ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM 519

tion procedure than to complete significant studies. The insurmount-

able variation in performance contributed by the complex factors in
aircraft operation attenuated the reliability of the radar bombing error
scores, just as it did in other attempts to obtain criteria of aerial per-
formance.
The complexities of validating selection tests are thoroughly dis-
cussed in a penultimate chapter describing the results of two studies
employing three batteries of selection tests validated against training
course grades, against an air-crew classification "radar stanine," and,
in part, against radar bombing error calculated from camera records
obtained during aerial training flights. In spite of the besetting difficul-
ties, a number of significant correlations were obtained. Since the
results of these studies were available too late for application in the
wartime selection program, their greatest value will lie in indicating to
the uninitiated the practical problems which will be present in develop-
ing and evaluating tests of this sort.
A final chapter summarizes the principal points of the text and in
addition discusses several areas in which training research was planned,
including the fields of selecting and training instructors, and of organiz-
ing the training curriculum.
C. S. BRIDGMAN.
Navy Special Devices Center.
DAILEY, J. T. (Eo.) Psychological research on flight engineer training. AAF
Aviation Psychology Program Research Reports, Report No. 13.
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1947. Pp.
iii + 227. $1.25.
When the Pearl Harbor debacle gave rise to the immediate necessity
of replacing heavy bombardment aircraft in the Pacific, the Army
Air Forces decided, because civilian aircraft had handled the route
successfully, to fly in the replacements from San Francisco. So many
of the planes, however, crash landed at sea from fuel shortages that the
Army Air Forces called in civilian companies for consultation. From
their experience with long overseas flights, Pan American Airways had
found it necessary to add a new crew member whose task it was to plan
the flight from the standpoint of thorough knowledge of the mechanics
of the craft. Fuel consumption, for example, was found to vary tre-
mendously with the power setting, and one of the major duties of the
new position, flight engineer, was to compute the optimal power
setting.
It took Pan American two and one-half years to train a flight en-
gineer, but the Air Forces in 1942 did not have two and one-half years.
The designs of the B-29 had been on the drawing board since the be-
ginning of the war and were to be in production in 1943, so the Air Forces
set in a training program immediately at various schools in the south-
520 ARMY AIR FORCES AVIATION PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM
west. In 1944 some officers of the Psychological Research Unit No. 2
were assigned the task of preliminary investigation of the requirements
and special characteristics desirable for B-29 crew members, and in
1945 the Psychological Research Project (Flight Engineer) was ac-
tivated with specific directives for the selection and training of flight
engineers.
The present report is a history (ch. 1) and description of the work
of this project. It is notable for its account of work completed (chs.
4 & 5) in the face of what can only be called major difficulties. Con-
sider, for example, the problem of establishing evaluative and selective
criteria (ch. 2) for a new and complex position (1) when the student
personnel varied from enlisted men with air mechanic experience to
officer graduates of the Yale Technical Training Command Engineer's
Officer Candiate School with B-29 training from the Boeing Factory
School; (2) when the curriculum was under constant revision of load,
content, and geographical locus; (3) when there were long delays and
sometimes failures in procurement of mock B-29 equipment; and, finally,
(4) the fact that urgent need for flight engineers resulted in extremely
few failures and wash-backs, thus vitiating even the simple evaluative
aid of grading systems. It is no wonder that many of the research cri-
teria proved to be subjective; and the authors point out the need in this
respect of long-time research studies. An appendix to the report in-
cludes copies of developed check lists, rating scales, and samples of items
from the Flight Engineer Proficiency test.
The job analysis of flight engineer (ch. 3) indicated a responsible and
key job in the airplane although the position in the command hierarchy
was never specifically established. The flight engineer's duties involved
the preparation of the flight plan, pre-flight craft inspection, starting
procedures, proper operation of the power plant throughout flight, keep-
ing flight log, post-flight inspection, and writing a post-flight summary
report for the ground maintenance crew. His flight station was in the
forward pressurized compartment and his instrument panel contained
36 dials, and a control stand fitted with 28 toggle-switches and 14
levers. He had primary authority in emergencies which endangered the
loss of the plane.
The sixth and final chapter evaluates the research. Compromises
between theory and practice resulted in only moderate successes, but
valuables ones nevertheless for clearing the beginning ground of what
will certainly be important research of the future. There is a straight-
faced inclusion among the factors listed as influencing the trend of re-
search: cessation of hostilities. The word "temporary" can almost be
heard.
G. RAYMOND STONE.
University of Oklahoma.