Engineering design Vs Pilots perception
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Tester.
Consider your motorcycle turns a little deeper.
Initially you have to START a turn with a force on the handlebars into the turn which initiates a bank/roll of the machine. The bank immediately and progressively causes turning instability as a result of its deliberate design and if left to itself would automatically tighten to a spin out. Once into a turn you have to use an opposite handlebar force to counter the instability. Motorcycle riders seem to prefer this type feel.
I wouldn't care to approve such instability for an aircraft!!
Consider your motorcycle turns a little deeper.
Initially you have to START a turn with a force on the handlebars into the turn which initiates a bank/roll of the machine. The bank immediately and progressively causes turning instability as a result of its deliberate design and if left to itself would automatically tighten to a spin out. Once into a turn you have to use an opposite handlebar force to counter the instability. Motorcycle riders seem to prefer this type feel.
I wouldn't care to approve such instability for an aircraft!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wichita, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milt,
You must ride some strange motorcycles or ride them strangely. I know I certainly don't prefer any feel of instability and I've been riding for near on thirty years.
Consider your motorcycle turns a little deeper.
Initially you have to START a turn with a force on the handlebars into the turn which initiates a bank/roll of the machine. The bank immediately and progressively causes turning instability as a result of its deliberate design and if left to itself would automatically tighten to a spin out. Once into a turn you have to use an opposite handlebar force to counter the instability. Motorcycle riders seem to prefer this type feel.
Initially you have to START a turn with a force on the handlebars into the turn which initiates a bank/roll of the machine. The bank immediately and progressively causes turning instability as a result of its deliberate design and if left to itself would automatically tighten to a spin out. Once into a turn you have to use an opposite handlebar force to counter the instability. Motorcycle riders seem to prefer this type feel.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigd3
I find your comments related to testing that has demonstrated a pilot preference for the Russian O-I ADI very interesting. Is there a published report you might be able to direct me towards; perhaps something online at Royal Aeronautical Society and/or Society of Experimental Test Pilot?
I do know that significant sim type testing using instantly displayed UA's and then measuring response time to correct, degree of control movement and also correct control movement to recover the aircraft, came down quite heavily in favour of the Russioan O-I ADI. The O-I gave a faster response for recovery and also fewer erroneous corrections.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RL
A good source to start is "The Outside-In Attitude Display Revisited" by Fred H Previc and William R Ercoline. This was published by the International Journal of Aviation Psychology, online in 1999.
Another interesting read is "Methods for Validating Cockpit Design" by Gideon Singer, which details testing of roll reversal errors when using different roll index formats.
A good source to start is "The Outside-In Attitude Display Revisited" by Fred H Previc and William R Ercoline. This was published by the International Journal of Aviation Psychology, online in 1999.
Another interesting read is "Methods for Validating Cockpit Design" by Gideon Singer, which details testing of roll reversal errors when using different roll index formats.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus have their own Cockpit Evaluation Group and Cockpit Integration Group, and develop equipment requirements. By the time most designers down the supply chain (at equipment manufacturers for example) get to see the requirements, many of the decisions (colours/layout/symbology) are already made.
Remember the glass cockpit displays have multiple layers and overlays possible so ensuring consistency is not that easy when multiple suppliers are developing the equipments.
hugel
Remember the glass cockpit displays have multiple layers and overlays possible so ensuring consistency is not that easy when multiple suppliers are developing the equipments.
hugel
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't think it was legal, let alone sensible to have totally electronic instruments in any cockpit, especially airliners ?
I know Russian fighters tend to rely on the HUD, ( I've photographed M-29's & SU-27's cockpits, which didn't go down very well at the time ) but they still have standby instruments and very good ejection seats !
I know Russian fighters tend to rely on the HUD, ( I've photographed M-29's & SU-27's cockpits, which didn't go down very well at the time ) but they still have standby instruments and very good ejection seats !
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigd3 Thank you. I found both the documents you recommended.
Shawn Your post confirms my understanding for transport aircraft. I am also aware of how Sperry, Bendix and Collins drove early instrument design.
