AICC Subcommittee Working Group Meeting Minutes
May 1 - 5, 2000
Frankfurt, Germany

TUESDAY – May 2

Strategic Planning and Executive Committee

Patrick Alizon (Airbus), AICC chairman, start the session with a review of the strategic planning work done at the previous meeting. Anne Montgomery (AICC) reviewed by-law changes, including changes to allow an airline to hold the AICC chairmanship. Members discussed the observer membership and moved to consider an increase in observer membership fees. Anne provided a strawman subcommittee reorganization which generated discussion. A organization of subcommittees including was agreed upon. Requests were issued for nominees for AICC chairmanship. Executive committee decided to postpone AICC chairman elections until January; Patrick will continue to server as chair until then. During the executive committee and general meetings, nominees for member-at-large were also solicited. The executive committee (and several airlines) requested that future AICC meetings be held in cities served by major airport hubs. Many attendees complained about accessibility of some of the locations. AICC meetings were discussed. To make the meetings more interesting to airlines, a meeting theme day will be designated for future meetings. The next meeting in September will have a day for presentations from web-based CMI vendors and web-portal vendors. The following meeting will have a non-flight training day.

New Project Planning

Jack Hyde (FlightSaftey Boeing) presented an overview of the AICC for new members. Patrick Alizon presented a recap of the AICC subcommittee reorganization. Mike Sharp (Honeywell) led a brain-storming session of possible web-based technology projects. An outline was developed for a white paper. Various vendors and AICC members were requested to provide information for the white paper.

Independent Test Lab Subcommittee

Bill McDonald (FlightSafety-Boeing) reported that SABA passed the cerification tests for AICC's CMI web-based guidelines. The voting membership approved this certification. Bill answered questions on when we can start using the Kiev test lab. After checking with his legal department, he noted that this lab will not be used for Military training and some types o f commercial courseware (such as avionics). There should be no restrictions on using the lab for commercial software testing. Jack Hyde (FlightSafety Boeing) provided a. detailed discussion on conformance testing issues with recommendations for how to handle the optional CMI data groups. This provides a framework to ensure optional data (when provided) is consistently tested and certified.

WEDNESDAY – May 3

Smart Graphics and Simulation Committee

Ian Wright (Vega) presented another view of the requirements for CBT-Simulation communication (i.e., different from that provided by Jack Hyde at the Daytona meeting). Ian's view is that the screen display is composed of displays both created and controlled by the CBT and by the simulation. This requires communication of status and values between the CBT and the simulation. Jack's view is a no-name view that communication can take place without having to identify specific knobology. Gary Morrison (US Airways) reviewed Smart Graphics, collapsed the seven levels of graphics, simplifying the conceptual model. Gary then reviewed 2 other approaches to CBT-Simulation interoperability, one presented by Kurt Sand (DCS Corporation) and one presented by Jack Hyde at the last meeting. Dr. Peter Frizen, Vega, provided a demonstration of Vega's work in smart graphics and simulation. Gary led a discussion of the next step.

CMI

Jack Hyde reviewed changes to DMI001 v 3.02. The document is on the web and the vote for acceptance will be June 1.

New Projects

Jack Hyde proposed 2 possible new projects in the areas of testing and student data. Jack proposes a projects to 1) review the IMS testing specification and determine if the CMI specification supports that spec; 2) map aviation need s to the IMS spec; 3) develop extensions to the IMS spec to support simulation performance testing. Jack and Frank Farance (Farance Inc.) propose to take the IEEE PAPI specification and provide an airline implementation. After discussions, the group showed more interest in testing and assessment (especially as it relates to simulation) than student records. Mike Sharp (Honeywell) requested that the AICC consider the adapting the CMI-CBT communication mechanism to report results of simulator sessions.

THURSDAY – May 4

Windows and Operating Systems

Ian Wright (Vega) recommended a different focus for AGR004. Ian also presented the most recent information on Windows 2000 and Windows ME.

DELS

Bernard Bouyt (Airbus) proposed strawman ideas for a World Training Survey. Jack Hyde and Bernard will design the survey and post on the web for review. The updated survey will put on the AICC web site by June 1. Data will be gathered for 3 months and the results will be posted and also presented at the next AICC meeting. Bernard provided a presentation on the Airbus Training Central library explaining all the MIF metadata in detail. Tyde Richards (IBM-Lotus) recommended a 1-day workshop at the next meeting to compare the MIF metadata with the IEEE metadata and develop an aviation industry set of learning metadata. Tyde also gave a brief talk on Learning Object Metadata (LOM). Bernard plans to have presentations by aviation training courseware developers to 1) show experience and results; 2) provide advice for new developers; 3) explain their courseware development process; 4) describe their courseware and development structure including content, testing, and organization (both developer organization and content organization)

FRIDAY – May 4

Joint Meeting: AICC and Star Alliance

Rubin Siddique (Lufthansa) was meeting moderator and introduced Capt. D. Harms, Managing Director of the Lufthansa Flight Training Center who gave the group a warm welcome. After opening remarks and logistics the remainder of the day was comprised of a set of presentations by Star Alliance Members and Wicat. The presentations included:

• United Airlines Development Methods by Robin Wilen, United Air Lines: A detailed look at United's approach to training development
• Internet Pilot Practice Service by Mike Sharp, Honeywell: An overview of a web based simulation of the Honeywell FMS developed jointly by Honeywell and Thompson Training
• CBT Development Environment of Lufthansa Flight Training, M Boehm, Lufthansa: A look at the CBT development tools used at Lufthansa.
• WICAT.COM CBT Web Portal, Michael Plante, WICAT.COM: An overview of WICAT.COM's web portal service including features and content. The portal will be available with a set of initial capabilities in August of 00. WICAT.COM is providing a period starting in August when users can access the portal free of charge.
• Features of Lufthansa Flight Training's CBT, U. Schleiden, Lufthansa: An in-depth look at the features of Lufthansa lessons, including the instruction design methodologies employed.
• Programming Problems with Toolbook II, Micheal Menzel, Lufthansa: An informative presentation on problems encountered when using Toolbook (including limitations) and how the problems have been overcome.

At the conclusion of the presentations, Lufthansa provided a tour of the Lufthansa Flight Training Center and the emergency procedures simulators.