Re-inventing the wheel
In America we tend to suffer from a psychological maturity problem, the condition that if it isn’t invented here it is not worthwhile. This attitude permeates not only the Government, but individual companies, and dare say individuals. Numerous examples exist, from the war on terrorism, the war on drugs (lost), the inability to cope with runway incursions, and the national medical crises. Well, it’s not a rant but an observation and provides the underpinnings of why IRGS is not in common use.
The Eastern 66 crash was the catalyst for research into microbursts and precipitated many recommendations from the NTSB. One of the government-funded projects was FAA RD 66-166 in three phases. The company securing the contract was based in Southern California and used a DC-10 simulator, leased from Douglas, for their trials. Initially the RGS or IRGS system was evaluated and promising results were obtained. Several other microburst type accidents transpired, most notably Allegheny 121, and the NTSB requested new studies concerning guidance for flight through microbursts. Four companies bid on this lucrative grant, all of whom had projects in the initial stages of development. Boeing was using their 727 engineering simulator to test guidance strategies and was committed to a constant pitch maneuver. The contract was awarded to the Boeing Company... and that is pretty much the last we’ve heard about RGS. Boeing didn’t invent it and it appears they wanted nothing to do with it.
That it is discredited in AC 00- 54 yet showed promise in the research leads to some poignant questions. The IRGS approach has been dealt a premature death and really may provide a suitable means for mitigating the effects of microburst type winds. It would seem that, to a certain extent, Airbus takes this into consideration. Your individual airline may provide guidance in this area, or your country’s aviation authority. Don't look to the FAA or Boeing for guidance on this one.
Obviously the safest measure is avoidance.