Carl Westin

146 Consistency and agreement in conflict resolution tor ahead” were commonly observed in simulations. These strategies were also reflected in questionnaire responses in Study 2. However, results also challenge strategies identified in previous literature. Several participants consistently inter- acted with both aircraft to solve the conflict, which argues against previous findings that controllers rarely interact with both aircraft. 88 Furthermore, solutions in Scenarios 2 and 3 often relied on changing the speed of one or both aircraft, challenging the notion that speed changes typically are re- frained from in en-route environments. 29, 31 Finally, a notable finding was that vec- toring one aircraft in front of the other was the most frequently used solution in several scenarios. While this partly could be expected in Study 1 because of the bi- ased conflict geometries and noise traffic, it was also found preferred by a relatively large group in Study 2, which suggests that it cannot be attributed to scenario de- sign alone. Notably, it challenges the notion that vectoring ahead is a less frequently used strategy, 24 or even a “no-no” strategy that controllers avoid. 35 However, the observed differences in solution strategies, in particular the in- creased used of speed, can perhaps partly be attributed to the novel conflict pre- sentation provided by the SSD. Ecological interfaces, such as the SSD, shows the spectrum of available solutions that encourages new and different problem-solving styles not otherwise readily conceived. This is likely to have had some influence on controllers’ conflict solving, resulting in a larger variety of solutions applied and hence less consistency and agreement. More specifically, an attempt was made to link participants’ solution styles to the five lateral resolution strategies identified by Fothergill et al. 24 (see Table 6-1). However, these strategies only consider solutions where one aircraft is controlled. In contrast, participants often interacted with both aircraft. Moreover, while the five strategies relate to the solution rationale, the practical difference between them is unclear. For example, the lateral strategies 1 (“vector behind”), 2 (“direct away”), and 4 (“take out for five miles”) can be interpreted according to all three classifica- tions. According to the solution parameter hierarchy, all three can be achieved with one interaction, such as vectoring one of the aircraft to the right or left. Furthermore, all strategies can result in the same geometrical relationship. As such, the strategies suggested by Fothergill et al. may refer to a similar solution expressed contrasting by different controllers. Alternatively, the formulations (of strategies) may correctly reflect controllers’ contrasting interpretation of an identical conflict, which in turn generate different underlying reasoning for how to solve it. Consequently, similar and different solutions are inconsistently expressed pertinent to individual’s views and problem-solving styles. Such inconsistencies were found in work by Bonzano et al. 131 who noted that controllers described the same conflict differently and that these different descriptions determined how to solve the conflict.