I have not been aware of studies indicating a clear preference for O-I v I-O displays. My personal preference based on testing of both US and Russian equipment would be contrary, though I find both designs functional. I would like to understand the test conditions of studies related to an O-I v I-O preference. I am involved in a new design/test effort for a high workload cockpit. We are attempting to think outside of the box and if a significant improvement in situational awareness and/or reduced workload can be substantiated, or even if a clear preference has been demonstrated in testing, I would like to include O-I in planned testing using both test and operational pilots.
Shawn Your post confirms my understanding for transport aircraft. I am also aware of how Sperry, Bendix and Collins drove early instrument design.
I have not been aware of studies indicating a clear preference for O-I v I-O displays. My personal preference based on testing of both US and Russian equipment would be contrary, though I find both designs functional. I would like to understand the test conditions of studies related to an O-I v I-O preference. I am involved in a new design/test effort for a high workload cockpit. We are attempting to think outside of the box and if a significant improvement in situational awareness and/or reduced workload can be substantiated, or even if a clear preference has been demonstrated in testing, I would like to include O-I in planned testing using both test and operational pilots.
Last edited by Rich Lee; 15th Jan 2009 at 22:25.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen a new aircraft with all EFIS instruments including the standby's - I have no idea how they were driven, but certainly all the instruments were all flat screen.
Interestingly I heard of an accident with a Diamond TwinStar (I'm pretty sure that's what it was - new light twin though.) It has FADEC to control the engines - the alternators on the engines are not quite powerful enough to run everything when the gear retracts (electrically), so it robs power from the battery for a bit while the gear comes up. The problem was the battery had gone flat in the accident aircraft and had not been charged in accordance with the POH. The upshot was that on gear retract, there was no power to rob from the battery, and not enough oomph to drive the other bits and bobs, including the FADEC, hence the double engine failure that ensued.
Some of these all singing all dancing systems sometimes leave me a bit concerned, things like the Airbus incidents linked above do show that sometimes we are not quite as forward thinking as we would like to be. (Without wanting to sound like a luddite, I love technology, but only when it helps).
Interestingly I heard of an accident with a Diamond TwinStar (I'm pretty sure that's what it was - new light twin though.) It has FADEC to control the engines - the alternators on the engines are not quite powerful enough to run everything when the gear retracts (electrically), so it robs power from the battery for a bit while the gear comes up. The problem was the battery had gone flat in the accident aircraft and had not been charged in accordance with the POH. The upshot was that on gear retract, there was no power to rob from the battery, and not enough oomph to drive the other bits and bobs, including the FADEC, hence the double engine failure that ensued.
Some of these all singing all dancing systems sometimes leave me a bit concerned, things like the Airbus incidents linked above do show that sometimes we are not quite as forward thinking as we would like to be. (Without wanting to sound like a luddite, I love technology, but only when it helps).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstream I mostly agree with you, but mostly because I am a throwback to a by-gone era. The real problem is that nobody designs single task flight instruments anymore. We can argue the superiority of Inside-Out, Outside-In, Grapefruit (Arc-Segmented), Highway In The Sky, Integrated Flight Path Vector and other displays but must do so within the context of the entire information system. If we consider a transport aircraft there is one solution, for a fighter aircraft there is another solution, for helicopters there are so many tasks that one elegant solution is a design dream never to be realized. Then there is the mission. If the mission is to fly IMC along established airways to a high category landing I might prefer one design over another. If the mission is a high speed, low level ingress in zero/zero to attack a target I will never see visually, then I will certainly want another design.
It is impossible to design one perfect system for all applications, but it is possible to merge the best of different designs when there is task similarity.
A real problem for me is that data from simulator studies are often very different from aircraft studies. The cost of a test in an aircraft is much higher than a simulator study so more and more of this type of testing is being conducted in simulators; yet because of limited visual and other cues, I might prefer one display in a simulator and strongly prefer another for an aircraft. I think of video games. I almost always prefer and choose an Outside-In display because these provide the most cueing for the gaming task. I feel the same about simulators, because even the best of full motion simulators are cue deprived environments. In the aircraft I have a preference for Inside-Out displays. The question I am asking myself now is do I have this preference only because I am used to that type of display, or are there other more compelling reasons for the preference?
We are increasingly aware of an age biased flight display preference. The XBox generation see things much differently than the pre-computer generations. Although both can learn to adapt to each others systems, when asked they seem to demonstrate a primacy preference.
