Carl Westin

124 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution 6-4 Method Study 1 Study 1 comprised four different scenarios, each containing different asymmetrical conflict geometries, and different aircraft parameters, that favored a specific solu- tion. Due to this solution bias, it was hypothesized that participants would solve repeated conflicts similarly (high consistency and high agreement). Note that the data was collected in previous simulation (prequel simulation) part of a larger study investigating controller acceptance of conformal (personalized) decision support. 101 6-4-1 Participants Participants consisted of sixteen controllers (one female and fifteen males) working at Shannon Area Control Center (ACC), Ireland. Participation was voluntary. Age varied between 26 and 44 years (mean = 31) and experience varied between zero to ten years (mean = 2.5). Twelve controllers were actively working en-route posi- tions, while three were en-route trainees at the end of their on-the-job training. One controller was actively working the tower position. 6-4-2 Simulator A Java-based ATC simulator package, using OpenGL extensions, was used in par- allel on three portable computers, each connected to a 21-inch monitor with a min- imum resolution of 1280x1024 pixels. The simulator ran at 4x normal speed. Air- craft plots on the display were updated every second to simulate a 1 Hz radar update frequency. The interface consisted of a simplified traditional ATC radar view display. The simulator environment consisted of a hypothetical squared en-route sector (50 x 50 nmi). Aircraft interaction, achieved by means of mouse and keyboard, was facili- tated through the Solution Space Diagram (SSD). The SSD display was not always visualized but activated when an aircraft was selected (clicked on). The SSD (i.e., Figure 6-2) is a novel separation assistance tool based on an ecological interface design approach under development at Delft University of Technology. 102, 232 It visualizes the constraints and possibilities affecting the travel space of a selected aircraft in relation to the other intruder aircraft. The relative position of intruder aircraft are visualized by color-coded no-go zones in a circular 360 degrees diagram around the controlled aircraft (the diameter of the diagram reflects the controlled aircraft’s current speed). Each no-go zone represents the protected zone (typically 5 nmi in diameter in en-route airspace) of an intruder aircraft, and are either yellow (separation loss in one to four minutes) or red (zero to one minute). Separation is assured by making sure the velocity vector of the controlled aircraft is outside the no-go zone(s). More information about the SSD is provided in Appendix B.