## 3 Results
### Piloting Precision  
The results from repeated measures ANOVA for piloting precision showed that there was statistically significant difference between Gr. A and Gr. B, considering the training course for both groups, \(F(5,1160)=100.7\), \(p\approx 1.4\times 10^{-59}\).  
The results of piloting precision represented by the Composite Error variable show that for Gr. A, the trend depicted in Figure 3D already reflects significant change in performance during the transition to glass-cockpit arrangement. For further interpretation it is necessary to realize that increase or decrease in piloting error is related to average value of the overall training, which for composite error oscillated around zero.  
Figure 4: Mean RR (**A**), SDNN (**B**), RMSSD (**C**) and composite Error (**D**) results of pairwise comparison for subjects with no additional training for glass-cockpit (Gr. A) and subjects with additional training (Gr. B). The results are complemented with the workload and piloting error course with respect to specific measured flight, where non-significant differences between respective measurements are highlighted. (S—simulated flight, R—real flight, A—analog cockpit, G—glass cockpit, Fl. #—flight number).  
Specific pairwise changes and behavior of individual groups during the training can be learned from the results in Figure 4D, by means of the presented pairwise comparisons.  
The results for Gr. A showed that subjects exhibited the highest performance (i.e., the lowest piloting error rate) during the first flight on glass-cockpit simulator (Fl. 18) and the last flight on analogue simulator (Fl. 11). There was no significant difference between Fl. 11 and Fl. 18 and this initial result corresponds with the HRV results. Both measurements (Fl. 11 and Fl. 18) were statistically significant in difference from other measured flights. Further, it can be claimed that the first measurement on a simulator with analogue arrangement (Fl. 2) and the second measured flight (Fl. 17) manifested the same level of performance. Subjects exhibited the highest error rate during the first real flight (Fl. 12) and the flight with glass-cockpit arrangement (Fl. 19). Unlike for HRV results, where it was impossible to distinguish Fl. 2, Fl. 12, Fl. 17 and Fl. 19, in this case it was clear that glass-cockpit arrangement may have had significant influence on the piloting precision. This claim is supported by Gr. B results, which showed (see Figure 4D) that there was no statistically significant difference between real flight with glass-cockpit arrangement (Fl. 23), Fl. 11 and Fl. 22. This means that both real and simulated flight with glass-cockpit exhibited the lowest piloting error rate. The highest significant error rate was recorded during Fl. 12, which is no surprise given that for subjects, it was the first experience with real flying. Further, the highest error rate was exhibited during Fl. 2 (the very first measurement on simulator), followed by Fl. 17 (the second measurement on real flight).  
These results indicated that change in cockpit ergonomics may have had negative impact on piloting precision. This claim is quite logical as there was a pattern change in flight instrument interpretation. It was very likely that Gr. B benefited from additional training, which supported increase in piloting precision during real flights.