Nick gets my support on this one. Training ad infinitum on poorly designed or outdated technology can only achieve a part of the safety level we should all be demanding. The coupling of improved and innovative technology with better training methods is the ultimate solution. Safety isn't free, though, and as long as pilots are willing to shy away from solutions that engineer down the level of risk, the corporations won't put up a penny.
I was one of the GA/Corporate pilots Nick invited to evaluate the performance of the differential GPS approach system and give feedback on the instrument cues at the Flagler Demo. There were plenty of test pilots lined up to shoot approaches, but Nick wanted to include perspectives from a wider range of experience levels. I can assure anyone with doubts that the proof of concept was resoundingly successful and am surprised the system hasn't been implemented. The approaches to the test helipad proved the concept would greatly improve safety allowing operators to have full instrument approaches to virtually any location. To add one more layer of safety, the engineers even had a programmed yaw that would slew the nose to the left so you could see the pad better as it came into a hover.
The on airport approaches, in my book, were overshadowed by the approaches to the helipad at the Flagler hospital - a hover hole at best with obstacles on all sides. The system was flawless other than a little wag when it switched from low to high sensitivity on the initial approach; something that would be smoothed out if the program went beyond the test phase.