It is impossible to design one perfect system for all applications, but it is possible to merge the best of different designs when there is task similarity.
A real problem for me is that data from simulator studies are often very different from aircraft studies. The cost of a test in an aircraft is much higher than a simulator study so more and more of this type of testing is being conducted in simulators; yet because of limited visual and other cues, I might prefer one display in a simulator and strongly prefer another for an aircraft. I think of video games. I almost always prefer and choose an Outside-In display because these provide the most cueing for the gaming task. I feel the same about simulators, because even the best of full motion simulators are cue deprived environments. In the aircraft I have a preference for Inside-Out displays. The question I am asking myself now is do I have this preference only because I am used to that type of display, or are there other more compelling reasons for the preference?
We are increasingly aware of an age biased flight display preference. The XBox generation see things much differently than the pre-computer generations. Although both can learn to adapt to each others systems, when asked they seem to demonstrate a primacy preference.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the best pieces of advice I heard regarding designing instruments is "Data is not information, unless it can be interpreted". If a pilot has to stop and think "what the hell does that mean", as stated previously regarding the caption ABN, then it is not an intuitive design. This obviously has the caviat "with reasonable training".
It sometimes can be difficult not to be distracted and objectively assess something in terms of does it do the job, even when presented with multiple/a significant failure, rather than, it looks flash and works wonderfully when all is operating ok, in normal flight profiles.
RL - maybe you should update the much used/abused phrase of "thinking outside the box" to "thinking outside the xbox".
.......I'll get my coat.
With regards your preference for the I-O ADI when actually flying, the publications I recomended may go some way to explaining this. When you lose certain sensory cues, that you have been extensively conditioned/trained to interpret, that are not represented in a sim or on a PC game, the brains natural preference regards the O-I as the more intuitive presentation. This is my view anyway.
It sometimes can be difficult not to be distracted and objectively assess something in terms of does it do the job, even when presented with multiple/a significant failure, rather than, it looks flash and works wonderfully when all is operating ok, in normal flight profiles.
RL - maybe you should update the much used/abused phrase of "thinking outside the box" to "thinking outside the xbox".
.......I'll get my coat.With regards your preference for the I-O ADI when actually flying, the publications I recomended may go some way to explaining this. When you lose certain sensory cues, that you have been extensively conditioned/trained to interpret, that are not represented in a sim or on a PC game, the brains natural preference regards the O-I as the more intuitive presentation. This is my view anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wichita, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you lose certain sensory cues, that you have been extensively conditioned/trained to interpret,.
The pilot of the F-16 had reached a point of sensory overload, adrenalin was flowing, breathing rate had gone up and gotten shallower and he was scared - result, the higher brain functions had shut down and the guy was flying a fast jet using what the neuroscientists call "the caveman path". Didn't matter what he'd been conditioned/trained to interpret - as a species we have had millions of years to evolve but we are still hard wired to avoid being eaten by large animals on the African savannah - instinctively we know that the best way to avoid the large 300 pound tawny cat bearing down on us is to jink because we know it can outrun us in a straight line. As a result of his hard wired response, the pilot elected to jink his aircraft left and right but remain in the MEZ with missiles leaving contrails all around the aircraft. He eventually got a grip of his caveman instincts and flew south out of the MEZ.
It was a salutory reminder that even highly trained and conditioned people can reach overload under stress and that cockpits need to be designed bearing those situations in mind.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigd3[QUOTE][RL - maybe you should update the much used/abused phrase of "thinking outside the box" to "thinking outside the xbox". /QUOTE]Clever. There's a giggle in that thought.
