
6
1
6
2
20. Expectations listed in the
Standard Operating Procedures in
relation to the completion of flight
training were reasonable.
5
2
3
5
21. I was scheduled enough on the
Master schedule to complete my
certificates/ratings on time.
5
1
1
7
22. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors were approachable.
5
2
8
23. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors treated me with respect.
5
1
9
24. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors returned my inquiries.
5
2
8
25. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors used scheduled flight
time effectively.
4
2
8
26. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors used scheduled ground
time effectively.
4
4
6
27. I felt confident in Midstate
Aviation flight instructors’
knowledge.
4
1
10
28. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors conducted standardized
instruction.
4
2
9
29. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors were prepared for
lessons.
4
1
10
30. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors were available to meet
my scheduling needs.
4
3
5
31. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors conducted themselves
professionally.
4
1
10
32. The Chief Flight Instructor and
Assistant Chief Flight Instructor
were approachable.
4
4
7
1
1
1
1
3
18
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
33. The Chief Flight Instructor and
Assistant Chief Flight Instructor
treated me with respect.
4
1
10
34. Midstate Aviation office
personnel were approachable.
4
3
7
35. Midstate Aviation office
personnel treated me with respect.
4
3
8
36. Midstate Aviation office
personnel considerately
communicated with me regarding
scheduling issues.
4
1
8
37. Midstate Aviation office
personnel considerately
communicated with me regarding
charges to my account.
4
3
8
38. Aircraft rental rates are
comparable to other flight schools
with equivalent aircraft.
4
4
2
3
39. The quality of Midstate Aviation
aircraft are above average.
6
1
2
6
40. The maintenance of Midstate
Aviation aircraft is excellent.
6
41. The flight training I received
from Midstate Aviation prepared me
well for a career as a professional
pilot.
6
5
4
42. How would you rate the overall
quality of flight instruction received
from your flight instructors at
Midstate Aviation, Inc.?
4
4
7
43. How would you rate the overall
quality of instruction you received
from Flight Tech Faculty?
1
4
10
44. How would you rate the overall
quality of the CWU Flight
Technology program?
Total
Total with “N/As” dropped
1
4
10
1
1
1
2
9
Please rate the following questions
Quarter
Students
Surveyed
125(19%) 0 (0%)
9 (1%)
44 (7%)
159 (24%)
-- (0%) 0(0%)
9 (2%)
44 (8%)
159 (30%) 323 (60%)
n
Goals for Criterion 10
80% percent agree/strongly
agree and good/very good
Spring 10 Graduating Seniors 15
*90%
*”N/As” dropped from total to compute percentage for Criterion 10
19
323 (49%)
Goals for Criterion 10:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 10
Exceeded
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Results for 12 graduating senior Flight Officer (FO) & Commercial Pilot (CP) students who participated in
the “Flight Technology Senior Exit Survey” at the Ellensburg campus Spring 2011.
N/A
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
1. Central Washington University’s
Flight Technology Program met my
expectations.
2. This program prepared me for
entry into the aviation industry.
1
5
Strongly
Agree
6
8
4
3. I felt confident in Flight
Technology faculty knowledge.
1
2
9
1
11
4. Flight Technology faculty were
approachable.
12
5. Flight Technology faculty
effectively taught industry related
material.
6. Flight Technology faculty varied
their delivery methods of course
material.
4
8
7. Flight Technology faculty
conducted themselves
professionally.
8. The Flight Technology faculty
treated me with respect.
9. The academic advising provided
by the faculty every quarter was
useful in completing my degree.
10. I felt knowledgeable about the
activities taking place in the
program.
1
11
12
2
9
8
4
3
8
12. Flight Technology part time
lecturers effectively taught industry
related material.
5
7
13. Text books required for Flight
Technology courses were relevant to
course material.
2
10
14. Flight Technology curricula
appears relevant to the aviation
industry.
3
9
1
2
9
5
1
5
11. I felt confident in the Flight
Technology part-time lecturer’s
knowledge.
1
1
15. I have had an opportunity to
provide feedback to the Flight
Technology program.
16. Changes occurred as a result of
feedback I have provided.
1
20
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
1
17. I understand why changes may
not have occurred as a result of
feedback provided.
3
5
3
1
2
4
18. Flight Technology curricula and
Midstate Aviation curricula are
complementary.
5
19. Effective communication
existed between Midstate Aviation
and Flight Technology.
5
1
3
3
20. Expectations listed in the
Standard Operating Procedures in
relation to the completion of flight
training were reasonable.
