GIS,
I have never worked/served in Switzerland (as you know) and wonder what on earth bought that irrelevance out? And you probably also know that I am big on 2 donks, autopilots, gps, crewman, etc. So we can leave that bit out too.
Onto your scenario the dreaded goggle failure, I will use the proposed and or current Oz CMI to guide us through this, and I will go back through the weather requirements. There you are in your 206 single pilot on gogs. Firstly, I should add, you can do it right now, single pilot NVFR with no gogs.
Tonight you are on gogs, your cruise height will be NB 500 ft (Eagle86, see current CMI and CAR 157). Your weather minima will be NVFR, ie enroute will be 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at 500, and with alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination. If you are going to "a black hole" then your minimum area forecast must be ceiling of 1500 and viz of 8000m. Alternates must be made with respect to lighting, regardless of nitesun carriage.
If you really want to do the "black hole" then you are going to a non permanent or non lit helipad in which case the FAA, NZ and proposed Oz regs will require a second NVG equipped crewperson. The current CMI requires that second person in the front for ALL ops.
Now you suffer the NVG failure: firstly note that mean time between failure MTBF is around 10,000 hours. Better than nitesun, etc. Second, you have two tubes. Third you have an alternate power source. Fourth you can use the spare set of the other crewman's to divert back to base/alternate as a single pilot (though I would leave this option to autopilot equipped acft because changing and refocussing gogs in an unstabilised single pilot acft is just not cricket). Lastly, if all those fail you, revert to NVFR again especially considering you have had to adhere to NVFR rules for weather and equipment in the first place. After reverting to NVFR, simply continue the mission in the old fashioned blind way! That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair: someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!
Lets say, for your arguement's sake, that the 10,000 hour failure moment does happen during the 0.2% of the flying you do on approach to a black hole. You will have a NVG visible crewman to talk you away from obstcles if you elect to go around, or you degoggle (pilot only) and use the white searchlight that you were already using to finish the approach (Omnibus IV gogs cope well with white light). The difference between this and the nitesun failing on finals is subtle (what is the single globe, single power source nitesun MTBF?) . The NVG crew has a crewman still NVG visible with all obstacles and can call them, the unaided crew will only have that luxury with a hand held or third spotlight if you continue to the approach. Choosing the go around option, only the pilot will have a light in front and obstcles visible if he is quick enough to position that light, but he will be flying off into the unknown black. The NVG pilot will be flying off into the black too, but with a good mental model of where the obstacles are, which path to avoid them, and a crewman who can still see. I conceed that the NVG pilot may have an ill defined and unresearched likelyhood of transition difficulty from aided to unaided, but that's about it.
As for the fear of someone doing the down and dirty NVG course and launching into the gloop in their 206, why must we hamstring all other operators because of the "fear" of a renegade? We are never going to stop them, and we haven't during the day, night, or IFR. Why should NVG suddenly be so protected that we stop the significant safety benefits to 95% of the industry out of fear of 5%?
I will say it again, there will be a CFIT on or with NVG. But there will be tens of accidents averted in the meantime. As you say GIS, what price do you put on safety?