First, I accept that I am extensively conditioned but I like to believe that my training and experience allows me to overcome this conditioning in the conduct of research and test. I have noted that there are several researchers and pilots who seem to share your preference for the O-I dispaly; yet my reading to date, admittedly limited to your recommend publications and about 10 other papers, seems to provide no real concensus for a clear Outside-In preference. It is early in my research so I have yet to reach any personal conclusions, but I am beginning to feel as if a simple comparison of design concepts will not be possible as there are too many variables in the published research to form a useful compartive matrix. I am, however, seeing a preference in some of the more recent documents for the Arc-Segmented Attitude Reference Display, which I am sure you are aware is classified as an Inside-Out concept. My real difficulty in comparing the various displays is that the published researched I have read to date are not conducted using a single standardized research protocal. Further, the tests never seem to evaluate more than one display and many use old technology or adapted computer displays. For instance, one uses a panel mounted display, another legacy instrument panel displays, another a computer screen, another HMD fixed or non-fixed, another full face visor (fixed and moving frame of reference), and still another point-in-space/infinity projection - yet most researchers use only one display for their tests and this introduces an obvious test bias. One might conclude using a panel mounted flat screen display that O-I is preferred while another using a helmet mounted HMD with superimposed and fused FLIR/IR imaging underlay and flight and navigation symbology overlay that an I-O is the preferred display protocal - which then becomes the design standard when both displays are available for the pilot to use? Sometimes the design choices are not so clear. Most aircraft companies understand that testing an infinite matrix is a bit cost prohibitive and that is why introduction of any new standard requires clear and convincing proof that the new standard as far superior to the old.
With regards your preference for the I-O ADI when actually flying, the publications I recomended may go some way to explaining this. When you lose certain sensory cues, that you have been extensively conditioned/trained to interpret, that are not represented in a sim or on a PC game, the brains natural preference regards the O-I as the more intuitive presentation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RL - Firstly apologies. I have no real knowledge of your flight training or test and evaluation experience, hence making assumptions on your capability to adapt to different situations is unfair. In my defence, it was intended as a generalistic viewpoint, rather than trying to identify an individauls (your) behaviour, although it doesn't really read that way.
It would be very interesting to hear if you do assess an O-I ADI, or any other formats and any results that you are allowed to publicly detail.
Another problem that is stated in one of the publications I listed, is that most research on O-I ADIs was undertaken in the 1970's and not a lot has happened since.
It would be very interesting to hear if you do assess an O-I ADI, or any other formats and any results that you are allowed to publicly detail.
Another problem that is stated in one of the publications I listed, is that most research on O-I ADIs was undertaken in the 1970's and not a lot has happened since.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich - I agree with you too, I cannot imagine how a fast jet pilot would be able to accomplish a mission with the sort of instrumentation I look at every day. There is a real difficulty in specialising instruments for a given job though, and that is when someone transfers from one to the other.
I've never flown an Airbus, but have discussed at length some of the the differences with various colleagues who have. Plenty of stuff makes me think "why on earth did they do that?" and after a few conversations and different views I begin to understand what the designers were getting at (at least some of it, some of the ideas still seem totally bonkers to me!). I am sure it would be the same the other way round. The fact is that people change from Airbus to Boeing and from fast jet to airliner, so some common ground does help.
We also then get stuck in ruts - if we standardise everything, then when the new technology comes along it is suddenly non standard, so do we stay in the "dark ages" all the time, or improve? It is such a difficult situation, that often I think we need to be thankful that humans are so adaptable. No cockpit design is ever going to get it right, but that is no excuse for making a bad one!
There is so much that seems obvious and intuitive to me - but a lot of that is due to my upbringing and training. Red is lucky in China, so probably not the best colour to use for a warning caption. GEAR NOT DOWN - lucky us!
I've never flown an Airbus, but have discussed at length some of the the differences with various colleagues who have. Plenty of stuff makes me think "why on earth did they do that?" and after a few conversations and different views I begin to understand what the designers were getting at (at least some of it, some of the ideas still seem totally bonkers to me!). I am sure it would be the same the other way round. The fact is that people change from Airbus to Boeing and from fast jet to airliner, so some common ground does help.
We also then get stuck in ruts - if we standardise everything, then when the new technology comes along it is suddenly non standard, so do we stay in the "dark ages" all the time, or improve? It is such a difficult situation, that often I think we need to be thankful that humans are so adaptable. No cockpit design is ever going to get it right, but that is no excuse for making a bad one!
There is so much that seems obvious and intuitive to me - but a lot of that is due to my upbringing and training. Red is lucky in China, so probably not the best colour to use for a warning caption. GEAR NOT DOWN - lucky us!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigd3 There was no offense taken in anything you have written and no need for an apology. There is merit in your opinion and in this discussion.
