There is no substitute for a good IF scan and that has to be learned and practised regularly.
Is a 'big screen' of synthetic vision a substitute for a good IF scan (which will only save your bacon if it was learned and practised regularly)?
I know I have asked this question here twice already, and nobody is biting. Can it be that the factually correct answer would be seen as 'politiically' incorrect? It seems obvious on the other hand that none of the measures that media and populistic politicians (is that a a tautology?) are demanding would have prevented this accident:
- Stricter legal limits (while the problem is the non-observance of existing limits)
- TAWS: Terrain Awareness (while the pilot knows they are close to terrain, as they are dodging clouds and can't go any higher without losing visual reference to the ground), and
- TAWS: Traffic Warning (which screams "PULL UP, PULL UP" while the pilot is already spatially disoriented and doesn't know anymore where "up" is)
- CVFDR (that in the best case could help with the accident investigation in explaining the mishap but not in preventing it)
By definition, there is almost no overlap between the group of pilots who are at risk of inadvertently entering IMC, and those pilots who do not only have and maintain an IF rating (like our mishap pilot) but also regulary practise IF in their daily operations, in real IMC conditions.
So what is the solution? Good advice not to get into trouble won't crack it, as we know that there will be situations where people find themselves in trouble.