Gymble-
"Learn how to say no."
I do, and We do. It's clearly not been effective in preventing accidents.
"Nobody is expected to work in an un-safe environment."
Training for night scenes and the assignment of are expectation of "work in an unsafe environment." It's proven, or this thread would not have occurred. Your answer is to deny the problem or this discussion?
"If you can not do it safely, DO NOT do it. This is your responsibility as professionals."
Again, denying the problem. There is a clear statistical correlation, days and nights. EMS pilots are only stupid at night, or they're susceptible to a physiological limitation- poor vision- at night?
I'll repeat an earlier assertion- The cost of one accident could equip my employers' entire fleet. Stick your head in the sand and blame the pilot, if you wish. It hasn't worked, it will continue to be ineffective, and it's poor management. If and when the insurance industry or governing bodies require aided night vision, and they will, managements' responsibility and control of the process will be gone. I'd rather have an answer tailored to my operation instead of a "one size fits all, lowest common denominator" solution.
My problem is clear- I can't see well at night, and it could kill me. I'm motivated. The answer, too is clear- aided night vision, not:
Twin engines;
Two pilots;
IFR all the time.
Another potential answer- no night scenes. The competition, who are moving to NVGs, thank you very much.
Management's issue is that pilots can't see at night, and the result is expensive. It will only get more expensive, unaddressed- some lawyer, some where, will clean your corporate clock, good fashion. There are times when the otherwise ridiculous tort system in the U.S. works...
NVGs are less expensive and better answer, all around- I have an improved probability of success.