Philosophical musing time:
Given that the vast majority of our accidents are CFIT and so very few are engine failure related; AND
Given that CFIT almost never happens when pilots can see the ground...
then WHY are regulators and therefore in-turn, manufacturers, so obsessed with the UK offshore's fixation on PC1/PC2 and not on bringing virtual or actual (NVG and IR) terrain displays to the cockpit?
Here is a Garmin solution that demonstrates my point - and a picture does paint a thousand words...
Can you possibly hit this hill?
You would have to grit your teeth to hit that hill - even when you are significantly distracted by all the cockpit comms that distract so many other crews - you rarely fly into anything you can SEE - but the ground is littered with crews who flew into stuff they were TOLD about (heliTAWs, EGPWS, RADAlts, Charts, etc etc etc)
We are visual animals in far greater preference to being aural ones. Exploit that to keep us safe.
Why on earth do regulators not make sure this sort of tool gets certified instead of pursuing things like the PC1/PC2 requirement when we KNOW that this is not what is killing us?
Why are 3D terrain displays not mandated in all helicopters, including and especially transport category helicopters? Particularly those involved in night/IFR and EMS?
Why are the manufacturers still releasing cockpits that are not anywhere near the Garmin outcomes given it has been around for at least 8 years?
Garmin claim that they cannot afford to get the cockpit certified for Transport category Ops... my question is how can the regulators afford for them not to?
Some new models are appearing with 3D displays - but still none are "required" by regulation unlike the enormously powerful engines fitted. They are fitted for marketing....and none I have seen meet the clarity of the old Garmin display system. This system now even permits fused IR displays into the image so you get virtual and actual ground images. Wouldn't that significantly reduce CFIT.... I am thinking it would.
Recent EMS tenders in Australia tell a story about this. Appropriately, the procurers have ensured that they have "future proofed" their new buys by specifying the enormous expense of PC1 capability. They did their homework, and they know that regulations are going to require such performance - but there was little specification for enhanced SA displays because that is not even on the regulatory radar. Driven by the regulator, they have had to divert their precious spending into single engine performance.... they have had little other option.
Manufacturers and Regulators - Why cannot I not retrofit our AW139 "Airline Cockpit" with a display that stops me hitting the ground because I can see it?- despite at least 3 x CFIT just in that acft type (all were two pilot ops).
This question can be asked across so many types....
I can do it to the B0-105, but not the BK117 or B412 or S76....
I know we are all very busy trying to ensure we have enough single engine power and the correct HLS dimensions to worry about CFIT, but I would love Regulators and Manufacturers to solve our most present threat first....or at the very least ensure we are permitted to solve it ourselves.
I am not saying engine failure threats are zero and are not worthy of time/effort/investment to mitigate, I am postulating that they are not our most significant threat.....
Foot's Trolley
Select OEI or CFIT
for your consideration....