My approach to this problem has been to hire pilots with demonstrated competence in IFR operations and to require they maintain that competence. To that end I make it easy for my people to get simulated instrument time by availing myself to be in the left seat at their convenience. We also try to make an effort to have some of these training flights at night and when possible under actual instrument conditions.
We are not an IFR operation, but inadvertant IMC at night is a
when not an
if in my experience. And
when inadvertant IMC happens, the sudden transition to IFR flight requires recency of experience.
I'm still on the sidelines concerning NVDs. My military experience with them in over water flight leaves me less than exuberant and over water is a fact of life in my location. I've requested funds to convert our cockpit to NVD compatibility and to secure NVDs for next year nevertheless.
I fail to see where TAWS would do a thing to help the situation. A half dozen instruments are already telling the pilot in your typical CFIT accident he's screwing up; how is one more going to help. The problem is instrument competence, not instrument quantity.
The two other things we do that have helped is 1) review of patients transports to make sure we are not flying innappropriate patients and 2) pre-designating landing areas to decrease the number of pure scene landings.
A last point. If you go back to my first sentence... I also pay my pilots very well to keep those competent pilots working for me
.