Geoff and JimL:
I certainly agree that the operational kits we develop are ALL "works in progress" and subject to improvement, especially those that attempt to predict the future, like an EGPWS. What I am astounded with is the willingness to ignore better systems until the perfect system is arrived at.
Since CFIT/FITWO is the single biggest problem we face operationally, anything that makes a significant reduction in CFIT accidents should be embraced, especially if the cost is small. Since I can show even the most jaded ppruner that ONE CFIT accident avoided will retrofit the entire world's helicopter fleet with EGPWS, it seems obvious to me.
What I can be faulted for is being unclear about the adaptability and flexibility of the EGPWS in terms of "learning" as we use it. This thread shows genuine concerns as to EGPWS perfection, and also shows that it has important capabilities today. I can easily call the PM at Honeywell and help organize some way to foster upgrades that make it better in stages as we learn more (I would wage such a system exists right now, but do not know for sure). We could invite users and regulators (or retired regulators
) to help advise how to change the EGPWS software rules to match field experience.
I don't believe any change in sensors is needed (this is the really expensive change). I do believe changes in how the data base is improved in the oil patch must be made. This means the "EGPWS Evolution Committee" would have some tasks already defined.