Carl Westin

6-5 Results study 1 127 6-4-4 Experimental design A qualitative design was used with scenario repetitions as the independent variable (each scenario repeated four times). Consistency was determined from analyzing the similarity in participant’s solution patterns across repetitions. A pattern was defined by the actions taken to solve a conflict. All three classifications in the con- flict solution framework were considered when identifying patterns. A participant was considered consistent if the same pattern, according to the same classification, was found to solve the conflict in three out of four or four out of four repetitions. in A consistently applied pattern was described as a participant’s problem-solving style. Agreement (inter-rater reliability) was subsequently analyzed by comparing problem-solving styles between participants. 6-4-5 Procedures Participation lasted approximately two hours. Following introductory briefing and consent procedures, participants received roughly 50 minutes of simulator training. The experiment simulation comprised sixteen two-minute scenarios (each baseline scenarios once and then three repeats). Scenario order was varied according to a Latin Square design. The two main tasks were to resolve conflicts and clear air- craft to their exit points The sector environment was presented as a futuristic free- routing sector with a considerably higher traffic density and throughput than current day. Participants were supported by a short-term conflict detection system that pro- vided an visual and auditory warning before separation loss occurred. Traffic was restricted to the horizontal plane (flight level 290) with no wind or other meteoro- logical conditions present. 6-5 Results study 1 Data from 256 solutions, 64 per scenario group, was collected. This consisted of four scenarios repeated four times across sixteen participants. One participant’s data file in Scenario 2 was corrupted, leaving in total 255 solutions to analyze. 6-5-1 Solution parameter hierarchy analysis The solution distribution in Figure 6-3 provides an overview of all 64 recorded solu- tions across the first four DSs for Scenario 1. Out of all solutions, 98.5% consisted of either interacting with one aircraft (59.4%) or both (39.1%). DS 4 shows that 20 unique solutions were identified in total. The most common solutions consisted of interacting with QS (DS 3: 45.3%), either implementing a right vector (23.4%) or a right vector with a speed increase (21.9%). Solutions consisting of three or more