Abstract

Managing competing goals is a pervasive aspect of Air Traffic Controllers’ work. This activity is often viewed in the context of trade-offs (e.g. between safety and efficiency goals). Studying goal trade-offs has significantly shaped our understanding of safety in Air Traffic Control (ATC) and other complex systems. However, most contemporary accounts generally fail to provide a clear definition of the nature of goal trade-offs and the mechanism by which they operate. This paper: (1) categorises goal trade-offs into three forms: sacrificial, prioritised, and balanced; and (2) examines potential mechanisms of goal trade-off. We conclude that the traditional utility theory approach is unlikely to work in complex, real-world domains such as air traffic control. Instead, it seems that goals are treated as constraints and that conflicts are resolved through plan selection using constraint satisfaction and constructed choice. This theory aligns well with accounts of naturalistic decision-making that emphasise the significance of intuitive decision processes. By clearly defining and integrating this mechanism into ATC decision-making models, we can avoid the common mischaracterisation of goal conflict resolution in complex, dynamic environments as a rational, utility-maximising choice or trade-off.