Re: I don’t understand how “ cognitive capture “ or “hijacking the mind” can be the result of the extraordinary improvement in the technology in the cockpit over the last 40 years.
Not all technology; effects depends on how tech has been implemented and used. Consider situations as a combined system of man and machine, not one against the other in isolation.
e.g.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-064/
An enhanced awareness display on the PFD -
“The pilot flying reported that the synthetic vision image created the impression …”
“Incorrect instrument indications that are not associated with a failure mode present pilots with a complex and challenging situation.”
“The synthetic vision system was not to be used for primary input or navigation, with the following warning in the Pilot’s Guide (used by the operator)”
“Pilot Advisory Letter included a description of the event. The letter also advised pilots that the use of synthetic vision is for situational awareness and should not be utilised for the indication of attitude or altitude in lieu of the primary flight display indications for pitch, roll, yaw, or altitude.“
… so ‘synthetic awareness’ is independent of aircraft attitude and altitude … design issue, regulation, operator, but not the pilot if able to …
“The check pilot immediately looked outside and was able to discern a visible horizon due to the moonlight.”
Relating to this incident …
the PF had the impression that the AP was engaged;
limitations for the use of PWS for ‘situation enhancement’
there were no aircraft system failure warnings,
reestablishing awareness must include man-machine-situation, this takes time and mental effort for the crew, but analysis in hindsight is not so constrained.