5
1
3
3
21. I was scheduled enough on the
Master schedule to complete my
certificates/ratings on time.
5
1
2
4
22. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors were approachable.
5
1
1
4
23. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors treated me with respect.
5
1
2
4
24. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors returned my inquiries.
5
2
2
3
25. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors used scheduled flight
time effectively.
5
1
1
5
26. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors used scheduled ground
time effectively.
5
2
4
27. I felt confident in Midstate
Aviation flight instructors’
knowledge.
5
1
5
28. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors conducted standardized
instruction.
5
1
3
3
29. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors were prepared for
lessons.
5
1
1
5
30. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors were available to meet
my scheduling needs.
5
1
1
5
31. Midstate Aviation flight
instructors conducted themselves
professionally.
5
1
32. The Chief Flight Instructor and
Assistant Chief Flight Instructor
were approachable.
5
2
1
4
33. The Chief Flight Instructor and
Assistant Chief Flight Instructor
treated me with respect.
5
1
1
5
34. Midstate Aviation office
5
1
1
1
1
21
6
6
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
personnel were approachable.
35. Midstate Aviation office
personnel treated me with respect.
5
1
36. Midstate Aviation office
personnel considerately
communicated with me regarding
scheduling issues.
5
1
1
5
37. Midstate Aviation office
personnel considerately
communicated with me regarding
charges to my account.
5
1
1
5
38. Aircraft rental rates are
comparable to other flight schools
with equivalent aircraft.
5
3
1
39. The quality of Midstate Aviation
aircraft are above average.
5
40. The maintenance of Midstate
Aviation aircraft is excellent.
5
41. The flight training I received
from Midstate Aviation prepared me
well for a career as a professional
pilot.
5
1
6
42. How would you rate the overall
quality of flight instruction received
from your flight instructors at
Midstate Aviation, Inc.?
5
1
6
43. How would you rate the overall
quality of instruction you received
from Flight Tech Faculty?
1
2
9
6
6
94(18%)
94(23%)
264(50%)
264(66%)
3
6
3
4
7
Please rate the following questions
44. How would you rate the overall
quality of the CWU Flight
Technology program?
Total
126(24%) 1(0%)
Total with “N/As” dropped
-- (0%) 1(0%)
Quarter
Students
Surveyed
n
12(2%)
12(3%)
Goals for Criterion 10
80% percent agree/strongly
agree and good/very good
Spring 10 Graduating Seniors 15
*89%
*”N/As” dropped from total to compute percentage for Criterion 10
22
31(6%)
31(8%)
Goals for Criterion 10:
80% of students surveyed
met criterion 10
Exceeded
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Summary:
 Mean FAA written exam scores were above national means for 5 of the 6 certification exams (where
national means are known) associated with FLT 142, 242, 354 and 358 (Criterion 1).
 EOC test performance of students in FLT 352 winter 2011 improved from 83 percent the previous
year to over 94 percent (Criterion 2).
 The percentage of students who passed the aviation weather courses with a minimum score of 80
percent increased to 90% of 41 students enrolled in FLT 211 and 95% of students enrolled in FLT
312 respectively. During the previous reporting period 72% of 36 students enrolled in FLT 211 and
90% of students enrolled in FLT 312 passed the course with a minimum score of 80% (Criterion 7).
 Survey results continue to be very positive with 80 percent to 98 percent of responses indicating
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree” for all surveys administered (Criteria 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10) compared to a
range of 75% to 95% for the previous reporting period.
o Survey results for FLT 142: 93% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it
was 91%.
o Survey results for FLT 242: 84% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it
was 84%.
o Survey results for FLT 354: 80% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it
was 75%.
o Average survey results for FLT 337 (four sections): 93% of responses were “agree” or
“strongly agree;” last year it was 95%.
o Senior Exit survey results Spring 2010: 90% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;”
last year it was 82%.
o Senior Exit survey results Spring 2011: 89% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;”
last year it was 90%.

The above data shows that goals were met or exceeded with exceptions in three areas:
Criterion 1
o The goals for Criterion 1 were met in only one of the eight FAA written exams taken in six
courses. During the previous reporting period the goals were met in six out of seven FAA
written examinations taken in five courses. Failure to meet the goal of 90% of students
passing the FAA written exam on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80% in FLT 358
Spring 2011 can be explained in part by an unexpected and significantly changed FOI exam.
