Before I embark on my observations, let me say that I'm not one to claim there is only one right way to do things. When it comes to moving map displays, I personally prefer track-up. I find it to be more intuitive. When teaching pilotage, I also encourage student pilots to physically turn their terminal area chart or VFR sectional to orient the map so that it is pointed in the same direction as the aircraft. Of course all the printing on the charts is biased to north-up, but that doesn't bother me. After some cursory research on this topic, I found that my preferred way of doing business with maps (moving and otherwise) is often referred to as an ego-centered approach.
I have flown with several pilots who prefer a north-up orientation and I'd estimate that they account for about 25% of the pilot population I've encountered. Let me emphasize that this is just an estimate. An interesting observation about those who prefer north-up: To a person, I've found these pilots are down right flummoxed when they are confronted with a GPS with a moving map configured for track-up. One pilot, seeing me about to change a moving map configuration from north-up to track-up barked "Not track-up! That's wrong!" In contrast, most track-up pilots can tolerate a north-up representation, they just to prefer track up. I even know a pilot examiner who chastised a candidate who dared turn a map - "Always keep your map north-up!" was the examiner's retort. To my mind, north-up requires a mental transposition in order to visualize your trajectory.
The research I referred to earlier calls the north-up way of doing things a world-centered approach, though I think map- or chart-centered is more accurate. Imagine trying to read a book that is turned on it's side. It's possible, but not very easy to do without some practice. And remember that instrument approach charts are produced in a north-up orientation. I've seen more than one beginning instrument pilot become confused by this representation on this approach.
All usually goes well during the north-bound final approach segment, but they often become disoriented when flying the missed approach. I've theorized that this is because the final approach is essentially a track-up representation, while the missed approach hold entry is just the opposite. And more than once I've encouraged a pilot who was unsure about the hold entry to turn the plate upside down.
Then there are approaches with southbound final approach segments like this one, where the pilot has to do a translation in his or her head to visualize the track.
This led me to wonder if researching the NTSB accident statistics would yield any trends with regard to pilot disorientation while flying southbound approaches or approaches where the missed approach segment was 180˚ opposite the final approach course. After doing some tedious skimming of a few GA accident reports, the only conclusion I could come to was that experimental aircraft seem to make up the lion's share of reported fatal accidents.
Again, I'm not saying that those who prefer a north-up representation are evil. And if you prefer your charts with a twist of lemon, that's okay, too.
