Carl Westin

140 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution 6-7-3 Solution geometry analysis Figure 6-12 shows the solution distribution according to the solution geometry clas- sification, for both trainees and experienced controllers. For both groups, the ge- ometry where OM passes behind QS was more common than the opposite (DS 1). For trainees, this geometry was almost equally often achieved by having OM pass- ing behind (30.6%) as having QS passing ahead (38.9%). Experienced controllers, however, were more likely to intervene so that OM passed behind (40.0%). Figure 6-10(e) and (f) shows the proportion of participants’ consistent problem- solving styles according to the solution geometry classification. Roughly equally many trainees and experienced controllers were found consistent. For DS 1, all consistent trainees agreed on having QS passing ahead of OM. For DS 2, however, some disagreement was found between whether to interact with QS (11.1%) or OM (11.1%) to achieve this spatial relationship. The group of experienced controllers was less homogeneous, with consistent problem-solving styles found for both QS- OM (QS ahead of OM) and OM-QS (OM ahead of QS). = = Experienced Trainees QS QS OM OM QS QS OM OM H H H H C C R R L L RI LD Geometry preference (DS 1) Aircraft choice (DS 2) Resolution type (DS 3) Direction (DS 4) 55.0% 45.0% 15.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 35.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 35.0% 35.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% - - 69.4% 30.6% 38.9% 30.6% 30.6% 30.6% 19.4% 27.8% 27.8% 11.1% 11.1% 2.8% 2.8% 16.7% 16.7% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% H = Heading; C = Combined; R = Right; L = Left; I = Increase; D = Decrease F IGURE 6-12: Solution distribution for the Solution geometry classification in pro- portion (%) of total solutions, Study 2.