National first-time FOI pass rates (minimum score of 70% needed to pass) dropped to an
estimated 48 percent. [It should be noted that the FOI first-time pass rates for CWU students
was significantly higher at 82.3%.] Unexpected changes to the FAA instrument exam also
explain performance in FLT 242. However, no such explanation can be given for FLT 142
and 354.
Criterion 2
o As was the case during the previous assessment period, the goals for Criterion 2 were met
with the exception of only one course. However, during this period, results for FLT 242 did
not meet the goals while FLT 352 did not meet the goals in the previous period.
Criterion 3
o To make comparisons between assessment reporting periods more meaningful, average EOC
practical test pass rates were calculated across quarters for the current and previous periods
(see tables below). Results indicate the goals for Criterion 3 were exceeded for four of the
five flight labs and three of the five flight labs during the previous and current assessment
reporting periods, respectively. However, during the present reporting period, results for
23
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
FLT 306 and 401 did not meet the goals while FLT 301 did not meet the goals in the
previous period.
Total number of students who completed EOC practical flight exams and overall percentage
who passed on the first attempt for previous reporting period (Spring 2009-Winter 2010).
Class
# of
Goals for Criterion 3
Goals for Criterion 3:
Passed EOC flight
80% of students in lower division classes and
students
exam on the first
90% of students in upper division classes met
completed
attempt
Criterion 3
FLT103
29
93%
Exceeded
FLT203
25
80%
Exceeded
FLT301
6
66%
Not met
FLT306
11
100%
Exceeded
FLT401
9
100%
Exceeded
Total number of students who completed EOC practical flight exams and overall percentage
who passed on the first attempt for this reporting period (Spring 2010-Spring 2011).
Class
*n
Goals for Criterion 3
Goals for Criterion 3:
Passed EOC flight
80% of students in lower division classes and
exam on the first
90% of students in upper division classes met
attempt
Criterion 3
FLT103
24/27
89%
Exceeded
FLT203
33/38
87%
Exceeded
FLT301
13/14
93%
Exceeded
FLT306
13/16
81%
Not met
FLT401
13/18
72%
Not met
*n = number of students who passed EOC flight exam on the first attempt / number of students who
completed EOC flight exam
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
The department feels that only minor changes are needed to improve the program.
Criterion 1
 Beginning Fall 2011, ground school instructors created additional homework assignments designed
to assist students to master the material; they also created more comprehensive and challenging
midterm, stage, and final examinations, relying on fewer published FAA test questions. This issue
has been raised before (see previous reports) and faculty now agree that the 90% pass rate with a
minimum score of 80% for FAA certification examinations associated with upper division ground
school courses (FLT 354, 352, 358) is unrealistic and should be changed to 80%. This is consistent
with other lower division FAA ground courses and will be reflected in next year’s Assessment
Report.
Criterion 2
 Beginning Fall 2011, ground school instructors for Part 141 courses—including the instructor for
AVP 242 (previously FLT 242) created additional homework assignments designed to assist students
to master the material; they also created more comprehensive and challenging midterm, stage, and
final examinations, relying on fewer published FAA text questions.
24
Aviation Assessment Report, December 8, 2011
Criterion 3
 The issue of standards of mastery for pass rates in upper division FAA-related courses has been
raised before (see previous reports); faculty now agree that the 90% criterion goal for FAA EOC
practical examinations associated with upper division flight lab courses (FLT 301, 306, 401) is
unrealistic and should be changed to 80%. This is consistent with other lower division FAA flight
labs and will be reflected in next year’s Assessment Report. Lower performance in FLT 401 may
reflect the recent change in FAA-designated check airmen examiners.

Since the department now has a new course solely devoted to Crew Resource Management (AVP
410), next year’s assessment should include results from surveys for that class.
5. What did the department or program do in response to the feedback from last year's assessment
report?

Note: previous assessment reports used performance measures from FLT 445 Turboprop Simulator
FMS for Criterion 8. FLT 489 has since become our “capstone course” for Flight Officer students
expanding in size (now three credits) and scope to include training in CRM, EFIS, EICASA, FD, and
automation management through simulated flights in a turbojet-powered CRJ-200 aircraft.

A question was posed in last year’s “2009-2010 Assessment of Student Learning Report: Feedback
for the Department of Aviation” about whether the established standards of mastery, especially for
the surveys, were set too high or too low? As noted above, the department has decided that the
standard of mastery for pass rates in upper division FAA-related courses —90% pass rate with a
minimum score of 80%—is unrealistic and will be changed to 80% to be consistent with lower
division courses. This will be reflected in next year’s Assessment Report.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central Washington
University:
-none
25