Carl Westin

6-5 Results study 1 133 T ABLE 6-3: Actual solution consistency and agreement in relation to expected solutions. Scenario Expected solution Solution parameter hierarchy Control problem Solution geometry 1 Vector QS right ahead of OM. Some support for expected solu- tion. Highest agreement found for interacting with QS (DSs 1 and 2). Some support for expected solu- tion. Half the group consistent, mainly in agreement on taking QS in front of OM (DSs 1 and 2). High support for expected solution. Nearly all participants agreed on having QS ahead of OM (DS 1). Fewer, however, consistently did so by interacting with QS (DS 2). 2 Vector PA left, or increase speed, ahead of RG. Little support for expected solu- tion. No consistency for single air- craft interactions with PA as pre- ferred aircraft. Some consistency and agreement for dual interac- tions with PA chosen first (DSs 1 and 2). Partly support for expected solu- tion. Those participants found con- sistent agreed on having the con- trolled aircraft in front (DS 1), al- though only a few consistently in- teracted with PA (DS 2). Some support for expected solu- tion. The majority of participants did not solve the conflict consis- tently. However, roughly one third of participants agreed on having PA ahead of RG (DS 1), mainly by in- teracting with PA (DS 2). 3 Vector RG left ahead of SM. No support for expected solution, although consistency and agree- ment were found for other solu- tions. Some support for expected solu- tion. A little more than half of the participants, who were found con- sistent, agreed on controlling RG in front of SM (DSs 1 and 2). In contrast, the other half of consis- tent participants agreed on control- ling SM to pass behind RG. High support for expected solution. Majority of participants agreed on RG passing ahead of SM (DS 1), although there were some disagree- ment on whether to take RG ahead or SM behind (DS 2). 4 Vector QS right ahead of PA. High support for expected solu- tion. The majority of participants agreed on vectoring QS to the right. High support for expected solu- tion. The majority of participants agreed on controlling QS in front of PA (DSs 1 and 2). High support for expected solution. All participants consistently solved the conflict and agreed on QS pass- ing ahead of PA (DS 1). Almost all participants achieved this by inter- acting with QS (DS 2).