Variable,
Thanks for that!
It does seem to me that we take each risk, and kill it the best way we have, with the technology we've got. To reject EGPWS because the software does not yet reach "perfection" is really not wise, IMHO, especially when the later fit of the kit will be hundreds of thousands, since it has so many inputs wired into it.
I presented the top 6 algorithyms, there are (from memory) 32 in the latest mark, and more coming as the state of the art advances. If the 225 does not have EGPWS, that is too bad, because I am sure Honeywell will actually put it in for almost no cost to EC, since they stand to gain from every sale, and they just price in the engineering cost as an incremental cost on the first few units.
When Sikorsky began the effort, I was asked to find a way to fix CFIT. Frankly, I have no idea how to do it better than EGPWS, and I had surveyed the known world at that time. It is frustrating to see how quickly HC made this a mugging in an alley, and an S92 thing, when I truly would hope there was no competitive issue. I did receive some push back from a few at Sikorsky when I signed the agreement where Sikorsky gave up rights to the helo laws, but I did then and still now feel very strongly about it (as does Sikorsky's curent senior management).
I am sure the laws will get better as time goes on, I know that there is no charge for the software drops that evolve the capabilities and reduce the nuisence alerts, and also that the data base will get larger. It should be obvious to all except HC that the data base will not expand if nobody buys it. It should also be obvious that having no EGPWS is not as safe as having one. Duh.