I would say it is not perfect and has room for improvement
I would have thought that was your view too, HC, n'est pas?
My experience is that pilots don't like it for offshore because it gives too many spurious warnings - eg approach a platform just a little too fast (not too fast for safety, just too fast for the EGPWS) and you get a "CAUTION OBSTACLE" nuisance warning
Liaise with the TAWS and airframe manufacturers to change the parameters, if this is the case. Adopt SOPs that set the LOW ALT mode when entering the field?
Carry out a rejected takeoff in accordance with the Flight Manual, you get a "TAIL TOO LOW" nuisance warning.
In the 92 it is not a spurious warning - there is very little tolerance with this alert. It doesn't mean you have hit the tail, just that you are uncomfortably close to doing so.
Fly over 150kts with the gear down (not applicable to the S92!) and you get a TAWS CWP caption with amber CAUT attention getter
Again, liaise with the OEMs if it's a genuine problem. Or, maybe, devise SOPs that don't have the gear down so early. When do FW lower their gear? Normally around G/S capture. One thing (E)GPWS will do well is tell you the gear is up and, last time I checked, we can hover, so it's not the end of the world!
I'm sure that the big three UK operators can effect changes from the OEMs with a combined voice. I managed to get SAC to accept that having the Flight Director mode annunciator in Green, regardless of coupled status, was a bad thing and it was changed (albeit it's now yellow when uncoupled, and I hope/believe that will change in the future) so I'm sure the TAWS amendments you seek must be attainable, with the clout you all have.
Surely the way forward must be to accept that H-TAWS is a good thing in general, use it in it's current state and then give feedback and suggested improvements on the shortfalls to make it the way it needs to be? Adopting the comfort blanket approach of "I just want my HSI and AVAD" get's us nowhere!