I am, as others in this and other forums have at times noted, a rather thick-skinned and witted American who only rarely understands he has been insulted - even when such insult is intentional. The truth of it is, if I didn't listen to those who disagree with me I would never learn anything. You will also note that when someone says something monumentally stupid in any forum other than Jetblast, I usually don't bother to answer. I have discovered in those cases a reply is a bit like wrestling with a pig in the mud; sooner or later you realize the pig likes it.
You raised a very interesting point and given the comments of test pilots I have come to respect in this forum that have agreed with your opinion, you have caused me to evaluate my own bias with, as Jetstream Rider so eloquently stated in the last post, a hope of finding the more elegant solution rather than just doing the same thing because that is the way we have always done things in the past. Your comments have already been very beneficial as I have questioned my core beliefs and as a result of the research have a better understanding of the evolution of the various designs. As some bard once said, there are many paths to the top of a mountain.
I am, as others in this and other forums have at times noted, a rather thick-skinned and witted American who only rarely understands he has been insulted - even when such insult is intentional. The truth of it is, if I didn't listen to those who disagree with me I would never learn anything. You will also note that when someone says something monumentally stupid in any forum other than Jetblast, I usually don't bother to answer. I have discovered in those cases a reply is a bit like wrestling with a pig in the mud; sooner or later you realize the pig likes it.
You raised a very interesting point and given the comments of test pilots I have come to respect in this forum that have agreed with your opinion, you have caused me to evaluate my own bias with, as Jetstream Rider so eloquently stated in the last post, a hope of finding the more elegant solution rather than just doing the same thing because that is the way we have always done things in the past. Your comments have already been very beneficial as I have questioned my core beliefs and as a result of the research have a better understanding of the evolution of the various designs. As some bard once said, there are many paths to the top of a mountain.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wichita, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
In terms of distraction the HUD can be a major headache - on the HDD having the flight path acceleration cue bouncing up and down during taxi is not a major distraction, when it's collimated on infinity and doing it right in front of your face in symbology that's "apparently" 6 feet high it a real bugger!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've had HUDs on airliners for well over twenty years that have got progressively more & more sophisticated but still with only one color - green. That's because the reflection HUD uses a single frequency holographic mirror.
Given the main theme in this thread,the HUD is possibly the one modern display that doesn't do Unusual Attiudes (UA) very well. You can have sky pointers, declutter at set Pitch & Roll angles and include ladders and lines but it's still not easy to decide which way is up - especially when you're in a total whiteout with no outside clues.
The other problem when you're only allowed a single color is that it's relatively easy to draw something that actually will "pop" on you such that the shape goes inside out as you blink.....
Given the main theme in this thread,the HUD is possibly the one modern display that doesn't do Unusual Attiudes (UA) very well. You can have sky pointers, declutter at set Pitch & Roll angles and include ladders and lines but it's still not easy to decide which way is up - especially when you're in a total whiteout with no outside clues.
The other problem when you're only allowed a single color is that it's relatively easy to draw something that actually will "pop" on you such that the shape goes inside out as you blink.....
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich Lee asked:
"On 10 January 2000, at 16:54:10 UTC, in darkness, on runway 28 of Zurich airport, the Saab 340B aircraft of the Crossair airline company, registered HB-AKK, began its scheduled flight CRX 498 to Dresden. Two minutes and 17 seconds later, after a right-hand spiral dive, the aircraft crashed on an open field near Au, Nassenwil ZH."
The commander was a Moldovan citizen who had flown nearly all his career in Soviet aircraft.
"The following factors may have contributed to the accident:
• The commander remained unilaterally firm in perceptions which suggested a left turn direction to him.
• When interpreting the attitude display instruments under stress, the commander resorted toa reaction pattern (heuristics) which he had learned earlier.
• The commander’s capacity for analysis and critical assessment of the situation were possibly limited as a result of the effects of medication."
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1781_e.pdf
I am a bit puzzled by all this. Is anyone aware of an accident directly attributed to the colour scheme, or IO/OI design of an AI?
The commander was a Moldovan citizen who had flown nearly all his career in Soviet aircraft.
"The following factors may have contributed to the accident:
• The commander remained unilaterally firm in perceptions which suggested a left turn direction to him.
• When interpreting the attitude display instruments under stress, the commander resorted toa reaction pattern (heuristics) which he had learned earlier.
• The commander’s capacity for analysis and critical assessment of the situation were possibly limited as a result of the effects of medication."
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1781_e.pdf