Abstract
We explored the effects of conflict geometry on pilot conflict understanding, manifested in estimation accuracy of three continuous variables: miss distance, time to closest point of approach, and orientation at the closest point of approach. Results indicated (a) increased difficulty of understanding with conflicts that occurred with slower speeds, a longer time into the future, and a longer distance into the future; (b) a tendency for pilots' judgments often to be conservative, judging that conflicts were both more risky and would occur sooner than was actually the case; and (c) a “distance-over-speed” bias, such that two aircraft viewed farther apart and converging rapidly were perceived as less risky than two aircraft that were closer to each other and converging at a slower rate, even though the time until a conflict occurred was identical.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
