## 4 Discussion
### Effects of the Flight Training

Table 5: Correlation tests between performance in post-test and motivational, emotion, immersion, situation awareness, and workload (\({}^{*}\) results significant at \(p<0.05\)). Both the experimental group using AR-supported training and the control group that only used the flight simulator for training showed similar results in terms of performance, workload, situation awareness, emotion, and motivation. No statistically significant effect of the AR-supported training was observed. This is in line with other experimental results [13]. Although the presentation of flight guidance information in a head-up display resulted in better approach performance in pilots [32; 33], this result is not directly comparable to our study in terms of procedure or target group. Here, the guidance was only presented to the trainees from the experimental group and only during training, not during tests. Therefore, the expected effect was on building a more accurate mental model of a correct approach by using AR cues for training and the transfer of this ability to a situation that was not supported by AR. However, the statistical results do not indicate this effect. Maybe the test scenarios were too simple. It could also be that motivational factors [41; 44; 45] compensated for the differences in the training concepts, or possibly other factors interacted with the training effect. Furthermore, the objective formative feedback concept is not typical for conventional training, but it was included here for a better comparison with the AR procedure. Therefore, more research is needed to clarify which features can provide an advantage of AR training for approach to landing as compared to conventional flight training. The expected benefit is not to replace conventional training, but to facilitate the use of AR or other mixed-reality applications as a preparation for training, and to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical instruction, thus addressing a number of issues (e.g., time pressure) mentioned in research [10] that are related to flight training. As indicated by the gender effects, AR-based training means could also contribute to more socially sustainable conditions for pilot training and hopefully influence the gender gap in the pilot profession [1; 2]. However, although the sample was relatively small, the pre-test-post-test control group design [37] was considered most appropriate to determine whether a change takes place as an AR training effect. This type of design also \"controls for many potential threats to internal validity\" ([37], p. 216). Multiple significant interactions between test and gender show that the training had different effects depending on the gender group. The decrease in trainees' workload, fear of failure, and negative emotions in post-test as compared to pre-test was significantly larger in women than in men Although both gender groups improved their approach quality in post-test as compared to pre-test, the improvement was larger for women as compared to men (Figure 4). These results are in line with previous research [13; 26], showing that initial gender differences can diminish after training. No significant interactions between gender and test were found when comparing objective deviation scores, deviation self-assessments, understanding of the situation, demands on attentional resources, supply of attentional resources, total SA scores, positive emotion, challenge, interest, or success probability.