AIM To explore the course setting of simulation flight practice by analyzing heart rate and heart rate variability of aerospace medical students in simulated flight practice test.
METHODS Analyses and comparison were evaluated in heart rate and heart rate variability of 48 aerospace medical students before test and in simulating flights tests both Type-6 Primary Trainer (T-6) and desktop computer-based flight simulator (DC-FT). The two kinds of simulating flights both included three phases: take-off, cruise and landing.
RESULTS The heart rate and the heart rate variability of both simulating flights were significantly different from those at resting state (P < 0.01), indicating that both simulation flights had a certain flight load. The heart rate and heart rate variability of take-off, cruise, and landing of the T-6 flight were all significantly different from those in the resting state (P < 0.01). They were significantly different from those in the resting state in the DC-FT flight (P < 0.01), indicating that the three phases of T-6 flight put a large load on the students, while the only the cruise phase of the DC-FT flight demonstrated a similar outcome. The heart rate and heart rate variability of take-off and landing phases in T-6 flight were significantly different from those of the DC-FT flight (P < 0.01). Heart rate and heart rate variability of the two simulation flights during cruise phase were not significantly different, indicating that the flight loads in the take-off and landing phases of T-6 flight were larger than that of the DC-FT flight and the flight load in cruise phase was equivalent to that of DC-FT flight.
CONCLUSION According to the flight loads of the two kinds of flights, we recommend to place more effort on the explanation of technical points of each phase of T-6 flight and increase the practice time of T-6 flight in order to facilitate the students to better master flight skills.
DownLoad: