Gomer - no of course I don't fly around at <500' willy-nilly (isn't that a UK expression?). The point is, what is the purpose of having the EGPWS display offshore? If it is there, it will be looked at and if its looked at - and it does look great - then human nature being what it is people will start to rely on it on that bad day when "Oh dear, the radar has just died but never mind the EGPWS will keep me out of trouble" or whatever.
If its there, there is a presumption that its to be looked at, and it should therefore have some integrity but in fact it has no integrity. If it can be looked but has to be treated as having low integrity then just what does it bring to the offshore party - apart from looking great. But if I want something to look great in the aircraft then an attractive cabin attendant might be better....(just giving NL some ammo as he's hard done-by)
Of course if used entirely correctly, there is no increased hazard but to think this will always be the case is to not understand human nature.
Malabo - yes 212 may be maintaining a rig database in his FMS but that is not really relevant to EGPWS. For example he could be looking at the EGPWS without the FMS overlay, and/or some FMSs don't show all items in the database, only those in the route. If you are saying that the deficiencies of EGPWS are compensated by the FMS database, does that mean that you recommend not having EGPWS unless you can overlay all FMS waypoints onto the same display?
CH274 - now TCAS is another matter entirely. Yes please on that one!
212 - HC's company have chosen to install 2101s in the new 155s because the company they are to be chartered to decided that was all they were prepared to pay for. I seem to have forgotten which company that is - can you remind me?
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 15th Nov 2006 at 19:30.