Carl Westin

136 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution T ABLE 6-4: Scenario and designed conflict parameters, Study 2 Rotations Aircraft Conflict Angle (CPA) TSL Aircraft 1 & 2 ID: heading, speed (speed envelope) 0 ◦ , 0 ◦ , 180 ◦ , 180 ◦ 27 90 ◦ cross (0 nmi) 104 s QS: 270 ◦ , 260 kn (200-320); OM: 000 ◦ , 260 kn (200-320) CPA = Closest Point of Approach; kn = knots; nmi = nautical miles, s = seconds, TSL = Time to Separation Loss / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 QS OM QS/OM OM/QS H H H H H H H H H H S S C C C C C R R R R R R R R R R R LL L L L L L L I I D D RI RI RD RD Nr. of interactions (DS 1) Aircraft choice (DS 2) Resolution type (DS 3) Direction (DS 4) 33.3% 55.6% 13.9% 19.4% 19.4% 38.9% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 8.3% 8.3% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 27.8% 5.3% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 2.8% 45.0% 40.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 20.0% 20.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - = = Experienced Trainees H = Heading; S = Speed; C = Combined; R = Right; L = Left; I = Increase; D = Decrease F IGURE 6-9: Solution distribution for the Solution parameter hierarchy in proportion (%) of total solutions, Study 2.