I've just got out of the bath and I've been thinking. In a sim session one day we were discussing at the briefing what we would do if we have an engine failure on a North Atlantic Track - we both came up with reasonable ideas and then jumped in the box. When we were actually presented with the scenario some time later, we did something different. Both ways were acceptable, within SOP's, but nevertheless different. My psychology isn't up to much, but I reckon we were probably using different bits of our brains.
I see the same thing with the endless questionairres we are sent by various people and businesses - what you actually write may be very different from your view. Questions such as "Are you proud to work for xxx?" are easy to identify (yes and no, so where do I tick?), but others less so. When you introduce lack of cues, it compounds the problem, when carrying out the survey, you are usually deprived of the cues you need like a dirty table top in a restaurant. I wonder how much of a factor this is in aviation research? Would the outcomes of some of these O/I v's I/O studies for instance actually be a long way in error?
That might sound like I like one type and am sticking to it and only finding things to support my view - but I promise that's not the case! I mean in general terms, rather than specifically. After all there are instruments out there that have been through many meetings and tests, yet still produce erroneous results.
Was thinking of a HUD too - airliners are getting them soon - does what works best for a HUD, work differently for a panel? Having not flown with a HUD, I have no idea. Do we have multicoloured ones now? How do green lines compare with glorious technicolor?