Well, this research was...
Originally Posted by DeltaRomeoWhiskey
...conducted as a seven year full-time research and iterative design development programme, in very close association with senior airline and military establishments
...in which...
Originally Posted by DeltaRomeoWhiskey
The participants were all current fast-jet, military logistics and civilian commercial airline (Airbus/Boeing) pilots with a total experience of 100,078 flying hours––and an IR was a minimum requirement for inclusion.
...and then ...
Originally Posted by The New Scientist
A conventional display, which tilts the artificial horizon when the aircraft banks, was misinterpreted by the 92% of the pilots, leading to erroneous and potentially lethal choices.
Basically, it's sales pitch at its worst - in aviation, anyway.
It's the same type solution we adopted when people got killed by misreading the needle or the counter - navigation display was introduced an moving map with it. So do we crash nowadays when the map shifts or we return to good old needles, pointers, CDI and radar vectors? The statement "we need systems that don't require thinking" is quite emblematic of whole project. It's all very well when your synthetic vision conforms to what really is outside, what happens when it doesn't? How does your not-thinking pilot recognize that system is not working properly when there are no flags? And if he recognizes the problem, wil he still be proficient enough to keep the aircraft upright by referring to backup AI?
So dear mr. Wilson, until issues of map shifts and navigational accuracy are eliminated for good, please do not come anywhere near the cockpits of manned aircraft with your synthetic vision. It will create more problems than it apparently solves.