Comparison of Pilot and Automation Generated Conflict Resolutions

This study compares and contrasts conflict resolutions as performed by pilots with and without a resolution decision support tool, and a fully automated conflict resolution tool that generates optimal (smallest path deviation) resolutions. The conflict geometries investigated were all factorial combinations of three levels of intruder aircraft speed, three levels of initial Ownship distance to minimum separation, and nine conflict angles. The resolution decision support tools included dynamic conflict alerting, which indicated whether a proposed path was conflict free, and a dynamic predictor system that showed a fast time depiction of the proposed resolution trajectories. The automation-generated resolutions, computed using a geometric optimization algorithm, served as a benchmark against which the pilot-generated resolutions were compared. Without decision support tools the pilot-generated resolutions were often ineffective, particularly at lower conflict angles. The resolutions tended to be effective when the decision support tools were used. Resolution cost, as measured by added path length, was greater for pilot-generated resolutions (averaging 2.7 nm) compared to the automation-generated resolutions (averaging 1.2 nm). When pilots had the decision support tools, their strategies, as indexed by whether they turned toward or away from the Intruder, tended to be the same as that of the automated system.