Gipsy Queen, thanks for your observation; it is a very useful thought - to avoid the assumption that pilots will experience the same accelerations as recorded by the FDR.
vilas, as much as we train pilots to ‘mask’ illusionary effects by focussing on the instruments, we cannot guarantee success in every situation; not for every pilot, not now nor future.
Thinking about your point “where the pilot was overwhelmed and mentally incapacitated”, this could be related to an effect of surprise. Yet the regulators are now considering methods of training pilots to be ‘resistant’ to surprise, with the belief that basic human reactions can be sufficiently suppressed, again, with what confidence.
The industry really has to accept that there are limits to what can be trained, or what pilots can recall / replicate in today’s complex situations. We must re-examine the situations and equipment in them which have to be managed.
Also, similar issues apply to monitoring and intervention (CRM). Instead of citing human error, failure, more training, it is time to accept that pilots are doing their best in the situation as they understand it. Either the situations are more complex, humans less experienced in understanding, or more likely both.
The modern safety phrase - work as imagined - not being the same as work as done, - as identified in accidents. We need to change the way we think about these issues.
A thought ‘out of the box’: pilots suffer illusions, but are they only consequential during manual flight. With autos engaged there are no adverse effects on motor skills irrespective of wether the pilots believe the instruments or not.