Dear Lomcevak, I enjoyed your post - sounds like the case could have benefitted from your expertise as an expert witness (assuming you didn't indeed do so)
If you don't mind me asking, I am very interested in the cognitive aspects of these sort of activities You stated that some of the errors could occur without cognitive impairment and as you are clearly an expert in the field, could you help clarify some of the points you robustly made? Every day is a school day as they say!
[Similarly, judgement of the required pull-up point is difficult and is a purely visual assessment and that is one of the biggest potential errors in flying this manoeuvre. There is a great deal of scope for all of us to make an error with judging this aspect of such a manoeuvre]. If, as you suggest, cognitive impairment wasn't necessarily present in this error, can you describe what aspects of the judging/visual assessment could cause an error?
[This is a normal open loop Hunter response, and if anyone wishes I am quite happy to give a full explanation]. Please do, this sounds unusual and interesting!
[during the pull-up, you realise that you have pulled up too soon and try to roll through more than the angle required for the heading change in order to displace and exit on the display line]. What cues would be used to inform the realisation that you'd pulled up too soon? If a pilot didn't realise they had pulled up soon, what would they need to do next?
[Any skill based activity is ~70% confidence] Please can you let me know what research produced that finding? I've never seen this statement before. For example, Fitts & Posners' 1967 three stage model of skill acquisition doesn't mention confidence at all. Obviously it's plausible confidence plays a role but I'm fascinated by a potential of 70%. Is the other 30% perception and judgement?
Sorry for the questions but I never pass up an opportunity to learn something new!