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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.